We didn't act like you'd expect Mozilla to act. We didn't move fast enough to engage with people once the controversy started. We're sorry. We must do better.
Brendan Eich has chosen to step down from his role as CEO. He's made this decision for Mozilla and our community.
Mozilla believes both in equality and freedom of speech. Equality is necessary for meaningful speech. And you need free speech to fight for equality. Figuring out how to stand for both at the same time can be hard.Our organizational culture reflects diversity and inclusiveness. We welcome contributions from everyone regardless of age, culture, ethnicity, gender, gender-identity, language, race, sexual orientation, geographical location and religious views. Mozilla supports equality for all.
We have employees with a wide diversity of views. Our culture of openness extends to encouraging staff and community to share their beliefs and opinions in public. This is meant to distinguish Mozilla from most organizations and hold us to a higher standard. But this time we failed to listen, to engage, and to be guided by our community.
As of this time, there is no named successor or statement on who will be taking over Mozilla's leadership.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by samjam on Thursday April 03 2014, @07:55PM
so do we expect revenge houndings now?
this brave new world is just as bad as the old one
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Ethanol-fueled on Thursday April 03 2014, @08:07PM
Think about it from the perspective of a shareholder (and nevermind whether or not Mozilla has "shareholders," you get the point) with a stake in the organization: Personal opinions aside, putting such a controversial guy in charge is bad for business, and will impede accomplishing goals. It all boils down to business. This is the kind of shit that will sink any politician's career, because they're held to a higher standard, especially if they represent a liberal-leaning organization.
If Mozilla needed that one guy that bad, they could have set up a dummy puppet who's good at public speaking to be a straw-president for Brendan Eich. That thousand bucks he donated could have been better spent on a cruise for 2 from California to Cabo, or feeding a thousand starving African families for a month, or helped out with a scholarship for underprivileged youths. Had he just said a slur or something I would have laughed, but actually going out of your way to donate? As The Police hit single goes, "Don't stand so close to me..."
(Score: 1) by Buck Feta on Thursday April 03 2014, @08:27PM
> As The Police hit single goes, "Don't stand so close to me..."
Are you trying to say he's a child molester too?
- fractious political commentary goes here -
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 03 2014, @08:36PM
Replying anon because offtopic, but despite your sarcasm(that was sarcasm, right?) hating gays is almost as bad, in the public eye, and in fact I predict that racial and/or sexual bigots will eventually be treated as badly, with registries and all -- gotta keep those private prisons profitable somehow.
Shit, our military is one of the most conservative organizations on the planet, and even they're mainstreaming gays. That's gotta tell you something.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Grishnakh on Thursday April 03 2014, @08:43PM
I think this is a bit ridiculous. The US still has the First Amendment, and we still have idiots like the KKK and WBC. People can say whatever they want here without worrying about going to prison (just don't get caught with a naturally-growing plant that most Americans now think is far less harmful than alcohol). However, having free speech doesn't mean everyone has to put up with you and be nice to you; they're free to shun you, fire you, refuse to do business with you, call you names, etc.
The military isn't that conservative; it integrated black people faster than a lot of other areas of society did. The military is nothing if not pragmatic, and if being inclusive of others helps them get the mission done better and faster, that's what they'll do.
(Score: 0, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 03 2014, @08:58PM
" However, having free speech doesn't mean everyone has to put up with you and be nice to you; they're free to shun you, fire you, refuse to do business with you, call you names, etc."
Wow, so what you're saying is that it's ok to do those things if someone for instance supports gay rights or womens rights? Or does this only apply with opinions that differs from yours?
(Score: 1, Insightful) by youngatheart on Thursday April 03 2014, @09:27PM
This only applies to people who are on the unpopular side of the politically correct majority. Obviously.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by cwix on Thursday April 03 2014, @09:38PM
You and everyone else in the country has the right to free speech (Donating money) You do not have the right to be free from criticism (which is others' free speech).
(Score: 1) by youngatheart on Thursday April 03 2014, @10:50PM
You're right of course. I was speaking tongue-in-cheek but the simple reality is that if you speak against the majority politically correct opinion, you're far more likely to suffer than if you speak to agree with it. The broader reality is that people who need good public opinion suffer the most any time they are involved with anything controversial and sometimes just if they're interesting.
