Skip to main content

Brendan Eich
Brendan Eich, pondering the sanctity of marriage.
Brendan Eich is a tech legend, the inventor of Javascript—a programming language that powers much of what's cool on the web. He is also a bigot, a donor to California's successful Prop 8 effort in 2008 to enshrine hate in the state constitution by banning same-sex marriage.

Last week he was named as CEO of the Mozilla Foundation, a nonprofit organization best known for the Firefox browser. It is an organization in turmoil, as the mobile revolution makes desktop computers increasingly irrelevant, and with that, Mozilla's core product. (Daily Kos's traffic is now nearly 50-50 mobile traffic, as you can see in this chart. The dark blue band is mobile.)

The problem with Eich is that, well, he's a bigot. And worse than that, he hasn't "evolved" since 2008, like so much of America. He held steadfast to his beliefs, out-of-step with the world his product serves. So the Mozilla community erupted in anger, and after a half-assed effort to hang on, Eich resigned the position. So of course, you have people screaming about "persecution" from the usual conservative suspects to contrarians like Andrew Sullivan.

When people’s lives and careers are subject to litmus tests, and fired if they do not publicly renounce what may well be their sincere conviction, we have crossed a line. This is McCarthyism applied by civil actors. This is the definition of intolerance.
Please read below the fold for more on this story.

Of course this is intolerance. Would Sullivan rush to this guy's defense if it turned out he was a Grand Wizard in the KKK? Of course not. We are allowed to be intolerant of people who operate outside the bounds of civil decency. This wasn't governmental action infringing on any Constitutional rights. This was Mozilla developers saying they refused to do work with a bigot, private websites blocking access to the Firefox browser because they refused to do business with a bigot, and employees of the firm speaking up because they refused to work for a bigot.

In short, it was the free market expressing itself. Eich was perfectly within his rights to stay at Mozilla, but he would then face a hostile market and eventually faced the reality that he couldn't do his job in that environment. The free market spoke, and a free market enterprise was forced to react.

Do I cry because most people would rather vote for a Muslim than an atheist (and really, neither)? That's not McCarthyism, it's popular opinion, and I realize that my religious (non) views puts me in the minority. As long as government doesn't punish me for being an atheist (and it doesn't), I'm not going to cry persecution. That's just democracy.

Same thing with the market. Conservative views on marriage equality are now fringe, and especially so with the younger people who matter most to marketers. So the free market they worship has turned against them. They can cry about "McCarthyism" all they want, but this is just market forces at work.

Given that it's a free market, conservatives should feel free to start up a competitive product, a browser for haters. It could have built-in bookmarks to Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck ... maybe call it Bookmarks for Bigots. You know what? I'll let them work out the details. They could be headquartered in Mississippi, which could protect them from the gays, and I'm sure they could tap into that state's deep educated STEM workforce to staff up the venture. (Never mind). And if they need someone to run it?

Well, I hear Brendan Eich is available.

Originally posted to kos on Fri Apr 04, 2014 at 10:27 AM PDT.

Also republished by Daily Kos.

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Tip Jar (206+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    annieli, Pinto Pony, Catte Nappe, RLF, SuzieQ4624, JeffW, side pocket, denig, Shockwave, dawgflyer13, johanus, Hey338Too, JVolvo, Assaf, a2nite, cloudbustingkid, dewtx, OLinda, Penny GC, Lovo, Buckeye Nut Schell, Siri, Norm in Chicago, Rich in PA, karmsy, Radiowalla, Skyye, murrayewv, oortdust, tampaedski, implicate order, SneakySnu, Deep Texan, thenekkidtruth, prettygirlxoxoxo, sfbob, VTCC73, GAS, Captain C, weaponsofmassdeception, rja, LOrion, markdd, kevinpdx, Chi, nellgwen, IndieGuy, mungley, Eyesbright, tegrat, Trendar, Statusquomustgo, MKinTN, allensl, CA Nana, GeorgeXVIII, kenwards, yoduuuh do or do not, melfunction, john07801, Alice Venturi, mattc129, zerelda, Hayate Yagami, boadicea, paulex, Curt Matlock, Bonsai66, SCFrog, 2thanks, anodnhajo, ruscle, CJB, boomerchick, Youffraita, eru, camlbacker, Laurel in CA, Chitown Kev, Walt starr, millwood, enhydra lutris, AnotherMassachusettsLiberal, Involuntary Exile, fumie, mconvente, kpeddicord, mamamorgaine, middleagedhousewife, JayBat, zzyzx, Insecta, raptavio, Aunt Pat, schumann, Greasy Grant, Raggedy Ann, mhanch, clubbing guy, Esjaydee, Teiresias70, Yoshimi, NCJan, Johnny Wendell, msdrown, mslat27, terremoto, gizmo59, JML9999, tb mare, suzq, fcvaguy, Tom Anderson, Henruy Lopez, antooo, Astonishingly Amused, mahytabel, Bob Friend, Pilotshark, wader, dewolf99, Empower Ink, Sylv, liberte, librarisingnsf, papercut, Vince CA, wishingwell, spooks51, eddieb061345, 1toughlady, Heart of the Rockies, Chrislove, jacey, defluxion10, numble, Isaacsdad, Miss Blue, 417els, Tonedevil, dotdash2u, yawnimawke, Rick B, leonard145b, art ah zen, carolanne, Robynhood too, Forest Deva, Caittus, BigPirateJim, thomask, GreatLakeSailor, Dave in Northridge, TKO333, jefecuatro, Penny Century, Pandoras Box, Mr MadAsHell, glitterlust, getlost, jts327, pinhighin2, robcan25, Bryce in Seattle, skybluewater, nirbama, Mr Raymond Luxury Yacht, theunreasonableHUman, Matt Z, feloneouscat, diggerspop, petral, Invisigoth92, Tinfoil Hat, ehavenot, Australian2, TheDuckManCometh, moviemeister76, badger, revsue, ichibon, LSmith, Shawn87, Piren, merrily1000, hbk, rduran, eeff, crose, Zwenkau, GayHillbilly, Lencialoo, bythesea, deha, histOries Marko, Jeff Y, Onomastic, lehman scott, democracy inaction, HCKAD, Oh Mary Oh, GDbot, renbear, johnosahon, agrenadier, Steveningen
  •  the 800 pound Lesszilla (28+ / 0-)
    Given that it's a free market, conservatives should feel free to start up a competitive product, a browser for haters. It could have built-in bookmarks to Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck ... maybe call it Bookmarks for Bigots. You know what? I'll let them work out the details. They could be headquartered in Mississippi, which could protect them from the gays, and I'm sure they could tap into that state's deep educated STEM workforce to staff up the venture. (Never mind). And if they need someone to run it?

    Well, I hear Brendan Eich is available.

    Warning - some snark may be above‽ (-9.50; -7.03)‽ eState4Column5©2013 "I’m not the strapping young Muslim socialist that I used to be" - Barack Obama 04/27/2013 (@eState4Column5).

    by annieli on Fri Apr 04, 2014 at 10:32:51 AM PDT

  •  Some great coders are fantastic creeps. (11+ / 0-)

    Limbo for a few months and then try again.

    •  Hans Reiser (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      JML9999, VelvetElvis

      "What could BPossibly go wrong??" -RLMiller "God is just pretend." - eru

      by nosleep4u on Fri Apr 04, 2014 at 10:58:15 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  On the far side of creepy. (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        happymisanthropy, JML9999
      •  Boskone (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        JML9999, grumpynerd
      •  Julian Assange (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        thestructureguy, Sir Roderick

        "Turns out I'm really good at killing people." - President Obama

        by jrooth on Fri Apr 04, 2014 at 11:33:31 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Probably not. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Just Bob

          A different issue.

          •  Well he's reputedly a talented coder (4+ / 0-)

            and he's certainly a creep.

            "Turns out I'm really good at killing people." - President Obama

            by jrooth on Fri Apr 04, 2014 at 11:44:11 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  What Kind of Creep? (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              checkmate, GreatLakeSailor

              Please explain your aspersions.

              "When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro." - HST

              by DocGonzo on Fri Apr 04, 2014 at 12:10:20 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Assange is creepy as far as I'm concerned (4+ / 0-)

                Assessing something as creepy is 100% personal opinion.

                Libertarianism is just Fascism with a facelift. Scratch the surface of Libertarianism and you will find the notion that corporations should rule supreme, just as it was with Fascism..

                by Walt starr on Fri Apr 04, 2014 at 01:16:27 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Just a Feeling? (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Pale Jenova

                  Why blurt that out?

                  "When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro." - HST

                  by DocGonzo on Fri Apr 04, 2014 at 01:20:51 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  'cuz (0+ / 0-)

                    ....the media want us to think of him as a condom-shredding rapemonster.

                    Not that they'd be trying to divert our attention or anything....

                    Anybody know the name of that non-profit non-partisan foundation that sets up honeytraps to warn us of the creeps among us?

                    Shooting wolves from planes is to hunting, what hiring a prostitute is to dating.-Shannyn Moore

                    by zzyzx on Fri Apr 04, 2014 at 01:33:07 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Meh. (4+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      sfsteach, dumpster, Shawn87, doroma

                      He does act and look creepy regardless of what he has done or hasn't done.

                      •  Exactly. He did something extraordinarily (4+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        lgmcp, petral, Shawn87, genocideisnews

                        valuable for the world in releasing those documents, but he also presents himself as an extraordinarily unpleasant individual. The rape charges were publicized by our MSM for self-serving reasons, but that in itself doesn't mean they are false.

                        "Think of something to make the ridiculous look ridiculous." -- Molly Ivins

                        by dumpster on Fri Apr 04, 2014 at 02:39:01 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  The Rape Allegations came from Sweden n/t (0+ / 0-)

                          "If you wish to hide your character, do not play golf." - Percy Boomer

                          by pinhighin2 on Fri Apr 04, 2014 at 03:33:03 PM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  From the NSA (0+ / 0-)

                            The rape charges come from the NSA, via its tool Sweden.

                            "When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro." - HST

                            by DocGonzo on Sat Apr 05, 2014 at 08:54:17 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Thank you, Amazing Kreskin. (0+ / 0-)

                            Your powers to know more than every level of two first-world nations' judicial systems in a rape case without having played any part in the proceedings are simply astounding. Don't keep your powers to yourself, share them!

                            The day I'll consider justice blind is the day that a rape defendant's claim of "She consented to the sex" is treated by the same legal standards as a robbery defendant's claim of "He consented to give me the money": as an affirmative defense.

                            by Rei on Sat Apr 05, 2014 at 10:13:02 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  The only issue I take with your statement is... (0+ / 0-)

                            To which two First-World nations do you refer?  Certainly two first world nations united could stand up to the United States, with its severely flawed judicial system.

                          •  Sweden and the UK. (0+ / 0-)

                            Of the three investigating officers in Sweden, two (Wassgren and Gehlin) wanted him investigated for what would eventually be five charges (2x rape, 1x unlawful sexual coersion, 2x molestation), and one (Krans) wanted him for four (1x rape, 1x unlawful sexual coersion, 2x molestation). The first prosecutor (Finne) first wanted him investigated for 2x, 1x, 2x, then reduced the investigation to 0x, 1x, 2x. An appeal from one of the victims was reviewed and found with merit (not unusual in Sweden, there's a strong victims' rights process), and a new prosecutor (Ny) was brought in, and the investigation resumed for 2x, 1x, 2x. A judge charged / anklagad him on 2x, 1x, 2x. The Svea Court of Appeals held a full hearing at Assange's request - including a review of all evidence and testimony from Assange's attorney - and found probable cause for 1x, 1x, 2x. The Swedish Supreme Court refused the appeal on the charges. The British lower court heard Assange's appeal (arguing malicious prosecution, flaws in the Swedish process, and an invalid EAW)and ruled against him on all counts, as well as ruling that what he's charged with would likewise be their equivalent crimes in the UK. The case was heard by the British high court, which also ruled against him on all counts. And again, the British supreme court heard the case, and ruled against him on all counts.

                            The day I'll consider justice blind is the day that a rape defendant's claim of "She consented to the sex" is treated by the same legal standards as a robbery defendant's claim of "He consented to give me the money": as an affirmative defense.

                            by Rei on Sun Apr 06, 2014 at 08:11:56 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Nobody Cared (0+ / 0-)

                            The alleged action is that he broke a condom without telling the woman on the other side of it. She didn't do anything about it until he was wanted by the NSA. It's pretty clear the NSA and the US & UK governments put her up to pressing charges well after the fact. Because they want to detroy him for exposing their police state.

                            And you're helping them. Congratulations.

                            "When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro." - HST

                            by DocGonzo on Sun Apr 06, 2014 at 10:54:28 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  That is simply false. (0+ / 0-)

                            The rape charge is that he f'ed a sleeping girl  to work around her consistent and repeated refusal to consent to his preferred form of sex. A girl who confided to her friends and family after the event that she was raped. A girl who according to her previous boyfriend was so paranoid of unprotected sex that she not only never allowed it in their 2 1/2 years together, but even made him get STD tested nonetheless A girl who immediately before the event was complaining to friends about how mad she was getting at Assange for bossing her around and repeatedly trying to F* her unprotected. Who then, according to both parties, shorly thereafter had unprotected sex with her. And we're supposed to believe that this was consensual? And we're supposed to ignore the rulings of every levels of two judicial systems? Why? Because a guy who writes on his blog about how he's a god to women and women's brains can't do math and who already had accusations of cyberstalking against him before he got famous and who even whisteblowers he was working with accused him of unwanted sexual aggression and on and on and on and on, why no, they never commit rape, clearly it's all a giant conspiracy involving every level of two judicial systems and the planting of an operative as a low level Swedish museum worker for years becausse, god knows, CIA psychics knew that would come in useful later! And of course they went through all that but then neglected to tell Sweden when Assange was leaving the country, nor tell Britain when he jumped bail, because.... because... well, just because, dammit!  Because, no way could a self-described "chauvinist pig" who we like have ever committed rape, heavens no! Let the internet witch hunt against the women continue!

                            The day I'll consider justice blind is the day that a rape defendant's claim of "She consented to the sex" is treated by the same legal standards as a robbery defendant's claim of "He consented to give me the money": as an affirmative defense.

                            by Rei on Sun Apr 06, 2014 at 03:44:50 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Nothing to See Here (0+ / 0-)

                            You're right. And the NSA isn't listening to your calls. It's for your protection. Saddam has WMD.

                            I'm available for bar mitzvahs, weddings and ironic funerals.

                            "When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro." - HST

                            by DocGonzo on Sun Apr 06, 2014 at 10:52:32 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Right. (0+ / 0-)

                            Screw every level of two judicial systems consistent rulings, we like the guy, so clearly it's all a setup and the girls are just lying sluts!

                            Hey, by the way, if you're looking for real estate, I know this great little town called Steubenville, I think you'd be really welcome there.

                            The day I'll consider justice blind is the day that a rape defendant's claim of "She consented to the sex" is treated by the same legal standards as a robbery defendant's claim of "He consented to give me the money": as an affirmative defense.

                            by Rei on Sun Apr 06, 2014 at 03:35:06 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

    •  CEOs (13+ / 0-)

      He wasn't prevented from coding. Just from being CEO. A job for which he was unfit, especially because he couldn't tell the difference between CEO and coder job requirements.

      "When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro." - HST

      by DocGonzo on Fri Apr 04, 2014 at 12:09:50 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  They work better with machines than humans. (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      417els, BobBlueMass, anon004

      It tends to happen.

    •  So are a hell of a lot of really untalented ones. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      dumpster, Brown Thrasher
    •  Is he a great coder? (6+ / 0-)

      He certainly isn't a great language designer.

      Don't get me wrong, Javascript has its points -- or rather point.  It supports functional programming. That's huge, because functional programming turns out to be hot stuff when it comes to writing event handlers.  But other than that happy fact, the language's success is due to the fact that it's been bundled with every browser for the last eighteen years.

      Javascript is not particularly elegant, nor in itself particularly easy to learn.  Lots of people can write a little Javascript, not many are expert in it.  Being embedded in a browser makes it very easy to tinker and do nifty things that give you immediate feedback. But if it has been BASIC embedded instead of Javascript, the same would be true.  Better yet, they could have bundled Scheme with the browser, which seems to be where the good bits of Javascript came from.

