If he contributed $1000 to a campaign to bring back slavery, and then he declared that Mozilla won't tolerate racial discrimination, would that make everything OK?
Inclusiveness at Mozilla
181–190 of 196 posts
Re: Inclusiveness at Mozilla
#182Earlier quoted context omitted.
How about Iceweasel or GNU Icecat? It's free software, man. You have your anger focused on the wrong things.
[shrug] I guess I could use either of those, but Chrome suits me fine, thanks.
Chrome is immensely worse because it is proprietary and has spyware included.
Re: Inclusiveness at Mozilla
#183Earlier 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…
On the off chance you're just uneducated and not a nasty little bigot playing dumb, the marriage right carries a ton of stuff besides a ring and a ceremony and any moral satisfaction the couple may get.
The right to see your spouse in the hospital, even (and particularly) if their family doesn't accept that their child is homosexual and attempts to ban a partner. (And this isn't a hypothetical; if you google you'll find just heart wrenching stories.)
It eases medical decisions when a gay spouse is badly injured or dying.
If there are children, both parents can have the right to care for them and make decisions for them.
The right not to testify against your spouse in some legal proceedings.
The right to get joint medical insurance.
Retirement benefits, which are particularly important when a higher income spouse passes first.
And more. See eg http://www.freedomtomarry.org/
edit: and a very important benefit: being treated as a first class citizen, ie one with the right to have your relationship recognized just like straight people have their relationships recognized.
Re: Inclusiveness at Mozilla
#184Earlier quoted context omitted.
I personally suppose that seeing someone as an idiot because of difference in opinions is more debilitating than having an arbitrarily wrong opinion. World is not black and white, and has never been.
Funny you should say that, as you are interpreting the comment you are responding to in a decidedly black-and-white fashion. When someone says someone else 'is an idiot', that usually means: "he's an idiot concerning this issue, which is actually surprising, since he mostly holds sensible and defensible opinions". It's not either black-'someone is an idiot in every aspect' or white-'someone is awesome in every aspect…
I'm sorry: I take words by their direct meanings, as long as the resulting sentence makes sense.
I understand that various (probably arbitrary) interpretations can be attached to a sentence by assuming metaphorical, implied, contextually altered, ironic, humorous, etc meanings of words. I still prefer to assume as little as possible: pluralitas non est ponenda sine necessitas.
Re: Inclusiveness at Mozilla
#185Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why should he regret his actions? It's his personal opinion and he backed it with his own money, and at his own leisure time. He has a right to believer whatever he likes in his personal life, and push politically for whetever outcome he prefers -- as long as he is not abusing the law. Apologising for how you vote, or what you believe, or what policies you root for is not democracy. And, yes, in a democracy you can a…
Democracy has nothing to do with this. Democracy is a system of government. This is about decency. What kind of person goes out of his way to oppress other people? Is that the kind of person I want heading an organization I'm affiliated with? No. Will it affect the Mozilla organization because others feel the way I do? It appears so. Given that, is Eich a good choice for CEO? Probably not.
>Democracy has nothing to do with this. Democracy is a system of government.
It's a system of government that says you are entitled to your opinion and your vote. It's not just about how you put politicians in office.
>This is about decency. What kind of person goes out of his way to oppress other people?
The same kind of person who thinks that people who are against X or pro Y, should lose job opportunities because of opinions unrelated to their work behavior.
Re: Inclusiveness at Mozilla
#186Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Homophobia and opposition to gay marriage are in my opinion completely different issues In the same way as Racism and support for Apartheid are completely orthogonal. Come on...
I am not the OP, but you have a point, they are not completely orthogonal. For instance, I do know many people who oppose gay marriage but are not homophobic.
I doubt this. Opposing gay marriage makes you homophobic in my view like voting for Apartheid makes you a racist.
There is no "I have nothing against them but they should not have equal rights". If you opt not to support equal rights for any given group of people you believe their way of life is not as valid as yours.
Re: Inclusiveness at Mozilla
#187He is sorry like the NSA is sorry you found out what they've been doing. Brendan Eich doesn't just dislike gays getting married. He hates the concept so much he officially donated to prevent it from being possible. I'm sorry, but I don't sympathize with the argument that he's "entitled to his opinions," because it's more than that. Nevermind that he's now CEO of Mozilla. (I personally don't care if gays can get marri…
I haven't seen a single grain of evidence in support of the claim that Brendan Eich hates gay people. He said it himself, "the donation does not in itself constitute evidence of animosity." And I can stand behind him on that. I'm gay and I also find the cultural crusade for gay marriage objectionable. I more go along with the views of the Against Equality group. But since it appears that gay marriage is going to happ…
>I haven't seen a single grain of evidence in support of the claim that Brendan Eich hates gay people.
His actions that have an effect indistinguishable from hating them. It turns out this is a thing he actually did.
Re: Inclusiveness at Mozilla
#188Earlier quoted context omitted.
> And Mozilla employees, contributors, and users have the same exact right as a private citizen to be upset about Eich's personal beliefs on the matter. They should have the exact same right in the exaxt same way: as "private citizens". That is, not as Mozilla employees trying to oppose a CEO placement. That they don't like his personal beliefs should in no way get in the way of working with him -- unless he brings t…
Pretty much all the Mozilla employees I've seen on social media have been quiet as lambs or supportive of Eich.
I expect this was heartening: http://arstechnica.com/business/2014/03/mozilla-employees-to...
Re: Inclusiveness at Mozilla
#189Re: Inclusiveness at Mozilla
#190Earlier quoted context omitted.
Democracy has nothing to do with this. Democracy is a system of government. This is about decency. What kind of person goes out of his way to oppress other people? Is that the kind of person I want heading an organization I'm affiliated with? No. Will it affect the Mozilla organization because others feel the way I do? It appears so. Given that, is Eich a good choice for CEO? Probably not.
> Democracy has nothing to do with this. Democracy is a system of government. It's a system of government that says you are entitled to your opinion and your vote. It's not just about how you put politicians in office. > This is about decency. What kind of person goes out of his way to oppress other people? The same kind of person who thinks that people who are against X or pro Y, should lose job opportunities becaus…
Opinions? This guy actively worked to deny rights from people. Would you feel the same if he had actively worked to deny rights to other minorities?
Nobody's denying Mozilla's right to hire him as CEO, just as nobody denied other companies' right to prop up apartheid South Africa. The fact is that actions have consequences, and those companies must weigh the benefits of their actions against the possibility (very real as we've seen in this case) that others will justifiably not want to associate with the business as a result.