[Karunamon]

>Eich said he supported equality.

His actions show otherwise.

I've said this before here, but I have much less problem with the (small) donation (to a failed cause) than I do his subsequent behavior.

His subsequent hypocrisy proves beyond any reasonable doubt that those views are still very personal and very real to him, regardless of what comes out of his mouth.

One does not abdicate a CEO position, something of great prestige, power, and compensation, on a lark. He was asked, multiple times by multiple people what his true thoughts were and declined to elaborate. He could have just (heartfeltly) apologized. He could have just thrown another $1000 at GLAAD/HRC/etc.

>You are conflating the state not recognizing gay marriage with a human rights issue. Not everyone agrees.

The same could be said of women's suffrage or the equlaity of blacks. The fact that it's a state issue does not preclude it being a human rights issue.

I have skin in this game. I see the behavior of people like Eich as a personal affront to me and people close to me. A proclamation that people like me should remain second class citizens because of some outmoded religious belief.

> However, ostracizing supports makes the ostracizers act like bullies.

Again, how is this any different from publicly announcing your support of some other anti-equality group? How well do you think a CEO would do if it came out that they were donators to Stormfront? I keep hearing this "bullies" line but it doesn't add up.

[Xdes]

>I see the behavior of people like Eich as a personal affront to me and people close to me.

Yet you aren't going to get fired for having expressed those views five years ago. How would you feel if your boss decided to fire you over your personal beliefs, overlooking your professional merits? Do you really want McCarthyism again?

[bane]

> Yet you aren't going to get fired for having expressed those views five years ago.

There was a time, during my own lifetime where it is was perfectly acceptable to openly discuss weather whites and blacks should be allowed to get married or not. Social change can occur quickly, like a wildfire, the recent history of a change is not all that important -- the fire has already happened.

[eropple]

I know more than one transgendered person who was let go from a tech job because of "culture fit" when they decided to transition. So I'm not really sure what the difference is except that it's a white male under the gun.

[briantakita]

> His actions show otherwise.

Those who know him say he treated everybody equally. He set policy & a supported a system in Mozilla that promoted equality. His heart is in a decent place. We all have moral blind spots. He has his past. We all need to grow in some areas.

Painting Eich as some "extremist" is disingenuous.

> How well do you think a CEO would do if it came out that they were donators to Stormfront?

Prop 8 had 52% of the vote. It is a mainstream opinion. Stormfront is a fringe group. Eich does not seem to belong to any other extreme group. He just supported a Proposition.

Numbers does not mean morality, however it does indicate that someone is relatively in line with the rest of the population.

I struggle with this because there are things that most people are ok with that suppress rights of those who don't have a voice right now.

Whenever I bring up those issue, I face the risk of ostricization. That is why I oppose ostracizing Eich. That behavior opposes equality & tolerance. It make it "ok" to be kneejerk judgmental.

If there's one thing that we learned from gay rights, black rights, & woman rights, it's we need to be more tolerant as a society. We need to treat everybody with respect.

> He was asked, multiple times by multiple people what his true thoughts were and declined to elaborate.

Over a period of a few days? He did apologize for hurting people.

He obviously felt strongly about this issue. It's coercive to make him change his mind from social pressure. Actually, it probably meant he would have to lie. He chose to not talk about it, as it would have cause more emotional distress. Given his position, he acted in a respectful manner.

> I have skin in this game.

We all do brother or sister :-)

> I see the behavior of people like Eich as a personal affront to me and people close to me

I see public shaming and bullying as a personal affront to me. I've been unfairly bullied online (and offline). The problem with online bullying is the target's motive & the truth does not matter. Only perception matters.

When you damage someone publicly, you are assaulting them. Especially today where things online stick with you forever. There are also emotional consequences to being bullied.

I have some opinions that are not mainstream. I want to be heard without being disrespected.

I want tolerance. Seeing people act like bullies makes be nauseous.

You can't deny how I feel about your opinion, just like I cannot deny how you feel about my opinion. However, if I don't like your opinion about something, it is not right for me to label you as a bigot or some other loaded term.

Let's not hate people. Let's understand that people live within a context. Let's change the context.

[Karunamon]

He has his past.

If that was truly the case he would have explained this when asked about it. He did not. He quit his job rather than do this.

Prop 8 had 52% of the vote. It is a mainstream opinion.

With ads like this [1] I'm not surprised. His money went to support those, by the way. And you probably meant was.

"ok" to be kneejerk judgmental.

You and everyone else I've asked this question to seem to dance around it. How is this any different than supporting any other kind of anti-equality thing?

* Don't say his views were in the past, they clearly are not, given his post-reveal behavior.

* Don't say this is different unless you can objectively prove a way that this particular right is somehow different from the right of women or blacks to vote.

So which is it? Why is disliking people because they think women are beneath them or think blacks are sub-human any different than this? It's the same xenophobia dressed up in new clothes - that makes it okay now?

it's we need to be more tolerant as a society. We need to treat everybody with respect

And part of which is naming and shaming those that fail this relatively simple task. Being tolerant does not mean accepting intolerance in the same way that being pacifist does not mean accepting war.

He did apologize for hurting people

Which holds about as much water as "sorry you were offended" in my book. The view underpinning the action he (sort of kind of weaselly) apologized for is still there as strong as it ever was. He couldn't even be bothered to give a counter donation.

The problem with online bullying is the target's motive & the truth does not matter

This is where we diverge. I have no problem what-so-ever castigating someone for bad behavior if it's actually proven that they did engage in bad behavior. Mis-aimed outrage is a huge problem with online communities.

However, I see no such mis-aiming here. You've got someone who failed in two big respects - the ability to treat other people with respect in private, and the ability to handle basic CEO duties such as PR and recognizing conflicts of interest.

He was unfit to be CEO and did not deserve that position, with those two things in mind. Maybe that's a value judgement, but that's mine to make.

I want tolerance

Rejecting intolerance is the first step.

However, if I don't like your opinion about something

Again, you're mis-framing Eich's action as if it were a mere opinion or thought that crossed his mind one day, and not something he gave money to support (this in particular: [1]) and gave his job rather than repudiate. That tells me all I need to know about his "personal beliefs" and how he feels about them.

--

[1]: http://www.slate.com/blogs/outward/2014/04/04/brendan_eich_s...

[briantakita]

> You and everyone else I've asked this question to seem to dance around it. How is this any different than supporting any other kind of anti-equality thing?

He has not said anything hateful.

In many ways, I think his opinion is not conducive to equality. In fact, the notion of marriage is unequal. It's unequal to people who don't want to get married or are polyamorous. Also, there are many natural inequalities. There are many gray areas. Also, everybody has prejudices and promote inequality in some contexts.

However, just because someone has an opinion of inequality, doesn't mean he should be the target of a smear campaign.

Tolerance is important.

> Rejecting intolerance is the first step.

That's why I'm rejecting the gay rights movement's online bullying tactics. You don't get a free pass just because you were an oppressed minority in the past.

> Which holds about as much water as "sorry you were offended" in my book.

He said he is sorry he caused pain. He admitted to causing the pain and apologized for that. He did not turn the blame around to say your perception is wrong.

He is the target of your hate. Let go of your hate. Hate is the dark side...

> I have no problem what-so-ever castigating someone for bad behavior if it's actually proven that they did engage in bad behavior.

It's not proven that he behaved badly. Also, who is the proper judge of this? The mob always feels like they are the right judge. The mob always feels justified. How else could the mob justify the bad things that mobs do to their victims?

> you're mis-framing Eich's action as if it were a mere opinion or thought that crossed his mind one day

Have a rational dialog about this. Express how much pain Prop 8 caused. Express why this is an inequality & how that affects you. Don't act with vengeance.

That is why Martin Luther King & Ghandi were successful. They did not act like their oppressors. They had the moral high ground. If they acted with vengeance, equality would not be as far as it is today.

[Karunamon]

He has not said anything hateful.

No, he just gave them money. Given the choice, I'd rather he stand outside of Mozilla's corporate office holding an allcaps sign covered in slurs ala Westboro Baptist than financially support them. At least his personal actions don't contribute to further oppression in that case.

doesn't mean he should be the target of a smear campaign

What smear campaign? Every criticism of Eich that I've both read and given focuses on 3 objective and concrete things.

1. He donated money to a group that can be charitably described as a "hate group". This alone wouldn't be so bad, but:

2. He had a chance to walk that back, say that he changed his mind, say that was a long time ago, and did not. In fact, he quit his job rather than do so. Which leads into:

3. He poorly handled this entire event, which calls his credentials for being a CEO in the first place into question.

That's not a smear campaign by any conceivable definition of the words.

That's why I'm rejecting the gay rights movement's online bullying tactics.

Again, 3 facts. Not opinions, facts. Facts cannot be bullying, else any critical analysis of something important to a person becomes "bullying".

He did not turn the blame around to say your perception is wrong.

He went well out of his way to avoid directly confronting anything that would have confirmed or denied this verbally. But, his actions did that for us.

He is the target of your hate

I appreciate your zen, but I do not hate Eich. I think he was a poor choice for CEO and is a hypocrite. He's not someone I'd care to work with or under since he demonstrably dislikes me for who I am, having never met me.

That is not hate. If I have any vitriol at all, it's directed at his defenders and those that want to make him a martyr for "freedom of speech".

It's not proven that he behaved badly

Donating $1000 to a hate group is not "behaving badly"? This is a matter of public record.

Express how much pain Prop 8 caused. Express why this is an inequality & how that affects you. Don't act with vengeance

Which I've gone well out of my way to do. Yet somehow, just be repeating facts about Eich's observable actions, I am acting with "hate" and "vengeance".

Sorry, but I do not see it.

[briantakita]

> Donating $1000 to a hate group is not "behaving badly"?

Prop 8 is a proposition, not a hate group. This redefinition is scary and files a "hate group" as being anyone who disagrees with your position.

Supporting a proposition is his right and it is ok. I don't see his intent as being hateful. Ignorant, but not hate.

> If I have any vitriol at all, it's directed at his defenders and those that want to make him a martyr for "freedom of speech".

That sounds like you hate me now. It also sounds like you hate freedom, sorry to say. I'm aware of the cliché, but you said it.

Funny how the moderates are targeted by extremists.

---

I'm getting into activism myself, so I understand how important this is to you.

All I can say is keep your humanity & honor in the process. Your movement will be better off.

[Karunamon]

The political organization that's behind Prop 8 (the people that Eich donated to, since you can't donate to a bill) quacks like a hate group in a number of ways, not least of which is they dehumanize and make fun of LGBTs.

If you have not already, please view that slate.com link I sent you a couple posts ago. You can ignore the text there as it's basically what I've been saying here verbatim, but I would ask you to pay special attention to the videos - they are actual ads that the group put together and which actually aired in California.

Maybe then you'll see why I apply this label - I didn't just arbitrarily dredge it up as the worst possible thing I could think of to call them.

>That sounds like you hate me now.

I find it very puzzling that you say I am practicing all this hatred by saying I find Eich's actions repugnant, and now you're saying I'm practicing hatred toward you by simply having a (remarkably civil and productive) discussion with you.

Yet Eich is the guy who wants people to be second class citizens.

Does. Not. Compute.