/general/ | /photos/ | /projects/

- [Home] [Catalog] [Search] [Thread List] [Manage]

[Return]
Posting mode: Reply
Leave these fields empty (spam trap):
Link
Subject [
Comment
File
Password (for post and file deletion)
  • Supported file types are: GIF, JPG, PNG
  • Maximum file size allowed is 12000 KB.
  • Images greater than 200x200 pixels will be thumbnailed.

File: firefox-tan-2.jpg -(43.6 KB, 500x625) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
44677 No.42387  
http://recode.net/2014/04/03/mozilla-co-founder-brendan-eich-resigns-as-ceo-and-also-from-foundation-board/

New Mozilla CEO Brendan Eich (who also happens to be the creator of Javascript) has been pressured into resigning over the fact he supported an anti-gay marriage law.

Welcome to the new definition of 'tolerance'.
>> No.42389  
*financially supported
and yeah he's a pretty unpopular guy among the rank and file at mozilla because of that
>> No.42395  
Good riddance.
>> No.42396  
#boycottjavascript

oh wait, I can't use tumbler anymore. Let's go find something else to complain about.
>> No.42397  
Firing people for their beliefs is dangerous territory.
This guy's donation was $1,000, which to a CEO is less than pocket change. If it was something like the case of the Cock Brothers who pour millions of dollars into political campaigns, I would understand, but really, guys? Find something significant to complain about next time. Javascript not being compliant to a single standard across all browsers, for example. That pain in the ass is definitely worth being fired over.
>> No.42401  
>>42397
Wasn't it $100k?
>> No.42402  
>>42397
he wasn't fired though
>> No.42404  
>>42401
No

>>42402
He legally could not be fired, so people forced him to quit. It's the same shit
>> No.42405  
I guess he will just have to live with having more money than everyone who wrote anything about this combined. Very sad
>> No.42406  
>>42404
you can file a constructive dismissal suit on his behalf then
>> No.42410  
>>42405
Yeah, a real tragedy. No, the thing to note here is a nasty precedent. It's like when a talking head gets sacked for saying something objectionable on air, except (as far as I know) this guy didn't bring his donation to work.
>> No.42413  
Would there be as much controversy if he was pressured to resign for funding a law that enabled discrimination against black people?
>> No.42414  
>>42413

Blacks are way dumber and smellier than gays
>> No.42422  
>>42413
Would there be as much controversy if he was fired by Hobby Lobby after funding a bill supporting same-sex marriage?
>> No.42423  
Sorry, "pressured to resign" after publicly stating that he had no intention of resigning.
>> No.42424  
>>42423
you're right I'm sure they'd be much better with a CEO that can't handle the pressure
>> No.42427  
I'm tolerant of his right to have an anti-gay opinion, and to express that opinion, but I'm not tolerant when he takes action to harm others by denying them human rights (and let's not forget that Prop 8 did pass and did deprive California gays of their rights; this man was directly complicit in that). Tolerance of people harming others is not tolerance. And I'm talking real, measurable harm here, not just saying something that offends someone (I'm not a SJW).

It's interesting this reframing of the gay rights debate where people who are anti-gay are now trying to present themselves as the victims (e.g. "having their religious rights violated"). I suppose it's indicative that the tide is turning and the anti-gay camp is now on the defensive. Good, but the rhetoric that somehow pretends the bigots are the real victims is disgusting.

All that said, setting aside the gay issue, should the guy be fired for something he did outside of work? Well, it wouldn't be the first time something like that has happened, especially when the actions reflected negatively on the employer (as was the case here). I would imagine that for a CEO this can become an even bigger issue. Not sure I can 100% get behind it though.
>> No.42429  
>>42397
>This guy's donation was $1,000, which to a CEO is less than pocket change.
This, seriously.
http://projects.latimes.com/prop8/
$1,000 is a drop in the bucket.

>>42401
http://projects.latimes.com/prop8/donation/8930/

And why is Cali SoS just handing this shit out? This strikes me as something that shouldn't be public knowledge, nothing under several thousands of dollars at least. Can you imagine being someone who put a measly $100 supporting prop8 in the middle of this?
http://projects.latimes.com/prop8/results/?position=both&employer=Google&search=Search
Just so I don't look too sympathetic, I don't support systemic oppression of socially disadvantaged people. It just perturbs me how this reads like a witch-hunt grocery list.
>> No.42435  
>>42427
First of all, the right to marry is a civil right, not a human right. It is a human right to be homosexual and not be harassed for it, but marriage has not been recognized as a human right in any international human rights treaties or the like.

