The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules document is now in effect.
Brendan Eich, Mozilla CEO, Prop 8 donor, resigns
So It Goes
We keep moving...Registered User regular
We keep moving...Registered User regular
Mozilla’s CEO steps down amid gay marriage furor
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2014/04/03/mozillas-ceo-steps-down-amid-gay-marriage-furor/
Some perspectives:
Mozilla's Gay-Marriage Litmus Test Violates Liberal Values
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/04/mozillas-gay-marriage-litmus-test-violates-liberal-values/360156/
Brendan Eich, Mozilla's former chief executive, needed to tell us more
http://www.mercurynews.com/michelle-quinn/ci_25489008/quinn-brendan-eich-mozillas-former-chief-executive-needed
Some people think it's a good thing this happened. Others disagree with calling out someone who donated to a campaign six years ago. Some conservatives are mad at Mozilla for not protecting Eich's religious freedom.
Discussion!
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2014/04/03/mozillas-ceo-steps-down-amid-gay-marriage-furor/
The maker of the popular Firefox Web browser announced Thursday on its blog that Brendan Eich would no longer be serving as its chief executive — just days after Eich had taken the helm of the organization.
"We know why people are hurt and angry, and they are right: it’s because we haven’t stayed true to ourselves," wrote executive chairwoman Mitchell Baker.
Last week, Eich came under attack from Mozilla employees because of a $1,000 donation he made in support of Proposition 8, the California ballot initiative to ban marriage for same-sex couples. Then on Tuesday, the online dating Web site OkCupid told Firefox users to boycott the browser because of the controversy.
On March 26, Eich wrote a blog post expressing his "sorrow at having caused pain" and committed himself to upholding Mozilla's non-discrimination policies. The company provides health benefits to same-sex couples regardless of the state in which they live.
But Eich declined to step down, telling CNET that Mozilla was founded on "principles of inclusiveness" and that the company would fail if it didn't live up to them.
Eich has now apparently reconsidered that position.
Mozilla says it's considering its next steps. "We need to put our focus back on protecting [the] Web," wrote Baker.
Some perspectives:
Mozilla's Gay-Marriage Litmus Test Violates Liberal Values
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/04/mozillas-gay-marriage-litmus-test-violates-liberal-values/360156/
Brendan Eich, Mozilla's former chief executive, needed to tell us more
http://www.mercurynews.com/michelle-quinn/ci_25489008/quinn-brendan-eich-mozillas-former-chief-executive-needed
Some people think it's a good thing this happened. Others disagree with calling out someone who donated to a campaign six years ago. Some conservatives are mad at Mozilla for not protecting Eich's religious freedom.
Discussion!
So It Goes on
0
This discussion has been closed.
Posts
I kind of hate that hand-wringing Atlantic article. Any time a person's called out for being racist/sexist/homophobic some person who is More Liberal Than You Can Even Imagine reminds us that it's intolerant not to tolerate the intolerant, as long as they do it privately enough.
He was gonna be doing all he could for equality at Mozilla, he was going to listen to and learn from his LGBT community/employees to make sure they feel welcomed and supported at Mozilla, and he'll make sure to keep offering domestic-partners health- and other benefits at Mozilla. ... Then, after he was done with that, he was gonna go home and donate money to a group of people who vilify the LGBT community, up to and including insinuating that they are, or outright calling them, pedophiles. So, I guess if I were a Mozilla employee I might feel like his stated goal of make everyone feel comfortable and included etc is just some lip-service until he can get home and do something to try and stop gay people from being included in the rights and benefits afforded to straight married couples.
Double-also, I really don't think Eich's changed his mind at all. His talk of how opinions are different in different places and people in Indonesia like him and really get along with him kinda makes me think he's probably still on the "noooooo, marriage belongs to uuuuuuuuuuuuus straights!" train...
pleasepaypreacher.net
i don't have any particular sympathy for eich, but i object to purity tests for unrelated contexts.
mozilla was probably wise to fire him demand his resignation - the world of public relations is an amoral one and appearances and demographic appeal are more important considerations than ethical concerns.
but i don't think anyone on the left should be celebrating this.
pleasepaypreacher.net
Ah well, as long as you kinda think that maybe he might. That's all I need.
we should be better than purity tests and witch hunts
the only thing this sort of thing does is calcify the opposition to gay marriage
what we should be doing is trying to bring people over to seeing that your gay neighbors and friends are just the same as you
not bullying people for ever having been on the wrong side
punitive catharsis is for chumps
Yes, that is totally why people are angry. Because 'you didn't stay true to yourself'.
Totally.
In fairness, Eich made the donation 6 years ago. A lot can happen to someone's perspective in 6 years.
I asked Synd a couple times, but has anyone shown that the board demanded his resignation? I agree that this is probably the most likely thing, but no one (to my knowledge) has said that is what happened. I mean, wouldn't it be kind of odd for them to do that? This is the board that hired him for the job, then that same board lost 3 people because they disagreed with Eich's promotion so I would think the board would be composed of a higher % of people who were comfortable with Eich.
