
Corrosive Conformity - pvnick
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/375039/corrosive-conformity-editors
======
badman_ting
I'm tired of these silly reversals. It's disingenuous, this attitude like
there is some sort of gay mafia overpowering commonfolk. "Tolerance" only
comes up as a topic when it's about tolerating some shitty retrograde
attitude. Please.

Mozilla backed Eich the whole way as far as I remember. They initially
shrugged off rarebit's reaction with the standard "we should all respect
personal opinions" (except for the personal opinions of people affected by
Eich's actions, of course).

~~~
bluekeybox
You are not seeing the full picture. There is no "gay mafia". I have gay
friends who are wonderful people, and I support their right to marry. Some of
my biggest idols in tech are gay. What scares me, however, is that the same
confrontational tactics that are used to police tech sector against you-name-
it people who had made a silly or insensitive joke about women or donated a
couple of bucks to some non-PC campaign -- those same confrontational,
entryist tactics were used in the early 20th century by Lenin and his
supporters, and we all know where that led.

It's not the message, it's how it is delivered.

~~~
fennecfoxen
First they came for Brendan Eich. But I did not speak out, because I disagreed
with Brendan Eich's political position and thought it was obnoxious. Jerk had
it coming, I say.

 _cough_

~~~
bluekeybox
Eich is far from the first. The mob's appetite for blood is greater than you
think:

* [http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/events/donglegate-adria-richar...](http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/events/donglegate-adria-richards)

* [http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/news/pr-executive-j...](http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/news/pr-executive-justine-sacco-apologises-after-losing-job-over-racist-aids-joke-provoked-hasjustinelandedyet-twitter-storm-9020809.html)

* [http://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffbercovici/2013/09/10/busines...](http://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffbercovici/2013/09/10/business-insider-fires-cto-over-offensive-tweets/)

* [http://techcrunch.com/2013/12/30/paul-graham-responds-to-cri...](http://techcrunch.com/2013/12/30/paul-graham-responds-to-critics/)

~~~
fennecfoxen
Okay. "First" was rhetorical, rather than factual. :P

In any event, there have been plenty of regimes in history where you needed to
be a member of The Party and toe the party line... and if not, you'd be
ineligible for any position of power, and maybe out of a job. Perhaps your
nation had a revolution, and the party in question is Communists. Perhaps it's
merely a Reformation, and you're just not allowed to be Catholic anymore (or a
counter-reformation, and you're not allowed to be Protestant). Maybe it's just
the local banana republic.

And this is purely a partisan-affiliation play. No one has seriously asserted
that Eich was mean to any individual gay person, influenced company policy in
a way that said gay people are unwelcome, or anything of that nature.

In any event, it's quite clear that at least _some_ portion of our society --
the one Mozilla operates in -- works under the guiding principles of those
regimes. How modern of us!

------
ignostic
The whole Mozilla thing is a little bitter-sweet for me. I'm glad that we've
progressed to the point where actively working to deny another person equal
rights is no longer acceptable, but I wonder if this was really the best use
of our time and "outrage." Eich wasn't an activist or even a huge contributor
as far as we know. I support sending a peaceful, voluntary message - but in
retrospect, I think we sent it to the wrong person and company.

The article makes some good points and some weak arguments (the Obama
comparison is bizarre), but the author makes little distinction between
holding a differing view and contributing to causes that (IMO) encourage
discrimination and unjust inequality.

In other words, I think it's fair game to boycott and protest supporters of
anti-gay-marriage bills, but we (myself included) should have focused on
something with greater impact - a "real" bad guy. There are hundreds of
politicians who are actively working against equal rights, and a lot of big
money going to them and pro-discrimination PACs. For those who support
equality in marriage, that's a better place to start.

~~~
Justsignedup
I will only tolerate such behavior in one and only one instance: when the
issue is a human rights violation.

But where does it end? Do people start boycotting companies because one of
their board members are not opposed to abortion? Do people start boycotting
companies because the CEO feels that Michael Jackson was not a pedophile?

In the end my favorite quote on free speech: "Sir, I disagree with you whole-
heartedly, but I will fight to the death for your right to say it."

Also, what if since then he has changed his mind? These things happen, people
had wrong opinions and through argument have changed them.

