Mozilla employees tell Brendan Eich he needs to “step down” • Hacker News Board

Re: Mozilla employees tell Brendan Eich he needs to “step down”

#211

Post by gocarsno » Thu, Mar 27, 2014, 11:04 PM UTC

wonderzombie wrote: post #111

sergiosgc wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

(touching this issue with all due care as not to call in the activists; read all the way through before replying) Redefinition of marriage is not a human right, sorry. I can't decide I'd like to marry my work and have society accept that as marriage. Marriage has a definition, that up until now hasn't included gay couples. Changing that is not trivial, is not a law of nature and is not supportable on human rights gro…

I don't accept this as "redefining marriage." For one thing, the definition has changed throughout history. "Redefining" is a talking point engineered by bigots when the fact is that gay marriage affects straight marriage not a whit. It's orthogonal. Straight folks just want an exclusive right to define it, and on that basis deny that right to other people. Well, sorry, but nobody ought to have that exclusive right,…

If we exclude all the practical and legal aspects that are satisfied by a civil union, marriage is a ritual, a cultural custom. Its value and purpose lie in the symbolism ascribed to it. But customs aren't rights and they don't have to be inclusive.

What has been the symbolism of marriage in our culture? Part of it is definitely gender-neutral: celebration of a couple's love and their commitment to each other. But it has also been about the particular dynamic and beauty of a relationship between a man and a woman, including procreation. This part is very important to many people and it is taken away if the custom of marriage is changed to include gay couples.

I think this is a legitimate cultural dilemma where both sides can be empathized with. Opposing gay marriage (but not legally equivalent civil unions) can be a legitimate position that doesn't necessarily imply any sort of intolerance or hostility towards gays. Moreover, it is intolerant not to respect this position. I find it unacceptable for people to be ostracized and disenfranchised just for wanting to preserve a custom which they hold dear and which is part of their cultural identity.

You may think it's all just academic, but I'm actually convinced that a significant proportion (though probably not the majority) of gay marriage opponents isn't anti-gay. The unnecessary polarization of the debate doesn't serve good to the gay community either, as they feel more threatened than they should - such as in the case of Brendan Eich becoming Mozilla's CEO.

As for me, I think marriage shouldn't to be sanctioned by the state any more. Civil unions for everybody and let the cultural stuff be figured out organically.

Re: Mozilla employees tell Brendan Eich he needs to “step down”

#212

Post by lotsofmangos » Thu, Mar 27, 2014, 11:18 PM UTC

waps wrote: post #208

dllthomas wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem is the liberals "enforcing their social order" with their power... by individually reacting to someone spending money to make sure the government resumes enforcing a particular social order? This is entirely a contest between a liberal desire to enforce social order A and a conservative desire to enforce social order B. There's a few who basically want government out of marriage all together, but that's a…

Except of course that conservatives are pretty much about that, while liberals' great claim is that they don't enforce any social order. They are about freedom, you can do anything you want, believe anything you want, want anything you want ! Here it's obvious that the exception is that this is predicated on you wanting exactly the same they want. The problem is the hypocrisy. The problem is that liberals constantly…

liberals' great claim is that they don't enforce any social order. They are about freedom, you can do anything you want, believe anything you want, want anything you want !

I think you are really confused, that's some anarchists and libertarians. Liberal democracy is about the idea of a social contract and trying to balance the greatest freedom for the greatest number, not limitless individual freedom. It has always been philosophically against limitless individual freedom as it considers that damaging.

Re: Mozilla employees tell Brendan Eich he needs to “step down”

#213

Post by amputect » Thu, Mar 27, 2014, 11:24 PM UTC

Mikeb85 wrote: post #91

josephlord wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Mozilla, much more than most is a political organisation (about freedom and openness) not just a commercial one. It has a mission, it will succeed with community support and goodwill. The political views of the CEO matter. People are not saying (as far as I have heard) that there should be no place at Mozilla for Brendan Eich due to his political views but they are clearly uncomfortable with him leading a political o…

> Mozilla, much more than most is a political organisation (about freedom and openness) not just a commercial one. What about the freedom to have personal beliefs, and do what you want with your own money and time? If anything the people criticizing Brendan Eich are trying to take away his freedom...

> If anything the people criticizing Brendan Eich are trying to take away his freedom...

Freedom of speech isn't freedom from criticism, and criticism isn't censorship. Freedom of speech isn't freedom from social consequences for speech. Freedom of speech isn't an unconditional guarantee of employment.

Sometimes, freedom of speech becomes distasteful. I don't feel like this is one of those times, but I can understand why someone might disagree. In this situation, I see one person exercising their freedom of speech (in the form of a campaign donation) and a group of people responding with their own speech. That seems fine to me; if you disagree, could you elaborate on why, or describe what you think these employees should do instead? It seems to me that people responding to Brendan Eich should not have less freedom of speech than him.

Re: Mozilla employees tell Brendan Eich he needs to “step down”

#214

Post by dkuntz2 » Thu, Mar 27, 2014, 11:45 PM UTC

lotsofmangos wrote: post #205

twoodfin wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think free speech is a basic human right, too, but I wouldn't demand my CEO be fired if he gave a million dollars to try to get a Constitutional amendment passed to overturn Citizens United .

