Sigh, more of the same
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| jdixon Apr 04, 2014 12:47 PM EDT |
I'm not sure how well discussion of this story will mesh with LXer's TOS, but seeing the elevation of politics over coding at Mozilla is not a good thing. The Mozilla employees should be worrying about producing the best code possible, not about what political contributions people may have made. |
| tuxchick Apr 04, 2014 1:51 PM EDT |
Obviously there is more to this story than just a single campaign donation, which a short Google search would reveal. Let's look at the fallacy that politics, personal beliefs, and producing good code are all unrelated. That is obviously untrue. The CEO is public face of a company, and sets its direction, values, and working culture. Mr. Eich supported Prop. 8, which inflicted real harm on real people, and his personal belief is a big fat slap in the face to all Mozilla contibutors who are gay. And for why? Because he has a belief, an opinion. What is that belief based on? Nothing of any validity. And yet he supported legislating a dangerous, harmful belief. He still holds firmly to that belief. Read this interview and tell me that this thin-skinned, pretzel-logic tap-dancer (Indonesia??) is CEO material: http://www.cnet.com/news/mozilla-ceo-gay-marriage-firestorm-... He thinks he can separate his personal beliefs from his work performance, and it's unfair to challenge him or hold him accountable. What board in their right mind would want such a conflicted person as CEO? In fact they didn't. Three board members resigned over Mr. Eich being appointed CEO, for various reasons. He is a founding Mozilla member and has many significant achievements, so it's a messy situation. Bigotry is not just a harmless opinion. "I like chocolate better than vanilla" is a harmless opinion. "I believe that certain arbitrary categories of people are lesser and not deserving of equality under the law" is toxic and evil. Religion is the usual excuse. Such a religion is stupid, and legislating religious beliefs on other people is way overreach. Especially when they cherry-pick which bits they choose to hold against other people. Bigotry is irrational and based on fallacies, and I question the competence of anyone who clings to an irrational fallacy. Bigoted beliefs are presented as "moral". Equality under the law is the moral option, nice and simple with no yesbuts. This particular inequality has cost tens of millions of people substantial harm. Housing, jobs, harassment, deaths, imprisonment, survivor rights, health insurance, property rights...wave the flag and honor our heroes! But, until recently, our heroic gay servicepeople did not get spousal benefits, and some states are still fighting this. We don't get spousal Social Security benefits, no adoption rights or child custody rights in many states, medical decision rights, or hundreds more rights that married people take for granted. Wills, living wills, and power of attorney only address a small subset of marriage privileges. Merely marking an arbitrary group of people as lesser breeds hate. Of course this hate is cloaked in many disguises: concern, family values, sin, the usual dishonest blahblah. Bigotry is craven, and crybabies about "Tolerance means you have tolerate bigotry or you're a bigot!" It wants the right to be noxious without consequences. A few more links, and that is all the homework I am doing for you good people. http://www.teamrarebit.com/blog/2014/03/24/goodbye_firefox_m... http://www.teamrarebit.com/blog/2014/03/28/five-reasons-eich... http://recode.net/2014/04/03/mozilla-co-founder-brendan-eich... |
| Koriel Apr 04, 2014 2:16 PM EDT |
Well said TC, for me simple equalities in human rights is not politics we are all human regardless of sexual persuasion and as such are entitled to equal treatment. Putting Brendan in charge of Mozilla an organisation that promotes freedom of choice and actively promotes human collaboration, you might as well put Hitler in charge of the Jewish council of Public Affairs by that same logic and Godwin can go take a long walk of a short pier. I will leave it at that as TC pretty much nailed it. |
| devnet Apr 04, 2014 2:50 PM EDT |
Quoting:He thinks he can separate his personal beliefs from his work performance, and it's unfair to challenge him or hold him accountable. What board in their right mind would want such a conflicted person as CEO? This isn't how things are supposed to be though. What we do in private and with our money after we make it is OUR business...not the business of everyone else. I think this guy is getting singled out...4 people from Mozilla donated...not just the CEO...but let's count how many Google did here: http://projects.latimes.com/prop8/results/?position=both&nam... I'll count it for you... 394 people did. Why aren't we jumping down Google's throat for employing "bigots" and being a bigoted company? 1 person makes for a better target. People are acting like this is a moral issue...and it's not. He has a right to have an opinion outside of the job he performs. People are pissed at his opinion...but he still has the right to have it. People who forced him out should be ashamed of themselves for, in essence, telling him his opinion is wrong and forcing him to conform to theirs or get out. Freedom of Expression...freedom of choice...freedom of religion. I don't have to agree with what he says but I do agree that he should be able to express it and NOT have it be considered the opinion of Mozilla. This whole thing is just wrong in so many ways but it does show how a bunch of people can pile on and bully someone. That is all this amounts to...a bunch of people in the internet jumping on top of one another to bully someone for having an opinion different than theirs (not even expressing said opinion...just donating money to a organization). Forget the 14 years of work he put in at the company without any problems whatsoever...let's just look at his donation and brand him a bigot. BTW Koriel, thanks for proving Godwins Law for us http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law |
| Koriel Apr 04, 2014 3:02 PM EDT |
@devnet Your welcome, my goal is to educate :) |
| devnet Apr 04, 2014 3:08 PM EDT |
meh...not really educating...I already knew the law existed. Seeing it in action isn't educating either...it's more saddening. |
| Koriel Apr 04, 2014 3:26 PM EDT |
Doesn't negate the point though that Brendan always was a bad choice regardless of his technical suitability. Or would you put Michael Jackson in charge of a creche, [....] |
| devnet Apr 04, 2014 3:34 PM EDT |
But he wasn't a bad choice. He'd been at Mozilla for almost 15 years and had no issues...no one bringing up anything at all. Then suddenly, since he donated money to a cause he supported in his spare time, he's a bigot. Bullying is what this is. Nothing more. |
| gus3 Apr 04, 2014 3:36 PM EDT |
"The price of seeking to force our beliefs on others is that they might some day force theirs on us." -- Mario Cuomo Here we see that, writ large. (Edited to correct and attribute.) |
| devnet Apr 04, 2014 3:39 PM EDT |
In my opinion, donating to an organization in your spare time is not imposing your opinions or views on others. Freedom of speech is worthless if you don't support the right of individuals to voices the opinions you disagree with. This entire debacle was mass bullying and the bullies won. |
| NoDough Apr 04, 2014 3:44 PM EDT |
If groups of Christians aren't allowed to fire people for non-Christian beliefs, then groups of non-Christians shouldn't be allowed to fire people for Christian beliefs. To claim otherwise is divisive, narcissistic and hypocritical. |
| Koriel Apr 04, 2014 3:48 PM EDT |
I am also all about freedom and Brendan is more than welcome to espouse his views whether I agree with them or not but when he tries to impose his view by giving money to others whose soul aim is to restrict the rights of other humans and even possibly harm them (although I know that point may be debatable) then that is where I get off the freedom train. |
