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

The Excuses for Purging Brendan Eich Are the Old Excuses for Firing Gays

slate.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 105 posts

Re: The Excuses for Purging Brendan Eich Are the Old Excuses for Firing Gays

#61

Post by chc »

eropple wrote: post #44
stcredzero wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn't that, "Two wrongs make a right?" In any case, it is still an intolerance. It's very dangerous ground to label political donation as "intolerance." It's inimical to civic and democratic political processes in a free society. In fact, I would label it as intolerant. If a person is taking actions that are nonviolent and legal, and they do not advocate the active destruction of our system of self governance, they s…

This "coexistence" mischaracterization is silly. His right to coexist is not in question. But we are under no obligation to patronize an organization that puts people whose worldviews are at odds with ours in ways that damage people we care about. I feel no ethical compulsion to associate with or enrich (because his salary's paid for by my eyeballs if I use Firefox) people who want to hurt people I love. He's welcome…

> This "coexistence" mischaracterization is silly. His right to coexist is not in question.

When we say "coexist," we do not merely mean "physically exist on the same planet." We mean "exist and be civil with one another." People used to refuse to patronize restaurants that permitted negroes. We do not describe those people as being in favor of peaceful coexistence; we say that they were intolerant and opposed to coexistence.

> But we are under no obligation to patronize an organization that puts people whose worldviews are at odds with ours in ways that damage people we care about. I feel no ethical compulsion to associate with or enrich (because his salary's paid for by my eyeballs if I use Firefox) people who want to hurt people I love. He's welcome to sell his services to people who don't care about that, but I won't buy.

As the OP suggests, this sounds suspiciously like the viewpoint used to justify driving gays, blacks, etc. out of society. "Oh, I'm just exercising my freedom of association." It didn't justify those people — why are you so sure it justifies you?

Using your freedom of association as a weapon against people you disagree with has generally not been viewed kindly by history. I think you're on the right side of the gay marriage debate, but you're on the wrong side of the "How do we coexist with people who disagree with us?" debate.

As was said earlier, if Eich were actually out to get gays, I would understand this reaction. But he isn't out to get gays, and hasn't done anything against them in six years. He was being perfectly tolerant of gays when people decided to come after him. You're punishing him for his viewpoint, not stopping him from "hurting people you love," which he wasn't doing.

Re: The Excuses for Purging Brendan Eich Are the Old Excuses for Firing Gays

#62

Post by dclowd9901 »

chc wrote: post #26
dclowd9901 wrote: post #14

He's right. And so the fuck what? It's not the reasoning I care about. It's never been about the reasoning. No one ever bought any bullshit about "community standards" even when it was being used to oust gays. It was about the act of marginalizing individuals over something that literally affects nobody else. If a gay person works at my company, his being gay will have no affect on my livelihood. People with an anti-…

That's the same thing they said about gays and miscegenators. They weren't opposed just because people were on their high horses — no, it was the damage that gays and miscegenators did to society that required us to run them out of society. In the end, it's all just "You hold the opposite opinion from me about what's good for society, so I'm going to try to evict you from society."

Believing homosexual behavior undermines society is predicated on a false premise: biblical morality.

Doing shitty things that undermine the lives of others is objectively evil.

Re: The Excuses for Purging Brendan Eich Are the Old Excuses for Firing Gays

#63

Post by stcredzero »

dllthomas wrote: post #50
stcredzero wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn't that, "Two wrongs make a right?" In any case, it is still an intolerance. It's very dangerous ground to label political donation as "intolerance." It's inimical to civic and democratic political processes in a free society. In fact, I would label it as intolerant. If a person is taking actions that are nonviolent and legal, and they do not advocate the active destruction of our system of self governance, they s…

Political positions involve decisions about how we use violence to structure society. Such positions can clearly be intolerant, and taking actions to support clearly intolerant positions seems like it should carry the adjective as well. Someone who donated in support of a proposition to kill all the Jews is probably rightly labelled antisemitic, even if they are always polite face-to-face. And yes, surely, such a pro…

Political positions involve decisions about how we use violence to structure society.

More germane to democratic industrialized 1st world nations, is how people choose to refrain from violence to structure society.

Someone who donated in support of a proposition to kill all the Jews is probably rightly labelled antisemitic, even if they are always polite face-to-face. And yes, surely, such a proposition wouldn't be constitutional

The "problem" is with your broad definition of intolerance, which you attempt to support with your (self-admitted) straw man involving a hypothetical proposition which would fit the legal (not just customary) definition of hate speech.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech

There is a societal problem with supporting a proposition which could be defined as hate speech, which is directly dangerous and illegal. There is no societal problem with propositions which are constitutionally untenable. We have political mechanisms for dealing with that.

there's a problem with your framework and I don't see a trivial solution.

No, there was a problem with your straw man. Remove that, and you'll find that your position reduces to, "Society should not tolerate speech from people who are wrong." The problem is how such a thing would be adjudicated.

There's a problem with your framework. You don't see the solution because your position is effectively against free speech. You are only for speech you personally label as "tolerant." In a truly free society, one must be free to be wrong. That's the only way it can work.

Re: The Excuses for Purging Brendan Eich Are the Old Excuses for Firing Gays

#64

Post by chc »

dclowd9901 wrote: post #62
chc wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's the same thing they said about gays and miscegenators. They weren't opposed just because people were on their high horses — no, it was the damage that gays and miscegenators did to society that required us to run them out of society. In the end, it's all just "You hold the opposite opinion from me about what's good for society, so I'm going to try to evict you from society."

Believing homosexual behavior undermines society is predicated on a false premise: biblical morality. Doing shitty things that undermine the lives of others is objectively evil.

> Believing homosexual behavior undermines society is predicated on a false premise: biblical morality.

And they think your morality is predicated on a false premise. The point is that I still expect them to treat you decently, and I expect you to treat them decently.

> Doing shitty things that undermine the lives of others is objectively evil.

Like petitioning to get them fired from their jobs? That kind of thing?

Re: The Excuses for Purging Brendan Eich Are the Old Excuses for Firing Gays

#65

Post by dragonwriter »

001sky wrote: post #58
jessaustin wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thanks I had missed that. The crux of the issue, for me: Most (or perhaps all) of the Mozillians who tweeted this were employed by the Mozilla Foundation, not the Mozilla Corporation which means that they report to the executive director of the foundation and not to the CEO. As foundation employees, they did not share the same org chart as Brendan. I didn't realize the foundation had so many employees.

So, Mozilla is a three headed monster: > Executive Chairwoman, Mozilla Foundation (Mitchell Baker) > Executive Director, Mozilla Foundation (Mark Surman) > CEO Mozilla Corporation (New position, 2008) Mark Surman's employees using @mozilla handles were calling for the resignation of a competing CEO? Am i reading this right? In other words this was under political air-cover. The Mozilla Foundation now focuses solely o…

The Mozilla Foundation owns Mozilla Corporation, and each organization has its own Board of Directors.

Re: The Excuses for Purging Brendan Eich Are the Old Excuses for Firing Gays

#66

Post by noddingham »

devindotcom wrote: post #37
koenigdavidmj wrote: post #12

The lesson Mozilla learned here is that the angry Internet mob can get whatever it wants. It doesn't really matter which side of history the mob is on. The lesson that other boards learned with this is not 'hire socially-conscious people', but 'keep your head down and maintain the status quo'. Fifty years ago a similar uproar would have developed if a company hired a black CEO. The press release announcing his remova…

I don't understand why the "angry internet mob" is any different from thousands of people boycotting a company for unfair labor practices, or doing a sit-in somewhere, or picketing? How is the internet mob different from these other forms of nonviolent political activism?

Based upon the thoughtless drivel that I see spewed across Twitter, I don't see how it could be considered political activism of any sort. It takes no effort and no risk to shout something on Twitter.

Re: The Excuses for Purging Brendan Eich Are the Old Excuses for Firing Gays

#67

Post by chc »

dllthomas wrote: post #54
chc wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am somewhat sympathetic to that view, but that was a long time ago. If he has been 100% tolerant for almost six years now, this action seems more like a very belated punishment for past intolerance than an attempt to force him to be tolerant, which he was already doing .

Sure, I don't have enough insight into the goings on at Mozilla to say. That said, being a lightening rod and dealing with PR stuff effectively is part of the job of being a CEO, and arguably if he'd performed the job better he'd still hold it - I'm not sure the outcome is ideal, but I'm not going to freak out about it either.

I don't believe any CEO could have done better against the witch hunt Eich faced. I mean, OKCupid was protesting him personally. I've never seen anything like it before, and I'm not sure what, say, Tim Cook would have done if the tables were turned and people had been attacking him for being a homosexual and it was materially affecting the bottom line. I think it would have worked out much the same.