      Had Javascript not become standard in browsers early on, nobody would be using it for anything today.  It's a usable but not particularly good language with one or two nifty features, embedded in a killer platform.

      That said, none of this has anything to do with his politics or management style.  Bad people can write good code and vice versa.

      I've lost my faith in nihilism

      by grumpynerd on Fri Apr 04, 2014 at 03:49:02 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Compared to what? (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        There's a ton of languages out there, and you'll find praise and gripe about all of them.  

        Not many people are experts in Javascript because until recently not many people were doing anything other than routine DOM manipulation with it.  And most of those people you could barely call programmers.  On the other hand, by the time the standard stabilized in the late 1990s you had a largely browser based language with first class functions and closures, prototyping, and core data structures rivaled only by Perl in its class.  Half a decade later, you had friggin' monads with the introduction of jQuery.  Today, Javascript can close on Erlang in concurrency and hold its own with functional languages in devising metacompilation.  Want strong typing? AltJS that sucker and you've got Hindley Milner.  I can run ffmpeg and libav in Firefox, for Chrissakes; all for the cost of downloading a 70mb script.  This is in a language that's immediately useable by anyone with a background in the Algol-68 heritage.  

        I'm not saying Javascript is the greatest thing since the wheel, but given the diversity of language out there I don't see how you can rate it at the middle to bottom of the pack.

        •  It's true . . . all coders talk like this . . . (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          Myself, I have dreamed in vbScript.

          And God said, "Let there be light"; and with a Big Bang, there was light. And God said "Ow! Ow My eyes!" and in a flash God separated light from darkness. "Whew! Now that's better. Now where was I. Oh yea . . ."

          by Pale Jenova on Sat Apr 05, 2014 at 08:59:11 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Certainly a lot of people who came up (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Pale Jenova

            managed execution in the past twenty years or so.  And people who came up in dynamic languages in the past fifteen can be just as bad.

            Few people who have actually written a language, and virtually no one who has written a widely used one, shits on Javascript.

  •  Bigot Browser? (20+ / 0-)

    What's it gonna be called...LiarFox?

    Красота спасет мир --F. Dostoevsky

    by Wisper on Fri Apr 04, 2014 at 10:38:17 AM PDT

  •  Progressive market forces (15+ / 0-)

    were not strong enough to keep Phil Robertson off the air - it made more business sense for A&E to keep him; any threat of a boycott from the left was far outweighed by the show's high (formerly higher) ratings from the right. We had to suck that one up. So suck this one, conservatives!

    The braying sheep on my TV screen make this boy shout -- make this boy scream -- I'm going underground...

    by jamfan on Fri Apr 04, 2014 at 10:44:11 AM PDT

  •  Do they know that in several states in the U.S. (36+ / 0-)

    you can be fired if your boss just THINKS you're gay?

    Where's the outcry about that?

    Just askin', not really expecting a response....

    You win elections in only one way. You get YOUR voters to show up and vote in greater numbers than the other guys - and get them counted.

    by daddybunny on Fri Apr 04, 2014 at 10:52:30 AM PDT

    •  You don't understand. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Heart of the Rockies, diggerspop

      "Free market," the way it's used by conservatives, means that all laws and regulations favor the wealthy and powerful. (And the religious, especially if they are wealthy and powerful and not particularly religious.)

      Patriotism is the FIRST refuge of the scoundrel.

      by Tony Seybert on Fri Apr 04, 2014 at 01:54:46 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  In, um, 33 of 'em last I saw. It's possible (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      wader, Heart of the Rockies

      one or two changed that since and I missed it, but I'm betting it's still pretty close.

    •  That's been true for religious beliefs or lack (0+ / 0-)

      thereof for all of my life, although it probably now is technically illegal. Which doesn't stop that kind of prejudice or that against gays if they can drum up another reason to fire or not to hire.

    •  In a majority of states (0+ / 0-)

      you can refuse to hire a Black employee if you have less than 15 employees.

    •  Unfortunately, most people don't know this (0+ / 0-)

      Most people think that Federal law already bans employment discrimination based on sexual orientation. That includes, by the way, a little over half of people who identify as GLBT. That's really one of the biggest problems in getting ENDA passed: while a whopping supermajority abstractly supports it, relatively few are motivated to put time, money, and effort into it, largely because they think the problem's already been solved.

      Unfortunately when smart and educated people get crazy ideas they can come up with plausibly truthy arguments. -- Andrew F Cockburn

      by ebohlman on Sat Apr 05, 2014 at 12:52:45 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Naming competition! (8+ / 0-)

    Name that alternate browser for haters/bigots!

    Internet Excluder


    "What could BPossibly go wrong??" -RLMiller "God is just pretend." - eru

    by nosleep4u on Fri Apr 04, 2014 at 10:57:01 AM PDT

  •  Do you suppose Andrew (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    dewtx, lexalou, Caittus, crose

    is referring to presidential nominees?

    When people’s lives and careers are subject to litmus tests, and fired if they do not publicly renounce what may well be their sincere conviction, we have crossed a line. This is McCarthyism applied by civil actors. This is the definition of intolerance.
    •  I think... (11+ / 0-)

      he is just a self-loathing idiot.

      “Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires.” - John Steinbeck (Disputed)

      by RichM on Fri Apr 04, 2014 at 11:45:42 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Re (6+ / 0-)

        I don't think he's an idiot.  (Honestly, he's one of the best bloggers out there.)  He's just wrong about a lot of things.  This is one of them.  Sometimes, he's profoundly right about something.  This is obviously not one of those things.

        In this case, he's abandoned the right in this country, because he rightly sees it as insane.  A lot of his views are sort of to the left, but he can't bring himself to the left, and he knows that there is something wrong with it.  He has been opposed to it for so long that he cannot imagine that it won't do stuff that is outrageously harmful to people.  I guess that if the left ever really became powerful again it could, but yeah...  Right now, he's tilting at windmills.

        •  I actually agree with him here (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          birdboy2000, mojo70, TexasTom

          I think the fact that we (the US) say that freedom of speech and conscience is important to the functioning of a free society, and to place restrictions on the ability of the government to restrict them while ignoring the ability of private actors to do the same is a real lacunae on our part.  

          It's hard to have any sympathy for Brandon Eich, but at the same time I can't feel particularly happy that someone lost his job because of something unrelated to his job performance. It would be one thing if he was like the CEO of Chick Fil'A, outspokenly wrapping bigotry into his company's image. On the contrary, Eich specifically said that his personal beliefs would not affect how he ran Mozilla, and that he would not change the culture at Mozilla.

          To believe that markets determine value is to believe that milk comes from plastic bottles. Bromley (1985)

          by sneakers563 on Fri Apr 04, 2014 at 02:08:59 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I can agree with this much: (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Richard Lyon, genocideisnews
            I think the fact that we (the US) say that freedom of speech and conscience is important to the functioning of a free society, and to place restrictions on the ability of the government to restrict them while ignoring the ability of private actors to do the same is a real lacunae on our part.
            I just disagree that it really applies here in a meaningful way.  Consumers can always choose to patronize any business (or not) based on any number of factors.  They can decide they don't want to buy products or services offered by bigots.  

            This does not in any way restrict the bigot's freedom of speech, although it may limit his opportunities to make money.  It may also limit his employment prospects, as is the case here.  

            The kind of private restrictions on speech I'm concerned about don't involve the actions individual consumers take based on their consciences or political beliefs.  They have more to do with powerful corporations controlling access to the media through which opinions and ideas are disseminated.

            "Ça c'est une chanson que j'aurais vraiment aimé ne pas avoir écrite." -- Barbara

            by FogCityJohn on Fri Apr 04, 2014 at 02:57:42 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  Was it unrelated to his job performance? (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            genocideisnews, bythesea
            It's hard to have any sympathy for Brandon Eich, but at the same time I can't feel particularly happy that someone lost his job because of something unrelated to his job performance.
            As a code monkey, sure.  Even as a low-level executive.  But the CEO is the public face of the company (and - if Hobby Lobby wins their case - will effectively be it's 'soul' in the eyes of the law).  A 'public face' who has repeatedly generated controversy for his bigoted views is, by definition, ineffective at his job.
          •  So do I...sort of (0+ / 0-)

            Yes, there are opinions that you don't express in public without consequence.  But that's also a moving target.

            Consider what I would consider to the closest thing to a parallel issue, which is the legalization and acceptance of interracial marriage.  50 years ago, it would be liberal to say that you personally found interracial marriage offensive, but didn't believe it should be against the law.  Heck, 40 years ago, that was probably a mainstream view -- and firing a CEO for saying it would have been pointless.  Today, it is absolutely not socially acceptable to express such a view in public -- and a CEO or top executive who expressed such a view would be rightly fired for it.

            I expect that we'll be at that point on same-sex marriage inside of a decade.  But we're not there today, which means that the boycott threats against Mozilla seemed a bit over the top to me.

            Political Compass: -6.75, -3.08

            by TexasTom on Sat Apr 05, 2014 at 01:14:26 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  He's got his hobby horses. (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Turn Left, nanoboy

          Labor is another place where he is wrong. In my opinion at least. But he isn't stupid. In some ways, he's a product of his time (Thatcher's Britain) in the way a lot of similarly-small-c-conservative-leaning people are products of Reagan. The craziness of the right has pushed him to what appears to be the center, but it isn't really the center on a lot of issues once you correct the metrics for crazy.

        •  Sullivan is a moron (9+ / 0-)

          And has been for years.  I don't know if you ever read the blogs "SullyWatch" or "Smarter Andrew Sullivan" or not, neither is still in existence, but they spent a lot of time deconstructing Sullivan's idiocy for the rest of America (or at least those who cared).  

          In case you don't remember, Sullivan was a major cheerleader for the Iraq War, going so far as to shake his British index finger at those of us who said it was a heinous mistake and told us how "unAmerican" we were for not supporting that blunder.  He also subscribed to the Ari Fleischer school of "watch what you say" and had a major man-crush on GWB for seven of the eight years he was in office.  In fact  Sullivan made a cottage industry out of Mau-Mauing the left in 2003 after the invasion of Iraq.  One of his more famous quotes:

          “The middle part of the country—the great red zone that voted for Bush—is clearly ready for war. The decadent Left in its enclaves on the coasts is not dead—and may well mount what amounts to a fifth column.”
          No, Sully gets no points for being correct occasionally, or his "abandonment" of the right-wing in this, his adopted country.  He's a buffoon, and sadly one with a big microphone who will adopt any position if it gets him paid.  

          A celibate clergy is an especially good idea, because it tends to suppress any hereditary propensity toward fanaticism. -Carl Sagan

          by jo fish on Fri Apr 04, 2014 at 02:22:00 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  He is definitely not an idiot. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          And he's actually a pretty nice guy. At least he took time to correspond with me over an issue we disagreed on a few years ago. I thought that was pretty cool. He also is capable of admitting when he is wrong -- something his former idol Hitchens could never do.

          I rarely agree with Sullivan, but I do respect his intelligence.

          So endith the trick.

          by itsjim on Fri Apr 04, 2014 at 02:22:52 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Sully isn't an idiot, he's entitled. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          He truly believes in a world where he's on top, and he's absolutely baffled that the people who would otherwise support him (wealthy white men) won't just let him in their club.  

          Self-loathing?  Sure.  Lots of people are.  But mostly, just an endless sort of 3-year-old's scream that there isn't an infinite supply of peanut butter just for him.

    •  Politicians, actors, musicians, lawyers, priests.. (10+ / 0-)

      Journalists, too. Look at what happened to Mel Gibson, he got free marketed right out of town. Hell, McCarthy was free political-marketed out.

      Sullivan is wrong on this. It's not about a sincere belief, it's about how one goes about expressing it, and if they harm others in the process, and if any one is willing to be with you in a room, as a friend, an employee, a coworker.

    •  I think he is referring to his own fears (0+ / 0-)

      of being boycotted for something he might say or write. It seems rational.

    •  Andrew is off his nut, this is a non-profit that (7+ / 0-)

      depends on being well-liked and well-respected by its donors - just like the Susan Komen Foundation - without that ability to maintain good will and raise money off of that good will,  it ceases to exist.

      It survives by begging other people to give them money based on an idea, not on selling them a tangible widget.

      If it's board hires a controversial CEO, or if it takes a controversial stance, it stands to either raise or lose money.  Mozilla could have easily "used" the hater's stance on gay rights to pivot toward raising money from the Tea Party - oh, right, they are suspicious of the black helicopter inter-tubes -- it was Mr Eich who is a smart-enough businessman to recognize that when any person or stance or acquisition becomes a financial liability, and interferes with the organization's ability to survive or thrive, you terminate that relationship.  Nothing personal.  It's business.  I assume the board of Mozilla accepted his resignation.  

      I don't understand why pro-business, free market, capitalists don't understand pro-business, free market, capitalist consequences. If Andew Sullivan so chooses, he can start a "Boycott Mozilla" to express himself in true free market form.  See who else joins him.

      "Out of Many, One Nation." This is the great promise of these United States of America -9.75 -6.87

      by Uncle Moji on Fri Apr 04, 2014 at 02:06:15 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  I used to be a regular (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      Reader of Andrew Sullivan. Until he decided to charge for content. I can't pay for a one man blog. Just can't. I'll donate if given the choice...anyways, he's blind as a bat when it comes to race. Hates, hate crime laws with a passion, and was shocked, SHOCKED! when he realized the GOP didn't care for the "gay thing." He defended Paul Ryan's "inarticulate" comments on the culture issues of America's inner cities and called criticism of these comments an unfair "smear" of poor Paul Ryan. He also loves to defend Charles Murray and his "Bell Curve." But that just feels like piling on at this point. BIG intellect..Bigger blind spots.

      "Because we are all connected...."

      by Shawn87 on Fri Apr 04, 2014 at 06:26:18 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Score another victory (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    eru, dewtx

    against the GOP market place of ideas.

  •  Opens a new avenue of attack from pro-life forces (11+ / 0-)

    If market forces can drive out those who are against gay marriage, it can drive out those who support abortion, or Democrats in general.

    Given that being against marriage equality is bigoted and an attack on civil rights...  Then those who support Personhood can claim every fertilized egg is a person with civil rights, and abortion is a bigoted attack on the life and rights of the innocent unborn.  Fundamentally the two positions are equivalent.

    I wonder how this site would react if people began being fired in droves for donating to Planned Parenthood or pro-choice Democrats in general, on the grounds that they support "murdering unborn children"?

    If political beliefs are now in the realm of free market forces, where only the majority have rights, then the second a political position slips into minority status, it can be relentlessly driven out of existence, through firings, intimidation and the like.

    It seems we're now in a realm where both our religion and our political beliefs are decided by who our boss is.

    •  Silly argument (15+ / 0-)

      To begin with, these fukwads ALREADY try to get people fired for such idiocy, but the Average Joe or Jane ain't buyin it, it works in mouf-breather states but not in the saner places...

      "Ronald Reagan is DEAD! His policies live on but we're doing something about THAT!"

      by leftykook on Fri Apr 04, 2014 at 11:32:22 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Hobby Lobby isn't only in Red states (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        If Hobby Lobby gets religious rights, then a lot of women in Blue states will start losing their birth control.  And I predict those companies will make it strictly against corporate policy for any employee to donate to any candidate or organization that publicly supports abortion.

        Also, can you explain what "ain't buying it" means?  Doesn't matter if Joe or Jane doesn't buy it.  Only matters if their right-wing boss buys it.

        •  And that's gonna happen whether or not (4+ / 0-)

          the Mozilla CEO loses his job for trying to take away peoples basic right to equal protection under the law.

          You sincerely think that, shucky darn, if everyone had let the poor guy be then Hobby Lobby wouldn't try to fire every hourly employee who gave to a Democrat?

          •  Weird that so many people here (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Yahzi, Pale Jenova, bythesea

            think the right wing is so completely invested in being 'fair'.

            I can only imagine that they've been in a coma since the beginning of Obama's first term.

          •  I want political beliefs to be protected (0+ / 0-)

            In exchange for limits on donations. As it stands, if a CEO can be forced out, I have to let him give a million dollars to the next effort.

            No protection, no limit. I have to agree with SCOTUS on McCutcheon sadly. It should be different.

            •  Protected from what? (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Old Sailor, stevemb, JesseCW

              Public censure?



              Should the government have stepped in and forced people to use Mozilla?

              Please, tell us how you would have 'protected' Eich in this situation.

