You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
New Mozilla (Firefox) CEO Brendan Eich Donated To Anti-Gay Charity - Boycott Started!
- Thread starter Jasper
- Start date
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
How so? And how does it make my analogy off? Ultimately you are punishing others for the actions of an unrelated party.
Both scenarios describe that, meaning they are properly analogous.
I understand that you get really worked up over these issues, I've been reading GAF a long time and rightfully so you should get worked up. But even you have to admit that you are punishing multiple people for the actions of one unrelated man.
Can you explain to me why you think it's acceptable to harm others to exact vengeance on one man? Because that's what a mass boycott of Mozilla will do. People could lose their jobs. Families could go hungry, lose houses, cars etc. Of course this would require basically everyone on the planet to boycott Mozilla and isn't likely, but still. The intentions are there and that's pretty bad. I'm sorry but I feel like you and anyone else who supports this are bad people.
Support gay rights, support human rights in general, but don't do it at the expense of another person, otherwise you are no better than the people fostering hate.
So going by the same logic, what if the company itself was donating the money, like in other cases? Innocent people could still be laid off who might completely disagree with how the company spends it's dollars. Is it ok then?
Aquamarine
Member
If you donate to anti-gay movements, you get boycotted by pro-gay supporters.
If you donate to pro-gay movements, you get boycotted by anti-gay supporters.
In the end you get boycotted by someone when you're the public face of the company...so really, these kinds of people in the limelight stay as invisible as possible. If he really wanted to donate to Proposition 8, he should have done so anonymously.
If you donate to pro-gay movements, you get boycotted by anti-gay supporters.
In the end you get boycotted by someone when you're the public face of the company...so really, these kinds of people in the limelight stay as invisible as possible. If he really wanted to donate to Proposition 8, he should have done so anonymously.
CyclopsRock
Member
They may not "hate" them (or at least admit that they do) but they desire to denigrate and deny gay people basic rights. Close enough.
In California, is there a way to get the legal benefits of marriage without an actual marriage itself? For example in the UK we've had, for the last 10 years, a thing called a "civil ceremony" which conferred basically all the same rights (inheritance etc) just under a different name.
OrangeJulius
Member
So going by the same logic, what if the company itself was donating the money, like in other cases? Innocent people could still be laid off who might completely disagree with how the company spends it's dollars. Is it ok then?
It's a different scenario entirely then. At that point the company has come out supporting anti gay agendas, and if that's the case then the employees may not support it, but have to at least acknowledge they work for a bigoted company and have to accept the flak that comes from that.
I would personally start looking for a new job the second I got wind my company was supporting hate, but that's me. I would never align myself with people like that knowingly either personally or professionally.
It's a different scenario entirely then. At that point the company has come out supporting anti gay agendas, and if that's the case then the employees may not support it, but have to at least acknowledge they work for a bigoted company and have to accept the flak that comes from that.
I would personally start looking for a new job the second I got wind my company was supporting hate, but that's me. I would never align myself with people like that knowingly either personally or professionally.
So? You could say the same thing if they find out the person running the company has those same bigoted beliefs. They have aligned themselves with the CEO so they should start looking for a new job right now, correct?
OrangeJulius
Member
So? You could say the same thing if they find out the person running the company has those same bigoted beliefs. They have aligned themselves with the CEO so they should start looking for a new job right now, correct?
No, again, he acted of his own volition, on his own time with his own money. Again, if you use this argument let me ask you this?
Have you thoroughly researched every single company you purchase or use products from? I guarantee if you did you would probably be living like an Amish person because you wouldn't like what you found.
I hope you don't use apple products while boycotting Mozilla.
Mercury Fred
Banned
In California, is there a way to get the legal benefits of marriage without an actual marriage itself? For example in the UK we've had, for the last 10 years, a thing called a "civil ceremony" which conferred basically all the same rights (inheritance etc) just under a different name.
We've been through separate but equal in this country. We're past that now.
How so? And how does it make my analogy off? Ultimately you are punishing others for the actions of an unrelated party.
