He not only was heavily involved with destroying IE's monopoly, he was able to start Brave in a punishing market (competing against Google, Apple, and his own FF) and made it a contender.
But, he wasn't woke enough. And for that, everyone will now pay dearly.
I daresay, learning that someone else is entitled to a competing view is difficult. Allowing others to have a view other than yours means that you and those you agree with may pay a cost. But the cost of not allowing any other opinion whatsoever to exist other than the one you believe in will eventually have a much much greater cost, in many more places than you would think. Mr. Eich once gave $1K to a cause that was anti-gay. He backtracked and apologized but was cancelled anyways. The cost of losing the only open contender to the spyware that passes as a browser is but a byproduct of the immature view that destroyed FF. It will eventually come back to kill those that think you are not allowed to marry your mother, and probably, eventually, to those that think you are allowed to be religious.
> Mr. Eich once gave $1K to a cause that was anti-gay.
And $2.1K to a prop 8 supporter [0]
> He backtracked and apologized but was cancelled anyways.
This is lie and you are re-writing history. I can find no such statement from him. In fact all he said was he wanted to "express my sorrow at having caused pain" [1], the classic "I'm sorry your were offended by that" non-apology. He has never stated that his support of Prop 8 was wrong, he side-stepped the whole thing expecting us not to notice.
> It will eventually come back to kill those that think you are not allowed to marry your mother, and probably, eventually, to those that think you are allowed to be religious
What the... no seriously, what the heck? You can believe whatever you want to believe but you don't get to push your religious values onto others which is exactly what Prop 8 did. Please cut out the BS that this is somehow going to lead to outlawing religion.
I honestly do not understand. He said his personal opinions are not going to affect his decisions. And I'm sure he can believe in whatever he wants - in Christ, Flat Earth and Aliens if he wants.
As outsider it looks like in recent years the most vocal shaming is not of gay or fat but shaming of whoever does not participate in shaming. I really hope that these are not true representatives of LGBT community.
> I honestly do not understand. He said his personal opinions are not going to affect his decisions.
Words are cheap, I don't think it's at all unreasonable to think that some employees might not feel that way or trust him to back up those words with real actions.
> And I'm sure he can believe in whatever he wants - in Christ, Flat Earth and Aliens if he wants.
They sure can and I can choose who I work for. If someone thinks I don't deserve the right to get married (again, people want to gloss over this but he didn't /think/ that, he /thinks/ that) then it's not crazy that I might not want them as my boss and especially at a place like Mozilla that prides themselves on openness and inclusivity. Unlike most companies the employees at Mozilla did feel compelled and safe enough to speak out against their CEO, that doesn't fly at many companies. At a smaller company I worked at I had no protection to call out the president who would always lead the company in prayer before we had a meal even though I'm not religious. I personally think it's encouraging that many gay (and straight) employees did take a stand on this issue.
> As outsider it looks like in recent years the most vocal shaming is not of gay or fat but shaming of whoever does not participate in shaming. I really hope that these are not true representatives of LGBT community.
Then you haven't been looking and your outsiderness shows. Not all of us live in CA and not all of us are protected by labor laws where we do live. I've seen first hand fat shaming and heard plenty of language/jokes/etc that warned me that coming out would be extremely detrimental to my ability to progress and even do my job at some companies. If you truly believe that the backlash to people who are homophobes is worse than the effects of their homophobia then I encourage you reevaluate that stance. Also I'm not sure what you mean by "shaming of whoever does not participate in shaming", the "shaming" was aimed at the person who supported not allowing gay people to marry and the people who defended someone who supported not allowing gay people. You are describing it as if people were mad at other people for not calling Eich out, no, they were mad at the people defending him.
> Unlike most companies the employees at Mozilla did feel compelled and safe enough to speak out against their CEO, that doesn't fly at many companies.
Why don't they speak last years? Do they support how CEO manages company? If not should we believe employees had any say than?
> even though I'm not religious
That's the problem, I'd expect if you was the president these prayers would not have a word. Minority who does not understand other minorities.
> You are describing it as if people were mad at other people for not calling Eich out
No, I am describing people who said not a world of love. Who see only their stance and force it on other people. I by comparison do not care - that's neutral. I am against propaganda and hate speech.
He also said preventing same sex couples from marrying wasn't discrimination. Why should someone trust him not to discriminate when he doesn't know what discrimination is?
A lot of people already voiced their concerns much better than I can [1]. But I'll try.
Because of law.
Uber CEO stepped down after a number of scandals.
I do not work at Mozilla. What I see is several people ask to leave another because who he is. And I do not see mirror action "please leave because who you are". This is discrimination. Law has not helped that person. He was honest not to lie about his believes. He left the company.
