The Next Mission
brendaneich.com
brendaneich.com
That said.
I have nothing but fury for the people instigating these kinds of senseless whichhunts. The key point here is that Eich has been CTO of Mozilla for years. CTO to CEO, while a big transition, is much smaller distance in executive representation than this controversy calls for. What I suspect is somebody in the Gawkerati saw a news piece on "somebody something new CEO of Mozilla", Googled his name, and dug up one political contribution from 5 years ago to create a controversy out of thin air. This kind of behavior sickens me -- not just the media publications that stir this pot, but the individual people boiling at the seams to crucify everyone with a different opinion. In 2014, people that contribute nothing to society other than digging up controversies have the power to bring down historic figures from pushing the envelope of innovation and opening the Web to allow to allow this very kind of expression.
At the end of the day, that is the ultimate irony. The technology that Branden worked his life on gave voice to those who destroyed him. The entire point of the web is to allow this kind of radical expression, and the moment we get it we use it to tear down and villanize the people who make it run.
Absolutely disgraceful.
If you're glad Eich resigned, I really only have one question for you: What do you hope to gain out of this? Do you think this will push the envelope toward greater acceptance of homosexuality? Is the idea that if we villify ideas enough and those that express them, they will eventually go away? Or does it just, I don't know, feel good?
[1]http://recode.net/2014/04/03/mozilla-co-founder-brendan-eich...
Yes. It's been generally working with racism, sexism, classism, and a bunch of other bad -isms. The needs of oppressed groups outweigh the needs of their oppressors to express their views free of consequences.
Also, there are plenty ways of having "consequences" without outright firing the guy, when from all we know he was doing his job just fine and brought exactly zero of his views about gay marriage into it.
^ notice how the article is written in the past tense.
I use the word bigot advisedly. Anything else is sugar-coating the motivations and rationale of the anti-gay-marriage crowd— there is no basis for it which does not rest on a religious argument, in theory or in practice. And you can't actively oppose deny someone else's civil rights and claim it's not personal, or whatever.
Compared to that, who works for Mozilla isn't really anyone's business -- don't use their products if it means so much to you, but don't think a victory was won here for anything but delusion and self-righteous pettyness.
It says more about Christians than it does about gay people or even the Bible that they're fixated on homosexuality.
It didn't have to be this way. I wish the government would get out of marriage all together. Edit: civil unions
Then let me clarify: It's homophobia. To be afraid that gay marriage will somehow sully "traditional" marriage? Homo. Phobia.
How do you know thats why he's against it? Did he tell you that?
I think it's fair to assume that Brenden Eich's reasoning shares some of those features. (Or he donated that money cynically for some other reason. I suppose that's a option.)
Either way: He gave money to prevent an entire class of Californians from enjoying their rights. Which is a pretty shitty thing to do.
Let's say he was against it because it expanded the institution of marriage (a decent idea, but I wouldn't vote against gay rights because of it). Libertarian with perhaps a misguided set of priorities (equality > smaller government), sure, bigot? No.
So it's probably because of homophobia, because if it was something else, he probably would have made that clear by now.
So at that point he's a bigot justifying it with his religion which still means he's a bigot.
This right here is why tech is so white/male/straight/etc. "Oh the other people should stop being bullies and just let themselves be oppressed, the people doing the oppression aren’t the bullies, those are just their opinions, we should just let them continue to oppress people."
Let's put it this way. The LGBT community has been oppressed for basically their whole life. So yea, when given the chance, they are going to try to oppress the people who are continuing to systematically oppress them, where do you think they learned that from. If he was willing to apologize, it probably would have been fine (since when has a gay guy apologizing for being gay gotten him his right to marry someone?), the bully here is Eich, he just got called on it this time.
When you find that your movement excuses means like lynching ("consequences" to your opinions and your freedom of speech) and persecution as long as they help your goals, then maybe your movement has lost the plot. I'm seeing truly scary comments that would have made McCarthyists cringe. In an environment where I'd never have expected them.
