Brendan Eich wasn’t “Punished”

Nob Akimoto

Nob Akimoto

Nob Akimoto is a policy analyst and part-time dungeon master. When not talking endlessly about matters of public policy, he is a dungeon master on the NWN World of Avlis

Related Post Roulette

61 Responses

  1. Avatar Tod Kelly
    Ignored
    says:

    This seems a circular argument to me, and a wiggling of semantics.

    It’s absolutely true that Eich was let go for business concerns, but that kind of ignores the reason *why* he was let go for business concerns. I doubt very much the boycott was started because members of the community were concerned about what the opinions of *other* members of the community thought about Eich’s position. Rather, it seems that both things are going on: a desire for punishment among some driving a bushiness decision by others.

    It seems overkill, but if you want I can always cut and paste a fairly lengthy string of comments from Dennis’s post and my own (not to mention the intertubes in general) that suggest that punishment is very absolutely what is being hoped for by those supporting his firing.Report

    • Avatar veronica dire in reply to Tod Kelly
      Ignored
      says:

      Can I speak to my own personal response to this. Which, okay, may or may not relate to what anyone else felt, but it is a datapoint.

      I found out about this guy when someone posted the OkCupid thing and it showed up on my Facebook feed. Before that I hadn’t heard of him, at least not that I remember. (I’ve probably seen his name in some Javascript article or whatever, but it rang no bells.) The post said that he opposed gay marriage. That was more or less it.

      And that was all I needed to know. I was disappointed. Mozilla is a big deal, with a long history in tech. For me, this was very different from finding out some chicken restaurant where I did not eat anyway was run by people who hate me. This hit home.

      So, boycott? I suppose. Makes sense. After all, what the fuck were they thinking putting a joker like that in power?

      But I felt no sense of punishment. It was nothing like that. It was not a thought of, OMG, this guy did bad thing and I must make him pay! Not at all. Instead, it was more like, this guys runs a big-deal company and has all kinds of power and influence in tech and now he can use that power to hurt me and those like me.

      This is not punishment. It is self defense.Report

      • Avatar Troublesome Frog in reply to veronica dire
        Ignored
        says:

        Instead, it was more like, this guys runs a big-deal company and has all kinds of power and influence in tech and now he can use that power to hurt me and those like me.

        This is a key point, maybe not as much in this case but in many similar boycott cases. A lot of people are simply saying, “Why should I give you money that you will then turn around and use against me?”Report

      • Avatar Brandon Berg in reply to veronica dire
        Ignored
        says:

        Unless I am mistaken, his contribution to the anti-gay-marriage movement consisted of a $1000 donation to Proposition 8. It seems unlikely that the increase in compensation from being promoted from CTO to CEO would on the margin have caused him to make any additional such contributions in the future.

        Furthermore, given what has actually happened, it’s pretty clear that there’s no way he could have actually used his position as CEO to promote any similar agenda without an even bigger backlash.

        The idea that Eich would be a danger to gay people as CEO strikes me as sheer paranoia.Report

      • Avatar Chris in reply to veronica dire
        Ignored
        says:

        Yeah, he didn’t really have the sort of platform that would have allowed him to do any more than he already was.

        I doubt that had much to do with the reaction anyway.Report

      • Avatar Fnord in reply to veronica dire
        Ignored
        says:

        Unless I am mistaken, his contribution to the anti-gay-marriage movement consisted of a $1000 donation to Proposition 8. It seems unlikely that the increase in compensation from being promoted from CTO to CEO would on the margin have caused him to make any additional such contributions in the future.

        Suggesting that the only way a CEO can exercise power is donating money from the CEO salary seems a little over-simplified and/or naive.Report

      • Avatar Brandon Berg in reply to veronica dire
        Ignored
        says:

        I was responding to Troublesome Frog’s comment above, which I took to refer to money given to Eich as the CEO. On rereading, I think I was wrong, and that he meant giving money to the company generally.

        But again, given that there was this much backlash over a small, one-time, personal donation six years ago, the idea that he would have been able to actually use company resources or his position as CEO to promote an anti-gay agenda, even if he had the inclination to do so*, strikes me as implausbile.

