OKCupid Asks Firefox Users To Support LGBT Rights, Switch Browsers

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 NEXT
 

RJ 17:
Apparently it is, considering the fact that people aren't boycotting because of company policy but rather someone's personal beliefs.

Not just "someone", but the CEO, the head of the corporation, the representative of the company. When a person like that speaks they speak for the organization as a whole.

It's Chic-Fil-A all over again.

Very bad example, its quite funny that you picked it. See, where this is one guy donating a modest sum, as far as we can tell, one time, and to an effort to ban same-sex marriage, Chick-fil-a is a business whose policy, at the time, was to discriminate against LGBT employees where it was legal, as well as having a history of making annual donations to many groups, most modestly anti-gay and generally just trying to prevent LGBT protections in employment and housing, as well as anti-gay, but also groups like the Family Research Council. If you're not familiar with the Family Research Council, they want to make homosexuality a federal felony, and who also spent thousands of dollars trying to stop a bill in the US legislature from passing - a bill that would condemn Uganda for making homosexuality punishable by death. So in short, Chick-fil-a spent money that can be directly traced to an effort to stop the US government from going and telling another country "Hey, you really shouldn't carry out a genocide against gay people".

tl;dr You related this to a case that is by far harder to defend.

Tanis:
It's like that whole fiasco with Chic-Fi-La.

Yeah I didn't see anything in your post to particularly respond to until I saw you mention Chick-fil-a. If you haven't already, read my response to the previous person in this post. It should explain why you really should not compare this to the Chick-fil-a thing.

JazzJack2:
Your point being? we are discussing whether people should or should not find the personal views of a CEO relevant to the company as a whole and so to simply state that some people do find it relevant isn't an argument as to why I should.

a) Demonstrably, it does matter, whether you think it should or not, because people do act accordingly. Thats just a pragmatic approach, and pragmaticism is what benefits a business. If a business does something counter-productive out of ideal, a competitor will benefit.

b) I think it does matter, personally. They're a representative of the quality of their product and their business. Not only that, some personal actions can be representative of their trustworthiness. Would you want the next CEO of a business you have heavily invested in to have been convicted of, say, insider trading? For that matter, just about any serious crime that would remove the potential CEO from their post.

MarsAtlas:

RJ 17:
Apparently it is, considering the fact that people aren't boycotting because of company policy but rather someone's personal beliefs.

Not just "someone", but the CEO, the head of the corporation, the representative of the company. When a person like that speaks they speak for the organization as a whole.

That's just absurd. When he starts making Mozilla take on anti-gay policies and practices, THEN you can throw a fit and boycott Mozilla. Until then, you're boycotting a company because of the beliefs of a person, doesn't matter if he's the CEO or the janitor.

The Chic-Fil-A example still supports my case, just not in the way I intended apparently. If it's true that it was a policy of Chic-Fil-A to discriminate against homosexual (edit)employees(end edit) (which I hadn't heard about) then indeed, boycott them all you want. That's a policy of the company that needed to be changed, hence the purpose of a boycott. Until this guy starts mandating similar policies for Mozilla, I still say there's no reason to boycott them seeing as how a boycott is an attack on a company, not a person.

I'm all for gay rights but this is perhaps a bit unnecessary. First off, just because someone was opposed to Prop 8 in 2008 (now 6 years ago, mind you), doesn't mean they are opposed to all forms of homosexuality or want to stop them from finding love. Some just have the misguided and uninformed view that marriage is an inherently religious institution. However, there are many people and groups out there that have no problem with homosexuality existing and don't want to outlaw it as OKCupid seems to be suggesting. I do not know what the CEO of Mozilla's exact personal beliefs are, but simply supporting Prop 8 is not reason to suspect someone wants to outlaw gay altogether.

Second, when did CEOs become the entire company? It's one thing if he is forcing their business to institute anti-gay policies, but this is decidedly not the case with Mozilla. Boycotting Mozilla because one member of their executive board has a certain view is ignoring the multitudes of other employees, including key board members, who have the opposite view.