              •  I'll try and make this simple. (0+ / 0-)

                It's early 2002. Ground zero in NYC is still smoking.

                Mozilla hires a Muslim CEO. A wave of outrage goes up, and calls are made to boycott Mozilla until that "America hating" Muslim is gone. The new Muslim CEO resigns.

                You're totally cool with that right?  Because being Muslim is a choice, same as opposing gay marriage. Or would you have the government get involved?

                •  Don't dodge the question. (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Old Sailor, stevemb

                  You said Eich should be protected.

                  Please explain what you mean, and how.

                  •  Same as all other non-discrimination (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:

                    Can the shareholders or board of directors, or customers, demand that a CEO of a company be removed because of:

                    Sexual Orientation?

                    If they can, if a boycott can force out a CEO for being a woman, and everyone here would go along with that, then fine, no protections for anyone.
                    But if they can't, then it sounds to me like he was forced out due to his religious beliefs. If he sincerely believes gay marriage to be a sin, and that's why he donated to Prop 8, isn't that banned, to discriminate against his beliefs?

                    I would trade strict campaign and issue donation limits for non-discrimination protection. Everyone can donate a modest amount, a few thousand, for whatever issue they like. No questions asked, can't be retaliated against for it any more than for their skin color.

                    Don't like their beliefs?  Address them head on, democratically.  Change minds legitimately.  Not through cowardly boycotts and intimidation like the right-wing does.
                    I don't think a person should be able to have their job threatened by anyone for a modest $1000 donation.  

                    Just because they donate $1000 doesn't mean they win.

                    •  So, you want political speech (3+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      JesseCW, Old Sailor, johnosahon

                      no matter the content, to be protected by the government in such a way as to prevent companies from taking action against it?

                      If I started holding white supremacy rallies, my employer should be powerless? If I started publicly attacking or undermining my employer's policies, my employer should be powerless?

                      The head of the NRA has a change of heart, and starts campaigning for strict gun control...the NRA should be forced to keep him on...

                      You have an interesting idea, do you have a published newsletter that I can subscribe to?

                      •  I didn't say no matter the content. (0+ / 0-)

                        Holding rallies and donating $1000 to the KKK are not the same thing. Can protect the latter as free speech but not the former.  How is your employer harmed by a donation?  Why is it any of their business?

                        For insubordination against corporate policy:
                        Say my company favors free trade because it lets them outsource more jobs. Should I be fired for donating $1000 to an anti-free trade group?  Do I have to quit to take that political position if I feel my company is wrong? I didn't agree to accept only the Board of Directors political positions when I hired in.

                        For your last example, Mozilla is not in the marriage equality business. Eich's personal opinion on gay marriage has no direct bearing on coding a web browser.  But with the NRA you raise an interesting point. This site would love to see the NRA embrace more gun control and many see that as being compatible with legal gun ownership.
                        Are you saying that a CEO should be forcibly prevented from ever driving change?  Isn't leadership a CEO's job?  What if the NRA CEO actually believed gun control to be in the NRA's best long term interest but couldn't get the rank and file to accept that?

                        Would you force out the NRA CEO for donating $1000 to PETA, and the members threw a tantrum?

                        It is an ownership society isn't it?  If you have a boss, if you're not at the top, don't think for yourself, just shut up and do as your told.

                        •  I'm saying that companies generally have a right (3+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          JesseCW, Old Sailor, johnosahon

                          to select who they want to have working for them.

                          The only abrogation of this right is when it would lead to systematic discrimination and social harm against a disadvantaged group, such as women and minorities.

                          Bigots are not a disadvantaged class, and there is no compelling social interest in protecting their bigotry from censure.

                          However, since you agree that content does matter, then all you have is a difference of opinion as to whether being an anti-gay bigot, donating not only to Prop 8, but also to anti-gay politicians and racist politicians, not only failing to repudiate your bigotry but instead doubling down, is content worthy of being denied a CEO position where such policies demonstrably have a market impact.

                          As such, why should anyone defer to your opinion on the matter compared to the Mozilla board? And how on earth could you object to them finding that the content and behavior goes a step too far?

                          While I would indeed find it quite amusing for the NRA head to start intensely lobbying for gun control, I would not expect the NRA to continue to allow that person to function as the leader. I'm surprised this is something you would advocate for.

                          Methinks that if this ever actually came to pass, your voice would be among the throng demanding his removal. But hey, if you want to step up and claim otherwise, feel free.

                          •  Protect all speech, or none of it. (0+ / 0-)

                            You only want to focus on the bigots. I'd like you to focus on everyone else, who far outnumber the bigots. You'd like to leave all of them unprotected just so you can fire a bigot once a year. Have it your way.

                            I reject censorship, by market forces or anyone else, because it's lazy. Changes zero minds, accomplishes little.

                          •  Protect all speech or none of it? (4+ / 0-)

                            Is this some moral philosophy I'm unaware of? I'm more than capable of making the moral judgment that racist speech is wrong, and should be marginalized, shamed, and ultimately driven to extinction. Bigotry serves no useful societal function, and only exists to cause harm.

                            And again you throw out the word 'protect' as if Eich's speech is not actually protected.

                            It is. He has not been thrown in jail, he has not lost his house, he has not been kicked out of his community, he's still allowed to shop at the local Walmart if he so chooses. What he has been denied is the leadership of an organization that relies on community support.

                            What isn't 'protected' is our response to such speech, and you would curtail our own free speech to protect his supposed 'right' to a CEO position? Preposterous.

                            I focus on the bigots because the bigots are causing the harm. However, your point is well taken. I suppose you've posted your thoughts over in the UPS diary, where 250 drivers were fired for protesting. Please point me to your posts so I can admire the consistency of your position, because surely 250 people deserve 250 times the attention you've paid to Eich.

                            Market forces have been demonstrated to be very effective at propagating change. Bigots, especially those with decades of entrenchment and reinforcement, like Eich, do NOT change their minds. He has had decades since supporting racists in the 90's, and 6 years of rapid societal change since his support of Prop 8. Ample time to reconsider his stance.

                            So no, bigots do not 'change their mind'. They die off.

                            And society improves because the rest of us marginalize their point of view and try to limit the harm they do to our fellow citizens.

                            This whole 'we must coddle the bigots so they change their minds' is nothing more than puerile fantasy based on either wishful thinking or a more sinister 'man I sure hope my own bigotry doesn't screw me' mentality.

                          •  Sometimes, bigots *do* change their minds. (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Ozy, Norm in Chicago

                            It really does happen.

                            But it's not because society coddles them.  

                            Look at how quickly state after state has granted equal access to marriage to since people, to put it bluntly, stopped refusing to call bigots bigots.

                            Now, I have no doubt some of that is people changing their minds, but it's clearly not soft and gentle supportive encouragement that changed most of those minds.

                            It's almost everyone else saying "That's fucked up, Joe" until Joe finally had say to himself "Wellll......shit.....maybe that is fucked up...."

                          •  It's an interesting question. (3+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Old Sailor, Norm in Chicago, JesseCW

                            And one I think isn't so answerable.

                            Are these rapid changes really from bigots changing their minds, or is it more from people who previously didn't care about the issue realizing that, yeah, it really is about rights.

                            Did they get support from people in the middle and on the fence, or did we see bigots change their mind?

                            Based on personal experience, I would tend to believe former more than the later, but I think it's probably very difficult to measure accurately.

                            Either way, I agree with you that catering to the bigoted view is not the way to effect change.

                          •  The largest share of the swing by far (0+ / 0-)

                            has been people who once rode the separate-but-equal train to Civil Unions.

                            From what I've personally seen, they've mostly changed their minds when they've found out that people aren't going to keep on pretending that's not a disgusting denial of the basic right to equal treatment under the law.

                          •  I don't have to post on the UPS diary (0+ / 0-)

                            Because everyone here agrees that the UPS drivers should not have been fired for their political speech. What more is there for me to say?

                            I'm posting here to tell people the issues are one in the same.  And you're perfectly happy letting 250 drivers be fired so that you can fire one bigot. As I said, have it your way.

                          •  Perfectly happy? (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:

                            Of course not.

                            But neither am I proposing that the government pass legislation 'protecting' this from happening.

                            Legislation that you can't seem to articulate, even though you support such protections.

                            So, let's have it your way. The NRA can't fire anybody who starts to campaign for gun control, and Mozilla can't fire racist bigots. I can't imagine how one might abuse this by, say, engaging in political speech and then using that as a perpetual job guarantee.

                            For some reason, this would make you happy?


                            But as far as 'what more is there to say' about those UPS drivers, how about commenting about how few comments there actually are, one diary had no comments, the other 8. Your name, of course, was absent in both.

                            So please, spare me your concern over those 250 drivers because it is glaringly and notably absent. They are a prop for your defense of a bigot, nothing more.

                          •  The UPS diaries all supported Right to Work laws? (0+ / 0-)

                            That's what you support, I don't. I don't think striking workers should be able to be fired. Political speech like that should be protected.

                            But in a right to work world, companies can fire workers for whatever reason, and you support that.  I would give protections to all, including unions, end Right to Work. And I wouldn't freak out over a few bad apples, if I'm protecting millions of workers. Yes, that would make me happy.  Should make you happy too.

                          •  How (0+ / 0-)

                            Explain to me how engaging in political speech isn't a perpetual job guarantee in your world.

                            How do you actually fire someone that is causing harm to your business?

                            Come out and say it explicitly, would you support legislation to prevent the NRA from firing a CEO who is campaigning for gun control?

                          •  I said there would be strict donation limits (0+ / 0-)

                            You paint with too broad a brush. The CEO of the NRA should be able to donate $1000 to the candidate of his choice, even one who supports background checks. He can donate $1000 to a gun control group. What he does on his private time with his money is none of the NRA's business. That isn't campaigning for gun control. And yes, I would support legislation preventing the firing of anyone for a limited donation. How?  Privacy.

                            You also need to define "harm" to companies, as you see it.

                            Does requiring a minimum wage harm companies?
                            Does the ACA harm companies?
                            Does unionization harm companies?
                            Does non-discrimination law harm companies?

                            If you answer yes, then does a $1000 donation cause more harm than all that?

                            On the subject of unions, are union contracts a perpetual job guarantee?  Do they prevent bad workers from being fired?  Are you anti-union if a company claims harm?

                            And since UPS claimed harm from 250 workers refusing to work, you support UPS firing those "harmful" workers yes?
                            No worker protections, only what the company wants?

                          •  WTF? (0+ / 0-)

                            You're going on about 'protection' but all you want is anonymous donations up to $1000? As if that's some magic number? As if that's the extent of political speech?

                            What does your legislation do to protect those UPS workers? They weren't fired for donations of $1000.

                            You still haven't articulated how you would protect them. Would you make it illegal for UPS to fire them?

                            So talked real big about protecting workers, but your solution of anonymous donations up to $1000 doesn't do squat for them. In fact, it seems tailor made to protect Eich, unless you can point to a rash of other workers being fired for political donations.

                          •  Seriously? (0+ / 0-)

                            Does it really have to be explained to you that donation protections and strike protections are separate things?

                            Yes, I would protect all striking workers from retaliatory firings. I don't support Right to Work. But that's separate from what was being discussed, you pulled in UPS.
                            So how about you explain how you'd protect workers, while giving companies the right to fire everyone who causes any harm?

                            I picked $1000 because that's what Eich was forced out over. Want to make it $10,000?  Fine by me. But you're the one so concerned over harm to companies, I was trying to strike a balance you'd support. That's what I get for negotiating.

                            So all striking workers can't be fired, and $10,000 donations. And union organizing, and whistleblowing, and demanding equal pay, better working conditions, and whatever else you'd like to throw in.  

                          •  Why pick any number at all? (0+ / 0-)

                            Why 1k? Why 10k? Why not unlimited anonymous donations? What's the difference to you? Either speech is protected, or it's not...according to you. So the Koch brother should be able to spread their money as they will, completely anonymously.

                            And no. Eich wasn't let go for his donation, he made it years ago, and the company had been aware of it since at least 2012. Hmm, I guess that wrecks your whole narrative.

                            He was fired for being an anti-gay bigot. Would you legislated against that as well?

                            How would I protect workers? Allow them to unionize.

                            Which has nothing to do with Eich. It protects the little guy from the big corporation, it doesn't force companies to give CEO positions to those with contrary priorities.

                            I brought up the UPS guys because you seemed to think this was more than just about protecting a CEO bigot. And yet you have lots to say about Eich, and had zero to say about the UPS workers. Not a peep.

                            All of those things you list are not at all what we talked about. We talked about racist political speech, anti-gay political speech, sexist political speech, speech that WE find abhorrent. So, go ahead and add those to your list of protections, then defend it.

                            You want companies to have no recourse against even abhorrent political speech.

                          •  That's why I set a limit (0+ / 0-)

                            Listen to yourself. You say there should be no limit, then say I want companies to have no recourse.

                            No, companies have recourse, above the universal anonymous limit, whatever that may be. That's what strikes a balance between the rights of the individual, and the company.

                            But if Mozilla knew of Eich's donation to Prop 8 in 2012, why did they make him CEO, if they already knew he was a bigot, if his speech was so abhorrent?  Did they not care until they got customer backlash?  Nobody forced Mozilla to make him CEO, but they did, with full knowledge.  Maybe the entire Mozilla board should resign then?

                            As for unions, show me a daily Kos diary that attacks unions, and I'll go defend them there.  But you still don't seem to understand that Right to Work is one big issue. By empowering Mozilla, you empower UPS.  Your concern is for the companies, so stop pretending to care about striking workers.  You give them zero rights.

                          •  You set an arbitrary limit. (0+ / 0-)

                            With no explanation. Why is $10k worth of 'speech' protected, but $11k is not?

                            I said that according to YOUR philosophy that you either protect all speech or no speech, there should be NO limit on anonymous contributions. That is the natural consequence of YOUR point of view, not mine. Any limit that you set is purely arbitrary and contrary to your stated position.

                            Why did Mozilla make him the CEO if they knew about his views? Because they didn't realize the amount of market forces that would align against him. Is there some subtlety to your question that I can't see? It seems obvious.

                            As for unions, I have no idea what you mean. I fully support unions. However, I don't see that unions will give workers blanket protection from ever being fired, nor should it. I never said zero rights, I said that workers should not have a perpetual job guarantee regardless of behavior. In your mind, somehow you translated this to zero rights.

                            Again, you're the one who wants to make workers completely immune to repercussions, which is different than union protection.

                          •  You don't understand negotiations do you? (0+ / 0-)

                            Just about everything agreed to under negotiation is fundamentally arbitrary.  Both sides take what they can get, and have to end up somewhere.  That somewhere may be completely arbitrary, but it's something that both sides agree on.  May be $1000, $10,000, a million or zero.

                            Here are the options:

                            1)  No donation limits, and no protections.  People can give as much as they like, and they are left wide open to attack by market forces.

                            2)  Protections for all speech, up to some limit to be decided by Congress through negotiation.  The limit is set high enough to satisfy free speech rights, but low enough so as to not to harm companies.  Donations are anonymous.  Obviously leading a rally in public isn't.

                            It's quite simple, every worker has a choice.  They are free to engage in a limited amount of protected free speech for any issue they choose.  If they decide to go all in on an issue and go over the limit, they become subject to market forces.

                            I'm trying to strike a balance, you keep trying to slam it to one side or the other.  It's either no protections, no limits, or limits in exchange for protections.  That is MY philosophy, so stop trying to put words in my mouth.

                            For Mozilla, yes you are missing the subtlety.  If the Mozilla board knew about the Prop 8 donation, then they knew they were making a bigot the CEO, and didn't care.  They only cared when people freaked out.  So shouldn't the entire board own the decision and resign, along with the CEO?  Why do they get a pass on hiring a known bigot?
                            Didn't the Board of Directors harm Mozilla just as much as the bigot himself?  So they all get fired too, yes?

                            As for unions, you have said repeatedly that companies should be able to fire any worker who causes the company harm.  So you claim to support unions, but all a CEO has to do is say "union workers cause harm", and they can fire the entire lot.  All UPS has to say is "250 striking workers caused harm", and they're all fired.

                            So where are the protections?  You made it zero rights when you set "corporate harm" as the standard.  The company can claim lower profit due to any worker protection as a "harm" under your standard, and fire the workers.  A protection that has no teeth isn't a protection.

