So he's being persecuted for his action, rather than his belief?
When the action involves him exercises his rights to an integral part of the rights given to him by the U.S., and one that involves him expressing his opinions, there really is no difference.
Stop trying to trap me into something. Speak your mind.
I'm not trying to trap you into anything. I just think it's disingenuous to say he was persecuted for his beliefs, when he was persecuted for his action. He was the CEO - the public face - of a company committed to diversity and equality, and customers of the company were of the opinion that his action was out of line with the values of the company. Had he not performed this action, but held the same beliefs, he would most likely still be CEO.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Quote from MD »
I am willing to bet my collection that Frozen and Solid are not on the same card. For example, Frozen Tomb and Solid Wall.
If Frozen Solid is not reprinted, you are aware that I'm quoting you in my sig for eternity?
So he's being persecuted for his action, rather than his belief?
When the action involves him exercises his rights to an integral part of the rights given to him by the U.S., and one that involves him expressing his opinions, there really is no difference.
Stop trying to trap me into something. Speak your mind.
I'm not trying to trap you into anything. I just think it's disingenuous to say he was persecuted for his beliefs, when he was persecuted for his action. He was the CEO - the public face - of a company committed to diversity and equality, and customers of the company were of the opinion that his action was out of line with the values of the company. Had he not performed this action, but held the same beliefs, he would most likely still be CEO.
A pity then then that this company "committed to diversity" is not willing to have an republican for a CEO. Maybe they are just committed to a diversity of Democrats. Did not think that bit of diversity was worth any "commitment".
[quote from="The Pursuer" url="http://www.mtgsalvation.com/forums/outside-magic/debate/550607-mozilla-ceo-resigns-because-he-donated-to-support?comment=168"][quote from="Sam I am" url="http://www.mtgsalvation.com/forums/outside-magic/debate/550607-mozilla-ceo-resigns-because-he-donated-to-support?comment=167"]
I don't see what protesting/boycotting the organization or trying to get It's CEO fired can possibly accomplish in this case aside from making the CEO suffer for his heresy.
I can't see how that can be anything BUT seeing revenge.
Yeah I don't get the big deal about Rosa Parks either.
The montgomery bus boycott was different in an incredibly important way. It had a purpose.
Their goal was to achieve equal rights (in this case on the bus).
The demand of the boycott wasn't "make this person suffer" or "fire this guy" or "stop your employees from making political contributions against us." It was "Desegregate the bus"
And once the bus was degenerated. They stopped the boycott.
So he's being persecuted for his action, rather than his belief?
When the action involves him exercises his rights to an integral part of the rights given to him by the U.S., and one that involves him expressing his opinions, there really is no difference.
Stop trying to trap me into something. Speak your mind.
I'm not trying to trap you into anything. I just think it's disingenuous to say he was persecuted for his beliefs, when he was persecuted for his action. He was the CEO - the public face - of a company committed to diversity and equality, and customers of the company were of the opinion that his action was out of line with the values of the company. Had he not performed this action, but held the same beliefs, he would most likely still be CEO.
A pity then then that this company "committed to diversity" is not willing to have an republican for a CEO. Maybe they are just committed to a diversity of Democrats. Did not think that bit of diversity was worth any "commitment".
Are you suggesting that the customer boycott was due to his being a Republican, rather than his financial support for Proposition 8?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Quote from MD »
I am willing to bet my collection that Frozen and Solid are not on the same card. For example, Frozen Tomb and Solid Wall.
If Frozen Solid is not reprinted, you are aware that I'm quoting you in my sig for eternity?
I suggest that his boycott was an underhanded attempt to undermine his and people like hims political views. Liberals trying to hardball conservative values and norms out of the public square is hardly anything new.
Let us not be disingenuous by thinking this is some holy crusade to empower the homo sexual. This is in its simplest form Conservative values VS Liberal values. This is but just the way in which the liberals have chosen there battlefield.
Let us not be disingenuous by thinking this is some holy crusade to empower the homo sexual. This is in its simplest form Conservative values VS Liberal values. This is but just the way in which the liberals have chosen there battlefield.
Let us also not be disingenuous by pretending liberalism is the problem here. Political boycotting is a tactic that can be and has been employed by both sides for any number of causes both worthy and unworthy. That's why it's disturbing.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
I suggest that his boycott was an underhanded attempt to undermine his and people like hims political views. Liberals trying to hardball conservative values and norms out of the public square is hardly anything new.
Let us not be disingenuous by thinking this is some holy crusade to empower the homo sexual. This is in its simplest form Conservative values VS Liberal values. This is but just the way in which the liberals have chosen there battlefield.
