Mozilla is not Chik-Fil-A
benmoskowitz.com
benmoskowitz.com
... it was hard to watch as people who should know better pulled
out the Chick-Fil-A playbook
I am equally disappointed in Mozillians and in demagogues who didn’t
see the irony in hounding someone for their private opinion
because of "intolerance."
That firewall has now been breached. It's scary to think that an important organization with a critical mission could be damaged by this breach.
If this is the gay rights movement today – hounding our opponents
with a fanaticism more like the religious right than anyone
else – then count me out. If we are about intimidating the free
speech of others, we are no better than the anti-gay bullies
who came before us.
People against gay marriage are, as far as I'm aware, really just against gay people being considered married by the (Christian) church, because--in their opinion--Christianity has a specific definition of "marriage", and gay marriage doesn't qualify.
It seems to just be a bunch of people talking past one-another. Each group sees their definition of "marriage" ("marriage" as in "legally considered together", or "marriage" as in "accepted as a couple by your local congregation") as the only one that actually matters, and so obviously that's the one their opponents are arguing about as well.
It isn't two groups talking past each other, it is one group trying to get their religious values instituted as government regulations.
Letting a same sex couple get marriage by a judge, in a courthouse doesn't do anything to harm the internal religious definition of marriage... it is the government regulated one.
I am all for banning marriage as a government institution and only having civil unions. Hell don't even call them civil unions, call them flipflapadingdongs if you want, but as long as they are done by government they must be equal, playing name games is BS.
Message to Hampton Catlin and Michael Lintorn Catlin: if you want to make a brave stand for gay rights, why don't you start protesting outside a mosque or an embassy where under Islam the penalty for simply being gay is DEATH ?
[1] Goodbye, Firefox Marketplace: http://www.teamrarebit.com/blog/2014/03/24/goodbye_firefox_m...
[2] Five Reasons Eich Should Step Down: http://www.teamrarebit.com/blog/2014/03/28/five-reasons-eich...
[3] A Sad Victory: http://www.teamrarebit.com/blog/2014/04/03/a-sad-victory/
Because it may be so and not hate.
Once it reached #24 on the first page, even as it was gaining points and comments, this post quickly fell several pages.
Yes, we had a few posts on this subject already hit the main page, with one garnering over 900 comments. But especially when we're dealing with an issue with such obvious free speech implications, insightful articles like these should be allowed to run their natural course on HN.
That said, I think it is ridiculous that this is a scandal, and worse that it ended with Brendan Eich being forced out of his job. He made a really quite modest personal political donation on one side of an issue the state of California had deemed contentious enough to hold a referendum. It seems unfair that backing the wrong side in that referendum apparently disqualifies half of California from being Mozilla CEO. Whether you agree with his views or not (and I and most of the Internet seem not to), they have nothing to do with building an accessible Internet for everyone, and as long as those views don't affect his managerial choices, I don't see how they're relevant to his job (Mozilla HR could answer the question about professionalism, but I don't think the rest of us have the necessary data).
http://mobile.nytimes.com/blogs/thecaucus/2013/03/18/hillary...
I'm so tired of the double talk. Look, if you truly believe in human rights, then you have to respect people's choices of what to do with their bodies. If you can't don't that, then you think you know better and want to tell people what to do with their bodies. I just can't get behind that. I'm not perfect, so who am I to tell someone else to do with their body if it's not hurting them?
Meh, politicians.
Eich is a different story; for a modern tech company with a presence in SF, which is super-pro-LGBT. Also I see mozilla more as a family than a company(I'm sure it's due to branding/marketing) and having a person who +++donated funds+++ to prop8 as the CEO was a very awkward concept for me to accept. It's one thing to believe different things than I do, it's another thing altogether to ///donate funds/// to prevent something that really does him no harm yet inconveniences/saddens others. To me, that's an ethically corrupt action. Then he becomes the CEO of a company that is soaked in a culture of leftwing pro-LGBT. It's the donation that crosses the line for me.
Furthermore, it makes me wonder if he'd use his legally-obtained funds as Moz-CEO to do similar, more significant, donations in the future to other laws that would conflict with the Moz culture.
