ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Social Issues & Current Events
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags Brendan Eich , gay marriage , mozilla

Reply
Old 6th April 2014, 02:09 PM   #201
332nd
Penultimate Amazing
 
332nd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,136
Originally Posted by Giordano View Post
Yes, he could now make it clear that he values gay people equal to every one else and now supports gay civil marriage. That would help a lot for me. Many people were wrong before and now "see the light." I was and did.

Saying he sticks to his position may be a sigh of honesty, but ihis position makes him inappropriate to be CEO of a major company (as he himself seems to agree) for many different reasons. By the way- honesty in this case buys him no respect from me: you can be an honest racist, but you are still a racist. No points from me.

Again, Eich wants to deny a whole group of people their legal rights, and he worked to do so by funding an organization devoted to changing established law. This is not a thought policing action. He can think and say whatever he wants. He can even think and work to achieve many things that are political and with which I disagree, and still be a CEO of Mozilla. God knows, if I only bought stuff from companies with CEOs with the right way of thinking, I would have a very different life. yet, I still would have that right to put my money where I prefer it. And Eich's actions are not just politics, just as the KKK's beliefs are not just a political opinion.
The person who started this (or at least seems to have) had this to say about an apology...
Quote:
Itís become clear that Eich has not changed his mind since the donation was first made. If you read what heís written, itís pretty conspicuous. There are apologies he can issue that donít actually require him to approve of our personal lives philosophically, all while apologizing for unintentional damage (we would accept the apology, but we donít have to like the guy). How about something like this that apologizes for harm, but allows him to keep his bigotry intact:
When I originally donated to Prop 8, I did so on the basis of personal opinion and I was not aware that it would have direct harmful effect on people. To me, marriage is a traditional term that I wanted to protect (and still do), but I did not realize that legal protections were at stake. For instance, I was not thinking about the families with children that were torn apart by immigration officials due to this law. I may not agree with their choices in life, but I donít want to see families torn apart regardless. The law should protect all of us equally, even if I morally donít approve of certain life choices.
Bam! If he had issued that 6 months ago, Iíd be a fan. If he issues it today, Iíd call off our boycott. Iím not holding my breath for a change, though.
http://www.teamrarebit.com/blog/2014...uld-step-down/
__________________
The poster formerly known as Redtail
332nd is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th April 2014, 03:50 PM   #202
Cain
Straussian
 
Cain's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 11,438
Originally Posted by meg View Post
I really don't understand why anyone is so upset by this. Eich contributed to a political campaign, which is considered “political speech”. It is public knowledge. He exercised his right to free speech by making the contribution.

One cannot come back later and say, “Oh, that is private.” It's not.
The main argument has been that it's irrelevant.
__________________
November 2nd, 2016:
Cain: Americans are so ******* stupid.
Shalamar: This is why I'm certain Trump will win.
Cain is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th April 2014, 03:52 PM   #203
Unabogie
Philosopher
 
Unabogie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 9,692
Here in Oregon, another person has expressed her free speech, and the neighborhood is expressing their desire to let her store go customerless.

http://www.oregonlive.com/portland/i..._cause_fu.html

Quote:
Another controversy has erupted over a Sellwood-Moreland business, this one over the owner’s views on gays and same-sex marriage.

Facebook and other social media sites have exploded over a soon-to-open fresh meat and vegetable store called Moreland Farmers Pantry. Neighbors and nearby business owners, once excited by the prospect of the new shop, are now backing away.

“They’re choosing to open a business in a very open-minded neighborhood,” said Tom Brown, owner of Brown Properties and president of the Sellwood Moreland Business Alliance. “I think their personal views are going to hurt.”

Located on a busy block near Southeast Milwaukie Avenue and Bybee Boulevard, the store is taking the place of a former antique shop. Remodeling has been under way for months, and anticipation of what appears to be a new, high-end place to buy food has been building.

Recently, neighbors found Facebook postings by owner Chauncy Childs that brought them up short. She wrote a long post about her opposition to same-sex marriage, complaining that “a tiny minority is dictating a change of our social structure.” She also posted an article, written by someone else, supporting the right of businesses to refuse to serve gay people.
Liberal fascism? Or simply the product of espousing hate towards people who never did a thing to you?

Please note that like Eich, she promises that she'd never ever actually refuse service to gay people, just that she thinks it should be legal to do so. So are the people of Sellwood justified in refusing to walk in her store? Or is doing so some sort of thuggery that's worse than the actions of the bigot herself?
__________________
Cleek's Law: Todayís conservatism is the opposite of what liberals want today, updated daily.

"Palin must now be considered the future of the Republican Party." ~ Brainster
Unabogie is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th April 2014, 03:52 PM   #204
Cain
Straussian
 
Cain's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 11,438
Originally Posted by Giordano View Post
Yes, he could now make it clear that he values gay people equal to every one else and now supports gay civil marriage. That would help a lot for me. Many people were wrong before and now "see the light." I was and did.

Saying he sticks to his position may be a sigh of honesty, but ihis position makes him inappropriate to be CEO of a major company (as he himself seems to agree) for many different reasons. By the way- honesty in this case buys him no respect from me: you can be an honest racist, but you are still a racist. No points from me.

