When I first heard the news, I was very angry and confused. After reading the Recode[1] writeup, it made a little more sense. The key point was the interviews where he refused to back down from his opinions or apologize. Some could find that respectable (and ultimately I do), but if you take on the position of CEO you need to be prepared to eat your words. It would have been very easy for him to just apologize and have everyone go back to their business. It's sad that people are so shallow, but that's just the way it is. I'm not upset that he was fired.
That said.
I have nothing but fury for the people instigating these kinds of senseless whichhunts. The key point here is that Eich has been CTO of Mozilla for years. CTO to CEO, while a big transition, is much smaller distance in executive representation than this controversy calls for. What I suspect is somebody in the Gawkerati saw a news piece on "somebody something new CEO of Mozilla", Googled his name, and dug up one political contribution from 5 years ago to create a controversy out of thin air. This kind of behavior sickens me -- not just the media publications that stir this pot, but the individual people boiling at the seams to crucify everyone with a different opinion. In 2014, people that contribute nothing to society other than digging up controversies have the power to bring down historic figures from pushing the envelope of innovation and opening the Web to allow to allow this very kind of expression.
At the end of the day, that is the ultimate irony. The technology that Branden worked his life on gave voice to those who destroyed him. The entire point of the web is to allow this kind of radical expression, and the moment we get it we use it to tear down and villanize the people who make it run.
Absolutely disgraceful.
If you're glad Eich resigned, I really only have one question for you: What do you hope to gain out of this? Do you think this will push the envelope toward greater acceptance of homosexuality? Is the idea that if we villify ideas enough and those that express them, they will eventually go away? Or does it just, I don't know, feel good?
>Do you think this will push the envelope toward greater acceptance of homosexuality?
Well at the very least it will make life harder for bigots.
Seriously, this isn't about the fact that Eich donated to Prop 8 5 years ago, it's that he seems to still hold this position. He has had ample time to offer an apology( in a sort of "facts change" manner) and the fact that he hasn't makes the case that he still believes in oppressing homosexuals pretty strong.
Free speech is not consequence-free speech, and he's still able to say what he wants. But expecting people to ignore who he is when he's representing one of the most symbolic companies in the open source communities is unrealistic.
Why would any of us want someone with those social views representing the tech community at large (especially at a time where so many -ism's have shown themselves to be prevalent). If he just wanted to do tech, maybe he should have stayed CTO.
I completely agree with you. I think after that interview, this was the correct path. Still, I think we should give people a chance, upon taking a new position, to hold to at least a somewhat clean public record. He made that donation in five years ago. He probably had no idea at the time he would be seeking such a public position. Unlike Dan Cathy, there's no indication he would have brought up his views on his own (he would have likely to consider it a bad idea). Once enough hate had been generated, the interview was inevitable. And once it's out in the open, I mean, I agree, he should have backed down. I'm somewhat proud of him and I respect him more, but if you're a board of directors, you have responsibilities.
Overall, I think society benefits from the flexibility of forgiveness. Branden is a prodigal and historic figure -- we should at least give him the chance to continue changing the world.
> Is the idea that if we villify [homophobia] enough and those that express them, they will eventually go away?
Yes. It's been generally working with racism, sexism, classism, and a bunch of other bad -isms. The needs of oppressed groups outweigh the needs of their oppressors to express their views free of consequences.
The need of the oppressed groups for revenge after they more or less won? Really? Anyone who thinks like that has none of my support. Good luck with your fight, which could have been ours.
Also, there are plenty ways of having "consequences" without outright firing the guy, when from all we know he was doing his job just fine and brought exactly zero of his views about gay marriage into it.
Who has won, and in what way? Are you suggesting gay people have "won" in some way other than a few isolated and contested areas where their relationships have, after decades of protest and activism, been acknowledged as legally equivalent to straight people's relationships?
It's not about "winning." It's about what kind of world we want to live in. Evidently enough people don't want to live in a world where a bigot is the CEO of an organization that ostensibly espouses freedom and equality.
I use the word bigot advisedly. Anything else is sugar-coating the motivations and rationale of the anti-gay-marriage crowd— there is no basis for it which does not rest on a religious argument, in theory or in practice. And you can't actively oppose deny someone else's civil rights and claim it's not personal, or whatever.
You're still extrapolating mighty much from that one donation, I find it a petty witch hunt. You live in a world where your president is a mass murdering war criminal on your behalf, in your name. You live in a world where Gitmo is a thing. So much for organizations espousing freedom and equality, so much for where your tax money goes.
Compared to that, who works for Mozilla isn't really anyone's business -- don't use their products if it means so much to you, but don't think a victory was won here for anything but delusion and self-righteous pettyness.
Im not sure anti same sex marriage is the same as homophobia. Is it the wrong opinion, yes. But I wouldnt say being against same sex marriage is sufficient to make someone a homophobe.
Yeah it would make them a racist. Because its most likely hate or disgust for the other race which is causing a person to be against interracial marriage. But for same sex marriage, there are BS religious reasons to be against it, not just hatred or disgust of gays.
The "BS" in "BS religious reasons" is the tell. There are huge swaths of the Bible the religious set is happy to set aside when it's convenient. Go read Leviticus for a start.
