Hacker News Reader

>Do you think this will push the envelope toward greater acceptance of homosexuality?

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.

I completely agree with you. I think after that interview, this was the correct path. Still, I think we should give people a chance, upon taking a new position, to hold to at least a somewhat clean public record. He made that donation in five years ago. He probably had no idea at the time he would be seeking such a public position. Unlike Dan Cathy, there's no indication he would have brought up his views on his own (he would have likely to consider it a bad idea). Once enough hate had been generated, the interview was inevitable. And once it's out in the open, I mean, I agree, he should have backed down. I'm somewhat proud of him and I respect him more, but if you're a board of directors, you have responsibilities.

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.

That was a well stated defense of intolerance.

Not really. "intolerance of intolerance" isn't quite the same thing as "intolerance".

Tolerance exists precisely for things which you hate. If you reserve tolerance for the unimportant issues, then you are intolerant.

> Is the idea that if we villify [homophobia] enough and those that express them, they will eventually go away?

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.

The need of the oppressed groups for revenge after they more or less won? Really? Anyone who thinks like that has none of my support. Good luck with your fight, which could have been ours.

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.

Who has won, and in what way? Are you suggesting gay people have "won" in some way other than a few isolated and contested areas where their relationships have, after decades of protest and activism, been acknowledged as legally equivalent to straight people's relationships?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_8_(2008)

^ notice how the article is written in the past tense.

It's not about "winning." It's about what kind of world we want to live in. Evidently enough people don't want to live in a world where a bigot is the CEO of an organization that ostensibly espouses freedom and equality.

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.

You're still extrapolating mighty much from that one donation, I find it a petty witch hunt. You live in a world where your president is a mass murdering war criminal on your behalf, in your name. You live in a world where Gitmo is a thing. So much for organizations espousing freedom and equality, so much for where your tax money goes.

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.

Im not sure anti same sex marriage is the same as homophobia. Is it the wrong opinion, yes. But I wouldnt say being against same sex marriage is sufficient to make someone a homophobe.

As long as the government is giving exclusive benefits to married couples then, yes, being anti-same-sex-marriage is at least a little anti-gay.

It didn't have to be this way. I wish the government would get out of marriage all together. Edit: civil unions

Oh. Would you consider being against interracial marriage sufficient to make someone a racist?

Yeah it would make them a racist. Because its most likely hate or disgust for the other race which is causing a person to be against interracial marriage. But for same sex marriage, there are BS religious reasons to be against it, not just hatred or disgust of gays.

The "BS" in "BS religious reasons" is the tell. There are huge swaths of the Bible the religious set is happy to set aside when it's convenient. Go read Leviticus for a start.

It says more about Christians than it does about gay people or even the Bible that they're fixated on homosexuality.

It seems to be hate or disgust whenever it suits you, but in Eich's case, you need assurance.

No, I just dont go around assuming things.

> Im not sure anti same sex marriage is the same as homophobia.

Then let me clarify: It's homophobia. To be afraid that gay marriage will somehow sully "traditional" marriage? Homo. Phobia.

> To be afraid that gay marriage will somehow sully "traditional" marriage?

How do you know thats why he's against it? Did he tell you that?

The conservative talking point against gay marriage is that it will somehow undermine "traditional" marriage and the culture at large. It comes from a standpoint of quite literally being afraid of homosexuals and homosexuality.

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.

VisualR: what would you suggest people do instead of nonviolent protest like boycotting and public declamation? Tweet about it? Change our profile pictures? This is a serious cultural issue. We are not talking about Baskin Robbins eliminating a flavor. A major force on the Internet was going to be led by a man who clings to the belief that gay people should not have the same civil rights as straight people. That this belief is unacceptable to many should be made clear by them in the most direct and visible way possible.

How does punishing Eich help the cause? Is it trying to scare people in to agreeing with the LGBT cause?

It helps by removing a bigot from a position of great power, showing others that bigotry will not be quietly tolerated, even (perhaps especially) in men and women of great talent and wealth.

Maybe. Or it could just anger the other side to push back harder. Education and time are the forces that will cause an LGBT victory, not these boycott games.

Yeah, I agree. But is the boycott activism a proportional response? I think we should leave people jobs out of these things.

If he was against it because of some non-homophobic reason wouldn't he probably have shouted that from the rooftops?

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.

What if his religion tells him, gays OK, but marriage is only for opposite sex?

So? What if my religion said mangos shouldn't be cut before being eaten? Obviously that shouldn't apply to everyone else, that's my religion.

So at that point he's a bigot justifying it with his religion which still means he's a bigot.

My point is there are degrees of badness. LGBT supporters look like bullies when they don't moderate their response to someone who disagrees with them.

Oh so the degree of badness of supporting institutional oppression (you know, systematically removing (violating) the rights of people based on their identity through laws, etc.) is less than that of telling a company to fire someone (which the company isn't even legally bound to do), got it. /s

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.

Revenge never works.

It isn't revenge, it's self defence, this guy still believes this, and is now making more money. It seems likely he'll do something similar again.

How could it be otherwise?

reply: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7528088

It's fine that you think that, but it is at odds with the way this has been done in most other civil rights movements.

