If it was for something that I was very strongly morally opposed to, I would tell him to leave and not think twice about it. I would not knowingly support a business owned or operated by a member of the KKK for example, whether or not they are polite and well behaved while on the job is immaterial. I don't want the money I give them to be turned around and used to cause harm to others. It's not a matter of hating them or wanting to see them punished, it's just a matter of personal conscience.
Every situation is different though. How much is it going to cost me personally? How much do I value this service? How much better or cheaper are they than their competitors? And How strong are my views on this issue? Are all questions that would need to be considered. And again, it's not something that comes up often as the vast majority of political issues are not that kind of moral or ethical issue.
Seems to me that that is a pretty extreme position to take. I live in MN. We barely passed same-sex marriage... that means just under 50% of the people I interact with on a daily basis probably do not support same sex marriage (the same as this CEO). What if my waiter voted that way? Or a contractor? Maybe the guy who owns the gas station in town? Chances are at least half of the businesses where I spend money are owned by someone that is anti-same sex marriage.
Perhaps, but being asked for your honest opinion is also not the same as publicly advocating for one side or the other. I wouldn't fault anyone for giving their honest opinion about something when asked. I might fault them though for going out of their way to hurt someone else.
Like it or not a lot of the people that are against same sex marriage believe they are helping people not hurting them. They believe that by trying to prevent sin they are saving them from eternal damnation... So in their own minds they are in fact going out of their way to save people not hurt them.
I don't think he should be forced to resign because of his political stance/donations, I think he should be forced to resign because his presence as the CEO is hurting the company. In pretty much any other position, I would be upset (although probably not enough to *do* anything) that he was being persecuted for his political position. But, the CEO is the figurehead of the company. If the CEO doesn't align with the companies values, then the CEO needs to go.
oddly enough, this ties in pretty closely with the whole Hobby Lobby argument. The company has a position on an issue wholly unrelated to its product, and this position dictates (drives) the actions of the company. I'd be interesting to hear someone in favor of the CEO resiging here and in support of the argument that companies can't exercise a relgion justify those too positions.
I could see that, but I'm starting to get tired of all the outrage coming from the left about someone who doesn't perfectly conform to what they believe. Look at the fallout from Chick-fil-A and Duck Dynasty about gay marriage. Tolerance is supposed to be a two-way street, as long as it doesn't lead to aggression on other person or their property. Don't you think this is a little disturbing that it's becoming a growing tread of people are getting ousted and/or blasted because they don't perfectly line up with what socially liberal people believe in?
I could see that, but I'm starting to get tired of all the outrage coming from the left about someone who doesn't perfectly conform to what they believe. Look at the fallout from Chick-fil-A and Duck Dynasty about gay marriage. Tolerance is supposed to be a two-way street, as long as it doesn't lead to aggression on other person or their property. Don't you think this is a little disturbing that it's becoming a growing tread of people are getting ousted and/or blasted because they don't perfectly line up with what socially liberal people believe in?
Oh, absolutely. I think the "tolerance" movement is one of the most hypocritical social movements in recent history, but I don't think this is necessarily implicated here. To be sure it was brought to Mozilla's board's attention because of it, and thats probably a "bad thing", but once the outrage started, replacing him was the right thing to do for the company. Regardless of whether the outrage was justified or not.
So, in sum, Outrage -- overreaction. Response to outrage -- appropriate reaction.
Like it or not a lot of the people that are against same sex marriage believe they are helping people not hurting them. They believe that by trying to prevent sin they are saving them from eternal damnation... So in their own minds they are in fact going out of their way to save people not hurt them.
Hmm not really? That argument may hold some merit in an abortion debate (where someone believes they are preventing a murder) but it doesn't even make basic sense when talking about gay marriage. I've certainly never heard it presented that way. Usually the rhetoric is about protecting "The Country" or "The Children", not about saving the souls of homosexuals (I'm not even sure how it would help since you're not stopping them having sex just getting government benefits).
It's a moot point anyways since the judgement isn't whether they believe they are helping or hurting, it's whether *I* believe they are helping or hurting since it's my own conscience I have to answer to.
That said, I think there is a big problem when society sees the need to boycott a company based on the private political beliefs of an executive.
This is why they get paid the big bucks. There is a very high standard for CEO's.
Quote from Fluffy_Bunny »
First of all, how far should we take this? Do I need to research the CFO's beliefs? How about the board? If an hourly employee hates gays, can I still shop there? If we're going to be ideologically consistent, we need to apply this to every company and everyone that company hires.
To me, if you are deciding which products you use based on political affiliations your decision making is suspect already but at the same time, this is the reality in the market place that politics can and do impact their jobs. After all, companies donate to lobbing groups all the time. I imagine the board of most companies want some one in the CEO chair that shares their ideals. How trust worthy is a guy how privately believes one thing but embraces the oppistie when he/she has the executive hat on. An hourly employee does not have the ability or the platform a CEO or high level executive to embrace political topics.
--------------
I do not get a big deal about this....to me it's a PR stunt aimed a specific demographic. A demographic that has shown a willingness to support inferior products/ideas/people as long as the ideology is aligned.
To try to clarify some things correct me if I am wrong... but I dont think anyone in this thread is saying Mozilla did the wrong thing by helping this guy out the door. Similarly when other instances have happened like... the Paula Deen fiasco, I think almost everyone can agree that the business has every right too and was probably correct in protecting their bottom line by distancing themselves from the issue (firing people).
I think the "debate" is whether or not it's healthy for our society to force these decisions. (Not whether or not it's legal/should be illegal)
For example...
