Live data from Hacker News

Inclusiveness at Mozilla

brendaneich.com

121–130 of 196 posts

Re: Inclusiveness at Mozilla

#121
post #11

He just wanted to take an opportunity to "express [..] sorrow at having caused pain." Eich does not regret his actions, he's just sorry that you felt pain because of the things he did. Classic business-ese non-apology.

I absolutely despise this sort of dissection of expressions of regret. It's poisonous and never raises the level of discussion. I have serious questions about the sincerity of the motives of people who do it.

It's offensive to "apologize" when you do not actually regret your behavior. It rings false because it is false. It's a cynical attempt to manipulate the audience.

Sometimes it is better to say nothing. This post should have remained focused on Eich's workplace policies and promises to staff.

Re: Inclusiveness at Mozilla

#122
post #25

Would Mozilla appoint someone to CEO who donated $1000 towards a campaign on banning interracial marriage? Is being against same-sex marriage ok as a personal opinion just because we're in the transition period?

> Is being against same-sex marriage ok as a personal opinion just because we're in the transition period? Yes. The jury's out on gay marriage still. We all know what the verdict will be, and people who don't support it will be carried along kicking and screaming, but it's still ok socially to oppose gay marriage. That said, it was a stupid move on Mozilla's part. I'm sure he'll be great for the company, but now thei…

I'm totally fine with our masthead reading "We're understanding of dissenting opinion, even if we believe you're really and utterly wrong". We seem to like to do things the hard way with the press anyhow.

Re: Inclusiveness at Mozilla

#123

Wait, wait, hold on. Folks, this man isn't a politician, he isn't a social crusader, he isn't using his position as a platform. At worst, he's rich. He hasn't taken the throne, or even government office; he's the CEO of a private corporation that makes web browsers of all things. Now, sure, he might be against gay marriage. And you might disagree, and have a variety of principles to back your position. But why do we…

I am okay with Brendan Eich being named CEO of Mozilla, despite having made a political donation that I strongly disagree with.

I am also okay with Eich drawing criticism over it, indefinitely.

That being said, I can't help but feel that a lot people are, for lack of a better way to say it... trying too hard. It's like we've completely lost track of some VERY recent historical context.

If I recall correctly, back in the 2008 Presidential election, not a single one of the Democratic Party front-runners would stand in support of marriage equality. Obama wouldn't, the Clintons wouldn't, Edwards wouldn't. Support for "civil unions" was still a completely socially acceptable position in left-wing circles, and even that was a controversial stance among the mainstream public.

Sometime in late-2011 / early-2012 a critical mass was finally reached, and it rather suddenly became okay to "out" yourself in the mainstream as supporting full equality. President Obama "evolved" (i.e. reversed) his position in May of 2012. The percentage of public support for marriage equality finally crossed over the 50% threshold in the U.S. a couple of months later.

To hear people talk, you would think the "bad old days" were decades ago... and that anyone who hasn't stood on the correct side of history for years now is a bigoted fossil. Folks, President Obama's reversal was TWENTY-TWO MONTHS AGO. Equality has been a majority view for barely a year and a half.

Granted, popularity and poll numbers are not a substitute for moral righteousness. Moreover, "not publicly supporting" equality is a different matter from spending money to actively oppose it. As I said, I believe that Eich should draw criticism for his 2008 donation indefinitely, or at least until he experiences enough personal growth to reverse his views. However, much of the reaction this week has been a bit over-the-top and unproductive. It feels like a lot people who just RECENTLY arrived at a party are doubling-down on their partying, to compensate for arriving only recently. There's a fine line between being righteous and working to change people's hearts and minds, or just being smugly self-righteous to score imaginary Internet-points. I think a lot of this week's commentary has fallen on the wrong side of that line.

Re: Inclusiveness at Mozilla

#124
As a private individual he donated $X to anti-gay causes.

How much has he, as a Mozilla employee, spent on pro-gay causes?

Releasing a pink Mozilla phone that sends Y% of profit to pro-gay causes might be a good move.

Re: Inclusiveness at Mozilla

#125
post #119
post #33

Eich's personal stance on marriage now cannot have an impact on his role, or he will be at heavy odds with this blog post and the public opinion of many Mozilla works to include. He will be under scrutiny as long as he remains CEO. Admitting a sudden change of heart would have zero effect on Mozilla. I'm not sure what result people are expecting otherwise, but if the workplace environment he describes in this post is…

An explanation of why he is anti-gay marriage. That would speak more about his personal values and by extension how he will make decisions as CEO than his commitment to Mozilla's inclusiveness policy does. As a newly-minted CEO, his character is on trial.

