Languish.org

QuoteBrendan Eich, Mozilla CEO, resigns after protests over anti-gay marriage stance
'Under the present circumstances, I cannot be an effective leader', co-founder says
The Associated Press Posted: Apr 03, 2014 10:01 PM ET Last Updated: Apr 04, 2014 1:16 PM ET

Mozilla co-founder Brendan Eich is stepping down as CEO and leaving the company following protests over his support of a gay marriage ban in California.

The nonprofit that makes the Firefox browser infuriated many employees and users last week by naming Eich head of the Mountain View, Calif.-based organization.

At issue was Eich's $1,000 donation in 2008 to the campaign to pass California's Proposition 8, a constitutional amendment that outlawed same-sex marriages. The ban was overturned last year when the U.S. Supreme Court left in place a lower-court ruling striking down the ballot measure.

Eich's contribution had drawn negative attention in the past but took on more weight when he was named CEO. Mozilla employees and users criticized the move on Twitter and elsewhere online. Earlier this week, dating website OKCupid replaced its usual homepage for users logging in with Firefox with a note suggesting they not use Mozilla's software to access the site.

An OKCupid spokesman responded Friday to the news of Eich stepping down, saying the website never sought anyone's resignation.

"We are pleased that OkCupid's boycott has brought tremendous awareness to the critical matter of equal rights for all individuals and partnerships; today's decision reaffirms Mozilla's commitment to that cause," the spokesman said in an email to CBC.

"We are satisfied that Mozilla will be taking a number of further affirmative steps to support the equality of all relationships."

The departure raises questions about how far corporate leaders are allowed to go in expressing their political views.

"CEOs often use their station to push for certain viewpoints and get some muscle for those viewpoints," said UCLA management professor Samuel Culbert. "But if you are going to play the game you have to think of both sides."

Company leaders have to be conscious of what impact their own views may have on the success of their organization, Culbert argues. While some leaders, such as Starbucks Corp. head Howard Schultz, have been outspoken in their political positions, it is often in a vein that is line with the ethos of his company. Culbert said that taking a position that is divisive can both drive away customers and hurt employee morale.

The onus is also on the corporation and its board to assess whether anything that a candidate has done or said in the past will adversely affect the company's reputation, said Microsoft Corp. Chairman John Thompson, who led a five-month search that culminated in Microsoft hiring Satya Nadella as its new CEO in February.

"When you run a public company or any visible organization, what you think and what you say is always going to affect the company," said Thompson, "You have to be mindful of how things you do and say will affect your customers, your employees and your investors."

'I cannot be an effective leader'

Eich said in a statement Thursday that Mozilla's mission is "bigger than any one of us, and under the present circumstances, I cannot be an effective leader."

His resignation represents an about-face from his confident and sometimes defiant remarks in an interview published earlier this week by the technology news service Cnet. Insisting that he was best choice to be CEO, Eich told Cnet that it would send the wrong message if he were to resign or apologize for his support of Prop. 8.

"I don't think it's good for my integrity or Mozilla's integrity to be pressured into changing a position," Eich said. "If Mozilla became more exclusive and required more litmus tests, I think that would be a mistake that would lead to a much smaller Mozilla, a much more fragmented Mozilla."

At another point, Eich said that attacks on his beliefs represented a threat to Mozilla's survival. "If Mozilla cannot continue to operate according to its principles of inclusiveness, where you can work on the mission no matter what your background or other beliefs, I think we'll probably fail," he said.

Mozilla chairwoman Mitchell Baker apologized for the company's actions in an open letter online Thursday, saying that Eich is stepping down for the company's sake.

"We didn't act like you'd expect Mozilla to act. We didn't move fast enough to engage with people once the controversy started. We're sorry. We must do better," Baker wrote.

She said that Mozilla believes both in equality and freedom of speech and that "figuring out how to stand for both at the same time can be hard."

Mozilla is still discussing what is next for its leadership.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/brendan-eich-mozilla-ceo-resigns-after-protests-over-anti-gay-marriage-stance-1.2597765

There are lots of stories out there on this one, this is one I found quickly.

I find this one kind of troubling.  The protests aren't over anything Eich is doing now or in the recent past - it was for financially supporting an anti-gay-marriage proposition from 6 years ago.  It's not enough that gay marriage proponents in California won, but apparently anyone who once felt the opposite way must be shamed into renouncing their prior position.

What say you Languish?

OkCupid has lot of pull.

See, this is why every gay is a danger to the society we live in, and why our forefather were right to persecute them as they did.

2 things:

1) he is the leader of an organization that includes gay people. It has to be rather demotivating for them to have a leader that advocated against them.
2) he is the face of a organization to the public. Mozilla apparently didn't want to have his advocacy against gay marriage as a subtext in unrelated stories. Which makes sense. Mozilla products happen to be very easy to substitute for, making them vunerable to bad publicity and boycotts.

I say people are free to spend their money any way they want, and if that means that impacts Mozilla's finances, so be it.

As we've learned from the Supreme Court, money is speech. :)  So I don't think a business leader who goes and publicly "speaks" out in favor of denying marriage rights to same-sex couples should be shielded from the blowback, whether at the time or when people later "hear" his "speech."

Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 04, 2014, 01:52:59 PM
I say people are free to spend their money any way they want, and if that means that impacts Mozilla's finances, so be it.

Mozilla owners are free to hire who they want as CEO.

Surely there are political causes that financial support of which would disqualify someone from becoming a CEO.

Quote from: alfred russel on April 04, 2014, 02:02:52 PM
Mozilla owners are free to hire who they want as CEO.

Obviously.

Anything and everything can impact the choice of CEO. I see no problem here.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 04, 2014, 02:06:11 PM

Quote from: alfred russel on April 04, 2014, 02:02:52 PM
Mozilla owners are free to hire who they want as CEO.

Obviously.

Unless I'm misunderstanding your post, we are in disagreement.

Quote from: alfred russel on April 04, 2014, 02:09:23 PM

Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 04, 2014, 02:06:11 PM

Quote from: alfred russel on April 04, 2014, 02:02:52 PM
Mozilla owners are free to hire who they want as CEO.

Obviously.

Unless I'm misunderstanding your post, we are in disagreement.

True.

Quote from: alfred russel on April 04, 2014, 02:09:23 PM
Unless I'm misunderstanding your post, we are in disagreement.

I don't see how.  Mozilla's owners are free to choose any CEO they want.  If they think this dude's stance on gay marriage will impact their shareholder value, they're free to let him go.

Or for any other reason for that matter, subject to contractual constraints.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 04, 2014, 02:11:20 PM

Quote from: alfred russel on April 04, 2014, 02:09:23 PM
Unless I'm misunderstanding your post, we are in disagreement.

I don't see how.  Mozilla's owners are free to choose any CEO they want.  If they think this dude's stance on gay marriage will impact their shareholder value, they're free to let him go.

Or for any other reason for that matter, subject to contractual constraints.

I was misunderstanding your post then.

Quote from: Barrister on April 04, 2014, 01:45:23 PM

I find this one kind of troubling.  The protests aren't over anything Eich is doing now or in the recent past - it was for financially supporting an anti-gay-marriage proposition from 6 years ago.  It's not enough that gay marriage proponents in California won, but apparently anyone who once felt the opposite way must be shamed into renouncing their prior position.

What say you Languish?

I also find it kind of troubling. I don't agree with him but he just had the same view as Pres Obama did just a few years ago. He just had a different opinion on what marriage is. That doesn't make the guy some kind of demon, unless he was doing and saying a lot worse things.  Millions of Californians had the same view.

I also find it troubling that a Cal law allows people who donate to something to be found out, making them subject to harassment.

This kind of thing, the law especially, stifles people's willingness to take part in the political process. Who wants to deal with this stuff for supporting a point of view? And I have to think it makes a lot of people angry seeing this kind of harassment of the guy.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 04, 2014, 01:52:59 PM
I say people are free to spend their money any way they want, and if that means that impacts Mozilla's finances, so be it.

True but he didn't get arrested so I am not sure what his personal freedom has to do with it.

QuoteI find this one kind of troubling.  The protests aren't over anything Eich is doing now or in the recent past - it was for financially supporting an anti-gay-marriage proposition from 6 years ago.  It's not enough that gay marriage proponents in California won, but apparently anyone who once felt the opposite way must be shamed into renouncing their prior position.

That is indeed how things work these days in the culture wars.  It is all about labeling, if you get labeled a homophobe and it sticks watch out.  Everybody who is labeled certain things is evil.

I've mixed feelings. Is there any proof though that gay groups were agitating to make this happen? Seems like it was a Mozilla decision.

Also, I always dislike the "you need to be tolerant of intolerance". On Yahoo news, commentators were complaining that he should be left alone as his invention of JavaScript was game changing. :mellow:

I don't think it's relevant to the core issue, but FWIW it seems to me that being prevented by law to marry the one you love and want to marry is a bigger loss than not being CEO of Mozilla in a free market.

Quote from: KRonn on April 04, 2014, 02:14:27 PMI also find it troubling that a Cal law allows people who donate to something to be found out, making them subject to harassment.

If political contributions are treated as speech, there's no legitimate reason to think they should be kept private.  If you support a cause by pamphleting for them, circulating a newsletter, or by going to a protest, everybody know who you're supporting.  Just because you have enough money to try to influence politics by large donations rather than other ways doesn't mean you should get specially privileges to secrecy.

Quote from: Capetan Mihali on April 04, 2014, 02:20:57 PM
If political contributions are treated as speech, there's no legitimate reason to think they should be kept private.  If you support a cause by pamphleting for them, circulating a newsletter, or by going to a protest, everybody know who you're supporting.  Just because you have enough money to try to influence politics by large donations rather than other ways doesn't mean you should get specially privileges to secrecy.

I don't follow your logic.  People are not required by law to sign their name to pamphlets or articles they write.

Quote from: KRonn on April 04, 2014, 02:14:27 PM
Millions of Californians had the same view.

And that was a great shame/disappointment/evil. I took a sick day so I wouldn't cry in the office.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 04, 2014, 02:24:14 PM

Quote from: Capetan Mihali on April 04, 2014, 02:20:57 PM
If political contributions are treated as speech, there's no legitimate reason to think they should be kept private.  If you support a cause by pamphleting for them, circulating a newsletter, or by going to a protest, everybody know who you're supporting.  Just because you have enough money to try to influence politics by large donations rather than other ways doesn't mean you should get specially privileges to secrecy.

I don't follow your logic.  People are not required by law to sign their name to pamphlets or articles they write.

True.  I meant that the people handing them out (pamphlets) or selling them (newsletters) are going to be necessarily identifiable.  Anonymous pamphlets clearly played a big role in political movements of olden times, but today, it's going to be very hard to engage in effective political speech using unsigned material that doesn't involve many people being publically identified as supporters/fellow travelers, whether you're foisting it into people's hands or registering non-profit corporation to organize the mailing of newsletters.

People are certainly free to boycott, vote with their pocketbooks (so to speak), etc. but I find it a little unsettling that people were willing to make such a huge issue out of this guy's past donation.  His stance on gay marriage didn't have anything to do with heading an organization like Mozilla-- until some loudmouths made that so. 

Also getting a bit tiresome that wanting to preserve the traditional definition of marriage equates to 'intolerance' and a virulent hatred of gays in some peoples' minds.  Keep it in perspective, for crying out loud.  People can disagree with you without automatically being monsters.

Quote from: derspiess on April 04, 2014, 02:40:55 PMPeople can disagree with you without automatically being monsters.

Source?

Quote from: derspiess on April 04, 2014, 02:40:55 PM
His stance on gay marriage didn't have anything to do with heading an organization like Mozilla-- until some loudmouths made that so. 

Welcome to the market. Obviously as an American you find it weird and unsettling.

Quote from: Capetan Mihali on April 04, 2014, 02:20:57 PM

If political contributions are treated as speech, there's no legitimate reason to think they should be kept private.  If you support a cause by pamphleting for them, circulating a newsletter, or by going to a protest, everybody know who you're supporting.  Just because you have enough money to try to influence politics by large donations rather than other ways doesn't mean you should get specially privileges to secrecy.

:yes: In a free society, you have a right to make yourself heard, but that doesn't mean you can hide behind pseudonyms and subterfuge to keep your identity secret. The founding fathers would never have failed to put their name to their arguments when debating the constitution, for instance.

Quote from: alfred russel on April 04, 2014, 02:52:58 PM
:yes: In a free society, you have a right to make yourself heard, but that doesn't mean you can hide behind pseudonyms and subterfuge to keep your identity secret. The founding fathers would never have failed to put their name to their arguments when debating the constitution, for instance.

Good point "alfred russel."   :lol:

Quote from: garbon on April 04, 2014, 02:18:19 PM
I've mixed feelings. Is there any proof though that gay groups were agitating to make this happen? Seems like it was a Mozilla decision.

Also, I always dislike the "you need to be tolerant of intolerance". On Yahoo news, commentators were complaining that he should be left alone as his invention of JavaScript was game changing. :mellow:

I don't think you need to be tolerant of intolerance either.  But there is some space between that and the labeling that goes on.  Even really progressive people will make one little slip of the tongue become pariahs.  We should be a little tolerant of people's foibles.  Or it may just be me tiring of the constant outrage over every little thing.

Quote from: Valmy on April 04, 2014, 02:56:58 PM

Quote from: garbon on April 04, 2014, 02:18:19 PM
I've mixed feelings. Is there any proof though that gay groups were agitating to make this happen? Seems like it was a Mozilla decision.

Also, I always dislike the "you need to be tolerant of intolerance". On Yahoo news, commentators were complaining that he should be left alone as his invention of JavaScript was game changing. :mellow:

I don't think you need to be tolerant of intolerance either.  But there is some space between that and the labeling that goes on.  Even really progressive people will make one little slip of the tongue become pariahs.  We should be a little tolerant of people's foibles.  Or it may just be me tiring of the constant outrage over every little thing.

Is donating money to an effort to prevent a certain group from marrying a foible?

My first point is, CEO is a political position more or less. I always scoff when people cry "but FREE SPEECH" in response to something being done by a company or non-governmental org. So that all applies here, Eich has a right to do/say basically whatever he wants politically and Mozilla has a right to react however it wants as well within the bounds of the law. Choosing to force someone out is within those bounds for sure. As a side note, the Mozilla Foundation is a non-profit organization that owns 100% of the for-profit Mozilla corporation. There aren't actually any traditional shareholders/owners of Mozilla Foundation.

Second point, I don't agree with the "ideological purity test" that the lefty tech industry imposed on Eich. It seems weird to me that Barack Obama only has to say "it's all good" a few years after getting elected in 2008 with a public disapproval of gay marriage and many of these same Silicon Valley ideological crusaders against Eich were more than happy to vote for the guy. Eich has never said anything publicly about gay marriage, he donated $1,000 and that's it. It just seems like a crazy double standard  to just gloss over people whose words and actions genuinely affect gay marriage in a big way (you know, like the POTUS running for reelection) but insist a guy who is only minimally involved in the political process lose his job over something 52% of voters that day agreed with.

I don't think part of changing cultural views should be trying to brand scarlet letters on anyone who held the view that lost out in the court of public opinion. That kind of recrimination is what typified a lot of really unstable revolutions/regimes throughout history and for better or worse is absolutely not what we have done in America. By and large we helped the South rebuild after the ACW, people weren't executed en masse etc. After Jim Crow the supporters of the old regime were not driven beneath the Earth and locked away.

Quote from: garbon on April 04, 2014, 03:06:43 PMIs donating money to an effort to prevent a certain group from marrying a foible?

What about running for POTUS while publicly saying you're against gay marriage? If people were willing to forgive Barry for that it seems odd they can't forgive a guy who never said a word about the issue and hasn't done anything in regard to the issue since 2008 (back when his position was shared publicly by the guy who went on to become President.)

I also find it hypocritical the entire organization was more than happy to benefit from Eich's technical leadership (he founded Mozilla and lead it as CTO for I believe that entire time) but the moment he got a promotion the employees and leadership on the board were ready to turn against him. His donation has been known for years, I actually have followed this Eich noise on the tech sites I visit, and I actually remember years ago when Eich's donation was first discovered. It caused a minor ripple then, and immediately went away. If he's so objectionable he should have lost his job then, right? CTO may not be CEO, but it's a major leadership position, and he's been on Mozilla's board this whole time as well.

Quote from: garbon on April 04, 2014, 03:06:43 PM
Is donating money to an effort to prevent a certain group from marrying a foible?

Is everybody who opposed gay marriage six years ago an intolerant asshole who should be opposed until forced to resign?  I could see it if he was some sort of activist who was notorious for this sort of thing but this seems like a misdemeanor that put him beyond the pale.

Quote from: garbon on April 04, 2014, 02:18:19 PM
I've mixed feelings. Is there any proof though that gay groups were agitating to make this happen? Seems like it was a Mozilla decision.

OKCupid was the big driver - urging people to boycott Firefox as a result.  Lots of twitter "activists".

Of course people are free to speak their mind, on Twitter and elsewhere, and of course Mozilla can hire and fire whomever they want.

Instead this is a question of whether people should have acted as they did - not whether they can or not.

I'm very angry about this.

I support gay rights.

I fucking hate the Gutmenschen who got him fired.

Quote from: Barrister on April 04, 2014, 03:22:55 PMOKCupid was the big driver - urging people to boycott Firefox as a result.  Lots of twitter "activists".

Of course people are free to speak their mind, on Twitter and elsewhere, and of course Mozilla can hire and fire whomever they want.

Instead this is a question of whether people should have acted as they did - not whether they can or not.

I've always taken a firm position that gays have no intrinsic constitutional right to marry, the whole idea is preposterous based on all norms of law and precedent. Individual States certainly can make it legal as they choose. I can't really think of much other that affects me less than gay marriage in the current world of politics so I've never cared whether a State chooses to have it or not have it, but it seems odd to me that we're at a point now where the moment public consensus changes just a tad bit (52% of California voters agreed with Eich in 2008)  anyone caught on the other side of it should be hounded from public life.

Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on April 04, 2014, 03:09:52 PM

Quote from: garbon on April 04, 2014, 03:06:43 PMIs donating money to an effort to prevent a certain group from marrying a foible?

What about running for POTUS while publicly saying you're against gay marriage? If people were willing to forgive Barry for that it seems odd they can't forgive a guy who never said a word about the issue and hasn't done anything in regard to the issue since 2008 (back when his position was shared publicly by the guy who went on to become President.)

People seem to forgive Obama for all sorts of things and it makes no sense to me.

Quote from: Valmy on April 04, 2014, 03:13:00 PM

Quote from: garbon on April 04, 2014, 03:06:43 PM
Is donating money to an effort to prevent a certain group from marrying a foible?

Is everybody who opposed gay marriage six years ago an intolerant asshole who should be opposed until forced to resign?  I could see it if he was some sort of activist who was notorious for this sort of thing but this seems like a misdemeanor that put him beyond the pale.

I don't know. I mean I'm not very hard-line but I think I will always reserve some level of shade for people I know to be opposed to gay marriage (which includes swathes of my family).

Quote from: Barrister on April 04, 2014, 03:22:55 PM

Quote from: garbon on April 04, 2014, 02:18:19 PM
I've mixed feelings. Is there any proof though that gay groups were agitating to make this happen? Seems like it was a Mozilla decision.

OKCupid was the big driver - urging people to boycott Firefox as a result.  Lots of twitter "activists".

Of course people are free to speak their mind, on Twitter and elsewhere, and of course Mozilla can hire and fire whomever they want.

Instead this is a question of whether people should have acted as they did - not whether they can or not.

I guess I'm wondering who these people are. I don't think it was even a significant portion of gays but seems like some twitter activists as you say and OKC. That Mozilla decided image-wise to go along with that very small group of people...well it seems odd that spins into a conversation about how cruel we're being to people whom had intolerant moments in their past.  The "we" is a very small group.

This has been really big in tech circles. If you read Ars Technica, Wired, various Reddit techie subreddits or all kinds of other techie media/social media this has been really big. It also was big within Mozilla  itself among its young techie employees. So I don't think this was actually big in the traditional LGBT activist community because it was off their radar. Eich was primarily pushed out because of a reaction within his own industry, which makes sense, as Mozilla's board has to be most concerned about those stakeholders first and they were the ones riled up about it.

Quote from: garbon on April 04, 2014, 03:33:25 PM

Quote from: Valmy on April 04, 2014, 03:13:00 PM

Quote from: garbon on April 04, 2014, 03:06:43 PM
Is donating money to an effort to prevent a certain group from marrying a foible?

Is everybody who opposed gay marriage six years ago an intolerant asshole who should be opposed until forced to resign?  I could see it if he was some sort of activist who was notorious for this sort of thing but this seems like a misdemeanor that put him beyond the pale.

I don't know. I mean I'm not very hard-line but I think I will always reserve some level of shade for people I know to be opposed to gay marriage (which includes swathes of my family).

That's fair enough I suppose.  I will judge people for all sorts of political beliefs.

But this kind of public shaming for writing a cheque six years ago seems to be beyond the pale.

Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on April 04, 2014, 03:37:42 PM
This has been really big in tech circles. If you read Ars Technica, Wired, various Reddit techie subreddits or all kinds of other techie media/social media this has been really big. It also was big within Mozilla  itself among its young techie employees. So I don't think this was actually big in the traditional LGBT activist community because it was off their radar. Eich was primarily pushed out because of a reaction within his own industry, which makes sense, as Mozilla's board has to be most concerned about those stakeholders first and they were the ones riled up about it.

You know that makes sense as the one article I had read was about whether it was possible to hold/espouse conservative views in Silicon Valley.

If anything like SF proper - definitely not, unless you want to be tarred and feathered. :D

Quote from: Barrister on April 04, 2014, 03:40:46 PM

Quote from: garbon on April 04, 2014, 03:33:25 PM

Quote from: Valmy on April 04, 2014, 03:13:00 PM

Quote from: garbon on April 04, 2014, 03:06:43 PM
Is donating money to an effort to prevent a certain group from marrying a foible?

Is everybody who opposed gay marriage six years ago an intolerant asshole who should be opposed until forced to resign?  I could see it if he was some sort of activist who was notorious for this sort of thing but this seems like a misdemeanor that put him beyond the pale.

I don't know. I mean I'm not very hard-line but I think I will always reserve some level of shade for people I know to be opposed to gay marriage (which includes swathes of my family).

That's fair enough I suppose.  I will judge people for all sorts of political beliefs.

But this kind of public shaming for writing a cheque six years ago seems to be beyond the pale.

Most people didn't know about what he had done until now, no? His money then helped support a cause that revoked gay marriage for 5 years in California.

It's become much riskier to publicly participate in politics at all if you want to have a life in the public eye. Unless you want to be a politician, anyway. Both sides now imposing ideological purity, not just on candidates but they push for it in all aspects of life. Fundamentalist Christians won't shop at stores that they know support various causes (anything pro-Choice especially), and some even will only invest in ETFs/Mutual Funds that invest in "moral" companies (they're out there, marketed to these types.) The left is just as bad, boycotting any company that doesn't kow tow to various liberal causes. It's almost like people think we should have a segregated society where we only patronize business that agrees with us, only watch media or read writings of people we agree with and etc.

When Governor Scott Walker was subjected to the recall vote, Tea Party supporters painstakingly went through the signature lists and transcribed them into digital form. Then anyone who had tried to recall Walker (the recall vote failed), was given pay back whenever possible. Even local elected judges who are supposed to have non-partisan roles were successfully forced from office in conservative districts of Wisconsin entirely because they had signed the recall petition.

Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on April 04, 2014, 03:45:05 PM
It's become much riskier to publicly participate in politics at all if you want to have a life in the public eye. Unless you want to be a politician, anyway. Both sides now imposing ideological purity, not just on candidates but they push for it in all aspects of life. Fundamentalist Christians won't shop at stores that they know support various causes (anything pro-Choice especially), and some even will only invest in ETFs/Mutual Funds that invest in "moral" companies (they're out there, marketed to these types.) The left is just as bad, boycotting any company that doesn't kow tow to various liberal causes. It's almost like people think we should have a segregated society where we only patronize business that agrees with us, only watch media or read writings of people we agree with and etc.

When Governor Scott Walker was subjected to the recall vote, Tea Party supporters painstakingly went through the signature lists and transcribed them into digital form. Then anyone who had tried to recall Walker (the recall vote failed), was given pay back whenever possible. Even local elected judges who are supposed to have non-partisan roles were successfully forced from office in conservative districts of Wisconsin entirely because they had signed the recall petition.

I know.  The busybodies are really taking over.

Quote from: Valmy on April 04, 2014, 03:53:33 PM

I know.  The busybodies are really taking over.

I'll bring the popcorn when these "tolerant" do-gooders visciously turn on each other for perceived thoughtcrimes.

Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on April 04, 2014, 03:45:05 PM
It's become much riskier to publicly participate in politics at all if you want to have a life in the public eye.

I am not sure that is such a bad thing.  People should be held accountable for the manner in which they participate in the political process.  The problem is people are not held accountable by a reasonable electorate (and I suppose as this story shows a reasonable public).  Instead what we see more and more is an electorate/public attracted by extreme positions.

Quote from: Legbiter on April 04, 2014, 04:05:45 PM

Quote from: Valmy on April 04, 2014, 03:53:33 PM

I know.  The busybodies are really taking over.

I'll bring the popcorn when these "tolerant" do-gooders visciously turn on each other for perceived thoughtcrimes.

When?  They do it all the time now.

Quote from: crazy canuck on April 04, 2014, 04:08:13 PM

Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on April 04, 2014, 03:45:05 PM
It's become much riskier to publicly participate in politics at all if you want to have a life in the public eye.

I am not sure that is such a bad thing.  People should be held accountable for the manner in which they participate in the political process.  The problem is people are not held accountable by a reasonable electorate (and I suppose as this story shows a reasonable public).  Instead what we see more and more is an electorate/public attracted by extreme positions.

People need to be held accountable?  Why do we have a secret ballot if this is such a pressing need?

Quote from: Valmy on April 04, 2014, 04:10:41 PM

Quote from: crazy canuck on April 04, 2014, 04:08:13 PM

Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on April 04, 2014, 03:45:05 PM
It's become much riskier to publicly participate in politics at all if you want to have a life in the public eye.

I am not sure that is such a bad thing.  People should be held accountable for the manner in which they participate in the political process.  The problem is people are not held accountable by a reasonable electorate (and I suppose as this story shows a reasonable public).  Instead what we see more and more is an electorate/public attracted by extreme positions.

People need to be held accountable?  Why do we have a secret ballot if this is such a pressing need?

I didnt have voting in mind.  Not sure why you took the conversation in that direction.

Quote from: crazy canuck on April 04, 2014, 04:13:21 PM
I didnt have voting in mind.  Not sure why you took the conversation in that direction.

Because you said 'people should be held accountable for the manner in which they participate in the political process'.  I thought the very fact that was dangerous and led to this sort of intimidation was the very reason we have a secret ballot in the first place.

Quote from: Valmy on April 04, 2014, 04:17:37 PM

Quote from: crazy canuck on April 04, 2014, 04:13:21 PM
I didnt have voting in mind.  Not sure why you took the conversation in that direction.

Because you said 'people should be held accountable for the manner in which they participate in the political process'.  I thought the very fact that was dangerous and led to this sort of intimidation was the very reason we have a secret ballot in the first place.

Yes Valmy.  Now try to read what I said in the context of Otto's post.  You know the one I was reponding to. 

But you provide an exellent example of the problem I was describing of the lack of a reasonable electorate if you read my post as a threat to secret ballots.  :P

Quote from: crazy canuck on April 04, 2014, 04:22:23 PM
Yes Valmy.  Now try to read what I said in the context of Otto's post.  You know the one I was reponding to. 

But you provide an exellent example of the problem I was describing of the lack of a reasonable electorate taking extreme positions if you read my post as a threat to secret ballots.  :P

I did not read it as a threat to secret ballots, I was asking you why we have them in the first place.  They were not always that way, in the US voting was once done publicly often with the candidates present.  Hmmmmm...I wonder why we stopped doing that...could it be because people were being held accountable for the manner in which they participated in the political process?  Further one of Otto's big examples involved participation in a recall election that the participants probably thought was a private matter and not related to their public office.

I am not sure there is a pressing public need for the electorate, no matter how reasonable, to go around policing everybody's opinions and hunting for heretics.  That sort of behavior is unlikely to attract people with moderate opinions anyway.  Elected official's suitableness for office should be evident from their public service record but even if you disagree this sort of thing is hardly reserved only for people running for or holding public offices.

Hopefully Otto will respond to my post to him.  I have no idea what you are on about now.

Quote from: Barrister on April 04, 2014, 03:40:46 PM

Quote from: garbon on April 04, 2014, 03:33:25 PM

Quote from: Valmy on April 04, 2014, 03:13:00 PM

Quote from: garbon on April 04, 2014, 03:06:43 PM
Is donating money to an effort to prevent a certain group from marrying a foible?

Is everybody who opposed gay marriage six years ago an intolerant asshole who should be opposed until forced to resign?  I could see it if he was some sort of activist who was notorious for this sort of thing but this seems like a misdemeanor that put him beyond the pale.

I don't know. I mean I'm not very hard-line but I think I will always reserve some level of shade for people I know to be opposed to gay marriage (which includes swathes of my family).

That's fair enough I suppose.  I will judge people for all sorts of political beliefs.

But this kind of public shaming for writing a cheque six years ago seems to be beyond the pale.

Note I should add that the check is really the part I dislike. It is one thing to hold distasteful views, another to vote according to them to deny benefits to a group (at no harm to yourself, I might add) but then a step beyond either to spend money in hopes of influencing others to said spiteful views.

[Insert a random comment here]

Quote from: garbon on April 04, 2014, 05:40:11 PM

Quote from: Barrister on April 04, 2014, 03:40:46 PM

Quote from: garbon on April 04, 2014, 03:33:25 PM

Quote from: Valmy on April 04, 2014, 03:13:00 PM

Quote from: garbon on April 04, 2014, 03:06:43 PM
Is donating money to an effort to prevent a certain group from marrying a foible?

Is everybody who opposed gay marriage six years ago an intolerant asshole who should be opposed until forced to resign?  I could see it if he was some sort of activist who was notorious for this sort of thing but this seems like a misdemeanor that put him beyond the pale.

I don't know. I mean I'm not very hard-line but I think I will always reserve some level of shade for people I know to be opposed to gay marriage (which includes swathes of my family).

That's fair enough I suppose.  I will judge people for all sorts of political beliefs.

But this kind of public shaming for writing a cheque six years ago seems to be beyond the pale.

Note I should add that the check is really the part I dislike. It is one thing to hold distasteful views, another to vote according to them to deny benefits to a group (at no harm to yourself, I might add) but then a step beyond either to spend money in hopes of influencing others to said spiteful views.

Yeah, I dont really understand BB's defence that he merely wrote a check. 

Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on April 04, 2014, 03:08:25 PMIt just seems like a crazy double standard  to just gloss over people whose words and actions genuinely affect gay marriage in a big way (you know, like the POTUS running for reelection) but insist a guy who is only minimally involved in the political process lose his job over something 52% of voters that day agreed with.

Or, for that matter, the leaders of HRC who were, for years, far more focused on raising money for the Democrats and campaigning for a comparatively meaningless hate crimes law than on the politically inconvenient campaign for marriage.

I think boycotts over personnel is a slippery slope we should avoid.

I don't agree with the current puritanism and boycotting joy of a lot of the left and, frankly, it reminds me of nothing so much as the moral majority in their pomp.

Also I think we've won the argument and I think there should be a bit of magnanimity in victory. I don't see any need to grind the opponents of gay marriage into the dust. Someone opposes it, fine, we can have that fight. Do we really want to make them lose their job, or unemployable, or subject to an artificial glass ceiling?

The best defence I've seen of this was in the NYT and it was still pretty awful.

There are many, many jobs where you should keep from publically speaking out on certain issues if you don't want to hurt your career. This is and always will be so. You may as well be upset with gravity.

Quote from: Sheilbh on April 04, 2014, 06:08:50 PM
I don't agree with the current puritanism and boycotting joy of a lot of the left and, frankly, it reminds me of nothing so much as the moral majority in their pomp.

Current?  Boycots has been a tool of the left for a long time.  If anything my bet would be that boycots were a lot more frequent in the 60s and 70s.

QuoteAlso I think we've won the argument and I think there should be a bit of magnanimity in victory. I don't see any need to grind the opponents of gay marriage into the dust. Someone opposes it, fine, we can have that fight. Do we really want to make them lose their job, or unemployable, or subject to an artificial glass ceiling?

I am not so sure the argument has been "won".  These are early days and I think the US in particular is a long way from accepting that gay marriage is normative.  The debate has certainly been won here in Canada - to the extent that the most conservative PM in a long time will not touch this issue.  If it ever comes to that in the US then I think you can declare victory in that country.

Quote from: The Brain on April 04, 2014, 06:13:56 PM
There are many, many jobs where you should keep from publically speaking out on certain issues if you don't want to hurt your career. This is and always will be so. You may as well be upset with gravity.

:yes:

I find it odd that people would be offended to learn that there are consequences for acting in the public sphere.

Quote from: crazy canuck on April 04, 2014, 06:16:21 PMCurrent?  Boycots has been a tool of the left for a long time.  If anything my bet would be that boycots were a lot more frequent in the 60s and 70s.

There's been a few lately that have annoyed me. They seem less about punishing actions or policies and more about enforcing opinion - exactly like the moral majority.

QuoteI am not so sure the argument has been "won".  These are early days and I think the US in particular is a long way from accepting that gay marriage is normative.  The debate has certainly been won here in Canada - to the extent that the most conservative PM in a long time will not touch this issue.  If it ever comes to that in the US then I think you can declare victory in that country.

If you look through these, we're negotiating the terms of the surrender:
http://features.pewforum.org/same-sex-marriage-attitudes/

If there's one social conservative issue the GOP should (and in my view will) dump, it'll be this one. You're right they are early days. But from the perspective of many other social reforms the entire gay rights movement is in early days. It's been legal for less than 50 years in England and sodomy laws were only struck down recently in the US. I can't think of any other issue from the past that's seen opinion move so quickly and decisively from one side of the argument to the other.

As I say we've won. We shouldn't spend our time punishing previous opponents and getting heretics to don ashes. I think we'd be better focusing on, say, Uganda and Kenya and India and Russia and what we can do to help there.

Quote from: crazy canuck on April 04, 2014, 04:08:13 PM

Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on April 04, 2014, 03:45:05 PM
It's become much riskier to publicly participate in politics at all if you want to have a life in the public eye.

I am not sure that is such a bad thing.  People should be held accountable for the manner in which they participate in the political process.  The problem is people are not held accountable by a reasonable electorate (and I suppose as this story shows a reasonable public).  Instead what we see more and more is an electorate/public attracted by extreme positions.

We're in maybe broad agreement, but disagreement on the specifics of this issue. If you put stuff out there, consequences are going to happen. That's life, I don't see how you remove that nor is it desirable.

But all Eich did was donate. I don't even believe, as a matter of course, that contributions to groups that support certain sides of a ballot referendum were even typically public record--because they had to have a big court case to get them all published in the California case. Same thing with signing a petition to recall the Governor of Wisconsin, that's actually pretty close to outright voting, which should be private.

So for one, I think just having your name on a contribution list shouldn't elicit this kind of reaction, and two, I'm doubtful such lists should be published. If he had been running a blog where he had made his political opinions known, or just spoken to the wrong reporter or made a facebook post or twitter post or whatever I'd take little issue with what had happened.

Quote from: KRonn on April 04, 2014, 02:14:27 PM
I also find it kind of troubling. I don't agree with him but he just had the same view as Pres Obama did just a few years ago. He just had a different opinion on what marriage is. That doesn't make the guy some kind of demon, unless he was doing and saying a lot worse things.  Millions of Californians had the same view.

If he had - rather than has - that view, but has evolved past it he could have offered a sincere apology and some sort of significant gesture that he'd changed his views.

He chose to stick to his "just having a different opinion on what marriage is", which for many people - these days - is not "just" but fundamentally treating a category of fellow citizens as being second class akin to "just having a different opinion on racial segregation".

Quote from: Jacob on April 04, 2014, 07:23:29 PM

Quote from: KRonn on April 04, 2014, 02:14:27 PM
I also find it kind of troubling. I don't agree with him but he just had the same view as Pres Obama did just a few years ago. He just had a different opinion on what marriage is. That doesn't make the guy some kind of demon, unless he was doing and saying a lot worse things.  Millions of Californians had the same view.

If he had - rather than has - that view, but has evolved past it he could have offered a sincere apology and some sort of significant gesture that he'd changed his views.

He chose to stick to his "just having a different opinion on what marriage is", which for many people - these days - is not "just" but fundamentally treating a category of fellow citizens as being second class akin to "just having a different opinion on racial segregation".

He's actually never explained his opinion. When it came out years ago he had made the contribution he offered no explanation, and all he's done since is note that Mozilla respects full equality for its LGBT employees and treats them equally int he workplace and is committed to workplace diversity.

He has basically taken no public stance on the issue, other than making a contribution, which was only I believe made public through court order and probably not anticipated when he made the contribution. If he was out there doing the things you're talking about or saying the things you're talking about publicly I'd maybe feel the same way.  But part of me feels like he was engaging pretty exclusively in private (non-publicized) political action which all of us have a right to do, and I'm not sure it's great that people are combing this lists to find targets for political/public retribution.

Quote from: Sheilbh on April 04, 2014, 06:34:10 PM
If you look through these, we're negotiating the terms of the surrender:
http://features.pewforum.org/same-sex-marriage-attitudes/

The last graphic puts the lie to the commonplace that blacks are radically more opposed to gay marriage than whites.  43% vs. 54% in support respectively is a noticeable difference, but not nearly as extreme as the differences along political affiliation or religion lines.

Quote from: Sheilbh on April 04, 2014, 06:34:10 PMAs I say we've won. We shouldn't spend our time punishing previous opponents and getting heretics to don ashes. I think we'd be better focusing on, say, Uganda and Kenya and India and Russia and what we can do to help there.

In the context of the US, I think you are being much to relaxed about victory. The abortion battle was "won" too, and that victory has turned into a not-victory in many places in the US through a thousand cuts. To assume that the victory on gay marriage is lasting, or even solid, when it's still not legal in many states seems optimistic to the point of negligence.

Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on April 04, 2014, 07:29:31 PM
He's actually never explained his opinion. When it came out years ago he had made the contribution he offered no explanation, and all he's done since is note that Mozilla respects full equality for its LGBT employees and treats them equally int he workplace and is committed to workplace diversity.

He has basically taken no public stance on the issue, other than making a contribution, which was only I believe made public through court order and probably not anticipated when he made the contribution. If he was out there doing the things you're talking about or saying the things you're talking about publicly I'd maybe feel the same way.  But part of me feels like he was engaging pretty exclusively in private (non-publicized) political action which all of us have a right to do, and I'm not sure it's great that people are combing this lists to find targets for political/public retribution.

That's a persuasive point regarding the expected level of privacy for that kind of action.

My comment was more directed at the "Obama agreed with him back then too, why did people forgive him" type arguments; to which my response is that Obama evolved since then, and I believe that Eich had the option of similarly evolving and recanting and that could have headed the matter off.

He chose not to, and that's his prerogative. But many many people have had their opinion on the matter evolve this last decade or so; Eich could have found plenty of political cover with them if he had wanted to.

Surely he should have suspected that the homo goons would get the donation lists somehow, and endeavour to punish everyone on them.  That's the way things work these days. 

Quote from: crazy canuck on April 04, 2014, 05:28:46 PM
Hopefully Otto will respond to my post to him.  I have no idea what you are on about now.

Ok look if you only want to Otto to respond send a PM don't post it here.  What about my point is not clear?  I thought I was asking a pretty straightforward question.

Quote from: The Brain on April 04, 2014, 06:13:56 PM
There are many, many jobs where you should keep from publically speaking out on certain issues if you don't want to hurt your career. This is and always will be so. You may as well be upset with gravity.

He did not do or say anything publicly.  If he was outspoken publicly about this issue I would totally understand.

Quote from: Valmy on April 04, 2014, 08:08:27 PM

Quote from: The Brain on April 04, 2014, 06:13:56 PM
There are many, many jobs where you should keep from publically speaking out on certain issues if you don't want to hurt your career. This is and always will be so. You may as well be upset with gravity.

He did not do or say anything publicly.  If he was outspoken publicly about this issue I would totally understand.

He provided a group with money so that *they* could be outspoken publicly about the issue on his behalf.  Not exactly the same as expressing his feelings on gay marriage over dinner.

Quote from: Capetan Mihali on April 04, 2014, 08:20:46 PM
He provided a group with money so that *they* could be outspoken publicly about the issue on his behalf.  Not exactly the same as expressing his feelings on gay marriage over dinner.

Yes a tiny sum six years ago.  For a person like him he might as well have given them a penny he found on the street.  He had done nothing to abuse his public position nor had he done anything in his capacity in Mozilla to be anti-gay.  If he was using his position to be outspoken in his opposition to gay marriage such that he was actually a threat to them in some way I would get it.

But this is hardly an isolated incident, it is more the phenomenon in general that makes me nervous.  Anything political you might have posted on your facebook or wherever years ago can someday take you down.  Maybe you just signed that petition to get that annoying activist to leave you alone.  Maybe you temporarily joined a nutty religion but got better.  I know I have flirted with some stupid ideas in the past (or rather constantly as anybody who reads Languish might note :P) and while I have no idea what is out there it would be pretty embarrassing if somebody found something and I had to publicly explain myself and beg forgiveness if I were to miraculously ever achieve a position of status.

Quote from: Valmy on April 04, 2014, 08:34:39 PM

Quote from: Capetan Mihali on April 04, 2014, 08:20:46 PM
He provided a group with money so that *they* could be outspoken publicly about the issue on his behalf.  Not exactly the same as expressing his feelings on gay marriage over dinner.

Yes a tiny sum six years ago.  For a person like him he might as well have given them a penny he found on the street.  He had done nothing to abuse his public position nor had he done anything in his capacity in Mozilla to be anti-gay.  If he was using his position to be outspoken in his opposition to gay marriage such that he was actually a threat to them in some way I would get it.

I don't really disagree on this particular issue, I'm more interested in how this kerfuffle relates to the recent Supreme Court decision (and its ancestors) about political contributions being treated as speech and thus entitled to (almost) the same constitutional protection as "traditional" forms of speech.

I share Otto's concern that open involvement in political life is becoming off-limits for any public figure, other than politicians themselves or those that dedicate themselves to the role (like the Koch brothers or some Hollywood stars, maybe Susan Sarandon for example.)

These lists really became a concern of mine back when the Scott Walker stuff happened, I hadn't followed this as closely but I have similar reservations about it now that it's exploded like it has (at least in tech-land.) I was on a long road trip awhile back and tuned into, I believe, an episode of This American Life. It covered the story of a kid at one of the University of Wisconsin schools sort of like the SUNY system there are multiple quasi-independent universities within the University of Wisconsin umbrella, with the Madison campus being the main one.

Anyway, some kid they talk about who sounds like your typical apple pie and baseball white class American kid had become involved in student life and various random bullshit that gets you notoriety as a do-gooder college kid. He also was politically conservative, voted against Scott Walker's removal from  office and was active in supporting Walker and the GOP. Anyway, I guess the UW system has a "student representative" to the UW Board of Governors, and the Governor himself actually gets to pick the student who receives the honor.  Basically staffers comb through a short list and then forward their recommendation to the Governor. This kid that Ira Glass had on the show was the one they chose. So they're all set to give him the spot, he's gotten his hand shake with the Governor and I guess there's also some official ceremony and finalization that has to happen. In the meantime, the Governor's staff finds the kid's name on the recall petition.

The kid basically explains that he signed it when he had just turned 18, he had no real political opinions, and his mom (a public school teacher very opposed to Scott Walker) would have liked it if he signed it, so he did. He didn't give it a second thought. Like a lot of people he developed more of his political opinions in the next few years in college. But ironically, the simple act of signing his name now had him in trouble. The Governors aide basically told him not to worry, they were just asking him the question and they'd talk again the next morning. The next morning he gets a call telling him that they've had to rescind him as the Governors nominee to the Board of Governors. In the minor political fallout following this (a Republican State Senator actually went to bat for the kid, disliking the political witch hunt of it all) the Governor and his staff deny that his signing the petition had anything to do with it, that they had simply decided on a better candidate etc etc.

Anyway, this wasn't a great tragedy. This was a student fluff position, it would've spiced his resume up a little bit but it's not really that big of a deal. Even the kid being interview honestly didn't seem that upset about it, he was  just kind of talking about it in a "wow, I can't believe they cared about this" kind of way. But if we're so petty that we're now doing stuff like combing lists for some student government type fluff position, that's just a bad sign to me.

Even worse in Wisconsin this list has been used to go after lots of people who hold other public offices. While they are public figures, I don't know  that it seems right that their political activities undertaken in what should be a private capacity should come into play. It feels really similar to punishing people more for what their opinion is versus what they actually do.

Quote from: Valmy on April 04, 2014, 08:34:39 PM

Quote from: Capetan Mihali on April 04, 2014, 08:20:46 PM
He provided a group with money so that *they* could be outspoken publicly about the issue on his behalf.  Not exactly the same as expressing his feelings on gay marriage over dinner.

Yes a tiny sum six years ago.  For a person like him he might as well have given them a penny he found on the street. 

So no issue if one spends money for spiteful causes as long as it is only a mere trinket to the spender?

Quote from: Jacob on April 04, 2014, 07:38:16 PM
In the context of the US, I think you are being much to relaxed about victory. The abortion battle was "won" too, and that victory has turned into a not-victory in many places in the US through a thousand cuts. To assume that the victory on gay marriage is lasting, or even solid, when it's still not legal in many states seems optimistic to the point of negligence.

Look at polls that break down based on age. Gay marriage proponents have won the culture war, so winning the political one is inevitable.
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/03/10/61-of-young-republicans-favor-same-sex-marriage/ (http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/03/10/61-of-young-republicans-favor-same-sex-marriage/)

Quote from: Sheilbh on April 04, 2014, 06:34:10 PM
As I say we've won. We shouldn't spend our time punishing previous opponents and getting heretics to don ashes. I think we'd be better focusing on, say, Uganda and Kenya and India and Russia and what we can do to help there.

But I am not so sure this guy is an opponent in the past tense.  It seems to me this would have been an easy thing for him to turn around to be a very good story for him if he had simply come out (forgive the pun) and said something along the lines of acknowledging that times had changed and so had his view.  As you say things have moved very quickly.  If I reflect on my own change of attitude over the last 20 years I would hate to be held to the views I once held.  But I think the difference is I also acknowledge my error. 

In my view people should be held accountable for the views they hold in the public sphere.

Quote from: garbon on April 04, 2014, 03:32:28 PM

Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on April 04, 2014, 03:09:52 PM

Quote from: garbon on April 04, 2014, 03:06:43 PMIs donating money to an effort to prevent a certain group from marrying a foible?

