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

71–80 of 105 posts

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

#71

Post by devindotcom »

stcredzero wrote: post #25

People have forgotten the magnanimous spirit championed by Martin Luther King. He did not advocate that one day, the oppressed would be on top and the "bad guys" would get theirs. That sort of attitude would be inimical to what he, Gandhi, and Nelson Mandela would have advocated. Getting Brendan Eich fired makes nobody more free or less oppressed. Instead, it moves society towards a state where no one feels free to s…

You seem to know these men well!

Would they have said we should not have spoken out when a company we know and would like to trust advances a man demonstrably and unrepentantly against equal rights for gay people to its highest post? Or would nonviolent activism and speech asking that such a person not be allowed to represent that company, and that someone with such views should not be honored but repudiated, be "inimical" to their philosophies?

I don't presume to know what King or Gandhi would have done. But I don't think speaking out against a public figure who stands against equal rights is wrong.

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

#72

Post by lexcorvus »

dragonwriter wrote: post #47
lexcorvus wrote: post #35

I'm sure many supporters of Brendan Eich's ouster are completely sincere, but it's difficult to explain the intensity of their feelings on this issue. It can't be as simple as "civil rights" and "marriage equality"; for example, (first) cousin marriage is important to many groups—indeed, in Islam cousin marriage is not only allowed, it's often preferred [1]—but it is illegal in most states [2]. And yet, I rarely see…

> I'm sure many supporters of Brendan Eich's ouster are completely sincere What "ouster"? > It can't be as simple as "civil rights" and "marriage equality" Even ignoring the questionable use of "ouster", yes, it can. > for example, (first) cousin marriage is important to many groups [...]. And yet, I rarely see advocates of "marriage equality" get all lathered up over this issue. So, what? Opponents of interracial ma…

Conceptually, regulating new legal family relationships on the basis of existing family relationships is different than doing so based on some other non-family status, so there is no real reason why positions on these should be expected to correlate.

This rationalization of anti–cousin marriage bigotry makes you sound like an Islamophobe who cares little about violating Muslims' religious liberties by denying them their basic civil rights. Be careful not to get purged.

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

#73

Post by 001sky »

dragonwriter wrote: post #65
001sky wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Yes, the Foundation CEO basically signed off on a PR stunt very damaging to Mozilla:

Mozilla Foundation Executive Director Mark Surman issued a statement to Ars in response to employees speaking out against Eich's hiring. "Our culture of openness extends to letting our staff and community be candid about their views on Mozilla’s direction," Surman wrote. "We're proud of that inclusiveness and how it distinguishes Mozilla from most organizations."

So, the split boards governance is a problem. Baker is the Chair and head of the project. She created the Corp CEO job and led the hiring process. She's the Chair of both Boards.

Its slightly awkward for a company to use its political activsm against itself in this way. It's even more awkward to manipulate the media to do it in public. Its even triply awkward that it was aknowleged publicly (usually indicates legal signed off on it).

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

#74

Post by stcredzero »

devindotcom wrote: post #71
stcredzero wrote: post #25

People have forgotten the magnanimous spirit championed by Martin Luther King. He did not advocate that one day, the oppressed would be on top and the "bad guys" would get theirs. That sort of attitude would be inimical to what he, Gandhi, and Nelson Mandela would have advocated. Getting Brendan Eich fired makes nobody more free or less oppressed. Instead, it moves society towards a state where no one feels free to s…

You seem to know these men well! Would they have said we should not have spoken out when a company we know and would like to trust advances a man demonstrably and unrepentantly against equal rights for gay people to its highest post? Or would nonviolent activism and speech asking that such a person not be allowed to represent that company, and that someone with such views should not be honored but repudiated, be "ini…

I don't presume to know what King or Gandhi would have done. But I don't think speaking out against a public figure who stands against equal rights is wrong.

Sure, but going after someone for a political donation from 6 years ago after the issue has already been won seems vindictive and socially counterproductive. Can you point me to something that MLK, Mandela, or Gandhi did or said that would indicate they'd do something like that? I can point to many examples of words and actions of theirs that would suggest they'd advocate for a more magnanimous path.

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

#75

Post by chc »

eropple wrote: post #68
chc wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 bec…

> 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 would agree if Eich were still doing this, but that was a long time ago. Like I said, I feel like people were punishing him for past wrongs that indicate a "wrong opinion" rather than trying to right current wrongs.

> You can't choose to be Not Black. You can't choose to be Not Gender Dysphoric. You can choose to be Not Bigot.

Can you? I didn't choose to think homosexuality is OK. It's just the way I feel. I don't think I could possibly choose to believe homosexuality is wrong — that's just not compatible with my morality. Are you really capable of arbitrarily choosing to believe things?

Unless you're talking about actions. In which case it seems to me that Eich has chosen to be Not Bigot for over half a decade.

> 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.