I guess you have to decide when opinion is just that, or something more harmful. A KKK member shouldn't be leader of the BlackGirlsCode effort and Eich shouldn't be the head of Mozilla. Of course, this analogy shows that I think of Mozilla as a very open-minded, liberal, pro-LGBT promoter rather than just a company that makes software. I can't convince anyone to see mozilla the way I do, but somehow they've put that spell on me... and clearly on enough people to cause this whole ordeal and resulting fallout.
But, if you spend money to prevent other adults from doing something your religion tells you is wrong, but it's so etching that (1) not hurting you, (2) not hurting them, (3) involves love(!), and (4) frankly is none of your damn business anyway: yeahs you're not being respectful, you think you know better and want to force your beliefs on someone else. Well, maybe I'm crazy, but that's just wrong. Mind your own business I say. Again, not Mozilla, but well I get the politics of mAking a scene. This kind of know-it-all-ness has got to stop. Respect your fellow man. Stop trotting out religion as an excuse to force your idea of victimless morality on other people.
So yeah, I feel ya, but seriously, what loving adults do between each other, in the name of love for goodness sake(of all the things to be opposed to!), that's just wrong to get between. Your deserve a smack if you want to pass laws to make that illegal. Mind your own business dude.
So, look, I understand he thinks he was doing the right thing, but he wasn't. He backed a proposal to oppress people. That's never good.
But hey, we are all allowed to learn, everyone can change, so it may be a bit harsh if he's penalized after apologizing. But it was still a mistake to back this kind of nonsense on his part. Mind your own business dude.
There is some point (I don't know where - $5k, $10k?) where I'd stop being okay with it.
I agree with you, I don't think this is a scandal, its effectively mob/victors justice - why should there be social or employment consequences for expressing profoundly held religious beliefs - in my mind this is just as bad as when employers fire employees for being gay.
Now personally, I'm a about as religious as a door stop and honestly in my opinion most of the arguments against gay marriage either seem to boil down to "I think its icky" or "My deity tells me its bad", that said, I think anyone ought to be welcome to hold opinions contrary to mine, and speak them in the public square without fear of reprisal - so long as they are not violating the law, or actively discriminating personally.
The typical response: oh, but that'd be going too far. It's only too far when it starts to ensnare most of the population. The mob likes easy, solitary targets, that could never include themselves.
I say let's see how this holds up under actual practice. Every Mozilla CEO must be diligently screened for having ever once said or done something hateful toward any possible category of persons.
Ever told a racist joke? Ever said something inappropriate to someone? Ever leered at a woman or man inappropriately? Ever supported a politician whose stated position was to discriminate against gay marriage? Disqualified. The mob is always a mass of hypocrites and cowards, unwilling to apply their projected standards to their own thoughts, behavior and choices.
Instead, Eich dug in his heels insisting that his personal opinions in this area would not affect his work as CEO. This might have actually been true, but it didn't seem credible.
Perhaps the mob are cowards, more comfortable lynching one man over his views rather than tackling real persecution on a global scale.
If we don't defend the rights for free speech any of us could run the risk of being on the wrong end of that knife in the future.
I think people were mostly unhappy that Eich has no track record in this regard - not that there's any reason to suspect he would be discriminating - and that he kept dodging the issue in interviews. It's a PR disaster on Mozilla's part - putting him in charge was always going to create an internet frenzy and the - possibly entirely innocent - coincidental departure of three board members does not look good.
Eh. I think it could all have been handled in a much wiser fashion by Mozilla and none of this would have happened.
Which is also technically true if you do business with any company that employs any people who oppose gay rights. Or if you do business with any company that itself does business with another company that employs any people who oppose gay rights.
I keep seeing the argument that it's only because he became CEO, which is completely different than CTO. While there is some truth to that, it mostly comes across as post witch-hunt rationalization to me.
Maybe witch-hunt is a little strong, but the level of vitriol in OKCupid's message directed towards Eich (and effectively at anyone who shares that opinion) felt genuinely disturbing to me.
Maybe I'm just not cut out for these Internets.
His opinion is no longer private. Once you vote with your dollars you have publicly acknowledged your opinion.
