by line-zero on 3/25/14, 10:08 PM with 211 comments
by HillRat on 3/25/14, 10:55 PM
More seriously, there's the open question as to whether a career technologist is the right person for the CEO slot, especially since he appears to still be in the trenches when it comes to projects like Rust.
Beyond that, this is a cautionary tale for potential CEOs -- within reason, you can give money to politicians and money to foundations, but once you start giving money to specific political causes you're risking a firestorm, and rightfully so. While MoCo isn't exactly a Chik-Fil-A or Hobby Lobby, this is the sort of the thing that causes PR flacks to either wake up in a cold sweat (if they're employees) or start planning the color of their new Aventador (if on agency contract).
by jack-r-abbit on 3/25/14, 11:49 PM
I'm glad it was made right in the end and I hope at least some of those 7 million people have changed their opinion... but I don't think we need to keep dwelling on it.
by ender7 on 3/25/14, 11:50 PM
[1] Inferring what Mozilla values based on the opinions of its CEO is not particularly fair, but then again I'm not sure it's unfair either.
by lawl on 3/25/14, 11:32 PM
It's the same with politicans, what the fuck has an affair to do with their political views?
I 100% support gay marriage. I also understand they're upset. But I don't know if this is the right reaction.
by steve19 on 3/25/14, 11:55 PM
edit: and now my words are being twisted. I never said being gay was a belief. what one person thinks of a proposed law is a belief.
edit edit: tolerance is not "I am OK with the gays but will never freely associate with one of them" nor is "I am tolerant of his views on gay marriage but I hate him and will never have anything to do with him".
tolerance is" I hate what you think/belive/lifestyle/god/wear but I won't hold it against you". my sister frequently nurses racists who are very rude to her. she tolerates then as gives them as good care as she gives anyone else. that is tolerance.
welcome to democracy. people have different opinion. they have different religious beliefs and different upbringing. just get along people.
by jkelsey on 3/26/14, 12:20 AM
I can't buy the argument that it's just his personal political opinion and that the type of inclusion that Mozilla wants to have requires a large ecosystem of diverse opinions. Perhaps on issues like income inequality, taxation, foreign policy. Hell, if this was about him being a massive gun-rights advocate, I could see myself budging on not letting it bother me like this.
Sorry, but human rights are human rights, and contributing to a effort to deny a group of people a right that everybody else enjoys based simply on their sexual orientation, gender, ethnicity, or culture is as disgusting a human behavioral trait as it comes. It needs to rooted out from our collective human identity.
I don't necessarily want to see Eich removed. His contributions to free and open source software are incredibly significant and deserve praise. However, simply pointing out Mozilla's health care policies isn't going to cut it. Without anything more significant, an apology or something, I'm just going to see Firefox and Mozilla as tarnish under a shade of bigotry. It's not a purposeful perspective, or something I will enjoy, but I can't just let this slide away like it's nothing.
by yuchi on 3/25/14, 11:46 PM
by DanielBMarkham on 3/25/14, 11:57 PM
Now can somebody get this political bullshit off the front page of HN? Please? Nothing productive can come from a logical and reasonable conversation with people who are, by definition, very upset. Half the posts here are "hell yeah!" and the other half are baiting arguments from others who feel impassioned by the issue. Not a good topic.
by Camillo on 3/26/14, 12:33 AM
by xupybd on 3/26/14, 12:22 AM
As a for instance my Aunty is vegan and is offended that I or any one else would ever eat meat. And I know eating meat is much less of an issue, but I support her right to oppose the eating of meat. She has would vote against my ability to eat meat. But my response would not be to attack her as a person but simply vote in the opposite direction.
On the other end I can see why a Jewish person living in Nazi Germany would have attached Hitler and the Nazi party at any chance they got.
But is there a middle ground?
by vezzy-fnord on 3/26/14, 12:07 AM
If it's any consolation, there has yet to be a cult tech figure who is a neo-Nazi/white nationalist or anything of the sort. Or am I wrong?
The world would be a much better place if we could learn to separate the artist's work from the artist's personal deeds and opinions. Otherwise you'd probably be unable to enjoy anything made before the 20th century.
by smoyer on 3/26/14, 1:44 AM
I've got friends that live an alternative life-style, and I can discuss this sanely with them. We don't have to agree on everything to be friends and we certainly don't agree on whether their lifestyle can be aligned with my religious beliefs, but we also don't make it the focal point of our relationship.
I've never said I was against the various domestic partnership rules that allow equal insurance, tax breaks and other benefits to committed partners. I'm simply not willing to use the word marriage to describe the relationship.
So when I see all the commotion about a measly $1000 donation to support proposition 8 in CA, I wonder why anyone is actually wasting their time on a protest. I don't think that Eich is filled with hatred ... I suspect he barely thinks about it at all. But why is it okay when the hatred is directed at him? Why are people so consumed by the issue that they give up vast amounts of their time and energy?
I can live without hating ... can you?
P.S. I'll admit that there are probably things and people in the world that are worth hating.
by mindslight on 3/26/14, 12:08 AM
by oddshocks on 3/25/14, 11:30 PM
by badman_ting on 3/26/14, 12:39 AM
Actions have consequences. Actions have consequences.
by Houshalter on 3/26/14, 12:58 AM
by jbeja on 3/26/14, 12:11 AM
by sockypuppy on 3/29/14, 3:18 AM
s/LGBT-friendly/orthodox/
s/hateful/heretical/
by lexcorvus on 3/26/14, 1:23 AM
common wrong argument: This is a violation of Eich's freedom of speech.
subtly wrong rebuttal: The First Amendment protects you against government infringement of free speech (including campaign donations, since money is "speech"), but it doesn't protect you against the social consequences of that speech.
While true on its surface, the reason this rebuttal is subtly wrong is that it ignores a critical distinction, which is that, as a "protected class", gays are privileged under the law. This means that you are especially vulnerable to being sued for violating their rights. As Mencius Moldbug put it in the context of McCarthyism and the anti-Communist Red Scare [1]:
"[M]ost of what we call 'McCarthyism' was a matter of 'social consequences.' Besides, the social consequences work for one and only one reason: there's an iron fist in the velvet glove. Being sued for disrespecting a privileged class—excuse me, a protected class—is not in any way a social consequence, but rather a political one."
To appreciate the asymmetry, imagine a counterfactual reality in which Eich donated against of Prop. 8 instead of for it. In this context, suppose he made a comment in the workplace about his support for gay marriage. Suppose further that some Mozilla employees, who happened to vigorously oppose gay marriage, sued on the grounds of a "hostile working environment". Such a lawsuit would have no chance of success. In contrast, in the real reality we actually live in, Eich will now have to monitor his workplace speech very carefully—one wrong word about gay marriage could be all it takes to precipitate a lawsuit against him and the Mozilla Foundation. It would be unwise to underestimate the chances of such a suit's success.
In the counterfactual universe, a pro–gay marriage Eich might still face a boycott or protests, but they would be incomparably weaker because non-gays are not a protected class. Whereas in real reality, the "social consequences" of a boycott are supported by the full power of the US Federal Government. For obvious reasons, such boycotts have a habit of succeeding.
[1]: [Technology, communism, and the Brown Scare](http://unqualified-reservations.blogspot.com/2013/09/technol...)
by michaelwww on 3/26/14, 1:28 AM
by ArtDev on 3/26/14, 6:05 PM
by joyeuse6701 on 3/26/14, 12:51 AM
by NextUserName on 3/26/14, 1:40 AM
Can't Liberals see that Believers hold themselves to a different set of standards? It is not often personal (though unfortunately for some religious extremists it is). The only hate that is being displayed here is by the anti-religious groups and individuals.
Think of it like this. A girl is invited to a friend's birthday party. She does not attend because her father forbids her to go and won't driver her there either. She tries to explain it to her friend, but here friend hates her now because can not come. Is this fair to the girl?
Some of you will say that this case is more like the girl paying someone to disrupt the party. Again, if the girl's father was responsible as God is for believer's convictions, then should the girl be hated anyway? I suppose if you think that the girl's father only existed in her own mind (was a phantasy) then you would think this.
Still does not seem fair? Well what if it came out later that the girl planning the party was going to do something harmful to the guests. By disrupting the party, the girl who looked cruel now in hindsight looks like a hero. This knowledge of the devious girl's plan is akin to the belief and knowledge that religious people have in God.
God cannot be proven or dis-proven via science. So how do atheists know they are really correct? how do religious people? At least the religious people have a basis that does not rely on unexplained things. A God and a creation are certainly a more plausible and simple explanation to our existence then any offered by atheists.
So who are the real bigots here? From each side's perspective, it is the other. My hope is that each side will respect (not agree with) the others reasons and not show hatred toward the other. If a gay person donates to a fund pushing gay marriage, don't show hate toward them, if a religious person donates to the opposition, the same applies. This is almost sportsmanship in a way. Play hard against the opposition, but when they fall down (when they are in need of help), show them kindness, help them up and continue the competition.