I do not know how honest current CEO is. I've heard at least some people left the company because of management actions. I know a lot were fired. I think people hacking source code, helping with bug tracking feel uneasy, I do.
You sound like it is something not discussed before, murder? Share it, please.
I've heard of him peacefully supporting his believes. Is this outlaw? Don't LGBT community do the same? Should LGBT CEOs be fired? Should LGBT employees be fired for what they do?
People hurt, usually both sides. Mutual acknowledgement is a start of a dialog. To expect empathy one should first give it back.
The way you do not see how behavior was not balanced you hurt me. I expect my words could hurt you. I try my best to avoid it.
Equality is a line on the sand. For some reason you've decided only your line is true. Tradition says another line is true. From that point of view your line is subverting the language. And language got hurt a lot, like some words are bastards and there is no equality for them.
The loss of clarity. I am not native language speaker yet I feel language becoming slippery, that hurts. Entire generations could loss sharp of mind just because some people want to change meaning instead of inventing new words. What's in "marriage" for you? How about "unity"? Why do you want all the baggage of forced marriage, child marriage? What would you do with "father" and "mother", "uncle" and "aunt"? What about that stream of he/she? Get noun genders like many other languages if you care that much.
Language is alive. Current state can be just a swing waiting to turn back into nonsense babbling criticized by Orwell [1]. Invent your own metaphors. We have had grammar nazi, now we've got LGBT nazi. Fear us, lie to us, conform us or mob will lynch. Can you imagine what would happen if Brendan asked LGBT employees to step down? If no, please, do not respond.
> Brendan Eich is [the] creator of the JavaScript programming language. He co-founded the Mozilla project, the Mozilla Foundation and the Mozilla Corporation, and served as the Mozilla Corporation's chief technical officer and briefly, as its chief executive officer. [1]
Yes he was only CEO for 11 days, but he literally co-founded Mozilla so it's not like he was only around for a couple weeks.
Eich was CEO for only 11 days, but he was a technical leader at Mozilla when Firefox market share peaked and began its steady decline. He was probably more directly responsible for Firefox product decisions than Baker.
He didn't just make a small donation once. He made a donation to a political campaign that called thousands of people sexual predators in campaign ads because it didn't actually have anything truthful to say in opposition to gay marriage. It was one of the most shameful and disgusting political campaigns in US history. And Eich made his donation after they started running those ads, so he was aware of how his money was going to be used.
And that was why it was an issue that he made the donation. Not because he opposed gay marriage (many people did and still do), but because he supported the wholesale slander of thousands of people.
If the Prop 8 campaign had been run differently, his support would not have been an issue.
All we know is that Eich supported one political movement with money. Show me where he has come put publicly as fearing homosexuals.
We are in a dangerous world of viewpoint discrimination. A belief on a particular moral or political issue does not represent the totality of an individual.
We all disagree on things; some of us on things we consider core unalienable rights and values. But at the end of the day, we are also all human beings.
How is supporting anti-gay movements not an act of homophobia?
I guess you are arguing semantics here, that you have to be literally afraid of homosexuals to be considered a homophobe. Well—though technically correct—this is not how most people use this word, and you know it. In current speech homophobe is anybody that acts maliciously against an LGBTQ+ person or the LGBTQ+ community as a whole.
> All we know is that Eich supported one political movement with money.
He supported at least 2, Prop 8 directly and a politician who opposed Prop 8.
> A belief on a particular moral or political issue does not represent the totality of an individual.
Ahh, ok, so it's perfectly fine to believe that gays should not be allowed to marry while leading a company such as Mozilla?
> We all disagree on things; some of us on things we consider core unalienable rights and values. But at the end of the day, we are also all human beings.
Sorry, no, you don't just get to "disagree" on if I should exist or have rights such as being able to get married.
Absolutely no one is saying you should not exist. I hear this phrase a lot and it's pure religious ideology. Everyone exists. Some people may see you differently than you see yourself, but that doesn't mean they deny you exist. We each exist in our own realities, and part of being good human beings is accepting one another while recognizing those differences in our viewpoints and realities.
> so it's perfectly fine to believe that gays should not be allowed to marry while leading a company such as Mozilla
What kind of company is Mozilla? Is it just about Free Software and an open web? An open web means we need open ideas; and not everyone is going to agree on every idea.
Free software needs to be about keeping the software free. We can't start conflating that with every grievance known to man. There is an underlying connection between Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Software that we've somehow lost along the way.
> He supported at least 2, Prop 8 directly and a politician who opposed Prop 8.
So what? It is literally supporting a political cause. People need to be free to support political causes, even those you may personally disagree with. At one time, supporting gay rights, or saying God didn't exist, or translating the Bible into German were considered horrendous offenses[0]. These people were terrible and those who opposed them were keeping everyone else safe from those corrupt views.
