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

[QUOTE=Ulmo;44448231]Are you kidding me? Look at what the "extreme" social justice brigade is doing to Stephen Colbert for instance. Don't tell me there isn't a faction of the word police out their getting off on ruining somebody's life or career, much less attempting to do it either. Some of his own audience is turning on him for something so trivial and stupid. Agreed?[/QUOTE] The point is it's far from a "extreme SJW mentality" that "dominates" mainstream media, it's a very vocal minority whom many many people seem to assume speak for everyone who thinks LGBT people should have rights besides "get away from me you disgusting tranny/faggot/dyke".

[QUOTE=Ulmo;44448231]Are you kidding me? Look at what the "extreme" social justice brigade is doing to Stephen Colbert for instance. Don't tell me there isn't a faction of the word police out their getting off on ruining somebody's life or career, much less attempting to do it either. Some of his own audience is turning on him for something so trivial and stupid.?[/QUOTE] so a bunch of dumb people on twitter is absolute concrete proof that society is falling to "extreme SJWs." i mean, look at all that legal bullshit that passed after that happened!!!! lol

To be quite fair, "social justice!" seems to be the general vibe I get from a lot of networks now. Idk, maybe it's just me, or maybe it's just American media.

Okay I admit I worded that pretty poorly 2 posts ago.

i bet none of you even know what the fuck a ceo does without googling it

I don't think he should have resigned or been forced to resign. It seems wrong to blackmark people for life for something they did years ago that is now frowned on. It's great that gay marriage has basically won now, and it's only a matter of time for the whole of the united states, but do we really need to make conservatives pay for being conservatives? One day you could hold old fashioned views too.

[QUOTE=BFG9000;44448227]Well, I have a friend who was gay last year but this year somehow became straight. I'm making an educated guess that this is just him trying to find himself in his confusion, but is that anything different from me being an agnostic my middle school years and then christian in the year immediately thereafter? I mean, fuck me but my faith means a lot to me. I'd argue that it's pretty intrinsic to me.[/QUOTE] no, because sexuality isn't a choice lol. you may suddenly change your beliefs but that isn't comparable to "changing" your sexuality. because of societal issues (such as being beaten up or [I]literally fucking killed[/I] because of your sexuality, puberty, or just general influence and pressure from others), people might be reluctant to reveal their sexuality, or not fully understand it. belief, on the other hand, is not shit that's directly tied to your brain. it's a [I]belief[/I]. [editline]4th April 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=SeamanStains;44448268]I don't think he should have resigned or been forced to resign. It seems wrong to blackmark people for life for something they did years ago that is now frowned on. It's great that gay marriage has basically won now, and it's only a matter of time for the whole of the united states, but do we really need to make conservatives pay for being conservatives? One day you could hold old fashioned views too.[/QUOTE] this has nothing to do with being a conservative. you can be a conservative and [I]not[/I] be an asshole that willingly donates money to an organization that actively tries to pass legislation that denies rights to other people.

[b]the free market has spoken[/b]

[QUOTE=SeamanStains;44448268]I don't think he should have resigned or been forced to resign. [/QUOTE] he did the right thing as a ceo cause he was getting shit for the brand image, no real way back out

[QUOTE=Alice3173;44448199]This is an extremely shitty comparison. Gay rights are just those, RIGHTS. Allah is part of a religious belief. You choose what you believe,. You don't choose your sexuality and thus should not be treated as any less than any other person for that. Period.[/QUOTE] But none of those are hard facts. You may have a reason to believe them, and you are right. But someone else may equally not believe it. [QUOTE=Alice3173;44448199]Gay rights are just those, RIGHTS.[/QUOTE] The only reason you say this is because you are part of the pro-gay crowd. [QUOTE=Alice3173;44448199][B]You don't choose your sexuality[/B] and thus should not be treated as any less than any other person for that. Period.[/QUOTE] That's the point, don't you get it? A hardcore religious person doesn't believe that. They think that sexuality is a choice. You can't use the bolded part as an arguing point because both of you don't agree on it. Simply by the rules of debate, you can only 'use' things that both parties agree on, that way you can guide the other to a rational conclusion. If the other party disagrees with you on issue A, you're not allowed to say, "Well because A is true, B,C and D are all true". Which is what you're doing. I'm not trying to argue for any side here. I'm just trying to ensure that everyone argues [I]correctly.[/I]

