April 4, 2014

"The people who were criticizing Brendan [Eich] were people who have advocated passionately for the rights of the oppressed."

"For them to turn on someone this way is wrong," said Geoffrey Moore (identified in the NYT as "a Silicon Valley consultant and author who has worked closely with Mozilla"):
Mr. Eich, he added, is a very analytical person who got into a situation he did not have the social skills to navigate. “My bet is he’s feeling very wounded. He gave his life and soul to this. Sometimes a community doesn’t really know what it’s doing,” Mr. Moore said.
Community speech — collective speech — it matters. But it doesn't really know what it's doing.

AND: Andrew Sullivan prints and responds to some reader mail he got after he wrote about what happened to Eich.
Morality has always been about keeping society on the same page. If you violate the the norms, then you are shamed and ridiculed. The ultimate “victory” of the gay rights movement will be that those discriminating against homosexuals will be ridiculed and isolated as bigots. Ultimately we can only hope that the best values win out, and that we will always find outcasts in society that share our values, should our values violate the norm.
There you have the illiberal mindset. Morality trumps freedom. Our opponents must be humiliated, ridiculed and “isolated as perverts”. I mean “bigots”, excuse me.
NOTE: I'm adding this note to make that double indentation clear. The single indent is Sullivan's response to his reader. I wouldn't put the punctuation outside of the quotation mark like that, by the way.

99 comments:

techsan said...

Shut up, they explained. Tolerance for me but not for thee.

Troubled Voter said...

I really hope you rue sticking up for this guy. If this guy had donated to an anti-miscegenation proposition, nobody would question his being howled out of his position. The people who howled him out see the donation to support Prop 8 that way -- as a move supporting vile discrimination. This collective speech knew EXACTLY what it was doing. This guy is not a victim. Only in the world of "people should be able to advance discriminatory causes without repercussions" is he a victim. The "collective speakers" do not live in that world -- they live in the world of the 21st century.

Also, if this guy doesn't have the social skills to navigate this, then he shouldn't be the CEO of a company.

Gahrie said...

There you have the illiberal mindset. Morality trumps freedom. Our opponents must be humiliated, ridiculed and “isolated as perverts”. I mean “bigots”, excuse me.

See Troubled Voter. Some of us on the Right have been warning you guys about this for quite some time.....

Zeb Quinn said...

Payback.

Ken Mitchell said...

It has long been obvious that "liberals" are the most IL-liberal people around. Hayek was right; totalitarians will pervert language so that they sound good while doing evil. This will come back to haunt people like "Troubled Voter", who will one day protest "But it wasn't my fault!!!" Yes, it is.

There's a difference between "tolerant" and "approving", and another step of difference between "approving" and "encouraging". I tolerate stupid people and bigots; I don't encourage them. I tolerate leftists; I don't approve of them, and I CERTAINLY don't encourage them.

The fascist left is whooping it up, having collected the scalp of a man who, to quote Instapundit, held the same political view that Obama did.

Toleration of harmless but unpleasant views that you don't approve of is a good thing. The lack of toleration leads to civil wars. This brings the war one step closer.

Ambrose said...

TV has it exactly right, even if somewhat spellingly challenged, Eich opposed something that must not be opposed. What if he had opposed something else (that invokes our racial guilt) that must not be opposed? Well in that case, he would have been fired too. Why can't people have the right views on things? How hard is it?

David said...

Kudos to Sullivan. Sticking to the guns.

As I recall, Eich's position was the same on the substance as Obama's. Or Bill and Hillary Clinton's not so long ago. Except maybe Eich actually believed what he was saying.

We are in a nasty time. Just the opposite of where Obama was promising to take us. It has gotten worse, much worse.

Is there one person in the country that could turn all this around? Why, yes, it's Barack Obama. It will take tens of thousands of Andrew Sullivans to have the same effect. But I'm putting my money on the Andrews.

Zedediah Grimm said...

Yeah, someone's going to rue this day but it won't be the people who are "sticking up" for this guy.
This tactic is going to backfire horribly. It may not be today, but society will only take so much of this fanatical intolerance before it snaps back and snaps back with a vengeance.
And if you want to get all high and mighty about it, you better not be using Java script in any form. "This guy" invented that program and if you use it, to paraphrase Jeff Foxworthy, you might be a hypocrite.
I don't agree with Andrew Sullivan very often, but in this case, he is spot on.

ALP said...

This whole kerfuffle reminds me of some news reports years ago of incidents of gay bashing in CA - Sacramento I think. The perpetrators were young Russian men, recent immigrants, who were members of evangelical Christian churches. Apparently, Christians in Russia are oppressed and harassed. So they come to the US...and what do they do with their new found freedom to worship?

Beat up gays. I remember one elderly Russian woman, who was quoted as saying: "In Russia, we could not do anything about gays. Now, we can."

Its a common pattern worldwide, isn't it? A formerly oppressed group wins some freedom - gains some power in a society. And what does a tiny majority do right after that?

Find another group to shit on!!!!!!

Unknown said...

Activist Homosexual community has become fascistic.

I Have Misplaced My Pants said...

Why do modern humans return, again and again, to fascism?

Someone older and wiser than I please explain it to me.

a psychiatrist who learned from veterans said...

You've been like the Ted Williams of blogging, stroking line drives through your opponents' position. You've got me wondering what a bunt would look like? I guess the analogy would by like Linda Greenhouse trying to drop the desire for freedom to a 'notion' and getting her positions safely away from attack with that.

persiflage mahal said...

