6 ms·

>>I don't believe in the cause that Eich donated to. But taking away someone's job over a political donation is preposterous and disturbing. Let's keep in mind

by smtddr 12y ago

>>I don't believe in the cause that Eich donated to. But taking away someone's job over a political donation is preposterous and disturbing. Let's keep in mind nobody legally kicked him out. He left because he couldn't deal with the consequences of his actions. The law protects your free speech, but does not protect you from the consequences of it. http://xkcd.com/1357/ http://xkcd.com/1357/ Also, let's not forget how nasty the whole prop8 campaign was... http://www.slate.com/blogs/outward/2014/04/04/brendan_eich_supported_prop_8_which_was_worse_than_you_remember.html http://www.slate.com/blogs/outward/2014/04/04/brendan_eich_s... ....Eich could have donated to prop- 2,147,483,647, to ban interracial marriage. It would be his right, but I hope society would backlash at him the same way as prop-8 donation caused.

downandout 12y ago
He was forced out, as everyone is well aware. You are advocating for a society where political intimidation is acceptable. There are many examples of such countries around the world. None have worked out well.
- smtddr 12y ago
  If I understand your position correctly, then if there really was a prop to ban interracial marriage we should all be okay with that? I don't see any difference between a ban on gay marriage and a ban on interracial marriage. I just want to be sure I understand your calibration settings. If you think a prop on banning interracial marriage should be just as acceptable as what you seem to be saying for prop8, then I'm done discussing this with you.
  - scintill76 12y ago
    Since you linked xkcd: https://xkcd.com/1431/ https://xkcd.com/1431/ It's easy to look down on interracial marriage bans from our oh-so-enlightened modern view, but it took a long time to even get there. You have to look at these ideologies in the context that they were formed in. If the graph is correct, then when Eich donated, same-sex marriage didn't have majority support. (Setting aside what California's specific numbers were.) This isn't to say that "might makes right", but that Eich expressed his vision for how society should be, and it's only fair to also consider how the rest of the society felt about it. In other words, how do you know views you hold today won't be considered the vilest bigotry in 30 years? Is your moral compass so special, that you would have fought for interracial marriage, even if you were born a white in the southern US in the 1800's?
    - smtddr 12y ago
      I have no way to argue against your comment. You're completely right that our moral compass is not static. So I can only say that I hope society overall always moves towards accepting humanity & life in all the shapes and forms it presents itself. I have no way of justifying that belief; it's just something in my core being. It's in the same part of me that has decided kicking puppies and other animal cruelty is not good. Anyone publicly supporting animal cruelty I think should be publicly shamed. I don't know how to justify that either. Perhaps this takes this whole discussion to another level. Where does humanity's moral compass come from and how do we justify it as something worthy of being followed & upheld?
    - icebraining 12y ago
      If the graph is correct, then when Eich donated, same-sex marriage didn't have majority support. It did among the society composed of Mozilla supporters. This idea that society is not people you interact and work with (and in this case, even direct) but the random populace in your general geographic area was wrong before the Internet, and it's completely wrong today. If he didn't realize that, I'd say his out of touch with the people he was supposed to work with. Is your moral compass so special, that you would have fought for interracial marriage, even if you were born a white in the southern US in the 1800's? What's with this topic and strawmen? Nobody demanded he fought for gay rights. Most people don't fight for gay rights, and you don't see them get criticized (in this community). Just not to invest his time and money to fight against it. Regardless of either his ousting was justified or not (personally, I'm conflicted), most arguments here are terrible.
      - waps 12y ago
        I find this extremely hypocritical. Does this justify obstructing his career and publicly nailing him to the cross ? NO. If you're a liberal : please explain why Mozillans don't have the right to their own political opinion, right to do whatever they want with their money, ... If I ever met anyone who expressed this opinion to me, you or anyone else, I'd do the very best I can to remove them from my presence, company, sabotage their career, whatever I can. And I'll feel as smug about it as you. I'm defending freedom and democracy by doing that.
  - downandout 12y ago
    >If I understand your position correctly, then if there really was a prop to ban interracial marriage we should all be okay with that? I would strongly oppose such a measure. But I would certainly respect the rights of others to support the opposing side and vote their conscience, and when the vote was over I would not go scouring donation records to figure out whom I should fire or force out of their jobs.
