Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 3rd Apr 2014 19:40 UTC
Mozilla & Gecko clones

Mozilla prides itself on being held to a different standard and, this past week, we didn't live up to it. We know why people are hurt and angry, and they are right: it's because we haven't stayed true to ourselves.

We didn’t act like you'd expect Mozilla to act. We didn't move fast enough to engage with people once the controversy started. We're sorry. We must do better.

Brendan Eich has chosen to step down from his role as CEO. He's made this decision for Mozilla and our community.

The only sensible move.

Order by: Score:
Comment by quackalist
by quackalist on Thu 3rd Apr 2014 19:58 UTC
quackalist
Member since:
2007-08-27

The politically correct thought police have won yet again...liberal fascism in action.

Reply Score: 31

RE: Comment by quackalist
by ronaldst on Thu 3rd Apr 2014 20:08 UTC in reply to "Comment by quackalist"
ronaldst Member since:
2005-06-29

Prop 8 should have never seen the light of day. It's just judeo-christian statism.

Reply Score: 5

v RE[2]: Comment by quackalist
by bbman on Fri 4th Apr 2014 18:08 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by quackalist"
RE[3]: Comment by quackalist
by ronaldst on Fri 4th Apr 2014 21:39 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by quackalist"
ronaldst Member since:
2005-06-29

But giving heterosexual couples extra rights is ok? I'm not going to debating homosexuality, bdsm or anything else. What I care about is people using the state to push their agenda (in this case, religious conformism). The state can't just cherry pick people as they please. I am pretty much in favour of getting rid of all family/couples "rights" and just maintaining an individual/state relation.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Comment by quackalist
by hussam on Thu 3rd Apr 2014 20:12 UTC in reply to "Comment by quackalist"
hussam Member since:
2006-08-17

The politically correct thought police have won yet again...liberal fascism in action.

In real life, when you represent a company, you should always be neutral. This is a co-founder of Mozilla.
He should have the level of professionalism to be neutral and diplomatic.
That means saying "I endorse gay marriage", "I am against gay marriage", or any opinion about a social issue are things he should not be making publicly.
Yes, it is not fair but real life is not fair. You compromise for your job.

Edited 2014-04-03 20:13 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Comment by quackalist
by qbast on Thu 3rd Apr 2014 21:49 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by quackalist"
qbast Member since:
2010-02-08

He was not publicly saying anything. Some asshole dug out names of everybody who donated to Prop 8 and used it to start a witch hunt. It passed with 52% majority, so I guess there are lots of people left to harass.

Reply Score: 17

RE[3]: Comment by quackalist
by Machster on Fri 4th Apr 2014 13:18 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by quackalist"
Machster Member since:
2007-05-15

He was not publicly saying anything.


Exactly. He did not apologize or deny that he held the same opinions even though those violate Mozilla's stated company policy.

It passed with 52% majority, so I guess there are lots of people left to harass.


If you act to take away someone's civil rights you have to deal with the consequences. You reap what you sow.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Comment by quackalist
by qbast on Fri 4th Apr 2014 14:26 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by quackalist"
qbast Member since:
2010-02-08

Why exactly should he apologize or deny? His political views are his own damn business and I honestly doubt that Mozilla has any regulations stating which bill you can or cannot sponsor (that would be instant lawsuit). And please, not the same old idiocy about somebody being denied his 'rights'.

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: Comment by quackalist
by Machster on Fri 4th Apr 2014 15:04 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Comment by quackalist"
Machster Member since:
2007-05-15

Why exactly should he apologize or deny? His political views are his own damn business


His active participation in denying civil rights is fair game as CEO.

I honestly doubt that Mozilla has any regulations stating which bill you can or cannot sponsor (that would be instant lawsuit).


It violates Mozilla's own policy as stated this week. Read it.

And please, not the same old idiocy about somebody being denied his 'rights'.


Educate yourself. The ban that Eich supported which took away the civil right to marry in California was declared UNCONSTITUTIONAL. Get it? It was illegal.

Reply Score: 1

RE[6]: Comment by quackalist
by CaptainN- on Fri 4th Apr 2014 15:31 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Comment by quackalist"
CaptainN- Member since:
2005-07-07

AS much as I think prop 8 was in the wrong - democracy is about process. It wasn't clear that prop 8 was illegal at the time (if it was, it couldn't make it on the ballot). In this case, the democratic process actually worked out (unusual in the US) and the correct conclusion was reached at the end.

IMHO, what he should say now, if he was savvy enough, is that he had an opinion, fulfilled his civic duty, democracy did it's thing, and showed him how he got it wrong.

His mistake is not being savvy enough to figure out what to say about it. Having a CEO that can't figure this out doesn't bode well for a political institution like Mozilla. Stepping down was the right thing to do.

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: Comment by quackalist
by backdoc on Fri 4th Apr 2014 16:56 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by quackalist"
backdoc Member since:
2006-01-14

He was not publicly saying anything. Some asshole dug out names of everybody who donated to Prop 8 and used it to start a witch hunt. It passed with 52% majority, so I guess there are lots of people left to harass.


Exactly, and he had the same position that big-O had at the very same time. Where were the cry babies then? Where's the outrage?

So, now, we're not entitled to think independently and have our own opinions because it might be different than someone else's.

The hypocrisy and irony is just astounding. Intolerant people wanted him to resign because they thought he was intolerant.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Comment by quackalist
by Vanders on Thu 3rd Apr 2014 23:27 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by quackalist"
Vanders Member since:
2005-07-06

In real life, when you represent a company, you should always be neutral. This is a co-founder of Mozilla.

That's demonstratively untrue. Meg Whitman ran for office before being appointed as CEO of HP. No one has vilified her for any position she took during her candidacy.

How much money have guys like Sergey Brin & Tim Cook donated to various political causes?

Eich's problem was he donated to a cause that's currently a political hot potato, and happened to be in a high profile position which overlaps heavily with various SJW types. So he was vilified.

I don't agree with his views at all. I totally agree with anybodies right to say "Hey you know what, I think this guy is a dick". What I don't agree with is this weird creeping thought-crime, where we should vilify a person simply because we disagree with something they said or did. That's completely bizarre, and a horrible precedent for the future.

Reply Score: 18

RE[3]: Comment by quackalist
by jared_wilkes on Thu 3rd Apr 2014 23:40 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by quackalist"
jared_wilkes Member since:
2011-04-25

Why are people acting as if this is the first time someone has had to step down (or didn't get to take a position in the first place or any other number of actions) because their supporters, employees, customers, communities disagreed with their views? This happens all the time, every day. This is no first. This is no precedent.

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: Comment by quackalist
by Vanders on Thu 3rd Apr 2014 23:45 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by quackalist"
Vanders Member since:
2005-07-06

Because this is possibly the first time that the SJW Tumblr and Reddit crowd achieved it as a minority.

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: Comment by quackalist
by jared_wilkes on Fri 4th Apr 2014 00:08 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Comment by quackalist"
jared_wilkes Member since:
2011-04-25

Huh? I'm not quite sure I'm parsing that right... but if I am, maybe the Reddit crowd should get out more often and realize that the world existed before 2005 then because they look like fools proclaiming this a "precedent" (and that includes you). But you actually think that it's the minority that finds supporters of Prop 8 odious? Bwahahaha... that's why I am presuming that you and other Eich supporters are who you are claiming or the SJW Tumblrs and Reddit folk.

Edited 2014-04-04 00:12 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: Comment by quackalist
by Vanders on Fri 4th Apr 2014 00:19 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Comment by quackalist"
Vanders Member since:
2005-07-06

But you actually think that it's the minority that finds supporters of Prop 8 odious?

52% of voters supported Prop 8.
What was it, three Mozilla developers and one website spoke out directly against Eich?

So yes.

Reply Score: 3

RE[7]: Comment by quackalist
by jared_wilkes on Fri 4th Apr 2014 00:25 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Comment by quackalist"
jared_wilkes Member since:
2011-04-25

As I said, I presume you are putting yourself in the closed off, minority Reddit crowd (you've put the number of people opposed to Eich's view at 1 more than those who voluntarily left the Mozilla Board). You should get out more often. If you're going to stay inside, you should read more.

Edited 2014-04-04 00:32 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[7]: Comment by quackalist
by jal_ on Fri 4th Apr 2014 08:19 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Comment by quackalist"
jal_ Member since:
2006-11-02

52% of voters supported Prop 8.

Yes, but "voters" is not a representation of "people". Those anti-equality were far more likely to vote than those pro-equality or those that didn't care much, but wouldn't have voted against it. I'm convinced that if Prop 8 would be voted for in 2014, it would be defeated by a wide margin.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Comment by quackalist
by Machster on Fri 4th Apr 2014 13:35 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by quackalist"
Machster Member since:
2007-05-15

What I don't agree with is this weird creeping thought-crime, where we should vilify a person simply because we disagree with something they said or did. That's completely bizarre, and a horrible precedent for the future.


This isn't a simple matter of a disagreement of opinion. The CEO of a company, that prides itself on equality, actively worked to remove the civil rights of group of people. Let's talk about unconstitutionality and hypocrisy rather than "creeping thought-crime".

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: Comment by quackalist
by backdoc on Fri 4th Apr 2014 17:01 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by quackalist"
backdoc Member since:
2006-01-14

Gay marriage is not a Civil right, idiot!!

Reply Score: 0

RE[2]: Comment by quackalist
by fche on Fri 4th Apr 2014 13:58 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by quackalist"
fche Member since:
2009-09-22

How come neutrality (silence) is only expected of people on one particular side of the political/cultural issue?

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Comment by quackalist
by bbman on Fri 4th Apr 2014 18:10 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by quackalist"
bbman Member since:
2014-04-04

This is pure garbage that you are spouting. Everyone is entitled to their rights. If he had been PRO homosexual no one would have had an issue with it or at least gone as far as they did with him. I'm sorry if you disagree you are out and out wrong and live in a funny and special place made up of clouds and pink bunnys with purple dots. Why is it that the minority can have their way and yet a majority can't? Why is it that only one side is allowed their wants???

Reply Score: 0

RE[2]: Comment by quackalist
by -pekr- on Fri 4th Apr 2014 20:18 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by quackalist"
-pekr- Member since:
2006-03-28

This is really unbelievable. You know where the real democracy ends? When a person can't freely express his/her point of view, using own words, which describe the reality as he/she can see it. To hell with the political correctness. This leftist's fascism and fanatism is a damage to the western society, not its strength. My friend is a gay, and I respect him, but any such over-reactions of some fanatical idiots should be avoided and surely not admired.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Comment by quackalist
by Thom_Holwerda on Fri 4th Apr 2014 20:40 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by quackalist"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

You know where the real democracy ends? When a person can't freely express his/her point of view, using own words, which describe the reality as he/she can see it. To hell with the political correctness. This leftist's fascism and fanatism is a damage to the western society, not its strength.


He can freely express his opinion all he wants. Nobody - not the people, not Mozilla, not the government - is preventing him from doing so. Where do you get the idea that his freedom of speech is threatened or limited? Can he not say what he wants?

Similarly - and this is the other side of the coin you apparently do not understand - Mozilla, its employees, and its customers, are ALSO free to say what they want. And they have made it very clear that they do not wish to be led by, or use products by a company led by, a bigot. That is ALSO freedom of speech.

What has happened right here is a free society working exactly as intended. The man has freely expressed his opinions - but so has his employer, his subordinates, and his customers. And, as is proper in a free society, the government has had absolutely zero involvement.

How is this NOT freedom of speech at its most beautiful?

Edited 2014-04-04 20:41 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Comment by quackalist
by Vanders on Fri 4th Apr 2014 22:10 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by quackalist"
Vanders Member since:
2005-07-06

The man has freely expressed his opinions - but so has his employer, his subordinates, and his customers.

I would hate to live in a world where my employer can fire me because they disagree with my views or things I do outside of the workplace.

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: Comment by quackalist
by Thom_Holwerda on Fri 4th Apr 2014 22:34 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Comment by quackalist"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

I would hate to live in a world where my employer can fire me because they disagree with my views or things I do outside of the workplace.


They already can. Racist remarks will surely get you fired.

Reply Score: 1

RE[6]: Comment by quackalist
by Vanders on Sat 5th Apr 2014 20:10 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Comment by quackalist"
Vanders Member since:
2005-07-06

Not outside of the workplace. I can join the English Defence League (if that was my thing) and my employer couldn't do a darn thing about it: provided I keep all of it outside of the workplace.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Comment by quackalist
by mutantsushi on Sat 5th Apr 2014 00:16 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by quackalist"
mutantsushi Member since:
2006-08-18

Recep Erdogan agrees. The people spoke, he won an election, so the order of the day is purging government of anybody who speaks out against the government, exposing corruption, war provocations, etc.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Comment by quackalist
by Drumhellar on Thu 3rd Apr 2014 20:57 UTC in reply to "Comment by quackalist"
Drumhellar Member since:
2005-07-12

Ostracization is a perfectly valid tool for bringing social change, and is perfectly compatible with a free society. It is not even remotely Fascism.

Reply Score: 5

RE[2]: Comment by quackalist
by Gullible Jones on Thu 3rd Apr 2014 23:06 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by quackalist"
Gullible Jones Member since:
2006-05-23

You know, I agree with Thom on this, and I hardly think it's ostracism to pressure some CEO to step down. But the above line:

"Ostracization is a perfectly valid tool for bringing social change"

Frankly scares the living shit out of me. So much so that I wonder if you're high or something.

Think about it. A community doesn't have to go through any kind of court or tribunal to ostracize someone. They just can if enough people think it's a good idea, regardless of whether the person in question deserves it. That is only "compatible with free society," IMHO, insofar as it can't be legislated against.

The fact is that there is the potential, in that kind of behavior, to make things miserable for the innocent as well as the guilty. And that is really not okay, even if the intent is all good.

I don't know about you, but I don't want to live in a society that dishes out punishments based on public opinion. I'll take a jury, thank you - even a jury of people who hate my guts, and are guaranteed to find me guilty. Almost anything is better than a mob.

Reply Score: 8

RE[3]: Comment by quackalist
by jared_wilkes on Thu 3rd Apr 2014 23:13 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by quackalist"
jared_wilkes Member since:
2011-04-25

You and everyone else has been living in such a society since society was first formed. Did it really take a commenter posting a sentence on OSNews for you to come to that realization (which is maybe the wrong word, since it's unclear if you do realize it)?

Do you actually think that you have never been ostracized by anyone? That you have never done so to another? That it may or may not have been for a good or bad reason?

Well.... just Wow!, I guess.

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: Comment by quackalist
by Drumhellar on Thu 3rd Apr 2014 23:45 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by quackalist"
Drumhellar Member since:
2005-07-12

I think you're taking my words a bit to far. When I'm talking about ostracization, I'm talking more along the lines of "If you act like a dick we won't invite you to play with us." This is a perfectly valid way to get somebody to stop acting like a dick.

I mean, it's possible to take it to the extremes and cause unfair harm, as you are describing, but that doesn't make it any less useful as a tool for societal change.

I mean, it's easy to bash somebody's head in with a hammer, but that's an extreme use compared to it's more constructive use of building stuff.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Comment by quackalist
by Gullible Jones on Fri 4th Apr 2014 00:07 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by quackalist"
Gullible Jones Member since:
2006-05-23

Point taken, and sorry; I wrongly assumed you meant something more extreme.

(In my experience the word "ostracism" usually carries a connotation of total rejection by a community.)

Reply Score: 2

RE: Comment by quackalist
by Morgan on Thu 3rd Apr 2014 22:44 UTC in reply to "Comment by quackalist"
Morgan Member since:
2005-06-29

Fascism implies that the government forced him to step down. That's not what happened; he chose to step down (though he likely didn't have much actual choice in the matter) due to pressure from employees of his company and users of his company's products. That's a case of Mozilla running their business as PC as they can, which businesses should do. I get your sentiment, but your word choice is sorely lacking.

Reply Score: 5

RE: Comment by quackalist
by Gullible Jones on Thu 3rd Apr 2014 23:08 UTC in reply to "Comment by quackalist"
Gullible Jones Member since:
2006-05-23

Get ye back to your Jonah Goldberg screeds and trouble us not.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Comment by quackalist
by jerryk on Fri 4th Apr 2014 00:55 UTC in reply to "Comment by quackalist"
jerryk Member since:
2010-09-24

Time to boycott Firefox. My websites will now tell FF users to use a non-bigoted browser.

Reply Score: 7

RE: Comment by quackalist
by fche on Fri 4th Apr 2014 13:56 UTC in reply to "Comment by quackalist"
fche Member since:
2009-09-22

And a coup by Baker et al.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Comment by quackalist
by bassbeast on Fri 4th Apr 2014 17:28 UTC in reply to "Comment by quackalist"
bassbeast Member since:
2007-11-11

Bullshit, nowhere in the constitution does it state you have to take a product from a company you don't have faith in!

he had the RIGHT to be a bigot, the users and devs had the RIGHT to no longer support the company or Firefox because they had no faith in the leadership, the board had the RIGHT not to think the guy was worth the bad press and falling userbase and tell him resign or get fired.

You have the RIGHT to say anything you want but where your right ENDS is in forcing ME to support YOU and your bigotry. I'd say this shows that the so called "voting with your wallet" works quite well, users started dropping, sites asked users not to use the browser, and the board decided his bullshit (which just FYI he refused on multiple occasions to back up his choices, his refusal to do any kind of press in a job that has doing press as a BIG part of the job should have been enough to get him fired right there) simply wasn't worth it.

Oh and lets nip a few things in the bud right now, 1.- For those that use "the state voted" excuse? the southern states voted multiple times and by large margins in favor of Jim Crow so if you wish to stick by that you should equally be for "separate but equal" as long as the people of the state want it,

2.- For those that use the lame "gay agenda" which is VERY ironic since "liberal/negro agenda" was used in the 50s by those that supported Jim Crow? Its about CIVIL RIGHTS PERIOD. The state gives preferential treatment to straight couples in everything from child custody to taxes to inheriting property, as long as that is the case you are giving rights to one class of people while denying them to another class, classic civil rights issue.

3.- For those that use the "wills/civil unions equal good enough" I have three words...separate but equal" which turned out to be anything BUT equal. No matter what kind of will you have in place the taxes are VERY different for a surviving spouse than they are a surviving partner, child custody is completely ignored in many states, a civil union simply doesn't confer anywhere near the same rights that a marriage confers from the state.

So I'm sorry but this has nothing to do with an "agenda" this is about people not being willing to support a bigot. Firefox has the majority of users in the under 45 category and those under 45 are less tolerant of bigotry than the older generation. If he had given money to a group pushing segregation would you have said it was an "agenda" if blacks refused to use Firefox? If he had given to the WBC would it be an agenda for those against religious intolerance to refuse to support Mozilla?

You can say anything you want and I can choose not to associate with you, simple as that. If enough people refuse to associate with your business because you are there they can keep you and close or fire you and stay open, that is their right. Nowhere does the constitution say you can be as big a douche as you want and live free from consequences for your words and deeds.

Reply Score: 4

Political participation
by malxau on Thu 3rd Apr 2014 20:01 UTC
malxau
Member since:
2005-12-04

Although I'd strongly disagree with Eich over Prop 8, this precedent seems to discourage political participation from career minded individuals since it can adversely affect their career. I don't think democracy is strengthened by discouraging participation, particularly from the most successful people.