Proposition 8 was despicable- as is anyone who supported it.
And this guy didn't just support it internally, it wasn't just a part of him- he took action, and supported it with his wallet.

So, fuck him. You're allowed to believe whatever the fuck you want, but the second you're actively helping efforts to hurt innocent people, you become indefensible.

That said.

A company is more than its CEO- https://blog.mozilla.org/blog/2014/03/29/mozilla-supports-lgbt-equality/

Even if that is just damage control on their part, I sincerely doubt that was written by Brendan Eich himself- It's not really reasonable to take action against a company that itself is doing no harm, with employees that are doing no harm.
I'm all for lobbying for his removal, but I wouldn't stop supporting the whole company just because it grew a bad head, so long as it isn't doing anything wrong.

I do find this worrysome in that the supporters of LGBT seem to have a large blast radius and not really care. There are other people at that company, and none of them got a vote in who runs it - by attacking the company in this way you're punishing a large number of innocent people, many of whom could lose their jobs due to decreased business and this is not the job market you want to have that issue.

In an effort to hurt a single person they don't like, they have the potential to do real harm to many bystanders - and in the process they may make themselves into the bad guy. I hope it doesn't happen, but if there was a way to teach a person to hate the LGBT community (or at least its supporters), this would be it.

Well, considering that Firefox is a free browser, what effect will switching actually have? Are they somehow getting money based on how many people are using their browser how much? IS there, like, some sorta thing to the program that logs how much you use it and sends it somewhere where someone can compensate mozilla for how much you've used the program?

I've been using firefox for years. Before that, I was using the AOL browser, I started to see how much better a browser Firefox was, with regard to how it loaded animated GIFs, but what got me to really switch was an alleged aecurity problem with Internet Explorer, which I believed my AOL browser sorta piggybacked on (because it was tied to Windows' Control panel internet options thing). I've grown to trust Firefox as a browser, and I'm not exactly keen on switching over to Chrome.

I didn't do shit when Orson Scott Card was against gay people, you think I'm going to be against a browser because the CEO (read: The person not involved in the slightest with the actual development and implementation of the browser) is a bigot? Yeah, I didn't think so either.

RandV80:
Yes but that comes with a political spiel and an extra step to scroll past and click through. I use Firefox, and personally I'd be pretty ticked if websites I go to start nagging me about my choice of web browser over some loosely related political reason, regardless of whether I agree to it or not. What if other sites started redirect you when logging in with Chrome warning of privacy concerns over Google? What if they did it with Microsoft over anti competitive practices?

Points is there's a very good reason why web pages don't or shouldn't do this sort of thing.

For the record, I think its worth pointing out that Ok Cupid has a clear business motive for opposing anti-gay legislation. The more same-sex relationships are tolerated and accepted, the more gay people will go looking for dates, like through an online website, say, Ok Cupid. Seeing as Ok Cupid is the biggest dating site out there that allows same-sex relationships in it, they by far have a fair bit to lose. I mean, its even cited right there in their statement, 8%. At least 8% of their business is built on non-heterosexual people looking for relationships.

As far as me and my cynicism is concerned, its just business.

EvilRoy:
I do find this worrysome in that the supporters of LGBT seem to have a large blast radius and not really care. There are other people at that company, and none of them got a vote in who runs it - by attacking the company in this way you're punishing a large number of innocent people, many of whom could lose their jobs due to decreased business and this is not the job market you want to have that issue.

Apparently three board members resigned, but I'm skeptical as to whether there was a business motive for these three since he is a newly-appointed CEO, regardless of his beliefs, and that they may not have faith in his abilities to perform.

But yeah, apparently its not just a few people external of the company who are upset by this.

