What is this?
Questions and answers, because my friends and I have been doing a lot of asking and answering, in unequal measure, with more asking than answering. Because I’ve been distraught by the incessant stream of reductionist observations about Mozilla, each one like being punched in the heart with the hard fists of righteousness and conviction. Because questions and answers once brought me peace, when I was much younger.
Who are you?
A man with no titles. Formerly, one of the first technology evangelists for Mozilla, when it was still a Netscape project. A Mozillian.
Who is Brendan Eich?
A man with
a title titles. An inventor. A unifier. A divider. A Mozillian. A friend.
What has Mozilla done?
From humble and unlikely beginnings, Mozilla entered a battle seemingly already decided against it, and gradually unseated the entrenched incumbent, user by user by user, through campaigns that were traditional and innovative, and increased consciousness about the open web. It became a beloved brand, standing firmly for open source and the open web, championing the Internet, sometimes advocating politically for these convictions. It relied, and continues to rely, on a community of contributors from all over the world.
What has Brendan done?
Many things intrinsic to the open web; he helped shape technologies used by countless numbers of users, including to write and read this very post. Also, a hurtful and divisive thing based on a conviction now at odds with the law of the land, and at odds with my own conviction: in 2008, he donated $1000 to California Proposition 8, which put on a statewide ballot a proposition to define marriage as strictly between a man and a woman in the state, thus eliminating gay marriage, and calling into question pre-existing gay marriages. The amount donated was enough to oblige him to list his employer — Mozilla — for legal reasons.
What are my convictions?
That any two people in love should be able to marry, regardless of their genders; that the marriage of two such people affords all legal protections intrinsic to the institution of marriage including immigration considerations, estate planning considerations, and visitation rights. That this is in fact a civil right. That matters of civil rights should not be put before a population to vote on as a statewide proposition; in short, that exceptions to the Equal Protection Clause cannot be decided by any majority, since it is there to protect minorities from majorities (cf.Justice Moreno).
How do such convictions become law?
Often, by fiat. Sometimes, even when the battle is already seemingly decided (with the entrenched weight of history behind it, an incumbent), one state at a time. State by State by State (by States), using campaigns that are traditional and innovative, to increase consciousness about this as a civil right.
How should people with different convictions disagree?
Bitterly, holding fast to conviction, so that two individuals quarrel ceaselessly till one yields to the other, or till one retreats from the other, unable to engage any longer.
Amicably, by setting aside those convictions that are unnecessary to the pursuit of common convictions I share with other Mozillians, like the open web. Brendan embodied the Mozilla project; he would have made a promising CEO. My conviction can be governed by reason, and set aside, especially since the issue is decided by courts, of both law and public opinion. His view, only guessable by me, seems antediluvian. Times have changed. I can ask myself to be governed by reason. We need never touch this question.
But I can do this because my conviction about the law, stated before, has never been tested personally by the specter of suicide or the malevolence of bullying; marriage equality is the ultimate recognition, destigmatizing lifestyles, perhaps helping with suicide and bullying. And, my inability to marry has never disrupted my life or my business. I cannot ask others to lay aside convictions, without recognizing the sources of pain, and calling them out. (Here, Brendan made commitments, and Mozilla did too).
What will the future hold?
Brendan has said his non serviam but calls out a mission which I think is the right one: privacy, also a civil right, especially privacy from governments; continued user advocacy; data liberation; a check on walled gardens (and an end to digital sharecropping); the web as mobile platform, even though it is under threat in the mobile arena, the battle seemingly decided, the entrenched incumbent slightly less obvious. This latter — mobile — is reminiscent of the desktop world in 1998. It’s the same story, with smaller machines. Perhaps the same story will have to be told again. I’d like Mozilla to be a major player in that story, just as it always has been a major player on the web. And I’ll be looking forward to seeing what Brendan does next. I’ll miss him as part of Mozilla. This has been crushing.
Coda: what have wise ones said?
“I don’t know why we’re talking about tolerance to begin with. We should be at acceptance and love. What’s this tolerance business? What are you tolerating, backpain? ‘I’ve been tolerating backpain, and the gay guy at work?'” — Hari Kondabalu (watch him on Letterman). And blog posts: Mozilla is not Chick-Fil-A; Thinking about Mozilla; The Hounding of a Heretic (Andrew Sullivan); a few others, discussing what a CEO should do, and what qualities a CEO should possess, which are out there for you to discover.
22 thoughts on “FAQtechism”
Given Brendan Eich has resigned, I suppose that FirefoxOS is now dead by fact.
Most of the markets has been countries with people against gay marriage. Trying to impose point of view of rich countries on poor countries is clearly the most efficient method for killing all future to FirefoxOS.
The resulting definition of “inclusiveness” will be seen as of only inclusive of rich people against poors (their point of view has no importance and they don’t have even the right to tell him without being excluded).
What’s this? Feeling apologetic?
So you now just remembered that Eich will shape Mozilla according to his beliefs, something that he has never done in the past?
I’m not sure how you can conclude that FxOS is “dead by fact.” But your other point is very valid:
“Trying to impose point of view of rich countries on poor countries is clearly the most efficient method for killing all future to FirefoxOS.”
I think by this you mean, people will pick products based on ideology rather than what’s good software? Because if so, they should stop using Google, Facebook, and Apple products (c.f. this article in the LA Times about each company’s position). But the #1 sites in India are Google and Facebook! Also in Indonesia, for example: http://www.alexa.com/topsites/countries/ID. So I think FxOS succeeds by being good: efficient, affordable, and fun.
Hi “Mozillian:” I’m not feeling apologetic. Nobody disbelieves Eich shaped Mozilla according to his beliefs. He was an incredible project steward. My post says he “embodies the Mozilla project.” Is that unclear to you? Also, I doubt you really are a Mozillian. Most Mozillians would comment in the open, don’t leave insults (which I’ve deleted) and have a bit more nuance to their thinking.
About FirefoxOS being doomed, in my opinion the main problem is Mozilla not being focused on software any more.
I must point out that the “same-sex marriage” topic is NOT something that belongs to “rich countries” but it comes mostly from the “anglosphere” (english speaking countries).
In fact my country (Italy) is relatively rich and there isn’t any “same-sex marriage”. Generally speaking Europe has got a much more conservative approach than the US to the “same-sex marriage” topic because we don’t see it as the same as other issues about “rights” (like vote for women for example). And because we usually have laws about the concept of “family” that you must to redefine to extend the concept of “family” to people of the same sex, with several side effects on other fundamental laws.
Another big difference is about “minorities”. In Europe we have minorities everywhere, for example in my countries we have several “special autonomous regions” where people speak other languages and have non-italian main cultures. We have been also at war for centuries, often a city against a neighbor city, regions versus region, nations against nations, religion wars among different versions of the same faith, etc. As result we are much less sensitive about “minorities”, you can pretty much insult and discriminate everybody and it is not a big deal until you don’t beat him/she up.
Then again, the italian or french prime minister can publically cheat his wife with an actress, fight and divorce and nobody cares. In the USA the president would be expected to quit. There is a much higher tolerance about “moral issues”.
In short, Mozilla is a very american show, contrary of their own propaganda.
@LorenzoC: What do you mean, Mozilla is not focused on software anymore?
Also, thank you for sharing the idea that this is something that comes from the “anglosphere” but that’s not true at all: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage shows us that Argentina, Belgium, Brazil, Denmark, France, Iceland, Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, and Uruguay support gay marriage. In fact, only 4 countries in the “anglosphere” — Canada, New Zealand, UK, and South Africa (though is it part of the “anglosphere?” Maybe through colonial history) support gay marriage. Again, only some States in the United States support it. So, the total is 12 countries that are not English speaking which support it; 4 countries where English is spoken (with South Africa being one of those four) support it.
I’m not sure what you mean by “in short Mozilla is a very American show, contrary of their own propaganda.” The facts don’t support you if you’re making that point on the basis of gay marriage. As for vote for women, Italy decided that in 1925; why mention that now? Maybe read a bit more about Italy, and your fellow European countries? Gay rights aren’t a “rich country” OR an anglosphere thing (Brazil and Uruguay, amongst others). And Spain and France are Italy’s neighbors.
Denmark, Iceland, Norway, Sweden belong to the anglosphere.
Argentina is an unfortunate Nation of South America, they could be very rich if they weren’t a colony that hops when somebody else presses a button. Tomorrow in Argentina there could be a law to trial all gays in front of a military court.
France and Belgium are just a step in front of Italy in being colonized by the “progressive” trend that comes from the anglosphere. The reason is the left parties (leftovers of the communist parties) use the “progressive reforms” as a tool to disrupt the “bourgeois society” with the old and distant goal of establishing a socialist state. They don’t realize the same tools are used to weak and then dominate their Nations. Not because of gays of course but because of the disruption of “traditinal lifestyles” with all consequences that comes with it. In Europe we cannot afford to deal with the same level of disruption that there is in the american society simply because we have much much less resources pro-capita.
Uruguay and Brasil I don’t know but again, South America is a bad example because things tend to change rather fat over there and often the forces that drive nations come from elsewhere. I would like to know what lobbies control politics in Uruguay and Brasil and who is in control of them.
Keep in mind that it is a very different thing to have a regulation for “not-married couples” (regardless the gender) and to equalize “marriage” and “same-sex marriage”. Totally different. The result in both cases is people involved are protected by the regulations/laws but you achieve the same goal with very different methods, the second being much more disruptive.
I mentioned vote for women because in the american thinking gay rights are the same as women rights and “gay marriage” is the same as “right to vote”. It is not because while granting vote to women did not affect the society, “gay marriage” is totally disruptive of the “clan-based” or “family-based” society.
Mozilla and its issues with the LGBT community is obviously an american show. Do you think somebody around the world cares of the fact that Eich gave 1000 dollars for a political campaign in the State of California? That is the only reason why Mozilla’s CEO was removed (ok, he decided to resign ). People around the world don’t know and don’t care of politics of California and more than this, don’t understand why somebody can be pressured out of his job ONLY because of his opinions. It is not like Eich did something against gays, he respected all the internal guidelines and did not violate any law. I told you in my country there isn’t any “same-sex marriage” and in Russia you go to jail if you are openly gay.
Besides it all, regardless what I have written above, the fact is Mozilla is and thinks like an american organization and promotes “american values”. It is NOT the same as saying it promotes “rich countries values”.
I must add:
Go reading post on Mozilla official blog about Mozilla’s “mission”. Count how many words are spent speaking of software and how many are spent speaking of “social/political” values, goals, visions, issues, etc.
The logic conclusion is Mozilla makes software only as secondary side effect of the said above “mission” but the focus is elsewhere.
@LorenzoC, do you specifically mean this: http://www.mozilla.org/en-US/about/manifesto/?
This mentions software pretty explicitly; you’ll find “open source”, “software”, and “technologies” pretty clearly mentioned there. This is the thing that serves as inspiration for Mozilla’s mission. So contrary to your assertion, I’d say technology is still pretty much the focus. I think Mozilla is pretty misunderstood. Here’s a quote I like about Mozilla:
“Mozilla has always been a messy place, and misunderstood,” said John Lilly, a former chief executive and former board member of Mozilla. “People on the outside can’t decide if it’s the United Nations, or Apple, or a nongovernmental organization, or a soup kitchen. It’s a hybrid, mission-driven organization.”
This comment comes from: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/05/technology/personality-and-change-inflamed-crisis-at-mozilla.html?_r=0
It’s possible you were referring to http://www.mozilla.org/en-US/about/governance/policies/participation/. This latter document outlines *how to participate* in a heterogeneous environment. It doesn’t mention software.
@LorenzoC, I’ll divide your comments into sub-points that I’ll respond to individually:
1. American component: that Mozilla and its LBGT community issues are an “American show.”
2. Geopolitical: that there’s school of thought coming from the “anglosphere” about rights that differs from the rest of the world, regardless or rich or poor.
About 1. above, you’re mostly right — this issue was possibly most relevant to the United States. In fact, it’s a California-specific show, since Proposition 8 was a State-specific proposition, and not a Federal proposition (there isn’t a “proposition” system on Federal ballots in the U.S.). In the end, however, this became a debate about “leadership style” or communication style, and this had implications far beyond the United States. Note also that I don’t think Brendan should have resigned, and that my post was about working together, despite differences. I acknowledge that there’s been hurt — deep hurt, even — and maybe that’s what makes this a challenging thought exercise. In short: the catalyst for this discussion had American roots; the implications were not merely American.
2. Your geopolitical observations are hard to engage with. You have a *very broad* definition of what constitutes the anglosphere I suppose in your definition, any region that contributed pre-Roman and post-Roman influences to the English speaking peoples is part of the anglosphere. This would, then, include Italy, no? Or are you saying that the “anglosphere” is the group of allies that fought together in WWII? In which case, of course, Italy isn’t included. I’m frankly confused by what constitutes the “anglosphere.” I also notice you ignored Spain. And it’s unfortunate that you paint Argentina with the same brush of instability that you could (correctly) have used to paint Venezuela; I don’t think that’s quite fair to Argentina, and we’ll leave your observations about Brazil and Uruguay alone.
