Inclusiveness at Mozilla(brendaneich.com) |
Inclusiveness at Mozilla(brendaneich.com) |
He seems to be refusing to state his full position on the reasons behind that donation, other than to ask people to take his word that his reasons are reasonable, while using the fact that people are being rude as a defense not to speak publicly on the subject, which isn't entirely reassuring.
Brendan needs to join the 21st century.
I will continue to refuse to use Firefox out of general principle.
That Eich resign over his personal opinions? That he abandon his personal ethics for business reasons? That he demonstrate his good faith by paying a modern-day indulgence to an advocacy group?
Or is Eich now irredeemable?
"...and in the meantime express my sorrow at having caused pain."
Ouch, how can somebody hold two opposing thoughts in their head at once? That's basically a denouncement of his own personal efforts.
At this point, the best thing he can do to level set things, is to make some equal and public donations to same-sex marriage causes.
It sucks when your actions have consequences...especially when those consequences hurt other people.
"At the same time, I don’t ask for trust free of context, or without a solid structure to support accountability. No leader or person who has a privileged position should. I want to be held accountable for what I do as CEO. "
And that's exactly what's happening. I hope he keeps getting held accountable for participating in the oppression of a minority group until he takes substantive steps to make public amends.
The test of a first rate intelligence is the ability to hold
two opposed ideas in the mind at the same time, and still
retain the ability to function.
- F. Scott Fitzgerald, "The Crack-Up", Esquire Magazine (February 1936)
Didn't he just do that, by promising contrary action rather than a cheap apology?
We'll see. Promises are easily broken, especially when you don't think the subject of the promise is important.
Would we have the same controversy if Brendan voted Tea Party (but only privately)? If he were against abortion? If he didn't believe NASA needed a bigger budget (or that it did, if you lean the other way)?
Sure, gay marriage is good, people should support it, it is a valuable social cause. I can understand your upset if you work for Mozilla, except that Brendan has already stated several times that no policies at Mozilla would change due to his personal views. But can we at least hold that while wrong, being against gay rights does not immediately make you the world's most despicable human being?
Or, if every opponent of gay rights is sub-human (a conceit that some anti-gay-right crusaders hold in reverse), what issues exactly are similary important? Must we raise a controversy every time a tech leader comes out pro-NSA? Anti-immigration-reform? Pro-university education? Anti-startup? Anti-basic-science? (Note that, just like Brendan's, these positions might have reasoned arguments; you wouldn't know if you're too busy pillorying whomever holds them.)
I have a few Christian friends. They are not total idiots, or oblivious to reality; I do not suspect them of secretly trying to convert me. They are very smart folks, who do good work, who happen to be Christian. I know a guy who denies climate change. I don't trust his knowledge of climatology, but then again I mostly talk to him about math, where his thoughts on climate science are irrelevant. And he's likewise a smart guy, great to work with, industrious, careful, and a great friend. I don't demand perfect agreement in my friends; I won't demand it of Brendan.
I am also okay with Eich drawing criticism over it, indefinitely.
That being said, I can't help but feel that a lot people are, for lack of a better way to say it... trying too hard. It's like we've completely lost track of some VERY recent historical context.
If I recall correctly, back in the 2008 Presidential election, not a single one of the Democratic Party front-runners would stand in support of marriage equality. Obama wouldn't, the Clintons wouldn't, Edwards wouldn't. Support for "civil unions" was still a completely socially acceptable position in left-wing circles, and even that was a controversial stance among the mainstream public.
Sometime in late-2011 / early-2012 a critical mass was finally reached, and it rather suddenly became okay to "out" yourself in the mainstream as supporting full equality. President Obama "evolved" (i.e. reversed) his position in May of 2012. The percentage of public support for marriage equality finally crossed over the 50% threshold in the U.S. a couple of months later.
To hear people talk, you would think the "bad old days" were decades ago... and that anyone who hasn't stood on the correct side of history for years now is a bigoted fossil. Folks, President Obama's reversal was TWENTY-TWO MONTHS AGO. Equality has been a majority view for barely a year and a half.
Granted, popularity and poll numbers are not a substitute for moral righteousness. Moreover, "not publicly supporting" equality is a different matter from spending money to actively oppose it. As I said, I believe that Eich should draw criticism for his 2008 donation indefinitely, or at least until he experiences enough personal growth to reverse his views. However, much of the reaction this week has been a bit over-the-top and unproductive. It feels like a lot people who just RECENTLY arrived at a party are doubling-down on their partying, to compensate for arriving only recently. There's a fine line between being righteous and working to change people's hearts and minds, or just being smugly self-righteous to score imaginary Internet-points. I think a lot of this week's commentary has fallen on the wrong side of that line.
