Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Brendan Eich Steps Down as Mozilla CEO

blog.mozilla.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

831–840 of 1001 posts

Re: Brendan Eich Steps Down as Mozilla CEO

#831

Post by mkessy »

smsm42 wrote: post #751
wpietri wrote: post #740

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Putting money behind Prop 8 helped strip a civil right from gay people. It's technically true that proves nothing about Eich's beliefs. Heck, maybe it was Eich's personal Opposite Day. But does it matter? Even the bible says, "You will know them by their fruits," meaning that it's reasonable to judge people by what they do. The pseudo-gotcha about tolerance is ridiculous, an accusation of hypocrisy based on a straw m…

>>> it's reasonable for gay employees and business partners to be concerned. Unless Mozilla has entered into business of organizing gay weddings while I wasn't looking - no, it's not reasonable at all. No more than gun owner should be concerned if his CEO donated to a known anti-gun politician, or a medical marijuana user should be concerned if his business partner donated to a politician that opposes drug legalizati…

Again you continue to equate political issues with civil rights issues, my views on gun laws are not the same as my view on whether one group of people should be treated the same as another.

Re: Brendan Eich Steps Down as Mozilla CEO

#832

Post by baak »

quaunaut wrote: post #705
angersock wrote: post #527

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"damage done to their close peers" Again, what damage, and how does that get traced directly back to Eich? The law was repealed, marriage reinstated, and everything's fine. The system worked, so what's the issue? And a "whole bunch"? How many? Numbers? Percentage? Let us not suspect--we are in the Information Age. Google your way to success. The only number we have is $1000 from Eich to support Prop 8--that's the onl…

How is that not enough evidence? He paid $1000 to the campaign. Since the outrage began, he has said nothing to nuance his position, nothing to talk about changing his mind, nothing to make his employees or contributors feel like he had their best interest at heart. And furthermore, are you really trying to say we should have to directly tie how that money went into the Prop 8 bank account and then was spent to influ…

It's rational to demand an apology or explanation for a vote held six years ago that actually passed? Are you going to collect apologies from the other seven million voters as well?

Sorry, and I hate to be the one to say it, but his view isn't that far from mainstream. In fact, it would seem less than a decade ago, it was quite popular.

Just because your opinion is currently popular, doesn't mean the people who disagreed with you six years ago owe you an apology or they can't have a job.

Re: Brendan Eich Steps Down as Mozilla CEO

#833

Post by JasonFruit »

wpietri wrote: post #746
JasonFruit wrote: post #713

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would absolutely take that position. How is it relevant to his position? Can't someone pragmatically act as is appropriate to the world that is, while working to remake it as they believe it should be?

If Mozilla appointed, say, a KKK Grand Wizard to the post of CEO, that would definitely be relevant. First, because every non-white person would immediately have rational cause to fear discrimination. Second, because every anti-racist employee, partner, and donor would have incentive to reevaluate their willingness to help Mozilla along. And third, it would be an enormous PR nightmare, an unending distraction from Mo…

There's a big difference between donating $1000 to a legal political cause and being a leader in an organization known for violent and illegal activity. If someone donated $1000 to the Freedom From Religion Foundation's legal fund, would that mean they could not be the CEO of a non-profit organization that might employ religious people?

Re: Brendan Eich Steps Down as Mozilla CEO

#834

Post by blisterpeanuts »

apetresc wrote: post #567

Mozilla's stance on respecting people's private, personal decisions (as a company working on a communication medium) is way more important to me than its stance on same-sex politics. Where did all the privacy advocates suddenly disappear to? I'm staunchly pro-gay-rights and would've debated Eich vociferously on the issue of gay marriage back in 2008 if he had chosen to make his opinion public (which he didn't), but f…

That's basically how I feel as well. Almost anyone has a skeleton or two in the closet that some enterprising journalist might dig up, just to ruin his career. We Americans are scandal-happy and rather intolerant, including those who think of themselves as "more tolerant than thou" which in fact is an insidious form of intolerance!

Re: Brendan Eich Steps Down as Mozilla CEO

#835

Post by victorhooi »

dnr wrote: post #736
victorhooi wrote: post #695

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, actually, he comes across as the bigger person. He made a very public post saying, I'm happy to discuss my views - reach out to me and I'm happy to do it in private. The alternate would have either been a public spectacle, or farce - sorry, but the real world isn't quite like 4chan, and adults are able to sort things out without resorting to baying mobs.

He didn't say that at all. He said: "If we are acquainted, have good-faith assumptions, and circumstances allow it, we can discuss 1:1 in person. Online communication doesn’t seem to work very well for potentially divisive issues. Getting to know each other works better in my experience." I think it's clear that the vast majority of people that would like to discuss his views with him couldn't actually take him up on…

How is that not the right thing to do?

Having a flame way on 4chan, or HN benefits nobody - it just feeds the mobs, and rapidly degenerates into the lowest common denominator.

If you were genuinely interested in having a dialogue, and engaging as one human being to another human being, then what he suggested is exactly the right thing to do.

If you just want to get up on a soapbox, or mouth off at somebody in a public forum to inflate your ego, then he's not interested - and I applaud him for that.

And look, I'm not even in the US - but if I wanted to engage in a dialogue with him - I'm sure a Skype or phone call might suffice.

Re: Brendan Eich Steps Down as Mozilla CEO

#836

Post by incongruity »

blindhippo wrote: post #815
incongruity wrote: post #735

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Please don't paint all Christians with a broad brush. I, for one, support gay marriage, as do many others. Just say'n. On the other hand, I also think it'd be completely valid to say that the government shouldn't be in the 'marriage' business at all (gay or straight) and it should only handle contracts -- aka civil unions. One could then parse "marriage" to be something reserved for whatever church/belief system/pers…

"Marriage" IS a civil contract. This is the entire point of the institution. And considering the Government is the embodiment of and the centralized authority for our society, it very much should be at the center of marriage. A "marriage" is a multifaceted social institution that has civil/economic implications (first and foremost) and cultural implications as varied as the number of people on the planet. To state th…

>"Marriage" IS a civil contract. This is the entire point of the institution.

I think the fairest way to characterize it is that it is a term that means multiple things to different groups, much as you said... However, while it may not be your view, many religions view the institution of marriage as being much more than just a civil contract as you have by saying "that is the entire point of the institution."

>That all said, we pretty much have the same view, but I propose a slightly different solution: drop one of the terms entirely. There is no reason to differentiate between civil unions and marriage. They are legally the exact same thing - no reason to have two terms for it.

Again, to you there's no reason to differentiate, but for many, there are two parts to it all -- the contract via the state and the religious vows via the church. I think it's actually more helpful to understand the two parts, lest we make the silly mistake many anti-gay marriage types do, which is to assume that the government wants to push anything on anyone's religion.

Instead, the argument is most easily made, IMHO, that inasmuch as it's solely a civil matter, irrespective of religious matters, then gay marriage is a simple matter of equality under the law. What churches do with their marriage rituals is up to them and is a non factor for the state.

Re: Brendan Eich Steps Down as Mozilla CEO

#838

Post by victorhooi »

Borogove wrote: post #712
baddox wrote: post #380

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I generally agree with you but I think the problem here is that being against gay marriage is more than just a "political view." Not necessarily. It's quite possible to support gay partners' legal right to live together, file taxes together, set up wills and visitation rights, adopt children, etc., but still oppose changing the legally-defined notion of marriage.

You'll forgive me if I find expanding the definition of "marriage" in state and federal law to be a more reasonable approach than having to fight separate battles for each of the 1000+ legal rights and obligations which currently accrue to married couples.

Do you really think that's what this is about?

Sorry, but I call fake.

In many countries, you have the concept of de-facto relationships - you don't even need to be married, let alone have a civil union, and you have the same rights.

So it's not like the courts couldn't do it - and in many cases have.

However, this entire debate is purely one of ideology and semantics.

It was never about "privileges" (whether tax, medical, or whatever), but about two different people trying to define what marriage meant.

For some groups, marriage has ties to family and raising children - and human society has sort of flowed along those lines for thousands of years.

Another groups says times are a changing, and we need to redefine marriage to also include homosexual relationships, which while nothing to do with families (as we know them) or creating children, are still marriages.

Re: Brendan Eich Steps Down as Mozilla CEO

#839

Post by lylejohnson »

nostrademons wrote: post #60
phillmv wrote: post #14

From the recode recap - http://recode.net/2014/04/03/mozilla-co-founder-brendan-eich... >“It’s clear that Brendan cannot lead Mozilla in this setting,” said Baker, who added that she would not and could not speak for Eich. “The ability to lead — particularly for the CEO — is fundamental to the role and that is not possible here.” The most damning aspect of this was their a) inability to predict this would be an issue…

It speaks a lot to his integrity that he didn't. Would you rather have a CEO who says one thing in public and then goes and does another thing surreptitiously, or one who stands up for his beliefs even when they're unpopular?

A U.S. President, maybe, but no, certainly not a plain old CEO.

Re: Brendan Eich Steps Down as Mozilla CEO

#840

Post by BHSPitMonkey »

varkson wrote: post #812
byuu wrote: post #591

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Not to minimize the issue, but receiving death threats is rapidly becoming part of being a public figure on the Internet. Indeed, I've gotten quite a few death threats myself over the years for my radical cause of trying to improve the quality of video game emulators. The problem with the internet is that you can't really judge a person's mental state from a text post. Quite often the person on the other end making…

Wow really? I don't get why someone would be against a more accurate emulator, especially to the point of death threats. I love your work by the way.

Get to be an exec at Nintendo or Sony and you might feel differently!
Post reply on HN