We haven't failed him. While the old "may not agree with what you say but I'll defend to the death your right to say it" trope gets used here, it doesn't mean you need to protect people from the consequences of their speech.
Brendan Eich can donate to whatever causes he wishes, and rightfully so, but there is rightly no protection from the public opinion based consequences arising from those donations. Equally, justifications such as "meritocracy" imply that being a CEO is a very narrow thing - it isn't, it's a position of authority and leadership, and if you can't (near universally) inspire confidence in the people you're intended to lead, that is a problem with your ability to function as CEO.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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?
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?
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.
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.
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.)
I agree that people shouldn't be protected from the consequences of what they say or do, and I don't agree with Eich's point of view.
However, I feel like the reaction to his becoming CEO and trying to get him to step down were unjustified.
I believe that someone shouldn't be judged on his political or religious affiliation when being considered for a new job or a new role. I have political convictions which are perpendicular to some of my colleagues ideas, and guess what, we get along just fine at work.
I fail to see how his opinion on same-sex marriage (or his sponsorship of conservative politicians in general) would be a problem for guiding Mozilla forward. As long as he doesn't use Mozilla as a tool for his personal agenda.
It's pretty well established at this point that those who scream the loudest about how important "tolerance" is often prove to be among the most intolerant in practice.
The same is holding true for those who are against "discrimination". They'll often have absolutely no qualms about using one form of discrimination in their quest to bring retribution to somebody else who may have engaged in something they consider to be discriminatory behavior.
Tolerance for people is not the same as tolerance for speech, or tolerance for actions. You are not a victim if people disapprove of your bigotry - your speech may be protected, but you are not protected from the consequences of your speech (and that includes the opinions of others).
People will find any reason to view themselves as victims when something they do or a person they agree with is criticised. That people are crying about "discrimination", because someone who actively worked to oppress people was rightly criticised for those actions, quite frankly astounds me.
Besides which, people aren't just criticising him for seeking to strip one the basic and fundamental liberties a modern society gives its citizens, purely on the basis of who they are (which he is entitled to do). They're criticising Mozilla, a company which strives towards the principles of openness and inclusiveness, for picking someone to represent them who doesn't represent the values of the organisation.
Inclusiveness means not discriminating against people based on who they are. It's the very simple idea that white people, black people, gay people and straight people are all people - they are entitled the same rights and the same protections.
Inclusiveness doesn't mean that you have to tolerate a person's actions. Damn right I'm going to criticise someone whose actions hurt people - they're not entitled to have me agree with their "conscience", nor are they entitled to my support for their actions.
Do you understand how discrimination against a person and condemnation of things that a person does are separate concepts?
How exactly do you figure that? The act of not tolerating intolerance is itself intolerance. It will always be around, if we take your approach. The only way to full tolerance is to be tolerant of intolerance.
This is a bollocks piece of writing that makes no argument or substantive point bend saying "I'm disgusted by this." Please don't promote it.
The idea that Eich has been "scalped" is ludicrous. He received a bunch of public pressure because of his controversial (for the community and post) views, he failed to deal with it, and he resigned.
Sullivan and yourself seem to imply that no public figure should be subject to pressure because of unpopular personal views, which is obviously not achievable or desirable.
I read the Sullivan piece but Sullivan (and you too, presumably) seem to think this is a First Amendment issue. I'm not understanding where his right to speak, or to act, have been limited in any way. Please explain.
Are you and Sullivan thinking that the First Amendment gives you the right to free speech and, additionally, also guarantees no response? Or maybe it guarantees that the response must be along the lines of, "oh well ... you have your opinion and I have mine ... now we'll just go on with each of us having our separate views." Does the First Amendment prevent me from having a particular response, even if the response is what you personally would consider viscous and outsized.
Again, please explain how this is a First Amendment issue?