                            I'm not calling for workers to be completely immune or completely vulnerable, and haven't been from the start.

                          •  And please define Abhorent (0+ / 0-)

                            Because Republican CEOs see demands for minimum wage, healthcare and unionization as "abhorent". You set the bar pretty low for what speech can be banned.

                          •  Banned? (0+ / 0-)

                            Have you taken to outright lying to make your point?

                            Clearly you've gone off the reservation. I suggest you pull a map out of your ass to find your way back on to it before continuing the conversation.

                          •  Eich's speech is protected. He's not experiencing (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:

                            a moment of actual financial hardship.

                            He said "Some humans are less human than others" and the world said 'Fuck you buddy, we won't eat at your restaurant'.

                            So what's the mechanism of protection you want?

                            You want to force people to buy products from folks they find noxious?

                            You want to force companies to employ people who are destroying their business and driving them to bankruptcy?

                        •  Donating a thousand dollars to strip some (0+ / 0-)

                          people of their basic right to equal protection under the law is simply not the same as donating a thousand dollars to strip some other people of their basic right to equal protection under the law?

                          So, if he'd joined a White Power church and donated to restore anti-miscegenation laws, you'd feel he should be protected in the same way, no matter what the economic harm to the company?

                    •  Homophobes are now a protected class? (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:

                      A boycott (by the right people) can force out anyone.  Welcome to Capitalism.

                      It's not a question of "should".  It's an issue of "is".

                      What's your counter?  That if a CEO marketing a consumer product line spends all his free time fighting for the repeal of the 13th and 14th Amendments and the return of Chattel Slavery, and the company is going bankrupt, it should be illegal to fire him?

                      •  Having reread Farenheit 451, there is (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:

                        something to be said about the "blandatization" of cultural dispute through the lens of corporate interests. It's why cultural criticisms on TV are mostly handled thru animated comedy and comedy news.
                        Having said that, this is not that case. You open your mouth in this way and, more importantly, your wallet, you get what's coming to you.

                        Even if I knew that tomorrow the world would go to pieces, I would still plant my apple tree. -Martin Luther

                        by the fan man on Sat Apr 05, 2014 at 09:16:42 AM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                •  Apples and oranges (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:

                  Practicing Islam and intentionally harming people are so NOT the same thing.

                  Conservatives are "engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy...the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness."JK Galbraith

                  by BludevlsAdvocate on Fri Apr 04, 2014 at 06:58:28 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Well that depends (0+ / 0-)

                    For the Taliban, they're one and the same.

                    But for my example, say the CEO in 1996 donated $1000 to the Taliban. What do you say then?

                    But for a boycott, all that matters is perception, not facts. Could a Muslim CEO be forced out post 9-11 if that's what the customers demanded?  Or would someone stop it?

                    •  If the CEO donated 1000 bucks to the Taliban (2+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      bythesea, johnosahon

                      and refuses to apologize for doing so?

                      Then I say 'screw you and your product'.

                      You seem to be opposed to the concept of boycotts in general.  I'd love to know how you think anyone can ever stop them.

                      Pick one in twenty people at random and order them to use Firefox?

                •  2002. Bill Maher says it doesn't take a lot of (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Old Sailor

                  courage to push a button and launch a cruise missile.

                  Fired.  Canceled.  Almost instantly.

                  That's how shit works.

                  BTW - Eich's resignation wasn't accepted because of his religion, but because of his public actions.  You don't have an analogy.

            •  You realize that what he did was a lot worse than (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Old Sailor

              casually calling people hateful expletives, right?

              Yet, had he done that in public, would you say the company was wrong to accept his resignation?

      •  Doesn't mean you have to do it too. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Norm in Chicago

        Voting is the means by which the public is distracted from the realities of power and its exercise.

        by Anne Elk on Fri Apr 04, 2014 at 02:02:10 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Sure they already try to get people fired for such (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Norm in Chicago

        idiocy. I thought we were opposed to that?

        To believe that markets determine value is to believe that milk comes from plastic bottles. Bromley (1985)

        by sneakers563 on Fri Apr 04, 2014 at 02:11:03 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  First, It's not new (11+ / 0-)

      This isn't the first time someone left a job because their beliefs were incompatible with their market. As someone points out upthread, look at how Mel Gibson's career has gone since it became obvious that he was an anti-Semite.  

      If he thinks that Judaism is a bigoted attack on the rights of Christians, it doesn't make that belief fundamentally equivalent to my belief that gay people should be allowed to get married.

      Second, free market forces do not only give rights to the majority.  Really, it's just the opposite - democracy is the forum where rights adhere most closely to the majority view.  No product needs 51% market saturation to be viable.  The most popular shows on TV struggle to reach 5% of viewers.  Firefox itself has existed and prospered for years in the face of huge majorities using Internet Explorer.

      Finally, political beliefs are not neutral.  It's not a matter of personal belief and self expression.  They're about real things that mean real things to real people.  Eich believes - or believed - in ripping families apart by force of law.  That is a Bad Thing to believe.  It is not equivalent to believing that pregnant people have a right to control their bodies and their fertility just because they're both things people believe.

    •  They already do that wherever and whenever (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      they think they have the numbers to have an impact.

      Didja miss all the Honeymaid stories this week?  They put out an ad that showed diverse families, and bigots threatened boycotts.

      This has been happening a lot lately.  See Also: Nowhere Near A million Moms.

      This is no "new line of attack".  It's something they've been trying to do basically forever.

    •  Droves??? (6+ / 0-)

      This was ONE person at the company, its CEO and public representative to the world at large. As far as I know, Mozilla has not begun a companywide purge of its conservative employees.

      The CEO position is critical for a non-profit because that individual is often identified with the organization itself. Mozilla has worked long and hard to maintain an image of a forward thinking and socially inclusive foundation and supporting community. To have its visible face associated with a regressive, exclusionary CEO would make no sense.

      Would you object if Planned Parenthood ditched a new CEO who stated that rape victims probably deserved it because of the way they dress? Or an NAACP head who claimed that the holocaust never happened?  Of course not, those positions would place the CEO way outside of the norm for the community who supports their non-profit.

      Same here with Mozilla. Its excellent record on LGBT issues is in conflict with its (now ex-) CEO and therefore the two cannot be successfully linked together. Had Eich immediately come out with a statement disavowing his previous position and supporting marriage equality, there would have been no conflict. He didn't. He is still out of synch with the Mozilla community and therefore could not be effective as its CEO.

      •  Why does the CEO get so much power? (0+ / 0-)

        My CEO is a complete moron. Why do his beliefs become the company beliefs?  

        I guess the world really does belong to the 1%. It seems they're the only ones that matter.

        •  Ask (0+ / 0-)

          Ask the board of directors, usually filled with idiots who hand out giant sums of money for people to wreck their companies so they can then give huge golden parachutes to those same morons.

          And they do it over and over and over.

          I would tell you the only word in the English language that has all the vowels in order but, that would be facetious.

          by roninkai on Fri Apr 04, 2014 at 04:32:25 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  I think you missed the point (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Brown Thrasher, ebohlman

          I was making about Mozilla as a non-profit. Many people can ignore the personal viewpoints of for-profit companies because they know the single overriding goal of the company is to make money.

          A non-profit, such as Mozilla, usually has social purposes equal to or exceeding whatever financial goals it has. If the public representative of the non-profit has obvious conflicts with the social purposes of the non-profit, he/she jeopardizes the organization's public image and thus its ability to achieve its goals.

          If you work for a non-profit and your CEO is indeed way out alignment with the purposes of your organization, something is amiss.

    •  You have a point, but this isnt a good test case (0+ / 0-)

      for it. Using the marketplace to sort out cultural issues happens all the time, but I get uneasy occasionally. When it's a matter of civil rights, my scale tilts towards inflicting commercial damage via these kind of actions.

      Even if I knew that tomorrow the world would go to pieces, I would still plant my apple tree. -Martin Luther

      by the fan man on Sat Apr 05, 2014 at 09:21:52 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Here in the Golden State (3+ / 0-)

    we have a proud tradition of--not to say, legal enshrinement for--"at-will employment." Means an employer can legally fire you any old time they want, for any old reason they want. Doesn't even have to be a "good" reason; they can dislike your haircut, or your flabby abs, or whatever.

    Given this, how would Eich's supporters allege "discrimination," exactly?

    My second, unrelated thought on this character Eich is that he's old enough, unfortunately, he's lost the ability to expand, to move with the times. Oh, I know this culture is youth-happy, blah, blah, blah (heh, I'm well past 40). But, it's true, we DO lose flexibility, cognitively and otherwise, as we age.

    It's here they got the range/ and the machinery for change/ and it's here they got the spiritual thirst. --Leonard Cohen

    by karmsy on Fri Apr 04, 2014 at 11:14:53 AM PDT

    •  Just because it can be done legally (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      doesn't make it right.

      Voting is the means by which the public is distracted from the realities of power and its exercise.

      by Anne Elk on Fri Apr 04, 2014 at 02:02:58 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I have strong sentiments there, myself. (0+ / 0-)

        So do most people at all connected with, or even merely sympathetic to, "organized labor."

        But, "at-will employment," while you and I may have our issues with it, is still the legal standard.

        It's this standard Eich that sympathizers want to buck.

        It's here they got the range/ and the machinery for change/ and it's here they got the spiritual thirst. --Leonard Cohen

        by karmsy on Fri Apr 04, 2014 at 02:21:46 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  At will employment isn't unconstrained (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      There are lots of laws that protect at will from being fired for improper reasons, like on account of race, sex, religion, and, umm, especially given your comment, AGE.  

      However, given nature of Mozilla, nature of CEO's job as basically embodying the company, he was probably not a good person to lead the company, but companies are supposed to figure things like that out prior to making high profile hires.  

  •  Whatever happened to Conservapedia? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Lefty Coaster

    It´s off the radar like that - maybe not.

    I wish I didn't know now what I didn't know then.

    by peterfallow on Fri Apr 04, 2014 at 11:17:01 AM PDT

  •  The troublesome sentence: (8+ / 0-)
    We are allowed to be intolerant of people who operate outside the bounds of civil decency.
    Decency is in the eye of the beholder and we've been working for 100 years or more to open up opportunities for everyone - often denied on the basic of civil decency as it was perceived - not so that we could get the point where we could be the ones doing the excluding.

    Sullivan, as usual, leaps to hyperbolic extremes, but the issue seems a bit more nuanced than a lot of folks here are giving it.  

    •  that is the problem (15+ / 0-)

      with making money/profits the only viable medium for speech.   Eich used his money for hate speech,  the people he hates on and those who oppose hate speech  in general, used money to shut down his money.  They all got to have a say and their right to say it is equally protected.

      If people don't like money used as a bludgeon in politics, maybe they shouldn't raise up the money in the first place.

    •  My being discriminated against... (20+ / 0-) the government is not nuanced. Advocating that the government should discriminate against me is not nuance, it's bigotry. I'm sorry that all the soft-bigots don't want it to be called out for bigotry, but bigotry is more than just calling me a faggot as you walk past me after you tripped me and I landed face-down on the sidewalk. When you work to get the government to have one set of laws for you and another set of laws for me, that's bigotry. And my pointing that out isn't me being mean to the poor, vulnerable bigots.

      It's really not complicated.

      This man actively advocated for governmental discrimination. He then got a job as a CEO. He never refuted his past bigoted beliefs. People decided that they didn't want to use a product from a company headed by a bigot and they started to look elsewhere. The company responded and he resigned.

      I refuse the demand that I welcome bigotry. And expectations that I do so are a perpetuation of that bigotry. And it's offensive.

      •  I get it; you don't like his views (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Anne Elk, lgmcp

        So you see nothing wrong with him being hounded out of a position for those views.  He's a bigot; I get that.

        But do you think that people on the right have less conviction about their views - and how they perceive your views - than you do?

        •  I see nothing wrong... (11+ / 0-)

          ...with people choosing to not use Mozilla products. That's what happened here. People decided to not use Mozilla, and Mozilla responded to that market pressure and the man resigned. He wasn't hounded out of the position.

          Apparently, some liberals think that in order to qualify as being tolerate one has to use Firefox and not complain when someone works to make the government discriminate against people -- well against gay people, if he was working to make the government treat some other group with a different set of laws they might think it's ok to have a problem with it, but as long as it's only gay people being discriminated against, it's just a matter of having a different opinion and not one of discrimination and bigotry, apparently.

          It's really feeling to me like there are a lot of people who are identifying with his being called out for having bigoted opinions.

          And why would I not like his homophobic bigotry? That's so strange. Why wouldn't I like the idea that the government should discriminate against gay people. That's almost absurd that I would have a problem with that.

          I'm not going to applaud someone's thinking that I should be discriminated against, no matter how much some people who like to pretend they're liberal think I should welcome that discrimination.

          •  No need to get personal (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Anne Elk, lgmcp

            I don't "pretend" to be liberal; it's just that my view of liberalism includes a robust defense of the right to free expression.

            It would be nice to see some recognition of how this should all work out when it's our views that are the unpopular ones.  Having confronted hiring people who told me - flat out - that they weren't going to hire me not because I was gay but because I was "out" - and therefore seen as a potential "agitator" (yeah, we're going back decades), maybe that gave me a little personal insight at how this plays out when the roles are reversed.

            It's significant here that Eich didn't put himself out as a speaker for Prop 8; he made a donation - however significant - and was later "outed" (again, irony) and yes, he's unrepentant.  But, there was nothing to suggest that the company was adopting his views, would adopt his views or anything of the kind.

            •  Bottom line (7+ / 0-)

              There's a difference.  You know the saying "opinions are like assholes, everyone's got one and they all stink?"  It's bullshit.

              Some opinions are assholes.  Some of them aren't.  Protecting people who are gay or support gay rights does not require us to protect people who hate them.  

              •  Well, some religious views are odious to me (0+ / 0-)

                Is it ok if we repeal laws protecting religious views in hiring and firing.  I mean, it would really be helpful to me when I buy a product from X Company to know whether the CEO is a member of Opus Dei, for example.

                •  Hiring and firing (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:

                  aren't at issue here (and in fact, "at will" employment allows for hiring and firing for just about any reason, and if the real reason is illegal, they'll just use a non-illegal reason for the firing).

                  Also free speech has to to with government, not private corporations. So you  use your political speech to fund a campaign and the government can't do anything about it. But whether your employees or customers are going to respond is up to them and isn't against your free speech.

                  In Wisconsin, anyone who signed a recall petition is in serious jeopardy for potentially losing a private-sector job and not getting a private-sector job and not getting any government-appointed public sector job and some public sector jobs.

                  The Kochs funded making the recall petitions into a searchable database. Republicans who signed the recall petitions (as students) are finding that it is biting them in the ass.

                  So when the general public expresses its political rights to vote or to sign a petition or whatever, it is being used as a tool to discriminate by the people in power. That is SERIOUSLY problematic.

                •  What? (0+ / 0-)

                  You really exhibit a lack of understanding here.

                  "Repeal laws" is in case you don;t know, quite different than  private action.

                  Come on.

            •  Right (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              SpamNunn, thestructureguy

              Eich was hardly campaigner in chief on Prop 8. He sent a check for a measly $1000. That hardly qualifies him as the Imperial Wizard. He has the right to be a jerk. He has the right to be a bigot. He doesn't have the right to do a shitty job and get paid for it, and that's the only reason he should have been canned. It sends a message to all CEO's though. Don't make personal political contributions. Make sure it's routed "correctly". I suppose on that basis he ought to have lost his job for being stupid.

              Voting is the means by which the public is distracted from the realities of power and its exercise.

              by Anne Elk on Fri Apr 04, 2014 at 02:08:11 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Of course he has the right to support prop 8 (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                vacantlook, Armando, BludevlsAdvocate

                and people have the right to not do business with a company that hires an anti-gay CEO.  Why is this so hard to understand? You can't make me use Firefox. You can't make vendors do business with Mozilla. I don't want to work with bigots.  Sorry if that offends.  

                •  It doesn't offend me (4+ / 0-)

                  and so what if it did? Is there some new right not to be offended now? You can, of course, make any choice you like and so can Mozilla Inc. But if this site has now decided that firing someone for exercising their political rights - despicable as they may be - is an occasion for public rejoicing, count me out.