    - icebraining 12y ago
      Nobody did that, you're inventing a straw man. The results were published on the website of a well-known newspaper[1] in a format that Google could parse. It was only a matter of time for it to be found out and spread.
    - courtf 12y ago
      "I would certainly respect the rights of others to support the opposing side" No such right exists in this context. A proposition to ban interracial marriage has nothing to do with people's consciences and everything to do with the letter of the law, where marriage is an established legal construct to which access is guaranteed under the 14th amendment. Voting to have rights stripped from other citizens for arbitrary reasons is not a protected freedom and such a proposition is patently unconstitutional on its face. You don't need to be impartial here.
      - icebraining 12y ago
        No such right exists in this context. Sure they do. Free speech applies even if what you defend is illegal or unconstitutional. Brandenburg v. Ohio made it very explicit. Besides, while it may seem weird to Americans, constitutions do change. Ours is not yet 40 years old, and already we're speaking about changing it.
        courtf 12y ago
        Free speech != voting to legislate away the rights of some minority. This is a rampant conflation.
- lclarkmichalek 12y ago
  Wasn't most of the criticism due to Mozilla having policies that seemed to directly contradict the views his donation implied? I have no problem with the Koch brothers donating to climate change deniers, but I can see why that same action, if performed by, say, the President of Greenpeace, might make their position untenable.
- jackmaney 12y ago
  > He was forced out, as everyone is well aware. No, he was not. https://blog.mozilla.org/blog/2014/04/05/faq-on-ceo-resignation/ https://blog.mozilla.org/blog/2014/04/05/faq-on-ceo-resignat... Brendan was not fired and was not asked by the Board to resign. Brendan voluntarily submitted his resignation. The Board acted in response by inviting him to remain at Mozilla in another C-level position. Brendan declined that offer. The Board respects his decision.
  - notjackma 12y ago
    I can't believe that anybody would be so naive to believe that Brendan wasn't forced out. Every single day, there is an employee going to work in a hostile environment, shunned by co-workers or left to sit in an empty room with no work to perform. Eventually they'll be forced to resign in order to save their own sanity.
    - nknighthb 12y ago
      People keep claiming Mozilla employees weren't hostile to him, and wanted him to stay. You can't have it both ways. Which is it?
    - jackmaney 12y ago
      > I can't believe that anybody would be so naive to believe that Brendan wasn't forced out. I'm using facts to reach the conclusion that Brendan Eich wasn't forced out of his job. Your argument boils down to "Ahh, come on!". Guess who wins? (SPOILER ALERT: Not you.)
- icebraining 12y ago
  You are advocating for a society where political intimidation is acceptable. There are many examples of such countries around the world. None have worked out well. All countries have some level of acceptable political intimidation; that you think otherwise just means your views are sufficiently mainstream. Try embracing more fringe ideologies in a public way. I suggest supporting and donating to Wahhabist movements and seeing how it goes for you.
  - smsm42 12y ago
    If you donate to organizations that are not linked to terror, exactly nothing would happen to you. If they are linked to terror, it's completely different league.
    - icebraining 12y ago
      So you could support an hypothetical local pedo party[1] and be CEO of a company? Sorry, but I don't believe it. [1] http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Party_for_Neighbourly_Love,_Freedom,_and_Diversity http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Party_for_Neighbourly_Love,_F...
smsm42 12y ago
>>> He left because he couldn't deal with the consequences of his actions. This is incredibly misleading way of putting it. He left because he had no other choice, and an organized personal destruction campaign against him was what did not leave him this choice. Of course, you can claim this campaign was result of his actions, and it is true, that this campaign was triggered by his actions and wouldn't happen if he did not donate to what he donated. However, this campaign was not an inevitable consequence of his actions - it was a voluntary act of his political opponents, in order to send a message to him and his supporters and achieve political goals. It's like if somebody says something you don't like to you and you beat him up, the beating is a consequence of the saying, but it doesn't remove the blame of the beating from you, and you can't just say "he's in hospital because he couldn't deal with consequences of his actions". No, he's in hospital because somebody beat him up. And Eich left because of the campaign against him, despite no proof that his opinions have ever interfered with his professional judgement or that he ever did anything inappropriate. Except for expressing a private opinion.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]