~~~
glesica

      > "Sir, I disagree with you whole-heartedly, but I will fight to the death for your right to say it."
    

Yes, but this applies to censorship. No one was censoring Eich or asking for
him to be censored and, even more importantly, no one was asking for the
_government_ to step in.

I support his _right_ to be a bigot. I do not, however, want a bigot running
an organization that is important to me, and I (and many others whose opinions
matter far more than mine) said so (our right).

~~~
sssilver
> I support his right to be a bigot

According to Google, "bigotry" is defined as "having or revealing an obstinate
belief in the superiority of one's own opinions and a prejudiced intolerance
of the opinions of others."

I'm getting confused here, since English is not my native language -- but
how's Eich a bigot, and the other side of the barricade not? In fact,
according to that definition, how are the people who ousted him not the bigger
bigots? Just wondering.

~~~
fennecfoxen
The answer is that when you see the word "bigot" here, it actually means:

* this person has a different model of the structure of the world than we do

* we do not wish to recognize (or are not capable of recognizing, or have not been informed) that it is possible or intellectually valid to use a different model of the structure of the world than we do

* assuming that you use the same model as we do, it is impossible to support Prop 8 unless you also think that gay people don't deserve to be treated as people

* therefore he must not think they should be treated as people, and is bad. we should call him names and try to impugn his ability to empathize and/or be intellectually consistent.

Any relation of this to the dictionary definition is coincidental.

For your personal edification: the real question about gay marriage is a what
marriage is (and what the government should recognize), not about whether gay
people are people. If you believe that marriage is primarily about an
emotional commitment between two arbitrary people, then the only logical
conclusion is to support gay marriage. If you're old-school and think in the
general case that it has something more to do with children and families and
sexual reproduction (notwithstanding current practices to the contrary), then
you may support measures like Prop 8 or Amendment 1. It is this difference in
attitudes which drives the issue and drives enough voter turnout to pass
measures like Prop 8 -- not bigotry and hatred, but defending something that
these people care about, Marriage and Family. This is also why it's called the
"Defense of Marriage Act"; it's a defense.

These supporters of gay marriage long ago internalized the notion of marriage
as an emotional commitment between.... well, let's say N arbitrary people, not
always 2.

~~~
glesica

      > * assuming that you use the same model as we do, it is impossible to support Prop 8 unless you also think that gay people don't deserve to be treated as people
    

This is basically accurate. It is not possible to support Prop 8 without
_treating_ gay people as though they are not people.

If the _only_ advantage marriage conferred was being allowed to make babies,
then I would agree with you. The problem is that marriage confers a bunch of
additional benefits (including hospital visitation and inheritance with less
drama).

Additionally, there is no need to be married to have children, and there is no
need to have children to be married, so the whole "marriage is about kids"
thing is, frankly, really, really hard to take seriously.

So by supporting Prop 8, people were saying "gay people do not deserve the
privileges mentioned above even through straight people who don't intend to
have kids can have those privileges".

If this is really about children and families, where is the movement to
prevent infertile straight people from getting married, or just people who
have no intention of having children. They are ruining the tradition just as
much as gay people supposedly would.

~~~
jrs235
Thank you for using the correct word, privileges, and not the incorrect word,
rights.

The issue isn't about rights, its about equal treatment and equal privileges.

