BREAKING: Mozilla CEO Brendan Eich resigns amids anti-gay controversy - Polidicks

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;44455337]that's not what we're talking about[/quote] It pretty much is. [quote]we're talking about an action someone actually took. if I held slaves, and then 5 years later just simply didn't, does this make it okay? If I protested gay marriage for years and gave lots of money to it but just stopped one day, does that make it okay?[/quote] You do realize the reason Reconstruction in the united States failed was because the North wanted to punish the Southerners instead of forgiving. Even Lincoln himself wanted to forgive them. The southerners followed the north's example by taking their anger out on those they resented, the newly freed black population. [quote]No. Sure, I can grow, and learn, and change, but I committed those actions and shouldn't get to walk away from them like they didn't exist just because 5 or 10 years ago my actions of slavery were okay. It doesn't make those actions guilt free. [/quote] All the south should've been arrested after the Civil War? [quote]Can you explain how it does or are you going to continue to state your argument without explanation?[/QUOTE] This is 100% useless of a comment and entirely rhetoric. [QUOTE=J!NX;44455341]"Remember, six years ago GTA IV had come out and Obama had just been elected. " holy shit dude, that's not a long time [B]at all[/B][/quote] A lot can happen in six years. [quote]Six years ago it was still taboo[/quote] Opposing gay marriage was "normal" until about 2010. [url]http://abcnews.go.com/images/PollingUnit/1089a6HotButtonIssues.pdf[/url] it make it magically OK and you aren't forgiven "Just because it happened 6 years ago"[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=matt000024;44455400] Opposing gay marriage was "normal" until about 2010. [url]http://abcnews.go.com/images/PollingUnit/1089a6HotButtonIssues.pdf[/url][/QUOTE] Just because something is "Normal" doesn't make it acceptable if it was normal and very common to steal gum from stores, would it be acceptable? no it wouldn't. just because its normal to drink alcohol in excess, doesn't make it acceptable. Except this time it involves the rights of people. Stop nitpicking to defend bigots.

[QUOTE=J!NX;44455413]Just because something is "Normal" doesn't make it acceptable if it was normal and very common to steal gum from stores, would it be acceptable? no it wouldn't.[/QUOTE] Please provide a more realistic comparison.

[QUOTE=matt000024;44455419]Please provide a more realistic comparison.[/QUOTE] Hey, guess why it isn't acceptable any more to discriminate against gays: Hint Hint: it wasn't fucking OK to begin with and you are high if you think just because it's normal it's acceptable.

[QUOTE=J!NX;44455431]Hey, guess why it isn't acceptable any more to discriminate against gays: Hint Hint: it wasn't fucking OK to begin with and you are high if you think just because it's normal it's acceptable.[/QUOTE] I never said it was a good thing or acceptable. I still don't see why we shouldn't give him a second chance when he's apologized.

So you should just be given a walk if the crime or offense is in the past by an amount of time? We're not talking about thoughts, about opinions or feelings. We're talking about actions. You seemed to phrase your orignal point that no one should be punished for a view or an opinion. I agree. This isn't that. This is different from that. This is an action a person took that is reprehensible, and an action of antagonism towards an entire group of people. Something I will say is that yes, there is a certain concession to be made that people can grow and change and become better people. Part of that is owning up to their actions. I don't think this guy did own up to that action and I don't think it's easy for a lot of people to forgive someone for trying to deny them their basic rights. No, I don't believe all southerners should have been arrested. They were stripped of their slaves and didn't break laws unless they continued to hold slaves. But they also didn't see what they did as wrong and didn't want to give it up at the time. They didn't want to account for their actions, and that is what at the heart of it is the most reprehensible part of this. On a professional level, not having the responsibility of ones actions is a pretty big deal, and 6 years is actually a very short period of time. Even politically speaking, there was a serious LGBT movement in the states at the time and gay marriage in Canada was already a thing. I don't get how you think it took so long for that to change.

