Mozilla CEO Steps Down, Homophobes Cry Foul

[Ultimate Paragon]

JavaScript creator and Mozilla cofounder Brendan Eich was recently appointed the CEO of Mozilla.  The problem?  He had publicly supported and donated to Prop 8.  Social media and the blogosphere saw many people protesting this move.  Even OKCupid got on the act, displaying a full-page plea asking its Firefox users to use another browser.  This led to a huge backlash against Eich, forcing him to step down.

Of course, internet homophobes had a field day with this, calling it "intolerance against family values".  My question is, since when is hatred a family value?


Look up "tolerance" in the dictionary, numbskull.

Of course, not all these people are homophobes.  Some of them just misunderstand what "tolerance" actually means.  I tolerate intolerance in the same way I tolerate air pollution.

>CEO donates money to legislation campaign to further deny rights of disenfranchised group.
>CEO’s company earns money from consumers.
>Without money from consumers, less money gets funneled into unjust legislation.
>Consumers…not allowed to withhold money because…people on internet say that’s not fair to CEO…what…?

Someone explain this logic to me.  If the CEO is free to spend his money/lend his support however he wants, why aren’t the consumers free to spend (or withhold) their money/lend their support in whatever way they want?

And a note on “personal belief.”

Its my personal belief that people who are into scat play are utterly disgusting.  If I found out a good friend or close relative was a fecalphiliac, I probably wouldn’t associate with that person.  It's sickening, it spreads disease, and it's probably unnatural.  If I ever start a religion, the very first page of my holy book is going to say in bright, bold letters: “Seriously guys, if you get off on eating shit, you aren’t gonna get to hang out with me in the afterlife.”

Now, where do I differ from Mr. Eich?  Well, for one, I don’t support legislation saying scat fans can’t get married.  I don’t want them barred them from armed service.  I don’t equate them with pedophiles.  I don’t want to deny them the right to adopt children.  The list goes on.  In other words, expressing your personal beliefs is one thing; discrimination is wholly another.

[dpareja]

Because not supporting companies that in the past you supported without a peep because of a change in policy (perceived or real) with which you disagree with communism or something.

Unless we do it, in which case it's a just protest.

[I am lizard]

I'm very intolerant of douche bags. It is my belief that being a douche is unnatural. Now I'm not doucheaphobic as I don't hate douchebags, some of by best friends are actually douchebags, but you need to understand that being a douchebag is unnatural and amoral.

[Dakota Bob]

Yeah, but does OkCupid work without JavaScript on? now THAT would be taking a stance.

EDIT: Also, it turns out the OkCupid CEO donated to some pretty shitty things too

[I am lizard]

Yeah, but does OkCupid work without JavaScript on? now THAT would be taking a stance.

EDIT: Also, it turns out the OkCupid CEO donated to some pretty shitty things too

But he's a nice guy who is sick of your freindzone bullshit and wants a woman who isn't a slut or a feminist.

[Barbarella]

I was a devoted Firefox user until this guy's views & actions became know. I love Firefox because it works so well but I felt guilty.

But then he quit & I'm like "WOOHOO! Darn Google Chrome makes my computer slower than molasses! Back to Firefox!".

Pretty dopey, I know.

Don't you hate it when something you love that works great & is the best for you is basically made by jerks?

Perhaps if more progressive companies put more effort into selection & ease, they would be a better alternative. I was going to switch to Barnes & Noble/Nookbooks but the selection wasn't as stellar as Amazon/Kindle. The Barnes & Noble site also functioned wonky.

Look, I know B&N is on hard times but at least they could try harder to get a larger selection & not try to be an Amazon clone. B&N would do better if they ditched the housewares and stuff &  focused on books, magazines, newspapers & NOOK. Add some related stuff & leave it at that. Streamline it, have bargains & reduce the prices a tad and hype the "Just books & stuff" thing as something cool & fresh (and tune up the web site). Sometimes less is more.

And, so, I still get stuff from Amazon & am expecting a Kindle in the mail today (may be on my porch now). The best I can do is cut back on general Amazon buying.

[Ironchew]

I honestly thought TIM would be the one to start this thread.

If all y'all are fuming over Mozilla, why not try a Free-as-in-Freedom alternative of the same codebase, like Iceweasel?

[Sigmaleph]

I have to wonder how you'd feel if the story was about someone who lost their job for donating money to a pro-gay cause.

