Earlier quoted context omitted.
and this is excellent example of tolerance you desire :)
That is horseshit. When somebody works to take away your civil rights, a desire for tolerance does not require you to politely say, "Oh, gosh, you go on ahead and oppress us then." An open mind isn't an empty mind.
Three Mozilla Board Members Resign over Choice of New CEO
171–180 of 194 posts
Re: Three Mozilla Board Members Resign over Choice of New CEO
#172Earlier quoted context omitted.
Essentially, there isn't. There are gays living and loving now, who are being discriminated against now. This effect that the affected are feeling now does not go away by giving anyone a benefit of the doubt. If we need time to sort out how exactly to handle this whole marriage business, it still is inacceptable to just keep discriminating until a consensus has been found. "I accept gays but I still do treat them dif…
I think we must distinguish sharply between marriage as a legal institution and as a cultural/religious custom. The former is a matter of equality and civil rights, but it can be satisfied by the institution of civil partnership. As for the latter - cultural customs and rituals are not rights and don't have to be inclusive. It's not discrimination to have a custom specific to celebrating the relationship between a ma…
Also, I think it is confusing to say "cultural customs and rituals are not rights and don't have to be inclusive." That is largely correct from a legal perspective, but still makes for a bad society to live in. You probably legally can found a club for white people only, but it's unlikely that that would be a nice club to be in. And also, just because something has a long tradition, that does not make it non-discriminatory.
Whether some gay people don't want to marry obviously is completely irrelevant to the discussion, as this is not about forcing gay people to marry. This is about the freedom for those who want to, not about forcing those who don't want to. And even if some gay people feel that it's not appropriate for other gay people to marry, it's not the job of the state to enforce that on those other gay people who actually do want to marry.
And I do agree that you don't have to carry any ill-feelings towards blacks in order to want to preserve the traditional definition of who has to sit where on the bus. But that completely ignores that there are people with feelings on the other side as well - people who are excluded, people for whom sitting on "black only" seats is not just a quaint tradition. Those strong feelings about traditional roles do exist and totally are real, be it about the role of slaves, of black people, of women, ..., but that does not mean that living them does not hurt other people. We as a society can (and have to) force people to confront that they are actually causing harm with their clinging to traditional ideas, often for totally irrational reasons. That does not mean that we cannot empathize with those people who sincerely believe that they are losing something when giving up such strong-held beliefs and ideas, but we also can not accept that they hurt other people.
And, really, I would want to encourage you to re-read what you write, replacing everything in it that is about gays with black people and mixed marriages and other things that we have figured out a while back, try to read it as a sincere argument. You are used to the idea that marriage is a custom specific to heterosexuals. But you have to consider that people at some point were equally used to racial segregation. There were people using the exact same arguments back then, feeling equally right about how traditionally marriage was for "people of the same race". And yet I would hope that the suggestion of a "interracial union" for those mixed couples who want to get more or less the same benefits that "one-race couples" enjoyed traditionally (so that the traditionalists can keep their tradition of what they perceive to be a real marriage) would seems utterly absurd and inappropriate to you. Then try to extrapolate from that perspective on the past to how you would view this current discussion as a person in the equally (not that) distant future. And then reconsider who is undeservedly labelled a bigot or ostracized.
Re: Three Mozilla Board Members Resign over Choice of New CEO
#173Earlier quoted context omitted.
Lots of people, including AFAICT a large chunk if not a majority if the tech community, consider same-sex marriage to be a human rights issue. To them, yes, it would be better if he had fought Prop 8, assuming they didn't just take it for granted.
Suppose he didn't oppose same-sex marriage per se, but opposed the way it was being implemented in California. Would he still be anti "human rights"? These issues are complex and people's beliefs and opinions can't always be distilled down to some simple, binary good/bad bit. I'm opposed to mandatory integration of public schools and mandatory racial-based quota systems. Does that make me a racist? Some would say so,…
For what it's worth, part of how the free market avoids devolving into pure selfishness is that people take personal stands on moral issues, regardless of economic concerns. That, also, is an important way that change happens. It just happens that you and I don't agree with that particular stand (not that it necessarily had anything to do with the resignations in question).
Re: Three Mozilla Board Members Resign over Choice of New CEO
#174Earlier quoted context omitted.
Firefox has equal share with Chrome and most of the techies I know still use Firefox. Not having every private test URL of stuff you're working on sent to Google is reason enough. I do have several dev friends that use Chrome. They're usually mobile devs unconcerned with privacy (they have everything in Google).
> Firefox has equal share with Chrome and most of the >techies >I know still use Firefox. > Not having every private test URL of stuff >you're working on sent to Google is reason enough. And where does Mozilla money come from ? tell me.
