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

Inclusiveness at Mozilla

brendaneich.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 196 posts

Re: Inclusiveness at Mozilla

#141

Post by m0a0t0 »

DanielStraight wrote: post #72

Brendan Eich has now publicly committed to... 1. Include LGBT individuals in making decisions regarding discrimination and inclusivity. 2. Continue health benefits for same-sex partners. 3. Uphold anti-discrimination policies. 4. Create new initiatives to reach out to those who feel marginalized. 5. Support an initialize for bringing under-represented people (including LGBT individuals) into tech. And apparently he i…

Because he actively went out to limit peoples rights. Those who are silent on the matter are not actively harming LGBT people and I think it would be known if the companies were not inclusive.

In the world of businesses (and even Mozilla) it's generally wise not to take people at face value and let their actions do their talking. So far the only action is a negative and so he is judged in the way he is.

I would also note that he does not really offer an apology for his actions, only "sorrow at having caused pain" which sounds like the bare minimum he could get away with

Re: Inclusiveness at Mozilla

#142

Post by jbaudanza »

For comparison, this is Google's position on Prop 8:

http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2008/09/our-position-on-calif...

The tech and open source community owes a lot to its LGBT contributors. When their rights are being threatened, we should be the first in line to offer support. That is why this situation is so upsetting to many of us.

Re: Inclusiveness at Mozilla

#143

Post by cturner »

rogerbinns wrote: post #140
cturner wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. Right? The right to have a piece of paper from a government department endorsing the validity of your relationship with someone else? That's petty. If you're in an alternative relationship and want to have a permanent union with someone else, or with several other people, you can g…

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rights_and_responsibilities_of... > According to the United States Government Accountability Office (GAO), there are 1,138 statutory provisions[1] in which marital status is a factor in determining benefits, rights, and privileges. These rights were a key issue in the debate over federal recognition of same-sex marriage.

Interesting, thanks. I'm not in the US so my context is weak. My reaction would be to get rid of the provisions. In a free society, the government will have no role in the bedroom. Extending it into micromanaging relationships is a step in the wrong direction. The best code is the code we throw away.

Re: Inclusiveness at Mozilla

#144

Post by belovedeagle »

danudey wrote: post #84
lawl wrote: post #18

I have commented on this issue before [0]. I've been thinking about this again. After reading this I think he still stands to his opinion, that he personally thinks gay marriage is wrong. Obviously he's an idiot, but I think even idiots are entitled to their opinion as long as it doesn't interfere with his work at mozilla . I think that is also what he's trying to say with his blog post. I think he made it pretty cle…

The problem is that of a fundamental issue in character. This is a man who donated a thousand dollars (a not-insignificant sum) in order to prevent a group of people from sharing the same rights as everyone else. What he's saying is that there is a group of people in society who do not deserve to be treated the same as everyone else. I don't really care if he changes his opinion or not; I have an issue with people wh…

I agree that it's a shame that some people think that a certain group of people—those who supported prop 8—in society who do not deserve to be treated the same as everyone else.

I don't really care if they change their opinion or not; I too have an issue with people who go out of their way to prevent other people from having something—such as a CEO position, or from believing something—when it costs them nothing.

If there was any sort of reason why making opposition to gay marriage a thoughtcrime was economically beneficial or caused no [I suppose you meant] tangible harm to any group of people, then it would be 'live and let live', but at some point, they decided to attempt to prevent prop 8 supporters from holding high-profile jobs for no reason other than what effectively comes down to spite. That's not really someone I trust in my society.

Re: Inclusiveness at Mozilla

#145

Post by macu »

danudey wrote: post #84
lawl wrote: post #18

I have commented on this issue before [0]. I've been thinking about this again. After reading this I think he still stands to his opinion, that he personally thinks gay marriage is wrong. Obviously he's an idiot, but I think even idiots are entitled to their opinion as long as it doesn't interfere with his work at mozilla . I think that is also what he's trying to say with his blog post. I think he made it pretty cle…

The problem is that of a fundamental issue in character. This is a man who donated a thousand dollars (a not-insignificant sum) in order to prevent a group of people from sharing the same rights as everyone else. What he's saying is that there is a group of people in society who do not deserve to be treated the same as everyone else. I don't really care if he changes his opinion or not; I have an issue with people wh…

The debate has been going on for years, with enormous investment of all kinds of resources from every side. Everyone involved has a stake, and the claim that "it loses them nothing" indicates a lack of perspective.