(Score: 1) by Yog-Yogguth on Friday April 04 2014, @06:27AM
And if you're not on the right side whatever that is now or in the future then you're out of luck and a job and any rights at all in practice. You just now saw it happen. Same reason you have no rights when commenting on most "news" sites: you'll just disappear if that is in any way convenient, that's pure unmitigated fascism in full practice.
That's not something anyone ought to support because it makes them themselves hypocrites and bigots no matter what opinion they should happen to hold or oppose.
I find it dismaying that a lot of people seem unable to understand something this simple, never mind all that follows.
Bite harder Ouroboros, bite! tails.boum.org/ linux USB CD secure desktop IRC *crypt tor (not endorsements (XKeyScore))
(Score: 1) by velex on Thursday April 03 2014, @10:43PM
Well, what's the alternative?
If somebody is giving money to a political cause I disapprove of, why should I give that person money? I dropped Firefox when I heard the browser was getting ads.
What exactly are you suggesting?
I've had the cops called on me just because some jackass Dairy Queen owner thought I was one gender and then discovered evidence that I might be another gender. It's his business, and he had every right to freak out and call the cops. He won't need to worry about getting any more of my money, and now we're both happy. It works both ways.
What about Hobby Lobby or Chik-Filla (or whatever it's called)? Are you saying that I should be forced to spend money at those businesses? Why can't I have the free choice to decide that I'd prefer not to shop at Hobby Lobby, Chik-Filla, Dairy Queen, or use a Mozilla browser that may get in-application ads and certainly gets compensation from Google every time I use the search widget.
With apologies to Voltaire, I'd defend this guy's right to say whatever shit he wants to the death. However, he isn't free from the consequences of using his right to free speech. And I sure as hell have the freedom to decide where I spend my money and click-throughs.
You know, isn't that great? Christians who believe I'm going to burn in eternal hellfire and am attempting to turn their sons into faggots and for whatever reason trying to turn their democracy into a socialism (with my libertarian leanings??? I guess?? I try not to make sense of it) can shop at Hobby Lobby, get some dinner at Chick-Filla, and have some crap ice cream at Diary Queen to their heart's content.
Hell, I've said before and I'll say it again. Why don't those businesses and other businesses like those just put up signs that say LGBT Not Welcome so I can know for sure to take my money elsewhere?
(Score: 1) by Grishnakh on Friday April 04 2014, @02:57PM
No, it's legally permissible to do it any time. It's called "freedom of association". It should be fairly obvious that this necessarily leads to the phenomenon whereby people who vocalize unpopular opinions themselves become unpopular, and people don't want to associate with them. Yes, that means that if you say something unpopular, will may suffer negative consequences. That's the way it works in a place with freedom of speech and freedom of association. You can say whatever idiotic crap you want, and I'm free to take my business elsewhere, criticize you, call you a bigot or other names, call for your resignation or firing, etc.
It's not just "politically correct" stuff; it entirely varies by location and context. Spouting anti-LGBT stuff in the liberal cities of California is not going to win you many friends there. Similarly, spouting pro-LGBT messages in rural Mississippi or Nebraska isn't likely to win you many friends there either. If Eich had taken a position as CEO of some oil pipeline company in Missouri, he probably wouldn't have had any trouble. Instead, he tried to take a top position in Mountain View, California, right next to San Francisco which is famous for being a LGBT hotspot and ultra-liberal, at a company that promises in its mission statement to be non-discriminatory and seems to take that seriously. The only way he could have screwed up worse is if he had tried to take an executive position at HuffPost or Starbucks, as those places would have kicked him out within minutes of finding out about his public political stance on LGBT.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by evilviper on Friday April 04 2014, @01:03AM
Oh good... Prepare for a rash of gay-marriage SUPPORTERS being fired from their jobs in 3... 2... 1...
Hydrogen cyanide is a delicious and necessary part of the human diet.