There is no consensus that gay marriage is a right at all (as evidenced by the almost 50-50 split on this issue) and therefore we cannot objectively say this is a matter of restricting someone's rights. In the past, gay marriage was never allowed; right now, people are fighting to get it recognized as a right. Until it is generally agreed on that it is a right, it cannot be considered a right, and everybody should be free to express their opinion on the issue.

This is an issue of the definition of marriage, which is something that is changing over time. Marriage used to be something that binds one man and one woman together until death does them part. Nowadays, the 'until death does them part' has become rather meaningless with an ever-increasing divorce rate, but people still cling to the 'one man and one woman' part. For a different perspective, how would you react if it was changing in a different way? Would you support a change of the definition of marriage to allow polygamy ('one man and one or more women')? How about if it changed to allow child marriage? The latter seems incomparable to most people nowadays, but remember that it was only just over 50 years ago that homosexuality was considered as much of an evil as pedophilia. Some people still hold those conservative views. Perhaps they are wrong, but that does not mean they don't have the right to express their opinion as long as it doesn't violate any laws.

(I myself do not oppose gay marriage, but I can accept that some people think differently on the issue.)

But most of all, regardless of the whole gay marriage issue, this guy has been forced to resign as CEO of an organization he contributed a lot to because of his political views on an issue unrelated to his work. This sets a horrifying precedent that because of a view you expressed years ago you can suddenly be fired from your work despite doing nothing wrong at your work. It's plain discrimination; firing somebody for opposing gay marriage is just as bad as firing somebody for openly being gay. What somebody does, believes or says in his private life should have no effect on his professional work as long as it does not affect his professional work.

Tolerance cannot be gained through shutting out opposing views in a forceful manner. That's hypocrisy, and only reflects badly on the supposedly tolerant person or group. I think the LGBT movement does great things, but I'd be lying if I said this incident didn't lower my opinion of them.
>> No.42440  
>>42435
>But most of all, regardless of the whole gay marriage issue, this guy has been forced to resign as CEO of an organization he contributed a lot to because of his political views on an issue unrelated to his work. This sets a horrifying precedent that because of a view you expressed years ago you can suddenly be fired from your work despite doing nothing wrong at your work. It's plain discrimination; firing somebody for opposing gay marriage is just as bad as firing somebody for openly being gay. What somebody does, believes or says in his private life should have no effect on his professional work as long as it does not affect his professional work.

This.

We have something in this country called a secret ballot. It means you can vote for what you believe in without fear of the consequences. This behavior is a violation of the spirit (not the letter, I know, this was a donation) of the laws that made America great. Modern day McCarthy-ism might be an overreaction, but it's definitely the same idea, so please don't egg it on, people like >>42427.
>> No.42444  
>>42435
>This is an issue of the definition of marriage, which is something that is changing over time. Marriage used to be something that binds one man and one woman together until death does them part.
Wrong. Marriage is an institution used to determine legitimate offspring, no more or less.
>> No.42445  
>>42444
It has more meaning than that both legally and socially. It's always had more meaning socially than just that.
>> No.42446  
>>42444
>Marriage is an institution used to determine legitimate offspring, no more or less.
Pragmatically this is correct, but the issue is ultimately more complicated than that. I'm not qualified to make that argument in great detail, so I'll be brief and say what I know. Frankly, it's stupid to assert that social constructs don't change as cultures change; marriage isn't defined by its function so much as it's interpreted based on what most people think about it. Furthermore, it's naive to ignore how everyone has a different opinion about marriage, especially since the issue in the first place is whether or not the legal definition of marriage is consistent with the cultural interpretation of marriage.
>> No.42450  
>>42444
You can be married and not have any kids, you know? Your taxes will be filed differently, you'll be able to use the other person's last name, and they'll be considered your next of kin if something bad happens. I'm not gay or married so honestly this whole issue is as irrelevant to me as they come, but I don't see why gay marriage shouldn't be allowed in the legal sense. The rest, you can sort out in your church.
>> No.42452  
>>42435
>There is no consensus that gay marriage is a right at all (as evidenced by the almost 50-50 split on this issue) and therefore we cannot objectively say this is a matter of restricting someone's rights.
You are telling two consenting adults that they cannot do something that other people can do (and don't give me that fallacious "they can marry people of the other sex just like anyone else"). You are denying them the ability to do something that doesn't hurt anyone else. How is it not a right? Your rights are not defined by the majority. We have protections for minority groups for a reason: to prevent tyranny of the majority.

