• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Mozilla’s CEO steps down amid gay marriage furor[W:577]

Lest anyone accuse me of fabricating:
.









At this point you stopped replying to me altogether. As you can see, I gave you a gazillion opportunities to deny it or clarify yourself. If you choose to do so now, I will instantly take it back.

And, at no point did I say that a politician's constituents do not have the right to vote him out of office.

I'm stopped for the night. I have 10 hours to play this game. Lie and fabricate all you want.
 
Lest anyone accuse me of fabricating:

At this point you stopped replying to me altogether. As you can see, I gave you a gazillion opportunities to deny it or clarify yourself. If you choose to do so now, I will instantly take it back.

I see an answer, and I see someone trying to twist it around. Tsk, tsk.
 
What would happen if the CEO of some company (Whole Foods, or McDonalds, for example) decided to force out or fire every employee who donated money to support a proposition raising the minimum wage? They are legitimately protecting their business and the interests of their customers, right? Freedom of Association/Speech, correct?

I could be wrong, but I think they could do this, but would be liable for some hefty severance penalties for it.
 
And, at no point did I say that a politician's constituents do not have the right to vote him out of office.

I'm stopped for the night. I have 10 hours to play this game. Lie and fabricate all you want.

:lol:

Please tell me why I shouldn't conclude that you don't think voters are allowed to vote out the Senator for his contribution to the Nazi Party.
 
What would happen if the CEO of some company (Whole Foods, or McDonalds, for example) decided to force out or fire every employee who donated money to support a proposition raising the minimum wage? They are legitimately protecting their business and the interests of their customers, right? Freedom of Association/Speech, correct?

"But...but...but...that's different!"
 
I see an answer, and I see someone trying to twist it around. Tsk, tsk.

You clearly didn't read the exchange or you'd see that my example fit in with his "no one" comment, or that he didn't even attempt to deny it, and still won't because then his "no one" post would be unraveled.
 
What? This was for a contribution he made six years ago? When he stood shoulder to shoulder with the beliefs of Barack Obama?

Yeah, I was wondering when someone would point out that this guy was hounded out of a job for expressing the same opinions that the President did back then. Can we expect you guys to be hounding the President out of his job now? Just to be consistent? Just this once be consistent with the beliefs you yourselves espouse?

Having said that I'm totally on board with this idea of having people lose their jobs because of their political opinions. There are far more conservatives running companies than the converse. I expect this would result in big improvements in our business culture and climate and far fewer expressions of liberal beliefs, not to mention far fewer donations to liberal and democratic candidates. Coupled with Citizens United and the more recent decision on donation limits I think we can put a stake right through the heart of the liberal Democratic faction. Happy days are here again!

They set the precedent. Now I say use it against them.

I'm kind of surprised that the LGBT community is resorting to these sorts of tactics. No matter how you slice it they are a tiny minority. They greatly depend on the sympathy of others. If they start acting like a bunch of Nazis they will lose that sympathy pretty quickly. As it stands I think you can expect gay activists to be beaten about the head and shoulders (figuratively speaking) over this on a regular basis during the public discourse about these issues.
 
:lol:

Please tell me why I shouldn't conclude that you don't think voters are allowed to vote out the Senator for his contribution to the Nazi Party.

Umm, because I didn't say that...perhaps?

You're going to tell whatever lie you feel like telling, so guess reality is irrelevant.
 
Umm, because I didn't say that...perhaps?

You're going to tell whatever lie you feel like telling, so guess reality is irrelevant.

Say, "Cardinal, I believe no such thing. Of course I believe people are allowed to vote out a Senator for contributing to the Nazi Party!"

That's all you have to do. Do it, and all of this will go away like a bad dream.
 
Yeah, I was wondering when someone would point out that this guy was hounded out of a job for expressing the same opinions that the President did back then. Can we expect you guys to be hounding the President out of his job now? Just to be consistent? Just this once be consistent with the beliefs you yourselves espouse?

