Dev.SN ♥ developers
Sections
Dev.SN
from the i-guess-they'll-unfriend-mozilla dept.
The controversy around Mozilla's new CEO Brendan Eich continues. Eich made a personal $1000 donation to California's Yes on Proposition 8 campaign in 2008. Now, dating site OkCupid has started redirecting Firefox users to a page explaining Eich's views against marriage equality, and asking users to switch to IE, Chrome, or Opera.
If individuals like Mr. Eich had their way, then roughly 8% of the relationships we've worked so hard to bring about would be illegal. Equality for gay relationships is personally important to many of us here at OkCupid. But it's professionally important to the entire company. OkCupid is for creating love. Those who seek to deny love and instead enforce misery, shame, and frustration are our enemies, and we wish them nothing but failure.
Visitors are then provided links to alternative browsers, or they can continue to the site by clicking a hyperlink at the bottom of the page.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by zocalo on Tuesday April 01 2014, @07:30AM
I don't know whether to laugh or cry at this, but I'm sure not taking them seriously.
UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!
(Score: 2) by geb on Tuesday April 01 2014, @08:03AM
The message from OKCupid didn't criticise Eich for trying to push an opinion on others. It criticised him for the nature of that opinion. There's no contradiction in that.
By the nature of free speech, you are supposed to be able to push your views on others, provided that it is done through peaceful means such as debate, public statements, and yes, through donations in political process too.
Other people can then use their free speech right back at you. If you disagree with their counterpoint, you can then freely speak back in turn, and so on...
Democracy!
(Score: 0, Flamebait) by Lazarus on Tuesday April 01 2014, @12:21PM
I think it's a mistake to reduce bigotry vs. acceptance as "views." It's sad that the ignorant social conservatives want people to think their hateful, bigoted, superstitious natures are just a "point of view" like any other. The reality is that their dysfunction is something they should have, but failed to, grow out of as they matured into adults. They're all arrested-development cases that can't tell the difference between fantasy and reality, and want to inflict their bonkers worldview on people who know better.
Some people are kind and helpful, others are harmful to their fellow man, and the harmful people should be marginalized. They should not all be reduced to "views" as if being kind and being hateful are somehow equivalent.
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Tuesday April 01 2014, @08:06AM
Whilst it *doesn't necessarily* have any bearing on his ability, it does point to the fact that he doesn't have the needs of the masses as a whole at heart. So it implies that he *might* not be the best person to lead what it attempting to be an inclusive and idealistic software project.
And a strategy of tit-for-tat is not necessarily hypocricy, sometimes it's just good game theory and effective rhetoric.
Making a public pledge to no longer contribute to slashdot
(Score: 2) by MrGuy on Tuesday April 01 2014, @08:30AM
If the issue of LGBT equal rights didn't impact the Mozilla foundation, then maybe I'd agree that his personal views "shouldn't have any bearing on his ability to do a good job."
However, I doubt this is the case I'm willing to believe that Mozilla has LGBT employees. I'd be willing to bet that some of them want to (or will eventually want to) get married. I'd expect they'd want to receive equal benefits to their counterparts. I'd expect they'd want to be free from harrassment in the workplace. I expect they'd not want to feel like they'd be unwelcome to talk about their relationships in the workplace, unlike their colleagues. I'd expect LGBT engineers considering employment would want to feel welcome.
The CEO has a lot of power in a company, and both explicit decision making powers (benefits) and implicit decision making powers (what's tolerated/not in the workplace). The CEO's personal views on topics like this are hardly irrelevant. It would similarly be relevant if someone in a CEO position publicly opposed an "equal pay for women" law, was against the Family and Medical Leave act, etc. Those views matter.
Do I know the details of Brendan Eich's personal views on LGBT equality? Nope. Do I know that he'll act on them in a professional capacity? Nope. Would it be relevant if he did? You betcha.
His personal views might be much more nuanced than we can tell from one donation. He might separate his personal beliefs from his professional actions. He might not. But (IMO) he has some reasonable 'splaining to do to the people who work for him. People who have some reasonable fears about how they'll be treated in his company.