| gus3 Apr 04, 2014 3:48 PM EDT |
@devnet, this wasn't just "donating to an organization." Proposition 8 passed, and that imposition became very real. |
| devnet Apr 04, 2014 3:54 PM EDT |
@gus3 He donated to an organization that supported his PERSONAL BELIEFS. He did so with his own money on his own time. He did so BEFORE HE WAS CEO. So here we have a bunch of people piling onto him and calling him a bigot when he's not. All because he donated money to a group he believed in. Internet bullying at its finest. |
| jdixon Apr 04, 2014 3:54 PM EDT |
TC, you know that I agree with you far more than not, but on this issue, I have to disagree. > Let's look at the fallacy that politics, personal beliefs, and producing good code are all unrelated. That is obviously untrue. Not obviously at all. > ...and his personal belief is a big fat slap in the face to all Mozilla contibutors who are gay. Then obviously they should have stopped contributing to Mozilla, and make that know to the board. As all Prop 8 supporters and their equivalents in other states should now. If they think politics is more important than good software, that is. I didn't use to think so, but it looks like the decision is being made for me. > He thinks he can separate his personal beliefs from his work performance... Most people have historically been able to do so. > ...we are all human regardless of sexual persuasion and as such are entitled to equal treatment.... Unless you disagree with certain people, apparently. He's out of job. His oppents are still there. That hardly seems like "equal treatment". > Doesn't negate the point though that Brendan always was a bad choice regardless of his technical suitability. Oh, I agree. His actions in response to the complaints demonstrated that. The board chose him to lead the company. The correct response of a leader should have been "I see you think you can't work for me. Well, you're welcome to discuss that with the board. I'll schedule a meeting for you and any others who wish to be heard. In the meantime you're relieved of all duties at Mozilla pending the board's decision." As for Prop 8 itself, by definition it's a political issue and I won't discuss it here, per LXer's TOS. |
| jdixon Apr 04, 2014 3:59 PM EDT |
> Proposition 8 passed, and that imposition became very real. OK, I'll try not to discuss it. But that deserves a reply. Yep, it did. But the people of California passed it, not Brendan Eich. Are we opposed to democracy in action now? It's being fought in the courts, as it should be. |
| gus3 Apr 04, 2014 4:01 PM EDT |
For general information: Board members Gary Kovacs, John Lilly, and Ellen Siminoff resigned, rather than stay on board with Eich. |
| gus3 Apr 04, 2014 4:05 PM EDT |
Dang it, crossed comments. The people of California passed it, with Brendan Eich's full support and assistance. |
| flufferbeer Apr 04, 2014 4:16 PM EDT |
TC's ranting aside (more like preaching to the political choir), I'm also with jdixon here. Seems to me that the Mozilla employees should DEFINITELY be most worried about producing the best code possible -- whatever open source license is necessary -- rather than getting so involved in this diversion. I say they should KEEP UP their good work in making their Fast and Secure Firefox web browser!! (lxer editros monitoring this for TOS violations? no? good......) Strange but true: not everyone having a passionate opinion on the matter of Eich's forced and politically-motivated resignation is a cranky, ranting 0.5century old+ lady living all the way out there in the U.S. Pacific Northwest. Thanks devnet for being another voice of sanity here :) 2c |
| jdixon Apr 04, 2014 4:18 PM EDT |
> ...with Brendan Eich's full support and assistance. That's the way a voter initiative is supposed to work, gus3. Like I said, it's being fought in the courts, as appropriate. |
| devnet Apr 04, 2014 4:23 PM EDT |
Man, it's scary to think that people could force me out of my job right now because of my personal beliefs. Yet that is exactly what happened to Eich. Sad times we live in where rights are trampled and everyone cheers for it. |
| tuxchick Apr 04, 2014 4:28 PM EDT |
jdixon, I don't even know where to begin. You're saying legislating bigotry is fine with you, and people who support it are somehow absolved of responsibility. That is absurd. We don't vote on rights-- that is why they are rights. And yet here we are voting on basic equality under the law. It's hard to not take it personally. that you and people like Mr. Eich decide it's OK to deny equal rights to an arbitrary group of people, rights that you enjoy and get to take for granted. You handwaved away every word I wrote. As a political issue it's not a debate between equals. You and Mr. Eich walk away with all of your rights and privileges intact. I, and people like me, don't. You don't get good software from bad communities, because discarding people, and creating classes of lesser people, creates mediocre unhealthy communities. Politics don't exist in a separate reality, and it's absurd to think so. As this issue demonstrates so vividly. Thanks Koriel and gus3 for being two voices of sanity. |
| jdixon Apr 04, 2014 4:50 PM EDT |
> You're saying legislating bigotry is fine with you... I'm saying the political process if fine with me, and people shouldn't be fired for using it. Whether any given political issue or not is bigotry is in the eye of the beholder. If Eich can be fired by a board for supporting Prop 8, then anyone else can fire anyone in their company who donated to Obama. That's the precedent you're supporting. > We don't vote on rights... We do. All the time. Or have you forgotten the 13th amendment and the civil rights act. And marriage is not an enumerated political right. It's primarily a religious institution. > ...that you and people like Mr. Eich decide it's OK to deny equal rights to an arbitrary group of people, rights that you enjoy and get to take for granted. Where have I done so, TC? I'm not a resident of California. I have no say in what laws they pass or how they pass them. And I don't take any rights for granted. > Politics don't exist in a separate reality, and it's absurd to think so. Fine. Go ahead and make everything political. Let people be fired for their politcal beliefs. Let people be denied services for their political beliefs. Let people starve alone and in the cold for their political beliefs. You're forgetting that Prop 8 passed by popular vote in the most reliably liberal state in the country. I don't think you'll like the result. |
| Heather Apr 04, 2014 5:15 PM EDT |
Dudes and dudettes, please don't fight. Life is good and Linux is fun... |
| gus3 Apr 04, 2014 5:34 PM EDT |
Tell that to Kay Seivers. *ducks* |
| devnet Apr 04, 2014 6:15 PM EDT |
@jdixon Perfect response dude...I feel pretty much the same way. People who think it's ok to bully this guy out of his position of CEO because he supports ANY political cause are supporting a dangerous precedent of discrimination themselves...but one even more encroaching than being against/for gay marriage...and that is losing the right to be different and having a different opinion than what is popular without fear of repercussion. Quoting:When we lose the right to be different, we lose the privilege to be free. --Charles Evans Hughes |
| gary_newell Apr 04, 2014 7:48 PM EDT |
Before I start I want to say that I am a christian and an active one but I support gay marriage. I believe in the idea that everyone should be free to do as they wish as long as they are not deliberately attempting to harm other people. I think the dating website that started this particular storm were a little out of line. Nobody has stopped buying Disney DVDs yet Walt Disney may or may not have held Nazi views. Do the people who run OKCupid believe that nobody in Google holds anti gay marriage views or Microsoft, Apple, IBM etc? I would bet that in many big organisations there are plenties of people who are both racist and anti-gay. I believe that what OKCupid did was just plain wrong. Pushing their beliefs onto other people in a manner that may cause distress to others (namely the head of Mozilla). People forcing others to accept something that they don't want to accept is not right no matter which way around it goes. |
