Wait, wait, hold on. Folks, this man isn't a politician, he isn't a social crusader, he isn't using his position as a platform. At worst, he's rich. He hasn't taken the throne, or even government office; he's the CEO of a private corporation that makes web browsers of all things. Now, sure, he might be against gay marriage. And you might disagree, and have a variety of principles to back your position. But why do we demand perfection in our public figures?
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.
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.
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.
And so the correct response is for [a segment of] society to impose its views on him? I don't see the logic here; I suspect there really isn't any.
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.
You mean American society don't you? Most societies in the world aren't governed by America. Let's not pretend for a single second America leads the way in progressive and social change.
> 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.
Right? The right to have a piece of paper from a government department endorsing the validity of your relationship with someone else? That's petty.
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.
Hypocrisy. Religious types who want to mandate how other people can live are off-key. But people who get carried away by the cause of gay marriage are equally ridiculous. You're playing the same game as the religious types. The missing piece of that expression of your political power enshrined in law - a political endorsement of certain relationships.
> 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.
Interesting, thanks. I'm not in the US so my context is weak. My reaction would be to get rid of the provisions. In a free society, the government will have no role in the bedroom. Extending it into micromanaging relationships is a step in the wrong direction. The best code is the code we throw away.
The vast majority of rights that are bound to marriage in the us have nothing whatsoever to do with "the bedroom" but rather practical matters like visiting your chosen spouse in the hospital or not having your non-citizen spouse deported or receiving benefits if your spouse is killed while serving in the military. Another good example is the right to file taxes jointly which can have a huge impact on your joint income. Many of these things couldn't be covered by contract and even when they can technically be covered like allowing someone to make end of life decisions for you it costs money which opposite sex couples dont have to pay and contracts are frequently ignored by people like hospital staff who don't understand the law. When your partner is in the hospital suffering you shouldn't be stuck debating contract law with its staff and a single status, legal marriage, makes it crystal clear to all. While I do wish there was a code deprecation review committee in congress to eliminate things like financially favoring married couples at tax time practically speaking legally recognizing same sex marriage gets us much closer to equal treatment under the law much faster than debating each of those 1000+ rights individually. People in unrecognized same sex marriages are being actively harmed by their exclusion right now so IMO sitting around debating the perfect solution instead of moving forward pragmatically is harmful behavior.
> 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.
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.
On the off chance you're just uneducated and not a nasty little bigot playing dumb, the marriage right carries a ton of stuff besides a ring and a ceremony and any moral satisfaction the couple may get.
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.
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.
>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.
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?
I am okay with Brendan Eich being named CEO of Mozilla, despite having made a political donation that I strongly disagree with.
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.
The CEO of Mozilla is the leader of a project that draws on goodwill of people for evangelism and support. Furthermore the whole philosophy of Free Software is based on the golden rule and doing social good - that is why there are high demands for the behavior and philosophy of Brendan.
And I think his statement is appropriate and encouraging.
"the whole philosophy of Free Software is based on the golden rule and doing social good"
"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.
You say social good like there is some non-solipsistic way to define morality. I'm almost certain a large majority of the people who donated to support prop-8 considered themselves to be improving society (Even if I and, I suspect, you) disagrees with them.
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.
Here in the US we're in the middle of a debate about what views are socially acceptable and which are not. The tide is turning against views and policies which disadvantage gays as a category of people simply because they are gay.
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.
Arguably, yes. We should demand "perfection" in our public figures, inasmuch as "perfection" means freedom from prejudice. In the case of BE its particularly relevant as the company he runs provides the lens through which a sizable population will see the world.
It doesn't matter whether his power comes from state government or private organization. Threats to human rights should be checked. Indifference is selfish.
Again (as I said in the last thread), this issue differs from others because it could potentially have affected personnel policies that would fall under his purview as CEO. I think this statement puts those concerns to rest, though.
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)?
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.
> There's personal beliefs and then there's giving financial support to crush someone else's.
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.
t's not right, but that's apparently what our culture has descended to.
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.
Sounds right to me. For a nation with the rights of the individual as a core value, all this "insisting on ideological uniformity" [1] should sound the alarm that perhaps our cultural movements are trending off track. I find it disturbing that some of the most hysterical and demanding responses to the presence of "the other" are actually coming from within the gay community.
Exactly. And here's an interesting factoid: nobody actually knows why Eich donated in support of proposition 8. There are examples of other people that supported proposition 8 for other than homophobic reasons. [1] is a fairly balanced review, to which I would like to add: some people just have strange calcified convictions concerning specific, often isolated, issues. They may not be rational or common, but that doesn't mean they are harmful.
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.