| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm not so sure that was a good thing. He seems to have changed his mind about LGBT inclusiveness, at least judging from his blog post:
Are we now saying that it's not enough to currently support LGBT rights, you must never have done anything against them ever? Because if so, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama shouldn't be getting our support. But a lot of people who are cheering this guy's ouster probably voted for Obama in 2008, when he still held that marriage was between a man and a woman, and probably will vote for Hillary Clinton if she wins the Democratic nomination despite having only started to support marriage equality in 2013, and having been an active part of working for DOMA when Bill was president. I think there needs to be room for disagreement, change, and evolution on civil rights positions.
I think there needs to be room for disagreement, change, and evolution on civil rights positions.
wholehearted agreement.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think there needs to be room for disagreement, change, and evolution on civil rights positions.wholehearted agreement.
Frankly, in Eich's case, that's utter b$$%*~#!.
I have been listening to those who opposed Eich's promotion to CEO. They weren't opposed to Eich because he seems to personally support the official Roman Catholic Church's position on LGBT equality and same-sex marriage. They weren't opposed to Eich's on-the-record personal funding of anti-LGBT politicians. While Eich was largely known to have supported Prop 8 and probably voted for it, he was until recently just the Chief Technical Officer for Mozilla.
But when Eich became CEO of Mozilla, he faced greater responsibility and a higher standard. Eich personally helped fund the Prop 8 Campaign, its vicious slandering of decent loving LGBT couples and parents, and its attempt to nullify their legal right to a civil marriage. As CEO, he would be the public face of Mozilla, an organization which has openly pledged and worked to be fully LGBT-inclusive. As CEO, he would be the leader of all the LGBT Mozilla employees and contractors he had donated funds to legally codify them as second-class citizens. And after repeatedly given chance upon chance, he resolutely refused even to acknowledge or apologize for the harm he had helped to occur.
Eich went far beyond mere disagreement and has demonstrated no attempts at evolution on the position that LGBT people are entitled to the same rights and protections as everyone else. His actions are one of a bigot, and a bigot has no place as CEO of an inclusive pioneer like Mozilla.
Edit: If Eich had helped fund a Prop 8 that criminalized and banned interracial marriages, would we even be having this discussion? Would the interracial couples and their allies now be the bad guys for pressuring Mozilla to remove Eich?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
People can change. People HAVE to change. We're not the same people we were a few years ago. I've met people who were disgusting bigots who later changed their minds and their ways. Some got even worse, even in the face of proof that they were wrong. We all evolve over time, some for the better, some for far worse. As a result of this alone, we can't all move in lockstep, nor can we simply cut off those who aren't toeing the line. Everyone is at different places along the path. There has to be some kind of allowance for disagreement, change and evolution.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
People can change. People HAVE to change. We're not the same people we were a few years ago. I've met people who were disgusting bigots who later changed their minds and their ways. Some got even worse, even in the face of proof that they were wrong. We all evolve over time, some for the better, some for far worse. As a result of this alone, we can't all move in lockstep, nor can we simply cut off those who aren't toeing the line. Everyone is at different places along the path. There has to be some kind of allowance for disagreement, change and evolution.
But Eich didn't display any movement; he simply entrenched deeper. As thejeff points out, he didn't even bother to offer a real attempt at an apology... if he'd done that, if he'd mentioned some BS that "he was still evolving on the issue", and donated a measly $2000 or so to some LGBT or civil rights organization, I think people would have given him an actual chance to walk the walk. I would have, even as naive as that makes me sound.
But even that was baby step too far for him to take. He would rather leave a black mark on all of his years of hard brilliant work at Mozilla than make a token gesture of apology, conciliation, and personal growth.
Maybe I'm in the wrong about where I draw the line with Eich. Maybe I'm wrong about even drawing a line. Compassion and empathy toward someone whose actions treat me as subhuman... that takes patience and energy, two things I have in very very short supply this month, especially with the return of my Black Dog. It's draining to be reminded every day that a large chunk of the population thinks people like me are deviants and corrupting influences, subhumans not worthy of compassion or happiness or basic equality. I don't offer this as an excuse, just as an explanation. I'm so very tired.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Planning the Transgender Day of Visibility right before April Fool's was maybe not brilliant. Partner came out to someone as trans and got a "ha ha, tell me that again next week, very funny, nice prank there" response. He was much nicer about it and less peeved than I would have been. But still, yeah, there's clearly some risk to celebrating this one on April 31. :/
He* is clearly more graceful and understanding than I would be. And I'm glad there is a positive hopeful counterpoint to the TDoR.
* I don't intend to misgender her, I'm just following your choice of pronouns. I apologize if it was hurtful and offensive.
I find it's ironic about the double standard. If a group decided to stop using a product because of someone's OPINION about certain rights...especially if they were supportive of certain rights...everyone would scream about how horribly people were acting by not using their products (remember an opinion is DIFFERENT then actually BEING).
However, when the shoe is on the other foot, it seems it's perfectly fine to discriminate?
It's not okay to say you won't buy a product or go to a store if it supports Gay Marriage, or has an opinion that Gay Marriage is okay. However, if one feels it is wrong (which is not unusual, anyone with an inkling of understanding of what the Christian Bible states would understand why the Christian right is against Gay Marriage, irregardless of whether it is a right or wrong opinion) it is suddenly okay to lynch them (in a manner of speaking).
This reminds me of a certain type of hypocrisy I've seen. I'm not certain how many of you have visited or lived in the Florida Keys...especially Key West.
Now, I find Key West is actually MORE open to homosexuality than just about any other place in the US (at least when I was there). People talk about San Francisco, but even San Fran really can't compare. Some areas of San Fran may be better, but overall, Key West is more accepting.