| BernardSwiss Apr 04, 2014 8:59 PM EDT |
Brendan Eich's stance and contributions to Prop. 8 and homophobic politicians wasn't news; this was already known -- but as long as he was "only" CTO, and he played nice with LGBT colleagues at work, it was tolerated (not overlooked, some of his colleagues did blog or otherwise express their disappointment over this bigotry). But Mozilla is not actually a "company" in the business sense. It isn't some "browser company". Rather, Mozilla is an incorporated community project and advocacy organization, with an explicit rights oriented mission. Firefox is on a very real sense just a tool, an instrument for spreading its social message and for enabling its users. As a community project and advocacy organization, Mozilla is highly dependent on attracting and motivating volunteers to contribute, advocate, and take part in Mozilla's mission -- a mission that explicitly places a high value on openness and inclusivity. Eich's views may have been tolerable in a CTO, but CEO is a rather different position, with much greater impact on policy and much greater visibility and public scrutiny. Because of Eich's concrete actions to deprive a recognized minority of its SCOTUS recognized constitutional rights, his appointment to the CEO position was a very public problem for the organization, and directly harmed both Mozilla's credibility and it's ability to pursue its mission effectively. Colleagues and subordinates were asking him to step down. Collaborating developers were expressing similar reactions. Mozilla volunteers were leaving the project, and dissing Mozilla, and promoting alternative web browsers. Long time users, either embarrassed or angry, were uninstalling Firefox. Well known websites were prominently, on their front page, urging visitors to switch to an alternative to Firefox, because of the appointment of Brendon Eich to CEO -- with explanation of why they were making that recommendation. This is not some guy being "punished" for having unpopular political views. This is someone being called to account for taking strong, public actions that are flagrantly against the culture and ideals* of the community and organization which he is aspiring to lead. * (not to mention the equality provisions of the US constitution). |
| jdixon Apr 04, 2014 10:04 PM EDT |
> Rather, Mozilla is an incorporated community project and advocacy organization, with an explicit rights oriented mission. Firefox is on a very real sense just a tool, an instrument for spreading its social message and for enabling its users. Strange. And here I thought they were about making software. Thanks for correcting that misunderstanding. I've always been a supporter of Firefox and Thunderbird, but I have no interest in supporting overtly an political organization with at best only a tangential relationship to free software. If I did, the EFF is a far better organization to support. > This is not some guy being "punished" for having unpopular political views. You can try to sugar coat it anyway you like, but that's exactly what it is. |
| DrDubious Apr 04, 2014 10:25 PM EDT |
Never mind any of that. We're talking about a guy who apparently feels several thousand dollars is such a trivial amount that he could more or less whip it out of his pocket and throw it out the window just to spite some group of people he doesn't like. I don't care if the group in question was the Ku Klux Klan, I still wouldn't feel comfortable that this person could really comprehend the problems caused by "poll taxes" in the form of license fees for participation on the web. I think that all by itself makes his political donations very directly relevant to the direction he might be inclined to take the Mozilla foundation once he was in control of the whole thing. I, personally, was more worried that his elevation to Boss Of All Bosses at Mozilla would mean more "partnerships" with proprietary services, casual acceptance of "consume-only" media formats, eventual de-funding of daala development assuming Google wouldn't immediately adopt it, and so forth. Since Mozilla IS (as far as I know) the last major web/browsing organization that is still seriously committed to keeping the nature of the web partcipatory, it would be a huge loss (in my opinion) if they ended up slacking off or outright giving up on aspects of it out of convenience, on the assumption that the cost to end-participants would be "not too much". |
| NoDough Apr 05, 2014 12:58 AM EDT |
In this thread it has been said of Mr. Eich that he is a bigot, homophobic, filled with hate, has beliefs based on nothing valid, and wants to spite some group he doesn't like. I've seen nothing to support any of these comments. I presume that he believes that marriage was created and defined by God in the Bible as a union between one man and one woman. He donated to support that belief. The IRS leaked confidential information about his donation which led to this persecution. When asked to denounce his beliefs he chose to remain faithful to them even at the cost of his job. I find that admirable. That doesn't mean that he, or the other 3~4 out of 5 people (depending on which election or poll you cite) who believe that same thing are trying to harm people or even deny them benefits. It's not about the benefits, it's about what marriage is and what it is not. Neither you nor I have the right to redefine it to our liking. Do you think people with those beliefs shouldn't be allowed to run things? Fine. Did you vote for Barack Obama in 2008? If so, you voted for someone who espoused the exact same beliefs. Where is your vitriol for him? Or do you only grab your pitchfork after someone else has lit the torches? It appears that Mr. Eich has outdone you where intellectual consistency is concerned. Quoting:...that is where I get off the freedom train. I see. So everyone is free to think and believe exactly as you do. Otherwise, no freedom for them. How quaint. Quoting:* (not to mention the equality provisions of the US constitution). Umm, do you mean the 14th amendment? Equal protection under the law? Protection of things like freedom of religion and freedom of speech? People who hate others just because they are different do actually exist. I don't believe that Mr. Eich is one of them. If he were he would be trying to bully people into exile. |
| BernardSwiss Apr 05, 2014 3:48 AM EDT |
@jdixon The rights that the Mozilla Project are most concerned with (their raison d'etre, if you will), clearly focused on, and identify as the hard core of their activity, are "digital" rights -- access, openness, inclusiveness, equality and opportunity, even privacy -- and FOSS principles in general... But they also clearly acknowledge the relevance of and support for related, broader principles that can also be described under that rubric of access, openness and inclusiveness, equality and opportunity, and privacy. The slogan at the very top of the Mozilla home page is "We are Mozilla. Doing good is part of our code." If you are more interested in the technology end of things, there's plenty of room (even Eich only ran into trouble when he tried to move from CTO to the broader role of CEO, with its more extensive social purview and responsibilities). |
| nmset Apr 05, 2014 4:49 AM EDT |