To be fair, in the past few days the CEO made a questionably-sincere statement, which include the following;

"I know some will be skeptical about this, and that words alone will not change anything. I can only ask for your support to have the time to "show, not tell"; and in the meantime express my sorrow at having caused pain"

That Eeyore:
Well, considering that Firefox is a free browser, what effect will switching actually have? Are they somehow getting money based on how many people are using their browser how much? IS there, like, some sorta thing to the program that logs how much you use it and sends it somewhere where someone can compensate mozilla for how much you've used the program?

Yes, advertising actually, among other avenues of financial supports, like grants.

The lesson from this thread is that if you have even a chance of becoming a CEO don't do anything political, don't support anything, don't be against anything, just be neutral if you wish to avoid things like this.

*Sigh*

As much as I support LGBT rights and same sex marriage, these mob tactics bug the shit out of me. "Of course you have the right to vote how you will, but I'd hate to see your income steam meet a little... accident...if you get my drift." Memo to the LGBT community: this will not do anything to improve your standing with the Mozila CEO. He may even be further soured and before he just disapproved to your actions, but now has every reason to see you as the thought police using any power to keep him from having and his own opinion, and supporting his own values.

Zachary Amaranth:
Well, you know, except make such statements and actions socially unacceptable, which would make it harder for someone to openly oppose gay rights in the public market.

How would you feel if you got sacked from work tomorrow for making this comment? If you live in certain parts of the world supporting gay rights is seen as socially unacceptable and even illegal, sorry but harassing a guys employer for his political beliefs is crossing a line. No matter how odious those political beliefs are, oh and yes financially supporting the campaign for one side or another in a legislative bill is political expression.

Unless Mozilla themselves are actually supporting bills like this its better to leave their staff out of it, even the CEO. This is just a petty attempt at harassment, sorry but it is and I support equal rights but this is crossing the line. Want the man to know how odious his beliefs are? Tell him, write blogs telling everyone else or any number of other things but involving his employers by attempting to financially strong arm them into firing him is as bad as anti LGBT legislation.

So apparently the LGBT community is intolerant of views different from their own.
That's pretty damn ironic.

As long as his LBGT views don't affect his job, not only could I not care less as far as browser use is concerned, but I think it's counter-productive and demeaning to a group that is pro-LGBT, or really any group, to employ such a tactic.

So let me get this straight. They want me to switch browsers because 1 guy that works on the team; did something they don't like 'Not something wrong mind you, just something they didn't like'. Wow,. You'd thing the LBGT community would be a little more open minded and tolerant in regards to people of differing values and opinions...

Wow, boycotting a browser that is open and gives equal benefits to same sex partners, one of the most progressive companies in Silicon Valley.
This self righteous bullshit needs to stop.

Ah, slacktivism. The biggest gift of our time. Isn't that right, Kony 2012?

OT: A donation to a bill six years ago is not going to influence me in ANY direction. Imagine if people held grudges about MY six-year-old closet skeletons.

Oh shit, $1000, truly, Mr. Moneybags must be the sole cause of all harm ever to gay people everywhere.

Is it just me, or has this been happening more and more? o.O First there was that whole boycott movement for Ender's Game, based on Orson Scott Card's (admittedly adamantly expressed, although generally in a Mormon publication,) own opposition. Then there was that whole Duck Dynasty incident that only sticks in my memory because my Facebook news feed was filled with people bitching about that one fella from the show being tossed or something. Now there's this.

To make my own viewpoint clear, if my local corner store ends up coming under the ownership of someone who snarls homophobic insults at every gay person he comes across, or even mutters them under his breath regularly in my presence, then yep, I'm probably going to find a new store. But if the owner just HOLDS those beliefs, and expresses them solely through, say, voting practices (because seriously guys, entire democratic process falls on its face if any victory is tainted with blackmail and threats,) then I'll still shop there. Heck, I'll even have a friendly conversation with him, assuming we can keep our opposing beliefs out of the talk. The point of boycotting wouldn't be 'Change Your Views.' It'd be 'Shut The Fuck Up And Give Me Chips.'