Some opinions are very difficult to separate from behaviour. When you hold the view that someone is less entitled because of their sexual orientation, it is probably difficult to prevent that from affecting your relationships with some members of your workforce, however well-intentioned you may be, however hard you might strive.
What about if Eich had donated money to an organisation trying to stop black people getting married? Would you still think him entitled to be the CEO of a commercial organisation, without dissent?
I feel like your comparison of sexual orientation to ethnicity is a bit of a stretch. Marriage is something a lot of people have strong and (from my point of view) old-fashioned opinions on. The fact that he feel marriage is a bond between two members of a different gender does not necessarily mean he's going to actively discriminate members of the LGBT community in a professional environment.
It's of course possible that he might, but several things make me feel like he should have been given a chance to prove himself:
* He made a public statement clarifying his personal beliefs would not affect his work at Mozilla.
* He is being accused of discriminating at Mozilla, while as far as we know, no such thing has happened (yet).
* Given the amount of backlash he has suffered because of his 6 year old contribution to some campaign, I'm sure he's smart enough to handle matters in which he might be strongly biased by delegating them to someone else.
I was outraged when his contribution came to light a few years ago, but I honestly feel like he's getting too harsh a treatment for what he did.
The public head of contributed to a campaign aimed at removing rights from a significant part of the population. This wasn't off-hand remark or ill-received joke, his intentions cannot be misinterpreted in this case.
If you can put yourself in LGBT shoes, can you imagine working for Mozilla? What if it had to be closely with Mr. Eich? Could you be his PA?
Maybe if gay rights weren't at the forefront of public opinion right now, this could have slipped by unnoticed for a while. But especially now that it did, do you see a company with that manifesto keeping a CEO like Mr. Eich onboard?
Because, as he wrote just after that: "Marriage is something a lot of people have strong and (from my point of view) old-fashioned opinions on. The fact that he feel marriage is a bond between two members of a different gender does not necessarily mean he's going to actively discriminate members of the LGBT community in a professional environment."
People had (and have) a lot of strong and often (from my point of view) old fashioned views on ethnicity.
If I said that I don't think a black employee should be allowed to have the same voting rights as me (something which was historically the case and was felt to be reasonable by - for a long time - the majority), how much faith would you have in my not activity discriminating against them in a professional environment?
Less than I would have if you had spoken about marriage rights.
The difference being that to deny a group voting rights, it means you have something against that group specifically.
Whereas for marriage, it could just be that your notion of marriage as a custom (how you think marriage should be) is incompatible with the group performing it.
If you found a minister of a non-specific religion who refused to marry to black two people just because he just didn't see marriage in his faith as something that happened between black people, how much faith would you have that he had nothing against black people, that it was just about he saw marriage?
Well, if his religion stated so, then I would have no reason to doubt him.
Religion can have any arbitrary rule. No marriage for X group. No priesthood for Y group. That doesn't necessarily mean that it also sees Y group in a specific light otherwise.
And what if members of his religion has mixed views on the subject?
This is part of the problem with it as a religious argument - most religions don't have a unified view of the subject. To bring it back to the matter at hand there are plenty of Christian's who have no problem with gay marriage so is it really a Christian view, or just a view held by some Christians (which is a somewhat different thing)?
Oh, and religion may have any arbitrary rule but that doesn't mean we have to accept it. There is more biblical justification for stoning than for homophobia yet we're not on side with stoning.
Team Rarebit, two developers who are a gay couple, have made several blog posts about how support for Prop 8 affected them from an immigration perspective, which of course had both personal and professional consequences.
They also posted about how Eich's resignation is not their preferred outcome, and they would have preferred to see him acknowledge that his past actions had an impact on the Mozilla team and community that extended beyond personal feelings http://www.teamrarebit.com/blog/2014/04/03/a-sad-victory/
On the flip side, I would expect a vegan who donates money to organizations trying to stop state subsidies to meat production still be working fine with carnivores.
