[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.

[scintill76]

This article[0]?

My response is that Eich didn't personally approve these ads, and may have had no way of possibly knowing what his money would actually fund. (I'd be interested in evidence about the visibility of any prior work, the timing of his donation, etc., though.)

If you find simply supporting the idea repugnant, sure, but then arguments like "he donated to a hate group" and Slate's "The Campaign for Prop 8 Was Unprecedentedly Cruel" aren't really necessary. If they pushed a law that is hateful to the core, it's less relevant how hateful or not the group itself was.

I suppose if he did see and regret the ads, he could have said so, but AFAIK has said nothing. Then again, he probably felt that doing anything other than a long thorough apology, donating to pro-gay-marriage groups, crying for forgiveness, etc., would dig the hole deeper.

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

[briantakita]

> I find it very puzzling that you say I am practicing all this hatred by saying I find Eich's actions repugnant

> 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".

I'm saying Eich freedom is being violated. I'm just repeating what you said and referring to your "vitriol".

I understand where you are coming from. However, it's easy to misconstrue a position that someone took. Notice I used some weasel words such as "it sounds like". I could misconstrue your statement as you hating me.

I believe that Eich's support & position is being misconstrued. He should be able to express the reasons for his support without fear of reprisal. I would not be surprised if he & his family were harassed, as harassment seems to accompany such emotionally charged situations. I would be fearful if I were publicly targeted like that. Even if you are right, you never bully people into agreeing with your position.

I watched the commercials. The last one is ridiculous, since the couple should have answered that marriage is about love and not necessarily about having children. However, none of the commercials struck me as overtly discriminatory. The one with the two princesses, is somewhat discriminatory; However the position of parents (with religious convictions) should have control over their children's education at least deserved some consideration. To a parent, it coercive to (without warning), teach a child something that they disagree with.

The ads expressed some legitimate concerns that should be addressed. There was even a point where someone was afraid that people's jobs would be targeted for their beliefs. Obviously that fear is well founded.

I'm failing to see how this is a hate group. I believe some of the Prop 8 supporters were bigots, however, the campaign itself does not seem like it is based on hate.

I fail to see how Eich is an aware supporter of hate groups.

[Karunamon]

I'm saying Eich freedom is being violated

But it simply isn't. First, consider the fact that he chose to step down. He wasn't booted out by Mozilla.

Secondly, You have no entitlement, legally or morally to any particular job with any particular company. Eich is free to support any cause he wants, and everyone else is free to react to that how they want.

That's freedom of speech - plain and simple. This same noise was made when A&E chose to (temporarily) end their contract with one of the stars of Duck Dynasty over his public comments in a magazine - again, no freedom being violated. That person was free to make whatever comments he wanted, and everyone else is free to criticize those comments, and the company in question is free to conduct their business operations in accordance with whatever contract law.

Freedom of speech does not, and never has meant, freedom from criticism/repercussions. This is the system working as intended.

I believe that Eich's support & position is being misconstrued

How so? In what other circumstances does one donate to any cause, go out of their way to avoid directly addressing concerns with said donation, and eventually quit their jobs rather than address those concerns?

That's not misconstruing, that's basic logical induction. If you have another plausible theory, I'd love to hear it.

He should be able to express the reasons for his support without fear of reprisal.

Again, freedom of speech != freedom from criticism. You do not have the right to say anything and never be challenged for it. You do have the right to say whatever you please and not have the government take some action against you.

However, none of the commercials struck me as overtly discriminatory.

We will have to agree to disagree on that. I find them to be offensive, inaccurate, hateful fear-mongering. Partially because they target me personally.

Hate doesn't necessarily imply violence or the threat thereof.

The campaign itself does not seem like it is based on hate.

Then what is it based on?