Again, Eich wants to deny a whole group of people their legal rights, and he worked to do so by funding an organization devoted to changing established law. This is not a thought policing action. He can think and say whatever he wants. He can even think and work to achieve many things that are political and with which I disagree, and still be a CEO of Mozilla. God knows, if I only bought stuff from companies with CEOs with the right way of thinking, I would have a very different life. yet, I still would have that right to put my money where I prefer it. And Eich's actions are not just politics, just as the KKK's beliefs are not just a political opinion.
You're quite talented. All those words and you managed to say nothing.
__________________
November 2nd, 2016:
Cain: Americans are so ******* stupid.
Shalamar: This is why I'm certain Trump will win.
Cain is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th April 2014, 04:09 PM   #205
Giordano
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 13,739
Originally Posted by Cain View Post
You're quite talented. All those words and you managed to say nothing.
I think you mean that: all those words and I heard nothing.
Thanks for the complement with which you began your post nonetheless.
Giordano is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th April 2014, 04:21 PM   #206
Travis
Misanthrope of the Mountains
 
Travis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 23,132
Of course Mozilla could have gone the Honey Maid route. They could have said, dammit, we totally stand by Eich and think his opinion is awesome in spite of all you. Then they produce a response advertisement where they show God condemning gay men to die of AIDS for their sin with the Mozilla brand coming up at the end with the slogan "Don't Support Perversity" also appearing right at the end.

They could have done that. It was their right to tell those that don't like Eich's views that they think we are all wrong. But they didn't.
__________________
"Because WE ARE IGNORANT OF 911 FACTS, WE DEMAND PROOF" -- Douglas Herman on Rense.com
Travis is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th April 2014, 04:41 PM   #207
xtifr
Graduate Poster
 
xtifr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 1,299
Originally Posted by Grizzly Adams View Post
In fact, there's quite possibly more people now who resent the "gay mafia" for hitting Eich. That's the part that's counterproductive.
How is it counterproductive that bigots are even more upset than they were before? They're still bigots.

The important consequence of this, which is entirely productive is that the bigots are frightened by this. Which is, IMO, entirely a good thing. Bigots are now having to face the fact that their bigotry can have real and unpleasant consequences. I think that's an overwhelmingly good thing. The fact that they're extra-upset by this realization is, at worst, a very minor negative by comparison, if it's a negative at all.
__________________
"Those who learn from history are doomed to watch others repeat it."
-- Anonymous Slashdot poster
"The problem with defending the purity of the English language is that English is about as pure as a cribhouse whore."
-- James Nicoll
xtifr is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th April 2014, 04:51 PM   #208
Christian Klippel
Master Poster
 
Christian Klippel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Ruhr Area in Germany
Posts: 2,431
Originally Posted by Unabogie View Post
Here in Oregon, another person has expressed her free speech, and the neighborhood is expressing their desire to let her store go customerless.

http://www.oregonlive.com/portland/i..._cause_fu.html
You forgot to include the kicker-quote from that article:

Quote:
In a telephone interview with The Oregonian, Childs said she never thought her Facebook views would become public [...]
Hilarious!

Greetings,

Chris
Christian Klippel is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th April 2014, 04:55 PM   #209
Stellafane
Village Idiot.
 
Stellafane's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 7,596
Originally Posted by KoihimeNakamura View Post
He's a jerk, yes, but we don't fire people for being jerks.
We do, however, fire people who drive away a significant percentage of our paying customers. And that appears to be the case here. It's strictly a business decision.
__________________
Another Shameless Googlebomb Plug for www.stopsylvia.com
Stellafane is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th April 2014, 05:25 PM   #210
Cain
Straussian
 
Cain's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 11,438
My reply to this post either vanished, or I forgot to hit send. Since I have not received a PM, I'll assume the mistake is my own. It's a shame because dealing with these unlettered arguments only once is a waste of time. I will rehearse them again since I made some typically good points.

Originally Posted by johnny karate View Post
Ask Bill Maher what? How he was "forced" to go from one incredibly lucrative job to another? Yes, what a travesty that was.
Not everything comes down to dollars and sense. The larger scheme of things is civil discourse, the idea of public reason.

Quote:
In doesn't matter what companies do "in general". All that matters is that conflating a boycott with coercion is flat-out dishonest.
Now you're reduced to desperately parroting my words back to me. Eich was pressured/forced/coerced out of his job. Now you can argue this coercion is well-justified, but you cannot pretend it does not exist.

Quote:
No, somebody simply looked up who the donors were for Prop 8 that were a matter of public record by law (for donations of $1000 and up).

It's not like someone was hiding in Eich's bushes surreptitiously photographing while he wrote the check.

Protip: If you don't want people to know about your bigotry, don't act on it in a public manner.
So the standard is an invasion of privacy? Try to think these things throwing before taking to the keyboard. I stumbled across a rather well-written article by Connor Frierdersdorf, and he makes the relevant point:

Quote:
Mozilla Executive Chairwoman Mitchell Baker, his longtime business partner who now defends the need for his resignation, said this about discovering that he gave money to the Proposition 8 campaign: "That was shocking to me, because I never saw any kind of behavior or attitude from him that was not in line with Mozillaís values of inclusiveness." It's almost as if that donation illuminated exactly nothing about how he'd perform his professional duties.
I recall a professor once mentioning how a man attended a protest to impeach Nixon. His boss, a Nixon fan, saw this guy on the news, and fired him the next day.

