Probably a better question for whoever pushed him out than for me. Per above, it seems clear to me that someone/s made a determination that this guy would be bad for business. I don't think it's a huge outrage, as Werthless evidently does, but it also doesn't fit any narrative I'm committed to advancing, so...

Maybe it's worth considering the ethos of the industry. I would guess that this guy's views are much more widely shared among, I dunno, toy companies, than tech. Context matters.

* thinks civil rights is a "liberal cause" *

Youseff wrote:* thinks civil rights is a "liberal cause" *

No one said that or thought that. But hey, keep posting these groupthink one-liners that shout down all conversation.

Anyway, it's certainly not an outrage to me that he had to quit. Just found it weird especially compared to the efforts to get Chick-fil-a to change with little success. I imagine dajafi's reference to the particular industry really does matter. Probly not nearly as many conservatives love firefox as much as they love waffle fries.

Werthless wrote:

Barry Jive wrote:totally agree with you on that, but Mozilla has the right to can the face of its company if his garbage politics stand to cost them business

It's a non-profit that he helped found. But of course they have the right, even if they're not answering to anybody but themselves. He stepped down so that the company wouldn't be affected by the negative press. (I don't know if he was actually pushed out by the board or not).

It's not just a matter of negative press, though. Why exactly this should be the case I'm not certain, but internet browsers have all been tagged with a certain personality among the the online tech community, most of whom have as much disdain for main stream media as you do. Mozilla trades on firefox and its other products as being hip and young and out of the mainstream and forward-thinking. To have a ceo emerge who voted against gay marriage and looks like your high school chem teacher besides is virtually suicidal for them. There are attacks, and they may very well be unfounded, but they're largely bottom-up and the disparity between intended and perceived image almost certainly dictated that this move had to be made.

drsmooth wrote:
do you honestly believe that mozilla mgmt is 100% behind Eich, all executive hands steadfastly opposed to shitcanning him?

It's only a guess, but this has the pawprints of organizational c-suite political hardball, in which SEC is being employed as a bad guy, rather than "leading". SEC's involvement is great cover for whomever inside Mozilla wanted to knife Eich anyway, because it brings out the "evil gummint's a bad bully!!" handwringers like - well, like yourself

This is the "real" free market at work. Now get down & continue kissing its feet

LOL, thanks for not reading the links.

sydnor wrote:

Youseff wrote:* thinks civil rights is a "liberal cause" *

No one said that or thought that. But hey, keep posting these groupthink one-liners that shout down all conversation.

Anyway, it's certainly not an outrage to me that he had to quit. Just found it weird especially compared to the efforts to get Chick-fil-a to change with little success. I imagine dajafi's reference to the particular industry really does matter. Probly not nearly as many conservatives love firefox as much as they love waffle fries.

"When a CEO is pushed out for his political donations to a liberal cause, one that is in agreement with the majority of Americans, you let me know. I'll tell you what I think about it."

* thinks civil rights is "groupthink" *

Youseff wrote:

sydnor wrote:

Youseff wrote:* thinks civil rights is a "liberal cause" *

No one said that or thought that. But hey, keep posting these groupthink one-liners that shout down all conversation.

Anyway, it's certainly not an outrage to me that he had to quit. Just found it weird especially compared to the efforts to get Chick-fil-a to change with little success. I imagine dajafi's reference to the particular industry really does matter. Probly not nearly as many conservatives love firefox as much as they love waffle fries.

"When a CEO is pushed out for his political donations to a liberal cause, one that is in agreement with the majority of Americans, you let me know. I'll tell you what I think about it."

* thinks civil rights is "groupthink" *

Yeah, your post makes much more sense now.

sydnor wrote:everyone on the pro-gay-rights side says we're not telling people how to think. But it seems like with this example, on an issue that around 40%-45% of Americans are still opposed to, there is no room for debate. You simply can not be on that side of the aisle. And that seems weird to me.

Is the difference that he's allowed to think it, but taking the step of donating money makes it a problem?

Weird strawman in there. I don't think anyone on the pro-gay rights side is interested in letting people think gays are bad

edit: missed a page

Hey guys,
I recognize that you all think you're being very clever. But let's lay out the facts:

1. I 100% believe in anyone's right to marry whoever they want to (consenting adults, non-related any other disclaimer necessary).
2. I have yelled at jerz on this board for talking about how he supports the right to marry for gays but yet votes all the time for republicans because his fiscal needs are more important than civil rights.
3. There is not an inch of separation between Youseff, BarryJive, and sydnor on how we vote politically on the gay issue. Not an inch.

And yet you refuse to let people even discuss the issues. How the hell is that helpful? It's immature, infuriating, and a non-long-term winning strategy.

Now, I'm not supposed to even be in these threads, so I'll bow out now and give you guys the last snark. But ease the fuck up.

Can you be more specific about what issues we're not allowing discussion on? I get that the minority should have a voice but this isn't like abortion where the lines have been drawn. It's a tide that has completely turned over the course of decades

Werthless wrote:

drsmooth wrote:
do you honestly believe that mozilla mgmt is 100% behind Eich, all executive hands steadfastly opposed to shitcanning him?

It's only a guess, but this has the pawprints of organizational c-suite political hardball, in which SEC is being employed as a bad guy, rather than "leading". SEC's involvement is great cover for whomever inside Mozilla wanted to knife Eich anyway, because it brings out the "evil gummint's a bad bully!!" handwringers like - well, like yourself

This is the "real" free market at work. Now get down & continue kissing its feet

LOL, thanks for not reading the links.