This school of thought is being defended across tech forums. Appalling.
edit since i can't respond to myself: and here is an interesting definition of "fascism."
The injustice done to Mr. Eich is minor. He hasn't been killed or injured. He hasn't been blacklisted. He lost his job, in an industry where the average worker has to fight off recruiters with a stick, let alone someone like him.
Yes, there are consequences for your opinions when you become the public face of a large company, especially when that company is founded on some set of principles besides "make money". Those terrifying consequences involve not getting to be CEO anymore, and that's it. Big shock.
You'll see truly scary comments anywhere and everywhere on the Internet. If you judge every movement by its most extreme, unhinged elements, then there are exactly zero sane or wholesome movements.
The guy's a bigot. (Unless he's made a statement disavowing his contribution in some way.) Being against equal rights for gay folks is being a bigot. Sorry.
If you don't want to catch shit for being a bigot when you're placed in a position of public power and trust, don't act like a bigot. Or give money to bigoted causes.
What we are seeing here is a person being harshly punished for his campaign donations. Basically for his political opinion (and an opinion that passed with a strong majority in California to boot).
This is enormously destructive for democracy. It's McCarthyism of the highest level. Both the fact and its staunch defence by many in the forums.
Never had the gay community been casted so intolerant before, or not that I know of, at least.
Anyway: I'm unclear why it's inappropriate to pass judgment on people based on their political speech.
Also, you're playing that trick with the word "intolerance" that people sometimes play... There's "racial and sexual intolerance," which should be weeded out. It has no place in our society. But there are all sorts of "intolerances" which are great! For example: We should be intolerant of things which drag people down and ruin lives. Disease. Scientific illiteracy. Lack of the freedom to marry whomever one wishes. Bigotry.
The ways you are defending are the textbook definition of bigotry. I agree that they shouldn't have a place in society.
As someone else put it once, taking a political position publicly takes a certain amount of civic courage. I am in complete disagreement with everything you say, which I consider alarmist, apologist, and simply wrong.
Why would the gay community ever be tolerant of someone who supports anti-gay legislature? I mean, come on, it seems pretty rational for LGBT supporters to be intolerant of individuals who want to prevent them from having the same legal rights as heterosexuals. It's not as if there is some reasonable excuse to oppose gay marriage, this whole thing exploded because the position is unambiguously indefensible. That doesn't mean it's the worst thing in the world, you just come off as a petty asshole when you try to prevent people from living their lives in a way that has absolutely no affect on your own life whatsoever.
Why is that a problem? People have the right to boycott whatever they want, it's really one of the only peaceful and effective forms of dissent available to ordinary citizens. That "difference of opinion" manifested itself as a financial contribution to an anti-gay cause, what kind of reaction would you expect from those who were exclusively targeted by said law?
a prop that passed in California, by the way, so maybe it's not just a bunch of wackos
And then it was overturned by the supreme court as unconstitutional, so maybe it is "just a bunch of wackos". Either way, I don't think the fact that a law passes lends any credibility to the substance of the law. To quote the court:
DOMA’s unusual deviation from the usual tradition of recognizing and accepting state definitions of marriage here operates to deprive same-sex couples of the benefits and responsibilities that come with the federal recognition of their marriages. This is strong evidence of a law having the purpose and effect of disapproval of that class. The avowed purpose and practical effect of the law here in question are to impose a disadvantage, a separate status, and so a stigma upon all who enter into same-sex marriages made lawful by the unquestioned authority of the States.
In other words, the only practical effect of the law is to disparage and stigmatize homosexuals.
Actually, voting for Prop 8 does not in any way meet the threshold test of "bigot". To qualify as a bigot, you have to have an "unreasonable" intolerance of others perspectives. Merely taking a good faith position on the opposite side of an(y) issue does not evidence "biggotry". Just the opposite: by proposing that any opposition to your ideas is insensible, you define yourself as a bigot.
Now, step back. Every civil right in the US is codified in law. Every law was wirtten by human beings with mistakes, errors, omissions, and horse-trades. Every law put on the books in the US is at some level "impure" and "ugly".
