Social ***mozilla Firefox ceo forced to resign for personal views****

[TheComebackKid]

Ghandi is not making any sense and being dishonest as usual. Time to ignore him and move on with this riveting axel foley discussion.

I personally think Axel was straight. Eddie Murphy on the other hand...

 

[TheComebackKid]

I dont see what race has to do with anything but i do think hes had gay tendencies for awhile. Getting caught with trannies and all.

 

[TheComebackKid]

You can't just spout out whatever your opinion is when you're a CEO and not think you won't be held responsible by the shareholders either.

Because he came across like this guy and got smacked down.

Revenue (and the potential loss or gains thereof) is greater than any CEO.

And I'm saying that if the public would use this to harm the companies revenue and force a man out of his job then the public is acting like collective morons. They should stop doing that.

 

[7437]

And I'm saying that if the public would use this to harm the companies revenue and force a man out of his job then the public is acting like collective morons. They should stop doing that.

no, the public is showing his bigoted actions are no longer socially acceptable.

 

[James Keith]

no, the public is showing his bigoted actions are no longer socially acceptable.

Come on, that wasn't "the public" that was a noisy fringe.

I take it you also think Obama was a bigot in 2008.

 

[7437]

Come on, that wasn't "the public" that was a noisy fringe.

I take it you also think Obama was a bigot in 2008.

if it was just a noisy fringe, he would not have stepped down. it was a very real problem.

 

[Torami]

Come on, that wasn't "the public" that was a noisy fringe.

A noisy fringe that grasps at any tidbit like this aye, but they make enough noise that the normals notice and choose to not use their product which does have a big impact.

 

[Gandhi]

Ghandi is not making any sense and being dishonest as usual. Time to ignore him and move on with this riveting axel foley discussion.

I personally think Axel was straight. Eddie Murphy on the other hand...

Pot meet CBK

 

[Its Me Austin]

Publicly announcing to ignore someone on here is the ultimate sign of rustled jimmies.

 

[drowningidiot]

But this is the (ironic) attitude I find so contemptible in the pro-gay crowd: "I'm not going to say that consenting adults should be denied the right to live a polygamous lifestyle. But, please, do not sully the beautiful and honorable institution of gay marriage by trying to equate it with something as untoward as polygamy."

The anti-gay side always tries to inject polygamy into the debate as a foil against gay marriage. They don't give a fuck about fairness and they REALLY don't give a fuck about polygamists. Whether you're playing that game or unwittingly internalizing their talking points I can't be sure. It's irrelevant though. Gay marriage isn't contingent on polygamous marriage no matter how badly some people would like it to be.

Polygamous marriage will be debated on it's own merits, at it's own pace, and if there's prop 8 style campaigns against it I doubt gays and liberals will be the ones funding and organizing them.

 

[D0N KEY]

This is a perfect example of the free market. I love when conservatards get a comeuppance about the free market. The market determined the guy is a bigot and a liability so the company then determined that it was in their financial interest to have the guy step down. Libertarianism in practice.

the libertarians and right wing chodes love the free market as long as it produces the right result, such as discriminating against women, gays and minorities

when the free market works against their self interest it's a problem all of a sudden

fucking hilarious

 

[TheComebackKid]

The anti-gay side always tries to inject polygamy into the debate as a foil against gay marriage. They don't give a fuck about fairness and they REALLY don't give a fuck about polygamists. Whether you're playing that game or unwittingly internalizing their talking points I can't be sure. It's irrelevant though. Gay marriage isn't contingent on polygamous marriage no matter how badly some people would like it to be.

Polygamous marriage will be debated on it's own merits, at it's own pace, and if there's prop 8 style campaigns against it I doubt gays and liberals will be the ones funding and organizing them.

And when you debate it in its own merits you end up using the sane arguments that are used for gay marriage: consenting adults, tolerance, bigotry, marriage being athe fundemenral right, ect.

And those who argue against it used the same arguments that are used against gay marriage: polygamy is icky, its harmful, marriage has traditionally been between two people, ect.

