Mozilla CEO Steps Down, Homophobes Cry Foul

[Art Vandelay]

Personally, I just don't care. I use Firefox because it's a good browser, not to express my political views. Not to mention, I've got a nice selection of handy add-ons installed, including a few that are Firefox exclusive. I really can't be arsed to find a new browser and set it up just the way I like it because the CEO's a knob-end. In fact, since CEO's come and go all the time from large companies, it seems wildly impractical to switch products every time one gets appointed that you don't like.

[Witchyjoshy]

And my philosophy lines in pretty closely with Art's.

Even if I was aware of this when it was relevant, I'd still use Firefox because IDGAF

[The Illusive Man]

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.

Prove the bolded statement. And do tell why harm can not be used as a separator.

How is it analogous? A political campaign generally aims to change some aspect of society in general.

You are confusing the means with the effect. A campaign is the means in which a political figure uses to obtain office by demonizing other persons in order to affect change. Nasty tactics can be used in an campaign, eg what you described below.

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.

He donated money to the AFA, he is not a corporation, and thus it is action not speech. But the best part is that he provided enough rope to hang himself in response to a fellow board member trying to enact damage control:

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.”

[Canadian Mojo]

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

Because what is considered acceptable behavior towards him dictates what is considered acceptable behavior towards us by people who think we are the dregs of society (i.e. a loud bunch of dipshits on Tumblr).

Personally, I don't have a problem with being called out or shunned for my actions if somebody feels the need to.

[I am lizard]

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

Because what is considered acceptable behavior towards him dictates what is considered acceptable behavior towards us by people who think we are the dregs of society (i.e. a loud bunch of dipshits on Tumblr).

Personally, I don't have a problem with being called out or shunned for my actions if somebody feels the need to.

Hold on, read that in the voice of an overprotective middle age mother.

[Sigmaleph]

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.

Sure. And people firing pro-gay supporters will say that they were donating to a cause that was destroying natural institutions and Eich was trying to save traditional marriage.

The problem with thinking that way is that, from the outside, it's indistinguishable from saying "That guy agrees me and has a right to free speech, those other guys disagree with me and their speech is destroying us all". I agree 100% that gay rights is a worthy cause and "protecting traditional marriage" is bullshit. But I can't expect mobs of outraged people to agree with me on what is worthy cause and what isn't in every case, so I'm strongly opposed to a system where mobs of outraged people determines who gets to keep their job.

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.

Prove the bolded statement. And do tell why harm can not be used as a separator.

I believe I already said why. "Harm" is ridiculously vague. Is a group harmed by losing their right to marry who they want? Then, is a group harmed by losing their right to impose their values on the rest of the people? Certainly they don't seem happy about it.

How is it analogous? A political campaign generally aims to change some aspect of society in general.

You are confusing the means with the effect. A campaign is the means in which a political figure uses to obtain office by demonizing other persons in order to affect change. Nasty tactics can be used in an campaign, eg what you described below.

Sorry, I thought you meant a political campaign in the sense of "collect signatures to outlaw X Y Z". In any case, the comparison is still invalid. Not getting a job you want is fundamentally different from losing one you already have.

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.

He donated money to the AFA, he is not a corporation, and thus it is action not speech.

a) I don't recall arguing he was a corporation. I don't see how it gets into this in any way.

b) So the distinction here is that he actually donated money. So... he has a right to have anti-gay views, but not to want to change the law to reflect those views? If he had merely said that he doesn't think gays should marry and not given money to a campaign, you'd be right here with me bothered that he lost his job over it?

[I am lizard]

Sure. And people firing pro-gay supporters will say that they were donating to a cause that was destroying natural institutions and Eich was trying to save traditional marriage.

The problem with thinking that way is that, from the outside, it's indistinguishable from saying "That guy agrees me and has a right to free speech, those other guys disagree with me and their speech is destroying us all". I agree 100% that gay rights is a worthy cause and "protecting traditional marriage" is bullshit. But I can't expect mobs of outraged people to agree with me on what is worthy cause and what isn't in every case, so I'm strongly opposed to a system where mobs of outraged people determines who gets to keep their job.