The types of civil rights involving prop 8 are like the civil rights act of 1965, and the OSHA and Employment laws passed than creat "protected classes". That is to say, these civil rights are voted on by the public. They do not exist in the Constitution. If they did, we would not have to pass laws called "civil rights act of xxx".
The point of all this is that every law needs a debate. Every law needs to be (imperfectly) written. To have votes you need to have opposing views aired to test different options. Just like working in business. YOu cannot be an effective leader if you dis-allow all debate.
But that's what being a bigot is. That's what you are saying you are by proclaiming all people who disagree with you are unreasonable. That is not a teneble position: its logically false. The other side of the issue may be wrong, but only in very rare cases would it ever be "unreasonavle".
Propo 8 may have been wrong, but to assume that each and every single person in the majority of voters who voted it into law was "unreasonable" is absurd. Some? Perhaps, but you could never justfy the inference without specific knowledge (which in this case is not on the public record).
Mozilla's actions today will have a chilling effect on free speech. Make no doubt about it. Every piece of software you use online capable of tracking your political views is now fair game. There is no reason to treat public information as distinct from private information, if your standard is as you've laid it out.
Supporting traditional marriage does not mean opposing equal rights for gay folks. Traditional marriage permits a gay person to marry someone of the opposite sex (which makes no sense to a supporter of modern pseudomarriage).
The key thing is that traditional marriage isn't about finding temporary emotional fulfilment, while modern pseudomarriage is. Modern pseudomarriage is a convenience, a way to find some companionship and engage in sexual activity while receiving some economic benefits, not an incubator for the formation of a family and a bloodline.
The guardians of the moral high ground and the champions of liberty and tolerance can't even stand next to someone with a different opinion about a specific subject. They are the same people that demand some guy to be fired because he made some joke on the radio, they paint themselves as happy all inclusive and kind fellas but are the worst kind of human being there is, highly educated, militant behaviour and not a single ounce of self evaluation.
How pathetic is this society when someone is persecuted because he chooses the "wrong" side, so of course he has to "pay".
Adding to the tragedy, many of these mindless souls don't have a clue who Brendan Eich is and the fundamental role he played in the last 20+ years. Ironically, many of them partly owe their careers to the man they just demanded to get fired.
Finally, this is a really dark day for Mozilla, Brendan was a HUGE part of Mozilla both in technical and cultural terms, in the next few years we will feel the consequences.
Even if he was just a regular guy, this is a tremendous injustice committed by the "always right" purest of the pure.
That said, I think this sort of thing does work. It's messy and far from ideal but it does push things in that direction:
"Is the idea that if we villify ideas enough and those that express them, they will eventually go away?"
In short... yes. Most people never change no matter what you do. The only way to really change things is to influence the next generation, so that they form different ("better") opinions than their parents. Children get a lot of their opinions from their parents, but they also get a lot of their opinions from the society they're in. If you force bigots to retreat from the public eye it does work to reduce bigotry in the very long term.
I'm not saying these tactics are a good idea (nor bad, I just make no stand on it at all), but they do work, slowly.
I'm of the opinion that these kind of tactics probably aren't as effective as simply what I suggest: "letting the old people die". It's been shown that young people hugely disproportionatly support gay marriage, and support for Prop 8 is declining by a large percentage every year.
I think that when you decide that certain viewpoints or groups are just not allowable at all, all you do is marginalize those groups and push them even further to the extreme. I think you could make a case that Fox News et al would possibly be less extreme if the progressive movement wasn't so vocal about eradicating all potential opposition.
Just my two cents. I'd be really interested to hear other's thoughts on this subject, because I think that bigotry is tied to a whole bunch of other related problems that need solving.
Here's the thing that you're forgetting: the targets of (e.g.) hateful rhetoric feel better when bigots are dismissed from polite society. Some bigots may become more radicalized, but many become demoralized or may even think twice about it (see above). However, when fewer people are allowed to propagate bigoted views in society, society overall is a better place. The whole point is to make society more inclusive. I care less about marginalizing people with abhorrent views than marginalizing different ethnicities, lifestyle choices, and genetic predispositions.
"Wait until they die" suggests a bootstrapping problem: why would children of bigots feel any different unless they had a reason to? If you only wait for bigots to die out instead of marginalizing them, bigotry is normalized over generations. You have to interrupt that cycle.
Well at the very least it will make life harder for bigots.
Seriously, this isn't about the fact that Eich donated to Prop 8 5 years ago, it's that he seems to still hold this position. He has had ample time to offer an apology( in a sort of "facts change" manner) and the fact that he hasn't makes the case that he still believes in oppressing homosexuals pretty strong.
Free speech is not consequence-free speech, and he's still able to say what he wants. But expecting people to ignore who he is when he's representing one of the most symbolic companies in the open source communities is unrealistic.
Why would any of us want someone with those social views representing the tech community at large (especially at a time where so many -ism's have shown themselves to be prevalent). If he just wanted to do tech, maybe he should have stayed CTO.
Overall, I think society benefits from the flexibility of forgiveness. Branden is a prodigal and historic figure -- we should at least give him the chance to continue changing the world.
I'm a little confused by how people fail to see this. Mozilla represents freedom while Brendan represents oppression.
His technical abilities have nothing to do with this and he's probably a fine CTO. That's where he should have stayed.
It should be a lesson for anyone who speaks out against minorities, the poor, and any other disadvantaged peoples.
The published disdain for authority is one of the cornerstones of American democracy.
There are public and social responsibilities that come with the type of money, power and prestige that success in business and industry offers.
Those who don't agree will soon feel the might of the pen and the full implications of the freedoms that allow us to openly communicate and conduct business.
While I respect Mr. Eich and his right to his own personal opinions, he can't expect to attain such publicly visible positions of authority without having his underwear hung out to dry.
Our industry could also learn a thing or two about populism. It should learn to embrace it. Young, hot-shots should learn a modicum of decency. Those with their eyes set on great accomplishments should learn the value of respecting those that don't value the same things.
In addition, savvy entrepreneurs can use populism to their advantage with great success. It doesn't have to be a hinderance. We're a social creature. It makes complete sense that figureheads have the ability to help or hurt the perceptions of potential customers.
Venture capitalism, as expressed in Silicon Valley, has been rather short-sighted and irresponsible as of late. It is not only condoning but also promoting an attitude of arrogance. I blame any member of an older generation that lacks the leadership and guidance that should be an integral part of the types of social change that come about when many millions of dollars are in play. There is a lot of visible excess in our industry right now. I sure as hell can't put too much blame on a bunch of kids who just left the nest.
Unfortunately for Mr. Eich his reputation is of further interest to journalists who have been successfully crafting the narrative of a dark side to an entire industry.
If our industry doesn't like the unfair side effects of having a disreputable image it should work to change the narrative instead of demonizing and adding fuel the flames of popular discontent.
Right now the story is about private shuttle busses, evictions, sexism, ageism, and yes, homophobic CEOs, along with a slew of other forms of imbalances in perceived difference.
What are we going to do about it?
I applied for a job at a retail store and was asked the same question prior to getting the job. I thought of the first words of the constitution of that American union which was founded in 1905, the IWW - "The working class and the employing class have nothing in common".
So nowadays, not only managers, but employees who think workers are entitled to keep the wealth they create, are verboten. Of course thinking profits can get kicked up to the lazy idle class loafer heirs as dividend checks is all well enough.
Some anti-homosexual screwball is finally pushed out, and finally everyone gets up in arms about how unfair it is that people are pushed out of their jobs. What a laugh.
Whatever God Eich worships who tells him to scorn men who love men, the idle class heir VC limited partner is the God of HN. Doing anything (traction!) to gain his favor and a piece of his surplus value stolen capital is HN's religion.
Lynching: http://www.americanlynching.com/images/28482.jpg
Concentration camp: http://www.history.com/images/media/slideshow/holocaust-conc...