>This is an issue of the definition of marriage
Let's not kid ourselves. It's an issue of people wanting to deny others rights because they believe their god doesn't like the kind of sex they have. People would not get this worked up over a semantic debate.

>everybody should be free to express their opinion on the issue
>that does not mean they don't have the right to express their opinion as long as it doesn't violate any laws.
>Tolerance cannot be gained through shutting out opposing views in a forceful manner.
I said the guy has the right to his opinion and the right to express it.

>What somebody does, believes or says in his private life should have no effect on his professional work as long as it does not affect his professional work.
>This sets a horrifying precedent
Well as I already mentioned, whether it's right or not it's not a precedent for people getting fired or disciplined when their actions in their personal lives reflect poorly on their company (my own organization tells us to be careful on social media etc. because we can be perceived as public representatives of the organization even in our private lives).
>> No.42455  
>>42452
>You are telling two consenting adults that they cannot do something that other people can do (and don't give me that fallacious "they can marry people of the other sex just like anyone else"). You are denying them the ability to do something that doesn't hurt anyone else. How is it not a right?

Are you telling me and my 9-year old cousin have the right to have sex? Other people can do it, so why can't we? It doesn't hurt anyone else! It's because society once decided in the past that it's unacceptable. Society is re-considering the gay marriage issue, but until agreed on, it is not a right. Incestuous marriage is also not allowed in most states, even if both parties are over age of consent. Isn't it also a right for relatives to marry? The people who went before us decided it is not a right, and until we get a consensus that it is a right, that's how it is.

>Your rights are not defined by the majority.

Last I checked, they are. That's how democracy works. The majority elects people to represent their opinion, and they change the law according to that majority opinion, within the limits of a constitution to prevent temporary majority opinion from causing radical changes. (I don't know the specific rules for it in the US, but constitutions can also be changed if there is a strong desire for such change, but it takes a lot of effort to do so.) The majority started accepting homosexuals as equals the past couple decades, so now they are equals. Just over 50 years ago, the majority did not consider homosexuals equals, and being gay was a crime back then.

>Let's not kid ourselves. It's an issue of people wanting to deny others rights because they believe their god doesn't like the kind of sex they have. People would not get this worked up over a semantic debate.

Or perhaps they're trying to retain the marriage they know (which IMO was lost the moment divorce rates started spiking). Refer to my polygamous marriage example; would you accept such a thing, or would you feel it ridicules the concept of marriage? Many people feel that's what's happening with gay marriage.

>Well as I already mentioned, whether it's right or not it's not a precedent for people getting fired or disciplined when their actions in their personal lives reflect poorly on their company (my own organization tells us to be careful on social media etc. because we can be perceived as public representatives of the organization even in our private lives).

It is a precedent. How many CEOs have been forced to resign over a private donation made to a controversial political cause? I've never heard of that happening. As for it becoming normal to keep employee's social media comments in check: First of all, social media are a form of communication where you directly send messages to a list of subscribed parties for them to read. It is not comparable to doing something in private that someone could find out about with a bit of effort. It's a difference between actively communicating and leaving non-obvious evidence of your opinion. Second, I strongly feel that the practice of keeping employee's social media communications in check is toxic to freedom of expression. As long as you're not involving the company, you are free to say and do whatever you want, within the boundaries of the law. By allowing companies to discipline employees for expressing opinions they disagree with, you take away from their freedom of expression. When I say something on the internet, I don't want to have to ask myself: "Would my employer accept me having this opinion? If they disagree, I shouldn't post it, or I might get in trouble at my job." The people with the most economic power should not be able to control people's private lives.
>> No.42456  
>>42455
>Are you telling me and my 9-year old cousin have the right to have sex? Other people can do it, so why can't we?
I'm not even the other bun, but that was really stupid.
>> No.42457  
>>42456
That was the intention. I used his line of reasoning to make a completely inane statement.
>> No.42459  
File: squirt.jpg -(753.7 KB, 800x1223) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
771823
>> No.42461  
>>42457
I'm saying your attempt was stupid as well, akin to something a grade-schooler would do.
>> No.42465  
>>42457
then you skimmed over the part where he said two consenting adults
>> No.42466  
>>42452
>People would not get this worked up over a semantic debate.
You'd be surprised. Most people are so stupid that they can't tell the difference. They think that they don't know or care what "semantics" is even though everything they argue about stems from misunderstandings.