"As a newly-minted CEO, his character is on trial."

LOL. We've now descended into complete ridiculousness.

Re: Inclusiveness at Mozilla

#126

Wait, wait, hold on. Folks, this man isn't a politician, he isn't a social crusader, he isn't using his position as a platform. At worst, he's rich. He hasn't taken the throne, or even government office; he's the CEO of a private corporation that makes web browsers of all things. Now, sure, he might be against gay marriage. And you might disagree, and have a variety of principles to back your position. But why do we…

I am okay with Brendan Eich being named CEO of Mozilla, despite having made a political donation that I strongly disagree with. I am also okay with Eich drawing criticism over it, indefinitely. That being said, I can't help but feel that a lot people are, for lack of a better way to say it... trying too hard. It's like we've completely lost track of some VERY recent historical context. If I recall correctly, back in…

As far as we know he still held those same views - as a private individual - in 2012.

Hos track record at Mozilla appears to be inclusive etc.

Re: Inclusiveness at Mozilla

#127
post #96

Wait, wait, hold on. Folks, this man isn't a politician, he isn't a social crusader, he isn't using his position as a platform. At worst, he's rich. He hasn't taken the throne, or even government office; he's the CEO of a private corporation that makes web browsers of all things. Now, sure, he might be against gay marriage. And you might disagree, and have a variety of principles to back your position. But why do we…

Brendan went out of his way to donate a thousand dollars to prevent a group of people from sharing the same right as everyone else. Allowing it would have harmed no one. Not him, not them, not anyone. There are no negative downsides, other than a subset of religious individuals who wish to impose their strictures onto all of society feeling less in control of their lives. I have a hard time accepting, as a leader, so…

You mean American society don't you? Most societies in the world aren't governed by America. Let's not pretend for a single second America leads the way in progressive and social change.

Re: Inclusiveness at Mozilla

#128
post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A straight apology now would have been nothing short of opportunistic and considered cheap. Promising action to the contrary sounds a lot better.

He never addressed the core issue which gave way to this entire blog post.

Because that one is about his personal opinion, which nobody should give two fucks about? It's what he does as CEO that matters. And from what I can see, he's pretty much made it clear he's willing to put his personal opinion aside for that.

Re: Inclusiveness at Mozilla

#129
post #96

Wait, wait, hold on. Folks, this man isn't a politician, he isn't a social crusader, he isn't using his position as a platform. At worst, he's rich. He hasn't taken the throne, or even government office; he's the CEO of a private corporation that makes web browsers of all things. Now, sure, he might be against gay marriage. And you might disagree, and have a variety of principles to back your position. But why do we…

Brendan went out of his way to donate a thousand dollars to prevent a group of people from sharing the same right as everyone else. Allowing it would have harmed no one. Not him, not them, not anyone. There are no negative downsides, other than a subset of religious individuals who wish to impose their strictures onto all of society feeling less in control of their lives. I have a hard time accepting, as a leader, so…

And so the correct response is for [a segment of] society to impose its views on him? I don't see the logic here; I suspect there really isn't any.

You say that "Allowing it would have harmed no one." Tell me, who is it harming for Brendan to be CEO of Mozilla? The answer is not "LGBT people", because he's already stated that his personal views won't change policy; and it's just not plausible that Mozilla will suddenly start discriminating against people due the the personal views of the CEO.

So we can say, "Allowing Brendan to be CEO would have harmed no one. Not him, not them, not anyone. There are no negative downsides, other than a subset of pro-LGBT-rights individuals who wish to impose their beliefs onto all of society, and onto Brendan in particular, feeling less in control of their lives." How then is protesting Brendan's donation any different than the donation itself?

You might agree with Brendan's views, disagree with them, whatever. But it seems mighty bigoted to start protesting someone else's beliefs; isn't that the whole message here?

EDIT: To be clear, if Brendan ever starts imposing discriminatory policies or the like, I'll grab my pitchfork and join you. Until then, anyone with a pitchfork in hand is protesting not Brendan's actions, but his mere /beliefs/, and that is wrong, and betrays a shocking cognitive dissonance coming from someone who supposedly supports equality and tolerance.

Re: Inclusiveness at Mozilla

#130

This is not even close to good enough. I will continue to refuse to use Firefox out of general principle.

What do you truly know about the political views of the individuals involved in producing the other web browsers?
Post reply on HN