>Mr. Eich supported Prop. 8, which inflicted real harm on real people, and his personal belief is a big fat slap in the face to all Mozilla contibutors who are gay. Mr Eich's resignation is a big fat slap in the face of Mozilla contributors who are normal and who feel disgusted by the way the world may collapse because of human insanity. Relying on noble values like freedom to mask harm done to the human race is real evil. If we have to go through a devastating war or a natural calimity that would wipe out 99% of the world population, the remaining 1% will know what to do to populate the earth again. Just because some prominent voices don't understand elementary logic, or feel they are too intelligent for the elementary basis of existence. |
| jdixon Apr 05, 2014 7:59 AM EDT |
> "We are Mozilla. Doing good is part of our code." Putting someone who's been a loyal employee out of their job for giving a political contribution isn't "good". > If you are more interested in the technology end of things, there's plenty of room. Not any more there's not. This will only be the beginning. You want a textbook definition of a hostile workplace? Simply look at Mozilla. |
| NoDough Apr 05, 2014 9:12 AM EDT |
[irony]
Quoting:Relying on noble values like freedom to mask harm done to the human race is real evil. If we have to go through a devastating war or a natural calimity that would wipe out 99% of the world population, the remaining 1% will know what to do to populate the earth again. Just because some prominent voices don't understand elementary logic, or feel they are too intelligent for the elementary basis of existence.[/irony] |
| hughesjr Apr 05, 2014 9:17 AM EDT |
First, let me say that I personally disagree with Mr. Eith's position. That said, Mr. Eich has every right to support whatever cause he wants. It is very wrong to impact his employment based on his personal beliefs and a personal donation. If his policies at Mozilla were discriminatory, that would be a different matter entirely. No one has proven that to be the case at all. Should people who supported groups that opposed Prop 8 also be under scrutiny in different organizations than Mozilla? The fact of the matter is that the people of California supported Prop 8. I thought that inclusiveness demands listening to all sides, not just the side you support. Mr. Eich is being railroaded ... and if this stands, then in the long run it will only hurt the very groups who are pushing against him. |
| rnturn Apr 05, 2014 10:45 AM EDT |
Quoting:``The IRS leaked confidential information about his donation which led to this persecution.''Was it actually "leaked" or was it that IRS records of who donated to the 501x (x = c?) group were made public -- as most of them are -- and someone took notice of Eich's contribution? Publicity of his contribution via the former would be unfortunate because the release of the information being made public might have been illegal (depends of the type of 501, IIRC; IANAL and all that) and, if by the latter, would have been merely a matter of time before someone noticed the contribution. |
| DrGeoffrey Apr 05, 2014 3:55 PM EDT |
Quoting:Mr Eich's resignation is a big fat slap in the face of Mozilla contributors who are normal and who feel disgusted by the way the world may collapse because of human insanity. Wow. Words fail me. Perhaps it's time for this thread to come to a close. |
| NoDough Apr 05, 2014 5:42 PM EDT |
Quoting:Was it actually "leaked" or was it that IRS records of who donated to the 501x (x = c?) group were made public -- as most of them are -- and someone took notice of Eich's contribution? That's a really good question. The site I read specifically stated that it was leaked, but I didn't follow through to their sources, so that could be wrong. No time to check it now as I'm preparing for a flight in the morning. Maybe I can check it at the gate (no pun intended.) |
| jdixon Apr 05, 2014 10:55 PM EDT |
> It is very wrong to impact his employment based on his personal beliefs and a personal donation. If his policies at Mozilla were discriminatory, that would be a different matter entirely. No one has proven that to be the case at all. Exactly. |
| jdixon Apr 05, 2014 10:56 PM EDT |
> That's a really good question. The site I read specifically stated that it was leaked I've heard two conflicting stories on that. One that it was leaked illegally by the IRS, and the other that it was obtained legally via a FOIA by a newspaper which made the list public. |
| BernardSwiss Apr 05, 2014 11:55 PM EDT |
|
| gus3 Apr 06, 2014 6:12 PM EDT |
The Los Angeles Times maintains a site dedicated to accessing the donors database. |
| NoDough Apr 06, 2014 9:10 PM EDT |
Quoting:I've heard two conflicting stories on that. One that it was leaked illegally by the IRS, and the other that it was obtained legally via a FOIA by a newspaper which made the list public. Here's someone who did their homework on the IRS leak story. http://reason.com/blog/2014/04/04/no-the-irs-didnt-leak-mozi... Short story shorter. Yes, the IRS illegally leaked data. No, Brendan Eich's data was not part of that leak. |
| jdixon Apr 07, 2014 6:28 AM EDT |
Thanks for taking the time to provide that, NoDough. |
| gus3 Apr 07, 2014 11:54 AM EDT |
It's the law in California. http://projects.latimes.com/prop8/ Searchable by name, employer, donation amount. Reason.com didn't do their homework, either. It's just an attempt to draw a specious connection to the IRS, which has nothing to do with Eich. |
| skelband Apr 08, 2014 12:47 PM EDT |
When I first read of this incident, my feelings were mixed and conflicted. I believe that people should be free to have views however bigoted and misguided they are (in my opinion of course). That's what freedom of speech is all about. However, that cuts both ways. The people "outing" Eich didn't fire him. They expressed an opinion of him and his views. They encouraged others to also express that opinion, which they did. Against the heat of that opinion, Mozilla felt they had to give him the boot (yes, he says that he stepped down, but that is marketing speak for getting the boot). People who occupy CEO type positions are representing both the business and moral stance of the company they work for. It is more than being an employee. Moreover, Mozilla is an organisation that has a definite moral stance, particularly on software issues. They are most decidedly *not* Walmart. In a sense, being a CEO of a large company is like being a politician. They are held to a higher standard and rightly so. And it's why they get the big bucks. This is probably why his opinions have not been problematic to Mozilla until now. If you are going to espouse a controversial opinion in public to the extent that you actively campaign or support a campaign to enact a law that takes away rights from people as was the case here, then you must feel the heat of having to justify it. Freedom of speech is not about molly coddling people who have controversial views. It's about being able to express them at all without fear of being harassed by the government. In my view, the Proposition 8 legislation is pretty unjustifiable in any context other than a purely religious one (which is no justification at all anyway). In addition, personally, I have to agree with TC on this one. Anyone with such bigoted views to the extent that they will take steps to enforce their views on others with which they have no other affiliation are suspect in all other aspects. There are far too many people in positions of power these days that feel that their personal views override all other concerns. The world would be a much better and tolerant place if people just minded their own businesses. |
| skelband Apr 08, 2014 1:00 PM EDT |
@ NoDough: Do you think people with those beliefs shouldn't be allowed to run things? Fine. Did you vote for Barack Obama in 2008? If so, you voted for someone who espoused the exact same beliefs. There are a growing number of people that believe that religious belief and suitability for office in a secular administration is becoming increasingly incompatible. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s3lwG4MytSI We're running very close the wire on TOS violation here so I will say no more. |