I already DO have a similar situation with a co-worker. He's very, very, VERY Christian, and firmly believes that marriage is sacred, etc, etc, and you can bet your ass that he voted against legalizing marriage. But he doesn't treat our gay co-workers any differently, even hangs out with one of them outside work as regularly, or more so, than anyone else, and otherwise doesn't try to make anyone feel unwelcome or under attack due to their sexuality. He's perfectly fine with them BEING gay, and they're perfectly fine with his views as well, even those that run extremely contrary to theirs.

That might be why it's difficult for me to get worked up about this, I'm literally surrounded by the very people who, despite the fact that they have more right than me to be upset, simply aren't. But it seems that burning someone for his opposing views, even when they don't reflect in his business or product, is just liable to make things WORSE. Because anyone who gets fired, or has his business collapse, or gets beat up because of his views isn't going to decide 'Whelp, guess I was wrong.' If anything, he's just going to be all the more convinced that he is right, nurse a grudge, and be louder, more active and more aggressive in pursuing any anti-gay agenda. Someone who just didn't agree with the concept of homosexuality 'Because Bible' is going to end up joining the group of people who actively, violently hate them.

tldr: If Mozilla starts practicing anti-gay policies, be it changing their banner to 'Blame The Gays' or even showing blatant hiring discrimination against homosexuals, then I'll take a boycott far more seriously. If their CEO starts picketing gay bars, or mugging homosexuals, I'll also consider such a boycott. Until then, this is frankly starting to look like a witch hunt.

Yea, sorry I am not gonna go attack someone for holding a different belief than another group of people, not only does that set off a huge red flag in my mind about where our society is going, it just gives me a terrible feeling in the pit of my stomach.

Yes, let's doom this entire billion dollar company and hope they fail and all their workers and contractors and everyone else making a living from their success suddenly finds themselves out of work and unable to support their families because their CEO is a numb skull.

Logic, you has it OKCupid.

Yup someone is probably gonna get fired, it won't be the CEO.

DoctorM:
So apparently the LGBT community is intolerant of views different from their own.
That's pretty damn ironic.

To be fair, the view they're being intolerant of holds them as undeserving of the rights any other citizen of their nation is entitled to. I think it's fair for them not to want that view around.

Still, I think this is utterly ridiculous. It's a nigh-effortless change, yes, but still it seems pointless. The CEO was likely put in his position because of some bit of business savvy. I doubt his views factored into it at all. And I think it's a safe assumption that just as many people at Mozilla support the LGBT. The CEO holds some assholish views, yes, but as far as we know, his only action was a political campaign, which he is fully entitled to do, and it really doesn't justify condemning the whole company. At least not in my eyes.

If Firefox itself starts being used as an anti-LGBT tool, hell yeah, I will certainly advocate a boycott of it. But for this, it just seems like a harsh reaction to something entirely insignificant.

Hey you know what, They are allowed to hate on whoever they want and I'll support them. Because you know what's more important to me then someone's stance on LGBT? Not selling my info to the NSA.

MarsAtlas:

For the record, I think its worth pointing out that Ok Cupid has a clear business motive for opposing anti-gay legislation. The more same-sex relationships are tolerated and accepted, the more gay people will go looking for dates, like through an online website, say, Ok Cupid. Seeing as Ok Cupid is the biggest dating site out there that allows same-sex relationships in it, they by far have a fair bit to lose. I mean, its even cited right there in their statement, 8%. At least 8% of their business is built on non-heterosexual people looking for relationships.

This. 1000 times. OkCupid is the online dating site of choice for the LGBT community. They have been extremely proactive in building a LGBT-friendly experience with plenty of options and care given to the design (many sites are not well-designed around same-sex dating and basically just shoot out the same generic questions, regardless of listed sexuality.)

Consider that the most heavily advertised dating sites (e.g. eHarmony.com)did not offer a LGBT option until recently.