[QUOTE=deadoon;44447850][URL]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rights_and_responsibilities_of_marriages_in_the_United_States[/URL]If someone was supporting a group that was attempting to ban marriage of *insert group here* it would be looked down upon hopefully.You basically said you did not agree with that group being black people, while saying that you do not care if it was gay people. You are still saying it is OK for him to support removal of a groups rights or prevention of them from practicing them, while saying it is not OK to to do the same to another group. If you did not say that, you are claiming that marriage is a privilege, not a right, even though the courts disagree with you.He made a choice that had no legal consequences, correct, but that does not make him immune to social consequences. You are time and time again missing that point.[/QUOTE]What the fuck? Not once did I say I supported.Eilch's views at all. And it's fucking stupid that you're putting words in my mouth. He asked me if I supported the removal of black peoples RIGHTS, which I said no to. Somehow in your view that must mean I'm sexual for discrimination, which isn't true. How fucking dumb do you have to be?

[QUOTE=FunnyBunny;44448451]That's the point, don't you get it? A hardcore religious person doesn't believe that. They think that sexuality is a choice. You can't use the bolded part as an arguing point because both of you don't agree on it. Simply by the rules of debate, you can only 'use' things that both parties agree on, that way you can guide the other to a rational conclusion. If the other party disagrees with you on issue A, you're not allowed to say, "Well because A is true, B,C and D are all true". Which is what you're doing.[/I][/QUOTE]This is wrong. At the start of a typical Lincoln-Douglas debate, certain values are established as being assumed. But facts are facts and it doesn't matter if one side agrees or disagrees. If they can't reinforce their point, they have a poor case.

[QUOTE=FunnyBunny;44448451]But none of those are hard facts. You may have a reason to believe them, and you are right. But someone else may equally not believe it. The only reason you say this is because you are part of the pro-gay crowd. That's the point, don't you get it? A hardcore religious person doesn't believe that. They think that sexuality is a choice. You can't use the bolded part as an arguing point because both of you don't agree on it. Simply by the rules of debate, you can only 'use' things that both parties agree on, that way you can guide the other to a rational conclusion. If the other party disagrees with you on issue A, you're not allowed to say, "Well because A is true, B,C and D are all true". Which is what you're doing. I'm not trying to argue for any side here. I'm just trying to ensure that everyone argues [I]correctly.[/I][/QUOTE] Facts != beliefs. They're two very different beasts which completely invalidates what you are attempting to argue. Whether they think sexuality is a choice or not is irrelevant because it's a known fact that it is NOT a choice. If they want to believe it's a choice then that is their problem choosing to believe something that is factually incorrect and should not be a problem for those they incorrectly believe that about.

[QUOTE=Comcastic;44448475]What the fuck? Not once did I say I supported.Eilch's views at all. And it's fucking stupid that you're putting words in my mouth. He asked me if I supported the removal of black peoples RIGHTS, which I said no to. Somehow in your view that must mean I'm sexual for discrimination, which isn't true. How fucking dumb do you have to be?[/QUOTE] if one is okay and the other isn't when apples are apples is pretty hard to misunderstand but you've done a good job at placing yourself in an un amicable position of against gay rights because you're unable to realize that saying it's not okay to do that to black people, but fine for lgbts. [editline]4th April 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=FunnyBunny;44448451]But none of those are hard facts. You may have a reason to believe them, and you are right. But someone else may equally not believe it. The only reason you say this is because you are part of the pro-gay crowd. That's the point, don't you get it? A hardcore religious person doesn't believe that. They think that sexuality is a choice. You can't use the bolded part as an arguing point because both of you don't agree on it. Simply by the rules of debate, you can only 'use' things that both parties agree on, that way you can guide the other to a rational conclusion. If the other party disagrees with you on issue A, you're not allowed to say, "Well because A is true, B,C and D are all true". Which is what you're doing. I'm not trying to argue for any side here. I'm just trying to ensure that everyone argues [I]correctly.[/I][/QUOTE] So if one side dismisses facts that allows them to just make the argument about whatever they want? [editline]4th April 2014[/editline] note how you said belief. it's purely a belief sexuality is a choice.

im a gay and i didnt read this thread but i think: why kick a guy out for donating $600 to a place

[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] Because it hurt the image of the company he was managing and his whole job was based around promoting the image of the company.

