Org Mobile Site
Thread: Thoughtcrime
Originally Posted by HoreTore:
So it's your opinion that the company was in the right in firing this guy then?
Of course it was, it did what it had to do to protect its profits. It's the hypocritical sheeple in the state of California that are a problem, they are the ones that forced Mozilla's hand.So it's your opinion that the company was in the right in firing this guy then?
Originally Posted by rvg:
Of course it was, it did what it had to do to protect its profits. It's the hypocritical sheeple in the state of California that are a problem, they are the ones that forced Mozilla's hand.
So....Of course it was, it did what it had to do to protect its profits. It's the hypocritical sheeple in the state of California that are a problem, they are the ones that forced Mozilla's hand.
The people of California should only voice their opinion when they agree with you?
Originally Posted by HoreTore:
So....
The people of California should only voice their opinion when they agree with you?
The sheeple of California shouldn't force people with different views out of a job.So....
The people of California should only voice their opinion when they agree with you?
I think the company is within it's rights, but it's not the best move. He was a co-founder of Mozilla, for crying out loud. Are they going to get a better CEO out of this, or a more PC one?
And re: their culture of openness - is it really openness if they don't allow people who go against the current progressive agenda? That's not openness, it's a culture of required progressive beliefs. Of course that doesn't really sound inclusive.
CR
And re: their culture of openness - is it really openness if they don't allow people who go against the current progressive agenda? That's not openness, it's a culture of required progressive beliefs. Of course that doesn't really sound inclusive.
CR
What you're suggesting is not openness, but nihilism.
Isn't there a difference?
Isn't there a difference?
Some other views;
http://dish.andrewsullivan.com/2014/...-brendan-eich/
http://dish.andrewsullivan.com/2014/...-brendan-eich/
Originally Posted by Andrew Sullivan:
The whole episode disgusts me – as it should disgust anyone interested in a tolerant and diverse society. 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.
http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/0...ype=blogs&_r=0The whole episode disgusts me – as it should disgust anyone interested in a tolerant and diverse society. 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.
Originally Posted by :
But it’s a mistake to draw any such conclusions in this case, for one simple reason: Mozilla is not a normal company. It is an activist organization. Mozilla’s primary mission isn’t to make money but to spread open-source code across the globe in the eventual hope of promoting “the development of the Internet as a public resource.”
As such, Mozilla operates according to a different calculus from most of the rest of corporate America.
Like all software companies, Mozilla competes in two markets. First, obviously, it wants people to use its products instead of its rivals’ stuff. But its second market is arguably more challenging — the tight labor pool of engineers, designers, and other tech workers who make software.
When you consider the importance of that market, Mr. Eich’s position on gay marriage wasn’t some outré personal stance unrelated to his job; it was a potentially hazardous bit of negative branding in the labor pool, one that was making life difficult for current employees and plausibly reducing Mozilla’s draw to prospective workers.
But it’s a mistake to draw any such conclusions in this case, for one simple reason: Mozilla is not a normal company. It is an activist organization. Mozilla’s primary mission isn’t to make money but to spread open-source code across the globe in the eventual hope of promoting “the development of the Internet as a public resource.”
As such, Mozilla operates according to a different calculus from most of the rest of corporate America.
Like all software companies, Mozilla competes in two markets. First, obviously, it wants people to use its products instead of its rivals’ stuff. But its second market is arguably more challenging — the tight labor pool of engineers, designers, and other tech workers who make software.
When you consider the importance of that market, Mr. Eich’s position on gay marriage wasn’t some outré personal stance unrelated to his job; it was a potentially hazardous bit of negative branding in the labor pool, one that was making life difficult for current employees and plausibly reducing Mozilla’s draw to prospective workers.
Originally Posted by rvg:
The sheeple of California shouldn't force people with different views out of a job.
So, you are proposing to make it illegal for people to voice their opinions, then?The sheeple of California shouldn't force people with different views out of a job.
Originally Posted by HoreTore:
So, you are proposing to make it illegal for people to voice their opinions, then?
Are you on purpose trying to sound so dense?So, you are proposing to make it illegal for people to voice their opinions, then?