        *He might be the kind of person who, you know, actually takes his job seriously.Report

      • Avatar Mike Schilling in reply to veronica dire
        Ignored
        says:

        The idea that Eich would be a danger to gay people as CEO strikes me as sheer paranoia.

        He’s already forced thousands of LGBTQ web programmers to code in JavaScript.Report

      • Avatar veronica dire in reply to veronica dire
        Ignored
        says:

        Right. I mean, I think “punishment” is the wrong model to understand this guy. On the other hand, yeah, Javascript — THE MAN MUST PAY!Report

      • Avatar veronica dire in reply to veronica dire
        Ignored
        says:

        But here’s the thing, the burden of proof is not on me. I don’t want some known homophobe running a big tech company, where I might someday work, where queer friends currently work, where this man has power that goes beyond mere economics. There is the culture of tech, and it is entering (too slowly) a place where guys like this are rejected. I see this as a good thing. I hope it continues.

        I was on the phone last week with a recruiter, trying to set up an interview for a really cool job, one that uses a really cool technology I’m excited about. Also, their work involves some pretty heavy mathematical modeling and stats.

        I’m good at that stuff, but I didn’t attend university, so it is hard for me to prove it to people. But they are looking for someone with functional programming chops, and those I have and can demonstrate. (I understand Monads!) From there perhaps they will see all I can do, and it will be a big break.

        This would be a great opportunity.

        But then, what if this place isn’t a good culture for queers?

        The law says they can’t discriminate, and that is a good law, but it does not solve everything. This could be a bad place for me. And this is the weight I have to carry.

        This is why I want homophobes out of places of influence. Self defense. My opportunity to thrive.

        (BTW, if anyone tries to argue that, maybe-perhaps, some tech job could be a “bad culture” for white-cis-straight guys, I’m gonna laugh at you.)Report

      • Avatar Mike Schilling in reply to veronica dire
        Ignored
        says:

        I’d think someone with your experiences would have an especially deep understanding of the extent and limitations of the condition of having a particular set of …

        Oh, monads. Never mind,Report

      • Avatar veronica dire in reply to veronica dire
        Ignored
        says:

        Oh God! 🙂Report

      • Avatar Jim Heffman in reply to veronica dire
        Ignored
        says:

        ” the burden of proof is not on me. ”

        I’m sorry, mister black person, but I just think that now that you and your family have moved into the neighborhood I’m not safe anymore. Black people have a known association with increased crime, and many black people have said things to the effect that they think crime should happen to non-black people, and as a black person yourself I’m sure you’re in support of black causes and attitudes.

        So, y’know, this refusal to let you into my shop, well, it’s not punishment, it’s self-defense. The burden of proof is not on me, after all.Report

    • Avatar Michael M. in reply to Tod Kelly
      Ignored
      says:

      @tod-kelly , I might think you have a point if this whole incident had happened in 2012, when Eich’s political contribution caused a run-of-the-mill Twitter kerfluffle and, to my knowledge, not much more. It prompted Eich’s non-apology on his blog and blew over. I’m sure somewhere in the interwebs there were isolated calls for his resignation as CTO of Mozilla, I wouldn’t be surprised if a few folks who had been contributing code to Mozilla projects decided to stop, but there certainly wasn’t anything approaching an organized boycott or an effort to punish Eich for his views.

      When a person with views as distasteful, bigoted and oppressive as Eich’s becomes elevated to the top position at Mozilla, I’m not sure what you think an appropriate response from supporters of equality and social justice is supposed to be. Eich effectively slapped LBGT people in the face, supporting a position that they are second-class and not worthy of the same basic rights as heterosexuals. It’s not a position he apologized for taking, it’s not something he regrets, it is not something he is even willing to acknowledge hurts anyone. It is very much his position. People who are offended by that are supposed to simply turn the other cheek, and wait to get slapped again? How many times are we supposed to be beaten down before you think it’s okay to say that appointing this guy CEO is a problem?