Reply Score: 25

RE: Political participation
by woegjiub on Thu 3rd Apr 2014 20:15 UTC in reply to "Political participation"
woegjiub Member since:
2008-11-25

this precedent seems to discourage political participation from career minded individuals since it can adversely affect their career.

As far as I can see, it discourages discrimination from career-minded individuals.
Bill Gates is doing just fine, and his foundation has quite a few political stances.

Reply Score: 8

RE: Political participation
by phoehne on Thu 3rd Apr 2014 23:34 UTC in reply to "Political participation"
phoehne Member since:
2006-08-26

Yes it does. Or at least you have to think carefully about what you support. For example, he might be a great candidate for CEO of "Developers Against Gay Marriage." If you want to hold certain positions you need to act like an adult and that means sometimes staying out of conflicts because they're polarizing.

In part this is because a company publicly endorses someone when they make them a CEO. This person will be the face of the company and represent them. If they have controversial views, then many people feel there is some endorsement of those views. I worked for Perot Systems when Ross Perot decided to run for president. There were a number of times I was out with friends or family and they would ask me if I agreed with him, a question that would not have come up if I hadn't worked at Perot Systems. Sometimes it was awkward.

Reply Score: 2

Comment by lucas_maximus
by lucas_maximus on Thu 3rd Apr 2014 20:01 UTC
lucas_maximus
Member since:
2009-08-18

Why? Because people hounded him over something he did that was legal. f--king thought police again. You're attitude is as bad as those that you disagree with.

Edited 2014-04-03 20:02 UTC

Reply Score: 24

RE: Comment by lucas_maximus
by saynte on Thu 3rd Apr 2014 20:47 UTC in reply to "Comment by lucas_maximus"
saynte Member since:
2007-12-10

People are afraid of someone in a position of power whose morality has a fundamental incompatibility with their own. People, I imagine, do not trust him to be a moral leader.

You need trust in the CEO.

Reply Score: 5

lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

A CEO is an employee just like everyone else, he is also subject to the law like everyone else.

Employment law in most places in the Western World say that discrimination based on sexuality is wrong. If he had discriminated on sexuality he would have been in a lot of trouble.

What I see here is just an angry mob about what a guy supported in the past, maybe he thought he was being righteous however misguided.

I don't know the man and won't assume malice where it might be ignorance.

I don't think you should be punished forever because you disagree on a religious issue.

Edited 2014-04-03 20:55 UTC

Reply Score: 8

jared_wilkes Member since:
2011-04-25

A CEO is an employee does not equate to the CEO's role is merely to comply with the law.

Eich has had 4 years of questioning and the last 10 days to state that his views have changed, he erred, or that his views haven't changed but he apologizes that he offends a large population.

This is not a religious issue. Unless you are religious.

Reply Score: 1

lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

Please tell me how gay marriage has anything to do with running a software project?

Oh it doesn't. Why was he even questioned about it is beyond me. If he discriminates against employees based on sexuality that is Gross mis-conduct and he can be fired immediately.

Edited 2014-04-03 21:07 UTC

Reply Score: 4

jared_wilkes Member since:
2011-04-25

Why are you calling the role of CEO "running a software project"? It's laughable. Do you think Eich will be spending his time writing code?

He was asked because he made a public contribution in an amount sufficient to require that he report it publicly and it became known to the public. Why wouldn't he be asked about his publicly expressed views?

Reply Score: 1

lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

When is running a software project writing code. You don't understand what you are talking about.

Mozilla is basically doing everything firefox related which is a number of software projects. Those are ultimately overseen by the CEO.

If you can't stitch that together, please don't comment.

Edited 2014-04-03 21:23 UTC

Reply Score: 1

jared_wilkes Member since:
2011-04-25

If you can't comprehend that CEO is much more a political role, about relationships, even for technology companies and not the day-to-day management or oversight of software engineers, I can't help you.

However, can we agree that the general community was relatively okay with him serving the role of CTO but not CEO? Is that hard to grasp? Disputed? Okay, then... that simplifies things: what is the difference between the role of CTO and CEO?

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: Comment by lucas_maximus
by SlackerD on Thu 3rd Apr 2014 21:25 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Comment by lucas_maximus"
SlackerD Member since:
2012-01-16

Asking about it is one thing. Bullying him out of his position for it is quite another.

Reply Score: 5

RE[7]: Comment by lucas_maximus
by jal_ on Fri 4th Apr 2014 08:23 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Comment by lucas_maximus"
jal_ Member since:
2006-11-02

Asking about it is one thing. Bullying him out of his position for it is quite another.

I don't think you understand what "bullying" means.

Reply Score: 2

jared_wilkes Member since:
2011-04-25

Also, this seems like a pretty easy question to answer:

Please tell me how gay marriage has anything to do with running a software project?


When it causes outrage among a large number of your software engineers on the software projects, causes half of your Board to resign, creates a fair enough amount of outrage amongst the community and users of the project, and boycotts ensue?

That was a rhetorical question, wasn't it?

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Comment by lucas_maximus
by saynte on Fri 4th Apr 2014 06:51 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by lucas_maximus"
saynte Member since:
2007-12-10


I don't think you should be punished forever because you disagree on a religious issue.


From the quote above, you think his opposition to gay marriage is immoral, because that certainly punishes gays over a religious issue.

Also, from your posts in this discussion, you believe he should not be punished for that.

So, do you believe in that immoral actions should not have repercussions?

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Comment by lucas_maximus
by Olafson on Mon 7th Apr 2014 07:41 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by lucas_maximus"
Olafson Member since:
2014-04-07

What if the group that has misgivings is a small minority? Do you need a leader that every single person in the company/country feels they can trust on every single moral issue? What if there are rules and other co-leaders in the organization that keep the leader accountable to the agreed upon moral standards of the organization? What if there is little to no evidence that the leader is going to cause any harm, to the people that don't trust him, in his capacity as a leader? Is it still a good idea to kick out a technically superior leader and replace him with another leader who is slightly socially superior? (I say slightly as the replacement would only be superior to a small minority of those he leads.)

Reply Score: 1

RE: Comment by lucas_maximus
by jal_ on Fri 4th Apr 2014 08:30 UTC in reply to "Comment by lucas_maximus"
jal_ Member since:
2006-11-02

Why? Because people hounded him over something he did that was legal. f--king thought police again. You're attitude is as bad as those that you disagree with.

It's also legal (at least in the US) if you proclaim that apartheid is swell, and you'd like to see a ban on mixed-race marriage. Would you have felt different if Eich would've donated $1000 to that cause?

Reply Score: 3

RE: Comment by lucas_maximus
by Machster on Fri 4th Apr 2014 13:48 UTC in reply to "Comment by lucas_maximus"
Machster Member since:
2007-05-15

Why? Because people hounded him over something he did that was legal. f--king thought police again.


What? It was legal? Haven't you f--king read the news: IT WAS UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

Reply Score: 1

Sad
by WorknMan on Thu 3rd Apr 2014 20:02 UTC
WorknMan
Member since:
2005-11-13

To those of you out there who put this guy's head on a chopping block, congratulations. I'm not going to defend his religious/political views, but let's just hope yours doesn't cost you your next job. IMO, that's a pretty shitty precedent to set.

As far as I'm concerned, a person can be a flagrant racist, secret Hitler admirer/nazi sympathizer, or whatever else. But as long as he doesn't bring that shit to work with him, and he's not committing any crimes, what difference does it make in the workplace? This doesn't seem to me to be much different than an employer asking for your Facebook username and password, so they can see if there's anything in there they don't like.

Reply Score: 16

RE: Sad
by hussam on Thu 3rd Apr 2014 20:18 UTC in reply to "Sad"
hussam Member since:
2006-08-17

To those of you out there who put this guy's head on a chopping block, congratulations. I'm not going to defend his religious/political views, but let's just hope yours doesn't cost you your next job. IMO, that's a pretty shitty precedent to set.

As far as I'm concerned, a person can be a flagrant racist, secret Hitler admirer/nazi sympathizer, or whatever else. But as long as he doesn't bring that shit to work with him, and he's not committing any crimes, what difference does it make in the workplace? This doesn't seem to me to be much different than an employer asking for your Facebook username and password, so they can see if there's anything in there they don't like.

Again, in real life no one thinks "oh well, but he is a good worker and he doesn't bring his shit to work". No, you get sacked if your haircut is not 100% perfect. It is a tough world out there.

Edited 2014-04-03 20:21 UTC

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Sad
by lucas_maximus on Thu 3rd Apr 2014 20:58 UTC in reply to "RE: Sad"
lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

In the UK how you wear you hair is a human right and the employer can be taken to tribunal.

So no.

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: Sad
by Delgarde on Fri 4th Apr 2014 01:05 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Sad"
Delgarde Member since:
2008-08-19

In the UK how you wear you hair is a human right and the employer can be taken to tribunal.


Agreed... that might be the case in the US, but in most of the world, that would be flagrantly illegal, and see the offending company paying a fortune in damages.

No problem with legal costs either, because any lawyer would jump at the opportunity for a cut at such sure money...

Reply Score: 2

RE: Sad
by phoehne on Thu 3rd Apr 2014 23:19 UTC in reply to "Sad"
phoehne Member since:
2006-08-26

Actually it's not sad. Well, actually it was kind of sad the board didn't think things through before they made him CEO. If you're in a very public position, like a CEO, your views do matter. Your statements do matter. In a sense the company that hires you is saying you're a stand up guy, the kind of guy they want representing their brand.

For the vast majority of us, no one gives a crap. We just don't matter, so we can post things that would make us pariah in a role as a CEO or spokesperson, or whatever. He should never have been offered the job. I respect him for his contributions, like I respect Charles Lindbergh for flying between NJ and Paris. However, neither of them are people I would want as the head or public face of my company or organization.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Sad
by WorknMan on Thu 3rd Apr 2014 23:38 UTC in reply to "RE: Sad"
WorknMan Member since:
2005-11-13

If you're in a very public position, like a CEO, your views do matter. Your statements do matter.


And what statement did he make, exactly? Let me quote him:

So I don't want to talk about my personal beliefs because I kept them out of Mozilla all these 15 years we've been going. I don't believe they're relevant.”


And he's right.

“But the principle that I have operated by, that is formalised in our code of conduct at Mozilla, is it's really about keeping anything that's not central to our mission out of our office. If I stop doing that now I think I would be doing wrong that code of conduct and doing a disservice to Mozilla. And I really do think it's an important principle of inclusiveness for Mozilla to succeed.”


This doesn't strike me as the kind of guy who would be running down the halls at Mozilla, yelling 'God hates fags!'

Sure, there's one specific area where his personal beliefs don't align with the company, but a) they're not relevant to his job and b) he seems committed to leaving that crap at the front door. Now, if Mozilla were a foundation created specifically to fight for legalizing gay marriage, then I could see where a conflict of interest might arise. But as it is? No.

Edited 2014-04-03 23:40 UTC

Reply Score: 6

RE[3]: Sad
by jared_wilkes on Thu 3rd Apr 2014 23:45 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Sad"
jared_wilkes Member since:
2011-04-25

He can leave it at the front door all he wants. If his employees and customers aren't buying it because they know he maintains odious views behind closed doors, he won't be able to do his job.

Reply Score: 3

RE[4]: Sad
by WorknMan on Thu 3rd Apr 2014 23:57 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Sad"
WorknMan Member since:
2005-11-13

He can leave it at the front door all he wants. If his employees and customers aren't buying it because they know he maintains odious views behind closed doors, he won't be able to do his job.


Well, that's exactly the point I'm addressing here. He WOULD be able to do his job if these people weren't demanding he step down because his political/religious views differed from theirs.

I'm not suggesting that they have to be friends with him or invite him to their birthday parties, but asking for someone to be fired because you have a difference of opinion on the exact definition of marriage is going a bit too far.

Edited 2014-04-03 23:58 UTC

Reply Score: 3

RE[5]: Sad
by jared_wilkes on Fri 4th Apr 2014 00:06 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Sad"
jared_wilkes Member since:
2011-04-25

My point is: that's Eich's wishful thinking, not truth as you claim.

Publicly expressed views by public-facing positions will receive a public response. This is no first, this happens all the time. The only difference I see is that a bunch of tech nerds want to support Eich at any cost.

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: Sad
by WorknMan on Fri 4th Apr 2014 00:12 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Sad"
WorknMan Member since:
2005-11-13

Publicly expressed views by public-facing positions will receive a public response.


Correct you are. Just like the guy who got initially booted off Duck Dynasty for some anti-gay remarks he made. I didn't agree with that, and I don't agree with this. AFAIK, Eich didn't make any such statements publicly.

'But what if he had donated to a white supremacy group?'

Well, if not being a racist was a requirement for employment, half the people where I grew up would be out of a job. If he's not bringing it to work with him and he's not committing any crimes, leave him the hell alone.

Reply Score: 3

RE[7]: Sad
by jared_wilkes on Fri 4th Apr 2014 00:18 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Sad"
jared_wilkes Member since:
2011-04-25

His contribution was a PUBLIC STATEMENT. He's had 6 years and 4 years since it's been known by the public to apologize, make amends, change, or alter that public statement.

Sure, you know a lot of employed racists, but would you select any of those racists to be CEO of Mozilla? Or can you point me to a single person who has ever said that Brendan Eich should never be employed ever again in any capacity whatsoever?

Edited 2014-04-04 00:26 UTC

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: Sad
by Kivada on Fri 4th Apr 2014 04:36 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Sad"
Kivada Member since:
2010-07-07

Well, that's exactly the point I'm addressing here. He WOULD be able to do his job if these people weren't demanding he step down because his political/religious views differed from theirs.


Political campaign contributions are a matter of public record in the US. If he contributed then he has no semblance of privacy to his views on the matter and could have just as well said it in a press conference.

Thus he stopped being able to do his job as CEO the instant he took a stance.

Those of you who think that this was some kind of witch hunt don't understand how and why these rules where set up in the first place. It's a shame and it's why companies and the extremely wealthy are getting away with getting the rules changed so that they can subvert the political system with unlimited amount anonymous donations.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Sad
by Kr1ll1n on Fri 4th Apr 2014 05:31 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Sad"
Kr1ll1n Member since:
2007-04-28

Please enlighten the rest of the world to every single view you have ever held, now or otherwise. Let us know how that turns out.

Mozilla claims to be for the privacy of the information of its users.
http://www.mozilla.org/en-US/privacy/

That would tell me that some employees do not feel the same way, as what he did was only made public because of a law forcing it to be the way, and some employees felt he should be ostracized for it, all the way to the chopping block.

Those are not the actions of a privacy-centric group of employees.

He is also noted as being a co-founder of Mozilla, so to get rid of him in such a dubious and contrary way tells me that Mozilla no longer adheres to it's own privacy declaration if you do not fall in line with their own world view.

Edited 2014-04-04 05:41 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Sad
by phoehne on Fri 4th Apr 2014 13:39 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Sad"
phoehne Member since:
2006-08-26

What statements did he make? Really? He made contribution to support prop 8. That's a matter of public record. it's not hidden in the fine print. When you make contributions to certain political groups you need to provide them with information about who you are so they can report that information. It's not a secret. It's not a tiny asterisk on the form.

To say that wasn't a public statement on his stance on equal marriage rights is being disingenuous. That means all those employees and all those people who contribute to the Mozilla ecosystem that support equal marriage have to deal with the fact the face of the company has gone on record as being opposed to marriage equality. Not being LGBT, I can only imagine how difficult it must be to be given equal standing in the law, only to have it taken away by an odious law like prop 8.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Sad
by Treza on Fri 4th Apr 2014 19:18 UTC in reply to "Sad"
Treza Member since:
2006-01-11

nazi sympathizer, or whatever else


Okay, I know this is not a valid comparison, different context, historically wrong, etc...

One name :

Werner von Braun.

Reply Score: 2

Truly Free
by fretinator on Thu 3rd Apr 2014 20:14 UTC
fretinator
Member since:
2005-07-06

In this country, we are given the marvelous opportunity to fully affirm the prevailing viewpoints of the day. In a similar vein, the North Koreans had the opportunity to cast their vote for the one true leader. If that isn't freedom, then I don't know what is!

Reply Score: 10

What happened to freedom of speech?
by karunko on Thu 3rd Apr 2014 20:20 UTC
karunko
Member since:
2008-10-28

I know I'm going to be very unpopular with this one, but: what happened to freedom of speech? Is it only applicable to when people are saying things we agree with?

Just to clarify things: I don't agree with Brendan Eich's stance (I really don't care either way) but I still think he's entitled to his opinions and certainly free to donate money to support whatever campaign.

On the other hand, I quite like Voltaire's "I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it."


RT.

Reply Score: 16

jared_wilkes Member since:
2011-04-25

You're confused about what free speech is. Free Speech does not mean "ZERO CONSEQUENCES." He has his right to speak, to have his opinion, to hold onto it, and he still has those rights and opinions. No government entity is preventing him from having those opinions and views or speaking them.

But likewise, people have the right to disagree with them. However, there is no censorship, or barring of speech, by a government whatsoever involved in this instance. Because a public, non-profit corporation decided to listen to that dissent and decided it was in their best interest to not give him the most significant, public-facing role in a company is not by any means a suppression of anyone's rights of any kind.

Please people, don't conflate Freedom of Speech, one of the greatest rights invented by man, for the stupidity expressed above. It's insulting and degrades the true value of the freedom of speech. And makes you look like an idiot.

Edited 2014-04-03 20:29 UTC

Reply Score: 14

Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

There are those rare occasions where you and I can see eye to eye.

Well said. Very well so.

Reply Score: 2

lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

How does having a personal opinion should make you step down from a position as long as it isn't a conflict of interests (which I don't believe it is)?

If your personal position was that you were pro-gay marriage 50-60 years ago you might been booted out of the company or discriminated against.

So it okay to discriminate against people as long as they agree with you Thom?

Edited 2014-04-03 21:15 UTC

Reply Score: 1

jared_wilkes Member since:
2011-04-25

You make really lousy arguments. Can you try harder to make it worthwhile to try to educate you please?

Reply Score: 2

lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

Why are they lousy? If you can't say why, then they obviously aren't.

Reply Score: 1

jared_wilkes Member since:
2011-04-25

1. It's not personal opinion. It's documented public fact.

2. It's not "a position," it's CEO of a public non-profit Corporation. You are trying to make this a general employment issue when it's the furthest thing from the truth.

3. Completely confused by your "as long as it isn't a conflict of interest" comment. Are you really suggesting that the only thing that disqualifies anyone from the role of CEO of a major organization is "conflict of interest"? Gross incompetence, stupidity, lack of skills or experience, being disliked by a large portion of your clients, being disliked by a large portion of your employees... You don't think these factors can be relevant to whether someone is or is not suitable to be named or to continue to hold the role of CEO? Completely laughable.

4. Just because a contrary opinion 50 years ago could lead to a dismissal does not mean that it is okay to have a different opinion 50 years later and not be dismissed.

5. This isn't a question of employability, whether he was fired or not with cause, or whether he was discriminated against in an employment matter. He was removed as CEO because he generated too much controversy, displeased his community, co-workers, and employees and was completely deaf to responding to this relatively minor and easily addressed "political" issue which does not bode well for his ability to hold the title of CEO.