by smtddr 12y ago

downandout 12y ago

He was forced out, as everyone is well aware. You are advocating for a society where political intimidation is acceptable. There are many examples of such countries around the world. None have worked out well.

smtddr 12y ago
If I understand your position correctly, then if there really was a prop to ban interracial marriage we should all be okay with that? I don't see any difference between a ban on gay marriage and a ban on interracial marriage. I just want to be sure I understand your calibration settings. If you think a prop on banning interracial marriage should be just as acceptable as what you seem to be saying for prop8, then I'm done discussing this with you.
- scintill76 12y ago
  Since you linked xkcd: https://xkcd.com/1431/ https://xkcd.com/1431/ It's easy to look down on interracial marriage bans from our oh-so-enlightened modern view, but it took a long time to even get there. You have to look at these ideologies in the context that they were formed in. If the graph is correct, then when Eich donated, same-sex marriage didn't have majority support. (Setting aside what California's specific numbers were.) This isn't to say that "might makes right", but that Eich expressed his vision for how society should be, and it's only fair to also consider how the rest of the society felt about it. In other words, how do you know views you hold today won't be considered the vilest bigotry in 30 years? Is your moral compass so special, that you would have fought for interracial marriage, even if you were born a white in the southern US in the 1800's?
  - smtddr 12y ago
    I have no way to argue against your comment. You're completely right that our moral compass is not static. So I can only say that I hope society overall always moves towards accepting humanity & life in all the shapes and forms it presents itself. I have no way of justifying that belief; it's just something in my core being. It's in the same part of me that has decided kicking puppies and other animal cruelty is not good. Anyone publicly supporting animal cruelty I think should be publicly shamed. I don't know how to justify that either. Perhaps this takes this whole discussion to another level. Where does humanity's moral compass come from and how do we justify it as something worthy of being followed & upheld?
  - icebraining 12y ago
    If the graph is correct, then when Eich donated, same-sex marriage didn't have majority support. It did among the society composed of Mozilla supporters. This idea that society is not people you interact and work with (and in this case, even direct) but the random populace in your general geographic area was wrong before the Internet, and it's completely wrong today. If he didn't realize that, I'd say his out of touch with the people he was supposed to work with. Is your moral compass so special, that you would have fought for interracial marriage, even if you were born a white in the southern US in the 1800's? What's with this topic and strawmen? Nobody demanded he fought for gay rights. Most people don't fight for gay rights, and you don't see them get criticized (in this community). Just not to invest his time and money to fight against it. Regardless of either his ousting was justified or not (personally, I'm conflicted), most arguments here are terrible.
    - waps 12y ago
      I find this extremely hypocritical. Does this justify obstructing his career and publicly nailing him to the cross ? NO. If you're a liberal : please explain why Mozillans don't have the right to their own political opinion, right to do whatever they want with their money, ... If I ever met anyone who expressed this opinion to me, you or anyone else, I'd do the very best I can to remove them from my presence, company, sabotage their career, whatever I can. And I'll feel as smug about it as you. I'm defending freedom and democracy by doing that.
- downandout 12y ago
  >If I understand your position correctly, then if there really was a prop to ban interracial marriage we should all be okay with that? I would strongly oppose such a measure. But I would certainly respect the rights of others to support the opposing side and vote their conscience, and when the vote was over I would not go scouring donation records to figure out whom I should fire or force out of their jobs.
  - icebraining 12y ago
    Nobody did that, you're inventing a straw man. The results were published on the website of a well-known newspaper[1] in a format that Google could parse. It was only a matter of time for it to be found out and spread.
  - courtf 12y ago
