No word on if he supports the GLBT community hook, line and sinker. That's the litmus.
EDIT: Wow. So if he does support the GLBT community, we don't need to know about it? My post that offensive to people? It's an important question to ask.
Edit 2: I just love tolerance ;)
Edit 3: I'm removing the /sarcasm tag because people are really confused by it for some reason.
You might say "requirements for the candidate's personal political opinions", others might say "requirements for the candidate to not hold offensive, discriminatory political opinions".
Others might say "requirements that the incumbent -- not candidate -- be able and willing to effectively manage PR issues that affect the company's interests, whatever their origin or relation to the incumbent."
> others might say "requirements for the candidate to not hold offensive, discriminatory political opinions".
Or just you know don't give significant amount of money to enshrine your offensive and discriminatory political opinions into law, expect open arms when nominated to head a company generally considered progressive then whine that it's unfair to scrutinise and criticise your actions.
Is that what we're calling $1000 today? That's not even rent money in the bad areas of the Bay Area.
> then whine that it's unfair
Citation please.
I really can't believe HN right now, trying to deny the fact that prop 8 passed. Unbelievable. Let's all rewrite history, getting rid of an inconvenient fact. Oh, and screw political freedom too.
Because if you are a reasonable person, then you realize crucifying a guy for having a consensus, mainstream opinion is absurd. It's revisionist, retro-active punishing from the political losers here. A majority of California agreed with him.
Not only that, but targeting Mozilla but ignoring JavaScript is the absolute height of hypocrisy and hollowless grandstanding, done by people that have a financial stake in JavaScript, but not Mozilla.
I'm not sure what defines a "consensus, mainstream opinion", but support for gay marriage has been over 50% for a few years now. Hardly a definitive yes, but it's certainly not a consensus to the opposite. In California specifically, 61% supported gay marriage in 2013[1].
And he wasn't 'crucified' for having the opinion, it was because he actively contributed to a campaign. Holding a private opinion and financially contributing to a cause are quite different things.
Not only that, but targeting Mozilla but ignoring JavaScript is the absolute height of hypocrisy
It absolutely is not. Does "JavaScript" pay Eich a salary? Is it a money making entity? Does he even have anything to do with the day to day running of it? Of course not.
You do realize that we're talking about Prop 8, which was 2008 here. Prop 8 passed.
Again, stop this revisionist bullshit.
> Does "JavaScript" pay Eich a salary?
Eich's entire fucking resume could be:
"Created JavaScript"
That's it. He would sail from conference to conference until the end of bloody time, raking in thousands if not millions of dollars here.
OkCupid wanted it both ways. They wanted to keep their skin out of the game when it would hurt their bottom line, but wanted to make political points for that easy PR gain. So they targeted Mozilla.
The Prop 8 result doesn't matter. The Mozilla community are not the population of California. They are entitled to have different opinions to them.
As for the JS stuff, you're now just throwing out a bunch of coulds, woulds and shoulds. Could he really go from conference to conference until the end of time? The same people calling for him to be fired would likely boycott conferences. So they're just as consistent as you say they aren't.
> I really can't believe HN right now, trying to deny the fact that prop 8 passed.
So you're just making shit up as you go now?
> Let's all rewrite history, getting rid of an inconvenient fact.
Given you apparently aren't able to read things written on your screen, that's fucking golden.
> Oh, and screw political freedom too.
You're politically free, you're free to be whatever bigoted asshole you want to be. And others are free to demonstrate their disagreement, which they did with Eich.
Let me guess: you decided this just now? Right? You're quite the asshole yourself.
> And others are free to demonstrate their disagreement, which they did with Eich.
Eich is not the leader of a fucking movement!! He's a private individual, that supported a cause in private. He's not Hitler, and this is not the Night of the Long Knives here.
You are advocating mob rule and mob justice. That is a sin far worse than supporting a movement to prevent gay marriage.
ummm....no. It was in my original post to try to minimize pushback from those that take offense to anything that they disagree with or may find at any time offensive.