I don't know if I really support what happened to Eich, but this whole event opens your eyes to the hypocrisy of the tech community. If some person not well known to the loudest voices of the community says something insensitive they will have their lives ruined. Someone like Eich does something similar and all of a sudden it is, "whoa, now, let's not overreact."
1. ~52% of Californians voted for Prop 8. True. But Prop 8 was also confusing to votes as to what "Yes" or "No" meant. Supporters of gay marriage were worried that people would believe Yes meant support of gay marriage and vice-versa.
2. The point about Prop 8 wasn't "marriage." The underlying reason gays wanted to marry is for tax breaks and legal privileges. If you cannot be in a "marriage" you are essentially being taxed more and afforded unequal rights to people who can be in a marriage.
I wonder if this guy is aware that "long march" almost always refers to the "long march through the institutions", which is essentially a Marxist plan to subvert society. (When it's not referring to the original "long march" by Mao's forces.) I'm guessing he is. It reminds me of the old commie-styled Mozilla red star logo. Was that an accident? What's with these people? At any rate, if you ever want to donate to any political cause, make sure it's 100 percent anonymous. That includes supporters of gay marriage. When the worm turns, you might get the same as you gave.
Maybe the notable difference is that while votes are anonymous, every vote is equal.
I think that the great tech though-crime purge of 2013-? will end up having a different outcome than intended...
This isn't about free speech, it's about basic human rights.
Let me try to re-frame it this way; had Eich been a white supremacist and had contributed money to the KKK, do you still think he would have been fit to lead Mozilla? The same arguments being bandied around here apply.
Whether people want to admit it or not, this guy is (was) the public face of the organization. Despite being an avid user of Firefox, I definitely would hesitate to donate money with him as the CEO. And, were I an employee of Mozilla, I'd probably consider leaving. I'm also sure that I'm not alone in this. If Mozilla is shedding employees and losing donations as a result of him being at the head, he clearly isn't the right person to be the leader.
As for free speech, I love the first amendment. Eich certainly has the right to express his (completely ridiculous and hateful) opinion. Everyone else also has the right to pressure him to not be the head of a charitable organization which promotes tolerance.
In this first part, you equate white supremacists with what I assume would be "homophobic bigots," implying that there's concrete evidence of Eich being such a "homophobic bigot." When there's not.
1) You're equating his monetary support for Prop 8 as evidence of homophobic bigotry, which by itself it is not.
It's quite obvious that Eich is deeply religious: the herd mentality in those circles is that because same-sex couples can’t produce biological children together, they shouldn't be recognized as marriages.
This is rational if you see the institution of marriage as a state-recognized union between that's only between a man and a woman, which has long social and cultural roots. The same can not be said for bans on interracial marriages which are just backed by racism, and not objective facts.
Ultimately, assuming that these are Eich's views (which is very likely,) they are ignorant because they focus too much on sex and too little on the idea of commitment and love.
What they aren't: grounds for throwing around labels like "homophobic bigot," as there are many who empathize with those who are discriminated against, abused, disowned, lynched and executed because of their expression of gender identity. They see nothing wrong with homosexuals, but rather take issue with marriage as an institution being redefined.
Haven't seen any evidence that Eich opposes civil partnerships. I want nothing to do with marriage personally and would much rather a civil partnership for my relationship, but dissolving the state-recognized institution of marriage completely is very messy.
So redefining marriage is the best choice, lest we have separate but equal legal frameworks: marriages for heterosexual couples and civil unions for homosexual couples as well as heterosexual couples who want nothing to do with marriage but want the benefits it brings.
2) You're comparing Eich to the KKK which executed thousands of people, which is a disgusting comparison but you may just be historically ignorant.
Eich was pressured to resign just because he wouldn't parrot empty words about how he's "evolved" on the issue in the court of public opinion, like President Obama has.
And we're worse off for it, because he was the most qualified to lead Mozilla.
Our first amendment rights in this county give us the freedom of speech, but they also give us the freedom of religion. And, by extension, the freedom from religion. Eich's personal views on gay marriage shouldn't trump the rights of anyone else, and him donating to a cause which denies people their rights seriously calls into question his judgement and whether he is fit to be the leader of an organization which espouses liberal ideals.