Personally, it may be a small gesture, but a great PR move. As a gay man who signed up for OKCupid several years ago BECAUSE there were no other options at the time, I find it endearing despite the CEO's actions being rather small on the national scale. It's just part of their continued branding as a "LGBT-safe site," which isn't necessarily good or bad.

That's not tolerance, that's patting yourself on the shoulder for doing absolutely squat, in an intolerant manner.
I'm bi and atheist and I'm not sure it's a good idea to force religion or churches to change.

Look, while churches changes all the time to fit in to modern society, there's some tradition in those places that you can't just run over with hyper aggressive name calling, the point is that it has to come from their side to change and it's already slowly happening.
Just because you think other people are wrong, you don't just dismiss their opinion and harass them until they change it, because chances are that they're only doing it to shut you up, not because they've actually learned anything or are seeing things your way.

Are there really good reasons for the church or religion not to accept gay marriage?
Of course not, it's just a symptom of a lot of people that are uncomfortable and even scared. If hard logic applied, then you wouldn't really believe in an omnipotent being that created us in his physical image. If you don't like what the church is doing, then don't go there. Boycott the church.

When I heard that the state in our country forced the church to marry gay people, I facepalmed. When I saw the smug politicians be all proud about how they just fixed rights for people in our country and abolished prejudice by law, my heart sank.
That's not about spreading tolerance, it's just swinging the ban-hammer in wild directions under pretense and misguided sympathy.

A lot of gay people don't even give a flying fuck about getting married in church, it's just a way to raise awareness and garner sympathy by saying "look at how inhumanely society treats us, that we can't be together in the simplest of ways".
Meanwhile, there are definitely some who are scorned by the religion they were raised in and I completely understand how that has to hurt; Any person with a disapproving parent, who are like that for no other reason than what you are, knows what that feels like.

Don't pretend to do me a favor by doing this. Go and understand basic tolerance and compassion instead, because we need more of that, not just people who blindly follows what's "right" because enough people said so.
Having read some of the comments in this thread, I already see a lot of people have figured this out for themselves and that makes me far more happy than anyone boycotting a company, based on one person.

DoctorM:
So apparently the LGBT community is intolerant of views different from their own.
That's pretty damn ironic.

I never understand this argument. It's a catastrohpic misunderstanding of what the LGBT community is fighting for.

It's like laughing at people who fight for equal rights for women because they're intolerant of views that think women should be forced to dress in a certain way. It's pretty ironic that they call for tolerance but are intolerant of people who have different views from them eh?

How dare they not tolerate those who actively seek to oppress them. The idiots.

Wait does it actually say "Internet Exploder"? that's freaking amazing

DoctorM:
So apparently the LGBT community is intolerant of views different from their own.
That's pretty damn ironic.

Ah, that ol' chestnut.

Has anybody actually bothered to look at what NOM, created to be the spearhead of Prop 8, actually does?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Organization_for_Marriage

(sidenote: orson scott card used to be one of the board members between '09-'13, but stepped down after they lost prop 8, which indicates more involvement than just money)

They actively pursue any and all means to paint LGBT as inhuman. They make numerous ads and automated call campaigns attempting to scare people into believing outright lies in order to gain support and funding. They also employ these measures to intimidate politicians into voting in their favor by singling out pro-gay individuals and destroying their careers, than by implying that the others better fall in line with such publicly posted signs as "You're Next" (gee is that similar to blackmail and threats?). While Prop 8 failed, they still succeeded in pushing voters into voting in similar measures in other states through large capital injections of those campaigns, which have taken years to reverse (and most if not all of those reversals have had stays placed on them which completely invalidate the decision so that the opposing side can drag their feet as hard as they can while attempting to further increase support or buying time for a possible loophole, without actually presenting any new arguments). They have recently opened another campaign to target the rights of transgender people as a fallback if they don't succeed in targeting gays and lesbians.

