111–120 of 258 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
OK, if you need to picky, something more comparable. Imagine he said: "black people are inferior to white people and don't deserve to be happy".
It's certainly illegal to fire someone over that opinion, yes.
I don't know what it is about gay marriage that draws people in to this ridiculous witch hunt. I'm neutral on the issue because I feel it's complicated like every other polarizing topic, but to a lot of folks it's solid black-and-white, good-vs-evil. But the pro-gay-marriage crowd seems to go beyond that. To them, it's so black-and-white that one's not even allowed to hold the other view. These people don't even ackn…
What's complicated about allowing people to do what they want as long they are not hurting others?
By saying "it's complicated" you are saying that you have some complicated thoughts about something that is absolutely none of your business, Why? I seriously want to know, I don't understand this obsession with what others do if it has no effect on you what so ever.
You are saying that you yourself should also not be free to marry who ever you want, do you propose to set up a jury to judge who can and cannot marry?
Please help me understand what's complicated about this issue.
"By using Arabic numerals you are helping terrorists." As long as Mozilla products do not feature a "Not to be used by gays" warning, whatever Eich does in his time is irrelevant. He's free to spend his money in any way he likes. What prevented the authors of this article to spend $1000 to counterbalance Eich's contribution if they are so concerned?
> What prevented the authors of this article to spend $1000 to counterbalance Eich's contribution if they are so concerned? So only people who pay for their rights deserve them. Noted.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There are moral fashions. But this isn't one of them, because it's far from arbitrary. We aren't going to have some sort of sudden fashion back the other way, where people are suddenly against interracial marriage, or against black people voting, or against women voting. They also aren't shunning him for his views. They're shunning him for his actions . He tried to hurt them; it is not unreasonable of them to refuse…
Discrimination on the basis of political stance is bigotry. There is no two ways about this.
I guess if you want to define the word that way, sure. In which case, I'm proud to be bigoted against racists. But I think words are more useful when they don't include 99% of the population.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
what's unprofessional about this stance? They're standing up for their values. Why should we separate different aspects of our lives? We're not machines, we're human beings. I say, I'd love to do business with them because they stand up for their values rather than bow to greed and fear not getting some unknown moroccan's business.
I have no business, I'm a simple user and I have my values and they say: "Do not trust people that mix work and personal issues". It's my opinion and I respect yours as well.
I understand your posture and I totally support gay marriage, but you're mixing politics with work, and you're taking a personal issue to a professional level. It's Brendan Eich that supported the prop 8, not Mozilla. That's a very very very VERY unprofessional stance. From now on I will be very careful in buying/getting anything from your company because of huge lack of professionalism being shown here. This said, I…
And Mozilla chose Brendan Eich to represent them as CEO. There is a distinct difference between being an employee, and being the CEO.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, there isn't. A CEO is an employee, just one that tends to get paid above average.
And one that steers the direction of the company every single day. Mere employees don't.
In normal, day to day operations, the CEO tends to have a bigger share of influence than other employees, but he neither has sole influence, nor always the biggest influence.
One could very well argue that Jonathan Ives had a bigger influence than Steve Jobs on Apple's direction around the time of iPod's release, for example. That product singlehandedly changed Apple's market segment and consumer perception.
In short, a CEO is just an employee, often getting paid more than the average employee, and often having more influence than the average employee, but not always.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Discrimination on the basis of political stance is bigotry. There is no two ways about this.
Huh. White power is a political stance. One widely reviled. So is antisemitism. So if I understand you rightly, you're basically saying that everybody is a bigot on a variety of formerly-controversial issues. I guess if you want to define the word that way, sure. In which case, I'm proud to be bigoted against racists. But I think words are more useful when they don't include 99% of the population.
Thankfully, your kind is a very tiny percentage of the population.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Discrimination of what kind? They are not publishing an app in an app store. Are they discriminating against Mozilla? Are they blocking Mozilla browsers from their site? Are people being persecuted, imprisoned, or killed for using Firefox? Are they working to put Eich in an internment camp based on his beliefs? The word "bigotry" is a very big stick to swing against two people who could be killed in many parts of the…
They are actively working to disenfranchise Brendan Eich of his employment. They are doing this on the basis of his political stance. This is bigotry. They are bigots. What's worse, they're hypocritical bigots, because they're trying to pass this off as some sort of anti-bigotry stance. All social justice is like this. It breaks down under the merest of scrutinty.
Bigotry is not just a description of actions people take but the context in which they take them. Eich, in the context of this specific economic transaction, doesn't belong to a marginalized group. These men who are withdrawing their app do. Eich has taken direct action against them and they are responding. In this case, I believe they could be considered to be defending themselves by trying to deprive people who want to do them harm economic opportunity. I'm pretty much okay with that.
So, yeah, I guess you could say they are bigots. But that train of thought doesn't seem to me to place this situation in any useful context other than "all social justice causes are bad". Am I missing something?