Re: Three Mozilla Board Members Resign over Choice of New CEO
#175Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think we must distinguish sharply between marriage as a legal institution and as a cultural/religious custom. The former is a matter of equality and civil rights, but it can be satisfied by the institution of civil partnership. As for the latter - cultural customs and rituals are not rights and don't have to be inclusive. It's not discrimination to have a custom specific to celebrating the relationship between a ma…
Yes, the distinction is important, but this obviously is all about the legal part - the state has no business in discriminating between sexual orientations, so the state has to either offer marriage for everyone or not at all, and the same for "civil unions". Also, I think it is confusing to say "cultural customs and rituals are not rights and don't have to be inclusive." That is largely correct from a legal perspect…
I think your comparisons between race and gender are superficial. There fundamental differences between the two concepts.
We still have separate toilets for men and women, and nobody suggests it's offensive. I haven't seen fashion designers catch any flack for preparing separate collections for different genders. It is normal to sometimes seek the company of your own gender, e.g. to have "a ladies night out" - but deliberately inviting only white friends would raise eyebrows, to say the least. Nobody's weirded out by a bachelor party, either. There are many gender-related or even gender-exclusive traditions, places, institutions, and businesses.
In other words, we aim for a post-racial society, in which race is considered outdated and irrelevant to personal and social relations. The gender dynamic is different. In some respects gender is, in fact, separate but equal.
Re: Three Mozilla Board Members Resign over Choice of New CEO
#176This seems unusual. Isn't the board responsible for appointing the CEO, to begin with? How can it be that half the board resigns after their own CEO appointment? Even if the appointment were simply a majority of the board, that in and of itself raises bizarre questions. Why is a CEO appointed only on a 3-3 (or 4-2) vote? Usually you would want unanimity in important things like this. This certainly opens up a lot of…
I think Eich was also on the board which would have made it 4-3. Not sure though.
Re: Three Mozilla Board Members Resign over Choice of New CEO
#177Right now we find ourselves watching vital cornerstone of the Free Internet suddenly ripping itself apart. A community of people who would usually be working on improving (at least attempting to improve) concepts like freedom of speech and publication (press). This is especially important right now, given all of the NSA/Snowden drama of the last year, and the threats they revealed.
So I'm forced to wonder: who's the spy trying to wedge the community apart?
Yes, yes, we've been arguing about sexuality and marriage for a long time, and it should simply be old factions suddenly forced to confront their current situation. Normally, I would simply accept that explanation.
However, given that the spy agencies have been using[1] tactics to disrupt groups they see as threatening, I'm forced to wonder if these new "wedges" between previously-stable communities. Especially in the cases like Mozilla, where and its role on the world stage certainly makes them a target for COINTELPRO or similar attacks.
...
Because of this worry, I'm going to suggest something counter to my usual instincts. Being gay myself, I would normally be strongly against Mr. Eich for reasons already said elsewhere. There is a wisdom in picking your battles, and right now there are more important issues.
So, instead, I am choosing to see Mr. Eich as a strong ally against greater threats. Marriage rights won't easy to fight for if we lose the surveillance/police-state battle first. Emotions are running strong right now - I won't deny that the idea of having funded prop 8 does piss me of - but winning one war often means finding allies, even if you don't like them.
edit: forgot footnote
[1]: https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2014/02/24/jtrig-manipula...
Re: Three Mozilla Board Members Resign over Choice of New CEO
#178Hmm, something's amiss. Archive.org's record of Mozilla's website says that Mozilla Corp only ever had 5 board members. The WSJ seems to imply they had 6. Assuming Moz's own website is accurate, Katharina Borchert only joined around the time Eich was appointed. Either way, the numbers don't quite add up. If there were only 5 board members, and only 2 of them wanted Eich, how did he get chosen? And even if Katherina w…
I don't know anything about Mozilla's structure, but in some corporations it's possible for a single board seat to have more than one vote (e.g., for board seats appointed by a holder of "Class F" (founder) or "original shares" versus other classes of stock). Edit: clarity.
Re: Three Mozilla Board Members Resign over Choice of New CEO
#179Re: Three Mozilla Board Members Resign over Choice of New CEO
#180This article links to an earlier WSJ piece that gives more information about Eich's background ( http://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2014/03/24/mozilla-picks-insider... ). He invented Javascript in 1995, co-founded Mozilla, and helped start Firefox. It seems to me he's very well qualified from a historical as well as technical perspective. Questions about his mobile expertise seem misplaced, considering that his technical co…
The root cause is: "According to the United States Government Accountability Office (GAO), there are 1,138 statutory provisions in which marital status is a factor in determining benefits, rights, and privileges." You can be against gay marriage because you don't like and don't want others to do it. But at the government level that also means denying gay couples those 1,138 benefits, rights and privileges. It means m…
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/10729717/Brian-Sewe...
You can be an atheist and still appreciate this argument as I do. As for the resignations, fine! Let them do what they want to do. Is it a big deal?