You're conflating Republicanism, conservatism and being anti-same-sex-marriage. The latter two may be aligned, but ( according to the Pew Research Centre), 61% of under-30 Republican voters (/voters that lean Republican) support same-sex marriage, so being a Republican and being anti-same-sex-marriage aren't the same thing.
This is pro-same-sex-marriage vs anti-same-sex-marriage, not Democrat vs Republican.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Quote from MD »
I am willing to bet my collection that Frozen and Solid are not on the same card. For example, Frozen Tomb and Solid Wall.
If Frozen Solid is not reprinted, you are aware that I'm quoting you in my sig for eternity?
I'm not trying to trap you into anything. I just think it's disingenuous to say he was persecuted for his beliefs, when he was persecuted for his action. He was the CEO - the public face - of a company committed to diversity and equality, and customers of the company were of the opinion that his action was out of line with the values of the company. Had he not performed this action, but held the same beliefs, he would most likely still be CEO.
Thanks for speaking your mind =D
Here's what I think-
It doesn't make sense to me that equality involves removing people because they take action/speak out(In this case both are the same) against the equality of others. That isn't creating more equality. It's at best a trade-off. Which isn't necessarily bad, as I agree with certain trade-offs (one notable being the rights of blacks over the rights of the Southern states who didn't want to follow along with desegregation), but one should recognize it as it is, a trade-off.
You and many others, like Ophidian Eye, are focusing on the fact that he's a bigot as if it means anything. But it really doesn't.
Why doesn't it? Because, regardless of the fact that he's a bigot, he's still a citizen of the U.S., and so entitled to his rights under the 1st Amendment. He is allowed to voice his opinion and make legal and political actions in pursuit of his opinion.
OK Cupid began the boycott against the CEO because he donated TO the campaign supporting Prop 8. They're not boycotting the fact that he donated at all (which would be the action), but rather because he donated TO the campaign (which would be the opinion). Thus, the argument that they're boycotting his action doesn't make sense. Otherwise you'd have to be boycotting the ACT of donation, and not what he donated to. If this was the case, then the fact that he is a bigot shouldn't matter to anyone's reason for boycotting him, because they're boycotting the action of donating. OK Cupid's post on why they decided to boycott Mozilla speaks clearly that they're boycotting the fact that he's a bigot though.
If you are boycotting what he donated to, then you are boycotting his opinion and his right to make legal and political actions in pursuit of his opinion.
And even if the above wasn't the case, there still remains the fact that donating to causes that you support is a part of free speech. Even if we accepted your proposal that the protesters were protesting his actions, and so if he just remained silent then people wouldn't mind, then you're effectively saying that people shouldn't be allowed to act in support of certain ideologies they hold.
Can you not see what's wrong with that? Again, the fact that he's a bigot doesn't really matter. You're still encouraging people to suppress their ideology in an effort to avoid reprisal.
Say the Union boycotted southern cotton producers in order to get them to change? I'm not buying the "boycotts are bad". I do, however, take objection when words such as tolerance and equality are used when it occurs. Social progress is built upon popular (or unpopular) ideas. Just dont talk about eqaulity or tolerance when you do it becasue you are anything but.
@ magicware when I asked you to pick a side it was about your use of persecution.
Choose one; is persecution a moral good or bad?
If you say moral good then your argument has not teeth. If you say moral bad then you are clearly arguing against the boy-cotters actions and how they used of their freedoms.
You and many others, like Ophidian Eye, are focusing on the fact that he's a bigot as if it means anything. But it really doesn't.
You are on the board of directors of a company that relies on an open source product. A non-insignificant percentage of your users has perceives your C.E.O. as a bigot and that percentage could be growing by the day. What do you do replace that C.E.O. with another person not known as a bigot or keep the perceived bigot?
I would not. I would also feel bad that I chose the safety of my children over innocent until proven guilty.
No you would not feel bad. Protecting the lives of innocent people is greater then upholding the moral value of "innocent until proven guilty." If you thought it was the other way around you would have to argue against the second amendment. Which i do not think you are willing to do. Sometimes two deeply held moral values come in conflict and when that happens one of the morals win and the other looses.
@ magicware when I asked you to pick a side it was about your use of persecution.
Choose one; is persecution a moral good or bad?
If you say moral good then your argument has not teeth. If you say moral bad then you are clearly arguing against the boy-cotters actions and how they used of their freedoms.
I believe the boycotters were wrong to boycott Mozilla because the CEO donated to support Prop. 8.