| lqsh Apr 08, 2014 1:09 PM EDT |
Brendan Eich (and all people) should be free to have their own opinion and beliefs, without persecution. Equality AND freedom of speech should be a basic right for all individuals. I believe that equality between all sexual orientations will come in time, regardless. I'm more concerned that in our future our freedom of speech will continue to be punished. |
| gus3 Apr 08, 2014 3:24 PM EDT |
"Without criminal persecution under the law." After that, freedom of association takes over. |
| devnet Apr 08, 2014 4:38 PM EDT |
DrDubious wrote:We're talking about a guy who apparently feels several thousand dollars is such a trivial amountWe're talking about 1 thousand even...no more, no less...all given YEARS BEFORE he was named CEO. |
| NoDough Apr 08, 2014 5:50 PM EDT |
Quoting:There are a growing number of people that believe that religious belief and suitability for office in a secular administration is becoming increasingly incompatible. Didn't watch the whole video (or much of it at all.) Don't understand why you would point to such an extremely biased source as evidence of a "growing number". |
| skelband Apr 08, 2014 6:13 PM EDT |
> Don't understand why you would point to such an extremely biased source as evidence of a "growing number". Here's why: > Didn't watch the whole video (or much of it at all.) Admittedly it was a bit long. Watching biased sources are fine as long as you realise that the bias is there. It's no different from watching Fox News or RT. |
| NoDough Apr 08, 2014 9:34 PM EDT |
> Admittedly it was a bit long. Watching biased sources are fine as long as you realise that the bias is there. It's no different from watching Fox News or RT. Well, in my opinion, Fox News is one of the least biased news shows. Of course, their talk shows are another matter. What's RT? |
| vainrveenr Apr 08, 2014 9:40 PM EDT |
In the ongoing mudslinging between those who adamantly continue to defend the recent Mozilla CEO's ouster vs. those who are against it on principle, there is a new allegation brought up by the latter. The allegation is brought down in the current story OkCupid's CEO Donated to an Anti-Gay Campaign Once, Too. As quoted in the first several paragraphs of the above Mother Jones citation: Quoting:Last week, the online dating site OkCupid switched up its homepage for Mozilla Firefox users. Upon opening the site, a message appeared encouraging members to curb their use of Firefox because the company's new CEO, Brendan Eich, allegedly opposes equality for gay couples—specifically, he donated $1000 to the campaign for the anti-gay Proposition 8 in 2008. "We've devoted the last ten years to bringing people—all people—together," the message read. "If individuals like Mr. Eich had their way, then roughly 8% of the relationships we've worked so hard to bring about would be illegal." The company's action went viral, and within a few days, Eich had resigned as CEO of Mozilla only weeks after taking up the post. On Thursday, OkCupid released a statement saying "We are pleased that OkCupid's boycott has brought tremendous awareness to the critical matter of equal rights for all individuals and partnerships." Notwithstanding the current OkCupid and Match.com CEO's apology for this past behavior, shall there be a backlash encouraging OkCupid and Match.com users to curb usage of their respective services for the past questionable actions of this CEO ?? Or, in an ironic twist of fate, will those who remain in principle opposed to Mozilla's ousting the CEO in question, choose to themselves abandon Mozilla Firefox en masse ?? |
| BernardSwiss Apr 08, 2014 10:48 PM EDT |
and the rest of the very same article ...Quoting: Of course, it's been a decade since Yagan's donation to Cannon, and a decade or more since many of Cannon's votes on gay rights. It's possible that Cannon's opinions have shifted, or maybe his votes were more politics than ideology; a tactic by the Mormon Rep. to satisfy his Utah constituency. It's also quite possible that Yagan's politics have changed since 2004: He donated to Barack Obama's campaign in 2007 and 2008. Perhaps even Firefox's Eich has rethought LGBT equality since his 2008 donation. But OkCupid didn't include any such nuance in its take-down of Firefox. Combine that with the fact that the company helped force out one tech CEO for something its own CEO also did, and its action last week starts to look more like a PR stunt than an impassioned act of protest. (Mother Jones reached out to OkCupid for comment: We'll update this post if we receive a response.) Meanwhile,Eich gave the maximum legally permissible donation to directly support Prop 8 -- and Prop 8 had a single, clearly defined and highly publicized purpose -- to take legally recognized, constitutional rights away from a particular minority. And not satisfied with contributing the maximum allowable to Prop 8 itself, he went around and donated similar amounts to several strong political supporters of Prop 8 at both the state and federal level. The CEO for OkCupid, on the other hand, has given a clear and credible explanation, and a credible, straight-forward apology, while Eich gave no explanation, and a mealy-mouthed "notpology". |
| NoDough Apr 08, 2014 11:01 PM EDT |
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2014/04/08/OKCupid-F... |
| devnet Apr 08, 2014 11:03 PM EDT |
BernardSwiss, You make about as much sense as a screen door in a submarine. He doesn't have to apologize for having a personal opinion and making a donation to an organization that he felt supported his opinion. |
| BernardSwiss Apr 08, 2014 11:19 PM EDT |
devnet wrote:BernardSwiss, Whooosh! And equally, no one else needs to apologize for pointing out how distinctly unsuitable he was for the role of CEO at a community project or community focused organization such Mozilla, based on the facts of those donations. But anybody who wants to suggest that the CEO of OkCupid was behaving as badly as Eich at Mozilla, will have to offer a better (and less blatantly cherry-picked) argument than the one just given. |
| jdixon Apr 08, 2014 11:26 PM EDT |
> to take legally recognized, constitutional rights away from a particular minority. So the California constitution must never be modified, ever again? Or is it only that the amendments must get your signed seal of approval first? |
| jdixon Apr 08, 2014 11:33 PM EDT |
> And equally, no one else needs to apologize for pointing out how distinctly unsuitable he was for the role of CEO at a community project or community focused organization such Mozilla, based on the facts of those donations. Nope. Anyone who wants to demonstrate their biases to that extent is welcome to do so. However, if anyone is interested in the public response to the demonstration of such biases, I think the chart at http://input.mozilla.org/en-US/?date_start=2014-04-01&select... makes it clear. |
| skelband Apr 09, 2014 1:38 AM EDT |
> So the California constitution must never be modified, ever again? Or is it only that the amendments must get your signed seal of approval first? Constitutions are laid down for a reason. They are the very basis of legal and cultural frameworks. You change them at your peril. That's not to say they should *never* change, but they should certainly never change frivolously or to further someone's religious beliefs. |
| skelband Apr 09, 2014 1:43 AM EDT |
> Well, in my opinion, Fox News is one of the least biased news shows. Of course, their talk shows are another matter. Erm, OK. Seriously? > What's RT? Russia Today. They cover a lot of stuff that doesn't get much of an airing in mainstream media, particularly in the US. As long as you realise who the paymasters are, they offer a different perspective to the mainly conservative right-wing news outlets which constitute the majority of the news availability in the US. |
| gary_newell Apr 09, 2014 2:40 AM EDT |
