Comment by rjzzleep | Hacker News Reader

Comment by rjzzleep | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCarthyism

i'm sure if he was anti-gay, all those gays working for him for 6 years as a cto would have noticed a little earlier, everyone was surprised when they heard about this in 2012. and it didn't stop people from using mozilla products then. if you don't think that the cto of a large tech research company has at least a little say in who gets hired, you need a reality check.

let's not kid ourselves. someone wanted him out of the way, and we all played our role. congratulations for being the toys at hand of the powers that be.

i'm really curious who the next cto/ceo of mozilla is going to be. IN FACT I'm worried on who it might be.

here's a crosspost from recode:

> I am in full support of gay marriage, I'm against prop 8. But I'm also utterly opposed to railroading people out of work because of personal opinions they hold.

> Today the bullies won. Today tyranny gained a toehold. The next time some religious group throws out an employee or leader because he donated money to planned parenthood or gay rights group, remember this day for you laid the foundation.

> McCarthyism

Bring that up if it turns out that he is blacklisted across the valley, and unable to land a new job. Given the number of millionaire VC's alone that have come out supporting him on Twitter, I kind of doubt he'll face anything resembling McCarthy level persecution.

If you don't see the difference between people being upset about having a known supporter of discrimination in a role where he is shaping public opinion about an organisation like Mozilla, and the person ultimately responsible for a workplace vs. someone being blacklisted across an entire industry, or worse, and paraded in front of congressional committees to confess their "sins", then that shows a scary lack of understanding of just how nasty McCarthyism was.

>Bring that up if it turns out that he is blacklisted across the valley, and unable to land a new job.

Well, McCarthy era victims were also able to find the odd job here and there. McCarthyism is about the practice, not about if the effects are in full force or not.

I wouldn't be surprised if no major company would want to hire him for a public position now, lest they suffer the same public backslash.

>If you don't see the difference between people being upset about having a known supporter of discrimination in a role where he is shaping public opinion about an organisation like Mozilla, and the person ultimately responsible for a workplace vs. someone being blacklisted across an entire industry, or worse, and paraded in front of congressional committees to confess their "sins", then that shows a scary lack of understanding of just how nasty McCarthyism was.

Actually, it's the above that shows lack of understanding of what was wrong about McCarthyism. It wasn't that the blacklisting was total ("throughout the industry"), it was that the blacklisting existed at all. Even if people would only got fired from one job and left alone after that, McCarthyism would have been as bad.

It also shows a lack of understanding of the ramifications against Eich. Take the top players that could hire a well known Javascript/TCO guy like Eich. Would Google, Apple, Microsoft, Facebook, Yahoo, Opera, Abobe, etc hire him now? Their PR persons will tell them not to touch him with a ten-foot pole.

As for being "paraded to confess their "sins"" that has already been done -- Eich was forced to confess his sins in public posts and promise he'll be good (as if he gave any indication that he was bad in the workplace all these years in this regard). Well, in his case the commitee wasn't "congressional", it was a tech media one. I'll give you that.

Hey, there's no civil right to a CEO job. If he's shown himself to be incompetent at the job, he won't get another one.

Igniting a firestorm of protest by contributing significant bucks to support a hate law, is something he could have seen coming a mile away. Well, not the magnitude of the response, but the fact that in Silicon Valley it would be viewed negatively, that's obvious.

So, he doesn't conduct his personal life in a way that can reflect positively on the board and stockholders. So no CEO job for him.

What is your proof that he was discriminating against people, or a "known supporter of discrimination?" Donating $1000 to Prop 8 back in 2008? You do remember that Barack Obama himself was anti gay marriage/pro traditional marriage then. Right? So, are you saying Obama had an epiphany and has suddenly discovered the errors of his ways? Where were you calling for his resignation as a bigot?

You also realize that there are many gay people who are against gay marriage, right? So, now, leaders in the business world have to conform to the most vocal group or else face professional harassment? Because actually agreeing with 50% of the population and the current political leaders isn't enough?

So, when the illegal immigrant situation blows up, are you saying that anyone that supports "legal" immigration and isn't outspoken about it must be professionally disgraced?

