Was Eich a Threat To Mozilla's $1B Google "Trust Fund"? 564
theodp (442580) writes "Over the years, Mozilla's reliance on Google has continued to grow. Indeed, in its report on Brendan Eich's promotion to CEO of Mozilla, the WSJ noted that "Google accounted for nearly 90% of Mozilla's $311 million in revenue." So, with its Sugar Daddy having also gone on record as being virulently opposed to Proposition 8, to think that that Google's support didn't enter into discussions of whether Prop 8 backer Eich should stay or go seems, well, pretty much unthinkable. "It is the chilling and discriminatory effect of the proposition on many of our employees that brings Google to publicly oppose Proposition 8," explained Google co-founder Sergey Brin in 2008. "We should not eliminate anyone's fundamental rights, whatever their sexuality, to marry the person they love." Interestingly, breaking the news of Eich's resignation was journalist Kara Swisher, whose right to marry a top Google exec in 2008 was nearly eliminated by Prop 8. "In an interview this morning," wrote Swisher, "Mozilla Executive Chairwoman Mitchell Baker said that Eich's ability to lead the company that makes the Firefox Web browser had been badly damaged by the continued scrutiny over the hot-button issue, which had actually been known since 2012 inside the Mozilla community." Swisher, whose article was cited by the NY Times in The Campaign Against Mozilla's Brendan Eich, added that "it was not hard to get the sense that Eich really wanted to stick strongly by his views about gay marriage, which run counter to much of the tech industry and, increasingly, the general population in the U.S. For example, he repeatedly declined to answer when asked if he would donate to a similar initiative today." So, was keeping Eich aboard viewed by Mozilla — perhaps even by Eich himself — as a possible threat to the reported $1 billion minimum revenue guarantee the organization enjoys for delivering search queries for Google?"
Everyone has the right (Score:4, Funny)
to have a miserable life, i.e. to be married.
You are joking but (Score:5, Interesting)
It's actually a serious argument:
There are really two different issues here, one is entirely around the meaning of the word marriage and the other has to do with rights taken away and then handed back as privileges - with strings attached.
The latter is easier to solve in theory - just keep our rights to start with. You may pay taxes and mandatory fees for benefits at work - and then be told you must be in a state-blessed marriage in order to collect those benefits. This is obviously unfair and wrong. But this could be straightened out relatively simply, by not mandating these arrangements in the first place. There is no reason for the system to take money out of your paycheck only to hand it back if and when you file the forms and show the state blessing - it's entirely unnecessary. You should be allowed to keep your money and buy what you want with it, what suits your needs, it should not be a situation where you have all these people, this bureaucracy, all up in your business all the time.
The first issue is less tractable, I fear people will still be having that argument generations hence. But the wonderful thing is, if you solve the second issue as I have suggested, the first issue just becomes unimportant. Sure, people will disagree heatedly but with the government no longer involved, defining who is right and who is wrong, robbing Peter to pay Paul's bills, there is no longer any urgency to the argument, no political dimension. No one faces loss of their rights or their livelihood over it. It becomes, as it should be, a discussion for church not a struggle to direct the power of the state against those who disagree with you.
And yet they supported Obama (Score:5, Informative)
They're opposed to Prop 8 yet in 2008:
http://www.opensecrets.org/pre... [opensecrets.org]
Remember that Obama was also opposed to gay marriage when Eich was. Doesn't seem to have bothered too many people.
Re:And yet they supported Obama (Score:5, Insightful)
Obama changed his mind, did Eich?
Either way is has no bearing on this issue as it's a company that can do as they wish. If Google wanted to cut them off for it, it's their right. Mozilla would collapse without google.
Re:And yet they supported Obama (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Eich has a long history of donating to candidates and causes which are intolerant of the beliefs of others. From The Guardian:
"Mozilla's controversial new CEO Brendan Eich made a string of donations to politicians on the fringe of the Republican party a decade before he donated $1,000 to the campaign against equal marriage in California.
Public records show that between 1991 and 1992, Eich donated a total of $1,000 to Pat Buchanan, then a rightwing Republican presidential candidate. In 1996 and 1998, Eich do
Re:And yet they supported Obama (Score:4, Insightful)
in 1990 having the views that homosexuality and aids went together was the mainstream thought at the time. Many many people in 1990 had the same thoughts, scientists even believed as much at the time
just for the record as well anti gay marriage != anti gay
Having said all of that it looks like this guy is a little deeper than I wanted to give him credit for, while I dont personally feel he did anything on the grounds of losing his job over, I can see why others would want to force the man into hiding
Re: (Score:2)
pat 'the nazi' buchannon? not anti-gay? what planet are you on??
he's as republican as it gets. and yes, this is relevant as it speaks to eich's character. I was not aware he was a buchannon supporter. that's even WORSE than being anti-gay.
face he, he does not represent progressive attitudes, which mostly are what exists in the bay area for software and hardware folks.
his views are hateful and repressive and I'm glad he got kicked out on his ass. very glad when a bigot gets shown the door, so to speak
Re:And yet they supported Obama (Score:4, Informative)
"Thank you for the information but none of that really means anything. Donating to pat buchannon and ron paul? last I checked neither of them were anti gay"
Did your read these quotes???
Buchanan said in relation to the Aids outbreak that “our promiscuous homosexuals appear literally hell-bent on Satanism and suicide”. A a few years earlier he said “homosexuals have declared war on nature, and now nature is exacting an awful retribution”. and Linda Smith, who ran for senate in Washington state. McClintock opposes same-sex marriage; as does Smith, who has said that "homosexuality is a morally unfit inclination".
These people are ignorant bigots who are actively discriminating against others.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
And because of that, we should be intolerant of his beliefs? The flat out hypocrisy of this entire affair has been ridiculous.
Re:And yet they supported Obama (Score:4, Insightful)
Those people aren't haters.
I'M a hater.
I hate you. All the gay activists, I hate you. I didn't use to. And note I don't hate gay people, just the gay activists (both straight and gay). Because you're now fucking evil. Not because you're gay. Not because of anything you do with your bodies in the privacy of your bedrooms.
But because you have castigated and caused to be fired ("resigned", my ass) someone because they dared to express themselves via the previously accepted political process by which people in a democratic society decide controversial issues like this. He gave money to a campaign -- a campaign that WON, by the damn way -- and you don't like it, so you hounded him out.
And now, I hate you. I've uninstalled Firefox, not that that will matter a whit, but I can't stand looking at it anymore, as it is a tool of people I loathe now.
I used to be against gay marriage, but only in the way I was also against gay-people-falling-into-lion-pits; I liked gay people and didn't want them to go through anything as horrible as marriage. Or lion pits. Now.... go ahead, get married. Suffer, fuckers. (But please don't fall into lion pits; you might land on the lion.)
So let me leave you with this thought...
First they came for the Gays, and I did not speak out -- because the Gays had become annoying bastards who never shut up no matter how much they gained, so frankly the fucking assholes had earned it.
Then they came for the Minorities, and I did not speak out -- because I was tired of paying for so many of them to sit at home and churn out babies, so getting rid of them would improve my life one hell of a lot, not to mention cut down the murder rate.
Then they came for the Feminists, and I did not speak out -- because they'd told me all my life that they didn't need a damn stinking man to protect them, so I didn't protect them.
Then they came for me -- and offered me the position of running the death camps where the Gays, Minorities, and Feminists were being exterminated, and I took the job, because hey, they'd told me I was evil all my life... and now I would teach them the true meaning of the word.
A tad McCarthyist, no? (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
to be fair we dont know, he has never made a statement about it as far as I am aware.
He had ~10 days to repudiate his former position and didn't.
In that time, he's made statements, but all his statements were non-apologies and evasions.
https://brendaneich.com/2014/03/inclusiveness-at-mozilla/ [brendaneich.com]
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.
http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/apr/01/mozilla-ceo-brendan-eich-refuses-to-quit [theguardian.com]
"So I don't want to talk about my personal beliefs because I kept them out of Mozilla all these 15 years we've been going," he told the Guardian. "I don't believe they're relevant."
Eich refused to be drawn on whether he would donate to a Proposition 8 style campaign again in the future. "I don't want to do hypotheticals," he said. "I haven't thought about that issue and I really don't want to speculate because it's not relevant."
"Tolerate my intolerance" was never really a good place to be starting from, but nowadays it's a completely unviable position to take.
There are still culture warriors out there bemoaning this trend as the end of
Re:And yet they supported Obama (Score:5, Insightful)
"So I don't want to talk about my personal beliefs because I kept them out of Mozilla all these 15 years we've been going," he told the Guardian. "I don't believe they're relevant."
If only everyone lived by this creed the world would be a better place. He was correct, his donation in private has NOTHING to do with the job he has been doing at mozilla for 15 years. Why only now do they make a big deal about it?
Re:And yet they supported Obama (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:And yet they supported Obama (Score:4)
He had ~10 days to repudiate his former position and didn't.
REPENT OR FACE THE FIRE! You seem oblivious that your position is intolerance, which is "a completely unviable[sic] position to take.".
Re:And yet they supported Obama (Score:4, Insightful)
There seems to be this general idea, expressed in one form or another by the libertarians around here, that free speech ought to mean consequences free speech; that someone can take various socially questionable if not outright bigoted positions, and that no business superior, investor or the like should have any right to mitigate the harm you may cause.