That said, I saw what I could only term as reverse discrimination in Key West. There were a few hotels there that had a policy that if you were not homosexual...you could not stay there (which I also found ironic, as how can anyone tell WHAT orientation you are unless you actually tell them?).
Of course, that led to a lawsuit of discrimination eventually (no idea how it ended up), but I found it ironic that those who had wanted such acceptance elsewhere, would practice the reverse when they were found to be a major influence.
Now overall, Key West is great in that there is no difference normally between who is Gay and who is not. You literally cannot tell the difference because it's not going to be a big deal. You can go there and be yourself.
But I do find some of the pushings of the more extreme sections (and ironically, the extremists are who make the most noise and don't necessarily represent the rest of everyone else) a bit discriminatory at times. It's hypocritical I think that what is NOT acceptable if it were pushed against them, is suddenly acceptable for them to do.
IMO...which obviously probably won't be reflected by the rest of those in this thread...but I think at times people tend to notice the most extreme sides of the Gay rights activists and apply it to the entire movement (and all the horrendous baggage that goes with it, as with what I noted) rather than appropriately noticing it's the extremists and not the normal everyday member of the movement.
One reason why the movement gets so much pushback at times, once again in my opinion, is that the extremists of the movement do things that would be categorized as discrimination if ANY OTHER GROUP were to do it...but because of who they are...they get away with it.
I actually think such extremism causes a negative pushback and a slowdown overall then anything that helps. It's only the ones that are more progressive towards equality and rights that actually have caused more rights and equality overall, than those that try to say...you are either special like us, or you should have your rights taken away (aka...be a second class citizen).
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I was late with Transgender Awareness day since my girlfriend lives in Ft. Lauderdale. So in celebration, I made her some homemade Puerto Rican yellow rice with chicken thighs and homemade black beans. I used homemade sofrito, homemade adobo, and homemade sazon to create everything. No beans in a can, it was all fresh. She loves authentic Puerto Rican food and I gave it to her :)
Now take a shot for each time I said 'homemade' ;)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I find it's ironic about the double standard. If a group decided to stop using a product because of someone's OPINION about certain rights...especially if they were supportive of certain rights...everyone would scream about how horribly people were acting by not using their products (remember an opinion is DIFFERENT then actually BEING).
However, when the shoe is on the other foot, it seems it's perfectly fine to discriminate?
No, that's not a double standard, that's a standard. Just because two actions are somewhat similar does not mean they are equally justified.
Also, you do not seem to grasp what discrimination means. Acting on prejudices against people is discrimination. Acting on knowledge of actual stances is not discrimination.
There is a huge difference between a neonazi beating up a gay guy because he sees them as subhumans that should be killed, and a gay guy beating up the nazi because of the nazi's expressed view of the gay guy being subhuman and deserving death. That's not double standards, that's standards. And very basic standards at that.
It's not okay to say you won't buy a product or go to a store if it supports Gay Marriage, or has an opinion that Gay Marriage is okay.
What do you mean with "not okay"? You won't be arrested or beaten for it, but those who's rights you are actively opposing will see you as an a@*!~&@. That's not very strange is it?
However, if one feels it is wrong (which is not unusual, anyone with an inkling of understanding of what the Christian Bible states would understand why the Christian right is against Gay Marriage, irregardless of whether it is a right or wrong opinion) it is suddenly okay to lynch them (in a manner of speaking).
It's really horrible when discussing oppression to talk about the oppressors being "lynched" because they're working to keep the oppressed from getting their rights.
No, you don't get "lynched", not even in a manner of speaking, you get some criticism and if you're famous enough you'll get a bunch of cash from various homophobic organizations.You know what people DO risk getting lynched, literally? The people that laws like Prop 8 are made to opress. People in same-sex relations.
Of course, that led to a lawsuit of discrimination eventually (no idea how it ended up), but I found it ironic that those who had wanted such acceptance elsewhere, would practice the reverse when they were found to be a major influence.
How is that strange at all? Wanting safe zones from the oppressors isn't anything ironic at all. Because, you know, gay couples that, say, go to a bar risk getting beaten or stabbed or similar. Even bars that claim to be gay-friendly. Having safe zones is extremely important when you are part of an opressed group, especially one which is oppressed in such a direct and violent way as QTBLG people.
Key West is great in that there is no difference normally between who is Gay and who is not.
Do you have any statistics showing this wonderful and groundbreaking change? Like, say, gay people not being overrepresented as victims of violence or harassment? That gay kids in the schools are not overrepresented as victims of bullying?
Since that's the way it is in the US as a whole, and any state I've ever heard statistics from, and the world at whole, such an extraordinary claim really needs some extraordinary evidence.
There is a huge difference between a neonazi beating up a gay guy because he sees them as subhumans that should be killed, and a gay guy beating up the nazi because of the nazi's expressed view of the gay guy being subhuman and deserving death. That's not double standards, that's standards. And very basic standards at that.
hmm. Not too long ago I had a debate with someone on the boards who used a similar euphemism.
hmm. Not too long ago I had a debate with someone on the boards who used a similar euphemism.
There is a huge difference between a neonazi beating up a gay guy because he sees them as subhumans that should be killed, and a gay guy beating up the nazi because of the nazi's expressed view of the gay guy being subhuman and deserving death. That's not double standards, that's standards. And very basic standards at that.
Okay? Care to explain?
EDIT: If it's the scantily clad women thread, I read the discussion, and just plain don't agree with you.