Hos track record at Mozilla appears to be inclusive etc.
Allowing it would have harmed no one. Not him, not them, not anyone. There are no negative downsides, other than a subset of religious individuals who wish to impose their strictures onto all of society feeling less in control of their lives.
I have a hard time accepting, as a leader, someone who goes out of their way to donate to an anti-gay campaign whose aim is to do nothing other than deny the LGBT community something out of spite.
It's not his beliefs that are the issue; it's that he's trying to impose them on all of society.
You say that "Allowing it would have harmed no one." Tell me, who is it harming for Brendan to be CEO of Mozilla? The answer is not "LGBT people", because he's already stated that his personal views won't change policy; and it's just not plausible that Mozilla will suddenly start discriminating against people due the the personal views of the CEO.
So we can say, "Allowing Brendan to be CEO would have harmed no one. Not him, not them, not anyone. There are no negative downsides, other than a subset of pro-LGBT-rights individuals who wish to impose their beliefs onto all of society, and onto Brendan in particular, feeling less in control of their lives." How then is protesting Brendan's donation any different than the donation itself?
You might agree with Brendan's views, disagree with them, whatever. But it seems mighty bigoted to start protesting someone else's beliefs; isn't that the whole message here?
EDIT: To be clear, if Brendan ever starts imposing discriminatory policies or the like, I'll grab my pitchfork and join you. Until then, anyone with a pitchfork in hand is protesting not Brendan's actions, but his mere /beliefs/, and that is wrong, and betrays a shocking cognitive dissonance coming from someone who supposedly supports equality and tolerance.
I wouldn't really say "imposing" is the right term. I think "trying to impose" something on all of society would look more like something along the lines of bribing politicians. Instead, he donated to a campaign that aligned with his belief. Aren't campaigns a mode of free speech by which people can get their message out there? Moreover, aren't beliefs (at least strongly held ones anyways) supposed to be something that a person is willing to speak out about? So, If you claim that he can hold beliefs but that he shouldn't be allowed to speak about them, then it really does become a situation where you deny his right to hold his belief.
Also, isn't a society a collection of people who try to figure out what rules everyone should play by? I like to think of these rules as a sort of LCD, something that everyone can agree on. And, as the members try to alter the rules, they also alter the LCD. The catch is that if one of the LCD "rules" is being reviewed, one side can't just shove it down the other's throat. If that happened, then the LCD would cease to be a LCD and society would then be torn apart. That's why a proper exchange of thoughts is important.
That, I think, also means that the exercise free speech should be accompanied by the willingness to dialogue in a respectful manner with people with opposing views. "But", you say, "he refused to make a public statement on his donation." I think it doesn't matter because it's hard to have that sort of meaningful conversation with a crowd/mob. So, while boycotting Mozilla is fine and all, I think the best course of action would still be a one-on-one discussion. Luckily, it seems like he is doing that at Mozilla with his coworkers.
Finally, this is a separate point from the one above, but if someone claimed to hold a belief but was unwilling to defend it in public, wouldn't that be telling about their qualities as a leader? Shouldn't a leader be someone who is willing to take the vision of his followers, hold fast to them, and proclaim them to the world no matter the circumstance? So, assuming we believe his statement about the separation of his personal beliefs and Mozilla's goals, wouldn't that actually lend credence to his ability to lead?
> Brendan went out of his way to donate a thousand dollars
> to prevent a group of people from sharing the same right
> as everyone else.
If you're in an alternative relationship and want to have a permanent union with someone else, or with several other people, you can go and draw up a contract and then get on with your lives. It could take as little as ten minutes. Contract law is fantastic like this.
Everything substantial is already available through contract law.
> it's that he's trying to impose them on all of society.
And I think his statement is appropriate and encouraging.
"Do no evil" clauses violate Freedom Zero: "The freedom to run the program, for any purpose." So I guess I dispute that Free Software is based on doing social good as a whole. It just defines one social good.
We're all going to have to learn to get along with people who's very core beliefs we find reprehensible, or this pluralism thing is doomed.
Thus it's not a question of whether someone's sub-human but whether or not we, as a society, find those views acceptable. Pro-slavery or nakedly white supremacist views fall into a similar category. I believe anti-gay bigotry is drifting towards that axis. While those views are protected, that's orthogonal to whether they're subject to criticism.
Also, "tea party" or "pro-NSA" or "anti-NASA" are not really classes of people, considering they're elective categories.