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;44455452]So you should just be given a walk if the crime or offense is in the past by an amount of time?[/QUOTE] In the topic about Nazi hunters most of Facepunch seems to be pretty forgiving of them despite them murdering tons of people. [quote]We're not talking about thoughts, about opinions or feelings. We're talking about actions. You seemed to phrase your orignal point that no one should be punished for a view or an opinion. I agree. This isn't that. This is different from that. This is an action a person took that is reprehensible, and an action of antagonism towards an entire group of people. [/quote] Lobby groups are groups about opinions. Opinions are pretty important. I still don't see why he has to be fired if it doesn't affect his job. It is a web browser, not a wedding planning service. [quote]Something I will say is that yes, there is a certain concession to be made that people can grow and change and become better people. Part of that is owning up to their actions. I don't think this guy did own up to that action and I don't think it's easy for a lot of people to forgive someone for trying to deny them their basic rights. [/quote] He apologized and Mozilla specifically stated this won't affect their LGBT views. [quote]No, I don't believe all southerners should have been arrested. They were stripped of their slaves and didn't break laws unless they continued to hold slaves. But they also didn't see what they did as wrong and didn't want to give it up at the time. They didn't want to account for their actions, and that is what at the heart of it is the most reprehensible part of this. On a professional level, not having the responsibility of ones actions is a pretty big deal, and 6 years is actually a very short period of time. Even politically speaking, there was a serious LGBT movement in the states at the time and gay marriage in Canada was already a thing. I don't get how you think it took so long for that to change.[/QUOTE] He didn't break the law by giving his personal money. He hasn't given any since. And Canada is irrelevant.

[QUOTE=matt000024;44455446]I never said it was a good thing or acceptable. I still don't see why we shouldn't give him a second chance when he's apologized.[/QUOTE] Apologizing doesn't undo the damage [video=youtube;9u0EL_u4nvw]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9u0EL_u4nvw[/video]

[QUOTE=J!NX;44455507]Apologizing doesn't undo the damage [video=youtube;9u0EL_u4nvw]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9u0EL_u4nvw[/video][/QUOTE] What damage? The bill doesn't even exist anymore.

[QUOTE=matt000024;44455513]What damage? The bill didn't even pass.[/QUOTE] just because you failed to stab someone - or steal something, doesn't make it "ok" to have done. What he hell kind of mentality is that? so "Its ok it didn't happen" "Its ok you almost accidentally hit me with your car while drunk but because I didn't get hit it's OK" "its ok, you played with matches but nothing was burned" that's not an acceptable excuse. That's something a child would say "But I failed so its OK!". 'its also very close to "Its not bad if you don't get caught!"

You still haven't explained why he cannot be forgiven and he must step down as CEO.

[QUOTE=matt000024;44455565]You still haven't explained why he cannot be forgiven and he must step down as CEO.[/QUOTE] he didn't have to step down though. And besides that, it should be Mozilla's choice. If a leader is not seen as fit then they are not fit. besides that, I'm really happy this kind of stuff happens, justified or not, because now what used to happen to the gays now happens to bigots. Why am I happy? because the less people in power allowed to try and strip human beings of human rights.

[QUOTE=J!NX;44455589]he didn't have to step down though. And besides that, it should be Mozilla's choice. If a leader is not seen as fit then they are not fit. besides that, I'm really happy this kind of stuff happens, justified or not, because now what used to happen to the gays now happens to bigots.[/QUOTE] So this is all about wanting to see someone get punished? Because that is so much more important about learning to forgive so that maybe people can learn to be nicer to each other.

[QUOTE=The golden;44455622]Having a CEO who has views that are in direct violation of the companies long-standing policies is kinda really sort of stupid.[/QUOTE] I thought this was about actions, not views? You pretty much stated he should be fired for his views. As long as he does his job views shouldn't matter.

[QUOTE=matt000024;44455603]So this is all about wanting to see someone get punished? Because that is so much more important about learning to forgive so that maybe people can learn to be nicer to each other.[/QUOTE] It's about how Mozilla wants to be represented as an LGBT friendly company. Strangely enough, a CEO that was previously (and possibly still is) anti-gay undermines that. Very surprising I know.