All my life I've considered these goons talking about "evil homosexual lobby" and "reactionary liberals" to be basically wacko mad bigots. For the first time I find myself thinking there might be something to that.

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.

Lynching? Please. There's no legal right to be a CEO. Nobody's bringing this guy up in front of a congressional committee. He exercised his constitutional right to donate money, and everyone else exercised their constitutional right to criticize a public figure.

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.

It's disgusting what these people did to Brendan.

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.

Wait, what? This is the fault of the "evil homosexual lobby" and "reactionary liberals?"

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.

Make no mistake. What happened here is the strongest point one could have against full disclosure and transparency in the electoral system.

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.

Never had the gay community been casted so intolerant before, or not that I know of, at least.

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.

Deleted comment

Apparently this was too embarrasing to remember?

I remember it just fine. The people exercised their right to boycott, Phil Robertson exercised his right to stand by his beliefs, A&E exercised their right to capitulate to the outrage, and then they exercised their right to reverse their own decision. I don't see the problem. The same thing played out in this case except that as of yet, Mozilla hasn't reversed their decision.

This is unashamedly wrong. Federal law in the US currently delegates this decision to the States.

And? My point is that the law is morally indefensible. What practical purpose does prohibiting gay marriage serve except to arbitrarily stigmatize a class of people? Nobody materially benefits by prohibiting gay marriage, it doesn't free up more marriage slots for the rest of society, it just unnecessarily complicates the private lives of gay couples who want to be married.

Because the rights of single old and young people woudl be irreversibly harmed by their existence.

How? Heterosexual single people can get married whenever it suits them, but for some reason gay couples shouldn't be allowed the same freedom, because... why?

That's your opinion, and that's fine. The problem starts when people start rallying active boycott on a person because his opinion is different. It's particularly delicate when it's a prop campaing donation (a prop that passed in California, by the way, so maybe it's not just a bunch of wackos).

The problem starts when people start rallying active boycott on a person because his opinion is different.

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.

What? Just as Eich had a right to dislike homosexuals, everyone in the world has a right to dislike bigots. Unfortunately for bigots, it's a lot harder to defend that position.

Is there a "McCarthyism" version of Godwin's law? Seems like that needs a name.

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.

A campaign donation is not political speech. It's public by law. A law that now shows clear conflicts if the internet mobs are going to be after people based on them.

The ways you are defending are the textbook definition of bigotry. I agree that they shouldn't have a place in society.

Campaign donations are not a political opinion, they are political speech. You have freedom of speech in that the government cannot prohibit your speaking. You do not have a right to immunity from the consequences of your speaking.

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.

Being against equal rights for gay folks is being a bigot. Sorry.

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.

> Being against equal rights for gay folks is being a bigot.

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.

It's so easy to put a label on someone isn't it? It makes you more comfortable when attacking him because it's the word and the concept, it's not a person any more right?

That poor Mr. Eich, "lynched" by the mob. Well, not really lynched, he's still alive. But they beat him up pretty good! Oh, actually, he's fine. But his livelihood is destroyed and he'll never work in the industry again. Scratch that, apparently he has enough funds to take vacations while he decides what to do next. But hey, he doesn't get to be CEO of a big company! How terrible.

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.

That's a really interesting definition of "lynching".

Hey, you can say and think whatever you want... but be careful of the "consequences". You are free... but be very afraid that we might find that you think the wrong thing.

This school of thought is being defended across tech forums. Appalling.

Are you saying we shouldn't be careful of the consequences of our words and deeds?

edit since i can't respond to myself: and here is an interesting definition of "fascism."

I'm saying that publicly rallying for the persecution of someone based on a prop donation shouldn't be encouraged or defended in any way. It's pure fascism.

Oh yea, because having to step down from a company is like going to jail, or hell, not being able to see your dying significant other because you aren't allowed to marry. Yep he was definitely persecuted.

HIs appointment as CTO was in 2005, before the public disclosure of his 2008 support of Prop 8. The CEO is also a significantly larger role as they help dictate the vision of the company vs just the technological points of the company.

Someone whose ideology involves actively fighting against other people's personal freedom should not control Mozilla.

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.

Blaming the "Gawkerati" seems ignorant of the overwhelming negative response that erupted pretty quickly on HN.

Regarding your question, I won't say that I'm happy or sad, I've pretty much been following this with great fascination not taking either side. I'm very much against state discrimination against homosexuality, but Eich's "crime" in that respect was fairly minor. On the other hand, firing a CEO because he pressed the wrong button and got a buttload of people angry at him is entirely reasonable.

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 think this topic -- how do we accelerate the decline in bigotry, esp. in regards to homosexuality -- is a hugely valuable topic to discuss.

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.

Social censure is the most powerful way to adjust norms. You're much more likely to listen to a friend calling you out on something than anyone else. And it sends signals to other people with a similar bent, suggesting that certain behavior is no longer acceptable.

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.

What's driving that change of opinion among the youth, though? These attitudes persisted for generations, and suddenly they're changing. I wouldn't even begin to think about assigning cause versus effect here, but I think it's worth considering that the opinion of the youth is changing because of this sort of action.

This sort of muckraking has gone on for a very long time. It is basically an institution at this point. It has the function of keeping the powerful from attempting to speak down upon the week.

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?