Quote:
That's a shame. But I'm not sure where your standards for pettiness have been codified into legislation. That you don't like what happened doesn't necessarily make it wrong.
Your sloppy thinking is no excuse for sloppy language. "That [i] don't like what happened doesn't necessarily make it [illegal]." Behavior can still be morally wrong, petty, stupid, and vindictive, while also being legal.

Finally, I should point out the irony of these accusations of "sitting atop a high horse" and "self-righteousness" since the mob you've joined fuels itself on self-righteousness.
__________________
November 2nd, 2016:
Cain: Americans are so ******* stupid.
Shalamar: This is why I'm certain Trump will win.
Cain is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th April 2014, 05:27 PM   #211
Cain
Straussian
 
Cain's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 11,438
Originally Posted by Giordano View Post
I think you mean that: all those words and I heard nothing.
Nope.

Quote:
Thanks for the complement with which you began your post nonetheless.
Read for context.
__________________
November 2nd, 2016:
Cain: Americans are so ******* stupid.
Shalamar: This is why I'm certain Trump will win.
Cain is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th April 2014, 05:34 PM   #212
johnny karate
... and your little dog too.
 
johnny karate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 10,775
Originally Posted by Blue Mountain View Post
Interesting. Had he donated only $995, he might well be CEO today.
Yep.

Eich was either too proud of his beliefs to care, or just ignorant of the law.

Either way, I don't feel the slightest bit bad for him.
johnny karate is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th April 2014, 05:37 PM   #213
johnny karate
... and your little dog too.
 
johnny karate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 10,775
Originally Posted by Cain View Post
The main argument has been that it's irrelevant.
Unfortunately, you don't get to determine what is or isn't relevant for other people.

Eich's bigotry wasn't irrelevant for a portion of Mozilla's customer base. Mozilla did the math, and a decision was made.
johnny karate is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th April 2014, 06:02 PM   #214
johnny karate
... and your little dog too.
 
johnny karate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 10,775
Originally Posted by Cain View Post
o dollars and sense. The larger scheme of things is civil discourse, the idea of public reason.
Such a statement will require you to explain

A) what the standards of "civil discourse" and "public reason" are

and

B) how this incident violates those standards.

Please offer cites.

Quote:
Eich was pressured/forced/coerced out of his job. Now you can argue this coercion is well-justified, but you cannot pretend it does not exist.
So are you mad at Mozilla or are you mad at the boycotters?

Because the hypothetical coercion you are describing was implemented by Mozilla. Up until now, you have been railing against the boycotters, and claiming the coercion came from them.

So maybe think about exactly what you want to argue. Take your time and come up with the right words. Then you can come back here and take another crack at being consistent and coherent.

Quote:
So the standard is an invasion of privacy?
Standard for what?

Again, figure out what you want to argue and just plainly state it.

Here I'll start you off:

This boycott is wrong because...

Quote:
I recall a professor once mentioning how a man attended a protest to impeach Nixon. His boss, a Nixon fan, saw this guy on the news, and fired him the next day.
And?

Quote:
Behavior can still be morally wrong, petty, stupid, and vindictive, while also being legal.
Sure it can.

But guess what?

If it's your argument that this boycott is any of those things, it's still up to substantiate that argument.

Your repeated assertions are less than compelling.

Quote:
Finally, I should point out the irony of these accusations of "sitting atop a high horse" and "self-righteousness" since the mob you've joined fuels itself on self-righteousness.
Now I'm part of a "mob"?

You're a hoot.
johnny karate is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th April 2014, 06:34 PM   #215
Giordano
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 13,739
Originally Posted by Cain View Post
Nope.

Read for context.
Oh no! Here I thought I won the Sally Field "You like meÖYou really like me" award.

Oh well.
Giordano is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th April 2014, 06:46 PM   #216
sylvan8798
Master Poster
 
sylvan8798's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 2,591
http://www.afa.net/Blogs/BlogPost.aspx?id=2147544639

Well I guess an apology isn't enough after all.

Quote:
Forgiveness is hereby granted, as Jesus instructed us to do.
Oh the irony.
__________________
DoYouEverWonder - Engineers and architects don't have to design steel buildings not to collapse from gravity. They already conquered gravity when they built it.

Polaris (wrt cluelessforum) - Bunch of sewer-chewing douche nozzles.
sylvan8798 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th April 2014, 06:57 PM   #217
Alferd_Packer
Philosopher
 
Alferd_Packer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 8,746
Originally Posted by mijopaalmc View Post
Because the posters supporting the boycott in this thread are the one who criticize the Right for using the same tactic.
for example?
__________________
No laws of physics were broken in the writing of this post
Alferd_Packer is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th April 2014, 06:59 PM   #218
Alferd_Packer
Philosopher
 
Alferd_Packer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 8,746
Originally Posted by Stellafane View Post
We do, however, fire people who drive away a significant percentage of our paying customers. And that appears to be the case here. It's strictly a business decision.
It's nothing personal. it's just business
__________________
No laws of physics were broken in the writing of this post
Alferd_Packer is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th April 2014, 07:01 PM   #219
Alferd_Packer
Philosopher
 
Alferd_Packer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 8,746
Originally Posted by sylvan8798 View Post
http://www.afa.net/Blogs/BlogPost.aspx?id=2147544639

Well I guess an apology isn't enough after all.