The majority of voters in one of the most liberal states in the nation advanced that discriminatory cause.

KLDAVIS said...

Those newly empowered can't imagine ever losing it.

New money always cries.

I Have Misplaced My Pants said...

Troubled voter--a LOT of people who understand freedom would stick up for someone who had donated to an anti-miscegenation proposition. What part of you don't have to agree with someone's view to recognize their right to hold and express it is so hard for people like you to understand?!

Anonymous said...

One of the components of freedom is tolerating opposing viewpoints. If the gay rights movement cannot even stomach the mere donation of money to groups that oppose it, one can only say the gay rights movement has become an enemy of freedom and deserves to be treated as such. I suspect some in the gay community recognize that danger, hence the pushback from Sullivan and others.

If in doubt, reverse the roles. What would we be saying of a conservative Christian collective if they had caused Eich to lose his job for donating money to oppose Prop 8?

n.n said...

Sullivan has a narrow perspective, determined by his personal interests. There are actually three classifications for treatment of behavior: rejection, tolerance, and normalization.

The first is limited to behaviors which harm individuals, society, and humanity. The third is limited to behaviors which have a redeeming value to society and humanity. The second is the most comprehensive and inclusive, which covers the majority of human behaviors, including many dysfunctional behaviors.

Homosexual behavior does not merit normalization, since it has no redeeming value to society or humanity. It does not merit rejection, when exhibited by a minority of the population. It is rightly classified as a tolerable behavior. The second risk, for those concerned, could be mitigated with a productive population that does not resort to murder/abortion and other behaviors antithetical to fitness and human value.

Unfortunately, as with other Democrat-oriented leverage schemes, there can be no proper discussion on the merits or hazards of their policies. There is only hypocrites and sanctimonious hypocrites, by virtue of the Left's inability to negotiate with other people in good faith.

Still, I wonder why Eich warrants martyr status, while others have simply been squashed and discarded, disposed, or flushed. Is he affiliated with Democrat interests, which this latest action threatens to destabilize, and possibly fracture their odd coalition?

Saint Croix said...

I really hope you rue sticking up for this guy.

Note that you have gone beyond attacking the "haters" to now attacking people who defend free speech rights.

Troubled Voter said...

The man may say whatever he wants -- he certainly has that freedom. He can endorse whatever political position he wishes to endorse. But he has no right to be coddled by the masses.

By the way, Mozilla is a private corporation. They could have rolled on with this guy happily without even having to face activist shareholders. But they dumped him, quickly, because they realize that the world their users live in is one in which having a CEO who supports antigay causes is unacceptable.

I don't know why so many in this forum think this one man should be protected from the consequences of his speech. We live in a marketplace of ideas, and his consumers rejected his ideas.

Paco Wové said...

"The "collective speakers" do not live in that world -- they live in the world of the 21st century."

"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"... I guess that's just not a "21st century" kind of thought, then.

Xmas said...

Brendan Eich created Javascript. Don't support H8 disable JavaScript on your browser!

Xmas said...

Brendan Eich created Java Script. Don't support H8, disable JS on your browser!

(apparently, the correct spelling of java script causes comments to be eaten by a spam filter)

Revenant said...

For every gay person, there are around 19 non-gay people.

Most of the 19 have gay friends or relatives that they know of, plus some number of gay friends and relatives they DON'T know of. The great victory of the gay rights movement was convincing the majority of that 19 that gay people aren't a threat.

So one of those 19 thinks "well, support for _____ helps that one gay person, and doesn't hurt me, and doesn't hurt the other 18 people either". So, being that he's not a jerk, his inclination is to support _____.

If the math changes to "support for _____ helps the one gay guy, and doesn't hurt me or eight other people, but royally fucks over the 10 people who didn't agree with _____ fast enough or enthusiastically enough"... well, there goes the support for gay rights.

I support gay marriage. I think opposition to gay marriage is retarded. But if gay rights mean that non-gays lose rights, well, sorry gay people. 19 to 1.

Anonymous said...

"The world of the 21st century" may very well turn out to be one where no one can tell the difference between political disagreement and moral turpitude. With any luck I won't live to see too much more of it.

Anglelyne said...

Troubled Voter: I really hope you rue sticking up for this guy. If this guy had donated to an anti-miscegenation proposition, nobody would question his being howled out of his position.

Nobody? I'm pretty sure I would find it pretty hard to get worked up about this. Why, exactly, would you find it so necessary to howl this eccentric individual out of his job? Because as a matter of fact, I've encountered quite a few people, even in this day and age, who aren't happy about people marrying outside their race, or their religion, and say so. Of course, most of these people aren't white, or Christians. You ready to lead the sack-party against them?
Best of luck to you getting the "collective speech" ginned up against these vile discriminators, but the good fight must be fought everywhere, no?

Anglelyne said...

Ambrose @10:05 for the win.

Gabriel said...

From Wikipedia, Marquette University:

In April 2010, Marquette University offered a position as dean of the College of Arts and Sciences to Jodi O'Brien, an openly lesbian sociologist. A month later the university rescinded the offer over concerns about her scholarly writing, as it related to Catholic teaching. O'Brien had published works on lesbian sex and same-sex marriage.

The reaction:

Marquette University has pulled an offer to hire a new dean for the College of Arts and Sciences from a lesbian who has written scholarly works on gender and sexual orientation, a move that is sparking criticism from faculty and a protest by students....

