By making such an argument, you're tacitly approving of his views whilst seeking to deprive others of criticizing him.
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.
By making such an argument, you're tacitly approving of his views whilst seeking to deprive others of criticizing him.
Sort of hard to get around that bit.
If they really cared they would find a way.
But seriously I know feck all about how web sites work, is there a way around using JavaScript
Why would they? He was paid, and probably paid very well, for coding and helped get the company where they wanted to be. When you accept a figurehead position with a company that has large public dealings though you'd better be sure that there are no skeletons in your closet that might come back to haunt your company because they have every right to remove you as figurehead if you do.
The guy has every right to his opinion as wrong as it is, but by making a political donation to such a divisive cause publicaly he chose to wear his bigotry on his sleeve. It's right that he has been called out on it and the company's decision to push him out is also right.
I agree the guy has every right to his opinion as wrong as it, but I was referring to okcupid as they don't what people to use his browser to access their site but still use his JavaScript on that site.
I don't know if it is possible to have a half decent website without using JavaScript.
It is contradictory if they are asking someone to stop using Mozilla when they are using part of their software. I think that is what CMP is saying.
How did you get that from my post? Am saying if the quality of service offered to me isnt any different than those offered to others, I will shop there. If it is, than obviously I wont or if there are signs of racism in the shop window. If the quality of service doesnt change, I really dont care what the political views of the manager are.
That's it.
Congratulations you are now my official speech writer.
I agree with you, it should be all or nothing if they wish to make such a stand. Not making a certain exception because it suits them in a certain instance. You can pay me with a mandatory gold in the next olympic games.
I've never visited their site so can't be sure but I'd reckon they are unlikely to use JavaScript on their site as it's main use is in the Firefox web browser. They might use the Java web programming language for their site but the two are not related in the slightest, Java was developed by Sun Microsystems.
Eich created Java. If they want a boycott then boycott Java, too.
Eich created JavaScript, no relation to the programming language Java.
They do use that script, or do they not?
Morgan Missen, who has worked for Google, Twitter and Foursquare, shared this screenshot of OkCupid code earlier this week:
Fair enough, maybe they should try to find an alternative but that's none too easy given that it's an industry standard widget these days and it's not like Eich has any input in JavaScript now since it was created as part of Firefox's open source system. It would be a bit like refusing to use motorways to travel anywhere because the concept was championed by Hitler.Morgan Missen, who has worked for Google, Twitter and Foursquare, shared this screenshot of OkCupid code earlier this week:
That is where their moral high ground fails and other reasons for such a stance comes into play. It would be acceptable to throw mud at the individual but not the company. Mozilla is a great company, millions of times better that a silly dating site. Those that have similar (but profitable) business models will (in my eyes) be behind the mud getting thrown at Mozilla.
Last edited:
Wasn't there a law or something which stopped medical science from using any of the Nazis research, I might have dreamt that
Edit; I am not comparing anyone or thing involed in this case to the Nazis, just remember it being a thing
I get why the board would oust a CEO for donating money to something like that (because they think that publicly disassociating with him will make them seem more tolerant), but I don't agree with the decision. There is no evidence that his personal views on homosexuality affected his work with Mozilla, nor is there evidence of these views affecting people who worked in proximity with him. By all accounts he was a good CEO too, from a business and technical perspective.
And before people are like, "well what if he was racist, and gave money to a political movement to stop black people from getting jobs??", my view would be the same, as long as he wasn't breaking laws because of his views. He did nothing illegal, and furthermore his views on these matters never affected his job. His political leanings shouldn't factor into it at all.
And before people are like, "well what if he was racist, and gave money to a political movement to stop black people from getting jobs??", my view would be the same, as long as he wasn't breaking laws because of his views. He did nothing illegal, and furthermore his views on these matters never affected his job. His political leanings shouldn't factor into it at all.
Everyone has the right to question anyone. That's a free society works. Everyone can decide what is acceptable and what is not. They get to make their case and other people can decide if they agree with that position. If enough people agree with that position, those affected by that position will start to take notice. At that point, they decide whether having so many people angry with them is worth continuing to employ a noted bigot as the public head of their company. They decided that it wasn't. No one was forced into anything.
So when you guys keep saying society as a whole think its 'bigoted' to believe that gay marriage should not legal, is that why Gay marriages are legal across the US? The fact is, however backward, it is still a political hot topic. And for a person to be ostracized for his/ her personal political beliefs is just a form of forced activism.
Tomorrow, if the CEO of another consumer driven organisation is found to be pro-life on the abortion issues which is not to the liking to some people, will he too be driven to be stepped down?
Will websites like Okcupid be outraged when a company's CEO based in Kentucky is asked to resign for having a pro-gay marriage stance? Of course they would be. Does the society as a whole believe this is right then count?
@Eboue: I understand when you say no-one was forced to do anything. But I would think that part of being liberal is to allow the other person his/ her voice and opinion. Which is why I said that organizations like OKCupid have the right to do what they did. But they shouldn't have.