Oh the irony.
What the hell did I just read?
__________________
No laws of physics were broken in the writing of this post
Alferd_Packer is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th April 2014, 08:51 PM   #220
332nd
Penultimate Amazing
 
332nd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,136
Originally Posted by Alferd_Packer View Post
What the hell did I just read?
A guy brought that up on my football forum. For any who don't want to read it, basically a charity that deals with poor/orphaned children lifted a ban they had on gay/lesbian people helping out. Holy rollers went bat guano & tripped all over themselves to be the first to boycott them/pull their funding until the charity caved & re-banned gays. Now it seems they feel those who lifted the ban should be fired.
__________________
The poster formerly known as Redtail
332nd is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th April 2014, 10:33 PM   #221
Cain
Straussian
 
Cain's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 11,438
Originally Posted by johnny karate View Post
Unfortunately, you don't get to determine what is or isn't relevant for other people.
But I can observe what the main argument has been. Which I did. Which you can't really dispute so you've jumped on to something else. Congratulations.

I guess I should have described Meg's post as employing a "straw man," then all the "skeptics" in the gallery would have known to credit me with a point. I'm stupid for continuing to stupidly take people on this forum seriously.

Originally Posted by johnny karate View Post
Such a statement will require you to explain

A) what the standards of "civil discourse" and "public reason" are

and

B) how this incident violates those standards.

Please offer cites.
Would you also wish to learn the decibel level between a speaker projecting in an acceptably loud manner versus yelling? There are no hard and fast rules, but the inconsistencies in how the mob has treated Eich versus Democratic politicians has been instructive. People seem to think that because these actions are within the law, they're somehow good or justified. The reasonableness I'm talking about is not black & white; it's not something that can or should be legislated.

I cross searched my posts against boycotts for examples. I found a thread on how the RNC vows to shut out CNN when it comes to hosting duties for the 2016 Republican primary debates should the network produce a Hillary Clinton biopic. The RNC hasn't seen the documentary, since it hasn't been made, but, oh boy, they'll boycott. That's idiotic and unreasonable in my view, and sort of like criticizing a CEO who has not yet done anything objectionable (and has pledged not to, AND is under the microscope, AND has nothing but a history of inclusiveness).

Quote:
So are you mad at Mozilla or are you mad at the boycotters?

Because the hypothetical coercion you are describing was implemented by Mozilla. Up until now, you have been railing against the boycotters, and claiming the coercion came from them.

So maybe think about exactly what you want to argue. Take your time and come up with the right words. Then you can come back here and take another crack at being consistent and coherent.
Once again, your lack of imagination reduces you to parroting my words. Look again at my post, which cites specific sloppy language. Now look at your post, vague and grasping.

All you need to do is pay attention; read for comprehension. I'm annoyed with the boycotters, which is part of the reason why I said it's stupid for conservatives to uninstall Firefox. The protestors put their pressure on Mozilla. Now, it's refreshing when someone does not bow to popular pressure, but it can be understandable. The "if he's gone, I'm gone" play typically demands supernormal strength of character. It's possible Eich understood that the company had no choice, which is why he could make it easier for everyone by resigning.

Quote:
Standard for what?

Again, figure out what you want to argue and just plainly state it.
If you need something like this explained to you, then I'm arguing with the wrong person.

Quote:
Here I'll start you off:

This boycott is wrong because...
Should I restrict myself to monosyllabic words? It's been argued earlier, multiple times. In short, this boycott is petty and vindictive.

Quote:
And?

Sure it can.

But guess what?

If it's your argument that this boycott is any of those things, it's still up to substantiate that argument.

Your repeated assertions are less than compelling.

Now I'm part of a "mob"?

You're a hoot.
This is boring. You have nothing to say. I think the membership agreement bars me from accurately describing your, for lack of a better word, style. I'll leave it at that.
__________________
November 2nd, 2016:
Cain: Americans are so ******* stupid.
Shalamar: This is why I'm certain Trump will win.
Cain is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th April 2014, 10:57 PM   #222
332nd
Penultimate Amazing
 
332nd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,136
Originally Posted by Cain View Post
I cross searched my posts against boycotts for examples. I found a thread on how the RNC vows to shut out CNN when it comes to hosting duties for the 2016 Republican primary debates should the network produce a Hillary Clinton biopic. The RNC hasn't seen the documentary, since it hasn't been made, but, oh boy, they'll boycott. That's idiotic and unreasonable in my view, and sort of like criticizing a CEO who has not yet done anything objectionable (and has pledged not to, AND is under the microscope, AND has nothing but a history of inclusiveness).
I haven't seen where he's pledged to never again donate money to a cause that will prevent/hinder/or strip people's rights. Moot point really since if he has I see no reason to believe him since he wouldn't eve apologize to a dev who was working on apps for Mozilla's smart phone OS. Therefore I simply can't see why it would be petty, unreasonable, or however else you want to describe it, for people to refuse to take a chance on him using their money or talents (to make money) when he may do so again.
__________________
The poster formerly known as Redtail
332nd is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th April 2014, 01:27 AM   #223
PinkRabbit
Critical Thinker
 
PinkRabbit's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 438
Personally, I would say that a $1k donation to a political group whose entire aim was to exclude a whole class of people from rights the law gave them is a pretty solid argument against the claim that he has a history of nothing but inclusiveness. Now, you may not consider that an important act, may well consider the right to marry a petty, trivial thing, but he did make a fairly substantial donation to deny that right to others, and that's not an inclusive sort of act.
PinkRabbit is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th April 2014, 04:40 AM   #224
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 40,354
Originally Posted by PinkRabbit View Post
Actually, yes, I do.

