• 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]

Jack Hays said:
Indeed. And who could blame Stalin for murdering 15,000 Polish officers in the Katyn Forest to distance himself from a potential PR liability?:peace
Click to expand...

Yes, pushing a CEO out the door with what I'm sure is a lovely severance package and systematically murdering 15,000 people is a comparable scenario. :roll:

Congratulations, though, you're the first person I've seen to drag a 60-years dead Soviet dictator into the conversation. I'm sure you're VERY proud.
 
Last edited:
cpwill said:
It was made into a PR liability by people wishing to silence dissent by targeting individuals to intimidate others. And they are absolutely willing to use government to do it.
Click to expand...

Oh, bull****. At the time he made the donation, California had disclosure laws that kicked in at a certain threshold, which in this case was the exact amount of the donation -- $1,000. If he had donated $999, nobody would know about it. Ignorance of the law is no excuse. When you are part of a company like Mozilla and openly go against that company's ideals, there's going to be blowback. As I said earlier, it's probably a little much. But let's can the whole "ZOMG THEY WANT TO SILENCE CONSERVATIVES" and recognize it for what it is. The free market spoke. Figured you conservatives would love that.
 
Furthermore, the delicious irony is those people were murdered so they couldn't protest. Certain people want to use all the money in the world to push through laws that oppress without protest.
 
cpwill said:
It was made into a PR liability by people wishing to silence dissent by targeting individuals to intimidate others. And they are absolutely willing to use government to do it.
Click to expand...

I don't think you'll have many homosexuals with a working knowledge of history who see that street as one way. It wasn't until 2003 that sodomy laws were struck down, and against the wishes of the people and governments who would JAIL 'dissenters.'
 
This story just shows the level of intolerance liberals display against dissenting opinions....
 
j-mac said:
This story just shows the level of intolerance liberals display against dissenting opinions....
Click to expand...

And another joins the "evil liberals" fiesta.
 
JasperL said:
I don't think you'll have many homosexuals with a working knowledge of history who see that street as one way. It wasn't until 2003 that sodomy laws were struck down, and against the wishes of the people and governments who would JAIL 'dissenters.'
Click to expand...

:shrug: no doubt - although those laws hadn't been enforced for some time before that. And I don't think you will find many folks today on either side of the aisle calling for their reinstatement. Having previously fallen off the horse on one side, however, does not justify falling off the horse on the other.
 
Kobie said:
Oh, bull****. At the time he made the donation, California had disclosure laws that kicked in at a certain threshold, which in this case was the exact amount of the donation -- $1,000. If he had donated $999, nobody would know about it. Ignorance of the law is no excuse.
Click to expand...

..... how in the world does that make his targeting not an attempt to make him into a PR liability by people wishing to silence dissent by targeting individuals to intimidate others who are willing to use government to do it?

When you are part of a company like Mozilla and openly go against that company's ideals, there's going to be blowback. As I said earlier, it's probably a little much. But let's can the whole "ZOMG THEY WANT TO SILENCE CONSERVATIVES" and recognize it for what it is. The free market spoke. Figured you conservatives would love that.
Click to expand...

:shrug: I don't have a problem with the mechanism of his removal. I have a problem with the use of government to enforce opinion and belief, such as in the previously discussed cases of those who do not wish to be forced to participate in homosexual weddings, and I have a problem with the need to politicize every aspect of human life in order to enforce ideological conformity. It is true that there is a definite desire to silence opposition on this issue, and that I also have a problem with. You don't win in civilized debate by threatening your opposition, but by convincing more people that you are correct. Using these tactics only increases partisanship in our country, as it promotes backlash and creates a narrative of us-against-them in stark moral terms. Homosexuals (sadly) will end up suffering from the use of these kinds of tactics as well, because they are teaching those who disagree with them or who maybe are ambivalent to see them as a threat.
 
j-mac said:
This story just shows the level of intolerance liberals display against dissenting opinions....
Click to expand...

Yes, that's a good point, because conservatives are famously tolerant types.

