Thoughtcrime

[Xiahou]

Is it acceptable to force someone from their job for a political view? A political donation? A political vote?

Apparently so (http://www.cnet.com/news/okcupid-pulls-firefox-blocker/).

Brendan Eich, only recently appointed CEO of Mozilla, was forced to resign due to the firestorm over his 2008 donation of $1000 in favor of Prop8. He stated in a recent interview (http://www.cnet.com/news/mozilla-ceo-gay-marriage-firestorm-could-hurt-firefox-cause-q-a/) how he separates his personal beliefs from his job....


Mozilla has always worked according to principles of inclusiveness. It may be challenging for a CEO, but everyone in our community can have different beliefs about all sorts of things that may be in conflict. They leave them at the door when they come to work on the Mozilla mission. We are a broad, big, mission-based organization. It's not to say some of those other beliefs aren't as contributing to the open Web, but we will not succeed globally without being maximally inclusive by leaving exclusionary beliefs at the door. I've done that for 16 years. I've done open source for 20 years. I think my reputation is well-known. Mozilla.org was founded 16 years ago today. The open source went up on March 31.

I've always treated people as they come, I've worked with them, tried to get them into the project, I've been as fair and inclusive as anyone -- I think more. I intend to be even more so as CEO because I agree there's an obligation to reach out to people who for whatever reason are marginalized.

But that's not good enough. Nothing short of a public, full-throated disavowal of his personally held beliefs will prevent him from being black-listed.

"I asked him to just issue a statement that his personal, private beliefs remained the same about what a traditional family is, but that he recognized that we should not legislate morality and that those laws had a tangible negative effect on people," Catlin said. "Instead, he fell back to his defensive position and refuses to apologize for helping to fund a law that actively discriminated against his own employees and community."

People should be appalled by this. Perhaps Mozilla, when choosing it's new CEO, should have a checklist of hot-button political issues that you must be in favor of before you can be considered?

[rvg]

It's appalling and rampant. Especially when it's coming from a "diversity" crowd that appreciates all kinds of diversity except for diversity of opinion.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Surely that can't be legal? How can you sack somebody for supporting a democratic campaign?

[rvg]

Surely that can't be legal? How can you sack somebody for supporting a democratic campaign?

It's legal. Employers in at-will employment states can terminate employees for any reason or no reason whatsoever. California makes exceptions for stuff like personal vendetta, but that's about it.

[Beskar]

It's appalling and rampant. Especially when it's coming from a "diversity" crowd that appreciates all kinds of diversity except for diversity of opinion.

Exception applies more to 'bigotry' than 'diversity of opinion'.

You can have an opinion as long as it is not an asshat one.

[rvg]

Exception applies more to 'bigotry' than 'diversity of opinion'.

You can have an opinion as long as it is not an asshat one.

Wrong. You can have any opinion you want. No exceptions.

[Xiahou]

Exception applies more to 'bigotry' than 'diversity of opinion'.

You can have an opinion as long as it is not an asshat one.

Unless I'm missing something, he never even publicly expressed his opinion. Someone took the time to troll through the entire donors list (which is public information), found his name, and demanded he recant or be purged.

If, as CEO, he made public statements about his personal views on gay marriage, I think you'd be on better footing to make an issue of it. But this is not the case. :no:

[Tellos Athenaios]

Meh. Storms and teacups.

As I see it, Mr Eich exercised his right to donate to political causes and others exercised their right to boycott Mozilla because they feel strongly about these political causes.

Or for a better write up, see: http://mjg59.dreamwidth.org/30577.html

Turns out that his political beliefs effectively renders him unable to function in the capacity of CEO of an organisation that relies on support from lots of people who fear the consequences of those beliefs.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

The public is allowed to have its opinion. If the company caves when facing public opinion, that is their choice. Sad choice, but theirs to make.

[Ironside]

Is it acceptable to force someone from their job for a political view? A political donation? A political vote?

Apparently so (http://www.cnet.com/news/okcupid-pulls-firefox-blocker/).

Brendan Eich, only recently appointed CEO of Mozilla, was forced to resign due to the firestorm over his 2008 donation of $1000 in favor of Prop8. He stated in a recent interview (http://www.cnet.com/news/mozilla-ceo-gay-marriage-firestorm-could-hurt-firefox-cause-q-a/) how he separates his personal beliefs from his job....

People should be appalled by this. Perhaps Mozilla, when choosing it's new CEO, should have a checklist of hot-button political issues that you must be in favor of before you can be considered?

Yes? Or at the very least, not publically oppose. Who could've guessed that having or getting a public persona would affect on what you can say and do in public?

Don't pretend that funding an opinion by proxy is in any way different than saying that opinion yourself. In fact it's in some ways stronger, since it means money talk instead of hot air. If I'm mr "Extremely Rich" and finance 50% of the Republican party, while publically voting Democrat, am I a Republican or Democrat?

A CEO is in many ways a public speaker of a company. That means that a notable opinion of the CEO have been met by, at the very least, a stamp of acceptance by the company. People can then point out their opinion about this acceptance. If they would be forced to accept that, it would be the thought crime you decry.

Private opinions vs professionalism. When do your personal opinion colour your actions when your professional opinion should officially be reversed? That's a fair question. And depends on the person. That means that there's no good absolute answer, so the good old crowd opinion becomes the driving force.

As for your starting questions. No, it's not right. But it's legal there and has been for a long time there. Do you honestly believe that a worker supporting gay rights 20 years ago could give financial support to that opinion and not risk his job? But now it's suddenly a thought crime to do the same thing, when you feel to be on the recieving end? Two wrongs doesn't make a right, that's true. But then you try to fix the error, not trying to pretend that only the first wrong is wrong and the second wrong was right all the time.

[Beskar]

Wrong. You can have any opinion you want. No exceptions.

We are talking about 'acceptable opinions' in a broad-sense in regards to a specific 'diversity' grouping. Which is different than an opinion full-stop. You attacked one of the far more open-minded groupings which only generally dislike discrimination-bigotry.

Not being a Christian makes your opinion invalid on Christendom to many Christians. Being Black makes your opinion invalid to the KKK. Et al.

[rvg]

We are talking about 'acceptable opinions' in a broad-sense in regards to a specific 'diversity' grouping...
When the aforementioned 'diversity grouping' hijacks the society at large, we begin to see the rise of thought police.
There are no unacceptable opinions in a free society. Period.

[Rhyfelwyr]

We are talking about 'acceptable opinions' in a broad-sense in regards to a specific 'diversity' grouping. Which is different than an opinion full-stop.

Indeed, the original proponents of the Anglosphere vision of free speech, whether they were the English Roundheads or the American Founding Fathers, would be horrified if they saw things like homosexuality being promoted in the public sphere.

This is the problem with free speech - it is always limited by what we see as being within the bounds of moral decency. "Just don't frighten the horses" as some people like to put it. For you, to be against homosexuality is offensive and thus not acceptable in the public sphere. For me, to be for it is offensive, and thus not acceptable in the public sphere.

Nobody has the moral high ground when it comes to limiting free speech - we all do it, and we are right to do so. For example, nobody (I hope) would say that somebody should be able to yell the particulars about his latest sexual encounter in the street - that is without the bounds of what free speech was ever intended for.

[Xiahou]

Do you honestly believe that a worker supporting gay rights 20 years ago could give financial support to that opinion and not risk his job?Yes, I do. :yes:


But now it's suddenly a thought crime to do the same thing, when you feel to be on the recieving end? Two wrongs doesn't make a right, that's true. But then you try to fix the error, not trying to pretend that only the first wrong is wrong and the second wrong was right all the time.You'd think the group that was the object of such societal exclusion and ostracism would think twice before doing the same to others. The gay marriage issue had a majority opposed to it (including our president) until just a few short years ago. Now holding that opinion is grounds for discrimination in their minds? Remember, he was given an out- asked to disavow his views on gay marriage. No one accused him of treating homosexuals differently at Mozilla- all accounts say he was extremely fair and inclusive. But, acting in conformity wasn't enough- he needed to think in conformity.

You'd think that Californians, in particular, would be reticent about blacklisting (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollywood_blacklist) people based on their beliefs.

[Sir Moody]

Personally i have no problem with this - had he been forced out by the Government (either state or Federal) then I would have a problem but customers are completely able to voice their frustrations at a CEO for what ever reason - if the company chooses to listen to the customers then that's that.

They actually stuck by him for quite a bit until Ok Cupid stuck the knife in (they prompted Mozilla users to change browser in order to use Ok Cupid) at which point they decided it was hurting the company to keep him on... probably a good decision

[Montmorency]

But, acting in conformity wasn't enough- he needed to think in conformity.

He didn't act in conformity. Quite the opposite in fact.


You'd think the group that was the object of such societal exclusion and ostracism would think twice before doing the same to others.

You'd think the Jews would have just forgiven the Nazis once WW2 ended and not pressed the issue by hunting them down...


For example, nobody (I hope) would say that somebody should be able to yell the particulars about his latest sexual encounter in the street - that is without the bounds of what free speech was ever intended for.

Yelling anything is a public disturbance...

[Montmorency]

Something also missed by the label "Thoughtcrime": there is no such thing (yet).

To speak is an action. To write is an action.

All crimes are actions at the moment. Don't get ahead of yourself.

[Xiahou]

Personally i have no problem with this - had he been forced out by the Government (either state or Federal) then I would have a problem but customers are completely able to voice their frustrations at a CEO for what ever reason - if the company chooses to listen to the customers then that's that.

They actually stuck by him for quite a bit until Ok Cupid stuck the knife in (they prompted Mozilla users to change browser in order to use Ok Cupid) at which point they decided it was hurting the company to keep him on... probably a good decision
You're missing my point. Of course they're allowed to do that. I'm highlighting the hypocrisy in blacklisting someone for their views in the name of inclusiveness. It's an Orwellian mindset. "All views are welcome- as long as they agree with us."

[Montmorency]

All views are welcome- as long as they agree with us."

'All views are welcome as long as they are not directly opposite to ours' would be a better representation.

You speak as though this is a strange perspective - it's really not. I guarantee you that not a single person on Earth would welcome someone with opposite views.

E.g. 'I hate murder.'

'Murder is awesome, and you're wrong for hating it.'

'Let's agree to disagree.'

^^^Never happens.

[Ironside]

Yes, I do. :yes:

In that case, you're either very naive, or the opposers of gay marriage are way more aggressive nowadays.
A teacher got fired here (http://www.cardinalnewmansociety.org/CatholicEducationDaily/DetailsPage/tabid/102/ArticleID/3096/Teacher-Fired-After-Gay-Marriage-Sues-Catholic-High-School.aspx). A school administrator here. (http://abcnews.go.com/US/catholic-school-administrator-fired-supporting-gay-marriage/story?id=18477646)
Catholics seems to be most aggressive against it.


