Skip to main content

View Diary: Brendan Eich and Tolerance (162 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  No selective outrage? (0+ / 0-)
    Next, he goes on to play the selective outrage card. I can't speak for other people, but I can speak for myself. I have written about drone strikes, deportation of illegal immigrants, discrimination against Muslims, indefinite detention, and other civil liberties issues at one time or another. That argument attacks the person, not the argument.
    Oh, there was selective outrage, all right...

    The Los Angeles Times' Prop 8 donor database lists 33, 626 individuals and organizations that donated at least $100 in support of Proposition 8.

    Take a look at this Slate article, which shows just how many major corporations are connected to individuals who donated in support of Prop 8.

    Several commentators here at Daily Kos were quite explicit in stating that it was Eich's elevation to CEO that made the protest necessary. (There was no general public outcry while Eich was CTO and a member of the Board of Directors.)

    How many campaigns are calling for those thousands of other donors to lose their jobs, or even just those in high-ranking positions other than CEO? Beyond that lone article from Slate, I'm hearing crickets.

    From the outside looking in, the overall message seems to be, "we don't care if you're a as long as you're a low-ranking or relatively unknown peon - you just can't be a CEO."

    I'd call that selective outrage.

    The word "parent" is supposed to be a VERB, people...

    by wesmorgan1 on Sat Apr 12, 2014 at 10:13:24 AM PDT

    •  Pick your battles (7+ / 0-)

      Brendan Eich was named the head of a company that touts diversity as one of its core values. He had ample opportunity to apologize for his donation, or at the very least acknowledge the harm that Prop 8 did to the gay community. He did neither. He paid the price for it in a country where it no longer pays to be anti-gay. It's as simple as that.

      Of course there's not a campaign to fire 33,626 people. Was the campaign selective? Yes. Again, pick your battles. Of course a low-level employee is not going to garner the attention that a CEO of a company garners. Of course a grassroots campaign is not going to form to remove a CTO or a member of the Board of Directors that nobody has heard of. Do you really expect as much? Again...battles have to be picked.

      This was an organic grassroots movement, the only major "leader" being OK Cupid. With whom is your beef? The market itself?

      I don't mind if you're straight. Just don't flaunt it in public.

      by Chrislove on Sat Apr 12, 2014 at 10:34:19 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Sure, I get it... (0+ / 0-)

        ...but "pick your battles" and "no selective outrage" are mutually exclusive, are they not?

        You don't get to claim both.

        The word "parent" is supposed to be a VERB, people...

        by wesmorgan1 on Sat Apr 12, 2014 at 11:21:01 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  No. (4+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Tonedevil, homogenius, vacantlook, Rebecca

          Again, big difference between low-level employees and CEOs of companies. There is no reason to be outraged that people with bigoted opinions are employed. There is a reason to be outraged that a bigot is employed as the head of a company that claims diversity as a core value. Big difference, and no, it's not "selective outrage" to be upset over Eich and not a random employee nobody has heard of or ever will hear of.

          I don't mind if you're straight. Just don't flaunt it in public.

          by Chrislove on Sat Apr 12, 2014 at 12:16:37 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  OK, so... (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            dallasdunlap

            ...if one of these low-level people who isn't worth "picking the battle" gets promoted to a highly visible position, say, 5 years from now, we'll go through all of this selective outrage again unless the person in question denounces themselves in public?

            Seriously, what's the staute of limitations on this stuff?

            Oh, and about this:

            There is a reason to be outraged that a bigot is employed as the head of a company that claims diversity as a core value.
            Change "employed as the head of" to "the founder of"...oh, wait, no one cared about that. (Oh, and "never heard of" is completely relative; while I haven't met Eich, I've known his name and his work for years.)

            That's one of the things that bothered me most about this mess. There was not a SINGLE accusation that Eich had EVER taken a workplace action or made a workplace decision rooted in intolerance, and he was on the leadership team of a company that was explicitly welcoming (and generous) to LGBTQ employees. In other words, he never brought his personal opinions on this topic into the workplace--and isn't that what we say we WANT?--but was pilloried anyway.

