Eich made a mistake when he supported prop 8. History will clearly show this, like history has shown those who opposed interracial marriage were wrong.
Being on the right-side of history isn't about stomping out those who opposed you when you finally win. It's not about retribution for past slights.
Nothing proves that Eich think he did make a mistake. He never apologized for that and refused to talk about it.I'm sure he would not need to resign if he did apologize. People make mistakes, and most people will forgive if an apology is issued.
It doesn't matter what Eich thinks. History isn't going to reverse course so there's no need for those who are wrong to fall to their knees and beg for forgiveness. Being graceful in victory is about letting those who opposed you to get away with their mistake.
How many lives need to be ruined before an oppressed community can fight back? Sainthood should not be a bar that everyone must meet in order to avoid being labeled with a black mark. This guy attacked a large group of people and that group defended itself by explaining their displeasure at his recent privilege. He then suffered the consequence of having his privilege removed. Good.
@OpieCunningham - How many lives need to be ruined...
That's a great question, actually. How many lives were ruined by Prop 8? (which, by the way, was overturned by the Supreme Court)
Are there gay people in jail in California as a result of Prop 8? Are there broken marriages? Was there an increase in anti-gay violence? Not that I've heard of.
Prop 8, which apparently very few people seem to know (or care), was about preventing legal recognition of same-sex marriages, not about preventing those marriages per se. Legal recognition means next-of-kin and hospital visitation rights and some taxation differences. Really, other than that, people could perfectly well exchange vows and call themselves married, and the state has no authority to change this.
Clearly it is a rhetorical question - Prop 8 was discrimination - how many people need to be discriminated against in order for a defense to be mounted? The minimum answer is 1. The larger the answer the larger the defense.
If the law had not been overturned, the answer would, by definition of the law, be far greater than 0. If you propose that the actual answer was 0 before the law was overturned, I don't believe that - how many partners were refused next-of-kin, hospital visitation rights and some taxation benefits? More than 0 I would estimate. Is Eich in jail? Was his marriage broken up? Did anyone physically attack him? No. He lost the privilege of being a CEO.
The oppressed have already won? No, I don't think so. I do not see any reality to a claim that the gay community is not actively oppressed. Perhaps you mean the gay community is sufficiently less oppressed that it should stop defending itself. Then how few lives need to be ruined for that qualification to take effect?
I mean that prop 8, the thing Eich supported, was overruled. Anti-gay marriage laws are being overturned across the country.
No, not every injustice has been thwarted. But Eich isn't responsible for every injustice, just the one he participated in. He is not, to my knowledge, actively oppressing anyone today.
I asked someone else this elsewhere in this topic and I'll ask you the same: What is the victory here? What does this change, positively for the cause of equality?
And I ask again, how did Mandela treat his opponents after his cause was won, and why do we not strive for those standards?
I mean that prop 8, the thing Eich supported, was overruled. Anti-gay marriage laws are being overturned across the country.
That's precisely a definition of "sufficiently". The group is still oppressed, so there has been no victory. Your argument is that the group is winning and should therefore stop fighting.
Eich isn't responsible for every injustice, just the one he participated in. He is not, to my knowledge, actively oppressing anyone today.
Eich is a member of the group of oppressors. He had an opportunity (yesterday) to claim his role with that group was a mistake - he refused to state that. Therefore he is actively oppressing the group. If he had believed he had made a mistake and believably made that declaration, there is a very strong probability that the oppressed group would have accepted his admission and he would have kept his privilege. This happens all the time with public figures - even those whose admission of a mistake are questionably believable.
I asked someone else this elsewhere in this topic and I'll ask you the same: What is the victory here? What does this change, positively for the cause of equality?
The victory is the message to all others: if you oppress people, those people will defend themselves and you may suffer a lose of privilege. It is exactly this approach which incentivizes people to question their own beliefs, how and whether those beliefs adversely effect other groups and provides the opportunity for self-growth. If there are never any consequences to oppressing people, no one will ever reassess their oppressive beliefs.
And I ask again, how did Mandela treat his opponents after his cause was won, and why do we not strive for those standards?
Firstly, your comparison is far off mark. Mandela's cause was won - the oppressed were now in a position where they had complete power. That is not the case with an oppressor who recently received the privilege of being appointed CEO and the still-oppressed gay community - in addition, Mandela's situation involved life and death, not privileges. Secondly, I've already stated that sainthood should not be the minimum bar required to avoid being looked down upon. Defense is a perfectly acceptable course of action when you are being attacked. Turning the other cheek should not be the minimally accepted path.
It is certainly a positive victory. This is a wave in the tides of history. If you take away the waves in the guise of "mercy", you end up with no tide. What's sad is that Eich has learned nothing yet. Hopefully he does, or others do.
Mandela did not say "let us show mercy, and extend extra privileges".
Would you call someone being removed from a position of power "stomping out"? Eich can and will still live a decent life and nobody in their right mind is denying him his right to that, but remember that he did seek to deny those rights to others.
He actively avoided apologising for his support of prop 8 – a law which is directly opposed to the values of Mozilla as an organisation. Had he done so, I suspect there would have been much less backlash.
If he firmly held the belief, and did not change his mind, then he shouldn't apologise. In that case, it's legitimate to complain about his personal views where they are not compatible with his position.
He shouldn’t apologise if he didn’t actually change his opinion – but then you can also not make the argument that he made a mistake. Mistake sort of implies that he acknowledges he made a mistake – which he doesn’t.
You can’t forgive someone if they aren’t asking for forgiveness.
Forgiveness is really about being open hearted and keeping no record of wrongs. On the cross Jesus said:
"Forgive them for they do not know what they are doing"
Jesus had the perfect right to be angry, but he wasn't. He forgave while people were mocking him and killing him. Stephen to first martyr said the same thing while he was being stoned to death.
While 'peer pressure' is seen as a negative, if you think yourself right while everyone else is wrong on an issue it is a pretty good indicator that you should check your assumptions and logic carefully.
You mean like overtly advocating violent overthrow of an oppressive government? Mandela was right. Just not in the way his sanitized image would lead one to expect.
I'm talking about what Mandela did after his cause was won (just as the cause of marriage equality is won in California, and being won across the country).
It is a black-mark on the gay rights movement.
Eich made a mistake when he supported prop 8. History will clearly show this, like history has shown those who opposed interracial marriage were wrong.
Being on the right-side of history isn't about stomping out those who opposed you when you finally win. It's not about retribution for past slights.
Did we learn nothing from Nelson Mandela?