Re: (Score:3)
you cant want equ
Re: (Score:3)
Let us imagine that, after being named CEO, it waa learned he had donated money to white supremacist causes and had made racist remarka.. Would you be standing here declaring that it was wring for employees to be demanding his resignation? You seem to be arguing exactly what I stated, that pronouncements in public forums (whether it be in the form of actual statements or in registering support via donations) should be consequence free, that no investor, member of a board, employee should demand or force his
Re: (Score:3)
that someone can take various socially questionable if not outright bigoted positions, and that no business superior, investor or the like should have any right to mitigate the harm you may cause.
Isn't that what gay activists wanted for a long time? The right to not be fired just because your employers found out you held beliefs and practices they disapproved of, especially if it wasn't affecting your job?
Re: (Score:2)
to be fair we dont know, he has never made a statement about it as far as I am aware.
Fucking summary, second-to-last sentence.
Re:And yet they supported Obama (Score:5, Insightful)
Obama changed his mind, did Eich?
Obama didn't change his mind. He chose the most politically acceptable stance based on the climate at the time. Although I disagree with Eich, I trust him more than I do Obama. When Eichs views are unpopular and it may affect his job, he shuts his mouth. When Obamas views are unpopular and it may affect his job, he lies.
Re:And yet they supported Obama (Score:4, Insightful)
Lovely... So you're saying we get a whole 2-year window to jump on the latest bandwagon, before we get branded as bigots, fired from our jobs, and ostracized by the public at-large?
Re: (Score:2)
Remember that Obama was also opposed to gay marriage when Eich was.
Do you have some links to back your words? For us, that live outside USA, these facts are not easily verifiable - we lack the context you have while trying to separate what's is real news from what's is pure propaganda.
Re: (Score:2)
Remember that Obama was also opposed to gay marriage when Eich was.
Do you have some links to back your words?
Here is a link [go.com]
Obama claimed to oppose gay marriage in 2008. But, in 2008, he also opposed prop 8, which tried to overturn gay marriage in California. So he was for gay marriage where it was relatively popular and would gain him votes, but opposed to it where being opposed would cost him votes. In 2012, political calculations showed that dropping his opposition would help more than hurt in the fall election, so he "evolved" his views.
Obama really isn't comparable to Eich. He never donated to any anti-ga
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
The President saying "I'm opposed to gay marriage" does a hell of a lot more work than $1000 given to a losing campaign. Not. Even. Close.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
yeah... this is kind of a typing tic I'm trying to overcome.
For some reason, I type the following "is" after the "what's" - curiously, it appears only after the "what's" - I don't do it after "where's", for example.
Thanks for pointing that. This can help to overcome that @#$%@%@$$ twitch.
Re: (Score:2)
Google is your friend.
But it's not a good teacher.
I don't live in USA. I don't even speak English with naturality (as you probably had noticed). I can only search for information I already knows that exist.
For example, I would easily find a page stating Obama's opposition to gay marriage without realizing that he changed his position on the matter after. ShangaiBill probably saved me from a gafe, as I was going to repeat that (misguided) initial information on a public discussion on a local site.
Re:And yet they supported Obama (Score:5, Insightful)
Obama said that to get people like Eich to vote for him. After he was elected, he rightly threw them under the bus.
It must be terrible being bigots on the wrong side of history. No one gives you credit for standing up for what you believe in, all they think about is how you're the kind of douchebag who would take away something that costs you nothing but makes so many people so happy.
Re: (Score:3)
I could not have said it any better than your 2nd paragraph.
repeating:
n the wrong side of history. No one gives you credit for standing up for what you believe in, all they think about is how you're the kind of douchebag who would take away something that costs you nothing but makes so many people so happy.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
The left hates gun owners and has never been slow to demonize them.
Re:And yet they supported Obama (Score:4, Insightful)
It's about judgement and respect. You need to be overflowing with both qualities if you want to be a CEO.
Hahahahahahaha. You think Jobs had a lot of respect for other people? You think Ballmer had lots of respect and good judgment??? If anything, these are qualities that American CEOs tend NOT to have, which is why they got to the top of the greasy pole.
Re: (Score:3)
I wasn't aware being a christian automatically requires you to hate homosexuals. I'll have to tell my Catholic wife her tolerance is wrong.
Re:And yet they supported Obama (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
We
Oooh, "grassroots!"
searched the federal campaign-contribution database and found that Yagan gave...$500 to then-Sen. Barack Obama’s 2008 presidential campaign who also opposed gay marriage at the time.
He also opposed preemptively bombing Iran and didn't choose Sarah Palin as a running mate. Most political candidates don't run on a single issue. Did the campaign check specifically have "Fuck the gays!" written in the memo?
According to Wikipedia, 7,001,084 people voted for Prop 8. Why do any of those people still have jobs? Shouldn’t they all be forced to resign?
Depends on if they all hypocritically run companies that claim to strive for diversity.
One reason why rich white guys like Eich are being targeted so viciously is that the many black churches who supported Proposition 8 — and, indeed, put it over the top — are out-of-bounds for criticism.