Arguing that not recognizing ssm is bigoted and a violation of gay cpls civil rights but then arguing against polygamy is hypocritical. No way around it.

 

[Madmick]

This is a perfect example of the free market. I love when conservatards get a comeuppance about the free market. The market determined the guy is a bigot and a liability so the company then determined that it was in their financial interest to have the guy step down. Libertarianism in practice.

the libertarians and right wing chodes love the free market as long as it produces the right result, such as discriminating against women, gays and minorities

when the free market works against their self interest it's a problem all of a sudden

fucking hilarious

This had nothing to do with Mozilla's market performance, and everything to do with the sociopolitical climate of Silicon Valley. Thanks for offering your opinion without reading.

 

[TheComebackKid]

Edit nm

 

[Madmick]

The public is acting like intolerant and mean spirited bigots. Its thier right to be that way in a free market but lets not pretend its anything but them being intolerant mean spirited bigots.

"Intolerant" is a fair adjective to use; you're really stretching the word "bigot" to apply it here. It's not contextually appropriate except in the most literal interpretation. That's why I used more artful descriptions earlier in this thread (such as the allusion to Nietzsche's quote about wrestling demons).

One must always keep in mind that intolerance of intolerance isn't intolerance; that's a semantic paradox, nothing more. Intolerance of intolerance is, indeed, tolerance. My problem is that too much has been extrapolated about Eich's position from his support of this one issue (even if our presumptions are probably well-founded). For example, many marijuana advocates have not supported marijuana advocacy because the legislation was messy, or they felt it went too far, or it didn't go far enough. We're assuming to understand perfectly his political positions from a single donation, and that they are inherently "bigoted".

You're going to far. Taking a stand against intolerance doesn't constitute "bigotry". It's just not absolutely clear that that's what we're dealing with, nor can I readily accept that this is an indication of support of that measure.

 

[TheComebackKid]

I was actually thinking about the Hobby Lobby story. Got my threads mixed up hence the edit.

But to your point i think that determing a point a view to be intolerant while refusing to accept any of the valid tenets that view is supported by...is intolerant.

 

[panamaican]

I don't think he should have resigned but such is the free market. If you risk costing the company value (either monetary or something more intangible) then it's smart to move on.

 

[ultramanhyata]

Publicly announcing to ignore someone on here is the ultimate sign of rustled jimmies.

The way that Juke Box interprets the data from his polygamy studies, he could make a "strong" case against miscegenation, too.

If we conduct a study of white women married to black men, and white women married to white men, and find, in the mixed marriages, higher rates of poverty, overall lower household incomes and lower standardized test scores among offspring, then we could reasonably call black/white marriage a potential danger to society.

We could also call the whole thing science, done badly.

 

[Madmick]

The way that Juke Box interprets the data from his polygamy studies, he could make a "strong" case against miscegenation, too.

If we conduct a study of white women married to black men, and white women married to white men, and find, in the mixed marriages, higher rates of poverty, overall lower household incomes and lower standardized test scores among offspring, then we could reasonably call black/white marriage a potential danger to society.

We could also call the whole thing science, done badly.

If those rates are lower than for black/black marriages, then your point is rendered impotent. You must adjust and control for race in your survey. Furthermore, why must it be restricted to black/white? Miscegenation isn't exclusively black/white. Yet you tunnel on that example.

I build my skeletons from an ideological principle, but the reality of an ideology in practice is always a relevant concern.

 

[ultramanhyata]

If those rates are lower than for black/black marriages, then your point is rendered impotent. You must adjust and control for race in your survey.

Give me some time to hunker down with my research team before I attempt to refute your scientific criticism of my intentionally absurd and sarcastic mixed-race study proposal.

Here is someone's idea of an economic bombshell: If you compare the standard of living of a household containing a single, male breadwinner, his one wife and the offspring produced by that wife, you will find that it is significantly higher, on average, than the standard of living of a household containing a single breadwinner, his three wives and the offspring produced by those wives.

Are you suggesting we, as a society, base our allowance of individual and collective rights on economic performance and net worth? (More extensively and overtly than we already are, that is.)