About 100 students, some carrying signs, protested the decision in front of Marquette's Alumni Memorial Union, blocking part of Wisconsin Ave. on Thursday afternoon just before an award dinner for Marquette faculty. Some faculty members wore pink and lavender clothing and flowers in protest.


The Left does not care about "rights" as the Right understands rights. To the Left, it's all will to power. Good people with correct opinions are the only ones who have rights. Good people includes the socially friendly elements--blacks, Muslims, women--who may not all have correct opinions now but one day will no doubt get there.

An exercise for the student--there are not enough Republicans in California to pass a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. What solidly Democratic voting bloc turned out in large numbers that year and voted to ban gay marriage while they were at it?

Ctmom4 said...

If we could use this then to hound Obama out of his job for being a bigot, I would say that Mr. Eich was sacrificed to the greater good. I somehow doubt that will happen. Liberals are fine with their own hypocrisy.

Tamaay said...

Isn't Mozilla simply exercising it's own freedom of speech by firing Eich?

Patrick O said...

Honestly, I'm a social conservative and I'm not too concerned. I think the debate has been ultimately good for Christian thought (which is what I'm around), as it pushes us to think more deeply about issues like sexuality and identity.

At a certain point, the issue is going to change, likely never to move back into where it was previously, but not being a firestorm once people find other ways of expressing counter-cultural frustrations and being gay is seen as mundane.

averagejoe said...

Hey Troubled Voter, speaking for myself, the most despicable aspect of this lynching is the egregious hypocrisy of the democrat party members who worshipped and exalted Barry Obama and Hllary Clinton at the same time those assholes publicly trumpeted the same belief that this CEO held privately. No backlash for democrat party members and candidates, no problem if they hold "indefensible" social attitudes. But a non-democrat party member in agreement with them is lined up and shot. So fuck all you democrat party liars, hypocrites and fascists. Not one of you has a shred of credibility on any issue, social, economic or political.

Patrick O said...

Remember, of course, the environment Christianity was in for its first 300 years.

For people who want more than who to do, they look for a deeper hope.

Anonymous said...

There isn't much more I can add to this discussion.

My actions speak louder anyway. We have removed Firefox from our four computers and replaced it with Opera.

somefeller said...

I Have Misplaced My Pants says:What part of you don't have to agree with someone's view to recognize their right to hold and express it is so hard for people like you to understand?!

Hey, aren't you someone (under another nom de blogger) who said it was great being in a school district where you could drum out non-Christian lefty schoolteachers who talked about Gaia and stuff? I actually don't think that was factually correct (even the most benighted school districts usually have some sense of limits), but if my memory is correct, seeing you talk about freedom of expression is like rain on your wedding day.

jr565 said...

I'm not a supporter of gay marriage per se. But would fully support gay civil unions that give gays the rights they crave. To me its about compromising in a way that satisfies both gays and those wanting to
Maintain traditional marriage and not be forced to change the definition.
But you know what? At this point I don't care if gay people don't even get civil unions. I'm not going to walk down the fascism road in furtherance of an intolerant agenda that can't respect basic freedom of speech without hectoring people who support the DEFAULT position and suggest that if you dare defend it you are some troglodyte.

And take pleasure in driving people out of their jobs for contributing to what was supported by the majority of Californians at the time.
Contributing as a private individual. 6 years ago! When he wasn't even the CEO. To support marriage as it's been defined since forever.
Correct me if I'm wrong but 6 years ago
Wasn't Obama. Lying about supporting traditional marriage? So in other words espousing the same freaking position as the CEO they try to blacklist. How many OK Cupid employees voted for Obama the first time around despite him not yet converting to the pro gay marriage agenda? Probably ALL OF THEM? The hypocrisy is breathtaking.

Firefox was expunged from my Mac. Okcupid wiped from my iphone (not that I used it but it was there) I hope Both go the way of the dodo.

somefeller said...

Also, there are reports that Eich gave donations to Pat Buchanan in 1992. Does that mean he is persona non grata or persona very grata among conservative circles these days? Just checking, I know these things change from day to day.

jr565 said...

6 years ago Obama was arguing he was pro traditional marriage. Why didn't OK Cupid boycott his candidacy?
Isn't it awesome how as soon as libs evolve on a position then anyone holding their previous position is suddenly a bigot as soon as they make the change?
How convenient for liberals.

jr565 said...

Troubles voter wrote:
"By the way, Mozilla is a private corporation. They could have rolled on with this guy happily without even having to face activist shareholders. But they dumped him, quickly, because they realize that the world their users live in is one in which having a CEO who supports antigay causes is unacceptable."

you may find that it is similarly unacceptable for a company to not support anti Christian causes.
Or not support traditional marriage. And you're really going to argue that supporting PROP 8 was an extremist position? It was a referendum supported by the majority in CALIFORNIA. Let me repeat that. In CALIFORNIA.
How is it that the majority position is now the extremist position?
You do your position a great disservice by postulating that if you are for traditional marriage that you hate gays. Marriage was codified with no gay animus and existed that way in this country since it's founding. And yet rather than offering up reasons why allowing for civil unions would be good for this country you instead are attempting to alienate nearly 50% of the country and calling them hateful For supporting marriage as it's always been defined.
When you could have had everything you wanted if you simply strengthened civil unions. States were already moving in that direction.If you want rights iI'd support the principle, but if the only way you do it is to shit all over traditional marriage and say supporting it means you hate gays and are a hateful bigot then that's it for supporting you. I hope you fail.

jr565 said...

