Mozilla CEO resigns because of Prop 8 donation in 2008

[Sheilbh]

Why should we have respect for a failure to adjust one's beliefs to modern values? Well actually, why should we have respect for individuals to fail to learn modern values?

Having respect for people is good. It helps when you demand it from them.

I'm also far from convinced that supporting gay marriage is an essential part of modern values.

Actually, he's been chastised for paying for his outmoded views to be spread. And despite Sheilbh's triumphant declaration of mission accomplished, California took a large step backwards for 5 years. That's real people's lives affected.

But that's true of any political donation. Real people's lives were affected by the Iraq war and are being affected by welfare cuts. Should we go around boycotting companies with personnel who donated to Bush or the Tories?

Isn't that also a sign that his views were mainstream? Donations to the American Nazi Party don't affect real people's lives precisely because they're so fringe. His donations weren't.

I'm a liberal; quick I need to take some sort or any position on this, with which I can be outraged.

I've found the reaction to this quite striking. In the US it's generally just the culture war divisions you'd expect with a couple of people like Andrew Sullivan deviating (though I don't find his stance at all surprising). The UK reaction is far more negative with a lot of disquiet even on the left and among liberals.

I'm not sure why but no doubt it's shaping my response. So join me and be outraged that he's been forced out

[Razgovory]

I don't find his resignation upsetting or strange in the least. Mostly because the Mozilla brand has been built on being an open-source alternative to corporations like Microsoft, Google and Apple. Having a CEO that works against alternative lifestyles just undermines the brand's core values.

Does it though?  Are Mozilla's core values hating civilization?

If you try to see it from the point of view of people who aren't, well, you, I think you can see my point. Mozilla's core value seems to be not making good browsers anymore, though.

I've been using firefox, thinking about switching over to something else though.

[Sheilbh]

I've been using firefox, thinking about switching over to something else though.

I use Chrome, because it used to be really good. But it seems very, very slow nowadays. I don't know if it's just my computer though

[Legbiter]

It's maybe a positive sign that homosexuals now have enough clout in the US to initiate McCarthyite witch hunts? 

[grumbler]

I've been using firefox, thinking about switching over to something else though.

I use Chrome, because it used to be really good. But it seems very, very slow nowadays. I don't know if it's just my computer though

I hear ya.  There don't seem to be any non-bloated browsers.  Chrome still has the auto-translate feature and Firefox some great Youtube download apps, so I still switch  back and forth, but would like to be able to stick to one.

[Ed Anger]

I use lynx.

[The Brain]

Mosaic here.

[garbon]

Having respect for people is good. It helps when you demand it from them.

I'm not interested into seeing in the hearts and minds of men. If they want to stay bigoted, that's their own loss. I do care about them manifesting that bigotry with regards to actions towards others. You don't need to respect them to scare them into do the right thing.

Same mode of thought that doesn't have me tolerating racists.

I'm also far from convinced that supporting gay marriage is an essential part of modern values.

I think a part of the values that I hope to see in society include not going out of your way to deny benefits to a group of people when there is no real measurable cost to yourself. I can't imagine how a person can be so unfeeling as to see older gay couples who couldn't even speak of their love for decades for fear of society and say no, I'm not going to sit by and allow that to happen - I'm going to fund organizations to make sure that you can't have the same privileges as a straight couple. I don't understand why it would matter so much to someone unaffected that they would leap to be spiteful.

But that's true of any political donation. Real people's lives were affected by the Iraq war and are being affected by welfare cuts. Should we go around boycotting companies with personnel who donated to Bush or the Tories?

I won't but I don't see anything wrong at all if people wish to do so.

Isn't that also a sign that his views were mainstream? Donations to the American Nazi Party don't affect real people's lives precisely because they're so fringe. His donations weren't.

I don't get this one. If such views were so mainstream just a mere 6 years ago, isn't easy to see why people are still so up in arms when new evidence of complicity is brought to their attention? Despite some of the hypotheticals discussed in this thread, he wasn't some wayward youth.  He was a man fully grown who chose to make that donation and there can be fallout from that.  Even moreso when he has had the opportunity to apologize and has remained mum. Well actually, from that one article I posted, he took a swipe at his critics when his donation first came to light.

[Legbiter]

He made a private donation 6 years ago for reasons he's kept to himself. Why is his donation even public knowledge?  Hell, even just by existing, every one of us likely deeply offends some segment of society or other. Never mind our actual political opinions.

[OttoVonBismarck]

To be frank the rise of gay marriage over the past say 15 years, has lead me to believe that it's deeply unfair for heterosexual couples to receive various benefits that are closed to gay couples because those benefits are linked to a state sanctioned marriage. But it's also called into question why exactly the State is so deeply intertwined in the marriage business. It's hard for me not to see it as a relic of the day when the man worked, the woman stayed at home and raised kids, and thus benefits across the board absolutely needed to be familial in nature. If we're not promoting single earner homes as social policy, then I'm not sure there is a social positive to giving various benefits (at the governmental level) to dual income cohabiting couples, whether they be legally married straights or gays or gay couples unable to marry due to their state of residence etc. This is especially true when the couples have no children.

It seems to me a simple legal regime would just apply tax benefits based on your dependents (who could  basically be anyone who is dependent on you), and require employer plans to either be all or nothing. This would mean they cover only the employee, or they have provisions for dependent benefits for any dependent for Federal tax purposes. I don't really care about the religious implications of State marriage because the religious aspect of my marriage is governed by the Church, not the State--which is why if I get a State sanctioned divorce it doesn't affect whether I'm married in the Church. But not everyone is Catholic and has that sort of structure and many Catholics disagree with me; I don't actually see it as intrinsically contrary to morality to believe for religious reasons gays shouldn't be getting married.

One common argument I hear against my stance is that without some automatic rights of spouses it fucks things up like estates and etc, but to be honest lots of assets have weird rules that really don't get made simpler with marriage. For example my TSP balance (or any private 401k plan) goes to whomever I name as a beneficiary. If I name my wife as the beneficiary by name, then get divorced and alter my will so that all of my estate goes to my daughter upon my death (per stirpes), then the TSP actually still goes to my wife (even in her status as ex-wife), and does not go to my children as the beneficiary designation form holds primacy. So really if the big argument for state marriage and gay marriage (other than the benefit issue) are matters of automatic inheritance and such I'd argue the people making that are unaware of the complexities of settling an estate. That's something anyone who actually really wants to make sure their assets are divided up as they please really needs to look into with a lawyer and not leave to misunderstandings about who automatically gets assets upon death.

[garbon]

He made a private donation 6 years ago for reasons he's kept to himself. Why is his donation even public knowledge?  Hell, even just by existing, every one of us likely deeply offends some segment of society or other. Never mind our actual political opinions.

If I were in his situation, I'd have coped to some pleasant sounding verbiage in a bid to keep my job.

I think California requires disclosure of donor names for state/local elections.

So everyone is offensive, so no one should take offense?

[garbon]

Actually just noticed he had made a non-apology apology.

https://brendaneich.com/2014/03/inclusiveness-at-mozilla/

[Sheilbh]

I'm not interested into seeing in the hearts and minds of men. If they want to stay bigoted, that's their own loss. I do care about them manifesting that bigotry with regards to actions towards others. You don't need to respect them to scare them into do the right thing.

Exactly. I don't want to scare them. Even if it is nice that the boot's on our foot, I don't want to be part of a new moral majority travelling around looking for heretics to scare. I see no difference here than in Baptists forcing a CEO of a company based in the South to step down because he donated to a pro-life campaign.

I want gay people to be able to marry and aside from that I don't care. People can feel and say and donate whatever they want. And as I say I think giving respect is a bit help in demanding it (I remember Peter Tatchell managing to convince a group of abusive Muslim lads and change a nasty atmosphere at an anti-EDL protest that gays and Muslims should work together - based on mutual respect - against fascism.)

Same mode of thought that doesn't have me tolerating racists.

But there's a difference. You can oppose gay marriage and not be a bigot. Lots of people did - Obama, over 50% of voting Californians, me, the head of Stonewall and so on.

I think a part of the values that I hope to see in society include not going out of your way to deny benefits to a group of people when there is no real measurable cost to yourself. I can't imagine how a person can be so unfeeling as to see older gay couples who couldn't even speak of their love for decades for fear of society and say no, I'm not going to sit by and allow that to happen - I'm going to fund organizations to make sure that you can't have the same privileges as a straight couple. I don't understand why it would matter so much to someone unaffected that they would leap to be spiteful.

The most benign interpretation is that marriage isn't the only way to do that - which was my view until relatively recently and was the argument made by Stonewall as well. So from that view you can have another way of dealing with those benefits - like civil partnerships - or you can disestablish marriage altogether and just have the state providing a civil union which people can get solemnised if they wish.

The mainstream conservative Christian (and other religious) view is that marriage was created by God (and religion) for men and women and the state has no more right to change that than it does to start meddling with baptism. Again, I think there are ways to address the problems with benefits around that.

Then there's the possibility that he could just be a bigot. But I think you should choose the best interpretation unless you've a good reason not to and I've not seen anything that suggest the man's a hateful bigot who just wanted to hurt people.

I won't but I don't see anything wrong at all if people wish to do so.

I do. I can see boycotting a company for what it does - Barclays in South Africa for example. But I think boycotting a company and getting others to to drive someone out of a job is wrong and isn't a path we want to go down.

The boot's on the liberal foot now but I'd be troubled if a company was being targeted for boycott (in part by other companies) because they had a pro-choice or a pro-gay marriage CEO in a very red state.

I don't get this one. If such views were so mainstream just a mere 6 years ago, isn't easy to see why people are still so up in arms when new evidence of complicity is brought to their attention? Despite some of the hypotheticals discussed in this thread, he wasn't some wayward youth.  He was a man fully grown who chose to make that donation and there can be fallout from that.  Even moreso when he has had the opportunity to apologize and has remained mum. Well actually, from that one article I posted, he took a swipe at his critics when his donation first came to light.

Well I think that's fair. I'd be annoyed at people saying I wasn't fit to do my job because I gave some money to a strike fund and chances are he opposes gay marriage. He also said he wasn't a bigot and I think the points he made on his blog are fair. I don't think we should have a problem with someone in a senior position opposing gay marriage and donating $1000 to its opponents.

[garbon]

I was writing my response, but I think, as these posts are getting longer - that we should just recognize that we have fundamentally different views and move on.

[Legbiter]

I think California requires disclosure of donor names for state/local elections.

Even for pocket change like Eich donated? That's a system ripe for abuse.

So everyone is offensive, so no one should take offense?

In 2008 Obama was categorically against gay marriage. The culture has changed very fast.