The Fascist Thugs Win One: Firefox CEO Steps Down

[benjipwns]

http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2014/04/03/the-fascist-thugs-win-one-firefox-ceo-steps-down/

Brendan Eich committed a thoughtcrime. He supports the traditional definition of marriage. For that, he has now joined the ranks of the unemployed.

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.

Yeah. He’s “made this decision” after thugs forced him into it.

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.

Obviously Mozilla does not believe in equality or freedom of speech. If it did, it would have defended its CEO and noted that many of its employees agree with him, not just the other side. It would have asserted that both sides deserve a hearing.

Firefox surrendered to the OKCupid mob, which loves free speech so much that it has successfully deprived a man of his income because of his beliefs — beliefs which are not fringe, but are shared by roughly half the country or more. Beliefs which he once shared with the left’s own champion, Barack Obama.

I know many readers here and many writers here support gay marriage. Are y’all cool with depriving someone of their ability to work if they disagree? That’s where we are right now. They tried it with Chick-Fil-A and bombed. But they have succeeded in the tech field, which drives much of our culture forward. Into what?

Our organizational culture reflects diversity and inclusiveness. We welcome contributions from everyone regardless of age, culture, ethnicity, gender, gender-identity, language, race, sexual orientation, geographical location and religious views. Mozilla supports equality for all.

Another lie.

We have employees with a wide diversity of views. Our culture of openness extends to encouraging staff and community to share their beliefs and opinions in public. This is meant to distinguish Mozilla from most organizations and hold us to a higher standard. But this time we failed to listen, to engage, and to be guided by our community.

While painful, the events of the last week show exactly why we need the web. So all of us can engage freely in the tough conversations we need to make the world better.

“Freely.” That word no longer means what it once did. You’re free to agree with the mob. You’re not free to disagree with the mob.

Update: GLAAD responds with a lie of its own.

Mozilla’s strong statement in favor of equality today reflects where corporate America is: inclusive, safe, and welcoming to all.

“…welcoming to all.” Unless you disagree with us, in which case, you might as well be dead.

GLAAD also gives something away. Mozilla claims that Eich stepped down on his own. GLAAD says Mozilla has made a “strong statement.” That can only be true if Mozilla forced him to step down.

So either GLAAD are projecting, or Mozilla is lying.

Update: Check this out. The IRS abuse scandal started the process that got Eich ousted.

Why, then, the ruckus? Amazingly enough, it is entirely due to the fact that Eich made a $1,000 donation to the campaign urging a ‘yes’ vote on California’s Proposition 8. When this fact first came to light in 2012, after the Internal Revenue Service leaked a copy of the National Organization for Marriage’s 2008 tax return to a gay-advocacy group, Eich, who was then CTO of Mozilla, published a post on his personal blog stating that his donation was not motivated by any sort of animosity towards gays or lesbians, and challenging those who did not believe this to cite any “incident where I displayed hatred, or ever treated someone less than respectfully because of group affinity or individual identity.”

To whom did the IRS leak NOM’s files? The Human Rights Campaign.

The HRC evidently engineered Eich’s ouster, in the name of equality and tolerance.

The IRS actions create a serious chilling effect. Your donations to any group can be leaked by a hostile operative within the government, to your enemies, for use against you — up to and now including costing you your job.

[Great Rumbler]

[Great Rumbler]

Also, this is hilarious coming from the same group of people who cry and bawl over the government punishing companies for what they do and instead say that whether a company lives or dies should rest solely on whether the public wants to support it financially. Isn't that exactly what's happening here? Isn't "the public" deciding to withhold its financial support from a company/owner that it doesn't agree with? LMAO. Get lost, Breitbart wannabe.

[benjipwns]

I just think it's weird that Esch lost his job for this when he posts on a place like The Bore so regularly.

[Great Rumbler]

[Human Snorenado]

Also, this is hilarious coming from the same group of people who cry and bawl over the government punishing companies for what they do and instead say that whether a company lives or dies should rest solely on whether the public wants to support it financially. Isn't that exactly what's happening here? Isn't "the public" deciding to withhold its financial support from a company/owner that it doesn't agree with? LMAO. Get lost, Breitbart wannabe.

BUT BUT BUT SOCIALISM OR SOMETHING

The party that bankrupted the country through ruinous, pointless warmongering and Wall Street wilding markets itself as the fiscally responsible foreign policy grownups. The party that lets a gun manufacturer flak organization intimidate it into allowing terrorists and the floridly insane to purchase unlimited semiautomatic weapons bills itself as tough on crime. Etc.

