I'm not qualified to tell the other side of the story.
What a cop out. You're, like everyone else who disagrees with this, downplaying Eich's behavior and trying to turn activists into the "real" monsters for speaking out.
Why the double standard? Why does one man, Eich, get a pass on speaking out for his personal political beliefs (with cash), but you demonize the the (hundreds? thousands? more?) people who did nothing but say that it was unacceptable?
You want pathetic? Look at your own post. Realize what you're defending. You should be ashamed of yourself.
Nope. Not one bit. Shitstorm like this just reinforces my people that all people are equally capable of evil and good. This time with emphasis on evil.
I don't get what does his private belief have to do with making Firefox? Seriously, what?
Also replace this scandal with person X becoming CEO and then media discovering he fucked a cat once. Do you think he'd really rise to top ranks and suddenly turn the firm into a place for cat orgies?
I appreciate the intensity of the issue, but personal attacks are not allowed on Hacker News.
Edit: thanks to seertaak below for pointing out that this was trivial compared to what Karunamon was responding to.
I get that it gives the wrong impression to admonish one person while ignoring something much worse. On the other hand, we (and certainly I) can't read all the comments, so there's inevitably some randomness here. I can't promise to get everything right, but I do promise to listen to correcting feedback.
You understand you're the definition of a schoolyard bully, right?
I've read all my posts, several times. I'm internally consistent, and I almost always favor cautious respect over ignorant bashing.
I'm not even defending Eich, again, I don't know him. I'm stating that a social environment where a man loses a job Mozilla thought he was qualified for because of private personal beliefs and internet outrage is not only actively undemocratic, it's foolish and childish.
> loses a job Mozilla thought he was qualified for because of private personal beliefs
Ah yes, this again. The old, "yes, his personal values seriously conflict with the employer's values[1] but hey, he can still check his opinions at the door when he comes in to work and do a good job!" gambit. My opinion is that this is transparently balderdash. The CEO represents the brand. The CEO's values matter. The CEO's values will out. People don't have firewalls in their heads between personal and professional like that.
I would like to state that me and others expressing our opinions here in normal language does not constitute bullying, a "lynch mob" and does not compel Mozilla or any other company to do anything. Characterising it as other than free speech is incorrect.
>I'm stating that a social environment where a man loses a job Mozilla thought he was qualified for because of private personal beliefs
Private "personal beliefs" that he reached into his wallet and tried to force into law. This is the one thing that people don't seem to understand. Eich didn't just think gays were second class citizens. This isn't a "thoughtcrime" he's being pilloried for.
It was the action. The donation, coupled with his complete refusal to backtrack, explain, or apologize. Just evade and spin all day long.
I have absolutely no problem stamping Eich with "unrepentant bigot" on his forehead because he's proven beyond any shadow of a doubt that those are his beliefs. It is both unreasonable and inconsistent to give him "the benefit of the doubt" after his behavior when the donations came to light. There is no question anymore.
>actively undemocratic, it's foolish and childish.
I don't think you know what democracy means.
Publicly proclaim your allegiance to Stormfront or a group that holds similar regressive views for women, and tell me your life will remain unaffected.
Hey this is my first post. The word "bigot" seems to be used a lot in these post. I was curious to find out what was the exact definition of the word and found this on m-w.com: "a person who strongly and unfairly dislikes other people, ideas, etc...one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance" I have a hard time believing that a guy who worked for a company as diverse as Mozilla with almost no signs of mistreating his gay or lesbian employees could be given such a strong label, again, someone who "strongly and unfairly dislikes" gays.
As someone new to this post, your comments seem to be more aligned with this definition then Eich's. For someone who seeks equality, your post seem full of "hatred and intolerance."
And remember that "a hate group" is actually "more than one hate groups" because Pat Buchanan and Ron Paul definitely qualify as haters and bigots.
If you have the stomach, google yourself up some Pat Buchanan quotes -- it's really vile and disgusting stuff, and he absolutely and without question qualifies as an archetypal "bigot".
In fact, the Guardian article that recently outed him as contributing money to Pat Buchanan and Ron Paul happened between the short time that he announced in an interview he was NOT going to resign, and between when he DID resign, so it may have been a factor, the straw (or rather the bay of straw) that broke the camel's back.
No, I think you've decided that when democracy doesn't cater exactly to your personal morals, it must be wrong.
Making a donation based on private, personal beliefs is ENTIRELY the point of a democracy. The correct action is to speak out in support of your ideas, not to cast hatred on those who disagree.
Instead of sitting here arguing, you could have gone and made a 10 dollar donation to a pro-lbgt group, and done a lot more good. Instead of forcing Eich to resign, you could have used it as a rallying point to get A LOT of other like minded people to make that same 10 dollar donation. You could have chosen to voice your opinions with both words and monetary support, (like Eich did) instead of attacking the opposition. You aren't doing that.
So in other words, if you as an activist do anything that has a real impact, you're a "fucking bully", but you "support my actions" if I take meaningless, "feel good" steps.
What a cop out. You're, like everyone else who disagrees with this, downplaying Eich's behavior and trying to turn activists into the "real" monsters for speaking out.
Why the double standard? Why does one man, Eich, get a pass on speaking out for his personal political beliefs (with cash), but you demonize the the (hundreds? thousands? more?) people who did nothing but say that it was unacceptable?
You want pathetic? Look at your own post. Realize what you're defending. You should be ashamed of yourself.