Or else what? Or else you will be destroyed. E-lynched. Hounded by packs of snarling snotty nincompoops unencumbered by the burdens of thought and reason and unrestrained by decency and commonsense. A rabble which feeds on hate and delights in cruelty, ruffians intent only on demolishing and demonstrating what they believe to be their superiority. For a generation that knows only irony this is truly astonishing.
There was none. There was no crime. Eich did nothing wrong.
His tormentors, however, are full of sin. These include the employees of Mozilla who first erupted into irrational public petulance and their vulgar and eager imitators on the Internet. Eich had recently had a disagreement with the board of Mozilla, an organization he co-founded, some of whom fretted of his leadership skills. It might have been from they (or those who recently resigned) who sought to sully Eich’s name. It may have been from the political arm of the IRS. Who knows? In any event, Eich resigned yesterday.
The Mozilla organization, true to the breed, had this to say about Eich’s ouster:
Mozilla prides itself on being held to a different standard and, this past week, we didn’t live up to it. We know why people are hurt and angry, and they are right: it’s because we haven’t stayed true to ourselves.
We didn’t act like you’d expect Mozilla to act. We didn’t move fast enough to engage with people once the controversy started. We’re sorry. We must do better.
Brendan Eich has chosen to step down from his role as CEO. He’s made this decision for Mozilla and our community.
Mozilla believes both in equality and freedom of speech. Equality is necessary for meaningful speech. And you need free speech to fight for equality. Figuring out how to stand for both at the same time can be hard.
Our organizational culture reflects diversity and inclusiveness…
This is so poor it could only have been written by someone inflicted with a modern university education. “We know why people are hurt and angry, and they are right”. Right? Right? Right that none except those willing to publicly espouse the belief-of-the-moment shall be employed?
“Mozilla believes both in equality and freedom of speech.” The thing about lying boldly is that the lie is more likely to be believed than a lie uttered shyly. I’ve long warned that progressives are holding truth “to a different standard” and that “freedom of speech” is being redefined as freedom to think whatever you like but not freedom to utter or act on these thoughts.
It therefore does no good to shove the Constitution under the nose of a progressive (easy to do, their noses are always aloft). He sees the words but thinks they mean all speech but “controversial” speech is free. What’s controversial? Opinions which differ from his. Has nobody noticed campus speech codes and calls to arrest scientists who do not agree with the party line? Worse is coming.
“Brendan Eich has chosen to step down from his role as CEO.” Eich “chose” to step down in the same way a convicted man “chose” to mount the stairs to the hangman’s noose. No other option was possible. Doing what you’re told is what a progressive means by free will.
“Mozilla believes both in equality and freedom of speech.” A lie, a bold in-your-face self-contradictory preposterous lie. It is the same lie progressives who joined the e-lynch mob told themselves. “We’re stringing you up to support your right to free speech!”
“Equality is necessary for meaningful speech.” Tripe. It is because there is inequality there needs to be free, unimpeded speech.
“Our organizational culture reflects diversity and inclusiveness…” It is fitting Mozilla ends its performance with a punchline bereft of all mirth. The only emotion left for us, the sane remnant, is sadness; sadness over the suicide of a once-great culture.
Categories: Culture, Philosophy
Mozilla’s only mistake, as far as I can see, is that they did not capitalize “diversity” and “inclusiveness”.
Mozilla believes both in equality and freedom of speech. Equality is necessary for meaningful speech. And you need free speech to fight for equality. Figuring out how to stand for both at the same time can be hard.
I guess they would know.
The answer to this is to follow the man in the hat. If you don’t like what the Mozzies have done, stop using their browser. I can live without Firefox, but I confess I’d struggle without Thunderbird…
I must say I was a bit surprised that they caved in so quickly and didn’t try in the slightest to tough it out. That said, Mozzies are utterly dependent on corporates that might not have wanted to be ‘tainted’ by association.
You can have freedom of speech as long as you don’t say too much. Hasn’t it always been that way?
George Orwell thought he was writing a prophetic warning when in fact it was an operating manual. The Progs want “tolerance” because respect and decency are harder to hide behind. They appeal to a different standard because a higher one is “unequal” and you just can’t have that.
The good news is that reality eventually puts knaves in their place; the bad news is that the process is horridly expensive.
I really doubted that we were at a turning point. I thought everyone crying claims of persecution was just being reactionary -yes in academia we get lower grades on papers(I’m sure I’m not the only one) or in municipal public squares and in the press, conservative politics have to duck and cover, but I always thought that this all was a natural and tolerable consequence of politics.