What percentage did Firefox have in terms of browser usage. It was behind chrome and Internet explorer already. How many Christians or traditional marriage supporters or even free speech supporters who aren't happy with someone being booted from their job for supporting the political position of their choice were using Firefox and are now using alternatives.
I know I am. And have no plans of going back to Firefix.
Same with OK Cupid. Christians, don't support companies that call you a bigot for supporting marriage as it has always been defined. OKCubid will take your money, while knifing you in the back. Find dating sites that don't trear you like monsters . Stop supporting liberal facists who even Andrew Sullivan is describing as acting like jack booted thugs.

And for OKcupid. Please stop using JavaScript. Put your money where your mouth is. Maybe you should
Boycott your own company until it removes all the offensive code from its website.

Also, Match.com owns oKCupid so don't give them your business either.

jr565 said...

If you support traditional marriage you also oppose polygamy. As we speak polygamists are in court trying to legalize polygamy.
Is OKCupid attempting to boycott any people who stand in the way of progress when it comes to polygamy. When is Obama going to change evolve his position?
Until the libs get on board and say that polygamy is a
Civil right is it ok to still support traditional marriage and not demand plural marriages? I'm trying to get my marching orders so as to not be confused later on when the liberals set the agenda and start defining the usual suspects as bigots for supporting the wrong position.
Can you please send out a tweet when the position is going to officially change as a courtesy? Thanks, hypocrites.
And for those liberals that aren't now supporting polygamy, why not? Are you not liberal enough! People are suffering from lack of marriage rights waiting for you guys to evolve.

Douglas said...

Troubled Voter wrote, "Mozilla could have rolled on with this guy happily without even having to face activist shareholders. But they dumped him, quickly, because they realize that the world their users live in is one in which having a CEO who supports antigay causes is unacceptable."
So I guess you think the Hollywood blacklist was just fine. After all, the US was locked into a Cold War with the Soviet Union, and the movie studios decided that they did not want to be associated in the public mind with communist sympathizers and supporters. Movies are a quintessential consumer business, and their concern for their standing with the public surely justified firing and blacklisting all the lefties, right? Because that's exactly the position you're arguing.

Fen said...

And I'm expected to defend these people from Islam? Yeah right. Maybe sit back and let them burn each other.

Anonymous said...

Why can't people have the right views on things?

And who is to say what is the right view about anything? All of us are wrong about something...unless somebody in the comments is God incognito.

The only time everybody has the "right" views is when a dictator is imposing them and exterminates those who don't share his vision. I suppose you could wish for that, but I don't think anybody would like the end result.

tim maguire said...

From Sullivan: It’s staggering to me that a minority long persecuted for holding unpopular views can now turn around and persecute others for the exact same reason.

When has it ever been different? One of the first things the Puritans did when they got off the boat in the new world was execute an old man for heresy.

If it were just Eich, we could shake our fists a bit and move on. But it won't be, he's just an early, visible victim. If decent people don't keep trying to get Troubled Voter to see the light, to embrace Enlightenment values, then there will be many more Eichs and the mass of people who dissent from the main on some contentious issue will be driven underground.

stlcdr said...

Didn't Proposition 8 pass in Cali with a majority?

That's a lot of people that need firing, or is it only those that donated money to support Proposition 8, that should be fired?

The oppression by the 'gay rights' movement is disturbing.

PB Reader said...

A common trait among the left for a long time has been to not listen while their opponent states their case, but to interrupt and shout down. They just don't want to hear any opposing voices. They feel that listening to opponents gives them credibility.

damikesc said...

Rev, thats my big concern. A backlash will inevitably happen along this current route. It would not likely be pleasant.

Elise Ronan said...

This is not so much about tolerance, but about the bottom line. Corporations, especially public ones, have a fiduciary duty to their shareholders.If Mr. Eich's affiliations would be seen as causing the company money in the long run, he would be asked to leave his position. If Mozilla didn't think there would be a detriment, they would have backed him up. It's as simple as that. Remember,IPOs list affiliations and activities of all their board members as well.You can find out about a persons political donations on line without too much trouble as well.(I found my son's name on a list of donations from the last Presidential election.) It is why when you join a law firm the firm will ask you your affiliations and conflicts. They will also ask about the affiliations of your spouse. Places of business have every right, and even an obligation, to their shareholders and partners to ensure that the affiliations of one of their members does not interfere with the viability of the group as a whole. Again it is called fiduciary duty.

Meanwhile, no one is telling Mr. Eichs he cannot hold the views he wants. What he is being told is that Mozilla wants no part of his political affiliations. You have a Constitutional right to free speech, but you do not have a Constitutional right to a job. Ask yourself would you support a person who was pro-Taliban or al-Qaeda? Would you support a company that kept someone on even though he supported NAMBLA? Would you want those people fired? Of course you would. Well you can't have it both ways. A person's affiliations reflects on a company and this is how Mozilla wants to be seen, as supporting gay marriage.

Also people who support Mr. Eichs have as much right to boycott Mozilla as the "gay mafia" has a right to call for a boycott if he stayed. It is your right to spend your time and money as you see fit. The only way for Mozilla to see if they made the correct call when it came to Mr. Eichs is to review their bottom line in the next quarter.

Edward Lunny said...

And this reaction to Eich's position is surprising to whom exactly ? This has been the sop of the left, libs, for decades. No one, not a single soul, not even Sullivan, should be surprised in the slightest.

Greg Hlatky said...

We need to hunt down all the donors to Prop 8 and pressure their employers to have them them fired. Extremism in the pursuit of tolerance is no vice.