And since it's the only "reason" you listed it's the only reason that matters? Besides, unlike Eich here, "the black churches" (as well as churches of other, less sinister colors)
Abolish marriage solves the problem. (Score:5, Insightful)
I understand the Church seems to think it has a monopoly on marriage as they are they most common institution to perform the ceremony. I also understand that many politicians will read the biblical definition of marriage between a man and a woman. However it is not the government's role to decide who can and can't be together.
So why not abolish marriages from governments?
Have the government only recognise civil unions. Treat all civil unions equally. Introduce a reciprocal relationship with the Church's marriage so that any marriage performed by the church ends in a government recognised civil union. Finally provide other non religious methods of registering civil unions.
Everyone's happy. Except for those in government who think the Church's view that two dudes shouldn't touch each either. But to them I say one of the tenants of modern democracy is the separation of Church and state and go find another job where your bias and lack of impartiality doesn't affect the people who you are supposed to represent.
Re:Abolish marriage solves the problem. (Score:4, Insightful)
Because lots of people who are not religious (or of other religions) feel that "marriage" is an important thing in their life, and "civil union" is not. The bottom line is that the church can not, and does not have a monopoly on the word. The government shouldn't give to them.
Re: (Score:2)
A rose by a different name... is it really so important how you call something? A name should reflect its content, it's not content by itself.
Re: (Score:2)
A rose by a different name... is it really so important how you call something? A name should reflect its content, it's not content by itself.
Are you addressing the commenters who want to keep government "marriage", or the commenters who want to change it to "civil union"? Seems like your comment could go either way.
Re: (Score:2)
the religious right will scream and moan that you are taking away their rights and the homosexuals on the far fringe will never accept it unless it is marriage. Ive made this argument many times over (marriage is NOT a "right" in the eyes of the constitution on the same vein as the right to free speech for example" Remove the government from the equation, treat everyone the same when it comes to tax and other government issues (hospitals are used m
Re:Abolish marriage solves the problem. (Score:5, Informative)
You don't seem to understand how things work.
1. It is not just the Church that has a male-female view of marriage; this is found in religions and customs around the world and throughout history.
2. In America, it *is* the government that decides who can and can't be together, not the church. You get license from the state to marry, you cannot marry close family members, etc. If you live too long with someone, the state considers it a common law marriage and you have real divorce proceedings.
3. Churches merely perform ceremonies but the state licenses it. Without that state license, there is no marriage regardless of what church you were in.
4. Now that comes down to your main point: have the government change from being in charge of marriage to only having civil unions and give the word "marriage" over to religion. Many states already have civil unions that function like that already. But that is not enough: people want to be called married when they commit themselves to one another.
Re: (Score:2)
1. It is not just the Church that has a male-female view of marriage; this is found in religions and customs around the world and throughout history.
Irrelevant. Gay couples do not hold the view of male-female view of marriage. Government is also in the business to protect minorities from the majority.
4. Now that comes down to your main point: have the government change from being in charge of marriage to only having civil unions and give the word "marriage" over to religion. Many states already have civil unions that function like that already. But that is not enough: people want to be called married when they commit themselves to one another.
That is why the government should stop the whole marriage business. It is too loaded with religious views and personal opinions. For the state it should just be a contract of union between two people. Then people are free to perform any ceremony they like and can call it marriage. Then the churches can reject the ceremony for gay couples if they wish to, an
Re: (Score:3)
The church doesn't have a monopoly on marriage. The courtroom does. I know someone who was married in a church and then they never got around to filing the legal paperwork. Technically, they're not married (which was a good thing as it made 'divorce' that much easier).
Re: (Score:2)
Who said that that new definition of "civil union" has to be limited to two people?
But just wait 'til someone comes and wants to marry his horse, his bed or his imaginary friend. That's when we should start pondering whether we might really want to draw the line somewhere. At the very least, everyone involved should be a person.
A PHYSICAL person! The very last thing I'd want is someone marrying his corporation...
Re: (Score:3)
Who said that that new definition of "civil union" has to be limited to two people?
But just wait 'til someone comes and wants to marry his horse, his bed or his imaginary friend.
A horse, bed or imaginary friend can not enter into a contract. My dog, who I love very much, is incapable of entering into a contract, she lacks the understanding of her actions and I am basically her legal guardian because of her inability to manage her own affairs independently. I signed up for this job with that clearly understood, it would be an abuse of my duty as her guardian to force her into a contract that she is incapable of understanding. Just the same for my desk, who I spend almost as much tim
Re: (Score:2)
This is the root of the problem. The fact that marriages are a legal concern at all.