Honestly I am not very sympathetic. Substitute any other form of prejudice and "I don't demand perfect agreement" starts to sound more and more like apologism for bigotry. I'm sure that's not your intention but the contours are similar.
Yes. Yes. Yes.
This is America in 2014. If somebody holds a politically incorrect position, they must be destroyed: their employer must be named, shamed, and pressured to fire that person. If that person runs a company, that company must be destroyed: it must be boycotted, attacked with FUD, and besmirched.
It's not right, but that's apparently what our culture has descended to.
Am I wrong? Many of the responses here on HN and elsewhere online about this topic over the last 24 hours indicate that I am not.
There's personal beliefs and then there's giving financial support to crush someone else's. That puts things on a different scale. Abortion in the examples would probably be the closest, but the most 'understandable' part of that is at least it involves termination of life, which is by itself controversial. Prop 8 was about materially preventing families from officially forming. That puts it in a different league of just hatred/bigotry.
A CEO IS the public face of an organization. And that organization, Mozilla, is one whose principal aim is to create an open and transparent substrate for the exchange of ideas and services. That is at odds with his own past actions.
The products and services a company creates is reflective of the people inside of it. His actions have made it difficult for LGBT members to join his organization (and possibly anyone else who is sensitive to such issues). This is ESPECIALLY true for anyone who will routinely be interacting with him. The lack of minorities in tech is already a big problem, and reducing that likelihood at one of the few principal stalwarts of the Internet is a missed opportunity.
I hope my startup one day becomes successful enough that I have to care about people calling me out in public for my political beliefs.
I'd love for the mob of whiney hipster-wannabe pseudo-leftist statist-hypocrite-idiots to try and "shame" me for saying that government is damage that should be routed around, and for saying that taxation is theft.
Am I wrong? Many of the responses here on HN and elsewhere online about this topic over the last 24 hours indicate that I am not.
Yes and no. I think you're more right than wrong, but it is important for all of us to be aware of the ways in which we create echo chambers around our own positions. "Online" encompasses a LOT of different kinds of thinking, but most of us (I believe) spend most of our online time in communities, and on sites, which are mostly populated with people who share a lot of our own beliefs. And we tend to assume that "The Internet" agrees with us, even when somebody with diametrically opposing views may feel exactly the same way.
IOW, don't mistake the "HN majority" or the "/r/politics majority" or the "/b/ majority", etc., as being representative of the real world.
[1]: https://brendaneich.com/2012/04/community-and-diversity/
[1] http://www.huffingtonpost.com/carlos-a-ball/is-it-possible-t...
1. Include LGBT individuals in making decisions regarding discrimination and inclusivity.
2. Continue health benefits for same-sex partners.
3. Uphold anti-discrimination policies.
4. Create new initiatives to reach out to those who feel marginalized.
5. Support an initialize for bringing under-represented people (including LGBT individuals) into tech.
And apparently he is committing to all these things despite holding a personal belief that marriage should be restricted to heterosexual couples.
I admit my perspective on this may be limited due to being a white, heterosexual male, but...
Why is having Brendan Eich's personal approval more important than having his support? Why does it matter what he believes internally if all his external actions are supportive?
We use products and services from numerous tech companies every day, never even asking how their CEOs feel about LGBT issues or what actions they take to be inclusive. But now people are upset because one of the few CEOs to make such a strong public statement of support for LGBT issues (I can't think of another one who has even made any statement at all) doesn't personally support homosexual marriages? It's bizarre. Why is silence (from other CEOs) better than a stated willingness to support people even if he disagrees with what they are doing personally?
I've been thinking about this again. After reading this I think he still stands to his opinion, that he personally thinks gay marriage is wrong. Obviously he's an idiot, but I think even idiots are entitled to their opinion as long as it doesn't interfere with his work at mozilla.
I think that is also what he's trying to say with his blog post. I think he made it pretty clear that he does not want this to interfere with his work at mozilla. So as long as he does not discriminate LGBT at work, I think he deserves a shot at it.
You can't force him to change his opinion. I think that is more honest than an apology he doesn't mean.
It's unreasonable to demand that someone change their mind about something (and would you believe it if he claimed he had?), but it's imperative to be sure that his personal opinion will not bleed into his executive function.
He knows he's outnumbered, and on the wrong side of history. But he recognizes that he can't change himself on demand. It's the best we can hope for in an honest person. Or, at least, it's the first step.
Vigilance, however, is warranted.
http://arstechnica.com/business/2014/03/gay-firefox-develope...
He may very well be committed to accepting the battles he has already lost. But that kind of social progress is an ever-moving target, and the statement doesn't demonstrate any willingness to keep pace.