Ok, why the fuck is it that only his free speech is protected? If he gets to donate money to whatever homophobic group he wants I have the same right to deny him money in the form of a boycott.
If he supports preventing people from getting married, I have the right to support him not being a CEO.
Free speech is just a term saying the government can't disappear me, I'm still subject to to scrutiny from others.

[Sigmaleph]

Sure. And people firing pro-gay supporters will say that they were donating to a cause that was destroying natural institutions and Eich was trying to save traditional marriage.

The problem with thinking that way is that, from the outside, it's indistinguishable from saying "That guy agrees me and has a right to free speech, those other guys disagree with me and their speech is destroying us all". I agree 100% that gay rights is a worthy cause and "protecting traditional marriage" is bullshit. But I can't expect mobs of outraged people to agree with me on what is worthy cause and what isn't in every case, so I'm strongly opposed to a system where mobs of outraged people determines who gets to keep their job.

Ok, why the fuck is it that only his free speech is protected? If he gets to donate money to whatever homophobic group he wants I have the same right to deny him money in the form of a boycott.

Everyone's free speech gets protected; I'm not saying boycotting Mozilla should be banned or people should be punished for doing so, I jut think it's the wrong move. I object to Eich's political views and contributions but defend his right to them. Similarly, I object to your boycott but defend your right to do it.

[Witchyjoshy]

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.

Sure. And people firing pro-gay supporters will say that they were donating to a cause that was destroying natural institutions and Eich was trying to save traditional marriage.

And they would be factually wrong.  We are not factually wrong.

Believe me, I've worried over this thing before, but the facts line up.  I'm not going to give their viewpoint equal consideration because their viewpoint is based off of superstition and fear, and my viewpoint is based off of facts, knowledge, and experience.

The problem with thinking that way is that, from the outside, it's indistinguishable from saying "That guy agrees me and has a right to free speech, those other guys disagree with me and their speech is destroying us all".

Except that not all viewpoints are equal.  Would you give equal consideration to someone who insists that nobody should be allowed to eat hamburger because his unicorn friend demands it, as you would to someone who wants to ensure that the poor have decent access to hamburger that is made from cruelty-free meat that isn't lathered in antibiotics?

His "right to free speech" means that he cannot be censored by the government, for all practical purposes.  It does not mean that people are not allowed to perform an inaction, while stating that they are doing so for various reasons.  If anything, protecting him would have denied everyone else free speech.

Sorry, Sigma, but I've come a conclusion that it was indeed a good thing for this to have happened.  I'm not going to cater to the right wing conservatives simply to "save image".

[I am lizard]

Sure. And people firing pro-gay supporters will say that they were donating to a cause that was destroying natural institutions and Eich was trying to save traditional marriage.

The problem with thinking that way is that, from the outside, it's indistinguishable from saying "That guy agrees me and has a right to free speech, those other guys disagree with me and their speech is destroying us all". I agree 100% that gay rights is a worthy cause and "protecting traditional marriage" is bullshit. But I can't expect mobs of outraged people to agree with me on what is worthy cause and what isn't in every case, so I'm strongly opposed to a system where mobs of outraged people determines who gets to keep their job.

Ok, why the fuck is it that only his free speech is protected? If he gets to donate money to whatever homophobic group he wants I have the same right to deny him money in the form of a boycott.

Everyone's free speech gets protected; I'm not saying boycotting Mozilla should be banned or people should be punished for doing so, I jut think it's the wrong move. I object to Eich's political views and contributions but defend his right to them. Similarly, I object to your boycott but defend your right to do it.

Meh, reasonable enough.
I suppose while I still disagree, honestly I don't i don't really care that much.