Edit-
I see now why're you're doing this. I wrote earlier that I don't mind their actions, but I mind the ramifications, blah blah.
It is inconsistent.
Here is the (hopefully) consistent one-
The people who boycotted had every right and reason to boycott as they wish. That being said, I believe the boycotts shouldn't have been done, and those who did them made a mistake and are wrong to have done so, as they effectively targeted an individual for voicing his opinion and acting in a legal, and in fact fundamental as it pertains to the workings of our government, manner.
You are on the board of directors of a company that relies on an open source product. A non-insignificant percentage of your users has perceives your C.E.O. as a bigot and that percentage could be growing by the day. What do you do replace that C.E.O. with another person not known as a bigot or keep the perceived bigot?
You completely misunderstood what I meant by that line.
Why doesn't it? Because, regardless of the fact that he's a bigot, he's still a citizen of the U.S., and so entitled to his rights under the 1st Amendment. He is allowed to voice his opinion and make legal and political actions in pursuit of his opinion.
Edit-
To further add to this-
Yes. The fact that CEO is a bigot prompted the boycotts. That is the extent of the fact that he's a bigot's relevance, as one can easily replace "bigot" with just about anything that elicits strong opinions from people.
The fact still remains that people boycotted essentially because they opposed the CEO's opinion and his choice to act in support of his opinion. That is why the details do not matter. The implications of this action does.
That is why I repeatedly made comments on how this is functionally equivalent to people boycotting a CEO and his/her company who was revealed to have supported pro-gay rights, and vice versa. There is no difference in the frame of why people boycotted- They found someone supporting something that they do not like, and so they boycotted in response.
No you would not feel bad. Protecting the lives of innocent people is greater then upholding the moral value of "innocent until proven guilty."
So you support the internment of the Japanese during WW 2? Because that's rather equivalent to this.
The Japanese launched a sneak attack and there are rampant (virtually all of them found later to be false) reports that the Japanese on Hawaii had contacts with Japanese in Japan, and there are reports of suspicious Japanese individuals and spy activities all over the West Coast.
If you thought it was the other way around you would have to argue against the second amendment. Which i do not think you are willing to do. Sometimes two deeply held moral values come in conflict and when that happens one of the morals win and the other looses.
Say the Union boycotted southern cotton producers in order to get them to change?
That is very unlikely to have happened spontaneously, because Northerners quite liked having cheap clothes. It took a top-down ass-kicking to get the South to change.
That's the thing about boycotts: they're fickle. Boycotting Firefox is as simple as moving the cursor over one icon on your taskbar and clicking Google Chrome instead. That's why OKCupid's target selection was inspired. But if they'd tried to get people to change, say, their insurance company, their effort probably would never have gotten off the ground. It has nothing to do with the magnitude of the offender's sin and everything to do with the convenience of the offendee. And hell, sometimes even convenience isn't enough. De Beers is a company that is, it is safe to say, objectively and manifestly evil. You think donating $1000 to oppose same-sex marriage is a bad thing - try spending millions on funding guerrilla wars. And diamonds are something that all of us could easily do without. But in spite of years of effort by hardworking campaigners, De Beers has largely been able to shrug off the negative publicity. The grassroots just can't seem to get their grips into the diamond cartel, and yet a stunt by OKCupid can generate a spike of outrage in a scant couple of weeks big enough to threaten Mozilla's bottom line. This isn't social justice. Expecting this kind of activism to make the world a better place is like trying to power a city grid off of lightning strikes: intense, but momentary, and utterly unreliable.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
[quote from="The Pursuer" url="http://www.mtgsalvation.com/forums/outside-magic/debate/550607-mozilla-ceo-resigns-because-he-donated-to-support?comment=176"] They stopped the boycott.
Yes and in this case they stopped when that despicable person was no longer CEO of Mozilla. I do not think you understand how the first amendment works. You keep thinking it only goes one way.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
“A man's at odds to know his mind cause his mind is aught he has to know it with. He can know his heart, but he dont want to. Rightly so. Best not to look in there. It aint the heart of a creature that is bound in the way that God has set for it. You can find meanness in the least of creatures, but when God made man the devil was at his elbow. A creature that can do anything. Make a machine. And a machine to make the machine. And evil that can run itself a thousand years, no need to tend it.”
― Cormac McCarthy, Blood Meridian, or the Evening Redness in the West
Say the Union boycotted southern cotton producers in order to get them to change?
That is very unlikely to have happened spontaneously, because Northerners quite liked having cheap clothes. It took a top-down ass-kicking to get the South to change.
That's the thing about boycotts: they're fickle. Boycotting Firefox is as simple as moving the cursor over one icon on your taskbar and clicking Google Chrome instead. That's why OKCupid's target selection was inspired. But if they'd tried to get people to change, say, their insurance company, their effort probably would never have gotten off the ground. It has nothing to do with the magnitude of the offender's sin and everything to do with the convenience of the offendee. And hell, sometimes even convenience isn't enough. De Beers is a company that is, it is safe to say, objectively and manifestly evil. You think donating $1000 to oppose same-sex marriage is a bad thing - try spending millions on funding guerrilla wars. And diamonds are something that all of us could easily do without. But in spite of years of effort by hardworking campaigners, De Beers has largely been able to shrug off the negative publicity. The grassroots just can't seem to get their grips into the diamond cartel, and yet a stunt by OKCupid can generate a spike of outrage in a scant couple of weeks big enough to threaten Mozilla's bottom line. This isn't social justice. Expecting this kind of activism to make the world a better place is like trying to power a city grid off of lightning strikes: intense, but momentary, and utterly unreliable.
The Mozilla thing was a publicity stunt that we are using as a catalyst to debate the issue. For every die hard LGBT loss they gained a religious nut case. Why Mozilla reacted the way it did is astounding. Watch this site:
There will not be any serious movement in market share nor their bottom line People just do not choose browsers based on politics. Most people do not care about gay marriage because it does not affect them.
On to the larger point, I can not resolve some simple things to bring my self inline with what you are saying. Civil rights movement. Boycotts bring awareness and creates discussion, at the very least. On the other hand, godwins law, i.e. when a popular idea goes bad.
All the "sweat shop" "labor pimps" "wage slavery" outrage over Apple's Foxconn thing didn't cause them to diversify away from that company.
It hardly even got Fair Labor inspectors involved (and when they did it was a token gesture at best)
What did lead Apple to diversify their labor away from Foxconn to Pegatron?
Tiny scratches on the metal casings.
I don't always agree with B_S, but when I do it's 100%.
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 don't always agree with B_S, but when I do it's 100%.
Whenever B_S weighs in with a definitive opinion on an issue (rather than just critiquing someone's argument or posting background info), I always mentally add "/thread" to the end of his post.
EDIT: I realized this is probably a forbidden "+1" type post. So let me add some substance: Doing the right thing when it's easy and the effect is minor is not an accomplishment worthy of accolades. But we are a culture of instant food, instant entertainment, and instant activism. Gay people benefited very little (if at all) from this low-effort protest of Mozilla. Yet thousands congratulated themselves for "contributing to social change." Real change takes effort and sacrifice.
You and many others, like Ophidian Eye, are focusing on the fact that he's a bigot as if it means anything. But it really doesn't.
I want to go on record by saying I was accepting of his bigotry, but was defending the company's ability to distance itself from something that may have generated negative media, which could in turn lead to negative effects on the company's ability to continue operation at acceptable levels.
You are right, my personal opinions on his bigotry (that he seems to display as a private citizen) have nothing to do with it. I don't deny that it is possible that this is a symptom of a larger, underlying issue, but it's there and the company's fear is seemingly justified. That is to say, I'm sure he wouldn't have resigned if it was revealed that he is supporting a movement to remove all penne noodles from store shelves in America (although companies like Barilla may not gel with that movement).
I want to go on record by saying I was accepting of his bigotry, but was defending the company's ability to distance itself from something that may have generated negative media, which could in turn lead to negative effects on the company's ability to continue operation at acceptable levels.
Sure.
But I'd also like to put on record (repeatedly) that no one has said that the company cannot do this. In fact, just about everyone who agreed with me on the issue also agreed that the company had every good reason to force the CEO to resign.
You are right, my personal opinions on his bigotry (that he seems to display as a private citizen) have nothing to do with it. I don't deny that it is possible that this is a symptom of a larger, underlying issue, but it's there and the company's fear is seemingly justified. That is to say, I'm sure he wouldn't have resigned if it was revealed that he is supporting a movement to remove all penne noodles from store shelves in America (although companies like Barilla may not gel with that movement).
If sufficient amount of people got angry that he supported that movement, then they might have boycotted him.
That's why I'm saying. The fact that people got angry and boycotted a company because they got angry is the issue I focus on and what I find disturbing.
But I'd also like to put on record (repeatedly) that no one has said that the company cannot do this. In fact, just about everyone who agreed with me on the issue also agreed that the company had every good reason to force the CEO to resign.
If sufficient amount of people got angry that he supported that movement, then they might have boycotted him.
That's why I'm saying. The fact that people got angry and boycotted a company because they got angry is the issue I focus on and what I find disturbing.
