Brendan Eich resigns as Mozilla CEO
- Started
- Last post
- 73 Responses
- GeorgesIV0
another very good discussion on reddit, I do not agree with everything but at least most people are seeing the hypocrisy
- ukit20
OK hypothetical here Imagine you are running a design company, you hire someone and later discover they are fascist, child molester or [fill in with belief you strongly disagree with] Should there be a law forcing you NOT to disassociate with them based on their personal beliefs, because I don't think that will actually work too well.
- a child molester is a criminal by law, Eich was exercising his right to vote. apples and oranges.SteveJobs
- Publicly donating $1000 is not a private vote. also apples and oranges.hereswhatidid
- hereswhatidid0
He made his personal beliefs public. He was selected as a very public representative of Mozilla. The beliefs he expressed regarding Proposition 8 turned out to be vastly different from the image Mozilla is trying to project. He was unwilling to change or explain those beliefs in order to better serve in his position so he resigned. Not a single bit of free speech was infringed upon here.
In fact, isn't this exactly what all you "conservatives" find is so great about capitalism? The company did something the customer disagreed with and they (customers) responded accordingly by not supporting Mozilla.
- what image is mozilla trying to project? let's be honest, this is less about peronal views and more about making money.SteveJobs
- I think you're over simplifying the debate here, let me refresh it for you, it's a dangerous path we're taking and don't come crying in the future when you're not allowed to think in a certain way just because other disagree with you http://takingnote.bl…GeorgesIV
- he future when you're not allowed to think in a certain way just because other disagree with you http://takingnote.bl…GeorgesIV
- and this that was posted earlier too, read it http://www.teamrareb…
GeorgesIV - Would you say the same thing about interracial marriage? Making it legal was an infringement on those who oppose it?hereswhatidid
- oppose it? Or women's suffrage? Or working on sunday?hereswhatidid
- I posted that link, George, thanks. I even read it!hereswhatidid
- Guess what? If I publicly express an opinion that people disagree with, I'll get shit for it. That's life, not discrimination.hereswhatidid
- have you read what I wrote, I've been on the side of the discriminated too long in my life to accept this kind of mentality, I want people who are in the wrong to be able to be wrong, not to be forced out, think about how many people should be forced out if we applied the same criteria to everyone http://www.qbn.com/t…GeorgesIV
- I want people who are in the wrong to be able to be wrong, not to be forced out, think about how many people should be forced out if we applied the same criteria to everyone http://www.qbn.com/t…GeorgesIV
- forced out if we applied the same criteria to everyone http://www.qbn.com/t…GeorgesIV
- i'm not opposed to 'getting shit' for my views as that does not constitue a discriminatory act.SteveJobs
- So other people shouldn't be allowed to exercise their right to free speech if you feel it infringes on yours?hereswhatidid
- it's totally the contrary of what I wrote, please re read it, I want everyone to be able to express themselves how they see fit,GeorgesIV
- I really don't see where you pulled that one from? I even linked the postGeorgesIV
- As long as expressing yourself doesn't actually cause any kind of action to take place, right?hereswhatidid
- I really don't know where you're trying to go, please re read what I wrote and tell me where you disagree, I don't see your pointGeorgesIV
- sorry I'm really trying to understand you but it evades me, be clear and tell me what you disagree withGeorgesIV
- I disagree with your overly simplistic "live and let live" approach and how you're applying that to this instancehereswhatidid
- live and let live only works if both sides agree to it. Not if one side is actively looking to stop the other from livinghereswhatidid
- in this case, proposition 8 was actively trying to limit the rights of a group of people, hardly the "let live" approach, no?hereswhatidid
- so the 55% of people who voted against it should be able to express their views because they are contrary to yours, for those of us who didn't always lived in democratic countries it's quite funny, live and let live and communicate don't segregate was my point, but I think it flew miles over youGeorgesIV
- us who didn't always lived in democratic countries it's quite funny, live and let live and communicate don't segregate was my point, but I think it flew miles over youGeorgesIV
- segregate was my point, but I think it flew miles over youGeorgesIV
- No, it just fell flat for me. I get what you're saying but it doesn't work like that in the real world.hereswhatidid
- you have to make them understand, and the blog you posted did just that,GeorgesIV
- exactly, and he chose to step down rather than have a dialog about it. He didn't take the live and let live approachhereswhatidid
- we don't live in the same world man, I live in the world where I need to be the best at everything or I won't get a job because of my skin color, I live in a world where I get followed in the store to see if I won't rob shit, I don't want my son to experience this same thing and I don't believe for a second, forcing my point of view on those who disagree with me through shaming will make them accept meGeorgesIV
- that blog said all they would have wanted was an apology or even an explanation, he gave neitherhereswhatidid