They are A HATE GROUP. There is nothing remotely defensible about what they do. They will not stop until these lies are law. They do not care how many lives they have to destroy to get there.

This is what they use their money for. This was what Eich's $1000 dollar donation was used for.

And this is just "another viewpoint".

I don't have to invoke Godwin's law, do I?

If Eich no longer shares (or ever shared) the viewpoint that NOM holds, he would be best served if he publicly severs any possibility of a connection with them. If he does not, he will be subject to the scrutiny of the people whose lives were, and still are feeling the consequences of support like his. His views may be his to own, but his actions did not stop at his views. If this was an honest mistake, and he does not actually advocate these kinds of hateful actions, then he has nothing to gain by trying to be vague about it, or avoiding any apology for the mistake.

Why should he get a free pass for what he did, if others did not? Why should the company who hired him continue to overlook something like this if they support the kind of work environment that is in contradiction with these actions?

Ah, no. Two things: NEW CEO, and I haven't paid a dime to Mozilla for their browser, and as such, my money isn't getting rerouted anywhere, as opposed to other sources... *cough* Orson Scott Card. Oh, nope, three things: SIX years ago? If he hasn't kept on donating, he may very well have changed his mind, or doesn't shove his opinion down other's throats any more... or, or, or...
In short: Don't care, actually kind of peeved that OKCupid even brought it up. (For the record: I'm bi, just so no one says, "Well, obviously, you're straight.")
Captcha: Cancel for free...? Uh... shouldn't that be the case anyway?

MarsAtlas:

RJ 17:
Apparently it is, considering the fact that people aren't boycotting because of company policy but rather someone's personal beliefs.

Not just "someone", but the CEO, the head of the corporation, the representative of the company. When a person like that speaks they speak for the organization as a whole.

And what does that CEO say?

"I do not insist that anyone agree with me on a great many things, including political issues, and I refrain from putting my personal beliefs in others' way in all matters Mozilla, JS, and Web. I hope for the same in return."

This issue is far more complex than people give it credit. Many people support equal rights for the LGBT community but have problems only with the word "marriage" being used for religious reasons. Others have trouble morally condoning homosexuality but firmly believe that it is unreasonable to deny them rights. These people are wrong and misguided, but calling them hateful is extreme - they do not hate.

And this man, of all people, is not being unreasonable. He made a modest donation 6 years ago to proposition 8. Before he was CEO. He has never said anything hateful or malicious about LGBT, he has never done anything hateful. We don't even have any evidence that he is hateful. That statement above? That is the boilerplate statement OkCupid is talking about.

Not to mention his more recent statement on becoming CEO. This man has basically said that he is not going to renounce his personal belief, but he will give absolutely everything else that is asked. He has even stated he will actively support and promote same sex equality and rights within Mozilla.

This man isn't meeting us half way, he is practically on our side.

But we have to be the thought police. It is not enough that he relinquishes every point. It is not enough that he actively works to promote our views. He must now even think the same thoughts as us, or at the very least lie to make us feel better. And when he refuses that one point, when he refuses to be bullied into lying about his opinion so we can have some hollow victory, we call for his head.

I know a man down the street. About 60 years old. He has a family, 6 kids, all grown now. He recently fought cancer and won by the skin of his teeth. He regularly donates time and money to help provide inner city children with education despite his physical weakness and his own somewhat shaky financial situation. He is also of the opinion that LGBT's should have all the rights we have with one minor exception: the term marriage should be reserved for male-female marriages, because in his mind marriage is a religious institution. They can be married, he would just like them to call it anything else. And for this reason he supported Prop 8.

He is old and his ideas are old fashioned. He is wrong, and I do not excuse his view. But he is not a hateful person. He is kind and wishes the best for everyone. I see this protest and I can't help but see my neighbor nailed to the wall, his livelihood destroyed or forced to lie about his own thoughts for fear of persecution.

Do you have any idea how hateful this makes the LGBT community look? That they are trying to destroy a man, not because of what he did or said but because of what they think he thinks? This does not help remove hatred from the world, it promotes it.