You'd think the group that was the object of such societal exclusion and ostracism would think twice before doing the same to others.

History teaches us that they learn the opposite. They know how effective it was against them.


The gay marriage issue had a majority opposed to it (including our president) until just a few short years ago. Now holding that opinion is grounds for discrimination in their minds? Remember, he was given an out- asked to disavow his views on gay marriage. No one accused him of treating homosexuals differently at Mozilla- all accounts say he was extremely fair and inclusive. But, acting in conformity wasn't enough- he needed to think in conformity.

Holding an opinion strongly enough to financiallly support it (making it your public opinion and not your private one) as a public person and as a representative of company means that people are allowed to boycot that company. Agreed? That it has gotten enough traction to be a successful boycot doesn't change that. Social activism is one of the main ways to create change. Good or bad? Depends on if you like the change or not.

Giving money counts as an act. He was asked if he had changed his mind on that act. He said no. He certainly did not act in conformity. What you talk about is active workplace discrimination and that is something else.

If they start to prevent him to get any job, then it starts to become like the Hollywood blacklisting. It's a huge difference between being a representative in a company and simply working for the company.

[ICantSpellDawg]

I think that this is ok, if your status as a proponent of a view is in opposition to the political view of the company that you head. His political donation has caused a furor which will cost the company money. As a company is I interested in making money, if the head of the company is causing you to lose money purely from his personality or beliefs, there will be obvious pressure

The company that I work for now is Roman Catholic. If our CEO lived a lifestyle in opposition to church teachings; If she started donating money to NARAL we would probably lose business. If the company was big enough it would be a big deal.

Either way, there is no such thing as "forced resignation". If you are forced to resign you are either terminated or you quit. This situation sounds like a financial dilemna met an honorable CEO who believed in the company and didnt want to cause it damage. A company has to be very careful about threatening a hostile work environment in order to force you to resign. And if they fire you for a personal belief, they will be sued.

I am personally against gay marriage, I think it is a garbage political position to push for it, but companies are out there to make money, so this is a real issue for them if consumers or investors balk. Don't like it? Start your own company and don't court crappy investors.

[HoreTore]

So...

It's your opinion that the government should decide whether or not a company can fire employees, Xiahou?

[rvg]

It's your opinion that the government should decide whether or not a company can fire employees, Xiahou?

That's not at all what he's saying. He's just calling out the hypocrisy of the liberal left.

[HoreTore]

That's not at all what he's saying. He's just calling out the hypocrisy of the liberal left.

So it's your opinion that the company was in the right in firing this guy then?

[Fisherking]

Oh, the foundation was completely within its rights. He was pressured but not fired.

The major problem is that they bent to the wishes of a small militant minority and their allies upset with a defeated enemy and a not so large political donation.

Now apparently it has been taken up by a much larger segment of the population. Those upset by the intolerance displayed as well as the anti-gay types.

Not a move that showed a lot of acumen.

https://www.facebook.com/mozilla

The Washington Post criticized them for the hypocrisy of the move, as well as other major outlets.

Not very good news for the organization as a whole.

It is very good news for IE and Google Chrome, however.

edit: Seems like a Duck Dynasty replay.:shame:

[HoreTore]

It is very good news for IE and Google Chrome, however.

....because firing the Mozilla CEO is going to make IE less sucky...?

[Fisherking]

....because firing the Mozilla CEO is going to make IE less sucky...?

No, because lots of people are uninstalling and moving to another browser, which is what they were trying to avoid when pressured by the dating site that brought all this on.

[Strike For The South]

But I thought we liked right to work states?

lololololololololol

[Fisherking]

But I thought we liked right to work states?

lololololololololol

Oh?

Are you a dues paying member of the CEO’s Union?

:inquisitive:

[Fisherking]

But I thought we liked right to work states?

lololololololololol

Oh?

Are you a dues paying member of the CEO’s Union?

:inquisitive:

[rvg]

So it's your opinion that the company was in the right in firing this guy then?
Of course it was, it did what it had to do to protect its profits. It's the hypocritical sheeple in the state of California that are a problem, they are the ones that forced Mozilla's hand.

[HoreTore]

Of course it was, it did what it had to do to protect its profits. It's the hypocritical sheeple in the state of California that are a problem, they are the ones that forced Mozilla's hand.

So....

The people of California should only voice their opinion when they agree with you?

[rvg]

So....

The people of California should only voice their opinion when they agree with you?
The sheeple of California shouldn't force people with different views out of a job.

[Crazed Rabbit]

I think the company is within it's rights, but it's not the best move. He was a co-founder of Mozilla, for crying out loud. Are they going to get a better CEO out of this, or a more PC one?

And re: their culture of openness - is it really openness if they don't allow people who go against the current progressive agenda? That's not openness, it's a culture of required progressive beliefs. Of course that doesn't really sound inclusive.

CR

[Montmorency]

What you're suggesting is not openness, but nihilism.

Isn't there a difference?

[Crazed Rabbit]

Some other views;
http://dish.andrewsullivan.com/2014/04/03/the-hounding-of-brendan-eich/

The whole episode disgusts me – as it should disgust anyone interested in a tolerant and diverse society. If this is the gay rights movement today – hounding our opponents with a fanaticism more like the religious right than anyone else – then count me out. If we are about intimidating the free speech of others, we are no better than the anti-gay bullies who came before us.

http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/04/04/why-mozillas-chief-had-to-resign/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=0

But it’s a mistake to draw any such conclusions in this case, for one simple reason: Mozilla is not a normal company. It is an activist organization. Mozilla’s primary mission isn’t to make money but to spread open-source code across the globe in the eventual hope of promoting “the development of the Internet as a public resource.”

As such, Mozilla operates according to a different calculus from most of the rest of corporate America.

Like all software companies, Mozilla competes in two markets. First, obviously, it wants people to use its products instead of its rivals’ stuff. But its second market is arguably more challenging — the tight labor pool of engineers, designers, and other tech workers who make software.

When you consider the importance of that market, Mr. Eich’s position on gay marriage wasn’t some outré personal stance unrelated to his job; it was a potentially hazardous bit of negative branding in the labor pool, one that was making life difficult for current employees and plausibly reducing Mozilla’s draw to prospective workers.

[HoreTore]

The sheeple of California shouldn't force people with different views out of a job.

So, you are proposing to make it illegal for people to voice their opinions, then?

[rvg]

So, you are proposing to make it illegal for people to voice their opinions, then?
Are you on purpose trying to sound so dense?

Let me explain it to you with an example: I consider Spike Lee to be an f*ing racist. He really doesn't like us honkeys. He also happens to be a pretty decent movie director. Will I boycott his movies just because I consider him a racist? Of course not, as that would be retarded. His racism is his personal business and has no bearing on the quality of his movies.
Same deal with, say, Mel Gibson. The guy is nuts, but he's an excellent actor and director. Would I boycott him? Hell no.
Tom Cruise. Another crazycakes, yet another brilliant actor. I consider his personal views to be nothing short of idiotic, but that wouldn't prevent me from watching his movies.
Get it now?

[PanzerJaeger]

This is the free market guys. CEO's are the public face of their organizations, which is only amplified in Silicon Valley, where the visionary leader model is often employed. This otherwise brilliant CEO just happened to have been found to be a supporter of what was essentially a hate group, and the market reacted. :shrug:

Let's not forget what this man ponied up $1,000 to support. There are principled, respectful arguments that can be made against gay marriage. Prop 8 supporters did not choose that path. I don't really blame anyone for holding a grudge after being labeled a threat to children and society.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0PgjcgqFYP4


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7352ZVMKBQM


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l61Pd5_jHQw

[HoreTore]

Are you on purpose trying to sound so dense?

Let me explain it to you with an example: I consider Spike Lee to be an f*ing racist. He really doesn't like us honkeys. He also happens to be a pretty decent movie director. Will I boycott his movies just because I consider him a racist? Of course not, as that would be retarded. His racism is his personal business and has no bearing on the quality of his movies.
Same deal with, say, Mel Gibson. The guy is nuts, but he's an excellent actor and director. Would I boycott him? Hell no.
Tom Cruise. Another crazycakes, yet another brilliant actor. I consider his personal views to be nothing short of idiotic, but that wouldn't prevent me from watching his movies.
Get it now?

I get that you would not boycott Mozilla, and so you want everyone else to do the same as you do.

[Fisherking]

This is the free market guys. CEO's are the public face of their organizations, which is only amplified in Silicon Valley, where the visionary leader model is often employed. This otherwise brilliant CEO just happened to have been found to be a supporter of what was essentially a hate group, and the market reacted. :shrug:

Let's not forget what this man ponied up $1,000 to support. There are principled, respectful arguments that can be made against gay marriage. Prop 8 supporters did not choose that path. I don't really blame anyone for holding a grudge after being labeled a threat to children and society.
]

You can’t say a hate group. How could you know? Everyone was divided.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_8_%282008%29

So, it was for the children. Hillary taught everyone that.

We can’t possibly know what he thought when he gave the money but as it was a divisive issue I am willing to give him the benefit of the doubt.

If blame needs to be placed, it belongs on the side of militant gays or more specifically OKCupit’s dating site.

From there is was bowing to a pressure group for the good of the establishment, and one they really had no hope of winning.

It was foolish to think that this was the safer course.

Tolerance is a two way street. Those who would have it also need to demonstrate it.

Otherwise it is only hypocrisy.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Viable racism should be tolerated. Not the type that says that individual people are bad because of the color of their skin, but that cultures can be bad and that different social policies are needed to usher some people out of locally imposed dark ages.

People should be able to say what they'd like. When it comes to your job, though you just have to think hard about doing and saying what you'd like as different PC fads come and go and could cost you money.

[Fisherking]

Tolerance for bigotry? That would defeat the purpose. The CEO was on the wrong side of history. There's no militant gay problem causing this, its just a more tolerant generation coming of age that has different standards for what is acceptable. Just wait, it'll keep coming. I'm considered kind of mildly intolerant by many in my own generation, and I'm way to the social left of many of you.

Saying that the anti gay viewpoint should be tolerated is as unpopular as saying racism should be tolerated, these days. It is a wide spread sentiment that is only growing. Would you have a CEO that donated a thousand bucks to the KKK?

The whole campaign on prop 8 seemed about teaching kids about gay marriage. While it may not be a big deal to you now it was more controversial 6 or 7 years ago.

It is not unreasonable to assume that many who voted for prop 8 didn’t care about gay marriage but did care about taking it to the classroom.

Calling it bigotry is only showing your own intolerance. Intolerance breeds more of the same. It is polarizing and divisive.

To lash out at someone who backed a political proposition you opposed six years ago is just mean spirited. It doesn’t show he was engaged in any hate mail campaigns or beating up gays on street corners.

A lot of people have changed their minds on the issue since. I don’t recall that being asked of him.