Perhaps other in this community are right to point out that he's not actually apologised or gone back on his own personal views, but as much as I hate to say it, no amount of shouting and getting angry will get somebody with homophobic viewpoints to change their mind. Generally it takes new experiences involving very close friends or family to form a fresh world view.
This is probably the best you could expect. I personally was expecting something far less personal and far more corporate from this but he is instead saying that he is making a personal commitment to equality with his actions and not just his words or HR policies. That's great.
Brendan Eich doesn't just dislike gays getting married. He hates the concept so much he officially donated to prevent it from being possible.
I'm sorry, but I don't sympathize with the argument that he's "entitled to his opinions," because it's more than that. Nevermind that he's now CEO of Mozilla.
(I personally don't care if gays can get married in the eyes of a church or not; I care that gays are fundamentally unable to get the same benefits as other people.)
Gay marriage has gone from outrageous to a viable idea in my lifetime, it will take a decade or two for it to become almost universally accepted as the "right thing" as interracial marriage is today.
Yes. The jury's out on gay marriage still. We all know what the verdict will be, and people who don't support it will be carried along kicking and screaming, but it's still ok socially to oppose gay marriage.
That said, it was a stupid move on Mozilla's part. I'm sure he'll be great for the company, but now their masthead practically reads "We hate gays!"
I am worried I'll start sounding like an apologist for Eich even though it's not my role. On a different note I think the board should've brought in an outsider for the role so they can leverage experience that Mozilla might currently be lacking.
So yes, being against same-sex marriage is still OK as a personal opinion and does not stand in the way of being appointed CEO. The facts are your answer.
You are assuming that this change will be the same as that change. However, that is something history will show and that you cannot speed up by asking questions that only time will tell the answer to. This change is not yet the same as that change and consequently that change cannot yet be used as an argument for how to behave towards this change.
Eich does not regret his actions, he's just sorry that you felt pain because of the things he did. Classic business-ese non-apology.
Admitting a sudden change of heart would have zero effect on Mozilla. I'm not sure what result people are expecting otherwise, but if the workplace environment he describes in this post is satisfactory, what more can be changed?
As a newly-minted CEO, his character is on trial.
LOL. We've now descended into complete ridiculousness.
I do not know the Eich, and I am not gay, so the only thing I can compare it to is as someone who is Asian.
If I found out that the CEO of the company I work at was known to have donated to a proposition that didn't want Asians to have equal rights, or even simply, not be able to marry, I am not sure I could continue working there. Mozilla itself as an organization seems to be very supportive of everyone regardless of sexual orientation, race, or other preferences, so does that mean individually I am free to support legislation that will legalize inequality?
I understand that some LGBT employees at Mozilla have written in support of Eich, but is that fair to only take in the opinion of one person as the opinion of the rest of the group? If someone said, "Look Jackie is Asian, and when I do my ching-chong squinty-eye impression while wearing a conical hat, they laugh and are OK with it" that would still not make the situation okay despite how Jackie feels about it.
I guess I am confused, and would like to understand this situation. I'm not really looking for blood and seeking his resignation. It seems like in this post he is going to do what is right for the company and continue supporting their current policies. That part is great but why was he given a free pass before this post?
That's totally irrelevant with respect to what he'll do as a CEO. And, last time I checked, prohibiting your employees to marry, was not in a CEO's powers (or responsibilities).
The "right to have your own opinion" extends to everyone involved - pulling this card out to defend his beliefs doesn't end any debate.
If not, what is all this witchhunt about?
it is true that gay people were hurt, so they need to take extra care now that they do not start a new witchhunt.
The very first action should be an apology, but that hasn't happened and doesn't look like it'll ever happen.
This isn't right. The concern is about Brendan's fostering equality in the world, not just at Mozilla. Getting promoted just brought this 'issue' back into the forefront again. He is also now the face of Mozilla and some people who are concerned about equality in the world now feel differently about Mozilla because of that.
http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2008/09/our-position-on-calif...
The tech and open source community owes a lot to its LGBT contributors. When their rights are being threatened, we should be the first in line to offer support. That is why this situation is so upsetting to many of us.
This reminds me of seeing at Google the results of an internal survey on LGBT issues. The responses from some engineers, particularly from Russia, were so shockingly hateful it was truly frightening. I'm not sure why engineers who should be logic driven can become so irrationally hateful towards others who are unlike themselves. Giving $1000 to prevent someone else from getting married is quite a statement on his value structures.
However, it turns out that in the past, Bob supported groups that claimed that men and women did not deserve the same rights as citizens; for example, that women should not be able to vote, or be on a comparable pay scale.