I heartily oppose the view that "violence is bad and so saying some is more of an issue is excusing". I think it's a great ideal to spread as someone in power who wish to maintain that power (now I'm not directing this at you, but rather at the larger system, where you'll see most of the vocal proponents of "ALL violence is bad!" is people who're very unlikely to face structural violence on a regular basis).
hmm. Not too long ago I had a debate with someone on the boards who used a similar euphemism.
There is a huge difference between a neonazi beating up a gay guy because he sees them as subhumans that should be killed, and a gay guy beating up the nazi because of the nazi's expressed view of the gay guy being subhuman and deserving death. That's not double standards, that's standards. And very basic standards at that.Okay? Care to explain?
EDIT: If it's the scantily clad women thread, I read the discussion, and just plain don't agree with you.
I heartily oppose the view that "violence is bad and so saying some is more of an issue is excusing". I think it's a great ideal to spread as someone in power who wish to maintain that power (now I'm not directing this at you, but rather at the larger system, where you'll see most of the vocal proponents of "ALL violence is bad!" is people who're very unlikely to face structural violence on a regular basis).
I guess we're just going to have to disagree with each other then. But I don't think we're talking about the same thread.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't know about neonazis and such, but if anybody laid a violent finger on my girlfriend because she was trans (or hell, for any reason), I would probably beat them until they couldn't move any more. I've had to deal with racial violence when I was younger. I was 20 and got jumped by a girlfriend's cousins because they didn't like the fact that a Puerto Rican was dating their white cousin. Luckily it got broken up by the cops, though according to the police, the boys had some rope with the possible intention of lynching me on their truck.
I will not suffer any one I care about to suffer the same issue, even if it means using violence to protect the people I love.
I don't know about neonazis and such, but if anybody laid a violent finger on my girlfriend because she was trans (or hell, for any reason), I would probably beat them until they couldn't move any more. I've had to deal with racial violence when I was younger. I was 20 and got jumped by a girlfriend's cousins because they didn't like the fact that a Puerto Rican was dating their white cousin. Luckily it got broken up by the cops, though according to the police, the boys had some rope with the possible intention of lynching me on their truck.
I will not suffer any one I care about to suffer the same issue, even if it means using violence to protect the people I love.
I've had to deal with something similar. I'm sorry you went through that.
I don't want to bring the conversation there, but I think we all are well within our rights to defend ourselves and the people we love through the most violent means possible.
Here let me specify.
For Christians who follow the Bible, it is actually a sin according to Paul to allow homosexual acts or be associated with them. This means one could literally go to Hell for being associated with homosexual acts.
This does NOT mean they hate homosexuals, or that they dislike them, or even really care. What it means is that something such as Gay Marriage or other items, they cannot really vote for or approve of as it is a sin.
This is their own beliefs and opinions. This isn't necessarily hatred (as some of the Extremist Gays would like you to believe), but a system of belief.
It is also a belief in that idealogy that Marriage is a sacred thing sanctified by God. For the Christian right, making marriage anything but something that has been sanctified by God, is actually acting against God.
Many who are not Christians disregard this and also disregard any feelings for them instead calling them bigots, and other name callings.
However, what the reality is, is that this is the Christian right has an opinion and a belief.
On the opposite side we have a different belief system. This one does NOT follow the Christian rights views of the Bible. This belief system feels that Gay Marriage is a right.
BOTH are belief systems.
Both ideas are protected by the US constitution.
To tell someone that they cannot be employed because of their religion is called discrimination under the Laws of the US and many of the Laws in Europe.
To tell someone they will be fired due to their religion is also illegal.
To tell someone that they should be discriminated against because of their religion is considered illegal in the US and many parts of Europe.
Discriminating against someone because of their beliefs/religion is simply another form of discrimination.
I don't like Discrimination against others...irregardless of whether they are homosexuals OR due to religion.
However, I think that the extremists of the LGBT movement are so caught up in themselves that they will happily discriminate against others while arguing for equal rights (which is hypocritical).
I also don't think using discrimination while calling for equal rights yourself furthers a cause at all, except to further hostility from others and make it harder to get equality.
For the record I have been heavily against the entire One man and one woman idea thing pushed by many religious groups, but I would not discriminate against someone, advocate for them being fired, or any other thing simply because of their beliefs which normally are garnered by a religious thought or leanings.
In fact, such an idea of calling for one to be fired due to race, religion, orientation, or age is absolutely disgusting to me, and to see it come from those who supposedly also call for equality...is very disturbing.
I think a better idea isn't to try to discriminate or ostracize, but do as the equal rights movement did...go where they don't want you to go...and be as they want.
I never was an advocate of the more violent portions of that movement (such as the black panthers and others who were more violent in their tendencies and advocated a separate type of discrimination).
I have always felt more in line with the Martin Luther King advocacy of a more passive but intrusive. FireFox is run by someone who is Anti-Gay marriage, than have everyone use Fire Fox and have it use feedback while everyone goes to Gay marriage sites. Not the opposite.
Telling people to avoid something and hope that person gets fired sends the wrong message about the group as a whole, and what they are pushing.
It should NOT be about discrimination, but about acceptance and equality.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
That belief is all well and good, GreyWolfLord, but when people start acting on those beliefs to hinder a group of people legally, then it is still an issue. Their actions are still hurting the LGBT community, despite their "good intentions". There were many people against interracial marriage in the 50's and 60's because they felt that their children would be discriminated against by both races. Other people were against the Civil Rights legislation because they felt that civil rights were a state issue, not because they were racist (although I wonder sometimes...). And I've also seen people against interracial marriage for religious reasons (something about Cain being black and evil, I don't know). Surely, they had good intentions, but they still wanted the same terrible outcome that the more hateful bigots did. And personally, if I held a belief system that was discriminatory to a group of innocent minorities, I feel I'd change that belief instead of stubbornly defend.