This story has me changing my mind considerably. There have been a few lefties to condemn this situation, and I will wait to make up my mind until this becomes commonplace but right now, I fear a deep-seated change is in the air.
Brendan Eich, a co-founder of Mozilla, was named CEO of the company last month (March 2014) as that company embarks on a new major initiative, the success of which is vital to the company’s long-term prosperity, AND, the nature of which is such that Eich has absolutely no experience or competency. A few years before (2008) being named CEO Eich had openly supported California proposition 8 to ban gay marriage…which won out but were later overturned. His support of Prop 8 was no secret. Upon becoming Mozilla CEO many on the Mozilla board quit in protest, some board members, many employees, and some key customer groups protested loudly. In response some days later B. Eich resigned as CEO.
Those are the key points of what happened–which are not at all apparent in the above essay.
What were the issues prompting the uproar?
1) He supported California’s anti-gay Prop 8 (in 2008–hardly a secret) & that is asserted as the dominant reason (or in this blog is presented as the only reason);
2) Many on the company Board of Directors wanted an outsider with more mobile-industry experience to help the organization promote its new & upcoming mobile operating system with telecom companies — experience Eich lacks and over that total absence of experience & competency in this vital growth areas three of Board members apparently quit (three — that’s a huge proportion of the small group comprising a Board of Directors).
Thus, the WHOLE STORY for the furor over the individual’s appointment as CEO includes a total absence of any experience in a, if not THE, dominant company initiative being undertaken to continue company growth & that absence of competency in a key area was so bad that that particular factor (not the past anti-gay support) induced a substantial proportion of the Board of Directors to quit.
That aside, let’s continue to pretend the ONLY factor was the long-known anti-gay marriage value. Based on that (distorted) version of reality this blog, which shares his Eich’s anti-gay sentiments, opposes his ouster.
Suppose the situation the guy was an atheist AND it was for that reason the employees & a key customer(s) exercised free speech rights and induced the resignation…would this blog be equally opposed to that anti-Constitutional freedom of religion bias…or…would it concoct some rationalization comparable to so many other anti-atheistic rants documented here for so long?
Maybe in THAT situation the blogger’s oft-discussed religious values would take a back seat to acknowledge the significance of the appointee’s total lack of experience & competence in a key company growth area.
Chances are, we’ll never know for sure.
Let me make sure I understand this: Eich donated a grand to an organization against gay marriage. He didn’t donate to an organization that’s against gays …. but to an organization that opposes gays’ rights to get married. He’s not against their desire/right for equal benefits and protection; nor their right to join together in a civil union. Am I right so far?
He didn’t make Mozilla a workplace hostile to gays, he hasn’t harassed gays, defamed them, or conspired against them. And he hasn’t used his role as CEO of Mozilla to promote an anti-gay agenda. Still right?
Yet Mozilla squeezes him out of the company and has the audacity to write a cringe-worthy message quoting freedom of speech!? Hmmmm. This is not the America I moved to 30 years ago!
Mr Eich – whether or not I agree with your position on gay marriage is irrelevant. I do support your right to have an opinion, to express that opinion, and to support a political process that furthers that opinion – PROVIDED you don’t defame, harm, hurt or use your position of power to hurt anyone. In my view, you’re in the clear on that score. You are however guilty as hell of hiring/keeping staff at Mozilla who can’t act as grown ups, who are totally spineless, and who cannot write meaningful, well-crafted, business-relevant press announcements.
Give it a week or two – you’ll be glad you’re done with them!!
Try reading what I wrote again and you’ll notice I mentioned the board’s actions.
Plus it is ridiculous and disingenuous to ignore the Internet firestorm which erupted as if the only thing which mattered were Eich’s business skills.
If what you stated were the reasons he was forced out, why did the Mozilla board not speak about any of those factors? Why were there board members lamenting an, “Anti-gay biggot,” as their appointed CEO? It seems inconsistent that he’d be appointed with his lack of qualifications and then later be publicly cast aside while having those same qualifications.
Also, obligatory, “fired for same views as a campaigning Barack Obama at the time.”
I read this story elsewhere and immediately thought “Briggs is going to have a bird”.
This situation speaks for itself and is a classic overreach from a movement that believe it has a mandate. Hard to see this as a positive for anyone.
I just wish our betters would let us know up front what our thoughts need to be to properly conform for their approval. It’s so confusing when they just make it up as they go along.
