I still don't know if this is a good or bad thing. I'm all for same sex equality, but a person is allowed the freedom to express there own opinion freely without persecution, that's the idea behind freedom. I think it's pretty sad that in this instance he was given no opportunity to even demonstrate the ability to seperate his professional and personal life.this is a dude that represents the right wing's ability to push hateful agendas. more than represents, he directly participated in attempting to legislate the rights and freedoms of others.
The whole mob mentaly of if you don't think like is your wrong is ****ed up and has caused more problems than it has ever solved.
I still don't know if this is a good or bad thing.good for sure. who the **** wants to have a homophobic pig as a CEO. it doesn't matter how much Eich did for mozilla and the whole community of internet users. it only matters that in 2008 he donated $1000 to support gay marriage ban in california. what a douche.
So because he's a wealthy white male he's not allowed an opinion? Or is it because he dsnt agree with same sex marriage that he's not allowed an opinion?
I personally feel anyone who belives in any god is a total moron, and would (if I had the money) lobby against organised religion. But that dsnt make me more or less of a person than someone who is religios. The about wanting equality is that it makes everyone equal, even people with opinions you don't like...
So because he's a wealthy white male he's not allowed an opinion? Or is it because he dsnt agree with same sex marriage that he's not allowed an opinion?
I personally feel anyone who belives in any god is a total moron, and would (if I had the money) lobby against organised religion. But that dsnt make me more or less of a person than someone who is religios. The about wanting equality is that it makes everyone equal, even people with opinions you don't like...
he HAS an opinion. it sucks really bad. it also has contributed to an uncountable number of people being harassed, denied equality and fair protection under the law, being assaulted and murdered. the dip****s who go out there and actually bash gay people (though it shouldn't matter if the abuse is physical or systemic) are the same people that are informed by political campaigns such as Prop 8... and he has paid money to continue that sort of treatment. that is about as effectively expressing your opinion as you possibly can in America. doesn't mean he is guaranteed a free pass not to be criticized for his opinion when it is made public. his status as a wealthy white male just means that historically, he and others in his position have had a platform to **** on people they don't like without reproach, and i don't think that's right.
**** him"**** you iri" might have shortened your post a bit.
but wtf, he only donated 1k? he didn't have an agenda...
he wasn't pushing his views on anyone
so you know what? **** firefox
look, ppl who believe in religion are idiots, or just have religion so ingrained in their lives, they just can't help themselves. yes i do have idiot religion ppl for friends, i'm sure we're all saddled with these lesser mortals who love to believe in myths and zombies, but they're still great ppl. (in fact i'm gonna fly to chicago next month and visit a couple and see their religious spawn, **** he even has a religious name, izaiah, i PLEADED with them, don't name him some ****ed up name!)
but wtf? all i see are butt hurt emo hipster programmers who took to social media to make a point, **** these *******s too.
you know what? prop8 passed, the governator said, **** you gays, **** you lesbo's go get married on the east coast, you have no legal rights on the west coast.
i mean shouldn't we be more interested in why a law that was written as a legal **** you gays passed? instead of bombarding this guys twitter account?
also, **** firefox, it's worse than chrome, **** it's worse than ie8
Eh, he had a right under law to his beliefs and his actions, and the community had a right to react accordingly.
If there's something wrong here, I don't really see it.
Also: how was his donation made public?
Isn't that sort of thing supposed to be private?
I think he donated in like 2011?
in 2008 he donated $1000 to support gay marriage ban in california
I think he donated in like 2011?in 2008 he donated $1000 to support gay marriage ban in california
I still don't know if this is a good or bad thing. I'm all for same sex equality, but a person is allowed the freedom to express there own opinion freely without persecution, that's the idea behind freedom. I think it's pretty sad that in this instance he was given no opportunity to even demonstrate the ability to seperate his professional and personal life.
The whole mob mentaly of if you don't think like is your wrong is ****ed up and has caused more problems than it has ever solved.
I still don't know if this is a good or bad thing. I'm all for same sex equality, but a person is allowed the freedom to express there own opinion freely without persecution, that's the idea behind freedom. I think it's pretty sad that in this instance he was given no opportunity to even demonstrate the ability to seperate his professional and personal life.
The whole mob mentaly of if you don't think like is your wrong is ****ed up and has caused more problems than it has ever solved.
Strongly support you here Baldgye.
Every man has a right to his private opinion. I'm shocked that some people are so vehement in condemning anyone who is opposed to gay marriage.
As a Taoist I am neither for or against gay marriage. But 99% of Muslims (and this is a heavily Islamic region) are against gay marriage. I don't think calling at least 1.5billion people homophobic pigs is helpful towards mutual respect and understanding.
My personal view is, if the Catholics, Orthodox Jews, Muslims and fundamentalist Christians (who together make up the vast majority of the human race) are against gay marriage, fine, ban gay marriage and promote civil unions instead. That's a wording difference which makes all the difference in some places. Oh, and I"ll happily take a civil union myself, just to show support for the gays and lesbians. The religious people can have their 'marriages' if that word is so sacred to them.
If Marriage is a term that means 'sanctioned by God', since I don't believe in God, I should not get 'married' either. Civil union is fine with me.
Am just waiting for the flames to come blasting.
I still don't know if this is a good or bad thing. I'm all for same sex equality, but a person is allowed the freedom to express there own opinion freely without persecution, that's the idea behind freedom. I think it's pretty sad that in this instance he was given no opportunity to even demonstrate the ability to seperate his professional and personal life.
The whole mob mentaly of if you don't think like is your wrong is ****ed up and has caused more problems than it has ever solved.
Strongly support you here Baldgye.
Every man has a right to his private opinion. I'm shocked that some people are so vehement in condemning anyone who is opposed to gay marriage.
As a Taoist I am neither for or against gay marriage. But 99% of Muslims (and this is a heavily Islamic region) are against gay marriage. I don't think calling at least 1.5billion people homophobic pigs is helpful towards mutual respect and understanding.
My personal view is, if the Catholics, Orthodox Jews, Muslims and fundamentalist Christians (who together make up the vast majority of the human race) are against gay marriage, fine, ban gay marriage and promote civil unions instead. That's a wording difference which makes all the difference in some places. Oh, and I"ll happily take a civil union myself, just to show support for the gays and lesbians. The religious people can have their 'marriages' if that word is so sacred to them.
If Marriage is a term that means 'sanctioned by God', since I don't believe in God, I should not get 'married' either. Civil union is fine with me.
Am just waiting for the flames to come blasting.
nobody really wants equality they all want to be 'better' than someone else, so you don't like what this person does then they are evil, goes both ways
at the end of the day one person says 'i'm right you are wrong' and the other side feels the same way. what bothers me is how one side can say their opinions are 'more right' than another.
I think the Voltaire's quote comes handy here:
"I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it."
There is a basic contradiction when those that are defending freedom, are acting against it, when they prosecute this guy, because they do not agree with his ideas.
I think the Voltaire's quote comes handy here:
"I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it."
There is a basic contradiction when those that are defending freedom, are acting against it, when they prosecute this guy, because they do not agree with his ideas.
so you don't like what this person does then they are evil, goes both waysin this story with Eich, it goes one way, unfortunately.
Eh, he had a right under law to his beliefs and his actions, and the community had a right to react accordingly.
If there's something wrong here, I don't really see it.
Who is taking away his freedom of speech? Mozilla employees expressed their feelings on their boss. The free market expressed their opinions of him and he decided to step down. Nobody put a gun to his head. He's free to say what he wants and have whatever believes he chooses. Freedom of speech doesnt protect you from backlash for what you said.
I think the Voltaire's quote comes handy here:
"I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it."
There is a basic contradiction when those that are defending freedom, are acting against it, when they prosecute this guy, because they do not agree with his ideas.
Who is taking away his freedom of speech? Mozilla employees expressed their feelings on their boss. The free market expressed their opinions of him and he decided to step down. Nobody put a gun to his head. He's free to say what he wants and have whatever believes he chooses. Freedom of speech doesnt protect you from backlash for what you said.
