8 ms·

I'm not qualified to tell the other side of the story. I don't know why Eich made that contribution. Neither do you. It might have been family pressure, it mi

I'm not qualified to tell the other side of the story. I don't know why Eich made that contribution. Neither do you. It might have been family pressure, it might have honestly been that he's religious and doesn't believe the word "marriage" can be applied to same sex couple (who had Domestic partnerships available in California, which provide the same legal rights as marriage, so I find the "second class citizen" argument entirely lacking. [although now I'll wait to be attacked for simply stating that, even if you have no idea what my personal beliefs on the matter are]) Again, life is filled with shades of gray. Hell, maybe mozilla even benefited from the donation in ways that aren't clear (and they didn't want to put out in the media) You just don't fucking know. Instead you've decided this man should lose his livelyhood based on hearsay and rumor, and outrage on the internet. That's fucking PATHETIC.

scarmig 12y ago
We have public information. The public information is damning: he donated to an organization that ran a campaign of hateful slurs against gay people in order to permanently deny them their human rights in the California Constitution. I guess there might be some private exonerating information, but I have a hard time imagining what it might be.
- bluntly_said 12y ago
  Again, the "deny them their human rights" argument fails to pass the bullshit test. The had domestic partnerships, they had the full legal rights marriage granted available. Prop 8's entire quibble was over the word marriage, so was the pro-gay rights movement. Both sides are trying to codify belief into law, both are wrong.
  - scarmig 12y ago
    So, two points. The first is that you simply have your facts dead wrong. Domestic partnerships did not grant all the benefits of marriage. The federal government did not recognize them, and other states didn't recognize them, and other countries didn't. The only way Californians could fix that inequity was through supporting marriage. Two: if this was such a quibble, why did Prop 8 proponents feel the need to spend tens of millions of dollars attacking gay people with dark and disturbing allegations? If it's just a matter of terminology, why be so hateful and angry about it? And just a reminder, if you weren't there: here are some of the ads that Prop 8 supporters ran. If you think those are full of love and caring, well, I don't know what to do for you. http://www.slate.com/blogs/outward/2014/04/04/brendan_eich_supported_prop_8_which_was_worse_than_you_remember.html http://www.slate.com/blogs/outward/2014/04/04/brendan_eich_s...
    - bluntly_said 12y ago
      Well, the first point about the Partnership not being recognized in other states is fair, but my facts are fine. Even if California let them get married, other states won't recognize it, there's no difference there. But I agree it should be recognized, and again, it's why I firmly believe both sides are too caught up in arguing over what marriage is. The real problem is that the government codified religion into law by allowing rights to married people. That's what needed to change. Force all couple to get a civil union, tax that instead. No controversy anymore, everyone wins. As for point two: I also agree with you here, I feel like prop 8 probably WAS a cover to bash gay rights, and it's why I generally dislike associating with it. That said, I still firmly believe both sides got this one wrong. ---- So I guess at the end of the day, two wrongs don't make a right.
Karunamon 12y ago
I'm not qualified to tell the other side of the story. What a cop out. You're, like everyone else who disagrees with this, downplaying Eich's behavior and trying to turn activists into the "real" monsters for speaking out. Why the double standard? Why does one man, Eich, get a pass on speaking out for his personal political beliefs (with cash), but you demonize the the (hundreds? thousands? more?) people who did nothing but say that it was unacceptable? You want pathetic? Look at your own post. Realize what you're defending. You should be ashamed of yourself.
- briantakita 12y ago
  > trying to turn activists into the "real" monsters for speaking out If the activists act like monsters, then that needs to be called out as well. Power corrupts. Do you think the activists are immune?
  - Ygg2 12y ago
    Nope. Not one bit. Shitstorm like this just reinforces my people that all people are equally capable of evil and good. This time with emphasis on evil. I don't get what does his private belief have to do with making Firefox? Seriously, what? Also replace this scandal with person X becoming CEO and then media discovering he fucked a cat once. Do you think he'd really rise to top ranks and suddenly turn the firm into a place for cat orgies?
- bluntly_said 12y ago
  You understand you're the definition of a schoolyard bully, right? I've read all my posts, several times. I'm internally consistent, and I almost always favor cautious respect over ignorant bashing. I'm not even defending Eich, again, I don't know him. I'm stating that a social environment where a man loses a job Mozilla thought he was qualified for because of private personal beliefs and internet outrage is not only actively undemocratic, it's foolish and childish.
  - Karunamon 12y ago
    >I'm stating that a social environment where a man loses a job Mozilla thought he was qualified for because of private personal beliefs Private "personal beliefs" that he reached into his wallet and tried to force into law. This is the one thing that people don't seem to understand. Eich didn't just think gays were second class citizens. This isn't a "thoughtcrime" he's being pilloried for. It was the action. The donation, coupled with his complete refusal to backtrack, explain, or apologize. Just evade and spin all day long. I have absolutely no problem stamping Eich with "unrepentant bigot" on his forehead because he's proven beyond any shadow of a doubt that those are his beliefs. It is both unreasonable and inconsistent to give him "the benefit of the doubt" after his behavior when the donations came to light. There is no question anymore. >actively undemocratic, it's foolish and childish. I don't think you know what democracy means. Publicly proclaim your allegiance to Stormfront or a group that holds similar regressive views for women, and tell me your life will remain unaffected.
r0s 12y ago
"Family" or "religious" pressure is fucking pathetic. We're supposed to be talking about adults here, why don't you change his diapers while you're at it? If family or community is such a strong force in our lives, maybe the systemic criminalization of those concepts for certain people is a bigger tragedy than you admit.

scarmig 12y ago

We have public information. The public information is damning: he donated to an organization that ran a campaign of hateful slurs against gay people in order to permanently deny them their human rights in the California Constitution. I guess there might be some private exonerating information, but I have a hard time imagining what it might be.

bluntly_said 12y ago
Again, the "deny them their human rights" argument fails to pass the bullshit test. The had domestic partnerships, they had the full legal rights marriage granted available. Prop 8's entire quibble was over the word marriage, so was the pro-gay rights movement. Both sides are trying to codify belief into law, both are wrong.
- scarmig 12y ago
  So, two points. The first is that you simply have your facts dead wrong. Domestic partnerships did not grant all the benefits of marriage. The federal government did not recognize them, and other states didn't recognize them, and other countries didn't. The only way Californians could fix that inequity was through supporting marriage. Two: if this was such a quibble, why did Prop 8 proponents feel the need to spend tens of millions of dollars attacking gay people with dark and disturbing allegations? If it's just a matter of terminology, why be so hateful and angry about it? And just a reminder, if you weren't there: here are some of the ads that Prop 8 supporters ran. If you think those are full of love and caring, well, I don't know what to do for you. http://www.slate.com/blogs/outward/2014/04/04/brendan_eich_supported_prop_8_which_was_worse_than_you_remember.html http://www.slate.com/blogs/outward/2014/04/04/brendan_eich_s...
  - bluntly_said 12y ago
    Well, the first point about the Partnership not being recognized in other states is fair, but my facts are fine. Even if California let them get married, other states won't recognize it, there's no difference there. But I agree it should be recognized, and again, it's why I firmly believe both sides are too caught up in arguing over what marriage is. The real problem is that the government codified religion into law by allowing rights to married people. That's what needed to change. Force all couple to get a civil union, tax that instead. No controversy anymore, everyone wins. As for point two: I also agree with you here, I feel like prop 8 probably WAS a cover to bash gay rights, and it's why I generally dislike associating with it. That said, I still firmly believe both sides got this one wrong. ---- So I guess at the end of the day, two wrongs don't make a right.

Karunamon 12y ago

I'm not qualified to tell the other side of the story. What a cop out. You're, like everyone else who disagrees with this, downplaying Eich's behavior and trying to turn activists into the "real" monsters for speaking out. Why the double standard? Why does one man, Eich, get a pass on speaking out for his personal political beliefs (with cash), but you demonize the the (hundreds? thousands? more?) people who did nothing but say that it was unacceptable? You want pathetic? Look at your own post. Realize what you're defending. You should be ashamed of yourself.

briantakita 12y ago
> trying to turn activists into the "real" monsters for speaking out If the activists act like monsters, then that needs to be called out as well. Power corrupts. Do you think the activists are immune?
- Ygg2 12y ago
  Nope. Not one bit. Shitstorm like this just reinforces my people that all people are equally capable of evil and good. This time with emphasis on evil. I don't get what does his private belief have to do with making Firefox? Seriously, what? Also replace this scandal with person X becoming CEO and then media discovering he fucked a cat once. Do you think he'd really rise to top ranks and suddenly turn the firm into a place for cat orgies?
bluntly_said 12y ago
You understand you're the definition of a schoolyard bully, right? I've read all my posts, several times. I'm internally consistent, and I almost always favor cautious respect over ignorant bashing. I'm not even defending Eich, again, I don't know him. I'm stating that a social environment where a man loses a job Mozilla thought he was qualified for because of private personal beliefs and internet outrage is not only actively undemocratic, it's foolish and childish.
- Karunamon 12y ago
  >I'm stating that a social environment where a man loses a job Mozilla thought he was qualified for because of private personal beliefs Private "personal beliefs" that he reached into his wallet and tried to force into law. This is the one thing that people don't seem to understand. Eich didn't just think gays were second class citizens. This isn't a "thoughtcrime" he's being pilloried for. It was the action. The donation, coupled with his complete refusal to backtrack, explain, or apologize. Just evade and spin all day long. I have absolutely no problem stamping Eich with "unrepentant bigot" on his forehead because he's proven beyond any shadow of a doubt that those are his beliefs. It is both unreasonable and inconsistent to give him "the benefit of the doubt" after his behavior when the donations came to light. There is no question anymore. >actively undemocratic, it's foolish and childish. I don't think you know what democracy means. Publicly proclaim your allegiance to Stormfront or a group that holds similar regressive views for women, and tell me your life will remain unaffected.

r0s 12y ago

"Family" or "religious" pressure is fucking pathetic. We're supposed to be talking about adults here, why don't you change his diapers while you're at it? If family or community is such a strong force in our lives, maybe the systemic criminalization of those concepts for certain people is a bigger tragedy than you admit.