[The Illusive Man]

I believe I already said why. "Harm" is ridiculously vague. Is a group harmed by losing their right to marry who they want? Then, is a group harmed by losing their right to impose their values on the rest of the people? Certainly they don't seem happy about it.

Do tell how and why harm is so vague that it can not be quantified and qualified by a third party.

a)   I don't recall arguing he was a corporation. I don't see how it gets into this in any way.
b)   So the distinction here is that he actually donated money. So... he has a right to have anti-gay views, but not to want to change the law to reflect those views? If he had merely said that he doesn't think gays should marry and not given money to a campaign, you'd be right here with me bothered that he lost his job over it?

His donation to the AFA is not speech, it is action not sentiment. If he was a corporation it would be speech. This brings me to b.

It is common knowledge that the AFA is a hate group who specifically targets people based upon an inherit characteristic, sexuality in this case. The comparison to the KKK is quite apt and is enough to give déjà vu to the inter racial marriage issue from decades ago. Here let me demonstrate:

a)   So the distinction here is that he actually donated money. So... he has a right to have anti-gayblack views, but not to want to change the law to reflect those views? If he had merely said that he doesn't think gays should marry and not given money to a campaign, you'd be right here with me bothered that he lost his job over it?

There is something very halarious about that last question though. Even if he did not donate money he still would have lost his position because as CEO he publically represents Mozilla. By spouting wargarble he demonizes everybody involved and thus is deemed a PR liability to be replaced with another publicized figure by the board. The donations and further interviews only dig himself deeper. Folks, this is called damage control.

[Canadian Mojo]

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

Because what is considered acceptable behavior towards him dictates what is considered acceptable behavior towards us by people who think we are the dregs of society (i.e. a loud bunch of dipshits on Tumblr).

Personally, I don't have a problem with being called out or shunned for my actions if somebody feels the need to.

Hold on, read that in the voice of an overprotective middle age mother.

More fun to read it in Clint Eastwood's voice...

"See, I understand you men were just playing around. The mule just doesn't get it. Of course, if you were all to apologize..."

[Sigmaleph]

I believe I already said why. "Harm" is ridiculously vague. Is a group harmed by losing their right to marry who they want? Then, is a group harmed by losing their right to impose their values on the rest of the people? Certainly they don't seem happy about it.

Do tell how and why harm is so vague that it can not be quantified and qualified by a third party.

Do tell me of any third party that has quantified and qualified harm in a way that has widespread agreement.

a)   I don't recall arguing he was a corporation. I don't see how it gets into this in any way.
b)   So the distinction here is that he actually donated money. So... he has a right to have anti-gay views, but not to want to change the law to reflect those views? If he had merely said that he doesn't think gays should marry and not given money to a campaign, you'd be right here with me bothered that he lost his job over it?

His donation to the AFA is not speech, it is action not sentiment. If he was a corporation it would be speech. This brings me to b.

It is common knowledge that the AFA is a hate group who specifically targets people based upon an inherit characteristic, sexuality in this case. The comparison to the KKK is quite apt and is enough to give déjà vu to the inter racial marriage issue from decades ago.

He donated to the Proposition 8 campaign, not the AFA. Unless you are arguing that makes him support everything the AFA says, by association?

There is something very halarious about that last question though. Even if he did not donate money he still would have lost his position because as CEO he publically represents Mozilla. By spouting wargarble he demonizes everybody involved and thus is deemed a PR liability to be replaced with another publicized figure by the board. The donations and further interviews only dig himself deeper. Folks, this is called damage control.

So that "action not speech" point you brought up above is irrelevant.

And the whole PR thing is precisely my point. What becomes a PR liability can be just about anything, because it depends on whether your actions are popular or impopular enough (not long ago, Eich's views would have been in the majority). Normalising and justifying a process where it's ok to do anything to whoever is in the losing side is not a positive.

[The Illusive Man]

I believe I already said why. "Harm" is ridiculously vague. Is a group harmed by losing their right to marry who they want? Then, is a group harmed by losing their right to impose their values on the rest of the people? Certainly they don't seem happy about it.

