
 Mozilla's Gay-Marriage Litmus Test Violates Liberal Values - rrrazdan
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/04/mozillas-gay-marriage-litmus-test-violates-liberal-values/360156/
======
crazygringo
You know, the flagging here on HN is starting to get annoying. 30 min ago this
was on the front page, now it's at position #91:

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7533055](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7533055)

Probably because there are 22 comments for 26 points, which is triggering
something (or people are flagging it). Everyone clearly wants to talk about
this -- it's getting really annoying that it has to keep jumping threads
because of whatever HN's algorithms are doing.

Edit: And, now THIS thread has been censored too, currently with 50 points and
suddenly banished from front-page to #94. C'mon guys... the anti-Eich articles
were upvoted all over the place, but now articles critical of it shouldn't be
seen? I'm sorry, but that's just wrong.

~~~
wyclif
I came here to convey this same sentiment, well done. I agree that it's
getting tiresome. This is a topic relevant to HN. Why can't it be discussed
civilly?

------
programminggeek
Between the way our industry has handled this latest thing with Mozilla and
the way that related issues like gender inequality is handled at various
conferences, I am finding myself less and less wanting to be involved with the
community at large. It feels more and more like if you disagree with what a
very vocal minority believes, you are going to be ostracized to the point that
you could lose your job.

I have a family to take care of so losing my job would be a pretty big deal. I
don't doubt that many of the other people that get caught up in these
incidents are in a similar situation.

So, every time I consider speaking my mind publicly or even being involved in
a public tech conference as an attendee, I think twice and am starting to just
avoid them altogether.

It's sort of a shame because even local conferences are getting besieged by
self-righteous people who are hell bent on righting some unintentional
"mistake" by the people who work very hard to put them on in the first place.
I find what our industry's community is starting to be something I don't much
want to be associated with.

~~~
vajorie
> I have a family to take care of so losing my job would be a pretty big deal.

I wonder how you'd feel if your company hired a CEO who would want to take
away your spouse's benefits because [insert arbitrary reason here]. There is a
reason why people are vocal: they get hurt otherwise.

~~~
panarky
You're getting downvoted for spreading disinformation. Be honest or be gone.

------
nailer
"Does anyone doubt that had a business fired a CEO six years ago for making a
political donation against Prop 8, liberals silent during this controversy (or
supportive of the resignation) would've argued that contributions have nothing
to do with a CEO's ability to do his job?"

I also suspect many of the outspoken opponents against devout Christian
viewpoints (or exercising those viewpoints - various people have insisted
they're fine with people having such viewpoints as long as they're never
exercised) would not protest against other religions which hold similar
viewpoints.

As a supporter of gay marriage, and somebody who believes spirituality isn't
real, this still strikes me as picking on someone. And also a shitty way to
advocate gay rights.

~~~
crusso
_As a supporter of gay marriage, and somebody who believes spirituality isn 't
real, this still strikes me as picking on someone_

Same here. To think that you can't even participate in the political process
now without the thought police coming in years later to hold you accountable.

And some people wonder why various forms of political groups work so hard to
keep their donor lists secret?

You can't have an open society when there are no reasonable limits on how
people can judge and prosecute you for your privately held beliefs.

~~~
fiter
I don't think it's fair to say "privately held belief." He supported a
campaign to change public laws. What society can we have when there are no
reasonable limits on how people can judge and prosecute you for your attempts
to change public law?

~~~
crusso
He supported a campaign that was supported by over half the voters in CA.

By definition, if over half the people supported the position, it's
"reasonable".

~~~
fiter
Oh, certainly... What does that have to do with my comment?

In my comment, I say nothing about whether or not the campaign was reasonable.
I don't think that's a good argument to make. I did say that it's reasonable
to judge someone based on their (reasonable or not) attempt to change public
law.

------
moskie
_> Would American society be better off if stakeholders in various
corporations began to investigate leadership's political activities on
abortion and to lobby for the termination of anyone who took what they regard
to be the immoral, damaging position?_

I don't think it's useful to try to find some blanket rule that works for this
case and all other cases somewhat similar to it.

There's a lot of variables in play. The likeliness of affecting change. Eich's
worth as CEO. What Mozilla stands for. How his political beliefs and political
actions relate to people. The list goes on. Each individual with an opinion on
the matter made a call, factoring in the variables that are important to them,
and acted accordingly.

If you find Eich's specific beliefs regarding gay marriage to be disgusting
enough to suggest he not take the specific position of CEO of Mozilla, go for
it. Does that mean that you should protest against _every_ CEO of _every_
company you have stake in, if you disagree with them on some political level?
No, of course not. You should make the call on a case by case basis.

------
mikeash
Here's one thing I've been unable to understand throughout this whole
controversy:

What are we supposed to _do_ about it?

As far as I can tell, this was a completely grassroots thing with no
organization, no central control, nothing. It just spontaneously _happened_.

Now, I don't know how important this whole thing is. To me, it looks like an
awful lot of fuss over a very little thing. But let's say that it is, in fact,
the worst thing ever to happen in the history of the universe. Even then, what
should we _do?_ Writing long articles about how terrible it is doesn't help at
all unless we have something we could actually do to change things.

What actual concrete proposal is being made? Is there one? Or are people just
wringing their hands?