Fox news unbiased?!? seriously? With every Fox news story (and Sky News in the UK) you have to read between the lines and work out who benefits from the story that has been published. "Food shortage across Europe" - wait for it...... GM Foods to save the day. "Windows is riddled with viruses" - wait for it ...... says Kaspersky or Norton There is always somebody behind the stories looking to make money. Of course it isn't just Fox, Sky etc. All of them are doing it. |
| jdixon Apr 09, 2014 6:15 AM EDT |
> You change them at your peril. Yep. Which is why it's so comparatively difficult to do. But when the majority wants it changed, what then? The majority of Californians who showed up voted to change it. > That's not to say they should *never* change, but they should certainly never change frivolously or to further someone's religious beliefs. But non-religious beliefs are fine? Well that lets out the roughly 80% of the US population who claim to be religious. So much for democracy or a republic. I guess we can only hope our atheist overlords.will be kind masters. "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." - John Adams. > ....to the mainly conservative right-wing news outlets which constitute the majority of the news availability in the US. As you said: Seriously? If you consider CNN, MSNBC, NBC, CBS, ABC, the New York Times, the Washington Post, and the LA Times conservative, you're slightly to the left of Mao Zedong. > All of them are doing it. Yep, Everyone has biases. The best you can hope for is to know what they are. |
| devnet Apr 09, 2014 12:56 PM EDT |
Quoting:But anybody who wants to suggest that the CEO of OkCupid was behaving as badly as Eich at Mozilla, will have to offer a better (and less blatantly cherry-picked) argument than the one just given. Actually, it is worse based purely on logic. Eich had a personal opinion and donated his money in 2008 (well before he was CEO) to support that opinion. The dude from OK Cupid took that to the nth degree. He should have roasted Eich personally by disagreeing with him. Instead, he threw a temper tantrum and roasted all of the Firefox users out there. That's purely a dick move and 50 times worse than simply having an opinion and donating money to a group you feel supports it. Like I said, logic says the OK Cupid douchebaggery is wrong...roasting many because you disagree with one person is dumb. |
| jdixon Apr 09, 2014 1:04 PM EDT |
And for those who think what Mozilla did was right or legal, from MarketTicker.org at http://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?post=228921, quoting California law: § 1101. Political activities of employees; prohibition of prevention or control by employer No employer shall make, adopt, or enforce any rule, regulation, or policy: (a) Forbidding or preventing employees from engaging or participating in politics or from becoming candidates for public office. (b) Controlling or directing, or tending to control or direct the political activities or affiliations of employees. § 1102. Coercion or influence of political activities of employees No employer shall coerce or influence or attempt to coerce or influence his employees through or by means of threat of discharge or loss of employment to adopt or follow or refrain from adopting or following any particular course or line of political action or political activity. If Eich was that kind of person, he'd have a clear cut discrimination lawsuit. Fortunately for Mozilla, he's not, and will continue the fiction that he "resigned". |
| NoDough Apr 09, 2014 2:57 PM EDT |
Quoting:But anybody who wants to suggest that the CEO of OkCupid was behaving as badly as Eich at Mozilla, will have to offer a better (and less blatantly cherry-picked) argument than the one just given. And I repeat: http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2014/04/08/OKCupid-F... I'll light the torches, you get the pitchforks. Or, we could start acting like civil human beings who know it's okay for others to believe differently than us. |
| lqsh Apr 09, 2014 3:18 PM EDT |
Quoting:Meanwhile,Eich gave the maximum legally permissible donation to directly support Prop 8 -- and Prop 8 had a single, clearly defined and highly publicized purpose -- to take legally recognized, constitutional rights away from a particular minority. Gay, straight, bi, etc. should all have equal rights - yes. Eich also has the right to free speech, just as I and you do. We should not be siding with gay rights, while removing the right of free speech - this is favoring one party's rights over another's. If you side against freedom of speech, it's just a matter of time before your speech is censored. |
| skelband Apr 09, 2014 6:16 PM EDT |
@jdixon: But non-religious beliefs are fine? Well that lets out the roughly 80% of the US population who claim to be religious. So much for democracy or a republic. I guess we can only hope our atheist overlords.will be kind masters. A constitution, particularly the constitution of the US, while not perfect, is generally drafted to protect *everyone* from everyone else. It matters not one whit if you constitute 51% or 99.9999% of the population. No-one should have the right to impose their belief that one section of society should have privileges that are out-of-bounds to another section. Whether that is pay, fair dealing under the law, their status as a citizen, their ability to practice a religion or any other myriad aspect of life that does not directly impinge those same basic rights of other people. That this is not overtly obvious to any right-minded, intelligent, thoughful citizen of the world in this century is quite staggering to me. Surely, it is self-evident? Any religious person that does not feel this to be true can stick their religion where the sun don't shine. |
| skelband Apr 09, 2014 6:21 PM EDT |
@jdixon: If Eich was that kind of person, he'd have a clear cut discrimination lawsuit. Fortunately for Mozilla, he's not, and will continue the fiction that he "resigned". Clearly in this case Eich would have a very difficult job determining that he was forced from his job by Mozilla. The likelihood is that the board collectively came to the conclusion that his stay was causing bad press for Mozilla and him stepping down was the only way to deal with it. He may well have been forced out of his job by a witch-hunt but I think it unlikely that he was pushed involuntarily. |
| jdixon Apr 09, 2014 7:21 PM EDT |
> No-one should have the right to impose their belief that one section of society should have privileges that are out-of-bounds to another section. Privileges and rights are not the same thing. There are lots of privileges that are available to others that are denied to me by law. I'm sure the same is true for you. > ...or any other myriad aspect of life that does not directly impinge those same basic rights of other people. As I noted before, marriage is not a politically enumerated right, at least not at the federal level. It is primarily a religious institution, predating both the US and the state of California by millennia. And the state Supreme Court upheld the law. > ...in this case Eich would have a very difficult job determining that he was forced from his job by Mozilla. He wouldn't have to. Read the law more carefully. "No employer shall make, adopt, or enforce any rule, regulation, or policy". By not taking action against the employees who called for Eich's resignation, Mozilla effectively made their stand Mozilla's policy. "No employer shall coerce or influence or attempt to coerce or influence his employees". The other employees were attempting to coerce Eich. Mozilla had a responsibility under the law to make it clear such actions wouldn't be tolerated. They did not do so. They are thus liable for the actions of their employees. While I am not a lawyer, I can guarantee that a good one would be salivating at the prospect of taking the case. |
| flufferbeer Apr 09, 2014 9:14 PM EDT |
On Eitch getting INVOLUNTARILY shoved outta Mozilla for his personal views... logic of devnet, NoDough, jdixon, +a zillion< skelband, a -2> (GOTTA keep digging himself into a hole trying to defend that jerky nutjob OkCupid CE0...) 2 more cents+sense |
| BernardSwiss Apr 09, 2014 9:24 PM EDT |
Actually, marriage is a legal institution (a contract), dealing with property and inheritance (including women and children under the rubric of 'property') and political alliances, predating the church and temple by millennia. For most of history (even if we consider only Western, Christian-era history) the institution has been more about relations between the families, clans or nations being joined than about individual couples. Ordinary folk didn't even get married -- 'hand-fasting' and similar customs were good enough for them. Here's a decent short summary of the history of marriage: http://theweek.com/article/index/228541/how-marriage-has-cha... And SCOTUS acknowledged the right to marry back when the issue was about inter-racial marriage. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loving_v._Virginia and thus the loving vs. Virginia case has been cited in the more recent court decisions that struck down barriers to same-sex marriage. |
| jdixon Apr 10, 2014 6:45 AM EDT |
> Actually, marriage is a legal institution (a contract)... Yes, it is. But it has always been far more than that. > predating the church and temple by millennia. Predating any individual church and religion? Yes. Predating religion? There's absolutely no way to tell, since both go back past recorded history. However, within recorded history, marriages were almost always recognized through religious rites. > And SCOTUS acknowledged the right to marry... Not exactly. They recognized that the state has no authority to bar interracial marriages. That's not the same thing. Barring a constitutional amendment, the state undoubtedly has no authority to bar the contractual accoutrements of marriage to anyone deemed competent to make the contract (of course, that reopens the door to polygamy in the US, but that's another issue). But as I said, marriage has always been far more than that. |
| tmx Apr 10, 2014 9:24 AM EDT |
Too long, didn't read. I'm just going to say, Firefox is an open source and collaborative project with millions of contributor. I'm not giving it up because of one person that have a different view about one subject and go to an alternative browser that does more to invade user's privacy and missing many features. You can pry it from my cold dead hands. |
| skelband Apr 10, 2014 12:47 PM EDT |
> Privileges and rights are not the same thing. There are lots of privileges that are available to others that are denied to me by law. I'm sure the same is true for you. I don't know where this "rights" thing comes into it. I don't believe that anyone necessarily has the right to marriage. What I do believe is that privileges that are accorded only to the few merely because of their gender is the very definition of sexual discrimination. That is what I'm against. Yes, a poor person may get unemployment benefit whereas I, as an employed person, do not. However, I would expect the same treatment as an unemployed person regardless of any other factor which is out of my control such as gender, sexual orientation or belief system. > As I noted before, marriage is not a politically enumerated right, at least not at the federal level. It is primarily a religious institution, predating both the US and the state of California by millennia. And the state Supreme Court upheld the law. Again, I'm not talking about marriage as a right. I'm talking about equal treatment under the law. > He wouldn't have to. Read the law more carefully. "No employer shall make, adopt, or enforce any rule, regulation, or policy". By not taking action against the employees who called for Eich's resignation, Mozilla effectively made their stand Mozilla's policy. "No employer shall coerce or influence or attempt to coerce or influence his employees". The other employees were attempting to coerce Eich. Mozilla had a responsibility under the law to make it clear such actions wouldn't be tolerated. They did not do so. They are thus liable for the actions of their employees. While I am not a lawyer, I can guarantee that a good one would be salivating at the prospect of taking the case. That's all very well, but you are assuming that Mozilla pushed him. That is far from clear. It's possible but even Eich's issued statement makes no such assertion, although we do know that it often does happen. Let me make myself clear on this though. I do *not* support the action taken against Eich by OKCupid. It is possible to be right and a dick simultaneously. OKCupid are just as guilty as Eich of trying to influence people and events by their actions to further their particular beliefs. I happen to agree ith OKCupid's assessment of Eich's actions. However, there is a point at which action taken against someone becomes disproportionate and I think any right-minded person would agree that the word disproportionate in this case hardly seems adequate. I merely believe that Eich is misguided and wrong. These donations were made, I believe, 6 years ago. Eich *may* have changed his views since then. I do not know. Whatever the rights and wrongs, I judge someone on their beliefs and actions now. People can change and they should have the opportunity to do so if they wish. |
| devnet Apr 10, 2014 1:51 PM EDT |
Quoting:I merely believe that Eich is misguided and wrong. These donations were made, I believe, 6 years ago. Eich *may* have changed his views since then. I do not know. Whatever the rights and wrongs, I judge someone on their beliefs and actions now. People can change and they should have the opportunity to do so if they wish. That's not the debate. He isn't wrong for having an opinion outside of work. He has nothing to apologize for and shouldn't be asked to do so. The debate is whether or not what you do in your personal time gives people the right to persecute you in your professional one. That's what is happening to him. Once he was put in the place of CEO...employees threw a hissy fit and said they would all quit...a coup honestly...all about the guy who CO FOUNDED MOZILLA. Nice eh? He was pushed out...make no mistake. He was there 2 weeks as CEO and rather see his company implode he removed himself. The focus should have been on software, instead it was on him. Odd thing is that he made this donation in 2008...how many releases has Mozilla had since then? How many employees revolted when he was named CTO a few years ago? None, that's how many. Somehow, changing hats from running technology for a tech company to running the entire company made him a bigot in the eyes of people. I'm not buying it. I think someone out there was butthurt with him being CEO and they made a mountain out of a mole hill. I also think ANYONE who agrees with how this entire effed up situation was handled by employees at Mozilla is taking a dump on the constitution in order to force their own view onto people. Sad really. |
| jdixon Apr 10, 2014 3:08 PM EDT |
> What I do believe is that privileges that are accorded only to the few merely because of their gender is the very definition of sexual discrimination. Privileges can be accorded on pretty much any basis anyone wants. So women's only schools, women's only sports, and too many other women's only programs to mention are sexual discrimination? Ditto for the NBA, NFL, etc.? > ...but you are assuming that Mozilla pushed him. I made no such assumption. Re-read my post. The actions of the other employees constituted attempted coercion. Mozilla didn't discipline them, but rather accepted their conduct, and is thus responsible for it. And in doing so they set a corporate policy which is against California state law. > I merely believe that Eich is misguided and wrong His beliefs may be misguided and wrong. That's for each person to judge for themselves. His decision to support those beliefs via political action was not. That's the way our system is supposed to work. > The focus should have been on software, instead it was on him. Isn't that the point I opened this thread with? :) |