Taking an activist stance on a polarizing subject is a bad idea for any business, especially if it is unrelated to their core market. Mozilla painted itself into a corner here, and ended up in a now in scenario.
Browser should probably be selected for their technical merit rather than a company’s nutty PR adventures. Chrome is my favorite, but they are all pretty much the same:
Nothing like posting a picture of a vietnamese young man, in a panic and about to be interrogated via … ahhh… legal american methods of interrogation, to portray the dire straits of an oppressed, bullied, absolutely terrifying situation that Brendan Eich finds himself in.
It’s like if I wanted to parody how utterly clueless and out of proportion the defenders of Eich are in this shenanigan, I wouldn’t even reach this low for being afraid of becoming too obvious in my parody.
But I guess “Affluenza” doesn’t just affect billionaires. It also affects bloggers.
That’s right, Luis. Pretend the mob’s behavior is a matter of complete indifference.
Here’s what i really don’t understand about the debate:
If you are in favor of “marriage equality” then shouldn’t you simply be against the government licensing of marriage? After all, marriage pre-dates licensing by thousands of years, and the origin of marriage licensing was to prevent interracial marriages, hardly a position the “marriage equality” supporters defend.
Furthermore, many supporters seem to conflate “marriage equality” with “access to entitlements.” In other words, some benefits are legally or contractually linked to marital status, so they want marriage licensing to be more inclusive. But upon a quick reflection of this, you realize that this position is discriminatory against *unmarried* individuals. In other words, if “access to entitlements” is truly what they want, then why aren’t they pushing to decouple entitlements from marital status?
Now, it could be that some individuals are both pushing for “marriage equality” and increasing access to entitlements for all. But if that’s the case, the most direct way to get there is to remove government marriage licensing and decouple entitlements from marital status.
Some of you–Ken, Luis, etc.–need to make peace with your choices in the latest in high fashion footwear.
And, yes, I do realize that those jackboots aren’t going to break themselves in–at least not until a few skulls are kicked in and people learn to think the ‘correct’ way–but don’t expect that everyone is going to be as ‘willing’ as Eich to present said skulls for re-education, especially not with such ‘arguments’.
“Open” means “closed”. Read the new language manuel and get with the program. Same for “bullying” means “tolerance”. The language has been rewritten and perhaps it’s time we started using the new terms and noting that what the term meant in the “old normal”. Perhaps we could clear up the confusion out there and people would understand this is not hypocrisy, just a redefining of the language. Isn’t that so simple?
Ken-How about an example of someone calling for the ouster of a CEO because he’s an atheist? Hard to find, since it rarely, if ever happens. The only time religious affiliation matters is when it’s a religious institution. Besides, it’s far more likely that a Christain would removed from the position for fear of “intolerance” (which clearly indicates the “tolerance” was “intolerance” by the atheists but no more. See, defining the new usage for you.)
I have uninstalled firefox.
OK–so the guy is free to be intolerant of SSM, but gays are not free to be intolerant of his bigotry.
Glad we’ve got it “straight”.
Arrgh. Now I need a new web browser, hopefully one made by other than vile sanctimonious ignorant bigoted contemptuous hateful stunted intransigent insolent arrogant unsympathetic cowardly sniveling brutes.
Any suggestions? Must work on a PC, and not Chrome, which is made by vile sanctimonious etc.
Because you are free to do something does not mean it is moral or necessary or right to do it. The ignorant rampaging mob was within its rights. But it was uncivilized ugly rude boorish childish unconsidered stupid behavior.
Uncle Mike: I believe that Netscape is still out there. I have Opera, on my mac, and it’s supposed to have a PC version. I’m not terribly fond of Opera. I found it clumsy to use, but maybe it’s because I use Safari the most. I also have Chrome because several websites I need to access won’t work on Safari. Firefox was my only other option and I chose Chrome. It’s tough to find any company that doesn’t sell out to the left. Fear is a powerful motivator that corporations don’t usually stand up to the bullies.
You may want to get all the information before you go off on another ill-considered and poorly punctuated rant.
As has been pointed out in other media locations, Mozilla seemingly wasn’t going anywhere–until is was also revealed that, beside his Prop 8 contribution, he was also a contributor to Pat Buchannan’s failed presidential bid.
It would appear it wasn’t the outrage of the gays, but the board looking at having to defend a CEO who was supporting a racist and anti-Semite, that was the straw that broke the camel’s back.