Mozilla Donates $1 million to anti-abortion support... I see this as being a perfect example of where to use boycotting. The company itself is saying to it's consumers "this is what we as a company believe and support". The way consumers tell the company they disagree is with purchases.
On the other hand Bob the CEO of Mozilla donates $1 million of his private money to anti-abortion support. Here you want to tell Bob that you disagree with his views. Just because a portion of his income happened to come from his job you want to punish the company that he works for?
Perhaps, but being asked for your honest opinion is also not the same as publicly advocating for one side or the other. I wouldn't fault anyone for giving their honest opinion about something when asked. I might fault them though for going out of their way to hurt someone else.
Voicing their opinion in a legal manner/in politics=going out of their way to hurt someone else?
Oh **** me. The worst really has happened.
Edit- To clarify, voicing one's opinion through the polls or elections or propositions IS going to hurt someone else. That is inevitable. There are always sides, and whenever one side wins, the other side will be hurt.
What I am utterly appalled by is that you take this fact and think that it is bad and undesirable.
What's hypocritical about the "family values" movement?
Rising divorce rates? The probable fact that the "family values" that many conservatives like to tout these days never existed to begin with?
Yes. I'd argue that the "tolerance" movement is much more "hypocritical".
Because the "tolerance" movement is supposed to be about tolerance. Except, of course, when people disagree with you and do it in a legal and democratic manner.
Then you force them to resign.
Afaik, the "family values" movement doesn't directly harm our very political and democratic/republican ideal. The "tolerance" movement can, and apparently does in this case.
If nothing else, like B_S said, we WANT more transparency in donations and other political finances. Why would anyone would to make their political actions public after this?
I feel that the internet massively overreacted to this one. Sucks that he resigned, but at least I now have a list of places online I wont be using (OkCupid being at the top of that list)
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Commander Decks G MGC WB Teysa Tokens BR Wortsnort UG 23.5-No Edric URG Noncombo Animar GUB Damia Stax WBR Alesha Hatebear Recursion WBR Daddy Tariel UBR [Je]love-a Your Deck GWU Almost Critterless Enchantress WUB Sydri+Artifacts=WUB WURG Glint-Eye Combo
Perhaps, but being asked for your honest opinion is also not the same as publicly advocating for one side or the other. I wouldn't fault anyone for giving their honest opinion about something when asked. I might fault them though for going out of their way to hurt someone else.
Voicing their opinion in a legal manner/in politics=going out of their way to hurt someone else?
It depends what the opinion is doesn't it? If I say that blacks should be slaves or that women shouldn't be allowed to vote, well that's just voicing my opinion in a perfectly legal manner. Whether it's legal or not has very little to do with it.
Edit- To clarify, voicing one's opinion through the polls or elections or propositions IS going to hurt someone else. That is inevitable. There are always sides, and whenever one side wins, the other side will be hurt.
What I am utterly appalled by is that you take this fact and think that it is bad and undesirable.
I don't think I did say that? In fact I think I said the complete opposite when I said that I don't fault anyone for voicing their honest opinion at the polls.
It depends what the opinion is doesn't it? If I say that blacks should be slaves or that women shouldn't be allowed to vote, well that's just voicing my opinion in a perfectly legal manner. Whether it's legal or not has very little to do with it.
That's the thing.. it shouldn't matter what the opinion is. At least, in the statement I wrote.
Have you ever considered the possibility that the Christians who actively oppose gays are applying the exact same logic as you? While you may not consider homosexuality to be a serious sin, many Christians do. To the point that they consider it a danger to society.
They're not opposing gay marriages and gays in general because they want to discriminate people for fun, you know.
There is merely a difference in the values you and these Christians hold. I personally believe that your value holds more water, but then again I do not believe in God. But if you truly believed in God, then wouldn't it be obvious that you would try to stay within the values He is said to have proclaimed?
I don't think I did say that? In fact I think I said the complete opposite when I said that I don't fault anyone for voicing their honest opinion at the polls.
But you do consider it harming others if they actively pursue political options?
I don't think that you guys and gals understand what "thought police" means.
A public figure made a donation to a public and controversial cause, it created bad press, therefore his company (who he represents) pressured him to resign.
Would you be comfortable with Fox canning O'Reilly for making anti-Semitic donations because of the bad press that said donations generated? Probably not.
Would you be comfortable with Viacom canning Colbert for making anti-Semitic donations because of the bad press that said donations generated? Probably not.
If according to the SCOTUS, political donations are a manifestation of speech, then what is the issue here? Free speech doesn't guarantee the absence of negative consequences. If I tell the woman interviewing me that she is an idiot, I don't get the job. If I make public donations to a controversial cause, I may lose my job due to the backlash.
It is not the state, or the "thought police", or even massive corporations out to get you, just cultural opinion manifesting itself.
Edit: And furthermore, I think that arguing about the cultural thought police makes evident your conservatism (I want things to stay the same!), as in: "My opinion is unpopular, so I invoke Orwell to scare people about questioning things that I see as self-evident".
Also: I don't really see what's up for debate here: Mozilla's actions towards it's CEO or the public's outcry at CEO's political "speech"? Remember that free speech goes both ways, and that people really like to whip out the Malleus Maleficarum when something bothers them.
You know guys, there is a bloody good reason why I quoted a specific part of the article in my OP.
You all should try reading it and digesting that it implies.
I am uncomfortable with this because the quote suggests that certain ideas are simply unacceptable. Period. End of story. No more discussion to be had.
