Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You may not consider Prop 8 an extreme cause, but OK Cupid does, and OK Cupid (and its users) was apparently important enough to get Mozilla's attention.
People used to be intimidated into conformity if information like leftist politics or an interracial marriage became public. More information is easily obtainable today, which changes the practical limits of privacy. Privacy is not gone, but must be carefully protected.
It is an arbitrary choice, but one made by the State of California--not the LA Times. The LA Times just published a list of donors using publicly available data from the California Secretary of State.
Eich stepped down. He could almost certainly have apologized and managed the publicity differently. Instead, he chose to leave the company.
Eich was not tortured or threatened with torture. He was confronted about an anti-equality campaign donation he made. Instead of addressing the issue by highlighting his commitment to equality or trying to explain his position, he chose to leave the spotlight and quit.
A man who founded a company based on his ideals was forced out of it. Since you feel free to substitute OK Cupid's definition of "extreme cause" (a definition that flies in the face of logic, since Proposition 8 was voted for by a majority of California voters----hint, something that is supported by a majority is not considered an extreme), I think that it was probably torture for Eich to be ousted from the company he co-founded, that he nurtured and developed, that he donated years of his life to. The emotional pain, as well as the professional pain he's suffered, must be enormous.
And I believe his public statement after he was named CEO was "addressing the issue by highlighting his commitment to equality".
Is mainstream society entitled to punish you if you do? How entitled is mainstream society to know what you think?
And I take offense at your "humbly apologized". That level of arrogance is problematic. It is what makes this akin to an Inquisition. It's arrogance that allows the people who support what happened to Mr Eich to ignore the implications to equality and freedom. Believing in the infallibility of your position is what leads to totalitarianism and intolerance of differing opinions.
Society is entitled to know what you think to the extent you make your thoughts public.
You were saying earlier that "we don't know what Eich's views are today," but now you object that an apology is inappropriate because he in entitled to believe in his position. He is entitled to his position, but if it is problematic, there will be consequences.
If a CEO of a tech company publicly expressed a belief that the world is flat and the sun revolves around the Earth, then that CEO would be rightly ostracized, and likely forced to either renounce their positions or resign. That is not the road to totalitarianism, but recognition that some opinions are wrong-headed.
Society is entitled to know what you think to the extent you make your thoughts public.
You were saying earlier that "we don't know what Eich's views are today," but now you object that an apology is inappropriate because he in entitled to believe in his position. He is entitled to his position, but if it is problematic, there will be consequences.
If a CEO of a tech company publicly expressed a belief that the world is flat and the sun revolves around the Earth, then that CEO would be rightly ostracized, and likely forced to either renounce their positions or resign. That is not the road to totalitarianism, but recognition that some opinions are wrong-headed.
I object that an apology is inappropriate, because when you have to apologize for your beliefs and opinions, it means that those beliefs and opinions are no longer free. Freedom means that some people are going to unapologetically believe what they want. A society that doesn't have bigots, that doesn't have some version of the KKK, that doesn't have people with unpopular and even offensive beliefs, is not a free society. I'd rather live in a free society with bigots and hatred, then live in a totalitarian society without them. Because I value freedom. I value the freedom of ideas. I value the wrong-headed opinions. Because their existence is proof that I live in a free world. The Catholic Church thought that Copernicus had wrong-headed opinions. I'm glad that science didn't agree.
Its just the norm how. The problem is tho that it can effect a lot of areas has it increases with minority views being hit the hardest. That is because they contribute more to poliltical parties to influence events and stay away from direct support. Its not something new and we see the results. But when you actually look at who funds government its not surprising either.
I object that an apology is inappropriate, because when you have to apologize for your beliefs and opinions, it means that those beliefs and opinions are no longer free. Freedom means that some people are going to unapologetically believe what they want. A society that doesn't have bigots, that doesn't have some version of the KKK, that doesn't have people with unpopular and even offensive beliefs, is not a free society. I'd rather live in a free society with bigots and hatred, then live in a totalitarian society without them. Because I value freedom. I value the freedom of ideas. I value the wrong-headed opinions. Because their existence is proof that I live in a free world. The Catholic Church thought that Copernicus had wrong-headed opinions. I'm glad that science didn't agree.