Having said that I'm totally on board with this idea of having people lose their jobs because of their political opinions. There are far more conservatives running companies than the converse. I expect this would result in big improvements in our business culture and climate and far fewer expressions of liberal beliefs, not to mention far fewer donations to liberal and democratic candidates. Coupled with Citizens United and the more recent decision on donation limits I think we can put a stake right through the heart of the liberal Democratic faction. Happy days are here again!

They set the precedent. Now I say use it against them.

I'm kind of surprised that the LGBT community is resorting to these sorts of tactics. No matter how you slice it they are a tiny minority. They greatly depend on the sympathy of others. If they start acting like a bunch of Nazis they will lose that sympathy pretty quickly. As it stands I think you can expect gay activists to be beaten about the head and shoulders (figuratively speaking) over this on a regular basis during the public discourse about these issues.

People do lose their jobs for their political opinions all the time. That's why only idiots air their politics, and that's why we're anonymous. On my Facebook where I go under my real name, my opinions on political matters barely exist, and where I have alluded to them they're about as watered down as you can get.
 
This is taking an unnecessarily pedantic approach.



https://brendaneich.com/2012/04/community-and-diversity/

Whether or not you agree with the content of Eich's response, it was extremely combative. And whether or not you agree taking a combative approach was the right thing to do, you can at least agree that it ended with him losing his job. I believe a different approach would have been wiser.



Yes, Eich clearly went for that option, and he is now no longer CEO.

The difference is not inconsequential. The field was changed after the fact, and the herd was then instructed to make noise.

As to what he wrote via the link you provided, I couldn't agree more. It wasn't combative at all. I think he called out the thought police for the people they are, and warned of the precedent they were attempting to set.

Obviously hypocrisy is now part of the mission statement there, which is too bad.

However, their precedent has been set, and if history is any indicator, and it usually is, the results will not be good for them.
 
The difference is not inconsequential. The field was changed after the fact, and the herd was then instructed to make noise.

And thus his departure was hilariously avoidable.
As to what he wrote via the link you provided, I couldn't agree more. It wasn't combative at all. I think he called out the thought police for the people they are, and warned of the precedent they were attempting to set.

I assume you mean you couldn't disagree more. Would you say that he took an apologetic or a head-on approach to his detractors?
 
People do lose their jobs for their political opinions all the time. That's why only idiots air their politics, and that's why we're anonymous. On my Facebook where I go under my real name, my opinions on political matters barely exist, and where I have alluded to them they're about as watered down as you can get.

I'm unaware he "aired" his beliefs before his private donation was aired publicly by someone else. Have I missed something?
 
People do lose their jobs for their political opinions all the time. That's why only idiots air their politics, and that's why we're anonymous. On my Facebook where I go under my real name, my opinions on political matters barely exist, and where I have alluded to them they're about as watered down as you can get.

That's good to hear, because records of donations to political candidates and the like are made public, available through sites like opensecret.org. So it's a simple matter to root out people who donate no matter how quiet they might be at work about their politics. I'll bet a lot of managers don't even know about that. Perhaps they could be informed about which of their employees are suspect? After all, this is exactly what was done to Eich.

But saying that it happens isn't the same thing as saying you approve of people getting fired for their politics. Do you approve of that?
 
And thus his departure was hilariously avoidable.


I assume you mean you couldn't disagree more. Would you say that he took an apologetic or a head-on approach to his detractors?

No, I mean I couldn't agree more with what Eich wrote. I think he took a very middle of the road approach, and attempted to remind people that diversity of thought is a good thing.

Obviously Mozilla does not think it is, and has established their ground rules.
 
That's good to hear, because records of donations to political candidates and the like are made public, available through sites like opensecret.org. So it's a simple matter to root out people who donate no matter how quiet they might be at work about their politics. I'll bet a lot of managers don't even know about that. Perhaps they could be informed about which of their employees are suspect? After all, this is exactly what was done to Eich.

But saying that it happens isn't the same thing as saying you approve of people getting fired for their politics. Do you approve of that?