Both scenarios describe that, meaning they are properly analogous.
I understand that you get really worked up over these issues, I've been reading GAF a long time and rightfully so you should get worked up. But even you have to admit that you are punishing multiple people for the actions of one unrelated man.
Can you explain to me why you think it's acceptable to harm others to exact vengeance on one man? Because that's what a mass boycott of Mozilla will do. People could lose their jobs. Families could go hungry, lose houses, cars etc. Of course this would require basically everyone on the planet to boycott Mozilla and isn't likely, but still. The intentions are there and that's pretty bad. I'm sorry but I feel like you and anyone else who supports this are bad people.
Support gay rights, support human rights in general, but don't do it at the expense of another innocent and unrelated person, otherwise you are no better than the people fostering hate. Bystanders don't need to go down in order to take out the target.
I disagree. I feel that the CEO is punishing his company by making poor choices. If he wanted to stop punishing them he would step down.
OrangeJulius
Member
We've been through separate but equal in this country. We're past that now.
Apparently not if you want to crucify random employees for the actions of their dumb ass boss.
No, again, he acted of his own volition, on his own time with his own money. Again, if you use this argument let me ask you this?
Have you thoroughly researched every single company you purchase or use products from? I guarantee if you did you would probably be living like an Amish person because you wouldn't like what you found.
I hope you don't use apple products while boycotting Mozilla.
No, don't even try that "you have to stand up for everything or can't stand up for anything" argument. It's stupid because I could say the same for any issue you hold dear.
So let's not stand up for anything and let the world burn.
OrangeJulius
Member
No, don't even try that "you have to stand up for everything or can't stand up for anything" argument. It's stupid because I could say the same for any issue you hold dear.
So let's not stand up for anything and let the world burn.
I would say don't use that weak ass defense that has been floating on GAF for a while now. If you want to test me on other issues feel free. I'm sorry, but I'll call hypocrites as I see them.
Stand by your convictions or don't. But don't cop out with a tried and true GAF defense. It's a legitimate question designed to see if the people calling for these boycotts are consistent in their outrage over what they consider to be atrocities. Either you support companies that don't align with your personal beliefs or you don't.
CyclopsRock
Member
We've been through separate but equal in this country. We're past that now.
Well, if you say so. But if that's the case, it'd doubly the case that you don't have to hate gay people to not want gay marriage.
I would say don't use that weak ass defense that has been floating on GAF for a while now. If you want to test me on other issues feel free. I'm sorry, but I'll call hypocrites as I see them.
Stand by your convictions or don't. But don't cop out with a tried and true GAF defense.
You can call it a weak argument all you want. It changes nothing. It's a true argument. If you hold one conviction and boycott something but then don't for another injustice, you're just as big of a hypocrite. Also stop with the hive mind GAF defense, that rebut was not created on GAF just because that's where you first heard it.
Mercury Fred
Banned
Apparently not if you want to crucify random employees for the actions of their dumb ass boss.
Wait, what?
Well, if you say so. But if that's the case, it'd doubly the case that you don't have to hate gay people to not want gay marriage.
Again, they may not "hate" gay people but they certainly don't feel that gay people are entitled to be treated equally, fairly and with full dignity under the law. Like I said, if that's not hate, it's close enough.
OrangeJulius
Member
You can call it a weak argument all you want. It changes nothing. It's a true argument. If you hold one conviction and boycott something but then don't for another injustice, you're just as big of a hypocite. Also stop with the hive mind GAF defense, that rebut was not created on GAF just because that's where you first heard it.
The bolded is exactly what I just said, I'm glad we agree. And I didn't first hear that defense on GAF, but it sure is popular around here these days.
The bolded is exactly what I just said, I'm glad we agree. And I didn't first hear that defense on GAF, but it sure is popular around here these days.
So then you're a hypocrite calling others hypocrites by proxy? Is that your point? Because you really didn't need to go on and on to make that point.
"I don't hate black people but I don't want my children going to school with them."Well, if you say so. But if that's the case, it'd doubly the case that you don't have to hate gay people to not want gay marriage.
There is at least a modicum of hate if you are actively trying to prevent someone from having equal rights.
OrangeJulius
Member
So then your a hypocrite calling others hypocrites by proxy? Is that your point? Because you really didn't need to go on and on to make that point.
What are you talking about? You basically just said I can't say that because it's the "all or nothing defense" but then you agree with me. You are losing me here slit.
What are you talking about? You basically just said I can't say that because it's the "all or nothing defense" but then you agree with me. You are losing me here slit.
This shouldn't be hard to understand. You say it's hypocritical to boycott Mozilla because Apple has sweatshops, but I can say that about any values you might hold. I don't know what your values are but let's say it was revealed that Burger King allowed the cows they buy but to be tortured and you took offence to that. I could then say well you're a hypocrite because if you boycott Burger King because of animal cruelty but still support a product from XYZ company that uses sweatshops then who are you to take a stand on anything.
The only way to get out of the hypocrite argument is to say you have no moral values. Is that true?
OrangeJulius
Member
This shouldn't be hard to understand. You say it's hypocritical to boycott Mozilla because Apple has sweatshops, but I can say that about any values you might hold. I don't know what your values are but let's say it was revealed that Burger King allowed the cows they buy but to be tortured and you took offence to that. I could then say well you're a hypocrite because if you boycott Burger King because of animal cruelty but still support a product from XYZ company that uses sweatshops then who are you to take a stand on anything.
The only way to get out of the hypocrite argument is to say yuo have no moral values. Is that true?
Of course I have moral values, if I didn't I wouldn't be sticking up for the lowly employees of Mozilla who would be jobless if these boycotters had their way. If you ever catch me slipping on some other issue like this in another thread, by all means, tear me apart. Until then I will call out those ripping up Mozilla for the actions of their boss, meanwhile they are standing in line to buy the newest Iphone from apple, made by a company run formerly by a guy with anti gay policies and built with child labor.
If you don't see the hypocrisy in that and want to cop out by saying it's some kind of all or nothing defense then fine. It doesn't make the hypocrisy less valid. I'm sure I'm hypocritical in areas of my life too, who isn't? This is why I said earlier to pick your battles wisely. This isn't a fight that many people can come out of smelling like roses, since as I pointed out, we all use products or services in our daily lifes that are built and or run by people with whom their views don't necessarily sync up with our own.
And for Riotous above me. If you want change, write letters to the board of directors of Mozilla and demand the CEO be fired. Don't promote a boycott that can affect peoples well being that had nothing to do with his anti gay agendas, otherwise you come off as someone seeking blind vengeance, in my opinion of course.
Gentleman Jack
Member
Well, if you say so. But if that's the case, it'd doubly the case that you don't have to hate gay people to not want gay marriage.
"I have gay friends!"
And_Gignac
Member
Well he is entitled to his horrible, disgusting personal opinion but as long as it does not translate into Firefox services I don't see the problem or the need for a boycott.
Of course I have moral values, if I didn't I wouldn't be sticking up for the lowly employees of Mozilla who would be jobless if these boycotters had their way. If you ever catch me slipping on some other issue like this in another thread, by all means, tear me apart. Until then I will call out those ripping up Mozilla for the actions of their boss, meanwhile they are standing in line to buy the newest Iphone from apple, made by a company run formerly by a guy with anti gay policies and built with child labor.
If you don't see the hypocrisy in that and want to cop out by saying it's some kind of all or nothing defense then fine. It doesn't make the hypocrisy less valid. I'm sure I'm hypocritical in areas of my life too, who isn't? This is why I said earlier to pick your battles wisely. This isn't a fight that many people can come out of smelling like roses, since as I pointed out, we all use products or services in our daily lifes that are built and or run by people with whom their views don't necessarily sync up with our own.