I can only speak for myself here. I'm 24, and I grew up with the view that religion was a funny ritual the neighbours carried on, because it gave them something to do. Repeat: I grew up with a limited perspective. I saw marriage only as an expensive party and a legal contract.

Now I know this isn't the whole story. The idea of allowing gay marriage is deeply offensive to people only because it is perceived to destroy the integrity of their tradition and cultural heritage. I wouldn't take it too lightly, what gay marriage is asking of those who maintain that heritage, because in their hearts it isn't heritage, it's truth.

That's how it seems to me now anyway.

Re: Inclusiveness at Mozilla

#146

Post by aestra »

macu wrote: post #132
GuiA wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

See my other comment in this thread that touches on this point: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7476046 I don't think that Brendan's stomach turns when he's around gay people or anything like that. However, I do believe that as the CEO of an entity (especially Mozilla), his beliefs will necessarily influence his actions; and that the particular beliefs highlighted by this action are at odds with Mozilla, thus ma…

I agree in general. So long as humans partake in decision-making, decisions will be made according to the minds involved. I would worry about the possible impact of Brendan's personal beliefs if I thought that he truly has a heartfelt disdain for whole classes of people, but as far as I can tell, he doesn't. The question of whether to support gay marriage doesn't always reduce to bigotry and homophobia. In Brendan's…

>traditional idea of marriage

Ok, I have a question. What exactly do these people think a traditional marriage is? Marriage is always and has always evolved with the times, culture, and societal norms and thinking. It wasn't until recently that we even married for love (love marriages) or selected our own spouse. Previously, marriages were more like a business transaction. A transfer of property from father to husband. It used to be that a woman's family paid a bride's dowry and we had the concept of bridewealth and coverture. In the UK, it wasn't until the Married Women's Property Act 1870 when a married woman was allowed to own property. Divorce was at a time uncommon, maybe even forbidden, now it is relatively common. Very few people are even going to blink an eye at a divorce. Even 20 years ago, people married much younger. Previously, a child born out of wedlock was called a bastard and avoided at all cost, and had different rights than their legitimate siblings, now close to 50% of births in the US are born to unwed mothers. The shotgun wedding is less common. Step families are common. Interracial marriage?? Illegal in parts of the US until Loving vs. Virgina. (1967!!) The court case came out of Mildred Loving and Richard Loving being sentenced to a year in jail for getting married. The original judge said in the verdict "Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix."

Even these traditions varied with culture, religion, time, and family. They continue to today. Arranged marriages are common and even the norm in some areas. Today.

There is no such thing as a traditional marriage. There never was.

Re: Inclusiveness at Mozilla

#147

Post by eridius »

hapless wrote: 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.

If nobody felt pain because of what he did, then what would he have to apologize for?

Re: Inclusiveness at Mozilla

#148

Post by DanielStraight »

ebiester wrote: post #139
DanielStraight wrote: post #72

Brendan Eich has now publicly committed to... 1. Include LGBT individuals in making decisions regarding discrimination and inclusivity. 2. Continue health benefits for same-sex partners. 3. Uphold anti-discrimination policies. 4. Create new initiatives to reach out to those who feel marginalized. 5. Support an initialize for bringing under-represented people (including LGBT individuals) into tech. And apparently he i…

It's not logical -- and none of it pretend it is. All I can say is that when one grows up having been physically, emotionally, verbally, and spiritually harassed for a greater part of one's life, these little things end up bringing up the whole ball of shit. It short circuits logic, but it's a common human trait. Some Jewish people still won't buy Volkswagon cars, for example, and I remember hearing WWII Veterans who…

This is an argument I can understand. Thank you.

Re: Inclusiveness at Mozilla

#149

Post by tzs »

cturner wrote: post #138
danudey wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> 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. Right? The right to have a piece of paper from a government department endorsing the validity of your relationship with someone else? That's petty. If you're in an alternative relationship and want to have a permanent union with someone else, or with several other people, you can g…

> If you're in an alternative relationship and want to have a permanent union with someone else, or with several other people, you can go and draw up a contract and then get on with your lives. It could take as little as ten minutes. Contract law is fantastic like this.

A contract is only binding on the parties. Most of the marriage rights that gays want are significant because they apply to people NOT in the marriage.

Post reply on HN