(Score: 1) by Grishnakh on Friday April 04 2014, @02:27PM
Unfortunately, that's quite possible. However, the gay-marriage supporters tend not to be as vocal; such a person working at a place with ultra-conservative bosses probably knows enough to keep their mouth shut at work. Also, your typical liberal gay-marriage supporter probably doesn't donate thousands of dollars to PACs like that.
(Score: 1) by Buck Feta on Thursday April 03 2014, @09:01PM
I'm not defending the guy and I don't subscribe to his point of view. I just thought it was a particularly amusing choice of metaphor in the context of a discussion about bigotry vs. vigilante justice.
- fractious political commentary goes here -
(Score: 3, Informative) by fliptop on Thursday April 03 2014, @08:51PM
I dunno, Robert Byrd [wikipedia.org] seemed to escape unscathed.
Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.
(Score: 2) by Thexalon on Thursday April 03 2014, @10:28PM
Not just him: Strohm Thurmond, Jesse Helms, and many other unrepentant bigots had very successful political careers. They arguably did better than the repenting former bigots like George Wallace.
One reason bigotry doesn't cost politicians their careers is that there still are a lot of bigots out there in the electorate who express their bigotry at the ballot box. For example, Ohio generally has a slight Republican majority in the electorate, but when in 2006 the Ohio Republican Party ran a black candidate for governor his white Democratic opponent won in a landslide. In that same election, white Republican candidates got the same support they always had, and the black Republican in question (Ken Blackwell) was a well-qualified and well-known candidate with solidly conservative credentials, so I highly doubt that the odd-looking result for governor had anything to do with the Ohio electorate suddenly all becoming Democratic supporters.
"Think of how stupid the average person is. Then realize half of 'em are stupider than that." - George Carlin
(Score: 1) by GeminiDomino on Thursday April 03 2014, @08:52PM
FYI: In development docs, the term for someone like that is, fittingly enough, "stakeholder."
Other than that, I don't have much to add other than that your (surprisingly lucid ;) ) post pretty much nails it down, AFAIC.
"We've been attacked by the intelligent, educated segment of our culture"
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 04 2014, @02:30AM
Shareholder?
Isn't Mozilla a non-profit? Working for the benefit of the many, not the vocal few?
Aren't the "shareholders" those who have supported Mozilla's rise to prominance? People like Eich and myself? Are these shareholders no longer welcome?
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Sir Garlon on Thursday April 03 2014, @08:22PM
At some point I wish we as a society could get it through our heads that two wrongs don't make a right. Grown-ups sometimes have to deal with people who disagree with them. It's hard to see how punishing someone for his past political support is morally superior to punishing someone for his sexual orientation. To me that just looks like two kinds of blind hate, both repugnant.
[Sir Garlon] is the marvellest knight that is now living, for he destroyeth many good knights, for he goeth invisible.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by starcraftsicko on Thursday April 03 2014, @08:45PM
This. Exactly this. You can't claim to believe in freedom of speech and still support mob hate of people with different opinions.
This post was created with recycled electrons.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by pe1rxq on Thursday April 03 2014, @09:10PM
Bullshit.
He has freedom of speach. He may voice his opinion, no matter how stupid, but that opinion might influence the behavior of other people.
And calling for a boycot is not 'mob hate'. They were simply pointing out that he could never fullfill the promisses mozilla made.
(Score: 2) by cwix on Thursday April 03 2014, @09:41PM
This is exactly what I have been trying to say.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by frojack on Thursday April 03 2014, @11:57PM
And both of you are wrong.
You've stripped a person of his political free will and his job, on the assumption he couldn't possibly do his job with his set of beliefs.
That is bigotry pure and simple. Very odd that you claim to be able to detect bigotry in everyone else while being oblivious to your own.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 2) by Angry Jesus on Friday April 04 2014, @02:31AM
> You've stripped a person of his political free will and his job,
> on the assumption he couldn't possibly do his job with his set of beliefs.
When his expressed and acted on beliefs are in direct contradiction with a portion of the job's responsibilities then to insist that everybody is simply assuming he can't do it is willful blindness.
Of course, that kind of blindness isn't anything new, we keep hiring telecom lobbyists to run the FCC.
(Score: 1) by rochrist on Friday April 04 2014, @08:36PM
I love the smell of the 'your intolerance or my intolerance is intolerance' argument.!
