Mozilla CEO resigns because of Prop 8 donation in 2008

[Sheilbh]

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.

Probably wise, if not very like the internet

[Neil]

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.

Maybe I need to find a dreadnought forum.

[garbon]

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

LA Times has an easily searchable database. Looked up Eich for Prop 8 and looks like you can find people who donated even a hundred or so.

http://projects.latimes.com/prop8/results/?position=both&name=eich&employer=&amount_min=&amount_max=&city=&state=&zip=&search=Search

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

Have I done something wrong? Why do people keep mentioning Obama to me as though that'll change my opinion.

[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.

Probably wise, if not very like the internet

[dps]

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?

Real tolerance isn't about avoiding giving offense, it's about avoiding taking offense.

That's not to say that there's nothing to which one should not take offense.  And obviously, this is an issue to which you might very understandably be more likely to take offense than OvB or me.  But the fact is that while the views of the organization to which he contributed are, if no longer the majority view, still very much a mainstream minority view.  Again, that doesn't mean that you're necessarily wrong to take offense at it--after all, that it was OK if businesses refused service to blacks or Jews (or any other group) was a mainstream view not all that long ago (even among those who did not discriminate themselves)--but if you chosse to take offense at what is regarded as a mainstream view, don't expect to garner a lot of support.

[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?

Real tolerance isn't about avoiding giving offense, it's about avoiding taking offense.

That's not to say that there's nothing to which one should not take offense.  And obviously, this is an issue to which you might very understandably be more likely to take offense than OvB or me.  But the fact is that while the views of the organization to which he contributed are, if no longer the majority view, still very much a mainstream minority view.  Again, that doesn't mean that you're necessarily wrong to take offense at it--after all, that it was OK if businesses refused service to blacks or Jews (or any other group) was a mainstream view not all that long ago (even among those who did not discriminate themselves)--but if you chosse to take offense at what is regarded as a mainstream view, don't expect to garner a lot of support.

Ah okay. I'll just smile on, massah. I don't know why I was getting so uppity and thinking I could reside in the big house.

[garbon]

FWIW, while Mr. Eich might care a lot about making sure I don't get married - I don't actually give a rat's ass about him or his donation beyond some generalized disgust. What does have me recoiling is how quick we are to defend him.

[dps]

FWIW, while Mr. Eich might care a lot about making sure I don't get married - I don't actually give a rat's ass about him or his donation beyond some generalized disgust. What does have me recoiling is how quick we are to defend him.

I think that the point isn't defending him or his views, so much as feeling that punishing people for their political and social views generally is a bad idea, because it discourages public discourse on the issues.  I think that Sheilbh makes a good point about the shoe being on the other foot--part of the whole rationale for tolerating minority viewpoints is the realization that on some issues one's own viewpoint will be in the minority.

[Sheilbh]

FWIW, while Mr. Eich might care a lot about making sure I don't get married - I don't actually give a rat's ass about him or his donation beyond some generalized disgust. What does have me recoiling is how quick we are to defend him.

I think the most convincing argument for gay marriage is that it's about love. It seems to me that here's an opportunity to show some. Again I suppose it's about not becoming like the moral majority and getting involved in tarring and feathering people or demanding they renounce their former selves.

[garbon]

FWIW, while Mr. Eich might care a lot about making sure I don't get married - I don't actually give a rat's ass about him or his donation beyond some generalized disgust. What does have me recoiling is how quick we are to defend him.

I think that the point isn't defending him or his views, so much as feeling that punishing people for their political and social views generally is a bad idea, because it discourages public discourse on the issues.  I think that Sheilbh makes a good point about the shoe being on the other foot--part of the whole rationale for tolerating minority viewpoints is the realization that on some issues one's own viewpoint will be in the minority.

In this case, Mr. Eich's viewpoint is one of denying me the privileges that he is free to avail himself of. Where's the room for tolerance?

[garbon]

FWIW, while Mr. Eich might care a lot about making sure I don't get married - I don't actually give a rat's ass about him or his donation beyond some generalized disgust. What does have me recoiling is how quick we are to defend him.

I think the most convincing argument for gay marriage is that it's about love. It seems to me that here's an opportunity to show some. Again I suppose it's about not becoming like the moral majority and getting involved in tarring and feathering people or demanding they renounce their former selves.

There is no love for an individual who would deny me my opportunity to have my love recognized by my home state.

[Sheilbh]

It comes down to that difference again. I'd give Lord Tebbit a hug and invite him to my (entirely fictional) gay wedding - safe in the knowledge that he wouldn't turn up so there wouldn't be a scene with my dad calling him a 'fascist'

[dps]

FWIW, while Mr. Eich might care a lot about making sure I don't get married - I don't actually give a rat's ass about him or his donation beyond some generalized disgust. What does have me recoiling is how quick we are to defend him.

I think that the point isn't defending him or his views, so much as feeling that punishing people for their political and social views generally is a bad idea, because it discourages public discourse on the issues.  I think that Sheilbh makes a good point about the shoe being on the other foot--part of the whole rationale for tolerating minority viewpoints is the realization that on some issues one's own viewpoint will be in the minority.

In this case, Mr. Eich's viewpoint is one of denying me the privileges that he is free to avail himself of. Where's the room for tolerance?

I think it's pretty obvious, but to be honest I'm not sure how to express it without being either flip or sanctimonious.  Perhaps Sheilbh can explain it better, since he seems to see it where you don't.

[dps]

FWIW, while Mr. Eich might care a lot about making sure I don't get married - I don't actually give a rat's ass about him or his donation beyond some generalized disgust. What does have me recoiling is how quick we are to defend him.

I think the most convincing argument for gay marriage is that it's about love. It seems to me that here's an opportunity to show some. Again I suppose it's about not becoming like the moral majority and getting involved in tarring and feathering people or demanding they renounce their former selves.

There is no love for an individual who would deny me my opportunity to have my love recognized by my home state.

Frankly, I can't see why anyone would give a plugged nickel about whether or not their love was recognized by the state.

[garbon]

FWIW, while Mr. Eich might care a lot about making sure I don't get married - I don't actually give a rat's ass about him or his donation beyond some generalized disgust. What does have me recoiling is how quick we are to defend him.

I think the most convincing argument for gay marriage is that it's about love. It seems to me that here's an opportunity to show some. Again I suppose it's about not becoming like the moral majority and getting involved in tarring and feathering people or demanding they renounce their former selves.

There is no love for an individual who would deny me my opportunity to have my love recognized by my home state.

Frankly, I can't see why anyone would give a plugged nickel about whether or not their love was recognized by the state.

Because there are benefits attached to a state sanctioned marriage?

And then there's also the one that der always hates from me - things like that tend to help with social acceptance. It's like dominoes which is why I understand why conservatives declare a battleground in each state.