[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] i have to agree really [QUOTE=Zyler;44448763]Because it hurt the image of the company he was managing and his whole job was based around promoting the image of the company.[/QUOTE] personally i dont even care, their lobby will lose in the near future, it isn't really an issue anymore [editline]4th April 2014[/editline] i really don't see the point in continuing to try and fight someone who has lost

[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] [QUOTE] Brendan Eich [B]resigned[/B] today amid a controversy stemming from his [B]$1,000[/B] donation[/QUOTE] Plus a multitude of people have said why it was the better option. Mozilla wants to be shown as a progressive company towards LGBT issues, and having a CEO that was anti-gay in the past undermines that. Especially when his current stance isn't known and he decided to bail rather than explain himself.

[QUOTE=DOG-GY;44442160]how do people find bigotry acceptable under the pretense of "beliefs"[/QUOTE] You can't target christians that treat homosexuality in a negative light when Islam does the same also on a much larger level (segregation, punishment of death etc) That's true bigotry.

[QUOTE=Tomo Takino;44448992]Plus a multitude of people have said why it was the better option. Mozilla wants to be shown as a progressive company towards LGBT issues, and having a CEO that was anti-gay in the past undermines that. Especially when his current stance isn't known and he decided to bail rather than explain himself.[/QUOTE] He's tried to avoid saying anything about his views, but the way he's gone about it has implied he hasn't changed them (Like refusing to answer a question about whether he would make a donation like that today, and pointing to other countries where gay marriage is unpopular as examples of who he wants to connect with, etc.)

[QUOTE=Killergam;44449026]You can't target christians that treat homosexuality in a negative light when Islam does the same also on a much larger level (segregation, punishment of death etc) That's true bigotry.[/QUOTE]Pretty sure you can, because its not like their actions are excuse because of a different group.

[QUOTE=Raidyr;44444366] How is it "entirely true"? There is nothing in the liberal idealogy that endorses the removal of free speech. Liberals love free speech.[/QUOTE] But he can't say what he thinks about gay marriage without being harassed? Everybody is entitled to their opinion, no matter how wrong you think it is. It doesn't make him worse at his job, he isn't firing gays from his company or forbidding gays from using javascript and firefox.

[QUOTE=Ragekipz;44449380]But he can't say what he thinks about gay marriage without being harassed? Everybody is entitled to their opinion, no matter how wrong you think it is.[/QUOTE]Sure, everyone can have opinion, but that doesn't mean they have to be respected or tolerated. [QUOTE]It doesn't make him worse at his job, he isn't firing gays from his company or forbidding gays from using javascript and firefox.[/QUOTE] Few reasons. First, he is the head of the company which means he represents it and people do not want to support a company headed by a bigot. Second, the company picked him which means either they had no knowledge, in which case when presented with the knowledge it should be acknowledged, or they knew when they hired him meaning at minimum complacency from the company which is a valid reason to not support a company. Third, it means that any use of their products will invariably benefit him and he has already contributed to oppression of a minority, so any additional financing could be used to once against support oppression of a minority.

[QUOTE=Ragekipz;44449380][B]But he can't say what he thinks about gay marriage without being harassed?[/B] Everybody is entitled to their opinion, no matter how wrong you think it is. It doesn't make him worse at his job, he isn't firing gays from his company or forbidding gays from using javascript and firefox.[/QUOTE] That's how free speech works, he can say whatever he wants, and people can call him a moron because of it. I have no idea how you could have free speech and also remove criticism, they're contradictory goals, you're telling people what they can and can't say in response to something.

[QUOTE=Doctor Zedacon;44449466]Sure, everyone can have opinion, but that doesn't mean they have to be respected or tolerated.[/QUOTE] So only opinions you deem worthy can be tolerated? Well that's not bullshit at all. [QUOTE=Doctor Zedacon;44449466] Few reasons. First, he is the head of the company which means he represents it and people do not want to support a company headed by a bigot. [/QUOTE] Do you know the CEO of every company you buy products from so as to not buy from people that have "biggoted opinions"? CEOs don't represent a company image, the marketing department makes the image. Did people suddenly stop using Mozilla when they found out that about him? [QUOTE=Doctor Zedacon;44449466] Second, the company picked him which means either they had no knowledge, in which case when presented with the knowledge it should be acknowledged, or they knew when they hired him meaning at minimum complacency from the company which is a valid reason to not support a company. [/QUOTE] They picked him because he's a good at both business and computing. He created the goddamn javascript and he knows how to direct. [QUOTE=Doctor Zedacon;44449466] Third, it means that any use of their products will invariably benefit him and he has already contributed to oppression of a minority, so any additional financing could be used to once against support oppression of a minority.[/QUOTE] That makes no sense. Mozilla didn't donate the money, he did. That was his money. That's like saying you finance drug trafic by paying your taxes because a senator(whose pay come from you) did cocaine. [QUOTE=TheDecryptor;44449474]That's how free speech works, he can say whatever he wants, and people can call him a moron because of it. I have no idea how you could have free speech and also remove criticism, they're contradictory goals, you're telling people what they can and can't say in response to something.[/QUOTE] There's difference between criticising his opinion and harassing him. One thing is to say that his opinions are immoral. Another thing is saying that he should leave because of his opinions. Calling someone a moron isn't adressing an opinions, it's adressing the person.