- my skin color, I live in a world where I get followed in the store to see if I won't rob shit, I don't want my son to experience this same thing and I don't believe for a second, forcing my point of view on those who disagree with me through shaming will make them accept meGeorgesIV
- yeah, and if you went on facebook and posted a comment about hating all asians, would you expect repercussions?hereswhatidid
- same thing and I don't believe for a second, forcing my point of view on those who disagree with me through shaming will make them accept me, I want them to speak their mind openly and I'll speak mine,GeorgesIV
- repercussions?hereswhatidid
- them accept me, I want them to speak their mind openly and I'll speak mine,GeorgesIV
- it really wasn't that long ago that people were honest about their feelings, I miss this time because I feel everyone is living some kind of P.C. lieGeorgesIV
- some kind of P.C. lieGeorgesIV
- so should black people have just waited for southern white folks to come around to their viewpoint that slavery was bad?hereswhatidid
- George's what about the freedom of speech of the so called SJWs and others who disagree with himukit2
- if a person I knew went on facebook and posted things about asian, blacks, arabs, white, I'd talk to him, if he kept on going that way I'd ignore him, I won't shame him publicly because he pov differs from mine, how is it hard to understandGeorgesIV
- that way I'd ignore him, I won't shame him publicly because he pov differs from mine, how is it hard to understandGeorgesIV
- There's no way to enforce absolute tolerance among everyone, best you can do I'd say we all have the right to debate, protest and hire and fire as we wantukit2
- debate, express our view and associate with who you wantukit2
- if you owned a business and an employee posted on facebook that they hate all asians, would you expect repercussions then?hereswhatidid
- is slavery and racism over? just because people don't express it openly doesn't make it over. @ukit who told them they couldn't express themselves or your misunderstanding me on purpose?GeorgesIV
- couldn't express themselves or your misunderstanding me on purpose?GeorgesIV
- That includes right of gay activists to boycott and ultimately for Mozilla to force him outukit2
- Or would you just talk it out with the guy while you're customers express their right to boycott you?hereswhatidid
- @ here, people I've worked with openly express their views on races, we're not kindergartener, ffs, I'm going to say for the 50th time I rather have someone speak his mind to me then hide it and not only sfw should be able to judge what is good or wrongGeorgesIV
- time I rather have someone speak his mind to me then hide it and not only sfw should be able to judge what is good or wrongGeorgesIV
- again, you're arguing that it's wrong to actually do anything about something you disagree with. Just talk and it'll work out.hereswhatidid
- it does work out, I come from a diplomatic family, talking things out does work out. if only you knew the number of conflicts that were averted by two parties coming to a table and talking things out without pressure or insults, you won't be saying this, anyways, it's midnight and I intend to finish some work before going to bed, so I wish you all good night sweet princes ** kiss :)GeorgesIV
- were averted by two parties coming to a table and talking things out without pressure or insults, you won't be saying this, anyways, it's midnight and I intend to finish some work before going to bed, so I wish you all good night sweet princes ** kiss :)GeorgesIV
- anyways, it's midnight and I intend to finish some work before going to bed, so I wish you all good night sweet princes ** kiss :)GeorgesIV
- heh, any members of your family devoutly racist or homophobic? you can't just talk it out with those who arehereswhatidid
- as a fellow totalitarian myself, I believe everyone who has "disruptive thoughts" should be sent to reeducation campsGeorgesIV
- I read lots of he shouldn't say this or that but not a single solution, what is your solution to this problem force everyone who has a different pov to hide, resign stay silent, strangely when your own pres kiss the end of the king of S.A not a peep from the defenders of freedomGeorgesIV
- has a different pov to hide, resign stay silent, strangely when your own pres kiss the end of the king of S.A not a peep from the defenders of freedomGeorgesIV
- defenders of freedomGeorgesIV
- saudi arabia is an entirely different subject matter. As far as what should be the solution? Exactly what happened.hereswhatidid
- The solution is being held accountable for your actions. Want to be a hateful bigot? You get treated like one. We don't have to sit silently by and accept it.hereswhatidid
- don't have to sit silently by and accept it.hereswhatidid
- GeorgesIV0
ok, because we've def reached another level of crazy,
question for everyone,• do you believe in democracy?
• do you believe voting should be taken seriously?
• do you think when people vote and reject something that is contrary to your views, their votes should be revoked?
• do you believe in democracy?I can't believe you don't see it
I too can say the most extreme thing, if hitler was having pedophile relationship with an adopted blind kids, should he be able to run a company?
you still not see it? tell me it's starting to be clear in your mind where I'm going,
- women/religion/gays but still the best buddies ever, where's the fauxtrage? http://www.slate.com…GeorgesIV
- ukit20
The funniest objection I've heard on this (not here but on other site) is social conservatives saying it's like thought crime and now they can all be fired for their belief which is unfair.
This in a country where gay people can still be fired for being gay in most states.