I think the Voltaire's quote comes handy here:
"I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it."
There is a basic contradiction when those that are defending freedom, are acting against it, when they prosecute this guy, because they do not agree with his ideas.
Yup. Freedom of speech gives you the right to say what you want without the government stepping in. But if you offend people, it doesnt give you the right to be immune to backlash. It is quite simple.Who is taking away his freedom of speech? Mozilla employees expressed their feelings on their boss. The free market expressed their opinions of him and he decided to step down. Nobody put a gun to his head. He's free to say what he wants and have whatever believes he chooses. Freedom of speech doesnt protect you from backlash for what you said.
I think the Voltaire's quote comes handy here:
"I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it."
There is a basic contradiction when those that are defending freedom, are acting against it, when they prosecute this guy, because they do not agree with his ideas.
Seems that people frequently misinterpret "freedom of speech" as "backlash immunity".
Viva Revolution!
here's the list, lets get those pitchforks ready
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/frame_game/2014/04/brendan_eich_quits_mozilla_let_s_purge_all_the_antigay_donors_to_prop_8.2.html
same with "personal" and "business".Who is taking away his freedom of speech? Mozilla employees expressed their feelings on their boss. The free market expressed their opinions of him and he decided to step down. Nobody put a gun to his head. He's free to say what he wants and have whatever believes he chooses. Freedom of speech doesnt protect you from backlash for what you said.
I think the Voltaire's quote comes handy here:
"I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it."
There is a basic contradiction when those that are defending freedom, are acting against it, when they prosecute this guy, because they do not agree with his ideas.
Seems that people frequently misinterpret "freedom of speech" as "backlash immunity".
same with "personal" and "business".Who is taking away his freedom of speech? Mozilla employees expressed their feelings on their boss. The free market expressed their opinions of him and he decided to step down. Nobody put a gun to his head. He's free to say what he wants and have whatever believes he chooses. Freedom of speech doesnt protect you from backlash for what you said.
I think the Voltaire's quote comes handy here:
"I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it."
There is a basic contradiction when those that are defending freedom, are acting against it, when they prosecute this guy, because they do not agree with his ideas.
Seems that people frequently misinterpret "freedom of speech" as "backlash immunity".
Who is taking away his freedom of speech? Mozilla employees expressed their feelings on their boss. The free market expressed their opinions of him and he decided to step down. Nobody put a gun to his head. He's free to say what he wants and have whatever believes he chooses. Freedom of speech doesnt protect you from backlash for what you said.
I think the Voltaire's quote comes handy here:
"I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it."
There is a basic contradiction when those that are defending freedom, are acting against it, when they prosecute this guy, because they do not agree with his ideas.
Viva Revolution!WOOHOO!
here's the list, lets get those pitchforks ready
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/frame_game/2014/04/brendan_eich_quits_mozilla_let_s_purge_all_the_antigay_donors_to_prop_8.2.html
NEVER, EVER shop in Walmart.
NEVER, EVER shop in Walmart.
solid advice
Who is taking away his freedom of speech? Mozilla employees expressed their feelings on their boss. The free market expressed their opinions of him and he decided to step down. Nobody put a gun to his head. He's free to say what he wants and have whatever believes he chooses. Freedom of speech doesnt protect you from backlash for what you said.
I think the Voltaire's quote comes handy here:
"I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it."
There is a basic contradiction when those that are defending freedom, are acting against it, when they prosecute this guy, because they do not agree with his ideas.
I think that really, he was forced out and that while no one literally put a gun to his head, having a high profile websites block FF becasue of his own views basically forced him out after he expressed an opinion. If this had something to do with how he treated people at work or decisions he had made as a CEO then it would be different, but as it stands this guy simply dsnt agree with same sex marage (**** I cant spell) and becasue of that lost his job.
It's not a subject I've had much chance to go over with a fine tooth comb but from what I've read he's not homophobic and anti gay, his views aren't illegal. So why should it have forced him to loose his job?
Like I said before I don't know if this is a good or bad thing, but having someone like him publicly humiliated and forced out of a job becasue of a personal believe seems to contradict the ideals of freedom that people who are pro same sex marage are striving for.
Who is taking away his freedom of speech? Mozilla employees expressed their feelings on their boss. The free market expressed their opinions of him and he decided to step down. Nobody put a gun to his head. He's free to say what he wants and have whatever believes he chooses. Freedom of speech doesnt protect you from backlash for what you said.
I think the Voltaire's quote comes handy here:
"I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it."
There is a basic contradiction when those that are defending freedom, are acting against it, when they prosecute this guy, because they do not agree with his ideas.
Seems that people frequently misinterpret "freedom of speech" as "backlash immunity".
Who is taking away his freedom of speech? Mozilla employees expressed their feelings on their boss. The free market expressed their opinions of him and he decided to step down. Nobody put a gun to his head. He's free to say what he wants and have whatever believes he chooses. Freedom of speech doesnt protect you from backlash for what you said.
I think the Voltaire's quote comes handy here:
"I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it."
There is a basic contradiction when those that are defending freedom, are acting against it, when they prosecute this guy, because they do not agree with his ideas.
I think that really, he was forced out and that while no one literally put a gun to his head, having a high profile websites block FF becasue of his own views basically forced him out after he expressed an opinion. If this had something to do with how he treated people at work or decisions he had made as a CEO then it would be different, but as it stands this guy simply dsnt agree with same sex marage (**** I cant spell) and becasue of that lost his job.
It's not a subject I've had much chance to go over with a fine tooth comb but from what I've read he's not homophobic and anti gay, his views aren't illegal. So why should it have forced him to loose his job?
Like I said before I don't know if this is a good or bad thing, but having someone like him publicly humiliated and forced out of a job becasue of a personal believe seems to contradict the ideals of freedom that people who are pro same sex marage are striving for.
Well, thats the beauty of the free market.
I still don't know if this is a good or bad thing. I'm all for same sex equality, but a person is allowed the freedom to express there own opinion freely without persecution, that's the idea behind freedom. I think it's pretty sad that in this instance he was given no opportunity to even demonstrate the ability to seperate his professional and personal life.
The whole mob mentality of if you don't think like is your wrong is ****ed up and has caused more problems than it has ever solved.
I do support gay rights, and I would definitely not support Proposition 8. However, it seems ridiculous that this person was fired for his political viewsread more carefully.
There's nothing wrong with gay marriagebesides that it's not a marriage.
He wasnt fired. He stepped down.
besides that it's not a marriage.
He wasnt fired. He stepped down.
I knew you'd not bother give a decent reply, so good job!besides that it's not a marriage.
it is in the UK!
it is in the UK!together with separate taps!
taps? or did you mean TRAPS?!whoa whoa whoa, young man!
taps? or did you mean TRAPS?!whoa whoa whoa, young man!
(Attachment Link)
can't say i didn't see that coming...
you know what's better than apologizing for being a bigot?
also, think about what mozilla is actually saying. they're having a moral crisis about whether its more important to protect the "free" "speech" of a bigot than to fire an ******* who donated money to set back gay rights BY LAW and then not be called out for promoting the dude to a highly prominent, very public position in an open source nonprofit.
last i checked an OSS development house was not legally capable of infringing upon individuals' right to free speech. basically it looks like their board didn't give a **** that this guy was a turd until their employees and users complained. what does that tell you about the rest of mozilla's board?
can't say i didn't see that coming...
you know what's better than apologizing for being a bigot?
also, think about what mozilla is actually saying. they're having a moral crisis about whether its more important to protect the "free" "speech" of a bigot than to fire an ******* who donated money to set back gay rights BY LAW and then not be called out for promoting the dude to a highly prominent, very public position in an open source nonprofit.
last i checked an OSS development house was not legally capable of infringing upon individuals' right to free speech. basically it looks like their board didn't give a **** that this guy was a turd until their employees and users complained. what does that tell you about the rest of mozilla's board?