If people want a reason to hate the LGBT movement, we are giving it to them right now.

Zachary Amaranth:

JazzJack2:

The most is could do is have the CEO removed which is simply pointless and will do nothing to help gay rights.

Well, you know, except make such statements and actions socially unacceptable, which would make it harder for someone to openly oppose gay rights in the public market.

Now, I know that you already mentioned you're fully in support of also protecting unpopular opinion under free speech, but this sentence still freaks me out. This is exactly what the LGBT community is so greatly complaining about: Being socially pressurized into never ever speaking up and coming out, because society doesn't accept it. At this point, this whole thing is just turning it all around. The hypocrisy inherent to that is simply disgusting.

A lot of people have become so obsessed with this idea of "social injustice" that they refuse to see that they themselves are gaining the upper hand - and exploiting it just like the people they just hushed out. This is not okay.

Could we, for once, try and not hate each other instead of calling for heads to roll just because someone disagrees with you? This is approaching the point where I actively refuse to take a stance on this because both sides are doing the same shit. And if you want to accuse me of "being part of the problem" just because I do so, be prepared for me to actively oppose you instead. Good riddance!

UltraHammer:

The problem is that the LGBT "rights" movement is pretty much 100% over and done with in America. .

No. That is patently wrong.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_employment_discrimination_in_the_United_States

You can get fired for being gay. There is zero state-level protection for LGBT employees in Texas, Florida, Mississippi, Georgia, Idaho, Arkansas, Alabama, Louisiana, North Dakota, North Carolina, South Carolina, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Utah, Wyoming. And in some states there is only protection on the basis of sexual orientation and not for gender identity, so transmen and transwomen suffer.

There is real discrimination and oppression happening in the US still. Just because you see gay, white cisgendered male characters on TV shows and same-sex marriage has passed in several states does not mean that this fight is over. It's nowhere near over.

On topic: It's a flimsy justification and a good PR move by OKCupid.

Firefox has proven infinitely more stable than Chrome and to be honest, I'm not too concerned about the LGBT movement when it's being co-opted by a bunch of SJW's who weren't part of the original movement for tolerance in these respective groups.

To actual LGBT activists (read: those of you who want equality and don't want to be treated any different or be special snowflakes), I apologize if this guy is vocal about his opinions in an obnoxious way. Still, he may be a CEO but he's not entirely responsible for the end product. The entire Mozilla team is. More importantly, me using Firefox doesn't mean I support the dude, it's just a web browser. And I figure we can be reasonable and calm adults about this, so please do let me know if he goes nutso and super oppressive at any point and I'll do what I can to find a more competent internet browser.

Until then, I'll keep going on and use the product on the grounds of the quality of the product and not worry about who made it as long as he's not causing anyone any harm or trouble.

Yours truly, everyone on the internet who is aware internet activism is a complete laughing stock at the moment due to radical social justice warriors acting under the mindset of 'Your rights end where my feelings begin'.

We'll get rid of these fuckers eventually guys, just don't give up the fight.

As another note, even though Chick-fil-A promised to stop donating to these types of organizations, it still is actually donating to these organizations (having only removed 1% of that funding), they've just stopped talking about it and have defaulted their public stance to "assumed neutral" by not saying anything at all.

http://mediamatters.org/blog/2013/01/29/memo-to-media-chick-fil-a-hasnt-ended-its-anti/192434

You know at some point you need to separate. If I were to cut every service from my life that employs some asshole to the top that I disagree with, then I would have to live in the woods in a home I built myself. I would have to raise, and grow my own food, make my own tools, and just drop out of society all together. I am for QUILTBAG rights, I despise hate in all of its forms, but every company has assholes, it's unavoidable, and to be honest I'm tired of boycotts based on a single asshole, because that gives that single motherfucker too much power and I'm not letting assholes ruin my enjoyment of life, fuck 'em.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here