Oh I see so this battle isn't a wise one and you're the one that knows what is wise to stand up for and what isn't . You admit you're a hypocrite. Good, we can agree on that. So by all means keep calling others hypocrites because if you can do that with a straight face it makes you a bigger hypocrite than all of us.
CornBurrito
Member
What are you talking about? You basically just said I can't say that because it's the "all or nothing defense" but then you agree with me. You are losing me here slit.
How is "don't let perfection be the enemy of good" a weak argument? Humans are incapable of perfection.
And I say that as someone who likely won't boycott Firefox.
OrangeJulius
Member
Oh I see so this battle isn't a wise one and your the one that knows what is wise to stand up for and what isn't . You admit you're a hypocrite. Good, we can agree on that. So by all means keep calling others hypocrites because if you can do that with a straight face it makes you a bigger hypocrite than all of us.
Sigh....Ok. Nice talking to you.
Sigh....Ok. Nice talking to you.
Same, make sure you keep up those double standards.
OrangeJulius
Member
Same, makes sure you keep up those double standards.
Had to get in one last fuck you huh? Ok.
Had to get in one last fuck you huh? Ok.
Only when it appllies.
OrangeJulius
Member
Only when it appllies.
You are certainly the bigger man here, I digress. If anyone else wants to continue discussing this subject, I find it intriguing to hear opposing views.
Liu Kang Baking A Pie
Member
haha, that horrible Mozilla "diversity update."
Daring Fireball's had a couple of highlights on how Mozilla's press releases are often that sort of side-stepping double speak and marketing language. They come off like the slimiest fucking company, because you expect an open source leader to be aware of the benefits of using clear language and directly handling topics.
Like their blog post about putting ads in Firefox's New Tab page is called "Publisher Transformation with Users at the Center": https://blog.mozilla.org/advancingc...sher-transformation-with-users-at-the-center/
Killing Persona themes support is called "Transitioning Persona to Community Ownership": http://identity.mozilla.com/post/78873831485/transitioning-persona-to-community-ownership
Mozilla doesn't think of us as humans, so I don't trust that they have human morals and backbone to handle this new CEO's bullshit for us. Fuck this company.
Daring Fireball's had a couple of highlights on how Mozilla's press releases are often that sort of side-stepping double speak and marketing language. They come off like the slimiest fucking company, because you expect an open source leader to be aware of the benefits of using clear language and directly handling topics.
Like their blog post about putting ads in Firefox's New Tab page is called "Publisher Transformation with Users at the Center": https://blog.mozilla.org/advancingc...sher-transformation-with-users-at-the-center/
Killing Persona themes support is called "Transitioning Persona to Community Ownership": http://identity.mozilla.com/post/78873831485/transitioning-persona-to-community-ownership
Mozilla doesn't think of us as humans, so I don't trust that they have human morals and backbone to handle this new CEO's bullshit for us. Fuck this company.
CornBurrito
Member
You are certainly the bigger man here, I digress. If anyone else wants to continue discussing this subject, I find it intriguing to hear opposing views.
I am wondering if you think hypocrisy is ever ok. Like if I discover my neighbor is sexually abusing a child can I call the police using my apple iphone or would I have to use a phone from a company that didn't also abuse kids (for labor in their case)?
I really couldn't have said it better myself.Actually I was just telling somebody this the other day, although my number was more like 75%.
It's led me to decide this: I'm going to have to assume that most CEOs and big business execs are actually complete assholes, and any time I spend money anywhere, chances are part of my dollar is going into the pocket of somebody with awful views and/or hobbies, and I'll probably be contributing to it financially in some small way.
SO, this is what I need from these wealthy cretins: don't be such an asshole that it makes the news cycle, because then I'll know about it, and I'm not going to be giving you any more money. The guy from Chick-Fil-A, the guy from Jimmy John's and Papa John, you couldn't keep it out of my face. You were SUCH assholes, that I wound up hearing about it. So I'll give my money to some other asshole who I'm sure is just as bad, but at least I don't know about it yet.
Mr. Mozilla, welcome to the club!