I don't agree. Whether you keep your job or not should depend solely on your proficiency and professionalism at it. Everything outside of that is irrelevant. We all know that doesn't happen in the real world, but I think it should. There are tons of things a customer base could be displeased about, like a CEO's sexual habits, recreational drug use, political views, blah blah blah. Are organisations supposed to fire everyone unless there's a broad mainstream consensus in their userbase that their personal beliefs and lifestyle are acceptable?
can't say i didn't see that coming...
you know what's better than apologizing for being a bigot?
also, think about what mozilla is actually saying. they're having a moral crisis about whether its more important to protect the "free" "speech" of a bigot than to fire an ******* who donated money to set back gay rights BY LAW and then not be called out for promoting the dude to a highly prominent, very public position in an open source nonprofit.
last i checked an OSS development house was not legally capable of infringing upon individuals' right to free speech. basically it looks like their board didn't give a **** that this guy was a turd until their employees and users complained. what does that tell you about the rest of mozilla's board?
I don't agree. Whether you keep your job or not should depend solely on your proficiency and professionalism at it. Everything outside of that is irrelevant. We all know that doesn't happen in the real world, but I think it should. There are tons of things a customer base could be displeased about, like a CEO's sexual habits, recreational drug use, political views, blah blah blah. Are organisations supposed to fire everyone unless there's a broad mainstream consensus in their userbase that their personal beliefs and lifestyle are acceptable?
unfortunately CEO now is viewed as a figurehead and not really just for your proficiencies and professionalism.
They didn't make a big fuss when he was nominated to be CTO 2 years ago, but once you're considered the leader of the corporation, its not just your technical abilities that get scrutinized, but your family/personal life and beliefs too.
can't say i didn't see that coming...
you know what's better than apologizing for being a bigot?
also, think about what mozilla is actually saying. they're having a moral crisis about whether its more important to protect the "free" "speech" of a bigot than to fire an ******* who donated money to set back gay rights BY LAW and then not be called out for promoting the dude to a highly prominent, very public position in an open source nonprofit.
last i checked an OSS development house was not legally capable of infringing upon individuals' right to free speech. basically it looks like their board didn't give a **** that this guy was a turd until their employees and users complained. what does that tell you about the rest of mozilla's board?
I don't agree. Whether you keep your job or not should depend solely on your proficiency and professionalism at it. Everything outside of that is irrelevant. We all know that doesn't happen in the real world, but I think it should. There are tons of things a customer base could be displeased about, like a CEO's sexual habits, recreational drug use, political views, blah blah blah. Are organisations supposed to fire everyone unless there's a broad mainstream consensus in their userbase that their personal beliefs and lifestyle are acceptable?
unfortunately CEO now is viewed as a figurehead and not really just for your proficiencies and professionalism.
They didn't make a big fuss when he was nominated to be CTO 2 years ago, but once you're considered the leader of the corporation, its not just your technical abilities that get scrutinized, but your family/personal life and beliefs too.
Actually, this is the second time this has been brought up. This is old news that resurfaced because he became CEO. He already apologized for "the pain he caused". His employees decided to bring it to light since him being named CEO meant the attention was on him
besides that it's not a marriage.
no i'm pretty sure gays want marriage, they don't want to be label'd as "my significant other" or "my partner"but how can they get to the agreement on who is a husband and who is a wife?
Not all gay couples (male or female) work on that dynamic. There isn't always a "top" or "bottom", some people are both, and some couples are both tops or both bottoms. In straight relationships there are dominant women and submissive men, the difference is you don't think about it and many hide this side of the relationship in the eyes of the public.no i'm pretty sure gays want marriage, they don't want to be label'd as "my significant other" or "my partner"but how can they get to the agreement on who is a husband and who is a wife?
So because he's a wealthy white male he's not allowed an opinion? Or is it because he dsnt agree with same sex marriage that he's not allowed an opinion?
I personally feel anyone who belives in any god is a total moron, and would (if I had the money) lobby against organised religion. But that dsnt make me more or less of a person than someone who is religios. The about wanting equality is that it makes everyone equal, even people with opinions you don't like...
So because he's a wealthy white male he's not allowed an opinion? Or is it because he dsnt agree with same sex marriage that he's not allowed an opinion?
I personally feel anyone who belives in any god is a total moron, and would (if I had the money) lobby against organised religion. But that dsnt make me more or less of a person than someone who is religios. The about wanting equality is that it makes everyone equal, even people with opinions you don't like...
i'm not following.
the primary judgement against him wasn't for hating gay marriage. people were judging him for TAKING ACTION against gay marriage.
free speech was respected. free action was violated; although i've never heard of 'free action' before.
on the topic of antigay marriage, it's just an eye for an eye. he took away gay marriage, people took away his promotion.
if anything, he just won less, which is still a victory at the end of the day.
So because he's a wealthy white male he's not allowed an opinion? Or is it because he dsnt agree with same sex marriage that he's not allowed an opinion?
I personally feel anyone who belives in any god is a total moron, and would (if I had the money) lobby against organised religion. But that dsnt make me more or less of a person than someone who is religios. The about wanting equality is that it makes everyone equal, even people with opinions you don't like...
i'm not following.
the primary judgement against him wasn't for hating gay marriage. people were judging him for TAKING ACTION against gay marriage.
free speech was respected. free action was violated; although i've never heard of 'free action' before.
on the topic of antigay marriage, it's just an eye for an eye. he took away gay marriage, people took away his promotion.
if anything, he just won less, which is still a victory at the end of the day.
So because he's a wealthy white male he's not allowed an opinion? Or is it because he dsnt agree with same sex marriage that he's not allowed an opinion?
I personally feel anyone who belives in any god is a total moron, and would (if I had the money) lobby against organised religion. But that dsnt make me more or less of a person than someone who is religios. The about wanting equality is that it makes everyone equal, even people with opinions you don't like...
i'm not following.
the primary judgement against him wasn't for hating gay marriage. people were judging him for TAKING ACTION against gay marriage.
free speech was respected. free action was violated; although i've never heard of 'free action' before.
on the topic of antigay marriage, it's just an eye for an eye. he took away gay marriage, people took away his promotion.
if anything, he just won less, which is still a victory at the end of the day.
He took away gay marriage? lulz
I think the Voltaire's quote comes handy here:
"I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it."
There is a basic contradiction when those that are defending freedom, are acting against it, when they prosecute this guy, because they do not agree with his ideas.
Offensive: "homosexual" (n. or adj.)
Preferred: "gay" (adj.); "gay man" or "lesbian" (n.); "gay person/people"
Please use "gay" or "lesbian" to describe people attracted to members of the same sex. Because of the clinical history of the word "homosexual," it is aggressively used by anti-gay extremists to suggest that gay people are somehow diseased or psychologically/emotionally disordered – notions discredited by the American Psychological Association and the American Psychiatric Association in the 1970s. Please avoid using "homosexual" except in direct quotes. Please also avoid using "homosexual" as a style variation simply to avoid repeated use of the word "gay." The Associated Press, The New York Times and The Washington Post restrict use of the term "homosexual" (see AP, New York Times & Washington Post Style).
Offensive: "homosexual relations/relationship," "homosexual couple," "homosexual sex," etc.
Preferred: "relationship" (or "sexual relationship"), "couple" (or, if necessary, "gay couple"), "sex," etc.
Identifying a same-sex couple as "a homosexual couple," characterizing their relationship as "a homosexual relationship," or identifying their intimacy as "homosexual sex" is extremely offensive and should be avoided. These constructions are frequently used by anti-gay extremists to denigrate gay people, couples and relationships.
To me free speech should not mean freedom from consequences -- but those consequences should not come from the state. If you decide to wear Nazi regalia and march down Main Street, I support your right to do so. But people are going to shun you, and that's their right as well. What's worrisome about the Mozilla CEO being unceremoniously canned is that it is very organized. The people who agitate for tolerance are really really intolerant. Can you support and love gay people without supporting gay marriage? According to the gay gestapo, no, you can't. You either support everything they tell you to support or your life (as it intersects with their power) is over.