What about running for POTUS while publicly saying you're against gay marriage? If people were willing to forgive Barry for that it seems odd they can't forgive a guy who never said a word about the issue and hasn't done anything in regard to the issue since 2008 (back when his position was shared publicly by the guy who went on to become President.)

People seem to forgive Obama for all sorts of things and it makes no sense to me.

People forgave Lincoln even though he waffled on the Slavery issue.

Quote from: Razgovory on April 04, 2014, 10:27:11 PM

Quote from: garbon on April 04, 2014, 03:32:28 PM

Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on April 04, 2014, 03:09:52 PM

Quote from: garbon on April 04, 2014, 03:06:43 PMIs donating money to an effort to prevent a certain group from marrying a foible?

What about running for POTUS while publicly saying you're against gay marriage? If people were willing to forgive Barry for that it seems odd they can't forgive a guy who never said a word about the issue and hasn't done anything in regard to the issue since 2008 (back when his position was shared publicly by the guy who went on to become President.)

People seem to forgive Obama for all sorts of things and it makes no sense to me.

People forgave Lincoln even though he waffled on the Slavery issue.

What has Obama done to rate a comparison to one of our mythologized presidents? Being black while President?

Quote from: Razgovory on April 04, 2014, 10:27:11 PM
People forgave Lincoln even though he waffled on the Slavery issue.

Lincoln didn't waffle on the slavery issue. He was consistently as anti slavery as the political climate would tolerate, and actively pushed an anti slavery agenda when possible.

I think Obama is similar, though obviously less aggressive on gay marriage than Lincoln was on slavery. I can't imagine Obama donating to Prop 8 advocates in 2008.

Quote from: Valmy on April 04, 2014, 08:08:27 PM

Quote from: The Brain on April 04, 2014, 06:13:56 PM
There are many, many jobs where you should keep from publically speaking out on certain issues if you don't want to hurt your career. This is and always will be so. You may as well be upset with gravity.

He did not do or say anything publicly.  If he was outspoken publicly about this issue I would totally understand.

It reached the public. That's obviously all the public that needs to be there.

Quote from: alfred russel on April 04, 2014, 10:46:26 PM

Quote from: Razgovory on April 04, 2014, 10:27:11 PM
People forgave Lincoln even though he waffled on the Slavery issue.

Lincoln didn't waffle on the slavery issue. He was consistently as anti slavery as the political climate would tolerate, and actively pushed an anti slavery agenda when possible.

I think Obama is similar, though obviously less aggressive on gay marriage than Lincoln was on slavery. I can't imagine Obama donating to Prop 8 advocates in 2008.

That has always been my understanding as well. Obama was as pro-gay as he could possibly be back then while still being electable. Ultimately, I believe actions speak louder than words, and two years into his term he was already abandoning DOMA.

Regarding the issue of Mozilla's CEO, I'm quite conflicted. On one hand, I do believe that Freedom of Speech doesn't equate to being shielded from others' reactions to your speech, on the other being punished with the loss of your job for actions unrelated to it and that ultimately aren't illegal, isn't something I can sympathize with. He doesn't seem to have used his position as a platform for those opinions either, so removing him from it doesn't seem to achieve anything. And, ultimately, he is being chastised for holding the same opinion that half of California had at the time. Should those people lose their jobs too? Pretty sure a lot of them have public positions too. It's such a slippery slope. Again, all parties involved are perfectly entitled to act in the way they did. I just wish stuff like this didn't happen, and opinions like Eich's were engaged in a different way.

There's also a bit of hipocrisy at hand since if I boycotted the products of every company with board members whose political opinions I find questionable, I'd have to move into a cave.

Quote from: Jacob on April 04, 2014, 07:38:16 PM
In the context of the US, I think you are being much to relaxed about victory. The abortion battle was "won" too, and that victory has turned into a not-victory in many places in the US through a thousand cuts. To assume that the victory on gay marriage is lasting, or even solid, when it's still not legal in many states seems optimistic to the point of negligence.

I think people were making a mistake if they ever thought abortion was 'won':
http://features.pewforum.org/abortion-slideshow/
Similar slides. It's always been divisive, it's still divisive and that's true across generations. What's more, there's lots of positions within those headlines, for example most European style abortion laws could come under either legal or illegal in most cases. Gay marriage is a simpler, more clarifying issue, especially with the decline of civil partnerships - I do or I don't.

Also the abortion rules were defined by a court - which inevitably makes it more a litmus test and more divisive. Gay marriage is going the more enduring route of democratic change, though the courts are helping overrule gay marriage bans and were the catalyst.

QuoteBut I am not so sure this guy is an opponent in the past tense.  It seems to me this would have been an easy thing for him to turn around to be a very good story for him if he had simply come out (forgive the pun) and said something along the lines of acknowledging that times had changed and so had his view.  As you say things have moved very quickly.  If I reflect on my own change of attitude over the last 20 years I would hate to be held to the views I once held.  But I think the difference is I also acknowledge my error. 

My view is, so what? Lots of people opposed gay marriage (including, as I say, the leadership of the major gay rights charities in the UK and the US) I mean when the first gay marriage case happened with a lesbian couple in Hawaii in the 80s the protesters outside were predominately lesbian activists protesting heterofascism.

What matters is that we win the argument (and we are) and that gay people can get married. People can hold whatever views they want and if they then come out the woodwork again and try to ban it we can beat the argument again. There is no need to go around punishing people for their aberrant views, or their failure to recant.

Also I think we need to be relatively phlegmatic about this sort of thing now, because of the internet. Almost everyone my age has said something in the public sphere, and I'd guess they've all said something controversial too at one point. God help us if we just have mass auto de fes for new Chief Executives and correspondents, denouncing their 17 year old selves. I think we'll just reach a critical mass where everyone's done or said a few things that are embarrassing on the internet and we'll just move on.

It reminds me of the recent story about an economist in the Trades Union Congress who was appointed economics correspondent on the flagship BBC news show. The Tories initially attacked him for that. Then it emerged that as a 19 year old student at Oxford he'd written a piece for the student paper about how he'd sort-of flirted with fascism as a 17 year old (early British fascism it should be said - Mosley and the New Party). Then this became a huge scandal and he wrote a post apologising and explaining himself. With the internet everyone, including our most worst selves, are publishing a lot of views.

And there's an amount of respect. There will be people who oppose gay marriage regardless - especially religious people.

Quote from: celedhring on April 05, 2014, 05:40:49 AMShould those people lose their jobs too? Pretty sure a lot of them have public positions too. It's such a slippery slope. Again, all parties involved are perfectly entitled to act in the way they did. I just wish stuff like this didn't happen, and opinions like Eich's were engaged in a different way.

Yep. And why just CEOs? What about a head of legal or a head of HR who may actually be in charge of a company's anti-discrimination policy? A CFO or a head of communications are pretty senior public faces for many companies, should they also be investigated?

Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 04, 2014, 02:55:11 PM

Quote from: alfred russel on April 04, 2014, 02:52:58 PM
:yes: In a free society, you have a right to make yourself heard, but that doesn't mean you can hide behind pseudonyms and subterfuge to keep your identity secret. The founding fathers would never have failed to put their name to their arguments when debating the constitution, for instance.

Good point "alfred russel."   :lol:

:face:

Quote from: garbon on April 04, 2014, 10:41:38 PM

Quote from: Razgovory on April 04, 2014, 10:27:11 PM

Quote from: garbon on April 04, 2014, 03:32:28 PM

Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on April 04, 2014, 03:09:52 PM

Quote from: garbon on April 04, 2014, 03:06:43 PMIs donating money to an effort to prevent a certain group from marrying a foible?

What about running for POTUS while publicly saying you're against gay marriage? If people were willing to forgive Barry for that it seems odd they can't forgive a guy who never said a word about the issue and hasn't done anything in regard to the issue since 2008 (back when his position was shared publicly by the guy who went on to become President.)

People seem to forgive Obama for all sorts of things and it makes no sense to me.

People forgave Lincoln even though he waffled on the Slavery issue.

What has Obama done to rate a comparison to one of our mythologized presidents? Being black while President?

That's a different question.

Quote from: Sheilbh on April 05, 2014, 06:00:19 AM
And there's an amount of respect. There will be people who oppose gay marriage regardless - especially religious people.

Why should we have respect for a failure to adjust one's beliefs to modern values? Well actually, why should we have respect for individuals to fail to learn modern values?

Quote from: celedhring on April 05, 2014, 05:40:49 AM
That has always been my understanding as well. Obama was as pro-gay as he could possibly be back then while still being electable.

Yeah, he gave us a pretty logo.

Quote from: celedhring on April 05, 2014, 05:40:49 AMAnd, ultimately, he is being chastised for holding the same opinion that half of California had at the time. Should those people lose their jobs too? Pretty sure a lot of them have public positions too. It's such a slippery slope. Again, all parties involved are perfectly entitled to act in the way they did. I just wish stuff like this didn't happen, and opinions like Eich's were engaged in a different way.

Actually, he's been chastised for paying for his outmoded views to be spread. And despite Sheilbh's triumphant declaration of mission accomplished, California took a large step backwards for 5 years. That's real people's lives affected.

To your question, sure, I think companies should be free to decide that they want to jettison employees for promotion of bigoted views. Tolerance is slim for many racial remarks and this is just adopting the same framework.

Quote from: celedhring on April 05, 2014, 05:40:49 AM
There's also a bit of hipocrisy at hand since if I boycotted the products of every company with board members whose political opinions I find questionable, I'd have to move into a cave.

I still never understand this position. If you are going to take a stand against one person, you must simultaneously take that same stand towards everyone equally culpable? Be reasonable, we're human and only have so much energy in the day. Also, there's something to be said about pooling resources against one target before moving onto the next.

This article struck me as first good overview with regards to the background.

http://www.theverge.com/2014/4/3/5579516/outfoxed-how-protests-forced-mozillas-ceo-to-resign-in-11-days

Quote from: garbon on April 05, 2014, 08:17:43 AM

Quote from: Sheilbh on April 05, 2014, 06:00:19 AM
And there's an amount of respect. There will be people who oppose gay marriage regardless - especially religious people.

Why should we have respect for a failure to adjust one's beliefs to modern values? Well actually, why should we have respect for individuals to fail to learn modern values?

And so goes the argument of the culture warrior.

Just another example of why garbon is an example of everything that is wrong with the West.

Quote from: Neil on April 05, 2014, 08:51:00 AM

Quote from: garbon on April 05, 2014, 08:17:43 AM

Quote from: Sheilbh on April 05, 2014, 06:00:19 AM
And there's an amount of respect. There will be people who oppose gay marriage regardless - especially religious people.

Why should we have respect for a failure to adjust one's beliefs to modern values? Well actually, why should we have respect for individuals to fail to learn modern values?

And so goes the argument of the culture warrior.

Just another example of why garbon is an example of everything that is wrong with the West.

It's completely possible to be Christian and let this issue slide. :)

You attempt to decide what modern values are has failed.

Quote from: Neil on April 05, 2014, 08:55:46 AM
You attempt to decide what modern values are has failed.

I'm not deciding anything.

Quote from: garbon on April 05, 2014, 08:57:22 AM

Quote from: Neil on April 05, 2014, 08:55:46 AM
You attempt to decide what modern values are has failed.

I'm not deciding anything.

Clearly.  Neil just said you failed at it.

Quote from: grumbler on April 05, 2014, 06:34:12 AM

Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 04, 2014, 02:55:11 PM

Quote from: alfred russel on April 04, 2014, 02:52:58 PM
:yes: In a free society, you have a right to make yourself heard, but that doesn't mean you can hide behind pseudonyms and subterfuge to keep your identity secret. The founding fathers would never have failed to put their name to their arguments when debating the constitution, for instance.

Good point "alfred russel."   :lol:

:face:

I hope everyone is being sarcastic. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalist_Papers

Quote from: Valmy on April 04, 2014, 08:34:39 PM
But this is hardly an isolated incident, it is more the phenomenon in general that makes me nervous.  Anything political you might have posted on your facebook or wherever years ago can someday take you down.  Maybe you just signed that petition to get that annoying activist to leave you alone.  Maybe you temporarily joined a nutty religion but got better.  I know I have flirted with some stupid ideas in the past (or rather constantly as anybody who reads Languish might note :P) and while I have no idea what is out there it would be pretty embarrassing if somebody found something and I had to publicly explain myself and beg forgiveness if I were to miraculously ever achieve a position of status.

Agreed.  I find Internet mob justice to be one of the scariest things that online communication brought us.  At any moment, any given person can be characterized by the one thing out of thousands that he did, and a viral outrage can destroy their life before they even have a chance to fight back, or put things in context.  In the long run, that can lead to everyone being afraid to be on record doing anything controversial at all, since most people have an employer that would rather eliminate a headache than take its lumps sticking up for their suddenly notorious employee.

I don't find his resignation upsetting or strange in the least. Mostly because the Mozilla brand has been built on being an open-source alternative to corporations like Microsoft, Google and Apple. Having a CEO that works against alternative lifestyles just undermines the brand's core values.

I'm a liberal; quick I need to take some sort or any position on this, with which I can be outraged. 

Quote from: Norgy on April 05, 2014, 12:40:53 PM
I don't find his resignation upsetting or strange in the least. Mostly because the Mozilla brand has been built on being an open-source alternative to corporations like Microsoft, Google and Apple. Having a CEO that works against alternative lifestyles just undermines the brand's core values.

Does it though?  Are Mozilla's core values hating civilization?

Quote from: Neil on April 05, 2014, 01:27:51 PM

Quote from: Norgy on April 05, 2014, 12:40:53 PM
I don't find his resignation upsetting or strange in the least. Mostly because the Mozilla brand has been built on being an open-source alternative to corporations like Microsoft, Google and Apple. Having a CEO that works against alternative lifestyles just undermines the brand's core values.

Does it though?  Are Mozilla's core values hating civilization?

If you try to see it from the point of view of people who aren't, well, you, I think you can see my point. Mozilla's core value seems to be not making good browsers anymore, though.

Quote from: Norgy on April 05, 2014, 01:31:51 PM

Quote from: Neil on April 05, 2014, 01:27:51 PM

Quote from: Norgy on April 05, 2014, 12:40:53 PM
I don't find his resignation upsetting or strange in the least. Mostly because the Mozilla brand has been built on being an open-source alternative to corporations like Microsoft, Google and Apple. Having a CEO that works against alternative lifestyles just undermines the brand's core values.

Does it though?  Are Mozilla's core values hating civilization?

If you try to see it from the point of view of people who aren't, well, you, I think you can see my point. Mozilla's core value seems to be not making good browsers anymore, though.

Mozilla's core values are whatever the career aspirations of it's top half-dozen executives are.

Like most corporations.
But, we need to remember that corporations are people.  :yuk:

Quote from: Norgy on April 05, 2014, 01:47:33 PM
Like most corporations.
But, we need to remember that corporations are people.  :yuk:

Yeah, that's rather a weird idea, isn't it.

Quote from: Norgy on April 05, 2014, 01:47:33 PM
But, we need to remember that corporations are people.  :yuk:

Then, by the transitive property, Soylent Green is corporations.

Quote from: garbon on April 05, 2014, 08:17:43 AMWhy should we have respect for a failure to adjust one's beliefs to modern values? Well actually, why should we have respect for individuals to fail to learn modern values?

Having respect for people is good. It helps when you demand it from them.

I'm also far from convinced that supporting gay marriage is an essential part of modern values.

QuoteActually, he's been chastised for paying for his outmoded views to be spread. And despite Sheilbh's triumphant declaration of mission accomplished, California took a large step backwards for 5 years. That's real people's lives affected.

But that's true of any political donation. Real people's lives were affected by the Iraq war and are being affected by welfare cuts. Should we go around boycotting companies with personnel who donated to Bush or the Tories?

Isn't that also a sign that his views were mainstream? Donations to the American Nazi Party don't affect real people's lives precisely because they're so fringe. His donations weren't.

QuoteI'm a liberal; quick I need to take some sort or any position on this, with which I can be outraged.

I've found the reaction to this quite striking. In the US it's generally just the culture war divisions you'd expect with a couple of people like Andrew Sullivan deviating (though I don't find his stance at all surprising). The UK reaction is far more negative with a lot of disquiet even on the left and among liberals.

I'm not sure why but no doubt it's shaping my response. So join me and be outraged that he's been forced out :) :P

Quote from: Norgy on April 05, 2014, 01:31:51 PM

Quote from: Neil on April 05, 2014, 01:27:51 PM

Quote from: Norgy on April 05, 2014, 12:40:53 PM
I don't find his resignation upsetting or strange in the least. Mostly because the Mozilla brand has been built on being an open-source alternative to corporations like Microsoft, Google and Apple. Having a CEO that works against alternative lifestyles just undermines the brand's core values.

Does it though?  Are Mozilla's core values hating civilization?

If you try to see it from the point of view of people who aren't, well, you, I think you can see my point. Mozilla's core value seems to be not making good browsers anymore, though.

I've been using firefox, thinking about switching over to something else though.

Quote from: Razgovory on April 05, 2014, 05:18:49 PMI've been using firefox, thinking about switching over to something else though.

I use Chrome, because it used to be really good. But it seems very, very slow nowadays. I don't know if it's just my computer though :mellow:

It's maybe a positive sign that homosexuals now have enough clout in the US to initiate McCarthyite witch hunts?  :huh: :lol:

Quote from: Sheilbh on April 05, 2014, 05:24:39 PM

Quote from: Razgovory on April 05, 2014, 05:18:49 PMI've been using firefox, thinking about switching over to something else though.

I use Chrome, because it used to be really good. But it seems very, very slow nowadays. I don't know if it's just my computer though :mellow:

I hear ya.  There don't seem to be any non-bloated browsers.  Chrome still has the auto-translate feature and Firefox some great Youtube download apps, so I still switch  back and forth, but would like to be able to stick to one.

I use lynx.

Mosaic here.

Quote from: Sheilbh on April 05, 2014, 05:17:50 PM
Having respect for people is good. It helps when you demand it from them.

I'm not interested into seeing in the hearts and minds of men. If they want to stay bigoted, that's their own loss. I do care about them manifesting that bigotry with regards to actions towards others. You don't need to respect them to scare them into do the right thing.

Same mode of thought that doesn't have me tolerating racists.

Quote from: Sheilbh on April 05, 2014, 05:17:50 PM
I'm also far from convinced that supporting gay marriage is an essential part of modern values.

I think a part of the values that I hope to see in society include not going out of your way to deny benefits to a group of people when there is no real measurable cost to yourself. I can't imagine how a person can be so unfeeling as to see older gay couples who couldn't even speak of their love for decades for fear of society and say no, I'm not going to sit by and allow that to happen - I'm going to fund organizations to make sure that you can't have the same privileges as a straight couple. I don't understand why it would matter so much to someone unaffected that they would leap to be spiteful.

Quote from: Sheilbh on April 05, 2014, 05:17:50 PM
But that's true of any political donation. Real people's lives were affected by the Iraq war and are being affected by welfare cuts. Should we go around boycotting companies with personnel who donated to Bush or the Tories?

I won't but I don't see anything wrong at all if people wish to do so. :huh:

Quote from: Sheilbh on April 05, 2014, 05:17:50 PM
Isn't that also a sign that his views were mainstream? Donations to the American Nazi Party don't affect real people's lives precisely because they're so fringe. His donations weren't.

I don't get this one. If such views were so mainstream just a mere 6 years ago, isn't easy to see why people are still so up in arms when new evidence of complicity is brought to their attention? Despite some of the hypotheticals discussed in this thread, he wasn't some wayward youth.  He was a man fully grown who chose to make that donation and there can be fallout from that.  Even moreso when he has had the opportunity to apologize and has remained mum. Well actually, from that one article I posted, he took a swipe at his critics when his donation first came to light.

He made a private donation 6 years ago for reasons he's kept to himself. Why is his donation even public knowledge?  :hmm: Hell, even just by existing, every one of us likely deeply offends some segment of society or other. Never mind our actual political opinions.

To be frank the rise of gay marriage over the past say 15 years, has lead me to believe that it's deeply unfair for heterosexual couples to receive various benefits that are closed to gay couples because those benefits are linked to a state sanctioned marriage. But it's also called into question why exactly the State is so deeply intertwined in the marriage business. It's hard for me not to see it as a relic of the day when the man worked, the woman stayed at home and raised kids, and thus benefits across the board absolutely needed to be familial in nature. If we're not promoting single earner homes as social policy, then I'm not sure there is a social positive to giving various benefits (at the governmental level) to dual income cohabiting couples, whether they be legally married straights or gays or gay couples unable to marry due to their state of residence etc. This is especially true when the couples have no children.

It seems to me a simple legal regime would just apply tax benefits based on your dependents (who could  basically be anyone who is dependent on you), and require employer plans to either be all or nothing. This would mean they cover only the employee, or they have provisions for dependent benefits for any dependent for Federal tax purposes. I don't really care about the religious implications of State marriage because the religious aspect of my marriage is governed by the Church, not the State--which is why if I get a State sanctioned divorce it doesn't affect whether I'm married in the Church. But not everyone is Catholic and has that sort of structure and many Catholics disagree with me; I don't actually see it as intrinsically contrary to morality to believe for religious reasons gays shouldn't be getting married.

One common argument I hear against my stance is that without some automatic rights of spouses it fucks things up like estates and etc, but to be honest lots of assets have weird rules that really don't get made simpler with marriage. For example my TSP balance (or any private 401k plan) goes to whomever I name as a beneficiary. If I name my wife as the beneficiary by name, then get divorced and alter my will so that all of my estate goes to my daughter upon my death (per stirpes), then the TSP actually still goes to my wife (even in her status as ex-wife), and does not go to my children as the beneficiary designation form holds primacy. So really if the big argument for state marriage and gay marriage (other than the benefit issue) are matters of automatic inheritance and such I'd argue the people making that are unaware of the complexities of settling an estate. That's something anyone who actually really wants to make sure their assets are divided up as they please really needs to look into with a lawyer and not leave to misunderstandings about who automatically gets assets upon death.

Quote from: Legbiter on April 05, 2014, 06:35:29 PM
He made a private donation 6 years ago for reasons he's kept to himself. Why is his donation even public knowledge?  :hmm: Hell, even just by existing, every one of us likely deeply offends some segment of society or other. Never mind our actual political opinions.

If I were in his situation, I'd have coped to some pleasant sounding verbiage in a bid to keep my job.

I think California requires disclosure of donor names for state/local elections.

So everyone is offensive, so no one should take offense? :hmm:

Actually just noticed he had made a non-apology apology.

https://brendaneich.com/2014/03/inclusiveness-at-mozilla/

Quote from: garbon on April 05, 2014, 06:19:11 PMI'm not interested into seeing in the hearts and minds of men. If they want to stay bigoted, that's their own loss. I do care about them manifesting that bigotry with regards to actions towards others. You don't need to respect them to scare them into do the right thing.

Exactly. I don't want to scare them. Even if it is nice that the boot's on our foot, I don't want to be part of a new moral majority travelling around looking for heretics to scare. I see no difference here than in Baptists forcing a CEO of a company based in the South to step down because he donated to a pro-life campaign.

I want gay people to be able to marry and aside from that I don't care. People can feel and say and donate whatever they want. And as I say I think giving respect is a bit help in demanding it (I remember Peter Tatchell managing to convince a group of abusive Muslim lads and change a nasty atmosphere at an anti-EDL protest that gays and Muslims should work together - based on mutual respect - against fascism.)

QuoteSame mode of thought that doesn't have me tolerating racists.

But there's a difference. You can oppose gay marriage and not be a bigot. Lots of people did - Obama, over 50% of voting Californians, me, the head of Stonewall and so on.