I kind of don't get why the left shouldn't be celebrating this either. I mean, anyone who expressed displeasure at Mozilla did so because they did not want to use a browser produced by a company run by someone they felt had done a Very Bad Thing. Because of those users' displeasure, Eich stepped down from his position, and those users were able to affect a change that they wanted. People are going to be happy when they "win" their cause. That seems natural.
The only thing I can come up with is is that this "cuts both ways". So, you know, now liberals CEO's can "choose to step down" when conservatives throw a fit about them doing things they disagree with. This is true, but it has ALWAYS been true. Plus, business environments usually kind of heavily lean toward being filled with and run by conservative-leaning people. At least that's the way it works in the areas I'm familiar with (midwest). I mean, I literally had to hear from my boss last week "Obama and that cunt Hilary should be tried for and convicted of treason and then strung right the fuck up for letting our people be killed in Benghazi!" If I had responded to that with as much emotion as it had been spat at me with I know I would have been fired.
he was really waffly on it
What's to waffle about? "I, like many Americans, was simply ignorant of the issues. Since then I've had a lot of productive blahablahlabalbalh my opinion has evolved"
He never made such a statement. In the end, he preferred to quit his job rather than make such a statement. He clearly still believes that his homophobic positions are the correct ones.
By the way, it wasn't only the public being upset by Eich's attitude. Several directors of Mozilla resigned in protest of Eich's appointment. However distorted one might want to argue his public image was, clearly his private image was no better.
Yes he made a statement saying he would "respect" Mozilla's non-discrimination policies. Given what we can glimpse of his beliefs from his actions in the past and today, can you believe him? I cannot.
Eich has freedom of speech and freedom of belief, same as everyone else. He is allowed to be homophobic and to express his homophobia, exactly as much as the public is allowed to express disgust at homophobia and to refuse to do business with a company headed by a militantly homophobic man. Freedom of speech is not freedom of consequences from speech. And insofar as consequences go, I think the public reaction was reasonable. A few blog posts, one website posting a disclaimer, some online chatter, and that was about it as far as I know. No one tried to pass a ballot to ban Firefox or a constitutional amendment defining traditional web browsers, no one made a federal career out of calling Mozilla users the #1 threat to America or accusing them of trying to corrupt kids in school, no one stood stood outside funerals with signs saying "God Hates Firefox". A bunch of people said "this is not a nice man" and one website said "we'd rather you used a different browser", and that was the end of the story. Mozilla realized they had made a mistake appointing him and he stepped down (no doubt in my opinion a compromise for him to save face rather than be fired after a week, but that's just my opinion and I have no evidence for it).
tl;dr: I have no problem with the sequence of events. Eich's downfall is entirely his own fault.
I am honestly not sure about that. I want to be able to express my leftie opinions at work without getting fired.
But this is the USA you are talking about here. The country where 'right to work' means 'no rights at all'.
If the US had decent worker rights, if workers were protected adequately from losing their jobs for any other amount of things that aren't terrible, then I would be more bothered by this guy losing his job for being terrible.
But in the context of the appalling attitude to worker's rights that exists in the modern US, it's hard to care about this.
i can only imagine that for whatever reason he still is opposed to gay marriage on some moral level and doesn't want to lie or be forced to recant publicly.
It can!
Perhaps he should have said what his perspective on gay marriage is now rather than refuse to.
Between that and his refusal to say he wouldn't make that donation again, and his refusal to discuss how he feels about the topic, yup.
I'm honestly not sure what your point was though. That's all you need for what?
There's also the fact that any day now, a Californian court or legislative session could add sexual orientation to the list of protected classes of workers. When that happens, any company with a manager who has publicly supported anti-gay legislation or groups has to seriously consider what kind of liability it has on its hands.
If that's not a reason to be a dick, I don't know what is. I can't possibly think of a reason people who support minority rights wouldn't want to set or encourage a precedent where minority opinions are justification for termination
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
pleasepaypreacher.net
he was definitely pushed out. you can read some interviews with some of the mozilla board about how they feel bad about it or whatever. who knows maybe he could have fought it?
as far as the other thing - what was actually gained? what was accomplished? a guy is forced out of a company for having contributed to a mainstream political cause 5 years ago.
even outside the fact that sets a bad tone for those of us who work in conservative industries, do we really believe that these sorts of political retributions make for the kind of society we want to promote?
that feels like a victory for no one.
Really?
Really?
If someone at my work said half the shit the last pope did they'd be out on their ass as soon as the paperwork was filled out.
Yes and no one is upset when people leave the Catholic faith or Christianity altogether because of the Church's position on homosexuality. So why are people upset that there was a public reaction against Eich? Because Mozilla actually listened and ousted the person right away?
