"This is a strange one to me and can indeed be a sticky situation. I am NOT judging people who use Firefox, work at Mozilla, or even support Brendan’s right to his opinions. It’s fine that you think I shouldn’t judge his opinion. (This is getting confusing). However, this particular subject is not one that is negotiable to us. We are personally affected by his actions.
It’s not his belief that hurts us. It’s that he actively donated to a cause that directly negatively affected us, personally. It’s not abstract. It’s not a witch hunt. He’s certainly allowed to have his opinion, of course, but I’m allowed to judge his actions of supporting the cause financially.
Actions have consequences."
There you go, sums it up right there. Some past actions are hard to overlook when you're personally affected by it. However you view the news of Brendan Eich's new CEO position and people's opinions of that, you can't ignore the human element of his insignificant (financially) but significant (philosophically) prop 8 contribution and how people take it personally.
Edit: Adding onto my thought of how I view the human element in this story: we all try to be rational, but I bet you everyone of us throw that away for a gut feeling we have of someone. If you don't like someone, no amount of reason will make that go away. That feeling spreads to what they're associated with. In retrospect, we reason our gut feeling and we either turn out right or wrong. I understand hcatlin's decision in that sense since I have felt that way before.
There are people at every large software company that donated to one of the sides of the political battle. Some of them may have received a promotion after the fact. Does that mean that you should boycott those companies too? (Google, Apple, etc.)
After all, after people get paid from their job, shouldn't it be their right that they can use their money as they please?
If they are promoted to CEO, then... yes. Hence why we were building apps for it knowing full-well that he was a homophobic CTO. CEO is a whole other level, and was our personal line.
I would be very surprised if in an average day you don't buy product or services from a company that has donated or has C-level executives that have donated to some cause that attacks you or your family. I know of at least one company that donates to a group because of the group's work in China that is directly attacking the families of their customers in the US.
Before this goes to my personal views: I'm not Californian so I don't vote there and I am one of those small government folks that believe the government should only do civil unions (no mention of marriage) as a matter of contract law between two or more consenting adults.
> I would be very surprised if in an average day you don't buy product or services from a company that has donated or has C-level executives that have donated to some cause that attacks you or your family.
I'd actually be surprised if this is the case. What possible causes would they donate to that will count as an 'attack'?
There are a number of companies who have executives who make business decisions that are morally questionable. I have often said its best not to use those companies, but often it's not possible.
Boycotts are effective: I have participated in one against Australia's Kyle Sandilands. You won't always be able to do this, however.
It’s not his belief that hurts us. It’s that he actively donated to a cause that directly negatively affected us, personally. It’s not abstract. It’s not a witch hunt. He’s certainly allowed to have his opinion, of course, but I’m allowed to judge his actions of supporting the cause financially.
Actions have consequences."
There you go, sums it up right there. Some past actions are hard to overlook when you're personally affected by it. However you view the news of Brendan Eich's new CEO position and people's opinions of that, you can't ignore the human element of his insignificant (financially) but significant (philosophically) prop 8 contribution and how people take it personally.
Edit: Adding onto my thought of how I view the human element in this story: we all try to be rational, but I bet you everyone of us throw that away for a gut feeling we have of someone. If you don't like someone, no amount of reason will make that go away. That feeling spreads to what they're associated with. In retrospect, we reason our gut feeling and we either turn out right or wrong. I understand hcatlin's decision in that sense since I have felt that way before.