Let me explain it to you with an example: I consider Spike Lee to be an f*ing racist. He really doesn't like us honkeys. He also happens to be a pretty decent movie director. Will I boycott his movies just because I consider him a racist? Of course not, as that would be retarded. His racism is his personal business and has no bearing on the quality of his movies.
Same deal with, say, Mel Gibson. The guy is nuts, but he's an excellent actor and director. Would I boycott him? Hell no.
Tom Cruise. Another crazycakes, yet another brilliant actor. I consider his personal views to be nothing short of idiotic, but that wouldn't prevent me from watching his movies.
Get it now?
This is the free market guys. CEO's are the public face of their organizations, which is only amplified in Silicon Valley, where the visionary leader model is often employed. This otherwise brilliant CEO just happened to have been found to be a supporter of what was essentially a hate group, and the market reacted. 
Let's not forget what this man ponied up $1,000 to support. There are principled, respectful arguments that can be made against gay marriage. Prop 8 supporters did not choose that path. I don't really blame anyone for holding a grudge after being labeled a threat to children and society.
Youtube Video
Youtube Video
Youtube Video
Let's not forget what this man ponied up $1,000 to support. There are principled, respectful arguments that can be made against gay marriage. Prop 8 supporters did not choose that path. I don't really blame anyone for holding a grudge after being labeled a threat to children and society.
Youtube Video
Youtube Video
Youtube Video
Originally Posted by rvg:
Are you on purpose trying to sound so dense?
Let me explain it to you with an example: I consider Spike Lee to be an f*ing racist. He really doesn't like us honkeys. He also happens to be a pretty decent movie director. Will I boycott his movies just because I consider him a racist? Of course not, as that would be retarded. His racism is his personal business and has no bearing on the quality of his movies.
Same deal with, say, Mel Gibson. The guy is nuts, but he's an excellent actor and director. Would I boycott him? Hell no.
Tom Cruise. Another crazycakes, yet another brilliant actor. I consider his personal views to be nothing short of idiotic, but that wouldn't prevent me from watching his movies.
Get it now?
I get that you would not boycott Mozilla, and so you want everyone else to do the same as you do.Are you on purpose trying to sound so dense?
Let me explain it to you with an example: I consider Spike Lee to be an f*ing racist. He really doesn't like us honkeys. He also happens to be a pretty decent movie director. Will I boycott his movies just because I consider him a racist? Of course not, as that would be retarded. His racism is his personal business and has no bearing on the quality of his movies.
Same deal with, say, Mel Gibson. The guy is nuts, but he's an excellent actor and director. Would I boycott him? Hell no.
Tom Cruise. Another crazycakes, yet another brilliant actor. I consider his personal views to be nothing short of idiotic, but that wouldn't prevent me from watching his movies.
Get it now?
Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger:
This is the free market guys. CEO's are the public face of their organizations, which is only amplified in Silicon Valley, where the visionary leader model is often employed. This otherwise brilliant CEO just happened to have been found to be a supporter of what was essentially a hate group, and the market reacted.
Let's not forget what this man ponied up $1,000 to support. There are principled, respectful arguments that can be made against gay marriage. Prop 8 supporters did not choose that path. I don't really blame anyone for holding a grudge after being labeled a threat to children and society.
]
You can’t say a hate group. How could you know? Everyone was divided.This is the free market guys. CEO's are the public face of their organizations, which is only amplified in Silicon Valley, where the visionary leader model is often employed. This otherwise brilliant CEO just happened to have been found to be a supporter of what was essentially a hate group, and the market reacted.
Let's not forget what this man ponied up $1,000 to support. There are principled, respectful arguments that can be made against gay marriage. Prop 8 supporters did not choose that path. I don't really blame anyone for holding a grudge after being labeled a threat to children and society.
]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Califor...n_8_%282008%29
So, it was for the children. Hillary taught everyone that.
We can’t possibly know what he thought when he gave the money but as it was a divisive issue I am willing to give him the benefit of the doubt.
If blame needs to be placed, it belongs on the side of militant gays or more specifically OKCupit’s dating site.
From there is was bowing to a pressure group for the good of the establishment, and one they really had no hope of winning.
It was foolish to think that this was the safer course.
Tolerance is a two way street. Those who would have it also need to demonstrate it.