>Let's not kid ourselves.
I think this is being a bit unfair toward religion. I don't believe homophobia has very much to do with the religious aspects of religion. God is dead, after all, and there are plenty of more earthly reasons to resent homosexuals such as peer pressure, pride, entitlement, self-hatred, things of that nature that are far more prevalent these days. I think the religious often use faith to justify homophobic beliefs as a way of rationalizing their own character flaws.

I don't mean to imply that everyone who supported prop 8 were homophobes. Obviously the majority were, but wanting to "protect the sanctity of marriage" and supporting LGBT are not mutually exclusive.

>>42457
The key difference between a gay relationship and a pedophilic relationship that you seemed to forget is that just below everyone sees the latter as one-sided, manipulative, and cruel. Don't worry, anon, I had to think about it for a minute too because all those loli doujinshi got to my head.
>> No.42467  
>>42465
Because non-adults don't have rights? (Obviously non-adults can't marry, but again, that is something we as a society decided. There exist and have existed societies which disagree on this.)
>> No.42468  
>>42467
because that part of your post was completely irrelevant to the point he was making
>> No.42469  
File: 245.jpg -(218.5 KB, 539x800) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
223715
>> No.42470  
>>42466
>The key difference between a gay relationship and a pedophilic relationship that you seemed to forget is that just below everyone sees the latter as one-sided, manipulative, and cruel.

Indeed. The key difference is in how we perceive the relationship. In past homophobia, people also thought gays seduced otherwise straight people into a sinful relationship. If in 2064, society judges that children are capable of enough independence to consent to marriage, then to them we would be like the anti-gay marriage people are to us right now. We feel nothing good can come from adult-child marriage, and they feel nothing good can come from gay marriage. We feel their reasons for thinking nothing good can come from gay marriage are wrong, but who's to say they ARE wrong if society can't agree on that? We agree child marriage is wrong because right now we agree that it's manipulative etc etc etc. If there were no consensus on that, child marriage would be up for discussion just as much as gay marriage.
>> No.42471  
>>42470
this is a terrible analogy
>> No.42472  
File: heinlein[1].jpg -(52.9 KB, 500x428) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
54155
>>42455
>Refer to my polygamous marriage example; would you accept such a thing
Yes. Pic related.
>> No.42473  
If you have to post porn, please stick to two girls instead of girly looking guys.
>> No.42475  
File: 1387748905910.jpg -(676.4 KB, 1984x2953) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
692674
I don't know what this thread is about, but I saw "girly looking guys"
>> No.42780  
>>42452
Nonsense, the point of marriage and any family-related policy is to encourage the production of offspring. Why should gay people get tax benefits for something they'll never ever deliver?
Yeah, you can marry and not have children, but that's not the point. The point is that married people are more likely to have children which is all politics cares about. As long as it raises that probability even a little, a policy is justified. If it doesn't it's just a waste of money.

Where I live gays can't get married but enter a life union which is essentially marriage minus the tax benefits. In my opinion that's the perfect compromise between all different interests.
Following your logic I might as well complain that I, as a single, have to pay higher taxes than a married couple without children.
Is that fair? No, but none of this is about fairness in the first place. It's supposed to be unfair so that I'm more likely to marry and have kids.

Why are you so hung up about marriage anyway? The process in itself consists of solely of filing a couple of documents, everything else is related to your religion or tradition, i.e. in no way the responsibility of the government.
For legislation the question is entirely about "Should gays get tax benefits?" and the answer to that is clearly no.
>> No.42785  
Why do people even want to get married?
>> No.42792  
>>42780
If it's just about children, why not simply grant tax benefits when people have children? And why are people who are infertile allowed to marry?
Also, if you already feel its unfair then why does it matter to you whether gays can marry or not?
>> No.42798  
>>42792
Not him, but if we were to follow his logic, it would be more tax money wasted to no effect. 'If we're already wasting money, why not waste more money' makes no sense.
>> No.42805  
>>42798
If you think about it, that sort of "wasting money" makes the tax code more progressive, since the higher-ups on the money pyramid benefit much less proportionally from getting married. Let's all get married, /bun/, to make the world a better place!
>> No.42813  
>>42805
Can little girls marry each other?
>> No.42816  
>>42813
No, because that's an abusive relationship. Society agreed don't bother them about it.
>> No.42838  
I just put my taxes in the mail so you can forget about the marriage offer. Maybe next year.


Delete Post []
Password