It says more about Christians than it does about gay people or even the Bible that they're fixated on homosexuality.
The conservative talking point against gay marriage is that it will somehow undermine "traditional" marriage and the culture at large. It comes from a standpoint of quite literally being afraid of homosexuals and homosexuality.
I think it's fair to assume that Brenden Eich's reasoning shares some of those features. (Or he donated that money cynically for some other reason. I suppose that's a option.)
Either way: He gave money to prevent an entire class of Californians from enjoying their rights. Which is a pretty shitty thing to do.
VisualR: what would you suggest people do instead of nonviolent protest like boycotting and public declamation? Tweet about it? Change our profile pictures? This is a serious cultural issue. We are not talking about Baskin Robbins eliminating a flavor. A major force on the Internet was going to be led by a man who clings to the belief that gay people should not have the same civil rights as straight people. That this belief is unacceptable to many should be made clear by them in the most direct and visible way possible.
It helps by removing a bigot from a position of great power, showing others that bigotry will not be quietly tolerated, even (perhaps especially) in men and women of great talent and wealth.
Maybe. Or it could just anger the other side to push back harder. Education and time are the forces that will cause an LGBT victory, not these boycott games.
If he was against it because of some non-homophobic reason wouldn't he probably have shouted that from the rooftops?
Let's say he was against it because it expanded the institution of marriage (a decent idea, but I wouldn't vote against gay rights because of it). Libertarian with perhaps a misguided set of priorities (equality > smaller government), sure, bigot? No.
So it's probably because of homophobia, because if it was something else, he probably would have made that clear by now.
My point is there are degrees of badness. LGBT supporters look like bullies when they don't moderate their response to someone who disagrees with them.
Oh so the degree of badness of supporting institutional oppression (you know, systematically removing (violating) the rights of people based on their identity through laws, etc.) is less than that of telling a company to fire someone (which the company isn't even legally bound to do), got it. /s
This right here is why tech is so white/male/straight/etc. "Oh the other people should stop being bullies and just let themselves be oppressed, the people doing the oppression aren’t the bullies, those are just their opinions, we should just let them continue to oppress people."
Let's put it this way. The LGBT community has been oppressed for basically their whole life. So yea, when given the chance, they are going to try to oppress the people who are continuing to systematically oppress them, where do you think they learned that from. If he was willing to apologize, it probably would have been fine (since when has a gay guy apologizing for being gay gotten him his right to marry someone?), the bully here is Eich, he just got called on it this time.
All my life I've considered these goons talking about "evil homosexual lobby" and "reactionary liberals" to be basically wacko mad bigots. For the first time I find myself thinking there might be something to that.
When you find that your movement excuses means like lynching ("consequences" to your opinions and your freedom of speech) and persecution as long as they help your goals, then maybe your movement has lost the plot. I'm seeing truly scary comments that would have made McCarthyists cringe. In an environment where I'd never have expected them.
Lynching? Please. There's no legal right to be a CEO. Nobody's bringing this guy up in front of a congressional committee. He exercised his constitutional right to donate money, and everyone else exercised their constitutional right to criticize a public figure.
You'll see truly scary comments anywhere and everywhere on the Internet. If you judge every movement by its most extreme, unhinged elements, then there are exactly zero sane or wholesome movements.
That poor Mr. Eich, "lynched" by the mob. Well, not really lynched, he's still alive. But they beat him up pretty good! Oh, actually, he's fine. But his livelihood is destroyed and he'll never work in the industry again. Scratch that, apparently he has enough funds to take vacations while he decides what to do next. But hey, he doesn't get to be CEO of a big company! How terrible.
The injustice done to Mr. Eich is minor. He hasn't been killed or injured. He hasn't been blacklisted. He lost his job, in an industry where the average worker has to fight off recruiters with a stick, let alone someone like him.
Yes, there are consequences for your opinions when you become the public face of a large company, especially when that company is founded on some set of principles besides "make money". Those terrifying consequences involve not getting to be CEO anymore, and that's it. Big shock.
The guardians of the moral high ground and the champions of liberty and tolerance can't even stand next to someone with a different opinion about a specific subject.
They are the same people that demand some guy to be fired because he made some joke on the radio, they paint themselves as happy all inclusive and kind fellas but are the worst kind of human being there is, highly educated, militant behaviour and not a single ounce of self evaluation.
How pathetic is this society when someone is persecuted because he chooses the "wrong" side, so of course he has to "pay".
Adding to the tragedy, many of these mindless souls don't have a clue who Brendan Eich is and the fundamental role he played in the last 20+ years. Ironically, many of them partly owe their careers to the man they just demanded to get fired.
Finally, this is a really dark day for Mozilla, Brendan was a HUGE part of Mozilla both in technical and cultural terms, in the next few years we will feel the consequences.
Even if he was just a regular guy, this is a tremendous injustice committed by the "always right" purest of the pure.
Wait, what? This is the fault of the "evil homosexual lobby" and "reactionary liberals?"
The guy's a bigot. (Unless he's made a statement disavowing his contribution in some way.) Being against equal rights for gay folks is being a bigot. Sorry.
