Torn and weary (on Brendan Eich and Mozilla) • Hacker News Board

Re: Torn and weary (on Brendan Eich and Mozilla)

#51

Post by betterunix » Sat, Apr 05, 2014, 1:28 PM UTC

wcummings wrote: post #38

betterunix wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That does not mean it is acceptable for people to band together and bully anyone who disagrees with them. All it means is that the legal system is not going to help us, and that we have to take it upon ourselves to remind people not to behave in this manner.

Racism and sexism are often considered firable offenses. For many, this feels no different. The fact that its tied to a "religious belief" or is still something that can be voted on makes it no less bigoted. His poor response didn't help: "if you disagree with me you're oppressing the poor Indonesians who don't have a mouthpiece!". What an asshole. The fact is, donating to support prop 8 is bigotry in and of itself.…

"Free speech has nothing to do with this, this is someone whose actions many people found incompatible with what they saw as Mozilla's values, both inside and outside of the organization, and who can blame them?"

I can blame them. Mozilla makes a web browser. Gay marriage has nothing to do with Mozilla's mission or with the political issues Mozilla has to deal with as part of its mission. I could understand the uproar if Eich had donated to a "ban free software" cause, but that is not what happened.

You're right, this is not about free speech. Eich was not punished for what he said, he was punished for what he thought. The donation is irrelevant here, other than the fact that it revealed Eich's beliefs. There would be just as much anger and vitriol if instead of a donation someone revealed that Eich had voted in favor of proposition 8.

Re: Torn and weary (on Brendan Eich and Mozilla)

#52

Post by joshstrange » Sat, Apr 05, 2014, 1:31 PM UTC

tonymillion wrote: post #46

CrLf wrote: post #16

This whole story is disgusting. I'm still waiting to understand exactly where does a personal opinion on gay rights interfere with the ability to manage a company that basically develops a web browser. Just another witch hunt.

It matters because with the knowledge we have now, we'll never know if "Person X" was passed over for promotion because they were "a little bit gay" or they just weren't suited to the job. With that permanently at the back of our minds, how can we ever trust his actions towards others are "fair and unbiased"? The only way to ensure any equality in this situation would be to have a committee review his every action, w…

I agree with most everything you said but I don't believe past actions lock you into a future course. He could have come out and said his views on marriage equality had changed but he didn't and so we have to assume they haven't. Had he said his past donation was a mistake and his opinion on the matter had now changed I doubt we would have seen the same backlash.

Re: Torn and weary (on Brendan Eich and Mozilla)

#53

Post by davidw » Sat, Apr 05, 2014, 1:31 PM UTC

crankyc0der wrote: post #40

davidw wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Something I've been wondering about this confusing issue is: do people think it's never ok to ostracize someone for their views? Say he donated money to the KKK, or ... you make up some really heinous, hideous belief ...? Still ok? And going the other way, to something a bit broader/more mainstream, say he donated to the Republican Party. Ok to ostracize him? To me it seems like people have some kind of dividing line…

American? Contribute to one of the world powers via taxes? Throw stones much?

You don't seem to be responding to the central point of my question really, which is an open one. I didn't comment to tell everyone the Right Answer, I was musing about how people work.

I see you are fairly new here: something that sets HN apart from other corners of the internet is that generally, we try and be tolerant, and give other people the benefit of the doubt. Snarky one liners are not always looked on very positively.

Naturally, there are heated discussions and these ideals don't always hold true, but one of the guiding principles here is to pretend you are talking to someone in person and think about how that would guide your interaction with them.

Re: Torn and weary (on Brendan Eich and Mozilla)

#54

Post by Amezarak » Sat, Apr 05, 2014, 1:33 PM UTC

joshstrange wrote: post #30

nailer wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So, as Pacabel just asked, would you support someone being forced to leave their job because they supported gay marriage?

This is a ridiculous question, of course not. Please don't try to act like pro/anti gay marriage are equally ethical positions, they aren't.

You see same-sex marriage as a human right. (You would surely agree that same-sex marriage was a right even were it not a legal one.) To those of us who believe in human rights, which undoubtedly includes Eich, that would make anyone who took action to deny anyone that right unethical.

The problem is Eich doesn't see it as a human right. Indeed, to him, it may be the case he sees same-sex marriage as unethical. (We don't know what his objections are.) At any rate, he has no reason to find the support of gay marriage ethical or the opposition of it unethical.

There is no objective morality that tells us who is right or wrong here. There's no divine tablets we can all interpret listing out all our rights.

You can't stop at "same-sex marriage is a human right" and "opposing gay marriage is (ergo) unethical." That just leaves you talking right past people like Eich. It doesn't advance the argument or the cause - it just labels people as stupid or bad.

Re: Torn and weary (on Brendan Eich and Mozilla)

#55

Post by jdbernard » Sat, Apr 05, 2014, 1:34 PM UTC

stephenr wrote: post #49

Pacabel wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you might be missing the overarching issue here. It isn't so much about the specifics of gay marriage, or Eich's donation, or him losing his job because of his opinions. The real issue is hypocrisy, contradiction and double-standards. We've seen one group (in this case the pro-gay-marriage crowd) act in a way towards others (Eich and the anti-gay-marriage crowd) that the first group would think is absolutely…

Not tolerating intolerance, is not intolerance.

I don't like this idea. Any strong disagreement by one side could reasonably be called intolerance by there other. And then where does it end? Tolerating other people, even when they act in a way contradictory to your own moral convictions is the definition of tolerance.