GOProud and the Log Cabin Republicans will not be participating in the annual Conservative Political Action Conference, top executives from both groups confirmed on Wednesday.

"We were kicked out last year and nothing has changed and we wont be at CPAC," GOProud's Jimmy LaSalvia said in an interview. "The last communication I've had from them is that we were kicked out. Nothing has changed."
Click to expand...


Let's take another issue dear to conservatives. Dissent and debate encouraged!

The Florida-based gun enthusiast magazine Guns & Ammo fired longtime editor Dick Metcalf on Wednesday and apologized to readers after Metcalf’s column in the magazine’s December issue sparked an online uproar from readers, gun bloggers, and other corners of the conservative movement.
Click to expand...

The hilarious thing about that incident was the publisher's apology. Groveling is a good description. This was from one short column:

As editor of “Guns & Ammo,” I owe each and every reader a personal apology.
...
In publishing Metcalf’s column, I was untrue to that tradition, and for that I apologize.
...
I once again offer my personal apology.
...

I made a mistake by publishing the column. I thought it would generate a healthy exchange of ideas on gun rights. I miscalculated, pure and simple. I was wrong, and I ask your forgiveness.
Click to expand...

That was his response for publishing one short column that simply supported MINOR and long standing 'gun control.' Four apologies. I think that reflects a willingness to have a healthy debate, don't you think?
 
Good morning Jasper,

What is the relevance of the Guns and Ammo story to the Mozilla story? Someone else also posted about it. I'm failing to see the correlation.
 
Kobie said:
If they're willing to face the public backlash for it, more power to them, if they can do it legally and aren't outright firing people (which Mozilla didn't do). I think the chance of that happening is about zero.

Note that I support their right to; not that I support the action. I haven't supported Mozilla's actions either.
Click to expand...

Thank you for clarifying, Kobie. I do see your posts saying that you don't support what Mozilla did. And I knew they didn't fire him. They forced him out but didn't fire him. I hope he gets a huge severance package.
 
Kobie said:
Oh, bull****. At the time he made the donation, California had disclosure laws that kicked in at a certain threshold, which in this case was the exact amount of the donation -- $1,000. If he had donated $999, nobody would know about it. Ignorance of the law is no excuse. When you are part of a company like Mozilla and openly go against that company's ideals, there's going to be blowback. As I said earlier, it's probably a little much. But let's can the whole "ZOMG THEY WANT TO SILENCE CONSERVATIVES" and recognize it for what it is. The free market spoke. Figured you conservatives would love that.
Click to expand...

I love that the free market spoke. And I will embrace it when the free market works the other way and executives get pressure when it's revealed that a person gave money to a group that opposed Proposition 8.
 
cpwill said:
:shrug: no doubt - although those laws hadn't been enforced for some time before that. And I don't think you will find many folks today on either side of the aisle calling for their reinstatement. Having previously fallen off the horse on one side, however, does not justify falling off the horse on the other.
Click to expand...

Enforcing it selectively isn't really the point. That the law existed, and was defended to the SC, is a powerful reflection of the attitudes of those in power in Texas of LGBT. In short, disdain, dislike, contempt? Pick an expression of extreme disapproval....

And Cuccinelli as recently as 2012 ran on reinstating sodomy laws. Took the case to the SC. The excuse was he wanted to protect children, but he had opposed/blocked efforts to rewrite the law to do that, while allowing sex Ken didn't approve of. It was a bullhorn to anti-gay bigots, and everyone knew it. This was in 2012, and a politician running for state office in a large and prosperous state like VA thought it was a winning issue for GOP voters.
 
Wow. 7 in 10 black voters supported Proposition 8 in the 2008 election.

The same voters who turned out strongest for Barack Obama also drove a stake through the heart of same-sex marriage

Those bigots.

Most of California's Black Voters Backed Gay Marriage Ban

I'm sure the Cupid site called for a mass boycott of black owned businesses in California, but it musn't have made the news.
 
tres borrachos said:
Thank you for clarifying, Kobie. I do see your posts saying that you don't support what Mozilla did. And I knew they didn't fire him. They forced him out but didn't fire him. I hope he gets a huge severance package.
Click to expand...

