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

51–60 of 196 posts

Re: Inclusiveness at Mozilla

#51

Post by badman_ting »

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…

I agree, and I think that's all fine. I'm sure Brendan will be a great CEO, and I love the programming language he created (warts and all).

But I still think the reaction to rarebit pulling their app was problematic. Brendan can have his personal opinion, and rarebit can decide that they don't want to do business with the company whose CEO has that opinion. The "mixing personal opinions and business" crap is just that, crap. Everyone decides their limits, everyone decides who they are willing to do business with.

Re: Inclusiveness at Mozilla

#52

Post by quesera »

bane wrote: post #16

"My ongoing commitment to our Community Participation Guidelines, our inclusive health benefits, our anti-discrimination policies, and the spirit that underlies all of these." "...and in the meantime express my sorrow at having caused pain." Ouch, how can somebody hold two opposing thoughts in their head at once? That's basically a denouncement of his own personal efforts. At this point, the best thing he can do to l…

> Ouch, how can somebody hold two opposing thoughts in their head at once?

  The test of a first rate intelligence is the ability to hold
  two opposed ideas in the mind at the same time, and still
  retain the ability to function.

  - F. Scott Fitzgerald, "The Crack-Up", Esquire Magazine (February 1936)
Unfortunately, one of the ideas in this case is deeply offensive. Hopefully this is an opportunity to reexamine that idea with a more inclusive mind.

Re: Inclusiveness at Mozilla

#53

Post by Confusion »

dublinben wrote: post #28
slucidi wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How is that not saying he's sorry he hurt people? I don't understand what you are having a problem with.

This is a classic non-apology apology. He's not sorry for the original action which offended people, just that his action caused offense. It's the kind of corporate double-speak you hear from someone who is not sorry for their actions. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-apology_apology

A sequence of words does not have a single meaning and does not always mean the exact same thing. This sequence of words is not necessarily a non-apology apology. That interpretation denies the possibility that someone can be genuinely sorry that his opinion and words caused grief, even though he still stands by that opinion and those words.

Re: Inclusiveness at Mozilla

#54

Post by rmc »

slucidi wrote: post #21
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.

How is that not saying he's sorry he hurt people? I don't understand what you are having a problem with.

The different between "I'm sorry I hurt you" and "I'm sorry you got hurt" is who is at fault and who is responsible.

Saying you're sorry you hurt someone, is you taking responsibility for something you did. Saying you're sorry someone got hurt, sounds like the victim was wrong for getting hurt, and it's the victim's responsibility.

Re: Inclusiveness at Mozilla

#55

Post by untog »

nine_k wrote: post #50
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…

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.

I personally suppose that seeing someone as an idiot because of difference in opinions

Are there any other reasons?

Re: Inclusiveness at Mozilla

#56

Post by orthecreedence »

macu wrote: post #30
thirsteh wrote: post #15

He 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'd rather the state not recognize marriage whatsoever. Then you can get married to whoever or whatever in any church that will allow it, and that state washes its hands clean of any "side-taking."

Instead, the state would offer civil unions to any two consenting people.

Now if Mr. RightWing doesn't like your gay marriage, he doesn't have to recognize it, but the state will still issue your "union" without discrimination.

The main issue I took with Prop 8 wasn't necessarily that it was discriminatory (although I don't like that either) but that it was taking away rights from a group of people by encoding it into the state's constitution...which is generally a document which codifies people's rights, not lack thereof.

Re: Inclusiveness at Mozilla

#58

Post by Tobu »

harlanlewis wrote: post #27
quesera wrote: post #17

I think this is 95% satisfactory. It's unreasonable to demand that someone change their mind about something (and would you believe it if he claimed he had?), but it's imperative to be sure that his personal opinion will not bleed into his executive function. He knows he's outnumbered, and on the wrong side of history. But he recognizes that he can't change himself on demand. It's the best we can hope for in an hones…

Eich doesn't appear committed to his personal politics over simply getting through the immediate PR firestorm, and as a result the Mozilla organization may now do more to support LBGT communities than if they'd promoted someone who didn't provoke such a strong response. Combative and messy, but it might be what progress looks like.

The last he said about his personal politics was this: https://brendaneich.com/2012/04/community-and-diversity/

Enough people have gotten in touch about this that hopefully he'll change his mind about marriage rights in society at large (today's post was still specifically about Mozilla's principles), but he will probably hold on to the fact that this topic is a private (by which people often mean religious) matter for a while longer.

Re: Inclusiveness at Mozilla

#59

Post by pavpanchekha »

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 demand perfection in our public figures?

Would we have the same controversy if Brendan voted Tea Party (but only privately)? If he were against abortion? If he didn't believe NASA needed a bigger budget (or that it did, if you lean the other way)?

Sure, gay marriage is good, people should support it, it is a valuable social cause. I can understand your upset if you work for Mozilla, except that Brendan has already stated several times that no policies at Mozilla would change due to his personal views. But can we at least hold that while wrong, being against gay rights does not immediately make you the world's most despicable human being?

Or, if every opponent of gay rights is sub-human (a conceit that some anti-gay-right crusaders hold in reverse), what issues exactly are similary important? Must we raise a controversy every time a tech leader comes out pro-NSA? Anti-immigration-reform? Pro-university education? Anti-startup? Anti-basic-science? (Note that, just like Brendan's, these positions might have reasoned arguments; you wouldn't know if you're too busy pillorying whomever holds them.)

I have a few Christian friends. They are not total idiots, or oblivious to reality; I do not suspect them of secretly trying to convert me. They are very smart folks, who do good work, who happen to be Christian. I know a guy who denies climate change. I don't trust his knowledge of climatology, but then again I mostly talk to him about math, where his thoughts on climate science are irrelevant. And he's likewise a smart guy, great to work with, industrious, careful, and a great friend. I don't demand perfect agreement in my friends; I won't demand it of Brendan.

Re: Inclusiveness at Mozilla

#60

Post by MrZongle2 »

smirksirlot wrote: post #40
macu wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

If he doesn't hate gay people, then why not just make his position on marriage clear? He can straight up say "I don't believe in marriage" or whatever.

"If he's not a witch, why does he deny the Church's accusations so emphatically?"
Post reply on HN