(Probably-unnecessary warning: these are graphic images of violence by humans against humans.)
Free speech doesn't mean freedom from criticism. It means the opposite, actually. And we as a society have decided some views are socially unacceptable. Anti-homosexual bigotry has been added to the list, along with pro-slavery or violence against women. Those are topics which are really just not up for debate anymore— we are in theory an egalitarian society, where plurality takes precedence over someone's right to (e.g.) express negative views, esp about minorities.
I don't understand how being brilliant means that everyone should ignore that you're also a bigot. Presumably if he had no talent then he'd be fair game?
Which is why we have laws (separate from the amendments) which ensure people can't be fired for their race/gender/etc. These laws have nothing to do with the first amendment because they don't involve the government.
On the second point, that's why employers aren’t allowed to ask those questions (nor use them in their evaluation of employees). Those are the protection laws I mentioned above. Which don't protect executive members, as they run the company. Hence employees shouldn't, and can't, be fired for their political opinions (unless that's somehow part of their job).
Proportional response? Sure. Here is a guy who paid money to make it so people can't see their significant others when they are dying, so that they don't have the recognition of the government as being married, to institutionalize oppression, and the untold misery which comes with it. He didn't apologize, he still holds the same views now. Yes, people should lobby a company, any company, to remove someone who would inflict such misery on his fellows. Yes, people should lobby a company like mozilla which says its an avid supporter of freedom to remove someone who would not support equal freedoms for every single person. These companies are corporate citizens, and their opinions are shaped by their executive board, and we can tell them we won't do business with them because of their opinions.
Edit: If you read the above, the response to the question should be obvious. Is it a board member? Then sure, good luck with that though, considering they would loose business if they followed the complaints, but not loose any if they ignored them (yea hospitals don't really care about customer retention). If it's an employee, and that employee didn't do anything wrong (like say, perform an abortion when not asked to; or badger someone with their political view) then no.
It was trivial amount of money for an $83MM campaign. It may signal which side of the issue he was on. It does not inform us of what he is thinking or his motivations.
If this is true, how many people are going to boycott Javascript now?!
Are you going to stop going to websites that use Javascript?
How can you ignore the fact that the inventor of that language is a bigot?
No matter how brilliant the language is.
If only...
But you already know that.
Brendan had the privilege to climb to the rank of CEO, if only for a few days. But it is because of views like his that many don't get a chance at all to climb to anywhere near those heights. I know many qualified, talented, awesome people who, if they were straight and able to marry the loves of their lives, could become American citizens and pursue meaningful opportunities here (arguments about whether moving here is such a good idea these days not withstanding.) And marriage is just one of many ways in which we as a society diminish, limit or actively dehumanize those not a member of the majority.
I tolerate your views right up to the point where they make someone's dying moments hell because their husband or wife can't visit, or bar someone from working for someone else because of their gender or skin color. At that point, yeah, I'll gladly be a biggot against biggots.
Perhaps the reason we don't see more minorities in positions of power is that so many of us exercise our influence, be it via rhetoric or $1000 donations, to keep them out of those positions. I can't bring myself to feel bad when someone who does that is brought down.
FWIW, I supported the unsuccessful civil-union law in my state. I think anyone who wants to form a household and get the economic & regulatory benefits hitherto attached to marriage (insurance, hospital visits &c.) should be permitted to, regardless of sexual activity or indeed its absence (why shouldn't a fraternity, or a few friends, be able to form a civil union in order to get those same benefits?). I don't believe I hold any animus against homosexual folks.
But marriage is just not about sexual attraction, and the idea that it is, is rapidly destroying marriage.
and this is not about his views; he actually donated money to help ensure that people would not get equal rights; even though those rights did not affect him in any way.
He voted for prop 8 which means he doesn't want people to have the same rights (which before that everybody had (of course!!!)), so it goes like this: Heaven on Earth --> prop 8 --> gay holocaust --> Brendan must go.