QuoteI think a part of the values that I hope to see in society include not going out of your way to deny benefits to a group of people when there is no real measurable cost to yourself. I can't imagine how a person can be so unfeeling as to see older gay couples who couldn't even speak of their love for decades for fear of society and say no, I'm not going to sit by and allow that to happen - I'm going to fund organizations to make sure that you can't have the same privileges as a straight couple. I don't understand why it would matter so much to someone unaffected that they would leap to be spiteful.

The most benign interpretation is that marriage isn't the only way to do that - which was my view until relatively recently and was the argument made by Stonewall as well. So from that view you can have another way of dealing with those benefits - like civil partnerships - or you can disestablish marriage altogether and just have the state providing a civil union which people can get solemnised if they wish.

The mainstream conservative Christian (and other religious) view is that marriage was created by God (and religion) for men and women and the state has no more right to change that than it does to start meddling with baptism. Again, I think there are ways to address the problems with benefits around that.

Then there's the possibility that he could just be a bigot. But I think you should choose the best interpretation unless you've a good reason not to and I've not seen anything that suggest the man's a hateful bigot who just wanted to hurt people.

QuoteI won't but I don't see anything wrong at all if people wish to do so. :huh:

I do. I can see boycotting a company for what it does - Barclays in South Africa for example. But I think boycotting a company and getting others to to drive someone out of a job is wrong and isn't a path we want to go down.

The boot's on the liberal foot now but I'd be troubled if a company was being targeted for boycott (in part by other companies) because they had a pro-choice or a pro-gay marriage CEO in a very red state.

QuoteI don't get this one. If such views were so mainstream just a mere 6 years ago, isn't easy to see why people are still so up in arms when new evidence of complicity is brought to their attention? Despite some of the hypotheticals discussed in this thread, he wasn't some wayward youth.  He was a man fully grown who chose to make that donation and there can be fallout from that.  Even moreso when he has had the opportunity to apologize and has remained mum. Well actually, from that one article I posted, he took a swipe at his critics when his donation first came to light.

Well I think that's fair. I'd be annoyed at people saying I wasn't fit to do my job because I gave some money to a strike fund and chances are he opposes gay marriage. He also said he wasn't a bigot and I think the points he made on his blog are fair. I don't think we should have a problem with someone in a senior position opposing gay marriage and donating $1000 to its opponents.

I was writing my response, but I think, as these posts are getting longer - that we should just recognize that we have fundamentally different views and move on. :)

Quote from: garbon on April 05, 2014, 06:47:35 PM

I think California requires disclosure of donor names for state/local elections.

Even for pocket change like Eich donated? That's a system ripe for abuse.

Quote from: garbon on April 05, 2014, 06:47:35 PMSo everyone is offensive, so no one should take offense? :hmm:

In 2008 Obama was categorically against gay marriage. The culture has changed very fast.

Quote from: garbon on April 05, 2014, 06:57:31 PM
I was writing my response, but I think, as these posts are getting longer - that we should just recognize that we have fundamentally different views and move on. :)

Probably wise, if not very like the internet :lol:

Quote from: Norgy on April 05, 2014, 01:31:51 PM

Quote from: Neil on April 05, 2014, 01:27:51 PM

Quote from: Norgy on April 05, 2014, 12:40:53 PM
I don't find his resignation upsetting or strange in the least. Mostly because the Mozilla brand has been built on being an open-source alternative to corporations like Microsoft, Google and Apple. Having a CEO that works against alternative lifestyles just undermines the brand's core values.

Does it though?  Are Mozilla's core values hating civilization?

If you try to see it from the point of view of people who aren't, well, you, I think you can see my point. Mozilla's core value seems to be not making good browsers anymore, though.

Maybe I need to find a dreadnought forum.

Quote from: Legbiter on April 05, 2014, 07:00:12 PM
Even for pocket change like Eich donated? That's a system ripe for abuse.

LA Times has an easily searchable database. Looked up Eich for Prop 8 and looks like you can find people who donated even a hundred or so.

http://projects.latimes.com/prop8/results/?position=both&name=eich&employer=&amount_min=&amount_max=&city=&state=&zip=&search=Search

Quote from: Legbiter on April 05, 2014, 07:00:12 PM
In 2008 Obama was categorically against gay marriage. The culture has changed very fast.

Have I done something wrong? Why do people keep mentioning Obama to me as though that'll change my opinion. :hmm:

Quote from: Sheilbh on April 05, 2014, 07:01:03 PM

Quote from: garbon on April 05, 2014, 06:57:31 PM
I was writing my response, but I think, as these posts are getting longer - that we should just recognize that we have fundamentally different views and move on. :)

Probably wise, if not very like the internet :lol:

:lol: :hug:

Quote from: garbon on April 05, 2014, 06:47:35 PM

Quote from: Legbiter on April 05, 2014, 06:35:29 PM
He made a private donation 6 years ago for reasons he's kept to himself. Why is his donation even public knowledge?  :hmm: Hell, even just by existing, every one of us likely deeply offends some segment of society or other. Never mind our actual political opinions.

If I were in his situation, I'd have coped to some pleasant sounding verbiage in a bid to keep my job.

I think California requires disclosure of donor names for state/local elections.

So everyone is offensive, so no one should take offense? :hmm:

Real tolerance isn't about avoiding giving offense, it's about avoiding taking offense.

That's not to say that there's nothing to which one should not take offense.  And obviously, this is an issue to which you might very understandably be more likely to take offense than OvB or me.  But the fact is that while the views of the organization to which he contributed are, if no longer the majority view, still very much a mainstream minority view.  Again, that doesn't mean that you're necessarily wrong to take offense at it--after all, that it was OK if businesses refused service to blacks or Jews (or any other group) was a mainstream view not all that long ago (even among those who did not discriminate themselves)--but if you chosse to take offense at what is regarded as a mainstream view, don't expect to garner a lot of support.

Quote from: dps on April 05, 2014, 07:27:45 PM

Quote from: garbon on April 05, 2014, 06:47:35 PM

Quote from: Legbiter on April 05, 2014, 06:35:29 PM
He made a private donation 6 years ago for reasons he's kept to himself. Why is his donation even public knowledge?  :hmm: Hell, even just by existing, every one of us likely deeply offends some segment of society or other. Never mind our actual political opinions.

If I were in his situation, I'd have coped to some pleasant sounding verbiage in a bid to keep my job.

I think California requires disclosure of donor names for state/local elections.

So everyone is offensive, so no one should take offense? :hmm:

Real tolerance isn't about avoiding giving offense, it's about avoiding taking offense.

That's not to say that there's nothing to which one should not take offense.  And obviously, this is an issue to which you might very understandably be more likely to take offense than OvB or me.  But the fact is that while the views of the organization to which he contributed are, if no longer the majority view, still very much a mainstream minority view.  Again, that doesn't mean that you're necessarily wrong to take offense at it--after all, that it was OK if businesses refused service to blacks or Jews (or any other group) was a mainstream view not all that long ago (even among those who did not discriminate themselves)--but if you chosse to take offense at what is regarded as a mainstream view, don't expect to garner a lot of support.

Ah okay. I'll just smile on, massah. I don't know why I was getting so uppity and thinking I could reside in the big house.

FWIW, while Mr. Eich might care a lot about making sure I don't get married - I don't actually give a rat's ass about him or his donation beyond some generalized disgust. What does have me recoiling is how quick we are to defend him.

Quote from: garbon on April 05, 2014, 07:35:09 PM
FWIW, while Mr. Eich might care a lot about making sure I don't get married - I don't actually give a rat's ass about him or his donation beyond some generalized disgust. What does have me recoiling is how quick we are to defend him.

I think that the point isn't defending him or his views, so much as feeling that punishing people for their political and social views generally is a bad idea, because it discourages public discourse on the issues.  I think that Sheilbh makes a good point about the shoe being on the other foot--part of the whole rationale for tolerating minority viewpoints is the realization that on some issues one's own viewpoint will be in the minority.

Quote from: garbon on April 05, 2014, 07:35:09 PM
FWIW, while Mr. Eich might care a lot about making sure I don't get married - I don't actually give a rat's ass about him or his donation beyond some generalized disgust. What does have me recoiling is how quick we are to defend him.

I think the most convincing argument for gay marriage is that it's about love. It seems to me that here's an opportunity to show some. Again I suppose it's about not becoming like the moral majority and getting involved in tarring and feathering people or demanding they renounce their former selves.

Quote from: dps on April 05, 2014, 07:58:04 PM

Quote from: garbon on April 05, 2014, 07:35:09 PM
FWIW, while Mr. Eich might care a lot about making sure I don't get married - I don't actually give a rat's ass about him or his donation beyond some generalized disgust. What does have me recoiling is how quick we are to defend him.

I think that the point isn't defending him or his views, so much as feeling that punishing people for their political and social views generally is a bad idea, because it discourages public discourse on the issues.  I think that Sheilbh makes a good point about the shoe being on the other foot--part of the whole rationale for tolerating minority viewpoints is the realization that on some issues one's own viewpoint will be in the minority.

In this case, Mr. Eich's viewpoint is one of denying me the privileges that he is free to avail himself of. Where's the room for tolerance?

Quote from: Sheilbh on April 05, 2014, 08:07:15 PM

Quote from: garbon on April 05, 2014, 07:35:09 PM
FWIW, while Mr. Eich might care a lot about making sure I don't get married - I don't actually give a rat's ass about him or his donation beyond some generalized disgust. What does have me recoiling is how quick we are to defend him.

I think the most convincing argument for gay marriage is that it's about love. It seems to me that here's an opportunity to show some. Again I suppose it's about not becoming like the moral majority and getting involved in tarring and feathering people or demanding they renounce their former selves.

:lol:

There is no love for an individual who would deny me my opportunity to have my love recognized by my home state.

It comes down to that difference again. I'd give Lord Tebbit a hug and invite him to my (entirely fictional) gay wedding - safe in the knowledge that he wouldn't turn up so there wouldn't be a scene with my dad calling him a 'fascist' :lol:

Quote from: garbon on April 05, 2014, 08:08:03 PM

Quote from: dps on April 05, 2014, 07:58:04 PM

Quote from: garbon on April 05, 2014, 07:35:09 PM
FWIW, while Mr. Eich might care a lot about making sure I don't get married - I don't actually give a rat's ass about him or his donation beyond some generalized disgust. What does have me recoiling is how quick we are to defend him.

I think that the point isn't defending him or his views, so much as feeling that punishing people for their political and social views generally is a bad idea, because it discourages public discourse on the issues.  I think that Sheilbh makes a good point about the shoe being on the other foot--part of the whole rationale for tolerating minority viewpoints is the realization that on some issues one's own viewpoint will be in the minority.

In this case, Mr. Eich's viewpoint is one of denying me the privileges that he is free to avail himself of. Where's the room for tolerance?

I think it's pretty obvious, but to be honest I'm not sure how to express it without being either flip or sanctimonious.  Perhaps Sheilbh can explain it better, since he seems to see it where you don't.

Quote from: garbon on April 05, 2014, 08:09:18 PM

Quote from: Sheilbh on April 05, 2014, 08:07:15 PM

Quote from: garbon on April 05, 2014, 07:35:09 PM
FWIW, while Mr. Eich might care a lot about making sure I don't get married - I don't actually give a rat's ass about him or his donation beyond some generalized disgust. What does have me recoiling is how quick we are to defend him.

I think the most convincing argument for gay marriage is that it's about love. It seems to me that here's an opportunity to show some. Again I suppose it's about not becoming like the moral majority and getting involved in tarring and feathering people or demanding they renounce their former selves.

:lol:

There is no love for an individual who would deny me my opportunity to have my love recognized by my home state.

Frankly, I can't see why anyone would give a plugged nickel about whether or not their love was recognized by the state.

Quote from: dps on April 05, 2014, 08:17:18 PM

Quote from: garbon on April 05, 2014, 08:09:18 PM

Quote from: Sheilbh on April 05, 2014, 08:07:15 PM

Quote from: garbon on April 05, 2014, 07:35:09 PM
FWIW, while Mr. Eich might care a lot about making sure I don't get married - I don't actually give a rat's ass about him or his donation beyond some generalized disgust. What does have me recoiling is how quick we are to defend him.

I think the most convincing argument for gay marriage is that it's about love. It seems to me that here's an opportunity to show some. Again I suppose it's about not becoming like the moral majority and getting involved in tarring and feathering people or demanding they renounce their former selves.

:lol:

There is no love for an individual who would deny me my opportunity to have my love recognized by my home state.

Frankly, I can't see why anyone would give a plugged nickel about whether or not their love was recognized by the state.

Because there are benefits attached to a state sanctioned marriage? :huh:

And then there's also the one that der always hates from me - things like that tend to help with social acceptance. It's like dominoes which is why I understand why conservatives declare a battleground in each state.

Quote from: Sheilbh on April 05, 2014, 08:15:24 PM
It comes down to that difference again. I'd give Lord Tebbit a hug and invite him to my (entirely fictional) gay wedding - safe in the knowledge that he wouldn't turn up so there wouldn't be a scene with my dad calling him a 'fascist' :lol:

Why waste the postage? :unsure:

Might get a free toaster oven.

Quote from: garbon on April 05, 2014, 07:35:09 PM
FWIW, while Mr. Eich might care a lot about making sure I don't get married - I don't actually give a rat's ass about him or his donation beyond some generalized disgust. What does have me recoiling is how quick we are to defend him.

It's quaint how "not wanting to crucify him" equals defending him in your fag-fascist model.

Garbon's always been a stupid political creature in any case though, niceties aside. No surprise here.

Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on April 05, 2014, 06:36:43 PM
To be frank the rise of gay marriage over the past say 15 years, has lead me to believe that it's deeply unfair for heterosexual couples to receive various benefits that are closed to gay couples because those benefits are linked to a state sanctioned marriage. But it's also called into question why exactly the State is so deeply intertwined in the marriage business. It's hard for me not to see it as a relic of the day when the man worked, the woman stayed at home and raised kids, and thus benefits across the board absolutely needed to be familial in nature. If we're not promoting single earner homes as social policy, then I'm not sure there is a social positive to giving various benefits (at the governmental level) to dual income cohabiting couples, whether they be legally married straights or gays or gay couples unable to marry due to their state of residence etc. This is especially true when the couples have no children.

It seems to me a simple legal regime would just apply tax benefits based on your dependents (who could  basically be anyone who is dependent on you), and require employer plans to either be all or nothing. This would mean they cover only the employee, or they have provisions for dependent benefits for any dependent for Federal tax purposes. I don't really care about the religious implications of State marriage because the religious aspect of my marriage is governed by the Church, not the State--which is why if I get a State sanctioned divorce it doesn't affect whether I'm married in the Church. But not everyone is Catholic and has that sort of structure and many Catholics disagree with me; I don't actually see it as intrinsically contrary to morality to believe for religious reasons gays shouldn't be getting married.

One common argument I hear against my stance is that without some automatic rights of spouses it fucks things up like estates and etc, but to be honest lots of assets have weird rules that really don't get made simpler with marriage. For example my TSP balance (or any private 401k plan) goes to whomever I name as a beneficiary. If I name my wife as the beneficiary by name, then get divorced and alter my will so that all of my estate goes to my daughter upon my death (per stirpes), then the TSP actually still goes to my wife (even in her status as ex-wife), and does not go to my children as the beneficiary designation form holds primacy. So really if the big argument for state marriage and gay marriage (other than the benefit issue) are matters of automatic inheritance and such I'd argue the people making that are unaware of the complexities of settling an estate. That's something anyone who actually really wants to make sure their assets are divided up as they please really needs to look into with a lawyer and not leave to misunderstandings about who automatically gets assets upon death.

I've been arguing this point for years- my stance on homosexual marriage is that:

A) Since childless marriages receive the same benefits as parenting marriages, the family unit justification doesn't hold water.
B) Since state endorsement of marriage isn't actually based on a family unit, it's an endorsement of a religious concept that clearly violates separation of church and state.
C) Since the religious right will have kittens and never allow their "rights" as married couples to be taken away, it's a far easier bandage to apply to simply extend those rights to all homosexual marriages/civil unions/domestic partnerships that can jump through the appropriate legal hurdles, regardless of the gender of the participants.

You think only the religious right cares about things like spousal benefits?  :huh:

Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 05, 2014, 10:42:57 PM
You think only the religious right cares about things like spousal benefits?  :huh:

Not at all.  But if retraction of spousal benefits were ever to be seriously considered, they spring to my mind as most likely to be most vocal in their opposition.  Everyone would get pretty vocal, but most of the other arguments wouldn't gain much traction, since they'd probably be based on the fallacy that spousal benefits benefit the family unit more than the partnership itself.

Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on April 05, 2014, 09:11:48 PM

Quote from: garbon on April 05, 2014, 07:35:09 PM
FWIW, while Mr. Eich might care a lot about making sure I don't get married - I don't actually give a rat's ass about him or his donation beyond some generalized disgust. What does have me recoiling is how quick we are to defend him.

It's quaint how "not wanting to crucify him" equals defending him in your fag-fascist model.

I don't want to crucify him. :huh:

Quote from: DontSayBanana on April 05, 2014, 10:47:53 PM

Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 05, 2014, 10:42:57 PM
You think only the religious right cares about things like spousal benefits?  :huh:

Not at all.  But if retraction of spousal benefits were ever to be seriously considered, they spring to my mind as most likely to be most vocal in their opposition.  Everyone would get pretty vocal, but most of the other arguments wouldn't gain much traction, since they'd probably be based on the fallacy that spousal benefits benefit the family unit more than the partnership itself.

I'm not quite sure I understand what you are saying...other than you wanted to attack the right. :D

Quote from: DontSayBanana on April 05, 2014, 10:47:53 PM
Not at all.  But if retraction of spousal benefits were ever to be seriously considered, they spring to my mind as most likely to be most vocal in their opposition.  Everyone would get pretty vocal, but most of the other arguments wouldn't gain much traction, since they'd probably be based on the fallacy that spousal benefits benefit the family unit more than the partnership itself.

I'm pretty sure the argument "they're taking away our money" would get all kinds of traction.

Quote from: garbon on April 05, 2014, 10:49:13 PM

Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on April 05, 2014, 09:11:48 PM

Quote from: garbon on April 05, 2014, 07:35:09 PM
FWIW, while Mr. Eich might care a lot about making sure I don't get married - I don't actually give a rat's ass about him or his donation beyond some generalized disgust. What does have me recoiling is how quick we are to defend him.

It's quaint how "not wanting to crucify him" equals defending him in your fag-fascist model.

I don't want to crucify him. :huh:

So since you agree with us why are you recoiling from our identical position?

Is petty bigotry in line with Mozilla's CSR policy?

There aren't many political issues that I care strongly enough about to join a campaign to get someone fired or similar, but if I learn that for instance a person has voted against me on an issue then of course I will hold that against him to some degree. Voting/donating isn't a joke, it has real impact on real people, and you don't automatically get a free pass.

It is a view I disagree with, but kind of crap he has been hounded out of his job because he held it, especially considering merely being against gay marriage isn't exactly an extreme position. Had he spoke out about gay people's continued existence then that would be a differnet matter.

Quote from: The Brain on April 06, 2014, 01:33:47 AM
There aren't many political issues that I care strongly enough about to join a campaign to get someone fired or similar, but if I learn that for instance a person has voted against me on an issue then of course I will hold that against him to some degree. Voting/donating isn't a joke, it has real impact on real people, and you don't automatically get a free pass.

Indeed you don't.  Tread carefully my friends the mob is watching.

Quote from: The Brain on April 05, 2014, 05:57:16 PM
Mosaic here.

:D

I don't know which is worse, the fudgepackers and social justice warrior online lynch mob, or the increasing amount of Consevatard emails telling everybody to uninstall Firefox. Like they know how. They have to get their nephew to do it.

Bleh.

Quote from: Valmy on April 06, 2014, 01:15:52 AM

Quote from: garbon on April 05, 2014, 10:49:13 PM

Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on April 05, 2014, 09:11:48 PM

Quote from: garbon on April 05, 2014, 07:35:09 PM
FWIW, while Mr. Eich might care a lot about making sure I don't get married - I don't actually give a rat's ass about him or his donation beyond some generalized disgust. What does have me recoiling is how quick we are to defend him.

It's quaint how "not wanting to crucify him" equals defending him in your fag-fascist model.

I don't want to crucify him. :huh:

So since you agree with us why are you recoiling from our identical position?

Because his ouster doesn't have me concerned nor do I take it as as an indictment on the state of modern politics. I can't wait for the day when positions like his are only held by troglodytes and kept to oneself. No tears for the man who donated to an organization whose aim was to take rights away from a subgroup.

I also think most of the support for his ouster came from within tech circles/his own company (re: employees) rather than the power of shrieking gay activists. Unlike Marti, I don't read the Advocate but I'd never heard anything about the man till right before he resigned. Very different from say the Chick-fil-A situation.

If the CEO of a company has donated money to keep the homofags down it may raise quite legitimate concerns among employees about his ability to deal fairly with gay employees. The dude does come across as being less than fit for the top job.

Quote from: The Brain on April 06, 2014, 08:29:03 AM
If the CEO of a company has donated money to keep the homofags down it may raise quite legitimate concerns among employees about his ability to deal fairly with gay employees. The dude does come across as being less than fit for the top job.

I think that this is a legitimate concern.  I don't think that single concerns should disqualify candidates, though.  Such concerns should simply be taken into account, like all other strengths and weaknesses of the candidates.  I have no problems with internal or outside groups making noise about such concerns, however.

Quote from: The Brain on April 06, 2014, 08:29:03 AM
If the CEO of a company has donated money to keep the homofags down it may raise quite legitimate concerns among employees about his ability to deal fairly with gay employees. The dude does come across as being less than fit for the top job.

This assumption is the crux of the argument to my thinking.  If in fact Eich's motivation for donating was to keep homofags down, then yes, by all means, hound him out of his position.

However, the inability to conceive of motivations other than the desire to oppress is an intellectual failing.  For example, it is commonly stated by opponents of gay marriage that their objection is based on the religiously sanctified nature of marriage.  To ignore this and ascribe it to bigotry is similar to Seedy4NARL's attempt to portray objections to abortion as a "war on women." 

Not every position you disagree with has to be evil, even if it does make you feel better about yourself for being on the "right side."

Better yet, why not let people marry fucking furniture, or fictional characters.

GAYS ARE PURE EVIL.  LOOK AT THEM.  THEY ARE A CANCER AT THE HEART OF SOCIETY.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 06, 2014, 12:49:15 PMFor example, it is commonly stated by opponents of gay marriage that their objection is based on the religiously sanctified nature of marriage.  To ignore this and ascribe it to bigotry is similar to Seedy4NARL's attempt to portray objections to abortion as a "war on women." 

Religiously motivated bigotry is still bigotry. Shielding yourself in your belief in magic fairies doesn't change anything.

Would you defend just as vigorously if he was a hindu who lobbied for a caste-based system, a Muslim who did likewise with Sharia law or a neo-nazi who practiced Ásatrú or is this just a prerogative of Christianity?

Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 06, 2014, 12:49:15 PM

Quote from: The Brain on April 06, 2014, 08:29:03 AM
If the CEO of a company has donated money to keep the homofags down it may raise quite legitimate concerns among employees about his ability to deal fairly with gay employees. The dude does come across as being less than fit for the top job.

This assumption is the crux of the argument to my thinking.  If in fact Eich's motivation for donating was to keep homofags down, then yes, by all means, hound him out of his position.

However, the inability to conceive of motivations other than the desire to oppress is an intellectual failing.  For example, it is commonly stated by opponents of gay marriage that their objection is based on the religiously sanctified nature of marriage.  To ignore this and ascribe it to bigotry is similar to Seedy4NARL's attempt to portray objections to abortion as a "war on women." 

