If we hadn't made attempts to police thoughts then racism wouldn't have been reduced massively over the last few decades.
Mozilla CEO "resigns"
- Thread starter Interval
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) is joined by CEO Duncan Drasdo and Financial Director Andy Green from the Manchester United Supporters Trust for a special episode on all things behind the scenes at Old Trafford including a brief history of MUST and their aims today, views on INEOS and Sir Jim Ratcliffe so far, and the Old Trafford regeneration.
If we hadn't made attempts to police thoughts then racism wouldn't have been reduced massively over the last few decades.
You have to balance the common good with the price of infingement of total freedom to do or say what you like, when you like.
Many current government's take this too far particulrly when it comes to political protest but racial vilification legislation and discrimination legislation isn't generally very restrictive at all. Nazi Germany certainly didn't start this way.
Many current government's take this too far particulrly when it comes to political protest but racial vilification legislation and discrimination legislation isn't generally very restrictive at all. Nazi Germany certainly didn't start this way.
I'll make my last post in this thread. I do believe there's a big difference in what I believe in and what I do. I don't discriminate against any person, LGBT, gender skin color, nationality etc. As an Indian living in US, I've been subjected to some ludicrous stereotyping and racial slurs. I'm not playing the victim card here, I'm just telling you that I know the feeling of being discriminated against. It's not a pleasant feeling.
Let me make a clear distinction here, I've never thought that gay people shouldn't be allowed to marry each other, I'm saying I don't believe in that concept, which is why I don't do it. What they do, is clearly their business and they are welcome to do it. I'm not opposed to them doing it, I'm just saying I won't do it, because I don't believe in it. I've been brought up to do what I believe in. I don't campaing against them doing it, I'm not denying their right to get together with each other. I don't turn my face around when I see LGBT people or deny business when it comes from them, and I wank to lesbian porn. I'm not sure how to put this in words, so I've tried to explain as carefully as I can. I'm straight and that's my choice and I'm not gay, because I don't believe in the concept of LGBT. I don't deny others the right to marry, gay, straight or otherwise. I'm persona non grata here, I don't make up policies of the land. If I was in a position to do, I believe I would not deny any LGBT person their right to marry, because then it becomes my job to worry about the rights of those people. So I don't know if it makes sense to you folks.
We all carry prejudices with us. I had a colleague who was hardcore against gay people and he was crucified in our friends get together (which I thought he deserved for his unjustified stance), till we came to know later that he was abused by his uncle in his teens. So it's very easy for any of us to call another person a bigot, so I'll tread a bit carefully there. In the end, I think you being fired from your job because of your personal stance is a bit of a dangerous territory, as we'll never be consistent with it and it's a very dangerous territory.
I apologize to any of you if you were offended by the comparison with paedophiles, which was uncalled for. I didn't mean to offend, and it was inconsiderate while trying to make a point. This is not only because I don't want to be banned, but I genuinely wanted to set the record straight. Being called a bigot and a wannabe feminist by a keyboard warrior in a forum who thinks women have the same size feet as men is a bit amusing though, although I won't bite again.
Let me make a clear distinction here, I've never thought that gay people shouldn't be allowed to marry each other, I'm saying I don't believe in that concept, which is why I don't do it. What they do, is clearly their business and they are welcome to do it. I'm not opposed to them doing it, I'm just saying I won't do it, because I don't believe in it. I've been brought up to do what I believe in. I don't campaing against them doing it, I'm not denying their right to get together with each other. I don't turn my face around when I see LGBT people or deny business when it comes from them, and I wank to lesbian porn. I'm not sure how to put this in words, so I've tried to explain as carefully as I can. I'm straight and that's my choice and I'm not gay, because I don't believe in the concept of LGBT. I don't deny others the right to marry, gay, straight or otherwise. I'm persona non grata here, I don't make up policies of the land. If I was in a position to do, I believe I would not deny any LGBT person their right to marry, because then it becomes my job to worry about the rights of those people. So I don't know if it makes sense to you folks.
We all carry prejudices with us. I had a colleague who was hardcore against gay people and he was crucified in our friends get together (which I thought he deserved for his unjustified stance), till we came to know later that he was abused by his uncle in his teens. So it's very easy for any of us to call another person a bigot, so I'll tread a bit carefully there. In the end, I think you being fired from your job because of your personal stance is a bit of a dangerous territory, as we'll never be consistent with it and it's a very dangerous territory.
I apologize to any of you if you were offended by the comparison with paedophiles, which was uncalled for. I didn't mean to offend, and it was inconsiderate while trying to make a point. This is not only because I don't want to be banned, but I genuinely wanted to set the record straight. Being called a bigot and a wannabe feminist by a keyboard warrior in a forum who thinks women have the same size feet as men is a bit amusing though, although I won't bite again.
You don't have to get married to a man to be pro equal marriage rights 
That'd be like saying "I can't believe in women's rights because I have a dick" or like saying "I can't be against racism because I'm not a minority." You don't have to become a different person to believe in equal rights.
That'd be like saying "I can't believe in women's rights because I have a dick" or like saying "I can't be against racism because I'm not a minority." You don't have to become a different person to believe in equal rights.