I assume this sort of thing has gone for as long as business has been around and it isn't just an issue of liberal v. conservative views, although that clash may be responsible for generating a lot of the media that leads to this issue.
For me, if it were the other way around I'd hold the same line. If a company that relies on a large constituent of people that are against gay marriage found their CEO doing something like monetarily supporting the gay rights movement, I could see why that company would ask that person to resign. That person just does not fit into the larger scheme of the business or their mission statement. That person could be an actual hindrance to the company.
If Mozilla wants to be perceived by the public as a company that identifies with supporting rights for people who feel like second class citizens, then this move makes business sense. However, there are things I am not sure of, and this is a fine line to walk. Did they ask him to resign solely because of his beliefs or because they were genuinely worried what this revelation means to their business? Another issue is the fact that he was a CEO and had a larger public profile than most of the people who work for Mozilla. It would possibly be more scandalous if they had fired a janitor for supporting the same proposition. It gets messy, trying to defend his rights as a private citizen combined with the standard Mozilla wants to set for the people who come into contact with the public eye.
But I'd also like to put on record (repeatedly) that no one has said that the company cannot do this. In fact, just about everyone who agreed with me on the issue also agreed that the company had every good reason to force the CEO to resign.
If sufficient amount of people got angry that he supported that movement, then they might have boycotted him.
That's why I'm saying. The fact that people got angry and boycotted a company because they got angry is the issue I focus on and what I find disturbing.
I assume this sort of thing has gone for as long as business has been around and it isn't just an issue of liberal v. conservative views, although that clash may be responsible for generating a lot of the media that leads to this issue.
I dont know that this would be true... now I am not old enough to know for certain, but I imagine without the likes of social media it would be much harder for some random company (ok cupid) to start a media firestorm against another company, especially one that is completely unrelated. Sure I remember hearing about boycotting places for child labor or shady business practices... but because some dude that gets paid by the company donates his own money to something controversial?
I mean hell... I work for a Company that has a CEO... I work in the same building as him, it's not that big of a company (a few hundred employees in the building), and I have absolutely zero idea of what his political/religious beliefs are. For all I know he spends half of his pay on causes I would detest... but that has nothing to do with how he runs the business.
Take Facebook and Twitter out of the equation and how many people would have even heard of it? How many people would have heard about the Paula Deen junk?
I dont know that this would be true... now I am not old enough to know for certain, but I imagine without the likes of social media it would be much harder for some random company (ok cupid) to start a media firestorm against another company, especially one that is completely unrelated. Sure I remember hearing about boycotting places for child labor or shady business practices... but because some dude that gets paid by the company donates his own money to something controversial?
I mean hell... I work for a Company that has a CEO... I work in the same building as him, it's not that big of a company (a few hundred employees in the building), and I have absolutely zero idea of what his political/religious beliefs are. For all I know he spends half of his pay on causes I would detest... but that has nothing to do with how he runs the business.
Take Facebook and Twitter out of the equation and how many people would have even heard of it? How many people would have heard about the Paula Deen junk?
I was trying to say that as long as there is someone around who is willing to fling mud at you and a way to disseminate information, any unpopular belief you hold could be used against you, maybe even unfairly. Social media has definitely facilitated the dissemination, but scandal and intrigue were around long before up to the second breaking "news." Maybe it wasn't as rampant, but picturing the world as homier before instant news might be disingenuous. I'm sure some high-profile Sumerian (don't kill me, history buffs, I went with Sumeria for age's sake) lost a job due to a reported scandal that did not curry favor with the public.
I could be wrong, maybe someone like Captain Morgan, with his seemingly extensive knowledge of history and business (and business throughout history), could shed some light here.
I dont know that this would be true... now I am not old enough to know for certain, but I imagine without the likes of social media it would be much harder for some random company (ok cupid) to start a media firestorm against another company, especially one that is completely unrelated. Sure I remember hearing about boycotting places for child labor or shady business practices... but because some dude that gets paid by the company donates his own money to something controversial?
I mean hell... I work for a Company that has a CEO... I work in the same building as him, it's not that big of a company (a few hundred employees in the building), and I have absolutely zero idea of what his political/religious beliefs are. For all I know he spends half of his pay on causes I would detest... but that has nothing to do with how he runs the business.
Take Facebook and Twitter out of the equation and how many people would have even heard of it? How many people would have heard about the Paula Deen junk?
I was trying to say that as long as there is someone around who is willing to fling mud at you and a way to disseminate information, any unpopular belief you hold could be used against you, maybe even unfairly. Social media has definitely facilitated the dissemination, but scandal and intrigue were around long before up to the second breaking "news." Maybe it wasn't as rampant, but picturing the world as homier before instant news might be disingenuous. I'm sure some high-profile Sumerian (don't kill me, history buffs, I went with Sumeria for age's sake) lost a job due to a reported scandal that did not curry favor with the public.
I could be wrong, maybe someone like Captain Morgan, with his seemingly extensive knowledge of history and business (and business throughout history), could shed some light here.
Yeah I just think the instant information and reaction has made it worse. If this would have happened pre-twitter how much of an outcry would Mozilla have even heard? How many people took the time to send a tweet that wouldn't have taken the time to write a letter or call in? Similarly with the Paula Deen situation... how many days would it have taken for society to voice their displeasure and at that point would it have blown over enough where Target wouldn't have felt the need to stop selling her branded goods. Instead we get a situation where the time from initial story to public and then business reaction might only take place in a 24 hour time span. I remember going to Target the day after the Paula Deen thing blew up and the majority of the shelves were already picked over as the store had already clearanced the items and people looking for a deal swooped in. It's kind of crazy how fast it happens.
I'm not trying to trap you into anything. I just think it's disingenuous to say he was persecuted for his beliefs, when he was persecuted for his action. He was the CEO - the public face - of a company committed to diversity and equality, and customers of the company were of the opinion that his action was out of line with the values of the company. Had he not performed this action, but held the same beliefs, he would most likely still be CEO.
A pity then then that this company "committed to diversity" is not willing to have an republican for a CEO. Maybe they are just committed to a diversity of Democrats. Did not think that bit of diversity was worth any "commitment".
The montgomery bus boycott was different in an incredibly important way. It had a purpose.
Their goal was to achieve equal rights (in this case on the bus).
The demand of the boycott wasn't "make this person suffer" or "fire this guy" or "stop your employees from making political contributions against us." It was "Desegregate the bus"
And once the bus was degenerated. They stopped the boycott.
Are you suggesting that the customer boycott was due to his being a Republican, rather than his financial support for Proposition 8?
Let us not be disingenuous by thinking this is some holy crusade to empower the homo sexual. This is in its simplest form Conservative values VS Liberal values. This is but just the way in which the liberals have chosen there battlefield.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
You're conflating Republicanism, conservatism and being anti-same-sex-marriage. The latter two may be aligned, but ( according to the Pew Research Centre), 61% of under-30 Republican voters (/voters that lean Republican) support same-sex marriage, so being a Republican and being anti-same-sex-marriage aren't the same thing.
This is pro-same-sex-marriage vs anti-same-sex-marriage, not Democrat vs Republican.
Thanks for speaking your mind =D
Here's what I think-
It doesn't make sense to me that equality involves removing people because they take action/speak out(In this case both are the same) against the equality of others. That isn't creating more equality. It's at best a trade-off. Which isn't necessarily bad, as I agree with certain trade-offs (one notable being the rights of blacks over the rights of the Southern states who didn't want to follow along with desegregation), but one should recognize it as it is, a trade-off.
You and many others, like Ophidian Eye, are focusing on the fact that he's a bigot as if it means anything. But it really doesn't.
Why doesn't it? Because, regardless of the fact that he's a bigot, he's still a citizen of the U.S., and so entitled to his rights under the 1st Amendment. He is allowed to voice his opinion and make legal and political actions in pursuit of his opinion.
OK Cupid began the boycott against the CEO because he donated TO the campaign supporting Prop 8. They're not boycotting the fact that he donated at all (which would be the action), but rather because he donated TO the campaign (which would be the opinion). Thus, the argument that they're boycotting his action doesn't make sense. Otherwise you'd have to be boycotting the ACT of donation, and not what he donated to. If this was the case, then the fact that he is a bigot shouldn't matter to anyone's reason for boycotting him, because they're boycotting the action of donating. OK Cupid's post on why they decided to boycott Mozilla speaks clearly that they're boycotting the fact that he's a bigot though.
If you are boycotting what he donated to, then you are boycotting his opinion and his right to make legal and political actions in pursuit of his opinion.
And even if the above wasn't the case, there still remains the fact that donating to causes that you support is a part of free speech. Even if we accepted your proposal that the protesters were protesting his actions, and so if he just remained silent then people wouldn't mind, then you're effectively saying that people shouldn't be allowed to act in support of certain ideologies they hold.
Can you not see what's wrong with that? Again, the fact that he's a bigot doesn't really matter. You're still encouraging people to suppress their ideology in an effort to avoid reprisal.
calling liberals loons=not okay
The standard to which the forum moderators apply the rules here.