So, I'm sorry if I have little sympathy for them. Their good intentions are going to end up making life difficult for people like us. And their freedom of religion doesn't override our freedom to equal rights.
freedom of religion doesn't override our freedom to equal rights.
Agreed.
I've run into a few people who were firm believers in the states right's stuff, and they've always been...odd.
People in different places, perhaps using different excuses as violent extremists though aren't the same as violent extremeists, nor do they usually want the same outcome. The exposure to the violent ways of others will often(I'm optimistic, read: sometimes)wake them up to the damage they are doing. People are in different places in life, and that's why I'm a big proponent of allowing for some disagreement, and more importantly, an avenue and time period for people to change their minds and see sense in something this important. Being hardline on either end alienates moderates and sometimes gets the wrong people in your corner.
To me, the only difference between someone that is a bigot because of a personal belief, and someone that is a bigot because of religion is the religious guy has better PR ;)
Violence is a... touchy subject. I believe that violence is a tool, much like civil disobedience. And both can get the job done, no doubt. 8000 years of human history has proven that.
Imagine if there is a door. This door is the status quo, oppression, and whatnot. Beyond that door is equal rights and opportunities for people. Now, civil disobedience (protests, boycotts, etc.) would be lockpicks. Slow, requires finesse, and can have multiple failures, but eventually you will get past that door and into freedom with minimal damage. Violence (terrorist attacks, guerilla warfare, etc) is the sledgehammer. Fast and brutal, but you will do a lot of collateral damage in the process.
Personally, I prefer nonviolence. And I believe that in the US, we haven't reached the point where nonviolence won't work. I hope to keep it that way.
That belief is all well and good, GreyWolfLord, but when people start acting on those beliefs to hinder a group of people legally, then it is still an issue. Their actions are still hurting the LGBT community, despite their "good intentions". There were many people against interracial marriage in the 50's and 60's because they felt that their children would be discriminated against by both races. Other people were against the Civil Rights legislation because they felt that civil rights were a state issue, not because they were racist (although I wonder sometimes...). And I've also seen people against interracial marriage for religious reasons (something about Cain being black and evil, I don't know). Surely, they had good intentions, but they still wanted the same terrible outcome that the more hateful bigots did. And personally, if I held a belief system that was discriminatory to a group of innocent minorities, I feel I'd change that belief instead of stubbornly defend.
So, I'm sorry if I have little sympathy for them. Their good intentions are going to end up making life difficult for people like us. And their freedom of religion doesn't override our freedom to equal rights.
Perhaps, but what happened in Mozilla's part had NOTHING to do with Prop 8, and everything to do with hate from extremists of the LGBT groupings.
This guy's opinion on Prop 8 would do nothing in regards to his employment, and if anything, probably was something that really had nothing to with his job.
Mozilla has an interest with the supporters of the LGBT crowd, and in that, irregardless of the CEO's views or actions in regards to other portions of his life, would be irrelevant in regards to profit and business, as was already seen previously as he was ALREADY a significant member in Mozilla. He was elevated to a slightly higher position, but his influence was probably just slightly more than what he already possessed (he was the guy basically created javascript...so what do you propose...simply NOT use most of the programs on the internet, and anything with Javascript?) considerable influence within the company. Him being CEO didn't have any real differences on his influence...he was ONE OF THE FRIGGEN FOUNDERS of that company...so why boycott it NOW?
It really had nothing to do with other than pure discrimination against someone on basis of religion. This is actually VERY harmful in my view, as this hypocrisy is already being pointed out elsewhere. It's a very hot topic to point out that the LGBT will use discrimination while calling for equality on their part. Is there ANYONE out there who thinks discrimination is a good thing?
Or are people so blinded because they have to be "right" that they feel discrimination is a good thing.
MLK advocated for a more aggressive passivity, but not this. Instead we would have all used Firefox and used it to go to Gay marriage sites. We would have flooded Fire Fox with Gay marriage feedback on how to improve their browser.
Did discrimination really change anything? In this case all it did was to reinforce the view that the LGBT movement is hostile, discriminatory and hates anyone who doesn't agree with them. Does anyone really believe for a second that it changed Eich's mind?
The idea behind a non-discrimination and equal rights movement is NOT to simply force people out because of who they are, but to change their actual thinking. It's not to reinforce the negative views, but instead to change them to find out that they should have different views.
Though others may not see what happened there as discrimination, I and others find it VERY discriminatory and find it an actual a bad sign.
You do not become better by becoming the very thing you've been working to defeat.
To me, the only difference between someone that is a bigot because of a personal belief, and someone that is a bigot because of religion is the religious guy has better PR ;)
Quite possibly. But I'm protestant, and protestantism doesn't happen in a vacuum. It takes a lot of people who are upset with the status quo and are eager to go their own way to start something like that, and in some cases willing to give their lives. There has to be room for dissent, otherwise we end up with a lot of martyrs and very little communication.
That belief is all well and good, GreyWolfLord, but when people start acting on those beliefs to hinder a group of people legally, then it is still an issue. Their actions are still hurting the LGBT community, despite their "good intentions". There were many people against interracial marriage in the 50's and 60's because they felt that their children would be discriminated against by both races. Other people were against the Civil Rights legislation because they felt that civil rights were a state issue, not because they were racist (although I wonder sometimes...). And I've also seen people against interracial marriage for religious reasons (something about Cain being black and evil, I don't know). Surely, they had good intentions, but they still wanted the same terrible outcome that the more hateful bigots did. And personally, if I held a belief system that was discriminatory to a group of innocent minorities, I feel I'd change that belief instead of stubbornly defend.