If you don't want to catch shit for being a bigot when you're placed in a position of public power and trust, don't act like a bigot. Or give money to bigoted causes.
Make no mistake. What happened here is the strongest point one could have against full disclosure and transparency in the electoral system.
What we are seeing here is a person being harshly punished for his campaign donations. Basically for his political opinion (and an opinion that passed with a strong majority in California to boot).
This is enormously destructive for democracy. It's McCarthyism of the highest level. Both the fact and its staunch defence by many in the forums.
Never had the gay community been casted so intolerant before, or not that I know of, at least.
Never had the gay community been casted so intolerant before, or not that I know of, at least.
Why would the gay community ever be tolerant of someone who supports anti-gay legislature? I mean, come on, it seems pretty rational for LGBT supporters to be intolerant of individuals who want to prevent them from having the same legal rights as heterosexuals. It's not as if there is some reasonable excuse to oppose gay marriage, this whole thing exploded because the position is unambiguously indefensible. That doesn't mean it's the worst thing in the world, you just come off as a petty asshole when you try to prevent people from living their lives in a way that has absolutely no affect on your own life whatsoever.
I remember it just fine. The people exercised their right to boycott, Phil Robertson exercised his right to stand by his beliefs, A&E exercised their right to capitulate to the outrage, and then they exercised their right to reverse their own decision. I don't see the problem. The same thing played out in this case except that as of yet, Mozilla hasn't reversed their decision.
This is unashamedly wrong. Federal law in the US currently delegates this decision to the States.
And? My point is that the law is morally indefensible. What practical purpose does prohibiting gay marriage serve except to arbitrarily stigmatize a class of people? Nobody materially benefits by prohibiting gay marriage, it doesn't free up more marriage slots for the rest of society, it just unnecessarily complicates the private lives of gay couples who want to be married.
Because the rights of single old and young people woudl be irreversibly harmed by their existence.
How? Heterosexual single people can get married whenever it suits them, but for some reason gay couples shouldn't be allowed the same freedom, because... why?
That's your opinion, and that's fine. The problem starts when people start rallying active boycott on a person because his opinion is different. It's particularly delicate when it's a prop campaing donation (a prop that passed in California, by the way, so maybe it's not just a bunch of wackos).
The problem starts when people start rallying active boycott on a person because his opinion is different.
Why is that a problem? People have the right to boycott whatever they want, it's really one of the only peaceful and effective forms of dissent available to ordinary citizens. That "difference of opinion" manifested itself as a financial contribution to an anti-gay cause, what kind of reaction would you expect from those who were exclusively targeted by said law?
a prop that passed in California, by the way, so maybe it's not just a bunch of wackos
And then it was overturned by the supreme court as unconstitutional, so maybe it is "just a bunch of wackos". Either way, I don't think the fact that a law passes lends any credibility to the substance of the law. To quote the court:
DOMA’s unusual deviation from the usual tradition of recognizing and accepting state definitions of marriage here operates to deprive same-sex couples of the benefits and responsibilities that come with the federal recognition of their marriages. This is strong evidence of a law having the purpose and effect of disapproval of that class. The avowed purpose and practical effect of the law here in question are to impose a disadvantage, a separate status, and so a stigma upon all who enter into same-sex marriages made lawful by the unquestioned authority of the States.
In other words, the only practical effect of the law is to disparage and stigmatize homosexuals.
What? Just as Eich had a right to dislike homosexuals, everyone in the world has a right to dislike bigots. Unfortunately for bigots, it's a lot harder to defend that position.
Is there a "McCarthyism" version of Godwin's law? Seems like that needs a name.
Anyway: I'm unclear why it's inappropriate to pass judgment on people based on their political speech.
Also, you're playing that trick with the word "intolerance" that people sometimes play... There's "racial and sexual intolerance," which should be weeded out. It has no place in our society. But there are all sorts of "intolerances" which are great! For example: We should be intolerant of things which drag people down and ruin lives. Disease. Scientific illiteracy. Lack of the freedom to marry whomever one wishes. Bigotry.
A campaign donation is not political speech. It's public by law. A law that now shows clear conflicts if the internet mobs are going to be after people based on them.
The ways you are defending are the textbook definition of bigotry. I agree that they shouldn't have a place in society.
Campaign donations are not a political opinion, they are political speech. You have freedom of speech in that the government cannot prohibit your speaking. You do not have a right to immunity from the consequences of your speaking.
As someone else put it once, taking a political position publicly takes a certain amount of civic courage. I am in complete disagreement with everything you say, which I consider alarmist, apologist, and simply wrong.
Being against equal rights for gay folks is being a bigot. Sorry.
Actually, voting for Prop 8 does not in any way meet the threshold test of "bigot". To qualify as a bigot, you have to have an "unreasonable" intolerance of others perspectives. Merely taking a good faith position on the opposite side of an(y) issue does not evidence "biggotry". Just the opposite: by proposing that any opposition to your ideas is insensible, you define yourself as a bigot.
Now, step back. Every civil right in the US is codified in law. Every law was wirtten by human beings with mistakes, errors, omissions, and horse-trades. Every law put on the books in the US is at some level "impure" and "ugly".