      And appointing him CEO was the trigger here — not his views, not public discussion of his views, not the act of contributing to the Prop 8 campaign or to Pat Buchanan’s campaign, but actually elevating this guy with these oppressive views from a high-level executive position to the top position in the company, where he is expected to set the tone for the corporation and be its public face. Standing up to Mozilla’s board and saying “This is not the right person for this job” is not primarily an effort to punish Eich, it’s an effort to sharpen the line around what kind of corporation and community Mozilla is, what it is willing to tolerate and what it is not, and influence who is going to represent its values to the wider industry and world. No one is saying purge Mozilla of anyone who supported Prop 8, just as there was no significant effort to pressure Mozilla to let Eich go prior to a few weeks ago.

      I just don’t understand what you or anyone who thinks this episode represents some growing intolerance thinks everyone else is supposed to do. Is your view that no political or social position a CEO might make public is too repugnant for that company’s employees and supporters to say, “We don’t want to work for a company with this person in the #1 spot”? Is that kind of line drawn in the sand always an indication that people are motivated primarily by the desire to punish that CEO? Or is it just that the oppression suffered by LGBT families that people like Eich try to de-legitimatize is just not that important in the scheme of things?

      [Mike S: fixed a broken tag]Report

    • Avatar trizzlor in reply to Tod Kelly
      Ignored
      says:

      Rather, it seems that both things are going on: a desire for punishment among some driving a bushiness decision by others.

      What about not using a product because supporting it’s leadership just makes you uncomfortable? I feel like your outlook on boycotts is skewed towards the punitive in a way that’s maybe not representative of how individual customers really act. I can say for sure that I didn’t care at all about what happened to the bigots running Chick-Fil-A (I’m not optimistic enough to think that bigoted establishments will cease to exist), but I certainly wouldn’t have had a pleasant experience eating there, just like I would feel unpleasant having a shelf full of Barilla pasta. So I didn’t.Report

  2. Avatar DJL
    Ignored
    says:

    So you are proposing that segregationists were and are right?Report

  3. Avatar Jay
    Ignored
    says:

    This is nothing but pure sophistry. Akimoto is using a false premise in order to arrive at a false conclusion, relying on the apparent logical consistency to project the illusion of truthfulness. The only
    people he fools, however, are those who want to be fooled.Report

    • Avatar Pierre Corneille in reply to Jay
      Ignored
      says:

      I’m not sure I agree with Nob, either, but what is the false premise he’s using?

      I don’t see his argument as “sophistry,” for the record. I see him as using an analogy to compel us to try to see things from his point of view. He has a case, even if I disagree, and it deserves a better engagement than “sophistry.”Report

  4. Avatar John Dodds
    Ignored
    says:

    Jay is correct. The post is useless, except for sefl serving ends … “sophistry”.

    The real looser in Mozilla. Exposed as a weak organization. (Been a supporter for 20 years)Report

  5. Avatar Esteban
    Ignored
    says:

    What percent of the United States population is gay?Report

    • Avatar Pierre Corneille in reply to Esteban
      Ignored
      says:

      How does the answer affect your assessment of the situation? If the answer is 5%, or 10%, or 50%, or 80%, does it change the issues at stake? In what way?Report

    • Avatar Alan Scott in reply to Esteban
      Ignored
      says:

      That’s certainly an odd question to ask, even if we grant the absurd notion that the prevalence of homosexuality alters the ethics of the situation.

      Mozilla has customers and contributors outside the Unites States. Why not ask, what percent of the world’s population is gay? Or why not ask what percent of Mozilla’s customer base is gay? or what percent of mozilla developers are gay? The answer to each of those questions is probably different, and those differences are among the reason Eich lost his job.Report

  6. Avatar Cathy
    Ignored
    says:

    This is kind of what I was trying to say on the other thread.

    There is a lot being said about Eich being targeted for his “political views.” Well… I don’t think homophobia counts as a “political view.” (We can talk about whether support for Prop 8 constitutes homophobia; I certainly think it does, but that’s another discussion.) I don’t think that it’s at all out of line for people to look at someone who has done homophobic things, and question their ability to treat fairly and work well with LGBT people, and therefore question their fitness to hold a particular position where doing so is part of that job. To hold otherwise is either to ignore the insidious nature of such discrimination.