So, I'm sorry if I have little sympathy for them. Their good intentions are going to end up making life difficult for people like us. And their freedom of religion doesn't override our freedom to equal rights.
Perhaps, but what happened in Mozilla's part had NOTHING to do with Prop 8, and everything to do with hate from extremists of the LGBT groupings.
This guy's opinion on Prop 8 would do nothing in regards to his employment, and if anything, probably was something that really had nothing to with his job.
Mozilla has an interest with the supporters of the LGBT crowd, and in that, irregardless of the CEO's views or actions in regards to other portions of his life, would be irrelevant in regards to profit and business, as was already seen previously as he was ALREADY a significant member in Mozilla. He was elevated to a slightly higher position, but his influence was probably just slightly more than what he already possessed (he was the guy basically created javascript...so what do you propose...simply NOT use most of the programs on the internet, and anything with Javascript?) considerable influence within the company. Him being CEO didn't have any real differences on his influence...he was ONE OF THE FRIGGEN FOUNDERS of that company...so why boycott it NOW?
It really had nothing to do with other than pure discrimination against someone on basis of religion. This is actually VERY harmful in my view, as this hypocrisy is already being pointed out elsewhere. It's a very hot topic to point out that the LGBT will use discrimination while calling for equality on their part. Is there ANYONE out there who thinks discrimination is a good thing?
Or are people so blinded because they have to be "right" that they feel discrimination is a good thing.
MLK advocated for a more aggressive passivity, but not this. Instead we would have all used Firefox and used it to go to Gay marriage sites. We would have flooded Fire Fox with Gay marriage feedback on how to improve their browser.
Did discrimination really change anything? In this case all it did was to reinforce the view that the LGBT movement is hostile, discriminatory and hates anyone who doesn't agree with them. Does anyone really believe for a second that it changed Eich's mind?
The idea behind a non-discrimination and equal rights movement is NOT to simply force people out because of who they are, but to change their actual thinking. It's not to reinforce the negative views, but instead to change them to find out that they should have different views.
Though others may not see what happened there as discrimination, I and others find it VERY discriminatory and find it an actual a bad sign.
You do not become better by becoming the very thing you've been working to defeat.
I agree with the very last sentence in concept, and I think you raise a good point in terms of what this guy means to the internet as it is currently. I would more say it takes time for minds to change, and that that..takes time. I think this guy is wrong in terms of his views about LGBTQ issues. Firing him isn't going to get him to change his mind and may put him into an extreme corner. That said, I don't think he should be the CEO of the company either. Not sure what to do here other than to spend time convincing him that he's wrongheaded.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
He wasn't ousted because of religion. He was ousted because he literally gave money to a legislation that would have ended legal rights for same-sex couples. That's the point. Nobody cares about his religious views. It is his actions against the community that people decried him for, and rightfully so. And being a CEO makes him the face of Mozilla, which means his past actions will, for better or for worse, will be pinned on the company.
Imagine if it wasn't prop 8. What if he donated money to legislation to hinder ethnic minorities because it is what he believed in? Would Mozilla want to be associated with that? Would users want to use a browser that is run by a racist CEO?
It's funny that people are so blind and think this is a religious issue. It's not. It's about his past actions and how he donated to a hateful cause. I just love how people are so willing to forgive and defend him for literally giving money to bar equal rights to same sex couples. It's disgusting.
To me, the only difference between someone that is a bigot because of a personal belief, and someone that is a bigot because of religion is the religious guy has better PR ;)Quite possibly. But I'm protestant, and protestantism doesn't happen in a vacuum. It takes a lot of people who are upset with the status quo and are eager to go their own way to start something like that, and in some cases willing to give their lives. There has to be room for dissent, otherwise we end up with a lot of martyrs and very little communication.
This is true. I have no problems with religion. I just have problems with some of the people in it. I wish more people would try to focus on being good people instead of good Christians.
...That belief is all well and good, GreyWolfLord, but when people start acting on those beliefs to hinder a group of people legally, then it is still an issue. Their actions are still hurting the LGBT community, despite their "good intentions". There were many people against interracial marriage in the 50's and 60's because they felt that their children would be discriminated against by both races. Other people were against the Civil Rights legislation because they felt that civil rights were a state issue, not because they were racist (although I wonder sometimes...). And I've also seen people against interracial marriage for religious reasons (something about Cain being black and evil, I don't know). Surely, they had good intentions, but they still wanted the same terrible outcome that the more hateful bigots did. And personally, if I held a belief system that was discriminatory to a group of innocent minorities, I feel I'd change that belief instead of stubbornly defend.
So, I'm sorry if I have little sympathy for them. Their good intentions are going to end up making life difficult for people like us. And their freedom of religion doesn't override our freedom to equal rights.
Perhaps, but what happened in Mozilla's part had NOTHING to do with Prop 8, and everything to do with hate from extremists of the LGBT groupings.
This guy's opinion on Prop 8 would do nothing in regards to his employment, and if anything, probably was something that really had nothing to with his job.
Mozilla has an interest with the supporters of the LGBT crowd, and in that, irregardless of the CEO's views or actions in regards to other portions of his life, would be irrelevant in regards to profit and business, as was already seen previously as he was ALREADY a significant member in Mozilla. He was elevated to a slightly higher position, but his influence was probably just slightly more than what he already possessed (he was the guy basically created javascript...so
For better or for worse, all actions have consequences. This was the result of his actions years ago. While I don't know if I agree or disagree with him being fired, I do know that people reap what they sow.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
"Extremists of the LGBT groupings" = people opting not to use a company's products because they got a CEO who's someone who uses his economic power to remove LGBT rights.