Now, mind you, I don't want to hear anybody whine when they refuse business and find out that there's a cost to their choice (like all the bad PR and other lost clients and such), but no, I don't think anyone should be forced to take business. I just think that the people they've ill treated should broadcast their jackassery to the world and make the cost as high as possible.

Any other questions?
And if the cost in serving blacks or gays is too high in lost business well they are just SOL. The costs of treating them like people is just too high.
__________________
Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody
"There shall be no *poofing* in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin
ponderingturtle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th April 2014, 06:41 AM   #225
johnny karate
... and your little dog too.
 
johnny karate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 10,775
Originally Posted by Cain View Post
Would you also wish to learn the decibel level between a speaker projecting in an acceptably loud manner versus yelling? There are no hard and fast rules, but the inconsistencies in how the mob has treated Eich versus Democratic politicians has been instructive. People seem to think that because these actions are within the law, they're somehow good or justified. The reasonableness I'm talking about is not black & white; it's not something that can or should be legislated.
Nor, apparently, is it something that you can articulate beyond "I don't like it".

Quote:
I cross searched my posts against boycotts for examples. I found a thread on how the RNC vows to shut out CNN when it comes to hosting duties for the 2016 Republican primary debates should the network produce a Hillary Clinton biopic. The RNC hasn't seen the documentary, since it hasn't been made, but, oh boy, they'll boycott. That's idiotic and unreasonable in my view, and sort of like criticizing a CEO who has not yet done anything objectionable (and has pledged not to, AND is under the microscope, AND has nothing but a history of inclusiveness).
Once again, I'm not sure why anyone else should be interested in your undefined personal standards.

Quote:
Once again, your lack of imagination reduces you to parroting my words. Look again at my post, which cites specific sloppy language. Now look at your post, vague and grasping.

All you need to do is pay attention; read for comprehension. I'm annoyed with the boycotters, which is part of the reason why I said it's stupid for conservatives to uninstall Firefox. The protestors put their pressure on Mozilla. Now, it's refreshing when someone does not bow to popular pressure, but it can be understandable. The "if he's gone, I'm gone" play typically demands supernormal strength of character. It's possible Eich understood that the company had no choice, which is why he could make it easier for everyone by resigning.

If you need something like this explained to you, then I'm arguing with the wrong person.

Should I restrict myself to monosyllabic words? It's been argued earlier, multiple times. In short, this boycott is petty and vindictive.

This is boring. You have nothing to say. I think the membership agreement bars me from accurately describing your, for lack of a better word, style. I'll leave it at that.
My favorite part about this whole exchange has been watching you lecture other people for their pettiness and incivility, while you freely engage in pettiness and incivility.
johnny karate is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th April 2014, 09:38 AM   #226
Checkmite
Skepticifimisticalationist
 
Checkmite's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Gulf Coast
Posts: 21,169
Originally Posted by Cain View Post
Should I restrict myself to monosyllabic words? It's been argued earlier, multiple times. In short, this boycott is petty and vindictive.
So what? Nobody forced you to participate.
__________________
"ŅWHAT KIND OF BIRD?
ŅA PARANORMAL BIRD?"
--- Carlos S., 2002
Checkmite is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th April 2014, 10:54 AM   #227
rwguinn
Penultimate Amazing
 
rwguinn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 16 miles from 7 lakes
Posts: 10,887
Originally Posted by Checkmite View Post
So what? Nobody forced you to participate.
Boycotts are supposed to be retribution for societal malfeasance, are they not?
__________________
"Political correctness is a doctrine,...,which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end."
"
I pointed out that his argument was wrong in every particular, but he rightfully took me to task for attacking only the weak points." Myriad http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=6853275#post6853275
rwguinn is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th April 2014, 11:16 AM   #228
Cain
Straussian
 
Cain's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 11,438
Originally Posted by Redtail View Post
I haven't seen where he's pledged to never again donate money to a cause that will prevent/hinder/or strip people's rights. Moot point really since if he has I see no reason to believe him since he wouldn't eve apologize to a dev who was working on apps for Mozilla's smart phone OS.
Well, thank goodness for that second sentence, because I thought for a moment I would have to address the absurdity of the first one. See Giordano? Read for context.

Originally Posted by PinkRabbit View Post
Personally, I would say that a $1k donation to a political group whose entire aim was to exclude a whole class of people from rights the law gave them is a pretty solid argument against the claim that he has a history of nothing but inclusiveness. Now, you may not consider that an important act, may well consider the right to marry a petty, trivial thing, but he did make a fairly substantial donation to deny that right to others, and that's not an inclusive sort of act.
Well, that's certainly one way to mix and match. His "history of inclusiveness" refers to a quoted description from a colleague. Maybe Eich has a little brother who will say he never shared the GI JOE with a kung fu grip. I do regard conservative efforts to bar gays and lesbians from marriage as sometimes infuriating precisely because it's so petty and stupid. How will same sex marriages affect them?

