> The ex-Mozilla CEO knows this well. An online bullying campaign was launched against him and he was forced to quit.
Hahahahahahaha no. Eich paid money to political campaigns to ensure that some of his own employees and fellow citizens would not have basic human rights. Then, he refused to apologize for it and dodged the question when asked if he would do it again. That's not "expressing an opinion," that's nearly sociopathic. He was clearly working against his employees' best interest. Even ignoring his employees' feelings, he was bad for the company. Many productive employees threatened to quit because they didn't want to be represented by a person who explicitly expressed hatred towards them or their friends.
That kind of person does not belong in a position of power, full stop. Expressing homophobia in 2015 is going to close doors, the same way expressing racism or sexism does and should. There was no "bullying campaign" except the one supported and perpetrated by Eich.
> Then, he refused to apologize for it and dodged the question when asked if he would do it again. That's not "expressing an opinion," that's nearly sociopathic.
Forcing someone to apologize for something that is not universally considered to be wrong is a good example of bullying. As is calling publicly his behaviour "sociopathic".
> He was clearly working against his employees' best interest.
This is hardly considered to be a firing offense for a CEO -- in fact, in many cases this is considered to be good by many people, e.g. by anti-tradeunionists when CEOs fights with unions.
> Many productive employees threatened to quit because they didn't want to be represented by a person who explicitly expressed hatred towards them or their friends.
Saying that he explicitly expressed hatred towards anyone is misrepresenting the facts, and is another example of bullying.
I'm not religious, so I don't advocate for religious beliefs. I don't, however, deem people with non-violent religious beliefs, that differ from mine, to be "sociopaths".
So you'd be okay with, say, banning bacon because Jews don't eat it? I'm not arguing against a religious belief. I'm arguing against a religious belief being enforced by the government.
This isn't a disagreement over optimal taxation rates. There are people committing suicide because they've been demonized by people like those Eich paid money to support. There is real harm being done.
The alternative side to this argument is that if Eich discriminates against anyone at work he loses his job, but that inclusiveness includes including people we don't like - and that means Christians with weird but semi-private views about gay marriage.
The only reason anyone knows about his ciews is because political donations are public, not because of anything he did at work.
Yeah, sure, if you're privately a bigot, how is anyone to know?
But this was the CEO of a company unapologetically supporting a hate group aimed at many of his own employees. Then people have the balls to claim he was "bullied" out of his position as head of a major Internet company?
This isn't crazy programmer Ed going on about some conspiracy theory, this is the CEO of your company supporting hate directed at you and your friends. You can just wave Ed away. This guy is going after your fundamental rights. Screw that.
>But this was the CEO of a company unapologetically supporting a hate group aimed at many of his own employees.
There likely wouldn't have been a Mozilla corp or org if he hadn't founded the company and as Mozilla grew he did nothing to hamper its growth into a highly diversity-friendly company. Privately he had issues, likely religious, about the definition of marriage and this was, culturally, a mainstream view at the time.
> in fact, in many cases this is considered to be good by many people, e.g. by anti-tradeunionists when CEOs fights with unions.
Sure, but arguably they're benefiting the company then. In what way does denying some people fundamental rights that other people are allowed to have benefit Mozilla? It's a different situation.
> Saying that he explicitly expressed hatred towards anyone is misrepresenting the facts
It really isn't. Did you see the Prop 8 campaign? Do you know the kind of offensive garbage anti-gay groups spew, even today? They regularly call homosexuals pedophiles, rapists, accuse them of having an "agenda" to convert others to homosexuality, or that their god hates them. These groups are a wellspring of hate, and Prop 8 was no lily-white exception. The "National Organization for Marriage," a major supporter of Prop 8, has been classified by the Southern Poverty Law Center as a hate group.
That's what Eich was paying to support. If giving material support to a cause forwarded by hate groups doesn't classify as expressing hatred, I really don't know what does.
Do you think people should get fired and ostracized for donating to Planned Parenthood? They literally murder babies. What kind of person thinks murder is ok, and would donate money to help an organization systematically murder? This kind of person does not belong in a position of power, full stop.