Wrong. As far as I know, he has not divulged his religious or political views. We do not know if he is Christian, Buddhist, Hindu, Muslim, atheist or pastafarian. We do not know if he is a Democrat or a Republican.
We do know, however, that he was so incensed by the ideas of gays getting the right to marriage that he donated a very large sum of money to help fight the legal battle against it.
That speaks volumes about his personal bigotry. He was not being attacked for his religious or political views. He was attacked because he wants to discriminate against an entire class of people.
Barack Obama was so incensed at the idea of gays getting the right to marriage, that he 'stood' on a national stage, while running for the highest office in the land, and declared that marriage is between a man and a woman - an open declaration of bigotry. Not all bigotry is treated equally apparently.
Calling names is calling names is calling names, nothing else. It adds nothing to the conversation, it subtracts everything (and by the way, suggest that the person using them has not much of a clear idea how to defend his ideas, and I am not saying that you suffer from this problem).
By the way, it was the State of California that carried out the poll. Is the state 'bigot'?
I guess it should be illegal to do that if the vote were straightaway against someone's basic rights. Or am I missing something and if enough people deem it right one could get a poll on 'the right of colored people to go to University'?
"I'm for peace after we kill or imprison all the bad people."
"I'm for democracy after everyone agrees with me."
Soon in order to have a referendum on the ballot it will need to be voted on (to get it on a ballot) of which a simple majority must approve it. But, if "it should be illegal to do that if the vote were straightaway against someone's basic rights" were implemented then the referendum vote to get it on the ballot would become illegal too.
By the way, who defines "basic rights"? The majority? A minority in "power"? The who get to define "rights" are the ones that can defend their claims. Those that can defend their claims require weapons. This is what Kings did. They made claims to rights. Like, "I claim the right to the land you live on!" To which another king or the people would say "Bullshit!" Then if they couldn't amicable resolve their claims they went to war and defended their claims (whether their claims were moral or not). The outcome would speak for itself: the victor's claims were correct because they were able to defend their claims.
Our country was founded on protecting minorities not the majority. The greatest minority is the individual. I think we should be protecting individuals from tangible HARM not protecting "rights" and privileges which change over time depending on the whim of the majority or society.
Yes, we all have the right to choose to be sexually monogamous with another individual, pool our resources, and take care of and raise our offspring. We don't have a right to demand tax breaks or that third parties take care of our spouses and children. Get government completely out of marriage.
Also all the insulting shows that the possible vision of 'marriage as a social institution' has not entered into their heads.
The example of 'property' is good because it is also a social institution and it is something which one cannot take for granted (there are societies ---hippies--- which deny the existence of it). When some minority claims their right to property (for example, the 'poor') or claim that the 'right to property' is harming them, what shall we do?
Are we bigots because we insist on the right to 'property'?
Wikipedia estimates the campaign in support of Prop 8 raised $39.0 million. $1000 is not a "very large sum of money". It's a rounding error. Likely a rounding error for Eich's personal finances as well if he's at the level of CEO or potential CEO.
If you are going to attack Eich, do it with the known facts. Six years ago, he gave a $1000 donation to a $39 million political cause. His mood ("incensed") at the time is not known. His actions since then are mostly not known. His publicly stated position is full support for LGBT individuals in basically every area but marriage. His current views on whether homosexual marriages should be legal are not explicitly known. His personal feelings toward LGBT individuals (I've seen the word "hate" tossed around many times) are not known.
That is why I, and so many other people, have a problem with the response to his appointment as CEO. He made one known donation to a movement against homosexual marriage. It was an amount of money equal to a rounding error at most. This was six years ago. When appointed, he publicly promised to fully support LGBT individuals at Mozilla, including maintaining health benefits for same sex partners. He was actively promoting an initiative to bring LGBT and other potentially marginalized individuals into tech.