Indeed, voting ballots and machines need to have a means to trace votes back to the voter. People need to be held accountable for their actions and speech and this "secret ballot" nonsense is just a means for haters to avoid responsibility.

Owen said...

Paul Zrimsek said:
"The world of the 21st century" may very well turn out to be one where no one can tell the difference between political disagreement and moral turpitude. With any luck I won't live to see too much more of it.

4/4/14, 11:04 PM"

The point you make (which echoes that made by many others) is exactly the one made by Kenneth Minogue in his excellent book, "The Servile Mind: How Democracy Erodes The Moral Life." Liberals need to fix the world, which means they need political power, which means they must suppress individual conscience (the true center of a moral life) and replace it with a synthetic collective morality in which everythng is politicized and every political position is given a moral status. To dissent is not just wrong, it is evil.

I think Eich was partly inept and unlucky --Mozilla exhibited instant moral collapse, and so did he-- but I suspect there is a deliberate strategic rationale to his destruction. Pour encourager les autres. It will be interesting and maybe important to see why the Gay Mafia needed such a head on a spike at this time.

Tarrou said...

Here's how you know a group of people have gone from run-of-the-mill fanatics to full blown extremists. When they will attack people on their own side of an issue for being insufficiently scathing of their current target.

Here we have "Troubled Voter" attacking a long-standing supporter of gay marriage for having the temerity (The Bald Faced Cheek!) to suggest that an opponent of it might have the same rights under the Constitution the rest of us enjoy.

You may think me hyperbolic, but the number of steps between that mindset and actual violence is precisely one.

campy said...

"6 years ago Obama was arguing he was pro traditional marriage. Why didn't OK Cupid boycott his candidacy?"

Because they knew he was lying to get elected.

AlanKH said...

Everybody expects the California Inquisition.

Rusty said...

To be brief. The gay rights agenda was never about equality before the law, but an outright grab for political power.

Diogenes of Sinope said...

Because their real goal is not freedom but rather is tyranny with their views as the required beliefs.

Diogenes of Sinope said...

"It is not possible to eat me without insisting that I sing praises of my devourer?"
Fyodor Dostoevsky

Meade said...

"Ask yourself would you support a person who was pro-Taliban or al-Qaeda? Would you support a company that kept someone on even though he supported NAMBLA?"

Against a lynch mob? I hope I would.

MayBee said...

Troubled Voter: I really hope you rue sticking up for this guy. If this guy had donated to an anti-miscegenation proposition, nobody would question his being howled out of his position.
-------------

What if he had put money toward an anti-polygamy or pro-abortion proposition? Or a pro-legalize marijuana prop?
What if it were back in the day and he had donated against prohibition?

I dearly love how people always choose something well established as current thinking to compare their cause to.

Diogenes of Sinope said...

Get out the list, fire everyone who donated in support of prop 8. They should all lose their jobs, livelihoods and be ruined. Remember: " Big brother is watching you".

Rusty said...

TV
These people need to hear from you.

http://proteinwisdom.com/?p=53204

Oso Negro said...

Meade - I suspect you would also. But as that Malcolm Gladwell article on the Branch Davidians noted, it is very difficult for most people to tolerate the obnoxious outsider. I have seen this again and again and again.

Rusty said...

But that is the goal, is it not Meade?
To stand amidst the mob pointing a finger at the disbelievers and and shout "Get Him!"

damikesc said...

Meanwhile, no one is telling Mr. Eichs he cannot hold the views he wants. What he is being told is that Mozilla wants no part of his political affiliations. You have a Constitutional right to free speech, but you do not have a Constitutional right to a job. Ask yourself would you support a person who was pro-Taliban or al-Qaeda? Would you support a company that kept someone on even though he supported NAMBLA? Would you want those people fired? Of course you would. Well you can't have it both ways. A person's affiliations reflects on a company and this is how Mozilla wants to be seen, as supporting gay marriage.

Again, this is the identical rationale for the Hollywood blacklist, which we have been told was really, really bad.

MayBee said...

" You have a Constitutional right to free speech, but you do not have a Constitutional right to a job. "

True.
So what are all these anti-discrimination job protection laws about?
And what is affirmative action about?
You don't have a right to a job! If someone doesn't want you because they don't like what you are, just go find another job!

Michael said...

Elise Ronan

Mozilla is not a for-profit company.

Fiduciary duties do not extend to holding particular political or religious views and proxy documents do not ask for nor do they require of proposed directors or officers disclosure of political affiliations, religious affiliations, present or past political contributions, views on social or political matters.

Bruce Hayden said...

I think that this is going to be another of those situations where the left screams rape, or something just as horrible, a company changes direction as a result, and that change of direction ultimately kills the company, when the majority finds out that they have caved into the rabid left. If they had just ignored the left here, they might have increased market share. Instead, they are likely going to lose a lot of it. All that they would have had to do was not cave in, and just point out that their CEO had every right to do whatever he wanted in his own free time, as do the rest of their employees, and likely plenty of them contributed to the other side. That would have left them probably a little to the positive side. Coming out and opposing gay marriage would have gained them far more market share than backing it would - which, a I said above, is a market loser.

Conservatives seem even more capable than the left at voting with their feet, and they tend to have more feet to vote with. I don't like either of the major alternatives - IE or Chrome, since they both belong to companies well known for monopolistic and predatory behavior (and Apple's Safari is similar, but even further behind the competition in functionality), but right now, I am seriously considering dumping Firefox, despite many long yeas as an adherent. Not that I am all that worried about gay marriage, but rather, because I hate craven surrender to the left.