Not every position you disagree with has to be evil, even if it does make you feel better about yourself for being on the "right side."

"The Bible made me do it" is not a relevant defense among adults.

Quote from: Iormlund on April 06, 2014, 02:36:15 PM

Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 06, 2014, 12:49:15 PMFor example, it is commonly stated by opponents of gay marriage that their objection is based on the religiously sanctified nature of marriage.  To ignore this and ascribe it to bigotry is similar to Seedy4NARL's attempt to portray objections to abortion as a "war on women." 

Religiously motivated bigotry is still bigotry. Shielding yourself in your belief in magic fairies doesn't change anything.

Would you defend just as vigorously if he was a hindu who lobbied for a caste-based system, a Muslim who did likewise with Sharia law or a neo-nazi who practiced Ásatrú or is this just a prerogative of Christianity?

If their public lobbying was limited to relatively small contributions to groups that work through non-violent, democratic means, yes, absolutely.

Quote from: The Brain on April 06, 2014, 03:11:40 PM
"The Bible made me do it" is not a relevant defense among adults.

In a democracy people generally don't have to provide a defense for their positions.

As someone living in Georgia, when I was in college any sex act outside of marriage was illegal (some inside of marriage were illegal too). Going back to when my father was growing up, interracial marriage was illegal.

If you wanted to have sex legally, you had to marry someone of the opposite gender and same race. That was what was enacted into law by the legislature and governor. Almost all of that has gone away, though court action. Gay marriage is just the last domino to fall.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 06, 2014, 06:19:00 PM

Quote from: The Brain on April 06, 2014, 03:11:40 PM
"The Bible made me do it" is not a relevant defense among adults.

In a democracy people generally don't have to provide a defense for their positions.

:huh:

Quote from: garbon on April 06, 2014, 08:16:28 AM
Because his ouster doesn't have me concerned nor do I take it as as an indictment on the state of modern politics. I can't wait for the day when positions like his are only held by troglodytes and kept to oneself. No tears for the man who donated to an organization whose aim was to take rights away from a subgroup.

Ok well that is what we are concerned about.  Not sure why that means we are shedding tears or defending him or why having a concern about modern politics repels you for some reason. 

Quote from: Iormlund on April 06, 2014, 02:36:15 PM

Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 06, 2014, 12:49:15 PMFor example, it is commonly stated by opponents of gay marriage that their objection is based on the religiously sanctified nature of marriage.  To ignore this and ascribe it to bigotry is similar to Seedy4NARL's attempt to portray objections to abortion as a "war on women." 

Religiously motivated bigotry is still bigotry. Shielding yourself in your belief in magic fairies doesn't change anything.

Would you defend just as vigorously if he was a hindu who lobbied for a caste-based system, a Muslim who did likewise with Sharia law or a neo-nazi who practiced Ásatrú or is this just a prerogative of Christianity?

I still cannot get over thinking it is a bit much to have somebody's career and life be ruined is equivalent to defending him.  But yes I do not think Hindus, Muslims and even Neo-Nazis should all be fired from their jobs.

Quote from: Ed Anger on April 06, 2014, 04:16:28 AM
I don't know which is worse, the fudgepackers and social justice warrior online lynch mob, or the increasing amount of Consevatard emails telling everybody to uninstall Firefox. Like they know how. They have to get their nephew to do it.

Bleh.

Well yes and that is the other thing.  The other team does this to.  Oh joy.

Quote from: Valmy on April 06, 2014, 08:04:07 PM

Quote from: garbon on April 06, 2014, 08:16:28 AM
Because his ouster doesn't have me concerned nor do I take it as as an indictment on the state of modern politics. I can't wait for the day when positions like his are only held by troglodytes and kept to oneself. No tears for the man who donated to an organization whose aim was to take rights away from a subgroup.

Ok well that is what we are concerned about.  Not sure why that means we are shedding tears or defending him or why having a concern about modern politics repels you for some reason. 

Maybe you should read the thread. :)

Quote from: Ed Anger on April 06, 2014, 04:16:28 AM
I don't know which is worse, the fudgepackers and social justice warrior online lynch mob, or the increasing amount of Consevatard emails telling everybody to uninstall Firefox. Like they know how. They have to get their nephew to do it.

Bleh.

I really can't muster enough energy to get worked up about it.  As a liberal I theoretically support gay rights, but in practice I have my brother as the closest example of gays in my life.

Quote from: Razgovory on April 06, 2014, 08:41:18 PM

Quote from: Ed Anger on April 06, 2014, 04:16:28 AM
I don't know which is worse, the fudgepackers and social justice warrior online lynch mob, or the increasing amount of Consevatard emails telling everybody to uninstall Firefox. Like they know how. They have to get their nephew to do it.

Bleh.

I really can't muster enough energy to get worked up about it.  As a liberal I theoretically support gay rights, but in practice I have my brother as the closest example of gays in my life.

:yes:

The forces of Marti-ism must be fought on every front. If all fudge packers must suffer to stop it, so be it.

Quote from: garbon on April 06, 2014, 08:15:45 PM
Maybe you should read the thread. :)

A non-answer followed by a sarcastic smilie.  Fun fun.

Quote from: Ed Anger on April 06, 2014, 08:45:21 PM

Quote from: Razgovory on April 06, 2014, 08:41:18 PM

Quote from: Ed Anger on April 06, 2014, 04:16:28 AM
I don't know which is worse, the fudgepackers and social justice warrior online lynch mob, or the increasing amount of Consevatard emails telling everybody to uninstall Firefox. Like they know how. They have to get their nephew to do it.

Bleh.

I really can't muster enough energy to get worked up about it.  As a liberal I theoretically support gay rights, but in practice I have my brother as the closest example of gays in my life.

:yes:

The forces of Marti-ism must be fought on every front. If all fudge packers must suffer to stop it, so be it.

My younger brother is a terribly unpleasant person.  He shrieks profanities at my parents and makes them wait on him.  And they just take it.  Last time he shrieked at me I told him that if he didn't shut if goddamn mouth I would shove broken glass into his eyes.  He avoids me now.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 06, 2014, 06:19:00 PM

Quote from: The Brain on April 06, 2014, 03:11:40 PM
"The Bible made me do it" is not a relevant defense among adults.

In a democracy people generally don't have to provide a defense for their positions.

Elaborate.

Quote from: Razgovory on April 06, 2014, 10:52:57 PM
My younger brother is a terribly unpleasant person.  He shrieks profanities at my parents and makes them wait on him.  And they just take it.  Last time he shrieked at me I told him that if he didn't shut if goddamn mouth I would shove broken glass into his eyes.  He avoids me now.

Relationships like that are rarely the fault of only one party.

Quote from: The Brain on April 06, 2014, 10:58:00 PM

Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 06, 2014, 06:19:00 PM

Quote from: The Brain on April 06, 2014, 03:11:40 PM
"The Bible made me do it" is not a relevant defense among adults.

In a democracy people generally don't have to provide a defense for their positions.

Elaborate.

Freedom of thought.

Quote from: Valmy on April 06, 2014, 08:09:17 PM
I still cannot get over thinking it is a bit much to have somebody's career and life be ruined is equivalent to defending him.  But yes I do not think Hindus, Muslims and even Neo-Nazis should all be fired from their jobs.

Who says all bigots should be fired? As I said in EUOT, nobody would care if the lead plugin programmer had donated to a white supremacist party. But this was the CEO and as such he would have represented the company. Not to mention control of HR policies and funds for donations.

Yeah, I think there's a significant difference between a CEO and pretty much any other position at a company.

Quote from: Iormlund on April 07, 2014, 01:49:23 AM
Who says all bigots should be fired? As I said in EUOT, nobody would care if the lead plugin programmer had donated to a white supremacist party. But this was the CEO and as such he would have represented the company. Not to mention control of HR policies and funds for donations.

True.  If there was any evidence somebody had ever or would ever use their position to advance their unpopular ideology or had ever spoken out publicly about it.  Of course the person in question had held a similarly high position in the company for an extended period of time and had never done that and stated publicly he would continue to carry out the policies of the company in these matters. 

Quote from: Peter Wiggin on April 07, 2014, 01:21:28 AM

Quote from: Razgovory on April 06, 2014, 10:52:57 PM
My younger brother is a terribly unpleasant person.  He shrieks profanities at my parents and makes them wait on him.  And they just take it.  Last time he shrieked at me I told him that if he didn't shut if goddamn mouth I would shove broken glass into his eyes.  He avoids me now.

Relationships like that are rarely the fault of only one party.

Like I said, they just take it.  A few beatings help his disposition immensely.

I was referring to your own relationship with your brother. But they're his parents, they helped mold him into the unpleasant profanity-shrieker he is. :contract:

Quote from: Jacob on April 07, 2014, 06:54:05 AM
Yeah, I think there's a significant difference between a CEO and pretty much any other position at a company.

Problem is that he wasn't a CEO back when he made the donation, so in effect we now expand the list of people who shouldn't do anything some vocal minority will dislike to all CEO hopefuls.  Of course, if you're not a CEO hopeful and are a little clever, you should probably still preemptively put yourself on that list, because who knows what other positions at your future place of employment will become "representative of the company", with all the corresponding retroactive re-calibration of standards.

Quote from: DGuller on April 07, 2014, 08:58:24 AM
Problem is that he wasn't a CEO back when he made the donation, so in effect we now expand the list of people who shouldn't do anything some vocal minority will dislike to all CEO hopefuls.  Of course, if you're not a CEO hopeful and are a little clever, you should probably still preemptively put yourself on that list, because who knows what other positions at your future place of employment will become "representative of the company", with all the corresponding retroactive re-calibration of standards.

Or else, like any other position in the company, you will need to build qualifications that overcome any liabilities you bring to the position.  The liabilities bad press brings to the CEO position are more than those bad pub brings to most other positions, so be prepared to deal with that (unlike this this guy, who was not).

Quote from: grumbler on April 07, 2014, 09:16:04 AM

Quote from: DGuller on April 07, 2014, 08:58:24 AM
Problem is that he wasn't a CEO back when he made the donation, so in effect we now expand the list of people who shouldn't do anything some vocal minority will dislike to all CEO hopefuls.  Of course, if you're not a CEO hopeful and are a little clever, you should probably still preemptively put yourself on that list, because who knows what other positions at your future place of employment will become "representative of the company", with all the corresponding retroactive re-calibration of standards.

Or else, like any other position in the company, you will need to build qualifications that overcome any liabilities you bring to the position.  The liabilities bad press brings to the CEO position are more than those bad pub brings to most other positions, so be prepared to deal with that (unlike this this guy, who was not).

That's the problem with Internet witch hunts.  You're not evaluated on your entire portfolio, you are evaluated on one action that catches the attention.  At that point the amount of trouble stirred up for the employer is such that it dwarves the net value of your overall "skill portfolio".

Quote from: Iormlund on April 06, 2014, 02:36:15 PM
Would you defend just as vigorously if he was a hindu who lobbied for a caste-based system, a Muslim who did likewise with Sharia law or a neo-nazi who practiced Ásatrú or is this just a prerogative of Christianity?

Yeah. I think people are stupid for boycotting Jane Fonda movies and will defend the Redgraves to my dying breath.

I also think this is politically stupid. I mean there's a campaign in Portland to boycott shops that stock certain produce because the (Mormon) organic farmer opposes gay marriage. It's mad that gay marriage was dead if not dying as a vote getter for social conservatives and now it's a recruiting tool again - because you could be the next person who most publicly disown their views.

Edit: It's a troublingly 'error has no rights' attitude.

There are two factors that make this not much of a concern to me, to be honest:

1) I still contend that he could have dodged the issue by evolving in the issue, much like Obama. If he'd busted out some "it made sense to me at the time, but now I realize I was wrong, how hurtful it was and I'm sorry" statement he'd likely have been fine. The issue is not that he donated to a hateful cause back when it was considered okay and normal (by many) to hold that hate; it's that he did that and then refused to walk it back or otherwise engage in any kind of damage control once it became an issue after social mores changed.

2) We are talking about denying someone else's basic human rights here. People who are on the record as contributing to blatantly racist organizations, even if they did so back when such organizations were more palatable than they are now, should probably not expect to retain a CEO position at a company aspiring to wide consumption once it became public if they refuse to back down from it. I don't think most other political issues carry the same ethical weight as trying to deny human rights to a minority.

As an aside, I do believe that people in the US occasionally lose their jobs over creationism/evolution and on where they stand in the culture wars surrounding abortion. How does that fit into your take on this situation?

Quote from: Peter Wiggin on April 07, 2014, 08:39:11 AM
I was referring to your own relationship with your brother. But they're his parents, they helped mold him into the unpleasant profanity-shrieker he is. :contract:

His two siblings aren't like that.  My brother and I are opposites.  I'm withdrawn he's outgoing, he throws temper tantrums, I coldly pound someone's head in.

Quote from: DGuller on April 07, 2014, 09:19:39 AM
Problem is that he wasn't a CEO back when he made the donation, so in effect we now expand the list
That's the problem with Internet witch hunts.  You're not evaluated on your entire portfolio, you are evaluated on one action that catches the attention.  At that point the amount of trouble stirred up for the employer is such that it dwarves the net value of your overall "skill portfolio".

Well, he - and Mozilla - could have gotten some PR people to help him with this. It's not like it's impossible to manage, nor is this particular guy without resources.

Quote from: Jacob on April 07, 2014, 09:27:37 AM

Quote from: DGuller on April 07, 2014, 09:19:39 AM
Problem is that he wasn't a CEO back when he made the donation, so in effect we now expand the list
That's the problem with Internet witch hunts.  You're not evaluated on your entire portfolio, you are evaluated on one action that catches the attention.  At that point the amount of trouble stirred up for the employer is such that it dwarves the net value of your overall "skill portfolio".

Well, he - and Mozilla - could have gotten some PR people to help him with this. It's not like it's impossible to manage, nor is this particular guy without resources.

The problem is the notion that he should've had a problem to deal with in the first place.

Quote from: Jacob on April 07, 2014, 09:25:19 AM2) We are talking about denying someone else's basic human rights here. People who are on the record as contributing to blatantly racist organizations, even if they did so back when such organizations were more palatable than they are now, should probably not expect to retain a CEO position at a company aspiring to wide consumption once it became public if they refuse to back down from it. I don't think most other political issues carry the same ethical weight as trying to deny human rights to a minority.

Well I don't think marriage is a human right. But I also don't think you are necessarily bigoted or homophobic because you oppose it. If I don't have any evidence that you are bigoted or that you opposed it for those reason (ie any example of a negative comment from him to a gay person) then I think I owe it to you to interpret your opposition as benignly as I can.

QuoteAs an aside, I do believe that people in the US occasionally lose their jobs over creationism/evolution and on where they stand in the culture wars surrounding abortion. How does that fit into your take on this situation?

Yeah I think it's a disgrace there too. I can see it if you're running a religious charity. But hounding restaurants because one of their suppliers is a Mormon farmer? Or a company telling their customers they should switch to another browser because their CEO donated against gay marriage?

Quote from: Razgovory on April 07, 2014, 09:25:32 AM
he throws temper tantrums, I coldly pound someone's head in.

So you're both prone to violent impulses, but he vents them out to keep better control.

Quote from: Sheilbh on April 07, 2014, 09:43:01 AM
Well I don't think marriage is a human right. But I also don't think you are necessarily bigoted or homophobic because you oppose it. If I don't have any evidence that you are bigoted or that you opposed it for those reason (ie any example of a negative comment from him to a gay person) then I think I owe it to you to interpret your opposition as benignly as I can.

Well he didn't just oppose gay marriage. He funded a group whose sole aim was to get rid of California's existing policy of allowing gay marriages.

Quote from: DGuller on April 07, 2014, 09:37:49 AM

Quote from: Jacob on April 07, 2014, 09:27:37 AM

Quote from: DGuller on April 07, 2014, 09:19:39 AM
Problem is that he wasn't a CEO back when he made the donation, so in effect we now expand the list
That's the problem with Internet witch hunts.  You're not evaluated on your entire portfolio, you are evaluated on one action that catches the attention.  At that point the amount of trouble stirred up for the employer is such that it dwarves the net value of your overall "skill portfolio".

Well, he - and Mozilla - could have gotten some PR people to help him with this. It's not like it's impossible to manage, nor is this particular guy without resources.

The problem is the notion that he should've had a problem to deal with in the first place.

Is it a problem that his employees took issue with the fact that he had funded a cause that hurt them? It isn't like his action had no impact.

Quote from: Jacob on April 07, 2014, 09:25:19 AM
2) We are talking about denying someone else's basic human rights here.

One could, if one wanted, couch virtually any existing public policy issue in terms so that people on the other side from you are anathema.

Quote from: Jacob on April 07, 2014, 09:25:19 AM
1) I still contend that he could have dodged the issue by evolving in the issue, much like Obama. If he'd busted out some "it made sense to me at the time, but now I realize I was wrong, how hurtful it was and I'm sorry" statement he'd likely have been fine. The issue is not that he donated to a hateful cause back when it was considered okay and normal (by many) to hold that hate; it's that he did that and then refused to walk it back or otherwise engage in any kind of damage control once it became an issue after social mores changed.

On further reflection, this point I find even more unpalatable.  So, basically, your problem with him is that he didn't publicly renounce his previously-held views as incorrect, and thus he deserves what he got.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 07, 2014, 10:01:20 AM

Quote from: Jacob on April 07, 2014, 09:25:19 AM
2) We are talking about denying someone else's basic human rights here.

One could, if one wanted, couch virtually any existing public policy issue in terms so that people on the other side from you are anathema.

Well the decision that overturned Prop 8 did say:

Quoteunconstitutional under the Due Process Clause because no compelling state interest justifies denying same-sex couples the fundamental right to marry

Quote from: Peter Wiggin on April 07, 2014, 09:46:27 AM

Quote from: Razgovory on April 07, 2014, 09:25:32 AM
he throws temper tantrums, I coldly pound someone's head in.

So you're both prone to violent impulses, but he vents them out to keep better control.

Everyone gets mad once in a while the differences are how we display it.

Quote from: DGuller on April 07, 2014, 10:07:45 AM
On further reflection, this point I find even more unpalatable.  So, basically, your problem with him is that he didn't publicly renounce his previously-held views as incorrect, and thus he deserves what he got.

A self-criticism session or two would have done wonders for this guy.

Quote from: garbon on April 07, 2014, 10:08:29 AM
Well the decision that overturned Prop 8 did say:

Quoteunconstitutional under the Due Process Clause because no compelling state interest justifies denying same-sex couples the fundamental right to marry

Does that disprove my point?

Quote from: Razgovory on April 07, 2014, 10:08:36 AM
Everyone gets mad once in a while the differences are how we display it.

And shouting and cursing is more acceptable than violence. So you could learn something from your brother. :contract:

Quote from: Kleves on April 07, 2014, 10:10:38 AM
A self-criticism session or two would have done wonders for this guy.

Never give them an inch I say. Public self-flagellation only whets their appetite. If they catch you out in a perceived Thoughtcrime, don't grovel.

Quote from: garbon on April 07, 2014, 09:59:09 AMWell he didn't just oppose gay marriage. He funded a group whose sole aim was to get rid of California's existing policy of allowing gay marriages.

He donate $1000 during a campaign that spent $83 million. I think 'funding' anything's putting it a bit strong.

Quote from: DGuller on April 07, 2014, 10:07:45 AM

Quote from: Jacob on April 07, 2014, 09:25:19 AM
1) I still contend that he could have dodged the issue by evolving in the issue, much like Obama. If he'd busted out some "it made sense to me at the time, but now I realize I was wrong, how hurtful it was and I'm sorry" statement he'd likely have been fine. The issue is not that he donated to a hateful cause back when it was considered okay and normal (by many) to hold that hate; it's that he did that and then refused to walk it back or otherwise engage in any kind of damage control once it became an issue after social mores changed.

On further reflection, this point I find even more unpalatable.  So, basically, your problem with him is that he didn't publicly renounce his previously-held views as incorrect, and thus he deserves what he got.

Exactly.

I have no problem with people being fired for doing 'bad things'.

But making a political donation can not possible be construed as a bad act by itself.  It's only by taking the donation as a sign of what the man believes, and therefore firing him for having bad thoughts instead.

Quote from: Sheilbh on April 07, 2014, 11:00:36 AM

Quote from: garbon on April 07, 2014, 09:59:09 AMWell he didn't just oppose gay marriage. He funded a group whose sole aim was to get rid of California's existing policy of allowing gay marriages.

He donate $1000 during a campaign that spent $83 million. I think 'funding' anything's putting it a bit strong.

So where do we draw the line on dollar amount that we can take it into consideration?

Quote from: Barrister on April 07, 2014, 11:06:30 AM
But making a political donation can not possible be construed as a bad act by itself.  It's only by taking the donation as a sign of what the man believes, and therefore firing him for having bad thoughts instead.

Do you think it unfair to draw the conclusion that he wanted to take away the right to marry that gay people enjoyed in the state at that time?

Quote from: Barrister on April 07, 2014, 11:06:30 AM
Exactly.

I have no problem with people being fired for doing 'bad things'.

But making a political donation can not possible be construed as a bad act by itself.  It's only by taking the donation as a sign of what the man believes, and therefore firing him for having bad thoughts instead.

He explicitly supported a campaign to treat a segment of the population as second-class citizens.

That's not a thought, that's taking active action to consciously deprive others of a right. It's no different than lobbying for anti-miscegenation laws.

Quote from: Iormlund on April 07, 2014, 11:54:56 AM
He explicitly supported a campaign to treat a segment of the population as second-class citizens.

That's not a thought, that's taking active action to consciously deprive others of a right. It's no different than lobbying for anti-miscegenation laws.

Of course it is.  Prop 8 didn't criminalize anything.

Quote from: Barrister on April 07, 2014, 11:06:30 AM
But making a political donation can not possible be construed as a bad act by itself.

"Cannot possibly"?   I think you can easily imagine a political contribution that might be condemned.     

Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 07, 2014, 11:56:57 AM

Quote from: Iormlund on April 07, 2014, 11:54:56 AM
He explicitly supported a campaign to treat a segment of the population as second-class citizens.

That's not a thought, that's taking active action to consciously deprive others of a right. It's no different than lobbying for anti-miscegenation laws.

Of course it is.  Prop 8 didn't criminalize anything.

You dont see a distinction between merely holding a belief that gays should not marry and fininacially supporting an initiative which would make it illegal for them to do so?

Quote from: Iormlund on April 07, 2014, 11:54:56 AM
That's not a thought, that's taking active action to consciously deprive others of a right. It's no different than lobbying for anti-miscegenation laws.

Except there's no reason for that except racism. There are other reasons for opposing gay marriage than homophobia.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 07, 2014, 11:56:57 AM

Quote from: Iormlund on April 07, 2014, 11:54:56 AM
He explicitly supported a campaign to treat a segment of the population as second-class citizens.

That's not a thought, that's taking active action to consciously deprive others of a right. It's no different than lobbying for anti-miscegenation laws.

Of course it is.  Prop 8 didn't criminalize anything.

True though apparently Wisconsin has criminalized going to another state to have a marriage performed that is not permitted in Wisconsin.

Quote from: garbon on April 07, 2014, 12:10:49 PM
True though apparently Wisconsin has criminalized going to another state to have a marriage performed that is not permitted in Wisconsin.

:blink:

Quote from: Sheilbh on April 07, 2014, 12:10:42 PM

Quote from: Iormlund on April 07, 2014, 11:54:56 AM
That's not a thought, that's taking active action to consciously deprive others of a right. It's no different than lobbying for anti-miscegenation laws.

Except there's no reason for that except racism. There are other reasons for opposing gay marriage than homophobia.