[QUOTE=matt000024;44455603]So this is all about wanting to see someone get punished? Because that is so much more important about learning to forgive so that maybe people can learn to be nicer to each other.[/QUOTE] A part of being pro-LGBT is to lean to forgive people but how can I forgive them if they do not accept people for who they are? if he wishes to be forgiven he can donate to gay rights. It's not even entirely about punishment, it's about people not being allowed to do what is wrong. This same shit happened when black people started to get rights. not only that, but as a CEO he must align to the standards and practices of the company and must conform around them. [QUOTE=matt000024;44455646]I thought this was about actions, not views? You pretty much stated he should be fired for his views. As long as he does his job views shouldn't matter.[/QUOTE] His actions were because of his views on LGBT and Mozilla wants' to be pro-LGBT and an anti-LGBT CEO holds that agenda back.

[QUOTE=J!NX;44455656]A part of being pro-LGBT is to lean to forgive people but how can I forgive them if they do not accept people for who they are?[/quote] He has apologized since. [quote]if he wishes to be forgiven he can donate to gay rights. It's not even entirely about punishment, it's about people not being allowed to do what is wrong. This same shit happened when black people started to get rights.[/quote] Why should he be forced donate to something to show he is sorry? Apparently money is the only form of forgiveness. [quote]not only that, but as a CEO he must align to the standards and practices of the company and must conform around them.[/quote] So I must become a conservative if I work for Chik-Fil-A? [quote]His actions were because of his views on LGBT and Mozilla wants' to be pro-LGBT and an anti-LGBT CEO holds that agenda back.[/QUOTE] They were before he was CEO. When he starts actually making Mozilla anti-LGBT then have him step down. Why would he be made CEO if they thought he would do that?

[QUOTE=matt000024;44455692]He has apologized since. Why should he be forced donate to something to show he is sorry? Apparently money is the only form of forgiveness. So I must become a conservative if I work for Chik-Fil-A? They were before he was CEO. When he starts actually making Mozilla anti-LGBT then have him step down. Why would he be made CEO if they thought he would do that?[/QUOTE] Apologies don't mean shit if he hasn't done anything to show it. I could say right now that I absolutely can't stand gay people, but it's not true.

[QUOTE=Laserbeams;44452206]Imagine that we're 30 years in the past and that he is not a homophobe, but an LGBT supporter himself. He is being pressured into leaving his job and the public hates him for supporting sexual minorities. Would that be okay?[/QUOTE] Do you really not see how those two situations are different? You can't just swap positions and call it the same thing, because it isn't.

You cannot restrict someones rights, and the issue is that religious individuals view marriage as a religious thing, while marriage in the eyes of the law also if the form of union between two people(unless they get a civil union? I've heard about them before but never read up on them), and is connected to many of the benefits of marriage in the political, economic, and legal side of things. So the issue with restricting lgbt people from marriage in a law is by all means wrong and a restriction of their rights, but many people don't see this due to the definitions of marriage being so radically different, one religious the other being legal. I mean i'm religious, but i try to really keep that separation of church and state in my head. YES i believe that they should have the right, and every person should. But calling people bigots won't make them see the same way as you, and maybe not all people can be changed(looking at you WBC), but people should at least make an effort to help the other side understand what their basis is, and that means showing people that first of all, the legal and religious marriages are not the same, and to get people to see that this is an unalienable right for all people, regardless of religious practice.

[QUOTE=Sdc97;44456517]You cannot restrict someones rights, and the issue is that religious individuals view marriage as a religious thing, while marriage in the eyes of the law also if the form of union between two people(unless they get a civil union? I've heard about them before but never read up on them), and is connected to many of the benefits of marriage in the political, economic, and legal side of things. So the issue with restricting lgbt people from marriage in a law is by all means wrong and a restriction of their rights, but many people don't see this due to the definitions of marriage being so radically different, one religious the other being legal. I mean i'm religious, but i try to really keep that separation of church and state in my head. YES i believe that they should have the right, and every person should. But calling people bigots won't make them see the same way as you, and maybe not all people can be changed(looking at you WBC), but people should at least make an effort to help the other side understand what their basis is, and that means showing people that first of all, the legal and religious marriages are not the same, and to get people to see that this is an unalienable right for all people, regardless of religious practice.[/QUOTE] I would be happy if same-sex civil unions were recognized. Quite a few states do, but there are still plenty that still don't.