Otherwise it is only hypocrisy.
Viable racism should be tolerated. Not the type that says that individual people are bad because of the color of their skin, but that cultures can be bad and that different social policies are needed to usher some people out of locally imposed dark ages.
People should be able to say what they'd like. When it comes to your job, though you just have to think hard about doing and saying what you'd like as different PC fads come and go and could cost you money.
People should be able to say what they'd like. When it comes to your job, though you just have to think hard about doing and saying what you'd like as different PC fads come and go and could cost you money.
Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube:
Tolerance for bigotry? That would defeat the purpose. The CEO was on the wrong side of history. There's no militant gay problem causing this, its just a more tolerant generation coming of age that has different standards for what is acceptable. Just wait, it'll keep coming. I'm considered kind of mildly intolerant by many in my own generation, and I'm way to the social left of many of you.
Saying that the anti gay viewpoint should be tolerated is as unpopular as saying racism should be tolerated, these days. It is a wide spread sentiment that is only growing. Would you have a CEO that donated a thousand bucks to the KKK?
The whole campaign on prop 8 seemed about teaching kids about gay marriage. While it may not be a big deal to you now it was more controversial 6 or 7 years ago.Tolerance for bigotry? That would defeat the purpose. The CEO was on the wrong side of history. There's no militant gay problem causing this, its just a more tolerant generation coming of age that has different standards for what is acceptable. Just wait, it'll keep coming. I'm considered kind of mildly intolerant by many in my own generation, and I'm way to the social left of many of you.
Saying that the anti gay viewpoint should be tolerated is as unpopular as saying racism should be tolerated, these days. It is a wide spread sentiment that is only growing. Would you have a CEO that donated a thousand bucks to the KKK?
It is not unreasonable to assume that many who voted for prop 8 didn’t care about gay marriage but did care about taking it to the classroom.
Calling it bigotry is only showing your own intolerance. Intolerance breeds more of the same. It is polarizing and divisive.
To lash out at someone who backed a political proposition you opposed six years ago is just mean spirited. It doesn’t show he was engaged in any hate mail campaigns or beating up gays on street corners.
A lot of people have changed their minds on the issue since. I don’t recall that being asked of him.
I am sure you have changed your mind on issues in the past. Yet here you seem to support a vendetta because someone once donated money that you disagree with.
I would not say there is anything mild about your intolerance.
Originally Posted by :
A lot of people have changed their minds on the issue since. I don’t recall that being asked of him.
It specifically was.A lot of people have changed their minds on the issue since. I don’t recall that being asked of him.
Originally Posted by HoreTore:
I get that you would not boycott Mozilla, and so you want everyone else to do the same as you do.
Can you imagine if they stopped being such hypocrites? Yeah, that would be nice. In the meantime I'm content with just exposing their hypocrisy at every opportunity.I get that you would not boycott Mozilla, and so you want everyone else to do the same as you do.
Originally Posted by Montmorency:
It specifically was.
Yea? Link please!It specifically was.
The only information I am seeing is that he has never made a public stance on the morality of the issue.
Originally Posted by Fisherking:
Yea? Link please!
The only information I am seeing is that he has never made a public stance on the morality of the issue.
I believe Montmorency is right;Yea? Link please!
The only information I am seeing is that he has never made a public stance on the morality of the issue.
Originally Posted by :
Throughout the interviews, 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.
Instead, he tried to unsuccessfully hedge those sentiments and, perhaps more importantly, did not seem to understand that he might have to pay the inevitable price for having them.
This is probably one of the only current US political issues where you can claim that opposition is intolerance. Does that mean he must be force to recant his views or not have a leadership position in the industry? It does seem easier to tolerate intolerance once you've won the issue.Throughout the interviews, 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.
Instead, he tried to unsuccessfully hedge those sentiments and, perhaps more importantly, did not seem to understand that he might have to pay the inevitable price for having them.
Originally Posted by :
There's no militant gay problem causing this, its just a more tolerant generation coming of age that has different standards for what is acceptable. Just wait, it'll keep coming. I'm considered kind of mildly intolerant by many in my own generation, and I'm way to the social left of many of you.