Renee said...

So are basic anthropological kinship charts now consider hate speech?

Are those charts based on ignorance and bigotry?

Where is the social media outrage, that the Ugandans can't get help for HIV now in that country!!! That's HOMOPHOBIA!

Instead on my social media feed, there are all singing the praises of a wholesome advertisement for cookies by Nabisco.

I Have Misplaced My Pants said...

somefeller: yes that was me, no that is not what I said or meant. I didn't correct your failure of comprehension at the time because you are a nasty, petty little person and I don't care to converse with you.

CWJ said...

Geoffrey Moore wrote -

"Mr. Eich, he added, is a very analytical person who got into a situation he did not have the social skills to navigate."

I loved this example of blaming the victim.

Why'd you sucker punch him in the face? He should have ducked.

I Have Misplaced My Pants said...

Ask yourself would you support a person who was pro-Taliban or al-Qaeda? Would you support a company that kept someone on even though he supported NAMBLA? Would you want those people fired? Of course you would.

Fuck you. You don't speak for me, or for anyone else. "Of course you would." How do you know that? What kind of monumentally offensive hubris makes you think you can make that assumption on behalf of others?

Unknown said...

----there are reports that Eich gave donations to Pat Buchanan in 1992. ----


I see some feller has a special contact in the IRS that feeds him personal information from American's tax reports.

jr565 said...

Some feller wrote:
somefeller said...
Also, there are reports that Eich gave donations to Pat Buchanan in 1992. Does that mean he is persona non grata or persona very grata among conservative circles these days? Just checking, I know these things change from day to day.

1992? How many years ago was that? How many times has he appeared on the political talk shows talking about politics since then? Thousands of time.
He also contributed to Ron Paul. And the Huffingron Post actually made the argument that it was his support of both Ron Paul and Buchanan that led to his ouster. On top of the paltry donation 6 years ago, his support of extremists was just too much to bear.

Ron Paul is a kook, but I would never suggest someone be forced to resign because they voted for Ron Paul. The idea that they would even make the argument shows how intolerant they've actually become.

Paco Wové said...

"Would you want those people fired? Of course you would."

Elise – may I call you Elise? In a word: no. In seven words: Fuck off, you hate-filled intolerant bigot.

jr565 said...

Are you or have you ever been a Christian? and have you ever supported traditional marriage? Blacklist!

Renee said...

Are companies using social issues to hide real concerns about practices?

Maybe not Mozilla, but I mentioned Nabisco which relies heaving on marketing and image. In recent years, as a conglomerate (now named Mondelez) there have questions about labeling.

They can't use the term 'wholesome' in the nutritional sense to sell their cookies, so they sell it in the social sense. They aren't making a health claim, but an emotional claim of 'wholesome'.

No one cares about the product, just the marketing of it.

Maybe the CEO resigned, because it was no longer about the product.

Yes values matter in business practice, but for myself and others (like Pope Francis) I'm not a bigot even though I defend 'matrimony' (latin for the act of being a mother) It's not like we're speaking in code, on the function of marriage related to kin.

somefeller said...

Glad to see my memory hasn't failed me, Pants. And keep up with the crusading! Though whatever school district you're in probably has suffered enough.

somefeller said...

Unknown says: I see some feller has a special contact in the IRS that feeds him personal information from American's tax reports.

No, I'm just referring to some news reports I've seen. You can easily find them via Google. Which is another socially progressive company and its product works great with Firefox!

jr565 said...

Elise Ronan wrote:
Ask yourself would you support a person who was pro-Taliban or al-Qaeda? Would you support a company that kept someone on even though he supported NAMBLA? Would you want those people fired? Of course you would. Well you can't have it both ways. A person's affiliations reflects on a company and this is how Mozilla wants to be seen, as supporting gay marriage.

so you're ok with the Hollywood blacklisting of communists, no? I remember when liberals were saying naming of names and blacklisting people for being communists was a bad thing.
And you compare support of traditional marriage to support of Al Qaeda and NAMBLA? In California Prop 8 was passed by a majority. 30+ states have in their constitutions that marriage has been so traditionally defined? Bill Clinton passed DOMA. And the president only came out in support of Gay Marriage LAST year.
So its not like supporting traditional marriage is like supporting child molesters.
How many people are you trying to piss off in your comparison of them to NAMBLA supporters?

jacksonjay said...

The Abortion Nazis got Nancy Brinker's head straight last year when she dared challenge Planned Parenthood!

David Davenport said...

I think that this is going to be another of those situations where the left screams rape, or something just as horrible, a company changes direction as a result, and that change of direction ultimately kills the company, when the majority finds out that they have caved into the rabid left

Christians and non-practicing cultural Christians should avoid Apple Computer and some of the Internet social media firms. Avoid buying their equities as well as their retail products.

Silicon Valley is too gay.

The best way to carry out the boycott is quietly, without a lot of publicity and without threats of violence.

jr565 said...

Maybee wrote:
What if he had put money toward an anti-polygamy or pro-abortion proposition? Or a pro-legalize marijuana prop?
What if it were back in the day and he had donated against prohibition?


Planned Parenthood made the argument that infanticide is ok. Even if the baby survives the abortion, its up to the mother to choose whether its alive or not. What if we criminalize support of Planned Parenthood the same way liberals are trying criminalize support of traditional marriage. If you support Planned Parenthood and gave money any time in the past, even when it was legal, you are a monster and we will make sure you have to step down.
Would liberals like,that?