That very concept unnerves me. The idea that we can simply reject certain things because they're just wrong and we all know its wrong.
I am equally uncomfortable with the possibility that the protests suggest that people can be targeted simply because they exercised their political rights, and in doing so adhered to principles that the protesters disagree with.
The right to protest is fine. I don't like people protesting merely because someone exercised his/her political rights.
" “Mozilla prides itself on being held to a different standard and, this past week, we didn’t live up to it,” Mitchell Baker, the executive chairwoman of Mozilla, wrote. “We know why people are hurt and angry, and they are right: It’s because we haven’t stayed true to ourselves. "
1 articulate a vision for the Internet that Mozilla participants want the Mozilla Foundation to pursue;
2 speak to people whether or not they have a technical background;
3 make Mozilla contributors proud of what we're doing and motivate us to continue; and
4 provide a framework for other people to advance this vision of the Internet.
Being known as the company whoes CEO hates marriage equality caused quite a few programmers and such to quit, I figure that violates point 3. 'Course, it could also be some kind of Velvet Mafia conspiracy.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
“Tell me who you walk with, and I'll tell you who you are.” Esmeralda Santiago Art is life itself.
The point of civil rights is acceptance and tolerance. The way I see it, this isn't that. You're merely trading one intolerance for another.
At first, I felt the LGBT community was being overzealous; but, after I thought more about it, I now deem the response fair.
Think about it this way. If the CEO supported something like segregation between blacks and white on buses, how do you expect African American community to respond? This is a comparable scenario to the LGBT community down to the boycotting buses. The only reason you feel that this is a case of "oppressing the oppressor" is because you aren't that strongly an advocate for LGBT rights and find the CEO's views to be not unusual and the status quo; however, demanding a boycott is comparable to many other civil rights movements. It's not an overreaction so much as the LGBT community finally exerting the gravity of homophobia akin to other prejudices like racism.
And that's where "trading one intolerance for another" falls apart. The entire moral fabric of society is built on intolerance of one act or the other. How would we enforce laws such as those against murder, thievery, rape, etc. without "intolerance" for the acts? Are you suggesting that the proper response to racism, sexism, anti-Semitism, etc. should be limited to less than that of boycotting?
Ultimately, no one was in the right and no one was in the wrong.
I'm not exactly one to defend this kind of thing, but something I read recently from a very left leaning blogger I read suggested at a certain point we need to forgive people for the kind of reflexive anti-gay attitudes that people held in the past versus the really active kinds. Didn't this guy donate a grand 4 years ago and then? It doesn't make it right, but it doesn't seem like "start a campaign to fire someone" territory.
I am a strong supporter of equal rights, equal protection, and the LGBT community. I voted for equal marriage in Oregon, among other things.
However, I'm not buying civil rights at the drive-thru. I'm buying a chicken sandwich.
I want the tastiest, well made, and cost conscious chicken sandwich I can get in 3
minutes because I'm hungry.
I don't care if the guy I'm buying it from is an anti-gun, homophobic, socialist, young earth creationist. Everything I stand against, I'm buying a chicken sandwich.
This is reverse discrimination. This is thought crime.
Is this boycott going to follow the CEO to his next job?
If not, why not, isn't he a "bad guy"?
If so, aren't we basically saying "if you don't think the way we want you to think, you don't deserve to have a job"?
Where is the philosophical integrity? You're boycotting Mozilla because the CEO doesn't support gay marriage. What about the next fifteen major consumer product corporations? Is it just CEO's? What about middle management, what about the janitor?
You going to boycott every business that employs someone you disagree with?
Good luck living off the grid.
Its closer to 5 minutes, but you can probably afford to shop around idealogies and tasties in downtown portland and its abundance of food carts.
What's hypocritical about the "family values" movement?
Rising divorce rates? The probable fact that the "family values" that many conservatives like to tout these days never existed to begin with?
Yes. I'd argue that the "tolerance" movement is much more "hypocritical".
Because the "tolerance" movement is supposed to be about tolerance. Except, of course, when people disagree with you and do it in a legal and democratic manner.
Then you force them to resign.
Afaik, the "family values" movement doesn't directly harm our very political and democratic/republican ideal. The "tolerance" movement can, and apparently does in this case.
If nothing else, like B_S said, we WANT more transparency in donations and other political finances. Why would anyone would to make their political actions public after this?
Its not something so simple and easy to slam as "Oh, they promote tolerance, but not tolerating intolerance is itself intolerant, ergo, lol"
I'd say that anyone trying that line of reasoning is over-simplifying what the "tolerance" movement is. I view it more in a utilitarian framework. Promoting tolerance, particularly in a legally equal live and let live kind of way, is a net good. Letting two dudes get married or letting people who previously couldn't vote vote or what have you provides tangible gains that are not equivalent to whatever it is that the people opposing those activities gain by believing its moral or whatever. We could almost liken it to the Pareto efficiency from gains from trade.
I feel that the internet massively overreacted to this one. Sucks that he resigned, but at least I now have a list of places online I wont be using (OkCupid being at the top of that list)
Then how will you arrange for one night stands with local women with self esteem issues? Craigslist? You gone get mugged, son.
If the person was fired for the box they checked when they cast their ballot, no one would be defending Mozilla, or the boycott.
Put the shoe on the other foot for a second.
If the LGBT, and equal marriage movement was the unpopular stance, the politically incorrect stance, would you really defend the boycott, or Mozilla canning the employee, if say, that employee voted against Prop 8.?