(Score: 0, Flamebait) by Grishnakh on Tuesday April 01 2014, @08:46AM
What if Eich was a card-carrying member of the KKK? Do you think that might have a bearing on his ability to do a good job at Mozilla? Surely Mozilla has at least a few non-Caucasian employees, and if they had a KKK-member CEO, it would be entirely reasonable for them to expect discrimination in the workplace. It's no different with Eich; anyone who's LGBT can obviously expect to be discriminated against with him at the helm.
As for pushing views, bigotry and other such attitudes were never fought effectively by simply being tolerant of them and refusing to call out and criticize them.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 01 2014, @10:43AM
Nor were such attitudes ever effectively fought by shaming and persecution. That just makes the person with the attitude resentful of their persecutors, which just reinforces their attitude.
(Score: 1) by Tangaroa on Tuesday April 01 2014, @11:47AM
What if Eich was a card-carrying member of the ACLU? Surely Mozilla has a few Jewish employees who would feel threatened by ACLU's support for Hamas [clarionproject.org].
What if Eich was a card-carrying Communist? The ghost of Joe McCarthy told me during a seance that Communists should be fired from their jobs because of their leftist political viewpoints. After all, leftists are responsible for killing nearly 150,000,000 people over the past 100 years [scottmanning.com], often wiping out entire ethnic groups in preplanned genocides because their traditional values were not "progressive" enough. Imagine the bad example it would set if a progressive were allowed to be CEO of a company.
What if Eich was gay? Imagine the horrible example it would set for our children if a gay man was allowed to be CEO of a company. Insert claptrap about family, morals, and values.
The issue is not whether Eich's political viewpoint is an acceptable target [tvtropes.org], it is whether it is a good idea to punish people financially and deny them employment for disagreeing with us. If Eich was KKK or a Nazi or Swedish Labor Party, the answer should be the same. As long as he doesn't abuse his authority, there is no problem. As Voltaire said, I may disagree with your speech but I will defend your right to say it.
All of the bigotry here is being directed at Eich. He is being called a hater when we don't know his reasons for supporting Prop 8. Is there any evidence at all of him ever using his position to discriminate against gay employees in his 20 years with Netscape and Mozilla?
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Tuesday April 01 2014, @12:28PM
The only reason you'd support Prop 8 is because you think homosexuals are inferior and deserve less than equal rights and status. That alone is evidence of discrimination. Asking that question is ridiculous: would you ask "Is there any evidence at all of him (a KKK member) using his position to discriminate against black employees"? Of course not, being a member of the KKK proves you favor discrimination against non-white people, and backing Prop 8 proves you favor discrimination against gay people. And "reasons"? Are you going to ask what "reasons" someone has for supporting the KKK? It's no different here.
(Score: 1) by Tangaroa on Tuesday April 01 2014, @12:56PM
Here is the Yes On 8 campaign argument [protectmarriage.com]. It talks about preserving a traditional definition of marriage that has traditional reasons for existing and tradition. This is a reason to support Prop 8 that says nothing about homosexuals being inferior or deserving lesser status. The existence of this reason disproves your assertion that there is no other reason to support Prop 8. It does not need to be a good reason, it merely needs to exist, as it does.
The rest of your comment surrenders that there is no evidence of Eich having any disrespect toward people of different sexual orientation, let alone bringing any such attitudes into the workplace which might justify dismissing him from his job. With it now demonstrated [protectmarriage.com] that support for Proposition 8 does not alone imply any disrespectful attitude towards people of different sexual orientation, there is no evidence of Eich having any such attitude. So why the hell should Eich lose his job over nothing?
(Score: 1, Troll) by Grishnakh on Tuesday April 01 2014, @01:10PM
That's all a bunch of bigoted crap dressed up by religious nuts looking for an excuse to treat people as inferiors and deny them rights. The anti-womens' suffrage people said the same kind of stuff.
