Cancel culture is honestly not a very good weapon, silencing people doesn’t produce any dialogue but makes people afraid of saying anything, creates a sensation of paranoia and fear. And lots of innocent folks fell into that trap and had their lives destroyed for no good reason. Canceling has been overused and what could once be used as an ace in the sleeve it became a nail bomb. I don’t think we could get anywhere fruitful by allowing these, it may in fact take us backwards a few steps. Dialogue and debate is the only way
>He donated to leave the existing law in place that defined marriage as between a man and a woman.
This is wrong in every way that actually matters.
The California State Supreme Court struck down the law which banned gay marriage, and gay couples were allowed go be married. Many many gay couples were married during this period.
Eich donated to Proposition 8, a ballot initiative which provided an amendment to the California State Constitution to define marriage as between a man and a woman within the state consitution, in effect overruling the judgement of the California Supreme Court.
It was not an effort to "leave the law in place", it was an effort to remove from gay couples a right which they had already been granted by the court system, and to freeze this into the constitution itself.
So imagine being a gay Mozilla employee and knowing that your boss not only wants to prevent you from gaining civil rights, but wants to remove civil rights which you were already granted.
> Hell, even Obama ran on keeping that the law.
DOMA is completely unrelated. This is about the California Constitution, not any state or federal law.
I agree with you that the internet version of torches and pitchforks is probably more counterproductive than righteous, but I think in Eich's case the backlash and ultimate result were probably fair. In his own words, he could not be an effective leader under the circumstances. That was exactly right. In 2014, LGBTQ rights were still very much an active fight, and placing someone who was publicly fighting against those civil rights into a position to be the public face of the organization and the leader to everyone working for and with it was untenable. Public protests in that very specific scenario were warranted, and their success should be held as an example of when and how the influence of public opinion was wielded appropriately and effectively.
Brendan Eich was in no way destroyed, and it certainly wasn't over speech. The anger against Eich was because of _actions_, specific and concrete, the entire purpose of which was to deny people like you basic civil rights.
"deserving, if there is any" Ah yes, clearly no more imaginable deserving case in all the world than legally protected political donations COUGH METOO COUGH
It wasn't the opinion, it was the actions that were taken. As CEO you're in the spotlight. A CEO also (together with the board) sets direction. That's quite different from any other position within the company. Meaning, for most positions I do not understand why people are getting fired. For a CEO to act in a way that is highly frowned upon, plus goes against what the company is trying to convey, that's just plain weird. IMO keeping such a person on would be strange.
The evidence is that he was pushed out of the CEO position, and received a monetary settlement lol.
A person would have to be extremely stupid to think that if someone got pushed out of a CEO position, that it is somehow impossible that the company/ceo would be incentivized to not talk about.
There is quite obviously a financial incentive here. I am not sure how someone could deny the existence of this financial incentive.
This is standard stuff. It is completely reasonable that either of them would not want the bad publicity from that, and that there are financial incentives to not admit that he was pushed out of the CEO position.
Executives get pushed out of positions, without companies or the executives admitting to it, or lying and saying that they left voluntarily.
Again: where is your evidence that he was "pushed out" and that he "received a monetary settlement lol"?
I specifically asked you for evidence, which you failed to provide. "Laughing out loud" is not proof, it just highlights that you don't have any.
So I'll ask you again for proof: provide a link to a reputable source that proves that he was pushed out, that he received a monetary settlement, and that Eich and the FAQ are lying.
Otherwise the only thing you've proven is that homophobes will bend over backwards, twist facts, and lie to rationalize and cover up for each other's bigotry. If you can't prove it, then apologize for spreading misinformation.
You're accusing Eich and the board of lying, but now I've asked you to prove that YOU are not lying, and you've failed.
If someone is really going to deny the existence of an extremely obvious financial incentive for a company to lie about idea that it pushed out the CEO, then I am not sure what could be possibly told to convince that person of anything.
Someone would have to be completely and entirely lost, to not be able to see the clear and obvious motivations for a large corporation to lie about the idea that it pushed their freaking CEO out of the position.
I will state again. I am referencing the obvious financial incentive here. Only someone who is completely lost would not recognize that as an obvious motivation.
It is not misinformation to point out the completely apparent financial motivation for them doing this.
That is the evidence that I am referencing.
I absolutely consider it to be evidence if there is a huge and obvious financial motivation.
