His position as CEO (as opposed to CTO or whatever it was before) changes things. Many companies, for example, offer spousal benefits to their LGBT employees' partners even in states where gay marriage isn't legal and they're not required to so by law. That the CEO doesn't believe LGBT people are entitled to the equal benefits as compared to straight people may predict the likelihood of such an organization to take enact such policies, or maintain them if they already exist. It also may not, but as a gay person, were I a current or prospective employee of Mozilla, this would give me pause. Even leaving aside whether "hate," "homophobic," etc., are appropriate here, there are potential practical implications here, and the insistence that this is a private political matter that has no impact on his professional life is problematic.
For the record, Mozilla does provide employee benefits that cover same-sex domestic partners, and I would be shocked if any CEO attempted to change this. (I am a Mozilla employee.)
The Mozilla community is governed by participation guidelines that state: "support for exclusionary practices must not be carried into Mozilla activities," and "support for exclusionary practices in non-Mozilla activities should not be expressed in Mozilla spaces."
UPDATE: In a meeting with Mozilla staff this morning, Brendan reiterated that he was involved in the creation of that code of conduct, and supports it 100%. He also specifically said that he should be held accountable to it, and that it's important for those in positions of power to be accountable to those with less power.
It would have been nice if he also addressed that issue in this message instead of a staff meeting. I mean, like, there is literally a world watching (geographically, not necessarily when it comes to population).
That would be welcome to hear, as a Mozilla user and someone who wants to trust the org to stand for inclusive, humanist values in Internet technology.
He hasn't taken a public position. He's pretty consistently refused to speak publicly about politics at all. The only reason we know his private position is because somebody found his name in a list of private donors to a ballot initiative six years ago.
He was too chicken to open his own mouth. Instead, he paid others $1000 to get the state of California to call my friends f----ts for him. That's enough of a public position for me.
There is a difference between a statement someone got asked for or an immediate statement (even a short one like: "I acknowledge that some people in the developer community have issues with this decision because of my donation to prop8, an issue I will address soon").
The current state of things shows that he didn't feel like this needs to be addressed by himself.
Which issues would remain private political matters?
If he feels the climate change is a real danger to humanity, won't he make Mozilla more environmentally friendly?
If he feels health care should be a basic right, won't he improve health benefits at Mozilla?
If he feels marijuana should be legal, won't he be less likely to do drug tests for employees?
Every big political issue affects real lives. Why is no one asking how Brendan Eich feels about climate change, health care and marijuana before deciding if he is fit for the job?
I'm not trying to support either side on homosexual marriage. I just think we need to ask the question: Why is someone an extreme, irrational, homophobic bigot (all quotes from this HN thread) if they give money to a political cause opposing it but we don't even care how they feel about health care, or climate change, or marijuana, or abortion, or really just about any other political issue that affects people's lives?
For better or for worse, under US campaign finance laws political donations are a public act. He could have gone into the voting booth and voted which ever way he wanted on Prop 8 and no one would have known anything about his position on the issue. Just as (presumably, I haven't checked) no one knows his stance on marijuana or climate change.
The CEO, particularly of a non-profit that seeks volunteers, is more than just another employee. He's the public face of the organization. So taking a public position which alienates many of the very people the organization needs in order for it to achieve its goals, goes directly to his fitness for the job.
If Eich supported Prop 8 in California, then clearly he's a homophobic tool of the Koch Brothers.
If Eich opposed Prop 8, then clearly he's a leftist degenerate and tool of George Soros.
You're doing something at least as logically incorrect as the application of partisan labels if you're characterizing this discussion in such a way. I see a pretty good discussion where the overwhelming majority of people are expressing disappointment in one of Eich's actions, not engaging in partisan name-calling.
> I see a pretty good discussion where the overwhelming majority of people are expressing disappointment in one of Eich's actions
If it were really about expressing disappointment, then the work would have been done the last time(s) this was hashed out.
Bringing it up at the time he's receiving the office carries a clear implication: support for prop 8 should be a mark against considering someone for high profile positions like this or should perhaps outright disqualify them.
I'd think the "plural" on times would cover the answer to that question, on the level you're asking, anyway.
More to the point, yes, there are limits to what a financial contribution to prop 8 implies that thoughtful people will recognize. One of them might be bound to what an action taken 5 years ago would imply about positions today.
> For whatever it's worth, I'd somehow missed this news about Brandon Eich the first time around.
Clearly, you have been long and deeply engaged in the relevant topics.
It's only partisan if the community's split on the issue -- it's not partisan to be against slavery or support women's suffrage, even though it once was, and it's rapidly becoming non-partisan to support equal rights for gay relationships.