So it shouldn’t be surprising that conservatives’ perception of their ongoing defeat in the culture wars is exactly the opposite of reality on every level too.

Feel the burn, fucksticks!

[Brehvolution]

Sorry for your loss Esch.  Come here breh

[Momo]

Disgusting fascist thugs

[Joe Molotov]

Another win for Obama's jillbooted pinkshirts 

[benjipwns]

http://dish.andrewsullivan.com/2014/04/03/the-hounding-of-brendan-eich/

The guy who had the gall to express his First Amendment rights and favor Prop 8 in California by donating $1,000 has just been scalped by some gay activists. After an OKCupid decision to boycott Mozilla, the recently appointed Brendan Eich just resigned under pressure:

...

Will he now be forced to walk through the streets in shame? Why not the stocks? 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.

Can't tell if serious cuz it Andrew Sullivan.

[Brehvolution]

Fascist thugs won against Van Jones too.

[Madrun Badrun]

Not just Fascists;  homo-fascists.  The worst kind of fascists.  Which CEO will be rounded up and forced to wear the dull-coloured anti-rainbow arm band next?

[king of the internet]

 This sets a troubling precedent. This is America, one should be able to oppress a minority without fear of losing their job.

[Madrun Badrun]

This sets a troubling precedent. This is America, one should be able to oppress a minority without fear of losing their job.*

*if you are upper management and not a wage-slaver. 

[Human Snorenado]

http://dish.andrewsullivan.com/2014/04/03/the-hounding-of-brendan-eich/

The guy who had the gall to express his First Amendment rights and favor Prop 8 in California by donating $1,000 has just been scalped by some gay activists. After an OKCupid decision to boycott Mozilla, the recently appointed Brendan Eich just resigned under pressure:

...

Will he now be forced to walk through the streets in shame? Why not the stocks? 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.

Can't tell if serious cuz it Andrew Sullivan.

Serious

spoiler (click to show/hide)

...ly deranged

[close]

[AdmiralViscen]

Also, this is hilarious coming from the same group of people who cry and bawl over the government punishing companies for what they do and instead say that whether a company lives or dies should rest solely on whether the public wants to support it financially. Isn't that exactly what's happening here? Isn't "the public" deciding to withhold its financial support from a company/owner that it doesn't agree with? LMAO. Get lost, Breitbart wannabe.

Don't forget that a corporation has the views of its CEO when its depriving its employees of contraception, but not when the CEO is donating to anti-gay organizations.

[benjipwns]

 

[Steve Contra]

Who the hell uses Firefox these days?

[Madrun Badrun]

I do, but I'm thinking of switching.  I was only using it to oppress the gays. 

[Steve Contra]

I do, but I'm thinking of switching.  I was only using it to oppress the gays.

I wonder what Eich thinks about your sexual tastes

[Madrun Badrun]

Who cares what an unemployed man things?

[Brehvolution]

I use Waterfox. 

[Human Snorenado]

Uh. He wasn't forced out because he doesn't like gay marriage. He was forced out because he gave money to a duplicitous, bullshit effort to oppress gay people. Feel free to dislike gay marriage all you want, when you start giving money to efforts to deny rights to people, then you get what you deserve.

[benjipwns]

Customers complain, board of directors makes their views known, CEO resigns. Sounds like a pretty decent "precedent" to me.

 

[benjipwns]

And whose place is it to decide which of them should?

Um, their employers?

[Mandark]

If this guy had donated to the KKK, would it be an outrage if he were let go?  Or would the board of directors still have a moral imperative to keep on an avowed white supremacist as the CEO and public face of their company?

[Brehvolution]

Donate money 'cause you don't like people taking it in the ass.

Takes it in the ass.

[ToxicAdam]

A better question is, if this guy donated to a Pat Robertson or  National Organization for Marriage, should/would he feel pressure to be let go?

You could argue that supporting either of those two entities is worse than supporting Prop 8, but I don't think the same outrage would be there.