OKCupid are being ridiculously hypocritical here, but it's the campaign in general that bothers me. Obviously everyone has the right to use or not use whatever browser they want for whatever reason or no reason at all. But starting a campaign to make someone lose their job over their political views seems frankly fucked up. Even when I strongly disagree with those views.

[The Illusive Man]

Here is Eich not helping matters:

Baker, chairwoman of the Mozilla Foundation, of which the Mozilla Corporation is a wholly-owned subsidiary, wrote in the 29 March blog post: "I want to speak clearly on behalf of both the Mozilla Corporation and the Mozilla Foundation: Mozilla supports equality for all, explicitly including LGBT equality and marriage equality."

Eich stressed that Baker's statement applied only to Mozilla as a corporation and foundation, rather than to its broader mission.
“There's a difference here between the company, the foundation, as an employer and an entity, versus the project and community at large, which is not under any constraints to agree on LGBT equality or any other thing that is not central to the mission or the Mozilla manifesto.”

Eich said the reason Mozilla as a community did not take a wider stance on issues such as LGBT marriage was the same as his reason for not explaining his donation: to avoid fragmenting its community. Without a large group of people who disagreed on lots of issues, Firefox would never have happened, he said.

“So far we've been able to bring people together of diverse beliefs including on things like marriage equality,” he said. “We couldn't have done this, we couldn't have done Firefox One. I would've been excluded, someone else would've been excluded because of me – I wouldn't have done that personally, they'd have just left. So imagine a world without Firefox: not good.”

Eich also stressed that Firefox worked globally, including in countries like Indonesia with “different opinions”, and LGBT marriage was “not considered universal human rights yet, and maybe they will be, but that's in the future, right now we're in a world where we have to be global to have effect”.

I have to wonder how you'd feel if the story was about someone who lost their job for donating money to a pro-gay cause.

False equivalency is false. His actions and expressed sentiment while representing a company specifically target a group of people by sexuality for disenfranchisement. Hate speech is not free speech as hate speech goes beyond disagreement into the realm of harm. If a CEO had ties to the KKK and espoused that group's views he or she would be thrown out too because of the bad publicity and loss of image.

But starting a campaign to make someone lose their job over their political views seems frankly fucked up. Even when I strongly disagree with those views.

How is this distinct from any given political campaign?

[Ultimate Paragon]

"But I'm not a homophobe!  Some of my friends are gay!"

[I am lizard]

I honestly thought TIM would be the one to start this thread.

If all y'all are fuming over Mozilla, why not try a Free-as-in-Freedom alternative of the same codebase, like Iceweasel?

I will not simply because you suggested it.

[Askold]

"But I'm not a homophobe!  Some of my friends are dirty sodomites that are going to burn in hell!"

Fixed that for you. (I think Colbert made that joke as well.)

[Sigmaleph]

I have to wonder how you'd feel if the story was about someone who lost their job for donating money to a pro-gay cause.

False equivalency is false. His actions and expressed sentiment while representing a company specifically target a group of people by sexuality for disenfranchisement. Hate speech is not free speech as hate speech goes beyond disagreement into the realm of harm. If a CEO had ties to the KKK and espoused that group's views he or she would be thrown out too because of the bad publicity and loss of image.

Unless he's been calling for gay people to be killed and I didn't hear about it, I'm pretty sure he's not KKK-equivalent. And frankly, the idea of "harm" as the separator between free speech and hate speech is useless. Any political action will in some way or another harm a group to some extent, even if it is just losing privileges they already have.

But starting a campaign to make someone lose their job over their political views seems frankly fucked up. Even when I strongly disagree with those views.

How is this distinct from any given political campaign?

How is it analogous? A political campaign generally aims to change some aspect of society in general. Targeting a person's employment is direct punishment to an individual for having views you don't like, which leads to a political environment where you're not free to express your views if a sufficiently large number of people disagrees with you strongly enough.

[I am lizard]

Oh, won't some body think of the homophobe!

[Witchyjoshy]

I think the general difference might be that, generally speaking, when a gay supporter is fired, it's generally due to the prejudice of his conservative employers, not people rallying for him to lose his job.

When an anti-gay supporter is fired, it's generally not due to the prejudice of his liberal employers.

This is not a commentary on the morality of the situation (which I am conflicted about), but merely a statement on how different the two situations generally are.

I suppose it is hypocritical. That being said, he donated to a cause that actively sought to deny people's equal rights.  A pro-gay person would have donated to a cause that actively sought to give people equal rights.

One is intolerance, the other is social justice.  And though it may be hypocrisy, is it evil to intolerate intolerance while tolerating tolerance?  Is that a double standard?