                  Voting is the means by which the public is distracted from the realities of power and its exercise.

                  by Anne Elk on Fri Apr 04, 2014 at 02:18:44 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Bye! (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Richard Lyon

                    Democracy, if done properly, is rude, messy, and loud

                    by allensl on Fri Apr 04, 2014 at 02:21:38 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                  •  Why didn't you leave (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Old Sailor, Richard Lyon

                    during the Paula Deen controversy?

                  •  LoL. What if he exercised his political right to (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:

                    protest by joining a skinhead rally? His right to free association by joining Nambla?  Would you be okay with him than?

                    the divide i believe is between people who view gay rights as a political issue and those who view gay rights as a humanitarian issue.  i don't want to associate with a corporation (or should i say person) that believes certain people deserve more rights than others.  Again, I don't have to use Firefox.  Its a choice.  No one went to the government or the courts to get him removed.  Mozilla made a choice.  So all things being equal, why would I choose to use firefox, eat at chick-fil-A, shop at hobby lobby, if they espouse values I find odious when their competitors are out there not doing things i find objectionable?

                    Michael Jordan had the ultimate capitalist quote, and corporations of all ilk would do well to remember it - "Republicans bye shoes too."  If corporations don't want to be punished for their political views, than their executives and shareholders should stay out of politics.  

                •  Was Mozzilla bigoted? (0+ / 0-)

                  I don't know Mozilla from Mothra, but I thought the point was that the company has a good record on LBGT issues.  

                  The question is whether companies all need to add a political litmus test when hiring CEOs.  Or board members.  Or maybe VPs.  Or maybe the person who sits at the reception desk.

                  And, the real silliness in all of this is that we're buying thousands of products all the time from companies about which we know absolutely nothing.  It comes out that someone spent $1000 of his own money on an odious political campaign, but apparently, the company must suffer for his transgression - or have the CEO "resign."  Presumably, our money is otherwise going to people who are 100% supportive of 100% of our causes/values.

                  •  Corporations have core values (0+ / 0-)

                    Often stated as a Mission Statement, ususally further defined in binder after binder gathering dust on Managers and HR shelves, pulled out only when there is a controversy or it's review time.

                    In the past, and present, there are many examples of Corporations hiring CEO's who do not embrace the Corporate Core Values. Sears is a good current example.

                    Over time, one of three things happen, the CEO changes the mission statement and core values, to the success or detriment of the Corporation, the CEO creates policies and procedures that conflict with the Mission Statement and Core Values, to the Corporation's detriment, or the CEO immediately makes a public statement to the Corporation, that they are embracing the Mission Statement and Core Values.

                  •  no, Mozilla wasn't bigoted. So they chose not to (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Armando, BludevlsAdvocate

                    have a bigot being the face of their company...  

                    Its not a political litmus test. I don't give a shit if he's a Republican or Libertarian.  I don't care if he supports the Iraq war.  What I do care about is if he thinks people - his colleagues, employees, customers - deserve less rights than him b/c of their sexual orientation.  You're whitewashing his hate, his bigotry.  Perhaps you can do this b/c you've never been on the receiving end of bigotry - i have.  its not so easy to glance over.  You're just passing over the fact that he thinks the government should discriminate against people just b/c of the way they are born. And you're seemingly upset b/c people - his employees, customers and colleagues - held him responsible for HIS bigoted views. I don't need Mozilla.  So why I should choose them over another company?Would you defend him if he supported the Klu klux klan? If he was a member of NAMBLA?  "The CEO may believe in slavery, but the company has strict abolition stance...." Not all political views are equally deserving of respect.  We don't have to pretend that they are.

                  •  That seems to be your issue (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Old Sailor

                    people don;t agree with you and you have decided to have a hissy fit about it.

                    That's your right of course.

                    Decency is, after all, in the eye of the beholder.

                •  This is so obvious (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  stevemb, Old Sailor

                  that is proves Andrew Sullivan, his progressive champions in this thread notwithstanding, is a moron.

              •  People have a right... (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                burlydee, Armando

       not use Mozilla's software.

                Except, apparently not according the liberal defenders of Eich commenting on this site; apparently, we're required to tolerate intolerance, and thereby we're required to use Mozilla just so that the bigot doesn't have to face the fact that people don't want to use products that come from a company with a bigot for a CEO.

              •  Decency is in the eye of the beholder (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Old Sailor

                as someone said.

                He has a right to be a bigot, not CEO of Mozilla.

            •  No one prevented this man from freely... (5+ / 0-)

              ...expressing himself. Free expression doesn't mean being free from criticism. And to think otherwise is to think like a conservative.

              You, and others like you defending this bigotry, keep coming back to referring to the government discriminating against gay people like it's just some minor little difference of opinion. "when it's our views." My views don't make the government discriminate against other people. Eich's do.

              But ultimately, Eich could have remained CEO. People have a right to not use Mozilla's software. They're not using Mozilla caused the company and him to reconsider his being CEO. We're not required to use Mozilla just to keep him in the job so that he won't feel bad for being a bigot. We do not have to accept bigotry.

            •  Your previous comment was pretty contemptuous (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Old Sailor

              I suggest if you can't take it, don't dish it out.

              How it works out when our views are the unpopular ones is just the way this one worked out.

              Sometimes our views work, sometimes they do not.

              As someone wrote, "decency is in the eye of the beholder."

              Your views on this seem extremely misguided and utterly lacking in understanding of the concepts involved.

          •  that was kind of my problem with this... (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            if he was working to make the government treat some other group with a different set of laws they might think it's ok to have a problem with it
            Everybody was bragging about switching to Chrome, because their CEO only refuses to apologize for cheating his gay employees out of hundreds of millions of dollars with a massive wage-fixing cartel, not donating to a campaign to stop them sharing their illegally-reduced salaries.

            I'm happy Eich backed down as long as everybody's aware that this was complaining to a 98% great company to make it 99% great. Not heroically defeating the WORST CEO EVAR. Eich was barely even below-average, he was just a much easier target than somebody like Larry Page, who would stand on a shipping container full of $100 bills flipping off your Chrome boycott until you went away.

        •  This is just dumb (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Old Sailor

          The government discriminating against you for your views is simply not ion the same ballpark.

          Your nuance seems to me just ignorance of the concepts involved.

          Bad comments.

          Imo of course.

        •  You don't get it (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Old Sailor

          "Don't like his views" does not equate to "objectively attempted to enforce bigotry."

          The fact that you can't tell the difference between an opinion and an injustice only tells us that you are not a victim of that injustice.

          Both sides are not equal; reality has a liberal bias; and morality is an objective truth so self-evident that any 5 year old can tell you the difference between fair and unfair. That culture has spent so much time and energy obfuscating the simple and carving out exemptions to fairness does not, in any way, actually reduce the objective definition of fair.

    •  There's other nuances, too: (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      Some jobs are more high profile than others.

      And let's face it, when you start throwing your weight around in laws that affect people's private lives, they throw their weight around in stuff that affects your private lives.  

      The dossier on my DKos activities during the Bush administration will be presented on February 3, 2014, with an appendix consisting an adjudication, dated "a long time ago", that I am Wrong.

      by Inland on Fri Apr 04, 2014 at 02:16:38 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  I don't get your point (0+ / 0-)

      I mean "decency is in the eye of the beholder" is Markos' point here.

      What's your point again?

  •  I got news for Andrew Sullivan (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    mungley, a2nite, allensl

    I've tried austerity, and I don't think it works worth a damm. If filthy rich Oligarchs insist it's the answer, they can try and prove it to me by example.

    by thenekkidtruth on Fri Apr 04, 2014 at 11:24:35 AM PDT

  •  Apparently you have forgotten (5+ / 0-)

    the conservative definition of free market. I didn't check Conservapedia for the exact definition (I ran out of computer bleach on some Planet Beck article), but I know it includes massive tax cuts, lots of government welfare for corporations, and a complete elimination of competition with the help of their wholly-owned subsidiaries congresscritters in state and Federal legislatures

    For more details on how the conservatives' free market works, check out this article on Tesla by some guy named kos.

    The reason they were the good old days: we were neither good nor old.

    by carolita on Fri Apr 04, 2014 at 11:30:43 AM PDT

  •  Those who scream "Freedom of Speech" (15+ / 0-)

    do not understand that this particular right relates to government control of speech. It prohibits censorship; it prohibits prosecuting people based on the content of their statements (with some pretty narrow exceptions of course). It says nothing at all as to the public's response to what someone has stated or, for that matter, the sorts of causes they've donated money to.

    One should keep in mind as well that, at one time and until fairly recently, almost anyone who donated money to an organization which supported LGBT rights made sure to keep that fact a secret. As someone who raises money to support AIDS service organizations, I still hear some of my fellow fundraisers say that it can be a challenge to get people to donate to this cause because of what it is perceived to represent. While this is clearly unfortunate (and I assume most here would agree), it does not constitute censorship.

    Eich was free to make his donation. He was free to say he stands by what he donated towards. He should not expect there not to be any public response.

  •  I can't agree with this oversimplification (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    solublefish, Peace Missile

    "If Wall Street paid a tax on every “game” they run, we would get enough revenue to run the government on." ~ Will Rogers

    by Lefty Coaster on Fri Apr 04, 2014 at 11:40:59 AM PDT

    •  I can't agree... (10+ / 0-)

      ...with how many people who like to tell themselves that they support equality have jumped on the conservative bandwagon now that gay people expecting equality are the real bullies.

      I can't agree with the expectation that I be welcoming of discrimination and bigotry all because bigots don't want to have to face any consequences of their bigotry. And defense of bigotry is bigotry itself.

      •  So now I've "jumped on the conservative bandwagon" (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        JML9999, Peace Missile, Darmok, Berliozian

        A very good example of bullying IMHO.

        "If Wall Street paid a tax on every “game” they run, we would get enough revenue to run the government on." ~ Will Rogers

        by Lefty Coaster on Fri Apr 04, 2014 at 02:00:42 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  bandwagon ? Looks more like a handbasket nt (0+ / 0-)

          I want 1 less Tiny Coffin, Why Don't You? Support The President's Gun Violence Plan.

          by JML9999 on Fri Apr 04, 2014 at 02:12:54 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Are you unaware... (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          glitterlust, burlydee, Brown Thrasher

          ...of how frequently the past couple of years conservatives have called gay people bullies? For example, when a local area tries to get their school system to adopt anti-bullying protections for gay students, the conservatives actually turn around and say that it's the gay people bullying them for their religious beliefs. So yes, if you say gay people are being bullies because they won't tolerate bigotry, then yes, you're jumping on the conservative bandwagon of calling gay people bullies for not tolerating bigotry.

          It really lets me know that I must have no place in liberalism unless I just shut up and smile; if I dare to have a problem with being discriminated against, then I'm the bully. All because I criticize bigotry.

          Fuck, this shit really makes me want to cry.

          I can't believe people who call themselves liberals would actually call someone who criticizes bigotry a bully.

    •  I'm with Lefty. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      sneakers563, Lefty Coaster

      I fully support gay marriage, etc.  But Sullivan's analogy strikes me as correct. What a person thinks or feels or believes should NOT matter to anything.  What matters is how they act.

      Eich promised an 'active commitment to equality in everything we do' when he took the helm of the company, and that is what matters.

      To judge people on the basis of their feelings, thoughts, ideas, beliefs - that IS McCarthyism, whether it comes from the left or right.

      •  But he DID act. He donated money in support of (4+ / 0-)

        his anti-gay views (so he failed the test you set up). The people who disagreed then acted by not supporting the organization's products. The organization itself then looked at their ability to compete with him at the helm and said it was better for the organization to part ways with him. This same issue plays out within the whole social investing market, but with entire companies not just people within them. It's also the basis for the whole Flush Rush movement.

        Do not grasp. Let go of what is to make space for what is to be.

        by CoyoteMarti on Fri Apr 04, 2014 at 02:22:00 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  You make a valid point (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Lefty Coaster

          But did you oppose his employment when he was not CEO, on the basis of his stand against gay marriage?  I think not. So why does it matter when he becomes CEO?  He might have made a very good CEO. He has been with Mozilla from the start, it is as much his baby as anyone else's, no?

          We all have a right to our political views and to support the causes we believe in. You and I agree that the cause he supported was not a worthy one, nor a just one. But should that be a justifiable basis for denying him a position that he fully merited through his experience,ability, and expertise?  Hmm, sounds a lot like the arguments historically used to ban the employment of LGBT community from various occupations - and STILL used by organizations like the Boy Scouts to ban gay scout leaders irrespective of their abilities.  

          I'm sorry, but I do not find your rebuttal convincing.  

          •  You seem to think that worthy causes (3+ / 0-)

            are a matter of opinion.

            This guy thinks that feeding the hungry is a worthy cause; that guy thinks that beating left-handers until they write with their right hand is a worthy cause... it's all the same. Just opinion! Just a matter of what you, personally, like!

            However, you are, objectively, incorrect.

            There was a time when advocating against mixed-race marriage was socially acceptable; then there was a time when it wasn't. Yet it was always an unworthy cause, regardless of what society accepted.

            Ask yourself: would you support Eich if he had donated $1,000 to the Stop Miscenagation Committee? How about if he had donated to the Kill The Jews Movement? Or just the Fire the Soluble Fish Campaign?

            •  No (0+ / 0-)

              I do not think "worthy causes are a matter of opinion". Please do not presume.

              It is not apparent to me that the legitimacy of gay marriage is a law of the universe. It is a social construction - just like monogamy is a social construction. I happen to support gay marriage and I agree with it very strongly - because I think love and commitment and the willing consent of two people are the only things that really matter in a relationship of marriage (or an unmarried partnership) and I can find no reason other than bigotry to oppose that position.  

              But I also recognize that there's are decent people who have not yet come to the same conclusion.  Heck, one of them is my next door neighbor, and he is an Episcopalian priest. We have spoken of this on occasion, but I have not been able to convince him otherwise, and we mostly avoid the subject. Should I shun him? Paint a red X on his front door? Walk the neighborhood ringing a bell and calling him out on his bigotry?  I don't see how that helps.  He is a decent man who is in every other way humane and good. I figure he will eventually come around.

          •  Actually, I do not "oppose" his appointment (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            solublefish, Lefty Coaster

            to CEO; that's the choice of the board. But I DO support everyone's right not to do business with the organization because of the board's actions. Then it's up to that same board and/or the individual to decide if they want to keep that person in the CEO slot. An officer of a company IS different from an employee, because any officer can  speak for the company-- bless corporate "personhood", it cuts both ways. Corporate officers also have a fiduciary duty to employees and any stockholders not to do damage by taking actions or making statements that will impact the financial health of the organization. That's why many officers have morals clauses in their contracts. Employees, on the other hand, only have a duty to not break the law, same as any other private citizen, and to follow the (legal) rules and performance requirements of the organization.

            And officers need much more than "experience, ability and expertise" that you cited. They need judgment and people skills to build support for their brand(s) inside and outside their organizations. I have held management positions in several multinational organizations as well as regional companies, and I can attest that, beyond entry level positions, people almost NEVER get fired because of an expertise problem (though it can limit their upward movement); it's virtually always a judgment and/or people issue.

            Frankly, in this case it's the board who screwed up or were naïve by not vetting their candidate in light of their employee base and market.    

            Do not grasp. Let go of what is to make space for what is to be.

            by CoyoteMarti on Fri Apr 04, 2014 at 07:32:45 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Fair enough (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Lefty Coaster

              And well stated.  It may have been a mistake of the board to promote him, though it seems apparent that they never expected such a backlash, else they surely would not have acted as they did.

              It may be that a person who is at the helm of a corporation, or otherwise in the public eye, is held to a higher standard than mere mortals - or at least a different standard.  It may be that they do not possess in fact the same freedom to exercise their rights as citizens that others do, though I find that thought disturbing to my sense of justice and equality under the law.  

              And what if his offensive contribution had been made 16 years ago instead of 6?  Would it still be held against him?  What if he had changed his mind, or was beginning to do so?  Should we still hold it against him?