Thinking civil unions are enough doesn't really apply to this situation as supporting Prop 8 was an active repeal of what had already been granted.

I think mentioned earlier that religiously inspired bigotry is still bigotry. One could theoretically turn the other cheek on this issue, especially as the state isn't trying to change definition of marriage for a religion - just for its own purposes.

Quote from: Sheilbh on April 07, 2014, 12:11:14 PM

Quote from: garbon on April 07, 2014, 12:10:49 PM
True though apparently Wisconsin has criminalized going to another state to have a marriage performed that is not permitted in Wisconsin.

:blink:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/02/03/scott-walker-lawsuit-gay-marriage_n_4718412.html

QuoteACLU Sues Scott Walker, Challenges Wisconsin's Same-Sex Marriage Ban

Four same-sex couples represented by the American Civil Liberties Union sued Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker (R) and other state top administration officials on Monday, challenging Wisconsin's seven-year-old ban on gay marriage.

In addition to attempting to overturn the state's constitutional amendment barring marriage equality, the lawsuit also seeks to repeal Wisconsin's "marriage evasion" law, which criminalizes leaving the state to "contract a marriage that is prohibited or void" in Wisconsin. Couples violating the marriage evasion statute can be fined up to "$10,000 or imprisoned for not more than 9 months or both."

"Wisconsin is unique in that sense, and so we think that argument particularly exemplifies the harm or the animus toward same-sex couples in some parts of the country," John Knight, director of ACLU's LGBT and AIDS Project, told the Washington Blade on Monday.

The couples in the lawsuit are Roy Badger and Garth Wangemann; Charvonne Kemp and Marie Carlson; Judith Trampf and Katharina Heyning; and Virginia Wolf and Carol Schumacher, the lead plaintiffs in the case.

Virginia Wolf et al. v. Scott Walker et al., which was filed by the ACLU, the ACLU of Wisconsin and Mayer Brown LLP, argues that Wisconsin's gay marriage ban violates the couples' due process and equal protection rights under the 14th Amendment.

"Wisconsin, a historic leader in marriage equality, maintains one of the most restrictive bans on marriage for same-sex couples in the nation," the lawsuit reads. "The State deprives same-sex couples of these rights and freedoms for no other reason than their sexual orientation and their sex."

"We're completely in love, and we'd like to be married in the state that we live in," Kemp, one of the plaintiffs, told the Washington Blade on Monday. "I'm willing to go to the Supreme Court to fight for the right for everyone to be able to get married if that's what they choose to do. It's about marriage equality for all, not marriage equality for some, or for just us."

The lawsuit is pending before the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin while numerous states, including Kentucky, Utah, Florida and Virginia, are facing dozens of similar lawsuits seeking marriage equality.

Quote from: Sheilbh on April 07, 2014, 12:10:42 PM

Quote from: Iormlund on April 07, 2014, 11:54:56 AM
That's not a thought, that's taking active action to consciously deprive others of a right. It's no different than lobbying for anti-miscegenation laws.

Except there's no reason for that except racism. There are other reasons for opposing gay marriage than homophobia.

Forget the "other reasons".  Assume it was straight homophobia.  So what?

What if they guy had donated to David Duke at some point in the past, but had otherwise never shown any other issues.  He hired black employees in the past, treated them fairly and with dignity, and did not use inappropriate language.  Is it really a good idea to fire someone in that kind of circumstance?

Quote from: Barrister on April 07, 2014, 12:16:56 PM

Quote from: Sheilbh on April 07, 2014, 12:10:42 PM

Quote from: Iormlund on April 07, 2014, 11:54:56 AM
That's not a thought, that's taking active action to consciously deprive others of a right. It's no different than lobbying for anti-miscegenation laws.

Except there's no reason for that except racism. There are other reasons for opposing gay marriage than homophobia.

Forget the "other reasons".  Assume it was straight homophobia.  So what?

What if they guy had donated to David Duke at some point in the past, but had otherwise never shown any other issues.  He hired black employees in the past, treated them fairly and with dignity, and did not use inappropriate language.  Is it really a good idea to fire someone in that kind of circumstance?

How many "black employees" does he have working in senior managment?  :P  Your argument is getting weaker counsel.

Quote from: Barrister on April 07, 2014, 12:16:56 PM

Quote from: Sheilbh on April 07, 2014, 12:10:42 PM

Quote from: Iormlund on April 07, 2014, 11:54:56 AM
That's not a thought, that's taking active action to consciously deprive others of a right. It's no different than lobbying for anti-miscegenation laws.

Except there's no reason for that except racism. There are other reasons for opposing gay marriage than homophobia.

Forget the "other reasons".  Assume it was straight homophobia.  So what?

What if they guy had donated to David Duke at some point in the past, but had otherwise never shown any other issues.  He hired black employees in the past, treated them fairly and with dignity, and did not use inappropriate language.  Is it really a good idea to fire someone in that kind of circumstance?

If he is found to be a big enough CR/PR liablity to the company then of course it is. Just like any other skeleton in the closet that peeps out.

Lawyer fight!

*grabs popcorn.

Quote from: garbon on April 07, 2014, 12:13:44 PM
I think mentioned earlier that religiously inspired bigotry is still bigotry. One could theoretically turn the other cheek on this issue, especially as the state isn't trying to change definition of marriage for a religion - just for its own purposes.

It's not necessarily bigotry. It's not necessarily motivated by views on gay people, but of marriage. The state changing the definition is beyond it's power in this view. If marriage is a religious creation which the state piggy-backed onto, it can't change that meaning. It should piggy-back off or offer something different.

But what about the boycott of restaurants or shops that stock food grown by someone who opposes same sex marriage?

Edit: Oh and that Wisconsin law is absurd.

Quote from: Sheilbh on April 07, 2014, 12:22:27 PMIf marriage is a religious creation which the state piggy-backed onto, it can't change that meaning.

Don't be ridiculous. Marriage pre-dates Christianity by millennia.

Quote from: Sheilbh on April 07, 2014, 12:22:27 PM

Quote from: garbon on April 07, 2014, 12:13:44 PM
I think mentioned earlier that religiously inspired bigotry is still bigotry. One could theoretically turn the other cheek on this issue, especially as the state isn't trying to change definition of marriage for a religion - just for its own purposes.

It's not necessarily bigotry. It's not necessarily motivated by views on gay people, but of marriage. The state changing the definition is beyond it's power in this view. If marriage is a religious creation which the state piggy-backed onto, it can't change that meaning. It should piggy-back off or offer something different.

But what about the boycott of restaurants or shops that stock food grown by someone who opposes same sex marriage?

Edit: Oh and that Wisconsin law is absurd.

Well we have the separation of church and state, so I don't see why the state can't change definitions for itself.  Also, I think an assumption that needs examining is that we have religious individuals who are annoyed about the state muddling definitions of marriage but are just dandy with homosexuals. Is that a common thing?

But you're right. Perhaps there is a decent subset of individuals who isn't bigoted but just too hung-up on a particular word. After all, I personally don't recall caring much if we called them civil unions* though really seems like that would need to be consistently applied to all state sanctioned unions...California had already instituted gay marriage and then we've seen what has happened as far as sorting things out when US/England legalized gay marriage but we have people who already contracted unions. Makes quite a mess with the anti-marriage label having the argument that they aren't comfortable with the label?

I don't see why that would be a problem. Again, I wouldn't participate (like I didn't in this boycott) but I don't see why people can't or how that's wrong. People should be free to spend how they will and if they are aware of the connection and it doesn't sit right with them, that's their choice.

*though yes a separate but equal labeling scheme does serve to set one version up as a lesser.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 07, 2014, 11:56:57 AM

Quote from: Iormlund on April 07, 2014, 11:54:56 AM
He explicitly supported a campaign to treat a segment of the population as second-class citizens.

That's not a thought, that's taking active action to consciously deprive others of a right. It's no different than lobbying for anti-miscegenation laws.

Of course it is.  Prop 8 didn't criminalize anything.

Anti-miscegenation laws didn't criminalize anything either, just made couples "prove" they were of the same race before granting marriage licenses.

Quote from: Capetan Mihali on April 07, 2014, 01:00:17 PM
Anti-miscegenation laws didn't criminalize anything either, just made couples "prove" they were of the same race before granting marriage licenses.

I thought folks could get thrown in the hoosegow for banging across the color line.

Quote from: Sheilbh on April 07, 2014, 12:11:14 PM

Quote from: garbon on April 07, 2014, 12:10:49 PM
True though apparently Wisconsin has criminalized going to another state to have a marriage performed that is not permitted in Wisconsin.

:blink:

Marriage evasion laws are broader and older than the issue of same-sex marriage.  Not that it wouldn't be used against same-sex couples, of course.  I believe quite a few states have them, and that the rationale had to do with age, consanguinity, bigamy, plus race in some states.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 07, 2014, 01:03:02 PM

Quote from: Capetan Mihali on April 07, 2014, 01:00:17 PM
Anti-miscegenation laws didn't criminalize anything either, just made couples "prove" they were of the same race before granting marriage licenses.

I thought folks could get thrown in the hoosegow for banging across the color line.

Not white men.  And black men tended to be either lynched or convicted of rape if it became public.

But a law like Virginia's anti-miscegenation statute, the Racial Integrity Act of 1924 (famously overturned in the 60s by aptly-named Loving v. Virginia), just barred marriage between white and colored.

Quote from: Capetan Mihali on April 07, 2014, 01:07:31 PM
But a law like Virginia's anti-miscegenation statute, the Racial Integrity Act of 1924 (famously overturned in the 60s by aptly-named Loving v. Virginia), just barred marriage between white and colored.

Virginia is for lovers.

I'm of pure Aryan stock.

Quote from: Ed Anger on April 07, 2014, 01:16:35 PM
I'm of pure Aryan stock.

With Kentucky mutations :P

Quote from: derspiess on April 07, 2014, 01:25:22 PM

Quote from: Ed Anger on April 07, 2014, 01:16:35 PM
I'm of pure Aryan stock.

With Kentucky mutations :P

:weep:

Quote from: Ed Anger on April 07, 2014, 01:26:28 PM

Quote from: derspiess on April 07, 2014, 01:25:22 PM

Quote from: Ed Anger on April 07, 2014, 01:16:35 PM
I'm of pure Aryan stock.

With Kentucky mutations :P

:weep:

I think the rays from that blue moon cause it.

Quote from: Iormlund on April 07, 2014, 12:31:16 PM

Quote from: Sheilbh on April 07, 2014, 12:22:27 PMIf marriage is a religious creation which the state piggy-backed onto, it can't change that meaning.

Don't be ridiculous. Marriage pre-dates Christianity by millennia.

Don't be ridiculous. Religion pre-dates Christianity by millenia as well.

-------------

Seriously, though. Co-habitation may not have been a religious creation; formal marriage almost certainly was. A bit difficult for it not to have been when the earliest civilisations seem to have formed around temples (see Sumer.) I'm having trouble thinking of any previous civilisation that formalised same-sex relationships as marriages even when they were accepted (such as in ancient Greece) or considered "de rigueur" (such as in ancient Sparta.)

Quote from: DGuller on April 07, 2014, 09:37:49 AMThe problem is the notion that he should've had a problem to deal with in the first place.

It's not a notion, it's a fact; as evidenced by the course of events.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 07, 2014, 10:01:20 AM

Quote from: Jacob on April 07, 2014, 09:25:19 AM
2) We are talking about denying someone else's basic human rights here.

One could, if one wanted, couch virtually any existing public policy issue in terms so that people on the other side from you are anathema.

Fair point. There is definitely a tendency in some quarters to shift all debate to a stark binary, with moral underpinnings.

Personally I try not to do so, but in this case I find it more persuasive than most.

Quote from: Barrister on April 07, 2014, 12:16:56 PM

Quote from: Sheilbh on April 07, 2014, 12:10:42 PM

Quote from: Iormlund on April 07, 2014, 11:54:56 AM
That's not a thought, that's taking active action to consciously deprive others of a right. It's no different than lobbying for anti-miscegenation laws.

Except there's no reason for that except racism. There are other reasons for opposing gay marriage than homophobia.

Forget the "other reasons".  Assume it was straight homophobia.  So what?

What if they guy had donated to David Duke at some point in the past, but had otherwise never shown any other issues.  He hired black employees in the past, treated them fairly and with dignity, and did not use inappropriate language.  Is it really a good idea to fire someone in that kind of circumstance?

As a CEO of a company with worldwide aspirations? If he did not in any way address the issue of supporting racists?

I'd certainly avoid doing business with that company while this theoretical guy was in charge.

I'll note that Eich wasn't fired, he resigned when enough people proclaimed that they didn't want to do business with Mozilla while he remained in charge.

Quote from: Ed Anger on April 07, 2014, 01:16:35 PM
I'm of pure Aryan stock.

I didn't know you were Pakistani.

Quote from: Razgovory on April 07, 2014, 07:45:17 PM

Quote from: Ed Anger on April 07, 2014, 01:16:35 PM
I'm of pure Aryan stock.

I didn't know you were Pakistani.

It explains why he's so into Vedic medicine.

Only guy I ever heard going going on about Aryaness was a Pakistani guy.

Well, you mutts can't marry a German now, can you?

Quote from: Jacob on April 07, 2014, 07:13:17 PM

Quote from: DGuller on April 07, 2014, 09:37:49 AMThe problem is the notion that he should've had a problem to deal with in the first place.

It's not a notion, it's a fact; as evidenced by the course of events.

That's tautological reasoning.  You're saying that everything that became an issue should've become an issue, as evidenced by the fact that it became an issue.

Quote from: DGuller on April 07, 2014, 08:33:14 PM

Quote from: Jacob on April 07, 2014, 07:13:17 PM

Quote from: DGuller on April 07, 2014, 09:37:49 AMThe problem is the notion that he should've had a problem to deal with in the first place.

It's not a notion, it's a fact; as evidenced by the course of events.

That's tautological reasoning.  You're saying that everything that became an issue should've become an issue, as evidenced by the fact that it became an issue.

No, because I'm not justifying or arguing about what ought to be. I'm noting what happened, why it happened, how it could have played out differently; I'm also saying I'm not particularly upset about it, and that I think you are incorrect about the broader implications if the events.

You are trying to frame some sort of absolute moral right or wrong here. I'm uninterested in that particular line of discussion, but you are still trying to construe my statements to fit into your debate parameters and in the process misrepresenting them.

Quote from: Jacob on April 07, 2014, 08:46:25 PM
You are trying to frame some sort of absolute moral right or wrong here. I'm uninterested in that particular line of discussion,

:hmm:

Quote from: derspiess on April 07, 2014, 08:57:38 PM

Quote from: Jacob on April 07, 2014, 08:46:25 PM
You are trying to frame some sort of absolute moral right or wrong here. I'm uninterested in that particular line of discussion,

:hmm:

:lol:

I mean in terms of bringing the donation up for public discussion and the resulting resignation.

I believe that Eich's actions were morally wrong, but I'm not particularly interested in discussing that here; nor do I think there's a particular moral right or wrong to the events that transpired in the wake of him becoming CEO of Mozilla.

I'd have much greater concerns about non-C-level employees suffering consequences for political affiliations.

Quote from: Razgovory on April 07, 2014, 07:45:17 PM

Quote from: Ed Anger on April 07, 2014, 01:16:35 PM
I'm of pure Aryan stock.

I didn't know you were Pakistani.

I never known what is going to set people off from that part of the world.  I have had Indians lose their shit when people mention the Aryans as the Aryan invasion theory was apparently constructed by evil Brits to justify their Empire while others are all like 'yeah we are Aryans we kick ass!'  No different than any other old world nationalist stuff but it is interesting how rather obscure historical topics in our part of the world are so emotionally charged in other places.  Kind of brings them to life for me and reminds me we are talking about stuff that matters.

Probably like the ACW, if you flip the equation.

Last time I'll make an Aryan nazi joke.  :glare:

Quote from: Jacob on April 07, 2014, 08:46:25 PM
No, because I'm not justifying or arguing about what ought to be.

Then what exactly are you doing?  We don't discuss stories here about some guy getting fired because we want to wail over their bad fortune.  I would say that the vast majority of stories here that generate a discussion bring up a larger issue, at which point "what ought to be" in the story that became the focal point is a pretty fundamental and central question.

Quote from: Ed Anger on April 07, 2014, 09:40:46 PM
Last time I'll make an Aryan nazi joke.  :glare:

(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fmedia-cache-ec0.pinimg.com%2F736x%2F9d%2F99%2F9c%2F9d999c85003d175b7bac789aad89591f.jpg&hash=e3590681c5b48f0f7063afd40f462351b3e67b80)

I would set you all on fire.

Quote from: Agelastus on April 07, 2014, 07:02:15 PM

Quote from: Iormlund on April 07, 2014, 12:31:16 PM

Quote from: Sheilbh on April 07, 2014, 12:22:27 PMIf marriage is a religious creation which the state piggy-backed onto, it can't change that meaning.

Don't be ridiculous. Marriage pre-dates Christianity by millennia.

Don't be ridiculous. Religion pre-dates Christianity by millenia as well.
Seriously, though. Co-habitation may not have been a religious creation; formal marriage almost certainly was. A bit difficult for it not to have been when the earliest civilisations seem to have formed around temples (see Sumer.) I'm having trouble thinking of any previous civilisation that formalised same-sex relationships as marriages even when they were accepted (such as in ancient Greece) or considered "de rigueur" (such as in ancient Sparta.)

I very much doubt Sheilbh is arguing for us to follow ancient marriage customs. For starters we don't even know how or when they came to be, since they pre-date recorded history as well.

Quote from: Ed Anger on April 07, 2014, 09:40:46 PM
Last time I'll make an Aryan nazi joke.  :glare:

U sad bro?

Quote from: Ed Anger on April 07, 2014, 09:52:53 PM
I would set you all on fire.

Not Ide, I already called him.

Quote from: DGuller on April 07, 2014, 09:43:16 PM

Quote from: Jacob on April 07, 2014, 08:46:25 PM
No, because I'm not justifying or arguing about what ought to be.

Then what exactly are you doing?  We don't discuss stories here about some guy getting fired because we want to wail over their bad fortune.  I would say that the vast majority of stories here that generate a discussion bring up a larger issue, at which point "what ought to be" in the story that became the focal point is a pretty fundamental and central question.

A CEO lost his job because he brought unwanted negative attention to his company for political activities unrelated to the company. This attention appears to have risen fairly organically from civil society, and the substance of it appears to be correct. He was unable or unwilling to address the negative PR repercussions, and he resigned.

That falls within the scope of what's acceptable in my view. I reject your suggestions that this represents something new or a slippery slope where political activity is somehow now more risky than it's been in the past.

Given the political climate in the US regarding various culture issues and the innumerable boycotts and denouncement that have been flying back and forth for years I'm not sure I understand what makes this stand out so much. As I understand it people have lost their jobs for volunteering for Planned Parenthood or believing in Creationism; OvB has given examples of people suffering professional repercussions for signing the Scott Walker recall petition.

I mean, if you think that in general US political culture should allow for a greater separation of political actions and professional life, that's a noble sentiment and one I can probably get behind; but can you explain to me what it is about the Eich case that makes it the catalyst and centre-piece for that sentiment as opposed to any of the many other places where the two bleed together?

Quote from: Jacob on April 08, 2014, 03:46:46 AM
I mean, if you think that in general US political culture should allow for a greater separation of political actions and professional life, that's a noble sentiment and one I can probably get behind; but can you explain to me what it is about the Eich case that makes it the catalyst and centre-piece for that sentiment as opposed to any of the many other places where the two bleed together?

For me it's because it's my side. So there's a 'not in my name' element and, as you say, this has been a common tactic of the religious right which isn't a model I want to see followed. Unlike them I don't want to punish or scare people.

Also I'm still weirded out that OkCupid did what they did. As a company I can only assume they thought that by outing him and asking for a boycott they'd benefit. I'm not convinced I want companies trying to compete by out-virtuing each other.

Edit: And I think it matters that we're winning. Gay marriage is happening because we've heard all the arguments against it - and they've been beaten. Right now judges are considering whether businesses with religious owners can refuse to serve gay weddings (of course they shouldn't be able to). Overall I'm with Friedersdorf that this is a happy liberal open story of how you can change a culture in 10 years - but now we're adding a slightly nasty footnote of Eich and Mormon farmers.

I've said it before but I think the biggest reason America has the culture wars is because people enjoy them :bleeding:

Quote from: Sheilbh on April 08, 2014, 04:12:31 AM
For me it's because it's my side. So there's a 'not in my name' element and, as you say, this has been a common tactic of the religious right which isn't a model I want to see followed. Unlike them I don't want to punish or scare people.

I think that's completely legitimate.

QuoteAlso I'm still weirded out that OkCupid did what they did. As a company I can only assume they thought that by outing him and asking for a boycott they'd benefit. I'm not convinced I want companies trying to compete by out-virtuing each other.

Yeah, it's a bit weird. I suppose they figure it matches their target demographics; or perhaps someone senior there feels strongly about the issue.

Quote from: Jacob on April 08, 2014, 03:46:46 AM
I mean, if you think that in general US political culture should allow for a greater separation of political actions and professional life, that's a noble sentiment and one I can probably get behind; but can you explain to me what it is about the Eich case that makes it the catalyst and centre-piece for that sentiment as opposed to any of the many other places where the two bleed together?

Because there is a thread for Eich's case, but there isn't a thread for any of those other cases.  Apart from that, there is an unmistakable sentiment that Eich deserved what he got because he held a wrong opinion, and when confronted didn't change his opinion to the correct one, whereas in most other cases the sentiment here would be squarely behind the fired employee.  Cases where the victim isn't sympathetic tend to generate more of the discussion.

Quote from: DGuller on April 08, 2014, 07:03:49 AM
Because there is a thread for Eich's case, but there isn't a thread for any of those other cases.  Apart from that, there is an unmistakable sentiment that Eich deserved what he got because he held a wrong opinion, and when confronted didn't change his opinion to the correct one, whereas in most other cases the sentiment here would be squarely behind the fired employee.  Cases where the victim isn't sympathetic tend to generate more of the discussion.

True.  If he was fired for supporting gay marriage this would have been a pretty short thread.

Quote from: The Brain on April 08, 2014, 12:46:23 AM

Quote from: Ed Anger on April 07, 2014, 09:40:46 PM
Last time I'll make an Aryan nazi joke.  :glare:

U sad bro?

Depressed.

A bit histrionic but I dig it.

http://www.buzzfeed.com/saeedjones/whos-afraid-of-the-gay-mafia

QuoteAnd so, ultimately: I'm sorry if my equality is inconvenient for you. Or that you risk being taken to task for bigotry no longer afforded the veil of public opinion. If I sound cold, understand my words have been chilled by stories of a lesbian couple murdered last month in Houston, a 4-year-old boy in Oregon murdered by a mother who believed she could beat the gay out of him, more than 30 states where LGBT people can be fired for being out, and a nation where marriage equality is still not a reality for all of its citizens.

Because it's fair to tie people who support traditional definition of marriage together with people who murder homosexuals, right.

Quote from: derspiess on April 08, 2014, 08:44:48 AM
Because it's fair to tie people who support traditional definition of marriage together with people who murder homosexuals, right.

Fair no, but then none of this is about what's fair. If it was, traditional marriage advocates wouldn't make such a big stink about something that inconveniences them as a labeling matter (unless of course they are bigoted about gays in which case well that's also not about fairness either).

