4 ms·

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

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.
  - icebraining 12y ago
    I specifically said that I'm divided on the issue and I haven't taken position one way or the other, I just disagree with those particular arguments. If you want to make me into the enemy, go ahead, but you're the Quixote here.
  - wpietri 12y ago
    Nobody's denying Eich's legal right to have a political opinion, or to act on it within the bounds of the law. But note that Eich supported stripping people of one of their constitutional rights. Prop 8's explicit goal was to remove the right of equal protection before the law. And further, other people were exercising their political rights: freedom of speech and freedom of association. Having a fancy-pants CEO position is not a legal right. People are free to decide not to work with the guy. And really, if you're defending using the ballot process to strip people of constitutional protections, I'm not so sure you're truly on the side of freedom and democracy. Prop 8 was mob democracy, a classic example of tyranny of the majority.
- scintill76 12y ago
  Interesting society argument. For sake of argument I'll just talk about Mozilla employees. Does being a CEO require you to take political actions to support (or at least, not hurt) your employees in their outside lives, over other local political concerns? As a citizen, is that ethical? People who oppose gay marriage typically believe it would hurt "society" at large -- do you really want to say he should have taken an action (or inaction) he believed would generally hurt everyone in his political jurisdiction (which the vote was in), so that he could help his Mozillian sub-society? (The typical proponent response would be that it doesn't hurt anyone, but that's the crux of where people disagree.) What other areas does this reasoning extend to? Maybe I'm making a straw man here, but how is this sub-society argument different than "The majority of my employees are white people or supporters of white people, so I should vote and campaign to support white people even though I believe it would hurt others"? For what it's worth, Mozilla reportedly offer healthcare benefits to same-sex couples[0], and I've read several reports that Brendan personally treated gay employees equitably. I recognize the difficulty of reconciling all this, the near-hypocrisy of campaigning to ban legal unions of people you're cordial with at work, but I can't find a way to support the idea that he should be accountable to them for his legal participation in a process that transcends Mozilla. Or if so, why to them instead of his (potential) gay neighbors, or any Mozillians that supported the same cause? Obviously there's no legal way to enforce that either way, so I guess I'm thinking of the ideal way people would self-police. > Nobody demanded he fought for gay rights. I didn't mean to imply that. Make it "Can you be sure you wouldn't have opposed interracial marriage with your time and/or money?", since that's the more apt analogy people are using. I'll grant you it may be an unobjective argument, but the point is to reflect on how the popular morality is a moving target. > Most people don't fight for gay rights, and you don't see them get criticized Well, I'm loath to even suggest this level of enforcement, but the cognitive dissonance here bothers me a bit. So Eich could have been aware there was a threat of oppression to his employees etc., to "strip them of their rights" (quasi-quote), and done absolutely nothing to help them, because you know, there's TV to watch and frivolities to buy instead, and that's totally OK? Come on -- it's either such a righteous cause/travesty of justice that even inaction is intolerable; or it's just a societal rift that will take a few decades to achieve consensus on, and shouldn't be punished any more than being discovered to be a card-carrying Republican or Democrat. I don't know, am I crazy here? My cynical feeling is that few would support such an extreme position, because secretly we are all at least silent witnesses, if not enablers, to bits of injustice everywhere. It's just that most of us aren't publicly accountable to internet hordes, and/or people buy excuses like "At least I wasn't actively fighting for <cause they believe is evil>!" [0] https://blog.lizardwrangler.com/2014/03/29/on-mozillas-support-for-marriage-equality/ https://blog.lizardwrangler.com/2014/03/29/on-mozillas-suppo...
jackmaney 12y ago
> You have to look at these ideologies in the context that they were formed in. No. No, I do not.
wpietri 12y ago
> how do you know views you hold today won't be considered the vilest bigotry in 30 years Ah, the classic argument: if we can't have perfect right now, then we obviously can't work toward the good.

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.
- icebraining 12y ago
  I specifically said that I'm divided on the issue and I haven't taken position one way or the other, I just disagree with those particular arguments. If you want to make me into the enemy, go ahead, but you're the Quixote here.
- wpietri 12y ago
  Nobody's denying Eich's legal right to have a political opinion, or to act on it within the bounds of the law. But note that Eich supported stripping people of one of their constitutional rights. Prop 8's explicit goal was to remove the right of equal protection before the law. And further, other people were exercising their political rights: freedom of speech and freedom of association. Having a fancy-pants CEO position is not a legal right. People are free to decide not to work with the guy. And really, if you're defending using the ballot process to strip people of constitutional protections, I'm not so sure you're truly on the side of freedom and democracy. Prop 8 was mob democracy, a classic example of tyranny of the majority.
scintill76 12y ago
Interesting society argument. For sake of argument I'll just talk about Mozilla employees. Does being a CEO require you to take political actions to support (or at least, not hurt) your employees in their outside lives, over other local political concerns? As a citizen, is that ethical? People who oppose gay marriage typically believe it would hurt "society" at large -- do you really want to say he should have taken an action (or inaction) he believed would generally hurt everyone in his political jurisdiction (which the vote was in), so that he could help his Mozillian sub-society? (The typical proponent response would be that it doesn't hurt anyone, but that's the crux of where people disagree.) What other areas does this reasoning extend to? Maybe I'm making a straw man here, but how is this sub-society argument different than "The majority of my employees are white people or supporters of white people, so I should vote and campaign to support white people even though I believe it would hurt others"? For what it's worth, Mozilla reportedly offer healthcare benefits to same-sex couples[0], and I've read several reports that Brendan personally treated gay employees equitably. I recognize the difficulty of reconciling all this, the near-hypocrisy of campaigning to ban legal unions of people you're cordial with at work, but I can't find a way to support the idea that he should be accountable to them for his legal participation in a process that transcends Mozilla. Or if so, why to them instead of his (potential) gay neighbors, or any Mozillians that supported the same cause? Obviously there's no legal way to enforce that either way, so I guess I'm thinking of the ideal way people would self-police. > Nobody demanded he fought for gay rights. I didn't mean to imply that. Make it "Can you be sure you wouldn't have opposed interracial marriage with your time and/or money?", since that's the more apt analogy people are using. I'll grant you it may be an unobjective argument, but the point is to reflect on how the popular morality is a moving target. > Most people don't fight for gay rights, and you don't see them get criticized Well, I'm loath to even suggest this level of enforcement, but the cognitive dissonance here bothers me a bit. So Eich could have been aware there was a threat of oppression to his employees etc., to "strip them of their rights" (quasi-quote), and done absolutely nothing to help them, because you know, there's TV to watch and frivolities to buy instead, and that's totally OK? Come on -- it's either such a righteous cause/travesty of justice that even inaction is intolerable; or it's just a societal rift that will take a few decades to achieve consensus on, and shouldn't be punished any more than being discovered to be a card-carrying Republican or Democrat. I don't know, am I crazy here? My cynical feeling is that few would support such an extreme position, because secretly we are all at least silent witnesses, if not enablers, to bits of injustice everywhere. It's just that most of us aren't publicly accountable to internet hordes, and/or people buy excuses like "At least I wasn't actively fighting for <cause they believe is evil>!" [0] https://blog.lizardwrangler.com/2014/03/29/on-mozillas-support-for-marriage-equality/ https://blog.lizardwrangler.com/2014/03/29/on-mozillas-suppo...

jackmaney 12y ago

> You have to look at these ideologies in the context that they were formed in. No. No, I do not.

wpietri 12y ago

> how do you know views you hold today won't be considered the vilest bigotry in 30 years Ah, the classic argument: if we can't have perfect right now, then we obviously can't work toward the good.