However, I disagree with you on "It is not possible to support Prop 8 without
treating gay people as though they are not people." That would be like saying
"It is not possible to support progressive tax rates without treating 'rich'
people as though they are not people."

~~~
fennecfoxen
On the topic of loaded words, the Wall Street Journal this morning had a
front-page above-the-fold piece quoting Anil Dash: "The 'mob'? Seriously?
Would you say that someone who tried to criminalize your marriage was fit to
lead you?"

Results of Prop 8, to wit: No one was charged with a felony. No one was
charged with a misdemeanor. No one was charged with an infraction. No one was
fined, arrested, detained, or jailed. Criminalization!!!

(Determining whether "the mob" that forced Eich to step down, the phrase
against which Dash protests, is similarly loaded or not: is left as an
exercise to the HN reader.)

------
rbanffy
George Takei said it so well I'll have to quote him:

"Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequences. This man donated
money to a campaign designed to keep LGBT people from full equality and to
deny our families equal rights under the law. He was free to make that choice,
but we are free to hold him accountable. If he'd donated money to White
Supremacists to help outlaw interracial marriage, there'd be little outcry
over his ouster".

It's not conformity, but Mozilla stands for a set of values, among those
equality, which is not compatible with the values publicly demonstrated by
Eich.

~~~
fennecfoxen
I'll counter with Clarence Thomas.

"I cannot endorse a view of the First Amendment that subjects citizens of this
Nation to death threats, ruined careers, damaged or defaced property, or pre-
emptive and threatening warning letters as the price for engaging in "core
political speech, the 'primary object of First Amendment protection.' "

\- Dissenting in part, _Citizens United vs FEC_. Regarding Proposition 8, and
the fact that the law compelled the disclosure of donors and made all this
donation information public to begin with.

~~~
rbanffy
If at the time he made his donation the rules allowed his contribution to
remain secret, then this is disturbing.

If not, it's just that he is not suited to run the Mozilla Foundation after
stating publicly he does not agree with one of the core values of the
foundation and its contributors. If it were the case, he could have apologized
and say he changed his mind. If he didn't change his mind, again, he is not
suitable to run a foundation where many core contributors have strong moral
feelings about equality.

------
filmgirlcw
My issue with this is that it is completely political. The National Review
isn't against what happened to Eich because of "conformity," but because they
happen to agree with his political views.

Want proof? In 2011, a Notre Dame Board of Trustees member was pressured to
resign because of her donations to a pro-choice group. Not only did the
National Review not have a problem with her resignation, they published a
feature criticizubg Notre Dame at length[1] for appointing her to begin with
and in general not upholding pro-life only Catholic values.

So you'll forgive me if I think this article is bullshit and its arguments
completely specious.

I await your downvotes.

[1]: [http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/269303/more-cracks-
go...](http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/269303/more-cracks-golden-dome-
george-weigel)

~~~
yypark
The National Review may be on this side purely due to politics, but many
others (For instance gay-marriage supporter Conor Friesedorf) are on this side
due for open political discourse and anti-comformity.

[http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/04/mozillas...](http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/04/mozillas-
gay-marriage-litmus-test-violates-liberal-values/360156/)

I completely agree that a lot of the rhetoric is completely tribal (this side
is right, the other side is wrong, now let's sling mud and accuse the other
side of X!). But some people (in fact, a lot of Hacker News) does seem to get
beyond this.

~~~
filmgirlcw
There is absolutely a non-political argument to be made, you are absolutely
correct. I guess what I'm saying is that this article is not making that
argument. At all.

------
tasty_freeze
The problem wasn't that mozilla doesn't allow dissent; the problem is that the
world wouldn't allow Eich to be CEO, and he realized that whatever good he
could do as CEO was overwhelmed by the harm he would do to it as staying CEO.
Mozilla didn't bounce Eich; the internet did.

~~~
MrZongle2
More specifically: a particularly noisy _part_ of the Internet did.

~~~
jjgreen
Those hysterical screaming queens?

------
ChrisGaudreau
It's curious that gay-rights supporters are being called the "intolerant
ones." I keep hearing this. It was a common talking point during the Duck
Dynasty fiasco. I wonder if this tactic was used in the past to attack
opponents of racism?

~~~
mkr-hn
I don't know if I'll ever understand how people reason that using one right to
deny a right to another person should be immune to criticism.