@Raoul: I'm not saying you should never criticize such people. By all means. But one should never ever create an atmosphere where a person is ostracized for their opinions. However silly they are. Otherwise you're heading towards a society where everyone has to tow the line.
Tomorrow, if the CEO of another consumer driven organisation is found to be pro-life on the abortion issues which is not to the liking to some people, will he too be driven to be stepped down?
Will websites like Okcupid be outraged when a company's CEO based in Kentucky is asked to resign for having a pro-gay marriage stance? Of course they would be. Does the society as a whole believe this is right then count?
@Eboue: I understand when you say no-one was forced to do anything. But I would think that part of being liberal is to allow the other person his/ her voice and opinion. Which is why I said that organizations like OKCupid have the right to do what they did. But they shouldn't have.
@Raoul: I'm not saying you should never criticize such people. By all means. But one should never ever create an atmosphere where a person is ostracized for their opinions. However silly they are. Otherwise you're heading towards a society where everyone has to tow the line.
...
Quite. I wonder if OKCupid will get on to this as soon as possible?
No, that's not what it means. If there are other CEOs of major companies whose values specifically include diversity, then sure. If some forklift operator is giving twenty bucks, that's entirely different.
I think you understand "being liberal" in a different way than I do. I think the government shouldn't put anyone in jail for their views. I don't think that extends to other people giving their views on the first person's views.
$1000. 
since when did that became a substantial donation as some were claiming.
since when did that became a substantial donation as some were claiming.Because only successful people have to pay the price for their opinions? A yardstick is a yardstick.
When did you stop being fun and become all serious on political matters by the way. It's like Jake banged Alex and you ate the baby.
Nope, doesn't work that way. This is a moral issue, not a legal one. It's perfectly valid for there to be subjective measurements.
As for the other point, this is the current events forum and I have a degree in political science what else do you expect?
Nope, doesn't work that way. This is a moral issue, not a legal one. It's perfectly valid for there to be subjective measurements.
As for the other point, this is the current events forum and I have a degree in political science what else do you expect?
I really don't agree with your first point. You're essentially saying it's okay for some people to be racist or homophobic.
Everybody needs to be held to the same degree of morality. It's not acceptable for anybody to be immoral thus if you decide to start singling people out then you need to be consistent.
Plus, as is usually the case with these kinds of discussions like it or not what he did is subjective. Some people consider it immoral, some don't. The fact is he did nothing wrong legally hence why it isn't a legal issue. As I said already, as much of a bell end as it makes him, you can't police opinions. He's as entitled to his as you are to yours. He was elected to his position based on his merits and his achievements, and that is what should determine his employment status.
No, I'm saying it's less bothersome to me for a janitor or forklift operator to be racist than it is for a CEO of a major company that explicitly professes diversity and acceptance.
I'm not policing opinions and neither are the okcupidites. We're just saying that we disagree with his opinions and that with him as the public face a company, we are less inclined to patronize said company.
No, that's not what is happening. OKCupid are actually leading a campaign against him because they disagree with his opinions. (We all do, but that's besides the point. It's still a disagreement of opinion.) That's what it boils down to, which is policing opinions. He's entitled to be a bell end and still have his job if he's damn good at it.
People are entitled to decide not to use his product of their own accord without coercion if they don't like his values, but actively encouraging and campaigning for people to because you don't agree with his viewpoint is different. It's not like they just casually mentioned that they don't like the guy.
Considering they run their service on the product that he invented, I wonder if they'll alter their double standards considering their disdain of him and his other products, just not the one they happen to rely on.
As is their right to do. They are entitled to lead a campaign. Eich is "entitled to be a bell end and still have his job if he's damn good at it" IF his bosses feel that having him in that position is a net benefit to their company. They don't.
I'm boycotting the OKCupid thought police.
Except that's not what happened despite you trying to make out like they decided it off their own back. If OKCupid hadn't have started this unnecessary campaign in the first place attempting to damage a company because they disagree with the opinions of one of its members of staff then the board would never have felt the need to take action. As reiterated by several prominent members of the LGBT community who consider this whole thing ridiculous. Such is pressure.
I'm not denying that okcupid was applying pressure. Not at all. I am defending their right to exert that pressure.
You think that a company can actively try to damage another because they disagree with one of their members opinion on something?
What do you mean by "can"?
It's not like businesses create adverts deliberately making their competitors look shit or anything.
"I'm a PC, and I can't do fucking anything."
"I'm a PC, and I can't do fucking anything."
Healthy competition where your objective is to outsell the other product is slightly different to because you disagree with one of their many members of staffs personal opinion away from the business itself. Even though you're perfectly content to ask people to boycott the product that he simply works for whilst being perfectly happy to use the product he invented to run your own business. Let's not pretend they're the same thing.
Anyone has the ability to boycott or call for a boycott of any product for any reason. As it happens, enough people agreed with OkCupid to get the guy fired. It's unlucky for him, but there's not much more to it. It's no different to right wingers boycotting Oreo for promoting gay rights.