I am sure you have changed your mind on issues in the past. Yet here you seem to support a vendetta because someone once donated money that you disagree with.

I would not say there is anything mild about your intolerance.

[Montmorency]

A lot of people have changed their minds on the issue since. I don’t recall that being asked of him.

It specifically was.

[rvg]

I get that you would not boycott Mozilla, and so you want everyone else to do the same as you do.
Can you imagine if they stopped being such hypocrites? Yeah, that would be nice. In the meantime I'm content with just exposing their hypocrisy at every opportunity.

[Fisherking]

It specifically was.

Yea? Link please!

The only information I am seeing is that he has never made a public stance on the morality of the issue.

[Crazed Rabbit]

Yea? Link please!

The only information I am seeing is that he has never made a public stance on the morality of the issue.

I believe Montmorency is right (http://recode.net/2014/04/03/mozilla-co-founder-brendan-eich-resigns-as-ceo-and-also-from-foundation-board/);


Throughout the interviews, it was not hard to get the sense that Eich really wanted to stick strongly by his views about gay marriage, which run counter to much of the tech industry and, increasingly, the general population in the U.S. For example, he repeatedly declined to answer when asked if he would donate to a similar initiative today.

Instead, he tried to unsuccessfully hedge those sentiments and, perhaps more importantly, did not seem to understand that he might have to pay the inevitable price for having them.

This is probably one of the only current US political issues where you can claim that opposition is intolerance. Does that mean he must be force to recant his views or not have a leadership position in the industry? It does seem easier to tolerate intolerance once you've won the issue.


There's no militant gay problem causing this, its just a more tolerant generation coming of age that has different standards for what is acceptable. Just wait, it'll keep coming. I'm considered kind of mildly intolerant by many in my own generation, and I'm way to the social left of many of you.

I think, in this specific example, it was a "militant" group going for his resignation.

Out of curiosity, what social group (ie are you calling Eugene liberals representative of your generation?) are you referencing? You seem pretty socially liberal, so I'm wondering why they would view you as intolerant.

CR

[Fisherking]

There is a lot of strong sentiment out there. Most of it stupid, illiberal, and regressive.

OKCupid were small and mean. The company should have engaged them and pointed it out. Instead other closed minds within took over and groupthink stupidity kicked into overdrive.

Big mistake. It certainly does NOT further gay rights or put them in a good light.

Meanwhile (http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/04/mozillas-gay-marriage-litmus-test-violates-liberal-values/360156/)

[Montmorency]

It certainly does NOT further gay rights or put them in a good light.


Not even Jesus turned the cheek to the extent that some in this thread would have liked to see from gay individuals...

[Fisherking]

There are always political opportunists. When hypocrisy rears its head everyone is eager to pile on.

That is partly the reason that this whole this is so damaging.

[PanzerJaeger]

You can’t say a hate group. How could you know? Everyone was divided.

One would have to be deliberately obtuse or wildly uniformed to think otherwise. The Prop 8 campaign completely ignored actually discussing marriage, instead choosing to explicitly label gay people a threat to children. As in all things, context is key; and while you seem content to completely ignore it, the scars from that incredibly degrading hate campaign are still fresh in the minds of most gay people only five years later.



If blame needs to be placed, it belongs on the side of militant gays

So Eich was simply exercising his free speech, but gays are being 'militant' for doing the same? I'm not sure you are in a position to be lecturing on hypocrisy.

[Fisherking]

One would have to be deliberately obtuse or wildly uniformed to think otherwise. The Prop 8 campaign completely ignored actually discussing marriage, instead choosing to explicitly label gay people a threat to children. As in all things, context is key; and while you seem content to completely ignore it, the scars from that incredibly degrading hate campaign are still fresh in the minds of most gay people only five years later.




So Eich was simply exercising his free speech, but gays are being 'militant' for doing the same? I'm not sure you are in a position to be lecturing on hypocrisy.

I suggest you read the last link I provided.

[PanzerJaeger]

I suggest you read the last link I provided.

I read the link. It does not address the question. Brendan Eich does not like the idea of gay people marrying for whatever reason and put up money to support a campaign that was highly offensive to gay people. (Some) gay people, in turn, do not like the idea of someone who supported that campaign being placed in charge of Mozilla, and voiced their opposition to it. Why is the former simply exercising his free speech while the latter are militant?

[rvg]

Why is the former simply exercising his free speech while the latter are militant?

Because gay marriage doesn't have a thing to do with web browsers?

[Fisherking]

I read the link. It does not address the question. Brendan Eich does not like the idea of gay people marrying for whatever reason and put up money to support a campaign that was highly offensive to gay people. (Some) gay people, in turn, do not like the idea of someone who supported that campaign being placed in charge of Mozilla, and voiced their opposition to it. Why is the former simply exercising his free speech while the latter are militant?

Well, perhaps not militant, just stupid and short sighted.

It was not that he was a publicly outspoken critic. He has not expressed his views on the issue. It is surmised by his unwillingness to do so.

Someone had to go out of their way to discover the donation. Then they had to be incensed enough to speak out about it. All that would point to malice and an unwillingness to forgive or forget.

I find that small minded and mean.

It is not even that it is a seemingly gay issue. It would be the same for me were it about abortion rights, gun control or any other divisive political issue and whatever viewpoint the person held. I would think it unjust.

The fact that it is about a gay issue only points up the tolerance issue, and the double standard involved.

[PanzerJaeger]

Because gay marriage doesn't have a thing to do with web browsers?

But this isn't really about Firefox, is it? It is about promoting someone with Eich's views to the highest leadership position in a company that is supposedly built on inclusiveness. Under the right leadership, there are a thousand and one ways a company can discriminate against people without being caught. Eich essentially threw down money not just to oppose gay marriage, but to call gay people a danger to children... to degrade and attack them in the most cruel and vicious manner possible, and it is completely understandable that gay employees and contributors to Mozilla's products would be uncomfortable working under his leadership and voice their opinion.

To borrow GC's example, would it be out of bounds and 'militant' for black employees to speak out in opposition against the promotion to CEO of someone who had donated to the KKK five years prior?

[Fisherking]

But this isn't really about Firefox, is it? It is about promoting someone with Eich's views to the highest leadership position in a company that is supposedly built on inclusiveness. Under the right leadership, there are a thousand and one ways a company can discriminate against people without being caught. Eich essentially threw down money not just to oppose gay marriage, but to call gay people a danger to children... to degrade and attack them in the most cruel and vicious manner possible, and it is completely understandable that gay employees and contributors to Mozilla's products would be uncomfortable working under his leadership and voice their opinion.

To borrow GC's example, would it be out of bounds and 'militant' for black employees to speak out in opposition against the promotion to CEO of someone who had donated to the KKK five years prior?




So, a $1000 donation allowed him to steer the entire campaign? And all that in October. Amazing!

I am truly sorry. I know this is an issue you hold close but it doesn’t change things.

This was an over reaction on the part of those who brought the issue forward. The repercussions and backlash are not going to be good for the gay community at large or firefox. It was a little thought out knee jerk reaction that has backfired.

The best thing to do is for them to admit that mistake and move on. That is recognized in the members of the gay community speaking out against it.

Attempts to justify it are only going to make matter worse.

[HoreTore]

Because gay marriage doesn't have a thing to do with web browsers?

The CEO doesn't make a single browser. The CEO's job is to provide good working conditions for his gay employees which will enable them to produce good browsers.

[rvg]

The CEO doesn't make a single browser. The CEO's job is to provide good working conditions for his gay employees which will enable them to produce good browsers.

Can you point at CEO's discrimination towards any specific gay employee?

[HoreTore]

Can you point at CEO's discrimination towards any specific gay employee?

As he was in charge for a few weeks, you know that's not relevant.

[rvg]

As he was in charge for a few weeks, you know that's not relevant.

Of course! :laugh4:
I keep forgetting that things that disprove your statements are irrelevant.

[Kadagar_AV]

The whole campaign on prop 8 seemed about teaching kids about gay marriage. While it may not be a big deal to you now it was more controversial 6 or 7 years ago.

It is not unreasonable to assume that many who voted for prop 8 didn’t care about gay marriage but did care about taking it to the classroom.

Calling it bigotry is only showing your own intolerance. Intolerance breeds more of the same. It is polarizing and divisive.

To lash out at someone who backed a political proposition you opposed six years ago is just mean spirited. It doesn’t show he was engaged in any hate mail campaigns or beating up gays on street corners.

A lot of people have changed their minds on the issue since. I don’t recall that being asked of him.

I am sure you have changed your mind on issues in the past. Yet here you seem to support a vendetta because someone once donated money that you disagree with.

I would not say there is anything mild about your intolerance.

If I read it right, this bill just about mirrors Russia's new gay laws. It's OK to be gay, but don't flaunt it around children?

I of course don't agree with that stance on this issue, but I have some respect for it.

Please show that down anyone's throats - but my children's.

As much as I would accept and respect a homo son or daughter, I don't want it to be a career path advertised overly much. Or even easier put: No Need To Swirle Flaming Batons About It.

[rvg]

How is donating to a hate group who's mantra was segregation at best not discrimination? I agree he didn't break any laws, but he still brought this on himself.

Hate group? Which group is that? You throw around terms like 'hate group" without any understanding of what that implies.

[rvg]

A group seeking to blanket marginalize a segment of society because they just don't like them is certainly a hate group. Prop 8ers are the same as white priders. Welcome to the modern world.

According to whom?

[rvg]

The prevailing youth culture. Its the same reason weed will be legal all over the place soon. Every day more of them turn 18, and the youth vote is active in opposing social conservatism if nothing else.

Sources.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

I'm in favor of gay marriage because I feel like gay people are unjustly disrespected in our culture, and publicly passing a law supporting them is a very symbolic statement of equality*. It doesn't really have anything to do with rights or anything substantial. Gay people can get married just fine without a legal document; if you have the ceremony and make your vows etc then you are married. If it was only about the legal benefits of being married, people would have simply pushed for civil unions. Many people come up with more complicated intellectual arguments, but on the whole it's really about status. And when we symbolically raise the status of gay people we downgrade the status of christians, which I accept even though I'm not happy about it. It's a public statement that christianity is out of date about some things and should not be looked to for guidance on moral issues. So it is plainly a direct attack against christianity. There is a long history of anti-christian efforts, as christian people well know, and this goes along with that. So, naturally christian people don't like that. They are usually being pro-christian by being against gay marriage, rather than anti-gay, just like I'm being pro-gay by being for it, rather than anti-christian. So it really is bigotry to hate someone for being against gay marriage and donating to a campaign, even if that campaign is nasty like political campaigns usually are.

Unfortunately it seems to me that the vocal parts of the lgbt movement are becoming louder and more obnoxious with their anti-christian bigotry, suing wedding photographers, and getting people fired like this. Some of it is real, some of it is because of how politically useful it is to have a stick to bash republicans with.

