← Back to context

Comment by coldpie

8 years ago

I think it's legitimately a fascinating discussion point! Thank you for engaging me on it instead of freaking out. While we disagree, I do understand where you're coming from.

Again, the issue was not his "private religious views." The issue was when he used his power and influence to enforce those views on other people who did not subscribe to them. The line is crossed when one tries to enforce their personal beliefs on others via the government. It's not about politics--I think there are many things in politics about which reasonable people can disagree--it's specifically about enforcing a religious viewpoint on other people through the government. I don't force my religion on others; I think it's reasonable to demand that others do the same, and to enforce that demand through the means available to me, which may well include a boycott.

13 comments

coldpie

Reply
mythrwy  8 years ago

Sure likewise. I mean, no hard feelings but go all the way up the chain to parent. He suggests Brave browser shouldn't get funding (and people shouldn't use it?) because at one point Eich gave a couple thousand bucks to a (failed) campaign to prevent gay marriage from becoming legal.

And who cares? The question should be is the browser any good.

Do you think people should call his place of employment and claim they aren't going to use the product unless they "fire the pervert"? It's ridiculous. It really is. And I'd be saying exactly the same thing if the relationship were switched.

  • coldpie  8 years ago

    The Proposition 8 campaign was actually successful in re-prohibiting gay marriage in California for about four years before it was overturned, meaning four years of legal limbo for already-married couples and four continued years of second-class-citizen standing for gay couples looking to get married. It also pushed out some incredibly offensive TV ads, claiming the marriage equality movement wanted to use schools to turn children gay and other nonsense. You can understand how someone affected by that proposition, and the decades-long fight before it, might not be so quick to say "oh, you rascals, let's let bygones be bygones;" even if marriage was legalized in the end.

    I honestly don't know where I stand on Brave. I hate our current ad-supported world, and it's an interesting alternative to that. On the other hand, I loath Eich and have no interest in supporting him financially after what he has done. Mostly I just stay silent; my feelings aren't strong enough to actually oppose other people using it, but I won't use it myself.

    Note that I never said anything about Brave one way or the other. My response was simply that Eich's donation was not simply "free speech," it was a sincere and successful effort to enforce his personal religious views on others, and that it's perfectly fine to oppose that behavior.

    • mythrwy  8 years ago

      Ok. Understood.

      But people have all kinds of ideas about what constitutes "proper and fair". Some people feel differently about marriage and being gay than you do (Or I do). They might come here and argue about perversion and degradation of society and and what their kids are exposed to. And what can and can't be tolerated as far as behavior. And how marriage is such and such and doesn't apply etc. etc. And, they feel every bit as strong about it as you do. This isn't a wacky fringe view (yet) and it isn't considered "discriminatory" by the people professing it.

      As far as I know Eich doesn't condemn gay people for being gay. He just apparently has certain views on what constitutes marriage. And he isn't alone in these views. I don't agree. You don't agree. The Supreme Court doesn't agree. But the public crucification of the guy's professional work because of these beliefs (which as far as I know he kept private) is to me 100 times worse than the views he holds. And it's a dangerous stance to take. We've been here many times before. Moral crusaders (of all stripes) out to improve the world who do little but cause destruction. At some level we have to accept not everyone shares our backgrounds or political beliefs and work with this fact in a constructive, civil and reasonable manner. It's part of becoming an adult in a multicultural society.

      I appreciate you aren't trying to knock his work, that was OP. My only complaint is your original over the top rhetoric, other than that fine, I understand you have a different view than Eich. But you can not like an idea a person has without personally hating a person for having the idea. And that is the right thing to do.

  • mercer  8 years ago

    I think for quite a few people (including myself) it wasn't primarily about 1) his personal views being disagreeable to us, and/or 2) him 'expressing' these views through a donation, but rather 3) him being CEO of Mozilla.

    I'm still not certain whether I agree with what happened entirely, but calling it ridiculous is a bit of a stretch.

    Being in the position of CEO gives you many powers and perks, and I think it's perfectly acceptable that it also gives you responsibilities that may include 'not being controversial'. I'd say this is especially the case when you're CEO of a a very large, important, and well-known non-profit.

    Basically, it's the whole 'with great power comes great responsibility thing'. People in positions of power can be held to standards that don't necessarily apply to everyone else.

    I completely understand if people disagree with this position, but it's far from ridiculous.

    (and of course I can't speak for those who do feel that aforementioned reason #1 and #2 are enough).