    This would be the same for someone who made sexist remarks (or supported a sexist initiative or politician), and later was appointed to a position where his (or her) interaction with or appeal to women would be important. That would be a problem. To say that such a person is perfectly well-suited to the job despite their previously-documented sexist actions would be to imply that the women in the company’s employment or audience are not that important, anyway. That would be insulting.

    I should also note that all, of this, ALL of it, assumes that the person in question has not acknowledged or apologized for their actions. If Eich had come forward and said that Prop 8 was six years ago, and he no longer believed that the government should discriminate against gay people (even if he doesn’t want to see gay weddings in his own church), then I don’t think we’d be having this conversation. This isn’t about punishing him for his action, it’s about seeing his action as a signal that his leadership is not compatible with a gay-friendly company, which Mozilla certainly aspires to be.

    Bottom line, for an individual, or a group, to come forward and say “We think this person’s leadership of this community is insensitive to us, and incompatible with our participation in it” is their right, and both that person and the people in charge of that decision can then decide whether they prefer to keep the person and marginalize the group, or vice versa.

    I really, really, don’t understand the magnitude and volume of the defense of Eich going on here. Is it that people don’t see support for Prop 8 as homophobic, or think that Eich himself is? Or is that it’s easier for many people to stand in his shoes and worry that something they do will be construed as —ist and lead to consequences for them?

    I agree with Nob; this isn’t about punishment, it’s about developing and then enforcing a social norm in which homophobia joins the ranks of Things That Are Not OK.Report

    • Avatar Jim Heffman in reply to Cathy
      Ignored
      says:

      “I don’t think homophobia counts as a “political view.” ”

      Was there anywhere that Eich ever explained why he donated to the pro-Prop 8 campaign?

      I really think the whole tone of this thing could have been changed if he’d said something like “yeah I donated, it’s because I was an idiot, I’ve completely changed my view on the matter since then, here’s what I’ve done since”.

      Instead we got a bland mushmouth corporate-speak press release pointing to all the great things that other people have done and a sincere promise to not do nonspecified bad things.Report

  7. Avatar Mike Schilling
    Ignored
    says:

    What if the corporate person known as Mozilla has a sincere religious belief that Eich has to go?Report

  8. Avatar dand
    Ignored
    says:

    Why is it that most of the people making arguments like the one in this post will at the same time argue that people losing their jobs for being Stalinists is one the worst crimes all time. Prop 8 didn’t kill anyone Stalin killed millions yet somehow supporting ostracizing supporters of Stalin is wrong while ostracizing supporters of prop 8 is ok.Report

    • Avatar Mike Schilling in reply to dand
      Ignored
      says:

      On the off chance that you’re asking and not posturing, because many of the blacklisted were not Stalinists. “Belonged, possibly at some time in the past, to a group that also contained communists” is different from “supported Stalin”. For example, the National Lawyers Guild, for belonging to which Fred Fisher was smeared by Joe McCarthy, was an integrated alternative to the segregated ABA.Report

      • Avatar dand in reply to Mike Schilling
        Ignored
        says:

        Fred Fisher wasn’t blacklisted.Report

      • Avatar veronica dire in reply to Mike Schilling
        Ignored
        says:

        Thing is, there is nothing at all like a resemblance between this Eich case and the red scare. This is not a government body interfering with an entire industry. Nor is this in particular a witch hunt seeking every person who can be connected in any way. There are no hearings. No one is being asked to give up names. The words, “Who else was at your church that night? Tell us if you want to keep your job,” has nowhere been uttered.

        Anti-gay bigotry resembles in no way red-scare paranoia. Bigots are real, bigotry is real. They in fact have engaged in a long history of oppression against LGBT people. I have seen it, lived it. It is ongoing, a political reality. There is no fevered imagination required to connect the dots between anti-queer bigotry and actual harm, unlike the idea that Hollywood was infested with Stalinists.Report

      • Avatar dand in reply to Mike Schilling
        Ignored
        says:

        . This is not a government body interfering with an entire industry. Nor is this in particular a witch hunt seeking every person who can be connected in any way.

        The only reason anyone knows about Eich’ donation is because of government mandated disclosure laws. People are required to report all their political donations to the government that publishes them. That is no different than congress demanding that the Stalinists turn over names of their members.

        Anti-gay bigotry resembles in no way red-scare paranoia. Bigots are real, bigotry is real.

        Communism was real, there were communist at the highest levels of government (Alger Hiss). Stalin Mao tens of millions of people. Far more than have been killed by homophobes. Marxism is far more evil than opposition to same sex marriage.

        There is no fevered imagination required to connect the dots between anti-queer bigotry and actual harm, unlike the idea that Hollywood was infested with Stalinists.

        most of those blacklisted were in fact Stalinists. If there were that many Nazis I doubt you’d call it paranoiaReport

      • Avatar veronica dire in reply to Mike Schilling
        Ignored
        says:

        So we’re defending blacklisting and the red scare?

        Uh … okay (she says as she backs slowly away) Hey! Look over there! (she runs!)Report

      • Avatar dand in reply to Mike Schilling
        Ignored
        says:

        So we’re defending blacklisting and the red scare?

        blacklisting people for supporting prop 8: completely reasonable.
        blacklisting people for supporting the murder of tens of millions of people: only a crazy person would support it.Report

      • Avatar Troublesome Frog in reply to Mike Schilling
        Ignored
        says:

        When did “not being a CEO of a particular company” become the same thing as being blacklisted? I’ve never been offered a CEO spot anywhere. Where should I direct my rage?Report

      • Avatar dand in reply to Mike Schilling
        Ignored
        says:

        When did “not being a CEO of a particular company” become the same thing as being blacklisted? I’ve never been offered a CEO spot anywhere. Where should I direct my rage?

        and i’ve never been of a job with a major hollywood studio.Report

      • Avatar Troublesome Frog in reply to Mike Schilling
        Ignored
        says:

        I just thought that “blacklisting” was something more like preventing somebody from ever working in the industry again. Apparently the definition extends to allowing them to work as a high level executive but not the top executive at one specific company. My mistake.Report

      • Avatar trizzlor in reply to Mike Schilling
        Ignored
        says:

        Uh … okay (she says as she backs slowly away) Hey! Look over there! (she runs!)

        I’m sorry to say but I will have to steal this.Report

    • Avatar J@m3z Aitch in reply to dand
      Ignored
      says:

      @dand
      Being an American communist was not the same as being a Stalinist. In fact most American communists saw Stalin as a betrayal, and that’s about the time communism began to fall out of favor with the American left.Report

  9. Avatar Pierre Corneille
    Ignored
    says:

    “Would you feel comfortable working under someone who expressed a dislike of your particular religion, or ethnicity and publicly gave money to that cause?”

    Probably not.

    “Further, wouldn’t it create a niggle of doubt of whether or not you were being fairly treated?”

    Yes. I wouldn’t blame anyone for using that data point to reinforce their doubt that they are treated fairly.

    “People who bring up the ‘It’s my personal views’ canard about bigoted actions rarely have things so well compartmentalized to code-switch appropriately. Why? Because those people rarely have the social experience to have internalized completely separating personal views with actions.”

    I’m not fully convinced on the two uses of “rarely” here. I’m not unconvinced, but I’m not fully convinced either. I say this only because of anecdotal information. I have known a number of people whom I consider bigoted in some way but who treat those who work for them in a manner I consider very fair. Again, these are just anecdotes. And as someone who is much less likely than others to be discriminated against on the job because of my race, gender, sexuality, ethnicity, etc., and as someone who acknowledges that most discrimination is not overt, I even question myself about whether these anecdotes are worth much.

    “This is doubly true for someone who remains unrepentant about their views and does not apologize for them. (Let’s make this clear, Eich did NOT apologize in any shape or form)”

    Has opposition to ssm become something for which someone must apologize in the same way that, say, support for a vociferously racist, anti-Asian politician is? I’m not quite there yet. And even the racist politician might have had decent views on taxation, health care, or whatever. I do understand that the Prop 8 campaign used a large array of disgustingly homophobic tropes, and if that’s what Eich indulged in, then he should apologize. (And maybe he has….I haven’t followed his own remarks, although I know others here have.) But if he merely supported Prop 8 because he opposed ssm, is that something he has to apologize for in a general environment?

    But you’re not describing a general environment. You’re describing a corporate and community culture that is pro-ssm and are suggesting that their decision not to have him as a standard bearer is defensible. I think I agree with that as long as we’re talking about CEO’s as a special case.Report

    • Avatar Fnord in reply to Pierre Corneille
      Ignored
      says:

      Has opposition to ssm become something for which someone must apologize in the same way that, say, support for a vociferously racist, anti-Asian politician is?

      I’m not sure I follow the position implied by this question. Are you saying that he shouldn’t “have” to if his position is still somewhat socially acceptable? If so, isn’t that a bar that’s meet by any successful boycott campaign inherently meet that bar, simply by the virtue of being successful?Report

      • Avatar Pierre Corneille in reply to Fnord
        Ignored
        says:

        To your first question, I admit I’m not sure myself exactly what I meant. I think what I mean is to point out what seems like a disanalogy in what Nob is saying. Anti-Asian, “yellow peril” style racism is something one should apologize for regardless. Whereas it seems that opposition to ssm is more within the pale because it’s still perceived as being debatable. While I agree with James Hanley that there’s no good argument against ssm, I think we’re still at the point where it’s too facile to bait all opponents as mere bigots.

        But no analogy is perfect, and if I understand your second question, I think my answer is yes.

        And again, I believe a CEO is a special case and therefore concur with Nob in the result. If it’s a mid-level management, I’d say a firing would be inappropriate. If it’s super dooper upper-level management but not quite CEO? I’d say it’s probably inappropriate. But please note, by “inappropriate” I don’t mean “should be illegal” and I don’t mean “a boycott to achieve an inappropriate end should be illegal.”Report

    • Avatar Alan Scott in reply to Pierre Corneille
      Ignored
      says:

      @pierre-corneille

      Has opposition to ssm become something for which someone must apologize in the same way that, say, support for a vociferously racist, anti-Asian politician is?

      Yes. Clearly yes. Otherwise, Eich would still have his job.

      That’s not, and never will be, a moral question. From a moral standpoint, Opposition to gay rights is always wrong, whether that opposition took place in 1985, 2008, or today.

      Instead, it’s a practical question. When will society change? In Eich’s community, it already has. Which is really not surprising. Support for gay marriage started among college educated white urbanites on our nation’s coasts, and spread outward from there. You can’t expect anti-gay view to be socially acceptable in Silicon Valley just because they’re acceptable in Mississippi.Report

      • Avatar Pierre Corneille in reply to Alan Scott
        Ignored
        says:

        I actually agree with you, and my comment wasn’t clear about it. (I’m usually not accused of writing clearly.) I had tried to oppose something I called the “general environment,” which my readers were somehow supposed to know meant “society at large,” to the norms of Eich’s professional community.

        Also, as Zic points out below, the Mozilla community is a bit different from the standard corporate culture anyway. Inasmuch as I made my comment as if Mozilla was a for-profit corporation, I think I stand by them, including my view that a CEO is a special case and his or her political positions are more often fair game than say Jane shmoe’s positions. Inasmuch as Mozilla itself might be a special case, maybe I’d make more allowances. Or maybe not. I still have to think it over.Report

    • Avatar N in reply to Pierre Corneille
      Ignored
      says:

      There are some psychiatrist who can help you deal with imaginary threats without bugging other people.Report

  10. Avatar zic
    Ignored
    says:

    To be honest, the whole discussion (media/public, not just here at OT) strikes me as a potential misinformation media cascade.

    Some things to consider:

    1. Mozilla is a corporation, but a non-profit corporation, the share holders are the board members of the Mozilla Foundation;
    2. Mozilla employs staff (paid employees) to oversee the open-source development of its products, and there are hundreds, if not thousands, of people contributing free labor who’s interests and goodwill deserve consideration;
    3. Eich’s technological knowledge may not have been a good match for the technology he was supposed to supervise;
    4. It’s unclear if the outcry that triggered his resignation (he wasn’t fired) was over the technology mismatch, his contributions to Prop 8, or some combination of the two;

    Those things said; I notice that there are two disturbing things that are going on; one is a witch hunt for people who might have donated to support prop 8. The other is criticisms of Eich’s resignation as if he were fired due to his political activities — a fact that hasn’t been clearly established (so far as I know).