I think, in this specific example, it was a "militant" group going for his resignation.There's no militant gay problem causing this, its just a more tolerant generation coming of age that has different standards for what is acceptable. Just wait, it'll keep coming. I'm considered kind of mildly intolerant by many in my own generation, and I'm way to the social left of many of you.
Out of curiosity, what social group (ie are you calling Eugene liberals representative of your generation?) are you referencing? You seem pretty socially liberal, so I'm wondering why they would view you as intolerant.
CR
There is a lot of strong sentiment out there. Most of it stupid, illiberal, and regressive.
OKCupid were small and mean. The company should have engaged them and pointed it out. Instead other closed minds within took over and groupthink stupidity kicked into overdrive.
Big mistake. It certainly does NOT further gay rights or put them in a good light.
Meanwhile
OKCupid were small and mean. The company should have engaged them and pointed it out. Instead other closed minds within took over and groupthink stupidity kicked into overdrive.
Big mistake. It certainly does NOT further gay rights or put them in a good light.
Meanwhile
Originally Posted by :
It certainly does NOT further gay rights or put them in a good light.
Not even Jesus turned the cheek to the extent that some in this thread would have liked to see from gay individuals...It certainly does NOT further gay rights or put them in a good light.
There are always political opportunists. When hypocrisy rears its head everyone is eager to pile on.
That is partly the reason that this whole this is so damaging.
That is partly the reason that this whole this is so damaging.
Originally Posted by Fisherking:
You can’t say a hate group. How could you know? Everyone was divided.
One would have to be deliberately obtuse or wildly uniformed to think otherwise. The Prop 8 campaign completely ignored actually discussing marriage, instead choosing to explicitly label gay people a threat to children. As in all things, context is key; and while you seem content to completely ignore it, the scars from that incredibly degrading hate campaign are still fresh in the minds of most gay people only five years later. You can’t say a hate group. How could you know? Everyone was divided.
Originally Posted by :
If blame needs to be placed, it belongs on the side of militant gays
So Eich was simply exercising his free speech, but gays are being 'militant' for doing the same? I'm not sure you are in a position to be lecturing on hypocrisy.If blame needs to be placed, it belongs on the side of militant gays
Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger:
One would have to be deliberately obtuse or wildly uniformed to think otherwise. The Prop 8 campaign completely ignored actually discussing marriage, instead choosing to explicitly label gay people a threat to children. As in all things, context is key; and while you seem content to completely ignore it, the scars from that incredibly degrading hate campaign are still fresh in the minds of most gay people only five years later.
So Eich was simply exercising his free speech, but gays are being 'militant' for doing the same? I'm not sure you are in a position to be lecturing on hypocrisy.
I suggest you read the last link I provided.One would have to be deliberately obtuse or wildly uniformed to think otherwise. The Prop 8 campaign completely ignored actually discussing marriage, instead choosing to explicitly label gay people a threat to children. As in all things, context is key; and while you seem content to completely ignore it, the scars from that incredibly degrading hate campaign are still fresh in the minds of most gay people only five years later.
So Eich was simply exercising his free speech, but gays are being 'militant' for doing the same? I'm not sure you are in a position to be lecturing on hypocrisy.
Originally Posted by Fisherking:
I suggest you read the last link I provided.
I read the link. It does not address the question. Brendan Eich does not like the idea of gay people marrying for whatever reason and put up money to support a campaign that was highly offensive to gay people. (Some) gay people, in turn, do not like the idea of someone who supported that campaign being placed in charge of Mozilla, and voiced their opposition to it. Why is the former simply exercising his free speech while the latter are militant?I suggest you read the last link I provided.
Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger:
Why is the former simply exercising his free speech while the latter are militant?
Because gay marriage doesn't have a thing to do with web browsers?Why is the former simply exercising his free speech while the latter are militant?
Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger:
I read the link. It does not address the question. Brendan Eich does not like the idea of gay people marrying for whatever reason and put up money to support a campaign that was highly offensive to gay people. (Some) gay people, in turn, do not like the idea of someone who supported that campaign being placed in charge of Mozilla, and voiced their opposition to it. Why is the former simply exercising his free speech while the latter are militant?