Most of those were so long ago that I wasn't even old enough to vote. McClintock is the only one he's backed in the past decade AFAIK, and to the best of my recollection McClintock tends to focus on financial issues. (McClintock is against gay marriage, but I don't remember it ever being a focus for him. All of the McClintock supporters I know like him for his fiscal policy.)

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

#76

Post by devindotcom »

johngalt wrote: post #27

It's ok though, because this time the mob is right . All those other times the mob was wrong . So long as you can predict exactly which way subjective collective reasoning will go for years into the future you'll be fine.

Ah, so you would have maintained a healthy distance during the civil rights movement in the 50s and 60s as well?

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

#77

Post by mullingitover »

chc wrote: post #32
aneisf wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Intolerance of an intolerance is not equatable with the original intolerance.

This isn't intolerance of intolerance. It's punishment for a small donation six years ago. If Eich were running around being a dick to gay Mozilla employees, nobody would disagree with firing him. But he's not. People are attacking him for his political sympathies, not for being intolerant. (In fact, Eich's behavior at Mozilla was exemplary. I have never heard of any instances where he had trouble tolerating gays or…

> If Eich were running around being a dick to gay Mozilla employees, nobody would disagree with firing him. But he's not.

Not in public, no. However, he was a dick to them in private where he though it'd be safe. Prop 8 was about taking away a right that gay people had. They were already allowed to marry. This was about the majority ganging up on a small, persecuted group and taking things away from them by legislative fiat. The Constitution forbids this, as was later confirmed by the courts.

If Prop 8 had been about re-enslaving blacks, and he'd donated to that, do you think we'd be saying, "well, but he's nice to all the black people he works with!" It was morally repugnant to support Prop 8, and public acts like political donations do, shockingly, have consequences.

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

#78

Post by stcredzero »

pessimizer wrote: post #24
stcredzero wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What if your reason is that he supports the elimination of benefits for a commonly discriminated against minority class, and he's being put into a position to at least indirectly make decisions about those benefits at a company that has historically supported them? What the record actually shows is that the policies of Mozilla, in the time he was CEO, treated well those who had cause to oppose him in his private poli…

>in the time he was CEO You mean during that week that everybody hammered him about his anti-gay donations and then he quit? I have doubts about his ability to push substantial policy during that period, to say the least.

So, basically people were just against what he might do. (Which also has clear parallels with past justifications for firing a gay CEO.)

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

#79

Post by nate_meurer »

stcredzero wrote: post #74
devindotcom wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You seem to know these men well! Would they have said we should not have spoken out when a company we know and would like to trust advances a man demonstrably and unrepentantly against equal rights for gay people to its highest post? Or would nonviolent activism and speech asking that such a person not be allowed to represent that company, and that someone with such views should not be honored but repudiated, be "ini…

I don't presume to know what King or Gandhi would have done. But I don't think speaking out against a public figure who stands against equal rights is wrong. Sure, but going after someone for a political donation from 6 years ago after the issue has already been won seems vindictive and socially counterproductive. Can you point me to something that MLK, Mandela, or Gandhi did or said that would indicate they'd do som…

Neither the timeline of Eich's donation nor the outcome of the prop 8 fight is relevant. Eich has given no indication that he feels differently now than he did then. In other words, he has done nothing to assuage the suspicion that his personal convictions are in radical opposition to some of the most important cultural aims of the Mozilla organization.

I'm sad for Mozilla because Eich is a great and rare talent.

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

#80

Post by stcredzero »

nate_meurer wrote: post #79
stcredzero wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't presume to know what King or Gandhi would have done. But I don't think speaking out against a public figure who stands against equal rights is wrong. Sure, but going after someone for a political donation from 6 years ago after the issue has already been won seems vindictive and socially counterproductive. Can you point me to something that MLK, Mandela, or Gandhi did or said that would indicate they'd do som…

Neither the timeline of Eich's donation nor the outcome of the prop 8 fight is relevant. Eich has given no indication that he feels differently now than he did then. In other words, he has done nothing to assuage the suspicion that his personal convictions are in radical opposition to some of the most important cultural aims of the Mozilla organization. I'm sad for Mozilla because Eich is a great and rare talent.

Neither the timeline of Eich's donation nor the outcome of the prop 8 fight is relevant.

Such an absolute position would be reasonable if the action in question had some sort of permanent or destructive effect. It's entirely unreasonable to treat a political donation or a privately held political belief as if it were a crime with a permanent or perniciously destructive effect.

In other words, he has done nothing to assuage the suspicion that his personal convictions are in radical opposition to some of the most important cultural aims of the Mozilla organization.

I can understand this position as well. However, it seems dangerous for us to have a society where we have to be constantly be "saying the right things" or punitive actions are to be taken against us. This does not sound like a free society. Granted, as CEO of Mozilla, he is not in the same position as a typical private citizen, but the principles should still apply. "In radical opposition to some of the most important cultural aims" could just as well be rewritten as "Having political views we don't like."

Post reply on HN