Yeah, g!~&$*n extremists opting not to use Firefox. You shouldn't be judgemental to the CEO who has power and money and uses those to undermine basic human rights of the oppressed. No, those that chose to act against such things, that's where the real extremists are.
Also, Odraute, I agree with you on your view of violence vs non-violence, though I think there's a lot of gray area and you can't generally just choose a method to go by. It might be that non-violence can still change things, that you can slowly lockpick that door open instead of bashing it through with a sledgehammer, but the house is burning and it's the only way out. Or, in the circumstances where one isn't part of the oppressed group oneself, the house is burning and there's screams on the inside.
Here's the irony though. He's fired...so what does that do?
It's his company already in a way(or at least the part that was already his).
It merely means he's more free to do whatever he wants from a position that you can't see rather than one that is obvious.
In doing this it achieved nothing and possibly put the guy in a better position to fight against the LGBT crowd. It made him a victim and a martyr for others who are opposed to the LGBT crowd to stand with. In addition it does not stop his being one fo the founders of Mozilla, nor that he created JavaScript, and doesn't diminish his influence on either in any real or tangible means from what I see.
By trying to do a discrimination instead of passive interference, I think what was accomplished was exactly the opposite of what was wanted.
When fighting for equality, trying to use discrimination backfires typically. In addition, many of those who are against discrimination to begin with, will be disgusted that they resorted to this type of tactic instead of one which still speaks of respect and equality.
There were other ideas and other ways to deal with this. Unfortunately, ONLY the extremist view was seen and taken into account by the media or anyone else, and that has caused a worse situation than what was already occurring.
What happened was before they did their research, certain extremist parties in the LGBT movement let their religious intolerance to control their actions before studying what ramifications those actions would have.
So now, a guy has more free time and ability to concentrate his efforts in tech and money to fighting against the LGBT movement...and you consider that a win...how?
He also has become sort of a martyr against the LGBT movement because it was seen as a discriminatory move (which I think it was to tell the truth) which creates more resistance (at least temporarily until the guy makes an arse of himself or some other topic comes up) to the LGBT movement as a whole...and we consider this a win...why?
Because of the perceptions being tossed around, I think the move wasn't thought out completely, and has made the situation far worse than it would have been had a more positive action been taken...OR had even been ignored completely.
hence, why I don't think discrimination of any sort has any place when fighting for equality. At least one should THINK before acting...what ramifications will this have...will the ends really justify the means?
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
People should not be judged on things they have no control over, but they can be judged on the actions they choose to take.
One of the old arguments against homosexuality was that people chose to 'be gay'. I'm glad there there is now actual evidence which gives the lie to that assertion, but even before I knew of the evidence it seemed inconceivable to me that anyone would choose to suffer the bigotry that is shown to homosexuals.
Is a person's religion really their choice? Is it simply how they were indoctrinated? No matter, if they choose to act in a way that promotes discrimination then we can judge them on their actions; their religious belief is how they excuse their actions to themselves, but it is not an objective justification for either lawbreaking or Evil.
A CEO of a company can have whatever private opinion he wants, religious or otherwise. But if his actions bring his own company into disrepute then he should expect to be fired.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't buy diamonds because its a monopoly and most are blood diamonds. Guess that makes me a fascist for boycotting them ;)
I guess most of the civil rights movement people are fascists for boycotting and doing sit ins. Such terrible people, trying to force their rights to be treated like equals. Shame on them ;)
Right now, I'm in a very committed relationship with a wonderful, beautiful, and talented woman. She's had a s+%*ty life dealing with hyper-conservative, two faced parents that disowned her after she started transitioning and a workplace that harassed her because of it for years. She's living in Ft. Lauderdale now, working for a much better job that is much more accepting of her as a person.
One day, I want to marry this woman. But I can't. In the state of Florida, she is still considered a man and same-sex marriage is illegal. In addition, many types of health insurance will not help her because she is a transwoman. So because a bunch of people don't approve of our lifestyle, we can't have the same legal freedoms that other married couples have.
But hey, as long as we are respecting peoples' religious beliefs and not hurting anyone's little feelings, who cares if we can't have the same rights and be treated as equals. How dare we want equality ;)
Also, Odraute, I agree with you on your view of violence vs non-violence, though I think there's a lot of gray area and you can't generally just choose a method to go by. It might be that non-violence can still change things, that you can slowly lockpick that door open instead of bashing it through with a sledgehammer, but the house is burning and it's the only way out. Or, in the circumstances where one isn't part of the oppressed group oneself, the house is burning and there's screams on the inside.
There are always grey areas because the world is a complicated place with various exceptions and nuances. It's a simple generalization I made for it ;)
"Extremists of the LGBT groupings" = people opting not to use a company's products because they got a CEO who's someone who uses his economic power to remove LGBT rights.
Yeah, g@~!#*n extremists opting not to use Firefox. You shouldn't be judgemental to the CEO who has power and money and uses those to undermine basic human rights of the oppressed. No, those that chose to act against such things, that's where the real extremists are.
He already was the company of Mozilla. CEO was merely a way to show his power which he already had (basically) public.
This doesn't remove him from power...it merely puts him back into the veiled perspective.
He already had the economic power. The reason he was put there was because he was already running the show as the guy who controlled the technical aspects (and Mozilla is a tech company).
They did more than opt not to use Firefox, they called for his removal (which is like telling Microsoft of the 90s to get rid of Bill Gates...riiight....).
If you were not going to use Firefox, the time to decide not to use it was when he was founding the company, running the company, and creating the systems in the company.