CR made a good point about Mozilla not being a real company. It's a company based on the childish political views of the internet/tech subculture**. Really it's a completely insignificant company and shouldn't be in the news, we're only hearing about it because on the internet the importance of internet/tech stuff is vastly overrated. What I'm trying to say is that it's true that Mozilla isn't a normal company, but that's not really to say something good about it, it's more like if there was some investing firm run by the "ayn rand institute", and they fired someone for donating to some environmentalist cause.

Also, I don't think that companies that fire people because they are concerned about bad p.r. should be respected. I would admire them if they would take a hit in the pocket-book for doing what was right. Money isn't everything.

At the end of the day this isn't really surprising. We already know that people who are passionate about political movements go on witch hunts, and excuse their bigotry by talking about how they don't tolerate intolerance. It seems surprising that it affected a company CEO, but when you see what kind of company Mozilla is it isn't surprising anymore. The real take away is that we (and the media) should take the political views of tech companies and internet websites much less seriously, and ignore wikipedia black outs and google's messages under their search bar and so on.

*which is why it's much better if done by referendum than by court decision.

**for example: "Mozilla’s mission is to make the Web more open so that humanity is stronger, more inclusive and more just. " and "Mozilla believes both in equality and freedom of speech. Equality is necessary for meaningful speech. And you need free speech to fight for equality. Figuring out how to stand for both at the same time can be hard."

[rvg]

Look around?

That's not how it works. Find a credible source that equates pushing for prop 8 with being in a hate group, then we'll talk. Otherwise it's just you running your mouth about things you cannot prove or understand.

[HoreTore]

Of course! :laugh4:
I keep forgetting that things that disprove your statements are irrelevant.

Uhm, what?

You're asking me to show evidence of something he hasn't been employed long enough to actually do. If he had been employed for, say, a year, it would have been a fair request.

[rvg]

Uhm, what?

You're asking me to show evidence of something he hasn't been employed long enough to actually do. If he had been employed for, say, a year, it would have been a fair request.

Here's what you said: "The CEO's job is to provide good working conditions for his gay employees which will enable them to produce good browsers."
If you can't provide the evidence of the CEO behaving in a manner contrary to your statement, then there's no credible reason for firing the CEO.

[Montmorency]

RVG has so little respect for his interlocutors that he refuses to consider what they say on the merits themselves of what is said, unless theycan provide a "credible source" that says the same. :rolleyes:

And Sasaki, please define tolerance (in opposition to "bigotry"). Is a soldier bigoted if he fires at an enemy combatant in self-defense? The left doesn't analogize to :daisy: Mennonites, it analogizes to peaceniks. Suggesting that gays cannot defend themselves without being "bigoted" is such a huge crock.

I also can in no way accept the notion that the gay movement is any sort of attack on Christianity; what you've said about relative status is a total non-sequitur.

[rvg]

Shareholder or Stakeholder outrage isn't enough? How is a CEO of an internet company going to appeal to his prime demographics while also appearing to be complicit in old fogery at best and bigotry at worst?

I'll dig up some sources on youth voting activity tomorrow, or later this week, or maybe never. Not my fault you live in a bubble.

I didn't realize that Mozilla was a homosexual browser. My bad.

[rvg]

Its a browser. The internet is for the young, and they have spoken. If you want to be a homophobic CEO you can still do it in other industries just fine. Quite frankly I have no sympathy for him at all. He supported excluding people from society, and as a result he was excluded. I love it.

Oh really? Well that's a rather ridiculous statement especially considering how even the baby boomers have totally embraced the internet and (gah) social networking.

[Papewaio]

I bit of stretching of definitions here.

It is not a thought that is being punished.

It is a physical action of putting your money where your mouth is.

Actions are the difference between thought and prejudice. He actively paid to deny mainstream rights to minorities.

His actions are punishable by the consumer and corporate groups. One day his actions will be seen as the same as those who opposed mixed restaurants, mixed schools and mixed marriages.

In short his actions do not align with his companies open policies and as such he never should have been selected as CEO.

[rvg]

And they'll all be dead sooner or later. The stock of the older generations that have ruined this country for decades is falling, while among the young you can see the seeds of enlightenment. Even in the South, which I hesitate to even describe as part of my country, the trend is towards the liberal. Gives a cynical Cube hope.

Pssst... I don't wanna ruin your day, but the population in the U.S. as in the rest of the civilized world is aging, i.e. year after year the share of older people is increasing, not the other way around.

[rvg]

Ageing right into an old folks home and a pauper's grave, courtesy of the Greed Is Good 80's and the "Let's get all our steel from China" 70's. And the "lets half ass social reform '60s." Good job Boomers.

Huh? Baby boomers are economically better off than Gen X (my generation).

[rvg]

Right. They screwed you, you screwed the next, and so forth. Who is going to pay for the old? The young who cant get a decent paying job because of policies enacted by previous generations? Hah. You think old folks homes are bad now...

I'm not complaining. Got no reason to complain really.

[rvg]

That's where our generations differ. My generation is poorer than the boomers were in the late 60s, been at war since I was in the 6th grade, pays way more for college, and all around has a lot to complain about. Hopefully the next Occupy Wall St. isn't such a pathetic showing.
I'm not speaking for my generation, wouldn't ever presume to do so. I'm speaking only for myself. If you're poorer than the previous guy, it's up to you to do something about it. Chilling on a lawn in front of the local state assembly is unlikely to make your life better no matter how loud you get.

[rvg]

Forcing the greedy to surrender their ill gotten gains for the greater good is a noble persuit. :shrug:

Good luck, comrade :laugh4:

[Lemur]

Meh, I'm not happy with how this played out, but it's a mistake to think it's representative of anything but its own peculiar mix of circumstance.

Mozilla is an unusual company—in addition to being a bog-standard not-for-profit, it's also heavily dependent on hi-tech money flowing from a donor base that is extremely gay-friendly.

A CEO is an unusual employee, in that the CEO also functions as the public face of a company. So it's not like having your CPA or your CTO or your dispatcher forced out of a job.

Prop 8 was an unusually bitter fight (http://www.slate.com/blogs/outward/2014/04/04/brendan_eich_supported_prop_8_which_was_worse_than_you_remember.html), with bad feelings still resonating on all sides to this day. Note the haste with which the Mormon Church has hurried to distance itself from the whole Prop 8 debacle (http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/USA-Update/2014/0406/Mormon-Church-states-opposition-to-gay-marriage-but-hints-at-subtler-shift-video). That should tell you something.

This is not a happy outcome for gay rights, for Mozilla, for Eich, or for much of anyone. But I don't think it's the leading edge of a slippery slope.

[Xiahou]

And they'll all be dead sooner or later. The stock of the older generations that have ruined this country for decades is falling, while among the young you can see the seeds of enlightenment. Even in the South, which I hesitate to even describe as part of my country, the trend is towards the liberal. Gives a cynical Cube hope.

And when they're dead.... you'll be old... or dead. And to blame for all of the perceived problems of disaffected youths.
You've clearly got a lot of growing up to do yet, buddy.

[Xiahou]

Or, my generation will do a better job of caring for the future. :shrug:
That's what the hippies said too. Yet the cycle continues (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=icmRCixQrx8). ~;p

[HoreTore]

Here's what you said: "The CEO's job is to provide good working conditions for his gay employees which will enable them to produce good browsers."
If you can't provide the evidence of the CEO behaving in a manner contrary to your statement, then there's no credible reason for firing the CEO.

Of course there is. Companies are allowed to prevent stuff from happening, ya know.

[rvg]

Of course there is. Companies are allowed to prevent stuff from happening, ya know.

The discussion wasn't about the company, but the people who forced the company's hand.

[Major Robert Dump]

I know some guys who make duck calls who may hire him

[Sigurd]

So... Eich is a Mor(m)on?

[HoreTore]

The discussion wasn't about the company, but the people who forced the company's hand.

In that case, he has already offended his costumers by donating to this group, so the reaction is perfectly fine.

[rvg]

In that case, he has already offended his costumers by donating to this group, so the reaction is perfectly fine.

No, not really. No matter what you do, somebody somewhere is pretty much guaranteed to take offense at that. That doesn't mean that you should lose your job over it.

[HoreTore]

No, not really. No matter what you do, somebody somewhere is pretty much guaranteed to take offense at that. That doesn't mean that you should lose your job over it.

Isn't that for the company to decide?

[rvg]

Isn't that for the company to decide?

Sure, and I never put the blame on the company. The blame lies with the sheeple of california.

[a completely inoffensive name]

I guess I am a sheeple simply because I live in California. I don't understand what people have against us half man half sheep creatures. It's not as if we are baaaad at communicating or can't baaaaa think about baaaa baaaa baaaa baaa.

[Lemur]

The blame lies with the the sheeple
Haters gonna hate.

https://i.imgur.com/9JSk0Dm.jpg

[HoreTore]

Sure, and I never put the blame on the company. The blame lies with the sheeple of california.

So, when they disagree with you they're sheeple?

And since you don't believe I should boycott a company over gay rights, what behaviour justifies a boycott in your opinion? Or should we just continue buying stuff without any thought given to company behaviour?

[rvg]

And since you don't believe I should boycott a company over gay rights, what behaviour justifies a boycott in your opinion?

Making shoddy product/service, illegal business practices, etc. You know, the stuff that actually has something to do with the product that the company produces.

[HoreTore]

Making shoddy product/service, illegal business practices, etc. You know, the stuff that actually has something to do with the product that the company produces.

How does an illegal business practice affect their product?

Anyway, why am I not allowed to boycott the company for any other reasons? Why should I be forced to buy stuff from people I don't like? Why should I have to buy stuff from a company support, say, Al-Qaida or has publicly supported the idea that 9/11 was done by Mossad?

[rvg]

How does an illegal business practice affect their product?
Depends on the specifics, but being illegal is enough to warrant a boycott.


Anyway, why am I not allowed to boycott the company for any other reasons? Why should I be forced to buy stuff from people I don't like? Why should I have to buy stuff from a company support, say, Al-Qaida or has publicly supported the idea that 9/11 was done by Mossad?
Who says you're not allowed? You're most certainly allowed. If you wanna bleat with the rest of them, go ahead and bleat to your heart's content. In the meantime I will call this bleating for what it is.

[HoreTore]

Who says you're not allowed? You're most certainly allowed. If you wanna bleat with the rest of them, go ahead and bleat to your heart's content. In the meantime I will call this bleating for what it is.

I can't see how this attitude does not put you in the category of "sheeple".

How, exactly, am I a "sheeple" for staying informed about company profiles and making my economic decisions based on how I view their contribution to the wider society? Why should I only care about filling their coffers, and nothing else?

[rvg]

How, exactly, am I a "sheeple" for staying informed about company profiles and making my economic decisions based on how I view their contribution to the wider society? Why should I only care about filling their coffers, and nothing else?