I’d suggest a nice merlot to wash down the crow.
Your misunderstanding of the grammatical arts aside, there is no justification for the hate-filled mob’s justification.
I’ll even let pass your scurrilous remarks on Pat Buchanan, except the note that you use him as a boogeyman to justify a political purge. Yours is an uncivilized, ungentlemanly attitude; indeed, your writing expresses the lust of the barbarian to destroy all that which displease him.
All of the push to redefine marriage was never about marriage at all, it was about public acceptance and affirmation of homosexual behavior. This kind of sex is unnatural, it’s been sold to a seemly majority of people, or those who have just given up, or those who are afraid to speak out for being called a bigot (really I thought bigotry was unjust-discrimination, not discrimination).
We’re entering the final stage where persons are punished for thinking otherwise. You see, the unnatural must be imposed, dissent is not allowed, otherwise the unnatural is undermined by natural thought and speech.
Well for such an accomplished word smith (at least in your own mind) I’m sure you’ll recognize the term Ad hominem.
Remember–crow is best cooked medium well.
I do at that, just as obviously you do not. As a favor to you, this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem
“Abusive ad hominem usually involves attacking the traits of an opponent as a means to invalidate their arguments. Equating someone’s character with the soundness of their argument is a logical fallacy.”
I’d say I got it right.
Pull up your big boy pants briggs–
You argue badly. If I say your attitude is barbaric it is a statement of fact, subject to verification.
Here is the verification. Calling for purges because of politically incorrect views is barbaric. You have called for such purges. Your attitude is therefore barbaric.
People often mistake ad hom’s for statements which hurt their feelings. As you have done. For example, your attempt to call on the ad hom in an attempt to justify your barbaric attitude.
Thus you make two, and not just one error.
Now if I said you were a barbarian and therefore your argument was unsound, that would be an ad hom. But since I proved your argument unsound and claimed that those who hold it are barbarians, I have not committed any fallacy.
Sweetheart—you attacked me–calling my “attitude” uncivilized and ungentlemanly.
You never addressed that fact that the board had other, and equally damning, reasons to act as they did. (And BTW–Buchannan is a racist and an anti-Semite.)
You can try and tap dance all you want–but you are guilty of an Ad Hominem. And you’re not Gregory Hines.
And I’m ashamed that you are a Cornellian.
Your attitude just demonstrably is uncivilized and ungentlemanly, as I showed.
I did talk about the board supposedly not trusting his leadership skills. But you miss the larger point that the mob that went after Eich cared nothing for the man’s skills or lack of them as a CEO. Just as you do not. It was (largely) the mob’s behavior I wrote about. Curious you should continue to pretend not to see this.
And now you compound, or merely repeat, your error that political purges are justifiable. And this is so whether or not Buchanan is a racist or anti-Semite, which is disputable to say the least.
Lastly, as I demonstrated, there was no ad hom, which you have not rebutted except to say, in effect, “Is too!”. Just as there is none when you claim to be “ashamed” that I am Cornellian.
Plus I’m more of a Fred Astaire than Gregory Hines. I dress better than Hines.
Update This just occurred to me. Tell the truth: you’re a graduate of the Hotel school, right? All evidence points in that direction.
Browsers have become mere content displayers. And, of course, routinely (nowâ€¦) favor some content over others. What to do?
I keep at least half a dozen browsers installed and run a pre-Chromium Opera 11.64, which is highly customizable and includes a straightforward Open-with context menu option for when its Presto rendering engine fails in some annoying way.
About your post’s topic, I have little to sayâ€¦ Except that the jackals seem to want to control the herd. How would that be good for the ecology?
Mobs will be mobs. I laugh at this reaction by pseudo-tolerant people who demand we should understand the pligths suffered by this DESTROYED person of “interest” merely because he acted on his homophobia.
I do not laugh at mobs. But I do point out this: if this mob demanded a conservative viewpoint of Mozilla’s CEO and it was found that he supported gays or whatever, and then were we to witness this mob boycotting Firefox until they caved and fire this guy, you wouldn’t go Full Godwin (never go full godwin) at all on it, you’d actually just call it the sensible reaction of a good society against depravity and degeneration.
It’s always like this and that’s why I find all this faux-outrage to be inane and hypocritical. Yes, mobs are dangerous (we saw this in the Pielke 358 shenanigan recently) but that is a bit perpendicular to the theme of this post, which is mostly whether if the homophobia of Mozilla’s CEO is relevant or not to him being hired or not. While I will not debate this point, I think it’s fair game in the public sphere to talk about it. These people represent a company, they are not just “managers”. They earn millions, and the standards we should demand of them are much much higher.