Originally Posted by johnny karate View Post
Nor, apparently, is it something that you can articulate beyond "I don't like it".
You've not been paying attention. There's no reason to believe this guy posed any threat to gay rights in the company. This mob behaved like a bunch of rabid conservatives in that they sought retribution, and wanted to enforce an absurd level of purity. It also sets a precedent that discourages active citizen participation, a sphere of life typically kept separate from work. I don't know how many different ways this can be said.

Quote:
Once again, I'm not sure why anyone else should be interested in your undefined personal standards.
So I supplied no fewer than three specific reasons but now those are some undefined. Again, try reading for comprehension.

Quote:
My favorite part about this whole exchange has been watching you lecture other people for their pettiness and incivility, while you freely engage in pettiness and incivility.
A difference between you and me is when Bill Maher gets canned, you couldn't care less because he's well-paid, whereas I think there's a problem with silencing someone for saying something that's both unpopular and true. There's active engagement, and then there's seeking heads for something someone did six years ago.

Originally Posted by Checkmite View Post
So what? Nobody forced you to participate.
Good point. People should just stand on the sidelines, spectators to stupidity and unfairness.
__________________
November 2nd, 2016:
Cain: Americans are so ******* stupid.
Shalamar: This is why I'm certain Trump will win.
Cain is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th April 2014, 11:59 AM   #229
johnny karate
... and your little dog too.
 
johnny karate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 10,775
Originally Posted by Cain View Post
You've not been paying attention. There's no reason to believe this guy posed any threat to gay rights in the company.
You mean other than the fact that he contributed to an effort that explicitly posed a threat to gay rights?

I get that you don't think Eich did anything wrong. Other people disagree with you. As it turns out, you are not the arbiter for what opinions other people hold and how they act upon them. And throwing a hissy fit won't change that.

Quote:
This mob behaved like a bunch of rabid conservatives in that they sought retribution, and wanted to enforce an absurd level of purity. It also sets a precedent that discourages active citizen participation, a sphere of life typically kept separate from work. I don't know how many different ways this can be said.
Without all the over-the-top hyperbole and hystrionics might be a refreshing change of pace.

Quote:
So I supplied no fewer than three specific reasons but now those are some undefined. Again, try reading for comprehension.
I have read. And what I fail to see is any substation for your ridiculous assertions. You can go right on screaming that the sky falling, but that doesn't mean anyone else has to take you seriously.

Quote:
A difference between you and me is when Bill Maher gets canned, you couldn't care less because he's well-paid, whereas I think there's a problem with silencing someone for saying something that's both unpopular and true. There's active engagement, and then there's seeking heads for something someone did six years ago.
No, the difference between me and you is that I don't feel the need to resort to a bunch of Orwellian nonsense about "rabid" "mobs" "silencing" people, and pretend with a straight face that it somehow comports with reality.

Quote:
Good point. People should just stand on the sidelines, spectators to stupidity and unfairness.
Yes, because standing silent on the sidelines should only be mandated to people who want boycott a company with a bigoted CEO.
johnny karate is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th April 2014, 12:02 PM   #230
TheL8Elvis
Philosopher
 
TheL8Elvis's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 7,728
Originally Posted by Cain View Post
You've not been paying attention. There's no reason to believe this guy posed any threat to gay rights in the company. This mob behaved like a bunch of rabid conservatives in that they sought retribution, and wanted to enforce an absurd level of purity. It also sets a precedent that discourages active citizen participation, a sphere of life typically kept separate from work. I don't know how many different ways this can be said.
I know, right ? That bar of actively trying to deny people civil rights is just too damn high !
TheL8Elvis is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th April 2014, 12:13 PM   #231
Peterson
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 457
Originally Posted by johnny karate View Post
Yep.

Eich was either too proud of his beliefs to care, or just ignorant of the law.

Either way, I don't feel the slightest bit bad for him.
That's not true. Someone posted this earlier in the thread. You can find out who supported/opposed and how much they donated (many $100 donations). I know I'll never donate to a political cause. Next year your opinion may be considered the wrong one then look out!


http://projects.latimes.com/prop8/
Peterson is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th April 2014, 12:34 PM   #232
Cain
Straussian
 
Cain's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 11,438
Originally Posted by johnny karate View Post
You mean other than the fact that he contributed to an effort that explicitly posed a threat to gay rights?

I get that you don't think Eich did anything wrong. Other people disagree with you. As it turns out, you are not the arbiter for what opinions other people hold and how they act upon them. And throwing a hissy fit won't change that.
Clinking thearly with Johnny Karate. I do think it was wrong for him to support prop. 8, but I don't think his mistaken politics has anything to do with his job.

Quote:
Without all the over-the-top hyperbole and hystrionics might be a refreshing change of pace.
Once again, incapable of addressing the arguments at hand, you resort to mischaracterization. The redundancy is symptomatic of inflating what little you have to say.

Quote:
No, the difference between me and you is that I don't feel the need to resort to a bunch of Orwellian nonsense about "rabid" "mobs" "silencing" people, and pretend with a straight face that it somehow comports with reality.
I think the problem is that you see words, but you don't read sentences.