People disagreeing with your political views such that you may suddenly find yourself in an ugly spot is the human condition, so I think if you've donated to a cause then you have to categorize yourself as an "activist" and be prepared to deal with whatever fallout that entails. If political activism had no consequences it would be no big deal, just as no mythos would surround our soldiers if none of them ever faced hostile fire.

Keep in mind Eich made a choice we all face given enough time: recant and keep your job, or stand by your principles and risk losing it. Eich vigorously chose the latter, and now he's out of a job. That being said, I'd say his offense was so minor he could have chosen a third way that wouldn't have compromised his job or his beliefs, but let's face it: that's just not the kind of guy Eich is.
 
Say, "Cardinal, I believe no such thing. Of course I believe people are allowed to vote out a Senator for contributing to the Nazi Party!"

That's all you have to do. Do it, and all of this will go away like a bad dream.

Ooopsie! There is a BIG reveal there! Just a little ankle showing.
 
That being said, I'd say his offense was so minor he could have chosen a third way that wouldn't have compromised his job or his beliefs, but let's face it: that's just not the kind of guy Eich is.

I think you don't understand the terms of the battle. A third way cannot be undertaken unilaterally, it involves the opposing party also finding the third way acceptable.

Homosexuals are not on a mission to get people to tolerate their presence, they mean to make people declare a love for homosexuality. This tactic was seen in communist reeducation camps, where prisoners where forced to denounce their allies, where priests were forced to denounce God, etc. This is meant to humiliate the prisoner, break his spirit.

No one has pointed to anything that Eich did on the job, Mozilla already has a policy of granting benefits to homosexual couples. The issue was that Eich didn't love homosexuals, didn't sing their praises. It was his personal beliefs that were the problem.
 
I think you don't understand the terms of the battle. A third way cannot be undertaken unilaterally, it involves the opposing party also finding the third way acceptable.

I disagree. It's almost like you're saying negotiation isn't a thing.

I saw "something something re-education camps" in the rest of your post and just ignored it.
 
What would happen if the CEO of some company (Whole Foods, or McDonalds, for example) decided to force out or fire every employee who donated money to support a proposition raising the minimum wage? They are legitimately protecting their business and the interests of their customers, right? Freedom of Association/Speech, correct?


And this is exactly what a few of us are saying here. I have a dream.. I have a dream that one day conservatives, and right-libertarians unite under a single banner and start to fight back with the same tactics the left uses on us. I have a dream that one day we wake up and realize that we far outnumber the vocal and well funded left, and we begin using that advantage to our own best interests. I have a dream that corporations, and businesses realize that their customer base is essentially made up of people that work for a living, pay taxes and contribute to society, and that of those we are the super majority. I have a dream that businesses aren't as stupid as Mozilla and as short sighted as them setting this [recedent, and I have a dream that one day the militant gay left will realize that these tactics, and their rhetoric will eventually catch up them, and they won't like the outcome.

It's just a dream, but I have it all the time. ;)


Tim-
 
And this is exactly what a few of us are saying here. I have a dream.. I have a dream that one day conservatives, and right-libertarians unite under a single banner and start to fight back with the same tactics the left uses on us. I have a dream that one day we wake up and realize that we far outnumber the vocal and well funded left, and we begin using that advantage to our own best interests. I have a dream that corporations, and businesses realize that their customer base is essentially made up of people that work for a living, pay taxes and contribute to society, and that of those we are the super majority. I have a dream that businesses aren't as stupid as Mozilla and as short sighted as them setting this [recedent, and I have a dream that one day the militant gay left will realize that these tactics, and their rhetoric will eventually catch up them, and they won't like the outcome.

It's just a dream, but I have it all the time. ;)


Tim-

Truly, your struggle is exactly what Martin Luther King had in mind when he made his "I Have a Dream speech," and were he alive today would shed a tear in joy.
 
Oh, and let me throw this out there. I have Mozilla on one computer. The next time I use that computer, I will unistall Mozilla (FireFox). I don't like the way they are intolerant to people's beliefs, and I hope others that support people not being attacked in such a manner will do so also.

My husband and I already did exactly that with our computers.
 
Back
Top Bottom