(Score: 2, Insightful) by starcraftsicko on Friday April 04 2014, @01:15AM
Speech. blah. .
.
Shenanigans on your 'bullshit'. Boycott is exactly the economic expression of mob hate. It may even be justified sometimes, but I'm not sure this is the time.
.
Mozilla develops software -- the CEO's political contributions really shouldn't be an issue unless they tie somehow to policy. If Mozilla started blocking sites that supported gay marriage or if the company started firing employees who were gay and married, that'd be a real problem.
.
I guess I'll try to make the point by reversing the situation. Do you remember the 'Christian Coalition'? Neither do I -- Not even sure the still exist in as a relevant political force... but I seem to remember that they were the type of faith-based 'family values' organization that would be against 'gay marriage'. So...
.
Imagine that Bank Of America promoted an internal employee to CEO. And just for fun, imagine that he once donated $1000 to an organization that was working to defeat Prop8. And that some CC folks found out about this...
[Why BoA? Because I think they suck. And because their corporate HQ is close to where I think a lot of 'Christian Coalition' folks would stereotypically live.]
.
So of course the CC folks protest and announce a boycott and demand his ouster. To be clear, this is not a piddly little OK Cupid web whine boycott. This is several million stereotypical CC sheeple closing real accounts and costing actual shareholders actual money. You bet there'd be a reaction.
.
So... please pick YOUR reaction to the story:
.
A) Yay CC using your power of FREE SPEECH and the power of the purse to keep people you might disagree with from leading corporations! I fully support your RIGHT to keep people who like gay marriage from ever obtaining positions of power or influence and will declare Bullshit on all who oppose you!
.
B) Boo CC for abusing your power of FREE SPEECH and power of the purse to tear down and silence those who disagree with you and were just working to defend the rights of others! I acknowledge your RIGHT to participate but feel it is unreasonable for you to sue that to deny others careers in unrelated areas!
.
.
.
Mr. Eich participated in a mainstream political discussion and debate. He did so in a very mainstream way by making a small political donation. He wasn't manning barricades, or beating up would-be opponents, or actively terrorizing the opposition. He didn't pour millions into a (super?)PAC. He didn't appear in advertisements or lead rallies. He hasn't used his position(s) of alleged importance to launch attacks against political opponents. Besides that, he may well be a giant douche, but I have no evidence of this.
.
He should not have his career options limited in this way.
This post was created with recycled electrons.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Angry Jesus on Friday April 04 2014, @02:38AM
> Mozilla develops software -- the CEO's political contributions really
> shouldn't be an issue unless they tie somehow to policy.
No, developing software is one way in which they implement their vision which is that "openness, innovation and opportunity are key to the continued health of the internet." [mozilla.org] Eichs beliefs and even more importantly his actions are in contradiction with that vision - opportunity only for some is not really opportunity at all, it is privilege.
(Score: 1) by starcraftsicko on Friday April 04 2014, @04:03AM
Not sure what you mean by this enough to respond. Feel free to clarify:
.
"his actions" - Anything here other than a political donation? I want to make sure that I'm not missing something. Actions implies plural if nothing else, so feel free to pile on.
.
"opportunity only for some is not really opportunity at all" - I really have no idea where you are going here. Giving employment advancement opportunities only to those who march in political lock-step with you does seem contrary to Mozilla's vision, but this doesn't seem to be what you mean in context. So I'm confused.
.
"it is privilege" - Again, no idea what you mean? Being a CEO is a privilege? Participation in the political process is a privilege? I'm lost.
This post was created with recycled electrons.
(Score: 2) by Angry Jesus on Friday April 04 2014, @06:20AM
> privilege
Marriage for the privileged.
(Score: 1) by starcraftsicko on Friday April 04 2014, @09:43AM
*sigh* So I'll talk about the underlying issue and express an unpopular opinion.
.
Marriage is a privilege in the USofA. Anything that requires the permission of the government, the regulation of the government, the participation of government, is a privilege granted by that government. By demanding the government's recognition and role, you concede their participation and the relegation to privilege. By living in a [pseudo] democracy, you are dependent on the will of the majority for that privilege. Better keep the mobs happy, eh?