Quote:
Yes, because standing silent on the sidelines should only be mandated to people who want boycott a company with a bigoted CEO.
Again, what's most remarkable about this mob is how conservative it is. You have a guy who is contained, but you want to punish him. He poses no threat, but you launch a preventive strike. Far more important political actors have adopted a similar stance, but you supported them, so who cares?

Originally Posted by TheL8Elvis View Post
I know, right ? That bar of actively trying to deny people civil rights is just too damn high !
Yeah, and when a parent reads the label for graham crackers, he can skip past high fructose corn syrup to see if anyone on the board of directors personally supports a woman's "right" to "murder an innocent baby." Or maybe someone photographed a VP entering an abortion clinic twenty years ago. Now she's unqualified to oversee sales and marketing.
__________________
November 2nd, 2016:
Cain: Americans are so ******* stupid.
Shalamar: This is why I'm certain Trump will win.
Cain is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th April 2014, 12:34 PM   #233
PinkRabbit
Critical Thinker
 
PinkRabbit's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 438
Originally Posted by Cain View Post
Well, that's certainly one way to mix and match. His "history of inclusiveness" refers to a quoted description from a colleague. Maybe Eich has a little brother who will say he never shared the GI JOE with a kung fu grip. I do regard conservative efforts to bar gays and lesbians from marriage as sometimes infuriating precisely because it's so petty and stupid. How will same sex marriages affect them?
Ok, so a colleague said it. Not sure why that's such a key factor, but I'll take your word for it. However, the fact that some nameless colleague said he's all inclusive doesn't actually make it true. And yes, spending your money to not just prevent others from getting civil rights, but to remove them is in fact, not inclusive. Now whether the quoted colleague wasn't aware of that donation, agreed with Eich that gay marriage is a bad thing and should be prevented, or just considered it as trivial as I gather you do, doesn't change the fact that, indeed, acting not only to prevent gay people from marrying, but also to nullify existing marriages is NOT inclusive.

Now, one can consider it minor, defend it as a good thing, or even suggest that it was a political choice due to the times, but really, it happened, it wasn't inclusive.

As for any brothers and GI Joe's, sarcasm aside, it wouldn't be the same thing even if there was. A personal conflict has zip to do with bigotry against a class of people. If you want to make a sarcastic analogy, at least go with something vaguely similar, like saying a girl once accused him of saying girls were "Icky," in gradeschool, so maybe we should punish him for being a misogynist.

Meanwhile, back to Eich, he had a chance to back off from his support of Prop 8. He opted not to, and essentially confirmed that position, then said that his personal views wouldn't affect his position WRT gay issues at Mozilla, and they would continue to be inclusive in insurance and other matters. A lot of people didn't trust him (many of them his own employees, contractors and partners, btw---plus there are the three board members who resigned in protest when he got the job--some indication that not all of his colleagues trusted the guy). He's now paying the price. It's not very nice and no fun, but when you're on the wrong side of history, these things happen. Companies cannot afford to keep on individuals who piss off a large segment of their customer base, business partners, and employees.

As for Bill Maher, the dude has made a career of outraging as many people as possible. It's his raison d'etre (and he's made good money at it, particularly for a fairly middling stand up comic). And when you do that, sometimes you eat the bear, and sometimes the bear eats you.

Mind you, I find it kinda funny that someone so upset that a five year old donation is being brought up now since it's so old, is also so outraged about a ten year old firing (that propelled Maher into an arguably better job). Personally, if I was looking for something to be outraged about on the unfair firings front, I'd have gone with Gilbert Gotfried getting canned for a bad Twitter joke. More recent and that stupid duck hasn't sounded right since.

Last edited by PinkRabbit; 7th April 2014 at 12:36 PM.
PinkRabbit is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th April 2014, 01:33 PM   #234
Giordano
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 13,739
Originally Posted by Cain View Post
See Giordano? Read for context.
Not only did I suspect otherwise, but I chose to assume the best and act in my response that you were sincere in your compliment on my use of words. So I thanked you (who knows- maybe you meant it even if I doubted it). But you had to make it clear in your next post that it really wasn't a compliment, but an insult (which is as I suspected in the first place). So I decided I was simply making you angry, and having said what I wanted to already, I just stop responding to your posts. Now your post is bringing up my post again as an example of my ignorance. Thanks again! Usually I find you to be on a different side from me, but you are careful not to insult people or the style of their posts.
Giordano is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th April 2014, 02:06 PM   #235
Cavemonster
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 4,758
Originally Posted by rwguinn View Post
Boycotts are supposed to be retribution for societal malfeasance, are they not?
Finally someone asks the important question!

And the answer is no! A well executed and effective boycott is pretty much always a political action. It is not an avenue of revenge, a cleansing of sin or a punishment.

The Montgomery bus boycotts weren't a bunch of people punishing the bus system for being evil racists. They were a well and extensively planned action to institute change. And not just change of bussing policy, but with an eye toward the national conversation on race and segregation.