Now appointed CEO, there is concern that Bob's views are out of line with the company's. Bob says that there is no reason to worry, that FizzBuzzCorp will keep paying its employees equally regardless of gender, giving them the same benefits, etc. as it has historically done.
However, Bob does not once say that he regrets his past actions, that they were misinformed, or anything of the sort. Bob insists that FizzBuzzCorp will keep upholding its values; nonetheless, not once does Bob say or do anything which may indicate that his views may have changed.
What do we make of Bob? Of FizzBuzzCorp?
If FizzBuzzCorp is in the business of building CMSs in PHP, and Bob believes that there is nothing unethical about the diamond business, those two things are far apart enough that you can reasonably trust Bob's opinions on the diamond trade to not influence his decisions as a leader. Even if you think the diamond business is the most awful thing ever, it's extremely unlikely that that Bob's views on the matter will influence the writing of PHP websites, and you can probably overlook it as an employee/customer/investor in FizzBuzzCorp (unless the diamond trade is something you feel really strongly about).
However, every company deals with human beings by nature, and implicitly takes a role in social progress just by virtue of being a part of society.
If Bob has certain beliefs about the nature of the rights that should be afforded to some humans but not others based on things like their gender (or race, or sexual orientation, or other), then the probability that those beliefs will interact with his decisions during his tenure as a leader is pretty high.
And what happens when that base leaves? You're basically left with a bunch of conservative, white guys (Lets be brutally honest) who hate gay people and god knows what else. My view has always been that racists are homophobes and homophobes think women should know their place. In a tech world trying to be more inclusive of all these groups this will cause Mozilla huge damage.
Talk about handing the keys of the castle to your competitors! I'm sure Facebook, Google et al will be itching to hire some good Mozilla devs!
For what it's worth some gay employees spoke out about how they feel Mozilla treats gay people, and it was pretty positive.
Eich holds an opinion that, while apparently shared with the majority of Californian voters (as per Prop 8 results), is deeply unpopular with segments of the technical population.
These are some of the folks who will help promote and test Mozilla's future releases. They are part of Mozilla's customer base. He had to apologize, because these days holding a politically incorrect opinion is unacceptable.
And as demonstrated in this very thread, even his apology isn't enough for some.
Mozilla is a wonderful organization, and I'll continue to use Firefox. I don't know if I'll be so willing to donate to the foundation as much anymore. The actions of one person shouldn't ruin all that Mozilla stands for. Regardless, Brendan Eich has tarnished his otherwise amazing reputation with donation to Prop 8 and his unwillingness to admit any wrongdoing. Mozilla's has also done the same to their own reputation by making him CEO.
How much has he, as a Mozilla employee, spent on pro-gay causes?
Releasing a pink Mozilla phone that sends Y% of profit to pro-gay causes might be a good move.
All I can say is that when one grows up having been physically, emotionally, verbally, and spiritually harassed for a greater part of one's life, these little things end up bringing up the whole ball of shit.
It short circuits logic, but it's a common human trait. Some Jewish people still won't buy Volkswagon cars, for example, and I remember hearing WWII Veterans who wouldn't buy anything from Japan.
Pain has a long, long memory.
> According to the United States Government Accountability Office (GAO), there are 1,138 statutory provisions[1] in which marital status is a factor in determining benefits, rights, and privileges. These rights were a key issue in the debate over federal recognition of same-sex marriage.
For 2012 he proactively spent good money to ensure LGBT should not get those benefits, rights and privileges. That is why people are upset with this and find it hard to let it slide or be a personal matter.
In the world of businesses (and even Mozilla) it's generally wise not to take people at face value and let their actions do their talking. So far the only action is a negative and so he is judged in the way he is.
I would also note that he does not really offer an apology for his actions, only "sorrow at having caused pain" which sounds like the bare minimum he could get away with
It's not his only action, although it may be the only action people are interested in, or the only action that we remember because it has drawn so much attention. I would be interested in a more comprehensive history of Brendan's life.
Well, nothing obvious about it. It's just a cultural preference. If you were born merely 30 years ago, or in another culture, you'd be laughed for even considering the idea of gay marriage. Make it 100 years ago and you would be considered a madman.
The thing is, HE might have been raised in another culture than yours (e.g some conservative environment). And there's nothing objective to tell one belief is better than the other.
Allowing gay marriage is surely more permissive, but believing that "more permissive is better" is a value judgement, not some natural law.
I don't really care if he changes his opinion or not; I have an issue with people who go out of their way to prevent other people from having something when it loses them nothing.