[Momo]

I dont care about this piece of shit CEO guy and I'm not even saying the outrage was unjustified, but when did we as a society become a outrage haven like this? Is it social media funneling and neatly organizing it behind a hashtag that makes it seem much more than it ever was? Is social media just making evident emotions that didn't have a voice before? Did social media create this group of attention whoring slacktivists that will outrage at anything to add some entertainment to their otherwise drab and meaningless lives? What the fuck is going on really?

again it isnt even about this situation, the world is just far too ragey for me, and I dont even have facebook/tumblr where the worst offenses happen

[Mandark]

As long as there have been jimmies, there has been rustling.

[Momo]

[Shadow Mod]

get outraged over the outrage when a legit homophobe oppressive asshole gets the boot from a company brehs

[Human Snorenado]

Let's all start a "Glen 'Puddles' Shinobi Memorial Society for the Promotion of the Oppression of Guys With Mental Disorders" and see what Awesome-o says then.

[Momo]

Let's all start a "Glen 'Puddles' Shinobi Memorial Society for the Promotion of the Oppression of Guys With Mental Disorders" and see what Awesome-o says then.

Would be more effective if it was a "Glen 'Puddles' Shinobi Memorial Society for the Promotion of ensuring the continued well being of duckroll"

[Mandark]

Americans United Against Outraged White Dudes.

Esteemed board of directors: LeBron James, Harry Reid, duckroll, Alyssa Rosenberg, Dwight Howard, Ichirou, and some girl who said she'd call but never did.

[Tasty]

I think the drama was a little obnoxious but man did that CNET interview change my opinion quickly. =/

Shame, dude is otherwise smart and would have probably been great as CEO. But the board was absolutely right about getting him to step down, the damage had been done and would only fester and undo what Mozilla's been working towards for over a decade and a half. As this kept blowing up more and more it was a clear a quick response was needed and I'm glad that's what happened.

[Shadow Mod]

Not sure that the drama would be any less obnoxious while getting the word out about someone basically hating <insert group here> and being a CEO of a company that supposedly is not about that life.

I dunno if it's just how old people are or whatever but ousting bigoted people is never a "clean" affair.

[Mandark]

Oh, and to answer the question "Have we gotten a lot worse recently about punishing people for holding unpopular beliefs?"

No.

[Shadow Mod]

I hate the phrases/words "unpopular beliefs" "belief" and "opinion" now. Great catchall words for people who want to ignore actions and assisting in the stripping of rights. Treating gays like inferior fucking human beings? That's just like his opinion man.

[Phoenix Dark]

[benjipwns]

Fuck you, benji. Anarchist dumbshit.

I hope it pains you to realize that the world you want to see will never, EVER exist.

It's funny how much more every LeBron or Dwight ring will pain you than the continued popular legitimacy of the state will cloud all my days combined.

[Great Rumbler]

How many of them should lose their jobs? And whose place is it to decide which of them should?

Should people who disagree with the views held and supported by the CEO of a company continue using the services/products of that company?

[Human Snorenado]

The #CancelColbert shit is ginned up, fake, stupid internet outrage. I'm gonna continue to disagree with you on this one.

[Shadow Mod]

I genuinely don't get it.

Like if a CEO of a company was dodging questions about whether he still believed white straight men were inferior would you be content to use the products of the company that elevated such a person? Would you be content with working under them?

To me it's gray if you're already in a position of privilege in which you don't have to worry about a bigot and their position of authority negatively impacting a group and or you.

Empathy bro.

[Mandark]

Suffice to say, many Prop 8 supporters didn't even consider it a human rights issue.

Um... *blinks*

That makes it more problematic, not less.

[benjipwns]

There's some evidence that the new board didn't exactly want him there to begin with. The kerfuffle provides a nice little way for the two sides to part company in a very public and exciting fashion.

That said, I don't see what the danger is really. We can effectively say that Mozilla decided it was better for them to go this route, meanwhile Chick-Fil-A went the opposite route and didn't seem to suffer that much. A company needs to properly read the balance of passions within its customer base. Both Mozilla and Chick-Fil-A probably have.

[Shadow Mod]

I feel like it's pretty easy for people not in a minority group (or even one if they've internalized a lot of apathy) to go to bat for this kind of person and yell about slippery slopes.

Meanwhile those of us who have actually endured people like this whether at a job or just going about our day are happy to see consequences for bigotry reach high up for once.

[benjipwns]

Dude thinks gay marriage is wrong, shouldn't be allowed, etc. His business.

Dude expresses his opinions on the above. Fair game for criticism.

Dude actively works to support or fund efforts to make law regarding the above. Still fair game for criticism.