On behalf of the LGBT community, I would just like to thank you for masturbating to lesbian pornography...
Honestly, I don't know how to respond, seriously, to that. It's utterly bizarre in places.
I appreciate that you apolgised for the child abuse comparison, though.
Honestly, I don't know how to respond, seriously, to that. It's utterly bizarre in places.
I appreciate that you apolgised for the child abuse comparison, though.
Good post.
The society where this took place (the USA) needs to come to terms with whether the increasingly agreed upon social norm that it is wrong to discriminate against a person's sexual orientation is sufficient to justify disqualifiying someone from a job because they happen to disagree with such a norm.
I'm thinking that you don't do it because you aren't gay which isn't a choice BTW.
The very act of thinking that it is wrong is part of the problem and in some ways a more intractable problem than gibbering homophobes because they are easy to dismiss and deal with than entrenched ways of thinking.
Although he wasn't disqualified at all. Certainly not legally. His company took a business decision.
Common sense is long time gone when it's down to homosexuality/homophobia, both sides of the 'conflict' are taking it too far.
Mozilla should've stood by their man I believe. Ridiculous decision.
Mozilla should've stood by their man I believe. Ridiculous decision.
I don't think so. As someone else pointed out, earlier on, Mozilla's seen as an 'alternative' product and is also (I'm assuming) used primarily by a younger generation than its largest competitors. It was foolish of them to appoint someone to a high profile position who has made a political donation that is so against the values of many of their users.
Thing is though, that he's holding some views that I can't really find offensive myself but understand that some get perplexed by it. If we turned this around and some group of people started boycotting a company that hired a CEO that's in favour of gay marriages, gay couples adopting children and so on, and this group of people were against it and would've been open about it ( just like those pro-gay organisation that boycotted Mozilla CEO ), they would've been labelled as homophobes, gay-haters, deluded biggots and so on.
That's the worrying part. We've come to a situation, when you're either pro-gay and everything that's connected with it or a homophobe.
There was a boycott against Oreos last year because they promoted gay rights. It does work both ways.
Opposing equal marriage rights for gay people is homophobic, though. It's not on a par with believing homosexuality should be a crime, of course, but there is no other way to accurately refer to it.
Unless someone can popularise a nice scale that starts with casual homophobia and ends with those who believe "hanging's too good for 'em" we are stuck with one term for all opposition to homosexual rights.
I can't see it happening, mind. Which is a shame, as the more I think about it the more I'm finding the idea of referring to someone as a "level 3 homophobe" or the like rather appealing.
Yep, the pressure and media exposure of the situation clearly influenced the business side of things.
And it's as ridiculous imo.
Here's the thing though that I can't agree with. I'd say that 'homophobia' term is being thrown around too much nowadays that it has lost it's true meaning. Phobia means that you fear something, I don't think anybody fears gays or their marriages. Somebody holds a certain set of beliefs that pretty much disagrees with most things that homosexuals stand for or believe in and, for me, that's about it. You're not a 'catholicphobe' if you can't agree with what catholic church represents, you're not a 'labourphobe' or a 'toryphobe' if you disagree with the party's principles. Of course, those cases or examples I've thrown are different to the case of gay rights and so on, just trying to find some more or less reasonable analogy if you will. The word 'phobia' is just thrown around mindlessly and would've been thrown even more mindlessly if we applied that to every section of our lives.
Without derailing this topic into another 'gay threads' ( which are rather boring just like religion threads because you can never come to a conclusion and same arguments are being used over and over again ), I do think that such crusades as the one against the CEO of Mozilla are silly and are creating more opponents rather than propponents of LBGT organisation(s) or gay rights, because people will be fed up with such 'bullshit' and be anti just to piss some people off.
Phobia doesn't just mean 'fear of', it means 'dislike of' too. I don't understand how you can't say it isn't homophobic to deny homosexuals the same rights as heterosexuals. I also completely disagree that 'cathlicophobe', 'labourphobe' and 'toryphobe' are reasonable anologies.
If people are going to oppose LGBT+ movements just because a man in a very high profile position was pressured into resigning for being homophobic, then I imagine that they were inclined to oppose them anyway.
Did this actually happen? Or is it some people being uber-sensitive and crucifying a man for a potential crime he may or may not commit?
I boycott Oreos for tasting like shit.
fecking finally someone realises they're dogshit.
This American I lived with at uni ate them by the truckload but I could never get it. But having said that, Hersheys tastes like crap so maybe that is all our poor transatlantic cousins know.
I lived in Canada for years and basically all of their sweets taste like shit. Chocolate is dire that side of the Atlantic.
All milk chocolate is horrible.
Boycotting the use of product because of any unrelated matters is so gay anyway.
And for the record, I use mozilla because its good not because its an alternative product.
Chrome>Firefox. The only reason I'd ever use firefox is if chrome doesn't work.
Chrome is a decent browser but it is let down by still only being 32 bit. Java 7 is 64 bit so problems are going to increase until they eventually get the 64 bit version out.
I don't think anyone's gone as far as suggesting people only use Firefox because they're rebels without a cause... Their image is important to them, though. Clearly.
I do
Open Source means freedom in everything... it's quite contradictory.