You continuing to argue this, and spout this pro-prop-8 crap is proof that you're just another anti-gay bigot like Eich.
(Score: 1, Troll) by Grishnakh on Tuesday April 01 2014, @01:14PM
BTW, your kind of people said the same thing about interracial marriages. I suppose you're against those too. If "tradition" were a good reason to support things, we'd be going back to slavery. Are you in favor of that too? Face it, you're a religious nut and a bigot.
(Score: 1) by Tangaroa on Tuesday April 01 2014, @01:33PM
"You people" feels like an all too familiar insult, but would that refer to the gods of New Zealand, the Maori, or aboriginal people in general? Or perhaps I am Chinese or African American or a chipmunk. How would you know? Regardless of you not knowing who my people are, you have decided that you hate my people. There's a word for that. It starts with a "b" and ends in "igot".
So far our dialogue has proven three points:
Given your complete failure to form anything remotely resembling a counterargument, I see no further reason to continue. Don't feed the trolls, as they say.
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Tuesday April 01 2014, @01:42PM
Sorry, but it's not bigoted to dislike religious assholes who want to push their religious values on everyone else using laws.
And yes, Eich has proven he harbors ill will towards gay people, by supporting an anti-gay law. Arguing otherwise is akin to supporting slavery and arguing that you don't have anything against black people, you simply believe they'd be better off as slaves.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 01 2014, @02:22PM
> Sorry, but it's not bigoted to dislike religious assholes who
> want to push their religious values on everyone else using laws.
You are such a hypocrite. Preaching tolerance, but you won't tolerate my hate!
(Score: 2) by wjwlsn on Tuesday April 01 2014, @02:27PM
Sorry, but you are being a bigot here. Tangaroa's posts have been factual, dispassionate, and respectful. He has put forth the arguments that: a) Eich's personal political views do not automatically disqualify him as a CEO or prove that he hates gays, and b) no matter how disagreeable a persons opinions may be, they still have the right to express them. You've done nothing but bring up bogeymen like the KKK and state that any argument you don't like is equivalent to supporting slavery.
Bullshit. Bullshit. Bullshit.
Turn it around. Let's say you've just become CEO of Mozilla. You're a devout and outspoken atheist. You've donated some of your own money to Atheist causes, particularly those campaigning against your state government's frequent and continued attempts to inject Christian themes into education, law, etc. Some of your employees and many of your customers are Christians. The dating site "ChristianMingle.com" has just started redirecting Firefox users to a page explaining your atheistic views and recommending people switch to IE, Opera, or Chrome. Furthermore, their redirect page states the following: "Those who seek to deny Christ's love and instead promote Satan's misery, shame, and frustration are our enemies, and we wish them nothing but failure."
What's your response now?
I am a traveler of both time and space. Duh.
(Score: 1) by Grishnakh on Tuesday April 01 2014, @02:51PM
Apples and oranges. Unless the atheist causes the CEO supports actually seek to deprive rights or privileges from non-atheists, and publicly state that religious people are lesser people somehow, then there's no conflict. By your logic, a devout and outspoken Jewish CEO who donates to pro-Jewish causes (let's assume here these causes are all things here in the USA, for Jews living in the USA, and not involving the state of Israel or its relations with Palestinians) would be suspect because he might discriminate against non-Jewish people. This is rather ridiculous, since to extend this further, any CEO who's affiliated with any religion at all (which is probably most of them, if their religious affiliation mirrors the general population) would be suspected of discrimination against anyone who isn't of that very same religion. Considering just how many Protestant sects there are in the US, in addition to all the other religions and sects of those religions, I don't think I need to explain how ridiculous this idea is.
The fundamental point is whether someone supports a cause which seeks to deny privileges to a group, especially a minority group, for no good reason at all other than "tradition" or "it offends me". If the atheist CEO donated to support a law to remove voting rights from Christians or to place a special tax on them or other religious people, you'd have a point. However, Prop 8 sought specifically to deny a privilege to a minority group, and that's plain and simple bigotry.