What Eich did was not illegal. It was disagreeable to many. But tolerant people would chose instead to strive the more for their position without directly attacking him and his career. That is what the intolerant do. Intolerance says "I disagree with your actions and your thoughts therefore I must prevent you from having any power or influence in our society." Tolerance says, "I disagree with your thoughts and actions, therefore I will work to persuade you otherwise. Failing that I will find a way to coexist with you, despite our disagreements. We will build a society that that respects the differences, and protects the weak from abuse by the strong, regardless of their beliefs."

Re: Torn and weary (on Brendan Eich and Mozilla)

#56

Post by wcummings » Sat, Apr 05, 2014, 1:34 PM UTC

betterunix wrote: post #51

wcummings wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Racism and sexism are often considered firable offenses. For many, this feels no different. The fact that its tied to a "religious belief" or is still something that can be voted on makes it no less bigoted. His poor response didn't help: "if you disagree with me you're oppressing the poor Indonesians who don't have a mouthpiece!". What an asshole. The fact is, donating to support prop 8 is bigotry in and of itself.…

"Free speech has nothing to do with this, this is someone whose actions many people found incompatible with what they saw as Mozilla's values, both inside and outside of the organization, and who can blame them?" I can blame them. Mozilla makes a web browser. Gay marriage has nothing to do with Mozilla's mission or with the political issues Mozilla has to deal with as part of its mission. I could understand the uproa…

Chick-fil-A also has nothing to do with Gay Marriage [1]. It's not like this is some totally unique event, in the real world these issues are more than a proposition on a ballot and they effect the way people do business, whether you like it or not.

As an executive at Mozilla, Eich forced the organization to take a stance on the issue by donating.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chick-fil-A_same-sex_marriage_c...

Re: Torn and weary (on Brendan Eich and Mozilla)

#57

Post by thropoa123 » Sat, Apr 05, 2014, 1:35 PM UTC

Why on earth is anyone defending Brenden? I am gay in a third world country and if I come out, at best I will be socially ostracized, get fired and lose my whole family or at worst, suffer life imprisonment. He actively supported a legislation which treats gays as subhumans. His justification is absolutely abhorring. Does Brenden know how many homosexual men and women live constantly in fear for their lives? Does he know how much pain people like me suffer through everyday in their life?

What is wrong with people? We should respect his political opinion? Bull-fucking-shit. His political opinion just adds suffering to already shitty lives. The first thing I ever did after getting a credit card was donate to Mozilla. That's how much I like that organization. I can never digest the fact that he became a CEO.

I waited to see if he had changed his opinion. All I wanted to hear from his mouth was, "I am sorry that I have hurt many LGBT people by donating to prop 8. I made a mistake." He never said that. Deep down he still considers us as subhumans. I am very sure that he would be a great CEO. But If he were the CEO, Mozilla as an organization has let me down.

Sorry for bad English

Re: Torn and weary (on Brendan Eich and Mozilla)

#58

Post by betterunix » Sat, Apr 05, 2014, 1:35 PM UTC

joshstrange wrote: post #41

betterunix wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"he cleverly dances around the fact that he feels that homosexuals do not deserve the same rights as heterosexuals." Yes, and obviously that is completely orthogonal to the kind of treatment he has received over his beliefs about gay marriage. It is easy to criticize people who are afraid to speak their minds when you have an army of thought police standing with you ready to punish anyone who dares to disagree.

I for one am extremely happy that we have an "army" of people ready to defend an oppressed group of people. Also this is not the "though police" he donated to a group working to destroy human rights for homosexuals. If we were talking about a CEO that was racist and had donated to the KKK would you still rush to call foul when they were forced to step down by popular opinion?

Funny how the donation becomes the issue only after someone mentions thoughtcrime. Until then, the issue is what Eich believes.

"If we were talking about a CEO that was racist and had donated to the KKK would you still rush to call foul when they were forced to step down by popular opinion?"

Here are the guidelines I would use:

1. What does the organization they are CEO of do? If it is an organization devoted to providing aid to oppressed minorities, obviously KKK membership would be a conflict of interest. If on the other hand the organization makes general purpose software, I fail to see the relevance.

2. Is the CEO trying to use the organization to promote the KKK's agenda? If so, there is a problem with his professional conduct. If not, then his KKK membership is something he does on his own time; hateful, sure, but I do not want to live in a world where people are not allowed to separate their personal and professional lives.

Re: Torn and weary (on Brendan Eich and Mozilla)

#59

Post by sehr » Sat, Apr 05, 2014, 1:37 PM UTC

zimbatm wrote: post #22

Internet mobs is a horrible phenomenon. Internet was supposed to enable sharing of culture and better the understanding of each other. Instead we get these groups of people who spit bile at a target and just make things worse overall. How ironic that one of the people who helped create this system now gets pushed aside. The thing is that it works. I read some hate-inducing title and start to get worked up. My judgeme…

My judgement is clouded and I might post some more inflammatory content. What is it that makes me react that way ? Every time I do it I don't even feel good after that.

Has anyone experimented with meditation/mindfulness here? I imagine constantly being aware of your reactions and moods would help in situations like this.

And in regards to that, are there any studies on mob mentality in western vs eastern cultures? Or am I just barking down a pseudoscience rabbit hole

Re: Torn and weary (on Brendan Eich and Mozilla)

#60

Post by lukasm » Sat, Apr 05, 2014, 1:39 PM UTC

tomelders wrote: post #20

What world is this? When did everyone lose their minds and decide it was ok for some people to be Homophobes, but not for others? Can I be a racist if I'm a CEO? Am I free from criticism for my horrible beliefs just because I run an organisation that people like? Does donating $1000 to a movement that campaigns to take rights away form black people have any reflection on me? Can I be trusted to not let my world view…

No one said it's ok to be racist or homophobic. The problem is lynching. I can clearly image similar case when someone hasn't done anything, but there is a semi-proof that he/she did. What if internet mob go after his/her family?