    To the first — this is definitely an example of the type of behavior that led to many conservative thinkers being driven out of the fold; certainly one of the things I was hoping Tod was going to write about. That said, we live in a world where information about people, including their political activities, are readily available, and that information will often come back to haunt you.

    To the second, we just don’t know. Mozilla is not like most companies; the bulk of their labor is volunteer; and maintaining goodwill amongst their open-source developers has got to be a major consideration. (Personally, my gut feeling is htat the technological expertise was the real problem, the Prop 8 stuff the straw that broke the camels back.)Report

  11. Avatar zic
    Ignored
    says:

    I do recommend this post on Slate.

    http://www.slate.com/blogs/outward/2014/04/04/brendan_eich_supported_prop_8_which_was_worse_than_you_remember.html

    Imbedded in it are three commercials the ‘Yes on 8’ campaign ran.

    They are cruel. Just to help you remember why people are so upset, even after a long-fought and very fraught victory in the court system, I can understand why these marketing ploys still hurt.

    (Can someone with more skill then I embed them?)Report

    • Avatar veronica dire in reply to zic
      Ignored
      says:

      This stuff hasn’t ended, although these groups have to some degree given up on gay marriage and now are targeting me.

      Which turns out to be ads showing flamboyant drag queens or leering dudes-in-dresses with 5-oclock shadow, all on the topic of trans women in bathrooms. (No one seems to care much about trans dudes in bathrooms, although the idea that Buck Angel should use the women’s room is amusing.) Anyway, It is just so flagrantly dishonest and insulting.

      (Sorry, no links, just not in the mood to look at this shit right now.)

      And look, this stuff is hard to brush off. It gets under my skin, and — I can’t really explain; I can’t say all this takes from me.

      This is not just the battle outside. It is not just the asshole on the train who yells at me. He can yell at you also. But if he calls you some name, you can walk away. You probably won’t hear that name again. And anyway, what a freak!

      If some fucker calls me a “tranny,” it sticks. Because I am a tranny.

      We’re winning this battle, but too slowly. And it is taking my life from me.

      All because of hate.Report

  12. Avatar Murali
    Ignored
    says:

    There is something people have been saying that I’m not sure I get. Lots of people seem to be saying that the fact that this happened in Mozilla makes it a big deal. I mean, its just a browser (It also happens that I’m not a fan of the UI). Is there something I’m missing here? Is there any special relation to the LGBT community that makes it different from other companies?Report

  13. Avatar Damon
    Ignored
    says:

    Yeah, sorry, there may be a difference technically/legally, but when you boss gives you a choice of quiting or being fired, the key point is that you’re not going to be an employee of that company at the end of the day.

    Quitting just allows you to keep more of you bennies.Report

  14. Avatar Kim
    Ignored
    says:

    Life ain’t fair.

    It seems strange that folks would cause this guy to lose his job, while folks that are serial rapists (or worse) keep theirs.

    I guess if you flaut mores, you’ll be punished more heavily.Report

    • Avatar Damon in reply to Kim
      Ignored
      says:

      Never said it was…and actually, that’s been the point of a lot of my posts. Life ain’t fair, folks trying to use the state to make it fair are tilting at windmills.Report

  15. Avatar zic
    Ignored
    says:

    I’m going to offend and play the “they do it, too” game.

    For instance:

    Bruce Bartlett was fired from the National Center for Policy Analysis after turning in the manuscript for his book, The Imposter, which made the case the President George W. Bush wasn’t a true conservative.

    And there’s the former CEO at J.C. Penney, fired when sales collapsed; the causes are complex, but the urged boycott for hiring Ellen DeGeneres as a spokesperson and ads featuring same-sex couples by One Million Moms certainly played a role.

    This group is very active. And proud of it. http://onemillionmoms.com/successesReport

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *