71–80 of 196 posts
[deleted]
I was in SF last week and visited the Mozilla office to see what it looked like. It looked like a locked door with a surveillance camera outside. I understand the need for security and privacy, but it was a little jarring to see it from Mozilla. I'm sure if I can contacted someone for a tour I'd have gotten a better response, but my perception of the organization has changed a little bit.
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 is committing to all these things despite holding a personal belief that marriage should be restricted to heterosexual couples.
I admit my perspective on this may be limited due to being a white, heterosexual male, but...
Why is having Brendan Eich's personal approval more important than having his support? Why does it matter what he believes internally if all his external actions are supportive?
We use products and services from numerous tech companies every day, never even asking how their CEOs feel about LGBT issues or what actions they take to be inclusive. But now people are upset because one of the few CEOs to make such a strong public statement of support for LGBT issues (I can't think of another one who has even made any statement at all) doesn't personally support homosexual marriages? It's bizarre. Why is silence (from other CEOs) better than a stated willingness to support people even if he disagrees with what they are doing personally?
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…
Yes. Yes. Yes.
This is America in 2014. If somebody holds a politically incorrect position, they must be destroyed: their employer must be named, shamed, and pressured to fire that person. If that person runs a company, that company must be destroyed: it must be boycotted, attacked with FUD, and besmirched.
It's not right, but that's apparently what our culture has descended to.
Am I wrong? Many of the responses here on HN and elsewhere online about this topic over the last 24 hours indicate that I am not.
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…
As a CEO, you live, breathe and sleep for the company. While the personal/professional division can be easily made for an employee far down on the org chart who does his job for 8 hours and then goes home, can the same be done for a top level executive, let alone the CEO?
Homophobia and opposition to gay marriage are in my opinion completely different issues, even if they involve many of the same people. We can't automatically hold someone accountable for both.
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?
So yes, being against same-sex marriage is still OK as a personal opinion and does not stand in the way of being appointed CEO. The facts are your answer.
You are assuming that this change will be the same as that change. However, that is something history will show and that you cannot speed up by asking questions that only time will tell the answer to. This change is not yet the same as that change and consequently that change cannot yet be used as an argument for how to behave towards this change.
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.
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.
I can only ask for your support to have the time to “show, not tell”; and in the meantime express my sorrow at having caused pain.
I will rewrite this for him.
"I can only ask for your support to have the time to "show, not tell"; and in the meantime I want to show you my sadness, regret for causing you feeling distress and uncomfortable."
I replace express and sorrow with definition coming straight out of a dictionary.
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.
What an apology basically says is that if you had a time machine you would travel back in time and do something differently. What you would do differently, however, is crucially important for whether an apology is meaningful or not.
Are you sorry that you were found out? Or are you actually sorry for doing what you are criticised for?
That issue is never tackled head-on in this post and that is a very valid (and not poisonous) reason to be unsatisfied with this non-apology apology.
He is of course completely free to continue holding his bigoted views (and I certainly would never want him to lie about being sorry, that would be much worse than this apology), but as long as he only apologises for caused sorrow and not actually holding those views he should not expect to be excused from criticism.
Nothing in the post indicates he's reversed his stance on prohibiting his gay employees from marrying.
And it's his right as a private citizen to have his own opinion on the matter. That's why people vote, because they don't agree on all issues. That's totally irrelevant with respect to what he'll do as a CEO. And, last time I checked, prohibiting your employees to marry, was not in a CEO's powers (or responsibilities).
The "right to have your own opinion" extends to everyone involved - pulling this card out to defend his beliefs doesn't end any debate.
Brendan needs to join the 21st century.
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.
Question I would ask Brendan Eich: Should gay people be allowed to get married, and if not, why?
Or: "Well, if you say yes, why? Is there some scientific explanation of why an arbitrary human custom should be offered to everybody as opposed to only some, based on the moral code one has?".