They abort fetuses, they don't murder babies. A baby has gone through the process of birth while a fetus has not.
I understand that this won't change anyone who's already formed an opinion on abortion but lying about your opposition shows a weakness in your position.
I think the grandparent is making a point about perspective and POV, one that you have conveniently proved by responding with an argument in absolute terms.
To some people, Planned Parenthood aborts fetuses. To other people, Planned Parenthood murders babies. I personally am much more in the former camp than the latter. But would you want the people who believe the latter to get you fired from your job because they read your Hacker News comment and plaster it all over conservative newspapers that "wavefunction is an apologist for baby murderers!"? I certainly wouldn't.
The nuance that always gets lost in these discussions is that different people have different points of view, and the same words may mean different things to them. Combine that with the lynch mob mentality and you have a powder keg.
For the record, I don't think the author was actually trying to defend that point, but instead to highlight how when taken out of context or in hindsight any one of our behaviors could in the future be seen as a real, unambiguously "wrong" act.
Thought experiment: Let's say hypothetically scientists discovered a drug or "vaccine" that a pregnant woman could take, which would guarantee that a male child of hers would not be gay (I'm operating under the assumption that homosexuality is caused by genetic or environmental factors and is not a free choice of the individual).
Would you be opposed to pregnant women taking this drug?
At what point does a set of reproducing cells become an "offspring"? It's a hard question to answer and there's no bright line. I understand the opposition's argument, and I don't feel nearly as much animosity towards them.
There is no legitimate argument against gay marriage.
I'm gay (& partnered, fwiw), and I'd have to agree that there certainly aren't any good arguments against gay marriage; at least, not any arguments we'd accept in a wealthy, industrialized, western society at the beginning of this millennium, but do keep in mind that the great, great majority of the world does not agree with that assessment.
So, what makes an argument legitimate? In order for one to suggest that there is no legitimate argument against gay marriage, you'd have to rationalize what it is that we in the west know better than those living in less-wealthy, less-industrialized societies outside our corner of the globe.
I don't know that we need to go that far. In the US we take the stance that people should be free to do what they want unless what they want to do interferes with other people doing what they want. Where people conflict in their desires is where the law comes in to settle the matter. Whether that system is good or not is an open question, I guess, but it's what we have.
Using that as a rulestick, no one will be negatively impacted by homosexuals getting married. Studies have been done, plenty of places around the globe have tried it with no negative consequences. The courts agree. There's no government interest in preventing gay marriage.
Sure, keeping in mind that I don't disagree with any of that -- is this a stance that we've just adopted within the last ten(ish) years -- because if the issue of gay marriage were really that simple, wouldn't it have always been legal?
I would argue yes, it should have been. Just like women and minorities should always have had the vote and slavery was always immoral. But they all required periods of strife, and now anyone who argues against those positions is rightly shunned.
In order for one to suggest that there is no legitimate argument against gay marriage, you'd have to rationalize what it is that we in the west know better than those living in less-wealthy, less-industrialized societies outside our corner of the globe.
Most of those other societies incorporate substantial religious influence in their legislative and/or judicial processes. It doesn't require "rationalization" to demonstrate that this is harmful to human progress.
As an atheist, I agree, but asserting that the rationale behind prohibiting gay marriage is mostly religious isn't supported by evidence. More than a quarter of the world's population lives in countries that are majority-atheist without being any more supportive of gay marriage than those of us in western, more-religious countries.
EDIT: Apparently that's a little contentious -- only 47% self-declared atheist (http://redcresearch.ie/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/RED-C-pres...), but given that 9% of those surveyed did not respond to the question, the majority of respondents to this specific survey question did self-proclaim themselves as atheists.
Naw -- not really illegal; although it's probably politically complicated to be religious: "No state organ, public organization or individual may compel citizens to believe in, or not to believe in, any religion; nor may they discriminate against citizens because they do, or do not believe in religion." (Article 45 of their 1978 Constitution).
Even today -- decades after the state/social pressures against religious affiliation disappeared -- most former soviet states still have very large atheist populations.
> Do you think people should get fired and ostracized for donating to Planned Parenthood?
