| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
At least the LGBT extremist do things like suggest boycotts and talk on the internet instead of passing laws to restrict peoples rights. Oh wait, those aren't the extremists on the other side. The extremists on the other side are threatening violence and throwing kids out of their houses.
Sounds like those LGBT extremists must be allies with the militant atheists, what with their dangerous book writings, blog posts and debates.
At least the LGBT extremist do things like suggest boycotts and talk on the internet instead of passing laws to restrict peoples rights. Oh wait, those aren't the extremists on the other side. The extremists on the other side are threatening violence and throwing kids out of their houses.Sounds like those LGBT extremists must be allies with the militant atheists, what with their dangerous book writings, blog posts and debates.
Heh. Though granted, I've seen quite a few a-holes that have been very active new atheists and used that as an excuse in different ways. Terroja Kincaid and Pat Condell comes to mind.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Heh. Though granted, I've seen quite a few a-holes that have been very active new atheists and used that as an excuse in different ways. Terroja Kincaid and Pat Condell comes to mind.At least the LGBT extremist do things like suggest boycotts and talk on the internet instead of passing laws to restrict peoples rights. Oh wait, those aren't the extremists on the other side. The extremists on the other side are threatening violence and throwing kids out of their houses.Sounds like those LGBT extremists must be allies with the militant atheists, what with their dangerous book writings, blog posts and debates.
Yeah, that's the truth. We kind of have a joke among our friends about a$%+~%! (and sometimes misogynistic) atheists and their need to wear fedoras. I can't even look at fedoras the same way again :D
Well, I see discrimination and many others do. It's quickly becoming a rallying cry against the LGBT movement (for the moment).
I think I've said all that needs to be said...whether you agree it was discrimination or not...that's also your right. At least (hopefully) people won't call down for your firing for your opinions or political actions.
However...IF you donated to a political campaign, or had a religious belief for Gay marriage...and were fired for it...under the law I believe that's discrimination.
The reverse STILL holds true...in the US at least. This is why Eich could step down...but in theory he couldn't be fired (beyond the fact that he did and still has too much power with Mozilla for them to be able to do that anyways I think).
But, this conversation isn't really going anywhere. No matter if you agree it was or wasn't discrimination, it doesn't change that many out there are rallying to that cry currently because they also see it as distinct discrimination.
And that's the real tragedy...in performing what others are seeing as discrimination, I think the LGBT movement has caused their movement more harm then good in this action. There were other ways to do this that were not as harmful.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My point was more to the "militant" aspect, since neither "group" is doing anything even remotely similar to what "extremists" on the far right/religious side are doing (from trying to pass discriminatory legislation or stop equal rights legislation to outright violence).
When murder and suicide rates among those who oppose LGBT rights reach the levels of LGBT members due to discrimination, then let's talk again.
Well, I see discrimination and many others do. It's quickly becoming a rallying cry against the LGBT movement (for the moment).
I think I've said all that needs to be said...whether you agree it was discrimination or not...that's also your right. At least (hopefully) people won't call down for your firing for your opinions or political actions.
However...IF you donated to a political campaign, or had a religious belief for Gay marriage...and were fired for it...under the law I believe that's discrimination.
The reverse STILL holds true...in the US at least. This is why Eich could step down...but in theory he couldn't be fired (beyond the fact that he did and still has too much power with Mozilla for them to be able to do that anyways I think).
But, this conversation isn't really going anywhere. No matter if you agree it was or wasn't discrimination, it doesn't change that many out there are rallying to that cry currently because they also see it as distinct discrimination.
And that's the real tragedy...in performing what others are seeing as discrimination, I think the LGBT movement has caused their movement more harm then good in this action. There were other ways to do this that were not as harmful.
Well, good thing he wasn't fired. He stepped down, admittedly under a lot of social pressure.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My point was more to the "militant" aspect, since neither "group" is doing anything even remotely similar to what "extremists" on the far right/religious side are doing (from trying to pass discriminatory legislation or stop equal rights legislation to outright violence).
Idk, by existing, most would deem it as too much.
Course, I call those kinds of people "f@$&ing moronic." ;)
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
When murder and suicide rates among those who oppose LGBT rights reach the levels of LGBT members due to discrimination, then let's talk again.