    "I would certainly respect the rights of others to support the opposing side" No such right exists in this context. A proposition to ban interracial marriage has nothing to do with people's consciences and everything to do with the letter of the law, where marriage is an established legal construct to which access is guaranteed under the 14th amendment. Voting to have rights stripped from other citizens for arbitrary reasons is not a protected freedom and such a proposition is patently unconstitutional on its face. You don't need to be impartial here.
    - icebraining 12y ago
      No such right exists in this context. Sure they do. Free speech applies even if what you defend is illegal or unconstitutional. Brandenburg v. Ohio made it very explicit. Besides, while it may seem weird to Americans, constitutions do change. Ours is not yet 40 years old, and already we're speaking about changing it.
      - courtf 12y ago
        Free speech != voting to legislate away the rights of some minority. This is a rampant conflation.
lclarkmichalek 12y ago
Wasn't most of the criticism due to Mozilla having policies that seemed to directly contradict the views his donation implied? I have no problem with the Koch brothers donating to climate change deniers, but I can see why that same action, if performed by, say, the President of Greenpeace, might make their position untenable.
jackmaney 12y ago
> He was forced out, as everyone is well aware. No, he was not. https://blog.mozilla.org/blog/2014/04/05/faq-on-ceo-resignation/ https://blog.mozilla.org/blog/2014/04/05/faq-on-ceo-resignat... Brendan was not fired and was not asked by the Board to resign. Brendan voluntarily submitted his resignation. The Board acted in response by inviting him to remain at Mozilla in another C-level position. Brendan declined that offer. The Board respects his decision.
- notjackma 12y ago
  I can't believe that anybody would be so naive to believe that Brendan wasn't forced out. Every single day, there is an employee going to work in a hostile environment, shunned by co-workers or left to sit in an empty room with no work to perform. Eventually they'll be forced to resign in order to save their own sanity.
  - nknighthb 12y ago
    People keep claiming Mozilla employees weren't hostile to him, and wanted him to stay. You can't have it both ways. Which is it?
  - jackmaney 12y ago
    > I can't believe that anybody would be so naive to believe that Brendan wasn't forced out. I'm using facts to reach the conclusion that Brendan Eich wasn't forced out of his job. Your argument boils down to "Ahh, come on!". Guess who wins? (SPOILER ALERT: Not you.)
icebraining 12y ago
You are advocating for a society where political intimidation is acceptable. There are many examples of such countries around the world. None have worked out well. All countries have some level of acceptable political intimidation; that you think otherwise just means your views are sufficiently mainstream. Try embracing more fringe ideologies in a public way. I suggest supporting and donating to Wahhabist movements and seeing how it goes for you.
- smsm42 12y ago
  If you donate to organizations that are not linked to terror, exactly nothing would happen to you. If they are linked to terror, it's completely different league.
  - icebraining 12y ago
    So you could support an hypothetical local pedo party[1] and be CEO of a company? Sorry, but I don't believe it. [1] http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Party_for_Neighbourly_Love,_Freedom,_and_Diversity http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Party_for_Neighbourly_Love,_F...

smsm42 12y ago

>>> He left because he couldn't deal with the consequences of his actions. This is incredibly misleading way of putting it. He left because he had no other choice, and an organized personal destruction campaign against him was what did not leave him this choice. Of course, you can claim this campaign was result of his actions, and it is true, that this campaign was triggered by his actions and wouldn't happen if he did not donate to what he donated. However, this campaign was not an inevitable consequence of his actions - it was a voluntary act of his political opponents, in order to send a message to him and his supporters and achieve political goals. It's like if somebody says something you don't like to you and you beat him up, the beating is a consequence of the saying, but it doesn't remove the blame of the beating from you, and you can't just say "he's in hospital because he couldn't deal with consequences of his actions". No, he's in hospital because somebody beat him up. And Eich left because of the campaign against him, despite no proof that his opinions have ever interfered with his professional judgement or that he ever did anything inappropriate. Except for expressing a private opinion.

deleted 12y ago
[deleted]