Re: The Excuses for Purging Brendan Eich Are the Old Excuses for Firing Gays

#68

Post by eropple »

chc wrote: post #61
eropple wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This "coexistence" mischaracterization is silly. His right to coexist is not in question. But we are under no obligation to patronize an organization that puts people whose worldviews are at odds with ours in ways that damage people we care about. I feel no ethical compulsion to associate with or enrich (because his salary's paid for by my eyeballs if I use Firefox) people who want to hurt people I love. He's welcome…

> This "coexistence" mischaracterization is silly. His right to coexist is not in question. When we say "coexist," we do not merely mean "physically exist on the same planet." We mean "exist and be civil with one another." People used to refuse to patronize restaurants that permitted negroes. We do not describe those people as being in favor of peaceful coexistence; we say that they were intolerant and opposed to coe…

> When we say "coexist," we do not merely mean "physically exist on the same planet." We mean "exist and be civil with one another."

Your definition of "civil" and mine are not the same. I find it intensely uncivil to try to strip marriage rights from multiple friends of mine. I do not find it uncivil to say "this dude's a jerk and I won't give him money"--as I said in a cousin post, I don't go to my corner store because the owner's a jerk, this is not materially different to me.

> As the OP suggests, this sounds suspiciously like the viewpoint used to justify driving gays, blacks, etc. out of society. "Oh, I'm just exercising my freedom of association." It didn't justify those people — why are you so sure it justifies you?

You can't choose to be Not Black. You can't choose to be Not Gender Dysphoric. You can choose to be Not Bigot. The line of demarcation is super, super obvious from where I stand.

> You're punishing him for his viewpoint, not stopping him from "hurting people you love," which he wasn't doing.

Have you looked at his donation records? He has a pattern of backing politicians who are notable in their "culture war" self-presentation, who make a point of speaking about how terrible homosexuals are. Pat Buchanan. Thomas McClintock. Linda Smith. Proposition 8. (He didn't even live in Smith's state, let alone her district, when he chose to give her money. That speaks loudly to me.)

Donating money to anti-gay causes and anti-gay politicians is very much, by my lights, an action. Many of them. And don't mistake me: they're actions he is completely within his rights to take! But the same thing that gives him the right to do that frees me from the obligation to enrich him by using the product of the organization he leads. And I do not choose to undertake that obligation for him.

Re: The Excuses for Purging Brendan Eich Are the Old Excuses for Firing Gays

#69

Post by stcredzero »

eropple wrote: post #59
stcredzero wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

His right to coexist is not in question. Have a group come after you and get you fired, and see how much "peaceful coexistence" you get from that.

First: he didn't get fired. Nobody in a position to know has even suggested that they requested his resignation. Everything I've read points to that Mozilla wanted him to stay . So framing it as "oh, they got him fired" is just plain disingenuous. Second: Is he being harassed at home? Is he getting swatted? Are people throwing rocks through his windows? Then those people should be arrested, because that's a crime . B…

First: he didn't get fired.

He probably feels passionate about what he does. Imagine your work and subject of your technical passion becomes a constant reminder of a debacle like this. You would not wish that on yourself.

This is no different from refusing to patronize the corner store near me because the owner's a jerk.

Oh really? I thought principles of tolerance and social justice were at work. Are you admitting that you simply don't like and have no sympathy for "people like that?"

This is not an interpersonal conflict. This is not about someone "being a jerk." At least I hope not. At least, I hope principles of tolerance underlie everything in such an action, and not action/adventure show style ad-hominem morality. (i.e. "He deserved it!")

Re: The Excuses for Purging Brendan Eich Are the Old Excuses for Firing Gays

#70

Post by devindotcom »

noddingham wrote: post #66
devindotcom wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't understand why the "angry internet mob" is any different from thousands of people boycotting a company for unfair labor practices, or doing a sit-in somewhere, or picketing? How is the internet mob different from these other forms of nonviolent political activism?

Based upon the thoughtless drivel that I see spewed across Twitter, I don't see how it could be considered political activism of any sort. It takes no effort and no risk to shout something on Twitter.

It takes little effort or risk to walk down the street and shout, either. What matters is that the people in both situations are expressing their support for one side of an issue. That it doesn't meet your standards for intelligibility isn't really material. A vote is not eloquent, but it is a powerful statement when millions do it at once and with one object. It is the same for public demonstration.
Post reply on HN