That is seriously the weakest fucking thing I have ever heard.
"You know who else is horrible but then, on occasion, slightly less horrible?"
Right, which is why he chose to resign rather than do that
So I'm not seeing the problem
I'm unhappy that employers have so much power over employees that they can make employment decisions on irrelevant criteria such as political affiliations
Since Eich was a CEO, he's not entirely a "private" individual in the same way a random employee might be. He is a PR representative, and his actions come under extra scrutiny as part of his employment.
Furthermore, while the employer / employee power dichotomy may be unfair in modern America, whether liberals "celebrate" or "mourn" or "regret" or "whatever" Eich's resignation doesn't matter. That an individual can be safely terminated for political activity is evidence of that power imbalance, it is not the cause of it.
So ultimately I don't think this is specifically a bad thing and the manner in which it is arguably bad is moot, as its evidence of power imbalance not a causation of it.
As for Eich more specifically, he could almost certainly have salvaged his position if he wanted to, so I believe this is less a case of "Angry liberal mob collects scalp" and more "indignant CEO decides golden parachute is preferable to mea culpa." Given his considerable compensation, I don't feel much sympathy for him and do not believe any specific remedy is warranted to grant him any special protections beyond what is generally available under the law.
Yes, but this is why i hate lawyerese so much: everything that Mozilla & Eich have said so far has clearly been chiseled out for them by lawyers (or perhaps public relations handlers... but no, probably lawyers). I don't know what Eich actually thinks or wants to say, because nothing he wrote or said is his own expression - it's just what he's been told is 'safe' to say for the sake of remaining marketable & dodging lawsuits.
It's entirely likely that his lawyer told him not to say anything negative / admit any sort of error, which is why we were left his his sad little Facebook footnotes (Just like how Mozilla didn't refer to the problem as being the slimey & bigoted nature of sending a thousand bucks to a such a shitty cause - because that wouldn't be 'professional' or whatever, so they string us some bullshit line about 'staying true to their values'.)
*shrug*
In any case, I'm glad that making that kind of contribution can & does apparently come back to haunt you these days.
Do we really want to turn this into a Pros Vs Cons of Catholicism thread?
Because I had some nice counter examples fired up and ready to go but I figure this thread doesn't need to go in that direction.
even if the US had the strongest workplace protections in the world it's likely CEOs could still be replaced for refusing to wear the right color suit
which is like one of the reasons you have to pay them so much
i think what's interesting is that a ceo in most any other industry or company wouldn't have been pushed out over this. i guarantee you that john deere's ceo wouldn't. it's very much a case, not of solidifying public opinion, but of political polarization.
Say you're traditionalist Catholic, or conservative Christian. In that situation, you believe just as strongly about things or more so than a liberal activist. Say its anti-abortion or anti-gay equality. To them, those issues have the same degree of moral urgency as gay equality has to a liberal. Would it be cool if such a group utilized their not inconsiderable political influence and got Tim Cook fired at Apple? Or a CEO who had donated to Planned Parenthood or NARAL?
If its not cool then either
-You think political activities should follow different rules depending on whether you agree on it or not. "But I'm right so its different" is an argument against tolerance, freedom of thought and expression and political self-determination. It also strips you of any moral high ground in arguing your position and cripples your ability to convert. If you view any other position as illegitimate, you are insulting implicitly those you're trying to convince.
-You think might makes right. If you can do it, fire away. This implicitly rejects tolerance and minority rights. It also explicitly calcifies majority ideology and marginalizes minority positions. That is not a way to effect change.
Getting Eich fired was vindictive and punitive and in a way that was not even handed. It was "hurt him because we can." It doesn't make anything better. It just blows shit up, it doesn't win any hearts and minds and it doesn't build a consensus
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
Hey, do you remember when your church raped all of those kids and then concealed the rapists from the police, covered-up the rapes themselves, lied to parents, etc? Do you remember that, Mr. Counter Examples?
PSN/Steam/NNID: SyphonBlue | BNet: SyphonBlue#1126
Yeah. I think George Takei made a good point when he made the same comparison - way too many people who recognize that racial bigotry is outside the pale for civilized behavior still get really wishy-washy when talking about discrimination against homosexuals.
I'm a fan of purity tests.
For instance, I will vote for Democrats, but I won't vote for Republicans.
That is a purity test I personally use.
Also, I will vote for people named Jim, but I won't vote for convicted child molesters.
That's another purity test.
Purity tests are fucking awesome, stop shit-talking them.
RE: the difference between CEO's and other employees (which is of critical importance to this case and should not be over looked), I feel like I summed my feelings up well in the chat thread earlier
Not polarization, just the uneven potency of activism to influence specific industries in sometimes unpredictable ways.
Mozilla obviously cared about LGBT users. I doubt John Deere cares as much about LGBT customers. Hence both reactions appear logical.
This has nothing to do with polarization.