Do tell how and why harm is so vague that it can not be quantified and qualified by a third party.

Do tell me of any third party that has quantified and qualified harm in a way that has widespread agreement.

Your attempt to shift the burden of proof is bad and you should feel bad. So I will repeat, how and why harm is so vague that it cannot be quantified and qualified by a third party?

He donated to the Proposition 8 campaign, not the AFA. Unless you are arguing that makes him support everything the AFA says, by association?

You first sentence implies that the AFA received no financial support due to a political means from Yes on Prop 8.
You second sentence if flat out disingenuous as it attempts to distract from the fact that the AFA outright supports discrimination against a group of people by their common, inherent characteristic (sexuality in this case).  Their sentiment and actions match his sentiment and actions by intent.

So that "action not speech" point you brought up above is irrelevant.

And the whole PR thing is precisely my point. What becomes a PR liability can be just about anything, because it depends on whether your actions are popular or impopular enough (not long ago, Eich's views would have been in the majority). Normalising and justifying a process where it's ok to do anything to whoever is in the losing side is not a positive.

And this is how I know you did not look into this matter. The reason why he became a PR liability was not the protests and boycotts, that rabble were aftershocks. The listing of Mozilla as a supporter of Yes on Prop 8 by California law was not the starting cause. His donations were known since 2008. The hemorrhaging of developers and staff from Mozilla were not the cause either. The reason why he became a PR liability is because his discrimination against a group of people by their inherent characteristic cannot be reconciled with his position as CEO.

[Sigmaleph]

Do tell me of any third party that has quantified and qualified harm in a way that has widespread agreement.

Your attempt to shift the burden of proof is bad and you should feel bad. So I will repeat, how and why harm is so vague that it cannot be quantified and qualified by a third party?

I will take that as a tacit admission that you do not know of anyone that has in fact done so, which is at least some evidence right there.

Harm can be used to mean anything that negatively affects a person to any extent. If you call someone fat, or tell them you believe their loved ones are not in heaven, or tell them you pretended to be their friend to win a bet and you secretly never liked thgem, it can cause emotional distress, which is a form of harm. Unless you want to argue that all of the above should not be considered free speech, you cannot use "harm" as the separator between free speech and hate speech without some further specification as to what kind and degree of harm.

He donated to the Proposition 8 campaign, not the AFA. Unless you are arguing that makes him support everything the AFA says, by association?

You first sentence implies that the AFA received no financial support due to a political means from Yes on Prop 8.
You second sentence if flat out disingenuous as it attempts to distract from the fact that the AFA outright supports discrimination against a group of people by their common, inherent characteristic (sexuality in this case).  Their sentiment and actions match his sentiment and actions by intent.

And while I attempt to distract from the AFA who I never defended, you attempt to distract from Eich's actual views by grouping him with the AFA.

So that "action not speech" point you brought up above is irrelevant.

And the whole PR thing is precisely my point. What becomes a PR liability can be just about anything, because it depends on whether your actions are popular or impopular enough (not long ago, Eich's views would have been in the majority). Normalising and justifying a process where it's ok to do anything to whoever is in the losing side is not a positive.

And this is how I know you did not look into this matter. The reason why he became a PR liability was not the protests and boycotts, that rabble were aftershocks. The listing of Mozilla as a supporter of Yes on Prop 8 by California law was not the starting cause. His donations were known since 2008. The hemorrhaging of developers and staff from Mozilla were not the cause either. The reason why he became a PR liability is because his discrimination against a group of people by their inherent characteristic cannot be reconciled with his position as CEO.

The way people responded to his anti-gay views is an inherent part of him becoming a PR liability. Unless Mozilla actually discriminated against LGBT people as a result of his position as CEO, then the only problem is that people don't like his views (with good reason) and think he should be fired over them (not with good reason). Show me an example of that, and I'll freely admit I was misinformed and shut up.