~~~
sliverstorm
The main thing that needs to be done, is the public needs to learn & adjust
its behavior. This is a sociopolitical problem, and I think it needs to be
fixed by those means. Either through adjusting norms of socially accepted
behavior (i.e. don't crucify someone for what they did 10 years ago) or
through strong leadership from political figures/groups.

~~~
mikeash
OK, and how do you do that exactly?

Clearly calling people out publicly is not allowed. What's the proper approach
for changing the public's behavior?

~~~
slantyyz
>> Clearly calling people out publicly is not allowed.

I have a possibly weird/complex take on this whole thing.

I think it was absolutely fine for the public/customers/partners to call out
Eich to resign based on his Prop 8 vote.

On the other hand, I have mixed feelings about Mozilla employees calling for
his resignation publicly.

Where I live, I think Eich would have a case for _workplace_ harassment
against those employees. I don't know what workplace harassment laws are like
in the US, but publicly shaming a coworker for something legal they did that
you don't morally agree with is usually grounds for some sort of action,
regardless of that person's position of power.

------
tasty_freeze
I've watched this from the sidelines, and I read the mozillazine blog site at
least daily. There was plenty of support for Eich within Mozilla, and many gay
employees blogged their support for him too.

I read mozilla's statement of "we let you down and should have been better" as
referring not to promoting Eich, but that they let the internet infection
fester and didn't attempt to lance it immediately.

If my read is correct, then the entire basis of Friedersdorf's article is
wrong.

~~~
gcp
I agree. Though you could argue that the internal support for him also wasn't
strong enough that he stayed on. Silent majority?

------
tiles
The strangest omission from articles like these is the effect that it had on
people _inside_ Mozilla, many of whom spoke out. You can exclude every
reaction given by people on Twitter, HN, and personal blogs&mdash;and Eich
stepping down as CEO still seems like the likely outcome.

~~~
slantyyz
>> many of whom spoke out

Curious -- Does anyone know how many Mozilla employees spoke out?

I only saw the first few articles referring to tweets by a small number of
Mozilla's 600+ employees, but I haven't been following this story as closely
as others.

~~~
gcp
planet.mozilla.org has a blogroll.

------
sliverstorm
It's sort of a dystopian fantasy that I don't really believe will actually
happen, but you can easily picture the natural endgame for this sort of
behavior. Much like union & non-union shops, you wind up with conservative &
liberal companies. Not just companies that _tend_ one way; companies that say
"You want to work here? I'm sorry, I see you voted for Reagan, goodbye," Signs
that read, "Liberals need not apply".

(Again, I know this is wild & somewhat exaggerated)

------
pyronite
Brendan Eich has the freedom to support what he wants to support. The public
(and Mozilla employees) have the freedom to respond how they wish to respond.
It is up to Mozilla to choose what to do with that public response and now
they've chosen.

Too often this "what about freedom of speech?" argument fails to apply the
same logic to both parties. People were unhappy that someone with this
controversial belief was elevated to a leadership role – why should Mozilla
employees have stayed quiet?

------
Crito
Utter bullocks. Would we entertain this idea that the tolerant must tolerate
intolerance if Prop 8 was about race, rather than gender? Of course not.
Nobody pretends that we must not speak ill of racists; _certainly_ nobody
pretends that speaking ill of racists makes you just as bad as racists.

It is apparent to me that we as a society still have a _lot_ of ground to
cover when it comes to the appreciation of the importance of gender and
sexuality equality.

~~~
briantakita
That was 6 years ago. The majority of Californians supported Prop 8 at that
time. Even Barack Obama opposed gay marriage back then. Why aren't we raising
the pitchforks against Obama?