The fact that the state issues something called 'marriage', which many churches consider to be their trademark is something of a problem; but the big reason that the state can't really get out of the business(at least not until they come up with a relatively-easy-to-use contractual instrument with similar characteristics) is that all sorts of legally relevant and enforced stuff is modified by 'marriage'. Child custody, default assumptions about visitation and medical proxy in the case of somebody being unex
Re: (Score:2)
Not even reading TFA (Score:2, Insightful)
Virulently? (Score:5, Insightful)
The link to the text "virulently opposed to Proposition 8" has nothing do with backing the claim that behaved "virulently". Weasel words: score -1 for the summary.
Virulently opposed? (Score:3, Insightful)
Sealed lips and a medium-sized monetary contribution is "virulent"? Please.
Everything else aside ... (Score:4, Insightful)
... considering marriage a "fundamental right" would seem a slippery slope. Does an atheist have a fundamental right to be ordained a priest?
To be clear, I think Eich was scapegoated, but am of the opinion it is unfair to deny marriage to gays. I am only concerned here with what seems to me to be excessively broad definitions and the fallout that may result.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, everyone has the right to be ordained a priest. Not of every cult, but everyone's entitled to create his own cult and label himself a priest. There's no set requirement that I'm aware of that could keep you or anyone from calling yourself a priest.
Myself, I prefer to be a pope. I am actually a discoridan pope. Oh, and while we're at it, so are you now. Enjoy!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
if he goes to a theology school and gets a phd like most churches require, then yes
Re: (Score:2)
Sortocracy Is a Two Edged Sword (Score:4, Interesting)
Sorting proponents into governments that test them [sortocracy.org] is the penetration of the Enlightenment into the social sciences. This allows the social sciences to progress beyond "correlation doesn't imply causation" to perform ethical experiments on human subjects that, because there are experimental control groups, permits much stronger inference of causal laws in human ecologies (human societies) [about.com] than do mere ecological correlations [wikipedia.org].
So what's not to like about locales, like the Mozilla Foundation or Google or even Silicon Valley, excluding from their midst those who are incompatible with the social experiment that most people want to perform on themselves? After all, it is only by consent of the governed that a jurisdiction can be deemed legitimate.
Here's the problem:
In the modern zeitgeist it is considered the moral equivalent of Satanism to practice what is called "the politics of exclusion". Why? Because it "discriminates".
These fuzzy tropes forget one thing, however -- and it is something that anyone who is involved in technology should understand in their gut:
It is only by "excluding" various hypotheses that we can "discriminate" between truth and falsehood in the real world.
But no one wants to admit that their religion might be false -- including those whose religion is the de facto state religion that enforces "inclusion" and prohibits "discrimination".
i don't understand (Score:5, Insightful)
i'm sorry but i genuinely fail to see the importance of any of this "personal view" stuff. a technically-competent person who has been with it almost since the beginning: they were the CEO of Mozilla for about a week. someone as technically competent as brendan should have absolutely no difficulty firewalling personal from professional: why do we have to have idiots believe otherwise? could someone therefore please explain to me in simple language what's really going on?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
What is happening now with gay rights is what happened with racism in the 60's. It used to be perfectly acceptable to espouse racist views. Then, it became very unnacceptable. Do you think most companies would appoint a CEO who openly thinks blacks are mentally inferior to whites? Now the same thing is happening with homophobia. This is a fast change that many are having problems with. You can still be a private homophobe with friends, but you've got to not let it get out if you are a public figure.
Now, I t
Re:i don't understand (Score:4, Insightful)
That's utter bullshit. I'm sure blacks in the south would have loved if the only problem they had in the world was not being able to get the tax breaks and entitlements that come from a state recognized marriage.
Is that was passes for oppression, these days? I'm inclined to go lynch 10,000 homosexuals, just so people would get to see what real discrimination looks like...
Such a first-world problem, that a group not getting the tax-breaks and incentives (that were always meant as incentives for child-bearing families) passes for discrimination these days.
Re:i don't understand (Score:5, Insightful)
Where, oh where does he epouse the views that Gays are inferior to non-gay? You're setting up a straw man argument right there.
This is nothing to do with that at all. What's actually happened as an extension of all the racism laws is that if you're an ethnic minority, you actually get to be recist to everybody, and that's legally ok (affirmative action anyone? It's not positive discrimination of a small group, it's negative discrimination against a majority).
It seems that everyone seems to be saying "You're white, therefore you're racist".. Yet if your skin isn't white, you can throw around racial epithets and people fight your corner.. After being up in front of a tribunal for calling a co-councilor in Bristol "A coconunt" (brown on the outside, white on the inside, which is apparently a standard parlance in the Black/Ethnic Minority groups, and perfectly acceptable in their eyes, one councillor brown said in her defence, shocked that she was charged with being racist "I can't be racist because I'm black".
That's the view in the political factions all to often..
So perhaps that is what's happening with the LGBT scene these days.. They're generally socially accepted these days, the same as anyone else (actually, probably more so than me, because I'm an introvert by nature).. Just when someone isn't happy with it, they get a huge spitting mob behind them.