The question remains, however. Does he or does he not support the GLBT community. It was of such consequence to Brendan Eich that he was let go. So it must be that Chris Beard does support this community. Because we all know that having no opinion on this matter cannot stand.
Wait, is it a real question or sarcasm? You seem to switch back and forth.
> Does he or does he not support the GLBT community. It was of such consequence to Brendan Eich that he was let go.
I don't think that's an accurate description. Eich's past public participation in a particular attack on equal rights targetting that community triggered a public controversy including publicized boycotts of Mozilla, but I don't think that there is any basis for concluding that he was let go because of his stance on LGBT issues rather than his perceived inability and/or unwillingness as CEO to manage a PR issue that was affecting Mozilla. (And even that may just have been the straw that broke the camel's back -- as I recall, there were reports that he was a controversial choice with split support on the board from the outset for reasons unrelated to the LGBT issue.)
> So it must be that Chris Beard does support this community.
Or that the actual issue around Eich is more complex than the what you are trying to simplify it to.
So it wasn't because Brendan supported the traditional insituation of marriage that he was let go? He just decided one day shortly after getting the position he didn't want it?
More complex? So if Chris Beard donated to Focus on the Family (hypothetically) he would be just fine at Mozilla?
Come on, Brendan Eich would still be CEO if he didn't make that one political donation and came out supporting the community.
Since noone is explaining it to you honestly, I'll tell you.
By implying that the LGBT interests are a campaign to be bought, or convinced by, or tricked into, you are showing a complete lack of understanding of the true reasons why people in the tech industry (who tend to be socially progressive) find the idea of fighting against gay marriage (which is what Brendan Eich did) completely appalling. You are also revealing yourself as an anti-progressive dinosaur who is on the wrong side of history when it comes to LGBT human rights.
I'm constantly amazed by the popularity of the phrase "wrong side of history". What does that even mean?
The Mongols wiped out vast numbers of villages and communities in their time. The names and culture of many of their victims were completely erased to history. It seems that they were on the "wrong side of history" even though they did not necessarily deserve their fate.
Consider Nikola Tesla: for the latter half of the 20th Century (and to some degree continues to be today), he was on the "wrong side of history" as opposed to the man who initially exploited and eventually competed with him, Thomas Edison.
A lot of common expressions don't hold up to scrutiny when examined in their most "literal" explanation.
This particular one has been used to associate with social civil rights. The implication is that 50 years from now gay and trans acceptance will be such a non-issue, that members of future generations will ask us why it took so long for us to pass such obvious legislation protecting human rights. Exactly the same way that we today look back at segregation and the civil rights movement and shake our heads.
Whatever people's personal or religious beliefs are on gay marriage, it is GOING to be 100% legal in the entire western world whether they like it or not. Desegregation wasn't very popular at the time it was put in either.
It doesn't mean anything, it's a simple political bandwagon campaign that's popular right now. There have been others and surely there will be more in the future.
Thank you for stereotype of me. That's quite progressive of you. And there is no right or wrong side of history, as we are not through with it yet.
Let it be known that in my original post, I did not single out one person, nor attack any one position. It was originally supposed to be a one-off remark/question. I knew exactly how it would ruffle feathers, but it's an honest question, as it was the central catalyst why Brendan decided to go. If that catalyst was so important to Mozilla, than the opposite of fighting against gay marriage, fighting for it, should be an opinion of the new CEO, if tolerance, community, acceptance, and freedom are so important to the organization. We should know about it.
You suggested that supporting the GLBT community is the same as falling for a lie. That's a straightforward attack on the position of the GLBT community and on people who support it.
It's cool if you want to back down from that attack -- I think it would be the right thing to do. But don't act like we don't know what words mean.
EDIT: Wow. So if he does support the GLBT community, we don't need to know about it? My post that offensive to people? It's an important question to ask.
Edit 2: I just love tolerance ;)
Edit 3: I'm removing the /sarcasm tag because people are really confused by it for some reason.