People change.

This is a witch hunt from an action that someone did a long time ago. He
didn't even do anything wrong. He just supported a mainstream proposition. He
is on the wrong side of history, at that time, sure. But it doesn't deserve
such a reaction. This mob justice is scary.

\---

Edit: Censoring me with downvotes only proves how extreme things have become.
My reasoning is rational.

~~~
parfe
>People change.

What did Eich do which made you think he reconsidered his position that same
sex marriages should be annulled and banned?

~~~
briantakita
[https://brendaneich.com/2014/03/inclusiveness-at-
mozilla/](https://brendaneich.com/2014/03/inclusiveness-at-mozilla/)

He put forth a good-faith effort to promote a position of equality within
Mozilla.

~~~
Crito
That post is neither an apology nor a recant. He does not acknowledge that
what he did was wrong. It is nothing more than a tone-deaf defense of himself.

~~~
briantakita
He also apologized for causing pain. He also stepped down. And since when is
an agenda of equality a bad thing?

He probably doesn't think his support of the proposition was wrong. I don't
either. I'm for Gay Marriage. I'm also for rational public discourse that
respects different points of view.

\---

Thanks for the downvote. I know it's an emotional subject. Maybe you have a
good counterpoint to express? Expression via downvotes it hardly a good point.
It's immature, to be honest.

~~~
Crito
_" I'm sorry for the way you took that."_ is the _classic_ non-apology. He has
done absolutely nothing but defend himself.

> _" Thanks for the downvote."_

I didn't downvote you. I _cannot_ downvote you because you _cannot_ downvote
responses that you receive on HN. Such a persecution complex you've got going
on there...

~~~
briantakita
At this point we are mincing words. He said sorry he caused pain. That is
hardly a nonpology. It does not justify the reaction and pain caused to him.

He has promoted equality within Mozilla. The sad thing is people also started
to protest Mozilla, an organization with LGBT workers. It's free software with
an independent agenda. Now it's malaigned as being homophobic.

The debate is being dumbed down with namecalling and blowing things out of
proportion. It's become black and white with no room for nuance.

It's sad and scary.

-

I'm commenting on the downvotes and flagging as an act of suppressing a
rational discussion. Its similar to the shaming and cyber bullying. The whole
"you disagree with me, I'll punish you" mentality that this movement has taken
is not good for our culture. Surely we are more mature than that.

I don't have a complex and its not for you to judge.

~~~
Crito
You think that downvoting is cyberbullying, and leaped to the assumption that
I was the one that was doing it to you only because you disagree with me.

You _plainly_ do have a persecution complex. The first step to correcting that
is admitting it.

~~~
briantakita
I never said you were downvoting me. Your assumption is false. Re: your so
called "persecution complex" diagnosis, read my points above and below...

I never once attacked you & I don't think I attacked anyone else. If you
disagree, please let me know. I always want to improve. :-)

The only truth I can find in your statement is that I'm contrarian at times,
have a high resolution of perception, & I'm suspicious of group coercion.
Especially when members of the group say people are wrong, or diseased, to
think differently; and they have "persecution complexes" when calling out
something ridiculous like being punished for voicing an opinion in a
respectful & rational way.

I don't know if you realize that you are labeling me as being diseased for the
way I think. Homosexuals were once labeled as diseased. How is that different?
Sadly, many people are "different" are incorrectly labeled as diseased; and
subsequently mistreated. I believe labeling someone as diseased is bad
behavior and should be discouraged.

These power dynamics are algorithms of intolerance & injustice. They are the
"dark side". It doesn't matter if it's on a small or large scale. I believe
humans should resist such urges and should become more enlightened.

There's been studies done about human behavior & power dynamics. Perfectly
"normal" people behaving badly in certain contexts. I hope we have more
studies.

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanford_prison_experiment](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanford_prison_experiment)

The tactic of public shaming and (to a lesser extend) downvoting rational,
respectful, & well articulated points is borderline (& in the spirit of)
persecution.

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution)

No, it's not killing people, but it's group coercion & punishment for holding
an opinion. I believe that is wrong and something that we need to address in
this age of transparency (no privacy) if we are to successfully evolve.
Otherwise, we all need to start thinking the same. That would really suck for
people like me.

The threshold of persecution should be revisited. It's about cause & effect.
Saying something bad about another is not in itself persecution. However, if
that statement causes one to be fired, psychological harm, unhealthy
behavioral modification, etc., then I believe it is persecution.