6. I have not seen Thom, myself, or anyone on the other side of the argument that has stated that it is okay to discriminate (used in the Constitutional sense that you are trying to conflate in the discussion, not the merely denotative and most general definition of "discriminate") against people with opposing views. Myself and others have stated that he is unsuitable for the role of CEO of Mozilla, that his views are inconsistent with the chances of him bettering Mozilla as its chief officer.

7. I could go on but it's tedious. Again, I'm willing to discuss if you can comment intelligently but some of your current crop of comments are merely with (and require) dismissal for their stupidity.

Reply Score: 2

Vanders Member since:
2005-07-06

1. It's not personal opinion. It's documented public fact.


The documented fact is he donated money. He donated money based on his personal opinion.

4. Just because a contrary opinion 50 years ago could lead to a dismissal does not mean that it is okay to have a different opinion 50 years later and not be dismissed.


That's it. Right there. does not mean that it is okay to have a different opinion.

Reply Score: 3

jal_ Member since:
2006-11-02

+10

Reply Score: 2

Olafson Member since:
2014-04-07



3. ...Gross incompetence, stupidity, lack of skills or experience, being disliked by a large portion of your clients, being disliked by a large portion of your employees... You don't think these factors can be relevant to whether someone is or is not suitable to be named or to continue to hold the role of CEO? Completely laughable.



Are you suggesting any of these actually apply to this case? Incompetent? He is a founder and has been the CTO for years. Stupid? No. Disliked by a large portion? Did someone do a hand count? From what I have seen, it's not so much a large portion but a small portion making a very large noise.

Reply Score: 1

karunko Member since:
2008-10-28

You're confused about what free speech is. Free Speech does not mean "ZERO CONSEQUENCES."

No I'm not. Of course you can say what you want and still be liable if you commit slander/libel and you can't shout "fire!" in a crowded theater. However:

However, there is no censorship, or barring of speech, by a government whatsoever involved in this instance.

So let me get this straight: censorship from the government is bad, but censorship from the mob is okay? Do you realize that freedom of speech means nothing if you're going to be lynched by the mob for having an opinion that doesn't fit with current times?

And makes you look like an idiot.

Thank you for proving my point! Please, enjoy your enlightened ways and your higher moral ground.


RT.

Edited 2014-04-04 05:44 UTC

Reply Score: 2

jared_wilkes Member since:
2011-04-25

No I'm not. Of course you can say what you want and still be liable if you commit slander/libel and you can't shout "fire!" in a crowded theater.


No, I don't think you do because you aren't addressing what's relevant. No one's view is being censored, certainly not by a government.

So let me get this straight: censorship from the government is bad, but censorship from the mob is okay?


Yes, using your grossly inaccurate terms, but yes. Governments suppressing the free expression of ideas is bad; stupid, ignorant, bigoted views getting shouted down and losing in the market place of ideas is good. Yes.

Do you realize that freedom of speech means nothing if you're going to be lynched by the mob for having an opinion that doesn't fit with current times?


No, actually, I don't. I don't want nor need the government to protect me from being stupid or having stupid ideas or having other people disagree with me. I'm perfectly fine with that. And I don't see how trying to suppress and eliminate stupidity or ignorance is in any way antithetical to the First Amendment. (This is maybe the first time I can point to Internet Speak making people stupid; people actually think shouting, "Because Free Speech" is a valid argument and that it is their argument, without realizing they don't know what free speech is.

I actually think the market place of ideas (where idiocy can get mocked and decried until it ceases to be) is a very fruitful and complimentary aspect to Free Speech.

Thank you for proving my point! Please, enjoy your enlightened ways and your higher moral ground.


You're welcome.

Reply Score: 2

jal_ Member since:
2006-11-02

So let me get this straight: censorship from the government is bad, but censorship from the mob is okay?

Asking someone to step down after making a controversial statement is NOT censorship. You really don't seem appreciate that "freedom of speech" does not entail "without consequences".

Do you realize that freedom of speech means nothing if you're going to be lynched by the mob for having an opinion that doesn't fit with current times?

He wasn't lynched. At worst you could say he was forced to resign.

Reply Score: 2

Olafson Member since:
2014-04-07

*Forced* to step down is bad enough. The original point stands: freedom of speech isn't as free as we would like it to be if using it, even politely, means being forced out of your job. If someone holds a view that is unpopular with some group, the threat of being *forced* out of one's job puts pressure on that person to restrain voicing their opinion. "If you vote for X, expect your tires to be slashed!" It is not beneficial to democracy to punish the polite use of free speech. Punishing the impolite use, I believe, has a place.

This whole freedom of speech with consequences argument rarely gets down to the bone of the matter. Of course there are consequences every time you open your mouth. There are consequences for everything you do, say, think, hear, etc. The root question is what consequences are fair and what are excessively punitive? We all agree that torching someone's car because they told a racist joke is an immature, undesirable response. Almost no one simply says, "Sorry, consequences..." But that is because property damage is illegal, even when mildly provoked. How about forcing someone out of their job? Isn't the loss of income as bad or worse? Yet it's perfectly legal action... I guess it's just "consequences".

Lastly, there is the concept of politeness in freedom of speech. There is certainly a difference we all recognize, between someone who walks around screaming, at the top of their lungs, that gay marriage is the mark of the beast, and someone who politely expresses discomfort and concern around the issue, while noting that they feel that gay individuals should be treated respectfully and given every chance to make their own voices be heard. When one attempts to be polite in expressing a dissenting view, a polite response is hoped for. Refusing to make this distinction is easily done over the impersonal medium of the Internet, on the back of a story made of up fragments of knowledge, floating in the controversial-issue-du-jour. The threats and actions of OkCupid, blocking Firefox users, is not respectful at all. It's the equivalent of "vote for us or we'll slash your tires."

Reply Score: 1

jal_ Member since:
2006-11-02

*Forced* to step down is bad enough.

That, of course, depends totally on the circumstances surrounding it. There are many ligit reasons for being forced to step down (chronically bad losses, for example).

The original point stands: freedom of speech isn't as free as we would like it to be if using it, even politely, means being forced out of your job.

I disagree with that. Again, freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequences (as you seem to somewhat grasp below). Freedom of speech isn't somehow freeer if there's no consequences attached. Freedom of speech != freedom from consequences. There are many, many ways over which one can lose their job. To state that that is always bad if it's somehow linked to speech is ludricous. What if I excercise my freedom of speech to insult my co-workers, creating a hostile atmosphere? What if I don't directly insult them, but publicly declare I disagree with them being equal for the law? Yes, there's lots of grey areas, but you seem to favour the "no consequences at all costs" reading.

If someone holds a view that is unpopular with some group, the threat of being *forced* out of one's job puts pressure on that person to restrain voicing their opinion.

Depending on what job the person holds. Again, as CTO no-one objected to Eich, but as CEO it's a different ballgame.

It is not beneficial to democracy to punish the polite use of free speech. Punishing the impolite use, I believe, has a place.

We're not talking about democracy. The corporate world is the exact opposite of a democracy, in many ways. Also, donating for a campaign against equality is not "polite". It is *never* polite if you say to someone else that you don't think they're equal to you, and do no deserve the same priviliges you have.

This whole freedom of speech with consequences argument rarely gets down to the bone of the matter. Of course there are consequences every time you open your mouth. There are consequences for everything you do, say, think, hear, etc. The root question is what consequences are fair and what are excessively punitive?

Because of the bad publicity Eich got, both from the public and from his employees, it was a sound business decision of Mozilla to ask him to step down (if that's what happened). Though I agree that consequences should be in line with the damage caused, in this case I think they are.

How about forcing someone out of their job? Isn't the loss of income as bad or worse? Yet it's perfectly legal action... I guess it's just "consequences".

It is not "just" consequences. It is the consequence of being a controversial CEO.

Lastly, there is the concept of politeness in freedom of speech. There is certainly a difference we all recognize, between someone who walks around screaming, at the top of their lungs, that gay marriage is the mark of the beast, and someone who politely expresses discomfort and concern around the issue, while noting that they feel that gay individuals should be treated respectfully and given every chance to make their own voices be heard.

There is, in that the former will probably be ignored by the public at large, and the latter won't. So the latter is *more* dangerous than the first. And I'm sorry, but saying politely that you think someone is less equal than you are is just as bad as screaming it from the top of your lungs. "You deserve to DIE!" is as bad as "All things considered, my personal view is that you should not have the right to live."

The threats and actions of OkCupid, blocking Firefox users, is not respectful at all. It's the equivalent of "vote for us or we'll slash your tires."

No, it's not. First, OkCupid did *not* block FF users. It asked FF users to use a different browser, since FF's CEO is someone against marriage equality, something they support wholehearedly. Secondly, even if they *were* to block FF (which they didn't), that's *not* the same as "slashing tires". They didn't threat to harm the FF user. You can frame language all you want, and use misguided examples all you want, but that doesn't make you right.

Reply Score: 2

LinBox Member since:
2014-04-04

Everyone is missing the point here.

This has nothing, notta, nowhere near anything to do with free speech. He could have been a mute in this situation.

What he did was pull out his wallet to pay money to impose on the freedoms of others to exercise their right to freedom. Gays should be free to marry and should be given the same rights as everyone else, he invested money to stop this.

He could have said he hated the thoughts of gays marrying and would have probably been fine. This is akin to me pulling out a gun and making someone leave their wife. When I use that gun to do such things I am dictating the freedom of that person.

This is not a speech issue and I don't know why people think it is...

Reply Score: 1

jgfenix Member since:
2006-05-25

You can´t do anything without imposing on the freedom of others. You promote weapons control, you impose on others; you reform property law, you impose on others etc. Any form of political act affects someone´s rights.

Reply Score: 2

jal_ Member since:
2006-11-02

Good point. Although I disagree with the notion "He could have said he hated the thoughts of gays marrying and would have probably been fine." - I think that would've caught the same backlash.

Reply Score: 2

hipparchus2000 Member since:
2014-04-05

I 100% disagree with you.

I have no problem with gay marriage, but I have massive problems with your and others thought-police attitudes.

I won't be touching Mozilla products again until someone who believes in free speech and democracy is at the helm again. The current CEO should have backed Eich's rights to hold his own views.

Only an idiot would conflate his personal views with the views of the organisation.

We'll see if there is an exodus from the community. I expect there will be as people are really fucking tired of this thought police crap.

Reply Score: 1

Vinegar Joe Member since:
2006-08-16

I know I'm going to be very unpopular with this one, but: what happened to freedom of speech?


Dead and buried. Have you been in the US since 2008?

Reply Score: 2

Seriously?
by Kalessin on Thu 3rd Apr 2014 20:26 UTC
Kalessin
Member since:
2007-01-18

Seriously? He has to step down as CEO, because his political views are unpopular? So, if your opinion does not match that of the majority, you can't be a CEO of a company closely tied to free software and open source? I'm sorry, but that's just stupid. Is the US a free country, or isn't it?

If you disagree with his views, fine. You can even think that he's a scumbag for thinking the way that he does. But he should be permitted to have his own opinions. And I don't see what any of this has to do with running Mozilla.

Reply Score: 18

RE: Seriously?
by jared_wilkes on Thu 3rd Apr 2014 20:46 UTC in reply to "Seriously?"
jared_wilkes Member since:
2011-04-25

You can't see what this has to do with him being CEO of Mozilla? The role of CEO IS to be popular! He's not primarily responsible for extending Javascript as CEO, he's the public face of Mozilla responsible for creating an identity for Mozilla, gathering community support, and creating business relationships that will benefit Mozilla. So, yes, generally being unpopular, intransigent, and unapologetic is likely to lead to you not being a good candidate for CEO of a major organization. However, Eich not being CEO will not prevent him from continuing to have his personal views or to support his political causes nor would it prevent him from improving Javascript or Mozilla in general from a technological perspective... hell, it wouldn't even prevent him from being CTO (as we already know).

Hyperbole is natural, I do it all the time too. But hyperbole rarely strengthens an argument, it usually weakens it.

Reply Score: 4

RE[2]: Seriously?
by nonoitall on Thu 3rd Apr 2014 21:07 UTC in reply to "RE: Seriously?"
nonoitall Member since:
2011-09-22

You can't see what this has to do with him being CEO of Mozilla? The role of CEO IS to be popular!

I LOL'd there. The role of a CEO is to manage a company. Most of the CEOs I've dealt with are anything but popular, and probably far less competent in that role than Mr. Eich would've been.

Reply Score: 7

RE[3]: Seriously?
by jared_wilkes on Fri 4th Apr 2014 00:48 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Seriously?"
jared_wilkes Member since:
2011-04-25

Not popular amongst which group of constituents? Sure, many CEOs may be unpopular with employees or shareholders or business partners or the community around the company or the public... But the odds are great that if a particular CEO is unpopular with one or more constituency that he has to serve, that one or more constituency other than the ones holding him to be unpopular find him to be highly popular. That's the life of a CEO.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Seriously?
by Cutterman on Mon 7th Apr 2014 12:21 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Seriously?"
Cutterman Member since:
2006-04-10

Andy Grove?
Bill Gates?
Steve Jobs?

Reply Score: 1

Comment by hussam
by hussam on Thu 3rd Apr 2014 20:29 UTC
hussam
Member since:
2006-08-17

funny how they decided to point out something that happened 6 years ago.

Reply Score: 6

Comment by Fergy
by Fergy on Thu 3rd Apr 2014 20:40 UTC
Fergy
Member since:
2006-04-10

So the guy that invents javascript and has been with Mozilla since day one does one thing wrong and he is tainted forever? Did you witch-hunters want him fired 6 years ago? Next thing we can fire you for wearing the wrong brand of clothes?

What does this have to do with Mozilla's mission? You know opensource, internet freedom?

The search is on for someone that never talks about his opinions, preferences and vision.

Reply Score: 15

RE: Comment by Fergy
by Thom_Holwerda on Thu 3rd Apr 2014 20:45 UTC in reply to "Comment by Fergy"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

Next thing we can fire you for wearing the wrong brand of clothes?


If you truly think that discrimination is on the same level as wearing the wrong brand of clothes, you really ought to educate yourself a bit more on civil rights.

Reply Score: 8

RE[2]: Comment by Fergy
by Fergy on Thu 3rd Apr 2014 20:55 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by Fergy"
Fergy Member since:
2006-04-10

"Next thing we can fire you for wearing the wrong brand of clothes?


If you truly think that discrimination is on the same level as wearing the wrong brand of clothes, you really ought to educate yourself a bit more on civil rights.
"
I don't know why he has this opinion but he doesn't seem the sort of guy that hates fags. So if Mozilla was an organization that promotes human rights or equality or something it would be relevant for the CEO. But AFAIK Mozilla is concerned with internet freedom and he seems ideal for this.

I also think it is weird that nobody thought to mention this problem before he was announced. Was this all done in secret? Did only a handful of people know about this in advance? I think Mitchel Baker thought he would be great for the function?

I also just feel for the guy.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Comment by Fergy
by jared_wilkes on Thu 3rd Apr 2014 21:10 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by Fergy"
jared_wilkes Member since:
2011-04-25

There was plenty of outrage and concern went it came to light. Unfortunately, Google so strongly emphasizes "real-time", popular hits that it's not easy to find them. I remember them. (I was under the impression that it first came to surface in 2010... I'm now finding hits that it bubbled up in 2012.) I recall several people, Mozilla staff and members, and the community discussing it, even putting the question to him and/or asking for an apology. I specifically recall it coming up from time to time or seemingly whenever anyone would be able to put a question to Eich.

So... I think the more pertinent question is why weren't you paying attention and/or why you can't discern the difference between CTO and CEO (yes, it really is a big difference — it's like the background checks of a local Mayor versus the vetting/background check of the President)?

Edited 2014-04-03 21:12 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Comment by Fergy
by WorknMan on Thu 3rd Apr 2014 21:19 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by Fergy"
WorknMan Member since:
2005-11-13

If you truly think that discrimination is on the same level as wearing the wrong brand of clothes, you really ought to educate yourself a bit more on civil rights.


Which means that if you've ever donated money to a cause that discriminates against ANYONE, you can't be CEO. As an example, if you donated money to an organization that fights the legalization of marijuana, you have discriminated against pot smokers. And as a pot smoker myself, that pisses me off more than the gay marriage thing.

Moreover, if you have ever donated money to PETA, you have discriminated against meat eaters. And in the US, that's, what... probably 98% of the population? So let's go on a witch hunt and find out how many PETA supporters have high-ranking jobs in a US corporation.

Reply Score: 4

RE[2]: Comment by Fergy
by lucas_maximus on Thu 3rd Apr 2014 21:26 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by Fergy"
lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

It isn't far off because what this is, is convicting someone of thought crime.

Someone did something in the past that was legal you don't agree with therefore they aren't worthy of being able to run a company that at the end of the day produces a web browser and a few other pieces of software.

Your reasoning is f--king ridiculous.

And I think anyone consenting adults can do what they like.

Edited 2014-04-03 21:29 UTC

Reply Score: 4

RE[2]: Comment by Fergy
by viton on Fri 4th Apr 2014 07:42 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by Fergy"
viton Member since:
2005-08-09


If you truly think that discrimination is on the same level as wearing the wrong brand of clothes, you really ought to educate yourself a bit more on civil rights.

Crazy world. You're bullying and discriminating a person because he has traditional view on sex. Did he fired anyone based on their view on sex?
Mozilla is a maker of software, not a freaking anal toys.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Comment by Fergy
by bbman on Fri 4th Apr 2014 18:27 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by Fergy"
bbman Member since:
2014-04-04

Yes and homosexuals don't deserve the same rights as those given for race, sex and age. They are a belief and nothing else just like BDSM and other sexual differences. They don't deserve any rights spelled out for them specifically!!! What the hell is wrong with you people. If a homosexual gets beat up he is covered under the same laws that anyone is and shouldn't anything different. A hostile workplace is the same for everyone no just because they like the same gender. Wow liberals are really messed up!!

Reply Score: 0

RE[2]: Comment by Fergy
by -pekr- on Fri 4th Apr 2014 20:23 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by Fergy"
-pekr- Member since:
2006-03-28

Thom, as much as I respect you, your comments are a big dissapointment to me. Not that my opinion will matter to you ;-), but anyway - what's discriminating about having ANY opinion? My good friend is a gay, and talking to him, he does not wish for any idiotic fanatical reactions as happened to the Mozilla's guy. It has nothing to do with the discrimination - it is all about some small fanatical group of ppl, overreacting, that's just all ...

Reply Score: 2

RE: Comment by Fergy
by jared_wilkes on Thu 3rd Apr 2014 20:54 UTC in reply to "Comment by Fergy"
jared_wilkes Member since:
2011-04-25

Six years ago, it was unknown that he contributed $1,000 to support Prop 8.

When it became known in 2010, there was significant backlash (primarily because the initial reporting didn't mention the individuals but rather their employers). Once it became clear that it wasn't Mozilla generally but Eich specifically, there was still backlash. People wanted an explanation or at least an apology. Eich refused. From 2010 to now, even though there had been some concern and no appropriate response from Eich personally, the majority of people were content to allow him to serve a technical role and to occupy a significant position as CTO.

Being CEO is different. And yet, I don't see why Eich can't still provide technical contributions to Mozilla.