Just for the sake of fun, could you write down, or point out us to, what you consider to be a complete definition of “homophobia”?
â€œAbusive ad hominem usually involves attacking the traits of an opponent as a means to invalidate their arguments. Equating someoneâ€™s character with the soundness of their argument is a logical fallacy.â€
So attacking someone because he contributes to a ballot initiative or allegedly supported a washed-up politician who supposedly is double-plus ungood is an ad hominem.
Homosexual activist Andrew Sullivan has expressed shame and outrage over the lynch-mob tactics employed in this episode.
The whole episode disgusts me–as it should disgust anyone interested in a tolerant and diverse society. If this is the gay rights movement today–hounding our opponents with a fanaticism more like the religious right than anyone else–then count me out. If we are about intimidating the free speech of others, we are no better than the anti-gay bullies who came before us.
“Mobs will be mobs.”
Oh, well that’s alright then.
” if this mob demanded a conservative viewpoint of Mozillaâ€™s CEO and it was found that he supported gays or whatever, and then were we to witness this mob boycotting Firefox until they caved and fire this guy, you wouldnâ€™t go Full Godwin (never go full godwin) at all on it, youâ€™d actually just call it the sensible reaction of a good society against depravity and degeneration.”
And when’s the last time a conservative mob demanded the firing of a liberal CEO?
Why are you not outraged at Obama, who in 2004 was AGAINST gay marriage. Thus, he was a homophobe and may still be. Once a homophobe, always a homophobe, right? Or is that only in the case of Mozilla?
OCTOBER 2004: â€œWhat I believe is that marriage is between a man and a woman â€¦ What I believe, in my faith, is that a man and a woman, when they get married, are performing something before God, and itâ€™s not simply the two persons who are meeting,â€ then-U.S. Senate candidate Obama said in an interview with WTTW Chicago public television.
Where is the outrage that Obama is a homophobe? Why is there no call to remove him from office for his caveman viewpoint?
Where is the outcry that this is a business and they MUST not discriminate against sexual orientation? These punitive businessmen who are removing an employee that at one time opposed homosexual marriage (we don’t even know if he disapproves of gays or just gay marriage). So how is that different from straight people not selling cakes? It’s NOT. Homosexuals can DISCRIMINATE all day long. That’s tolerance for you.
And let’s not forget that in 2008 Luis, from his perch in Portugal, strongly supported homophobe Obama and sneered at the “Bushies” for their Christianity. So I guess that makes him kind of a triple hypocrite. Thank God he doesn’t vote here.
I’ve uninstalled Firefox on both my computers. Opera seems to work much simpler and easier.
(Also use Safari and Chrome).
It seems to me that Luis, cminca and Ken do not understand or appreciate the issues of free speech and free thought involved. The Old Statisticians citing Andrew Sullivan’s opinion is highly relevant, and there have been other homosexuals (I refuse to use the term “gay”–what a degradation of a word that once had a unique and useful meaning) who are also aghast at this caving to those who would like to prevent us from following religious and moral values.
“Non in dialectica placuit Deo salvum facere populum suum” (“It is not by arÂguing that God chose to save His people”). St. Ambrose
Your challenge to Luis, are you taking issue with the irrationality implied by the term?
Kate over at SDA has an embedded link to the Firefox forum along with the comment: “Firefox feedback forum goes horribly wrong”
It appears they poked their nose in a hornet’s nest when they should have kept their nose to the grindstone building their product.
One should not forget that freedom of speech doesn’t exclude having to deal with the consequences of what we say.
Eich had the right to say what he said. the gay group at the right complaint. Obviously for the company the appearance were more important than defending the bigotry of Eich.
Sylvain, do you say that bigotry is advocating that the marriage ceremony is between a man and a woman, designed for procreation, to safeguard the role of the family? If this belief is based on one’s moral and religious beliefs, is it bigotry to follow those beliefs even though no persecution of homosexuals is advocated?
Is religious belief the trump card?
[quote]Is religious belief the trump card?[/quote]
No. Knowledge of the history of humanityâ€¦
The reason he resigned is because he realized that his position was logically indefensible.