| skelband Apr 10, 2014 3:15 PM EDT |
> Privileges can be accorded on pretty much any basis anyone wants. So women's only schools, women's only sports, and too many other women's only programs to mention are sexual discrimination? Ditto for the NBA, NFL, etc.? Perhaps so. They are private clubs. The government or the state *must* not engage in such activities. You can elect to support or not support, agree or not agree with private organisations. The government takes your rmoney and enforces it's edicts by rule of force. That's why we have constitutions to protect people from injustices perpetrated by them. There is a fundamental difference. |
| skelband Apr 10, 2014 3:32 PM EDT |
> Odd thing is that he made this donation in 2008...how many releases has Mozilla had since then? How many employees revolted when he was named CTO a few years ago? None, that's how many. Somehow, changing hats from running technology for a tech company to running the entire company made him a bigot in the eyes of people. I'm not buying it. Like I said before, I think that he has been shamefully treated wrt OKCupid in this regard. I do not support the hounding out of someone from their job because of views held, regardless of how abhorrent they may be considered by others. However being the CEO of a large organisation like Mozilla means that you guide the organisation morally as well as practically. Mozilla (irrespective of whether or not you think they are hypocrites) takes a strong moral stance on certain values. It is not wrong for him to be called out if people consider that these views are at odds with that stance. The role is fundamentally different from that of a CTO. A CEO is the public face of an organisation and his character reflects on that organisation directly. Although the views that Eich has were pretty unremarkable and commonplace as the acceptance of slavery was at one time, this is no longer the case. I put this issue as firmly in the same bracket as requiring schoolkids in the US to include "under God" in the declaration they make. Times change and so do attitudes. |
| jdixon Apr 10, 2014 4:23 PM EDT |
> The government or the state *must* not engage in such activities. With respect to rights, I agree. However, the same is not true with respect to privileges. The government can define who is and who is not eligible for a privilege pretty much as it sees fit. I would argue that defining the nature of marriage is such a case. As long as the law is equally applied, the government can define it pretty much as it wishes. And, being government, that decision is going to be made on a political basis. Which means, ultimately, the will of the people should decide the matter. Making a matter political is very much a case of live by the sword, die by the sword. Now, my personal view is that marriage should be completely outside the scope of government. But when the government grows as large and power hungry as ours has become, that's a lost cause. They won't allow it. And of course I feel that way about a lot of things our government has arrogated unto themselves. > However being the CEO of a large organisation like Mozilla means that you guide the organisation morally... I think you misunderstand the nature of corporations. By definition, they are inherently amoral. Only people can have morals. At best, you can say the people making up the corporation largely share certain moral values. And do you really think one person should be "guiding" the morals of other adults? That's a rather perilous path to tread. > Although the views that Eich has were pretty unremarkable and commonplace as the acceptance of slavery was at one time, this is no longer the case. Do I really need to repeat that Prop. 8 passed in the most reliably liberal state in the country? And that only a short six years ago. I wouldn't be at all sure of that position. |
| skelband Apr 10, 2014 5:35 PM EDT |
> Do I really need to repeat that Prop. 8 passed in the most reliably liberal state in the country? And that only a short six years ago. I wouldn't be at all sure of that position. What short and selective memories we have. Here's a reminder, perhaps a little hysterical, but not too far off the mark: http://www.slate.com/blogs/outward/2014/04/04/brendan_eich_s... "Liberal" is not a word that easily comes to mind in this context. I guess that as a Brit, I'm still shocked at the kinds of things they put on TV here (Canada) and in the US in attack ads. Some of the mainstream political commercials are outright offensive to me. (They're free to put them on of course, that is the price of living in a free society, the freedom to shock and the freedom to say things that others find uncomfortable.) But this is the kind of thing Eich and his brethren were supporting, and this is the least "uncomfortable" that I could find. This is a family site after all... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=75J3TN9Zzck |
| jdixon Apr 10, 2014 9:25 PM EDT |
> What short and selective memories we have. Why would I remember ads aimed a California residents? I don't live anywhere near California. That doesn't change either the fact that California is the most reliably liberal (in the modern sense) state in the US, or the fact that Prop. 8 passed. |
| Steven_Rosenber Apr 11, 2014 7:55 PM EDT |
The analysis at the time was that Prop. 8 passed in 2008 because it was up in the same election as Obama for his first term as president, and the overwhelming turnout was more conservative about marriage than it otherwise would have been in a run-of-the-mill California election. |
| NoDough Apr 12, 2014 12:31 AM EDT |
Quoting:The analysis at the time was that Prop. 8 passed in 2008 because it was up in the same election as Obama for his first term as president, and the overwhelming turnout was more conservative about marriage than it otherwise would have been in a run-of-the-mill California election. That's completely illogical. How does a huge turnout for a progressive candidate prop up a vote for a conservative proposition? Edit: And if the progressives are this conservative, how much more popular would the proposition be if the conservatives turned out? |
| linux4567 Apr 12, 2014 9:19 PM EDT |
skelband wrote:
But this is the kind of thing Eich and his brethren were supporting, and this is the least "uncomfortable" that I could find. This is a family site after all... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=75J3TN9Zzck I'm not sure why that video makes you uncomfortable, if anything the quite realistic unease of the gay couple in the video shows how artificial the concept of a gay marriage really is... What I'm uncomfortable about is all those numerous ads shown on British TV where the man of the house is always portrayed as clumsy and incompetent while the wife is the one that in in control of the situation. Back on topic, I agree with those on here who said Eich has been the victim of a witch hunt, in fact I'm convinced somebody wasn't happy about him becoming CEO and therefore started this smear campaign on purpose. What is quite sad though is that this smear campaign has been successful, the result is that people will think twice about freely expressing their opinion, enforced conformism wins. |
| NoDough Apr 12, 2014 11:27 PM EDT |
Quoting:...enforced conformism wins. I believe that's called fascism. |
| gus3 Apr 13, 2014 3:38 PM EDT |
No, it's called "totalitarianism." It comes in many different colors, (modern) Fascism being but one. (Then again, look up the history of the term "fascism" and be prepared for a shock.) |
Posting in this forum is limited to members of the group: [ForumMods, SITEADMINS, MEMBERS.]
Becoming a member of LXer is easy and free. Join Us!