The technical folks arguing the merits of Eich's technical contributions or... "Because Free Speech" or... absurd hyperboles... seem to completely misunderstand what free speech is, what a CEO is, and are missing all the right questions. (For example, why is John Lilly the most capable CEO that Mozilla can attract? Why are they losing half their board? Why is an engineer, not an executive manager, the only person who wants or can fulfill the role? Does anyone actually think a free web-based smartphone OS is the best and only path to remain relevant to web standards? What odds do you place on the success of such efforts? Wouldn't it be best for Mozilla to fulfill its original mission truly with the support of donations and by making the best desktop browser and demonstrating the best browser for smartphones on jailbroken or unlocked devices rather than getting $300 million annually from the company doing the most to destroy them while not having a pray of creating a mobile ecosystem with 1/3 of a billion dollars a year when Apple, Google, and Microsoft will each spend orders of magnitude greater on their ecosystems? Etc.)

Edited 2014-04-03 20:59 UTC

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Comment by Fergy
by lucas_maximus on Thu 3rd Apr 2014 21:44 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by Fergy"
lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

You don't get it do you?

The same reasons people have bullied him out of his job, in the past if you supported gay marriage he would have been bullied out of a job.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Comment by Fergy
by Thom_Holwerda on Thu 3rd Apr 2014 21:47 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by Fergy"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

The same reasons people have bullied him out of his job


So, employees and customers may never ask for a CEO to step down? If asking for a CEO to step down is "bullying", I really think you ought to Oxford the crap out of that word.

His views were inherently incompatible with a large portion of his employees and customers. Ergo, he stepped down. Happens all the time. I have no idea why this guy having to step down for not being the right man for the job angers you so.

Reply Score: 4

RE[4]: Comment by Fergy
by lucas_maximus on Thu 3rd Apr 2014 22:14 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by Fergy"
lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

Well if you don't know why, then you are obviously thicker than I thought you were.

I will repeat it, I don't think what at the end of the day is a software engineering house and it products have anything to do with gay marriage or any opinions about homo-sexuality.

I am pro gay-marriage and have no idea what any of this has to do with his day to day job.

Also I am not getting angry, I haven't had your f--k filter set off enough yet.

Edited 2014-04-03 22:21 UTC

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: Comment by Fergy
by Morgan on Thu 3rd Apr 2014 22:58 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Comment by Fergy"
Morgan Member since:
2005-06-29

I think one of the big issues is the fact that any gay or even pro-gay-marriage employees would feel threatened by having a CEO who is blatantly anti-gay and anti-gay-marriage. Working under a constant fear of being treated worse by the management would suck. So would knowing that your CEO doesn't recognize your right to marry someone of the same sex, and therefore might try to deny you and your spouse the same benefits and compensation that straight employees get.

I'll give you an example from my own life: I'm very much a Libertarian/Centrist person on most issues, which means (among other things) I have nothing against gay marriage. However, my bosses are all hardcore Tea Party Neo-Conservatives, and if they knew what my political stance was I would be ostracized. I've seen it more than once at work; in fact we have one employee who is agnostic, Liberal, and in an interracial marriage. The only reason she hasn't been marginalized is because she is perhaps the most valuable employee there. If she were only an average employee performance-wise, I'm sure they would have driven her out years ago, like they have with others in the past.

So yes, the CEO's stance on issues that affect a significant number of his employees would be a cause for concern. For a public non-profit, the stakes are even higher and they have to maintain that they are a welcoming, accepting place to work and work with. This was only going to end one way for Mozilla and Eich.

Reply Score: 4

RE[6]: Comment by Fergy
by Vanders on Thu 3rd Apr 2014 23:37 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Comment by Fergy"
Vanders Member since:
2005-07-06

I think one of the big issues is the fact that any gay or even pro-gay-marriage employees would feel threatened by having a CEO who is blatantly anti-gay and anti-gay-marriage.

Should employees who are heterosexual or anti-gay-marriage feel threatened by a pro-homosexual or pro-gay-marriage CEO?

Should they have the right to demand the CEO steps down? Would you support them?

Reply Score: 3

RE[7]: Comment by Fergy
by WorknMan on Thu 3rd Apr 2014 23:47 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Comment by Fergy"
WorknMan Member since:
2005-11-13

Should employees who are heterosexual or anti-gay-marriage feel threatened by a pro-homosexual or pro-gay-marriage CEO?


It depends on several things. If it were the same situation where the guy never discussed his feelings on the matter in public and was committed to leaving it out of the workplace? Then no, I don't think they should feel threatened. But they probably would, because intolerance works both ways.

Until recently, I worked under a black person who was in charge of my department. For all I know, she could've been racist against whites. But even if she were, I wouldn't have resigned, because she was always respectful and cool to work with.

Reply Score: 2

RE[7]: Comment by Fergy
by jared_wilkes on Thu 3rd Apr 2014 23:52 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Comment by Fergy"
jared_wilkes Member since:
2011-04-25

I'm sure they would be because bigots tend to be easily threatened.

The question is: can you get enough bigots in line to make the Board of Directors and CEO to agree with you. The Tea Party has been most effective but they're still a very, very small minority that is being loud.

Yes, if a vocal enough group was outraged, produced enough outrage in others to cause it to be enough of a question and topic to last many days, I would want that CEO to step down. I would support that decision. I would not support them.

Reply Score: 2

RE[7]: Comment by Fergy
by Morgan on Fri 4th Apr 2014 00:06 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Comment by Fergy"
Morgan Member since:
2005-06-29

Should employees who are heterosexual or anti-gay-marriage feel threatened by a pro-homosexual or pro-gay-marriage CEO?


I wouldn't think so. Gay marriage is a relatively new thing and isn't universally accepted as a standard union yet. Heterosexual marriage is as old as humankind itself. A gay, pro-gay, or pro-gay-marriage person has no reason to try to harass or intimidate straight employees, and there is no "reverse Prop 8" seeking to ban heterosexual marriage for such a person to contribute money or support to anyway. For example, I have gay friends, and I support gay marriage, but I don't go around berating heterosexual couples for being "wrong" or trying to get my straight married co-workers in trouble. That would be silly.

To put it another way, homosexuals just want to be on equal footing. It's people like Eich who don't want them to have it, not the other way around.

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: Comment by Fergy
by mutantsushi on Sat 5th Apr 2014 00:20 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Comment by Fergy"
mutantsushi Member since:
2006-08-18

Inventing a "fear" of this guy doing bad things to specific employees is just fantasy, and nobody at Mozilla is actually claiming that to reflect reality: they just don't like his politics or that he refuses to "apologize" for his views rather than silently serve. The fact that this guy was in fact removed from his job shows that he DOESN'T have any special power, and choosing NOT removing him from his job would not change that balance of power.

Reply Score: 2

RE[7]: Comment by Fergy
by Morgan on Sat 5th Apr 2014 01:05 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Comment by Fergy"
Morgan Member since:
2005-06-29

I didn't invent anything, but working for a bigot is working in a culture of fear, and sadly that's a common thing in the business world. This just happens to be a high profile case, which means we're all talking about it.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Comment by Fergy
by Cutterman on Mon 7th Apr 2014 12:37 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by Fergy"
Cutterman Member since:
2006-04-10

"His views were inherently incompatible with a large portion of his employees and customers."

I doubt it. But his personal opinions about gay marriage (not gay rights in general) were incompatible with with those of a very small and very noisy pressure group who believe that even polite dissent is intolerable.

Cool. We now have a hypocritical society where everyone knows that to express anything other than PC orthodoxy can be very dangerous. So we all smile nicely and make all the right noises while thinking our own thoughts.

I think it was better when bigots where out in the open where you could see 'em.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Comment by Fergy
by jared_wilkes on Thu 3rd Apr 2014 22:13 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by Fergy"
jared_wilkes Member since:
2011-04-25

No, they were not bullied for the "same" reason.

But it's you that still doesn't get it: if Eich had came out supporting gay marriage in 1950 and the broader community, his employees, his Board opposed that, I would support his stepping down for the benefit for Mozilla while saluting his support of gender role-based civil rights.

I'm not judging his moral or ethical "stuff"; I'm judging his competency to lead a large, significant corporation and I find him lacking in that capacity.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Comment by Fergy
by SlackerD on Thu 3rd Apr 2014 22:24 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by Fergy"
SlackerD Member since:
2012-01-16

Because he holds personal views that are controversial? Give me a fucking break.

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: Comment by Fergy
by jared_wilkes on Thu 3rd Apr 2014 22:34 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Comment by Fergy"
jared_wilkes Member since:
2011-04-25

If those controversial views cause innumerable employees to publicly voice dissent and lack of support for the CEO, cause half of the Board of Directors of the corporation that I am trying to lead to remove themselves, causes numerous influential and formerly supportive developers to publicly condemn my organization and start boycotts, and causes a great deal of dissent and displeasure across the whole ecosystem of employees, users, community supporters, and general public in a way that seems those views are inconsistent with the mission of the organization, absolutely! Is that even a question?

And, again, this would be true for me whether it's Eich supporting Prop 8 in 2008 or Eich supporting gay marriage in 1950. If Eich loses the goodwill and support of the community as CEO, he is not suitable as CEO.

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: Comment by Fergy
by nonoitall on Thu 3rd Apr 2014 22:42 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Comment by Fergy"
nonoitall Member since:
2011-09-22

If Eich loses the goodwill and support of the community as CEO, he is not suitable as CEO.

If the "community" ceases to have goodwill on the sole basis of the CEO's personal feelings when he's completely competent managing the company, it is not suitable as a community.

Edited 2014-04-03 22:43 UTC

Reply Score: 0

RE[7]: Comment by Fergy
by jared_wilkes on Thu 3rd Apr 2014 22:55 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Comment by Fergy"
jared_wilkes Member since:
2011-04-25

Hahaha! Okay... Eich can be consoled by the fact that the world and Mozilla is not suitable for him. He's still not competent to be Mozilla's CEO and he's still stepped down though.

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: Comment by Fergy
by mutantsushi on Sat 5th Apr 2014 00:22 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Comment by Fergy"
mutantsushi Member since:
2006-08-18

Good to know the "gay rights" community is no longer a flag-bearer for freedom and progressivism, but now holds itself to the standards of totalitarian society.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Comment by Fergy
by jal_ on Fri 4th Apr 2014 08:41 UTC in reply to "Comment by Fergy"
jal_ Member since:
2006-11-02

So the guy that invents javascript and has been with Mozilla since day one does one thing wrong and he is tainted forever?

You really don't seem to grasp the difference to being any employee (or even CTO) and being CEO. If he stayed CEO, not many would've seen that as a problem.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Comment by Fergy
by bbman on Fri 4th Apr 2014 18:24 UTC in reply to "Comment by Fergy"
bbman Member since:
2014-04-04

Actually he did nothing wrong. That is totally subjective. It was legal, his OWN money so he can do what he likes with it. What is wrong is this pathetic witch hunt that the liberals always do to hurt anyone who doesn't think like them. He didn't use Mozilla's money that is the ONLY way this would have been WRONG!!!

Reply Score: 0

RE: Comment by Fergy
by Vinegar Joe on Sat 5th Apr 2014 21:32 UTC in reply to "Comment by Fergy"
Vinegar Joe Member since:
2006-08-16

What does this have to do with Mozilla's mission? You know opensource, internet freedom?


It's all smoke and mirrors. Firefox has turned to shit and they're hoping this witch hunt will distract anyone from noticing.

Reply Score: 2

Comment by ssokolow
by ssokolow on Thu 3rd Apr 2014 20:58 UTC
ssokolow
Member since:
2010-01-21

The key phrase is "Mozilla prides itself on being held to a different standard".

I'm subscribed to Planet Mozilla and the reason he stepped down is that a LOT of Mozilla employees see Mozilla less as a company and more as an incorporated social movement and having him as the public head of that was causing a big schism to form.

He stepped down because he felt the loss in technical effectiveness was less than the harm which would be caused by having Mozilla feud internally.

Edited 2014-04-03 21:01 UTC

Reply Score: 7

RE: Comment by ssokolow
by graig on Fri 4th Apr 2014 02:52 UTC in reply to "Comment by ssokolow"
graig Member since:
2010-09-18

"The key phrase is "Mozilla prides itself on being held to a different standard".

I'm subscribed to Planet Mozilla and the reason he stepped down is that a LOT of Mozilla employees see Mozilla less as a company and more as an incorporated social movement and having him as the public head of that was causing a big schism to form.

He stepped down because he felt the loss in technical effectiveness was less than the harm which would be caused by having Mozilla feud internally. "

This is what I suspected. I figured that the mozilla community was the one that caused him to step down. It just wasn't a good fit for such a diverse community.

Reply Score: 1

Issues of perception
by Dasher42 on Thu 3rd Apr 2014 21:17 UTC
Dasher42
Member since:
2007-04-05

"The right to swing my fist ends where the other man's nose begins." - Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.

And the same goes to choices. It's one thing to shadowbox with a view, and another thing to fund an discrimination against another person's rights to contract and choice. Those ranting against "liberal fascism" (sic) are selectively seeing wrong only when the violated fight back. They fail to see essential civil rights when it doesn't involve their individual traditions, and Eich individually stepped up to the wrong side of history by putting funds down on Proposition 8.

However, those who claimed a boycott of Firefox didn't get several things either: A) open source technology is a vital part of the toolbox against surveillance and advocating closed source browsers as alternatives in the age of the NSA is a bone-headed move, and B) a CEO does not exclusively own and control an open source product in a way similar to typical closed-source products. Firefox's source code is there to freely download, and start a fork under other branding and management, if it's worth people's while to replicate and cannibalize an offensive organization. People would do well to understand the essential empowerment of open source and never, ever give that up where it counts.

Reply Score: 4

RE: Issues of perception
by jared_wilkes on Thu 3rd Apr 2014 21:24 UTC in reply to "Issues of perception"
jared_wilkes Member since:
2011-04-25

A) Not all people agree with your open source ideology. Even those who do can easily value inclusive gender choice civil rights higher than an OSS ideology.

B) I don't see how the software development model is relevant at all. I was opposed to Eich as CEO because I don't see him as capable of fostering an inclusive community and developing beneficial business relationships, not because I feared that he was going to instruct software engineers to put homophobic comments — or even worse homophobic ALGORITHMS!! The horror! — into closed- (or open-) sourced software. The goal of a boycott was not to change or preserve the code of Mozilla projects, it was to get rid of Eich as CEO.

Edited 2014-04-03 21:25 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Issues of perception
by Dasher42 on Fri 4th Apr 2014 02:35 UTC in reply to "RE: Issues of perception"
Dasher42 Member since:
2007-04-05

I understand your stated priorities, but still feel that the open-sourcing of vital infrastructure is extremely critical for two reasons:

1) It is the means of production for the most significant communications medium today. The idea of having someone else own and control your tools is anathema to the long-term vitality.

2) Without transparency in that production, you will much more vulnerable to the surveillance state. Do you have backdoors in your software? Your hardware? Your firmware? How can you tell?

So I see open source operating systems, browsers, and if possible hardware and infrastructure as a vital tool for everyone's basic privacy and rights not to be targeted by law(less) enforcement agencies affects everybody, particularly those rocking the boat with any sort of activism at all. That sounds like a prerequisite for ensuring minority rights and freedom of dissent.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Issues of perception
by jared_wilkes on Fri 4th Apr 2014 05:47 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Issues of perception"
jared_wilkes Member since:
2011-04-25

Your concerns sound petty, confused, and picayune in comparison to someone who wants to deny civil rights for a large minority in the world, sorry. No, I don't think the Internet or the world ends if Eich isn't leading Mozilla, if FF ceases to exist, or even if every open source project ceased to exist; however, I know Eich is against civil rights for some minorities now.

Edited 2014-04-04 05:50 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Issues of perception
by Dasher42 on Fri 4th Apr 2014 14:48 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Issues of perception"
Dasher42 Member since:
2007-04-05

You haven't paid attention to the scope of the NSA and the crackdown on popular dissent, have you?? You know, the entire reason the world's population is on the hook with corporate food, corporate fossil fuel, corporate corruption. How everything gets built within their confines is an important plank of that. It's a concentration of power.

A ceremony based on medieval property transfer is a pittance compared to that.

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: Issues of perception
by jared_wilkes on Fri 4th Apr 2014 19:53 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Issues of perception"
jared_wilkes Member since:
2011-04-25

Surely, I have. I doubt your assertions that an open source project or Eich leading it is significantly more affective than any other software project. If you can demonstrate that FF is demonstrably effective at eliminating spying and substantial more say than any competing project without resorting to "Because Open Source" you might have an argument but even then...

I suspect that if I asked an LGBT citizen if they'd prefer to transfer property rights to their kin, have health care rights for their significant others, and have legal standing in general for their relationship with their loved one... or an open source project "attempting" to protect you from government spying, they'll take the former the majority of the time.

Reply Score: 2

Oh Noes!
by tylerdurden on Thu 3rd Apr 2014 22:13 UTC
tylerdurden
Member since:
2009-03-17

What is this world coming to? When a well off heterosexual white male can't openly support discrimination against others, without said others getting all uppity about it.

Reply Score: 4

RE: Oh Noes!
by Machster on Fri 4th Apr 2014 13:54 UTC in reply to "Oh Noes!"
Machster Member since:
2007-05-15

What is this world coming to? When a well off heterosexual white male can't openly support discrimination against others, without said others getting all uppity about it.


You made me smile. Thanks!

Reply Score: 1

Stop crying about thought police
by charlieg on Thu 3rd Apr 2014 22:51 UTC
charlieg
Member since:
2005-07-25

It's total nonsense.

If he had come out as against interracial marriage, it would be the same thing. He's discriminating with his donation, which makes him a bigot. It's not a matter of opinion, it is a matter of fact.

If he donated to a cause that was proposing to discriminate against any other demographic, he'd be in the same boat.

You can either be a public figure who is against discrimination and thus not criticized for discriminating, or you can be a bigot and endure the criticism. You choose your position, then you stand by it - or stand down. He stood down.

Reply Score: 4

Sad
by CapEnt on Thu 3rd Apr 2014 23:14 UTC
CapEnt
Member since:
2005-12-18

This is a really sad day for the tech community.

We just saw one of the most successful examples of open source project, the very first that successfully challenged MS virtual monopoly on web a decade ago, be handicapped. Eich is not just a outsider, he is one of the co-founders of Mozilla.

Without him, Firefox would never exist as we know today.

Did he made a actual act of discrimination against a LGBT employee or collaborator of Firefox since his very long tenure as Mozilla's CTO? No.

He got his head chopped off for a crime that he does not even made, under the assumption that he is guild before even doing it.

Firefox will lose a great deal now.

Well... i don't know if he will remain in Mozilla, but in case that he quits, Google or Microsoft should hire him. I'm pretty sure that he will be a great collaborator in the development of Internet Explorer or Chrome.

Reply Score: 3

RE: Sad
by jared_wilkes on Thu 3rd Apr 2014 23:56 UTC in reply to "Sad"
jared_wilkes Member since:
2011-04-25

You're not actually claiming that Mozilla is worse off, not only today, but it's entire existence up to 11 days ago, because Eich is not CEO are you?

If so, Mozilla is really fucked if they absolutely must have Eich as CEO to succeed.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Sad
by thegman on Sat 5th Apr 2014 06:47 UTC in reply to "Sad"
thegman Member since:
2007-01-30


Did he made a actual act of discrimination against a LGBT employee or collaborator of Firefox since his very long tenure as Mozilla's CTO? No.