Why does someone who is actively supporting LGBT individuals above and beyond the legal requirement need to recant from a small, legal donation to a political cause? Why does he need to change his opinion to match the popular opinion? Why can he not simply keep his opinions to himself, go on actively supporting LGBT individuals at work, and stop making public donations opposing homosexual marriage? Because from all appearances, that was his plan.
My problem is that the tech community is more interested in his personal feelings than his actions. He has committed to supporting LGBT individuals at work. That is an action, or at least a promise of action. Whether he apologizes or changes his mind about homosexual marriage is a feeling. He was effectively ousted from his job not for his actions (because if he had said he no longer felt that way and apologized for his donation, he likely would have been able to stay), but for his feelings, his opinions. He was forced out because he apparently still felt his donation was good and that homosexuals shouldn't get married. Note that he did nothing to act on those apparent feelings while CEO. His crime was having the feelings, not acting on them. If he had convinced everyone he was now a supporter of homosexual marriage, he would still be CEO, even given his past donation and even if he had done nothing to counteract it.
Holding the correct beliefs is apparently now a job requirement at Mozilla.
I guess lots of folks weren't convinced that was 'his plan'. He was unconvincing, unrepentant even. That's critical - if he had convinced folks his bigotry days were behind him, maybe it would have worked out differently.
And $1000 is significant to me. It pays for print ads, or hours of activist pay. Doesn't matter how big a pile of money you put it it; it's still effective at spreading the message.
Arguably. He could just put more weight in one category than every other category combined, and Buchanan might match that category better than any other candidates.
Unless Eich actually makes a statement on his political views, we don't really know anything.
Actually, they make most of their money from referral traffic.
"The majority of Mozilla’s revenue is generated from search and commerce functionality included in our Firefox product through all major search partners including Google, Bing, Yahoo, Yandex, Amazon, eBay and others."
Notice I said "donations of time and labour". Not financial donations. Is most of mozilla's programming, bug tracking, promotions, evangelizaing, tech support, done by people who are salaries employees of Mozilla Corp? Or the wider "open source community"
The story is different when it comes to open source. OSS projects are communal in nature and much more democratic than their non-OSS counterparts. It should be no surprising to see the dynamics of state politics, such as examination of unrelated actions from actors, apply to OSS communities.
On that note, you can only be the dictator and force everyone to look at the bits alone, when you have something people need or you have endless patience to outlast your competition. This would be the Linus strategy. I dont think Mozilla has this option. ALSO, both consumers and employees in non-OSS establishments are making on CSR and meta-politics an priority. This will continue to increase in significance.
In your own example, you (a) aren't head of the organization and (b) are not, I assume, advocating a view that some of your colleagues should be second class citizens.
>We haven't failed him. While the old "may not agree with what you say but I'll defend to the death your right to say it" trope gets used here, it doesn't mean you need to protect people from the consequences of their speech.
Actually it means exactly that.
The way you put it ("supporting your right to say it doesn't mean you shouldn't suffer the consequences of your speech") is totally absurd.
"Your right to say it", means exactly the right to say it and NOT suffer consequences.
If we accept "suffering consequences" as orthogonal to "having a right to say it", then we come to the absurd conclusion that even people in the most opressive regime, or those threatened by the Inquisition had "free speech".
They said it, and then, they suffered the consequences (from getting fired to getting set on fire, depending on the period).
Free speech means anybody can say anything, and people supporting his right to say anything, without any personal consequences (other than others potentially disagreeing with him and answering back to what he said).
I usually think of free speech in this context to mean freedom from state intervention. The state shouldn't be allowed to treat you differently from others because of what you say.
Here we're talking about how the public's treatment of Mozilla and Eich have changed because of their speech. This is perfectly rational.
To give you a counter example. If we accept that "having a right to it" means never "suffering consequences" then I'm never allowed to form an opinion of a person based on the things they say. I have to think "well he said all those racist things but I've never seen him in a KKK uniform so my opinion is still neutral".