Choosing to do it now? It only portends to discrimination...OR ignorance. It end not to think people are THAT ignorant, which is why I think it was due to discrimination rather than people did not realize his role already.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Here's the irony though. He's fired...so what does that do?
It's his company already in a way(or at least the part that was already his).
It merely means he's more free to do whatever he wants from a position that you can't see rather than one that is obvious.
In doing this it achieved nothing and possibly put the guy in a better position to fight against the LGBT crowd. It made him a victim and a martyr for others who are opposed to the LGBT crowd to stand with. In addition it does not stop his being one fo the founders of Mozilla, nor that he created JavaScript, and doesn't diminish his influence on either in any real or tangible means from what I see.
By trying to do a discrimination instead of passive interference, I think what was accomplished was exactly the opposite of what was wanted.
When fighting for equality, trying to use discrimination backfires typically. In addition, many of those who are against discrimination to begin with, will be disgusted that they resorted to this type of tactic instead of one which still speaks of respect and equality.
There were other ideas and other ways to deal with this. Unfortunately, ONLY the extremist view was seen and taken into account by the media or anyone else, and that has caused a worse situation than what was already occurring.
What happened was before they did their research, certain extremist parties in the LGBT movement let their religious intolerance to control their actions before studying what ramifications those actions would have.
So now, a guy has more free time and ability to concentrate his efforts in tech and money to fighting against the LGBT movement...and you consider that a win...how?
He also has become sort of a martyr against the LGBT movement because it was seen as a discriminatory move (which I think it was to tell the truth) which creates more resistance (at least temporarily until the guy makes an arse of himself or some other topic comes up) to the LGBT movement as a whole...and we consider this a...
The LGBT community didn't fire him. They boycotted him. If he had publicly apologized for his actions against the community, I feel he would have been able to stay in his position. But he didn't. He never apologized and never said that he had grown as a person. So he stepped down, more than likely at the beckoning of Mozilla. But at the end of the day, he could have still made the choice to apologize to the community and he didn't.
Again, nothing about religious intolerance. Nobody gives a s@!% about his religious beliefs. This is about his actions against the community. He acted against the LGBT community and therefore they did not want to use a service provided by him. He could be a bloody atheist and this still would have happened.
I have to wonder, have you actually read what has been going on? Cause people boycotted him for his $1000+ donation to Prop 8, not because of his beliefs. This isn't a freedom of speech issue. He LITERALLY gave money to bar same-sex marriage and has never shown an ounce of remorse for it.
So, now they're extremist because they where inefficient instead?
I don't buy diamonds because its a monopoly and most are blood diamonds. Guess that makes me a fascist for boycotting them ;)
No, what would cause you to be discriminatory is if you bought the diamonds previously. You used them. You never objected to them. The diamond companies operated on Sunday. These companies were owned by a guy...we'll call him Mr. Diamond. He created the company. He is over their mining, transport, and sales. He has others do the finances.
He has a religious belief that people should not work on Sunday. His company still works on Sunday.
One day they decide to make him CEO. He does own much of the company anyways, and if they chose someone else, it may be in name only as one of the few founders left, he'd be calling the shots anyways.
Because he's suddenly has this title...you decide that his religious beliefs which you have NEVER objected to before in such a way...are a problem. So you call for him to be fired (irregardless of even if he's not the CEO...he still the senior member and a founder...hence doesn't really stop his control).
You could have had objections at any turn...or as you said...not bought his products to begin with. But instead, you don't have a problem with him until he gets a different title...and a position which probably is going to place him in a more public light. The only reason you give is because of his religious beliefs...things that you didn't bring up previously...
Things that he didn't enforce on the company already (he didn't stop operations on Sunday), things he didn't bring into the company...and how effective or able he is has nothing in regards to your protest. So basically, despite the fact that this has nothing to do with how he runs the company, the only objection is based upon a religious objection. That's why it would be seen as discrimination.
The thing is, Firefox didn't make a mistake in putting him as CEO, he has the experience, and the power already. All it did was create bad PR...and for that he goes back into the shadows, but probably retains all the power and ability he had already.
Which means, PR wise it may look like the LGBT won, but in reality, it's more of a situation that doesn't benefit them at all...especially with how groups are seeing it as the discrimination against religion that it probably was.
Again, acting differently because of someone's actions is NOT discrimination. Acting differently because of prejudices is discrimination.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And actually, there were a lot of people in 2012 and beyond that called for his removal when this came to light. His contributions are old news, but it wasn't until recently that he rose to CEO when people went nuts. Is it hypocritical of users of Mozilla? Perhaps. I was one that boycotted him since 2012, and have since been using another browser.
And because I feel this needs to be reiterated, nobody targeted because he had beliefs. They targeted him because he acted on those beliefs to hinder a community of innocent people. That transcends personal beliefs since by donating to harm the community, he essentially made them public.
Again, acting differently because of someone's actions is NOT discrimination. Acting differently because of prejudices is discrimination.
And that's what happened. I'm not certain if you have associations with the extreme sides of the LGBT movement and the normal LGBT (you probably do, I don't know you). Many of the extremists actually have a pretty active hate of religion, especially in regards to Christianity. Many of their statements are pretty shocking.
It is NOT unusual, nor can you blame them. Many were raised in very FAR CHRISTIAN RIGHT HOMES. Their families disowned them. They were told they were going to hell and were lower then the dirt in the sewers (actually other terms, but can't really say those words here). Much of it is because of the religious views. They do actively hate religion.
This is not made any better by the political stance that the Christian right has on Gay Marriage. In many ways they view religion and political views as the same thing. In many instances they are right. However, telling someone they cannot work (and they DID call for his being fired) due to their religious views (and I think political as well) is discrimination. That is one of the very definitions of discrimination.
The same as if one were to say...because you believed in Gay Marriage and voted for it, I want you fired...the opposite is true.
Discrimination works both ways.
The other problem is that this did NOT happen in a vacuum. There were already people who knew about this guy. It's because these so called extremists of the movement make loud shouts, and then the media makes a big deal out of it, and then anyone who isn't gay thinks that these guys speak for the entire movement...that any OTHER ideas or thoughts on the matter are ignored. Anything that was already being done that may have been more beneficial has now been sabotaged by these extremists who let hatred instead of reason govern their actions.
PS: Just so you are aware...extremists are JUST THAT. They are normally a minority group in a bigger group. It's the discrimination of the Extremists that I'm discussing, how the media proclaims them as the focus to the exclusion of everyone else...and how it actually HURTS rather than helps.
Compassion and empathy toward someone whose actions treat me as subhuman... that takes patience and energy, two things I have in very very short supply this month, especially with the return of my Black Dog.
Hugs S.
And actually, there were a lot of people in 2012 and beyond that called for his removal when this came to light. His contributions are old news, but it wasn't until recently that he rose to CEO when people went nuts. Is it hypocritical of users of Mozilla? Perhaps. I was one that boycotted him since 2012, and have since been using another browser.
And because I feel this needs to be reiterated, nobody targeted because he had beliefs. They targeted him because he acted on those beliefs to hinder a community of innocent people. That transcends personal beliefs since by donating to harm the community, he essentially made them public.
And boycotting him since 2012 would make more sense than the outcry that suddenly came out. The thing is, the law says one is free to practice their religion and practice politics without a business being able to discriminate (aka...fire or dismiss you) because of your religion or politics (free speech).
Just as much as one treasures the rights for equality under the law to be able to be of any orientation they desire and not have to worry about being fired for it...the same holds true for race, religion, or free speech.
Even if I am against these people that try to promote this entire one man and one woman stuff...I am also a very large fan of the US Constitution and the freedoms it has for everyone...whether you like them or not.
A counterpoint...JC Penny had a Gay friendly CEO, and it was one of the stores that LGBT couples were encouraged to shop at. The anti-Gay movement called for his removal constantly...not because of his actions (which albeit were worse for JC Penny's and SHOULD have been the real reason) but also due to discrimination against his own personal beliefs.
I see them both as the as the same light...its not the company...but their beliefs which are causing it, and hence the discrimination.
Luckily (or not depending on how you view what has happened with JC Penny, but that's from a FINANCIAL viewpoint) Ron Johnson was much more solid in standing against discrimination on his part and didn't bow down to that type of pressure (though losing millions of dollars was a different thing which I believe was the cause of his stepping down).
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Discrimination...
"You keep using that word, I do not think it means what you think it means."
Consequences for one's actions are not in any way automatically discrimination.Also, OKCupid is now suddenly part of the "extreme sides of the LGBT movement*"?
* Can you quantify who or what this "side" is? Or is it just a convenient straw man?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
And actually, there were a lot of people in 2012 and beyond that called for his removal when this came to light. His contributions are old news, but it wasn't until recently that he rose to CEO when people went nuts. Is it hypocritical of users of Mozilla? Perhaps. I was one that boycotted him since 2012, and have since been using another browser.
And because I feel this needs to be reiterated, nobody targeted because he had beliefs. They targeted him because he acted on those beliefs to hinder a community of innocent people. That transcends personal beliefs since by donating to harm the community, he essentially made them public.
And boycotting him since 2012 would make more sense than the outcry that suddenly came out. The thing is, the law says one is free to practice their religion and practice politics without a business being able to discriminate (aka...fire or dismiss you) because of your religion or politics (free speech).
Just as much as one treasures the rights for equality under the law to be able to be of any orientation they desire and not have to worry about being fired for it...the same holds true for race, religion, or free speech.
Even if I am against these people that try to promote this entire one man and one woman stuff...I am also a very large fan of the US Constitution and the freedoms it has for everyone...whether you like them or not.
A counterpoint...JC Penny had a Gay friendly CEO, and it was one of the stores that LGBT couples were encouraged to shop at. The anti-Gay movement called for his removal constantly...not because of his actions (which albeit were worse for JC Penny's and SHOULD have been the real reason) but also due to discrimination against his own personal beliefs.
I see them both as the as the same light...its not the company...but their beliefs which are causing it, and hence the discrimination.
Luckily (or not depending on how you view what has happened with JC Penny, but that's from a FINANCIAL viewpoint) Ron Johnson...
This is going to sound very mean, so I apologize in advance but...
What part of "He donated money to legally hinder the LGBT community" do you not understand? His personal beliefs didn't cause this. His actions in the past, his monetary donation to the Prop 8 legislation caused this. That is what caused the outcry. His actions. You cannot compare the two. The JCPenny guy (as far as I know) never donated to hinder minorities. This CEO did just that. He literally gave $1000 to the Prop 8 to stop same sex couples from having the same equal rights as heterosexual couples. This isn't him going all Duck Dynasty and saying "I don't like gays." He actually gave money to stop same sex couples from having equal rights.
Do you not fathom the difference between personal belief and actively acting against the community? Are you ignoring the 1k he donated to hurt the LGBT community? Or are you actually saying that people have the god given right to give money to legally oppress people as long as it's part of their religion?
What is this disconnect that we are apparently having here?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Again, acting differently because of someone's actions is NOT discrimination. Acting differently because of prejudices is discrimination.And that's what happened.
No. Again, he had donated money to an anti-QTBLG group.
He had acted, and through that acting, prejudice was no longer relevant, because there were actual actions to judge.