The Mozilla boycott worked. Their CEO is stepping down. (death, fence, voting)

[FlamencoFreak]

Originally Posted by Ceist

Reading and regurgitating far-right blog posts is what you call "study"?

You have no knowledge of how much study I have done. Does taking a course on the Constitution count ... in your view?

[bUU]

What textbooks was the course based on and used?

[Ceist]

Originally Posted by freightshaker

Tell me what this guy really did wrong? He supported a group that he personally believed in. Have we suddenly lost freedom of speech and freedom of expression. The man never even made a demeaning statement. He only supported a cause that he believed in. If you start punishing people for their thoughts it can become a very slippery slope. What other thoughts and deeds do we punish next? I could understand all of this if he had made some sort of hate speech. The entire thing is ridiculous.

What did all those 1000's of gay and lesbian couples in California do wrong? The ones who had their right to marriage eliminated by the 'cause' he went out of his way to support? Did they deserve to be 'punished' just because they were gay?

A CEO is a prominent figure who leads and represents the company. His views and actions were not in line with the value statements of the company. He was only in the CEO position for 2 weeks. With so little support even from Mozilla's own employees, he would not have been able to lead the company effectively. It's not as if he lost all his shares and fortune. He will still be involved with the company.

[Iamme73]

Originally Posted by bUU

I think we need to be clear, though. There is nothing wrong with "being anti-homosexual marriage". What's wrong is allowing your beliefs and values to affect how you treat others in public. Within any context other than a forum of ideas (like this), or a social context ("I don't care to be your friend"), why would a same-sex couple ever discover that someone else is anti-gay marriage? Only because that someone else transgresses and violates the ethic of reciprocity, taking action that adversely affects a same-sex couple in some manner affecting their housing, employment, hospitality, commerce, etc. If those opposed to same-sex marriage treated same-sex couples the way they would want to be treated as a couple, themselves, i.e., practicing the Golden Rule, there wouldn't be any problem.

This fundamentally misunderstands this society and the debate. People can believe whatever they want to believe, but the factual reality is that certain beliefs are deemed unacceptable by this society.

A person could believe that adult sex with children is ok and support organizations that promote that viewpoint, but no one would attack Mozilla for firing a CEO that supported such a viewpoint.

A person could believe that some people are reptilians in disguise who are bent on taking over the earth, but no one would attack Mozilla for firing a CEO that supported such a viewpoint.

So fundamentally certain viewpoints are seen as acceptable and others are not and there are consequences for expressing a wide range of beliefs that most people find objectionable.

If this society decides that being anti-homosexual marriage is not based on bigotry/homophobia, but on religious beliefs, conservatives will never stop fighting homosexual marriage, and their anti-homosexual agenda will be given a pass because it will be based on religious beliefs and not bigotry.

Now understand personally I have very, very ambivalent feelings about homosexuality and homosexual marriage, but I see where allowing conservatives to use religious belief as a shield to hide behind promoting very retrograde sexist viewpoints designed to control women and their reproductive rights has worked out.

conservatives have never stopped attempting to control women's access to birth control, and abortions.

If those who want homosexual marriage to be settled, then logically they have to push to make the anti-homosexual marriage viewpoint be seen as one based on bigotry/homophobia and not religious beliefs. Failure to do so will result in conservatives around the nation constantly attempting to role back homosexual marriage forever.

This is what conservatives are attempting to do right now which is carve out space for their anti-homosexual agenda to be considered ok and acceptable to voice.

[pknopp]

Originally Posted by Iamme73

This is what conservatives are attempting to do right now which is carve out space for their anti-homosexual agenda to be considered ok and acceptable to voice.

It is acceptable for them to voice just the same as it's acceptable for you to take the other side.

[Ceist]

Originally Posted by Zelva

I 'boycotted' FireFox today.... for being intolerant and spineless.

Good for you! Are you going to boycott Google, Apple, Microsoft.... and a whole lot of other IT companies too?

[Annuvin]

Originally Posted by FlamencoFreak

Many if not most Web sites depend on Java Script, developed by Brendan. Better quit using the Internet.

From the Java Website:

Java is the foundation for virtually every type of networked application and is the global standard for developing and delivering embedded and mobile applications, games, Web-based content, and enterprise software. With more than 9 million developers worldwide, Java enables you to efficiently develop, deploy and use exciting applications and services.

From laptops to datacenters, game consoles to scientific supercomputers, cell phones to the Internet, Java is everywhere!

97% of Enterprise Desktops Run Java
89% of Desktops (or Computers) in the U.S. Run Java
9 Million Java Developers Worldwide
#1 Choice for Developers
#1 Development Platform
3 Billion Mobile Phones Run Java
100% of Blu-ray Disc Players Ship with Java
5 Billion Java Cards in Use
125 million TV devices run Java
5 of the Top 5 Original Equipment Manufacturers Ship Java ME

I guess it is safe to assume Mozilla was the easier target to boycott. Talk about selective principles.

[Ceist]

Originally Posted by jmqueen

Yeah, I asked her on another thread to tell me where these mobs are, but oddly enough, I got crickets.

She just makes stuff up and posts it over and over, conveniently ignoring posters who question about her fantasies.

The poster is a she? I don't often see too many women who are that hysterically and rabidly anti-gay ... although there are a couple of them on CD.

[Iamme73]

Originally Posted by pknopp

It is acceptable for them to voice just the same as it's acceptable for you to take the other side.

This is wrong. There are viewpoints that are deemed unacceptable in this society.

Again if a CEO was anti-interracial marriage very few people would attack Mozilla for firing that CEO because being anti-interracial marriage is seen a belief based on racial bigotry/racism and is not deemed acceptable.

Just as if a CEO was a supporter of NAMBLA very few people would attack Mozilla for firing that CEO because that viewpoint is seen as sick and not at all acceptable.

So no for certain viewpoints in this society the other side of the debate is crushed and vanquished and completely discredited.

That is what this last stand argument by conservatives is all about.

conservatives are attempting to have their anti-homosexual marriage viewpoint be seen as one based on religious belief and not bigotry/homophobia.

If conservatives can lie/trick enough people who support homosexual marriage into believing that being anti-homosexual marriage is not a sign of bigotry, but of religious belief, conservatives will hide behind the shield of religion to continue to promote anti-homosexual legislation and conservatives will never stop fighting homosexual marriage.

[Ceist]

Originally Posted by FlamencoFreak

This is about the chilling of Free Speech by those who disagree with the political position of individuals or groups, not exclusively about the Mozilla case.

No it's about your hysterical fear of the imaginary rabid hordes of vicious homosexuals hiding under your bed lying in wait just to shove dust bunnies down your throat so you lose your freedom to squawk.