TL;DR On issues of free speech we, the people, can make people suffer consequences as we see fit. The state cannot.
Do you then support the legitimacy of the Hollywood blacklist during the McCarthy era? It was a purely private sector action with no government enforcement. Furthermore, communist sympathizers were widely reviled and feared in the society as a whole.
>I usually think of free speech in this context to mean freedom from state intervention. The state shouldn't be allowed to treat you differently from others because of what you say.
No, it was also meant against any kind of intervention. Also from the church for example. Or bigoted crowed. Or lynching.
Take a racist Southern town for example. Is this idea of free speech compatible with the town people giving a black guy a hard time if speaks freely (not hiring him, the ocassional threat, passive agreesive attitude towards him, etc), just because the state is not involved?
>To give you a counter example. If we accept that "having a right to it" means never "suffering consequences" then I'm never allowed to form an opinion of a person based on the things they say
Well, opinion is also free speech (well, thought and speech) itself. Not really talking about that when discussing actual consequences. Or even "I'm not going to buy this guy's book now that he said that".
So if I'm your fiance and you suddenly find out that, say, I am a member of the KKK, you can't decide not to marry me (that would after all be a consequence beyond simply disagreeing)?
Obviously that would be absurd. As an individual I'm entirely within my rights to respond to the views of another beyond simply disagreeing and debating with them.
It seems entirely reasonable to me that I would be able to choose not to spend time with someone with views I found abhorrent.
So how about choosing to work (or not work) on a voluntary project being run by someone whose views I disagreed with?
>"Your right to say it", means exactly the right to say it and NOT suffer consequences.
It depends what consequences we're talking about here. There's a difference between the consequence of being thrown in jail for something you said and people thinking less/differently of you because of something you said. I suspect OP was referring to the latter.
Legally, you are fully right that "free speech" doesn't mean you are free of social consequences of speech.
Socially, while I disagree with Eich's political views, I really worry about starting a tit-for-tat here that leaves no one the winner.
You might think your views are socially dominant. And in your time and place, maybe you are even right about it. But this will not always be the case.
Back in the 60's my dad risked his job to go march with Martin Luther King when MLK was in Detroit. His boss didn't like MLK and would have canned my dad if he found out. If my dad had been fired, I really hope you wouldn't be so blase as to say "well, he's just reaping the consequences of his speech."
I think it is possible to hold both views (it is acceptable to force Eich out; it was immoral to fire workers for being part of the civil rights movement, blacklist workers for being communists). And you don't even have to appeal to the "my side is always morally right" non-argument.
I think the critical distinction is workers versus management.
If an engineer were fired from his job for a donation he made to any organization -- the ACLU, the KKK, the Communist Party, Prop 8 -- then yes, we would have a problem.
Low power individuals, they need to be protected. High power individuals, we need to be protected from them.
Well said, every time I heard someone use that excuse it comes to my mind what would it be if he put money on an association like the kkk?. Those people would say too "I'm sorry to judge you for being a fucking racist"?. Because right now they're saying "I'm sorry to judge you because you're a fucking homophobic".
And thousands of people have been murdered in the name of homophobia. But this isn't really a numbers game; if, in the TWENTY-FIRST century, anyone is murdered, attacked, insulted, or treated in any way differently because of their sexual orientation, that is an outrage.
Okay, let's go with a more direct comparison. Say he funds the campaign for a successful constitutional referendum banning interracial marriage. Do you honestly think he'd be able to stay as CEO in that case?
That direct comparison doesn't work either: The herd mentality in religious 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.
Bans on interracial marriages, on the other hand, are just justified by racism and not objective facts.
Eich is ignorant, but I'm pretty sure he's not a bigot.
You're aware that the religious argument, and the IT WILL DESTOY SOCIETY argument, and the "unsuitable for raising children" arguments were all used in the context of interracial marriage in the US in the 60s, right?