Quote from: garbon on April 08, 2014, 08:39:12 AM

QuoteAnd so, ultimately: I’m sorry if my equality is inconvenient for you. Or that you risk being taken to task for bigotry no longer afforded the veil of public opinion. If I sound cold, understand my words have been chilled by stories of a lesbian couple murdered last month in Houston, a 4-year-old boy in Oregon murdered by a mother who believed she could beat the gay out of him, more than 30 states where LGBT people can be fired for being out, and a nation where marriage equality is still not a reality for all of its citizens.

Well you can pretty much justify any action, no matter how extreme, based on that rhetoric.  If you find somebody else's private views immoral it is open season to do whatever?  How interesting given the justifications for establishing the anti-LGBT laws and persecution in the first place. 

Quote from: Valmy on April 08, 2014, 08:53:34 AM

Quote from: garbon on April 08, 2014, 08:39:12 AM

QuoteAnd so, ultimately: I’m sorry if my equality is inconvenient for you. Or that you risk being taken to task for bigotry no longer afforded the veil of public opinion. If I sound cold, understand my words have been chilled by stories of a lesbian couple murdered last month in Houston, a 4-year-old boy in Oregon murdered by a mother who believed she could beat the gay out of him, more than 30 states where LGBT people can be fired for being out, and a nation where marriage equality is still not a reality for all of its citizens.

Well you can pretty much justify any action, no matter how extreme, based on that rhetoric.  If you find somebody else's private views immoral it is open season to do whatever?  How interesting given the justifications for establishing the anti-LGBT laws and persecution in the first place. 

Slow down, cowboy. When the news starts filling up with violent assaults against accused homophobes then that'll be true.

Quote from: Ed Anger on April 08, 2014, 08:22:33 AM

Quote from: The Brain on April 08, 2014, 12:46:23 AM

Quote from: Ed Anger on April 07, 2014, 09:40:46 PM
Last time I'll make an Aryan nazi joke.  :glare:

U sad bro?

Depressed.

Boring. :yawn:

I have to say I'm pleasantly surprised that there is such lively debate over the issue, both here and elsewhere.  I figured a large majority would either be happy with the end result or ignore it.

I dig what Andrew Sullivan had to say:

QuoteWill he now be forced to walk through the streets in shame? Why not the stocks? 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.

Yeah Andrew Sullivan is wrong. Nothing new.

For instance, we hound people who make racist speeches all the time but I don't think most people see that as a terrible limit on free speech.

I don't get the 'free speech' argument. Nobody is saying prop 8 donors should be prosecuted. At least nobody sane.

'Free speech' is not the same as 'speech without consequences'.

Quote from: Iormlund on April 08, 2014, 11:51:44 AM
I don't get the 'free speech' argument. Nobody is saying prop 8 donors should be prosecuted. At least nobody sane.

'Free speech' is not the same as 'speech without consequences'.

He said intimidated, not prosecuted.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 08, 2014, 11:53:00 AM

Quote from: Iormlund on April 08, 2014, 11:51:44 AM
I don't get the 'free speech' argument. Nobody is saying prop 8 donors should be prosecuted. At least nobody sane.

'Free speech' is not the same as 'speech without consequences'.

He said intimidated, not prosecuted.

So where is the intimidation?  You are all about the free market Yi. Customers said they didnt like something about the company.  Thats the free market in action.

Quote from: garbon on April 08, 2014, 11:34:54 AM
Yeah Andrew Sullivan is wrong. Nothing new.

For instance, we hound people who make racist speeches all the time but I don't think most people see that as a terrible limit on free speech.

I think people do see it as chilling when people change the target of reprobation from actions to people.  Eich wasn't hounded for what he did; he was hounded for being the kind of person who would do what he did.

I don't have a big problem with that; the BoD at Mozilla had to decide whether his positive in the position outweighed the negatives, and obviously decided that they did not.  CEO is that kind of position.

The sanctimonious attitude of his detractors is a big turn-off, but those who are sanctimonious about this tend to be people whose moral code is pretty much "if it is good for me, I find it moral" anyway.  Who gives a fuck what those people think?

I would also get fired if I insulted my clients. So I don't, no matter how much they deserve it (and many do). Am I being intimidated? Are my Free Speech rights being infringed?

Quote from: Iormlund on April 08, 2014, 11:51:44 AM
I don't get the 'free speech' argument. Nobody is saying prop 8 donors should be prosecuted. At least nobody sane.

'Free speech' is not the same as 'speech without consequences'.

Sullivan addresses that argument here:

QuoteAs I said last night, of course Mozilla has the right to purge a CEO because of his incorrect political views. Of course Eich was not stripped of his First Amendment rights. I'd fight till my last breath for Mozilla to retain that right. What I'm concerned with is the substantive reason for purging him. When people's lives and careers are subject to litmus tests, and fired if they do not publicly renounce what may well be their sincere conviction, we have crossed a line. This is McCarthyism applied by civil actors. This is the definition of intolerance. If a socially conservative private entity fired someone because they discovered he had donated against Prop 8, how would you feel? It's staggering to me that a minority long persecuted for holding unpopular views can now turn around and persecute others for the exact same reason. If we cannot live and work alongside people with whom we deeply disagree, we are finished as a liberal society.

http://dish.andrewsullivan.com/2014/04/04/dissents-of-the-day-63/

"wah wah wah"

Quote from: derspiess on April 08, 2014, 11:59:48 AM
Sullivan addresses that argument here:

Sullivan misses the point badly.  This isnt about working side by side with people who have different beliefs.  This person was the CEO and as such was the face and voice of the corporation.  Of course an organization will be very senstive to making sure that their face and voice is exactly as they would want it to be.

Quote from: Jacob on April 08, 2014, 04:18:05 AM
Yeah, it's a bit weird. I suppose they figure it matches their target demographics; or perhaps someone senior there feels strongly about the issue.

On this it turns out the CEO of OkCupid has donated to Congressmen who've voted for constitutional bans on gay marriage and against anti-discrimination legislation. So I think we can safely assume it was a marketing stunt.

I agree with Andrew Sullivan on this.

And if we're going to swap histrionic article's here's mine:
http://igfculturewatch.com/2014/04/07/silence-isnt-golden/

Quote from: Sheilbh on April 08, 2014, 12:15:22 PM
And if we're going to swap histrionic article's here's mine:
http://igfculturewatch.com/2014/04/07/silence-isnt-golden/

I'm not sure there was even any attempt at common theme or logic in that article.

Besides, we silence outmoded views all the time (re:sexism, racism).

Quote from: Iormlund on April 08, 2014, 11:56:49 AM
I would also get fired if I insulted my clients. So I don't, no matter how much they deserve it (and many do). Am I being intimidated? Are my Free Speech rights being infringed?

Really?  You'd get fired if a client of yours said they were insulted by your support for free speech?  And you don't think that any of your rights were being infringed by said firing?

Quote from: grumbler on April 08, 2014, 12:44:27 PM

Quote from: Iormlund on April 08, 2014, 11:56:49 AM
I would also get fired if I insulted my clients. So I don't, no matter how much they deserve it (and many do). Am I being intimidated? Are my Free Speech rights being infringed?

Really?  You'd get fired if a client of yours said they were insulted by your support for free speech?  And you don't think that any of your rights were being infringed by said firing?

Or more specifically - that you should be fired because you made a political donation to a cause that your clients found offensive?

It's trite to say that you shouldn't discuss religion or politics in polite conversation.  I think a necessary corollary is that if you do discover someone's religious or political views, you should not hold it against them unless there's a specific reason.

Thus, even if you can't stand creationists, or marxists, or gay marriage opponents, as part of a liberal democracy you should find that they are entitled to their wrong-headed beliefs.

Quote from: crazy canuck on April 08, 2014, 12:14:14 PM
Of course an organization will be very senstive to making sure that their face and voice is exactly as they would want it to be.

Well obviously not that sensitive since they promoted him after knowing what he had done for several years.

Quote from: garbon on April 08, 2014, 12:19:19 PMBesides, we silence outmoded views all the time (re:sexism, racism).

I have only ever seen that happen if somebody is an outspoken racist or sexist.  I have not seen information somebody thought was private being dug up to justify going after somebody years later.  Geez we would have seen the dismissal of loads of old people with old fashioned views in top positions over the decades if we had.  Well heck we probably could do that now if we go digging.

Quote from: Valmy on April 08, 2014, 01:06:26 PM

Quote from: garbon on April 08, 2014, 12:19:19 PMBesides, we silence outmoded views all the time (re:sexism, racism).

I have only ever seen that happen if somebody is an outspoken racist or sexist.  I have not seen information somebody thought was private being dug up to justify going after somebody years later.  Geez we would have seen the dismissal of loads of old people with old fashioned views in top positions over the decades if we had.  Well heck we probably could do that now if we go digging.

I wouldn't have any complaints if a company asked its CEO to resign when they uncovered that he had donated to racist organizations in the past. :mellow:

Btw, given that donors have to report info on themselves in California so it'd be odd if they expected the information to be private.

Quote from: garbon on April 08, 2014, 01:14:07 PM
I wouldn't have any complaints if a company asked its CEO to resign when they uncovered that he had donated to racist organizations in the past. :mellow:

Would you have any complaints if a company asked its CEO to resign because he had donated to pro-gay marriage organizations?

Quote from: garbon on April 08, 2014, 01:14:07 PM
I wouldn't have any complaints if a company asked its CEO to resign when they uncovered that he had donated to racist organizations in the past. :mellow:

So if it came out a CEO had donated money to help the campaign to pass Proposition 187 in 1994 you would agree they should be forced from office?

QuoteBtw, given that donors have to report info on themselves in California so it'd be odd if they expected the information to be private.

Well then why not get that list and go after everybody in high positions who donated?  Might as well try to get everybody to think correctly at once.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 08, 2014, 01:15:41 PM

Quote from: garbon on April 08, 2014, 01:14:07 PM
I wouldn't have any complaints if a company asked its CEO to resign when they uncovered that he had donated to racist organizations in the past. :mellow:

Would you have any complaints if a company asked its CEO to resign because he had donated to pro-gay marriage organizations?

I'd of course dislike that they were on the wrong side of the issue (aka tolerance) but I wouldn't take issue with them stifling free speech. I think there was recently some Christian charity that was going to recognize same sex partners of employees for benefits but then did an about face because of complaints from other Christian groups/supporters of the charity. I dislike that outcome but understand why that happens.

Quote from: Valmy on April 08, 2014, 01:21:27 PM
So if it came out a CEO had donated money to help the campaign to pass Proposition 187 in 1994 you would agree they should be forced from office?

Should be? I think we already discussed that I don't really hold any shoulds on forcing people out. I'm not even sure the case you noted is a clear racism one as I could see people supporting as a way of making sense of our bizarre immigration laws.

Quote from: Valmy on April 08, 2014, 01:21:27 PM
Well then why not get that list and go after everybody in high positions who donated?  Might as well try to get everybody to think correctly at once.

I definitely know that I spoke to this earlier in the thread when I noted that the demand that it must be all-or-nothing is ridiculous.

Quote from: Barrister on April 08, 2014, 12:54:17 PM
Thus, even if you can't stand creationists, or marxists, or gay marriage opponents, as part of a liberal democracy you should find that they are entitled to their wrong-headed beliefs.

There are circumstances in which a Creationist would never be tolerated (The Science Chair at a university for example) or a Marxist (The Executive Director of a free market think tank for example) or a gay marriage opponent (The CEO of a corporation who's customer base is largely on the other side of that issue for example).

I think the thread wah pedals can relax. No one cares that IKEA founder Ingvar Kamprad was a Nazi in his youth. So you're safe on the losing side of the culture wars. :)

Quote from: The Brain on April 08, 2014, 02:18:11 PM
I think the thread wah pedals can relax. No one cares that IKEA founder Ingvar Kamprad was a Nazi in his youth. So you're safe on the losing side of the culture wars. :)

We assume the worst of Swedes  :) 

Quote from: crazy canuck on April 08, 2014, 01:49:26 PM
There are circumstances in which a Creationist would never be tolerated (The Science Chair at a university for example) or a Marxist (The Executive Director of a free market think tank for example) or a gay marriage opponent (The CEO of a corporation who's customer base is largely on the other side of that issue for example).

Disagree completely.  Blanket intolerance of people because they happen to have views at variance with the mainstream is just another form of bigotry.  Th selection committee for any of these positions would have to consider the impact that the applicant's views might have on their success in the position for which being considered, but blanket intolerance robs the search committee of what may well be its best candidate, warts and all.  A science chair who is an excellent ;leader and administrator may do far more good with his leadership and administration than harm through his personal beliefs (ad the knowledge that he holds those beliefs) may cause.  A Marxist as the Executive Director of a free market think tank may cause all of the subordinates there top work even harder to overcome his or her devil's advocacy.  Etc.

Quote from: grumbler on April 08, 2014, 05:55:40 PM

Quote from: crazy canuck on April 08, 2014, 01:49:26 PM
There are circumstances in which a Creationist would never be tolerated (The Science Chair at a university for example) or a Marxist (The Executive Director of a free market think tank for example) or a gay marriage opponent (The CEO of a corporation who's customer base is largely on the other side of that issue for example).

Disagree completely.  Blanket intolerance of people because they happen to have views at variance with the mainstream is just another form of bigotry.  Th selection committee for any of these positions would have to consider the impact that the applicant's views might have on their success in the position for which being considered, but blanket intolerance robs the search committee of what may well be its best candidate, warts and all.  A science chair who is an excellent ;leader and administrator may do far more good with his leadership and administration than harm through his personal beliefs (ad the knowledge that he holds those beliefs) may cause.  A Marxist as the Executive Director of a free market think tank may cause all of the subordinates there top work even harder to overcome his or her devil's advocacy.  Etc.

A chair who believes in Creation, particularly a Creationist that believes that people lived along side dinosaurs and that the world is only 6000 years old, now that would be a sight to see!

Quote from: garbon on April 08, 2014, 01:23:38 PM
I'd of course dislike that they were on the wrong side of the issue (aka tolerance) but I wouldn't take issue with them stifling free speech. I think there was recently some Christian charity that was going to recognize same sex partners of employees for benefits but then did an about face because of complaints from other Christian groups/supporters of the charity. I dislike that outcome but understand why that happens.

I've been arguing in another bit of the internet on precisely this little Evangelical feud. Basically I agree with other (mostly Catholic) Christians who point out that this is pharaseeism. How many employees commit adultery? How many Southern Baptists live in McMansions? Those things are contrary to the Gospel just as much as same sex marriage, but we should ignore them?

And let's imagine a world where every business is family-owned and Christian (a world like 1950s Bavaria, say) but there are gay people and they want to get married. Should those people just not work? Or in our world where gay marriage is legal, should opponents be subject to a glass ceiling until they recant? The Obama and Clinton comparison seems apt here because I suspect they both supported gay marriage in 2008, they just didn't feel they could say that but insincere evolution is better than sincere opposition.

It's wrong in both cases. Obviously there's an exception if the beliefs form a part of the job. I don't think anyone would expect Stonewall to hire an opponent of same sex marriage (or, prior to 2010, a supporter).

QuoteWould you have any complaints if a company asked its CEO to resign because he had donated to pro-gay marriage organizations?

Assuming it's not part of the job, yes. I'd be angry.

QuoteThere are circumstances in which a Creationist would never be tolerated (The Science Chair at a university for example) or a Marxist (The Executive Director of a free market think tank for example) or a gay marriage opponent (The CEO of a corporation who's customer base is largely on the other side of that issue for example).

Fine. But I don't know how this works in a globalised world. We punish the organic Mormon farmer in Oregon for her views on same sex marriage, but buy flowers grown by a Kenyan farmer with almost certainly more retrogressive views. Mozilla's an American company but it has lots of programmers in Indonesia and customers all over the world. Should a CEO's views really match the customer base? Because I think that would actually be a huge step back for many companies on gay rights.

Quote from: Sheilbh on April 08, 2014, 06:04:48 PM
Fine. But I don't know how this works in a globalised world. We punish the organic Mormon farmer in Oregon for her views on same sex marriage, but buy flowers grown by a Kenyan farmer with almost certainly more retrogressive views. Mozilla's an American company but it has lots of programmers in Indonesia and customers all over the world. Should a CEO's views really match the customer base? Because I think that would actually be a huge step back for many companies on gay rights.

It doesnt work universally.  It would of course be impossible to match a customer base.  What is possible is to have a CEO who is not offensive to a large portion of the customer base.  As Otto said many pages back, that is the reality in which CEOs of high profile companies or organizations operate. 

And as I said to you many pages back, boycots against products for reasons entirely unrelated to the product but related to some dislike for the company making the product have been a staple tool of the left for social change.  I am not sure why this is any different than the countless boycots over the last few decades - except perhaps that this one worked so effectively and quickly.

Quote from: crazy canuck on April 08, 2014, 06:14:30 PM
And as I said to you many pages back, boycots against products for reasons entirely unrelated to the product but related to some dislike for the company making the product have been a staple tool of the left for social change.  I am not sure why this is any different than the countless boycots over the last few decades - except perhaps that this one worked so effectively and quickly.

I don't mind a boycott for a good reason. I don't think someone's opinion is a good reason. This is about scaring people, or punishing them not trying to change anything. As I've said it's the sort of thing that reminds me of the religious right more than anyone else.

Edit: And of course in this case a lot of this was prompted by a company whose CEO also donated to anti-gay marriage (and worse) politicians. It was a marketing stunt wrapped in conviction.

Quote from: Sheilbh on April 08, 2014, 06:27:20 PM
This is about scaring people, or punishing them not trying to change anything.

:huh:

If someone is scared into not repeating the same actions, that is a change.

Quote from: Sheilbh on April 08, 2014, 06:27:20 PM

Quote from: crazy canuck on April 08, 2014, 06:14:30 PM
And as I said to you many pages back, boycots against products for reasons entirely unrelated to the product but related to some dislike for the company making the product have been a staple tool of the left for social change.  I am not sure why this is any different than the countless boycots over the last few decades - except perhaps that this one worked so effectively and quickly.

I don't mind a boycott for a good reason. I don't think someone's opinion is a good reason. This is about scaring people, or punishing them not trying to change anything. As I've said it's the sort of thing that reminds me of the religious right more than anyone else.

Edit: And of course in this case a lot of this was prompted by a company whose CEO also donated to anti-gay marriage (and worse) politicians. It was a marketing stunt wrapped in conviction.

So now you are going to determine what is a "good reason" and what is not  :P  People should be able to boycott whatever they wish.  The effectiveness of the boycott depends on how many people agree with them.  Its Yi's market knows best wet dream.

Quote from: crazy canuck on April 08, 2014, 07:20:49 PM
So now you are going to determine what is a "good reason" and what is not  :P  People should be able to boycott whatever they wish.  The effectiveness of the boycott depends on how many people agree with them. 

:lol: I've never said we should boycott boycotts.

As a lefty I am very unhappy with a trend in them that seems to me about punishing people for their opinions, not companies for their actions. I'm perhaps more prickly than normal about it because I think the British left are importing the culture war from the US.

I'd actually query the last bit though. This all happened within days. Bad PR is the real negative of a boycott especially one being publicised by another tech firm run by another (potential) homophobe looking to raise their profile.

QuoteIts Yi's market knows best wet dream.

You clearly know the way to convince me :lol:

OKC only joined in recently to what otherwise looks to have been an insular tech world concern. :contract:

Quote from: crazy canuck on April 08, 2014, 06:14:30 PM
And as I said to you many pages back, boycots against products for reasons entirely unrelated to the product but related to some dislike for the company making the product have been a staple tool of the left for social change.  I am not sure why this is any different than the countless boycots over the last few decades - except perhaps that this one worked so effectively and quickly.

Not just of the left - the somewhat grandiosely named group "One Million Moms" are calling for boycotts all over the place for causes on the other end of the spectrum for example.

Southern Baptists boycotted Disney for years.

Quote from: Razgovory on April 08, 2014, 09:00:37 PM
Southern Baptists boycotted Disney for years.

I don't blame them.

Quote from: Sheilbh on April 08, 2014, 07:27:48 PM
You clearly know the way to convince me :lol:

:D

Quote from: Jacob on April 08, 2014, 07:44:51 PM

Quote from: crazy canuck on April 08, 2014, 06:14:30 PM
And as I said to you many pages back, boycots against products for reasons entirely unrelated to the product but related to some dislike for the company making the product have been a staple tool of the left for social change.  I am not sure why this is any different than the countless boycots over the last few decades - except perhaps that this one worked so effectively and quickly.

Not just of the left - the somewhat grandiosely named group "One Million Moms" are calling for boycotts all over the place for causes on the other end of the spectrum for example.

Yeah, the right picked it up too.  But they stole it from the left. The surprising thing about this threatened boycott is that it worked so quickly and was handled so badly by the CEO in question.  That in itself was good enough reason to see him to the door.

Um of course both sides do it.  We mentioned that Tea Party example in Wisconsin.  Disgusting. 

Quote from: Valmy on April 07, 2014, 09:28:02 PM

Quote from: Razgovory on April 07, 2014, 07:45:17 PM

Quote from: Ed Anger on April 07, 2014, 01:16:35 PM
I'm of pure Aryan stock.

I didn't know you were Pakistani.

I never known what is going to set people off from that part of the world.  I have had Indians lose their shit when people mention the Aryans as the Aryan invasion theory was apparently constructed by evil Brits to justify their Empire while others are all like 'yeah we are Aryans we kick ass!'  No different than any other old world nationalist stuff but it is interesting how rather obscure historical topics in our part of the world are so emotionally charged in other places.  Kind of brings them to life for me and reminds me we are talking about stuff that matters.

Thankfully modern gene sequencing has proven the Arayn invasion theory correct, so now everyone will calm down and engage in rational and logical discussion on the topic. :)

Quote from: crazy canuck on April 08, 2014, 06:04:28 PM
A chair who believes in Creation, particularly a Creationist that believes that people lived along side dinosaurs and that the world is only 6000 years old, now that would be a sight to see!

NPR had an interview with a professor of Christian Studies from Georgetown University who no longer believed in god.  He didn't have a problem continuing to teach things even though he no longer believed them himself.  Of course, he was tolerant of opposing views, and didn't arguing that there was anything which "would never be tolerated."

From a technology forum i frequent:

Quote9 Apr 2014
Anonymous Coward

Re: Fortunately, there is still Firefox

No there isn't. Nobody should use a browser that is made by people who don't support freedom of expression.
upvotes 2
downvotes 24

:bleeding:

Quote from: mongers on April 09, 2014, 08:12:03 AM
From a technology forum i frequent:

Quote9 Apr 2014
Anonymous Coward

Re: Fortunately, there is still Firefox

No there isn't. Nobody should use a browser that is made by people who don't support freedom of expression.
upvotes 2
downvotes 24

:bleeding:

Yeah, looks pretty dumb going either way.

I'm gonna eat Chick-fil-A. The homophobia is delicious!

My best friend's wife has a brother that would not talk to her for over a year because she posted a pic of us & all our kids at Chick-fil-A.  Funny thing is it took a while for it to dawn on her why he was so pissed.

Quote from: derspiess on April 09, 2014, 09:31:17 AM
My best friend's wife has a brother that would not talk to her for over a year because she posted a pic of us & all our kids at Chick-fil-A.  Funny thing is it took a while for it to dawn on her why he was so pissed.

He's married to a fag?

Quote from: grumbler on April 09, 2014, 07:02:22 AM

Quote from: crazy canuck on April 08, 2014, 06:04:28 PM
A chair who believes in Creation, particularly a Creationist that believes that people lived along side dinosaurs and that the world is only 6000 years old, now that would be a sight to see!

NPR had an interview with a professor of Christian Studies from Georgetown University who no longer believed in god.  He didn't have a problem continuing to teach things even though he no longer believed them himself.  Of course, he was tolerant of opposing views, and didn't arguing that there was anything which "would never be tolerated."

One does not have to be a Christian to be a good scholar of Christianity.  Indeed, the case of Ehrman being a good scholar of Christianity led him to change his beliefs.  On the other hand it is hard to imagine a person who believes that the world is 6000 years old also has a good grasp of the science which proves otherwise.

Quote from: crazy canuck on April 09, 2014, 07:58:45 PM
One does not have to be a Christian to be a good scholar of Christianity.  Indeed, the case of Ehrman being a good scholar of Christianity led him to change his beliefs.  On the other hand it is hard to imagine a person who believes that the world is 6000 years old also has a good grasp of the science which proves otherwise.

That's called "moving the goal posts."  You said "creationist."  Not all creationists believe that the world was created 6,000 years ago.

Even so, I could see even a person who thinks that the world (and universe) was only 6,000 years old could serve as a science chair, so long as he understands (as you do not) that science says nothing about "proving" the age of the universe, and he has enough countervailing attributes  Science simply reports what the evidence leads us to believe, with the assumption that everything works as scientists believe that it does.  Science disproves things (with caveats) but doesn't prove anything.

Quote from: Ed Anger on April 09, 2014, 09:02:11 AM
I'm gonna eat Chick-fil-A. The homophobia is delicious!

I don't eat there.  I discriminate against inferior chicken sandwiches.

It is kind of funny how this one company has become the symbol of gay oppression everywhere.

Quote from: Valmy on April 09, 2014, 10:07:11 PM

Quote from: Ed Anger on April 09, 2014, 09:02:11 AM
I'm gonna eat Chick-fil-A. The homophobia is delicious!

I don't eat there.  I discriminate against inferior chicken sandwiches.

It is kind of funny how this one company has become the symbol of gay oppression everywhere.

"A" symbol.

Quote from: Valmy on April 09, 2014, 10:07:11 PM
It is kind of funny how this one company has become the symbol of gay oppression everywhere.

:huh:

It hasn't.

Quote from: Jacob on April 09, 2014, 10:18:23 PM

Quote from: Valmy on April 09, 2014, 10:07:11 PM
It is kind of funny how this one company has become the symbol of gay oppression everywhere.

:huh:

It hasn't.

I would say it is an easy shorthand for mentioning homophobia and business at this point.

Random note: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sO-msplukrw

Quote from: garbon on April 09, 2014, 10:23:00 PM

Quote from: Jacob on April 09, 2014, 10:18:23 PM

Quote from: Valmy on April 09, 2014, 10:07:11 PM
It is kind of funny how this one company has become the symbol of gay oppression everywhere.

:huh:

It hasn't.

I would say it is an easy shorthand for mentioning homophobia and business at this point.

Random note: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sO-msplukrw

In the US perhaps.

Quote from: Jacob on April 09, 2014, 10:29:22 PM
In the US perhaps.

I meant everywhere in US society.  My apologies.  I was not under the delusion Chick-Fil-A was symbolic of gay oppression in Cameroon.

Quote from: Valmy on April 09, 2014, 10:30:40 PM

Quote from: Jacob on April 09, 2014, 10:29:22 PM
In the US perhaps.

I meant everywhere in US society.  My apologies.  I was not under the delusion Chick-Fil-A was symbolic of gay oppression in Cameroon.

:hug:

Quote from: grumbler on April 09, 2014, 09:01:43 PM

Quote from: crazy canuck on April 09, 2014, 07:58:45 PM
One does not have to be a Christian to be a good scholar of Christianity.  Indeed, the case of Ehrman being a good scholar of Christianity led him to change his beliefs.  On the other hand it is hard to imagine a person who believes that the world is 6000 years old also has a good grasp of the science which proves otherwise.

That's called "moving the goal posts."  You said "creationist."  Not all creationists believe that the world was created 6,000 years ago.

Even so, I could see even a person who thinks that the world (and universe) was only 6,000 years old could serve as a science chair, so long as he understands (as you do not) that science says nothing about "proving" the age of the universe, and he has enough countervailing attributes  Science simply reports what the evidence leads us to believe, with the assumption that everything works as scientists believe that it does.  Science disproves things (with caveats) but doesn't prove anything.

CC, you really need to bail on this.

Quote from: Valmy on April 09, 2014, 10:30:40 PM

Quote from: Jacob on April 09, 2014, 10:29:22 PM
In the US perhaps.

I meant everywhere in US society.  My apologies.  I was not under the delusion Chick-Fil-A was symbolic of gay oppression in Cameroon.

Apology accepted  :hug:

Canucks are getting their asses kicked tonight.

Quote from: grumbler on April 09, 2014, 09:01:43 PM
I could see even a person who thinks that the world (and universe) was only 6,000 years old could serve as a science chair

Thats one of the reasons you will probably will never get the chance to hire a science chair.

Quote from: crazy canuck on April 10, 2014, 06:30:40 AM

Quote from: grumbler on April 09, 2014, 09:01:43 PM
I could see even a person who thinks that the world (and universe) was only 6,000 years old could serve as a science chair

Thats one of the reasons you will probably will never again get the chance to hire a science chair.

FYP, though that's not one of the reasons.  However, I am far likelier to hire my second science chair again than you are to hire your first one. :smarty:

Quote from: grumbler on April 10, 2014, 08:13:31 AM

Quote from: crazy canuck on April 10, 2014, 06:30:40 AM

Quote from: grumbler on April 09, 2014, 09:01:43 PM
I could see even a person who thinks that the world (and universe) was only 6,000 years old could serve as a science chair

Thats one of the reasons you will probably will never again get the chance to hire a science chair.

FYP, though that's not one of the reasons.  However, I am far likelier to hire my second science chair again than you are to hire your first one. :smarty:

Dayum!  :face:

:lol:

I once helped hire the chair for Religious Studies.  I can argue too!

I buy chairs, not hire them.

Quote from: Ed Anger on April 10, 2014, 08:35:48 AM
I buy chairs, not hire them.

My wife bought 4 last week without consulting me :glare:

No allowance money for her.

Quote from: derspiess on April 10, 2014, 08:38:14 AM

Quote from: Ed Anger on April 10, 2014, 08:35:48 AM
I buy chairs, not hire them.

My wife bought 4 last week without consulting me :glare:

Spank her.

Quote from: derspiess on April 10, 2014, 08:38:14 AM

Quote from: Ed Anger on April 10, 2014, 08:35:48 AM
I buy chairs, not hire them.

My wife bought 4 last week without consulting me :glare:

:pinch: You failed as a husband, you failed as a man. :console:

Quote from: DGuller on April 10, 2014, 08:41:00 AM
you failed as a man. :console:

And DG is an expert on that.

Quote from: garbon on April 10, 2014, 08:46:53 AM

Quote from: DGuller on April 10, 2014, 08:41:00 AM
you failed as a man. :console:

And DG is an expert on that.

Maybe he just didn't think you were very attractive.  :hmm:

Quote from: garbon on April 10, 2014, 08:46:53 AM

Quote from: DGuller on April 10, 2014, 08:41:00 AM
you failed as a man. :console:

And DG is an expert on that.

BOOM

Quote from: garbon on April 10, 2014, 08:46:53 AM

Quote from: DGuller on April 10, 2014, 08:41:00 AM
you failed as a man. :console:

And DG is an expert on that.

:rolleyes: I had a headache.  :mad:

Have some of my Vicodin. I'll put it in some blueberries.

Chick-fil-A is decent enough, no reason to boycott it. I find it hilarious after the fag crusaders lined up against it CFA actually became the largest chicken chain in the U.S. by revenue. The flash point year (2011) actually had one of their highest increases in year over year revenue.

Fags being defeated = great.

Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on April 10, 2014, 09:07:24 AM
Chick-fil-A is decent enough, no reason to boycott it. I find it hilarious after the fag crusaders lined up against it CFA actually became the largest chicken chain in the U.S. by revenue. The flash point year (2011) actually had one of their highest increases in year over year revenue.

Fags being defeated = great.

Well yeah suddenly the conservatives wanted to reward them by eating lots of their crap sandwiches.  That is how the culture war works.  Right now millions of culture warriors are dumping Firefox for firing its CEO.

I had to dump Firefox because its hardware acceleration causes system crashes with the line of nvidia GPU I have. It's a somewhat rare but known problem (the people that it affects have been noisy on both the nvidia and Firefox forums.) Firefox claims it's an nvidia driver problem and they can't do anything to fix it, but suggest "turning off hardware acceleration." Nvidia says they have no evidence of any reproducible error. But all the other modern browsers can run with hardware acceleration just fine with my nvidia card, so I see no reason to run a limited Firefox over the alternatives.

To me there is a big difference between going out and buying chicken that you would buy anyway to show support for a company and hounding a single guy until he loses his job. I'd wager that CFA's booming sales have nothing to do with conservative culture warriors, but the 95% of the population that don't give a shit what Dan Cathy does or what charities a company donates to; there was a persistent rumor for like 25 years that KFC donated 10% of its profits to the Ku Klux Klan and during that time it was a successful/profitable chain that grew internationally and had/has thousands and thousands of stores.

Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on April 10, 2014, 09:22:51 AM
To me there is a big difference between going out and buying chicken that you would buy anyway to show support for a company and hounding a single guy until he loses his job.

Yes indeed.  But the Conservative Culture Warriors are perfectly capable of doing that also.

QuoteI'd wager that CFA's booming sales have nothing to do with conservative culture warriors, but the 95% of the population that don't give a shit what Dan Cathy does or what charities a company donates to

I am unconvinced for two reasons.

1. Why would 5% of the population, who used to eat at your restaurants, now boycotting magically increase your sales from the 95% who do not change their behavior at all?

2. In 2011 I distinctly remember movements to eat at Chick-Fil-A as much as possible for solidarity and for a bit there there lines out the door everywhere.  Coincidence 2011 was a banner year?

Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on April 10, 2014, 09:22:51 AM
To me there is a big difference between going out and buying chicken that you would buy anyway to show support for a company and hounding a single guy until he loses his job. I'd wager that CFA's booming sales have nothing to do with conservative culture warriors, but the 95% of the population that don't give a shit what Dan Cathy does or what charities a company donates to; there was a persistent rumor for like 25 years that KFC donated 10% of its profits to the Ku Klux Klan and during that time it was a successful/profitable chain that grew internationally and had/has thousands and thousands of stores.

There used to be a rumour that the circled K logo on Snapple drinks indicated that they donated parts of their profits to the KKK.

In reality, it was a mark of kosher certification.

If only. I loved Snapple back in the day.

Quote from: Valmy on April 10, 2014, 09:28:26 AMI am unconvinced for two reasons.

1. Why would 5% of the population, who used to eat at your restaurants, now boycotting magically increase your sales from the 95% who do not change their behavior at all?

2. In 2011 I distinctly remember movements to eat at Chick-Fil-A as much as possible for solidarity and for a bit there there lines out the door everywhere.  Coincidence 2011 was a banner year?

I doubt that 5% of the population anywhere in the country was engaged in an active CFA boycott. The areas where that sort of thing would be most likely aren't even in areas of the country where C FA operates. I wasn't trying to convey some specific %, but just using it as an example. My point is that the vast majority of Americans did not care about the CFA situation, and those that seemed to care the most on the anti-CFA side were probably not people who lived near a CFA, or if they did they were probably not the target demographic for cheap fast food chicken.

CFA is average fast food, but it has extreme appeal and always have. The ones near me always have lines out onto the street in the drive thru, pre-homogate and post-homogate. Yeah, there were a few days where people came out in droves to support CFA, but with 1700 locations and with stores being open like 300 days a year I doubt the impact was what you would think on either side of it.

Quote from: Valmy on April 10, 2014, 09:28:26 AM
I am unconvinced for two reasons.

1. Why would 5% of the population, who used to eat at your restaurants, now boycotting magically increase your sales from the 95% who do not change their behavior at all?

2. In 2011 I distinctly remember movements to eat at Chick-Fil-A as much as possible for solidarity and for a bit there there lines out the door everywhere.  Coincidence 2011 was a banner year?

But not all of that is driven by opposition to gay marriage, some of those are customers who just think boycotts are lame.

CFA must have done something to improve their grilled chicken, because when I was there with the kids a couple weeks ago it was awfully damned tasty.  Before it was slightly above average for fast food grilled chicken.  I like their fried chicken breast sandwich but think maybe it's slightly over-hyped.

But what sets CFA apart from the rest is how great & friendly their service is.  One time my wife took the kids out for lunch before she was going to run errands, and had forgotten to move her wallet to whatever purse she was using that day.  Didn't realize it until after she had ordered.  She was embarrassed & told the cashier she'd have to run home to get it  But he said 'don't sweat it' & comped the whole meal.

Plus, CFA tends to hire cute college chicks.

Quote from: Peter Wiggin on April 10, 2014, 08:48:06 AM

Quote from: garbon on April 10, 2014, 08:46:53 AM

Quote from: DGuller on April 10, 2014, 08:41:00 AM
you failed as a man. :console:

And DG is an expert on that.

Maybe he just didn't think you were very attractive.  :hmm:

:lol:

Quote from: derspiess on April 10, 2014, 09:49:37 AM
One time my wife took the kids out for lunch before she was going to run errands, and had forgotten to move her wallet to whatever purse she was using that day.  Didn't realize it until after she had ordered.  She was embarrassed & told the cashier she'd have to run home to get it  But he said 'don't sweat it' & comped the whole meal. 

You married Dorsey?

Quote from: grumbler on April 10, 2014, 09:58:36 AM

Quote from: derspiess on April 10, 2014, 09:49:37 AM
One time my wife took the kids out for lunch before she was going to run errands, and had forgotten to move her wallet to whatever purse she was using that day.  Didn't realize it until after she had ordered.  She was embarrassed & told the cashier she'd have to run home to get it  But he said 'don't sweat it' & comped the whole meal. 

You married Dorsey?

:lol:

She is hispanic...

Quote from: Peter Wiggin on April 10, 2014, 09:40:36 AM
But not all of that is driven by opposition to gay marriage, some of those are customers who just think boycotts are lame.

I think that but I still didn't start eating at Chick-Fil-A

Quote from: Valmy on April 10, 2014, 10:29:20 AM

Quote from: Peter Wiggin on April 10, 2014, 09:40:36 AM
But not all of that is driven by opposition to gay marriage, some of those are customers who just think boycotts are lame.

I think that but I still didn't start eating at Chick-Fil-A

Yeah, but you said you don't care for their food overmuch. If you were already a customer, you might eat there more often, if only because the news stories act as advertising.

Quote from: grumbler on April 10, 2014, 08:13:31 AM

Quote from: crazy canuck on April 10, 2014, 06:30:40 AM

Quote from: grumbler on April 09, 2014, 09:01:43 PM
I could see even a person who thinks that the world (and universe) was only 6,000 years old could serve as a science chair

Thats one of the reasons you will probably will never again get the chance to hire a science chair.

FYP, though that's not one of the reasons.  However, I am far likelier to hire my second science chair again than you are to hire your first one. :smarty:

I said at a university.  You are right.  I will likely never have any input at the high school level.  I bet being a creationist would be seen as a positive aspect in many high schools in the US.  No need to worry about the teaching of the evolution stuff.

Taking a Creationist class would be awesome.  "God did it" would be the answer to every test question.

Quote from: Valmy on April 10, 2014, 12:30:50 PM
Taking a Creationist class would be awesome.  "God did it" would be the answer to every test question.

There is a documentary on HBO at the moment called something like "Questioning Darwin".  It interviews a bunch of creation literalists as to why they believe the world is only 6000 years old - including an interview with the guy that runs the creation museum.  The answer invariably went something like - If evolution is correct then the teachings of the Bible must be wrong.  The Bible is the word of God and so everying in the Bible is literally true.  Therefore evolution must be wrong.

One guy put it in more stark terms - "if the Bible said that 2+2=5 I would believe that was true"

Having one of these guys running a Science Department at a university would be odd to say the least.

Remember, you're talking about young earth creationists.

Quote from: garbon on April 10, 2014, 12:51:54 PM
Remember, you're talking about young earth creationists.

I am talking about the literalists.  I have no problem with the hypothetical Grumbler raises about a person that believes that somehow God had a role in getting it all going and that the science is not incompatable with that belief.  But to get back on point with this thread that avoids the point I was making about some beliefs being incompatable with some positions.

One would never employ a person who believes its ok to beat women on religious grounds to run a women's shelter etc etc etc.

Quote from: Valmy on April 10, 2014, 12:30:50 PM
Taking a Creationist class would be awesome.  "God did it" would be the answer to every test question.

Not so.  There would be trick questions in which the devil did it (like "who planted the fossils to make the earth look older than it is?").

Quote from: garbon on April 10, 2014, 12:51:54 PM
Remember, you're talking about young earth creationists.

And he is talking about people who have no other qualifications for the job.  CC isn't a creationist, and yet having him as a science chair at a university would also "be odd to say the least."

Quote from: grumbler on April 10, 2014, 01:08:31 PM

Quote from: garbon on April 10, 2014, 12:51:54 PM
Remember, you're talking about young earth creationists.

And he is talking about people who have no other qualifications for the job.  CC isn't a creationist, and yet having him as a science chair at a university would also "be odd to say the least."

I agree.  But there are people who call themselves scientists who believe the world was created in 6000 years.  Would you hire such a person to run a science department Grumbler?

Quote from: grumbler on April 10, 2014, 01:05:30 PM

Quote from: Valmy on April 10, 2014, 12:30:50 PM
Taking a Creationist class would be awesome.  "God did it" would be the answer to every test question.

Not so.  There would be trick questions in which the devil did it (like "who planted the fossils to make the earth look older than it is?").

"God did it, as a test for our faith".

That one always works, too.

Quote from: crazy canuck on April 10, 2014, 01:22:55 PM

Quote from: grumbler on April 10, 2014, 01:08:31 PM

Quote from: garbon on April 10, 2014, 12:51:54 PM
Remember, you're talking about young earth creationists.

And he is talking about people who have no other qualifications for the job.  CC isn't a creationist, and yet having him as a science chair at a university would also "be odd to say the least."

I agree.  But there are people who call themselves scientists who believe the world was created in 6000 years.  Would you hire such a person to run a science department Grumbler?

Assuming the person actually is a scientist and has the proper credentials, and isn't pushing some specific anti-evolution agenda, why not?

Running a science department is very much an administrative job, involved in managing the scientists under you.

I would hate to disqualify someone with the proper credentials and experience just because they attend a holy-roller church on sundays.

Quote from: Barrister on April 10, 2014, 02:08:07 PM

Quote from: crazy canuck on April 10, 2014, 01:22:55 PM

Quote from: grumbler on April 10, 2014, 01:08:31 PM

Quote from: garbon on April 10, 2014, 12:51:54 PM
Remember, you're talking about young earth creationists.

And he is talking about people who have no other qualifications for the job.  CC isn't a creationist, and yet having him as a science chair at a university would also "be odd to say the least."

I agree.  But there are people who call themselves scientists who believe the world was created in 6000 years.  Would you hire such a person to run a science department Grumbler?

Assuming the person actually is a scientist and has the proper credentials, and isn't pushing some specific anti-evolution agenda, why not?

Running a science department is very much an administrative job, involved in managing the scientists under you.

I would hate to disqualify someone with the proper credentials and experience just because they attend a holy-roller church on sundays.

I wouldnt disquality them just because they attend a "holy roller church" either.  I would disqulity them on the basis that their belief that the world is only 6000 years old requires them to reject all the science that says otherwise.


Btw running a science department at a university is a lot more than "managing scientists under you". 

Quote from: crazy canuck on April 10, 2014, 01:22:55 PM
I agree.  But there are people who call themselves scientists who believe the world was created in 6000 years.  Would you hire such a person to run a science department Grumbler?

As i have said repeatedly, that would depend on the person's other qualifications.  Certainly a belief that some scientific evidence is real and some is "planted" is a pretty high barrier to overcome.  I don't believe that such "a Creationist would never be tolerated" in such a position, though. 

Hell, far from "never be tolerated" at Jim Jones University (or whatever it is called these days), such a creationist may actually hold the science chair!  :lol:

Jim Jones University folded due to its inability to keep faculty.

Quote from: Peter Wiggin on April 10, 2014, 04:57:26 PM
Jim Jones University folded due to its inability to keep faculty.

They'd drink the kool-aid and then go to Bob Jones University.  :D

My cousin's kid is going to Liberty University this fall :lol:

Quote from: grumbler on April 09, 2014, 09:01:43 PM

Quote from: crazy canuck on April 09, 2014, 07:58:45 PM
One does not have to be a Christian to be a good scholar of Christianity.  Indeed, the case of Ehrman being a good scholar of Christianity led him to change his beliefs.  On the other hand it is hard to imagine a person who believes that the world is 6000 years old also has a good grasp of the science which proves otherwise.

That's called "moving the goal posts."  You said "creationist."  Not all creationists believe that the world was created 6,000 years ago.

Even so, I could see even a person who thinks that the world (and universe) was only 6,000 years old could serve as a science chair, so long as he understands (as you do not) that science says nothing about "proving" the age of the universe, and he has enough countervailing attributes  Science simply reports what the evidence leads us to believe, with the assumption that everything works as scientists believe that it does.  Science disproves things (with caveats) but doesn't prove anything.

It's a good thing for those creationist science chairs that "prove otherwise" doesn't mean "disprove."

Anyway, CFA sucks.  It's bland garbage food.








Three... two... one... FAHDIZ?!?

HEY NOW

Quote from: Ed Anger on April 10, 2014, 08:15:51 PM
HEY NOW

Ever eat a Chik-Fil-A sandwich "hold the chicken"?  You'd agree, I assure you.

Quote from: Ideologue on April 10, 2014, 07:56:44 PM
It's a good thing for those creationist science chairs that "prove otherwise" doesn't mean "disprove."

Indeed.  "Prove otherwise" is not a scientifically useful term.  "Disprove" on the other hand, is extremely useful in science.

Quote from: Capetan Mihali on April 10, 2014, 08:23:48 PM

Quote from: Ed Anger on April 10, 2014, 08:15:51 PM
HEY NOW

Ever eat a Chik-Fil-A sandwich "hold the chicken"?  You'd agree, I assure you.

Why would you want to hold a chicken?  They are filthy critters.

Quote from: grumbler on April 11, 2014, 06:43:45 AM

Quote from: Capetan Mihali on April 10, 2014, 08:23:48 PM

Quote from: Ed Anger on April 10, 2014, 08:15:51 PM
HEY NOW

Ever eat a Chik-Fil-A sandwich "hold the chicken"?  You'd agree, I assure you.

Why would you want to hold a chicken?  They are filthy critters.

Maybe it's a euphemism.

Quote from: dps on April 11, 2014, 08:23:56 AM

Quote from: grumbler on April 11, 2014, 06:43:45 AM

Quote from: Capetan Mihali on April 10, 2014, 08:23:48 PM

Quote from: Ed Anger on April 10, 2014, 08:15:51 PM
HEY NOW

Ever eat a Chik-Fil-A sandwich "hold the chicken"?  You'd agree, I assure you.

Why would you want to hold a chicken?  They are filthy critters.

Maybe it's a euphemism.

We aren't talking tubas here.

Quote from: dps on April 11, 2014, 08:23:56 AM

Quote from: grumbler on April 11, 2014, 06:43:45 AM

Quote from: Capetan Mihali on April 10, 2014, 08:23:48 PM

Quote from: Ed Anger on April 10, 2014, 08:15:51 PM
HEY NOW

Ever eat a Chik-Fil-A sandwich "hold the chicken"?  You'd agree, I assure you.

Why would you want to hold a chicken?  They are filthy critters.

Maybe it's a euphemism.

Why would he want to hold a euphemism?  They are filthy sayings.