Perhaps the curlicues of this commenting client are not to be appreciated by “mere” postersâ€¦ But I â€”for oneâ€” would appreciate a fact-sheet, a plain explanation of what will and won’t work, what forms of common enhancement of plain text achieve the expected result, what it takes -syntactically- to refer sensibly and explicitly to another’s wordsâ€¦
Oh, and of course, I’d like any reasonable implementation of an “edit post” function.
But, dear Briggs, consider this: An important question that has been ignored for too long is, What is the purpose of an Internet browser?
(My spell-checker bade me capitalize “internet”â€” My operating system, etc., made a long dash two short onesâ€¦)
What is it that a browser provides?
Shouldn’t it be the means to interact on the Internet with others? And mustn’t that be a highly individualistic â€“if it’s to be amenable to highly individualistic viewpointsâ€“ interface?
The major players in the browser market have decided that No, it isn’t pertinent how people use or want to use the Internet; what matters is only how they , the browser providers, can capitalize their investment: Browsers are providers of content, and need to make their money from capital streamsâ€¦ (Content providers?)
I’m not anti-capitalist. But I think the Internet â€“or, if you will: the Webâ€“ has become something akin to print: It’s a technology that supersedes old ways of valuation.
We need to recognize that quantum leap!
So, I prefer a browser that lets me adapt to my changing needs and lets me adopt the latest technologyâ€¦ Alas, I’ve not yet found the perfect candidate.
But I’ll keep looking, while retaining the best and most versatile version that doesn’t crash or give my bank account info to Serbians or Nigerians! 🙂
Jim S said: “The reason he resigned is because he realized that his position was logically indefensible.”
He resigned â€“I believeâ€“ because he has enough money, and no longer has the patience to suffer fools gladly.
Write to him yourself and let me know if I’m wrong! 🙂
My girlfriend is from Haiti and is against male homosexuality i.e. anal intercourse on hygienic grounds
“euh! caca dedans”
She realizes that she can get away with saying this because of her skin colour.
“People are often afraid to argue with me because they think that they may be accused of racism.”
It’s a funny old world.
“One should not forget that freedom of speech doesnâ€™t exclude having to deal with the consequences of what we say.”
Sure, but that doesn’t mean that everything that happens when we say something controversial is a just or natural consequence of doing so.
cminca on 4 April 2014 at 12:35 pm said:
OKâ€“so the guy is free to be intolerant of SSM, but gays are not free to be intolerant of his bigotry.
Glad weâ€™ve got it â€œstraightâ€.
In a rightly ordered world men should be intolerant of homosexuality, an objectively perverse activity. It was a great mistake to tolerate homosexuality (as indeed it is a mistake to tolerate any sin) since it has served only to liberate demons. And now those demons, swollen with powerlust and encouraged by our crumbling defenses, work furiously to turn our wavering opposition into a complete rout and have us tossed into a gulag. Homosexuality is wrong and is not to be tolerated but suppressed.
Don Jackson, “..my bank account info to Serbians or Nigerians!” $hit, you mean I don’t get the $65 million they promised me if I helped them out?
Yet, imagine the furor that would erupt if the CEO of a conservative organization was forced out or resigned because he contributed to a group that supported gay marriage 6 years ago. Progressives reek of hypocrisy as they seek to suppress all dissent and impose their views on all of us in ways that totalitarian societies would applaud and admire.
And the award for the world’s biggest hypocrite goes to: Sylvain
Had the company fired a homosexual, Sylvain would be in here screaming that was unfair. But, when a guy gave money to a political campaign (previously believed to be a First Amendment right, but since the Constitution is routinely ignored by this administration, apparantly not so) it’s just a consequence. Again, had this been a hospital and they fired someone for supporting banning gay marriage, Sylvain would have had a fit. Way to go Sylvain!
JimS: Your position is “Freedom of political speech” is indefensible? The man gave to a political group during an election year. So toss out the First Amendment, you say?
I’ll see your Pat Buchanon and raise you Robert Byrd. Let’s hope people supporting him were fired en masse during the decades of his political career.
Here’s another fallacy to research.
Why exactly is the belief that marriage is a holy union between one man & one woman constantly called bigotry? Whatever happened to Freedom of Religion? Seems hypocritical to me. I’ll no longer use Mozilla. I don’t support bullying.
“JimS: Your position is â€œFreedom of political speechâ€ is indefensible? The man gave to a political group during an election year. So toss out the First Amendment, you say?”
Ah Sheri, I love your syllogistic way of arguing. If A then C then M then Z! It’s so convenient when you can just skip steps and go right to the conclusion, isn’t it? Saves so much time and thought.
What prevented him from standing up and speaking out against gay marriage to keep his job? His own cowardice? If he could have swayed a good number of people to his position, then he could have maintained his job. But his POSITION on the issue is logically indefensible, not the fact that he has one.
Do you see the difference Sheri?
“Why exactly is the belief that marriage is a holy union between one man & one woman constantly called bigotry?”
Three reasons, I’d say. First of all, it flatters progressives’ self-conceit to think that they alone in all of human history have discerned the true nature of marriage and bigotry. Secondly, it works to poison the well against conservatives: if you can convince people that everybody who thinks a certain thing is motivated by bigotry, people will be less likely to listen to them (and possibly even be convinced by their arguments!), because after all, nobody wants to bother listening to some bigot rant all day. Thirdly, it helps to salve progressives’ consciences when they hound their opponents out of their livelihoods. After all, making life difficult for people based on their political beliefs looks worryingly close to persecution. Making life difficult for people because they express irrational malice towards a minority group is a lot easier to justify, to yourself and to other people.
Ach, hit “Post Comment” too soon.
Case in point for point no. 3: Jim’s “The reason he resigned is because he realized that his position was logically indefensible”. You see, it’s not at all the fault of the online lynch mob who hounded him out of his job, oh no, it’s all because of Eich and his irrationality. So the progressives can be spared the ordeal of having to critically examine their own behaviour and see if they’re becoming the oppressive, intolerant monster they keep trying to fight. Phew!
And fourthly, a lot of progressive views are based on emotion rather than reason, to such a degree that it actually pushes out their empathy. So because gay marriage (in this case, but it’s the same with pretty much any leftist talking-point) just *feels* so right and important to them, they have a hard time understanding that its rightness and importance might not seem so obvious to other people. But why, then, would other people want to deny a persecuted minority group (yes, I know, I know, but gay people *feel* persecuted — or at least the noisiest ones claim to — and we must unquestioningly accept that they say for fear of hurting their feelings) such a fundamental and important right? It can’t be honest disagreement, because everybody secretly agrees with progressives, even if they try and hide this fact from themselves. And if honest disagreement is out, the only plausible option left is hatred or malice towards gay people.
Jim S: I love your flowery language. Am I supposed to be impressed or confused? I have no idea what your argument means, other than you disagree with me. How is his POSITION indefensible?
(Yes, I see the difference. You think having a position is separate from the freedom of political speech. So instead of addressing whether or not this whole thing violated the first amendment, you want to argue gays have some ethereal, nebulous “right” to marry, which is nonsense. There is no “right” to marry. None. It’s a civil ceremony defined by the government. Unfortunately, people think that laws make “morality” and the gays demand to be called moral and run over, destroy and completely shred anyone who is “intolerant” of them. The fact that they are hypocrites should tell you a lot about their complete lack of morals. They could have had all the rights of married, but not call it that, but NO, they will pillage and plunder all who stand in their way. I really love those “tolerant, moral” types. And you think opposing them is “indefensible”. Yeah.)
Wow. So much misunderstanding of the issue.
One more time….
I am NOT against freedom of speech as you so bluntly and incorrectly put it. (Lordy, what a leap of logic that was.) The gentleman in question is free to speak his mind – and so are those who oppose it. He does not have a RIGHT to his job. If other members of the board (or investors) want him fired because of the way he parts his hair, then that is their right.
Is it fair? Probably not, Sheri. But it’s called freedom. Adults learn that you have to take the good with the bad if you want to live in a free society.
Jim, I presume that you’d be against the government officially blacklisting people with the “wrong” political views and banning them from getting any jobs deemed too high-profile. How, though, is the situation any better when it’s the whims of a gang of self-righteous activists doing the blacklisting? What actual difference does it make if it’s fear of government oppression or fear of mob reprisals preventing you from speaking freely? In both cases your ability to speak freely is being infringed.
JimS: A quaint little idea but we do not have freedom of speech–if said employee was pro-homosexual and fired for it, everyone would be making the claim that he was fired by bigots and demand he be rehired. In an ideal, FREE society, yes. Now, if you just find me one of those, great. (I’m still not clear on protected political speech–you can be fired for being Republican and that’s okay? You can be fired for being a Democrat and that’s okay? You can donate to a political and then be fired 5 years later and that’s okay? Then explain what first amendment rights cover, cause it sure isn’t much of anything at this point. An example might help–like can we fire people, refuse to rent to them, run them out of town, etc if we don’t like what they say and none of that is protected by the first amendment. Yet we can’t use the “n” word because that’s hate speech. So far as I can see, we have NO freedom of speech that is protected. There are cries to jail climate deniers, conservatives and homophobes. No freedom of speech. But you can throw a crucifix in urine and that counts. This is simply insane. Now, in your fairy-tale utopia of freedom, sure. But fairy tales are not real.)