As for someone having the right to express opinions, no one has ever challenged this. The First Amendment guarantees this to everyone. The rest of us have the right to criticize people for their opinions, and even to refuse to do business with someone because of their opinion, and even to loudly call for them to be fired for their opinion. When someone is in a prominent, public position such as a tech CEO, their opinion gets far more airtime than some bum on the street, or some cubicle drone. They are the voice of their company. So it's perfectly fine to criticize that company for hiring this bigot, and to call for his firing.
(Score: 2) by wjwlsn on Tuesday April 01 2014, @04:15PM
Alright, so finally you post a reasonable and insightful reply in this thread... so what was the deal with *all* of your other replies?! Honestly, they seemed like rabid "support gay marriage or you're a baby killer" jabs at someone that was politely posting a dissenting viewpoint.
I am a traveler of both time and space. Duh.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 02 2014, @12:07AM
> so what was the deal with *all* of your other replies?
People who understand the issues tend to have little patience for those who both do not understand the issues and insist in arguing out the same tired old cliches. Sometimes those people really are new to the debate, but that's rare. Most of time the people who spout those same old simplistic arguments have heard the rebuttals multiple times before and have simply closed their mind to them and are just rote posting the same old shit.
(Score: 1) by Grishnakh on Wednesday April 02 2014, @12:33PM
Thank you, I couldn't have said it better myself. Whenever someone trots out links to some politically-conservative "pro-families" anti-gay-marriage website with its talking points, I have to assume they're in the camp of people arguing the same tired old cliches.
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Tuesday April 01 2014, @11:13AM
Some guy who I don't even care about's opinion about a random unrelated social issue should not result in me being told to switch browsers. His personal beliefs do not effect the functioning of Firefox. OkCupid can cram it.
A Discordian is Prohibited of Believing what he reads.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 01 2014, @02:23PM
> His personal beliefs do not effect the functioning of Firefox. OkCupid can cram it.
You should know that his own employees called for his resignation.
(Score: 1) by pedantic on Wednesday April 02 2014, @12:14AM
You are correct. His personal beliefs do not bring into existence the functioning of Firefox. I believe you meant 'affect'.
(Score: 2) by Tork on Tuesday April 01 2014, @11:50AM
Slashdolt logic: 1600 x 1200 > 1920 x 1200
(Score: 2) by zocalo on Tuesday April 01 2014, @12:53PM
AFAIK, Prop-8 was limited to the prevention of marriage, but didn't say anything about Civil Unions, being LGBT or anything else. The difference between "Civil Union" and "Marriage" might be subtle, pure semantics in some cases and legally significant in others, but it matters a lot to some people on both sides of the discussion. If he is in the camp that is OK with civil union but not marriage, then OKCupid's claims are pure hyperbole since that would blow the "8% of relationships being illegal" argument out of the water. Or what about the "Those who seek to deny love and instead enforce misery, shame, and frustration are our enemies, and we wish them nothing but failure." bit? There's nothing shameful and frustrating for a user receiving a full page click-through proposing that they might be seen as anti-LBGT because they just happen to use a certain browser?
Don't get me wrong, I think OKCupid had every right to take issue with Eich's views, not least the First Amendment, but this approach doesn't exactly give them any significantly higher ground than that of Eich.
UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!
(Score: 2) by Tork on Tuesday April 01 2014, @01:07PM
Well it was his employees that brought it to light...
Slashdolt logic: 1600 x 1200 > 1920 x 1200
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 01 2014, @11:58AM
(Score: 1) by dcollins on Tuesday April 01 2014, @01:02PM
"What we have here is a group of people who didn't like Brendan Eich trying to push his views on others... I don't know whether to laugh or cry at this, but I'm sure not taking them seriously."
Interpret differently: What we have here is a group of people who don't like Brendan Eich's views. No one has asserted that he doesn't have a right to speak or donate, just that he is using those rights improperly. So like any political contest, the question is: Whose viewpoint will ultimately win?
"First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win." -- Mahatma Gandhi