The types of civil rights involving prop 8 are like the civil rights act of 1965, and the OSHA and Employment laws passed than creat "protected classes". That is to say, these civil rights are voted on by the public. They do not exist in the Constitution. If they did, we would not have to pass laws called "civil rights act of xxx".
The point of all this is that every law needs a debate. Every law needs to be (imperfectly) written. To have votes you need to have opposing views aired to test different options. Just like working in business. YOu cannot be an effective leader if you dis-allow all debate.
But that's what being a bigot is. That's what you are saying you are by proclaiming all people who disagree with you are unreasonable. That is not a teneble position: its logically false. The other side of the issue may be wrong, but only in very rare cases would it ever be "unreasonavle".
Propo 8 may have been wrong, but to assume that each and every single person in the majority of voters who voted it into law was "unreasonable" is absurd. Some? Perhaps, but you could never justfy the inference without specific knowledge (which in this case is not on the public record).
Mozilla's actions today will have a chilling effect on free speech. Make no doubt about it. Every piece of software you use online capable of tracking your political views is now fair game. There is no reason to treat public information as distinct from private information, if your standard is as you've laid it out.
> Being against equal rights for gay folks is being a bigot.
Supporting traditional marriage does not mean opposing equal rights for gay folks. Traditional marriage permits a gay person to marry someone of the opposite sex (which makes no sense to a supporter of modern pseudomarriage).
The key thing is that traditional marriage isn't about finding temporary emotional fulfilment, while modern pseudomarriage is. Modern pseudomarriage is a convenience, a way to find some companionship and engage in sexual activity while receiving some economic benefits, not an incubator for the formation of a family and a bloodline.
It's so easy to put a label on someone isn't it? It makes you more comfortable when attacking him because it's the word and the concept, it's not a person any more right?
Hey, you can say and think whatever you want... but be careful of the "consequences". You are free... but be very afraid that we might find that you think the wrong thing.
This school of thought is being defended across tech forums. Appalling.
I'm saying that publicly rallying for the persecution of someone based on a prop donation shouldn't be encouraged or defended in any way. It's pure fascism.
Oh yea, because having to step down from a company is like going to jail, or hell, not being able to see your dying significant other because you aren't allowed to marry. Yep he was definitely persecuted.
Regarding your question, I won't say that I'm happy or sad, I've pretty much been following this with great fascination not taking either side. I'm very much against state discrimination against homosexuality, but Eich's "crime" in that respect was fairly minor. On the other hand, firing a CEO because he pressed the wrong button and got a buttload of people angry at him is entirely reasonable.
That said, I think this sort of thing does work. It's messy and far from ideal but it does push things in that direction:
"Is the idea that if we villify ideas enough and those that express them, they will eventually go away?"
In short... yes. Most people never change no matter what you do. The only way to really change things is to influence the next generation, so that they form different ("better") opinions than their parents. Children get a lot of their opinions from their parents, but they also get a lot of their opinions from the society they're in. If you force bigots to retreat from the public eye it does work to reduce bigotry in the very long term.
I'm not saying these tactics are a good idea (nor bad, I just make no stand on it at all), but they do work, slowly.
I think this topic -- how do we accelerate the decline in bigotry, esp. in regards to homosexuality -- is a hugely valuable topic to discuss.
I'm of the opinion that these kind of tactics probably aren't as effective as simply what I suggest: "letting the old people die". It's been shown that young people hugely disproportionatly support gay marriage, and support for Prop 8 is declining by a large percentage every year.
I think that when you decide that certain viewpoints or groups are just not allowable at all, all you do is marginalize those groups and push them even further to the extreme. I think you could make a case that Fox News et al would possibly be less extreme if the progressive movement wasn't so vocal about eradicating all potential opposition.
Just my two cents. I'd be really interested to hear other's thoughts on this subject, because I think that bigotry is tied to a whole bunch of other related problems that need solving.
Social censure is the most powerful way to adjust norms. You're much more likely to listen to a friend calling you out on something than anyone else. And it sends signals to other people with a similar bent, suggesting that certain behavior is no longer acceptable.
Here's the thing that you're forgetting: the targets of (e.g.) hateful rhetoric feel better when bigots are dismissed from polite society. Some bigots may become more radicalized, but many become demoralized or may even think twice about it (see above). However, when fewer people are allowed to propagate bigoted views in society, society overall is a better place. The whole point is to make society more inclusive. I care less about marginalizing people with abhorrent views than marginalizing different ethnicities, lifestyle choices, and genetic predispositions.
"Wait until they die" suggests a bootstrapping problem: why would children of bigots feel any different unless they had a reason to? If you only wait for bigots to die out instead of marginalizing them, bigotry is normalized over generations. You have to interrupt that cycle.
What's driving that change of opinion among the youth, though? These attitudes persisted for generations, and suddenly they're changing. I wouldn't even begin to think about assigning cause versus effect here, but I think it's worth considering that the opinion of the youth is changing because of this sort of action.
HIs appointment as CTO was in 2005, before the public disclosure of his 2008 support of Prop 8. The CEO is also a significantly larger role as they help dictate the vision of the company vs just the technological points of the company.