Actually I want to post to this directly. I always hate it when bigots act the victim because people call them out on their s$%@. They seem to always forget that freedom of speech works both ways. They can say hurtful things about people in the name of religion and we can tell those c@!&s to get f&%*ed. But what I love most is that they seem to equate the grief they get as strife, as if they have to deal with the same laws and violence that people who are actually being discriminated against deal with. Which honestly disgusts me that they treat themselves as a martyr and their intolerance as something that should be tolerated.
I remember someone on these boards comparing the strife anti same-sex marriage people had with the strife Martin Luther King Jr. faced. I'd laugh at the irony of that if I wasn't so absolutely revolted.
Well, I see discrimination and many others do. It's quickly becoming a rallying cry against the LGBT movement (for the moment).
I think I've said all that needs to be said...whether you agree it was discrimination or not...that's also your right. At least (hopefully) people won't call down for your firing for your opinions or political actions.
However...IF you donated to a political campaign, or had a religious belief for Gay marriage...and were fired for it...under the law I believe that's discrimination.
The reverse STILL holds true...in the US at least. This is why Eich could step down...but in theory he couldn't be fired (beyond the fact that he did and still has too much power with Mozilla for them to be able to do that anyways I think).
But, this conversation isn't really going anywhere. No matter if you agree it was or wasn't discrimination, it doesn't change that many out there are rallying to that cry currently because they also see it as distinct discrimination.
And that's the real tragedy...in performing what others are seeing as discrimination, I think the LGBT movement has caused their movement more harm then good in this action. There were other ways to do this that were not as harmful.
I spent the better part of a pair of days listening to something very similar to this. In the end, the difference was I think, they were focusing on a very narrow area: to suffer one's job based on personal actions. Those against saw the man's donation to hate groups as a right, and those for saw the social harm and violence attached to the act, as well as the opportunity not taken for apology.
The debate isn't winnable--more, I think, it's a reflection of ideologies.
No, this is a few gay extremists thinking that they are talking for all Gays, and the media only listening to them.
Heck, right now a person whom some would call father of Gay marriage is being demonized for stating things very similar to what I stated.
It's not that we support Eich's POV, it's that we don't want to become the very thing that we are fighting against.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
No, this is a few gay extremists thinking that they are talking for all Gays, and the media only listening to them.
Heck, right now a person whom some would call father of Gay marriage is being demonized for stating things very similar to what I stated.
It's not that we support Eich's POV, it's that we don't want to become the very thing that we are fighting against.
I understand not becoming what we are fighting, but this is hardly an example of reverse discrimination.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'd still love to know who these "extremists" are. It's a very vague description and easily abused to demonize "them" - whoever they are.
Is anyone who has voiced any kind of opposition to Eich's position as CEO part of this "extremists" group?
I'd still love to know who these "extremists" are. It's a very vague description and easily abused to demonize "them" - whoever they are.
Is anyone who has voiced any kind of opposition to Eich's position as CEO part of this "extremists" group?
Nope. many of those are those who jump on the bandwagon that the media makes. They are informed by the media prior to even following the story or knowing anything about it (aka...all their information comes from the media that has taken the extremist side of the bandwagon already). When Gay rights leaders are being demonized by saying...hey...this isn't exactly what we wanted...this might not be the best idea or best thing...
It's a pretty good sign that it's not a collective thing from the Gay rights movement and probably something a few of the extremists came up with, the media latched onto, and then a whole bunch of people jumped onto that bandwagon instead of looking at the picture themselves and seeing what exactly they were doing as opposed to what they wanted to actually succeed in doing.
The main moderate leaders who are not extremists do NOT advocate the lynching of anyone, and are for equality for all. Just because someone does not agree with you, does not mean that you try to restrict their own rights. It's far better to try to show them a better way.
The Gay rights movement did NOT get where it is today by isolating and ham fisting it's way there, it was done by talk, negotiation, recognition, and standing up for their own rights...
The approval it's gotten in the polls today are more because of education rather than discrimination.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So, still no concrete examples. I'm beginning to think it's a massive straw man.
One of the most obvious protests were done by the dating site OKCupid. Are they part of the extremists LGBT side?