Because you're operating within the same mindset as the sheep that were boycotting The Dixie Chicks back ten years ago or so.

[rvg]

And your mindset is basically promoting corporate welfare at your own expense. Pretty toolish. Pretty sheepish.

No, my mindset is promoting corporate welfare at your expense. Quite different.

[HoreTore]

Because you're operating within the same mindset as the sheep that were boycotting The Dixie Chicks back ten years ago or so.

So your opinion then is that I should mindlessly buy stuff without thinking about who my purchases support. And if I don't, I'm sheeple. Brilliant logic.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

You have the right not to purchase the goods or services of any company and for any reason.

As long as you do not advocate violence, you also have the right to persuade others to boycott the organization in question. Arguably, depending on your code of ethics, it may be a moral duty for you to do so and not to simply refrain from that organization yourself.

Chick-Fil-A stays closed on Sundays. If people find this Christian-centric choice on their part to be inappropriate, then they should stop buying the chicken sandwiches. If enough folks stop, then Chick-Fil-A closes. If Chick-Fil-A counters with an ad campaign that says "proud to be a Christian chicken shop" or whatever, then the ad campaign may knock the boycott flat. All part of the game.

Public pressure, social media version, sponsored/propelled by a website with its own agenda, got this guy ousted. Apparently, Mozilla got scared and thought they would lose enough market share to knuckle under. I think they made the wrong call, but it was their call to make.

I work in academe. We actually still encourage the exchange of opposing viewpoints without squelching the opposition.

From this website's perspective, however, this was nothing but a win. Their agenda item is front and center and every social-media sensitive organization was just served notice to toe the line with our agenda or we will squelch you. The Constitution protects the freedom of speech...from government. If you want to boycott a person or group for their views you can. If you can swing it, you can crush them and leave them broken and rule by fear of your clout. Tacky, but within your rights. It's not as though the NRA hasn't been doing much the same in Congress for years.

[HoreTore]

Our interests are the same unless you're a billionaire.

You're arguing against someone who apparently believes that a Jew who doesn't want to buy stuff from a neo-nazi is a sheep.

I think it's quite safe to assume he's not entirely aware of what his interests are.

[rvg]

You're arguing against someone who apparently believes that a Jew who doesn't want to buy stuff from a neo-nazi is a sheep...

No, he's arguing against someone who thinks that what is currently going on in California is a witch hunt. And to me it makes no difference whether the witch hunt has been initiated by a group of concerned citizens, a committee on un-American activities or The Ministry for Promotion of Virtue and Prevention of Vice. It's still a witch hunt.

P.S. Godwin stronk.

[HoreTore]

No, he's arguing against someone who thinks that what is currently going on in California is a witch hunt. And to me it makes no difference whether the witch hunt has been initiated by a group of concerned citizens, a committee on un-American activities or The Ministry for Promotion of Virtue and Prevention of Vice. It's still a witch hunt.

You generalized your opinion on the previous page to state that actions unrelated to the quality of the product or the legality of the business are never grounds for a boycott.

Is this inaccurate?

[a completely inoffensive name]

No, he's arguing against someone who thinks that what is currently going on in California is a witch hunt. And to me it makes no difference whether the witch hunt has been initiated by a group of concerned citizens, a committee on un-American activities or The Ministry for Promotion of Virtue and Prevention of Vice. It's still a witch hunt.

P.S. Godwin stronk.

You just compared a group of private citizens making a personal choice against Mozilla with a real government entity (committee on un-american activities) and a fake government entity (ministry of silly walks and virtue).

[Sarmatian]

You just compared a group of private citizens making a personal choice against Mozilla with a real government entity (committee on un-american activities) and a fake government entity (ministry of silly walks and virtue).

There's really a committee of un-American activities or something to that effect?

What does it do? What activities are considered un-American?

[rvg]

You just compared a group of private citizens making a personal choice against Mozilla with a real government entity (committee on un-american activities) and a fake government entity (ministry of silly walks and virtue).
I don't think it makes much difference for the Mozilla guy whether or not he got fired because of the effort of a government agency or a group of californians. BTW, The Ministry for Promotion of Virtue and Prevention of Vice is very real. It was and still is active in Taliban held areas of Afghanistan as well as in Saudi Arabia.


You generalized your opinion on the previous page to state that actions unrelated to the quality of the product or the legality of the business are never grounds for a boycott.

Is this inaccurate? No, that's very accurate. so?

[HoreTore]

No, that's very accurate. so?

So, that would mean that you consider a Jew who refuses to shop at the local neo-nazi store to be a sheep. Correct?

[Sarmatian]

It was the red scare witch-hunt. It no longer exists, though todays laws allow for much worse theoretically.

Go Patriot Act. :rtwno:

Sucks.

Cold war had all these committees with cool names, and what do we have now? Committee for chicken protection (I know there's got to be one like that).

No wonder we're in decline as a species...


The Ministry for Promotion of Virtue and Prevention of Vice

Ok, I'll accept that one as semi-cool. When they start to act like the Spanish inquisition, I'll promote them to cool.

[HoreTore]

Sucks.

Cold war had all these committees with cool names, and what do we have now? Committee for chicken protection (I know there's got to be one like that).

Please stop your exaggerations, there would never be an organization like that. (http://www.upc-online.org/)

[Sarmatian]

Please stop your exaggerations, there would never be an organization like that. (http://www.upc-online.org/)

Oh, God Almighty, spare us the misery and finish us off now.


So, that would mean that you consider a Jew who refuses to shop at the local neo-nazi store to be a sheep. Correct?

Ignorance once again, Sven? Not sheep - sheeple. Half sheep-half people. Best of both worlds. They graze on the pastures but democratically elect their sheepleherder.

[rvg]

So, that would mean that you consider a Jew who refuses to shop at the local neo-nazi store to be a sheep. Correct?

What's he supposed to be buying in the neo-nazi store, swastikas? Give me more information about this hypothetical case.

[HoreTore]

What's he supposed to be buying in the neo-nazi store, swastikas? Give me more information about this hypothetical case.

Let's say it's your run-of-the-mill grocery store, with slightly lower prices than the store across the street.

Run by the local head of the national-socialist party. Should a Jew be compelled to shop at his store?

[rvg]

Let's say it's your run-of-the-mill grocery store, with slightly lower prices than the store across the street.

Run by the local head of the national-socialist party. Should a Jew be compelled to shop at his store?

Of course! He's a Jew for Christ's sake, they really know a good deal when they see one.

All the joking aside, this is America. Here you will find Neo Nazis asking a 90% Jewish ACLU to defend the Neo Nazis' right to march through a Jewish neighborhood of a Chicago suburb. And you will see the ultra liberal ACLU help Nazis get their right to march so that they can offend the residents of the heavily Jewish neighborhood of Skokie. America is like that. Witch hunts belong in the 1950s.

[HoreTore]

Of course! He's a Jew for Christ's sake, they really know a good deal when they see one.

All the joking aside, this is America. Here you will find Neo Nazis asking a 90% Jewish ACLU to defend the Neo Nazis' right to march through a Jewish neighborhood of a Chicago suburb. And you will see the ultra liberal ACLU help Nazis get their right to march so that they can offend the residents of the heavily Jewish neighborhood of Skokie. America is like that. Witch hunts belong in the 1950s.

That's civil rights organizations behaving like they should(and like they do in most places), and just like you found the ACLU standing up for anyone's right to free speech, you will also find organizations who refuse to deal with certain segments. But this hardly relates to an individual consumer's choice of where to shop his salmon.

So I ask again: should the individual Jewish man shop at a grocery store run by a neo-nazi? And more to the point, is he a sheep if he chooses not to?



Also, a "Jew for Christ's sake"....hmmm.....

[rvg]

So I ask again: should the individual Jewish man shop at a grocery store run by a neo-nazi?
Of course he should.


And more to the point, is he a sheep if he chooses not to?
A sheep and a fool.

[a completely inoffensive name]

I'm sorry rvg. But that is just silly. The market and the public sphere are not two distinguishable entities. The former is a subsection of the latter. A Jewish man is being perfectly rational in thinking that he does not want his money in part to be directed towards an individual (e.g. through salary) who believes and acts according to a philosophy that rejects his status as a citizen and a human being.

The fact is this, what people choose to do with their money earned is their business. They may go about donating to whatever cause they want. It is also a fact that this money comes from the business for which they work for (in general). Therefore, if you wish to declare a boycott on a company in order to prevent the possible promotion of undesirable causes, then again, it is the individuals choice to not spend his/her own money and they are not a fool for choosing to do so.

[Papewaio]

Please stop your exaggerations, there would never be an organization like that. (http://www.upc-online.org/)

That's a poultry excuse for an organization. :drummer:

[rvg]

I'm sorry rvg. But that is just silly. The market and the public sphere are not two distinguishable entities. The former is a subsection of the latter. A Jewish man is being perfectly rational in thinking that he does not want his money in part to be directed towards an individual (e.g. through salary) who believes and acts according to a philosophy that rejects his status as a citizen and a human being.
With that line of thinking in mind a Jew should never do business with a Muslim. Ever. Not buy from him, not sell to him, not hire one, nor work for one. Who is being silly here?


The fact is this, what people choose to do with their money earned is their business. They may go about donating to whatever cause they want. It is also a fact that this money comes from the business for which they work for (in general). Therefore, if you wish to declare a boycott on a company in order to prevent the possible promotion of undesirable causes, then again, it is the individuals choice to not spend his/her own money and they are not a fool for choosing to do so.
I never disputed the legality of it. Lots of stupid things are completely legal. Suppose you're drowning near some pier in the San Francisco Bay. You're wearing your "No to Prop 8!" T-shirt, "I love hemp" panama hat, and whatever else a liberal hippy would normally wear. Then there comes a Jack-booted Nazi thug with his "Sieg Heil" tattoos, brown shirt and a swastika lapel pin. You clearly see who he is and he clearly sees who you are. He extends his hand and offers help. Will you take his hand or will you choose to drown?

[drone]

Some clarifications/corrections: We are not the customers of the Mozilla Corporation, we don't buy Firefox or Thunderbird. Google is Mozilla Corp's customer. Eich was "asked to leave" Mozilla Corp, the taxed, wholly owned subsidiary of the non-profit Mozilla Foundation. The Foundation appoints the board for the Corporation, which in turn selects the Corp's CEO. All this talk of Jews buying from Nazis is pointless, although I would be curious to know of any missives sent from Google HQ.

[Papewaio]

If someone was paying a political referendum to deny your right to drive or own a computer or surf the net?

Now how about someone paying to deny your relationship/friendship/marriage to your significant other how would you feel?

I know that if someone was running a political campaign to divorce me of my wife because we did not fit his criteria of a couple I would not be a happy chap.

To deny access to material goods based on some sort of class system is bad enough. That is what the open source movement fights against.