I'll give you another analogy. If Prop 8 were to deny the rights of black people getting married, and Eich had donated $1,000 to support it, would you still feel the same way?
And no, I wouldn't feel the same way. As I said in that post, there's no biological basis or objective fact for refusing to accept interracial marriages. They're only justified by racism. There is however, a biological reason that Eich and others might not accept same-sex marriages.
It's a rational, yet very ignorant view. The point is that opposing same-sex marriage is definitely not the same when you do a direct comparison to interracial marriage bans.
Either way: the damage is done, the bridges were burned, and it's clear that you're among those who just want to be outraged about this group of people's ignorance instead of reaching out to them and striving for dialog, so there's no point in having this conversation.
It is a shame though cause this is kind of a decent write-up.
For Mozilla, technology in this case was not more important than community values. Postgres and Linux have technological improvements, but I'm eager to see the tech industry be far more self-aware in trying to progress in its social issues, rather than just progress with features.
Plus, this was a struggle and many on these forums were affected. The underlying causes won't go away after one day, and more worryingly, perhaps not for years to come.
With this inspiring precedent, we can have confidence that the next CEO of Mozilla --and every other company, we hope-- will be well vetted to hold the correct behaviors -- the only, obviously morally correct behaviors-- toward the great challenges of our time: women's abortion rights (or is it fetuses' birth rights?), animal abuse rights (factory farm supporters are unfit to lead), gentrification (wealthy SF residents displace evicted tenants, ruining their lives, so they are not leadership material), ...
All of which says that the community of which mozilla is a part is particularly sensitive to slights against gay people. This should have been, oh, completely unsurprising.
And the ceo is often symbolic in a way that a cto isn't.
And in particular, I wouldn't work for firefox while he was ceo. He made a donation specifically intended to maliciously hurt my friends and neighbors. I can't support that.
Where the fuck did you get that idea? You just made that up. You don't know his specific purpose, you may think you can infer it but you certainly don't know it.
Furthermore, there is not a scintilla of evidence to suggest he acted out of malice. It is far more plausible that he considered gay marriage inconsistent with his religious beliefs and that he also felt compelled by his religion to defend his view of what marriage should be.
2 - because i'm not deliberately obtuse or stupid
Would things have changed if he made a big direct apology instead of mumbling something about "causing pain" buried in some blog post? Could Mozilla have done X or tried Y instead? I think we're going to be dissecting this for a while.
Why the huge difference? because in our culture, we are not "allowed" to voice a different opinion than the SCOTUS. Even if the majority populous agrees with our opinion.
I know what you are going to say... This is a civil rights issue. It is now a homosexual's civil right to be married because the court said so.
When I hear the term civil rights, I always think of blacks and whites in America, segregation and unequal rights because of race.
Non Caucasian people were not allowed to use the same schools, bathrooms, bus seats, or even drinking fountains that white people used. That was wrong. Everyone is human and should be treated with dignity.
These days we have this out of control "equality" thing that just kind of blindly rolls over common sense.
If there is no distinction between men and women in marriage now, then what about the rest of the gender based legal things like a law preventing a man from going into a women's locker room at the local gym and showering with 10 year old girls that happen to be showering in there. Well gay men can shower with boys in the locker next door, so why not? Why are there women's battery laws? Special rape laws only for women? There are literally thousands of laws that are preferential toward or only exist to assist women? Can't a gay man have these same laws applied to him just like marriage? It just isn't fair if they aren't. This breaks "Equality".
Men and women are different, that is why there are different rules for us. Homosexuals did not fit the description of marriage because it was defined by gender, since this fundamental attribute was thrown out, it seems only fair to throw out any and all gender biased laws, rules, and guidelines.
If a women feels that she was violated because a man came into the women's shower while she was shaving, how is this different than a women feeling that her marriage was violated because it also was re-defined as being genderless.
I just don't grasp the "logic" (or lack thereof) that people today must use to come up with such thoughts and justifications.
He could just as easily have been ousted from his role for wearing the wrong color shirt to work, if enough people didn't like it.