Another great example, a Gay couple wanted to stop in a B&B. When they said they wanted a double room together, the old lady running it said no.. She didn't want unmarried people sharing beds under her roof. There was a national scandal, and the landlady was hauled through the courts, and had the national newpapers hounding her (and making her quite ill). What came out at the end of this was that she didn't let _any_ unmarried people, gay, straight, whatever share beds (officially) under her roof as it made her uncomfortable. Everyone else was ok with this, or went elsewhere (she provided alternative places very locally that would cater to this quite happily).. Gay people stayed there and were happy (and she never had objection to that, or asked, or batted an eyelid if it was brought up). It was a Gay couple that decided that her wishes about unmarried sexual behaviour didn't apply to them. They made it all a political showcase, dragging her through the mud, even when it was made plain to them it was about anything but their being gay or not.
That's the problem with this focussed "anti-homophobia", "anti-racist" thing. It's gone from being a way of stopping very serious discrimination into being a weapon of discrimination against those you have a personal problem with.
Re:i don't understand (Score:4, Insightful)
Now, I think if Eich simply apologized for his Prop 8 support, it would have been quite different.
It wouldn't have been. How do I know? Because he did, and that didn't stop the criticism.
He pledged not to change Mozilla's current policies towards LGBT individuals. It wasn't enough, and the OKCupid thing happened in spite of his assurances that nothing was going to change under his leadership.
Now you're probably right that his personal views didn't change, but he was committed to not changing Mozilla as an organization. It still wasn't enough to stop OKCupid's childish little ploy.
Re: (Score:2)
too much risk. that's it. he controls the healthcare that the corp would buy for their employees. he controls which things can be in the HC pkg and he controls costs. he can hire and fire. he can make company policy.
too much power for a bigot and an openly bigot at that.
we did well by removing such a person from power.
Re: (Score:3)
ok. i understand. there are personal views and there is a naive belief that his personal views will somehow interfere with his legal obligation to enact the articles of incorporation as a Director of a Corporation. to imply that someone is unfit to distinguish between personal and professional (legal obligations) is actually a very very serious accusation to level at someone, for which he could probably demand significant compensation, as well as initiate libel lawsuits against those people making such d
There may be more to the story than just Prop 8 (Score:3)
I have a suspicion that the whole "Prop 8 support" thing is a smokescreen for the real reason he stepped down. It makes a great bone to support to the LGBT crowd and let's them have a "win."
However, three members the Mozilla board quit [arstechnica.com] after Eich was named CEO - and they did that before the OKCupid stuff and have said it was entirely unrelated to his support for Prop 8. (Apparently one was planning on quitting after the CEO selection anyway, but the reasons for the other two leaving aren't known.)
So it's en
This is kinda gross. (Score:5, Insightful)
If I still lived in California I would also have been "virulently opposed" to prop 8, but I hate the idea of judging someone's employability based on how they vote. To suggest that Google would treat Mozilla differently simply based on a single-issue stance of its new CEO is really selling them short. They invest in Mozilla for strategic reasons. (Mozilla isn't some sort of lazy couch-crasher that Google supports because of Mozilla's charming personality.)
And for that matter, I don't think we should judge products based on the ideology of the people who created them. To save us some time, I'll get straight to a Hitler example, noting that Hitler personally played an important role in the design of the VW Beetle. But hippies can still drive Beetles without thereby supporting Hitler.
Re:This is kinda gross. (Score:5, Insightful)
To further your point, if they really thought Eich was so bad they would quit using Javascript. But that would come at a *real* cost, unlike hounding him out of his position which can be done for free.
Makes it all the more pathetic.
Re: (Score:2)
It is not about employability, it is about the representation of a whole organization to clients and other stakeholders as the CEO. Mozilla is a non-profit organization, it relies heavily on donations. The choice of who represents Mozilla is of utter importance, and to have a CEO like Mr. Eich that supports a law that is suppose to discriminate about 10% of the population is not an advantage. The very appointment of Mr. Eich as the CEO was a mistake in the fist place. Maybe it was done only because of his t
Let's get some clarity here (Score:3)
Eich was not fired. He chose to resign. Maybe he did so because he cares about the foundation and didn't want to be a distraction. Maybe he was told he'd better resign or they would lose their funding and have to lay everyone off. We don't know, but the insinuations of the original story are out of line for implying so. The truth is we just don't know.
This isn't some free speech issue or some form of inquisition trying to purge the unbelievers.
Eich chose to wade into a controversial issue by making political donations (after all, a conservative majority of SCOTUS claims money == speech). Those "free speech" statements offended a bunch of people and he chose to resign rather than drag the non-profit Mozilla foundation through an ordeal over it.