But to deny access to an adult relationship based on another form of class system is far worse. It is crossing the line from material segregation to human segregation. It's a denial of human rights that is as abhorrent as slavery, apartheid, Australian aboriginals on the wildlife census or other forms of racial segregation.

If it was your access to your loved ones in a special event being denied be it birth, death, wedding, graduation, hospital, emergency or any other major life event what would you do to the person paying to deny you access to them?

Can any of you honestly say you would meekly limit yourselves to just commerical boycotting? Would you also not be the hero fighting the dragon for your love? Or would you just accept that injustice is the way of the world and accept that it is fine for someone to pay away your rights?

[Seamus Fermanagh]

That's a poultry excuse for an organization. :drummer:

That pun was a red-card class fowl.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

...Also, a "Jew for Christ's sake"....hmmm.....

Yep, "they (http://jewsforjesus.org/)" even have a website.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

You just compared a group of private citizens making a personal choice against Mozilla...



The fact is this, what people choose to do with their money earned is their business. They may go about donating to whatever cause they want. It is also a fact that this money comes from the business for which they work for (in general). Therefore, if you wish to declare a boycott on a company in order to prevent the possible promotion of undesirable causes, then again, it is the individuals choice to not spend his/her own money and they are not a fool for choosing to do so.

If you defend the right of someone to do something, but not what they actually did, you are acting as if you can't defend what they actually did.

This religious school demanded that it's teachers sign a morality clause saying, among other things, that they did not engage in homosexual activity:

http://www.katc.com/news/fatima-s-school-board-pres-resigns-amid-contract-controversy/

When I read this I'm not thinking about their right to do it, I'm thinking about how obviously nasty it is. We should be able to accept people as friends even if they have beliefs we find very objectionable and engage in activities we find very objectionable, and we should certainly be able to accept them as colleagues. Demanding recantations and purity tests and the like is disgusting. What would you think of someone who responded to this story about the catholic school by talking about nothing but how the school had the legal right to do that?





But to deny access to an adult relationship based on another form of class system is far worse. It is crossing the line from material segregation to human segregation. It's a denial of human rights that is as abhorrent as slavery, apartheid, Australian aboriginals on the wildlife census or other forms of racial segregation.


In slavery people are treated like animals and forced to work with no compensation, their lives are controlled in many ways, they were whipped, families were split up for profit and so on...

Making gay marriage illegal doesn't deny anyone access to an adult relationship. It just removes certain legal aspects of that relationship that are generally insignificant and don't justify this kind of language. Hospital visitation rules are a problem, but they are a problem for many people who can't be visited by their loved ones for various reasons, e.g. widows and widowers who can't be visited by the only friend they have left in the world. It seems harmful to pretend like legalizing gay marriage solves that issue, when in fact it only solves it for some people. For all you know he is in favor of civil unions in any case.

If you say that not having a legal document means you don't have an adult relationship, you are insulting a lot of people.




Arguably, depending on your code of ethics, it may be a moral duty for you to do so and not to simply refrain from that organization yourself.


You have some responsibility for your beliefs. You can't just say "I think opposing gay marriage is like supporting slavery, so I have a moral duty to hate people who oppose gay marriage". That's completely unjustified.

[Kadagar_AV]

Yep, "they (http://jewsforjesus.org/)" even have a website.

First link I clicked had this wonderful quote:

"You might be surprised at who will show up at your church when Jews for Jesus come to minister. Some may even receive the Lord during or immediately following our presentation".

Yeah... Because that happens...

[Montmorency]

We should be able to accept people as friends even if they have beliefs we find very objectionable and engage in activities we find very objectionable, and we should certainly be able to accept them as colleagues. Demanding recantations and purity tests and the like is disgusting.

Tell me Sasaki, are you a fan of Tibor Machan?

The above actually contradicts


If you defend the right of someone to do something, but not what they actually did, you are acting as if you can't defend what they actually did.

Anyway, no man is obliged to be the friend of the man who strikes him, of the man who hates him.


For all you know he is in favor of civil unions in any case.

So, uh, why not make a principled case? And if he disapproved or did not identify with the derogatory and vituperative Prop 8 campaign, then why not say so? Rather, he acted like a child who's done a bad thing but thinks he can avoid punishment if he clams up and doesn't say a word.


You have some responsibility for your beliefs.

You have just as much responsibility for the "beliefs" of others.


You can't just say "I think opposing gay marriage is like supporting slavery, so I have a moral duty to hate people who oppose gay marriage". That's completely unjustified.

So you, come now and justify this position. All you did was point out that slavery and lack of legal provision for gay marriage are different things. Obviously, they are different things. That's not a case for why one or another is or is not bad, at least not to me.

[Papewaio]

That pun was a red-card class fowl.

By crumbs you have me with that nugget of truth good sir!

[Strike For The South]

Also this thread title is laughable.

Thoughtcrime implies McGaybasher didn't act upon his thoughts and is being punished for his, well, thoughts.

He's a grand lighter in the britches. If you're keeping score at home that constitutes an action. Listen, Had this guy had donated to NAMBLA, everyone would be cheering Mozilla for "taking a moral stance". Likewise, if he had given 1000$ to some anti gay group, many of you wringing your hands now would be vigorously nodding and frothing at the mouth while barely comprehensible pro-business phrases came out of your lips.

I don't really see what the real issue is here other than where you fall on the political spectrum.

[HoreTore]

Some clarifications/corrections: We are not the customers of the Mozilla Corporation, we don't buy Firefox or Thunderbird. Google is Mozilla Corp's customer. Eich was "asked to leave" Mozilla Corp, the taxed, wholly owned subsidiary of the non-profit Mozilla Foundation. The Foundation appoints the board for the Corporation, which in turn selects the Corp's CEO. All this talk of Jews buying from Nazis is pointless, although I would be curious to know of any missives sent from Google HQ.

I think personal boycotts against companies with an objectionable behaviour is a good thing. However, I do not believe that having a very low treshold for boycotting is a good thing. We can't boycott every time someone says or does something we object to. There is a line somewhere, and I'm interested in discussing just where that line is. The Jew-nazi example was intended as an extreme example of a boycott to show the absurdity of a "never boycott"-principle. My hope was that rvg would agree to the absurdity and discuss where the line goes between healthy and unhealthy consumer boycotts.

Sadly, he's lost in a weird land where people who judge a company on their behaviour in addition to their prices and products(ie. nearly everyone) are deemed "sheeple".

[Sarmatian]

I think personal boycotts against companies with an objectionable behaviour is a good thing. However, I do not believe that having a very low treshold for boycotting is a good thing. We can't boycott every time someone says or does something we object to. There is a line somewhere, and I'm interested in discussing just where that line is. The Jew-nazi example was intended as an extreme example of a boycott to show the absurdity of a "never boycott"-principle. My hope was that rvg would agree to the absurdity and discuss where the line goes between healthy and unhealthy consumer boycotts.

Sadly, he's lost in a weird land where people who judge a company on their behaviour in addition to their prices and products(ie. nearly everyone) are deemed "sheeple".

It's very hard to draw that line for everybody, because it's more about personal beliefs and convictions. Maybe there's a fanatic supporter of Liverpool F.C. who wouldn't fly Turkish Airlines because Manchester players are advertizing the company. Some people feel strongly about sports, some about politics, some about religion and philosophy, some about music or lifestyles, or about working conditions in the company that made the product.

I personally don't care much about the background of the product I'm buying. I try to buy products produced domestically and that's pretty much it, but I'm not a fanatic in that regard - I do it only if the product is in the same price range and of similar quality...

[HoreTore]

It's very hard to draw that line for everybody, because it's more about personal beliefs and convictions. Maybe there's a fanatic supporter of Liverpool F.C. who wouldn't fly Turkish Airlines because Manchester players are advertizing the company. Some people feel strongly about sports, some about politics, some about religion and philosophy, some about music or lifestyles, or about working conditions in the company that made the product.

I personally don't care much about the background of the product I'm buying. I try to buy products produced domestically and that's pretty much it, but I'm not a fanatic in that regard - I do it only if the product is in the same price range and of similar quality...

When does a "one true answer" ever exist outside mathematics? That's no reason not to discuss it, nor does it mean that the discussion won't be meaningful.

[drone]

I think personal boycotts against companies with an objectionable behaviour is a good thing. However, I do not believe that having a very low treshold for boycotting is a good thing. We can't boycott every time someone says or does something we object to. There is a line somewhere, and I'm interested in discussing just where that line is. The Jew-nazi example was intended as an extreme example of a boycott to show the absurdity of a "never boycott"-principle. My hope was that rvg would agree to the absurdity and discuss where the line goes between healthy and unhealthy consumer boycotts.

I get that, but I'm pointing out that boycotting Mozilla only works if you boycott Google as well. Google pays Mozilla to put the Google search bar on Firefox, this is ~95% of the Mozilla Corp's income. If you switch to Opera and still use Google, the boycott has no direct effect since Google is the one bankrolling Mozilla. When the "think of the children" crowd here in the States gets offended by a TV show, they don't boycott the show, they boycott the advertisers of the show. This is how you change the behavior of a "free" service/product.

Actual consumer boycotts are difficult, since Brand A is usually owned by MegaCorp B, which owns a gazillion different brands spread throughout the consumer product spectrum. I've been boycotting one company for years now, and it's a pain trying to to keep track of what they own. With convoluted patent licensing, it pretty much impossible not to send them money in some form without being a hermit.

[Xiahou]

I think personal boycotts against companies with an objectionable behaviour is a good thing. But Mozilla wasn't accused of objectionable behavior. No one ever accused Mozilla or Eich of ever treating anyone differently.



In other news, let the purge continue:
OkCupid's CEO Donated to an Anti-Gay Campaign Once, Too (http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2014/04/okcupid-ceo-donate-anti-gay-firefox)

Of course, it's been a decade since Yagan's donation to Cannon, and a decade or more since many of Cannon's votes on gay rights. It's possible that Cannon's opinions have shifted, or maybe his votes were more politics than ideology; a tactic by the Mormon Rep. to satisfy his Utah constituency. It's also quite possible that Yagan's politics have changed since 2004: He donated to Barack Obama's campaign in 2007 and 2008. Perhaps even Firefox's Eich has rethought LGBT equality since his 2008 donation. But OkCupid didn't include any such nuance in its take-down of Firefox. Combine that with the fact that the company helped force out one tech CEO for something its own CEO also did, and its action last week starts to look more like a PR stunt than an impassioned act of protest.

Maybe, after all this stupidity has run its course, people will begin to think twice before burning someone at the stake for having supported something years ago- something that was also supported by a majority of voters at the same time. :yes:

[a completely inoffensive name]

With that line of thinking in mind a Jew should never do business with a Muslim. Ever. Not buy from him, not sell to him, not hire one, nor work for one. Who is being silly here?

You are. Islam is not fundamentally opposed to recognizing Jewish people as people.