Choose one; is persecution a moral good or bad?
If you say moral good then your argument has not teeth. If you say moral bad then you are clearly arguing against the boy-cotters actions and how they used of their freedoms.
You are on the board of directors of a company that relies on an open source product. A non-insignificant percentage of your users has perceives your C.E.O. as a bigot and that percentage could be growing by the day. What do you do replace that C.E.O. with another person not known as a bigot or keep the perceived bigot?
No you would not feel bad. Protecting the lives of innocent people is greater then upholding the moral value of "innocent until proven guilty." If you thought it was the other way around you would have to argue against the second amendment. Which i do not think you are willing to do. Sometimes two deeply held moral values come in conflict and when that happens one of the morals win and the other looses.
I believe the boycotters were wrong to boycott Mozilla because the CEO donated to support Prop. 8.
Edit-
I see now why're you're doing this. I wrote earlier that I don't mind their actions, but I mind the ramifications, blah blah.
It is inconsistent.
Here is the (hopefully) consistent one-
The people who boycotted had every right and reason to boycott as they wish. That being said, I believe the boycotts shouldn't have been done, and those who did them made a mistake and are wrong to have done so, as they effectively targeted an individual for voicing his opinion and acting in a legal, and in fact fundamental as it pertains to the workings of our government, manner.
You completely misunderstood what I meant by that line.
Edit-
To further add to this-
Yes. The fact that CEO is a bigot prompted the boycotts. That is the extent of the fact that he's a bigot's relevance, as one can easily replace "bigot" with just about anything that elicits strong opinions from people.
The fact still remains that people boycotted essentially because they opposed the CEO's opinion and his choice to act in support of his opinion. That is why the details do not matter. The implications of this action does.
That is why I repeatedly made comments on how this is functionally equivalent to people boycotting a CEO and his/her company who was revealed to have supported pro-gay rights, and vice versa. There is no difference in the frame of why people boycotted- They found someone supporting something that they do not like, and so they boycotted in response.
So you support the internment of the Japanese during WW 2? Because that's rather equivalent to this.
The Japanese launched a sneak attack and there are rampant (virtually all of them found later to be false) reports that the Japanese on Hawaii had contacts with Japanese in Japan, and there are reports of suspicious Japanese individuals and spy activities all over the West Coast.
I don't follow. Care to explain?
calling liberals loons=not okay
The standard to which the forum moderators apply the rules here.
That's the thing about boycotts: they're fickle. Boycotting Firefox is as simple as moving the cursor over one icon on your taskbar and clicking Google Chrome instead. That's why OKCupid's target selection was inspired. But if they'd tried to get people to change, say, their insurance company, their effort probably would never have gotten off the ground. It has nothing to do with the magnitude of the offender's sin and everything to do with the convenience of the offendee. And hell, sometimes even convenience isn't enough. De Beers is a company that is, it is safe to say, objectively and manifestly evil. You think donating $1000 to oppose same-sex marriage is a bad thing - try spending millions on funding guerrilla wars. And diamonds are something that all of us could easily do without. But in spite of years of effort by hardworking campaigners, De Beers has largely been able to shrug off the negative publicity. The grassroots just can't seem to get their grips into the diamond cartel, and yet a stunt by OKCupid can generate a spike of outrage in a scant couple of weeks big enough to threaten Mozilla's bottom line. This isn't social justice. Expecting this kind of activism to make the world a better place is like trying to power a city grid off of lightning strikes: intense, but momentary, and utterly unreliable.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Yes and in this case they stopped when that despicable person was no longer CEO of Mozilla. I do not think you understand how the first amendment works. You keep thinking it only goes one way.
― Cormac McCarthy, Blood Meridian, or the Evening Redness in the West
The Mozilla thing was a publicity stunt that we are using as a catalyst to debate the issue. For every die hard LGBT loss they gained a religious nut case. Why Mozilla reacted the way it did is astounding. Watch this site:
https://www.w3counter.com/globalstats.php?year=2014&month=3
There will not be any serious movement in market share nor their bottom line People just do not choose browsers based on politics. Most people do not care about gay marriage because it does not affect them.
On to the larger point, I can not resolve some simple things to bring my self inline with what you are saying. Civil rights movement. Boycotts bring awareness and creates discussion, at the very least. On the other hand, godwins law, i.e. when a popular idea goes bad.
calling liberals loons=not okay
The standard to which the forum moderators apply the rules here.
It hardly even got Fair Labor inspectors involved (and when they did it was a token gesture at best)
What did lead Apple to diversify their labor away from Foxconn to Pegatron?