Agreed. At least this once, I'm hoping for a significant golden parachute.
 
Has anyone figured out yet what the people who oppose Eich were specifically hoping to accomplish by the boycott? I may have missed it if someone posted it.
 
tres borrachos said:
Good morning Jasper,

What is the relevance of the Guns and Ammo story to the Mozilla story? Someone else also posted about it. I'm failing to see the correlation.
Click to expand...

Seriously? High profile person in company (longtime writer and editor/CEO) takes position contrary to key customers and advertisers and suppliers (Gun rights/marriage rights), public outrage, company fires (writer/CEO).

Metcalf (the writer) takes a position readers believe threatens their right to own guns. CEO takes position supporting stripping rights of LGBT.

I think you must be willfully missing the parallels.
 
JasperL said:
Seriously? High profile person in company (longtime writer and editor/CEO) takes position contrary to key customers and advertisers and suppliers (Gun rights/marriage rights), public outrage, company fires (writer/CEO).

Metcalf (the writer) takes a position readers believe threatens their right to own guns. CEO takes position supporting stripping rights of LGBT.

I think you must be willfully missing the parallels.
Click to expand...

Well, the Editor of Guns and Ammo made a statement about the subject that is at the heart of his magazine's business model - guns and ammo.

I may have missed when Mozilla's business model changed from internet solutions to gay marriage. When did that happen?

The Mozilla advertisers are advertising on Mozilla because they are targeting gay marriage rights? Mozilla users are using Mozilla because of gay marriage rights?
 
Kobie said:
And another joins the "evil liberals" fiesta.
Click to expand...

When someone tries to hand me a giant bowl of what they say is chocolate ice cream, but the bowl is warm, and it smells like ****, I don't assume that they are telling the truth.
 
j-mac said:
When someone tries to hand me a giant bowl of what they say is chocolate ice cream, but the bowl is warm, and it smells like ****, I don't assume that they are telling the truth.
Click to expand...

There's a lot of that going on lately on a wide variety of issues, mostly from our leftist friends.
 
JasperL said:
Yes, that's a good point, because conservatives are famously tolerant types.

[/B]

Let's take another issue dear to conservatives. Dissent and debate encouraged!



The hilarious thing about that incident was the publisher's apology. Groveling is a good description. This was from one short column:



That was his response for publishing one short column that simply supported MINOR and long standing 'gun control.' Four apologies. I think that reflects a willingness to have a healthy debate, don't you think?
Click to expand...

Well, are you really trying to put forth the argument that "they did it too" justifies your own support of intolerance? That is IMHO, weak.

What has happened supposedly to "Log cabin Republican's" or to an editor for writing an editorial, doesn't justify an outside group pressuring a company to fire someone for donating to a cause, 10 years ago, that they don't like.

The two are not comparable in a rational sense.
 
tres borrachos said:
Well, the Editor of Guns and Ammo made a statement about the subject that is at the heart of his magazine's business model - guns and ammo.

I may have missed when Mozilla's business model changed from internet solutions to gay marriage. When did that happen?

The Mozilla advertisers are advertising on Mozilla because they are targeting gay marriage rights? Mozilla users are using Mozilla because of gay marriage rights?
Click to expand...

So, you're saying LGBT rights aren't important enough for Mozilla's gay employees and customers and partners and advertisers to justify any meaningful protest? If the subject isn't at "the heart" of the company's narrow line of business, it shouldn't matter to those whose rights are threatened? I'm sure you feel that way because I've not seen any indication you care about LGBT rights or support SSM, but obviously others disagree with you.

BTW, I suppose then that anti-gay bigotry is at "the heart" of the conservative movement so banning gay GOP groups is OK?
 
Ockham said:
There's a lot of that going on lately on a wide variety of issues, mostly from our leftist friends.
Click to expand...

No doubt. All one has to do is take a look at how many spam threads have been opened in here for the past 6 months, to see that....An agenda is being pushed....I think people just want to be left alone.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom