SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
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: 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.