Anyone in a leadership position is certainly free to make any statements or support any political cause they want. Employees, customers/donors, etc are also free to loudly complain or refuse to associate with the organization if they disagree. That comes with the territory. We wouldn't give Eich a pass if he were sending checks to neo-Nazi organizations. A leader always takes a risk that they'll piss people off by taking a stance. He was CTO of Mozilla at the time, he knew what the consequences could be and made the donation anyway.
A few decades ago it was accepted that blacks and whites shouldn't intermarry. Even some people who campaigned for civil rights still held such a view. If Eich were donating to a group promoting a constitutional amendment to outlaw interracial marriages almost none of you would be wringing your hands over free speech. Everyone would laugh at him for being a dumbass and move on with their lives.
Freedom of speech is not freedom from consequences. Even if someone faces no offical sanctions for speaking out, they can certainly be excluded socially, even to the point of being driven out of the organization. That's how human group dynamics have always worked since we were grunting at each other and throwing pointy sticks.
Furthermore, technology has always been intertwined with personalities, politics, and the like. Only very rarely is it always 100% about the pure technology. You can write the best code in the world but if you can't play nice with others you run the risk of your code languishing in obscurity.
Social norms are changing; you can change with them, you can keep your mouth shut about it, or you can fight for the status quo. Each of those courses of action has risk associated with them. Eich chose to fight for the status quo, then chose to stick by his guns when it pissed a lot of people off, including a lot of the very people his organization depends on to contribute money and code from their own good will! That has consequences and it always has.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Basically, you're a dumbass.
You're defending the actual supremacist, who donated money to take away people's rights, and pretending those who do stand for equal rights and no longer want to tolerate the actual nazi's are the oppressors.
Think it over.
Re:The new Hitlers (Score:4, Funny)
Nothing, thanks for asking.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
You can refuse to do business with a class of people who are not "protected" under discrimination law. But you cannot refuse to do business with people who ARE protected. Wasn't there just a lawsuit recently about a wedding cake designer who LOST a court case about refusing to make a cake for a gay couple?
You call it "economic pressure" when a group you support is wielding the boycott.. but it's illegal discrimination when a group you don't like is wielding the boycott.
That's not a free market at all.
Re:The new Hitlers (Score:5, Insightful)
In addition to making certain flavors of artistic realism possible, it suggests that 'a guy facing pressure to resign from his cushy leadership gig' and 'being sent to the guillotine by fanatical Jacobins' may actually be meaningfully different things. Cutting edge theory stuff, here.
Re:The new Hitlers (Score:4, Insightful)
But I have the perception, rightly or wrongly, that nearly every top executive position (even at nonprofits) pays a salary that is not commensurate with the person's work or value to the organization, and that these positions are instead used as a reward for people who the company directors happens to like.
So, I am comfortable with Eich, or even someone more hateful, being paid a high but appropriate salary for doing lots of good work for the company. But if, as I believe, most of the CEO's salary is a reward from the board of directors for being the person they like the most, then I feel justified in throwing a fit if I don't like him the most.
Immediately before being promoted, Eich had been the Chief Technology Officer at Mozilla. He's also the guy who invented Javascript. Do you really think he didn't make an technical contribution to Mozilla's products?
Re: (Score:3)
This guy was responsible for Javascript? The most convoluted and bizarre language this side of Lotus Notes?
Screw the bit about his stance on gays. He should be locked in a room with Ray Ozzie and left there until the Second Coming.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Haven't heard of Godwin's Law have you?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Hypocrites .. that's what I think those that support gay marriage are. They don't give a flip about equality, they only want to force their moral beliefs on those that disagree, and enable a very small group of select people to get benefits. If they truly wanted equality, they would fight to ELIMINATE all benefits tied to being married.
Interesting that you seem to be directing all of this hate to "gay hypocrites" instead of people who support straight marriage. Do you hold the same opinion about civil rights activists who fought to repeal mycegination laws? I don't think there should be special benefits to getting married, but given that civil marriage exists, there is no rational reason to restrict it to straights. Extending it to more people is a good thing, right?
Also, let's get real. Marriage-like benefits will not be extended to anyt
Re:The new Hitlers (Score:5, Informative)
Apart from it being a Religious term (in the Bible, it mentions that marriage is between a husband and wife, being man and woman). That's part of the base scripture. Apparently the word of God.
In case you weren't aware, there have also been marriages outside of the influence of the Judeo-Christian tradition. While people in the Middle East were writing the Bible, there was still stuff going on in the entire rest of the world.
Re: (Score:3)
Marriage existed before the bible and before the christian god was invented.
Next question.
Re: (Score:2)
These are great ideas, and you'd probably get a lot more support for them if you didn't waste time looking for someone to blame, and pointing fingers at the people who may very well support your cause.
Re: (Score:2)
Many insurance companies and private businesses already allow for 'domestic partners' when it comes to insurance, I don't see any requirement there that those partners be having sex.
