841–850 of 1001 posts
This is sad. I wish I lived in a world where your personal beliefs, even very unpopular ones, could be kept separate from your professional life. Unfortunately we seem to need to put people in a single box.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I support legalizing gay marriage. But two things, first, supporting prop 8 does not mean you "believe a certain group of people don't deserve to live their lives like others." It means you don't believe that the government should recognize same sex marriages as marriages. There are a large gradient of views here, and on one extreme are the bigots who hate homosexuals and on the other there are people who simply have…
Putting money behind Prop 8 helped strip a civil right from gay people. It's technically true that proves nothing about Eich's beliefs. Heck, maybe it was Eich's personal Opposite Day. But does it matter? Even the bible says, "You will know them by their fruits," meaning that it's reasonable to judge people by what they do. The pseudo-gotcha about tolerance is ridiculous, an accusation of hypocrisy based on a straw m…
The bible also says "Turn the other cheek", meaning that you should give people a second chance, and to treat them kindly despite their actions.
The bible has a ton of stuff in it, for example during times of slavery was used as a basis for both pro- and anti- slavery arguments. Drawing on a slogan from the bible to use its name as an authority is rather pointless - as a collection of aphorisms, there's one for every occasion.
Given that Eich has worked against the civil rights of gay people without explanation or apology
Eich expressed sorrow at the pain he caused in an article on his blog. He also stated in several different channels that the culture at Mozilla was going to remain diverse and inclusive. That's something of an explanation.
You seem determined to crucify a person based on one past bad action rather than the larger, more nuanced picture.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>but if you are actively working to remove existing rights from other people How is opposing redefining marriage (in the context of law) working to remove existing rights of people? Its framed in terms of removing rights/civil rights because it suits the cause. But this characterization is not supported by a dispassionate reading of the issue here.
Untrue. If you read Judge Walker's decision against Prop 8, or the recent judgment against the Michigan Marriage Amendment, you'll see that both Prop 8 and the MMA failed because they violate the 14th Amendment's grant of equal protection: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_Protection_Clause In particular, both Prop 8 and the MMA failed to meet the Rational Basis test: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rational_basis_revi…
Proposition 8: Section I. Title
This measure shall be known and may be cited as the "California Marriage Protection Act."
Section 2. Article I. Section 7.5 is added to the California Constitution, to read:
Sec. 7.5. Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.
It's sad that people calling for his head screamed louder than people asking politely for clarification. I just wanted to know why a company that says it's pro-equality hired as CEO someone who donated to an anti-equality campaign. The action was inconsistent with the claim. A lot of people changed their minds in the years after 2008, so I was ready to believe he changed his.
Clearly because it hadn't affected his work or the way he treated any of his colleagues over the many years he worked there, and because he was extremely well qualified for the job?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There are beliefs in this world that you cannot publicly hold and still expect to be taken seriously. If Eich were arguing against interracial marriage there would be very little debate about this issue; believing that humans cannot marry between races is not a belief modern society continues to respect. I think this controversy is an indication that -- to the tech community at least -- believing that discrimination…
But Eich isn't arguing or advocating anything. All he made was to donate to a popular proposition, I mean, it did found the majority of the electorate (then). In all other comments I read from him, he says his private politic views are a private matter and I agree with him there. I also think donations of this rather small size ($1000) should not needed to be publicly disclosed.
Finally, personal political views absolutely enter in to public debate when the views are held by a public figurehead that is in place to represent the ideals of an organization. This is how you change public opinion, by making it dangerous to hold these views and still be supported or taken seriously.
People didn't just suddenly decide not to be racist. It took endless shaming of the people that hold those views until those views are no longer the norm, then the next generation grows up in an environment where that kind of bigotry is considered reprehensible and instead of just hiding their bigotry due to shame, they actually find it reprehensible.
This is social change in action. Personal views aren't sacrosanct, and simply believing in something and having the right to say it doesn't entitle you to be tolerated or respected by those who hear it.
Free speech isn't a license to say or do whatever the fuck you want without consequence. It simply protects you from government censorship or physical violence.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Putting money behind Prop 8 helped strip a civil right from gay people. It's technically true that proves nothing about Eich's beliefs. Heck, maybe it was Eich's personal Opposite Day. But does it matter? Even the bible says, "You will know them by their fruits," meaning that it's reasonable to judge people by what they do. The pseudo-gotcha about tolerance is ridiculous, an accusation of hypocrisy based on a straw m…
Even the bible says, "You will know them by their fruits," meaning that it's reasonable to judge people by what they do. The bible also says "Turn the other cheek", meaning that you should give people a second chance, and to treat them kindly despite their actions. The bible has a ton of stuff in it, for example during times of slavery was used as a basis for both pro- and anti- slavery arguments. Drawing on a slogan…
Yes, people have asked him nicely and politely to resign rather than threatening or berating him.
I think it's sort of telling the way ideas like "freedom of speech" or "turn the other cheek" get abused in this particular instance. "Freedom of speech" says the state won't abuse someone for expressing their views. It doesn't mean people can't judge each other for their view - otherwise, we couldn't vote for the politicians of our choice. "Turn the other cheek" means be ready to forgive. But it doesn't say actions should have no consequences. Moreover, "I'm sorry sorry for the pain" is the standard "non-apology apology". A "I wish I hadn't done that and I won't do it again" statement would have been a prelude to a request for forgiveness, in which circumstance your plea would make sense - unlike now.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Whether or not one agrees with that is besides the point. Mozilla's board does, which is what matters with this decision. Mozilla's board put him there to begin with. This is not a moral issue for them.
Mozilla's board is, in fact, not omniscient and may not have foreseen this controversy.