      •  Actions speak louder than words. (3+ / 0-)
        Eich promised an 'active commitment to equality in everything we do' when he took the helm of the company, and that is what matters.
        Denying equal rights to gay people was important enough to him that he donated a significant sum of money for the cause in 1008. In spite of all that has developed on the same-sex marriage file since then, he has not backpedaled from that stance & apparently continues to hold the same view. That's his right, & nobody is arguing otherwise. But to the charge of "McCarthyism", it's important to note that Mr. Eich faces no criminal charges or governmental harassment because of his views, no vilification in the media, no subpoena to testify before a hostile congressional committee. The campaign against him becoming Mozilla CEO hardly qualifies as "persecution".
        •  Please see my response above. (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          CoyoteMarti, Lefty Coaster

          You are wrong to think McCarthyism was about "criminal charges". The VAST majority of people adversely affected by McCarthyism violated no laws and were never charged with anything. They were stripped of their jobs, their opportunities, their friends and associates, privacy and security purely and solely because of their alleged beliefs - and their completely non-criminal actions: "Are you now or have you ever been a member of the Communist Party?" "Have you ever attended a meeting of the IWW?" etc.

          And that is EXACTLY what has happened here, or so it seems to me. I am open to correction on this point, but so far you have not convinced me.

          Equal rights for LGBT is a cause, and not yet fully fact in this country. I wish it were a fact of law!  But until it is, it seems to me that Eich has no less right than any of us to support the causes he believes in, however wrong he may be.  Heck, even after it is a fact of law, he has the right to oppose it as long as he does not break the law - just I and many of us will continue to oppose Citizens United and Guantanamo and on and on.

          •  As I noted in my reply above, he has a fiduciary (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            solublefish, Old Sailor

            duty as an officer of the organization not to p**s off his employees and customers in a way that damages the profitability and ongoing health of the organization. Officer duties go beyond just the legal. Same goes for the board members.

            Do not grasp. Let go of what is to make space for what is to be.

            by CoyoteMarti on Fri Apr 04, 2014 at 07:52:46 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  I agree (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Lefty Coaster

              and I think he made a prudent decision under the circumstances.  But then, that suggests a degree of circumspection on his part that only makes me feel more conflicted about the way this came about, since he performed no action as CEO to justify the public scourging he received. Rather, he was vilified as an enemy of the people for exercising his rights as a citizen 6 years ago...

              •  Not jumped on for exercising his right to (0+ / 0-)

                speak and act, jumped on for what that act and speech was. The right is to speak; there is no right to have people agree with you. Actions have consequences for all of us.

                Do not grasp. Let go of what is to make space for what is to be.

                by CoyoteMarti on Sat Apr 05, 2014 at 04:28:37 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  a distinction without a difference (0+ / 0-)

                  I would be inclined to say. If the extremity of consequences of speech is too great, that amounts to what is called "prior restraint" in law, which effectively prevents a person from expressing their views for fear of the consequences - any person, any views.  It was not long ago in this nation that an LGBT person feared to admit that they were gay or different for just that reason.  And of course every PTA and university Board of Trustees who kicked out faculty members for being "commies" in the 1950s could have made use of the same argument you just advanced. That gives me pause.

                  As I remarked above, I agree that people have a right to express their frustration with the choice of Eich, whether through a boycott of Mozilla products or a letter or petition or etc.  I would not deny this to anyone. I do not go so far as Sullivan in suggesting that there is a clear right and wrong in this case, and that the boycott/petition drive was dead wrong.  I am saying only that Sullivan's analogy to McCarthyism is valid, and that this fact taints the result.

                  I am glad that the support for gay marriage in this nation is strong enough to have political power and influence, visible in the dismantling of legal barriers to gay marriage and the construction of marriage as a positive right for all people regardless of sexual orientation. These are good things.  But I do not see how the public denigration and dismissal of a person from a job position can be construed as a victory for anything but intolerance, given that the person in question committed no crimes, nor abused his position of power and authority in any way.  

      •  So, do we have any indication whether or not (0+ / 0-)

        his personal beliefs would impact his performance as CEO?

        Secondly, we have every right to avoid a product or service if the people leading the company openly express personal opinions and views we disagree with.  This site has strongly supported contacting companies whose ads are on Rush Limbaugh's programs.  Is that wrong?  We sided against Chick-Fil-A because of the personal opinions of the head honcho.  I don't shop at Walmart, partly because of their labor policies.  One of the pizza chains is owned by a far right conservative.  Don't eat at any pizza chains, but if I did I'd avoid his.

        I think there is a confusion between expressing your personal opinion (so long as it's not slander or libel) and the government controlling speech.

        •  The Mozilla Board (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          And the Mozilla Community believed that his personal beliefs would very much affect his performance as CEO,

          Otherwise, they would have refused his resignation.

        •  Agree. (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Lefty Coaster, Darmok

          We have every right to voice our choices, but the fact that we have the right and ability to do so does not mean that our doing so in a particular instance is right.  PTAs in the 1950s had every right to voice their opinions on whether it was appropriate to have a teacher who was a "commie" - or who was gay - but that did not make it right that they used that power to destroy another person's life merely because of their belief or sexual orientation - matters that had nothing whatever to d with the performance of their duties in their chosen occupation.   White suburban residents had every right to voice their opinion regarding entry of black families into their communities, but the did not make it right for them to do so when the result was segregation, discrimination, etc.

          I think your first question is the pertinent one: did his views in fact effect his performance as CEO. We will now never know.

          •  You seem unable to grasp (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            BludevlsAdvocate, Old Sailor

            the basic fact that one fact is true, and another is not. Opposing a teacher for being gay is an unjustifiable position; it has no basis in fact. Opposing a person for wishing to deny rights to his fellow citizens is a justifiable position: it is supported by facts.

            The issue is not whether or not a person opposes something; the issue is whether or not that opposition is justifiable based on facts and common principles of fairness.

            •  Easy to say (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Lefty Coaster, Darmok

              You say "opposing a teacher for being gay is unjustifiable". I agree, but why is that so? Is it because being gay has nothing to do with one's effectiveness as a teacher? If so, then it is hard for me to see how one can justify opposing Eich as CEO. Did his beliefs actually affect his effectiveness in that role? Did he violate any laws?  

              Or do we say that opposing a teacher for being gay is wrong because the teacher has a 'right' to be gay?  We now think of sexual preference as a right, and I am convinced that this makes good sense to do so, but this was not always so.

              The cultural acceptance of non-heterosexual relationships is not a given, not a 'fact' as you call it.  It is not written in the stars.  It is a collective decision we make, when we insist that expression of sexual preference should be considered a right - it is a social and cultural construct and not a 'fact' that always existed 'out there'.  In that respect it is not unlike other rights.

              What you and I are now inclined to recognize as a right  - gay marriage - is in fact of law not yet an established right. Until it becomes so - and I hope it does! - it is hard for me to see how  you can accuse Eich of opposing your rights simply because he sees that matter differently and works toward a different end.  To vilify him for failing to agree with you seems a poor basis for a politics that respects individuality and conscience.

      •  I love how homophobic bigotry... (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Old Sailor, Yahzi just a genuine, valid feeling, thought, idea, or belief now. Wanting the government to discriminate against a group of people is just a difference in opinion. It's good to know that I'm required to tolerate bigotry.

        •  I love how a person can be (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Lefty Coaster

          called out as a "bigot" and a 'homophobe' because they defend another person's freedom of conscience.  Very logical, very sane.

          You may not have thought about this, but you live in a society where many people have many views that may disagree with yours.  Are they all 'homophobic bigots'? Should they all be deprived of their jobs and possibilities of promotion because you disagree with them?  Wow, you must be mighty smart, certainly smarter than me. After all, you managed somehow to read into my soul and determine that I was a homophobe and a bigot, when I have said nothing that could be so construed.

        •  I think it's moral relativism at work (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Old Sailor

          The only thing more pernicious than Christian moral absolutism.

    •  I strongly disagree (0+ / 0-)

      Now what?

  •  Sullivan claims the Gay Right won, not gay left (0+ / 0-)

    he just wrote to me that WE won when they took it all away from the gay left

    "The poor can never be made to suffer enough." Jimmy Breslin

    by merrywidow on Fri Apr 04, 2014 at 11:40:59 AM PDT

  •  I have always maintained... (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    MKinTN, liberalguy, Teiresias70, Yahzi

    That: Andrew Sullivan is an idiot.  I am revising that.  Andrew Sullivan is a self-loathing idiot.  I mean on the same level as Boomer Esiason.

    “Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires.” - John Steinbeck (Disputed)

    by RichM on Fri Apr 04, 2014 at 11:42:53 AM PDT

  •  Asdf (6+ / 0-)


    Thank you for making the precise point I have been trying to make over on the other thread about this.

    Right wingers should be dancing handsprings over his actions.

    The free market has spoken.

    The best way to tell a Democrat from a Republican is to present someone requiring food and shelter. The Democrat will want them housed and fed, even if they be faking need. The Republican will gladly see them starve until all doubt is removed.

    by GayIthacan on Fri Apr 04, 2014 at 11:55:43 AM PDT

  •  Brendan Eich Was Indonesian (9+ / 0-)

    When Eich defended his "private" bigotry (evidenced in public records of public political activity to regulate other people's private lives) as "we have Indonesian contributors who oppose gay marriage, but nobody complains about them", he proved he's unfit to CEO a volunteer foundation.

    He's fit to contribute code to Mozilla, like any bigot is, whether Indonesian or otherwise (and like any non-bigot is, Indonesian or otherwise). But the known values of the CEO telegraph behavior to members of the community as acceptable. It also telegraphs to community members that they're really not acceptable, and maybe won't be welcome, if it's up to the CEO - or to the board that makes them CEO.

    That's leadership, for good or for ill. And failing to understand the difference between a community volunteer who just contributes code but has no power or leadership, and the CEO who defines power and leadership, shows they're not fit to be CEO.

    "When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro." - HST

    by DocGonzo on Fri Apr 04, 2014 at 12:08:33 PM PDT

  •  Thank you Marcos! (8+ / 0-)

    Your support is greatly appreciated. I have been involved in debates about gay rights, racial rights and women's rights for many years. I consider them all to be of equal importance as human rights, even though it is gay rights that effects me the most in terms of personal circumstances.

    I did two diaries on Eich's situation. I was very disturbed by the comments saying that it was a human rights violation for him to suffer economic consequences for what was just a political opinion. The opinion to support bigotry of any kind is not just a matter of opinion. Eich's right to political speech does not include a get out of jail free card in the court of public opinion.

    •  It's been labeled a political opinion but I'm not (0+ / 0-)

      so sure it's not a religious belief. I suppose there are wackos out there that have their anti-gay beliefs not grounded on even wackier religious beliefs. If a lower level employee that was forced to resign (either that or get fired) they might have a claim of religious discrimination.  I know I would shun the person and say I can't work effectively with the person.  That being said I'm glad he resigned and I think it was great that so many people spoke up and forced the issue.  I would have asked for his resignation if I was on the Board.  I think its the right move.

      If I comply with non-compliance am I complying? Sarcasm is the ability to insult stupid people without them realizing it.

      by thestructureguy on Fri Apr 04, 2014 at 02:30:57 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Wonder if we're going to get a diary (0+ / 0-)

      saying it's wrong to pressure companies to drop advertising for their product/company/service that is heard on Rush Limbaugh's program.

  •  I agree with A.S. (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Richard Lyon, dewtx, dewolf99, badscience

    that this was intolerance; but I don't view intolerance of bigotry as a negative. The less tolerant that society becomes of bigotry, the better off we all are.

     Push the assholes out to the fringe where they belong.

  •  A thought (7+ / 0-)

    As soon as I rread about Eich I uninstalled Mozilla from my PC. I would guess that Mozilla has some sort of mechanism to show that I had done so, I wonder how many uninstall notices they have gotten sine he was hired?

  •  Yes the markets won! (0+ / 0-)

    So can we stick to market methodology, rather than government  forcing florists and bakers to participate in gay weddings? Let the markets sort them out as well.

    •  As soon as those florists and bakers... (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Medium Head Boy, poco

      ...give back the value of LGBT tax money that went to pay for the roadways and other utilities that were built that allow for those businesses to be able to be storefront businesses, sure. LGBT people should not be expected to subsidize homophobic businesses.

    •  The government isn't "forcing" florists (7+ / 0-)

      and bakers to participate in gay weddings. Florists and bakers that have public business can't discriminate. Just like lunch counters can't discriminate. This is long ago settled.

      And those businesses that are discriminatory will to some degree be impacted by their markets. And legislation which is intended to allow bigotry for "sincerely-held beliefs" gets enough pushback in most places that even kooks like Jan Brewer will veto it.

    •  I disagree. All societies set limits on what is (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Pale Jenova

      and what is not acceptable behavior by their citizens.  In the US, these limits are imposed through the actions of a democratically elected government, albeit imperfectly.

      The majority of our elected officials decided that racial and religious discrimination was no longer acceptable behavior in the 1960s.  Prior to that the majority had decided that is was acceptable behavior.  And for more than the first half of our country's existence, a majority had not only decided that discrimination was acceptable but in addition that slavery was also acceptable.

      I'd like to see the government decide that discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity are no longer acceptable.  I may now be in the majority after 40+ years of being in the minority, or perhaps the pendulum hasn't quite swung that far.

    •  Oy. (0+ / 0-)

      Bakers and florists. The new oppressed classes.

      And God said, "Let there be light"; and with a Big Bang, there was light. And God said "Ow! Ow My eyes!" and in a flash God separated light from darkness. "Whew! Now that's better. Now where was I. Oh yea . . ."

      by Pale Jenova on Sat Apr 05, 2014 at 09:07:06 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  When you put a bigot in charge (7+ / 0-)

    It needs to cost you.

    For real Texas Kaos, you want, not .com. Before you win, you have to fight. Come fight along with us

    by boadicea on Fri Apr 04, 2014 at 12:50:12 PM PDT

  •  Thank you for this Kos! (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    dewtx, catwho, Liberal Capitalist

    For days now I've been reading conservative hand wringing over this resignation, and all it makes me say is "you guys are some short sighted, small-brained, mouth breathing assholes!"

    The KKK argument you made was EXACTLY the same one I made in my head as I read comments on redstate and hotair (freaking pathetic). Can't you guys see that its the SAME DAMN THING?!?

    They make up lies like "Obama used the IRS to illegally find the Prop 8 donation" to rile up their base (freaking disgusting). No you imbeciles, it is California law that allowed us to discover this bigoted donation. if it was a donation to Neo-Nazi's, would y'all be so upset? PESH!

    And yes, live by market forces DIE BY MARKET FORCES (you can't have your cake and eat it to, you hypocrites). Same thing with that ridiculous Arizona law that Tech behemoths like APPLE boycotted by threatening to move away from the state. Your owners only care about money, THAT'S WHAT WE'VE BEEN TRYING TO TELL YOU THIS WHOLE TIME (that's why we support more regulation and campaign finance reform)!

    Only now that our oh so fragile religious conservatives didn't get their way do they all the sudden have problems with big corporations...

    When will they ever learn...

    UNINSTALLING MITT ROMNEY..... █████████████ 100%

    by saxoman1 on Fri Apr 04, 2014 at 12:53:10 PM PDT

  •  Why do we expect certain people to be perfect (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    from the start? Honest question. I feel there is a double standard when it comes to looking deep inside and changing one's prior beliefs.

    When a politician or business executive changes beliefs, that's opportunism. When it's a service member or our neighbor, that's honorable. Why is that? Is that separation related to our existing bias? (Meaning we already disrespect or distrust the politician, so we don't take their word.)


    [Comment reposted verbatim from teacherken's earlier diary about a Marine changing his position on marriage equality. As a human being first and a tech employee second, I am not upset that Eich resigned. I'm just trying to gather others' insight when it comes to switching positions on any given issue.

    Obviously, Eich has not switched his position, and thus felt the storm. But I guarantee you if Mitt Romney came out in favor of marriage equality tomorrow, no one here would take him seriously. But we do take our neighbors seriously. Why the difference?]

    •  What do they have to gain? (0+ / 0-)

      It comes down to whether they have something to gain by changing their position.  If they don't, I don't see a reason to disbelieve them.  If they do, I take it with a gigi-ton of salt.

      Democracy, if done properly, is rude, messy, and loud

      by allensl on Fri Apr 04, 2014 at 02:33:06 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Romney's an extreme case for me, having been both (0+ / 0-)

      for and against abortion and numerous other issues.  So I don't believe ANY position he takes right away given his extreme flip flopping, even in the context of the typical politician who usually attempts to please everyone.

      (I know many people think his 47% remarks revealed the real Romney.  I'm less certain that he wasn't just saying what he thought the donors wanted to hear.)