Yes, I think people, in a position where PR is a part of their role such as CEO, that work toward things that cause substantial outcry that prevent him from doing his job, should probably not be in that position.
Or are you saying that you'd think someone working against the ideals of Planned Parenthood in their own time would be suited to lead it?
You might disagree with the reasons, but the reality is, he couldn't do his job because of the outcry. So, the fundamental question becomes: Do you think someone should get fired for not being able to do their job?
He's a war criminal who slaughters innocent civilians in countries he is not at war at (not that it matters, since, innocent civilians), so ideally, he should be tried at the Hague?
So if the CEO of your company doesn't share your political views, and votes for or against a law that might harm you, that CEO doesn't belong in a position if power? Someone who is enacting his fundamental rights, and having an opinion shouldn't be in a position of power?
I'm curious, while he was a CEO did he do anything that would hurt his employees? Did he say anything that would indicate he would hurt his employees?
Just curious why this is getting downvoted. Are people actually buying the whole "Eich is a victim because as a white multimillionaire he lost his job because he cared deeply about taking away the rights of others"...?
Do you think campaigning to ensure a group of people don't have certain fundamental rights that others do, for no reason other than your own personal animosity, doesn't qualify as sociopathic? I do.
This matter you are concerned with has always had more to do with recognition and acceptance in society than rights and equality.
You seem sharp set to demonize Eich and otherwise be combative with others in all these comments. Have you ever considered that your attitude would harden peoples' hearts against you rather than warming them?
Do you think you will you ever be able to drop this victim act and heal and move on with life?
Most people on this planet have religious beliefs, that claim some behaviors are good, and some behaviors are bad. A lot of them don't make much sense. Maybe you think that God doesn't want you eating bacon. Why? I don't know. But you follow them because you believe that's what God wants you to do. A lot of people—millions and millions of people in the US—believe that their God disapproves of gay marriage. And so these people, who are trying to understand the world and their place in it, try to live out the expectations they believe that their God has for them.
Maybe you think that sucks. Well, in fairly short order, gay marriage is being legalized over their objections. That's a good thing. But to believe that it's being fueled by sociopathic animosity—to turn millions of Americans into movie villains because they haven't yet learned what you already have—is an act of arrogant blindness. And it's a harm to you as well—by not understanding why they believe what they do, by turning them into fictional caricatures, you lose all hope of changing their mind, and helping them learn what you learned.
I have no doubt that, over time, quite a lot of them will see the errors of their ways, and support gay marriage. But it will be despite you, not thanks to you.
That's not what the first amendment says. A lot of laws have inspiration in religion (and tradition)—people believe X, and so want laws that support X. But if X gets passed as a law, it's because people support X, not necessarily because it comes from a religion. What we're seeing with gay marriage is, people are studying the matter, and finding out that the only reasons against it are religion, and tradition. And those aren't sufficient. So laws against it are being overruled.
But that isn't to say that religion has (or should have) no influence, because it influences the believers, who then support laws & lawmakers. Nor is always it possible to separate the beliefs that someone holds for religious reasons, vs. beliefs they hold for other reasons. But it does mean that a law needs more than religious reasons to stay on the books. Thankfully, gay marriage seems to be one that is mostly held for religious reasons, so laws preventing it can be dismantled (versus, say, marijuana prohibition. It's more than just religion, so it's harder to dismantle).
But if all you take away is that people against gay marriage aren't driven by sociopathic malice, then that's still an improvement.
Hahahahahahaha no. Eich paid money to political campaigns to ensure that some of his own employees and fellow citizens would not have basic human rights. Then, he refused to apologize for it and dodged the question when asked if he would do it again. That's not "expressing an opinion," that's nearly sociopathic. He was clearly working against his employees' best interest. Even ignoring his employees' feelings, he was bad for the company. Many productive employees threatened to quit because they didn't want to be represented by a person who explicitly expressed hatred towards them or their friends.
That kind of person does not belong in a position of power, full stop. Expressing homophobia in 2015 is going to close doors, the same way expressing racism or sexism does and should. There was no "bullying campaign" except the one supported and perpetrated by Eich.