- and sue the living shit of the company, really ukit, you don't live is S.ArabiaGeorgesIV
- No, you really can be fired for being gay, and there's no Protected Status in many places. Wise up !
mikotondria3
- SteveJobs0
alright, calm down. i don't want you getting an ulcer over this.
'equal rights' may be open to interpretation but i think it means we're all allowed to believe what we want and to express our beliefs freely.
what lgbt are doing in their free time is no concern of mine, not the issue and thusly a fallacy in your argument.
no it's not a right to deny someone rights, but Eich couldn't do that anyway as he wasn't given that power. what he was given, however was the right to vote. this is a constitutional right.
i'm awake
yes they might have been, i don't know, but wouldn't share their views if that were the case.
and yes, it's very different.
- CygnusZero40
no line is drawn. you shut up and let people live their lives they way they want. it is not right to deny gay people of marriage. im not gay but i am very aware of how horrible it is to tell them they just arent allowed. thats awful to treat people that way just because you dont like who theyre having sex with lmfao.
it doesnt really matter what some religion says about it, its a human rights issue and isnt fair. gay people arent denying anyone of any rights or attacking those that are different than them, are they? nope. its the closed minded fucks who are attacking people trying to deny them of the same rights they get to enjoy. there is a damn good reason why what he did is not sitting well with a shit ton of people. this kind of behavior is becoming completely unacceptable.
- ukit20
I don't think it's contradictory though to be intolerant of intolerant people. Do you think it's reasonable for a KKK member or a Holocaust denier or advocate of pedophilia being head of your company, of course not. I'm not saying his views are equivalent to that but the point is, tolerance is not absolute. So the question is where the line is drawn.
- i think it's reasonable for them to be a head of 'a' company. i wouldn't have elected them for mine, but that's just me.SteveJobs
- Well that's exactly the point, Mozilla decided it wasn't right for themukit2
- well, choosing whether to elect a ceo or whether to fire him for personal differences are two different things.SteveJobs
- one is innocent favoritism, the other is discrimination.SteveJobs
- CygnusZero40
how F is that equal rights? LGBT people arent exactly going around looking to deny others of rights that im aware of. you cannot be this dumb.
lmao personal beliefs. it is not right to deny one person the same rights others get to enjoy just because they were born differently. wake up. ur grandparents big slavery fans? its no different genius.
- denying a person their right to contribute to a political campaign on their choice?monNom
- SteveJobs0
cygnus, do you not see your own hypocracy? equal rights for all means lesbian, gays, religious, blacks, etc. as well as those who share views similar to eich.
his personal views and lifestyle (as contrary as they may be to your own) should NOT dictate his fitness to lead a company or hold office or any other role. once you cross that line, you're effectively contradicting your own beleifs.
- CygnusZero40
lmao after 10 days. this bigot deserved it tho. hopefully he will have a very hard time finding another job of that caliber ever again. not fit to lead people.
- why?SteveJobs
- honestly cignus, why?GeorgesIV
- expressed an issue with equal rights for ALL. good enough, fuck this fat cuntCygnusZero4
- so the 55% of people who voted to the contrary should be banned from ever working? slow clapGeorgesIV
- GeorgesIV0
eheheh
it's a joke don't hurt me
- SteveJobs0
protect the brand/image from what?
- SteveJobs0
If he was exercising his free speech, what wrong has he done in his own eyes or the eyes of Mozilla? Has any crime been committed? What does Mozilla fear and why?
i'm playing dumb here on purpose, because i know the reality and it's that last question that doesn't sit right with me.
- The dude resigned, Mozilla did not fire himhereswhatidid
- why did he resign?SteveJobs
- SteveJobs0
ok, but why did he resign? he legitimately may be the best person suited for this role, and could change the world and be the second coming of steve jobs
- uuuuuu0
CEO can be a political position and he wasn't fired he resigned so this is him conceding that he is not the appropriate person to represent the company with the controversy.
- ukit20
I think it's all an example of free speech at work right?
The guy expresses his right to free speech by donating to a cause he supports (and you can bet if he donates $1k to the Prop 8 campaign he obviously feels fairly strongly about it).
Online activists then use their free speech to object to and boycott his appointment as CEO.
Mozilla then exercises their right to fire him as CEO in response.
I don't see what anyone can really object to here, unless you are suggesting we should coerce any of the people above into acting a certain way. Companies are inherently risk averse so it's no surprise a company like Mozilla (headquartered in San Francisco, after all) would be sensitive to the gay rights issue.
- <--++
free speech isn't freedom from criticismhereswhatidid
- <--++
- SteveJobs0
for all we know the next guy (or gal) who supplants him will share his views. but i get it, company has to save face, and we all pretend that everything is a-ok and mozilla (or any other company, for that matter) and their respective owners really do back your personal beliefs and choice of lifestyle. pfff...
constitutional rights and similar aside, i wonder what life would be like if suppressing personal views on race, religion, and other lifestyle choices were just as taboo as expressing them is now...