If there was any sort of reason why banning gay marriage was economically beneficial or caused tangible harm to any group of people, then it would be 'live and let live', but at some point, he decided to attempt to prevent gay people from getting married for no reason other than what effectively comes down to spite. That's not really someone I trust in a leadership position.
I can only speak for myself here. I'm 24, and I grew up with the view that religion was a funny ritual the neighbours carried on, because it gave them something to do. Repeat: I grew up with a limited perspective. I saw marriage only as an expensive party and a legal contract.
Now I know this isn't the whole story. The idea of allowing gay marriage is deeply offensive to people only because it is perceived to destroy the integrity of their tradition and cultural heritage. I wouldn't take it too lightly, what gay marriage is asking of those who maintain that heritage, because in their hearts it isn't heritage, it's truth.
That's how it seems to me now anyway.
I don't really care if they change their opinion or not; I too have an issue with people who go out of their way to prevent other people from having something—such as a CEO position, or from believing something—when it costs them nothing.
If there was any sort of reason why making opposition to gay marriage a thoughtcrime was economically beneficial or caused no [I suppose you meant] tangible harm to any group of people, then it would be 'live and let live', but at some point, they decided to attempt to prevent prop 8 supporters from holding high-profile jobs for no reason other than what effectively comes down to spite. That's not really someone I trust in my society.
World is not black and white, and has never been.
Are there any other reasons?
You'd be surprised. That's just a myth we have, to justify crazy salaries.
In fact, there have been tons of CEOs with golden parachutes who could not give a flying duck for the company that hired them. Nokia's recent-ish management comes to mind.
Homophobia and opposition to gay marriage are in my opinion completely different issues, even if they involve many of the same people. We can't automatically hold someone accountable for both.
Are those the thought processes you want in control of one of the world's most impactful technology companies?
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compartmentalization_(psycholo...
[2] https://brendaneich.com/2012/04/community-and-diversity/
But I still think the reaction to rarebit pulling their app was problematic. Brendan can have his personal opinion, and rarebit can decide that they don't want to do business with the company whose CEO has that opinion. The "mixing personal opinions and business" crap is just that, crap. Everyone decides their limits, everyone decides who they are willing to do business with.
Combative and messy, but it might be what progress looks like.
Enough people have gotten in touch about this that hopefully he'll change his mind about marriage rights in society at large (today's post was still specifically about Mozilla's principles), but he will probably hold on to the fact that this topic is a private (by which people often mean religious) matter for a while longer.
It's satisfactory as long as he doesn't abuse his position of power to impose or further his personal political/religious beliefs within Mozilla.
It can happen. Take New York Senator Mark Grisanti as an example. He ran on the campaign against gay marriage. When the vote came up for the Marriage Equality Act, he studied the issue extensively and changed his mind. He voted "yes" on the bill. The bill passed despite needing a couple Republican votes "yes" in order to do so.
Watch the speech he gave when voting. It is really inspiring. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zEfN26t5yk8
"I would not respect myself if I didn't do the research, have an open mind, and make a decision, an informed decision, based on the information before me"
Just doing my part to counteract the HN echo chamber, and demonstrate that there are technically capable, intelligent persons on the other side of this debate, for the benefit of the technically capable, intelligent persons that may be shamed out of their accurate opinion by the bullying of the pro-gay lobby.
Even if you're not for gay marriage yourself, why would you want to stop that ability someone else for whom that's important? There are very few things in life that are truly truly significant for someone, and for many family is one of them. Wanting to put a wedge in that for someone else IS a hateful action.
Instead, the state would offer civil unions to any two consenting people.
Now if Mr. RightWing doesn't like your gay marriage, he doesn't have to recognize it, but the state will still issue your "union" without discrimination.
The main issue I took with Prop 8 wasn't necessarily that it was discriminatory (although I don't like that either) but that it was taking away rights from a group of people by encoding it into the state's constitution...which is generally a document which codifies people's rights, not lack thereof.
That baffles me. Do you not have any friends with non-citizen partners? Do you live in a really rural place or something? Are you mostly friends with straight people? I'm trying to understand how you haven't come across couples like that. Those partners can't currently come to the U.S. and work, unlike their straight counterparts. And depending on where they are from, in many cases, there is no country in the world both partners can live and work.
That seems righteously messed up to me. And maybe you think we should be able to sponsor immigrants without getting married (as I do) but that law isn't on the table and same-sex marriage is. Given that, I don't know why you would prefer same-sex marriage to be illegal.
His actions that have an effect indistinguishable from hating them. It turns out this is a thing he actually did.