Bill Maher, a disgusting excuse for a human being, who calls women who have differing opinions 'c*nts' had this to say (http://"I think there is a gay mafia," Maher said. "I think if you cross them, you do get whacked. I really do."
Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/tv-movies/bill-maher-gay-mafia-article-1.1747421#ixzz2yDJgB4vF): ""I think there is a gay mafia," Maher said. "I think if you cross them, you do get whacked. I really do."
Gestapo, mafia, call it what you will. There's a small group of people who can end your professional life if they decide to do so. Is this legal? Yeah, I think it is. It's also disgusting, and when they did it in Hollywood to communists, it was also wrong -- but at least there was a public outcry over it. For me, the worst injustice foisted on us by this gestapo is their restriction of words. From GLAAD (https://www.glaad.org/reference/offensive), this tidbit:QuoteOffensive: "homosexual" (n. or adj.)
Preferred: "gay" (adj.); "gay man" or "lesbian" (n.); "gay person/people"
Please use "gay" or "lesbian" to describe people attracted to members of the same sex. Because of the clinical history of the word "homosexual," it is aggressively used by anti-gay extremists to suggest that gay people are somehow diseased or psychologically/emotionally disordered – notions discredited by the American Psychological Association and the American Psychiatric Association in the 1970s. Please avoid using "homosexual" except in direct quotes. Please also avoid using "homosexual" as a style variation simply to avoid repeated use of the word "gay." The Associated Press, The New York Times and The Washington Post restrict use of the term "homosexual" (see AP, New York Times & Washington Post Style).
Offensive: "homosexual relations/relationship," "homosexual couple," "homosexual sex," etc.
Preferred: "relationship" (or "sexual relationship"), "couple" (or, if necessary, "gay couple"), "sex," etc.
Identifying a same-sex couple as "a homosexual couple," characterizing their relationship as "a homosexual relationship," or identifying their intimacy as "homosexual sex" is extremely offensive and should be avoided. These constructions are frequently used by anti-gay extremists to denigrate gay people, couples and relationships.
That's right -- using the term 'homosexual' is now considered to be offensive. Idon'ttry not to go out of my way to be offensive to others, but I don't actually publish style books to the rest of the population on how to not offend me. If you're that sensitive, stay home, stay out of the public square until your skin thickens. People who are constantly on the lookout for reasons to be offended are offensive to me.
Finally, I don't think this attitude of beheading people professionally represents all gay people -- but gay people should speak up and remove these people from power. Except, hey, it might be nice having the whole world walking on eggshells when they interact with you. One wrong move and your career is over.
To me free speech should not mean freedom from consequences -- but those consequences should not come from the state. If you decide to wear Nazi regalia and march down Main Street, I support your right to do so. But people are going to shun you, and that's their right as well. What's worrisome about the Mozilla CEO being unceremoniously canned is that it is very organized. The people who agitate for tolerance are really really intolerant. Can you support and love gay people without supporting gay marriage? According to the gay gestapo, no, you can't. You either support everything they tell you to support or your life (as it intersects with their power) is over.
Bill Maher, a disgusting excuse for a human being, who calls women who have differing opinions 'c*nts' had this to say (http://"I think there is a gay mafia," Maher said. "I think if you cross them, you do get whacked. I really do."
Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/tv-movies/bill-maher-gay-mafia-article-1.1747421#ixzz2yDJgB4vF): ""I think there is a gay mafia," Maher said. "I think if you cross them, you do get whacked. I really do."
Gestapo, mafia, call it what you will. There's a small group of people who can end your professional life if they decide to do so. Is this legal? Yeah, I think it is. It's also disgusting, and when they did it in Hollywood to communists, it was also wrong -- but at least there was a public outcry over it. For me, the worst injustice foisted on us by this gestapo is their restriction of words. From GLAAD (https://www.glaad.org/reference/offensive), this tidbit:QuoteOffensive: "homosexual" (n. or adj.)
Preferred: "gay" (adj.); "gay man" or "lesbian" (n.); "gay person/people"
Please use "gay" or "lesbian" to describe people attracted to members of the same sex. Because of the clinical history of the word "homosexual," it is aggressively used by anti-gay extremists to suggest that gay people are somehow diseased or psychologically/emotionally disordered – notions discredited by the American Psychological Association and the American Psychiatric Association in the 1970s. Please avoid using "homosexual" except in direct quotes. Please also avoid using "homosexual" as a style variation simply to avoid repeated use of the word "gay." The Associated Press, The New York Times and The Washington Post restrict use of the term "homosexual" (see AP, New York Times & Washington Post Style).
Offensive: "homosexual relations/relationship," "homosexual couple," "homosexual sex," etc.
Preferred: "relationship" (or "sexual relationship"), "couple" (or, if necessary, "gay couple"), "sex," etc.
Identifying a same-sex couple as "a homosexual couple," characterizing their relationship as "a homosexual relationship," or identifying their intimacy as "homosexual sex" is extremely offensive and should be avoided. These constructions are frequently used by anti-gay extremists to denigrate gay people, couples and relationships.
That's right -- using the term 'homosexual' is now considered to be offensive. Idon'ttry not to go out of my way to be offensive to others, but I don't actually publish style books to the rest of the population on how to not offend me. If you're that sensitive, stay home, stay out of the public square until your skin thickens. People who are constantly on the lookout for reasons to be offended are offensive to me.
Finally, I don't think this attitude of beheading people professionally represents all gay people -- but gay people should speak up and remove these people from power. Except, hey, it might be nice having the whole world walking on eggshells when they interact with you. One wrong move and your career is over.
More
I think the Voltaire's quote comes handy here:
"I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it."
There is a basic contradiction when those that are defending freedom, are acting against it, when they prosecute this guy, because they do not agree with his ideas.
To me free speech should not mean freedom from consequences -- but those consequences should not come from the state. If you decide to wear Nazi regalia and march down Main Street, I support your right to do so. But people are going to shun you, and that's their right as well. What's worrisome about the Mozilla CEO being unceremoniously canned is that it is very organized. The people who agitate for tolerance are really really intolerant. Can you support and love gay people without supporting gay marriage? According to the gay gestapo, no, you can't. You either support everything they tell you to support or your life (as it intersects with their power) is over.
Bill Maher, a disgusting excuse for a human being, who calls women who have differing opinions 'c*nts' had this to say (http://"I think there is a gay mafia," Maher said. "I think if you cross them, you do get whacked. I really do."
Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/tv-movies/bill-maher-gay-mafia-article-1.1747421#ixzz2yDJgB4vF): ""I think there is a gay mafia," Maher said. "I think if you cross them, you do get whacked. I really do."
Gestapo, mafia, call it what you will. There's a small group of people who can end your professional life if they decide to do so. Is this legal? Yeah, I think it is. It's also disgusting, and when they did it in Hollywood to communists, it was also wrong -- but at least there was a public outcry over it. For me, the worst injustice foisted on us by this gestapo is their restriction of words. From GLAAD (https://www.glaad.org/reference/offensive), this tidbit:QuoteOffensive: "homosexual" (n. or adj.)
Preferred: "gay" (adj.); "gay man" or "lesbian" (n.); "gay person/people"
Please use "gay" or "lesbian" to describe people attracted to members of the same sex. Because of the clinical history of the word "homosexual," it is aggressively used by anti-gay extremists to suggest that gay people are somehow diseased or psychologically/emotionally disordered – notions discredited by the American Psychological Association and the American Psychiatric Association in the 1970s. Please avoid using "homosexual" except in direct quotes. Please also avoid using "homosexual" as a style variation simply to avoid repeated use of the word "gay." The Associated Press, The New York Times and The Washington Post restrict use of the term "homosexual" (see AP, New York Times & Washington Post Style).
Offensive: "homosexual relations/relationship," "homosexual couple," "homosexual sex," etc.
Preferred: "relationship" (or "sexual relationship"), "couple" (or, if necessary, "gay couple"), "sex," etc.