I never disputed the legality of it. Lots of stupid things are completely legal. Suppose you're drowning near some pier in the San Francisco Bay. You're wearing your "No to Prop 8!" T-shirt, "I love hemp" panama hat, and whatever else a liberal hippy would normally wear. Then there comes a Jack-booted Nazi thug with his "Sieg Heil" tattoos, brown shirt and a swastika lapel pin. You clearly see who he is and he clearly sees who you are. He extends his hand and offers help. Will you take his hand or will you choose to drown?

This situation is simply not analogous. We are talking about an individual in an environment not applying any external coercion deciding on whether or not he wishes to support someone he disagrees with. You are giving an example of an individual under coercive forces (possibility of drowning) being offered help by someone he disagrees with. Could not be further apart.

I get where you are coming from rvg, but this argument is sloppy even by my standards, which are pretty low.

[a completely inoffensive name]

If you defend the right of someone to do something, but not what they actually did, you are acting as if you can't defend what they actually did.

This religious school demanded that it's teachers sign a morality clause saying, among other things, that they did not engage in homosexual activity:

http://www.katc.com/news/fatima-s-school-board-pres-resigns-amid-contract-controversy/

When I read this I'm not thinking about their right to do it, I'm thinking about how obviously nasty it is. We should be able to accept people as friends even if they have beliefs we find very objectionable and engage in activities we find very objectionable, and we should certainly be able to accept them as colleagues. Demanding recantations and purity tests and the like is disgusting. What would you think of someone who responded to this story about the catholic school by talking about nothing but how the school had the legal right to do that?

We should be able to tolerate people and accept them as individuals/fellow citizens in the public sphere and in making policy. None of us should be forced to become best friends and not make demands according to our own preferences if we have the legal right to.

What would I think of someone who responded in the way you describe? Hmm, well I would say that he/she is correct, but the question becomes whether or not recantations and purity tests fail to uphold the standard of toleration and humanization in the public sphere. If not, then we should move to make such demands illegal.

Defending the right of someone to do something, but not the act itself is in my opinion the definition of tolerance. I can still defend the right of a individual to drink alcohol, even if my personal opinion is that consumption of alcohol is wrong for either religious or secular reasons. Are you suggesting that the only actions we have the right to perform are those we can call good actions?

[HoreTore]

But Mozilla wasn't accused of objectionable behavior. No one ever accused Mozilla or Eich of ever treating anyone differently.

Uhm, yeah, he was.

The donation was considered objectionable behaviour.

[Papewaio]

When does a "one true answer" ever exist outside mathematics? That's no reason not to discuss it, nor does it mean that the discussion won't be meaningful.

Are you sure maths has one true answer or is it also context sensitive?

Is the sum of the internal angles of a triangle always 180 degrees?

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Are you sure maths has one true answer or is it also context sensitive?

Is the sum of the internal angles of a triangle always 180 degrees?

It was in my High School geometry class. Mr. Fitzgerald...though he tended to get twitchy during my class since it was has last of the afternoon and his luncheon cigarettes (and whiskey?) were a while behind him then.

[Lemur]

Maybe, after all this stupidity has run its course
Or maybe, as has already been pointed out in many places, this was an unfortunate confluence of events, and not the harbinger of a new inquisition. Maybe. But where's the dramatic value in that?

[Papewaio]

It was in my High School geometry class. Mr. Fitzgerald...though he tended to get twitchy during my class since it was has last of the afternoon and his luncheon cigarettes (and whiskey?) were a while behind him then.

:)

Only true for Euclidean (plane) geometry. In another context say a triangle drawn on a sphere the angles won't add up to 180.

[Ironside]

In other news, let the purge continue:
OkCupid's CEO Donated to an Anti-Gay Campaign Once, Too (OkCupid's CEO Donated to an Anti-Gay Campaign Once, Too)

Maybe, after all this stupidity has run its course, people will begin to think twice before burning someone at the stake for having supported something years ago-
something that was also supported by a majority of voters at the same time. :yes:

You can spot the differences that won't make the hot heads particulary interested in that case. Link is broken btw.

Anyway, that part of him not regretting anything, nor having changed his mind is quite critical on this. It's not "old guy supported segregation in his youth", it's "guy supported banning gay marriage recently and is still making himself appear very much to support banning gay marriage".

[Xiahou]

You can spot the differences that won't make the hot heads particulary interested in that case. Link is broken btw.Fixed.

Read between the lines in his explanation and it comes down to him saying "It's not as bad that I supported an anti-gay candidate- because I did it for money." I suppose that makes it better. :yes:

Another difference is that this CEO recanted and completely disavowed his past donations- so presumably all will be forgiven. Which is why I chose "thoughtcrime" as the thread title. The donation is forgivable- the reason Eich had to be punished is because he wouldn't disavow his belief.


Or maybe, as has already been pointed out in many places, this was an unfortunate confluence of events, and not the harbinger of a new inquisition. Maybe. But where's the dramatic value in that? Honestly, it's looking more and more like a publicity stunt on the part of OKCupid. He was willing to donate to an allegedly anti-gay candidate so he could try to garner favor in DC. And then he leads the charge to burn another for being "anti-gay" to garner some positive publicity for his company. It's nauseating.

From the Mother Jones article I linked earlier:


"Of course, it's been a decade since Yagan's donation to Cannon, and a decade or more since many of Cannon's votes on gay rights. It's possible that Cannon's opinions have shifted, or maybe his votes were more politics than ideology; a tactic by the Mormon Rep. to satisfy his Utah constituency. It's also quite possible that Yagan's politics have changed since 2004: He donated to Barack Obama's campaign in 2007 and 2008. Perhaps even Firefox's Eich has rethought LGBT equality since his 2008 donation. But OkCupid didn't include any such nuance in its take-down of Firefox. Combine that with the fact that the company helped force out one tech CEO for something its own CEO also did, and its action last week starts to look more like a PR stunt than an impassioned act of protest."

[Seamus Fermanagh]

:)

Only true for Euclidean (plane) geometry. In another context say a triangle drawn on a sphere the angles won't add up to 180.

Thanks so much for the flashback to conic sections. Now you tell me the sections can be curved too. Neurons straining.....[thump]

[HoreTore]

Perhaps even Firefox's Eich has rethought LGBT equality since his 2008 donation.

This is the premis for Xiahou's linky conclusion, and it's disingenious at best. Eich has not rethought his stance, hence the uproar. He isn't someone who once donated to an anti-gay campagin, he is anti-gay.

The two situations are not at all similar.

[Ironside]

Fixed.

Read between the lines in his explanation and it comes down to him saying "It's not as bad that I supported an anti-gay candidate- because I did it for money." I suppose that makes it better. :yes:

Another difference is that this CEO recanted and completely disavowed his past donations- so presumably all will be forgiven. Which is why I chose "thoughtcrime" as the thread title. The donation is forgivable- the reason Eich had to be punished is because he wouldn't disavow his belief.


Well boycotting CEO:s for greed would make a very, very long list.

Actually, Eich was given the option to disavow his action, he did not need to disavow his belief. Formulating himself properly of course.

We can go through this. Something can be so vicious that's unforgivable, but if something is forgivable because it was made in the past (a different time, a different person), then the first point is to establish the answer on the question: "Would you do the same thing today, if given the opportunity?". If the answer is either yes or an implied yes, then it's not a matter in the past, it's a matter now.
It is also the standard procedure in situations like this. Churches are paticulary fond of this.

If you really want to go that way, then asking for any act of conformity is a thought crime. They always ask you to act according to a set of standards or face the (unpleasant) consequences. If the set of standard changes, then you need to act according to the new standards, not the old, even if leeway is often given in that case.

[Greyblades]

THIS WARN YOU

Posts before in oldspeak. Untruth, make-ups only. Make-ups make THOUGHTCRIME. Careful. Supervisor rank or not to read. This warn you. THOUGHTCRIME in posts before. Careful. If thought excited, report Moderator. If other excited, report. Everything, report. Withold report is INFOCRIME. This warn you. Are you authorised, if no stop read now! Make report! We know. Careful. If report made on failing report, this paradox. Paradox is LOGICRIME. Do not do anything. Do not fail to do anything. This warn you. Why you nervous? Was it you? We know. IMPORTANT: Do not read next sentance. This sentance is for official inspect only. Now look. Now dont. Now look. Now dont. Careful. Everything not banned compulsory. Everything not compulsory banned. You did it. We know. This warn you.

[Tellos Athenaios]

Thanks so much for the flashback to conic sections. Now you tell me the sections can be curved too. Neurons straining.....[thump]

Math is all fun and games until you find yourself looking at a picture with a simple ripple distortion, your quadrant shifted DTDF image of same (frequency domain), your mask, the convolution of the image in the frequency domain and your mask, and finally the inverse DTDF transformation of the output and conclude the image is in every way worse than the original you are supposed to clean up as part of the exam...

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Math is all fun and games until you find yourself looking at a picture with a simple ripple distortion, your quadrant shifted DTDF image of same (frequency domain), your mask, the convolution of the image in the frequency domain and your mask, and finally the inverse DTDF transformation of the output and conclude the image is in every way worse than the original you are supposed to clean up as part of the exam...

I would rather reconcile Lyotardian Differends with Habermasian Discursive Constructionism any day of the week -- even if I have to use Barthes to referee the integration.

[Tellos Athenaios]

I would rather reconcile Lyotardian Differends with Habermasian Discursive Constructionism any day of the week -- even if I have to use Barthes to referee the integration.

Careful now, there are Norwegians on this board!

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Careful now, there are Norwegians on this board!

How inclusive of us. Next thing you know we'll be allowing Canadians in...

[Xiahou]

This is the premis for Xiahou's linky conclusion, and it's disingenious at best. Eich has not rethought his stance, hence the uproar. He isn't someone who once donated to an anti-gay campagin, he is anti-gay.

The two situations are not at all similar.
And your making my point. It wasn't the donation, it was the "thought" that was the "crime" (thoughtcrime?).

Someone else can have donated money that hindered the same-sex marriage cause and still be fit to be CEO- because, opposing same-sex marriage wasn't his intent... it was more of a side-effect? However, if you donated money in opposition to same-sex marriage for that reason, then it's unforgivable. Never mind that the end result was no different. And never mind the fact that no one has ever accused Eich of behaving towards anyone in an "anti-gay" manner. It is indeed the thought that counts. :yes:

[HoreTore]

And your making my point. It wasn't the donation, it was the "thought" that was the "crime" (thoughtcrime?).

Someone else can have donated money that hindered the same-sex marriage cause and still be fit to be CEO- because, opposing same-sex marriage wasn't his intent... it was more of a side-effect? However, if you donated money in opposition to same-sex marriage for that reason, then it's unforgivable. Never mind that the end result was no different. And never mind the fact that no one has ever accused Eich of behaving towards anyone in an "anti-gay" manner. It is indeed the thought that counts. :yes:

So as long as someone hasn't taken any action, I should be happy shopping at the store of someone who considers me to be a second-class citizen...?