Apologising for how you vote, or what you believe, or what policies you root for is not democracy. And, yes, in a democracy you can also vote to restrict what other people can do. In fact, almost all laws are created for this very reason: to restrict certain actions.
He didn't do anything in his professional capacity that he should be apologising for.
This is about decency. What kind of person goes out of his way to oppress other people? Is that the kind of person I want heading an organization I'm affiliated with? No. Will it affect the Mozilla organization because others feel the way I do? It appears so. Given that, is Eich a good choice for CEO? Probably not.
If you don't regret your actions, don't torture language to issue a false apology.
I have serious questions about the sincerity of the motives of people who do it.
What an apology basically says is that if you had a time machine you would travel back in time and do something differently. What you would do differently, however, is crucially important for whether an apology is meaningful or not.
Are you sorry that you were found out? Or are you actually sorry for doing what you are criticised for?
That issue is never tackled head-on in this post and that is a very valid (and not poisonous) reason to be unsatisfied with this non-apology apology.
He is of course completely free to continue holding his bigoted views (and I certainly would never want him to lie about being sorry, that would be much worse than this apology), but as long as he only apologises for caused sorrow and not actually holding those views he should not expect to be excused from criticism.
Sometimes it is better to say nothing. This post should have remained focused on Eich's workplace policies and promises to staff.
I sometimes feel sorry that some of my actions inevitably cause pain to somebody. Firing an employee causes pain to the employee. I'm sorry for the pain, but not for the action.
And it's even further from "I'm sorry for punching you in the face. I was wrong to do that."
Saying you're sorry you hurt someone, is you taking responsibility for something you did. Saying you're sorry someone got hurt, sounds like the victim was wrong for getting hurt, and it's the victim's responsibility.
Integrity is higher on my values list than many of the tech and community connections he can bring to the table. I would also disagree with his personal beliefs in being a snake-handler (if he was one) but would find no issue with his leadership ability as long as he didn't bring those beliefs to the organization.
Or: "Well, if you say yes, why? Is there some scientific explanation of why an arbitrary human custom should be offered to everybody as opposed to only some, based on the moral code one has?".
Perhaps donating to Prop 8 was "trying to impose" but the backlash is of the same ilk.
Not because he has a different stance on moral issue X.
I understand that various (probably arbitrary) interpretations can be attached to a sentence by assuming metaphorical, implied, contextually altered, ironic, humorous, etc meanings of words. I still prefer to assume as little as possible: pluralitas non est ponenda sine necessitas.
I can only ask for your support to have the time to “show, not tell”; and in the meantime express my sorrow at having caused pain.
I will rewrite this for him.
"I can only ask for your support to have the time to "show, not tell"; and in the meantime I want to show you my sadness, regret for causing you feeling distress and uncomfortable."
I replace express and sorrow with definition coming straight out of a dictionary.
So is the alternative to hold a personal belief, and not ever do anything about it? (Not that I support this particular example.)
Sometimes vital personal beliefs are in conflict, and to do nothing could be dangerous.
Freedom of speech vs freedom of religion conflicts, such as are seen in parts of Europe, are a great example: neither side has been able to reconcile without "crushing" part of the other side's view. And yet both views are obviously important, with a lot of validity.
Let me repeat that: Eich is apologizing for his opinion.
Not his actions as Mozilla CEO or even as an employee.
The response from some quarters to punish his deviation from what some parties have declared "acceptable" is breathtaking. It has all the makings of Stalinesque purge with a Web 2.0 twist. Given the subject itself and how so recently it was considered "abnormal" and "unacceptable", I find the whole episode tragically ironic.
I have no problem with gay marriage. But I am revulsed by the mob screaming for blood due to Eich's thoughtcrime on this matter.
It's a system of government that says you are entitled to your opinion and your vote. It's not just about how you put politicians in office.
>This is about decency. What kind of person goes out of his way to oppress other people?
The same kind of person who thinks that people who are against X or pro Y, should lose job opportunities because of opinions unrelated to their work behavior.
Nobody's denying Mozilla's right to hire him as CEO, just as nobody denied other companies' right to prop up apartheid South Africa. The fact is that actions have consequences, and those companies must weigh the benefits of their actions against the possibility (very real as we've seen in this case) that others will justifiably not want to associate with the business as a result.
They should have the exact same right in the exaxt same way: as "private citizens".
That is, not as Mozilla employees trying to oppose a CEO placement.
That they don't like his personal beliefs should in no way get in the way of working with him -- unless he brings those to the way the company operates.