.
And that regulation is real. This [wikipedia.org] may make interesting reading. Sometimes the government bestows the privilege on the unwilling, to their detriment. And they do this to the cheering of the mobs. They (we?) want this regulation. We limit the types of relationships and the age [about.com] of the participation.
.
At least in my lifetime [limited sample >1975], marriage [modern, western, hetero, puritan] has been available to nearly all individuals [age restrictions apply] individuals in the USofA. It's regulated; limited by "tradition" to a single valid combination with occasional, controversial deviations. Anyone can get married, but not any combination. So in spite of the government's participation, the statement that access to marriage has been prohibited to any individual, except due to limited age, is specious.
.
Discussion and reconsideration of what combinations of people government(s) what to grant this privilege to has been active of late. Marriage has been conflated with sexual activity [wikipedia.org] despite the fact we've mostly separated these everywhere else in Western society leading to fundamentalism on both sides. Which brings us back to our starting point.
.
If government can grant the privilege of marriage based on rules that it thinks are right or just or otherwise correct, it can change its mind about it later if it has a different view of rightness or justness. That makes the Arabian, or the Iranian, or the Chinese, or the Russian or the Texan or the Nigerian position valid (and fundamentally reasonable) in their respective places. I'm not sure I like that; moral relativism can be uncomfortable.
.
If government MUST ACCEPT different combinations if a court or political figure or mob says so, then it's participation is meaningless and wasteful. Even seeking the consent or participation of government is pointless as their consent indicates nothing.
.
If only one set of rules can EVER be right or just or valid, then government can be a gatekeeper enforcing those rules. Problem here is that our best justifications tend to be traditional (often expressed as religious), and we get stumped when we try to dig into "why". And if the rules can change -- gay marriage -- we get pushed back on the prior cases.
.
My view - Unless government wants to be in the business of criminalizing reproduction between unmarried individuals, they should get out of the marriage business altogether. Those positions are philosophically consistent - others trip on their own hypocrisy pretty quick. The current situation and the fundamentalisms created are monumentally dumb. The current situation fails the "why" test as surely as the the traditional.
.
But getting someone fired for participation in protected political speech (SCOTUS says spending = speech) reeks of mob fundamentalism at best and victor's justice at worst. If we want to live in a world where that's acceptable, we had best recognize that others can do the same. So... go Vikings! [cbsnews.com]?
This post was created with recycled electrons.
(Score: 2) by Angry Jesus on Friday April 04 2014, @12:18PM
> But getting someone fired for participation in protected political speech
Skipped most of your sophistry, but that particular bit is such a common meme it needs to be quashed.
Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequences for your speech. If you have a job that depends on public opinion then losing your job because of public opinion is part of the deal. If you can't handle that risk, don't take that kind of job in the first place.
Your personal problem here is that you don't agree with public opinion. Own that instead of trying to employ pretzel logic to dance around it.
(Score: 2) by Sir Garlon on Friday April 04 2014, @01:55PM
It's possible to agree that gay people should be able to get married if they want, yet disagree with tarring and feathering someone who opposes that position.
[Sir Garlon] is the marvellest knight that is now living, for he destroyeth many good knights, for he goeth invisible.
(Score: 2) by Angry Jesus on Friday April 04 2014, @03:29PM
> It's possible to agree that gay people should be able to get married if they want,
> yet disagree with tarring and feathering someone who opposes that position.
This isn't about just someone. This is about someone who wanted to represent an organization that claims a set of principles in contradiction with that belief.
Every time someone defends Eich they have to leave out part of the story. That you have to lie through omission to make your point pretty much proves your point is invalid.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by GeminiDomino on Thursday April 03 2014, @08:54PM
Ah, the old "If you're against intolerance, you have to tolerate intolerance" dodge.
It wasn't particularly clever the first time it was attempted, and hasn't become any more so in its endless echoing.
"We've been attacked by the intelligent, educated segment of our culture"
(Score: 2, Offtopic) by Tork on Thursday April 03 2014, @08:57PM
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈
(Score: 4, Insightful) by TheGratefulNet on Thursday April 03 2014, @09:17PM
a big diff: our hate of him takes him out of power. his funding/hate for gays removes their rights.
which is better: that one man lose his job or that so many others lose a right they should not be losing?
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
(Score: 2) by threedigits on Friday April 04 2014, @08:13AM
What power? The power of leading a free browser development organization?
No, face it as it is: your deliberated hate actions make his life more miserable, just because he has different beliefs than you. I'm deeply sorry, but I cannot support this kind of behaviour.
(Score: 2) by TheGratefulNet on Friday April 04 2014, @09:18PM
he can have different beliefs all he wants.
what he CANNOT be allowed to do is to force others (by rule of law) to follow HIS views.
his views are toxic. he's an asshole (by his views, alone, I can say this confidently). also he created javascript so that makes him double the asshole (sorry..)
my hate is for him, alone. he wants to restrict other peoples' freedom. not one person but everyone who fits into this group of people he seems to think are 'wrong'.
hating one person for trying to force his views on everyone else is not a bad thing.
hating a whole group of people because they believe differently AND trying to take away their rights is quite evil.
again, this is not moral relativism. there IS an absolute right and wrong here. only christians and muslims seem to absolutely hate gays. other religions don't universally have a problem with them and most modern non-religious people also have no problems with gays.
gays are the new 'blacks'. it was wrong to hate black people and to remove their rights and its equally as wrong to hate gays and to try to remove their rights.
all based on his christian views. what a fucking waste. I never understood why christians have to get 'in other peoples shit' so much. why can't they just accept that their views are not held by everyone and leave it at that? why FORCE everyone to adopt their tiny narrow world views? no one ever voted them speakers for the whole world or even the US.
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
(Score: 2) by threedigits on Tuesday April 08 2014, @04:10PM
OK, let's dot a few "i" and cross a few "t":
AFAIK, this is NOT what the law proposal he backed was about. It did not criminalize gays or their union, just the ability to call their union "marriage".
I translate that as "I don't like him". So what?
Hate is not a positive feeling. You will do bad if you let it drive your decisions.
That's right. That's what laws are about.
Yes, it is. Arguing is right, as is opposing to. Hating is another thing altogether.
I haven't seen hate in any of his actions. He has a moral position, which may be wrong, but doesn't imply hate.
My personal observation is that right or wrong are always relative to who you ask. For example, you may consider which evil is greater: opposing gay marriage (which is something that can be reverted) or banning someone from a job for his political positions (which cannot be undone). Consider that here Mozilla as a whole has suffered as much damage as Eich. I personally find the second one much worse.
So, are christians the next "blacks"? Please, don't do that. Use your reason, and do not spread hate. Specially undiscriminating hate.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Angry Jesus on Thursday April 03 2014, @09:53PM
> It's hard to see how punishing someone for his past political support is
> morally superior to punishing someone for his sexual orientation.
You seem to be the kind of person who confuses the form of a thing with the meaning of a thing.
Eich actively tried to hurt other people who had never done a thing to hurt him or anyone else. Forcing him to resign as a consequence for hurting other people is not in any way equivalent.
(Score: 0) by starcraftsicko on Friday April 04 2014, @01:28AM
Who and how?
.
Eich participated in a mainstream political discussion/movement in a mainstream and minimal way. He was not the face of the movement. He was not the voice of the movement. He did not mastermind the movement. He was not even a major contributor to the movement.
.
Maybe he hurt some feelings?
This post was created with recycled electrons.
(Score: 2) by Angry Jesus on Friday April 04 2014, @02:25AM
He paid people to try to prevent gay people from being full fledged members of society.
All that "mainstream" stuff is hooey. People were saying the same thing about emancipation and miscegenation -- being "mainstream" doesn't make it any less harmful to the people who were hurt, nor does being a follower rather than a leader excuse it either.
(Score: 1) by Yog-Yogguth on Friday April 04 2014, @06:41AM
And you're successfully preventing non-gay people from being fully fledged members of society.
Or are you really going to "answer" "only if they speak"? What you're showing or supporting isn't pride, nowhere close. At best you're being used.