They voted for equal rights, they gave money to support the equal marriage movement, and were punished for it?
Would you really defend the community that turned on that employee, ostracized them, and their company for handing them their papers?
Would your response be "oh well, don't speak up for equal rights if you can't handle the consequences"?
I would hope to god not.
I would hope you'd say this is wrong, that they are suppressing free speech, that this was a wrongful termination.
What if the popular opinion was that Gays weren't allowed to go to the movies, and a theater manager let some in, or voted to allow gays to go to the movies. Afterwards, the backlash against the manager and his theater from the resident bigots caused them to fire the manager.
Would you be okay with it? Would you be like "they were right to fire him, he cost them money."
If you would support the manager, and call it wrongful termination;
If you would call his firing unjust, and a suppression of free speech;
If you would call the boycott disgusting, for promoting the continued inequality of the law;
Then maybe you'll see your hypocrisy in this situation.
Oh no wait, it's only free speech if I agree with it. If not, they deserve to be fired and thrown under the bus.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Thanks to Xenphire @ Inkfox for the amazing new sig
“Thus strangely are our souls constructed, and by slight ligaments
are we bound to prosperity and ruin.”
― Mary Shelley, Frankenstein
I am uncomfortable with this because the quote suggests that certain ideas are simply unacceptable. Period. End of story. No more discussion to be had.
There are plenty of ideas that we find morally reprehensible and that is perfectly reasonable. Someone has every right to believe that we should be allowed to own slaves again, it doesn't mean we all can't call them an idiot and a racist. Generally if it is something that restricts someone's rights, you have to have a pretty good reason for having that belief or by and large, it will be a morally reprehensible belief. Nowadays, one interpretation of the Bible by an evershrinking section of Christianity is not considered a good reason. If certain Muslim groups wanted to make it illegal for women to work in the US, we would all jump on the bandwagon to tell them they are wrong. What is different between that and this?
That very concept unnerves me. The idea that we can simply reject certain things because they're just wrong and we all know its wrong.
But it is wrong. Somethings are wrong. The unjustified killing of another person is inherently wrong. Attempting to make second class citizens of certain law abiding groups of adults is inherently wrong.
I think racists are stupid and dangerous to our country, but I don't say they shouldn't be allowed to marry and have kids even though I know they will pass their dangerous ideology along to them. That is a difference.
I am equally uncomfortable with the possibility that the protests suggest that people can be targeted simply because they exercised their political rights, and in doing so adhered to principles that the protesters disagree with.
If someone is running for political office on a platform of rounding up the Chinese-Americans and putting them in concentration camps, you are saying it is wrong to protest the events that person takes part in?
The right to protest is fine. I don't like people protesting merely because someone exercised his/her political rights.
Oh, we should only be able to protest for superfluous things, like the color tie he wore today?
Nowadays, one interpretation of the Bible by an evershrinking section of Christianity is not considered a good reason. If certain Muslim groups wanted to make it illegal for women to work in the US, we would all jump on the bandwagon to tell them they are wrong. What is different between that and this?
Well, the phrase you use is "tell them they are wrong". That is not what happened here. You answered your own question.
But it is wrong. Somethings are wrong. The unjustified killing of another person is inherently wrong. Attempting to make second class citizens of certain law abiding groups of adults is inherently wrong.
Absolutely. But that wasn't magicware's point. His point was that the reaction was censorious. It sought to shut down free discussion rather than foster it. If something is so gravely wrong, it only becomes all the more urgent that we as a society meet it with strong, reasoned arguments for the truth - to justify our saying that it's wrong.
I think racists are stupid and dangerous to our country, but I don't say they shouldn't be allowed to marry and have kids even though I know they will pass their dangerous ideology along to them.
How very generous of you. But do you say they shouldn't be allowed to hold down jobs? Make political contributions? Speak their minds?
The right to protest is fine. I don't like people protesting merely because someone exercised his/her political rights.
Oh, we should only be able to protest for superfluous things, like the color tie he wore today?
The word he used is "merely", so it's pretty obvious he is saying the opposite: we should save our protests for more harmful things than political speech.
Also, I can't help but notice that you, apparently unconsciously, translated "I don't like..." into "we shouldn't be able to..." This equivocation is at the heart of the problem with your position, and you're so blind to it you even project it on the people who are directly opposing you.
I am uncomfortable with this because the quote suggests that certain ideas are simply unacceptable. Period. End of story. No more discussion to be had.
There are plenty of ideas that we find morally reprehensible and that is perfectly reasonable. Someone has every right to believe that we should be allowed to own slaves again, it doesn't mean we all can't call them an idiot and a racist. Generally if it is something that restricts someone's rights, you have to have a pretty good reason for having that belief or by and large, it will be a morally reprehensible belief. Nowadays, one interpretation of the Bible by an evershrinking section of Christianity is not considered a good reason. If certain Muslim groups wanted to make it illegal for women to work in the US, we would all jump on the bandwagon to tell them they are wrong. What is different between that and this?
I'm a nonbeliever, I don't want the religious right deciding public policy either.
However, popular speech rarely need protecting. It's the unpopular speech that requires it.
There is no market of ideas when people remain silent out of fear.
What of the day when MY beliefs become those of an unpopular minority?
That very concept unnerves me. The idea that we can simply reject certain things because they're just wrong and we all know its wrong.
But it is wrong. Somethings are wrong. The unjustified killing of another person is inherently wrong. Attempting to make second class citizens of certain law abiding groups of adults is inherently wrong.