> According to the United States Government Accountability Office (GAO), there are 1,138 statutory provisions[1] in which marital status is a factor in determining benefits, rights, and privileges. These rights were a key issue in the debate over federal recognition of same-sex marriage.
The right to see your spouse in the hospital, even (and particularly) if their family doesn't accept that their child is homosexual and attempts to ban a partner. (And this isn't a hypothetical; if you google you'll find just heart wrenching stories.)
It eases medical decisions when a gay spouse is badly injured or dying.
If there are children, both parents can have the right to care for them and make decisions for them.
The right not to testify against your spouse in some legal proceedings.
The right to get joint medical insurance.
Retirement benefits, which are particularly important when a higher income spouse passes first.
And more. See eg http://www.freedomtomarry.org/
edit: and a very important benefit: being treated as a first class citizen, ie one with the right to have your relationship recognized just like straight people have their relationships recognized.
A contract is only binding on the parties. Most of the marriage rights that gays want are significant because they apply to people NOT in the marriage.
Promising action to the contrary sounds a lot better.
I don't think that Brendan's stomach turns when he's around gay people or anything like that. However, I do believe that as the CEO of an entity (especially Mozilla), his beliefs will necessarily influence his actions; and that the particular beliefs highlighted by this action are at odds with Mozilla, thus making him ill-suited for a CEO role.
I would worry about the possible impact of Brendan's personal beliefs if I thought that he truly has a heartfelt disdain for whole classes of people, but as far as I can tell, he doesn't.
The question of whether to support gay marriage doesn't always reduce to bigotry and homophobia. In Brendan's case, although no one seems to know, I think it comes down to a simple and specific commitment to a traditional idea of marriage, and it probably doesn't have the far-reaching implications that people assume.
Of course, his donation could have been motivated by complex ideologies. In that case, if we're going to hold people to such a high standard on the moral checklist, then I would worry more about the things that we don't know than the little glimpses we have into the inner lives of our leaders.
It's interesting to see where all this public discussion is going.
Ok, I have a question. What exactly do these people think a traditional marriage is? Marriage is always and has always evolved with the times, culture, and societal norms and thinking. It wasn't until recently that we even married for love (love marriages) or selected our own spouse. Previously, marriages were more like a business transaction. A transfer of property from father to husband. It used to be that a woman's family paid a bride's dowry and we had the concept of bridewealth and coverture. In the UK, it wasn't until the Married Women's Property Act 1870 when a married woman was allowed to own property. Divorce was at a time uncommon, maybe even forbidden, now it is relatively common. Very few people are even going to blink an eye at a divorce. Even 20 years ago, people married much younger. Previously, a child born out of wedlock was called a bastard and avoided at all cost, and had different rights than their legitimate siblings, now close to 50% of births in the US are born to unwed mothers. The shotgun wedding is less common. Step families are common. Interracial marriage?? Illegal in parts of the US until Loving vs. Virgina. (1967!!) The court case came out of Mildred Loving and Richard Loving being sentenced to a year in jail for getting married. The original judge said in the verdict "Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix."
Even these traditions varied with culture, religion, time, and family. They continue to today. Arranged marriages are common and even the norm in some areas. Today.
There is no such thing as a traditional marriage. There never was.
In the same way as Racism and support for Apartheid are completely orthogonal.
Come on...
For instance, I do know many people who oppose gay marriage but are not homophobic.
There is no "I have nothing against them but they should not have equal rights". If you opt not to support equal rights for any given group of people you believe their way of life is not as valid as yours.
A person with sexual attraction to the same sex can restrain his behavior and not engage in sexual activity, despite his attraction. A person with a skin color cannot restrain his skin color, and cannot ever not "act on" his skin color, no matter what choices he makes. Homosexuality is not externally visible, but race is. It is not automatically shown at all times despite the behavior, wishes, or intention of the person, but race is. Someone who makes judgments based on willful sexual behaviors is fundamentally different from someone who makes judgments based on involuntarily hereditary attributes.
This is the difference that must be realized when we talk about racism as it compares to "homophobia". Homosexual behavior, and homosexual marriage, is a thing people choose to do, whatever biological or psychological forces may or may not be at work in the promotion of that behavior. This is completely different from visibly possessing certain levels of skin pigmentation.
"Homophobes" are not the same as racists. Whatever your opinion is, you must acknowledge that "homophobes" oppose a sexual behavior, whereas racists oppose the existence of a class of persons, no matter what choices they've made. Whether you think homosexuality is OK or not, there is a clear difference here.
Please acknowledge the failure of your analogy.
But they will defend to the death the need to uphold the pagan Roman tradition.