This sort of muckraking has gone on for a very long time. It is basically an institution at this point. It has the function of keeping the powerful from attempting to speak down upon the week.
It should be a lesson for anyone who speaks out against minorities, the poor, and any other disadvantaged peoples.
The published disdain for authority is one of the cornerstones of American democracy.
There are public and social responsibilities that come with the type of money, power and prestige that success in business and industry offers.
Those who don't agree will soon feel the might of the pen and the full implications of the freedoms that allow us to openly communicate and conduct business.
While I respect Mr. Eich and his right to his own personal opinions, he can't expect to attain such publicly visible positions of authority without having his underwear hung out to dry.
Our industry could also learn a thing or two about populism. It should learn to embrace it. Young, hot-shots should learn a modicum of decency. Those with their eyes set on great accomplishments should learn the value of respecting those that don't value the same things.
In addition, savvy entrepreneurs can use populism to their advantage with great success. It doesn't have to be a hinderance. We're a social creature. It makes complete sense that figureheads have the ability to help or hurt the perceptions of potential customers.
Venture capitalism, as expressed in Silicon Valley, has been rather short-sighted and irresponsible as of late. It is not only condoning but also promoting an attitude of arrogance. I blame any member of an older generation that lacks the leadership and guidance that should be an integral part of the types of social change that come about when many millions of dollars are in play. There is a lot of visible excess in our industry right now. I sure as hell can't put too much blame on a bunch of kids who just left the nest.
Unfortunately for Mr. Eich his reputation is of further interest to journalists who have been successfully crafting the narrative of a dark side to an entire industry.
If our industry doesn't like the unfair side effects of having a disreputable image it should work to change the narrative instead of demonizing and adding fuel the flames of popular discontent.
Right now the story is about private shuttle busses, evictions, sexism, ageism, and yes, homophobic CEOs, along with a slew of other forms of imbalances in perceived difference.
This is very sad and unfortunate. Brendan was basically forced out of his own job because of a political view he supported. No matter whether you agree or disagree with someone's views, a discussion should be reasonable and fair, not a lynching in the court of popular opinion. We should respect others views, and their freedom to support any political position, if we wish those same freedoms for ourselves.
I've seen people in this thread using words like "lynching" and "concentration camp" to describe what happened to Brendan. I understand people are angry about events, but please try to remember that for people in minorities, these words have meanings that are not at all similar to "don't get to be CEO of a software company."
I was using a broader definition of lynching to mean any punishment meted out by popular opinion rather than proper processes. I certainly was not using the term literally, and I am fully aware of the horrible historical background of lynching. I certainly did not mean to trivialize this history.
Thanks for responding. I do try to assume that people are not intentionally being trivializing when using words with racist origins. I just think it's especially important to be aware of it in a discussion where people are weighing the speech/actions of privileged people versus their effects on oppressed groups.
The concentration camp stuff is just stupidly reductionist South Park references. It would be great if the comments would just be downloaded into oblivion, but apparently we're not rising to the occasion.
Good grief. You do far more harm to your position by invoking a practice part of a century-long campaign of terror against a racial minority.
Free speech doesn't mean freedom from criticism. It means the opposite, actually. And we as a society have decided some views are socially unacceptable. Anti-homosexual bigotry has been added to the list, along with pro-slavery or violence against women. Those are topics which are really just not up for debate anymore— we are in theory an egalitarian society, where plurality takes precedence over someone's right to (e.g.) express negative views, esp about minorities.
I think you're confusing the respect we should have for a persons right to a view, with respect for the actual view itself. The former I have, the latter I do not.
It was a political issue in 2008, it was a ballot initiative. You grandiose view of the issue doesn't change the fact that he is being punished for his political expression.
Is it impossible for an issue to be both political and human rights related? Did the political nature of the civil rights movement of the 1960s somehow make it less of a human rights issue?
@visualR: No. To publicly take a position and then not change it is to keep that position, for one thing. Furthermore, he has made it clear that he has not changed it over the last week with his blog post and interview.
@Rinon: His views amount to bigotry, so not changing them merely amounts to unrepentant bigotry. Did you have great respect for those who fought on for Jim Crow laws, or who today use voter intimidation to express their lack of compromise? I would rather his views changed, because they are harmful and indicate a deep prejudice, or that he suffer the consequences of publicly taking a position against awarding a group civil rights.
Would you rather he compromise his integrity to "change" his opinion on something based on pressure? I personally respect people who do not pretend to change their views, regardless of whether I agree with them. I also respect people who, after careful consideration, do truly change their mind, but I cannot require this of anyone but myself.
Does this view conflict with the job description? If this is so, then this makes the person ill-suited for the job, just like innumerable other workers who don't have the best qualifications for their jobs. Does this mean the view is wrong? Not necessarily, but that is an entirely different question. Does this mean that we should publicly deride this person for their view and boycott the company who hired them? No. This is the job of the board of directors, who answer to the shareholders of the company, and their responsibility. Certainly anyone outside can offer advice, but only as an outsider, who has no right or reason to blackmail and threaten the company.
I'm sorry, are you suggesting that we do not in fact have the right to choose which companies to support based on our opinions of them and their employees, and to tell others of our choices? That seems a rather more slippery slope than anything else here.
Exactly. I read the book "Nickled and Dimed" when it came out. In the book, she describes a job application test which asks if employers and employees interests are aligned. She noted to herself this seemed a pretty political question.
I applied for a job at a retail store and was asked the same question prior to getting the job. I thought of the first words of the constitution of that American union which was founded in 1905, the IWW - "The working class and the employing class have nothing in common".
So nowadays, not only managers, but employees who think workers are entitled to keep the wealth they create, are verboten. Of course thinking profits can get kicked up to the lazy idle class loafer heirs as dividend checks is all well enough.
Some anti-homosexual screwball is finally pushed out, and finally everyone gets up in arms about how unfair it is that people are pushed out of their jobs. What a laugh.
Whatever God Eich worships who tells him to scorn men who love men, the idle class heir VC limited partner is the God of HN. Doing anything (traction!) to gain his favor and a piece of his surplus value stolen capital is HN's religion.
What if he were a black woman and the political group she donated to was one that sought to prevent white men from becoming engineers? They can still do engineering, of course, but they can't have the state title and benefits that go along with it. Would you feel the same way?
This is so upsetting, it's infuriating. Here we had a wonderful chance for someone brilliant like Eich to lead one of the most important organizations in defending us against looming omnipresent state surveillance, and a bunch of social justice warriors went and ruined it. Pat yourselves on the back guys, you won!
Would you support a company whose CEO was a dazzling, intelligent, brilliant racist? Or anti-semite?
I don't understand how being brilliant means that everyone should ignore that you're also a bigot. Presumably if he had no talent then he'd be fair game?
Is he a bigot? "A bigot is someone who, as a result of their prejudices, treats or views other people with fear, distrust or hatred." I don't think he does that. He just wrongly thinks the state shouldnt recognize same sex marriage.
It was a ballot initiative in 2008. We have a constitution to prevent the will of the majority violating the rights of a minority. Its too bad it was up to voters. But he still has a right to take a side without fear of economic retribution.
Economic retribution from the government the first amendment does not protect your rights with respect to things like keeping a job. If you call your boss an asshole to his face on a regular basis, you are going to be fired.
Which is why we have laws (separate from the amendments) which ensure people can't be fired for their race/gender/etc. These laws have nothing to do with the first amendment because they don't involve the government.
Liberals would not like it if the Catholic Church used its members to lobby for a person to be fired for their stance on abortion. Don't use Firefox, fine. But actively lobbying to take away someone's livelihood is not a proportional response in this case.
I'm ignoring your partisan labelling/strawman/etc.
On the second point, that's why employers aren’t allowed to ask those questions (nor use them in their evaluation of employees). Those are the protection laws I mentioned above. Which don't protect executive members, as they run the company. Hence employees shouldn't, and can't, be fired for their political opinions (unless that's somehow part of their job).
Proportional response? Sure. Here is a guy who paid money to make it so people can't see their significant others when they are dying, so that they don't have the recognition of the government as being married, to institutionalize oppression, and the untold misery which comes with it. He didn't apologize, he still holds the same views now. Yes, people should lobby a company, any company, to remove someone who would inflict such misery on his fellows. Yes, people should lobby a company like mozilla which says its an avid supporter of freedom to remove someone who would not support equal freedoms for every single person. These companies are corporate citizens, and their opinions are shaped by their executive board, and we can tell them we won't do business with them because of their opinions.
Edit: If you read the above, the response to the question should be obvious. Is it a board member? Then sure, good luck with that though, considering they would loose business if they followed the complaints, but not loose any if they ignored them (yea hospitals don't really care about customer retention). If it's an employee, and that employee didn't do anything wrong (like say, perform an abortion when not asked to; or badger someone with their political view) then no.
It was trivial amount of money for an $83MM campaign. It may signal which side of the issue he was on. It does not inform us of what he is thinking or his motivations.
I don't know why this got downvoted. The "how can you be tolerant when you don't tolerate intolerance" thing needs to be made fun of relentlessly until it stops being a thing.
How do you know Eich is intolerant? Maybe he is just misguided on an issue that really shouldnt be up to him. No one said tolerate intolerance, but considering the response to Eich, some proportionality is needed.
Um, how could his actions not suggest intolerance? He contributed money to a campaign which essentially persecutes a minority. In what universe is that not bigoted? "He didn't mean it" is a ridiculously flimsy defense.
Maybe he thinks marriage should be between opposite sex for religious reasons but has no problem with civil unions that grants the same legal benefits. While not a progressive view, not the same as a Klansman.
@SolarNet You seem pretty absolute in determining who is a bigot, and do not recognize that there is a spectrum. Obviously one's religion does not justify bigotry. But it does distort one's world view and can explain why someone might support Prop 8 without being a person who hates and is disgusted by homosexuals. Education is the best response to this, not economic sanctions.
Using religion as an excuse for bigotry still means you're a bigot. Religions are personal things, and should only affect your life, not other people's.