> McCarthyism

Give me a break.

Why didnt you link to nazism ? or communism ? Eich is like a jew persecuted by this army of pro gay nazis ... not.

You cant expect us to take what you say seriously after that hyperbole.

Ok, so your premise is that comparing someone to McCarthy is like comparing them to Hitler or Stalin because he got leftists fired for beings leftists (and, occasionally, actual spies and soviet agents). But getting a guy fired for having socially conservative views is fine?

Strawman, you are misrepresenting what I just said. My point was writing hyperboles and comparing what is not comparable doesnt strengthen one's case.

Re McCarthyism, this seems particularly relevant: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f4/Anticomm...

Crap. If he wanted to stay in that position he would have made the standard "Mistakes were made.. I've changed/learnt/grown.. " speech. He didn't, which didn't inspire confidence, so he was unfit to lead.

Why does lying inspire confidence in you? You don't appear to account for that he can hold a view that opposes same-sex marriage and also want to continue doing his job. Why is that not allowed in USA?

He didn't just hold a view. He actively attempted to detract happiness from the lives of others.

Yes...this guy is the devil himself, I bet he spends his free time wondering how he could make other people's life worse.

Yes, quite evidently he does.

Proof? Or is all you have his donation in favor of Prop 8? because if that's it, you can't claim a trend with one data point...

Are you saying that you believe he did not spend his free time deciding to donate?

Are you saying that one data point means you have enough data to infer broad actions?

He may have spent some time deciding to donate, he may also have made a snap decision and donated without consideration. You don't know. You also don't know how he spends his free time. You basically know nothing about him. I also know basically nothing about him, but I'm not making broad statements based on one piece of information.

The principle of presumed innocence has been completely ignored when it comes to Eich's personal life. His life is his to do with as he pleases (to an extent). I disagree with his position on gay marriage, I also think that the one data point coupled with his actions this past week say he probably shouldn't be CEO of Mozilla, but I don't know anything else about him, and can't, and shouldn't, make assumptions based on tiny morsels of evidence.

The only realm of Eich's life that I even microscopically care about (I really don't care all that much) is the public realm. As stated, I disagree with him, and think his selection to the CEO position probably wasn't considered enough, but that doesn't mean I'm fit to make comments on his personal life. Nor are you, unless you're closely acquainted with the man.

>"He actively attempted to detract happiness from the lives of others."

Go on.

Those who would have Christians deny Christ and embrace sin do the same: ergo anti-Christians should also lose their jobs?

Those who would have park-walkers deny that walking in a park is enjoyable, and embrace a walk-less life do the same: ergo anti-park-wakers should also lose their jobs?

Perhaps - but the question is silly - because there is no such thing as an anti-park-walker.

Just as I'm not so sure there is such thing as a serious 'anti-Christian'. People who suggest there is no God and call others stupid for believing in a God? Yes, they exist. But anti-Christians that would put money into a political campaign that seeked to change the law so that Christians were forced to deny Christ? No, I don't think those people exist in a any meaningful number.

Anti-gays that want to deny gays the right to marry - yes, quite clearly, they exist in large numbers.

It is allowed. No one forced him to step down. They just expressed their own opinions.

But if he made this speech, it may not have been a lie. We may suspect it would have been, but we would have had to give him the benefit of the doubt.

It would also have been a very public statement of position that he could have been held accountable to.

Hey he can go try out for a job at Hobby Lobby or Chick-fil-A, no problem. But in Silicon Valley? No CEO job for him.

No, this statement is crap. If fact, kudos to him for not caving and making some malarkey confession about how he's learned and changed.

Jesus Christ, man. On the one hand, thousands of people lost their status in society and their dignity due in part to Eich misusing his wealth. OTOH, this guy loses one job. Who's the real bully here?

Whoa, that's ridiculous. As the most public embodiment of the organization, wouldn't Mozilla's policies of equality ring hollow if they'd left him in place? His values did not align with the organization. As Jobs always said (perhaps with a bit of false modesty): "The CEO serves at the pleasure of the board." (Side comment about "all those gays" noticing: I can't believe you a genuinely a stranger to opinions and convictions being held in secret.)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com