> The first step to correcting that is admitting it.

Maoist China also "corrected" people's "divergent & diseased" thinking. The
first step that the "diseased" Chinese person had to take was admitting their
"disease".

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reeducation](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reeducation)

So no, I'm not going to admit to some "disease" that you made up in your head
because I disagree with your position & can articulate why. That's like me
saying you are a "psychopath" because you are lacking empathy in this
situation. It's all rubbish. I choose not to play that game.

If you can have rational counterpoints, then let's discuss. Please refrain
from name calling. It's disrespectful & childish. I see you participating on
other threads with me, so you should have a good understand of what I am
about.

------
themoonbus
I'm still not sure where I fall on this issue, but one thing people sometimes
leave out of the discussion is the fact that a CEO is the public face of the
company. Part of your job is to "embody" or communicate the brand, mission,
what have you, of the company you represent, and I don't think Eich had the
ability to do that. His interview with the Guardian was bizarre, and not what
I'd expect from a CEO dealing with controversy.

[http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/apr/01/mozilla-
ce...](http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/apr/01/mozilla-ceo-brendan-
eich-refuses-to-quit)

------
academicish
Here is a topic I am tired of hearing about. Being liberal, apparently, means
tolerating bigoted and backwards-looking values - rly?

~~~
daveqr
If we don't believe in freedom of expression for people we despise, we don't
believe in it at all.

~~~
npsimons
People are more than free to express any opinion they have, including the
opinion that bigoted discriminating opinions are wrong, and don't really fit
the ideals of an organization such as Mozilla.

------
owenjones
"In other words, no one had any reason to worry that Eich, a longtime
executive at the company, would do anything that would negatively affect gay
Mozilla employees."

You know, except for contribute to Prop-8?

------
jessaustin
I wonder what people will use instead of javascript now?

------
ZanyProgrammer
Conservatarian disagrees with progressives and concern trolls. News at 11.

~~~
sliverstorm
He's a self-proclaimed progressive, if I read that article right.

~~~
GFK_of_xmaspast
He can proclaim himself to be whatever he likes, but money speaks and a
thousand bucks to prop 8 is a pretty regressive act.

~~~
sliverstorm
Maybe I misunderstood; I thought my parent was saying the author of this piece
is conservative

------
chez17
I wonder if he had denied the holocaust or was an active KKK member if this
author would be singing the same tune.

~~~
slantyyz
Side note: Where I live, holocaust denial is a crime (considered to be hate
speech). I was a little surprised to read that it's actually legal in the US.

~~~
gdwatson
It's constitutionally-protected in the U.S -- a ban would require a
constitutional amendment, which is very, very hard. Many of us on both sides
of the political spectrum consider America's robust free speech protections to
be the keystone of our society and government.

------
pvnick
One of these articles has to survive the flagging brigade (likely made up of
the same McCarthyites that brought us to this position) and stick to the front
page. Maybe this will be it? It's certainly fair and well-composed.

Edit: Nope.

------
lisper
Brendan Eich was not fired because he made a political donation. He was fired
because the particular political donation he made is _evidence_ that he is a
bigot, that he has a _broken moral code_. There is not, and never has been,
any justification for denying gays the right to marry except prejudice and
bigotry. Every single non-religious argument against gay marriage has been
definitively debunked. Therefore, discrimination against opponents of gay
marriage is _morally justified_ , just as discrimination against other kinds
of bigotry is.

In fact, even if discrimination against opponents of gay marriage were not
morally justified on its own merits, it would be _at least_ as morally
justified as the discrimination against gays that Brendan Eich once wanted to
see enshrined into law.

~~~
dragonwriter
> He was fired because the particular political donation he made is evidence
> that he is a bigot

On what basis is the claim justified that "he was fired" at all?

And, if he was fired (or, at least, given the choice to resign or be fired),
what evidence is that that it was because of the donation (whatever it might
provide "evidence" of), and not because of Mozilla board's concerns about the
way he responded to the controversy over the donation? Managing corporate
image is, after all, part of the CEO's responsibility.

~~~
lisper
I simply used "fired" as shorthand for "pressured to resign." And I think it
_was_ because of his inadequate response, not the initial donation. If he had
fully repented, apologized, admitted he was wrong, I think he might have been
forgiven. But that's not what he did. But my point is simply that however you
reckon it, his ouster was justified.