I think racists are stupid and dangerous to our country, but I don't say they shouldn't be allowed to marry and have kids even though I know they will pass their dangerous ideology along to them. That is a difference.
Should racists/bigots be allowed to work, and keep a job to provide for themselves and their family?
How so, if we punish their employers for employing them to the extent they get fired (or asked "politely" to resign)?
Do we follow that bigot to their next job, and punish that employer too?
Was there, no, is there STILL not days when a homosexual feels they must hide themselves from exposure in order to keep their job, or keep their social capital in tact?
Do we not consider this an unfortunate wrong, and a travesty of equal justice?
I am equally uncomfortable with the possibility that the protests suggest that people can be targeted simply because they exercised their political rights, and in doing so adhered to principles that the protesters disagree with.
If someone is running for political office on a platform of rounding up the Chinese-Americans and putting them in concentration camps, you are saying it is wrong to protest the events that person takes part in?
Last I checked, we didn't elect private business managers.
They are hired or promoted based on job performance, education, and qualifications.
All of which this guy meets no doubt, or at least met when they hired him - but his disqualifying trait? No, not a felony conviction, not a DUI, or a rape charge. His crime was supporting his political beliefs with his own money.
Anyone remember someone getting fired just because they turned out to be gay?
I do, it wasn't that long ago. It was wrong then, and it's wrong now. The reverse, likewise.
The right to protest is fine. I don't like people protesting merely because someone exercised his/her political rights.
Oh, we should only be able to protest for superfluous things, like the color tie he wore today?
The protest isn't the problem. The reaction to it is.
"We understand your concern, and Mozilla does not share the beliefs of it's individual employees, but Mozilla also does not punish it's employees for their political beliefs, nor do we intend to punish them for exercising their first amendment rights."
Seems like something I'd love to hear them say.
Being known as the company whoes CEO hates marriage equality caused quite a few programmers and such to quit, I figure that violates point 3. 'Course, it could also be some kind of Velvet Mafia conspiracy.
Source on people quitting?
And if they did quit, then shame on them. Truly, truly, shame on them.
Because they are really no better than Christian fundamentalists who let their personal opinion become so important to their being that they cannot handle anyone else having differing opinions.
There are plenty of ideas that we find morally reprehensible and that is perfectly reasonable. Someone has every right to believe that we should be allowed to own slaves again, it doesn't mean we all can't call them an idiot and a racist. Generally if it is something that restricts someone's rights, you have to have a pretty good reason for having that belief or by and large, it will be a morally reprehensible belief. Nowadays, one interpretation of the Bible by an evershrinking section of Christianity is not considered a good reason. If certain Muslim groups wanted to make it illegal for women to work in the US, we would all jump on the bandwagon to tell them they are wrong. What is different between that and this?
And we have arrived at that conclusion by CONVINCING MOST PEOPLE THAT THOSE IDEAS ARE MORALLY REPREHENSIBLE.
Don't you ******* get it? We didn't force the ideas through their throats. We convinced enough people until that the overwhelming majority accepts our ideas.
What we should be doing is "This idea is right, and this is WHY it's right. Please listen to me!"
Instead, what happened here is "This idea is right, and you MUST accept it. If you do not, then bye bye!"
That is incredibly dangerous. It is tyranny at its most basic form.
And, the problem is, many liberals seem to be operating under that ideal nowadays. It really does scare me that they cannot see how they're doing essentially the same thing that everyone they oppose are doing.
You see, it DOESN'T MATTER THAT YOU THINK IT IS A GOOD IDEA/MORALITY/HAVE HAVE YOU. What matters is that your idea is so damned good that it can CONVINCE OTHERS.
But it is wrong. Somethings are wrong. The unjustified killing of another person is inherently wrong. Attempting to make second class citizens of certain law abiding groups of adults is inherently wrong.
No. No. No. No.
You cannot simply state things are wrong, or that certain things are just good, out of hand. You are doing so because you firmly know that unjustified murder is wrong.
But there are REASONS why unjustified murder is wrong. And those REASONS are incredibly important. Those REASONS need to have the power to easily convince millions and millions. Only then do they have the potential to become a generally held moral belief.
But the idea that certain things are just right or wrong is... horrifying.
If someone is running for political office on a platform of rounding up the Chinese-Americans and putting them in concentration camps, you are saying it is wrong to protest the events that person takes part in?
What? When did I ever write anything to that effect?
I wrote this- Say I voted that we shouldn't allow gay marriages. Does that give people who believe in gay marriages license to target me?
Do you even comprehend what I'm writing here on an objective level?
Oh, we should only be able to protest for superfluous things, like the color tie he wore today?
No. I do not think you comprehend what I'm writing here on an objective level.
How can you even begin to consider protesting someone who exercised his/her political rights?
DO YOU PEOPLE UNDERSTAND THAT YOUR POSITION CAN BE USED FOR INJUSTICE AND TYRANNY? That your position has EXACTLY the same framework used by the very people that you reject?
I'm starting to realize now that people get so blinded by the details that they don't understand the frame upon which they're framing their arguments.
The details do not matter. The fact that he supported Prop. 8 doesn't matter. Really, it REALLY doesn't matter.
What matters is that people harangued him and forced him to resign for EXERCISING HIS POLITICAL RIGHTS.
Please try to comprehend the implications of that action. What if people instead forced someone to resign for holding pro-gay ideals? How about that? Does that help you to understand what I'm talking about here?
Of course you do. That's why you're for gay rights to begin with. Because people shouldn't be allowed to fire people merely because they're gay.
...
Then why aren't you disturbed by the fact that Mozilla forced the CEO to resign merely because he voted for Prop. 8?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Like it or not a lot of the people that are against same sex marriage believe they are helping people not hurting them. They believe that by trying to prevent sin they are saving them from eternal damnation... So in their own minds they are in fact going out of their way to save people not hurt them.
I could see that, but I'm starting to get tired of all the outrage coming from the left about someone who doesn't perfectly conform to what they believe. Look at the fallout from Chick-fil-A and Duck Dynasty about gay marriage. Tolerance is supposed to be a two-way street, as long as it doesn't lead to aggression on other person or their property. Don't you think this is a little disturbing that it's becoming a growing tread of people are getting ousted and/or blasted because they don't perfectly line up with what socially liberal people believe in?
I expected you and bLatch to have your opinions reversed.
Oh, absolutely. I think the "tolerance" movement is one of the most hypocritical social movements in recent history, but I don't think this is necessarily implicated here. To be sure it was brought to Mozilla's board's attention because of it, and thats probably a "bad thing", but once the outrage started, replacing him was the right thing to do for the company. Regardless of whether the outrage was justified or not.
So, in sum, Outrage -- overreaction. Response to outrage -- appropriate reaction.
Hmm not really? That argument may hold some merit in an abortion debate (where someone believes they are preventing a murder) but it doesn't even make basic sense when talking about gay marriage. I've certainly never heard it presented that way. Usually the rhetoric is about protecting "The Country" or "The Children", not about saving the souls of homosexuals (I'm not even sure how it would help since you're not stopping them having sex just getting government benefits).
It's a moot point anyways since the judgement isn't whether they believe they are helping or hurting, it's whether *I* believe they are helping or hurting since it's my own conscience I have to answer to.
This is why they get paid the big bucks. There is a very high standard for CEO's.
To me, if you are deciding which products you use based on political affiliations your decision making is suspect already but at the same time, this is the reality in the market place that politics can and do impact their jobs. After all, companies donate to lobbing groups all the time. I imagine the board of most companies want some one in the CEO chair that shares their ideals. How trust worthy is a guy how privately believes one thing but embraces the oppistie when he/she has the executive hat on. An hourly employee does not have the ability or the platform a CEO or high level executive to embrace political topics.
--------------
I do not get a big deal about this....to me it's a PR stunt aimed a specific demographic. A demographic that has shown a willingness to support inferior products/ideas/people as long as the ideology is aligned.
calling liberals loons=not okay
The standard to which the forum moderators apply the rules here.
I think the "debate" is whether or not it's healthy for our society to force these decisions. (Not whether or not it's legal/should be illegal)
For example...
Mozilla Donates $1 million to anti-abortion support... I see this as being a perfect example of where to use boycotting. The company itself is saying to it's consumers "this is what we as a company believe and support". The way consumers tell the company they disagree is with purchases.
On the other hand Bob the CEO of Mozilla donates $1 million of his private money to anti-abortion support. Here you want to tell Bob that you disagree with his views. Just because a portion of his income happened to come from his job you want to punish the company that he works for?
Voicing their opinion in a legal manner/in politics=going out of their way to hurt someone else?
Oh **** me. The worst really has happened.
Edit- To clarify, voicing one's opinion through the polls or elections or propositions IS going to hurt someone else. That is inevitable. There are always sides, and whenever one side wins, the other side will be hurt.
What I am utterly appalled by is that you take this fact and think that it is bad and undesirable.
Huh, from what I understand me and bLatch are in agreement over the thing.
I certainly agree with "I think the "tolerance" movement is one of the most hypocritical social movements in recent history"
More hypocritical than the "family values" movement?
Rising divorce rates? The probable fact that the "family values" that many conservatives like to tout these days never existed to begin with?
Yes. I'd argue that the "tolerance" movement is much more "hypocritical".
Because the "tolerance" movement is supposed to be about tolerance. Except, of course, when people disagree with you and do it in a legal and democratic manner.
Then you force them to resign.
Afaik, the "family values" movement doesn't directly harm our very political and democratic/republican ideal. The "tolerance" movement can, and apparently does in this case.
If nothing else, like B_S said, we WANT more transparency in donations and other political finances. Why would anyone would to make their political actions public after this?
G MGC
WB Teysa Tokens
BR Wortsnort
UG 23.5-No Edric
URG Noncombo Animar
GUB Damia Stax
WBR Alesha Hatebear Recursion
WBR Daddy Tariel
UBR [Je]love-a Your Deck
GWU Almost Critterless Enchantress
WUB Sydri+Artifacts=WUB
WURG Glint-Eye Combo
It depends what the opinion is doesn't it? If I say that blacks should be slaves or that women shouldn't be allowed to vote, well that's just voicing my opinion in a perfectly legal manner. Whether it's legal or not has very little to do with it.
I don't think I did say that? In fact I think I said the complete opposite when I said that I don't fault anyone for voicing their honest opinion at the polls.
Standard: UWG Bant Control
EDH: UArcum Dagsson
Modern: Affinity
Vintage: BUR Grixis Control
Legacy: W Mono-White : U Merfolk : BUG Esper Stoneblade : RBG Punishing Jund : B Reanimator : RU Sneak and Show : GB Infect : RG Red/Green Devotion : RUG RUG Delver
That's the thing.. it shouldn't matter what the opinion is. At least, in the statement I wrote.
Have you ever considered the possibility that the Christians who actively oppose gays are applying the exact same logic as you? While you may not consider homosexuality to be a serious sin, many Christians do. To the point that they consider it a danger to society.
They're not opposing gay marriages and gays in general because they want to discriminate people for fun, you know.
There is merely a difference in the values you and these Christians hold. I personally believe that your value holds more water, but then again I do not believe in God. But if you truly believed in God, then wouldn't it be obvious that you would try to stay within the values He is said to have proclaimed?
But you do consider it harming others if they actively pursue political options?
A public figure made a donation to a public and controversial cause, it created bad press, therefore his company (who he represents) pressured him to resign.
Would you be comfortable with Fox canning O'Reilly for making anti-Semitic donations because of the bad press that said donations generated? Probably not.
Would you be comfortable with Viacom canning Colbert for making anti-Semitic donations because of the bad press that said donations generated? Probably not.
If according to the SCOTUS, political donations are a manifestation of speech, then what is the issue here? Free speech doesn't guarantee the absence of negative consequences. If I tell the woman interviewing me that she is an idiot, I don't get the job. If I make public donations to a controversial cause, I may lose my job due to the backlash.
It is not the state, or the "thought police", or even massive corporations out to get you, just cultural opinion manifesting itself.
Edit: And furthermore, I think that arguing about the cultural thought police makes evident your conservatism (I want things to stay the same!), as in: "My opinion is unpopular, so I invoke Orwell to scare people about questioning things that I see as self-evident".
Also: I don't really see what's up for debate here: Mozilla's actions towards it's CEO or the public's outcry at CEO's political "speech"? Remember that free speech goes both ways, and that people really like to whip out the Malleus Maleficarum when something bothers them.
You all should try reading it and digesting that it implies.
I am uncomfortable with this because the quote suggests that certain ideas are simply unacceptable. Period. End of story. No more discussion to be had.
That very concept unnerves me. The idea that we can simply reject certain things because they're just wrong and we all know its wrong.
I am equally uncomfortable with the possibility that the protests suggest that people can be targeted simply because they exercised their political rights, and in doing so adhered to principles that the protesters disagree with.
The right to protest is fine. I don't like people protesting merely because someone exercised his/her political rights.
Being known as the company whoes CEO hates marriage equality caused quite a few programmers and such to quit, I figure that violates point 3. 'Course, it could also be some kind of Velvet Mafia conspiracy.
Art is life itself.
I'm not exactly one to defend this kind of thing, but something I read recently from a very left leaning blogger I read suggested at a certain point we need to forgive people for the kind of reflexive anti-gay attitudes that people held in the past versus the really active kinds. Didn't this guy donate a grand 4 years ago and then? It doesn't make it right, but it doesn't seem like "start a campaign to fire someone" territory.
Its closer to 5 minutes, but you can probably afford to shop around idealogies and tasties in downtown portland and its abundance of food carts.
Its not something so simple and easy to slam as "Oh, they promote tolerance, but not tolerating intolerance is itself intolerant, ergo, lol"
I'd say that anyone trying that line of reasoning is over-simplifying what the "tolerance" movement is. I view it more in a utilitarian framework. Promoting tolerance, particularly in a legally equal live and let live kind of way, is a net good. Letting two dudes get married or letting people who previously couldn't vote vote or what have you provides tangible gains that are not equivalent to whatever it is that the people opposing those activities gain by believing its moral or whatever. We could almost liken it to the Pareto efficiency from gains from trade.
Then how will you arrange for one night stands with local women with self esteem issues? Craigslist? You gone get mugged, son.
Put the shoe on the other foot for a second.
If the LGBT, and equal marriage movement was the unpopular stance, the politically incorrect stance, would you really defend the boycott, or Mozilla canning the employee, if say, that employee voted against Prop 8.?
They voted for equal rights, they gave money to support the equal marriage movement, and were punished for it?
Would you really defend the community that turned on that employee, ostracized them, and their company for handing them their papers?
Would your response be "oh well, don't speak up for equal rights if you can't handle the consequences"?
I would hope to god not.
I would hope you'd say this is wrong, that they are suppressing free speech, that this was a wrongful termination.
What if the popular opinion was that Gays weren't allowed to go to the movies, and a theater manager let some in, or voted to allow gays to go to the movies. Afterwards, the backlash against the manager and his theater from the resident bigots caused them to fire the manager.
Would you be okay with it? Would you be like "they were right to fire him, he cost them money."
If you would support the manager, and call it wrongful termination;
If you would call his firing unjust, and a suppression of free speech;
If you would call the boycott disgusting, for promoting the continued inequality of the law;
Then maybe you'll see your hypocrisy in this situation.
Oh no wait, it's only free speech if I agree with it. If not, they deserve to be fired and thrown under the bus.
Thanks to Xenphire @ Inkfox for the amazing new sig
“Thus strangely are our souls constructed, and by slight ligaments
are we bound to prosperity and ruin.”
― Mary Shelley, Frankenstein
There are plenty of ideas that we find morally reprehensible and that is perfectly reasonable. Someone has every right to believe that we should be allowed to own slaves again, it doesn't mean we all can't call them an idiot and a racist. Generally if it is something that restricts someone's rights, you have to have a pretty good reason for having that belief or by and large, it will be a morally reprehensible belief. Nowadays, one interpretation of the Bible by an evershrinking section of Christianity is not considered a good reason. If certain Muslim groups wanted to make it illegal for women to work in the US, we would all jump on the bandwagon to tell them they are wrong. What is different between that and this?
But it is wrong. Somethings are wrong. The unjustified killing of another person is inherently wrong. Attempting to make second class citizens of certain law abiding groups of adults is inherently wrong.
I think racists are stupid and dangerous to our country, but I don't say they shouldn't be allowed to marry and have kids even though I know they will pass their dangerous ideology along to them. That is a difference.
If someone is running for political office on a platform of rounding up the Chinese-Americans and putting them in concentration camps, you are saying it is wrong to protest the events that person takes part in?
Oh, we should only be able to protest for superfluous things, like the color tie he wore today?
Absolutely. But that wasn't magicware's point. His point was that the reaction was censorious. It sought to shut down free discussion rather than foster it. If something is so gravely wrong, it only becomes all the more urgent that we as a society meet it with strong, reasoned arguments for the truth - to justify our saying that it's wrong.
How very generous of you. But do you say they shouldn't be allowed to hold down jobs? Make political contributions? Speak their minds?
The word he used is "merely", so it's pretty obvious he is saying the opposite: we should save our protests for more harmful things than political speech.
Also, I can't help but notice that you, apparently unconsciously, translated "I don't like..." into "we shouldn't be able to..." This equivocation is at the heart of the problem with your position, and you're so blind to it you even project it on the people who are directly opposing you.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
I'm a nonbeliever, I don't want the religious right deciding public policy either.
However, popular speech rarely need protecting. It's the unpopular speech that requires it.
There is no market of ideas when people remain silent out of fear.
What of the day when MY beliefs become those of an unpopular minority?
Should racists/bigots be allowed to work, and keep a job to provide for themselves and their family?
How so, if we punish their employers for employing them to the extent they get fired (or asked "politely" to resign)?
Do we follow that bigot to their next job, and punish that employer too?
Was there, no, is there STILL not days when a homosexual feels they must hide themselves from exposure in order to keep their job, or keep their social capital in tact?
Do we not consider this an unfortunate wrong, and a travesty of equal justice?
Last I checked, we didn't elect private business managers.
They are hired or promoted based on job performance, education, and qualifications.
All of which this guy meets no doubt, or at least met when they hired him - but his disqualifying trait? No, not a felony conviction, not a DUI, or a rape charge. His crime was supporting his political beliefs with his own money.
Anyone remember someone getting fired just because they turned out to be gay?
I do, it wasn't that long ago. It was wrong then, and it's wrong now. The reverse, likewise.
The protest isn't the problem. The reaction to it is.
"We understand your concern, and Mozilla does not share the beliefs of it's individual employees, but Mozilla also does not punish it's employees for their political beliefs, nor do we intend to punish them for exercising their first amendment rights."
Seems like something I'd love to hear them say.
Thanks to Xenphire @ Inkfox for the amazing new sig
“Thus strangely are our souls constructed, and by slight ligaments
are we bound to prosperity and ruin.”
― Mary Shelley, Frankenstein
Source on people quitting?
And if they did quit, then shame on them. Truly, truly, shame on them.
Because they are really no better than Christian fundamentalists who let their personal opinion become so important to their being that they cannot handle anyone else having differing opinions.
And we have arrived at that conclusion by CONVINCING MOST PEOPLE THAT THOSE IDEAS ARE MORALLY REPREHENSIBLE.
Don't you ******* get it? We didn't force the ideas through their throats. We convinced enough people until that the overwhelming majority accepts our ideas.
What we should be doing is "This idea is right, and this is WHY it's right. Please listen to me!"
Instead, what happened here is "This idea is right, and you MUST accept it. If you do not, then bye bye!"
That is incredibly dangerous. It is tyranny at its most basic form.
And, the problem is, many liberals seem to be operating under that ideal nowadays. It really does scare me that they cannot see how they're doing essentially the same thing that everyone they oppose are doing.
You see, it DOESN'T MATTER THAT YOU THINK IT IS A GOOD IDEA/MORALITY/HAVE HAVE YOU. What matters is that your idea is so damned good that it can CONVINCE OTHERS.
No. No. No. No.
You cannot simply state things are wrong, or that certain things are just good, out of hand. You are doing so because you firmly know that unjustified murder is wrong.
But there are REASONS why unjustified murder is wrong. And those REASONS are incredibly important. Those REASONS need to have the power to easily convince millions and millions. Only then do they have the potential to become a generally held moral belief.
But the idea that certain things are just right or wrong is... horrifying.
What? When did I ever write anything to that effect?
I wrote this- Say I voted that we shouldn't allow gay marriages. Does that give people who believe in gay marriages license to target me?
Do you even comprehend what I'm writing here on an objective level?
No. I do not think you comprehend what I'm writing here on an objective level.
How can you even begin to consider protesting someone who exercised his/her political rights?
DO YOU PEOPLE UNDERSTAND THAT YOUR POSITION CAN BE USED FOR INJUSTICE AND TYRANNY? That your position has EXACTLY the same framework used by the very people that you reject?
I'm starting to realize now that people get so blinded by the details that they don't understand the frame upon which they're framing their arguments.
The details do not matter. The fact that he supported Prop. 8 doesn't matter. Really, it REALLY doesn't matter.
What matters is that people harangued him and forced him to resign for EXERCISING HIS POLITICAL RIGHTS.
Please try to comprehend the implications of that action. What if people instead forced someone to resign for holding pro-gay ideals? How about that? Does that help you to understand what I'm talking about here?
Of course you do. That's why you're for gay rights to begin with. Because people shouldn't be allowed to fire people merely because they're gay.
...
Then why aren't you disturbed by the fact that Mozilla forced the CEO to resign merely because he voted for Prop. 8?