Bite harder Ouroboros, bite! tails.boum.org/ linux USB CD secure desktop IRC *crypt tor (not endorsements (XKeyScore))
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 04 2014, @09:36AM
How far right wing does one have to consider "not a CEO" equivalent to "not a fully fledged member of society"?
Nobody said he couldn't work at Mozilla. He could be the CFO. Nobody cares about a CFO. He could possibly even be a CTO, though the developers might care too much in that case.
But the CEO is personifying the image of the company. By making him CEO, they were endorsing his views.
Also, note that Mozilla is allowed to endorse those views, if that's the image they want. Just like Chick-Fil-A is allowed to. But in that case, they shouldn't expect us to buy/use their products.
Chick-Fil-A was fine with that image. Mozilla was not. That's the difference.
(Score: 1) by Yog-Yogguth on Friday April 04 2014, @04:01PM
One doesn't have to be anything at all: what you're saying is that some jobs aren't allowed for $group, it doesn't matter if your $group is gays, non-gays, whites, blacks, catholics, protestants, atheists, communists, socialists, nazis, democrats, republicans, or anything else.
Minorities won't win such fights so in effect this is minorities dismantling legal protection for minorities.
Bite harder Ouroboros, bite! tails.boum.org/ linux USB CD secure desktop IRC *crypt tor (not endorsements (XKeyScore))
(Score: 2) by hubie on Friday April 04 2014, @01:32AM
I think there can be quite a difference between having a moral objection to something and actively trying to hurt other people.
(Score: 1) by Angry Jesus on Friday April 04 2014, @02:21AM
Yes, there certainly can be. But he didn't just object, he acted by paying people to try to stop gay people from marrying.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 04 2014, @12:48AM
"Grown-ups sometimes have to deal with people who disagree with them."
Disagreement is one thing.
Eich actively attempted to CONTROL THE LIVES OF OTHERS.
If you cannot discern the difference you are, quite frankly, mentally deficient.
I am a straight guy who likes women a lot, but I am disgusted by bigots
like Eich who want to force others to conform to their world view. Such
people are the enemy of all freedom loving humans.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 04 2014, @01:29AM
That's why you try very hard to force them to conform to your world view, because YOUR world view is, by definition, the right one.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 04 2014, @09:40AM
Nobody is trying to make him conform to anything.
We just don't want to use Mozilla products (like Firefox) as the same time as Mozilla has him as CEO.
It's up to Mozilla to decide whether they want to continue endorsing his views (making someone a CEO is the biggest endorsement a company can give him), or they want to keep us as Firefox users. They have made their choice.
He is now free to be as much of a bigot as he wants to be, without worrying about how that affects the image of Mozilla.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Tork on Thursday April 03 2014, @08:32PM
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈
(Score: 2) by Sir Garlon on Thursday April 03 2014, @08:42PM
When I was in kindergarten there was a kid a couple of years older who would knock me down so I'd skin my knees and cry. I told my mom and her advice was useless. I told my brother and his advice was "you should knock _him_ down." So the next day I got behind him and wham! Knocked him down, made him cry. After that he steered clear of me.
So, yes, it's revenge and hate.
[Sir Garlon] is the marvellest knight that is now living, for he destroyeth many good knights, for he goeth invisible.
(Score: 2) by Tork on Thursday April 03 2014, @08:45PM
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈
(Score: 3, Funny) by TheGratefulNet on Thursday April 03 2014, @09:19PM
just like joe pesci, it sounds like you're the kind of guy who can get things done!
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 04 2014, @03:15AM
Getting a group of people to act in concert to intimidate someone until they fulfill your wish is not "standing up to a bully", it is called hounding or bullying (even though the target may be a bully himself, although I don't see how donating $1000 makes you a bully).
This is just a mild form of mob rule - if I get enough people on my side, I can make you do what I want.
Pushing someone to resign his job just because you disagree with his opinion is bigotry. Doing so because you perceive that he did something to hurt you in the past is revenge. Doing either with anger within you is hate.
So yes, it is a combination of revenge/hate/bigotry. Even victims of bigotry can be bigots themselves.
(Score: 2) by Tork on Friday April 04 2014, @04:29PM
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