As I said, I'm done here.
I thought that pointing out what the LGBT leadership was saying would be something that could point people in the direction of where my comments came from and who I was hearing.
It was a mistake...
It does not seem they are interested in what the LGBT moderate movements are doing and wanting (and by the way, who are the most successful at achieving LGBT rights thus far) and are more interested in supporting a media initiated bandwagon in regards to their information rather than the fears of backlash, repercussions and other things which may occur that have been remarked on by the LGBT movement.
I should have stopped replying previously when I said I was done already.
PS: I'm not certain why you keep asking about OKcupid. They expressely stated they were not after having Eich lose his job. The media however, and the starters of the movement there DID shout for his job to be taken.
Edit: One other thing that should be pointed out...talking about donations...one of the founders of OKCupid which started the boycott...ALSO donated to an anti-Gay Rights Congressman. People should start wondering who exactly they are listening to and why...
Just because a founder of company donates or has certain views...it does not necessarily mean that the company will follow that view. OKcupid could be a prime example of that one...since someone insists on bringing OKcupid up incessantly.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, I don't know many in the LGBT community that have "Reason the Christ Away" camps with high suicide rates, or who burn crosses into peoples lawns. I didn't realize that hurting religious people's feelings because of their antiquated and bigoted beliefs was held to the same level of prejudice as lynching people. Consider my world view shattered ;)
Honestly, there are two things I wish the religious people against gay marriage would do:
1) Grow A Thicker Skin: If you are going off all day about how gay couples should have the same legal rights as straight couples, then you should be prepared for blacklash. Serious, insulting a group of people behind the veil of kindness and "good intentions" doesn't make you immune to that same treatment.
2) Be consistent. So many are against homosexuality because Leviticus this and Paul that. So, if they are going to take that to heart, they should really take the other offensive stuff to heart. Learn from 1 Timothy 2:12 and end women's rights! Bring back slavery, cause that's totally cool with the bible. Be consistent with your bible teachings. Either that or realize that times have changed and not everything in the people is right for this era and that one should take to good stuff from the bible and ignore the bad stuff.
Of course, that's so reasonable, it'll never happen ;)
EDIT: Also, if religion really wants to keep butting its unwanted nose into lawmaking, we should start taxing churches. I'm sure they won't mind that.
As I said, I'm done here.
I thought that pointing out what the LGBT leadership was saying would be something that could point people in the direction of where my comments came from and who I was hearing.
It was a mistake...
It does not seem they are interested in what the LGBT moderate movements are doing and wanting (and by the way, who are the most successful at achieving LGBT rights thus far) and are more interested in supporting a media initiated bandwagon in regards to their information rather than the fears of backlash, repercussions and other things which may occur that have been remarked on by the LGBT movement.
I should have stopped replying previously when I said I was done already.
PS: I'm not certain why you keep asking about OKcupid. They expressely stated they were not after having Eich lose his job. The media however, and the starters of the movement there DID shout for his job to be taken.
The issue is that these "extremists" you keep pointing out are no worse than the extremists on the other side. Hell, they aren't even worse than the moderates on the other side, who still actively believe that homosexuals' rights should be limited because of religion.
The issue is that these "extremists" you keep pointing out are no worse than the extremists on the other side. Hell, they aren't even worse than the moderates on the other side, who still actively believe that homosexuals' rights should be limited because of religion.As I said, I'm done here.
I thought that pointing out what the LGBT leadership was saying would be something that could point people in the direction of where my comments came from and who I was hearing.
It was a mistake...
It does not seem they are interested in what the LGBT moderate movements are doing and wanting (and by the way, who are the most successful at achieving LGBT rights thus far) and are more interested in supporting a media initiated bandwagon in regards to their information rather than the fears of backlash, repercussions and other things which may occur that have been remarked on by the LGBT movement.
I should have stopped replying previously when I said I was done already.
PS: I'm not certain why you keep asking about OKcupid. They expressely stated they were not after having Eich lose his job. The media however, and the starters of the movement there DID shout for his job to be taken.
This is a mistake to reply...but if you hadn't read what I stated previously about three times, and what some LGBT leaders have stated...
The point is to be BETTER then they are...not to debase ourselves to the same level that they are at. To become the very thing you have fought against is to lose in an entirely different way.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The issue is that these "extremists" you keep pointing out are no worse than the extremists on the other side. Hell, they aren't even worse than the moderates on the other side, who still actively believe that homosexuals' rights should be limited because of religion.As I said, I'm done here.
I thought that pointing out what the LGBT leadership was saying would be something that could point people in the direction of where my comments came from and who I was hearing.
It was a mistake...
It does not seem they are interested in what the LGBT moderate movements are doing and wanting (and by the way, who are the most successful at achieving LGBT rights thus far) and are more interested in supporting a media initiated bandwagon in regards to their information rather than the fears of backlash, repercussions and other things which may occur that have been remarked on by the LGBT movement.
I should have stopped replying previously when I said I was done already.
PS: I'm not certain why you keep asking about OKcupid. They expressely stated they were not after having Eich lose his job. The media however, and the starters of the movement there DID shout for his job to be taken.
This is a mistake to reply...but if you hadn't read what I stated previously about three times, and what some LGBT leaders have stated...
The point is to be BETTER then they are...not to debase ourselves to the same level that they are at. To become the very thing you have fought against is to lose in an entirely different way.
Considering there aren't gay people lynching straight people, or Reason the Christ Away camps, or actively trying to pass legislation against straight people, I'd say we are doing a good job at not being as bad as they are ;)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I've brought up the OKCupid protest because it's a very visual example of some of the protests that happened (and I'd hardly call 2 mentions of them as incessantly).
I still haven't seen any concrete examples from you about who these extremists are and how "extreme" they are to earn that description. I'll grant you that I might not have been exposed to the same media outlets that you have, but I'm having a hard time reconciling horrendous discrimination and even calls for lynching with the protests I've seen.
I also have a hard time seeing how these protests, even calling for Eich to step down, comes even remotely close to what "the other side" has been doing for many years. By wanting to expand human-/civil rights instead of limiting them I'd say that qualifies as being better than they are.
I'm also puzzled by the constant capitalization of the word gay you do, but maybe it's just from the LGBT context?
People still listen to Bill Maher?
Still? As if they ever did? LOL
Maher is a comedian and his statements should be looked at from that point of view. He says things to be shocking. Let's also remember that he's the same guy who said that the men who flew the planes into the World Trade Center were braver than our soldiers who went to war over it.
That clip still isn't proof that there is an LGBT Lynch Mob on stand by waiting to take out people and groups who don't like The Gays. That's just one man making a statement with nothing to back it up.
Come gather round people, wherever you roam...
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
There's been a dustup recently in the trans-community that kind of relates to the point I want to make here. One person is in the industry that was greatly criticized and she spoke out against a very large barrage of loud angry trans women who believe we can do better. And they're right, hollywood can do better. But her point was that we all need to act better because that only makes people angry. I'm not sure she's exactly right about that. There needs to be people talking sense and being diplomats, but there is also room for someone to scream when they feel hurt and I think that's important if unfortunate part of the discourse.
The fact is, with this specific case, some people at the company asked that he step down in light of his actions. Perhaps they had personally been wronged by the prop 8 decision or that someone they love had been hurt and they didn't want to see that happen again. How can anyone believe without a shadow of a doubt that he will not vote with his conscience for the company when his conscience in life told him that he should help deny thousands of men and women some basic rights that he enjoys. He had the chance to apologize or say that he no longer believed that was the course people take. There is room in faith to allow others to live their lives in the way that is important for them, even if you disagree with it. The moment someone else's faith becomes law, that's when we lose our freedom. It's not when someone speaks up or when someone steps down for the good of the company. It's not when there is yelling but when there is silence. Freedom comes with a price. You are free to be whoever you feel you should be but your actions have consequences.
We speak out when we feel like we're not being treated fairly. We speak out when others hurt us. And we speak out when we are afraid that the place or thing we love, might be made more hostile for someone else being in charge of it, even if he says he won't do it, because we're used to people lying to us.
Eich did something bad. He was called out on it and he had the chance to both apologize and say that he had made a mistake and he did not. His employees had no reason to believe that they would be safe and that his personal views would not get in the way of what they wanted to do so they asked him to step down. OKCupid decided they wanted to make a deal with it, as a dating site, they likely had a reason but publicity, I'm sure, was part of that decision. Eich stepped down. He wasn't forced to but he saw that his politics were getting in the way of his business. The system generally worked like it's supposed to. It's nothing insidious, it's just what happened.
Not defending this guy per se, but what bothers me here is that he didn't step out of the ether when he became ceo - he was already an officer of the company and one of the founders. Why not move to force him out from before? I know stuff about him had been known since 2012, and some had problems with him from then, but he still had a job with the company. Did he do or say anything before then? Mozilla has been around for a while. Did anyone in the company have a sit down with him to discuss what his beliefs are doing? did any employees feel discrimated against? I want to know more.
What thejeff said. There's also one other factor: The acceptance of the rest of the mozilla board.
You can't really kick out a founder of the company willy nilly. So one founder being an a+*#@&* may not make people that angry, because it's not central to the company really, and says little about the other people in the company (who might have had no idea of his views when they started the thing together)
Employing that guy as a CEO though, after these things have become public? That shows the whole board on mozilla was on board (heh) with it, or at least didn't think it really mattered.
I mean, I know there are a few misogynists in my local union. I don't like them, and won't deal with them except when I have to, but I don't swap union because of it because it's a great union. If one of them where elected into some place of power in the union though, I'd be furious. Not that my union really has positions of power since it's not organized in a very hierarchial way, but you get my point.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Oh, and also, btw, Hi all. I realize I haven't presented myself in this thread in any way, just stumbling in into some debate. I guess I'm kinda shy when it comes to my personal relationship to QTBLG, but get righteously pissed off when I see people writing crap.
I've been following this thread basically since it started, and greatly enjoy reading what everyone else is writing, but since I currently pass as kind of non-QTBLG I rarely have personal stories to tell, at least none that only deals with me in such a way that I'd feel comfortable telling them without outing or breaking someone's trust, and I live in a smaller country where the juridical fights aren't as heavy as in the US (though there are certainly juridical issues here still, especially for trans people - until just recently, trans people where forced to be sterilized and have any saved eggs/sperms destroyed in order to juridically transition).
But me, personally, I'm lucky to pass as heterocis at the moment. I'm pansexual/panromantic, probably fitting somewhere in the gray A, though I've been both hypersexual and asexual for extended periods of time. Haven't figured myself out exactly, as I've undergone pretty major changes in my sexuality through my whole life, from gay, to bi, to nearly straight, to bi, to pan (though I'm not sure really if I've been pan longer, just not had an opportunity to discover it so to speak). Though I suspect gender roles have had a big part in forming my sexuality and to some degree perhaps even my identity - I think I'd have identified less strongly with my gender if there hadn't been such strong gender roles, seeing as how I loathed my puberty and just wished it'd all go away. Been in same-sex relationships and know a lot of the treatment you get, have been the victim of a lot of homophobia due to my gender expression (though I'm cis), but haven't been in a same sex relationship for some time, and same-sex cis people are the group of people I'm the least attracted to so yeah. I get by pretty easily, but nearly everyone I willingly spend time with except my family is QTBLG so I see a lot of the struggles they face.
Yeah well that's basically my giant wall of text of background. Just felt it was kinda rude of me to just stomp in without any context and start proponing violent QTBLG revolution. :)
|
|
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
Recently we had a man get beaten after being asked if he was gay. It came to light that sexuality was not covered in our state's hate crime laws. As a response to this, we held a rally. A rally at which I again spoke. Actually getting in front of people and starting was easier this time. The subject matter a lot harder. I spoke about violence in the trans* community. I also managed to get most of it on video:
Cori speaking on transgender violence
About a minute or so was cut out. In that minute I talk about Gwen Araujo and Brandon Teena, and begin talking about CeCe McDonald.
I saw a pair of comments here that summed it up for me rather well...
The issue is that these "extremists" you keep pointing out are no worse than the extremists on the other side. Hell, they aren't even worse than the moderates on the other side, who still actively believe that homosexuals' rights should be limited because of religion.
And...
There's been a dustup recently in the trans-community that kind of relates to the point I want to make here. One person is in the industry that was greatly criticized and she spoke out against a very large barrage of loud angry trans women who believe we can do better. And they're right, hollywood can do better. But her point was that we all need to act better because that only makes people angry. I'm not sure she's exactly right about that. There needs to be people talking sense and being diplomats, but there is also room for someone to scream when they feel hurt and I think that's important if unfortunate part of the discourse.
The fact is, with this specific case, some people at the company asked that he step down in light of his actions. Perhaps they had personally been wronged by the prop 8 decision or that someone they love had been hurt and they didn't want to see that happen again. How can anyone believe without a shadow of a doubt that he will not vote with his conscience for the company when his conscience in life told him that he should help deny thousands of men and women some basic rights that he enjoys. He had the chance to apologize or say that he no longer believed that was the course people take. There is room in faith to allow others to live their lives in the way that is important for them, even if you disagree with it. The moment someone else's faith becomes law, that's when we lose our freedom. It's not when someone speaks up or when someone steps down for the good of the company. It's not when there is yelling but when there is silence. Freedom comes with a price. You are free to be whoever you feel you should be but your actions have consequences.
We speak out when we feel like we're not being treated fairly. We speak out when others hurt us. And we speak out when we are afraid that the place or thing we love, might be made more hostile for someone else being in charge of it, even if he says he won't do it, because we're used to people lying to us.
Eich did something bad. He was...
...bolding added by me. A CEO is a public face, a powerful position. I would not wish to be an employee underneath this guy.
As I said before, this guy didn't appear out of nowhere - he's a founder of the company. Why wasn't this known sooner? Did he keep quiet all this time until prop 8 and ceo status? I'm not buying that, nor the slow rise of Internet knowledge idea Jeff put forth, at least not whole cloth. There were God knows how many people working under him before. Why is it okay that he's a bigot as an officer/founder of the company and not okay when he becomes ceo?
No he didn't appear out of nowhere. One of the members on the board was a Lesbian from what I gather, and she didn't have anything bad to say about him. She commented she had not been directly working with him, but everything in his work was professional. She also supported the move for him to be CEO.
As far as we know, there had been no complaints about his professional conduct at the company, and there were some things that had notated it was actually a good company for some of the LGBT crowd (the LGB parts at least, sorry, have no info on the T parts) to work as there wasn't anything overt in how they were treated.
That said, there were some in the company that were apparently very unhappy with his political views.
Three of the board left right before he was appointed CEO. It was accounted that they had other job offers.
Some have speculated that they left because they didn't want to have him as CEO (no evidence of that...BUT...putting it here for a more balanced view). Of course, it is also speculated with him being one of the founders, basically he already had control so they really didn't have much of a say in the matter. If he has this control...basically removing him as CEO hasn't changed anything except from a PR issue and a title. That's what's infuriating about this entire mix and what these people aren't looking at. They accomplished nothing really, except to let him basically do as he's been doing, but without having to worry about the publicity.
Basically, it was bad PR, but probably won't change anything at the company from what I can tell...though it might lose them some money (and ironically, and LGBT people working there would lose their jobs if it went out of business).
Mozilla Firefox has been seen as the counter to Microsoft with a more open Internet option (though that's dwindled in the past few years with other options) as well as one of the items which allowed more freedom overall with expressions in regards to various freedoms (LGBT included).
That's what makes this entire move rather ironic...however that could also be why this suddenly jumped to the forefront. The biggest problems people had wasn't Mozilla's policy (which have typically been for a more open internet, less control, etc...which is actually good for LGBT rights as well as other rights...though some may see that as a piracy or other promotion instead)...but with the Ex-CEO's religious and political views.
Before this, in a way, you could say FF and some of the LGBT groups were connected movement in ways with wanting more freedom in the internet and otherwise...it should be interesting to see what the fallout of this could be. It could be that the LGBT crowd is a very significant part of Mozilla FF (don't know, have no idea of what the stats for Mozilla FF is) and Mozilla can't subsist without their support.
Of course, with how large it's become and the sizeable usage of Mozilla FF, they have grown less freedom oriented and freedom friendly and more of a large corporate outlook over the past little while, so there's been a slow divide there anyways and there may not be as big an impact.
However, it could be seen as biting one's foot to spit one's face.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think it basically validates the fears of a lot of religious people -- Some of them think that we're not out to get equal rights, but that we're out to eradicate viewpoints we disagree with.
I think it basically validates the fears of a lot of religious people -- Some of them think that we're not out to get equal rights, but that we're out to eradicate viewpoints we disagree with.
Anyone who prefers other people share their opinion instead of having the opposite one wants to "eradicate viewpoints". Of course I want to eradicate viewpoints. For example, I wish that no-one saw gay people as subhuman - that is a viewpoint I want to eradicate.
There is a huge difference between that and eradicate every person who has those viewpoints however, and that shows in the actions of the QTBLG community. It's quite rare QTBLG activists murder homophobes or transphobes for their beliefs. Conversely, bigoted people murdering QTBLG people is quite common.
|
|
I think it basically validates the fears of a lot of religious people -- Some of them think that we're not out to get equal rights, but that we're out to eradicate viewpoints we disagree with.
Noone is saying ignore your faith. But people are saying this an unacceptable viewpoint in this day and age. We had to go through(and are still going through in some areas) the same thing with women and people of color and legal immigrants. Believe it or not, there are choices on how to interpret the Bible or whatever book you believe in. Many have chosen one way and others have chosen another and those viewpoints have changed in severity over time. And now it's time to put this prejudice behind us and embrace our gay family members and tell them, "It's ok. We love you and our faith allows even encourages us to do so. Please, have your husband/wife over for dinner so we can get to know our new family member." That kind of thing, changes peoples lives for the better and it's not hard to do.
No he didn't appear out of nowhere. One of the members on the board was a Lesbian from what I gather, and she didn't have anything bad to say about him. She commented she had not been directly working with him, but everything in his work was professional. She also supported the move for him to be CEO.
As far as we know, there had been no complaints about his professional conduct at the company, and there were some things that had notated it was actually a good company for some of the LGBT crowd (the LGB parts at least, sorry, have no info on the T parts) to work as there wasn't anything overt in how they were treated.
That said, there were some in the company that were apparently very unhappy with his political views.
Three of the board left right before he was appointed CEO. It was accounted that they had other job offers.
Some have speculated that they left because they didn't want to have him as CEO (no evidence of that...BUT...putting it here for a more balanced view). Of course, it is also speculated with him being one of the founders, basically he already had control so they really didn't have much of a say in the matter. If he has this control...basically removing him as CEO hasn't changed anything except from a PR issue and a title. That's what's infuriating about this entire mix and what these people aren't looking at. They accomplished nothing really, except to let him basically do as he's been doing, but without having to worry about the publicity.
Basically, it was bad PR, but probably won't change anything at the company from what I can tell...though it might lose them some money (and ironically, and LGBT people working there would lose their jobs if it went out of business).
Mozilla Firefox has been seen as the counter to Microsoft with a more open Internet option (though that's dwindled in the past few years with other options) as well as one of the items which allowed more freedom overall with expressions in regards to various freedoms (LGBT included).
That's what...
if that first is true, it raises a whole lot of questions.
Is this guy a born again? That might account for some of the extremism and politics. If not, and he always felt this way, why are we finding out in 2012 at the earliest? Why not sooner?
I think it basically validates the fears of a lot of religious people -- Some of them think that we're not out to get equal rights, but that we're out to eradicate viewpoints we disagree with.
this is one of my greatest fears on this subject.
...
Mozilla Firefox has been seen as the counter to Microsoft with a more open Internet option (though that's dwindled in the past few years with other options) as well as one of the items which allowed more freedom overall with expressions in regards to various freedoms
There's a load of reasons why you wouldn't speak up about homophobia of a coworker, especially not if you're a homosexual woman in an extremely male dominated business.
...
Mozilla Firefox has been seen as the counter to Microsoft with a more open Internet option (though that's dwindled in the past few years with other options) as well as one of the items which allowed more freedom overall with expressions in regards to various freedoms
There's a load of reasons why you wouldn't speak up about homophobia of a coworker, especially not if you're a homosexual woman in an extremely male dominated business.
fair. But then why support him as CEO? Or hell, if you're a founder too, why work with the guy and support him as an officer? Why not compete against him for the position of CEO or CFO? Why not push him out?