Support of pot legalization prior to it being legalized is support of criminal activity. But you want the law changed. Would liberals hold people to account for support of pot legalization if pot legalization failed? In the case of traditional marriage, its not even the illegal tradition that they're attempting to criminalize.
The majority of states have it in their constitutions that marriage is defined to not include gay marriages it takes some gall to make the argument that that is somehow not the mainstream position.

jr565 said...

And Elsie, if you want to talk about NAMBLA support look tot the gay community. People like Harry Hay, and Allan Ginsberg used to be supporters of NAMBLA before it was driven underground by smarter gay rights advocates members. (Hay, by the way, never did renounce his support).
Did you know that NAMBLA used to March in gay pride parades? again, other gays saw the optical problem with this and banned them from marching, but lets not pretend that it never happened.
I will certainly agree that not all gays supported NAMBLA. But when Harry Hay died of cancer he was lauded as a pioneer of gay rights. His association to NAMBLA didn't mean that gays rejected him. And people barely even mentioned it in passing.
Eich should be in trouble for donating 1000 dollars to promote PROP 8.
Ok then, what about the people that marched with Hay, even though he supported NAMBLA?
Don't go down that road and try to smear supporting traditional marriage as akin to support of NAMBLA since there is a history of actual support of NAMBLA from many gay activists.

Leit Bart said...

Connor Friedersdorf also has a good column up on the subject. He's as outraged as Sullivan. Well worth reading.

Anyway, I'm watching my twitter feed for: BREAKING: gay marriage activists call for boycott of Obamacare and the president's resignation since he was opposed to gay marriage in 2008. Not that I'm holding my breath.

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/04/mozillas-gay-marriage-litmus-test-violates-liberal-values/360156/

Anglelyne said...

Elise Ronan: Ask yourself would you support a person who was pro-Taliban or al-Qaeda? Would you support a company that kept someone on even though he supported NAMBLA? Would you want those people fired? Of course you would.

If I may add my "fuck off, Elise, how dare you presume to tar me with the assumptions of your vicious alien degenerate political culture" to IHMMP's and Paco's comments:

Fuck off, Elise. How dare you presume to tar me with the assumptions of your vicious alien degenerate political culture.

And that's the real problem, isn't it? We're no longer arguing within a shared political culture. The old Anglo-Saxon derived political culture with its ideals of tolerance and "laws, not men" disappeared while we told ourselves we were expanding and perfecting it.

It's obvious to me that at least half of my "fellow" citizens simply do not share the assumptions about the conduct of civic life that were my birthright. Pissed it all away for a mess of non-hurtful, helpful, and appropriate pottage. Well, I wish you joy of it, assholes.

Brando said...

Good for Sullivan--I'm impressed that the issue he tends to be most reasonable about--gay rights--is the one where it'd be understandable for him to be most militant.

Elise Ronan said...

Meade-I don't consider this a lynch mob, anymore than I would consider any politically connected group that espouses its agenda a lynch mob.That the "gay mafia" is a powerful as it is, is to their credit. This is no different than the NRA powerbase. And if you don't think that having political power and a strong lobby in Washington isn't akin to what just happened with Mozilla than you are fooling yourself. Powerful lobby group gets rid of someone they don't like who holds sway over politics, money or corporate power.

To all the others:

It doesn't matter if Mozilla is a not-for-profit. Fiduciary responsibilities still exist. I would hold that a not-for-profit has even more responsibility according to the tax code, especially in the realm of social issues. Read the requirements to remain a not for profit where it states that you have to have some education and socially appropriate reason to be labeled not-for-profit. It is what the IRS has been using to trip up all the Tea Party Lobby groups after all.

In a proxy statement you have to disclose all conflicts of interest. If the corporation is a firm that supports social justice and someone on the board is against gay marriage it is a conflict of interest and relevant to those who would buy into the corporation. Hence what happened with Mozilla.In fact read what Mozilla wrote publicly about what happened. Corporations, law firms still have a right to decide the type and quality of affiliations of those that work for them.i.e. the partner at the large law firm in DC (sorry forgot which one) that was forced to resign from POWERLINE blog a few years ago or give up his partnership. Much ado about that at the time. But the firm was in the right.

You do not have a right to discriminate against someone, ie not hire them or fire them based upon gender, race, ethnicity. That is not saying that they are entitled to a job. It is saying you cannot fire someone because of these issues. And as far as affirmative action, someone may get an extra point for being a minority but it does not entitle them to the job or anything else. It is only one aspect of whether they are hired or not. It may add to why they are vetted for a job but it does not entitle them to the job (or getting into college, etc).

You also convolute the position of the average person with the position of Mr. Eichs. I would take a bet that in his position Eichs also had a contract with a clause which would allow him to be fired by Mozilla without cause if need be.I would also wonder at his compensation dependent upon the implementation of that clause. FYI- they all "resign" at that level even when they get fired.It is not the same situation for the average person. Mr. Eichs may also have worked for only $1. He may have also felt that he did not want to damage Mozilla and wanted to save it from more of a public bruhaha over this issue. We really will never know unless he tells us. So he resigned.

Whomever you are with the potty mouth..no you may not call me Elise. BTW professor is that mansplaining or is it him just operating with an adolescent level of maturity?

(cont)

Elise Ronan said...

(part 2)I was not equating gay marriage to the Taliban or NAMBLA. I was equating to groups or ideas that elicit a visceral reaction in a great many people. Whether the supporters of gay marriage like it or not, the opponents of gay marriage can be quite adamant in their opposition on many levels.If you don't like how some people view gay marriage that is too bad. If you don't like the analogy that is your problem. It is a valid way to look at the issue. You want to be pissed off at me then go ahead. Reality is reality and there are people out there with visceral hate when it comes to gay marriage.

Also to those that would not demand that someone be fired for disagreeable political positions, only a suicidal person would continue to give money to a company or support a company that hired someone who is detrimentally opposed to your existence or your way of thinking. Of course any self-respecting individual would seek that persons ouster and would find a way to boycott the company. Just as there are those who are now trying to boycott Mozilla because they DID fire Eichs.

And as far as the blacklist in Hollywood...they have a blacklist today only its against conservatives. The monied people do not have to hire who they do not want to hire. It is their money and if conservatives don't like it they can start their own companies and produce on their own. And you also don't have to go see the movies that Hollywood produces either. Much was made how the recent film Noah is terrible, but it has garnered over 100 million dollars in the first weekend. So much for outrage from the general public....Again the bottom line in Hollywood is financial. It is one of the world's largest industries, and they eventually are beholden to their shareholders as well.

As I said before, its about the bottom line. If the company thinks that it will cost them money then you are out of there. That's business.

chillblaine said...

Renee said, "that the Ugandans can't get help for HIV now."

This could be an opportunity for our 21st century diplomacy. SecState should sternly warn of consequences, such as sturdy cruise missiles coming their way. If necessary, SecDef would need to insert boots on the ground, provided those boots are fab-u-lous. And the soldiers striding in those boots would be an all-volunteer unit comprised of men and women who were born to be those kind of soldiers. Not shaped by any kind of environment to be those type of soldiers. Born that way. These crack troops would be America's pride, therefore the very will of our enemies to resist their advances would be dimished.

Paco Wové said...

"there are people out there with visceral hate when it comes to gay marriage."

And you are one of them, apparently...

"any self-respecting individual would seek that persons ouster and would find a way to boycott the company."

...and a bit of a totalitarian, besides – Well, ok, more than a bit.

Michael said...

Elise Ronan

Fiduciary responsibility does not mean what you think it means.

Conflicts of interest are not conflicts of points of view in the corporate world. Boards are selected for independence of thought, not solidarity of opinion. The normal conflict of interest issues the SEC concerns itself with are those relating to compensation of executives or self dealing with the board. Skeptics are of far more value in boardrooms than true believers.

Michael said...

A fiduciary in a for profit company would be hard pressed to fire a highly competent executive for a political opinion when there is no replacement at hand. The Mozilla move compounds a problem they had before the hiring of Eich which was they were having trouble finding a CEO after an extensive search. Good luck with that.

Anglelyne said...

Elise - nobody doesn't get the "bottom line" considerations of companies, so there is no need to ramble on about it. Money and profit always matter. Somehow, this concern for the bottom line is not always accompanied by thought-policing and roving enforcers for the Committee of Public Virtue. Apparently you don't believe that some societies really have been more tolerant than others. The fact that you seem to think it's all strictly a matter of commerce suggests that you don't really understand what's being debated here.

By the way, re your "mansplaining" complaint, three people told you to fuck off, and two of them were women.

Zedediah Grimm said...

"You don't have a constitutional right to a job." I hear a lot of lefties saying this. If there is no constitutional right to a job then why the fuck do you think you have a "right to a "living wage?"
Fucking illogical hypocrites. Crawl back into your cave.

Jason said...

Elise Ronan is a tyrant who whispers "SHHHHHH" as she plunges the dagger through the heart of the country.

MB said...

Things I notice liberals don't get (on Twitter):

The difference between private political speech and corporation speech - ex: Martin Bashir’s comments about Palin equals donation 6 years ago.

Free speech must be free for everyone else it is not free. Because, in their view, this was hate speech, that doesn't count.

They believe CEOs are exempt from the 1st amendment. Even though what he did was 6 years ago and did not affect his job performance.

They claim this was a job performance issue. The firing of the J. C. Penney’s CEO after profits tanked for hiring Ellen is equivalent. (He hurt their profits in only 11 days?)

A celebrity speaking is different than donating money. While the argument for limiting political contribution is that it allows an individual to amplify their view compare to the average Joe, they don’t see that with Celebs. So saying your are for traditional marriage, is a magnitude order less bad than donating $1000.

They do not recognize the chilling affect it will have if you can be fired years later for your opinion today. And because Justice Thomas wrote the opinion, by definition it is stupid and wrong.

Patrick O said...

"I wouldn't put the punctuation outside of the quotation mark like that, by the way."

Such an American.

I think the Brits are right on this but I have to conform to the American Grammar Mafia who insist that punctuation is always inside the quotation marks even when it's clearly silly to do that.

Kirk Parker said...

When this country totally falls apart, some few years hence, amidst all the agony of watching myself and my loved ones suffer in such a horrible-yet-totally-avoidable catastrophe, one small consolation will come from the knowledge that people like Elise will be getting what they so richly deserve:

"For two hundred years we had sawed and sawed and sawed at the branch we were sitting on. And in the end, much more suddenly than anyone had foreseen, our efforts were rewarded, and down we came. But unfortunately there had been a little mistake. The thing at the bottom was not a bed of roses after all, it was a cesspool full of barbed wire."

-- George Orwell, “Notes on the Way” - Time and Tide, 6 April 1940

pst314 said...

"you do not have a Constitutional right to a job"

That's ironic: A job is one of the positive rights that the left is so enamored of.

Of course, when leftists gain power then they change their tune. Rights are only for those they agree with.