Real freedom means being able to talk about and challenge views without fear of oppression by one's government or community. If we can't talk about and rationally discuss ideas and accept people with different moral compasses than our own, then we're in real trouble.
> There is an underlying connection between Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Software
Freedom of speech includes the freedom to call for your boss to quit, for any reason at all.
> If we can't talk about and rationally discuss ideas and accept people with different moral compasses than our own, then we're in real trouble.
There is little possibility to "rationally discuss ideas" between an employer and an employee. The employer can pretty much ruin the employee's life at will, but even with so many people against Brendan Eich, he seems to be doing pretty well for himself! I'd hardly say that's "oppression by one's community".
That's fascism - "forcible suppression of opposition and strong regimentation of society".
I may disagree on forced marriage or animals abuse or use of personal vehicle, these are controversial topics. I may call them slavery, cruelty, greenhouse gas supporters. And that may be better. Invent new words.
Marriage is an old tradition with huge set of semantics and a set of laws. There is a civil marriage, a religious marriage, prenuptial agreement. These days there is no obligation to perform it. Single person can adopt child.
Sam asked interesting question - can one marry his mother? sister? imaginary friend? pet he loves more than any human? his car? Why government has a word on any of these? And if anyone has such relations - don't ask the government. Call it whatever you want. I have had the day of first sight, the day I've proposed the hand and heart, the day I've asked for children and many more, these are the dearest moments. The day of marriage was not that great by comparison.
how me where he has come put publicly as fearing homosexuals.
He hasn't. But he has come out publicly as supporting a campaign which literally called gays "pedophiles" and "sex offenders" in billboard and televised campaign ads.
And Eich made his donation after the Prop 8 campaign started running those ads.
> Being against gay marriage makes you a homophobe as much as being against minors voting makes you a pedophobe. - nec4b
Except it 100% does not and your statement makes absolutely no sense. One is a right you taking away from a group of people you don't agree with and the other doesn't even follow. What? Being against letting minors vote somehow makes you /not/ want to have sex with children? What is that even suppose to mean other than to be an age-old dog-whistle trying to tie homosexuality to pedophilia?
Firstly pedophobe is somebody who dislikes children not some one who wants to have sex with them (pedophile). You are the one doing the dog whistle thing.
The point is that marriage as well as voting right is not something you can take away as it exists only as a social construct. The state decides who is entitled to a right to get married as well as at what age somebody gets to vote. The society could decide tomorrow that it doesn't care about marriage and that no special rights should be granted to married people straight or gay. And that doesn't make the people voting for it any kind of -phobes.
I misunderstood "pedophobe" as the first google result says it's the opposite of a "pedophile" but it's from Urban Dictionary and I didn't read on to find other uses of the word. That said your response confuses me greatly, how am I dog whistling?
> The point is that marriage as well as voting right is not something you can take away as it exists only as a social construct.
There are a number of groups of people who have felt first-hand that this is simply not true. Both marriage and voting rights have been held back from or taken away from groups of people multiple times.
Now, with the correct understanding of the word "pedophobe" your original statement still doesn't track. You want to equate not allowing gays to marry with not allow <18 year olds to vote as if they are the same concept, they are not. One is taking away a right afforded to their equal counterparts and one is based on not reaching adulthood yet and not being mature enough to make that decision. I sure hope you aren't insinuating that similarly gays are somehow not up to the task of marriage or not mature enough to be trusted with marriage?
You are yet again trying to twist my words into meaning that somehow gay people are inferior. Please stop. It's like you are fixated on finding ulterior meaning where there is none.
Marriage is a social construct as are hundreds of other things we have in a society and as such they are open for discussion. For example, do you support incestual marriage? Do you think people against it are siblings haters?
Well what about the decade of work prior to being CEO? I mean, the guy did create Javascript. For better or worse, it is one of the most popular programming languages in use today.
Brendan Eich.
He not only was heavily involved with destroying IE's monopoly, he was able to start Brave in a punishing market (competing against Google, Apple, and his own FF) and made it a contender.
But, he wasn't woke enough. And for that, everyone will now pay dearly.
I daresay, learning that someone else is entitled to a competing view is difficult. Allowing others to have a view other than yours means that you and those you agree with may pay a cost. But the cost of not allowing any other opinion whatsoever to exist other than the one you believe in will eventually have a much much greater cost, in many more places than you would think. Mr. Eich once gave $1K to a cause that was anti-gay. He backtracked and apologized but was cancelled anyways. The cost of losing the only open contender to the spyware that passes as a browser is but a byproduct of the immature view that destroyed FF. It will eventually come back to kill those that think you are not allowed to marry your mother, and probably, eventually, to those that think you are allowed to be religious.