Debatable. If an employee is a gay man or woman, resident in California, then you could argue he did.

But anyway, I'm glad he's gone. Just because what he did was legal, does not make it OK. Also, the board of a company and indeed it's employees get to decide whether he is a fit leader.

Reply Score: 1

tomz
Member since:
2010-05-06

I believe in tolerating and defending thoughts, opinions, and speech which I vehemently disagree with.

Eich did no violent act, stole no property, did no vandalism (compare various other CEOs). 2008 was not 2014. Opinions and the world has moved on. I would also note a very large majority of colored people also voted "Yes" on proposition 8. Should Mozilla not hire black people? I would also note it is about Marriage - not merely general gay rights, and marriage goes back before history was written.

Mozilla hates anyone who disagrees with their agenda enough to not want them to work there. Totally intolerant of different opinions that do not affect the work product.

This ACTIVE hatred and intolerance of opinions they disagree with is the evil. Not to simply say "I think our CEO is stupid about this issue". But to say "either he leaves or I leave".

And there are a few people out there who think freedom to hold opinions is more important than the opinions conform, e.g.:

http://dish.andrewsullivan.com/2014/04/03/the-hounding-of-brendan-e...

Reply Score: 7

zima Member since:
2005-07-06

He had time, but didn't change his views: http://www.osnews.com/permalink?586127

Hispanics form a large part of "colored people" in California, and are traditionally catholic, so of course they voted for proposition 8...

Reply Score: 2

Comment by Luke McCarthy
by Luke McCarthy on Thu 3rd Apr 2014 23:20 UTC
Luke McCarthy
Member since:
2005-07-06

This situation is making me want to boycott Mozilla. Too can play that game.

Reply Score: 3

Where to start off ..
by acobar on Thu 3rd Apr 2014 23:49 UTC
acobar
Member since:
2005-11-15

This is going to be unpleasant, but here we go:

1) The CEO job, contrary to what some people here wish, IS NOT to please the masses. His ultimate job is to set his company to offer the best possible products and services to customers, and possible new ones, current or future needs (some may say, needs the customers did not even know they may had). If some here care to have a look, you will see that some of the "best" CEO were big assholes. Now, there are cases where his "niceness" may matter but I bet it does not on most cases;

2) Everybody should be free to say or express his opinions without fear of be crucified. Not allowing it, like on this case, is just one more incentive to create a high hypocrite society. I prefer very much to know on who I can trust and choose to get away of someone that have points of view I find untenable. This is clearly what we see on politics and most of us don't like what we see there;

3) Live and let live. Sometimes we need to be a little more forgivable. I do not agree with his stance but, like him, I find myself on the wrong side of the fence sometimes (and more likely than not on none of them). I quite frequently find that the most extremists defenders of some views are also the ones capable to prescribe the most cruel punishments to others;

4) For me, the most valuable lesson to be learned is to try to see things from others perspective. We all have preconceptions ingrained on us by our education, be them transfered by our parents, teacher, friends or because of ourself prejudices. A naive one time opinion should not be used to measure a human being for the rest of his/her life. We all change, some more, some less;

5) When really needed punishment should be proportional to the crime. I find it not only irrational but also dangerous when some try to make an example of someone else mistakes. Remember, like Robespierre, your methods may very well be applied to yourself with time.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Where to start off ..
by phoehne on Fri 4th Apr 2014 13:51 UTC in reply to "Where to start off .."
phoehne Member since:
2006-08-26

The CEO is the public face of the company. If a company makes someone a CEO it's kind of an endorsement of that individual as someone who could represent the company. If Mr. Eich had supported banning interracial marriage, we wouldn't be having this discussion because it would be obvious that someone who had that kind of "extreme" view was not suitable as a representative.

For people in the LGBT community what Mr. Eich supported was taking away their equal rights as people. At a very practical level, being able to marry allows you to avoid huge issues such as child custody given the death of a spouse or even estate taxes. To have your CEO say "I went on record stating that some people deserve the same rights as everyone else" and then expect that he will be supportive of his LGBT employees is hypocrisy. That's saying he believes one thing but behaves in a completely different manner. Most people don't buy that and that's why many people felt he wasn't a good choice for CEO.

Reply Score: 2

Comment by neticspace
by neticspace on Fri 4th Apr 2014 00:17 UTC
neticspace
Member since:
2009-06-09

Mozilla has been making some bad technical decisions over the past 4-5 years. I finally quit Firefox not too long ago.

Reply Score: 2

So stupid
by Tractor on Fri 4th Apr 2014 01:30 UTC
Tractor
Member since:
2006-08-18

I join the chorus of dismayed people, which just can't believe nor accept that in today's pretentfully "free speech society", someone can't have a private opinion different from the social norm of the loudest communautarist interest.

We are seeing more and more examples of this stigmatisation. Up to now, main victims where "people watched on TV". No longer. It becomes dangerous to express any opinion at all.

Well, I wouldn't have believed I would say that 24h ago, but I'm considering leaving Firefox altogether now. This "well-thinking fascism" is by far the strongest ennemy of free speech, and with it, of democracy itself. This is not a direction I want to support.

Reply Score: 3

RE: So stupid
by Tractor on Fri 4th Apr 2014 02:12 UTC in reply to "So stupid"
Tractor Member since:
2006-08-18

Farewell Firefox, welcome Chromium (the open source version...)
and I hope a lot of people will do the same.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: So stupid
by _xmv on Fri 4th Apr 2014 03:23 UTC in reply to "RE: So stupid"
_xmv Member since:
2008-12-09

Farewell Firefox, welcome Chromium (the open source version...)
and I hope a lot of people will do the same.


i love of no matter what people at mozilla do some people like you will write some random crap like that.

eich leaving is 100% his decision, anything else is *actually* illegal under california's laws, in case you did not know.
eich donating to prop 8 is also 100% is decision.

Eck, in any possible outcoming this has nothing to do with the mozilla mission, with firefox, or with the thousands of people who make firefox happen DAILY.

Also, Chrome-mium - if anything - suffers from the exact same issues.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: So stupid
by nonoitall on Fri 4th Apr 2014 05:02 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: So stupid"
nonoitall Member since:
2011-09-22

eich leaving is 100% his decision

It's 100% a man's decision whether he does just about anything. The recent events that led up to this decision are what's troubling.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: So stupid
by jal_ on Fri 4th Apr 2014 08:44 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: So stupid"
jal_ Member since:
2006-11-02

eich leaving is 100% his decision, anything else is *actually* illegal under california's laws, in case you did not know.

Indeed, I did not know it's illegal to fire someone, under California law.

Reply Score: 2

Adios OSNews
by Minuous on Fri 4th Apr 2014 02:58 UTC
Minuous
Member since:
2008-04-29

I hope you're happy Thom, you are driving away your own userbase. I used to come here for news, now the site is basically just a series of political rants pushing your own opinions down everyone's throat. Calling for a boycott just because someone made a charitable donation in the past is just beyond the pale, regardless of what one thinks of the technical merits or otherwise of Firefox.

Feel free to delete my account here, as I shan't be visiting anymore.

Reply Score: 4

RE: Adios OSNews
by jal_ on Fri 4th Apr 2014 08:46 UTC in reply to "Adios OSNews"
jal_ Member since:
2006-11-02

Feel free to delete my account here, as I shan't be visiting anymore.

Good riddance. It's ok for Eich to use his Freedom of Speech, and it's not ok that people call him out for it, but Thom cannot use his Freedom of Speech because consequences?

Reply Score: 3

Fuck this
by dennisma on Fri 4th Apr 2014 03:08 UTC
dennisma
Member since:
2013-12-05

OSNews you are wrong. Good bye

Edited 2014-04-04 03:09 UTC

Reply Score: 2

NOT freedom of speech
by Anonymous Penguin on Fri 4th Apr 2014 05:12 UTC
Anonymous Penguin
Member since:
2005-07-06

We are not talking about freedom of speech here. We are talking about an ACTION with the purpose of impeding other people's civil rights. I suspect that people who don't like this are homophobic but unwilling to admit it.
I know, I know, this will be modded down to hell. So much for freedom of speech.

Edited 2014-04-04 05:17 UTC

Reply Score: 3

Comment by deathshadow
by deathshadow on Fri 4th Apr 2014 05:21 UTC
deathshadow
Member since:
2005-07-12

You know, on the initial article of this Thom posted how he was "baffled" by how mozilla could appoint someone with such medieval ideas; While I'm baffled at how he is apparently unaware that -- at least in my travelling the world -- that describes 90%+ of the world population. By that mode of thinking two-thirds of Americans should "step down from their jobs"

Now I do NOT agree with Eich's viewpoint, in fact I think that most people of faith are drooling morons not competant to open their mouth about much of anything; but if I let that viewpoint influence who's allowed to run companies, or where I go for ... pretty much anything from food to electronics, I'd be a shut-in who starves to death.

America is founded on the idea of freedom of thought; they say freedom of speech, freedom of religion, but what it all boils down to is FREEDOM OF THOUGHT.

... and that means you just might be exposed to ideas you disagree with; the moment you start persecuting people for their beliefs and ideas, the door is open to persecuting just about anyone.

... and I mean REAL persecution like "You can't hold this job because you believe that" -- That's a very familiar mode of thinking; late 1930's to early 1940's perhaps? Mid-europe I'm thinking?

I for one am happy to live in a place where jack-holes like Eich can have his noodle-doodle not based in reality bullshit, as it means I'm also able to call him a jack-hole with noodle doodle not based in reality delusions like every other fundementalist faith-tard!

That's what freedom is. Tolerance, doesn't mean you have to like it, just means you have to put up with it! Christmas on a cracker, did I just quote South Park?

When someone can lose their job over something like this, freedom is diminished as are we all. Did he use Mozilla funds for the donations or did it come out of his pocket? Is he using his beliefs like the jerks at "Hobby Lobby" are to shove his beliefs down his employee's throats by saying how they can and cannot live their life? No? Then WHISKEY TANGO FOXTROT!!!

I don't support his actions, but if this is something someone can lose their job over what's next? Firing people because they're members of some fringe whackjob religion like Westboro Baptist? Firing people who go to Catholic church on sundays? Firing someone for wearing a crucifix to work? Sooner or later you'll end up (to borrow from Dirty Harry) shooting your neighbor because their dog pissed on your lawn!

Though you are right Thom, "as a dutchman" you don't get anything apart from your little tiny corner of the world...

Just like the dumbasses who say that it isn't freedom of speech; it is by extension. The question is do his actions outside work have ANYTHING to do with his job or his job performance? Saying it does means that none of us should be allowed to have beliefs or have personal lives -- you might as well line up for your swastika or "hammer and sickle" armbands right now!

... and again, I'd point out I'm an agnostic who disagrees with every last bit of this fundamentalist BS; I just recognize the dangers of heading down this road.

Edited 2014-04-04 05:22 UTC

Reply Score: 3

RE: Comment by deathshadow
by Anonymous Penguin on Fri 4th Apr 2014 06:31 UTC in reply to "Comment by deathshadow"
Anonymous Penguin Member since:
2005-07-06


Just like the dumbasses who say that it isn't freedom of speech; it is by extension. The question is do his actions outside work have ANYTHING to do with his job or his job performance? Saying it does means that none of us should be allowed to have beliefs or have personal lives -- you might as well line up for your swastika or "hammer and sickle" armbands right now!


So if he had donated to al-Qaeda or to a Nazi group it would still be OK, I suppose.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Comment by deathshadow
by acobar on Fri 4th Apr 2014 08:38 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by deathshadow"
acobar Member since:
2005-11-15

The problem with people that follow the path you are walking is that they assume the actions of "other" people are full of hate and/or intolerance when they fight for things that differ from your view.

Do you even consider that "the other" opinions may be based on wrong assumptions and that they very well may be trying to help others on their distorted view? That some may be even acting with a sense "I should act to save others from themselves"?

Dialog is a bridge we should never (almost) put down. There is no other way for society to progress. Asking someone to step aside is not the best way to improve the situation.

Judging someone so abrasively, to a point of call him a bigot, by an one time opinion tells nothing about the character of an individual been called, but a lot about the one sentencing.

Edited 2014-04-04 08:41 UTC

Reply Score: 2

Anonymous Penguin Member since:
2005-07-06

I am all in favour of dialogue, but somebody's sex life is their private matter. If *they* want, one can even talk to them, tell them that is wrong, immoral, against the Bible... But paying somebody who wants to limit their rights is a totally different matter.

Edited 2014-04-04 11:27 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Comment by deathshadow
by acobar on Fri 4th Apr 2014 12:01 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by deathshadow"
acobar Member since:
2005-11-15

.. somebody's sex life is their private matter.

I agree with that to a point, because things are not always so simple, but, yes, I don't have issues against gay people just because they are gay, black, catholic, hindoo or muslim. I tend to relativise things and try to not miss the forest for the trees. People opinions and their acts are frequently not well thought out and that does not mean they should be painted as hateful or intolerant for life.

I believe that on this case just a public statement assuring that he did not have the intention to harm anyone was enough, what may very well be true. No need to witch hunting, which, by the way, is not the right path too frequently.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Comment by deathshadow
by karunko on Fri 4th Apr 2014 13:32 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by deathshadow"
karunko Member since:
2008-10-28

So if he had donated to al-Qaeda or to a Nazi group it would still be OK, I suppose.

Except for the fact that the examples you're making are clearly illegal, while supporting Proposition 8 (no matter how much you and I disagree with it) isn't, shouldn't be and certainly shouldn't cost anyone his job.


RT.

Reply Score: 2

Anonymous Penguin Member since:
2005-07-06

I am not sure how relevant is "legal" in this case.
In many countries discrimination based on sexual orientation is illegal. One day it might be illegal also in the US.
A more relevant question might be: is it morally right?

Reply Score: 2

RE: Comment by deathshadow
by RshPL on Fri 4th Apr 2014 08:33 UTC in reply to "Comment by deathshadow"
RshPL Member since:
2009-03-13

You sir have hit the jackpot. Everything well said.

Reply Score: 0

RE: Comment by deathshadow
by jal_ on Fri 4th Apr 2014 09:01 UTC in reply to "Comment by deathshadow"
jal_ Member since:
2006-11-02

I just recognize the dangers of heading down this road.

The problem with the Slippery Slope argument is, that it can easily be used to demonstrate that from something relatively benign something Really Evil(TM) can be begotten, and is therefore almost useless in a debate. Politicians having to step down because of unpopular views is literally at least as old as Rome. And CEOs having to step down because of bad performance is as old as public companies. This is a very clear case of that: Eich became, because of his donation, very unpopular with the public. That's a liability if you are the public face of a company. So he (was made to) stepped down.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Comment by deathshadow
by deathshadow on Fri 4th Apr 2014 17:19 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by deathshadow"
deathshadow Member since:
2005-07-12

Thing to remember about that though is WHICH public are you referring to? What about the religious right wingnuts who are going to get their panties in just as big a wad about his basically being forced out as the leftist moonbats did his actions?

With all the fundie nutters like the religious right core of the current Republican party? (who are just as out there as the leftie libbies so far as extremism goes)

The normal actions of a private citizen will ALWAYS offend SOMEBODY... that's not a reason for someone to lose their job; and if it is, nobody will have jobs.

Edited 2014-04-04 17:19 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Comment by deathshadow
by jal_ on Mon 7th Apr 2014 06:57 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by deathshadow"
jal_ Member since:
2006-11-02

What about the religious right wingnuts

They are presumably a small minority of FF users.

The normal actions of a private citizen will ALWAYS offend SOMEBODY... that's not a reason for someone to lose their job; and if it is, nobody will have jobs.

"private citizen" being the key word here. As I wrote in another comment, the moment he donated an amount large enough to be on the list, he was no longer private. And nobody even objected while he was CTO; but being c*E*o is a different thing, and far removed from "just an employee" or "private citizen" or whatever. Something that has been broadly pointed out elsewhere in this thread.

Reply Score: 2

What a fascist society
by jgfenix on Fri 4th Apr 2014 06:57 UTC
jgfenix
Member since:
2006-05-25

Anything you say against the gay lobby makes you a racist. In Madrid, many residents are fed up with the problems caused by the "Gay Pride Day" in their neighborhood. They were insulted for complaining.

Reply Score: 2

RE: What a fascist society
by jal_ on Fri 4th Apr 2014 09:02 UTC in reply to "What a fascist society"
jal_ Member since:
2006-11-02

gay lobby

Anyone using the words "gay lobby" disqualifies themself from any discussion on the subject.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: What a fascist society
by jgfenix on Fri 4th Apr 2014 10:07 UTC in reply to "RE: What a fascist society"
jgfenix Member since:
2006-05-25

I differenciate homosexuals in general from certain organizations or pressure groups. Why does this disqualify me? I see very clearly the difference.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: What a fascist society
by jal_ on Fri 4th Apr 2014 10:12 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: What a fascist society"
jal_ Member since:
2006-11-02

I differenciate homosexuals in general from certain organizations or pressure groups. Why does this disqualify me? I see very clearly the difference.

Perhaps, but "gay lobby" is just as bad as "the gay agenda", and puts you squarely in the anti-gay camp. Also, in a discussion about what happened to Eich, randomly complaining about "Anything you say against the gay lobby makes you a racist" and then rant about how "many residents are fed up with the problems caused by the "Gay Pride Day"" makes you look like a generic homophobe.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: What a fascist society
by ezraz on Fri 4th Apr 2014 14:11 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: What a fascist society"
ezraz Member since:
2012-06-20

considering a sizeable percentage of your users and developers could be homosexual, probably not a good idea to have a homophobic CEO (or one with a controversial sense of humor).

in america right now, the "gay lobby" is just regular wired gay folks organized and communicating about which businesses are discriminating, or showing institutional bigotry.

the only power us citizens really have is the power of the pocketbook. our consumerism is the only way things change here. and the gays have really pushed corporate america to drop the homophobia for the sake of their bottom line. good for them.

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: What a fascist society
by jgfenix on Fri 4th Apr 2014 17:06 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: What a fascist society"
jgfenix Member since:
2006-05-25

You didn't understand. I merely put an example of people being insulted and called homophobes for complaining about that celebration. Does that made them racists? You seem to think so.
I don't care about that but if you critisize a homosexual you are a homophobe, if you critisize some women they accuse you of machism (even if they are merely incompetent). That's not equality at all.

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: What a fascist society
by jal_ on Mon 7th Apr 2014 06:53 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: What a fascist society"
jal_ Member since:
2006-11-02

You didn't understand. I merely put an example of people being insulted and called homophobes for complaining about that celebration. Does that made them racists? You seem to think so.
I don't care about that but if you critisize a homosexual you are a homophobe, if you critisize some women they accuse you of machism (even if they are merely incompetent). That's not equality at all.

You seem oblivious to your (presumably) white male priviliged status. Your whining is so typical. Are you also the first to point out that rape accusations can be false, the minute someone says they're raped?