I'm not seeing anything in the pages you've provided links to that rule out my observations (oh, and WSJ op-eds as resource REALLY diminish your credibility. Tip: those people are not libertarians. Think "hidebound reactionaries".) But please, elucidate. I know YOU can do it.

I'm not seeing any shouting down of debate (though it's also a little abstract since nobody here, as far as I can tell, is actually arguing the anti-equality side).

Our side welcomes debate. To Sullivan's point. that's how we've gained all the ground...

Lancaster, PA is one of the worst metros in the country as far as the biggest difference between unemployment amongst blacks and unemployment amongst the general population.

pacino wrote:Lancaster, PA is one of the worst metros in the country as far as the biggest difference between unemployment amongst blacks and unemployment amongst the general population.

Have to admit, I didn't know there was a Lancaster metropolitan area.

drsmooth wrote:

Werthless wrote:

drsmooth wrote:
do you honestly believe that mozilla mgmt is 100% behind Eich, all executive hands steadfastly opposed to shitcanning him?

It's only a guess, but this has the pawprints of organizational c-suite political hardball, in which SEC is being employed as a bad guy, rather than "leading". SEC's involvement is great cover for whomever inside Mozilla wanted to knife Eich anyway, because it brings out the "evil gummint's a bad bully!!" handwringers like - well, like yourself

This is the "real" free market at work. Now get down & continue kissing its feet

LOL, thanks for not reading the links.

I'm not seeing anything in the pages you've provided links to that rule out my observations (oh, and WSJ op-eds as resource REALLY diminish your credibility. Tip: those people are not libertarians. Think "hidebound reactionaries".) But please, elucidate. I know YOU can do it.

The SEC did not investigate Mozilla, was not involved in that decision, etc. The article I posted on the SEC was about Cuban's insider trading case. So what are you talking about government being the bad guy wrt Eich?

sydnor wrote:Hey guys,
I recognize that you all think you're being very clever. But let's lay out the facts:

1. I 100% believe in anyone's right to marry whoever they want to (consenting adults, non-related any other disclaimer necessary).
2. I have yelled at jerz on this board for talking about how he supports the right to marry for gays but yet votes all the time for republicans because his fiscal needs are more important than civil rights.
3. There is not an inch of separation between Youseff, BarryJive, and sydnor on how we vote politically on the gay issue. Not an inch.

And yet you refuse to let people even discuss the issues. How the hell is that helpful? It's immature, infuriating, and a non-long-term winning strategy.

Now, I'm not supposed to even be in these threads, so I'll bow out now and give you guys the last snark. But ease the fuck up.

Eh, I like to get excited about this stuff. Part of the reason I posted the articles I did is that I'm interested in the creative justifications that people will make to argue against conservatives. If a liberal CEO was forced to step down because of their political contribution to pro-choice advocacy groups, I'm sure the liberals on this board would be apoplectic.

I don't expect most people on this board to care enough to write long responses, but I'm not sure others are trying to stifle debate. It's very easy to treat a dajafi response with the respect it deserves while responding in kind to other posts. You're probably reacting to the amount of trolling that goes on... It is interesting that conservative trolls get banned, but the liberal trolls... just post more.

CONSERVATIVE TROLLS *OWN* THE BRIDGES THEY LIVE UNDER

Werthless wrote:

sydnor wrote: It's very easy to treat a dajafi response with the respect it deserves

Admittedly this is a variable, not a constant...

Meanwhile I just read Sullivan's anguished take on this, and I have to admit I still kind of don't get it. Nobody forced anyone to do anything. I think doc is right that the company probably nudged him toward the ledge if not threw him off it, and it seems my/swish' culture point was even more determinative with mozilla than it would have been at most other tech concerns. Again: I think this was the market doing what it does.

Sullivan seems particularly upset that the guy could have saved his job by "recanting," and didn't. Okay, but that too seems like a conscious choice.

Is it just a sense that nobody did anything wrong here, but it sucks? Should people not have been upset that the guy made a donation to an anti-equality cause? I think he obviously he has that right, but there are consequences that go along with it.

I think Sullivan is mad at the means that his political allies are taking. There is a growing consensus among liberals that the ends justify the means, and it is perfectly acceptable to exact personal revenge on your political opponents.

Let's see, we have:

Occupy Wall Street marching to homes of rich people.
IRS treatment of conservative political groups
IRS leaking donor lists to conservative causes
Obama's "punish my enemies" remark
Harry Reid's constant bashing of Koch et al to raise money
The Obama site posting the profiles of Romney donors on their website... followed 2 weeks later by audits by the IRS and Dept of Labor for at least one of these donors.

How do we even know that Eich was a donor to this cause?? Oh, right, it was an IRS list of donors leaked to a gay-right advocacy organization.

When we talk about the PC Police, we don't usually expect them to actually have any influence!

Werthless wrote:The SEC did not investigate Mozilla, was not involved in that decision, etc. The article I posted on the SEC was about Cuban's insider trading case. So what are you talking about government being the bad guy wrt Eich?

sloppy simultaneous reading is apparently worse, for me, than not reading at all. Should have occurred to me that the doings of a non-profit would not be SEC turf. you got me.

I still believe Eich was done in more by his organization's non-support than by OKCupid, and still a little unclear about your butthurtitude about this.

To paraphrase a hoary internet cliche, markets want to be open (open source, even). Opposition to union is exclusion, is negation, is closing doors on transactions, and the market loves it some transactions. Same with top-down cultural micromanagement. It's just too much friction - commercial friction.