5 ms·

> The ex-Mozilla CEO knows this well. An online bullying campaign was launched against him and he was forced to quit. Hahahahahahaha no. Eich paid money to pol

by coldpie 12y ago

> The ex-Mozilla CEO knows this well. An online bullying campaign was launched against him and he was forced to quit. Hahahahahahaha no. Eich paid money to political campaigns to ensure that some of his own employees and fellow citizens would not have basic human rights. Then, he refused to apologize for it and dodged the question when asked if he would do it again. That's not "expressing an opinion," that's nearly sociopathic. He was clearly working against his employees' best interest. Even ignoring his employees' feelings, he was bad for the company. Many productive employees threatened to quit because they didn't want to be represented by a person who explicitly expressed hatred towards them or their friends. That kind of person does not belong in a position of power, full stop. Expressing homophobia in 2015 is going to close doors, the same way expressing racism or sexism does and should. There was no "bullying campaign" except the one supported and perpetrated by Eich.

ryguytilidie 12y ago
Just curious why this is getting downvoted. Are people actually buying the whole "Eich is a victim because as a white multimillionaire he lost his job because he cared deeply about taking away the rights of others"...?
- mbreese 12y ago
  It's because they are going overboard... I stopped reading when I saw the word "sociopathic".
  - coldpie 12y ago
    Do you think campaigning to ensure a group of people don't have certain fundamental rights that others do, for no reason other than your own personal animosity, doesn't qualify as sociopathic? I do.
    - deleted 12y ago
      [deleted]
    - EdSharkey 12y ago
      This matter you are concerned with has always had more to do with recognition and acceptance in society than rights and equality. You seem sharp set to demonize Eich and otherwise be combative with others in all these comments. Have you ever considered that your attitude would harden peoples' hearts against you rather than warming them? Do you think you will you ever be able to drop this victim act and heal and move on with life?
      - coldpie 12y ago
        Are you really suggesting that outrage directed at those intentionally harming other people for no reason at all is an act?
    - mcphage 12y ago
      > for no reason other than your own personal animosity If that's your understanding of people who vote against gay marriage, then you really have no idea what's going on in this country.
      - coldpie 12y ago
        Please enlighten me.
        mcphage 12y ago
        Most people on this planet have religious beliefs, that claim some behaviors are good, and some behaviors are bad. A lot of them don't make much sense. Maybe you think that God doesn't want you eating bacon. Why? I don't know. But you follow them because you believe that's what God wants you to do. A lot of people—millions and millions of people in the US—believe that their God disapproves of gay marriage. And so these people, who are trying to understand the world and their place in it, try to live out the expectations they believe that their God has for them. Maybe you think that sucks. Well, in fairly short order, gay marriage is being legalized over their objections. That's a good thing. But to believe that it's being fueled by sociopathic animosity—to turn millions of Americans into movie villains because they haven't yet learned what you already have—is an act of arrogant blindness. And it's a harm to you as well—by not understanding why they believe what they do, by turning them into fictional caricatures, you lose all hope of changing their mind, and helping them learn what you learned. I have no doubt that, over time, quite a lot of them will see the errors of their ways, and support gay marriage. But it will be despite you, not thanks to you.
        coldpie 12y ago
        We have a constitution. The first amendment of which says religion will have no influence in making laws. Done, discussion over, and the courts agree.
        mcphage 12y ago
        That's not what the first amendment says. A lot of laws have inspiration in religion (and tradition)—people believe X, and so want laws that support X. But if X gets passed as a law, it's because people support X, not necessarily because it comes from a religion. What we're seeing with gay marriage is, people are studying the matter, and finding out that the only reasons against it are religion, and tradition. And those aren't sufficient. So laws against it are being overruled. But that isn't to say that religion has (or should have) no influence, because it influences the believers, who then support laws & lawmakers. Nor is always it possible to separate the beliefs that someone holds for religious reasons, vs. beliefs they hold for other reasons. But it does mean that a law needs more than religious reasons to stay on the books. Thankfully, gay marriage seems to be one that is mostly held for religious reasons, so laws preventing it can be dismantled (versus, say, marijuana prohibition. It's more than just religion, so it's harder to dismantle). But if all you take away is that people against gay marriage aren't driven by sociopathic malice, then that's still an improvement.
- ossreality 12y ago
  > Are people actually buying the whole "Eich is a victim because as a white multimillionaire he lost his job because he cared deeply about taking away the rights of others"...? Yes, categorically they are. All over HN.
- mcantelon 12y ago
  Yes, people are downvoting because Eich is white. That's most certainly the reason. ;)
- coldpie 12y ago
  I was a little rude there, but people claiming that Eich is the fricking victim here really sets me off. The downvotes from cowards and/or homophobes do crack me up though. This is a discussion forum, folks. If you disagree, let's discuss it!
xyzzyz 12y ago
> Then, he refused to apologize for it and dodged the question when asked if he would do it again. That's not "expressing an opinion," that's nearly sociopathic. Forcing someone to apologize for something that is not universally considered to be wrong is a good example of bullying. As is calling publicly his behaviour "sociopathic". > He was clearly working against his employees' best interest. This is hardly considered to be a firing offense for a CEO -- in fact, in many cases this is considered to be good by many people, e.g. by anti-tradeunionists when CEOs fights with unions. > Many productive employees threatened to quit because they didn't want to be represented by a person who explicitly expressed hatred towards them or their friends. Saying that he explicitly expressed hatred towards anyone is misrepresenting the facts, and is another example of bullying.
- coldpie 12y ago
  > in fact, in many cases this is considered to be good by many people, e.g. by anti-tradeunionists when CEOs fights with unions. Sure, but arguably they're benefiting the company then. In what way does denying some people fundamental rights that other people are allowed to have benefit Mozilla? It's a different situation. > Saying that he explicitly expressed hatred towards anyone is misrepresenting the facts It really isn't. Did you see the Prop 8 campaign? Do you know the kind of offensive garbage anti-gay groups spew, even today? They regularly call homosexuals pedophiles, rapists, accuse them of having an "agenda" to convert others to homosexuality, or that their god hates them. These groups are a wellspring of hate, and Prop 8 was no lily-white exception. The "National Organization for Marriage," a major supporter of Prop 8, has been classified by the Southern Poverty Law Center as a hate group. That's what Eich was paying to support. If giving material support to a cause forwarded by hate groups doesn't classify as expressing hatred, I really don't know what does.
- mcantelon 12y ago
  Made me think of this tweet I saw the other day: "Everyone who questions my obviously compassionate and righteous cause is a dangerous sociopath" — Many sociopaths
  - coldpie 12y ago
ll123 12y ago
Do you think people should get fired and ostracized for donating to Planned Parenthood? They literally murder babies. What kind of person thinks murder is ok, and would donate money to help an organization systematically murder? This kind of person does not belong in a position of power, full stop.
- jasonlotito 12y ago
  > Do you think people should get fired and ostracized for donating to Planned Parenthood? Yes, I think people, in a position where PR is a part of their role such as CEO, that work toward things that cause substantial outcry that prevent him from doing his job, should probably not be in that position. Or are you saying that you'd think someone working against the ideals of Planned Parenthood in their own time would be suited to lead it? You might disagree with the reasons, but the reality is, he couldn't do his job because of the outcry. So, the fundamental question becomes: Do you think someone should get fired for not being able to do their job?
- coldpie 12y ago
  How do you define "baby"?
  - ll123 12y ago
    The young offspring of a human
    - coldpie 12y ago
      At what point does a set of reproducing cells become an "offspring"? It's a hard question to answer and there's no bright line. I understand the opposition's argument, and I don't feel nearly as much animosity towards them. There is no legitimate argument against gay marriage.
      - latestrevision 12y ago
        I'm gay (& partnered, fwiw), and I'd have to agree that there certainly aren't any good arguments against gay marriage; at least, not any arguments we'd accept in a wealthy, industrialized, western society at the beginning of this millennium, but do keep in mind that the great, great majority of the world does not agree with that assessment. So, what makes an argument legitimate? In order for one to suggest that there is no legitimate argument against gay marriage, you'd have to rationalize what it is that we in the west know better than those living in less-wealthy, less-industrialized societies outside our corner of the globe.
mcantelon 12y ago
>That kind of person does not belong in a position of power That position of power, and Mozilla as a whole, would likely never have existed without Eich.
- coldpie 12y ago
  Good point, what other forms of hate should we allow him to express without consequences? :)
  - mcantelon 12y ago
    What would you recommend the consequences should be for Barack Obama, given he publicly held the view that Eich privately held?
    - coldpie 12y ago
      I'd argue anyone against gay marriage is unfit for holding office. It's one of several reasons I never voted for Obama.
    - JKGH 12y ago
      He's a war criminal who slaughters innocent civilians in countries he is not at war at (not that it matters, since, innocent civilians), so ideally, he should be tried at the Hague?
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
chrismcb 12y ago
So if the CEO of your company doesn't share your political views, and votes for or against a law that might harm you, that CEO doesn't belong in a position if power? Someone who is enacting his fundamental rights, and having an opinion shouldn't be in a position of power? I'm curious, while he was a CEO did he do anything that would hurt his employees? Did he say anything that would indicate he would hurt his employees?

by coldpie 12y ago

ryguytilidie 12y ago

Just curious why this is getting downvoted. Are people actually buying the whole "Eich is a victim because as a white multimillionaire he lost his job because he cared deeply about taking away the rights of others"...?

mbreese 12y ago
It's because they are going overboard... I stopped reading when I saw the word "sociopathic".
- coldpie 12y ago
  Do you think campaigning to ensure a group of people don't have certain fundamental rights that others do, for no reason other than your own personal animosity, doesn't qualify as sociopathic? I do.
  - deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]
  - EdSharkey 12y ago
    This matter you are concerned with has always had more to do with recognition and acceptance in society than rights and equality. You seem sharp set to demonize Eich and otherwise be combative with others in all these comments. Have you ever considered that your attitude would harden peoples' hearts against you rather than warming them? Do you think you will you ever be able to drop this victim act and heal and move on with life?
    - coldpie 12y ago
      Are you really suggesting that outrage directed at those intentionally harming other people for no reason at all is an act?
  - mcphage 12y ago
    > for no reason other than your own personal animosity If that's your understanding of people who vote against gay marriage, then you really have no idea what's going on in this country.
    - coldpie 12y ago
      Please enlighten me.
      - mcphage 12y ago
        Most people on this planet have religious beliefs, that claim some behaviors are good, and some behaviors are bad. A lot of them don't make much sense. Maybe you think that God doesn't want you eating bacon. Why? I don't know. But you follow them because you believe that's what God wants you to do. A lot of people—millions and millions of people in the US—believe that their God disapproves of gay marriage. And so these people, who are trying to understand the world and their place in it, try to live out the expectations they believe that their God has for them. Maybe you think that sucks. Well, in fairly short order, gay marriage is being legalized over their objections. That's a good thing. But to believe that it's being fueled by sociopathic animosity—to turn millions of Americans into movie villains because they haven't yet learned what you already have—is an act of arrogant blindness. And it's a harm to you as well—by not understanding why they believe what they do, by turning them into fictional caricatures, you lose all hope of changing their mind, and helping them learn what you learned. I have no doubt that, over time, quite a lot of them will see the errors of their ways, and support gay marriage. But it will be despite you, not thanks to you.
        coldpie 12y ago
        We have a constitution. The first amendment of which says religion will have no influence in making laws. Done, discussion over, and the courts agree.
        mcphage 12y ago
        That's not what the first amendment says. A lot of laws have inspiration in religion (and tradition)—people believe X, and so want laws that support X. But if X gets passed as a law, it's because people support X, not necessarily because it comes from a religion. What we're seeing with gay marriage is, people are studying the matter, and finding out that the only reasons against it are religion, and tradition. And those aren't sufficient. So laws against it are being overruled. But that isn't to say that religion has (or should have) no influence, because it influences the believers, who then support laws & lawmakers. Nor is always it possible to separate the beliefs that someone holds for religious reasons, vs. beliefs they hold for other reasons. But it does mean that a law needs more than religious reasons to stay on the books. Thankfully, gay marriage seems to be one that is mostly held for religious reasons, so laws preventing it can be dismantled (versus, say, marijuana prohibition. It's more than just religion, so it's harder to dismantle). But if all you take away is that people against gay marriage aren't driven by sociopathic malice, then that's still an improvement.
ossreality 12y ago
> Are people actually buying the whole "Eich is a victim because as a white multimillionaire he lost his job because he cared deeply about taking away the rights of others"...? Yes, categorically they are. All over HN.
mcantelon 12y ago
Yes, people are downvoting because Eich is white. That's most certainly the reason. ;)
coldpie 12y ago
I was a little rude there, but people claiming that Eich is the fricking victim here really sets me off. The downvotes from cowards and/or homophobes do crack me up though. This is a discussion forum, folks. If you disagree, let's discuss it!

xyzzyz 12y ago

> Then, he refused to apologize for it and dodged the question when asked if he would do it again. That's not "expressing an opinion," that's nearly sociopathic. Forcing someone to apologize for something that is not universally considered to be wrong is a good example of bullying. As is calling publicly his behaviour "sociopathic". > He was clearly working against his employees' best interest. This is hardly considered to be a firing offense for a CEO -- in fact, in many cases this is considered to be good by many people, e.g. by anti-tradeunionists when CEOs fights with unions. > Many productive employees threatened to quit because they didn't want to be represented by a person who explicitly expressed hatred towards them or their friends. Saying that he explicitly expressed hatred towards anyone is misrepresenting the facts, and is another example of bullying.

coldpie 12y ago
> in fact, in many cases this is considered to be good by many people, e.g. by anti-tradeunionists when CEOs fights with unions. Sure, but arguably they're benefiting the company then. In what way does denying some people fundamental rights that other people are allowed to have benefit Mozilla? It's a different situation. > Saying that he explicitly expressed hatred towards anyone is misrepresenting the facts It really isn't. Did you see the Prop 8 campaign? Do you know the kind of offensive garbage anti-gay groups spew, even today? They regularly call homosexuals pedophiles, rapists, accuse them of having an "agenda" to convert others to homosexuality, or that their god hates them. These groups are a wellspring of hate, and Prop 8 was no lily-white exception. The "National Organization for Marriage," a major supporter of Prop 8, has been classified by the Southern Poverty Law Center as a hate group. That's what Eich was paying to support. If giving material support to a cause forwarded by hate groups doesn't classify as expressing hatred, I really don't know what does.
mcantelon 12y ago
Made me think of this tweet I saw the other day: "Everyone who questions my obviously compassionate and righteous cause is a dangerous sociopath" — Many sociopaths
- coldpie 12y ago

ll123 12y ago

Do you think people should get fired and ostracized for donating to Planned Parenthood? They literally murder babies. What kind of person thinks murder is ok, and would donate money to help an organization systematically murder? This kind of person does not belong in a position of power, full stop.

jasonlotito 12y ago
> Do you think people should get fired and ostracized for donating to Planned Parenthood? Yes, I think people, in a position where PR is a part of their role such as CEO, that work toward things that cause substantial outcry that prevent him from doing his job, should probably not be in that position. Or are you saying that you'd think someone working against the ideals of Planned Parenthood in their own time would be suited to lead it? You might disagree with the reasons, but the reality is, he couldn't do his job because of the outcry. So, the fundamental question becomes: Do you think someone should get fired for not being able to do their job?
coldpie 12y ago
How do you define "baby"?
- ll123 12y ago
  The young offspring of a human
  - coldpie 12y ago
    At what point does a set of reproducing cells become an "offspring"? It's a hard question to answer and there's no bright line. I understand the opposition's argument, and I don't feel nearly as much animosity towards them. There is no legitimate argument against gay marriage.
    - latestrevision 12y ago
      I'm gay (& partnered, fwiw), and I'd have to agree that there certainly aren't any good arguments against gay marriage; at least, not any arguments we'd accept in a wealthy, industrialized, western society at the beginning of this millennium, but do keep in mind that the great, great majority of the world does not agree with that assessment. So, what makes an argument legitimate? In order for one to suggest that there is no legitimate argument against gay marriage, you'd have to rationalize what it is that we in the west know better than those living in less-wealthy, less-industrialized societies outside our corner of the globe.

mcantelon 12y ago

>That kind of person does not belong in a position of power That position of power, and Mozilla as a whole, would likely never have existed without Eich.

coldpie 12y ago
Good point, what other forms of hate should we allow him to express without consequences? :)
- mcantelon 12y ago
  What would you recommend the consequences should be for Barack Obama, given he publicly held the view that Eich privately held?
  - coldpie 12y ago
    I'd argue anyone against gay marriage is unfit for holding office. It's one of several reasons I never voted for Obama.
  - JKGH 12y ago
    He's a war criminal who slaughters innocent civilians in countries he is not at war at (not that it matters, since, innocent civilians), so ideally, he should be tried at the Hague?

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

chrismcb 12y ago

So if the CEO of your company doesn't share your political views, and votes for or against a law that might harm you, that CEO doesn't belong in a position if power? Someone who is enacting his fundamental rights, and having an opinion shouldn't be in a position of power? I'm curious, while he was a CEO did he do anything that would hurt his employees? Did he say anything that would indicate he would hurt his employees?