If he were publicly in favor of warrantless wiretapping, he'd be catching even more crap about it from the tech community, yet the tech community is even further out of step from mainstream society on that issue.
Apparently it does matter to quite a few people here. If the community represents society as a whole, then it is a serious issue. If the community does not, then this is a tempest in a teapot.
There are a few possible meanings of partisanship. The definition most relevant to American politics involves acting/thinking along party lines, as opposed to thinking independently about specific issues.
"If Eich supported Prop 8 in California, then clearly he's a homophobic tool of the Koch Brothers."
The Koch Brothers have given money to support gay marriage. If you intend to slander people at least be truthful on what they support or don't support.
I posted two typical positions held by partisans on either end of the political spectrum. Neither did I represent as my opinion, and definitely not as fact.
Why did you latch on to one of these positions? Aren't you equally outraged about the "leftist degenerate and tool of George Soros" position as well?
Did it occur to you that perhaps if I was posting two diametrically opposing viewpoints, I was making a larger point and not simply spouting my personal beliefs?
Yes, I got that you were "posting two diametrically opposing viewpoints", but that doesn't mean that you should get a pass on misrepresenting the example you gave for one of your opposing viewpoints since it was in error and not the viewpoint of the party you attributed it to. I didn't look up George Soros's view on the issue to find out if your example's mention represented his belief or not.
Making larger points doesn't give one license to misrepresent the view of people in such a contentious issue. I'm sure if someone attributed that belief to you as part of a larger point, you would feel a bit slighted.
> Have the downvotes proven my point?
I cannot down vote you, and I don't know what the down voters found about your post that lead them to take their action. Perhaps they will comment also.
Have not the Koch brothers been slandered in the media and in fact on the floor of the Senate? Have they not been made into the Great Conservative Boogeyman?
As for "homophobic": the first post in the thread contains the following phrase: "I guess 2 years is long enough for most people to have forgotten the brief storm about his homophobic political activities."
Do you mean to tell me that nobody would ever take such a position as I stated?
oh for the love of words, your example was: "If Eich supported Prop 8 in California, then clearly he's a homophobic tool of the Koch Brothers."
So, you made the association of "homophobic tool" to "Koch Brothers" indicating that they have such tools. Your example directly attributed beliefs to the Koch Brothers that they do not hold and actually oppose with money. This would be misrepresentation.
"Have not the Koch brothers been slandered in the media and in fact on the floor of the Senate? Have they not been made into the Great Conservative Boogeyman?"
Yes, they have been slandered on the Senate floor. That doesn't give you a free pass to commit the same slander. Adding to the pile is not a commendable activity.
"Do you mean to tell me that nobody would ever take such a position as I stated?"
It seems that plenty of people like to attribute to people things they do not actually believe. It is quite common in politics. It is still slander.
I apologize for using sarcasm in my previous posts. That, along with pointing out absurdity, is apparently an unacceptable use of language for some.
In the future I shall try to make the effort of being very direct and to the point so as to avoid any confusion. This, hopefully, will alleviate the concerns of the literal-minded, the humorless, and the partisan.
Why is no one asking how Brendan Eich feels about climate change, health care and marijuana before deciding if he is fit for the job?
It's because (correct me if I'm wrong) he hasn't spoken publicly about those causes, nor funded them.
Also, many wrongs don't make a right. It's a large and common fallacy to suggest there's anything incorrect about questioning his views on human rights simply because his views on (for example) the environment haven't been questioned.
You have no idea whether he's funded those causes. The only reason you know about Prop 8 is because the full list of donors to both sides was posted and everyone started looking at it. That's not typical for political donations. As far as I can tell, campaign donation recipients don't even have to publicly report donations of less than $1000 in California.
Of course from what I can tell, he also hasn't spoken publicly about the particular issue at hand, except to the extent that people asked him direct questions about it based on the abovementioned public list of donations.
I agree that the issue of climate change is a complete non-sequitur here, though.
His donation re Prop8 quite literally made international news, which is why it's on his Wikipedia article. It's probably the thing his name is known for outside tech circles.
You're implying it was a trivial thing no-one should reasonably be paying much attention to. It appears that, when put the test, this opinion turned out to be incorrect.
Uh... I think you're reading things into what I said that simply aren't there.
JohnBooty seems to think that the donation was a purposeful public statement, and in particular that the goal of the donation was to make said public statement, which is why there is no public information on any other political donations that Brendan might have made. I was pointing out that there is no information on other things simply because there hasn't been the same level of scrutiny, and that Brendan wasn't exactly going out of his way to speak out in public about his views on this issue (which is why 4 years passed between him making the donation and anyone noticing it). How you got from that to what you think I was "implying" is a bit beyond me.
I didn't express any opinion or reasoning at all about whether or not we should discuss his other views.
What I said is that even if you feel his non-Prop 8 views are (in your opinion) underexamined, that doesn't change the fact that it's correct to question his actions and views regarding Prop 8.
These arguments are not inline with the real problem I have with Brendan Eich.
He ACTIVELY contributed to a political campaign who's goal was discriminate against a particular group of people. This is a civil rights issue, it has nothing to do with politics, or beliefs.
There are political issues, then there are civil rights issues.
1. Many companies are run by CEOs that probably don't approve of legal marijuana, and also don't do drug testing. I think this link is tenuous at best.
2. Actively rallying against same-sex marriage shows a level of commitment above just a general disproval of the idea. "I will vote against it" is a weaker position than, "I will put money into making sure that it doesn't happen."
3. Issues like the environment, and health care, while important, aren't discriminatory towards specific groups of people. Would you rather that health care and environmental-sustainability were solved issues, but discrimination wasn't?
4. Do you feel that people who only ask about (e.g.) health care issues are implicitly accepting of discrimination?
Your stance in (3) is debatable. These are both issues that have more affect on poor people. E.g. In the Northern hemisphere, the east ends of cities are generally where more poor people live because they are downwind of the pollution (if the geography allows for an east end).
That statement was less of a stance than an explanation. The parent seemed to not understand why people would be so upset about Eich's homophobia, while at the same time not question his other views. My explanation is that people are more up in arms about issues that specifically target a sub-section of people.
While health care and environment issues may affect the poor more than the rich, someone's views on either topic don't necessarily translate to "I don't like poor people and want to restrict their rights" in the same way that financially rallying against gay marriage does translates into expressing specific views about a specific group of people.
There's a big difference between a policy that has an indirect effect on a variety of groups and one that very explicitly targets a specifically defined group for formal mal-treatment under law.
And yes, systematically violating someone's 14th Amendment rights is map-treatment writ large.
Being elected to office in the United States is a good predictor of no interest in health care as a right and criminalization of marijuana usage.
Perhaps you meant "No interest in compelling citizens to give amounts of money to the insurance industry for no change in service and no interest in verbally opposing marijuana criminalization while refusing to exercise one's right to pardon every marijuana offender in the nation?"
Many people who oppose gay marriage simply have a deep-seated attachment to the word "marriage" and do not actually harbor ill will toward gays or wish to deprive them of any benefits.
I personally am all for gay marriage, but I have many friends and family members who fall into the group I'm talking about here. They don't want to see gay people put out at all; they just aren't ready to strip the word "marriage" of the religious associations it holds for them.
I agree that it doesn't seem like an entirely rational viewpoint. It's a very deeply personal thing for them. I'm just saying that their opposition to "gay marriage" doesn't necessarily mean they bear animosity toward gay people.
When someone says to me "I oppose gay marriage but I have no animosity towards gay people", I hear "I am unable to recognize my own animosity towards gay people".*
* I suppose that doesn't hold for the abolish-all-marriage or separate-legal-and-religious-marriage folks.
What I'm saying is that, if you talk to them, a surprising number of these people actually are essentially separate-legal-and-religious-marriage proponents. It's not that they want to deprive gay people of anything — they just have a religious act called "marriage" that is between a man and a woman and they feel like somebody is trying to take that away from them. They are fine with a secular institution that is open to gays and is identical to the legal concept of marriage as it exists today — they just don't want it getting mixed up with a religious institution that is very dear to them.
(I'm not saying that everyone who supported Prop. 8 is this way either. Some of them really are hateful folk — but not all of them. What I'm saying is just that if you think everyone who supported Prop. 8 did so because they are spiteful toward gays, you are painting with way too broad a brush. It's a diverse bunch.)
Yeah, I've heard similar things from Prop 8 supporters. But my personal take is that (for some, at least) the very deeply personal thing they feel, which they feel like someone is trying to take away, is actually antipathy towards people and lifestyles which they haven't in the past had to recognize as legitimate.
I am rabidly liberal, think that marriage between two people—regardless of their gender identity, sexual orientation, etc.—should be legal in all 50 states, and also think that the government should get out of the 'marriage' business altogether. For the foreseeable future, we're stuck with the whole marriage thing for better or worse (hah), so we have to make the best of it.
It is easier to pretend that Vegas is "over there" and thus the things that happen in Vegas are easy to dissociate oneself from. (i.e., "What happens in Vegas...")
For Californians, what gays do in California isn't "over there". It's "right here".
You seem to be trying very hard to make pro-gay marriage arguments (and not succeeding at all, I should add), but you're arguing with people who agree with you on the political issue. I'm trying to help explain the phenomenon, which may provide a stepping stone to figuring out how to best convince people like chc's friends and family.