[QUOTE=Ragekipz;44449603]So only opinions you deem worthy can be tolerated? Well that's not bullshit at all.[/QUOTE]Opinions that don't seek to oppress a minority. (No, just because people criticize you for your opinion does not mean you are being oppressed.) [QUOTE]Do you know the CEO of every company you buy products from so as to not buy from people that have "biggoted opinions"?[/QUOTE]If I find out that they are bigots, then yes. Like Chik-Fil-A. [QUOTE]CEOs don't represent a company image, the marketing department makes the image. Did people suddenly stop using Mozilla when they found out that about him?[/QUOTE]Yes they do, and yes, plenty of people have. Its called a boycott. [QUOTE]They picked him because he's a good at both business and computing. He created the goddamn javascript and he knows how to direct.[/QUOTE]When any company puts a person in such a position, that person is a reflection of that business at its core because they have to vet them entirely. [QUOTE]That makes no sense. Mozilla didn't donate the money, he did. That was his money. That's like saying you finance drug trafic by paying your taxes because a senator(whose pay come from you) did cocaine.[/QUOTE]No, its like refusing to support a business with a bigot in a position of power because your patronage will in some way be paying for that bigot. [QUOTE]Calling someone a moron isn't adressing an opinions, it's adressing the person.[/QUOTE]It's both, actually, just one is more encompassing. Saying a person said something moronic means that just that case was moronic, but they could have an otherwise great track record. Happens all the time. Saying someone is a moron means much of what they say is moronic, and the right things they say are outliers.

[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] exactly, now him being forced to resign will result in him actually hating gays and now I'm sure he'll be donating even more in the future.

[QUOTE=Doctor Zedacon;44449655]Opinions that don't seek to oppress a minority. (No, just because people criticize you for your opinion does not mean you are being oppressed.) [/QUOTE] Except people were also harassing him, not only his opinion. [QUOTE=Doctor Zedacon;44449655] If I find out that they are bigots, then yes. Like Chik-Fil-A. [/QUOTE] First, Chick-Fil-A was a company against same-sex marriage, not a person. Second, if what you say is true then I hope you also boycott companies that supported the nazis or that fund/funded Wars in the Middle East/Africa. [QUOTE=Doctor Zedacon;44449655] Yes they do, and yes, plenty of people have. Its called a boycott.[/QUOTE] Did you angrilly uninstalled your Firefox and Thunderbird? That sure showed him. [QUOTE=Doctor Zedacon;44449655] When any company puts a person in such a position, that person is a reflection of that business at its core because they have to vet them entirely.[/QUOTE] There's thousands of CEOs that you don't know and that have thier own vies. A CEO is only the image of the company when marketing decides to promote things this way. [QUOTE=Doctor Zedacon;44449655] No, its like refusing to support a business with a bigot in a position of power because your patronage will in some way be paying for that bigot. [/QUOTE] Then stop supporting your gorvernment, because there's a lot of biggots in position of powers. As long as you pay your taxes, you pay those people. [QUOTE=Doctor Zedacon;44449655] It's both, actually, just one is more encompassing. Saying a person said something moronic means that just that case was moronic, but they could have an otherwise great track record. Happens all the time. Saying someone is a moron means much of what they say is moronic, and the right things they say are outliers.[/QUOTE] Namecalling is the lowest form of argumentation and should only be used for humor. Are you trying to be funny or are you trying to defend a point of view?

[QUOTE=Zyler;44448763]Because it hurt the image of the company he was managing and his whole job was based around promoting the image of the company.[/QUOTE] He's not a spokesperson, he was a Chief Executive Officer. He oversees operations for the entire company. Just because you have personal beliefs doesn't mean he can't do his job. im a feminazi social justice warrior fuck, but what everyone did to him was fucking retarded.

[QUOTE=Matthew0505;44449753]People aren't obligated to give bigots a job position. If you want to take away other peoples' rights you shouldn't expect them to uphold yours.[/QUOTE] It's okay to promote workplace discrimination, guys! As long as he's a bigot that was minding his own business!