It makes perfect sense sir.
side a: - straight people have rights - gay people have the same rights - the law does not discriminate in any way
side b: - straight people have exactly the same rights as in side a - gay people have fewer rights - the law discriminates between people depending on who they love
there is literally not a single negative consequence for straight people if gay marriage is legalised, and yet eich spent $1000 in the hope that gay people would continue to be legally seen as lesser. of all the hundreds of causes out there, one motivated by pure spite was what he picked to actively work for.
now as for the "technical people aren't people" strawman, perhaps you aren't familiar with mozilla? it is a tech company - a significant fraction of their employees are technical people. and the company culture (which is shorthand for how the company treats and interacts with its employees) is definitely something the ceo can affect. the company technology stack is more in the cto's purview, and no one ever doubted that eich was competent at that.
The social justice warrior lynch mob can be an ugly, fickle beast, and its actions can be a double-edged sword, there's no question about it. In this case, they may have saved Mozilla (and Eich) from themselves.
edit: being the public face of a company is different in kind than being another kind of worker. Its "distance" from CTO may not be large, but the "king is the king" as it were.
edit 2: a couple of bigger questions here that will/should be asked. Should CEOs remain apolitical, or at least take great pains to hide their affiliations - particularly in industries with many much more liberal-minded workers? Will they after this?
Interesting stat: latest Pew has 61% of Republicans under 30 supporting gay marriage. Take that as you may, but I'd go with 'excellent bellwether for society at large'.
I ask this because, in the Recode article, Mozilla's executive chairwomen, says "That [the contribution] was shocking to me, because I never saw any kind of behavior or attitude from him that was not in line with Mozilla’s values of inclusiveness"
Unless there is some evidence, 15 years track record in a company should seemingly count for more than a single political contribution. Yes/no?
Should a person be allowed in a position of power if they are able to separate their personal beliefs and lead the organization properly, without improper bias against anyone? I suspect this has happened many times before.
I don't see how the LGBT community has benefited much from this. It seems to me that giving him credit for clearly not letting his personal beliefs affect his work relationships and taking a wait-and-see stance would've resulted in a more productive outcome. Would this not have been an opportunity to educate someone who is otherwise seemingly capable of reasoned and rational thought?
But I do have to say I think Brandon handled that really well and its definitely the right thing to do.
He had to step down eventually from mozilla to avoid further damage to the brand.
I think it's good he realized that and takes on new challenges.
In the other thread[1], I pointed out the damage will now continue via a second mob that seems to be sifting through all the other Mozilla employee's donations.
It happens a lot with this stuff in politics, and it sucks to high heaven having a group looking at everything you've ever donated.
His appointment was a misjudgement.
Granted, its a little different when we are talking about the CEO of a foundation with a specific ideology, but if this becomes wide spread the chilling effects are something to be concerned about.
Eich was CEO of Mozilla Corporation, not the Mozilla Foundation.
I really think it was inevitable once people started complaining about his political background. The whole appointment had become about the gay rights issue rather than about where he would lead Mozilla in the future.
No one really thought he was suddenly going to turn Mozilla into an anti-gay rights organisation, but standing down is still the decent thing to do. It lets Mozilla focus back on their mission and carry on without controversy.
In a way it's a little sad though. I was kinda hoping that he'd say he'd had a change of heart since prop8 and renounce his views. Maybe that's just the optimist in me though...
Many anti-abortion proponents consider abortion a form of murder, which is a more serious issue. But I don't see campaigns against CEOs who support abortion.
Comparing his view with racism is ridiculous. He's not for discriminating against homosexuals, just for keeping marriage as it's been. Can the growing polygamist movement immediately discredit everyone opposed to them as bigots also?
Why the outrage? The system worked. The only group that had it's freedom threatened was the group of individuals targeted by the prop 8 law. Denizens of the internet could have spared Eich their ire if they were so inclined. Eich could have apologized if he were so inclined. Mozilla could have stuck by Eich if they were so inclined. Everybody acted in their own interest and Eich's resignation is a consequence of that fact.
I think I understand now why you asked if my account was hijacked.
Good riddance.