Brendan Eich resigns as Mozilla CEO
- Started
- Last post
- 73 Responses
- ukit20
Georges, not to debate this endlessly, but wanted to respond to a point you made:
"I'm happy to see that you rather ignore the problem than confront it, you say it's not such a bad thing that anti-gay or racist views aren't tolerated anymore and I tell you to the contrary, it's horrible,"
I think you might have a different perspective on this if you think back further in human history. Remember that for a long time (i.e., before development of modern morality) people were pretty barbaric in their views. It was considered normal to murder someone for food, to rape women, etc. Just a few hundred years ago, if you broke the law, the government might put your head on a spike or torture you.
Is it such a bad thing that in most societies, this is no longer considered acceptable? We don't tolerate those views, and nothing has been lost because of it. I'd rather live in a world where we don't have to waste time debating stuff like that, and can move onto other issues. Same goes for racism and homophobia. If we can move past it, it's a good thing, not a loss.
- ukit good point but let me point out something, not because a society doesn't address a problem anymore does it means it moved past it, I love bad history and some things are repeated ad nauseum without real basis, you say 100 years ago if you broke the law the government will put your head on a spike or torture you, the irony is kinda strong on this one don't you think, when we're presently confronted with this, http://www.theguardi…, another example of bad history is saying we're not governed by pedo and fascist when it's actually just that, look...GeorgesII
- means it moved past it, I love bad history and some things are repeated ad nauseum without real basis, you say 100 years ago if you broke the law the government will put your head on a spike or torture you, the irony is kinda strong on this one don't you think, when we're presently confronted with this, http://www.theguardi…, another example of bad history is saying we're not governed by pedo and fascist when it's actually just that, look up the head of the biggest corporations for a laugh, I don't think you can stomach the pedo think so...GeorgesII
- years ago if you broke the law the government will put your head on a spike or torture you, the irony is kinda strong on this one don't you think, when we're presently confronted with this, http://www.theguardi…, another example of bad history is saying we're not governed by pedo and fascist when it's actually just that, look up the head of the biggest corporations for a laugh, I don't think you can stomach the pedo think so I'll post it if you want it but even I find it too disgusting to talk about it.. I repeat another time,...GeorgesII
- one don't you think, when we're presently confronted with this, http://www.theguardi…, another example of bad history is saying we're not governed by pedo and fascist when it's actually just that, look up the head of the biggest corporations for a laugh, I don't think you can stomach the pedo think so I'll post it if you want it but even I find it too disgusting to talk about it.. I repeat another time, people aren't past racism and homophobia, they just pretend to be ok with it, think about it at the time 55% of californian voted against it,...GeorgesII
- saying we're not governed by pedo and fascist when it's actually just that, look up the head of the biggest corporations for a laugh, I don't think you can stomach the pedo think so I'll post it if you want it but even I find it too disgusting to talk about it.. I repeat another time, people aren't past racism and homophobia, they just pretend to be ok with it, think about it at the time 55% of californian voted against it, that a majority of people who will pretend to be ok with it, anyways, before people spin...GeorgesII
- corporations for a laugh, I don't think you can stomach the pedo think so I'll post it if you want it but even I find it too disgusting to talk about it.. I repeat another time, people aren't past racism and homophobia, they just pretend to be ok with it, think about it at the time 55% of californian voted against it, that a majority of people who will pretend to be ok with it, anyways, before people spin this into georges is a homophobe, let me reiterate that I'm just against making people step down because of their views...GeorgesII
- too disgusting to talk about it.. I repeat another time, people aren't past racism and homophobia, they just pretend to be ok with it, think about it at the time 55% of californian voted against it, that a majority of people who will pretend to be ok with it, anyways, before people spin this into georges is a homophobe, let me reiterate that I'm just against making people step down because of their views not that I agree with themGeorgesII
- to be ok with it, think about it at the time 55% of californian voted against it, that a majority of people who will pretend to be ok with it, anyways, before people spin this into georges is a homophobe, let me reiterate that I'm just against making people step down because of their views not that I agree with themGeorgesII
- be ok with it, anyways, before people spin this into georges is a homophobe, let me reiterate that I'm just against making people step down because of their views not that I agree with themGeorgesII
- people step down because of their views not that I agree with them
(god I hate writing in this box)GeorgesII - I agree, it's a step backwards. That's why I'd rather live in a society where torture is not even tolerated or up for debate.ukit2
- debate.ukit2
- ukit20
Some food for thought:
http://bigthink.com/postcards-fr…
The question "Why can't we all just get along?" suggests a particular framework for thinking about the answer. Implicit is the idea that a solution to institutionalized racism and sexism lies in convincing the dominant group to relinquish their biases and share the power.
Never once did Martin Luther King Jr. use the word tolerance in his speeches, says Žižek. "For him (and he was right) it would have been an obscenity to say white people should learn to tolerate us more." The goal of the Civil Rights Movement was not simply appealing to liberal magnanimity, but demanding equity, including economic equity. Tolerance is a request that represents a retreat from that ambitious vision. When King marched on Washington D.C., he didn't say, "learn to live with us." He said, "We're here to cash a check"
- 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...
- 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
- <--++
- i_was0
...
- 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.
- 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
- GeorgesIV0
his views on gay marriage, he donated $1000, 8 years ago,
SJW are fuckn modern day segregationist
- GeorgesIV0
and before anyone start with the circlejerk, let me reming you that someone got elected 8 years ago on the platform that a marriage is between a man and a woman, but change his pov when he realize it will help him get reelected 4 years after,
people still have the right to think what they want or intolerance towards other point of view is the new cool thing to do?
- 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
- ukit20
It does seem kind of extreme but I think it comes down to the fact that being CEO is different from other employees. You are representing the company's image, and most companies don't like controversies. Being boycotted or targeted by a campaign is the last thing they want.
- so they are all for acceptance until its something they disagree with, can you see the slippery slope?GeorgesIV
- It's a slippery slope both ways. Suppose he donated to a group fighting inter racial marriage, would you still have a problem with it?youngdesigner
- Is tolerating intolerance an act of tolerance or intolerance?CyBrainX
- SteveJobs0
protect the brand/image from what?
- Weyland0
Let's all boycott Javascript hehe
- #boycottjavascript,
fuck I can't save this message!!!
halp ehehheGeorgesIV - haha ;)
mikotondria3
- #boycottjavascript,
- GeorgesIV0
eheheh
it's a joke don't hurt me
- 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
- 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.