[Xiahou]

So as long as someone hasn't taken any action, I should be happy shopping at the store of someone who considers me to be a second-class citizen...?
How do you judge that if he treats you with the same level of respect of everyone who comes to the store? He even grants benefits to same-sex partners of his employees. Not exactly the second-class citizen treatment....

[HoreTore]

How do you judge that if he treats you with the same level of respect of everyone who comes to the store? He even grants benefits to same-sex partners of his employees. Not exactly the second-class citizen treatment....

When someone pushes for laws which will create second-class citizens, I'd say it's very possible to judge that.

Especially when he states his opinion that gays are second-class citizens when asked about it.

[Xiahou]

See post 172 (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?147107-Thoughtcrime&p=2053587972&viewfull=1#post2053587972).

[HoreTore]

See post 172 (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?147107-Thoughtcrime&p=2053587972&viewfull=1#post2053587972).

Yes?

The other guy isn't of the opinion that gays should be treated as second-class citizens. Eich is. Hence the uproar.

So, I ask again: should you be happy to shop at the store of someone who believes you should be treated as a second-class citizen?

[Xiahou]

So, I ask again: should you be happy to shop at the store of someone who believes you should be treated as a second-class citizen?
To which I say again: How can you say that if he never treated anyone as a second-class citizen?

[HoreTore]

To which I say again: How can you say that if he never treated anyone as a second-class citizen?

Uh.... By saying so...?

[Xiahou]

Uh.... By saying so...?
He said homosexuals should be treated as second-class citizens? When?

People who've worked with him, including the chairman, said he was never anything but respectful and courteous towards everyone. He's said he supports the company extending benefits to same sex couples.

[HoreTore]

He said homosexuals should be treated as second-class citizens? When?

When he supported a group promoting that view...? And when he later said his opinion was the same?

[Xiahou]

When he supported a group promoting that view...? And when he later said his opinion was the same?Let's see the quotes. Because, I don't really remember him ever saying anything about second class citizenship.

[HoreTore]

Let's see the quotes. Because, I don't really remember him ever saying anything about second class citizenship.

He doesn't want to talk about his stance, which translates to no change in opinion.

[Ironside]

To which I say again: How can you say that if he never treated anyone as a second-class citizen?

What would have more influence in total? A law change, or one fairly important induvidual in one company? We know exactly what Eich supported and still supports. That he personally won't act without legal support matters much less if he's activly working (well paying soneone else to work for it) to change the law.

[Sigurd]

Money equals speech so actually he said more on this issue than most people ever will.
Or... he is a Mormon. He doesn't actually have an opinion, but was advised by a letter of the first presidency (http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/california-and-same-sex-marriage) to devote time and resources to this cause. He had no time so he donated some money and could slap his chest supporting the church leadership.

[Sigurd]

The intent doesn't really matter here. I was illustrating a point about the Supreme Court decision saying that money equals speech. This is a logical consequence of that entire line of thinking, not that it'll make conservatives rethink their support for that stance. :shrug:
I see... As a "over the pond" person, I am not entirely familiar with the intricate definitions introduced by your courts.
I wanted to put in my argument somewhere and your post was as good as any.

It has not been established that Eich is a Mormon, hence I asked in a previous post. But if he is, then this is nothing more than "I am a good Mormon, what of it?" which again could be seen as Eich being ousted based on his religiosity.

[Fisherking]

I love how people assume it is only the Republicans in bed with the corporate money machines.

Democrats $1.15 Billion while the Republicans received $736 million.

https://www.opensecrets.org/overview/topcontribs.php

Meantime we have a guy who gave one thousand dollars to what is likely the only socially conservative cause he could get behind.

To most people it was a matter of a name. Call it marriage or civil union. He could not have taken it that seriously or he would have given much more or taken some other action.

The objection was a cynical publicity stunt but OMG now the guy is a gay basher, Nazi thug, right wing Christian in need of destruction.

So the non-thinking reactionary mob moves in to vilify the man and anyone believing in real social justice or tolerance find themselves looking at a bunch of hypocrites who only support free speech so long as it agrees with their point of view.

You like your new jackboots, huh.

[Montmorency]

a bunch of hypocrites who only support free speech so long as it agrees with their point of view.

Is this really so difficult? I have pointed out multiple times that no one supports the free speech of those who disagree with them.

[Ironside]

Meantime we have a guy who gave one thousand dollars to what is likely the only socially conservative cause he could get behind.

To most people it was a matter of a name. Call it marriage or civil union. He could not have taken it that seriously or he would have given much more or taken some other action.

He took it seriously enough to stick with it even when it started to become obvious that it would have a significant negative influence on his CEO career, until he eventually resigned over it.

Threats towards human rights (some here are probably disagreing with that human rights are at stake here, but that's another matter), are usually not met with tolerance. Stomp them out before they regain the strength they had when they were legal. That's the normal treatment.

Worth noticing is that he did take flak about it in 2012 when it became publically known. But since he wasn't a CEO, the response was much weaker. So it isn't something new, it's something that got reignited when the stakes got higher.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

I think there is a good research piece in this. You could frame using any number of approaches: historical, rhetorical, socialization, etc.

Basic analogy of the piece -- which I think would hold up if researched -- this would-have-been CEO is being viewed and treated as a heretic.

[Fisherking]

He took it seriously enough to stick with it even when it started to become obvious that it would have a significant negative influence on his CEO career, until he eventually resigned over it.

Threats towards human rights (some here are probably disagreing with that human rights are at stake here, but that's another matter), are usually not met with tolerance. Stomp them out before they regain the strength they had when they were legal. That's the normal treatment.

Worth noticing is that he did take flak about it in 2012 when it became publically known. But since he wasn't a CEO, the response was much weaker. So it isn't something new, it's something that got reignited when the stakes got higher.

Actually he refused to discuss it.

It is also stupid for the winning side to press the issue. Even more so as they did not win by a vote of the people but in the courts.

It was a continuous and divisive issue and this does not win friends or bring a happy meeting of the minds.

It only brings out the resentment and brings all the bad feelings back to the surface.

If a group is asking for acceptance and tolerance you don’t get it by attacking former opponents and dredging the whole matter back to the surface unless you want to fight your battle over again.

Anyone with even half a brain would shut up and move on with life.

Here’s what veteran LGBT activist Andrew Sullivan recently wrote on his blog about the rising tide of fascism in his own movement: “If this is the gay rights movement today — hounding our opponents with fanaticism — then count me out. If we are about intimidating the free speech of others, we are no better than the anti-gay bullies who came before us.”

[Husar]

Here’s what veteran LGBT activist Andrew Sullivan recently wrote on his blog about the rising tide of fascism in his own movement: “If this is the gay rights movement today — hounding our opponents with fanaticism — then count me out. If we are about intimidating the free speech of others, we are no better than the anti-gay bullies who came before us.”

Yeah, I saw this and forgot to post it:

http://thecolbertreport.cc.com/videos/3pg0sn/brendan-eich-s-forced-resignation---andrew-sullivan

[Ironside]

Yeah, I saw this and forgot to post it:

http://thecolbertreport.cc.com/videos/3pg0sn/brendan-eich-s-forced-resignation---andrew-sullivan

Now that's how you're a hypocrite while sounding reasonable. Boycots are fine, except when successful... Hearing their opinion and reasons are very nice, when they actually do that instead of trying to avoid to issue.

And yes you're still a bigot, even when it's socially accepted to be one.


Actually he refused to discuss it.

TBH I suspect that it's someone close to him that are the real pusher. Anyway, refusal to speak means that the other party has to draw their own conclusions.


It is also stupid for the winning side to press the issue. Even more so as they did not win by a vote of the people but in the courts.

It was a continuous and divisive issue and this does not win friends or bring a happy meeting of the minds.

It only brings out the resentment and brings all the bad feelings back to the surface.

If a group is asking for acceptance and tolerance you don’t get it by attacking former opponents and dredging the whole matter back to the surface unless you want to fight your battle over again.

Anyone with even half a brain would shut up and move on with life.

In 2012, there was much disappointment over that Eich had supported prop 8. No major calls for boycot on Mozilla, nor against Eich. Eich avoids the issue. 2014 Eich gets chosen as the CEO of Mozilla. Suddenly, as a spokesperson for Mozilla this matters magnitudes more. Is this now the official position of Mozilla? Or at the very least a tolerated position? If that's the case, boycot is in order. etc etc.

The point is that it has been very much lingering, without any stable solutions coming up in the mean time. And then when it suddenly becomes very relevant, of couse there will be a reaction.

Seamus, a better match would be that an old ally suddenly acts as they've switched sides during a conflict. It's more the relation between Mozilla and the gay community with Eich choosing to stand in the middle, than the classical heretic act. Some similarities exist of course (allies really can't switch sides consequence free during a conflict), but an heretical purging it is not. Would require higher demands than an resignation towards Eich. Heretics usually got worse punishments than not being allowed to be a bishop.

[Lemur]

Boycots are fine, except when successful...
More like, "Boycotts of institutions are fine, boycotts of individuals are nasty." I don't think Sully's position is so very out-there.

But going back to the Orwell-meets-Nazi-jackboots line of thought, if this is a new mind-control thoughtcrime witch hunt McCarthyism, shouldn't we be seeing a lot more of this?

Nobody seems to care, since it doesn't fit into their narratives, but this really does seem to be a particular situation, not easily replicated in life or business at large. There are always people calling for boycotts of various companies for this-that-or-the-other, but this situation seems to have been an outlier.

[Beskar]

I remember that boycott on Call of Duty and within the first day, half the people who signed the petition were playing it.

[Ironside]

More like, "Boycotts of institutions are fine, boycotts of individuals are nasty." I don't think Sully's position is so very out-there.


The problem is that the question is "Can you boycot a company when they chose an induvidual that has done things that are deemed problematic to be their representative?" You can't differ between the company and the person at that position.

I mean how do you differ between:
The company has chosen to say that they're ok with those ideas by selecting that guy as their CEO, so let's boycott the company. (Fair play)
That new CEO got nasty opnions, so let's punish him, by boycotting the company he leads. (Foul play)

There's no significant hunt after Eich after he risigned, so that would indicate mostly fair play.


But going back to the Orwell-meets-Nazi-jackboots line of thought, if this is a new mind-control thoughtcrime witch hunt McCarthyism, shouldn't we be seeing a lot more of this?

Nobody seems to care, since it doesn't fit into their narratives, but this really does seem to be a particular situation, not easily replicated in life or business at large. There are always people calling for boycotts of various companies for this-that-or-the-other, but this situation seems to have been an outlier.

Pretty much. This thread has been close to the Ukraine thread on people ignoring facts on the ground to make it fit their narrative better.