Well, perhaps not militant, just stupid and short sighted.I read the link. It does not address the question. Brendan Eich does not like the idea of gay people marrying for whatever reason and put up money to support a campaign that was highly offensive to gay people. (Some) gay people, in turn, do not like the idea of someone who supported that campaign being placed in charge of Mozilla, and voiced their opposition to it. Why is the former simply exercising his free speech while the latter are militant?
It was not that he was a publicly outspoken critic. He has not expressed his views on the issue. It is surmised by his unwillingness to do so.
Someone had to go out of their way to discover the donation. Then they had to be incensed enough to speak out about it. All that would point to malice and an unwillingness to forgive or forget.
I find that small minded and mean.
It is not even that it is a seemingly gay issue. It would be the same for me were it about abortion rights, gun control or any other divisive political issue and whatever viewpoint the person held. I would think it unjust.
The fact that it is about a gay issue only points up the tolerance issue, and the double standard involved.
Originally Posted by rvg:
Because gay marriage doesn't have a thing to do with web browsers?
But this isn't really about Firefox, is it? It is about promoting someone with Eich's views to the highest leadership position in a company that is supposedly built on inclusiveness. Under the right leadership, there are a thousand and one ways a company can discriminate against people without being caught. Eich essentially threw down money not just to oppose gay marriage, but to call gay people a danger to children... to degrade and attack them in the most cruel and vicious manner possible, and it is completely understandable that gay employees and contributors to Mozilla's products would be uncomfortable working under his leadership and voice their opinion. Because gay marriage doesn't have a thing to do with web browsers?
To borrow GC's example, would it be out of bounds and 'militant' for black employees to speak out in opposition against the promotion to CEO of someone who had donated to the KKK five years prior?
Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger:
But this isn't really about Firefox, is it? It is about promoting someone with Eich's views to the highest leadership position in a company that is supposedly built on inclusiveness. Under the right leadership, there are a thousand and one ways a company can discriminate against people without being caught. Eich essentially threw down money not just to oppose gay marriage, but to call gay people a danger to children... to degrade and attack them in the most cruel and vicious manner possible, and it is completely understandable that gay employees and contributors to Mozilla's products would be uncomfortable working under his leadership and voice their opinion.
To borrow GC's example, would it be out of bounds and 'militant' for black employees to speak out in opposition against the promotion to CEO of someone who had donated to the KKK five years prior?
But this isn't really about Firefox, is it? It is about promoting someone with Eich's views to the highest leadership position in a company that is supposedly built on inclusiveness. Under the right leadership, there are a thousand and one ways a company can discriminate against people without being caught. Eich essentially threw down money not just to oppose gay marriage, but to call gay people a danger to children... to degrade and attack them in the most cruel and vicious manner possible, and it is completely understandable that gay employees and contributors to Mozilla's products would be uncomfortable working under his leadership and voice their opinion.
To borrow GC's example, would it be out of bounds and 'militant' for black employees to speak out in opposition against the promotion to CEO of someone who had donated to the KKK five years prior?
So, a $1000 donation allowed him to steer the entire campaign? And all that in October. Amazing!
I am truly sorry. I know this is an issue you hold close but it doesn’t change things.
This was an over reaction on the part of those who brought the issue forward. The repercussions and backlash are not going to be good for the gay community at large or firefox. It was a little thought out knee jerk reaction that has backfired.
The best thing to do is for them to admit that mistake and move on. That is recognized in the members of the gay community speaking out against it.
Attempts to justify it are only going to make matter worse.
Originally Posted by rvg:
Because gay marriage doesn't have a thing to do with web browsers?
The CEO doesn't make a single browser. The CEO's job is to provide good working conditions for his gay employees which will enable them to produce good browsers.Because gay marriage doesn't have a thing to do with web browsers?
Originally Posted by HoreTore:
The CEO doesn't make a single browser. The CEO's job is to provide good working conditions for his gay employees which will enable them to produce good browsers.
Can you point at CEO's discrimination towards any specific gay employee?The CEO doesn't make a single browser. The CEO's job is to provide good working conditions for his gay employees which will enable them to produce good browsers.
Originally Posted by rvg:
Can you point at CEO's discrimination towards any specific gay employee?
As he was in charge for a few weeks, you know that's not relevant.Can you point at CEO's discrimination towards any specific gay employee?
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO