[eropple]

This "coexistence" mischaracterization is silly. His right to coexist is not in question. But we are under no obligation to patronize an organization that puts people whose worldviews are at odds with ours in ways that damage people we care about. I feel no ethical compulsion to associate with or enrich (because his salary's paid for by my eyeballs if I use Firefox) people who want to hurt people I love. He's welcome to sell his services to people who don't care about that, but I won't buy.

[chc]

> This "coexistence" mischaracterization is silly. His right to coexist is not in question.

When we say "coexist," we do not merely mean "physically exist on the same planet." We mean "exist and be civil with one another." People used to refuse to patronize restaurants that permitted negroes. We do not describe those people as being in favor of peaceful coexistence; we say that they were intolerant and opposed to coexistence.

> But we are under no obligation to patronize an organization that puts people whose worldviews are at odds with ours in ways that damage people we care about. I feel no ethical compulsion to associate with or enrich (because his salary's paid for by my eyeballs if I use Firefox) people who want to hurt people I love. He's welcome to sell his services to people who don't care about that, but I won't buy.

As the OP suggests, this sounds suspiciously like the viewpoint used to justify driving gays, blacks, etc. out of society. "Oh, I'm just exercising my freedom of association." It didn't justify those people — why are you so sure it justifies you?

Using your freedom of association as a weapon against people you disagree with has generally not been viewed kindly by history. I think you're on the right side of the gay marriage debate, but you're on the wrong side of the "How do we coexist with people who disagree with us?" debate.

As was said earlier, if Eich were actually out to get gays, I would understand this reaction. But he isn't out to get gays, and hasn't done anything against them in six years. He was being perfectly tolerant of gays when people decided to come after him. You're punishing him for his viewpoint, not stopping him from "hurting people you love," which he wasn't doing.

[eropple]

> When we say "coexist," we do not merely mean "physically exist on the same planet." We mean "exist and be civil with one another."

Your definition of "civil" and mine are not the same. I find it intensely uncivil to try to strip marriage rights from multiple friends of mine. I do not find it uncivil to say "this dude's a jerk and I won't give him money"--as I said in a cousin post, I don't go to my corner store because the owner's a jerk, this is not materially different to me.

> As the OP suggests, this sounds suspiciously like the viewpoint used to justify driving gays, blacks, etc. out of society. "Oh, I'm just exercising my freedom of association." It didn't justify those people — why are you so sure it justifies you?

You can't choose to be Not Black. You can't choose to be Not Gender Dysphoric. You can choose to be Not Bigot. The line of demarcation is super, super obvious from where I stand.

> You're punishing him for his viewpoint, not stopping him from "hurting people you love," which he wasn't doing.

Have you looked at his donation records? He has a pattern of backing politicians who are notable in their "culture war" self-presentation, who make a point of speaking about how terrible homosexuals are. Pat Buchanan. Thomas McClintock. Linda Smith. Proposition 8. (He didn't even live in Smith's state, let alone her district, when he chose to give her money. That speaks loudly to me.)

Donating money to anti-gay causes and anti-gay politicians is very much, by my lights, an action. Many of them. And don't mistake me: they're actions he is completely within his rights to take! But the same thing that gives him the right to do that frees me from the obligation to enrich him by using the product of the organization he leads. And I do not choose to undertake that obligation for him.

[chc]

> Your definition of "civil" and mine are not the same. I find it intensely uncivil to try to strip marriage rights from multiple friends of mine.

I would agree if Eich were still doing this, but that was a long time ago. Like I said, I feel like people were punishing him for past wrongs that indicate a "wrong opinion" rather than trying to right current wrongs.

> You can't choose to be Not Black. You can't choose to be Not Gender Dysphoric. You can choose to be Not Bigot.

Can you? I didn't choose to think homosexuality is OK. It's just the way I feel. I don't think I could possibly choose to believe homosexuality is wrong — that's just not compatible with my morality. Are you really capable of arbitrarily choosing to believe things?

Unless you're talking about actions. In which case it seems to me that Eich has chosen to be Not Bigot for over half a decade.

> Have you looked at his donation records? He has a pattern of backing politicians who are notable in their "culture war" self-presentation, who make a point of speaking about how terrible homosexuals are. Pat Buchanan. Thomas McClintock. Linda Smith. Proposition 8.

Most of those were so long ago that I wasn't even old enough to vote. McClintock is the only one he's backed in the past decade AFAIK, and to the best of my recollection McClintock tends to focus on financial issues. (McClintock is against gay marriage, but I don't remember it ever being a focus for him. All of the McClintock supporters I know like him for his fiscal policy.)

[stcredzero]

His right to coexist is not in question.

Have a group come after you and get you fired, and see how much "peaceful coexistence" you get from that.

[eropple]

First: he didn't get fired. Nobody in a position to know has even suggested that they requested his resignation. Everything I've read points to that Mozilla wanted him to stay. So framing it as "oh, they got him fired" is just plain disingenuous.

Second: Is he being harassed at home? Is he getting swatted? Are people throwing rocks through his windows? Then those people should be arrested, because that's a crime. But quitting your job because you can't deal with people who are pissed off over your desire to hurt people is not something I will shed tears over.

This is no different from refusing to patronize the corner store near me because the owner's a jerk. Neither he nor Eich are entitled to my business.

[stcredzero]

First: he didn't get fired.

He probably feels passionate about what he does. Imagine your work and subject of your technical passion becomes a constant reminder of a debacle like this. You would not wish that on yourself.

This is no different from refusing to patronize the corner store near me because the owner's a jerk.

Oh really? I thought principles of tolerance and social justice were at work. Are you admitting that you simply don't like and have no sympathy for "people like that?"

This is not an interpersonal conflict. This is not about someone "being a jerk." At least I hope not. At least, I hope principles of tolerance underlie everything in such an action, and not action/adventure show style ad-hominem morality. (i.e. "He deserved it!")

[eropple]

Once you've decided that the "tolerance" of letting one person fuck with less privileged people is virtuous, I literally can't say anything that will parse for you. I'll leave you with a link to the best description of this bullshit affair and one quote from it, and then I am done.

> Did you catch the problem here? I’ll spell it out for you: he doesn’t give a shit about tolerance, or opposing discrimination. He only cares insofar as people tolerate him. He wants to be left alone to fuck with other people.

> And he is wielding it as a weapon to shut everyone up.

It applies to those preaching tolerance for Eich as well as Gerv, about whom Eevee is writing. A "tolerance" that amounts to "sure, he's actively tried to hurt you, but let that slide" is not particularly meaningful. (Whereas the tolerance of "gay people can get married, and if I don't want to get gay married I don't have to" is meaningful because it is not infringing upon anyone--but you'll notice that the word "tolerance" is rarely used by people who support such basic dignities. Strangely enough, it's so frequently the watchword of the oppressor, not the oppressed.)

http://me.veekun.com/blog/2014/04/05/mozilla-and-free-speech...