Another perspective that I'm surprised hasn't been voiced:
Brendan had the privilege to climb to the rank of CEO, if only for a few days. But it is because of views like his that many don't get a chance at all to climb to anywhere near those heights. I know many qualified, talented, awesome people who, if they were straight and able to marry the loves of their lives, could become American citizens and pursue meaningful opportunities here (arguments about whether moving here is such a good idea these days not withstanding.) And marriage is just one of many ways in which we as a society diminish, limit or actively dehumanize those not a member of the majority.
I tolerate your views right up to the point where they make someone's dying moments hell because their husband or wife can't visit, or bar someone from working for someone else because of their gender or skin color. At that point, yeah, I'll gladly be a biggot against biggots.
Perhaps the reason we don't see more minorities in positions of power is that so many of us exercise our influence, be it via rhetoric or $1000 donations, to keep them out of those positions. I can't bring myself to feel bad when someone who does that is brought down.
Well, it's not going to be a popular opinion but I think it's a shame he's been forced out. Simply having the wrong views shouldn't make him ineligible for a job.
That's an overly simplistic way of looking at it. He had a chance to resolve the matter differently and wasn't able to. It's possible/probable that he is not CEO material (for this company at this time).
depends on the job. being cto is one thing; being the ceo is a far more people-oriented role with a far more significant impact on how people who work for mozilla are potentially treated.
and this is not about his views; he actually donated money to help ensure that people would not get equal rights; even though those rights did not affect him in any way.
So today I learned the CEO is much more people-oriented role because everybody knows "technical" people aren't really people.
He voted for prop 8 which means he doesn't want people to have the same rights (which before that everybody had (of course!!!)), so it goes like this: Heaven on Earth --> prop 8 --> gay holocaust --> Brendan must go.
are you trying to spin prop 8 as a "difference of views"? let me break it down for you:
side a:
- straight people have rights
- gay people have the same rights
- the law does not discriminate in any way
side b:
- straight people have exactly the same rights as in side a
- gay people have fewer rights
- the law discriminates between people depending on who they love
there is literally not a single negative consequence for straight people if gay marriage is legalised, and yet eich spent $1000 in the hope that gay people would continue to be legally seen as lesser. of all the hundreds of causes out there, one motivated by pure spite was what he picked to actively work for.
now as for the "technical people aren't people" strawman, perhaps you aren't familiar with mozilla? it is a tech company - a significant fraction of their employees are technical people. and the company culture (which is shorthand for how the company treats and interacts with its employees) is definitely something the ceo can affect. the company technology stack is more in the cto's purview, and no one ever doubted that eich was competent at that.
Really, there are no views you can think of that would qualify someone as being ineligible for a job? What if someone refused to acknowledge women as people? What if someone refused to work with black people? What if someone viewed the holocaust as never having happened?
Yeah, I've been afraid to speak on it for quite some time, but I will now: I think that 'homosexual marriage' is a phrase which makes as much sense as the phrase 'green-tasting.'
FWIW, I supported the unsuccessful civil-union law in my state. I think anyone who wants to form a household and get the economic & regulatory benefits hitherto attached to marriage (insurance, hospital visits &c.) should be permitted to, regardless of sexual activity or indeed its absence (why shouldn't a fraternity, or a few friends, be able to form a civil union in order to get those same benefits?). I don't believe I hold any animus against homosexual folks.
But marriage is just not about sexual attraction, and the idea that it is, is rapidly destroying marriage.
People who think this is unjust, think about this. If Eich had instead donated to a Neo-Nazi party, a group that supports re-legalizing slavery, or an organization taking away women's right to vote, would your opinion be any different? For those who say 'no, my opinion would be the same. Free speech is free speech and political affiliation is political affiliation' would you be comfortable working at Mozilla? I think this is the much more important practical concern. Eich's ability to continue as CEO was _compromised_ - could he hire and retain talent? Would Mozilla have seen a mass quit? Could they continue to get volunteers to work on the code?
The social justice warrior lynch mob can be an ugly, fickle beast, and its actions can be a double-edged sword, there's no question about it. In this case, they may have saved Mozilla (and Eich) from themselves.
edit: being the public face of a company is different in kind than being another kind of worker. Its "distance" from CTO may not be large, but the "king is the king" as it were.
edit 2: a couple of bigger questions here that will/should be asked. Should CEOs remain apolitical, or at least take great pains to hide their affiliations - particularly in industries with many much more liberal-minded workers? Will they after this?
Interesting stat: latest Pew has 61% of Republicans under 30 supporting gay marriage. Take that as you may, but I'd go with 'excellent bellwether for society at large'.
Is there any record or incidences in his 15 years working at Mozilla of him discriminating or maltreating anyone?
I ask this because, in the Recode article, Mozilla's executive chairwomen, says "That [the contribution] was shocking to me, because I never saw any kind of behavior or attitude from him that was not in line with Mozilla’s values of inclusiveness"
Unless there is some evidence, 15 years track record in a company should seemingly count for more than a single political contribution. Yes/no?
I think this helps clarify the distinction between him being CEO and a blatant racist being CEO (a comparison that seems to be common in this thread).