------
BrainInAJar
The problem wasn't that "some CEO of some company has an anti-gay view" the
problem is that the ideological head (the CEO) of an organization whose stated
mission is one of greater good (rather than profit) not only harbours anti-gay
thoughts, but actively acted to deny people of their human rights, and it
wasn't a mistake (he's never said anything to suggest he's changed his mind or
regrets it at all)

------
MisterBastahrd
The problem isn't that he was pretty much forced to step down as CEO, it's
that he was ever given the position without proper vetting in the first place.
Being a co-founder does not make one CEO material.

I don't know Mozilla's process, but if I were just making a casual observance,
I'd say they were determined to hire the guy without using all the resources
available to determine whether he was the best candidate for the job.

The slippery slope argument is bullshit. "Where do we draw the line?" Well,
let's see: if he has simply voted Republican, he'd have been fine. If he'd
have voted for Prop 8 but contributed no money to it, there wouldn't be a
money trail to show that he's a bigot. He'd probably fine until he got himself
into the potential HR fiasco that would have damaged Mozilla a great deal more
than they've been for not doing a proper executive search. But neither of
those happened. Instead, he left a money trail to specifically support a
bigoted cause.

There's the line.

------
cynwoody
For those who haven't seen it, Barack Obama opined on this topic around the
same time as Brendan Eich, and over a much bigger megaphone than $1000 will
buy:

[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N6K9dS9wl7U](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N6K9dS9wl7U)

tl;dv: "I believe that marriage is the union between a man and woman ... For
me as a Christian, it's also a sacred union .. you know, God's in the mix. ...
I’m not somebody who promotes same-sex marriage, but I do believe in civil
unions.”

~~~
dragonwriter
> For those who haven't seen it, Barack Obama opined on this topic around the
> same time as Brendan Eich, and over a much bigger megaphone than $1000 will
> buy:

If you mean the topic actually at issue -- California's Prop. 8 -- that's
true, but not on the side you suggest:

[http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Obama-opposes-proposed-
ba...](http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Obama-opposes-proposed-ban-on-gay-
marriage-3278328.php)

\--[quote]--

John Wildermuth, Chronicle Staff Writer

Published 4:00 am, Wednesday, July 2, 2008

Gay rights moved to the forefront of the presidential campaign Tuesday after
Democratic Sen. Barack Obama's announcement that he opposes a November ballot
measure that would ban same-sex marriage in California.

In a letter to San Francisco's Alice B. Toklas Lesbian Gay Bisexual
Transgender Democratic Club, the presumptive presidential nominee said he
opposed "the divisive and discriminatory efforts to amend the California
Constitution" and similar efforts in other states.

\--[end quote]--

------
benjohnson
The interesting thing to notice is that us 'old people' will be on the losing
side of another human-rights issue if the demographics are correct.

It looks like the younger generations are much more likely to be pro-life, and
it will be interesting to see if pro-choice people will be haunted for their
views going forward.

If denying denying civil marriage to gay partners incurs such wrath - I dearly
hope that the our pro-life children will find it possible to forgive us.

------
deveac
_> In 2008, Barack Obama and Brendan Eich both were against gay
marriage...Barack Obama inexplicably remains, as of this writing, president of
the United States of America, but Mr. Eich has just been forced out as CEO of
Mozilla because of his political views._

Nonsense.

A two-party political horse race is not analogous. If you don't like one or
more views your closest candidate has, the ONLY other alternative is often
MUCH worse on the whole, not only for your issue of choice, but a range of
them.

Compare that to selecting a leader of an organization that is not structured
to return profit to shareholders, but instead carry out _a social and ethical
objective_ and it is easy to see why a leader that is NOT ethical (in the view
of significant numbers of people inside the org and "customers/users" outside
the org) would be deemed not qualified to hold the job. Couple that with
plethora of other viable candidates (as opposed to the two-person horse race
of a presidential run), and the analogy doesn't just fall flat, it refuses to
exist.

------
caseysoftware
Does Eich have grounds to file suit against Mozilla employees for making a
hostile work environment?