[Shadow Mod]

Honestly who wouldn't want to know if their boss basically hates their race, gender or sexual orientation and actively worked to strip them of their rights? I sure as fuck would. That crap doesn't stay out of their decision making elsewhere.

[Mandark]

Depends. How did that interview even come about? Had he made statements about how white straight men were inferior? Did he publicly campaign for a ballot initiative that fucked white straight men over? Or did the whole situation come up because internet police started publishing the names of everyone who donated to a ballot initiative that fucked over white straight men? In the first case, no, fuck him. In the second case, whatever. His business.

First, a law that greatly affects the lives of fellow citizens isn't just "his business," clearly.

Also, should he have an expectation of anonymity when he donates to a political cause?  Should the Kochs?  Are there any political causes that should garner a backlash, or should people be protected from consequences for any and all beliefs and activism?

Take a step back and try to think of this in more general terms.  So far what you've said seems to boil down to "intuitively, to me, it doesn't seem like that big a deal, so it feels like an overreaction."

[Shadow Mod]

Do you honestly and naively believe that the thinking that lead to the passage of prop 8 just stays there? That it doesn't overlap into other areas of life?

[benjipwns]

I would argue that this is not the case. Having known a lot of people who supported Prop 8, a lot of them basically had the view "Gays marrying doesn't make any sense, because that's not what marriage is. That's like a cat demanding to take part in a dog show... that doesn't make sense because that's not what a dog show is." I heard more of that than "fuck those fegs" anyway.

Which to me is a whole lot less problematic than someone who acknowledges marriage as a human right and still wants to deny it to a certain subset of people.

Besides, lots of people believe things based on religion, and in a lot of cases they grew up with that religion all their lives. It's a completely different world for them.

Okay, and they won for the time being. Should that make them immune from criticism or opposing views forever?

[Shadow Mod]

A $1000 donation? Yes, he should have an expectation of anonymity IMO. A $1,000,000 donation, not so much.

This is a weird benchmark. How does the money involved make the views any less odious and less of a contribution to an oppressive cause?

[Mandark]

So someone should be insulated from backlash to their views if...

Enough other people hold those views?

Enough other people used to hold those views?

Their parents held those views?

Those views are framed religiously?

They don't see themselves as hateful, and their efforts to use the state to deny certain groups full equality and participation in society is grounded in a casual ignorance rather than a seething rage?



Also, it's California law and has been for a while that donations of $100 and over are public record.  I donated less than he did to the fight against Prop 8, and I realized going in that I had doomed my name to permanently live on the lists of liberal and Democratic fundraisers.

[benjipwns]

Should they all be targeted? Should we boycott their companies until they're fired or forced to resign?

Some people may think their rights are worth that time and effort. Others may think you can target the big fish, the CEOs and the like, but it's not worth it to go after regular joes. Some may recognize there's a line to walk to win the next vote. Still more might think that every opportunity to bring up the issue is the best way forward.

The alternative is no disclosure. I'm fine with that, but me and Clarence Thomas do not a majority make.

[Mandark]

I think the idea here is that as the CEO of a company you don't want someone harboring bias against groups that may be represented in the company's workforce, and you generally don't want the public face of your company to be perceived as an asshole.  Also, the Koch brothers went oh-fer in 2012, so I dunno how effective we can say they are.

[Madrun Badrun]

This might not be the place to ask but I'm looking for donations to fund my campaign for resegregation.  A lot people grew up with these, now decimated, southern traditions where we believe, most of us for all of our lives, that there is a place for white and a place for blacks and these places are separate.  AWESOM-O, if you give less than a million dollars, your donation will be kept anonymous. 

[Mandark]

Backlash != losing their jobs.

You keep pluralizing this.

[Shadow Mod]

I think the idea here is that as the CEO of a company you don't want someone harboring bias against groups that may be represented in the company's workforce, and you generally don't want the public face of your company to be perceived as an asshole.  Also, the Koch brothers went oh-fer in 2012, so I dunno how effective we can say they are.

That's where I am at. Seems to me it's really easy to not give a fuck if you're not a part of any group that has to worry about reproductive health, glass ceilings, marriage rights, health coverage of your dependent, etc and how your boss feels about those things.

[benjipwns]

No. But, IMO, they shouldn't lose their jobs  in 2014 because of it.

Backlash != losing their jobs.

What if a CEO did something so odious, like being an unrepentant furry GAF moderator, that the company lost all its sales and went out of business from people boycotting?