Should a person be allowed in a position of power if they are able to separate their personal beliefs and lead the organization properly, without improper bias against anyone? I suspect this has happened many times before.
I don't see how the LGBT community has benefited much from this. It seems to me that giving him credit for clearly not letting his personal beliefs affect his work relationships and taking a wait-and-see stance would've resulted in a more productive outcome. Would this not have been an opportunity to educate someone who is otherwise seemingly capable of reasoned and rational thought?
"He had to step down eventually from mozilla to avoid further damage to the brand."
In the other thread[1], I pointed out the damage will now continue via a second mob that seems to be sifting through all the other Mozilla employee's donations.
It happens a lot with this stuff in politics, and it sucks to high heaven having a group looking at everything you've ever donated.
I have misgivings here mainly because I have previously given enough to political campaigns that any prospective employer that cares can find out what my politics are. The idea that my personal political opinions are fair game in a hiring decision is scary.
Granted, its a little different when we are talking about the CEO of a foundation with a specific ideology, but if this becomes wide spread the chilling effects are something to be concerned about.
I've posted this elsewhere, but in one of the many dupes that got buried, so I'll repost it here:
I really think it was inevitable once people started complaining about his political background. The whole appointment had become about the gay rights issue rather than about where he would lead Mozilla in the future.
No one really thought he was suddenly going to turn Mozilla into an anti-gay rights organisation, but standing down is still the decent thing to do. It lets Mozilla focus back on their mission and carry on without controversy.
In a way it's a little sad though. I was kinda hoping that he'd say he'd had a change of heart since prop8 and renounce his views. Maybe that's just the optimist in me though...
I don't suppose anyone knows if he has a severance package? Doesn't seem like he is being forced out for 'cause' and the celebrity of his departure at Mozilla could easily damage his ability to be employed as a CEO elsewhere.
He was on the side of the majority of California, this wasn't a vote in Texas or India. Even the mainstream Democrats were against Gay marriage a couple years earlier.
Many anti-abortion proponents consider abortion a form of murder, which is a more serious issue. But I don't see campaigns against CEOs who support abortion.
Comparing his view with racism is ridiculous. He's not for discriminating against homosexuals, just for keeping marriage as it's been. Can the growing polygamist movement immediately discredit everyone opposed to them as bigots also?
If we were trying to keep marriage "as it's been", then I would have gotten a dowry, had a couple concubines on the side, and my wives would have been considered my personal property.
"Keeping marriage as it's been" is a post-hoc rationalization, to attempt to disconnect the anti-gay-marriage crowd from a religious argument. Go read the Bible that's used to justify this crap and write up a compare/contrast.
Eich had the freedom to donate his hard earned money to an anti-gay cause.
LGBT supporters had the freedom to make blog posts and tweets about their opinions on the matter.
Eich had the freedom to stand by his position.
Mozilla had the freedom to designate its CEO.
Why the outrage? The system worked. The only group that had it's freedom threatened was the group of individuals targeted by the prop 8 law. Denizens of the internet could have spared Eich their ire if they were so inclined. Eich could have apologized if he were so inclined. Mozilla could have stuck by Eich if they were so inclined. Everybody acted in their own interest and Eich's resignation is a consequence of that fact.
Here's my question: What was the board thinking to put him in place? It's not as if Eich won a contest just by inventing one of the most widely distributed programming languages, there were folks who decided he was the best to lead Mozilla forward. How did they go so wrong?
Nope, but thanks for the concern. I just have diverse interests, and think that the URbit project is quite strange and, as a result, sort of wonderful, IMO. For example, the algebra grammar for the Nock VM is fascinating for me. Moreover, I'm thinking of even using the C# port of Nock as a basis for bringing the rest of the project over to the Windows platform. My children take up a lot of time though.
I'm not that surprised that the mind warped enough to create something like Javascript is also warped enough to have some weird backwoods Christian fundamentalist fear of homosexuals.
That said.
I have nothing but fury for the people instigating these kinds of senseless whichhunts. The key point here is that Eich has been CTO of Mozilla for years. CTO to CEO, while a big transition, is much smaller distance in executive representation than this controversy calls for. What I suspect is somebody in the Gawkerati saw a news piece on "somebody something new CEO of Mozilla", Googled his name, and dug up one political contribution from 5 years ago to create a controversy out of thin air. This kind of behavior sickens me -- not just the media publications that stir this pot, but the individual people boiling at the seams to crucify everyone with a different opinion. In 2014, people that contribute nothing to society other than digging up controversies have the power to bring down historic figures from pushing the envelope of innovation and opening the Web to allow to allow this very kind of expression.
At the end of the day, that is the ultimate irony. The technology that Branden worked his life on gave voice to those who destroyed him. The entire point of the web is to allow this kind of radical expression, and the moment we get it we use it to tear down and villanize the people who make it run.
Absolutely disgraceful.
If you're glad Eich resigned, I really only have one question for you: What do you hope to gain out of this? Do you think this will push the envelope toward greater acceptance of homosexuality? Is the idea that if we villify ideas enough and those that express them, they will eventually go away? Or does it just, I don't know, feel good?
[1]http://recode.net/2014/04/03/mozilla-co-founder-brendan-eich...