The government is now going through the donations to the Tea Party and auditing tax returns to intimidate people. Is that okay too?
Ponder, both sides, before inflicting adjectives on people you disagree wit, the hypocrisy of your emotions and the ratinalizations spe we’d.
1) Chick Filet saga
2)The latest Eichh thing
“The government is now going through the donations to the Tea Party and auditing tax returns to intimidate people. Is that okay too?”
Sheri, if you can’t tell from my argument, let me be very clear. I am a libertarian who believes in a minimal government that is in place solely to protect individuals against theft, fraud and breach of contract. That’s it. Period. Govts. job is not to force beliefs on others. So in answer to you question: Hell no it is not right for the IRS to intimidate people. It’s not even right for the IRS to exist IMO.
But being a proponent of libertarianism means that I must also accept others views that do not coincide with my own. My rights end where yours begin, and fences make good neighbors, etc. That’s the price of freedom.
Look, I’m an atheist. I work for a private business where, even though it’s not really discussed, I know that many of my co-workers and clients are religious. But do I make statements regarding how illogical and backward I believe religious beliefs to be? No. I don’t because I know that it will piss off a lot of people. And even if I were to get fired for my beliefs, I wouldn’t run to the government for protection or to have my job reinstated.
So do I sympathize with the individual who got fired? Somewhat. But we live in an imperfect society. But I wonder, if his views are so at odds with his co-workers, then why would he wish to work with them? You have to come to peace with the differences of others so long as they are not violating your rights (or the rights of others). That’s the price of freedom.
By the way, have you ever heard of libertarianism?
Yes, I have heard of libertarianism. It’s basically a fairy tale that only works with people who are bright and engaged. It’s a wonderful ideal, but cannot ever work in the real world. That being said, I do generally agree with much of the ideology.
I do understand that businesses can hire and fire as they chose. That’s not really the problem here–the problem is the intimidation, with the full agreement and encouragement of the US government, of people with conservative or religious views, which is clearly a violation of the US constitution. Also, according to the articles I read, this was a donation to a political cause several years back. So if it came out that you donated to a libertarian cause in 1972, you really think it’s okay to fire you? Do you really believe that is not an attempt to indimidate and thus limit the free political speech of libertarians? If I have to rent to homosexuals, sell cakes to them, etc, and cannot refuse to hire them, then why can someone who opposed homosexualty be fired? If I must hire homosexuals, why am I not obliged to hire those who disapprove, too? If we go purely libertarian, we can discriminate against blacks, gays, women, etc. Am I okay with that? Yes, as long as it applies to ALL people, not just some. Otherwise, it’s not libertarianism that you are defending.
Now, the real question is … how easy will it be for Eich to get hired at, say, Microsoft or Google? 😉
Any recruiters paying attention? High skills, low cost … opportunity!
Also, for the record, I’m a Chrome user, so I can’t say that I’m going to miss Mozilla much …
A few people Iâ€™ve read on various blogs have conflated the issues in the case of Mr. Eich with concerns for speech freedoms, but in general this has not been the focus of concern. It is not a question of whether Eich should be somehow shielded (by whom?) from the repercussions of his actions or speech. It is a question of whether those who attacked him through Mozilla were behaving in a way that befits citizens in a free society.
Suppose a black family moves into a neighborhood and the neighbors decide to burn a giant cross across the street as a way of marking the occasion. I can certainly argue that both the family and the cross-burners are within their constitutional rights, but I canâ€™t bring myself to say that the family is merely dealing with the implications of their having chosen to locate in that neighborhood. The cross-burners are morally wrong and their behavior should be firmly condemned.
Likewise, in the Eich case it was wrong of the â€œmobâ€ to insist on the firing of Mozillaâ€™s CEO to punish him for having taken a perfectly mainstream position that was not to their liking. They are within their rights, but their behavior was wrong.
Question: If you can run out or encourage to resign or outright fire someone for not supporting gay marriage, then you can fire someone who does support gay marriage, right? You’re not firing them for being homosexual, you’re firing them because you don’t like their politics. Same exact thing.