Edited 2014-04-07 06:57 UTC

Reply Score: 2

Fascism
by RshPL on Fri 4th Apr 2014 08:30 UTC
RshPL
Member since:
2009-03-13

This is political correctness at its worst .. would his views collide with his work as CEO? This should be the real question! Thom you should stand by this guy even though his views are not of your own, it should be about justice and not about political views.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Fascism
by jal_ on Fri 4th Apr 2014 09:05 UTC in reply to "Fascism"
jal_ Member since:
2006-11-02

This is political correctness at its worst .. would his views collide with his work as CEO?

Of course! His work as CEO entails that he makes the company a success. Already some websites were telling people not to use FireFox because of Eich's views. What if a phone manufacturer would stop selling FF OS for his views? (Hey, did I use a Slippery Slop myself there? Sorry) Eich quickly became a liability to the company, so they ditched him.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Fascism
by RshPL on Fri 4th Apr 2014 14:20 UTC in reply to "RE: Fascism"
RshPL Member since:
2009-03-13

Possibly so but it is very ugly and I view it still as bullying.

Reply Score: 0

RE[3]: Fascism
by jal_ on Fri 4th Apr 2014 14:41 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Fascism"
jal_ Member since:
2006-11-02

Possibly so but it is very ugly and I view it still as bullying.

You having a twisted idea of what "bullying" means doesn't make your point any more true.

Reply Score: 2

What is this I don't even
by Ultimatebadass on Fri 4th Apr 2014 08:48 UTC
Ultimatebadass
Member since:
2006-01-08

We're having witch hunts now? Is this north korea? The PC Police crowd is so "tolerant" and "inclusive" as long as their opinion is the only one around. Wow such freedoms. Many progress. "Freedom of speech for all" as long as you only say things we like. This shit is going to be the fall of western civilization, enjoy the ride while it lasts people.

Reply Score: 3

RE: What is this I don't even
by jal_ on Fri 4th Apr 2014 09:10 UTC in reply to "What is this I don't even"
jal_ Member since:
2006-11-02

We're having witch hunts now? Is this north korea? The PC Police crowd is so "tolerant" and "inclusive" as long as their opinion is the only one around. Wow such freedoms. Many progress. "Freedom of speech for all" as long as you only say things we like. This shit is going to be the fall of western civilization, enjoy the ride while it lasts people.

Yeah, you are being totally coherent here. Because a public outcry over a homophobe becoming CEO of the world's #3 browser resulting in him stepping down is totally comparable to a Stalinistic regime with religious leader worship responsible for the death of millions of its citizens.

Reply Score: 2

Ultimatebadass Member since:
2006-01-08

Yes, because in both cases you're getting fucked over for not toeing the current party line.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: What is this I don't even
by jal_ on Fri 4th Apr 2014 09:35 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: What is this I don't even"
jal_ Member since:
2006-11-02

Sure, binary thinking, way to go!

Reply Score: 2

Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

Yes, because in both cases you're getting fucked over for not toeing the current party line.


Wow. Equating the millions of people being slaughtered by Stalin to not accepting racism and bigotry.

Did a homosexual man or woman step on your kitten or something?

Reply Score: 1

Ultimatebadass Member since:
2006-01-08

Why yes, just yesterday a homosexual man ate my kitten and took a dump on my lawn. /s

If you don't see a problem with punishing people for private beliefs and opinions different than yours than I don't know what to tell you. Welcome to the age of thought-crime.

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: What is this I don't even
by jal_ on Fri 4th Apr 2014 14:44 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: What is this I don't even"
jal_ Member since:
2006-11-02

If you don't see a problem with punishing people for private beliefs and opinions different than yours than I don't know what to tell you. Welcome to the age of thought-crime.

By donating to Prop 8 it left the private area. By doing so he made a *public* statement, as the donation entered public records, for all to see. He didn't just "think" something, he *acted* on it.

If you don't see that there are many, many examples of when it's entirely justified to "punish" people for private believes, you are simply a moron.

Reply Score: 2

Ultimatebadass Member since:
2006-01-08

As long as he acted within the law in his own name with his own money it should still be nobodies fucking business. But I know, with you rabid SJW types him being a heterosexual while christian male would is crime enough in itself.

moron


Now you're being like... totally ableist! Muh oppreshunz! Better post that on tumblr...

Reply Score: 2

RE[7]: What is this I don't even
by jal_ on Mon 7th Apr 2014 06:43 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: What is this I don't even"
jal_ Member since:
2006-11-02

As long as he acted within the law in his own name with his own money it should still be nobody's fucking business.

Well, I've explained why that *is* anybody's fucking business, but you seem to have pulled up a reason resistance shield, so I'll just give up on you.

But I know, with you rabid SJW types him being a heterosexual white christian male would is crime enough in itself.

Bla bla bla.

Reply Score: 2

LinBox
Member since:
2014-04-04

The problem in society is no one understands freedom (in a broad scale). Being homosexual is not a crime. Freedom means that you have the freedom to pursue happiness and so do as long as it is not some sick kind of happiness that harms someone.

I am married to a wonderful women and have been with her for 14 years. I am happy. What right do I have to dictate the happiness of others? I don't. And if I didn't like the idea of gays marrying that would be fine (I don't have anything against it by the way) I don't have the right to infringe on the freedoms of gays and or dictate how other pursue the happiness they desire. I would have to give up my wife and my happiness if I did try to infringe on other in that manner.

What happened was wrong! You cannot run something based on freedom and yet have views that dictate others. I may not believe in what anyone does on this site, but I don't have a right to interject lest I allow you to return the favor by interjecting in my life.

The problem with society is we all think in a whole that the majority rules, even if it infringes on the happiness and freedoms of others. This is not right.

If you want to be against something others do then you yourself give up that something then you have a right to speak, if not you don't. You can't sit there in your nice sports car and say you want them outlawed because they kill people. As well as you can say a person cannot marry or be with a person that makes them happy when you indeed are (and being single is not an excuse to spout off against something either.

So as a society as a whole why don't we quit trying to live for everyone else and start living for ourselves and enjoy the lives we are given? Spread love instead of hate and all the sudden this world becomes a better place.

Reply Score: 1

club_mate
Member since:
2014-04-04

I've been a daily, appreciating reader of osnews and I'm happy to read a statement this clear on the page. Eich's resignation has stirred remarkable passion by a lot of people in the IT world. I guess we are witnessing the desperate struggle of white, male, heterosexual folks who fear for their privilege to be sexist and homophobic in their work environment.

The equidistance brought forward by a lot of people in cases like this is actually very much a veiled position (quite like 'i'm not a racist, but...'). Tolerating homosexuals (or women) in the IT workplace is cited as feat, not a something that goes without saying. In reality they demand not to be confronted with homosexuality or feminism, ignoring that heterosexuality and sexism is on the other hand of course forced on everyone: No one is offended by a heterosexual couple kissing, the same action by homosexuals is often seen as aggressively promoting their sexuality.

There have been some cases like this recently like the issue with sexism at github or the guy who lost his commit rights to node.js because he refused gendered language texts. All have been met with comparable reaction in the comments section on a lot of IT sites, crying fascism, thought police and whatnot. I'm quite happy about this development as it means that breaches of compliance and professionality start to get noticed and publicized, even in the IT industry, probably because more and more women and LGBT, and generally more discrimination-aware people are involved.

Funnily this kind of culture clash between skinny jeans and black trenchcoats extends even into purely technical domains. As a major german IT site wrote about the introduction of lamdba functionality in Java 8 a guy lamented: 'sucks. the hipsters won'. ;)

As a CEO you expose yourself in a way common employees don't - and right now you have to compete with others for skilled heads, which are often liberal-minded. Donating for a discriminatory initiative, which is not met with sympathy in your progressive-minded business is simply a bad career decision. Good luck recruiting in ohio. I would not want to work for a dick CEO if i had the choice, actually i recently switched jobs because even as a heterosexual male i was annoyed by a work atmosphere, where the term 'gay' was used derogatory and pinup posters were put on the wall, ensuring that few women will ever want to join the team.

Reply Score: 2

acobar Member since:
2005-11-15

Good for you that you are so full of self-righteous feeling, but the reality is that things are not black-on-white as we would like, a compromise must be achieved most of the time and the only way to get a fair enough solution is by dialog and education. We (most of us) are all so full of bullshit that open confrontation will mostly result on escalating the fight to high levels unnecessarily or equally bad, increase the hypocrisy or the quiet wounds. That is what Gandhi and Mandela tried to taught us.

If you ask me if I think he was wrong on his act I would doubtless say "yes!", if you want my opinion on the outcome it is "the persecution was not proportional to his misstep, he seems to be a nice guy, very competent on his field but with a low understanding of the subject and its consequences and I would like see him participate on a wider and open debate about it". There is no way to paint him as a bigot because one act of misjudgment, lets know him better first.

Reply Score: 2

company decision only
by ezraz on Fri 4th Apr 2014 14:08 UTC
ezraz
Member since:
2012-06-20

oh get off the fear of the so-called "thought police". the thought police are the uninformed on the internet snarking their uninformed opinions all over.

i don't know what this guy said, i don't care, but the board of directors sure did. i don't want any company that's making an 'open-standards' browser to show any bias towards any one group.

he must have cared enough too to step down.

company's aren't people. thought police don't exist.

it's just the strength of opinion, and if the non-work opinions of your ceo upset partners or employees, they have to go.

i never cry for millionaires asked to go somewhere else to make more millions.

you should cry for the people really struggling, not golden parachute having dotcom yuppies.

Reply Score: 1

To hell with the lemmings...
by Vietman on Fri 4th Apr 2014 14:34 UTC
Vietman
Member since:
2007-02-06

Boycott Mozilla!

Reply Score: 1

So In Order to Protect Free Speech...
by SojoPhoto on Fri 4th Apr 2014 15:39 UTC
SojoPhoto
Member since:
2011-12-08

We need to limit free speech??? I am not sure I understand that thought process. Sorry if we can't all think and believe in the same, but this "Diversity" thing is a Bitch! ;)

Reply Score: 1

The only sensible move?
by themwagency on Fri 4th Apr 2014 15:41 UTC
themwagency
Member since:
2013-03-06

He donated personal money to stand for traditional marriage. He did absolutely nothing wrong but the pressure groups made this out to be anti gay. It's a terrible situation.

Reply Score: 2

RE: The only sensible move?
by Thom_Holwerda on Fri 4th Apr 2014 15:45 UTC in reply to "The only sensible move?"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

Actively trying to limit the rights of others is "nothing wrong"?

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: The only sensible move?
by larwilliams2 on Fri 4th Apr 2014 17:01 UTC in reply to "RE: The only sensible move?"
larwilliams2 Member since:
2009-12-02

He donated to a cause he believes in. Whether it is right or wrong can be debated. However, it was wrong to pretty much force someone out of their job for something that has no impact on the ability to do it, especially when there was no evidence to indicate it did. Hopefully he sues Mozilla and makes the point that reverse discrimination is wrong.

Edited 2014-04-04 17:07 UTC

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: The only sensible move?
by adamk on Fri 4th Apr 2014 21:26 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: The only sensible move?"
adamk Member since:
2005-07-08

Given the push back from various individuals and organization, I'd say it's pretty clear his personal stance on gay marriage does impact his ability to act as CEO.

Adam

Reply Score: 2

larwilliams2 Member since:
2009-12-02

So personal opinion = evidence nowadays? All I see is a witchhunt by some asshole with nothing better to do costing a man his job.

Reply Score: 1

Calling for Thom to step down
by backdoc on Fri 4th Apr 2014 17:06 UTC
backdoc
Member since:
2006-01-14

Thom's opinion is different than mine. I'm calling for him to step as an OSnews editor. If he doesn't resign, I'm going to delete my account.

Reply Score: 2

A true travesty
by bbman on Fri 4th Apr 2014 18:15 UTC
bbman
Member since:
2014-04-04

Welcome to the world of liberal facisim. Where the liberals can say what they want and do what they want without any backlash. It is sad that this happens. I can bet you that if he was pro gay and homosexual NOTHING would have been said or done about him!!! He didn't use the company's money so what the hell are are all the liberals in there having issues with him? This makes absolutely no sense. It isn't like what Apple and other companies have done and actually gave money out of the companies coffer. This is a true travesty to everyone who isn't liberal.

Reply Score: 0

RE: A true travesty
by backdoc on Sat 5th Apr 2014 00:28 UTC in reply to "A true travesty"
backdoc Member since:
2006-01-14

Welcome to the world of liberal facisim. Where the liberals can say what they want and do what they want without any backlash. It is sad that this happens. I can bet you that if he was pro gay and homosexual NOTHING would have been said or done about him!!! He didn't use the company's money so what the hell are are all the liberals in there having issues with him? This makes absolutely no sense. It isn't like what Apple and other companies have done and actually gave money out of the companies coffer. This is a true travesty to everyone who isn't liberal.


I couldn't agree with you more. To add to it, the regime said they couldn't comment on a private business. Ha! They have commented on private business time after time. I'm sure they would have had plenty to say if the guy had been ousted because of favourable views on gay marriage.

I'm still waiting on Thom's resignation. I think his pro-gay views are offensive Join me in calling for his resignation.

Reply Score: 1

Yet another reason why
by Ressev on Sat 5th Apr 2014 02:22 UTC
Ressev
Member since:
2005-07-18

...privacy is important.

Privacy advocates should be all over this. If he gave his money to something politically correct, he would be applauded and detractors scoffed at.

Yep, privacy needs to be maintained.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Yet another reason why
by LinBox on Sat 5th Apr 2014 06:08 UTC in reply to "Yet another reason why"
LinBox Member since:
2014-04-04

No what needs maintained is the right for everyone no matter the race or any other defining factor the right to seek out and live a way that is in relation to the freedoms everyone should enjoy.

How would you feel if I donated money to a cause that said that you (on a personal level) do not get to enjoy thing things that might make you happy? That is the problem here. And he worked for a company that believed in freedom.

As a collective we all need to worry more about our own lives and not stand and put restraints on others unless we are willing to restrain ourselves.

Give up your right to marry into happiness and let society forbid you from doing so. Would this be right? No it wouldn't. Why don't we stop telling people what they can and cannot do and worry about the high divorce rates and fix that problem? Or the host of other problems that plague our world. No, instead we are to busy paying money and telling others what they can and cannot do.

He was wrong and called out. Sorry it happened this way for him but it happened. This is a risk you take when you worry more about the freedoms of others more then your job and the principles that job stands for.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Yet another reason why
by backdoc on Sat 5th Apr 2014 12:01 UTC in reply to "RE: Yet another reason why"
backdoc Member since:
2006-01-14

NHow would you feel if I donated money to a cause that said that you (on a personal level) do not get to enjoy thing things that might make you happy? That is the problem here. And he worked for a company that believed in freedom.


That's a red herring. Marriage is *BY DEFINITION* a union between a man and a woman. The leftists want to redefine it. Kinda like by definition, water is H2O. You can't add any elements to; or take them away and still have water. It is what it is.

So, if gays want the same benefits as legitimate married couples, then they need to address it a different way. Don't bend the definition of what I value just so you can get government and private services that exist for traditional marriage.

He was wrong and called out. Sorry it happened this way for him but it happened. This is a risk you take when you worry more about the freedoms of others more then your job and the principles that job stands for.


No. He wasn't wrong. It's his opinion (and coincidentally, mine too). And, he has the right to his opinion. And, the fact that his opinion is different from yours doesn't mean it is wrong. Unless your job is directly dependent upon the opinion at hand, it shouldn't matter. Where's the tolerance from the left that we always hear about? Are leftists only tolerant when you agree with them? What about his right to work???

Let's say for example that you are not a vegetarian. And, let's say you have a high profile job. And, let's say that the PETA folks hear about it and ask for you to step down. How would you feel then? Who's rights wins? Are you all of a sudden entitled to your own opinion? Or, are you just "wrong" as you accuse Brendan of being?

Edited 2014-04-05 12:03 UTC

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Yet another reason why
by Thom_Holwerda on Sat 5th Apr 2014 13:27 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Yet another reason why"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

Marriage is *BY DEFINITION* a union between a man and a woman.


Where did you find this definition? In the bible? Because if so, why is the bible any more of an authority than The Lord Of The Rings, or Harry Potter?

Interestingly enough, the Dutch definition of marriage states nothing about the sex of the two individuals. Is our definition - which has a 90%+ approval rating here - somehow wrong because you say so?

The leftists want to redefine it.


Interesting. In The Netherlands, it was the right-wing that stood on the barricades for same-sex marriage just as much as the left. Because, unlike in your country, right-wing and religion are separate. In fact, the two largest Christian parties in The Netherlands are centre and left.

See how that works?

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: Yet another reason why
by jgfenix on Sat 5th Apr 2014 14:34 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Yet another reason why"
jgfenix Member since:
2006-05-25

He is right. In Latin marriage is matrimonium from mater (mother)+monium (quality of). Its meaning is the right of a woman to be a mother within the law after leaving his father's home.
The marriage is an institution to protect the descendance in all cultures. In ancient times this was more important than nowadays because the world and society changed (savage beast are not a danger anymore for the majority) but that's the reality of marriage. It was important for the survival of a society. For example, in Socrates' times they legalised polygamy to increase the number of citizens. Having children was a social oblgation and marriage a mean to protect them.
Denying that is ignorant.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Yet another reason why
by backdoc on Sat 5th Apr 2014 15:03 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Yet another reason why"
backdoc Member since:
2006-01-14

All I know is that this is a hot bed divisive issue that you should not be allowed to have an opinion on because of your position as an OSnews contributor and editor.

Your opinion is different from mine. Your opinion offends me. And, I think your advertisers are suffering because of your divisiveness and unwillingness to be more open minded toward how I feel.

Because you have a high profile position, you are not allowed to *think* for yourself, much less act on what you think. Please refrain from any future opinions in your private or professional life. If you fail to do so, as I stated before, I will once again call for you to resign from OSnews. Please do not tell us your opinion on anything. You're not entitled.

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: Yet another reason why
by Thom_Holwerda on Sat 5th Apr 2014 15:28 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Yet another reason why"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

All I know is that this is a hot bed divisive issue


Maybe in the US, but not here.

Your opinion is different from mine. Your opinion offends me. And, I think your advertisers are suffering because of your divisiveness and unwillingness to be more open minded toward how I feel.

Because you have a high profile position, you are not allowed to *think* for yourself, much less act on what you think. Please refrain from any future opinions in your private or professional life. If you fail to do so, as I stated before, I will once again call for you to resign from OSnews. Please do not tell us your opinion on anything. You're not entitled.


As we have tried to explain to you time and time again - nobody is stopping him from voicing his opinion. However - and this is why you are a massive hypocrite - for some reason, YOU are the one condemning Mozilla's leadership, employees, and customers for voicing THEIR opinion, and voting with their feet.

Freedom of speech has worked exactly as intended here, but clearly, bigots such as yourself do not like the outcome. You look around you, and you realise that your bigotry towards LGBT people, whom you clearly feel should have less rights than you, is slowly but surely becoming a thing of the past. A relic, like that old racist aunt longing for the days when, according to her, blacks knew their place.

And this - this frightens you. You are so insecure, so frightened, so threatened, that you will actively seek to oppress those that have done you no harm.

I - and Mozilla, its employees, and its customers with me - avoid bigots like they avoid any racist or sexist, because we are secure in who we are, and because we have long ago accepted - or never even thought otherwise to begin with - that discrimination based on sexual orientation is no different than discrimination based on race or religion.

And you will have to accept this changing world, whether you like it or not - lest YOU become the crazy old uncle, talking about how "the gays" used to know their place.

Reply Score: 1

hipparchus2000 Member since:
2014-04-05

You've got it totally wrong.
This is not free speech working as intended.

I will not touch Mozilla products again until a person who believes in democracy and free speech is again at the helm.

The current CEO should have backed Eich's right to hold his own views.

Personally, I have no problem with gay marriage, but I've got big fucking problems with thought police, and using the kind of "leverage" that has been used here.

You should be trusting in democracy. This is _not_ democracy.

Reply Score: 1

RE[7]: Yet another reason why
by Thom_Holwerda on Sat 5th Apr 2014 16:31 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Yet another reason why"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

You should be trusting in democracy. This is _not_ democracy.


The man freely spoke his mind. Mozilla's employees spoke their minds. Mozilla's customers spoke their mind.

How is this NOT democracy? Or is it only democracy when the outcome pleases YOU?

Reply Score: 1

RE[6]: Yet another reason why
by jgfenix on Sat 5th Apr 2014 16:35 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Yet another reason why"
jgfenix Member since:
2006-05-25

No, it didn't. Imagine he had talked against religion and christian groups pressured him like in this case. People would call that a witch hunt, like recently with Cosmos.

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: Yet another reason why
by backdoc on Sat 5th Apr 2014 18:06 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Yet another reason why"
backdoc Member since:
2006-01-14

Freedom of speech is outside the scope of this debate. We are talking about using freedom of speech to attack freedom of thought and freedom of opinion. That's both hypocritical and intolerant. It is also, ironic because leftists are guilty of the same thing they accuse others of being. Think about it.

Nobody is stopping you from being gay. And, if you want to live with a man, go right ahead. And, if you want to visit your gay lover in prison or in the hospital, I'm all for that. But, your gay union is not marriage. Marriage is a word reserved for heterosexual couples. Don't try to redefine or in any other way diminish my view of marriage just because you are different.

This whole discussion is not about you and your opinions or your freedom of speech to express your different views. It's about me protecting my point of view. I believe marriage is between a man and woman. You believe that I should not be entitled to that thought.

Tell me, why does the left always resort to name calling? Is it because leftists can't defend their position on merit? That's what it is. "Hey, don't look at me hating people!! He's the bigot!"

Why is the left so intolerant?

Okay OSnews readers, if you don't support Thom's views, don't you agree he should step down and silently go away?

Reply Score: 1

RE[7]: Yet another reason why
by Thom_Holwerda on Sat 5th Apr 2014 18:38 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Yet another reason why"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

Marriage is a word reserved for heterosexual couples. Don't try to redefine


Words get redefined all the time. "Gay" used to mean "happy". Now it means something else - and you use it in the new meaning as well. Don't you see the hypocrisy here?

or in any other way diminish my view of marriage just because you are different.


Ah, the core of the matter - finally. So, you admit that your marriage will lose value just because the free world is moving towards allowing same-sex marriage? I'm sorry to say dude, but if your marriage is that shallow, I think you might have to consider counseling.

Why is the left so intolerant?


This is not a left vs. right issue. As I have explained to you - in The Netherlands, both the left AND the right support same-sex marriage. That's because this is not a political or religious issue - it's a civil rights issue.

I know you cannot see that, because you clearly do not see LGBT people as civilians. They are less to you - you do not want them to have the same rights as you do. That is your prerogative - but so are its consequences. And in a world that is fast moving towards what us Dutch started more than a decade ago, your bigoted, discriminating views will soon be on the same level as the old crazy aunt who still fondly remembers the days when, according to her, blacks knew their place.

If you tell a large group of people that you regard them as lesser humans, you shouldn't cry if that has its consequences.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Yet another reason why
by LinBox on Sat 5th Apr 2014 18:26 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Yet another reason why"
LinBox Member since:
2014-04-04

That's a red herring. Marriage is *BY DEFINITION* a union between a man and a woman. The leftists want to redefine it. Kinda like by definition, water is H2O. You can't add any elements to; or take them away and still have water. It is what it is.


And the freedoms and liberties you yourself enjoy give you the right to pursue happiness in a way you see fit. I don't dictate my views on you and what I perceive as happiness, so what exactly gives anyone the right to enjoy freedoms that fit the mold of excepted society and forbids others?

The old fashion mold is discrimination, plain and simple!

So, if gays want the same benefits as legitimate married couples, then they need to address it a different way. Don't bend the definition of what I value just so you can get government and private services that exist for traditional marriage.



let's also put women back at home in slippers and gift them from our man parts with pot bellies. No, this is called evolving as the system has done for centuries. Just because you have a view (which is fine) does not give you (and the collective) a right to push your views to the point of dictating the happiness of others. This is wrong.

No. He wasn't wrong. It's his opinion (and coincidentally, mine too). And, he has the right to his opinion. And, the fact that his opinion is different from yours doesn't mean it is wrong. Unless your job is directly dependent upon the opinion at hand, it shouldn't matter. Where's the tolerance from the left that we always hear about? Are leftists only tolerant when you agree with them? What about his right to work???

Let's say for example that you are not a vegetarian. And, let's say you have a high profile job. And, let's say that the PETA folks hear about it and ask for you to step down. How would you feel then? Who's rights wins? Are you all of a sudden entitled to your own opinion? Or, are you just "wrong" as you accuse Brendan of being?


It was wrong, sorry.

If someone imposed on my right to have a healthy diet then they are indeed wrong. It's this little thing called freedom. Freedom is the right to pursue happiness and live as you please while practicing common sense and obeying the laws.

I am sorry, but you are not a free person whom believes in freedom. To be free means you may understand that people may do things you do not agree with, but you realize that it is that person practicing the freedoms they enjoy and tht is their life.

If you believe something that is fine. You have a right to marry the PERSON that makes you happy. Don't pump money into the system to make it so others cannot marry the PERSON that makes them happy. All you are doing then is dictating the lives of other people and preaching about your own freedoms in the process.

Reply Score: 1

MyNameIsNotImportant
Member since:
2013-01-02

To me wether or not the CEO of Mozilla is a homophobe or not doesn't really matter. For every action there is a reaction and he basically stepped down because his past actions pissed off too many people that he was supposed to work with .

What I'm interested in is the general discussion here and elsewhere about gay rights (LGBT is such a clunky term...). The argument that having racist attitudes is morally equal to having homophobic attitudes is often countered with "oh, so you're saying just because I'm not agreeing with the gay lifestyle and just because I want to protect marriage from "the gays", I'm racist now! Yeah, right!". If this is your argument you either don't want to understand the point, or you're confused. The argument isn't that you're a racist, the argument is that the discrimination that homosexual people suffer from is analog to the way people of different color suffer from racism. If any CEO candidate donated to the KKK(which I'm using for effect), there clearly wouldn't be any discussion here as to why he shouldn't be the boss of a diverse group like Mozilla. What Eich did, is certainly not as bad as donating to the KKK, but it's a direct affront to homosexuals(and their friends) in the same way supporting the KKK is a direct affront to blacks(and their friends).
Then there's also the argument that you can't compare homophobia with racism, because you can't chose your color while you supposedly can change your sexual behaviour. This is wrong on so many levels, I don't even know where to begin. Many homosexuals don't even know what's up with them until their mid-twenties, sometimes it's even way later. That's because contrary to popular belief it's not all about what gives you sexual arousal, it's all about who you fall in love with. Heterosexuals can't chose which woman or man they fall in love with. It's the same with homosexuals. Many homosexuals aren't completely sure of their homosexuality before the first time that they infact do in love with someone of the same gender. And falling in love does have nothing to do with having sex. A homosexual can be in a heterosexual marriage, but the sex and everything else in the partnership will not be based on love, of course this is a depressing and deceptive situation (that can lead to betrayel, suicide and so forth). The difference between race and homosexuality is really only, that race can be seen in the mirror and homosexuality is only realised through a process of self-discovery. It's not possible to turn a heterosexual into a homosexual and it's not possible to do it vice versa. Through behaviour you can imitate heterosexuality in everything except love. But love is the whole point of a relationship, and supposedly the reason why people want to marry. So the issue basically boils down to this: Homosexuals want to be able to express their love and show their love openly by having the ability to get married, just like heterosexuals always did. Personally I doubt the whole state/church institutionalized marriage paradigm is of benefit to heterosexuals or homosexuals, but if one group of people consisting of people that didn't chose to be in that group (while I can understand that heterosexuals are generally glad that they aren't homosexuals, they are only "lucky", many/(most?/all?) homosexuals would choose to be heterosexual if that was an available option, the process of self-discovery is often inducing so much misery that homosexuals think about killing themselves and some will even do it, especially when they have to live in a repressive society) has a right for self-expression in one way, then the other group (also consisting of members who don't have the ability to choose which gender they fall in love with (falling in love with people of both genders, bisexuality, is also not a choice)) obviously shouldn't be denied the right the first group claims for itsself only because the first group is way stronger in numbers and therefore dominant.
There is also a lot of confusion created by the term "sexual orientation". When people discover that their sexuality isn't the norm, you can say they go through a phase of orientation, where they have to confront themselves with the fact that they are different and where they have to decide how to react to that fact. But the term suggests that one can use his own will to influence the "sexual orientation". It really should be called "sexual identity" or something else that reflects the fact that you ARE your sexuality in the same way people ARE black or ARE white.
Now I've to reveal myself to you. I'm gay. I might also be bisexual, but I'm confused about this myself. From when I was a child until I was 24 I was always sure about being heterosexual. Ever since I hit puberty I got boners from boobs and girl parts on TV and I also adored girls in reallife and my masturbating fantasies always centered around girls. I also had a porn addiction involving no gay porn (which means only straight porn) ever since I hit puberty. But I never fell in love with a girl the same way I fell in love with a guy at age 24. I didn't even know that such deep love (and I didn't even have a sexual relationship with that guy by the way!) was possible before that. I wanted to kill myself, because I hated the fact that my whole life was upside down from that moment. But I couldn't pull a switch in my head to turn of the love I experienced. Just like a black man can bleach his skin, but in reality he'd just be a black man with bleached skin. To this day my masturbatory fantasies center around women for the simple fact that this is a very old habit, which dies very slowly. But I can't imagine to have a relationship with a girl and to fall in love with a girl. I don't say it's impossible, which is why I think that I might be bisexual, but I'm not sure. Now I could deceive a girl and start a relationship, have sex with her, have children with her, but to base anything on deception is wrong in my opinion. The next time I fall in love with a man I might have a relationship with him and we might want to show our love to the world the same way that heterosexual couples can, by marrying. I'm not sure that I'd ever want to do that, because I think that marriage is a dangerous and stupid institution even for heterosexual couples. Divorce rates are high and the legal implications for the life after divorce are often very bad for one party. But as long as one group has the ability to make a mistake the other group should have the same right to make that mistake.
The argument that gays can have "civil unions" with basically the same rights as marriage is also bogus, because it's a form of segregation. Blacks weren't denied to use the bus under segregation, but they weren't allowed to sit infront. I also don't like "civil unions" for the practical reason, that under this system I couldn't propose to my lover with the words "do you want to marry me", I would have to use the idiotic "do you want to civil union me?" sentence instead (jokingly).
I don't believe that most of the people that argue against "gay marriage" hate gays or that they are bad people by the way. I think you're underestimating the seriousness of the situation. I think you have seen gay parades and the "gay pride" label and you therefore believe that gays can't have it that bad and that they should stop being in everybodies face. I have personally never been to a parade and I never wore a gay/LGBT label/sign anywhere on my clothes and I never displayed my "sexual identity" in any "in your face" way. In part because I'm a coward, and in part because I don't want to make a big issue out of something that shouldn't be a big issue in the year 2014, I just want to live my life and I've better things to do (dealing with problems etc.) just like every human. Did I feel discriminated against in my life? Yes. Do I feel the group of people called homosexuals which I seem to belong to is dealt a difficult and very challenging (which can break you down to the point where you will end your life prematurely) card in life? Yes

Reply Score: 2

MyNameIsNotImportant Member since:
2013-01-02

(continued because of character limitation... it's not my character that is limited in this case, but the number of characters this blog allows you to put in a comment.) ^^

. Why? For example because the words "faggot" and "gay" are still used very frequently to put people down. And because ignorance about sexuality (I mean in general! there are still people that are ashamed about masturbation, and it's 2014! hilarious... sad...) is still wide spread. I've still not outed myself except to very few friends. I've not outed myself to my family. My dad told me as a 5 year old I should never come back home, if I turn out to be a "homo". I told him that I didn't even know what that was, because I really didn't at that age. Discrimination(in general! let's not pretend that racism is a non-issue, sometimes blacks dicriminate whites, we're all individuals, but most of us haven't truly learned that, I'm not even sure if I've successfully dropped my collectivist/group mentally myself) in society is widespread and happening at every layer. It's not only "gays" that have to learn to live with that but all minorities. Even majorities get discriminated from time to time. The cliche that the "heterosexual white man" has brought nothing but problems and wars to the world, and that "heterosexual white males" should therefore gradually be removed from all positions of power is just stupid. There are gay assholes, there are black assholes, there are white assholes, there are straight assholes, there are mentally challenged assholes, there are highly intelligent assholes, you get the picture.
In my opinion people should grow up and realize that a healthy society is all about respect for each other. If you have respect for your fellow beings, you're going to be nice to them. Be nice. Help people. Show respect. As "gay" :-) as this might sound, I really think this (being nice and respectful to every individual) is the forest that isn't seen for of the trees(differences).
I'm glad that in most western societies gays and blacks don't have to live in fear for their lifes all day, that's nice progress from earlier ages. I'm also glad that I don't have to live in Russia or African countries where being gay is a licence for being beat up or killed or discriminated in various ways.
I'd much rather deal with the remaining ignorance in western societies than being trapped in a completely ignorant and barbaric (towards gay people) society.

Reply Score: 2

acobar Member since:
2005-11-15

In my opinion people should grow up and realize that a healthy society is all about respect for each other.


This and a dose of forgiveness or, better yet, indulgence and compassion (because there is nothing wrong on be different of the majority or, at least, should not be).

Unluckily for you, and to many others that find themselves wishing things contrary to what is usually tagged as acceptable on society, the reality strikes really hard as most of us have a long list of prejudgment about many things hidden in our "soul" that will spring out when touched and we have no other option but deal with it.

That is why I usually ask for public debates about things, because this way we can move from your particular situation to the general one and try to show others how badly some decisions may impact others, the unnecessary suffering it brings, and my bet is that most will agree as pain is a kind of feeling almost everyone can understand. This way we may shift the tone of the debate from what is acceptable to what is the impact on someone life, what is easier to deal with, it is a step to handle a practical problem and, hopefully, with time, the tensions will wear off.

I really don't see a better way to handle these situations as we have groups of people with very different views of about everything and never saw a case where purely escalating the tensions resulted on gain to society. Bridges should be keep on place.

I know it is going to be a cliché, but I had a co-worker that experienced the same kind of trouble you have with your father. On his case, it didn't end well as his father stopped to talk and refused to welcome him home. I heard different outcomes from similar cases but what I found fantastic on his case was his observation about the situation. He said, more less: "My dad was always a very nice, educated, participant and listener guy. He played with me when I was young, helped on my student duties and took care of my needs. His is also a very religious guy, that seriously think we are not going to meet on paradise, he can not understand my option. Should I stop loving him because we disagree about sexual orientation and its consequences? No way, he is, overall, a better guy than 99.99% of all human beings, I will love him to the day I die and hope that, someday, he will forgive me as much as I forgive him for all the pain we are causing to each other".

I know it is hypocrisy but, were I you and had you been lucky to have a nice dad like this guy (and myself) have, I would not talk about sexual orientation. Your father will know anyway, I think, but you both will, hopefully, have the opportunity to enjoy and share the love you have to each other.

Wish you, and all imperfect but overall good humans, a life full of happiness.

Reply Score: 2

jal_ Member since:
2006-11-02

+1 Thanks for sharing.

Reply Score: 2

hipparchus2000
Member since:
2014-04-05

Personally I am not against gay people being able to marry, however I can't say I understand their desire to do this. I haven't seen anyone really make a lucid case for it, but I have no personal objections to making this legal.

I do however have a Big fucking problem with mind police being intolerant of other people's views.

The way this guy has been torn up is just plain wrong.
We have democracy to collectively decide issues. We do not need trial by media.

You'd have to be pretty dumb and unsophisticated to not be able to separate the views of the CEO as a man from the views of the organisation.

Exerting pressure through leverage groups and so on is just plain wrong. Use democracy - that is what it's for. Mozilla's new CEO should have stood behind democracy and the right of the individual to hold a view (free speech - remember the constitution). As a result, I now will not touch Mozilla products again until the current CEO is gone, and someone who beleives in freedom, democracy and free speech is back at the helm.

Reply Score: 1

Insider view
by vivainio on Sat 5th Apr 2014 17:21 UTC
vivainio
Member since:
2008-12-26

Here's a balanced insider view by David Flanagan (author if the Rhino book, among other things):

https://medium.com/p/7645a4bf8a2

Reply Score: 2

RE: Insider view
by acobar on Sat 5th Apr 2014 18:12 UTC in reply to "Insider view"
acobar Member since:
2005-11-15

Many thanks, great link.

Once more, a proof that intolerance, no matter from which side it comes, make us all losers in the end.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Insider view
by Vanders on Sun 6th Apr 2014 13:52 UTC in reply to "Insider view"
Vanders Member since:
2005-07-06

That's a great article, and highlights the problem with internet witchhunts very nicely.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Insider view
by TM99 on Sun 6th Apr 2014 14:25 UTC in reply to "Insider view"
TM99 Member since:
2012-08-26

Well that just about covers it all doesn't it?

In the long run, no one except a few individuals and the media will have benefited from this brouhaha.

Eich, a founder of Mozilla itself, is now gone. And I truly wonder how well things will go after this sordid affair is finally put behind them.

Boundaries were violated and trust was broken. Those are hard truths to overcome as they move forward.

Reply Score: 2

Comment by hipparchus2000
by hipparchus2000 on Sat 5th Apr 2014 20:03 UTC
hipparchus2000
Member since:
2014-04-05

Thom, is it OK in the Netherlands to vilify someone if you don't agree with them?
If that person is a racist or a bigot actively trying to limit the rights of others? Yes.

Well it sure sounds like you're a pot calling the kettle black right now to me, and as I'll remind you again, I'm in favour of gay marriage.

May I point out that it is no different in the US. Making racist remarks will surely get you fired. Heck, even saying something as "I do not believe in god" will make it impossible for you to serve any meaningful public office in the US.


He wasn't in public office, he was CEO of a corporation that he had helped found.

I never called him medieval. I called HIS IDEAS medieval. THAT is freedom of speech at work. You are putting words in my mouth that I have never said - the classic sign that you are on the losing side.


You're splitting hairs, that is a classic sign you are on the losing side.


JaveScript is no worse off because its creator is a bigot. Mozilla, however, WAS worse off because of it: unhappy employees + unhappy customers = bad business.


Definition of bigot is "prejudiced person".

According to you, freedom of speech is a one-way street. Eich is allowed to actively seek to limit the rights of others, but once others stand up to it, they are overstepping their bounds? Were black people overstepping their bounds when they fought for civil rights?