  •  Bottom line (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    he chose to leave because he could not tolerate their intolerance with his bigotry.  I think it's fair all around.

    If you acknowledge it, you can change it.

    by Raggedy Ann on Fri Apr 04, 2014 at 01:32:25 PM PDT

  •  They could call it "Firefucks." (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Feadog, No Exit, Pale Jenova
    Given that it's a free market, conservatives should feel free to start up a competitive product, a browser for haters.

    Think about the baby Jesus. Up in that tower, letting His hair down so that the three wise men could climb up and spin the dreidle and see if there's six more weeks of winter. -- Will and Grace

    by Rikon Snow on Fri Apr 04, 2014 at 01:48:16 PM PDT

    •  And if you try to go to the wrong site (0+ / 0-)

      The error message says, "You can't go to that Commie Pinko Liberal Website, you Socialist Fuckstick!"

      And God said, "Let there be light"; and with a Big Bang, there was light. And God said "Ow! Ow My eyes!" and in a flash God separated light from darkness. "Whew! Now that's better. Now where was I. Oh yea . . ."

      by Pale Jenova on Sat Apr 05, 2014 at 09:06:00 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  I think this is our only weapon against (4+ / 0-)

    those who want to buy our elections. The public shaming of CEOs and our choice of what to buy and what not to buy.

  •  I don't think it was market forces. (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    dewolf99, Medium Head Boy, burlydee

    It was really shifting cultural forces. The seismic shift in acceptance over the past four years has meant we no longer need to wait for market forces to play out. Mozilla pulled the plug long before there could be any financial damage, not so much because they were afraid of such financial damage but because they simply didn't want their brand associated with a "controversial" topic that's rapidly being resolved of its controversy.

    OK Cupid used social pressure, not financial. It wasn't a boycott so much as it was a public shaming.

    Non futuis apud Boston

    by kenlac on Fri Apr 04, 2014 at 01:51:13 PM PDT

    •  Brand Damage Control (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      Didn't happen.

      Half the board of Mozilla resigned.

      Developers (who were married and not straight) said that would no longer have anything to do with Mozilla.

      Brandon Eich had only two choices:

      1) Remain and kill Mozilla
      2) Leave and let the brand reheal

      Those WERE the only options.

      Eich is welcome to have an opinion. But he was poison to the Mozilla brand.

      Republicans who fear the US turning into Greece want to implement austerity measures... like Greece.

      by feloneouscat on Fri Apr 04, 2014 at 04:19:57 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Andy's Gay, Catholic, Tory shtick has gotten both (3+ / 0-)

    stale and predictable.

    "Stupidity is far more dangerous than evil, for evil takes a break from time to time, stupidity does not." -- Anatole France

    by terremoto on Fri Apr 04, 2014 at 01:53:05 PM PDT

  •  so he's the one (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    JesseCW, Lefty Coaster

    Javascript is the bane of my existence.  It is one of the worst programming languages (or at least its implementations) that I have ever had the misfortune to encounter.

    A pox on his house.

    And there's also that whole bigot thing.

  •  So the Hollywood Black List of the 1950s must (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    HangsLeft, Darmok, Lefty Coaster

    be market forces as well, as well as the other anti-left and anti-communist witch hunts.  Who would have thought?

    I contributed to the No on Prop 8 campaign.  I am ashamed of how some on my side are acting.  

    The most important way to protect the environment is not to have more than one child.

    by nextstep on Fri Apr 04, 2014 at 01:58:02 PM PDT

  •  On this note (0+ / 0-)

    It seems like time for Kos to get a good app for mobile commenting.

    In every deliberation we must consider the impact on the seventh generation... even if it requires having skin as thick as the bark of a pine. -The Great Law of the Iroquois

    by BrianCricketRakita on Fri Apr 04, 2014 at 01:59:52 PM PDT

  •  I disagree (6+ / 0-)

    There is no argument on the question of how distasteful Eich's position on same sex marriage is, but the larger principle is whether someone should lose his or her job because they exercised their civil rights. Eich came under pressure for making a contribution to a reprehensible political campaign. However, if a CEO of a Corporation - or any employee - is pushed out of his/her job, not for any failure to do the job, but for their political activities, then I have to object. No one is accusing him of discriminating against gay people at Mozilla. In fact, no one has to my knowledge accused him of any discrimination at all. He gave $1000 to a political campaign against same-sex marriage a few years back. Although reprehensible to all of us, he has the right to make such donations. How many people here would be fine with being fired because they gave money to a Democratic candidate?

    Andrew Sullivan, in my constitutionally protected opinion, is right. You forfeit the right to complain about censorship in general when you approve of censorship of people whose opinions you abhor. To quote Voltaire: I disagree with what you say, but I will fight to the death for your right to say it.

    Voting is the means by which the public is distracted from the realities of power and its exercise.

    by Anne Elk on Fri Apr 04, 2014 at 02:00:05 PM PDT

    •  Agreed, but the market helped him make that (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      CoyoteMarti, sukeyna


      He could have stayed in the CEO role and watch revenues plummet and talented people go elsewhere for a job leaving Mozzilla with dregs.  But instead of jeopardizing the entire business, he felt he was unwelcome and left.  

      Just like advertisers won't advertise on Limbaugh show because enough people have boycotted their products, users and suppliers of Mozillas software will look elsewhere besides Firefox to get what they need from a programming standpoint.  Everyone is free to decide not to use a service are product, or to work for bigots.  Freedom to choose.  If it means that business goes under, or the CEO ala Chik-fil-A realizes that there aren't enough bigots in the world to support their business plan, they can close up shop, change their tune, or leave and find a Mississippi business that will take them and pay them for their service.

      •  All the same, I don't take any pleasure (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        sneakers563, SpamNunn, Just Bob

        in seeing this type of incident applauded. Eich is probably not a good CEO for a lot of reasons, the prime one being that he was stupid enough to make a traceable contribution like that. But I don't like seeing this turn of events. I don't have an ounce of pity for the man, but I have a lot of sympathy for the principle that's getting a beating here.

        Voting is the means by which the public is distracted from the realities of power and its exercise.

        by Anne Elk on Fri Apr 04, 2014 at 02:15:21 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  People are not required to use Mozilla. (0+ / 0-)

      That's all that happened. Enough people decided that they were going to look to other companies for programs that Mozilla reacted and Eich resigned. And now it seems like half of liberaldom is jumping at the bit to demand that people accept bigotry. He didn't have to resign.

  •  this could only happen in the tech world (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Lefty Coaster

    Im glad there is still a section of U.S. society that does not celebrate or condone gay bashing

    stuck in nazi land

    by Krush on Fri Apr 04, 2014 at 02:00:29 PM PDT

  •  Really, kos, I expected more from you. Sigh. (0+ / 0-)

    Market forces only work on liberals and progressives who have their benefits and wages cut.
    It is improper for market forces to adversely impact a conservative.

    See how easy that is?

    What we call god is merely a living creature with superior technology & understanding. If their fragile egos demand prayer, they lose that superiority.

    by agnostic on Fri Apr 04, 2014 at 02:02:33 PM PDT

    •  I expected more from liberals. (0+ / 0-)

      But I've got half of everyone here telling me that I'm a bully for not using Mozilla products and that if only I and others tolerated bigotry, then Eich wouldn't have his career ruined, and resultantly, it's our fault. We're the bad guys for not using Mozilla. Seeing the eager defense of Eich from so many here really is making me feeling literally sick to my stomach. And I don't even think the people demanding that we tolerate bigotry even realize that they're defending bigotry.

      •  At the back of their mind (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Old Sailor

        they are thinking about all the personal bigotries they have that they don't want to be punished for.

        That's always the way it is. Trying to take privilege away from the 1% makes the 99% think about what they stand to lose; so only the people at the bottom dare to talk about it.

        Which is why Sullivan is where he is at: because he has privilege. As long as he does, he will always be on the side of the oppressors.

        You can go through the comments here of people defending Eich and find a single common thread: they all have something to lose.

        The irony, of course, is that the vast majority of them are not prejudiced enough to actually suffer for their petty bigotries. But in fear of their future and unspecified interests, they will defend the status quo, however unfair it is (even to them). You know, just like old people keep voting Republican. When we can convince people that they won't lose their position when they lose their privilege, they'll be a lot easier to talk to.

  •  I have to say this makes me uneasy (5+ / 0-)

    Where do we draw the line on revenge and vigilantism?

    Are there other issues that could be treated in the same manner?

    How many of us are perfect?

    DOMA passed by wide margins in both chambers and was signed into law by Bill Clinton in 1996.

    DoJ didn't stop defending DOMA until 2011 and then it was on the basis of the Fifth Amendment. They continued to enforce DOMA even then. The letter to the Speaker draw a distinction on the Fourteen Amendment.

    iii  While significant, that history of discrimination is different in some respects from the discrimination that burdened African-Americans and women.    See Adarand Constructors, Inc. v. Pena, 515 U.S. 200, 216    (1995) (classifications based on race “must be viewed in light of the historical fact that the central purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment was to eliminate racial discrimination emanating from official sources in the States,” and “[t]his strong policy renders racial classifications ‘constitutionally suspect.’”); United States v. Virginia, 518 U.S. 515, 531 (1996) (observing that “‘our Nation has had a long and unfortunate history of sex discrimination’” and pointing out the denial of the right to vote to women until 1920).    In the case of sexual orientation, some of the discrimination has been based on the incorrect belief that sexual orientation is a behavioral characteristic that can be changed or subject to moral approbation. Cf. Cleburne, 473 U.S. at 441 (heightened scrutiny may be warranted for characteristics “beyond the individual’s control” and that “very likely reflect outmoded notions of the relative capabilities of” the group at issue); Boy Scouts of America v. Dale, 530 U.S. 640 (2000) (Stevens, J., dissenting) (“Unfavorable opinions about homosexuals ‘have ancient roots.’” (quoting Bowers, 478 U.S. at 192)).
    It wasn't until the 2013 SCOTUS decision that DOMA was ruled unconstitutional on the basis of the Fourteen Amendment.

    Mozilla may be a unique case. It's a nonprofit that depends heavily on volunteer efforts. The argument that people refuse to work with or for Eich ignores that fact that many of the same people worked with him for 15 years or more and had no problem with him until his Prop 8 donation came to light. He had never given anyone a reason to call him a bigot.

    If everyone who was on the wrong side of the issue before 2013 is to be punished, there is going to be much damage done.

    I'm a Vietnam Era vet. I'm also an Erma Bombeck Era vet. When cussing me out and calling me names please indicate which vet you would like to respond to your world changing thoughts.

    by Just Bob on Fri Apr 04, 2014 at 02:12:06 PM PDT

    •  plus, we need to be prepared for the reverse (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      lgmcp, Darmok

      actions against Progressives for speaking out for left-wing issues can (and undoubtedly will be) called out for public retribution as well because CONSEQUENCES.

      And that makes everything okay.

      Красота спасет мир --F. Dostoevsky

      by Wisper on Fri Apr 04, 2014 at 02:44:43 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I don't know that it "makes everything okay" (0+ / 0-)

        I'm tried of the culture wars. There has to be more to politics than that.

        I'm a Vietnam Era vet. I'm also an Erma Bombeck Era vet. When cussing me out and calling me names please indicate which vet you would like to respond to your world changing thoughts.

        by Just Bob on Fri Apr 04, 2014 at 02:58:20 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  This IS the reverse (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Old Sailor

        The other side has been doing this to us forever. Conservatives have always, always, always fired, boycotted, shamed, and punished dissenting views.
        As they say, they only call it class warfare when we fight back.

    •  How is not using Mozilla... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Old Sailor

      ...revenge and vigilantism and punishment?

    •  He wasn't just on the wrong side (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Old Sailor

      He actively worked to make sure people in the LGBT community were treated as second class citizens. And even worse, he's refused to change. He still believes what he did was fine.

      Time is of no account with great thoughts, which are as fresh to-day as when they first passed through their authors' minds ages ago. - Samuel Smiles

      by moviemeister76 on Fri Apr 04, 2014 at 05:17:34 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Don't look to me to defend the man. (0+ / 0-)

        I'm want nothing to do with the culture wars.

        I shared my thoughts above.

        I'm a Vietnam Era vet. I'm also an Erma Bombeck Era vet. When cussing me out and calling me names please indicate which vet you would like to respond to your world changing thoughts.

        by Just Bob on Fri Apr 04, 2014 at 05:32:35 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I suspect... (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Old Sailor

          ...that people in the LGBT community would prefer not to be involved either, but they don't exactly have a choice, do they? And as long as they do not, I am not going to leave them fending for themselves. And if you didn't want to be involved, why even comment about it?

          Time is of no account with great thoughts, which are as fresh to-day as when they first passed through their authors' minds ages ago. - Samuel Smiles

          by moviemeister76 on Fri Apr 04, 2014 at 10:53:06 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  We draw the line at unfairness (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Old Sailor

      If you are supporting a policy that is unfair to other people, then you are wrong.

      Not opposing Eich as a member of Mozilla is different than not opposing Eich as the leader of Mozilla. You have, in effect, said that because his fellow employees were even a little bit tolerant once, they must now be infinitely tolerant. You are now punishing them for allowing him to work at what he is good at (coding) because they don't want to let him work at what he is bad at (leading).

      And we know he's a bad leader, because... he supports a policy that is unfair.

      •  Who is "we"? (0+ / 0-)

        Are you the spokesperson for Dkos?

        Go find someone else to fight with. I'm an old man and I'm not up to it.

        I'm a Vietnam Era vet. I'm also an Erma Bombeck Era vet. When cussing me out and calling me names please indicate which vet you would like to respond to your world changing thoughts.

        by Just Bob on Fri Apr 04, 2014 at 07:25:56 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  I suppose your attitude would be no different if (4+ / 0-)

    he were "asked to resign" for filming an anti-Prop 8 commercial or tithing to a Wiccan church?

    I agree with Sullivan.   Calling him a bigot for holding a long standing religious belief held by 1.2 billion Catholics alone seems extreme.  Your religious views should not be a litmus test for holding a job.  The way that you actually treat the people you work with would seem to be more important.  

    If you get confused, listen to the music play - R. Hunter

    by SpamNunn on Fri Apr 04, 2014 at 02:16:56 PM PDT

    •  When you want the government... (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Medium Head Boy, burlydee, Old Sailor discriminate against a group of people, you are a bigot. I know bigots don't like their bigotry being pointed out, but it is bigotry.

      It's so infuriating to see so many people on this site defending bigotry the past couple of days.

      •  Who is defending bigotry? (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        No one I have seen here has done so.  Some people have defended freedom of conscience, freedom of expression, the right of a person to advance their political views in spite of the fact that they disagree with your own.

        Everyone here supports gay marriage.  And for that you are calling them bigots?

        I think your definition of bigotry is too sweeping.  All law discriminates, that is its fundamental task. It discriminates between right and wrong, what is allowed and not allowed, and so on.  It discriminates in terms of groups of people: children are not allowed to vote or purchase alcohol; 25 year olds are not allowed to be US Senators; women and minorities, among others are 'protected groups' under Title VII ,and so on.  Do you want 6 year old children to be able to purchase alcohol and cigarettes? Presumably not. Does the fact that you support laws to prevent this make you a bigot? Certainly not.

    •  Your assumption (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Medium Head Boy, burlydee, Old Sailor

      that 1.2 billion Catholics are anti-gay bigots is likely wrong.

    •  Your mistake is believing that those (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      are two equal positions... they are not. It use to be a long standing belief that whites were superior to blacks.  Times changed.  It used to be a long standing belief that women shouldn't work.  times changed.  Its used to be a long standing belief that gay people were sinners.  Times changed...

      It wasn't his religious views that got him fired.  It was his support for Prop 8.  Or did Jesus or John Smith command conservatives to use the government to discriminate against gay people.  

  •  Andrew was so upset I got two personal replies (0+ / 0-)

    "The poor can never be made to suffer enough." Jimmy Breslin

    by merrywidow on Fri Apr 04, 2014 at 02:23:46 PM PDT

  •  I doubt if anyone can give me a link for Andrew (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Medium Head Boy

    denouncing the Southern Baptist's boycott of Disney or the boycott of the Dixie Chicks or any other conservative boycotts over the years.

    Assuming he didn't denounce them, then he should be honest about his objections, which wouldn't have anything to do with not wanting private citizens to be subject to boycotts, but would instead just be "yeah for my side, boo for the other side".