Identifying a same-sex couple as "a homosexual couple," characterizing their relationship as "a homosexual relationship," or identifying their intimacy as "homosexual sex" is extremely offensive and should be avoided. These constructions are frequently used by anti-gay extremists to denigrate gay people, couples and relationships.
That's right -- using the term 'homosexual' is now considered to be offensive. Idon'ttry not to go out of my way to be offensive to others, but I don't actually publish style books to the rest of the population on how to not offend me. If you're that sensitive, stay home, stay out of the public square until your skin thickens. People who are constantly on the lookout for reasons to be offended are offensive to me.
Finally, I don't think this attitude of beheading people professionally represents all gay people -- but gay people should speak up and remove these people from power. Except, hey, it might be nice having the whole world walking on eggshells when they interact with you. One wrong move and your career is over.
I couldn't have said it any better.Show Image(http://i.imgur.com/TEk508c.gif)
*slow clapping*
I hope this doesn't revert to twenty years ago and all gays become scapegoats again; nobody can conclude that the majority are vindictive and would punish others for disagreeing with their sexuality. Let's just hope that people can't get fired or disciplined because they dislike gay marriage just as much as someone else supports it. There is nothing wrong with hating gay marriage- the only illegal thing is to carry out violence or otherwise actions outside of the law.except it is wrong to hate on gay marriage, unless you also hate on all marriage in general, otherwise it's pure discrimination towards the gays, basically saying, **** you, you're not allowed to get married, have a union, get tax benefits, get all the pros/cons of being "regular" married afforded to someone by law and general society.
I hope this doesn't revert to twenty years ago and all gays become scapegoats again; nobody can conclude that the majority are vindictive and would punish others for disagreeing with their sexuality. Let's just hope that people can't get fired or disciplined because they dislike gay marriage just as much as someone else supports it. There is nothing wrong with hating gay marriage- the only illegal thing is to carry out violence or otherwise actions outside of the law.except it is wrong to hate on gay marriage, unless you also hate on all marriage in general, otherwise it's pure discrimination towards the gays, basically saying, **** you, you're not allowed to get married, have a union, get tax benefits, get all the pros/cons of being "regular" married afforded to someone by law and general society.
i also think it's stupid the gays have to user weird terms, like "my partner", when a gay says this and i don't know they're gay, i think they're talking business, like a business partner. can't they just say significant other? or boyfriend/girlfriend? like it or not, there is always one or ther other in a gay relationship, they're just too gay to admit it.
I hope this doesn't revert to twenty years ago and all gays become scapegoats again; nobody can conclude that the majority are vindictive and would punish others for disagreeing with their sexuality. Let's just hope that people can't get fired or disciplined because they dislike gay marriage just as much as someone else supports it. There is nothing wrong with hating gay marriage- the only illegal thing is to carry out violence or otherwise actions outside of the law.except it is wrong to hate on gay marriage, unless you also hate on all marriage in general, otherwise it's pure discrimination towards the gays, basically saying, **** you, you're not allowed to get married, have a union, get tax benefits, get all the pros/cons of being "regular" married afforded to someone by law and general society.
i also think it's stupid the gays have to user weird terms, like "my partner", when a gay says this and i don't know they're gay, i think they're talking business, like a business partner. can't they just say significant other? or boyfriend/girlfriend? like it or not, there is always one or ther other in a gay relationship, they're just too gay to admit it.
Pay special attention to any group able to infiltrate the necessary systems, subvert the dominant paradigms, and influence/control the language, and hence, the exchange of information... and eventually, the information itself.
Personally I think the entire concept of marriage needs to be rewritten from the ground up as a broader framework that supports different kinds of legal unions, with clear separation from the legal side and religious/societal tradition.
Personally I think the entire concept of marriage needs to be rewritten from the ground up as a broader framework that supports different kinds of legal unions, with clear separation from the legal side and religious/societal tradition.
but why? this is unnecessary, cuz it's only 2 things religious and societal, you either get one or both.
i married my wife, we're both not religious so we don't qualify for a ceremony, but some judge married us off.
my brother in law just got married, they're both not religious but they had a friend get internet ordained and marry them off.
and i've been to many where they have it in a church, obviously religious and is societal by the nature of the beast, while the previous examples were just societal.
I dunno who told you guys that hate is an "opinion", but he lied to you. Hate is hate.
I dunno who told you guys that hate is an "opinion", but he lied to you. Hate is hate. It is the absence of human kindness. It is not an opinion. If you have hate in your heart, you should go join a biker gang, or a skinhead gang, the Nazi Party, or that fundamentalist church in Kansas that hates gays. But you should not be a CEO of a corporation that employees other people. Why? Because you will discriminate based on sexual orientation, that's why. If you want to sit at home and hate gays, that's fine. Do that. If you want to give money to gay-hating organizations, that's legal. The constitution protects your "political" speech, as defined by the Supreme Court. However, you do not have a "right" to be a hateful CEO. If you are a hate-filled CEO, other people have a right to react negatively to you. They don't have to work for you, they don't have to use your products, and they don't have to invest in your company. You are free to pull your entire organization down around your little hate filled shoulders. However Eich decided to take the coward's way out and slink off like the hate-filled rat that he is. Nobody forced him out. He is entitled to his hateful ideas. Too bad he has no courage to stand up for his hate, like some of you internet warriors do.
I dunno who told you guys that hate is an "opinion", but he lied to you. Hate is hate. It is the absence of human kindness. It is not an opinion. If you have hate in your heart, you should go join a biker gang, or a skinhead gang, the Nazi Party, or that fundamentalist church in Kansas that hates gays. But you should not be a CEO of a corporation that employees other people. Why? Because you will discriminate based on sexual orientation, that's why. If you want to sit at home and hate gays, that's fine. Do that. If you want to give money to gay-hating organizations, that's legal. The constitution protects your "political" speech, as defined by the Supreme Court. However, you do not have a "right" to be a hateful CEO. If you are a hate-filled CEO, other people have a right to react negatively to you. They don't have to work for you, they don't have to use your products, and they don't have to invest in your company. You are free to pull your entire organization down around your little hate filled shoulders. However Eich decided to take the coward's way out and slink off like the hate-filled rat that he is. Nobody forced him out. He is entitled to his hateful ideas. Too bad he has no courage to stand up for his hate, like some of you internet warriors do.
You're being exceptionally inflammatory today. You are no better than him or anyone else in the world, just as he is no worse. Why don't you answer this question: what is wrong with wishing there was no gay marriage? Don't sidestep the question, just answer.
I dunno who told you guys that hate is an "opinion", but he lied to you. Hate is hate. It is the absence of human kindness. It is not an opinion. If you have hate in your heart, you should go join a biker gang, or a skinhead gang, the Nazi Party, or that fundamentalist church in Kansas that hates gays. But you should not be a CEO of a corporation that employees other people. Why? Because you will discriminate based on sexual orientation, that's why. If you want to sit at home and hate gays, that's fine. Do that. If you want to give money to gay-hating organizations, that's legal. The constitution protects your "political" speech, as defined by the Supreme Court. However, you do not have a "right" to be a hateful CEO. If you are a hate-filled CEO, other people have a right to react negatively to you. They don't have to work for you, they don't have to use your products, and they don't have to invest in your company. You are free to pull your entire organization down around your little hate filled shoulders. However Eich decided to take the coward's way out and slink off like the hate-filled rat that he is. Nobody forced him out. He is entitled to his hateful ideas. Too bad he has no courage to stand up for his hate, like some of you internet warriors do.
You're being exceptionally inflammatory today. You are no better than him or anyone else in the world, just as he is no worse. Why don't you answer this question: what is wrong with wishing there was no gay marriage? Don't sidestep the question, just answer.
So in your opinion it would be ok wishing there were no black people?
I dunno who told you guys that hate is an "opinion", but he lied to you. Hate is hate. It is the absence of human kindness. It is not an opinion. If you have hate in your heart, you should go join a biker gang, or a skinhead gang, the Nazi Party, or that fundamentalist church in Kansas that hates gays. But you should not be a CEO of a corporation that employees other people. Why? Because you will discriminate based on sexual orientation, that's why. If you want to sit at home and hate gays, that's fine. Do that. If you want to give money to gay-hating organizations, that's legal. The constitution protects your "political" speech, as defined by the Supreme Court. However, you do not have a "right" to be a hateful CEO. If you are a hate-filled CEO, other people have a right to react negatively to you. They don't have to work for you, they don't have to use your products, and they don't have to invest in your company. You are free to pull your entire organization down around your little hate filled shoulders. However Eich decided to take the coward's way out and slink off like the hate-filled rat that he is. Nobody forced him out. He is entitled to his hateful ideas. Too bad he has no courage to stand up for his hate, like some of you internet warriors do.
You're being exceptionally inflammatory today. You are no better than him or anyone else in the world, just as he is no worse. Why don't you answer this question: what is wrong with wishing there was no gay marriage? Don't sidestep the question, just answer.
So in your opinion it would be ok wishing there were no black people?
It would be, as long as you didn't do anything illegal or harass black people. It's fine if Ted Nugent wants all Democrats dead, it's just not okay if he kills one of then or libels/slanders them (the latter is done, but he's a politician, oh well.).
Also, your question is completely different from mine. Yours implies the genocide of a race, while I'm asking about a political institution.
So in your opinion it would be ok wishing there were no black people?
So in your opinion it would be ok wishing there were no black people?
What people think is (should be, rather!) beyond the scope of government action. If someone were to publicly wish that there were no black people, or no gays, or gay black weddings, etc. -- then yeah, that person should suffer the consequences of saying something stupid in public. Acting on the wish that there were no black people, well, that is already illegal.
What the gay mafia amounts to is social power augmented by complicit media. If someone were to donate to a liberal cause, or publicly support abortions on demand, and lose their career as a result because a group of conservatives labeled their opinions 'hateful' there would be holy hell to pay. The media gyrations would throw the Earth out of its orbit.
Liberals have repeatedly wished there were no Republicans, and no one wrings their hands over it.
They have every right to do it, as the government is not involved (*cough*IRS disproportionately audits Tea Party groups*cough*), but the practice isn't conducive to compromise. The Left's idea of compromise is: "Do what we say or your career dies." They have the power, and they're not afraid (eager, actually) to wield it. There's no sense whatsoever that they pause before ending someone's career; there's no soul-searching. Why not? They'll never be publicly critiqued for it.
I dunno who told you guys that hate is an "opinion", but he lied to you. Hate is hate. It is the absence of human kindness. It is not an opinion. If you have hate in your heart, you should go join a biker gang, or a skinhead gang, the Nazi Party, or that fundamentalist church in Kansas that hates gays. But you should not be a CEO of a corporation that employees other people. Why? Because you will discriminate based on sexual orientation, that's why. If you want to sit at home and hate gays, that's fine. Do that. If you want to give money to gay-hating organizations, that's legal. The constitution protects your "political" speech, as defined by the Supreme Court. However, you do not have a "right" to be a hateful CEO. If you are a hate-filled CEO, other people have a right to react negatively to you. They don't have to work for you, they don't have to use your products, and they don't have to invest in your company. You are free to pull your entire organization down around your little hate filled shoulders. However Eich decided to take the coward's way out and slink off like the hate-filled rat that he is. Nobody forced him out. He is entitled to his hateful ideas. Too bad he has no courage to stand up for his hate, like some of you internet warriors do.
You're being exceptionally inflammatory today. You are no better than him or anyone else in the world, just as he is no worse. Why don't you answer this question: what is wrong with wishing there was no gay marriage? Don't sidestep the question, just answer.
So in your opinion it would be ok wishing there were no black people?
It would be, as long as you didn't do anything illegal or harass black people. It's fine if Ted Nugent wants all Democrats dead, it's just not okay if he kills one of then or libels/slanders them (the latter is done, but he's a politician, oh well.).
Also, your question is completely different from mine. Yours implies the genocide of a race, while I'm asking about a political institution.
Point taken, but regardless of your problem with anyone race, sexual orientation, gender if you speak those feelings does it then automatically become a problem?
Is this what irony is?So in your opinion it would be ok wishing there were no black people?
What people think is (should be, rather!) beyond the scope of government action. If someone were to publicly wish that there were no black people, or no gays, or gay black weddings, etc. -- then yeah, that person should suffer the consequences of saying something stupid in public. Acting on the wish that there were no black people, well, that is already illegal.
What the gay mafia amounts to is social power augmented by complicit media. If someone were to donate to a liberal cause, or publicly support abortions on demand, and lose their career as a result because a group of conservatives labeled their opinions 'hateful' there would be holy hell to pay. The media gyrations would throw the Earth out of its orbit.
Liberals have repeatedly wished there were no Republicans, and no one wrings their hands over it.
They have every right to do it, as the government is not involved (*cough*IRS disproportionately audits Tea Party groups*cough*), but the practice isn't conducive to compromise. The Left's idea of compromise is: "Do what we say or your career dies." They have the power, and they're not afraid (eager, actually) to wield it. There's no sense whatsoever that they pause before ending someone's career; there's no soul-searching. Why not? They'll never be publicly critiqued for it.
social power augmented by complicit media
^^ combined with too many sheeple who just accept whatever they are told to think
Daily dose of republican QQ brought to you by Krog.
Daily dose of republican QQ brought to you by Krog.
a hate-filled CEOwho openly accepted anyone in the mozilla community. imagine how hard it was for him to deal with this hate that filled him!
Daily dose of republican QQ brought to you by Krog.
a hate-filled CEOwho openly accepted anyone in the mozilla community. imagine how hard it was for him to deal with this hate that filled him!
Conservatives find abortion abhorrent, liberals find being anti-gay marriage abhorrent (to generalise). Both are opinions and neither has any absolute moral authority, because there's no such thing - all morals are collective opinions. Sensible people realise this, which is why we have things like freedom of speech (for now), where you can in theory hold whatever unpopular view you like without being reprimanded.
fox news propaganda. slight racism, yada yada yada.
it was a break down of your commenting history, not in this thread.
this thread went 3 pages deep without a mention of any political affiliation, until you came along.
like always. you use these threads to get on your soap box and QQ about the same **** over and over again.
it was a break down of your commenting history, not in this thread.
Oh, I see! So I made racist comments elsewhere?Quote from: demikthis thread went 3 pages deep without a mention of any political affiliation, until you came along.
What are you talking about? Political affiliations? Did you mean the conservative wing of GLAAD? This is a thread about politics, demik.Quote from: demiklike always. you use these threads to get on your soap box and QQ about the same **** over and over again.
We are talking about how progressives react to dissenting points of views -- that's political, so I don't think we're off in the weeds here. I think you see people having an adult conversation and cannot help but drop a deuce into it. The people in this thread don't agree on everything, but we're hashing it out and enjoying ourselves, and you arrive with a FoxNews QQ deuce-and-dash comment, as a series of phrases and sentence fragments.
We were talking about how Progressives don't actually discuss anything, they just demonize those who disagree and move on.
Thank you so much for providing the thread with a living example of how they do it.
It was unintentional, but thanks just the same.
it was a break down of your commenting history, not in this thread.
Oh, I see! So I made racist comments elsewhere?Quote from: demikthis thread went 3 pages deep without a mention of any political affiliation, until you came along.
What are you talking about? Political affiliations? Did you mean the conservative wing of GLAAD? This is a thread about politics, demik.Quote from: demiklike always. you use these threads to get on your soap box and QQ about the same **** over and over again.
We are talking about how progressives react to dissenting points of views -- that's political, so I don't think we're off in the weeds here. I think you see people having an adult conversation and cannot help but drop a deuce into it. The people in this thread don't agree on everything, but we're hashing it out and enjoying ourselves, and you arrive with a FoxNews QQ deuce-and-dash comment, as a series of phrases and sentence fragments.
We were talking about how Progressives don't actually discuss anything, they just demonize those who disagree and move on.
Thank you so much for providing the thread with a living example of how they do it.
It was unintentional, but thanks just the same.
no, actually, we were discussing a bigot stepping down from his public-facing position when people found out that he did things that bigots do.
we have laws against discrimination.do you have any laws against murder?
I think it's okay to pay a price for standing up for what you believe in, but The Left in America (their leadership) have adopted a scorched earth policy on people who differ with them. It's really a shame because it wasn't always this way. There was a time when Democrats were as they were today, acting as the American conscience -- the Motherly sort of group. "These people need our help." Republicans are the Fathers -- the guys who balance the family budget. "We should help them, yes -- but what about paying our own rent?" Both approaches are laudable. But from where I sit, Democrats don't ever portray Republican values or ideas as anything other than "mean" or "evil" -- and that's really sad. Democrats have made what was an open discussion into a death struggle.
And they're going to win at this rate. Conservatives are boxing English-style (fists up, wrists forward, handlebar mustache) and Progressives are fighting MMA-style with ninja swords. It's not enough for them to win the discussion, they have to end the discussion forever. They even do it to their own. Juan Williams, anyone? (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/10/21/juan-williams-fired-npr_n_770901.html)
Uhhhhhhh.
What you described is just called politics.
As a person voice utterly despises most liberals (except the elite) I really hate to say this but conservatives are the ones who've been in engaging in scorched earth policies.
Remember Cathy or whatever her name was from Spokane? Yea well that healthcare horror story was just dead wrong.
Democrats want to go nuclear? 168 presidential nominees have been filibustered, 82 blocked under President Obama, 86 blocked under all the other presidents.
Here's the powder keg, common sense gun control laws? Nope. Democrats are too ****. Conservatives aren't willing to reach out after numourous national tragedies.
National registry nope. Common sense laws nope. We don't want to grow closer to building a national registry. Fearrrr.
ATF didn't even have a real director until just recently because of the NRA.
Democrats are a bunch of ****s but they're not the ones that go around actually saying we're going to make sure this president is one term.
They also don't joke about killing your grandmother's in death camps and no that wasn't just crazy conservative talk show hosts.
It realy pains me to say that conservatives are the ones taking the piss.
Democrats are going to win because their candidates don't look or sound like a bunch of people on crack at a beauty parent. I mean common that last primary was such a joke.
Oh right back on topic.
Too bad for this guy.
Successful people always have a large target painted on their backs.
In this case his laundry got aired and he managed to irk off a bunch of liberals. He resigned. Boohoo.
Power to the people.
Liberals are just mad they don't have enough money and centralized political captial to unilaterally seize victory.
I mean for Pete's sake CA voted to ban gay marriage and now they're throwing a hissy fit over this guy.
He's a CEO he knows the game and get how it works.
Don't worry sometimes you have to go down to go up. It will all work out for him!
I think it's okay to pay a price for standing up for what you believe in, but The Left in America (their leadership) have adopted a scorched earth policy on people who differ with them. It's really a shame because it wasn't always this way. There was a time when Democrats were as they were today, acting as the American conscience -- the Motherly sort of group. "These people need our help." Republicans are the Fathers -- the guys who balance the family budget. "We should help them, yes -- but what about paying our own rent?" Both approaches are laudable. But from where I sit, Democrats don't ever portray Republican values or ideas as anything other than "mean" or "evil" -- and that's really sad. Democrats have made what was an open discussion into a death struggle.
And they're going to win at this rate. Conservatives are boxing English-style (fists up, wrists forward, handlebar mustache) and Progressives are fighting MMA-style with ninja swords. It's not enough for them to win the discussion, they have to end the discussion forever. They even do it to their own. Juan Williams, anyone? (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/10/21/juan-williams-fired-npr_n_770901.html)
Uhhhhhhh.
What you described is just called politics.
As a person voice utterly despises most liberals (except the elite) I really hate to say this but conservatives are the ones who've been in engaging in scorched earth policies.
Remember Cathy or whatever her name was from Spokane? Yea well that healthcare horror story was just dead wrong.
Democrats want to go nuclear? 168 presidential nominees have been filibustered, 82 blocked under President Obama, 86 blocked under all the other presidents.
Here's the powder keg, common sense gun control laws? Nope. Democrats are too ****. Conservatives aren't willing to reach out after numourous national tragedies.
National registry nope. Common sense laws nope. We don't want to grow closer to building a national registry. Fearrrr.
ATF didn't even have a real director until just recently because of the NRA.
Democrats are a bunch of ****s but they're not the ones that go around actually saying we're going to make sure this president is one term.
They also don't joke about killing your grandmother's in death camps and no that wasn't just crazy conservative talk show hosts.
It realy pains me to say that conservatives are the ones taking the piss.
Democrats are going to win because their candidates don't look or sound like a bunch of people on crack at a beauty parent. I mean common that last primary was such a joke.
Oh right back on topic.
Too bad for this guy.
Successful people always have a large target painted on their backs.
In this case his laundry got aired and he managed to irk off a bunch of liberals. He resigned. Boohoo.
Power to the people.
Liberals are just mad they don't have enough money and centralized political captial to unilaterally seize victory.
I mean for Pete's sake CA voted to ban gay marriage and now they're throwing a hissy fit over this guy.
He's a CEO he knows the game and get how it works.
Don't worry sometimes you have to go down to go up. It will all work out for him!
no, actually, we were discussing a bigot stepping down from his public-facing position when people found out that he did things that bigots do.
Let's see if you can do better: is it possible to disagree with gay marriage and yet not be a homophobe?
i'm not sure if you're mistaking my name on purpose or not.Quote from: tpno, actually, we were discussing a bigot stepping down from his public-facing position when people found out that he did things that bigots do.Ah, ok, so the bigoty bigot did the bigotry with bias and bigotry -- off with his bigoted head!
Ah, ok, so the bigoty bigot did the bigotry with bias and bigotry -- off with his bigoted head!
Example number two folks. No facts, no information, no discussion; demonize, destroy and move on -- first demik provides an example of the practice, and now tp. Thank you for making this discussion come alive with living examples.
Let's see if you can do better: is it possible to disagree with gay marriage and yet not be a homophobe?
Second, if it's perfectly legitimate, legally, for a lobby of people to boycott someone on these grounds, should conservatives organize boycotts of their own, or would that escalation make matters worse?
may here be the link to the post by Andrew Sullivan, a gay activist.
http://dish.andrewsullivan.com/2014/04/03/the-hounding-of-brendan-eich/
basically what i'm asking is if you know of any argument for why gay marriage should not be legal that actually has any political clout that ISN'T motivated by homophobia?
basically what i'm asking is if you know of any argument for why gay marriage should not be legal that actually has any political clout that ISN'T motivated by homophobia?
yea i like this interpretation more.
aside from the stupid arguments ppl bring up
if gay marriage is legal then animal/man marriage should be legal - no, because marrying an animal is stupid and its what cavemen do
then they say
well how about a 60 year old marrying a 16 year old, the legal age should be lowered - no, because you have to protect stupid, and 16yr old kids are stupid
then they say
well how about polygamy - again, you have to protect stupid, in this case you have to protect the dumb man, because only a retard would want 2 wives.
haven't you ppl heard that in arguments with gay marriage?
i'm not sure if you're mistaking my name on purpose or not.
Let's see if you can do better: is it possible to disagree with gay marriage and yet not be a homophobe?
i guess, right now, i can't do better. you got me. right now, i honestly don't believe that opposition to gay marriage, in a mainstream political context (i'm of course not including groups like bash back because they don't operate within a mainstream political network) cannot be motivated by homophobic beliefs.
can you give me some specific examples of what could inform a negative opinion of gay marriage that are not specifically related to the fact that the idea of marriage between two people of the same sex does not fit the "traditional" concept of marriage? can you tell me if any of those examples pose a real threat to the legalization of gay marriage, or if people that hold those beliefs consider their opposition to gay marriage a primary tenet of their political ideology?
basically what i'm asking is if you know of any argument for why gay marriage should not be legal that actually has any political clout that ISN'T motivated by homophobia?
Ok, so to sum up, anyone who disagrees with your political goal (gay marriage) is a homophobe. This seems extreme and unfair to me. How can you be so sure without hearing them out?
And that's the real focus of the thread -- is it ethical to eliminate all dissent via boycotting? Why couldn't the CEO have explained his position and maybe kept his job? Hell, he could have said, "I was wrong." There wasn't even that opportunity. This is a recipe for a lockstep political philosophy -- which isn't good for democracy.
I believe a lot of backlash to gay marriage is related to the meaning of the word 'marriage' -- gay couples have had the right to civil unions for a while now, which provide for all the legal rights and responsibilities of a traditional marriage. So this wasn't really about securing rights -- they had them -- it was about securing social normalization. And some people just aren't ready for that yet -- but that's okay, because gay rights leaders want to clash with these people. And, predictably, they're clashing.
Gay marriage doesn't worry me at all. Gay divorce will follow swiftly after. About the only rational argument I've heard for delaying or postponing "gay marriage" is that it would make it easier for male gay couples to adopt children. Traditionally, I hate arguments containing the phrase, "but what about the children?!" but this is different. This person made the case that the gay mafia is so powerful that should an adopted child end up being adopted by gay parents who are abusing the child or not seeing to their needs, that it will be politically impossible or politically very risky to step in and take the child out of a bad environment. A child services bureaucrat will have to decide to help that child or keep their job. Because you just know that the gay leadership is going to destroy that person, there will be New York Times editorials galore, etc. ad nauseum.
Also, when adoptions are under being reviewed usually the principle concern is the longterm viability of the couple. Are you and your spouse going to get divorced two years from now, and leave this child in even more emotional turmoil? What if we discover that male gay marriages are statistically more unstable than hetero couples (I don't know if that's true or not, perhaps they're more stable) -- you can again be absolutely sure that a gay activist somewhere will look at the statistics of gay couples vs. hetero couples and declare that the entire process is homophobic.
That's the only argument that ever made even an ounce of sense to me. My attitude on rights is this: yours end where mine begin. So, when a gay couple gets married, how does it impinge on my freedom? It doesn't, so where's the fire? My problem with the gay activist leadership in America is not that they want their rights, it's how they go about it -- it's more like a reign of terror than a movement. So someone who is worried about gay marriage vis-a-vis gay adoption doesn't necessarily have anything against gays, they just don't want to see something as delicate as child adoption become politicized. And all the gay leadership seems to want to do is politicize everything; everything relates back to homophobia for them.
I don't agree with this argument, but I believe this person did have the rights of children in mind, and I respected their sincerity, if not their argument. Gay couples should have their rights, despite their leadership not having an ounce of finesse or respect for others.
Okay, so are you saying that it is logically questionable to be opposed to intolerance because that is a form of intolerance?
Quote from: sthI believe a lot of backlash to gay marriage is related to the meaning of the word 'marriage' -- gay couples have had the right to civil unions for a while now, which provide for all the legal rights and responsibilities of a traditional marriage. So this wasn't really about securing rights -- they had them -- it was about securing social normalization. And some people just aren't ready for that yet -- but that's okay, because gay rights leaders want to clash with these people. And, predictably, they're clashing.
Okay the fact that proposition 8 even happened should tell you that there are still people that want to take this away from others based on a prejudice against homosexuals . i would say homosexual behavior but i think it's probably a safe bet to say that anybody who wants to commit to one person of the same sex for the rest of their lives could reasonably be labeled a homosexual.
Look at why Prop 8 was eventually overturned:Interesting, but irrelevant to the discussion. Do politically vanquished foes get any quarter, any leeway to exist at all? If current events tell us anything, it is that the answer is, "No." -- if you disagree and you lose, go and die. Politically, ethically, that's a terrible precedent to set.
Sorry, did I miss something? What person is talking about a Gay Mafia? i don't care about the Gay Mafia. what about the millions of real people that are affected by real problems caused by real people that try to pass real laws because they believe in hypothetical arguments based on homophobic beliefs?
do you seriously think that the problem with allowing gay marriage, and the right to adopt, is that a hypothetical gay couple could adopt and abuse a child? do you really think that child abuse is the issue? really? that sounds like an entirely separate issue and claiming that allowing more people to adopt opens the door to abuse and specifically use that as ammunition to deny other people rights based on absolutely nothing rational, that's pretty low.
The peculiar evil of silencing the expression of an opinion is, that it is robbing the human race; posterity as well as the existing generation; those who dissent from the opinion, still more than those who hold it. If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth: if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error.
Okay, so are you saying that it is logically questionable to be opposed to intolerance because that is a form of intolerance?
I am saying that it is unethical to declare that 'The Debate Is Over, You're Intolerant, Go Directly to Hell, Do Not Pass Go, Do Not Collect $200' and that desire and willingness to close down discussion is the hallmark of authoritarian censors.Quote from: KrogenarQuote from: sthI believe a lot of backlash to gay marriage is related to the meaning of the word 'marriage' -- gay couples have had the right to civil unions for a while now, which provide for all the legal rights and responsibilities of a traditional marriage. So this wasn't really about securing rights -- they had them -- it was about securing social normalization. And some people just aren't ready for that yet -- but that's okay, because gay rights leaders want to clash with these people. And, predictably, they're clashing.
Okay the fact that proposition 8 even happened should tell you that there are still people that want to take this away from others based on a prejudice against homosexuals . i would say homosexual behavior but i think it's probably a safe bet to say that anybody who wants to commit to one person of the same sex for the rest of their lives could reasonably be labeled a homosexual.
I don't care about Proposition 8, I don't care that the CEO may or may not have been wrong to support Proposition 8 -- the questions are how do we treat vanquished enemies? Do we rub their faces in the dirt? Do we root out anyone with any connection to a disproven idea, forever? That's what the thread is about, sth. It's not just enough to be in the right -- how you handle being right does matter. And I don't believe the gay leadership have handled victory with any grace at all.Quote from: sthLook at why Prop 8 was eventually overturned:Interesting, but irrelevant to the discussion. Do politically vanquished foes get any quarter, any leeway to exist at all? If current events tell us anything, it is that the answer is, "No." -- if you disagree and you lose, go and die. Politically, ethically, that's a terrible precedent to set.Quote from: sthSorry, did I miss something? What person is talking about a Gay Mafia? i don't care about the Gay Mafia. what about the millions of real people that are affected by real problems caused by real people that try to pass real laws because they believe in hypothetical arguments based on homophobic beliefs?
Yeah, you did miss something. But your paragraph illustrates the attitude that is the topic: how destructive is this attitude of demonizing your opposition and launching a perpetual witch hunt? What you have said is: "I don't care abouta Gay Mafiawhat tactics are used.What about the millions of real people that are affected by real problems caused by real people that try to pass real laws because they believe in hypothetical arguments based on homophobic beliefs?I'm morally right, so silencing my opponents by any means is justified."Quote from: sthdo you seriously think that the problem with allowing gay marriage, and the right to adopt, is that a hypothetical gay couple could adopt and abuse a child? do you really think that child abuse is the issue? really? that sounds like an entirely separate issue and claiming that allowing more people to adopt opens the door to abuse and specifically use that as ammunition to deny other people rights based on absolutely nothing rational, that's pretty low.
Did you even read what I wrote? I don't agree with that position. You asked me if I had ever heard a rational non-homophobic argument against gay marriage, and I provided you with one. I explicitly stated that I didn't agree with their argument. You would know this if you had taken the time to read what I said. My guess is that you were too busy reacting. The fact that the gay leadership actively tries to politicize everything is not sufficient to restrict other people's rights.Quote from: John Stuart MillThe peculiar evil of silencing the expression of an opinion is, that it is robbing the human race; posterity as well as the existing generation; those who dissent from the opinion, still more than those who hold it. If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth: if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error.