I'm sure there exists a political cause that if your CEO was funding it, would cause you to demand their resignation or make you leave the company. Say they are funding a campaign calling for speech restrictions of a group of which you are a member, for instance. You presumably have a line somewhere.

You're positive about that? They could fund a campaign calling for speech restrictions for a group I'm a member of, and I'll probably feel peeved about it (or even stronger feelings), but so long as it doesn't affect the workplace, and the CEO is still doing their job, I wouldn't call for their resignation.

Re: Mozilla employees tell Brendan Eich he needs to “step down”

#215

Post by twoodfin » Thu, Mar 27, 2014, 11:49 PM UTC

wpietri wrote: post #186

twoodfin wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Threatened how?

Threatened with the sort of discrimination that minority groups often experience from people who have an irrational bias against them.

Sorry, when did those threats happen?

Re: Mozilla employees tell Brendan Eich he needs to “step down”

#216

Post by lotsofmangos » Thu, Mar 27, 2014, 11:51 PM UTC

dkuntz2 wrote: post #214

lotsofmangos wrote: post #205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm sure there exists a political cause that if your CEO was funding it, would cause you to demand their resignation or make you leave the company. Say they are funding a campaign calling for speech restrictions of a group of which you are a member, for instance. You presumably have a line somewhere.

You're positive about that? They could fund a campaign calling for speech restrictions for a group I'm a member of, and I'll probably feel peeved about it (or even stronger feelings), but so long as it doesn't affect the workplace, and the CEO is still doing their job, I wouldn't call for their resignation.

That's pretty lucky for them then, because you won't legally be able to after their bill goes through about speech in the workplace.

edit - that's a pretty unfair hypothetical, and it would be directly affecting your work then, but I still suspect you have a line, if only to avoid things ever getting a little bit too Kafka.

Re: Mozilla employees tell Brendan Eich he needs to “step down”

#217

Post by dkuntz2 » Fri, Mar 28, 2014, 12:04 AM UTC

drone wrote: post #130

gjm11 wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1. The Roman Catholic Church does not require tithes from its members. I'm not sure any part of it ever has. 2. No one is saying that every employee who does as Eich did should be fired. Some people are saying that someone who has done as Eich did shouldn't be CEO of Mozilla .

So, a Catholic who actively tithes, should not be allowed to be CEO of Mozilla? What about a Lutheran that actively tithes? Both of these organizations work directly to prevent gay marriage, and that money goes to amplifying that cause.

The ELCA doesn't actively attempt to prevent gay marriage. They permit ordination of gays an lesbians, the NALC (a group that split from the ELCA specifically over this issue) and the LCMS (which split earlier) don't.

What I'm saying is that not all Lutheran denominations work directly to prevent gay marriage.

Re: Mozilla employees tell Brendan Eich he needs to “step down”

#218

Post by dkuntz2 » Fri, Mar 28, 2014, 1:14 AM UTC

lotsofmangos wrote: post #216

dkuntz2 wrote: post #214

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're positive about that? They could fund a campaign calling for speech restrictions for a group I'm a member of, and I'll probably feel peeved about it (or even stronger feelings), but so long as it doesn't affect the workplace, and the CEO is still doing their job, I wouldn't call for their resignation.

That's pretty lucky for them then, because you won't legally be able to after their bill goes through about speech in the workplace. edit - that's a pretty unfair hypothetical, and it would be directly affecting your work then, but I still suspect you have a line, if only to avoid things ever getting a little bit too Kafka.

I suppose it's lucky for them, but I don't see removing them as CEO as an action helpful to the cause. It probably won't weaken their beliefs, and might even strengthen them. They might even want to retaliate against the group they see as booting them out.

I just don't think that stripping them of their lands and titles really helps anybody. Arguably they won't have a source of income, except that they probably would receive a fairly nice severance package, and could still look for more work elsewhere.

----

I really like your last line of "things ever getting a little bit too Kafka".

Re: Mozilla employees tell Brendan Eich he needs to “step down”

#219

Post by mcphage » Fri, Mar 28, 2014, 2:24 AM UTC

lotsofmangos wrote: post #206

mcphage wrote: post #199

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> His suitability for a leadership position is openly questioned by employees in light of his publicly espoused views. Nothing more, nothing less. No, it's more than that: people are actively calling him to step down.

Asking someone to step down is openly questioning their suitability for a leadership position. That is the general method.

Questioning their suitability is saying "I don't know if X is right for the job". Saying "X should step down" is answering that question.

Re: Mozilla employees tell Brendan Eich he needs to “step down”

#220

Post by david927 » Fri, Mar 28, 2014, 8:51 AM UTC

freehunter wrote: post #24

david927 wrote: post #5

It's his personal view. What does freedom mean if it's only about views that everyone likes?

His personal view is that a subset of humans do not deserve equal rights afforded to everyone else. It's not that he votes for a different party, that's not a problem. It's that he actively wants to deny rights to certain people, some of whom are under his employ. I wouldn't want a member of the KKK running my organization either, and I would imagine most minorities would speak out about that as well. Racist or anti-…

If you deny him his job for this act, donating money to a legitimate political campaign, you're denying him his rights. He has the right to his opinion and to voice that opinion.