  •  It's more of a free market that most realize (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    CoyoteMarti, Russycle

    Much of the programming at Mozilla is done, as I understand,  on a volunteer basis. No one has to volunteer, and they could not hire all that expertise.

    If the volunteers don't respect the CEO then the CEO will go, not the volunteers.

    The US Supreme Court has by its actions and rhetoric has ceased to be legitimate. Whiskey Tango Foxtrot - over

    by Rick B on Fri Apr 04, 2014 at 02:28:03 PM PDT

  •  "Is breathing bad for you?" by Andrew Sullivan (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    allensl, terremoto

    Such. A. Wanker. Contrarianism for Toddlers.

  •  So he's the guy (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Lefty Coaster

    So he's the guy to blame every time JAVA fucks up my browsing experience.

    Crooks and Liars crashes most followed by HuffPo.
    Ditch the java already.

    I would tell you the only word in the English language that has all the vowels in order but, that would be facetious.

    by roninkai on Fri Apr 04, 2014 at 02:38:52 PM PDT

    •  No (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      Java and Javascript are two completely different languages with different runtime environments. The naming similarity is for purely historical reasons (an early vision of executable Web content had JavaScript being used as a scripting language to modify the behavior of Java applets; although that's still technically possible, it's hardly ever done).

      Unfortunately when smart and educated people get crazy ideas they can come up with plausibly truthy arguments. -- Andrew F Cockburn

      by ebohlman on Sat Apr 05, 2014 at 01:04:15 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  And it wasn't just Prop. 8: (4+ / 0-)


    Eich only announced he was stepping down after it was revealed late Wednesday that he'd given money to Pat Buchanan's presidential campaign in 1992, and later to Ron Paul's campaign. Suddenly, in addition to defending a CEO who gave money to homophobic efforts, Mozilla would have to defend a CEO who supported Buchanan, a far right extremist and isolationist who's been accused of racist and anti-Semitic attacks, and who also was, rightly, driven off MSNBC -- though that took years longer to accomplish than the few weeks it took to purge Alec Baldwin.


    •  Why Is This Missed? (2+ / 0-)

      This has been ignored in almost all of the reporting on Eich. He supports racism, anti-Semitism, anti-gay, and anti-immigrant policies. This isn't some random religious objection (not that I give religion-based bigotry any credence,) he is a bigot through and through. The right is doing a good job at making sure this isn't discussed but it should be included in every report on Eich.

  •  I feel somewhat conflicted (7+ / 0-)

    Not by Eich -- I think if you are going to be the CEO of an organization for better or worse you are its face and choosing a CEO will always require a certain examination of "personal" traits.  Most of the time that is not going to favor those of us with less than conforming lifestyles.

    But for anything other than a marketing voice, spokesperson or CEO -- I don't like the idea that you would refuse to hire someone because of political beliefs.  

    I also think liberals are more likely to be the victims than the perpetrators of this kind of discrimination, and Eich is basically an outlier situation, but I don't care whether it helps people who think like I do.  Most of us are just working schlubs and there is already enough disincentive to becoming politically active.  

  •  The market knows all (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    except when it doesn't.

    Trust, but verify. - Reagan
    Vote, but Occupy. - commonmass

    When the rich have tripled their share of the income and wealth yet again, Republicans will still blame the poor and 3rd Way Democrats will still negotiate.

    by Words In Action on Fri Apr 04, 2014 at 02:41:44 PM PDT

  •  What, now they're against McCarthyism? (0+ / 0-)

    Who knew?

    "The extinction of the human race will come from its inability to EMOTIONALLY comprehend the exponential function." -- Edward Teller

    by lgmcp on Fri Apr 04, 2014 at 02:57:09 PM PDT

  •  So when the lady with the John Kerry (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    thestructureguy, Lefty Coaster

    bumper sticker was fired by her boss, that was just the free market working?

    I do think CEO positions are different, but most of us are just working schlubs who already have enough disincentive to becoming politically active so I think making people fear for their jobs because they take unpopular positions is a really troubling development.  

    Having said that, when a position is so visible that customers and workers and developers see you as the face of the company, the company has to act.  So I don't feel sorry for Eich, but I don't find this a cause for celebration.  It has the potential for too many toxic offshoots.

    We should be really careful what we wish for here.

    •  It's not a matter of "wish[ing] for" anything. (0+ / 0-)

      It's simply that the situations you've referenced are not comparable. As you say, "CEO positions are different," and "the company has...act[ed]" in the face of massive free market response.

      That's not at all like an employer going after a single employee because he disapproves of their politics.

      An instance more analogous to the "working schlubs" to whom you refer might be a low-level employee who, say, berates customers with offensive or inflammatory political opinions. If enough customers tell the boss they'll not be patronizing his establishment anymore because of them, then it's his choice to act - or not - due to those market forces (just as Mozilla has).

      But a boss firing an employee merely because he disagrees with their politics or beliefs? That's another animal entirely, rather than the "toxic offshoot" against which you warn. There are no market forces involved there; only one person's objections to the beliefs of another.      

      •  No, it's not (0+ / 0-)

        I recognize that but I don't think for a minute that it won't be held up as comparable.  That's why I don't feel like celebrating.  

        •  I don't know that I feel like celebrating, either. (0+ / 0-)

          I'd call it more in the nature of "relief" at not having to cross another product, service or merchant off my list.

          But if anyone tries to hold them up as comparable, the difference between mass reaction from customers and a boss who fires an employee solely for their personal opinions is pretty easy to explain. And I doubt any reasonable person would expect an enterprise to retain an employee whose presence damages the business in the eyes of its patrons.    

    •  Employees need to be protected (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Lefty Coaster

      Employers need to be occasionally taught a lesson.

  •  To be succinct, Andrew Sullivan is a total dick (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Old Sailor

    He was way back when he managed THE NEW REPUBLIC and he's only gone further down the road to 'assholedom' since.

    I also seem to remember him screeching a different tune when Alec Baldwin was accused of calling a photographer a 'faggot' in a moment of temper.

  •  A free market works when consumers have (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Lefty Coaster

    complete information to make an informed decision about how to spend their dollars.

    Which is why the Kochs, etal., fight so hard against transparency in political donations and dark money.  A full revelation of what and who they fund who certainly send a big chunk of the free market skittering away.  

    If you can't deal with consequences of what you stand for, and where you put the money, tough shit.

    The most violent element in society is ignorance.

    by Mr MadAsHell on Fri Apr 04, 2014 at 03:12:42 PM PDT

  •  Perpetuate (0+ / 0-)

    Intolerance and hate. Perfect.

    You best believe it does

    by HangsLeft on Fri Apr 04, 2014 at 03:22:16 PM PDT

  •  They don't understand what MaCarthyism is. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Old Sailor

    It is not pointing a fact about a person.  Nor is it calling for consequences b/c of that fact.  If McCarthy could prove X was a current communist party member, and we decided we did not want such in government positions bc of ColdWar concerns, that would be a not improper exercise of democratic power.  Just as we could decide we did not want members of the KKK in public office.

    But that is not McCarthyism.

    McCarthyism is guilt by association and innuendo.  It is saying that bc X is a CPUSA member, Y can not be trusted.  Or worse, bc I merely accused X of that.

    Owners, i.e. shareholders, etc, and users of businesses have every right to decide they will not support bigots running their companies or buy products from same.

    It is not McCarthyism, but accountability.

  •  I'm excited (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Old Sailor, BludevlsAdvocate

    I have long believed that at some point, the extremism of the right would cease to be acceptable. Discrimination against intolerance by a society is shunning. Eich's wasn't being discriminated against, Mozilla was. Just as Eich's had the freedom to contribute to Prop 8, Pat Buchanan, and Ron Paul--he was a general bigot it appears--society has the right to either contribute to the company that pays him or not. What should scare the crap out of the cultural right wing is that the majority culture in this country is beginning to fight back. This in no way diminishes anyone's right to free speech or donations. What we're saying as a society to people like Paula Deen and Eich is that we don't approve of your views and we choose not to endorse them by exercising our freedom to not subsidize you with our pocketbooks. All I can add is, it's about time.

    Slut power. Use it. Own it!

    by txdemfem on Fri Apr 04, 2014 at 03:41:58 PM PDT

  •  Not really that happy we drove out... (0+ / 0-)

    ...a guy who gave $1000 to the Prop. 8 drive, when the guy who gave a $1,000,000 to Prop. 8 is feeling no pain. Nor is the minister who backed Prop. 8 and went on to encourage Uganda's hateful anti-gay legislation. None of the other right-wing billionaires who aid and abet these efforts is feeling any pain whatsoever.

    So who did we go after? The guy who gave a $1000. I'm sorry to react so negatively, but what comes to mind in this instance isn't "Woohoo!  We won one!" It is: "We are one big bunch of pathetic fucks."

    How about next time we ignore the $1000 guy and go after the billionaires? Or is that too radical a proposition, to go after our real enemies?

    Join Essa in a revolt against the gods. Continue the fight, Causality.

    by rbird on Fri Apr 04, 2014 at 03:48:25 PM PDT

  •  Sullivan was also defending Ryan- he's an (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    terremoto, Old Sailor

    ass. I have no idea why anyone would pay for his content. He is David Brooks lite, a Thatcherite, who's largely clueless about the conservative movement he fawns over.  

  •  Please, Wingnut Explorer! Please! (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Lefty Coaster

    Oh, tech savvy Kossacks, please create a web browser than can only find Glenn Beck, Fox News, porn sites and Conservapedia.   That would be a wonderful gift, and save the Red Staters so much time.  

  •  An aside (0+ / 0-)

    Wouldn't it be nice if we could comment and like comments using the mobile site? wasn't that an improvement that was supposed to go live last summer?

  •  Internet will still be designed on desktops (0+ / 0-)

    You make it sound like no one will need a desktop computer. But software engineering will continue to use desktops and if the internet is to develop new capabilities it will be at the hands of desktop users.

  •  Nice try! (0+ / 0-)

    There is hypocrisy on both sides. The liberals who screamed for Eich's head are the same liberals who condemned all those radio stations who banned the Dixie Chicks. I've been listening to them for days on Huffington Post.

    Free speech applies to everybody. No matter whether they are saying something unpopular. No matter whether they're on your team or the other team. If you applaud the Mozilla people who forced Eich out, then tomorrow your boss can fire you when he finds out you donated to MoveOn.

    •  It's not "hypocrisy." (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Old Sailor

      It's simply a two-way street accommodating opposing points of view. Everyone gets to choose what speech or positions they judge to be abhorrent, and businesses - whether software or radio - choose how to respond to market forces.

      Your final comparison, however, doesn't apply. The hypothetical you suggest involves one person in authority - an employer - penalizing an employee for having opinions with which he personally disagrees.

      If, on the other hand, that employee was driving customers away with incessant spouting of ideology during transactions with customers, or perhaps creating a hostile atmosphere for other employees, the employer could reasonably be expected to choose not to retain a worker who was damaging his business.

      Just as Mozilla has done.

    •  There is no equivalence (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Old Sailor

      between a radio station removing popular music for an opinion about the President (at the time) and a racist, homophobic, anti-Semitic CEO. No equivalence at all, this is a completely false argument.

  •  I don't like Javascript either. (0+ / 0-)

    About the only thing going for it is comparison to whatever-it-was Microsoft was peddling then—VBScript.

  •  Kos why are you still using Javascript? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    Boycott the haters.

  •  Given the grief JavaScript has caused over the (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Pale Jenova

    years -- well.

    The market moves really slowly.

    LBJ, Van Cliburn, Ike, Wendy Davis, Lady Bird, Ann Richards, Barbara Jordan, Molly Ivins, Sully Sullenburger, Drew Brees: Texas is NO Bush League!

    by BlackSheep1 on Fri Apr 04, 2014 at 07:49:05 PM PDT

  •  Yay for us (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Lefty Coaster

    And by "us", I mean all the folks here on both sides of this issue. We are having an open debate with heartfelt opinions and trying to find some kind of consensus or at least mutual understanding on this matter.

    Compare that with the comments on anything similiar on the conservative sites and it would be vastly different. Even the slightest disagreement with the accepted version of truth would result in a call for banishment from conservatism if not permanent damnation to a literal hell.

    We are better than that and I appreciate all of your opinions, even if I do not agree with all of you. Thanks.

    •  I spend a fair amount of time looking at RW sites (0+ / 0-)

      and you're not kidding! There is a fair amount of comity here. Liberals for the most part are more thoughtful (by far) and better mannered.

      "If Wall Street paid a tax on every “game” they run, we would get enough revenue to run the government on." ~ Will Rogers

      by Lefty Coaster on Fri Apr 04, 2014 at 10:56:43 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  There's a kinda nifty column on what makes (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    rduran, Pale Jenova

    Mozilla not your average giant corporation, and why Eich's leadership hit an iceberg as a result, here:

    LBJ, Van Cliburn, Ike, Wendy Davis, Lady Bird, Ann Richards, Barbara Jordan, Molly Ivins, Sully Sullenburger, Drew Brees: Texas is NO Bush League!

    by BlackSheep1 on Fri Apr 04, 2014 at 09:18:21 PM PDT

  •  Brendan Eich (0+ / 0-)

    If you want to give the GOP $100,000,000.00, fine with me. But when you give a dollar to keep me from having the same rights as you (and I don"t know about you), then we have a problem.

skybluewater, Thumb, JWC, Sylv, CJB, fcvaguy, Chi, roonie, badger, TrueBlueMajority, Yoshimi, Shockwave, OLinda, mslat27, eeff, dsb, Bob Friend, Walt starr, dpeifer1949, Heart of the Rockies, Eternal Hope, whenwego, ehavenot, denig, retLT, Alna Dem, wader, revsue, Redfire, SneakySnu, RLF, Eyesbright, johanus, Steven Payne, defluxion10, liberte, papercut, zerelda, Curt Matlock, mungley, vacantlook, murrayewv, oortdust, Gowrie Gal, Tinfoil Hat, ichibon, Tonedevil, democracy inaction, Alice Venturi, grimjc, ajsuited, dewtx, viral, eru, markdd, Medium Head Boy, Kingsmeg, 417els, raptavio, smokeymonkey, JVolvo, middleagedhousewife, justiceputnam, thenekkidtruth, CA Nana, Tom Anderson, Pandoras Box, Thinking Fella, tegrat, FoundingFatherDAR, john07801, bvljac, camlbacker, karmsy, Richard Lyon, Dave in Northridge, sfbob, Uncle Moji, HCKAD, getlost, crose, Back In Blue, millwood, GeorgeXVIII, leonard145b, billso, cloudbustingkid, Assaf, Empower Ink, gizmo59, fb, mconvente, VelvetElvis, misterwade, JeffW, BobBlueMass, GAS, 6412093, Sixty Something, Youffraita, Thal3s, Involuntary Exile, bythesea, Buckeye Nut Schell, mattc129, Piren, cadfile, prettygirlxoxoxo, weaponsofmassdeception, Scott Wooledge, Norm in Chicago, Methinks They Lie, Bonsai66, petral, glitterlust, Ibis Exilis, moviemeister76, ruscle, mamamorgaine, just like that, FogCityJohn, LOrion, BludevlsAdvocate, tb mare, rja, nirbama, Oh Mary Oh, nosleep4u, slice, Onomastic, annieli, agrenadier, Liberal Capitalist, spooks51, implicate order, Mr MadAsHell, Mr Raymond Luxury Yacht, Teiresias70, IllanoyGal, thomask, LeftCoastTom, merrily1000, LSmith, IB JOHN, enhydra lutris, VTCC73, Vatexia, Hayate Yagami, Chitown Kev, allergywoman, Laurel in CA, Sister Inspired Revolver of Freedom, jacey, clubbing guy, The Book Bear, anodnhajo, Chrislove, Siri, IndieGuy, Trevin, nellgwen, a2nite, Deep Texan, Yonkers Boy, HypocrisyWatch, carolanne, Forest Deva, jts327, dotdash2u, Robynhood too, Australian2, allensl, aresea, Aunt Pat, ggfkate, bwtsang, marcr22, tampaedski, chicklet, duhban, saxoman1, TheDuckManCometh, SamLoomis, Prismatic Effect, patbahn, Penny GC, lehman scott, Zwenkau, Skyye, rduran, hbk, Caittus, anon004, Shawn87, numble, leftprogressive

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site