I agree with your point. However, plenty of organizations limit benefits for "domestic partners" to "same sex domestic partners, with the implication that it's only for gay couples.
You are right, though. The government shouldn't have any place regulating the sex lives of consenting adults. People's business relationships, especially with the government, can and should be regulated without regard to whether the people involved are having sex.
Re:The new Hitlers (Score:5, Interesting)
I completely agree. Legal marriage should be opposed whether it's for gay or straight couples. Why is it the government's business who I've devoted my life to? Why should I be taxed differently because my significant other and I decided to sign a piece of paper? It's an archaic social custom that should have no place in modern society.
Re:The new Hitlers (Score:5, Insightful)
And how is your fight against heterosexual marriage going?
Since there is no credible movement to end legal marriage for opposite sex couples the only equitable approach the government can take is to extend marriage rights to cover same sex couples.
You are full of it (Score:3, Interesting)
"Since nothing is stopping gay couples from having ceremonies and living as if married, as far as I can tell, gay marriage is all about forcing acceptance and government benefits."
You're half right. This isn't about forcing acceptance. It's about forcing equal treatment under law. It's a little thing called "personal freedom". You can be critical of gays and of gays getting married all you want. The minute you try to use the government to force your beliefs on other, by denying them the same choices ever
Re:The new Hitlers (Score:4, Insightful)
You bring up two topics: the morality of gay marriage, and the completely separate issue of the financial and legal benefits the the USA government bestows on married couples.
You make a persuasive argument against the government giving special rights and benefits to married couples that are denied to other long term, stable relationships. I agree with you that the government has no business doling out special rights to some couples because they made a commitment called marriage while similar commitments are denied these benefits.
It is my opinion that government should not give any financial benefits simply because your are married. Further, I think the government should get out of the marriage business completely. Marriage, outside of religious ceremonies, should be replaced by civil contracts.A lot of people don't really understand that when they get married they are agreeing to a huge and convoluted legal contract. A range of simpler contracts should be available that spell out the rights and privileges of both partners: power of attorney, child custody and guardianship, shared assets, and how to dissolve the partnership would be some of the key things to include in these contracts..
The moral issue is should being gay be treated like being a red head, or being black, or being white, that is something that the law should prevent everyone from discriminating against.
In this case I disagree with you and say that being gay should be something that no one, and no law, can use as something to justify discrimination. Being gay is like having blue eyes, something you are born with. All government programs, civil rights, etc... should be available to gay people just as if they were straight.
And hospitals do NOT decide the rules about who can visit and who has the right to make medical decisions those are all laws - laws that currently discriminate against a lot of people. rules governing wills, child custody, etc... are also generally unfair to anyone other than straight couples.
Gay people are not forcing their morals on anyone. They are asking to be treated equally before the law. Asking for people to stop discriminating against yourself is not forcing your morals on anyone; it is asking for the law to be fair.
Finally, gay people are not "greedily" grabbing benefits they are just asking for the same benefits others already have, and you so eloquently argued that everyone should have. Are you saying that all committed, long term relationships should get benefits, except gay ones? That would hardly be moral.
Re: (Score:2)
They could make a new movie with Sean Connery, called The Hunt for the New World October.
Re: (Score:2)
Because the people upset about it were outnumbered on the board.
Re: (Score:2)
Lesson in corporate management learned. You can do what you want as a lowly grunt so long as you do the job part well. But part of moving up in management involves working well with other people. And the higher you go, the more likely it is that you'll have to get along with those that don't share your life views. If you don't have those skills, stay in your cubicle, pounding out code.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:So... (Score:5, Insightful)
His donation to Proposition 8 has been known literally for years. He was CTO before his promotion to CEO; he had a seat on the board of the Mozilla Foundation, as is natural for its co-founder. None of his gay subordinates or coworkers seems to have levied any accusations of unfairness against him in all that time. One of the Mozilla bigwigs commented that she was surprised to learn of the donation when it came out, because Eich's friendliness and evenhandedness toward gay employees defied her stereotype of a Proposition 8 supporter.
Eich had no trouble getting along with those who didn't share his views, but it seems that not everyone reciprocated.
Re: (Score:2)
What? Promoting someone based on his ability to work well and not on how good a party soldier he is? That's so un-american, watch out, this could lead to communism!
Re: (Score:2)
Obama's opposition was a political calculation and not an expression of his real belief. It may surprise you to find out that politicians regularly lie to get elected.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
"The articles just points out how much damage the bigot views of Mr. Eich could have caused Mozilla and the employees of Mozilla were more then justified to call for his resignation. If you believes and actions are damaging the company you are suppose to represent, then you are not fit to be the CEO."
His views weren't bigot views. He's very friendly with the LGBT community in general, but his views on marriage don't happen to coincide. He didn't go hounding them out of jobs etc. He just expressed a view,