Tiny scratches on the metal casings.
I don't always agree with B_S, but when I do it's 100%.
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
Whenever B_S weighs in with a definitive opinion on an issue (rather than just critiquing someone's argument or posting background info), I always mentally add "/thread" to the end of his post.
EDIT: I realized this is probably a forbidden "+1" type post. So let me add some substance: Doing the right thing when it's easy and the effect is minor is not an accomplishment worthy of accolades. But we are a culture of instant food, instant entertainment, and instant activism. Gay people benefited very little (if at all) from this low-effort protest of Mozilla. Yet thousands congratulated themselves for "contributing to social change." Real change takes effort and sacrifice.
You are right, my personal opinions on his bigotry (that he seems to display as a private citizen) have nothing to do with it. I don't deny that it is possible that this is a symptom of a larger, underlying issue, but it's there and the company's fear is seemingly justified. That is to say, I'm sure he wouldn't have resigned if it was revealed that he is supporting a movement to remove all penne noodles from store shelves in America (although companies like Barilla may not gel with that movement).
Sure.
But I'd also like to put on record (repeatedly) that no one has said that the company cannot do this. In fact, just about everyone who agreed with me on the issue also agreed that the company had every good reason to force the CEO to resign.
If sufficient amount of people got angry that he supported that movement, then they might have boycotted him.
That's why I'm saying. The fact that people got angry and boycotted a company because they got angry is the issue I focus on and what I find disturbing.
I assume this sort of thing has gone for as long as business has been around and it isn't just an issue of liberal v. conservative views, although that clash may be responsible for generating a lot of the media that leads to this issue.
For me, if it were the other way around I'd hold the same line. If a company that relies on a large constituent of people that are against gay marriage found their CEO doing something like monetarily supporting the gay rights movement, I could see why that company would ask that person to resign. That person just does not fit into the larger scheme of the business or their mission statement. That person could be an actual hindrance to the company.
If Mozilla wants to be perceived by the public as a company that identifies with supporting rights for people who feel like second class citizens, then this move makes business sense. However, there are things I am not sure of, and this is a fine line to walk. Did they ask him to resign solely because of his beliefs or because they were genuinely worried what this revelation means to their business? Another issue is the fact that he was a CEO and had a larger public profile than most of the people who work for Mozilla. It would possibly be more scandalous if they had fired a janitor for supporting the same proposition. It gets messy, trying to defend his rights as a private citizen combined with the standard Mozilla wants to set for the people who come into contact with the public eye.
I dont know that this would be true... now I am not old enough to know for certain, but I imagine without the likes of social media it would be much harder for some random company (ok cupid) to start a media firestorm against another company, especially one that is completely unrelated. Sure I remember hearing about boycotting places for child labor or shady business practices... but because some dude that gets paid by the company donates his own money to something controversial?
I mean hell... I work for a Company that has a CEO... I work in the same building as him, it's not that big of a company (a few hundred employees in the building), and I have absolutely zero idea of what his political/religious beliefs are. For all I know he spends half of his pay on causes I would detest... but that has nothing to do with how he runs the business.
Take Facebook and Twitter out of the equation and how many people would have even heard of it? How many people would have heard about the Paula Deen junk?
I was trying to say that as long as there is someone around who is willing to fling mud at you and a way to disseminate information, any unpopular belief you hold could be used against you, maybe even unfairly. Social media has definitely facilitated the dissemination, but scandal and intrigue were around long before up to the second breaking "news." Maybe it wasn't as rampant, but picturing the world as homier before instant news might be disingenuous. I'm sure some high-profile Sumerian (don't kill me, history buffs, I went with Sumeria for age's sake) lost a job due to a reported scandal that did not curry favor with the public.
I could be wrong, maybe someone like Captain Morgan, with his seemingly extensive knowledge of history and business (and business throughout history), could shed some light here.
Yeah I just think the instant information and reaction has made it worse. If this would have happened pre-twitter how much of an outcry would Mozilla have even heard? How many people took the time to send a tweet that wouldn't have taken the time to write a letter or call in? Similarly with the Paula Deen situation... how many days would it have taken for society to voice their displeasure and at that point would it have blown over enough where Target wouldn't have felt the need to stop selling her branded goods. Instead we get a situation where the time from initial story to public and then business reaction might only take place in a 24 hour time span. I remember going to Target the day after the Paula Deen thing blew up and the majority of the shelves were already picked over as the store had already clearanced the items and people looking for a deal swooped in. It's kind of crazy how fast it happens.