            The word "parent" is supposed to be a VERB, people...

            by wesmorgan1 on Sat Apr 12, 2014 at 01:04:34 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Um, it depends (7+ / 0-)
              if one of these low-level people who isn't worth "picking the battle" gets promoted to a highly visible position, say, 5 years from now, we'll go through all of this selective outrage again unless the person in question denounces themselves in public?
              If that person is promoted to CEO of Chick-fil-A, I doubt there'd be much of a reason for outrage, because it's Chick-fil-A. but Mozilla? Any other company that touts diversity, and the person's bigotry comes to light? You betcha. This is what the 21st century looks like, so you should probably get used to it. The landscape has changed, and the market will react to blatant bigotry.
              There was not a SINGLE accusation that Eich had EVER taken a workplace action or made a workplace decision rooted in intolerance
              So? He donated $1,000 to enshrine bigotry into law. That indicates that he has anti-gay animus. And beyond that, there's the symbolism of the whole thing. Sorry, but Mozilla and other diversity-embracing companies can't get away with selecting a bigot to be the CEO.

              As others have said, this comment thread wouldn't exist if this guy was an open white supremacist. Wouldn't. Exist.

              I don't mind if you're straight. Just don't flaunt it in public.

              by Chrislove on Sat Apr 12, 2014 at 01:13:18 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

          •  Nevertheless, your position is that there is some (0+ / 0-)

            level of corporate employment at which a person can be denied employment because of speech. Or, in this case, a small campaign contribution.  (and yes, $1000 is a small contribution to someone like Eich.)
               Keep in mind, the contribution was in support of a cause that was backed by major religions and was supported by the majority of voters in California and by voters in other states that had similar measures on the ballot.
               How much easier would it be to get LGBT folks or progressives in general fired from their jobs?
               If you think the campaign against Eich was okay, you don't have a leg to stand on when you protest the firing of others for their religious, moral, or political beliefs.

            •  First of all: (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Rebecca, Tonedevil

              It's not any more acceptable to advocate for homophobia than it is/was to advocate for segregation, no matter how "nicely" you try to frame it. And it doesn't matter if a majority of people supported it. Creating equal opportunity for all is not a popularity contest.

              Secondly of all, most of us vote in the privacy of the voting booth, which means that you're talking about a situation that simply isn't going to happen. It's when you go public with your support of homophobia and you're in the position to hire or fire people that it becomes an issue, just like it would be for being a skinhead or posting a Nazi symbol on your Facebook profile. And even if Eich kept his politics out of the workplace, there is still the perception of conflict of interest. I know that's not fair, I know that wasn't the way it was in the past, but that's a fact of life.

              And there is no equivalence to LGBT folks getting fired from their jobs to what Eich did. Being gay is biological which what Eich did was behavioral. Big difference.

              "The cost of liberty is less than the price of repression." - W.E.B. Du Bois Be informed. Fight the Police State.

              by Eternal Hope on Sun Apr 13, 2014 at 09:53:56 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  WOW (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Tonedevil

              This certainly sounds familiar:

              Keep in mind, the contribution was in support of a cause that was backed by major religions and was supported by the majority of voters in California and by voters in other states that had similar measures on the ballot.
              Again, if this was about an open white supremacist, we would Not. Be. Having. This. Conversation. Period.

              I'll ask you again...with whom is your beef? The market itself? The customers who boycotted Mozilla? OK Cupid? Surely it's not with the LGBT movement, because No. LGBT. Organization. Backed. Eich's. Removal.

              Oh, and also:

              If you think the campaign against Eich was okay, you don't have a leg to stand on when you protest the firing of others for their religious, moral, or political beliefs.
              Just watch. Welcome to the 21st century. I doubt Eich was the last anti-gay bigot to go down in flames. Get used to it. In the meantime, enjoy your false equivalence.

              I don't mind if you're straight. Just don't flaunt it in public.

              by Chrislove on Sun Apr 13, 2014 at 10:28:37 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  A person "can be denied employment because of (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Tonedevil

              speech" at any level at any time, and always could be. By using the passive voice, your description hides agency and any specific actions by anyone, and thereby allows any scenario that leads in some way or other to someone being denied employment in some way or other that is in some way related to speech. Some such scenarios are "ok" and some are not.

              And you are arguing as if anyone's talking about setting up some ruling authority to set rules for this. There aren't any such rules or authority. Each individual decides if they want to boycott a product or company, and other people choose to make a similar choice, or not. It's not determined by any kind of authority, but by many independent actors choosing to say what they wish and spend or not spend their money on what they wish. Each individual can make these choices differently. If enough people choose to stop spending their money at a particular business because of a particular employee, whether because of something that employee said or did, or because of any other reason, that person might wind up out of a job because that employee might become a liability to the business. And there is nothing necessarily wrong in that. It has always been such. People can and will disagree about different such scenarios.

              How much easier would it be to get LGBT folks or progressives in general fired from their jobs?
              Since his position is already the norm, and has been in basically every society since the dawn of time, it would be no easier, and no harder.
              If you think the campaign against Eich was okay, you don't have a leg to stand on when you protest the firing of others for their religious, moral, or political beliefs.
              Doesn't follow at all. If I was protesting someone being fired it would not be for the reasons you're using, and which I and others here are refuting.
    •  Maybe they didn't choose to. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Tonedevil

      Maybe they were doing other things then. Maybe they heard about the CEO appointment and got singularly outraged. Can't people do that?

      "No one can serve two masters. Either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and Money." -- JC, Matthew 6:24

      by Chi on Sat Apr 12, 2014 at 01:55:17 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Well, that's an interesting question... (0+ / 0-)

        If one goes digging through the Web, you'll find that Eich's donation had already gone through a rather open discussion within the Mozilla community back in 2012.

        Public statements were made, more than a few Mozilla employees spoke up--including statements of support for Eich from several LGBTQ Mozillans--and the general consensus (as I read it) seemed to be "Ok, that's disappointing, but let's get back to what we're all working on."  That's completely in keeping with the Mozilla principle that this stuff doesn't come into the workplace; in fact, several of the folks speaking on Eich's behalf made that specific point. So, the folks closest to the matter--Mozilla employees and the Mozilla community--had hashed it out back them and were going forward. There were no calls for Eich's resignation or demotion, and he continued as both CTO and Director.

        The general public didn't really get involved until OKCupid made their statement. The previous discussion was forgotten and ignored, the controversy erupted, and you know the rest. Even with his promotion to CEO, there were LGBTQ Mozillans speaking out in support of Eich.

        Now, on the outside looking in, who should we pay attention to: the folks at Mozilla, both straight and LGBTQ, who are closest to the guy, have worked with him for years, and know him best, or all the people who don't know him from Adam, have never worked with him, and are reacting only to the singular fact of his six-year-old donation?

        The word "parent" is supposed to be a VERB, people...

        by wesmorgan1 on Sat Apr 12, 2014 at 04:47:35 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  What are you trying... (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          anon004

          to achieve? Mr. Eich wasn't fired in the tradition of persons who work at that level in a company he resigned. I don't know what went into that decision Mr. Eich said he was stepping down because he couldn't be an effective leader. I would suggest that once the publicity got to the level it did his remaining would have been a severe distraction for the company.
          Who do you think did some terrible thing to Mr. Eich and what do you want them to do differently in the future? His appointment was offensive to some people and they made their feelings public and Mr. Eich and Mozilla came to a decision that this wasn't going to work. Who did something wrong here?

          This makes about as much sense as Mike Huckabee on mescaline. - Prodigal 2-6-2008

          by Tonedevil on Sat Apr 12, 2014 at 06:31:55 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Truthfully? Trying to figure out who to listen to. (0+ / 0-)

            Hey, I'm an old straight white guy. I support equality, but I'm fully aware of the fact that, due to my privilege, I'm never going to truly understand what the unprivileged--whether that lack of privilege stems from gender, sex, race, orientation, or whatever--experienced (or continue to experience) on a daily basis.

            Having said that, read what I wrote again:

            Now, on the outside looking in, who should we pay attention to: the folks at Mozilla, both straight and LGBTQ, who are closest to the guy, have worked with him for years, and know him best, or all the people who don't know him from Adam, have never worked with him, and are reacting only to the singular fact of his six-year-old donation?
            Sure, almost everyone here jumped on the "boycott"/"he should be fired" bandwagon, but I'm reading eloquent words like these, from a gay Mozilla employee:
            I have friends that hold political opinions that are antithetical to me – I do not exclude them from my life, I embrace my friends. I neither support nor understand their beliefs, but doesn't mean that I throw them away. I cannot condone holding a grudge in perpetuity. To do so would be leaving a wake of enemies behind me.   Instead, I could have them as allies beside me where we do agree.

            I do not agree with Brendan's support of Prop 8. However, that particular battle is one that Brendan lost. It's over. I don't know if his opinions have changed nor do I feel that I need to know. Technically, Brendan is a good choice for CEO: we need to be a technically driven company.

            Mozilla has a vocal LBGT community. Brendan could not derail us if he wanted to. I don't think that he does want to because he's focused on the real mission: the free Web. He's working with us, I, for one, am willing to set aside my trepidation and work with him, too.

            I say to the larger community calling for the ouster of Brendan Eich, “please don't succumb to the knee jerk reaction.” I did at first, but with some thought, I realize that we need to focus on the future not exact retribution for the past.

            (Sadly, the author of those words received death threats after publishing them...)

            So, as I said, I'm on the outside looking in, trying to figure out who to listen to...

            I'm sorry if I've seemed contentious or antagonistic. I'm not trying to be a jerk - I'm trying to figure things out, but I'm left comparing LGBT voices like the "don't succumb to the knee-jerk reaction" fellow quoted above to the more strident "he has to go" voices here and elsewhere.

            I'll shut up now. We've gone back and forth on a few points in various diaries on this topic; I do appreciate your comments - thank you.

            The word "parent" is supposed to be a VERB, people...

            by wesmorgan1 on Sat Apr 12, 2014 at 08:03:35 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  I really don't want you to shut up... (0+ / 0-)

              you and I face the same impediment, I too am an old straight white guy. I don't know how we truly have a legitimate voice in something like this. For my part, I am actually anti-capitalist so I find the CEO thing sick and sad. That said, if you are playing by those rules his statement on leaving indicating he could not be an effective leader is accurate and what the game demands.

              This makes about as much sense as Mike Huckabee on mescaline. - Prodigal 2-6-2008

              by Tonedevil on Sat Apr 12, 2014 at 08:16:00 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  One thing I would keep in mind here (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Tonedevil

              is that, in essence, Eich didn't not suffer consequences for his contribution in 2008.  He suffered consequences because he wouldn't repudiate that contribution in 2014.  Even George Wallace admitted he was wrong about segregation.

        •  Not true (0+ / 0-)

          The Wall Street Journal reported on the resignation of 3 Mozilla Board Directors upon Eich's appointment and various news organizations reported on Mozilla employee protests and call for a boycott BEFORE OK Cupid got in on the act.

          Suggest you check your facts and timeline.

          Public statements were made, more than a few Mozilla employees spoke up--including statements of support for Eich from several LGBTQ Mozillans--and the general consensus (as I read it) seemed to be "Ok, that's disappointing, but let's get back to what we're all working on."  That's completely in keeping with the Mozilla principle that this stuff doesn't come into the workplace; in fact, several of the folks speaking on Eich's behalf made that specific point. So, the folks closest to the matter--Mozilla employees and the Mozilla community--had hashed it out back them and were going forward. There were no calls for Eich's resignation or demotion, and he continued as both CTO and Director.
          What you failed to mention is the Board resignations and employee protests, so I'm happy to help you with that.

          No one is coming to save us, the future is in our hands.

          by koNko on Sun Apr 13, 2014 at 07:31:04 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I was referring to the 2012 discussion... (0+ / 0-)

            ...not the discussion after Eich's selection as CEO.

            As I stated to open the comment (emphasis added):

            If one goes digging through the Web, you'll find that Eich's donation had already gone through a rather open discussion within the Mozilla community back in 2012.
            and as I stated to close the paragraph you quoted (emphasis added):
            So, the folks closest to the matter--Mozilla employees and the Mozilla community--had hashed it out back them [sic] and were going forward. There were no calls for Eich's resignation or demotion, and he continued as both CTO and Director.
            I thought it quite clear that I was referring to the events of 2012.
            What you failed to mention is the Board resignations and employee protests, so I'm happy to help you with that.
            Obviously, a discussion of events from 2012 would not include events from 2014, so I'm happy to help you with that.

            As far as the board members are concerned, you've provided a perfect example of selective citation. We've had dozens of commentators who said "Yeah, 3 board members resigned" or "the WSJ reported that board members quit" without providing any details. The original WSJ article of 3/28 reported:

            The three board members who resigned sought a CEO from outside Mozilla with experience in the mobile industry who could help expand the organization’s Firefox OS mobile-operating system and balance the skills of co-founders Eich and Baker, the people familiar with the situation said.
            That's a perfectly reasonable, logical explanation for their departure--in fact, it's a classic example of a corporate power struggle--but it doesn't support the suggestion that they resigned because of Eich's donation.

            As far as your assertion that this was big news before OKCupid inserted itself into the mix, I find it rather instructive that there was NO mention of this controversy here at Daily Kos (no diaries, anyway) until OKCupid's landing page went public. We have, in my opinion, one of the most ear-to-the-ground communities to be found online--I routinely read about events/issues at DK before they hit the major media--and a healthy chunk of folks active in the tech industry and open-source movement, but no one saw fit to write a diary about this until OKCupid's action?

            Yes, there was news coverage between 3/28 (first mentions by WSJ, MSNBC, TechCrunch, The Independent) and 3/31 (OKCupid's landing page), but it seems fairly clear that the latter was a major goad to action for many.

            The word "parent" is supposed to be a VERB, people...

            by wesmorgan1 on Sun Apr 13, 2014 at 10:18:13 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site