161–170 of 214 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What type of person you choose to head your operations obviously reflects your ideals. It really doesn't matter if Mr. Eich donated 1000 dollars or a million dollars, he opposes basic human rights. And apparently Mozilla is fine with that.
Gay marriage isn't a 'basic human right'. It's subscribing to a governmental institution.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If it's important, shouldn't people be able to have a conversation, and fund a conversation? The supreme court has equated financial contribution with speech, and many of us agree with that position. Therefore, we can only see this as an attempt to ostracize and attack anyone who speaks to the opposite side. This action is chilling on speech, which is exactly what the OP was talking about. Just because you don't see…
> The supreme court has equated financial contribution with speech, and many of us agree with that position. I think this is the root issue here. SCOTUS declared by fiat that financial contribution is speech. According to our law, it is now. The people do not see that the same way. Giving lip service is speech, while money is altogether something different. What it is, I do not know. And it seems much more akin to "b…
There is almost always some harm done by liberty, that is the pain of humanity. There is much further harm done when we restrict liberty to protect the senses. That is my opinion, and I am as surely unlikely to be swayed from it as you are yours.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That is a fantastically creative straw man you just beat up there... Yes, because some people are boycotting a company because their founder voted to take away their civil rights, those people are bad. Nevermind the fact that the person they're criticizing not only voted for, but provided financial support for civil rights to be taken away. But yeah, this basically means people will call for all Republicans to quit t…
You seem to imply voting for a cause is okay, but donating $1000 to promote that cause crosses a line. I find this distinction curious. Where is the line? Is it the first penny donated? The first dollar? Dollar #999 of 1000? Does the relevancy of the donation last forever, or is it subject to time decay? And maybe the CEO is more special than an ordinary employee, sure, but where do we draw the line on the person's j…
It's the public support that's really got people frosted. That's what makes it part of the public persona that you can't just leave at the door when you come to work.
Provided your power over others is limited, it's tolerable. But when people's careers are in your hands, a public history of open, gender-based discrimination really undermines the level of trust and goodwill that leadership positions require.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The world would be a much better place if we could learn to separate the artist's work from the artist's personal deeds and opinions. In what way does that make the world a better place? Why should we celebrate an artist who does shitty things when there is almost certainly someone equally as talented who does not?
It'll stop us from getting consistently outraged at various people over their personal convictions and save us more energy to enjoy their work, which is often unrelated to the former. Talent is a highly subjective measure. No doubt there are people as equally or more talented than Eich, but he is the creator of JavaScript, which is the fundamental language of the web and everyone's favorite double-clawed hammer to ha…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Then where's my native (do you still call them 'indians' in the US?) status card, my veteran benefits, and my handicapped parking permit? While we're at it why can't I get maternity leave or diplomatic immunity? I'm actually married (religious ceremony) but not officially 'married' (according to the government) and I don't care nor does it really matter where I live (common-law spouses get benefits anyway). And I'm n…
In the UK, civil partnerships were introduced for same-sex couples, which gave AFAIK the exact same legal rights and tax benefits as heterosexual marriage. However, campaigners for gay marriage said this was not good enough so the Prime Minister eventually pushed through a vote for gay marriage. So it seems the issue wasn't really about legal rights, that just comes along for the ride, it was more about using the wor…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You seem to imply voting for a cause is okay, but donating $1000 to promote that cause crosses a line. I find this distinction curious. Where is the line? Is it the first penny donated? The first dollar? Dollar #999 of 1000? Does the relevancy of the donation last forever, or is it subject to time decay? And maybe the CEO is more special than an ordinary employee, sure, but where do we draw the line on the person's j…
"You seem to imply voting for a cause is okay, but donating $1000 to promote that cause crosses a line. I find this distinction curious. Where is the line? Is it the first penny donated? The first dollar? Dollar #999 of 1000? Does the relevancy of the donation last forever, or is it subject to time decay?" I didn't say that at all. You made that up and then ranted about it. I simply said that one is bad, but the othe…
Given the absence of that as a reason, though, I'm even less certain where you think the line should be, and what makes the straw man so straw-y. Also, plenty of other people here have talked about why his being a CEO is special and what-not, so all readers should please substitute the opinion of speakers up-thread and down-thread for those of ryguytilidie.
Finally: as far as "victimhood" contests go, perhaps eventually we will look back on these days as we look back on the likes of the Reformation, when Protestants went to war with Catholics (over matters of no less import to the thinkers of the day), and pretty much both sides were pretty atrocious all around. Raid the monasteries for their gold? Sure, why not, they're a bunch of Papists! Spanish Inquisition? Don't mind if I do! Execution! Civil war! Fact: until last year, 2013, it was still illegal for someone married to a Roman Catholic to hold the throne of England.
The reason that we today are better than those backwards folks and haven't descended into outright civil war over this issue, like many nations did in the Reformation, is that we have some level of pluralism in our society. I would go so far as to hold that this is more important than correctly deciding today the issue of slavery, of civil rights, of women voting, of gay rights, or any other movement of that sort: because it is the principle which gives society the freedom to raise the questions which these rights movements addressed. As such I am distressed that it is so glibly dismissed in favor of a totalitarian approach and calls for boycotts of people who have been accused of doing nothing but supporting the wrong cause.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Then where's my native (do you still call them 'indians' in the US?) status card, my veteran benefits, and my handicapped parking permit? While we're at it why can't I get maternity leave or diplomatic immunity? I'm actually married (religious ceremony) but not officially 'married' (according to the government) and I don't care nor does it really matter where I live (common-law spouses get benefits anyway). And I'm n…
In the UK, civil partnerships were introduced for same-sex couples, which gave AFAIK the exact same legal rights and tax benefits as heterosexual marriage. However, campaigners for gay marriage said this was not good enough so the Prime Minister eventually pushed through a vote for gay marriage. So it seems the issue wasn't really about legal rights, that just comes along for the ride, it was more about using the wor…
As to forcing a church to marry two people I'm torn. I put it in the ball park of refusing to marry those of a different race or have mixed race weddings. I think you can make the argument that any religion that has a form of tax exemption could be required to not discriminate and hold basic human rights. Ofcourse it's a bit of a mire as you could argue back and forth all day between the "state opression of religion" to the "no they can't make human sacrifices" extremes.
As to the mosque/synagogues stuff I'd assume any law that was created would hopefully lead to a lawsuit (from the muslim/jewish/XXX couple or human rights group) which would show that the law did apply to those institutions. But I agree political discussion is generally avoided out of either the fact that they're a smaller part of UK culture or fear of inciting violence(even if this fear is unjustified) or being called a racist(or the theological equivalent (I for one wouldn't like to be called a theist ;) ). I think the "and they are lynching negroes" point is going to be a particularly useful one for the catholics/christians to argue.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In the UK, civil partnerships were introduced for same-sex couples, which gave AFAIK the exact same legal rights and tax benefits as heterosexual marriage. However, campaigners for gay marriage said this was not good enough so the Prime Minister eventually pushed through a vote for gay marriage. So it seems the issue wasn't really about legal rights, that just comes along for the ride, it was more about using the wor…
nobody anywhere (in the US) is forcing any religious institution to do anything. where did you get that idea?
Meh. Prop 8 passed the people's vote with 7,001,084 Californians voting in favor of it and 6,401,482 voting against. Are we to start boycotting every company that employs one of those 7 million people? I'm glad it was made right in the end and I hope at least some of those 7 million people have changed their opinion... but I don't think we need to keep dwelling on it.
1. There is a difference between voting for something and funding it. 2. There is a difference between being employed by a company and being its CEO. 3. These differences are significant.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why shouldn't you? I dunno: some basic concept of pluralism?
Pluralism does not equal correct. Slavery, women's suffrage, Japanese internment, separate-but-equal ... the list goes on and on.