But the point that does make me think, based on your commentary, is this: what is it about the political process of a country, and its intrinsic thought process, that allows it to move in the direction of something like gay rights? What are the societal factors that need to be there, and how are they established? I think @Gaja may be partially right, too: richness may be one component. But this doesn’t apply uniformly to Brazil, so maybe not. I don’t have a good answer for this. From your perspective, it’s clear there’s a socialist streak to this thought. I’m not sure I agree with that.
Simpler than that, the “anglosphere” is composed by countries where people speak english like their second-mother-language, more or less eat the same crap the english eat (like beans at breakfast bleah ) and generally have the same social and personal habits.
Europe is generally divided in three main “linguistic” areas, the slavic area (east europe, Russia) the latin area (Italy, France, Spain) the germanic area (Germany, Scandinavia, England) The USA have been part of England until the “american revolution”. After WWII they became a sort of new roman empire (at least politically) in fact we are writing in english. England nowadays is a sort of american province of Europe, the scandinavian states fall in the orbit of England because of proximity.
I don’t know South America well enough but “instability” looks obvious. I guess it is the consequence of the fact that most (all?) nations of South America are ruled by elites that are often (always?) used as a puppet government by foreign powers, mostly the USA and/or the big american corporations and in the past the Soviet Union. You know, even the best democracy is ruled by lobbies, think what happens when local lobbies are puppets of foreign (and often hidden/unknown) lobbies.
I guess first we must agree on what “gay rights” mean. I don’t recognize any special status to gays, they should get exactly the same rights as anybody else. But “marriage” is a concept that varies depending on the local culture, it is NOT an absolute. In the USA marriage is important for example because wives “imherit” the health care insurance from husband (I guess it works in reverse too) and children “inherit” insurance from parents. In Europe almost everywhere there is the public health care system so everybody gets the same health care regardless. In the same time Americans (besides those who are some sort of religion freak) marry and divorce easily, think of “Las Vegas marriages”, while here in my country marriages are a BIG DEAL that involves the two “family-clans” (originally it was like a treaty between two nations and/or a business agreement with exchange of goods) and if you have seen some mafia movie you get an idea of what I mean. Americans and Italians have two completely different idea of “family”, ties, duties and rights that come with it for each single person. And so on.
The “socialist” thing is another topic. Here we simply had a communist party that took orders from the russian communist party. Their goal was to replace the “american inspired” goverment we got after WWII with a soviet-style government. As part of this project, everything that could destabilize the “bourgeois” society was good and could get the “revolution” closer. So basically “rights of minorities” were (and still are) used as a crowbar to force a change in the society, not because of the “values” or people in themselves. The proof of it all is currently Russia, after they dismissed the communist regime, put gays in jail, so “socialism” did not teach much about “minorities”.
If you ask me, gay couples should have the same laws as any “not-married couple” (call it the way you prefer) and “traditional marriage” should be left alone on a separate path.
Another thing that Americans have and we don’t here is the authorization to make babies using sperm donors and surrogate mothers. Both things are forbidden by the law and I agree with that. Gays suffer because they want to rise kids? I suffer because I want to play soccer, being rich and date top models. So what, we must play with the cards we got.
About Mozilla, the fact that is got “over-politicized” comes out obvious from what happened with the “Eich case”. If Mozilla was just about making software, if mozillian were focused only on the “software core” of the “mission”, the whole scandal would have been dismissed before even starting and Eich would be still there, since he did not make any wrong inside Mozilla.
But you go reading ALL the posts from Mozilla and mozillians and you can easily see they have been shocked because making software is AT LEAST as important as the “politica agenda” and when you have got a “political agenda” you don’t care only of software you make at work, you care of what happens in life and there isn’t any possible compartment between the two things.
I also laugh at Mozilla and mozilla pretending to be “inclusive”, they showed clearly they are mostly “progressive people” organized in a “progressive movement” with just some accidental (and tolerated until he/she stays silent) “non progressive” contributor here and there. You read this as “hypocrisy”.
This is an excellent point. Rights of any kind have to be described in the context of any given society’s definition of basic societal rights. I didn’t think about this point till reading your post. So, in my original blog post I mention the hot topics connected to the legal definition of marriage: visitation rights, inheritance, and immigration benefits. In Italy, all these might not be intrinsic to marriage (I simply don’t know). Also, health care, as you point out, isn’t tied to marital status. The more I think about this, the more I think about how societies differ w.r.t. the “uber context” for rights, and why marriage’s role in those societies may mean something distinct and altogether different than what it means in the USA.
So, your definition of the anglosphere is a little, umm, humorous? I agree that beans aren’t what you want for breakfast, but I urge you to try a breakfast burrito one day. Hint: it’s sort of an anglosphere thing, by way of Mexico, at least in terms of ingredients. Your geopolitical taxonomy is questionable
BUT, you do make another point that I didn’t think of: how basic units of society continue to be defined in terms of ancient substructures, upon which government might be seen as a superstructure. If what you say about Italy’s “clan-based” system is true, it sounds advantageous only to those who conform to a clan’s notions of inclusion. Which might not be a bad thing, if the clan is benevolent to differences. Is your point that government should stay out of clan affairs, or that government in Italy is *designed around* the clan structure? Either way, I can see why marriage might be an intrinsic part of that substructure, and a more inclusive definition might be disruptive. I don’t agree with you, of course, I merely have more knowledge So, thank you for your comments. They’ve helped me understand Italy, at least through your eyes.
Oh, and equating hypothetical gay aspirations for child-rearing with your aspirations for dating models, playing soccer and becoming rich made me laugh. I don’t think those aspirations are equal at all, but I did laugh; if humor is your objective, you’ve succeeded I wish you luck in your pursuit of wealth, models to date, and goals to score.
Only idiots are deadly serious.
“is your point that government should stay out of clan affairs, or that government in Italy is *designed around* the clan structure? ”
It works in reverse. One of the major flaw in the “progressive” movement everywhere in the world is that people think you can IMPOSE social changes over unwilling people. In communist regimes that is done with bayonets, in democracies it is done by more subtle means, basically by lobbying and then controlling the media, laws and regulations. A small active and aggressive minority can rule over a sleepy and distracted majority.
But this idea of imposing changes top-down, which couples with the idea that “progressive” are morally and intellectually superior, doesn’t take count of the disruptive effects on the society and the consequences on everybody’s lives that the State cannot face, both because it doesn’t have the resources and because it doesn’t have the tools.
I give you an example: Italy is being overwhelmed by waves of immigrants from Africa and Middle East. There are these actors:
1. the Catholic church that presses for “charity”.
2. progressives that press for “sharing/inclusion”.
3. the anglosphere with the retoric about “racism”.
Nobody considers that Italy is already almost bankrupt and very very overcrowded. Like I said elsewhere, there are SIX TIMES more people per squared kilometer than in USA (here where I live 15 times). Nobody considers what happens when you aren’t rich and you cannot move out of some neighborhood that suddenly gets filled by immigrants who cannot read or write, cannot do any qualified job, refuse the italian culture and so on. Nobody considers what happens when million unqualified people, who live out of any regulation, fill the job market disrupting the regular contracts and so on.
Only the “positive” or “idealistic” side of the topic is always considered while the PRICE is ignored or hidden on purpose.
As result, you see each election in Europe the extreme right parties get more and more support. One day we will be discussing of tanks in the streets.
About the clan-based society, I guess you don’t get how deep it is ingrained in the italian culture. In Italy EVERYTHING turns around that. Italians don’t move away from their families, everybody lives nearby. Italians make friends in the elementary school among kids of the same age who live in the neighborhoods and those friends are the only true friends they have. In Italy you find job through the network of relatives and friends, you date girls in the same way, you repair your toilet in that way, etc.
When you meet an Italian and he introduces himself he will say his name and his hometown. Something like Mario Rossi da Pavia. I should spend some words to explain the other italian structure that is the “city-state”, but it would be too long.
You ask me if the government should stay out. Dude, you know the government is made by other italians, right? They do have their own families and friends, like anybody else, so there is no reason why the government should go against it.
I must re-instate a point. The “clan” is the most ancient and basic tool human kind invented to increase chances of survival in an hostile environment. It is the human equivalent of the pack of wolves.
You can pick your friends and enemies but you can’t decide who is connected to you by ties of blood. Those ties exist above, before and after you, regardless.
Marriage is the traditional (since EVER) way to import new blood inside the clan and to regulate relationships among clans. Nations and empires have been created and ruled through marriages. But also life in small towns, in the same way more or less.
Of course when you grow up in a de-structured society and you are used to think in terms of “individuals”, all what I wrote above sounds a bit alien. It happens the opposite when you grow up in a society where belonging to a clan is normal, expected and good.
In the same time, when there is only the “individual” and the government with nothing in between, it is obvious that “laws” (like same-sex marriage) get extreme and very sharp edged, while in a Nation where between the you and the government there are several sub-structures with their own internal organization and rules, “laws” are more like “recommendations” and blurred. That because the State DELEGATES micro-managing to the middle layers, the family being the lower of those.
I give you another example: guns.
In Italy and Europe in general there is a very strict regulation about owning guns. But if you are determined, you can get them. Why you don’t see guns around and there is a VERY VERY low violent crime rate? Because the State delegates gun control (and people control in general) to the “clan”. If your brother flips out and wants to keep an assault rifle under his bed YOU are expected to prevent that. If not you, a cousin, an uncle, somebody else. It is not perfect of course, in fact sometimes a guy kills a neighbor with a frying pan but ultimately it works.
Oh, please, don’t over-use the term “equality”.
I am short sighted and I cannot be a jet pilot. That is because I am not EQUAL to another guy with perfect eyesight. So what? Should I expect a law to be introduced so the Air Force recruits short sighted people in name of “equality”?
I am medium height for an Italian, I cannot play professional Basketball. Should I ask a regulation introduced to force basketball teams to employ short people in name of “equality”?
It doesn’t make any sense.
Even worse when we consider I am a man and not a woman. I cannot see why the State should allow me to pay for renting an uterus (at best) so I can “give birth” to a baby while being a man. In name of “equality”?
And what about both women who are used as incubators and babies who are farmed like pets? What about eugenetics (selection of the implants)? This can go on for ever but the ONLY thing that gets considered is “equality”.
Lorenzo: not all Italians agree with you. You don’t speak for all of us. Yes, it is difficult situation. But not first response with blocks.
@LorenzoC: I can only thank you for your comments about Italian society, as you see it. I’ve never read anything as exhaustive as your comments on the subject, and it’s clear I need to read more about Italy. It’s also a country I would very much like to visit. I’ve followed loosely Italy’s encounters with immigration through Western press (once again, um, press in the “anglosphere”) and I’ve also read about the various political responses to it (including xenophobic ones). It’s hard to condone xenophobia, but your comments give me an understanding of what makes this a hard problem.
But now we’re well off track! I welcomed the digressions, because of the insight I’ve gained, but I’d like to finish by stating my views again: I’m sorry Brendan had to resign. Even those on the side of marriage equality may have come to understand that vociferously shouting down opposition doesn’t favor the cause, only paints it in a bad light. I’m different here, though: I can dwell in rational thought, since I haven’t been personally wounded by any of this. In other words, I can lay aside my conviction on this subject and agree to work together. Others simply cannot. I miss Brendan’s stewardship of Mozilla. For technical folks, he was always the leader anyway. In short: thanks for your time, LorenzoC. You’ve educated me a bit. But let’s agree to disagree, since you’re not going to convince me about your notions of the anglosphere.
This blog post also does another thing: it obliged me to wade into the sometimes murky waters of personal conviction, just to express my views in the way that I thought best. To lead Mozilla, you don’t need to wade into those waters. You need only have one conviction: that the goals set forth in the Manifesto are good ones, since that’s what made me a Mozillian. And that would have been good enough for me, since I already knew from experience that Brendan would have worked well with Mozilla’s diverse community.
Personally I welcome disagreement because it is an opportunity to learn.
My point was only to show that some “ideas” are often taken for granted, like they are “absolutes” while they are not. You must move your point of view a bit and the perspective changes.
I can’t convince you that the anglosphere is where ever people eat crap for breakfast?
BTW, I am disappointed about Mozilla. I am disappointed about the USA too, once again. For different reasons. About Mozilla because I don’t buy the “we embrace diversity” propaganda, after I read all those posts. I wonder what would have happened if Eich was gay and some anti-gay “community” pressured to get him out from Mozilla. I wonder if I would have read the same kind of comments and the same kind of communication from Mozilla. About the USA because they are far far away from here, not geographically. And I don’t like where they are and where they are going. I am worried about the influence the USA have over Europe through cultural colonization and the consequences of it.
This is a gorgeously written piece. Thanks for so beautifully sharing thoughts on such a personal and sensitive issue.
Comments are closed.