[QUOTE=Starlight 456;44455725]Apologies don't mean shit if he hasn't done anything to show it. I could say right now that I absolutely can't stand gay people, but it's not true.[/QUOTE] Then what is this guy supposed to do?

[QUOTE=matt000024;44455692]He has apologized since. ...[/QUOTE] Has he? Because he was defending his stance in recent interviews.

[QUOTE=matt000024;44456576]Then what is this guy supposed to do?[/QUOTE] Renounce his stance on gay marriage, donate to some pro-LGBT marriage charities. Something more then "woops sorry lol".

[QUOTE=matt000024;44456576]Then what is this guy supposed to do?[/QUOTE] He hasn't recanted his views opposing same sex marriage so what the fuck does an apology even mean in that context? "Sorry, not sorry"? [editline]4th April 2014[/editline] [url]http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/currency/2014/04/how-mozilla-lost-its-ceo-brendan-eich.html[/url]

[QUOTE=CheeseMan;44448701]im a gay and i didnt read this thread but i think: why kick a guy out for donating $600 to a place[/QUOTE] yeah true, i mean, noone should think less of me for donating to a place (i mean sure, in this case the place is the KKK i was donating to the KKK but i mean, it's just a thing, if i make it as vague as possible it's suddenly not bad) and i mean, it was only a little bit of money.

[QUOTE=Lachz0r;44457037]yeah true, i mean, noone should think less of me for donating to a place (i mean sure, in this case the place is the KKK i was donating to the KKK but i mean, it's just a thing, if i make it as vague as possible it's suddenly not bad) and i mean, it was only a little bit of money.[/QUOTE] The KKK actively go out and lynch people. This comparison is invalid.

[QUOTE=matt000024;44455502]In the topic about Nazi hunters most of Facepunch seems to be pretty forgiving of them despite them murdering tons of people.[/QUOTE] The biggest difference here is the timelime. Nazis were a thing that happened nearly a century ago at this point. Eich's donation was very recent. Six years is not a long time at all. Maybe if it was ten years ago or maybe even 15-20 for more extreme stuff then yeah you would have a point. But it's not and so the comparison you made is very invalid. Even more so considering that he's defending his actions still.

[QUOTE=Alice3173;44457518]The biggest difference here is the timelime. Nazis were a thing that happened nearly a century ago at this point. Eich's donation was very recent. Six years is not a long time at all. Maybe if it was ten years ago or maybe even 15-20 for more extreme stuff then yeah you would have a point. But it's not and so the comparison you made is very invalid. Even more so considering that he's defending his actions still.[/QUOTE] The KKK and Nazis are an invalid comparison. They actually were out actively trying to kill people. This guy just was trying to deny them the right to marry. Both are wrong, but not at the same level.

[QUOTE=matt000024;44457615]The KKK and Nazis are an invalid comparison. They actually were out actively trying to kill people. This guy just was trying to deny them the right to marry. Both are wrong, but not at the same level.[/QUOTE] The exact actions are irrelevant. The fact is that they did things at the time that the general opinion within their nation agreed with. Just because at the time they were approved of by the majority doesn't make it acceptable that those actions were done and at the same time after a certain point depending on the severity of the actions an individual did themselves they shouldn't be penalized for their past actions. But the key factor there is enough time passing as well as the individual showing intent to change or having shown in the past that they had changed. In Eich's case little time has passed and he hasn't actually shown any intent to change at all. [editline]4th April 2014[/editline] Also you are the one who brought up Nazis in the first place so how can it be invalid? Is it because it's now being used against you or..?