Incidentally, the idea that marriage has long social and cultural roots is also kind of dubious. If you look at marriage in 1800, it's essentially an entirely different arrangement to marriage today; notably, it lead to effective legal erasure of the wife as a person.
You don't seem to understand: they can be rational and maintain that a relationship between two people categorically incapable of producing children together biologically, two people of the same sex, can’t be a marriage.
It's ignorant, places way too much emphasis on sex rather than committment and love, and is justified by stupid ideas like marriage being "reserved" for heterosexual couples for the purpose of procreation, but it's rational. It also leads to seperate but equal legal frameworks, which are bullshit.
Bans on interracial marriage were irrational, not relying on a single objective fact.
What I would like: abolish state-recognized marriages altogether. Civil partnerships for everyone, let churches squabble about marriage if someone wants a ceremony, and they can enter into a partnership for benefits.
What's practical: modifying our legal framework for marriage across the states.
My point is that people who opposed interracial marriage thought that they had a rational basis for doing so (even though it didn't make sense); similarly, people who oppose gay marriage today also think they have rational bases for doing so, even though they don't make sense.
> they can be rational and maintain that a relationship between two people categorically incapable of producing children together biologically, two people of the same sex, can’t be a marriage
Pretty much nobody actually makes this argument, though. Probably because infertile people get married all the time.
>My point is that people who opposed interracial marriage thought that they had a rational basis for doing so (even though it didn't make sense); similarly, people who oppose gay marriage today also think they have rational bases for doing so, even though they don't make sense.
Not really, as I said before there’s no biological basis for refusing to accept an interracial relationship as a marriage.
I'm not going to continue defending views that aren't my own, so if you're interested in reading what exactly "traditional marriage" defenders are talking about then try this review: http://www.harvard-jlpp.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/Georg... (pdf)
You don't seem to understand: they can be rational and maintain that a relationship between two people categorically incapable of producing children together biologically, two people of the same sex, can’t be a marriage.
That's explicitly not rational, unless you are going to deny marriage rights to opposite sex couples who are "categorically incapable of producing children together biologically."
"a relationship between two people categorically incapable of producing children together biologically, [the female of whom has had a hysterectomy following uterine cancer], can’t be a marriage."
Your point contradicts itself; first you mention that marriage is about biological reproduction (which would annul marriages between infertile couples?), then you say it's about society and culture, then you say it's about objective facts.
No: They believe that marriage is a union that's only between a man and a woman, which has long social and cultural roots. Justified by the fact that same-sex couples categorically can't reproduce with each other.
Of course these objections to same-sex marriage have a slight problem: egg and sperm donations. But it's not exactly typical biological reproduction.
It's pretty stupid, but not everyone who holds these objections is a homophobic bigot. And, to be clear, I'm not attempting to act as an apologist for whatever views Eich holds: I'm just trying to refute the direct comparison between same-sex and interacial marriage bans. Because it's in every thread multiple times, and usually with a KKK reference which is absurd.
There was really no way this situation would have ended well regardless of how it turned out, because both sides seem incapable of communicating.
Good point, it's not like members of the LGBT community have ever been beaten and killed for being LGBT.... Oh wait...
Yes he didn't donate (directly) to a group that goes around beating and killing homosexuals but it's disingenuous to pretend they (KKK and homophobics) don't have plenty in common. First of which being hate.
Well Debate.org seems to agree with what I think you are trying to say which is "being against gay marriage does not make you a homophobe"[0], of course Slate would disagree with you [1], and The Atlantic would agree with you [2]. I could go on but I won't, I'll just tell you what I think: yes, It does.
And yes, he was a homophobe, by giving to a group of people trying to destroy human rights for homosexuals. I think people can change but the complete lack of response on that specific issue from Brendan Eich makes me assume he still is.
I am seeing this.being.thrown.aromasso much, not.only in US but here in Brazil.too,.that when someone try to.insult me.calling me homophobic, I will reply: "yes, with pride"
Seriously, homophobia was supposed to mean "strong fear or.aversion to homosexuals" not "opinion that homosexuals dislike"
and if you do, you might be interested to know there's experimental evidence of a correlation between homophobia in men and physical arousal to male homosexual stimuli.
And what? The implication is that you'd like to throw your lot in with the "those who don't consider homosexuality to be right are really closet homosexuals" deception.
If such papers bear out (I've seen one such study but didn't read this one) then are we supposed to say "we should just follow our basic sexual stimuli to determine our ethics".
Riding the bus often gives me an erection, I must be bus-sexual; my right to marry a bus must be enshrined in law ...
Thank you for stating this in a polite and straightforward manner – that is also my take on this issue.
I struggle with the opposition to this move when the reaction against Eich's position is de facto evidence that he would not have been able to perform in the role.
Very true, but I've not heard any news that he didn't have the support of his employees, or that he wasn't inspiring confidence in them. His position was made untenable by the actions of people outside of his charge.
I would think that your point applies if Mozilla had discounted Eich for the role in the first place, but it appears that his views only became an issue for them after they started receiving negative attention.
In any case, Mozilla have demonstrated quite clearly that they are not the champions of equal rights, free speech, or diversity that they claim to be. I wonder if this will be a problem for them in the long run. I think a lot of people still use their product over Chrome et al because of support for these views.
Absolutely - you don't need to protect people from the consequences of their speech.
So why are there no consequences for the sort of person who's not professional enough to keep a person's activities outside work separate from their work itself?
Most hiring managers wouldn't hire a bully. Why do they continue to hire people who have a history of disruptive behavior, calling for the firing of others over things that happen outside of their workplace?
The Eich situation will repeat itself again and again and again (and at lower levels, and perhaps next time over an unfashionable political opinion that you just happened to hold a year longer than the President of the United States) unless there's real consequences for being an unpleasant, uncivil busybody who goes around demanding people get sacked for their behavior outside of work.
If we're really so incensed by the way Brendan Eich was treated, and we're not just being mouthy on the Internet, I ask you all - where are these consequences?
It still feels, like a character assassination. Lots of great men were fucking weird... Hell most of us are really fucking weird. Gratefully most people today don't emphasize.
Mozzart had a fetish for shit, which he extensively exchanged with his cousin. Imagine someone squatting a big chunky shit on your shit each time you hear his music.
Einstein was for lack of better world a whore. He had sex with bunch of his cousin from his maternal and paternal side. He slept with his cousin, her sister and early slept with cousin Elsa's daughter.
Tesla had a fetish for pigeons, thought he could talk with aliens and was afraid of germs more than anything else. And he had OCD to top it all off.
Lots of us are really weird, but only a few of us are in charge of mid-to-large organizations. And of the examples that you gave, I don't think any of them worked to have their brand of weirdness enforced over other people as law.
Eich claimed to support LGBT equality at Mozilla, but when given the opportunity, he refused to say anything like "I regret supporting a law that had negative consequences for our employees" or even "I would abstain from supporting a similar law in the future". This silence suggests he may advocate for equality at one level and against it at a higher level, which is hard to reconcile.
> I don't think any of them worked to have their brand of weirdness enforced over other people as law.
Wait what about Jobs? Didn't he managed to spread his paranoia, attitude and general weirdness over Apple? And globaly? I mean being a bully CEO was pretty much his trademark.
Eich's departure is a great blow for Mozilla. The whole thing reeks of character assassination.
Brendan Eich can donate to whatever causes he wishes, and rightfully so, but there is rightly no protection from the public opinion based consequences arising from those donations. Equally, justifications such as "meritocracy" imply that being a CEO is a very narrow thing - it isn't, it's a position of authority and leadership, and if you can't (near universally) inspire confidence in the people you're intended to lead, that is a problem with your ability to function as CEO.