In my view, you, Thom, are free to believe what you want, and are free to vote how you want.
Eich was active in setting up community rules that allowed diversity of opinion without this interfering with work.
You must realise he was actually a founder of Mozilla, not some external person who was grafted on to the organisation.

I think the way you and the other people are behaving is more at home in communist china. Where mind police purge the party of anyone not cowtowing to your collective opinion.

Reply Score: 0

RE: Comment by hipparchus2000
by LinBox on Sat 5th Apr 2014 20:47 UTC in reply to "Comment by hipparchus2000"
LinBox Member since:
2014-04-04

I think the way you and the other people are behaving is more at home in communist china. Where mind police purge the party of anyone not cowtowing to your collective opinion.


I know this may (?) be directed at me and that is fine.

I have had this freedom argument on many many different forums on the internet. The common result is I am always called a communist. Actually really funny it made it into this conversation even if it was not directed at me.

There are two sides to this coin. It is not the left vs. right, it is not the gays vs. anyone else. It is about freedom! And either you believe in it or you don't. Thom and I are basically saying the same thing, He believes in freedom and it shows in his posts. The people battling simply believe in a one sided freedom that benefits themselves and no one else. That right there is not true freedom. The funny thing is many people (and I mean most) do not practice and or understand freedom.

Having an opinion is not a crime and it does not go against the grain of freedom. Pulling out weapons (money,guns,baseball bats etc...) to stop someone else from exercising their right to pursue happiness and experience true freedom is wrong, any way you try to plaster fancy words (communist) to make others look bad.

Reply Score: 2

hipparchus2000 Member since:
2014-04-05

Linbox, I think you're being paranoid. AFAIK I haven't read anything that you've written.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Comment by hipparchus2000
by LinBox on Sat 5th Apr 2014 20:53 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by hipparchus2000"
LinBox Member since:
2014-04-04

Linbox, I think you're being paranoid. AFAIK I haven't read anything that you've written.


Well that's fine.

I have posted things that would fit into what Thom might have said. I love talking freedom so I felt the need to interject.

Glad you were not talking to me, but I responded and glad I did.

Reply Score: 1

hipparchus2000 Member since:
2014-04-05

OK linbox, I read your last post.
There are two sides to this coin. It is not the left vs. right, it is not the gays vs. anyone else. It is about freedom! And either you believe in it or you don't. Thom and I are basically saying the same thing, He believes in freedom and it shows in his posts. The people battling simply believe in a one sided freedom that benefits themselves and no one else. That right there is not true freedom. The funny thing is many people (and I mean most) do not practice and or understand freedom.

You have a strange idea of freedom then. The guy concerned was not daubing the walls of the office with anti-gay messages, was not burning gay people, or coloured people, or non-christians. In fact as a founder of Mozilla, had set up community rules allowing people of different opinions to work together.
All he did was support a bill against gay marriage in his private life. He did not bring that to work.

Having an opinion is not a crime and it does not go against the grain of freedom.
It is if you're the CEO of Mozilla it seems.

Pulling out weapons (money,guns,baseball bats etc...) to stop someone else from exercising their right to pursue happiness and experience true freedom is wrong, any way you try to plaster fancy words (communist) to make others look bad.

Who pulled out weapons to stop someone exercising their rights to pursue happiness etc? You've invented a strawman argument here.

Myself I support gay marriage.
It is absolutely not "plastering fancy words" to describe the media frenzy against the CEO of Mozilla as just like the kind of totalitarianism practised by the communist party in china.
If you harangue a man for his views, whatever they may be, then this is bad.

If it's okay for the media to do this against the CEO of Mozilla in the USA, then it's okay for people in a central african country to ostracise a gay person (perhaps starving due to lack of business).

Personally, I'd rather a world where people could hold diverse opinions -no matter what they are - without being hounded for them.

The press needs to stop acting as judge, jury and executioner.

Reply Score: 0

RE[5]: Comment by hipparchus2000
by LinBox on Sat 5th Apr 2014 22:15 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Comment by hipparchus2000"
LinBox Member since:
2014-04-04

You have a strange idea of freedom then. The guy concerned was not daubing the walls of the office with anti-gay messages, was not burning gay people, or coloured people, or non-christians. In fact as a founder of Mozilla, had set up community rules allowing people of different opinions to work together.
All he did was support a bill against gay marriage in his private life. He did not bring that to work.


I don't have a "strange idea of freedom".

How can you possibly work for a company that strives and bases it principal on freedom and not expect to have a backlash when people find out that you went against the principles your very company represents?

It is if you're the CEO of Mozilla it seems.


No, it is when you go against the beliefs and principals of the company you represent.

Who pulled out weapons to stop someone exercising their rights to pursue happiness etc? You've invented a strawman argument here.


When he pulled out his wallet to infringe on the freedoms of others, he used his wallet as a weapon. As many people whom have money do every day in this country to infringe on you and me in the form of paying special interest money. I guess is ok though because we allow it to happen.

Myself I support gay marriage.
It is absolutely not "plastering fancy words" to describe the media frenzy against the CEO of Mozilla as just like the kind of totalitarianism practised by the communist party in china.
If you harangue a man for his views, whatever they may be, then this is bad.


As I said, his views are fine, I even have mine. But I would never use any leverage I may have (money,gun baseball bat etc....) to force my viewpoint on other. That is when it becomes a problem. Have an opinion, tell your friends how you feel but don't infringe on the rights of others.

If it's okay for the media to do this against the CEO of Mozilla in the USA, then it's okay for people in a central african country to ostracise a gay person (perhaps starving due to lack of business).


Hey, there is many things wrong in this world and the media is nowhere near being a saint. But as I have said, he did more then he needed to with his opinion. That is the problem here not the fact he has an opinion.

Personally, I'd rather a world where people could hold diverse opinions -no matter what they are - without being hounded for them.

The press needs to stop acting as judge, jury and executioner.


And we need to stop dictating the lives of others. As I said, have your opinion. Don't use that opinion as a weapon backed by your wallet.

Reply Score: 1

dayalsoap Member since:
2010-05-19

Actually, people were just using their freedom and their free-market principles to boycott the company.

The company recognized that 1) they'll lose a TON of talent over this and 2) they'll lose a TON of customers over this, so they got rid of the guy.

He wasn't jailed and none of his rights were taken away. This is just a simple example of how free-market principles can win out and push a social agenda.

Reply Score: 2

Overblown
by BallmerKnowsBest on Sat 5th Apr 2014 20:16 UTC
BallmerKnowsBest
Member since:
2008-06-02

This whole situation seems ridiculously overblown on both sides. On the one hand, I have yet to see anyone give even a single example of a direct negative result of Eich remaining CTO - or what, exactly, are the direct positive results of having him gone? It seems to be, at best, a symbolic victory for those in support of same-sex marriage - while helping fuel the collective martyr-complex of people who oppose it. I have absolutely no doubt there are conservative ideologues rubbing their hands in glee over this situation as we speak & soliciting pitches for Expelled 2: Gay Marriage Boogaloo.

It also doesn't help that so many on the "throw the bum out" side are so eager to smear anyone who doesn't share their position 100%, by immediately labeling them as "anti-gay" (*coughcough*jared_wilkes*coughcough*). As strawman arguments and cheap, offensively-lazy debate tactics go, that's up there with Godwin'ing yourself. Speaking of which, comparing a donation to prop 8 to support for apartheid or opposition to interracial marriage?!?!? (Perspective? Durr, what's that?) While it is clearly unjust for, say, someone's romantic partner to be excluded from insurance coverage solely because both people share the same reproductive organs, that's not even REMOTELY in the same league as the injustices committed under/justified by systems like apartheid, the Jim Crow laws, etc. Go try that comparison on someone who was literally jailed under apartheid because of who they associated with, or interracial couples who lived in genuine fear of being lynched (try not to let it hurt you feelings too much when they respond by laughing in your face).

THAT said, most of the people crying "thought police" over the opposition to Eich are missing one critical, glaring detail: in the US, opposition to same-sex marriage is almost exclusively limited to (and therefore solely-motivated by) fundamentalist Christianity. As such, the "defenders of marriage" usually don't see that position as being just one of many, equally-valid positions - instead, most are utterly convinced that theirs is the one & only objectively-correct position to hold, which they may not question (for fear of committing blasphemy) and must advocate for, or else risk imperiling their eternal souls. Practically by definition, these are NOT people who should be treated like rational adults who base their beliefs on facts and evidence.

On top of that, those beliefs are usually held within a framework that treats unquestioning credulity & blind adherence to authority as virtues (going so far as to actually tout the "ability" to willfully ignore facts & evidence if they conflict with dogma) - while treating intellectual rigour & honesty as pitfalls to be avoided. All while having no qualms about trying to impose those beliefs on others, or codify them into law, *if* they think they have even the slightest chance of getting away with it. At the very least, if someone in a position of power over others expresses those beliefs, then their actions deserve additional scrutiny. That's not prejudice against religious believers - I'd say the same thing about "anti-vaxxers," Moon landing hoax-believers, paranoid schizophrenics who believe that aluminum headware prevents the NSA from reading their brainwaves, etc. People who hold loony, irrational beliefs generally don't limit themselves to just ONE loony, irrational belief. Or as a wise man once said:

"Anyone who can worship a trinity and insist that his religion is a monotheism can believe anything... just give him enough time to rationalize it."

Reply Score: 2

RE: Overblown
by acobar on Sat 5th Apr 2014 21:51 UTC in reply to "Overblown"
acobar Member since:
2005-11-15

The funny thing is that too many things you said made sense. ;)

Anyway, don't be shy, you may extend your reflections to most of the religions. I am not an atheist (and I am not saying you are), I call myself agnostic but, overall, I do not paint religiousness as an intrinsic bad thing and wounder what would be our incredible little blue orb if religions never existed. I think that sometimes it keeps people from going to others throat, but sometimes it does the opposite. I have no idea of the overall net outcome, it it tilts to more things I think are good or if it is the other way around.

About what you said, well, actually, I want to take it back, it would be funny if it was not so tragic. ;)

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Overblown
by BallmerKnowsBest on Sun 6th Apr 2014 16:36 UTC in reply to "RE: Overblown"
BallmerKnowsBest Member since:
2008-06-02

I am not an atheist (and I am not saying you are), I call myself agnostic


I've always avoided the agnostic label myself, mainly because most of the self-described agnostics I've known were people who stopped practicing a religion, but were too intellectually wishy-washy to abandon religious belief entirely & saw agnosticism as neutral position/a way to hedge their bets (or because they thought "agnostic" would be less-threatening to their ultra-religious parents than "atheist," etc).

But in terms of what the two words literally mean (as opposed to how they're commonly mis-used), there isn't much practical difference. I'd argue that all true atheists are also agnostic (by "true" I mean those who understand the difference between an active belief that something *doen't* exist & the rejection of claims made with evidence); and probably vice-versa.

but, overall, I do not paint religiousness as an intrinsic bad thing and wounder what would be our incredible little blue orb if religions never existed.


Well, there are two quotes that immediately come to mind:

"Religion is what keeps the poor from murdering the rich." -Napoleon


"Throughout history, religion can be viewed as having been a necessary evil. But it's been much more evil than necessary."
-Arthur C. Clarke


That said, the problems I referred to are largely specific to religious fundamentalism & not religions in general. There are religious believers who can keep that from interfering with their secular life - E.g. scientists like Ken Miller. But by and large, that's NOT the case with fundies, who consider it their duty to apply their religious beliefs to every area of their life.

Reply Score: 3

Comment by hipparchus2000
by hipparchus2000 on Sat 5th Apr 2014 22:36 UTC
hipparchus2000
Member since:
2014-04-05

No, it is when you go against the beliefs and principals of the company you represent.

Eich made the contribution in like 2001, became CEO in 2014.

When he pulled out his wallet to infringe on the freedoms of others, he used his wallet as a weapon. As many people whom have money do every day in this country to infringe on you and me in the form of paying special interest money. I guess is ok though because we allow it to happen.

Contribution to a political party is not the same as shooting someone, or burning them or whatever. I'm sorry, but conflating the two is not the same.

As I said, his views are fine, I even have mine. But I would never use any leverage I may have (money,gun baseball bat etc....) to force my viewpoint on other. That is when it becomes a problem. Have an opinion, tell your friends how you feel but don't infringe on the rights of others.


This is a strawman again - he has not done this. In fact he did the most he could over his decades at Mozilla to allow a diversity of opinions to work together. What you've done here is shot first, asked questions later.

And we need to stop dictating the lives of others. As I said, have your opinion. Don't use that opinion as a weapon backed by your wallet.


He gave $1000 to a political party, all above board, legal, not ordered a hit by the mob. Beware, undermine the democratic system for your ends, and others will undermine it for theirs.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Comment by hipparchus2000
by LinBox on Sat 5th Apr 2014 22:52 UTC in reply to "Comment by hipparchus2000"
LinBox Member since:
2014-04-04

Eich made the contribution in like 2001, became CEO in 2014.


And this means??? We live in an open world. Anything you do or say in any kind of public fashion will be found. He suffered for something he may have done years ago. All I can say is karma is a b***h!

Contribution to a political party is not the same as shooting someone, or burning them or whatever. I'm sorry, but conflating the two is not the same.


You are missing the point. I never said he shot anyone. He infringed on rights. If you do that investing in a political party and someone finds out now or later, make sure you do it in a way that is very important to you as he found out it could cost you.

This is a strawman again - he has not done this. In fact he did the most he could over his decades at Mozilla to allow a diversity of opinions to work together. What you've done here is shot first, asked questions later.


So I get to do something potentially bad and come back later and agree to a complete change in thought and I in turn am to expect everyone in the world to forgive me for what I done in the past?

There are people in prisons that made one mistake and are paying for it for the rest of their lives. We need to keep this in mind when we make choices.

I didn't make the rules for the collective consciousness and it is indeed flawed. It is indeed the way things are though until people change.

He gave $1000 to a political party, all above board, legal, not ordered a hit by the mob. Beware, undermine the democratic system for your ends, and others will undermine it for theirs.


He made a bad choice that later came back to haunt him and in a round about way cost him a part of his life. That is life. That is what happens in life. Make careful choices and things like this won't happen.

Now, on a personal note I believe what happened was bad and I feel a bit bad about it. But he did make a choice and he's living with a choice he made. I have had things come back and bite me that happened 25 years ago, what makes this so special that he shouldn't have the same type of life experiences that we all do? Does he deserve some sort of special treatment or something?

Edited 2014-04-05 22:56 UTC

Reply Score: 1

hipparchus2000 Member since:
2014-04-05

Free speech and consequences.
If a person said "I am gay" in most of Africa, they will be killed.
They are free to say "I am gay", but there will be the consequence of being killed.

I believe in a society where people can voice their opinions whatever these may be, without such consequences.
If they pick up a gun and shoot someone, or destroy property, then this impinges on the freedoms of others, and they will be duly processed and lose their freedom.

Trial by media and hounding people out of Business positions grates on me.
The law is there to protect freedoms. The media should inform, not act as judge, jury and executioner.

Edited 2014-04-05 23:26 UTC

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Comment by hipparchus2000
by LinBox on Sun 6th Apr 2014 00:07 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by hipparchus2000"
LinBox Member since:
2014-04-04

Free speech and consequences.
If a person said "I am gay" in most of Africa, they will be killed.
They are free to say "I am gay", but there will be the consequence of being killed.

I believe in a society where people can voice their opinions whatever these may be, without such consequences.
If they pick up a gun and shoot someone, or destroy property, then this impinges on the freedoms of others, and they will be duly processed and lose their freedom.

Trial by media and hounding people out of Business positions grates on me.
The law is there to protect freedoms. The media should inform, not act as judge, jury and executioner.


I agree with you. The media around the world has become to involved in the lives of people. Many people (many whom I know) are a buch of clueless robots running around spouting everything the media says. It is sad we are not a world based on opinions and excepted for the opinions we have. We are not free to be free thinkers and to think outside the box without public ridicule of some sort.

I also dream of a world where everyone can pursue anything that makes them happy. I dream of a world where money is not the maker of rules and regulations. I dream of a world where we all care about one another as brothers and sisters and we can all live in harmony. I dream of a world of peace and tolerance.

I hope in my life I can see at least a slight progress in the direction of these dreams, I do fear not though however. We just seem to sinking deeper and deeper in shi*t.

Edited 2014-04-06 00:09 UTC

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: Comment by hipparchus2000
by acobar on Sun 6th Apr 2014 01:41 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by hipparchus2000"
acobar Member since:
2005-11-15

We just seem to sinking deeper and deeper in shi*t.


Call me optimistic, but I feel it is the opposite, even if we are progressing very slowly, or may experience setbacks eventually, and at different paces on each place of our little big world, it is, at least, possible to people express their dissonance instead of just suffer quietly or get murdered.

We have, on many places, guarantees about freedom and social rights. It is far from perfect, but better than what we had in the past.

I, though, wish that we could learn more from the history instead of just keep repeating it at a different level. Even the ones that were oppressed, when they have the chance, act as oppressors using all forms of excuses to justify it or, perhaps, to assure themselves that they are different. Sad, but true.

Edited 2014-04-06 01:43 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE: Comment by hipparchus2000
by jared_wilkes on Sun 6th Apr 2014 07:46 UTC in reply to "Comment by hipparchus2000"
jared_wilkes Member since:
2011-04-25

Please, at a minimum, read a Wikipedia article are something. Your ignorance is laughable.

Reply Score: 2

TM99
Member since:
2012-08-26

I couldn't have said it better so I will simply link and quote the relevant passage:

http://www.cnn.com/2014/04/04/opinion/granderson-mozilla-same-sex-m...

The country's present attitude regarding same-sex marriage is not top secret. And neither is Eich's past. Mozilla should've had a better strategy than "let's hope nobody notices."

Yet the fact that the board caved to the pressure, instead of standing behind its choice, suggested it was completely blindsided by the uproar. This is mind-boggling considering that the controversies surrounding Chick-fil-A and Paula Deen did not happen in an alternate universe

But Mozilla is an activist organization more than a money-making corporation. The Apples and Googles of the world can lure top young talent with money and perks. Mozilla's recruiting success depends on its ability to sell its mission. Thus the effectiveness of the CEO rests heavily on his or her ability to foster a community, not just make a buck.

And generally speaking, discrimination is a community buzzkill.


Still, the company's leadership, not Eich, is to blame for this PR nightmare, They're the ones who thought what happened in 2008 stays in 2008.

Reply Score: 2

Gay Mafia
by Vinegar Joe on Sun 6th Apr 2014 08:07 UTC
Vinegar Joe
Member since:
2006-08-16

'I think there's a gay mafia, if you cross them you get whacked' - Bill Maher (not exactly a right-wing Christian)

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2598022/I-think-theres-gay-...

Reply Score: 1

pashar
Member since:
2006-07-12

Warm greetings from Soviet Russia!

It's shocking how many people believe it is good to punish others for views they disagree with.

P.S. I know the difference between government-imposed punishment and non-government. It doesn't make the picture to look any better.

Reply Score: 1

Now what I want to know ....
by jgfenix on Sun 6th Apr 2014 18:15 UTC
jgfenix
Member since:
2006-05-25

Who are the emp!oyees who made the Twitter post. Since people seem to think it's all right, I want to use my right to freedom of speech to mob them until they leave their jobs.

Reply Score: 2