The Mozilla boycott wasn't a punishment for the wrong ideas. It was a seized opportunity to demonstrate the shifting zeitgeist, to show that marriage discrimination is on the wrong side of history in the face of attempts from prop 8 to more recent legislation to codify discrimination against gay people into law.
__________________
The weakness of all Utopias is this, ... They first assume that no man will want more than his share, and then are very ingenious in explaining whether his share will be delivered by motorcar or balloon.
-G.K. CHESTERTON
Cavemonster is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th April 2014, 02:09 PM   #236
Joey McGee
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 10,307
Originally Posted by PinkRabbit View Post
there are the three board members who resigned in protest when he got the job--some indication that not all of his colleagues trusted the guy).
Lies, delusions and rationalizations.
Quote:
Q: Was Brendan Eich forced out by employee pressure?

A: No. While these tweets calling for Brendanís resignation were widely reported in the media, they came from only a tiny number of people: less than 10 of Mozillaís employee pool of 1,000. None of the employees in question were in Brendanís reporting chain or knew Brendan personally.

In contrast, support for Brendanís leadership was expressed from a much larger group of employees, including those who felt disappointed by Brendanís support of Proposition 8 but nonetheless felt he would be a good leader for Mozilla. Communication from these employees has not been covered in the media.

Q: Did Board members resign over Brendanís Prop 8 donation?

A: No. Gary Kovacs and Ellen Siminoff had previously stated they had plans to leave as soon as Mozilla chose the next CEO. John Lilly did not resign over Proposition 8 or any concerns about Brendanís personal beliefs.

https://blog.mozilla.org/blog/2014/0...o-resignation/
Joey McGee is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th April 2014, 02:20 PM   #237
PinkRabbit
Critical Thinker
 
PinkRabbit's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 438
Originally Posted by Joey McGee View Post
Lies, delusions and rationalizations.
My apologies for the error then. It was in several news reports and I'd seen tweets and talked to a couple of friends involved in Mozilla who were looking seriously at cutting ties as well as read Mozilla's other statement where they admit to farking up https://blog.mozilla.org/blog/2014/0...s-mozilla-ceo/

I hadn't seen that specific faq, so my error.
PinkRabbit is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th April 2014, 02:20 PM   #238
johnny karate
... and your little dog too.
 
johnny karate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 10,775
Originally Posted by Peterson View Post
That's not true. Someone posted this earlier in the thread. You can find out who supported/opposed and how much they donated (many $100 donations). I know I'll never donate to a political cause. Next year your opinion may be considered the wrong one then look out!


http://projects.latimes.com/prop8/
No, it is true.

The reason the L.A Times was able to publish that list is because it is in the public record.

If you don't want other people to know about the things you do, it might be prudent to make sure your actions don't become a matter of public record. Because sometimes the public sees those records.
johnny karate is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th April 2014, 02:32 PM   #239
Christian Klippel
Master Poster
 
Christian Klippel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Ruhr Area in Germany
Posts: 2,431
In the hopes to preempt some rathe silly arguments that may come up soon with regards to OKcupid.

There is the argument that that Sam Yagan may be a hipocrite for boycotting Mozilla, because he contributed money to a congressman that also voted to oppose same sex marriage (amongs other disgusting things that congressman thinks are good). However, there are a few things to note about that:

- That donation was made in 2004, as you can see in the official records here.

- That congressman made those votes later on, like opposing same sex marrigae in 2006, as you can see here.

Now this situation obviously presents some problems. If Yagan knew beforehand what Cannon would vote on wrt. same-sex issues, then yes, it would make him a hippocrite for boycotting Mozilla for the same things now. But there is a two-year gap between the contribution, and what Cannon voted for.

Plus (albeit a much weaker point), he contributed to a congressman, likely for many other reasons, whereas Eich contributed directly to harm same sex couples.

Just wanted to get that info out here, before anyone else tries to do so with a heavy spin, as the first site linked in this post does.

Greetings,

Chris
Christian Klippel is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th April 2014, 02:35 PM   #240
johnny karate
... and your little dog too.
 
johnny karate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 10,775
Originally Posted by Cain View Post
Clinking thearly with Johnny Karate. I do think it was wrong for him to support prop. 8, but I don't think his mistaken politics has anything to do with his job.
Oh I get it now. Eich should have kept his job because you personally think he should have. And your opinion is, of course, the highest authority. Thanks for clearing that up.

Quote:
Once again, incapable of addressing the arguments at hand, you resort to mischaracterization. The redundancy is symptomatic of inflating what little you have to say.
You haven't made an argument. At least not a cogent one. You just shriek your insult-laden opinions and keep insisting you are right.

Quote:
I think the problem is that you see words, but you don't read sentences.
Yeah, that must be the problem. Not the paranoid, foaming-at-the-mouth ranting manner in which you've chosen to express yourself.

Quote:
Again, what's most remarkable about this mob is how conservative it is. You have a guy who is contained, but you want to punish him. He poses no threat, but you launch a preventive strike. Far more important political actors have adopted a similar stance, but you supported them, so who cares?
Have you tried screaming into a pillow? I hear that's a good stress-reliever for chronically frustrated people.

Quote:
Yeah, and when a parent reads the label for graham crackers, he can skip past high fructose corn syrup to see if anyone on the board of directors personally supports a woman's "right" to "murder an innocent baby." Or maybe someone photographed a VP entering an abortion clinic twenty years ago. Now she's unqualified to oversee sales and marketing.
You should try peppering in the words "jack-booted" and "police state". I think it would help to better drive your point home.
johnny karate is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Social Issues & Current Events

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 02:20 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2014, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.
This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.