No one said he couldn't have those idiotic, bigoted ideas. He could legally burn a pile of Elton John and Lady Gaga records while snapping DVDs of Milk in half. God bless America! The land of the free, home of the brave!
They just said you can't have those idiotic, bigoted ideas and run the company.
No one is advocating the thought police. But there ARE CONSEQUENCES FOR SPEECH. From defamation to being socially ostracized...
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it, but I can still call you an ******* and complain about it" I believe is the full quote.
I object that an apology is inappropriate, because when you have to apologize for your beliefs and opinions, it means that those beliefs and opinions are no longer free. Freedom means that some people are going to unapologetically believe what they want. A society that doesn't have bigots, that doesn't have some version of the KKK, that doesn't have people with unpopular and even offensive beliefs, is not a free society. I'd rather live in a free society with bigots and hatred, then live in a totalitarian society without them. Because I value freedom. I value the freedom of ideas. I value the wrong-headed opinions. Because their existence is proof that I live in a free world. The Catholic Church thought that Copernicus had wrong-headed opinions. I'm glad that science didn't agree.
Since the Mozilla thread has been closed, someone suggested to me that a good topic would be a discussion of what should the boundaries be in the "good fight" over ideas.
While I'm all for holding public servants accountable for their statements, actions, votes, etc, I personally draw a line between private individuals and public servants, and I think that targeting specific private individuals is a form of intimidation and suppression of free speech.
Clearly, others draw the boundaries elsewhere, so it would be interesting to hear what people think about this?
Brendan Eich is/was not a "public servant." Mozilla is a private company, even though they produce a product that is a free download, and they view their mission as one of keeping the Internet free and accessible. Their money is earned by various licensing fees, and they do operate for profit.
Prop 8 has had a history of intimidation of its supporters and vandalism of their property. What they have been known to do is illegal. It is a crime.
Supporters names should never have been published, but that is now the law in California. Now we see the result of such laws.
I maintain, as others have, that it was wrong to force him out over a private donation to a cause for which his religion (Christianity) is right about. Marriage is between a man and a woman. The arguments used by those who disagree, have no basis in the Constitution, or in scripture. In fact, scripture tells us something else about it. And, long before the Christian religion, God's law spoke against it.
For a few minority voices, spewing hatred and making threats to people for their views, Mozilla has caved in to those who use tyranny to accomplish their goals.
The company will be the worse for this action. It may never be forgotten, and Mozilla is no longer the same company, no matter how much they attempt to pretend that it is.
Is mainstream society entitled to punish you if you do? How entitled is mainstream society to know what you think?
And I take offense at your "humbly apologized". That level of arrogance is problematic. It is what makes this akin to an Inquisition. It's arrogance that allows the people who support what happened to Mr Eich to ignore the implications to equality and freedom. Believing in the infallibility of your position is what leads to totalitarianism and intolerance of differing opinions.
Would you feel the same if Eich had been donating to causes that attempt to illegalize interacial marriage? Causes that would force women out of the workforce? What about if he supported slavery? What if he supporting child molestation?
I suspect you would agree that someone could be ostracized if those opinions come to light.
There's no question that mainstream society can punish you (or atleast deny you its' benefits) for having radical opinions that are viewed as odious. It's only a question of which opinions should be ostracized.
And we are now reaching a point where being against gay marriage is a marginalizing opinion. Like all of the other marginalizing opinions one is entitled to have, there are consequences that flow from holding them.
No one said he couldn't have those idiotic, bigoted ideas. He could legally burn a pile of Elton John and Lady Gaga records while snapping DVDs of Milk in half. God bless America! The land of the free, home of the brave!
They just said you can't have those idiotic, bigoted ideas and run the company.
No one is advocating the thought police. But there ARE CONSEQUENCES FOR SPEECH. From defamation to being socially ostracized...
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it, but I can still call you an ******* and complain about it" I believe is the full quote.
Why not? Why should he be hindered from being a business owner, because his opinions may not line up with yours or anyone elses? Should he only be allowed to have a low wage job such as sweeping floors, or working the McDonald's drive through? Furthermore, ostracizing the guy is only going to create more dissension, and hatred toward a particular group. Do you really think this is the way to get someone's views to evolve and to come to your side? I'll tell ya what, it sure wouldn't work for me.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