Boycotting is silly. This is something he did with his money and time, not company resources. He indicated in a 2012 blog post that this was completely separate from his work beliefs, as is easily demonstrated by Mozilla and their benefits package and employment terms. Call out the guy. Say whatever you want to say about the guy, but boycotting the business? If the company was taking an official stance on the issue, then yes.
At a certain point, we have to assume that professional individuals and their personal ethics and morals are not impacting the job they are doing leading a company. I work in the public sector. If political leanings impacted every job, nothing would get done in government because no one would have a job due to their political affiliation.cue nothing gets done in government now jokes, HURHUR
I see this as a non issue and I am one of the strongest defenders that I know of LGBTQ issues, in a fairly progressive city.
Just before I uninstalled the browser, I sent them a message through their channels to tell them exactly why I was uninstalling it. No, it isn't much but it's what I can do in this situation. It carries more weight when I stop using the product because it is a finite action, not just a letter of outrage. I didn't know about him and his donation until yesterday and I'm sure it wouldn't have mattered. The timing is right at this moment because they just promoted the guy to CEO. This is a personal issue to me as a gay woman. I understand if it's not to you but stop telling people that their personal stands are meaningless and hypocritical. When it's your cause maybe you'll understand. I have stopped using products and services in the past when I disagreed with one thing or another. It's a small thing but it's often all I can do. It's his choice to donate where he wants. It's my choice to stop supporting the company that promoted him. There's really nothing more to it.If people really want to protest this, then write letters to Mozillas board of directors demanding that the CEO be removed.
Boycotting the company is irresponsible and doesn't take into account the innocent employees who have nothing whatsoever to do with any of this mess.
It reeks of faux internet outrage because people just want to be mad about something and see someone burn for it, no matter who get's caught in the crossfire.
Being a private company the board of directors won't feel shareholder pressure to send the CEO packing. As I said, a boycott hurts EVERYBODY at Mozilla. Spam angry letters to the BOD if you want him out. Don't make others lose jobs because of the actions of one man
OrangeJulius
Member
I am wondering if you think hypocrisy is ever ok. Like if I discover my neighbor is sexually abusing a child can I call the police using my apple iphone or would I have to use a phone from a company that didn't also abuse kids (for labor in their case)?
I would prefer you use carrier pigeon to alert the authorities. Just don't tell PETA ok?
And to Someday, please don't infer that I said peoples personal stands are meaningless. I am a vehement supporter of gay rights (just human freedoms in general actually)
I never once inferred it's meaningless, taking a stand against injustice is never meaningless. I simply asked that people direct the fight at those worthy of the charge and to direct it in all areas of their life. And also to admit that we are ALL (including myself) hypocrites in the products and companies we support vs the things we believe in.
CornBurrito
Member
And also to admit that we are ALL (including myself) hypocrites in the products and companies we support vs the things we believe in.
But why care that we cant live in modern society without committing some kind of moral infraction?
Why can't we let the convenience of a moral action impact whether or not we perform it (I mean obviously we'd be more moral for making harder moral choices, but I think making easier moral choices is better than doing no moral choices)? Yes, boycotting CFA or Firefox while buying a smartphone is hypocritical to a degree. But chicken sandwiches and a browser are easier to go without or replace than a smartphone.
I'm not going to boycott Firefox over this, but I really don't see why someone shouldn't feel free to boycott Firefox over this. If you think that the boycott would harm more than it would help, that should be your argument. Not some bullshit "you're being hypocritical so just give it up."
Liu Kang Baking A Pie
Member
Gay rights is a pretty serious subject. If you knew Jobs and White were really into torture as a communication device, you might have more reservations about their products compared to just knowing they're jerks.I wouldn't care less what the CEO of Firefox believes in. I'll still use Firefox as long as I find it useful.
Steve Jobs was total a jerk - that didn't stop me from buying Macs. I don't like Dana White, I don't agree with anything he says and don't like how he treats fighters - that doesn't stop me from watching the UFC.
I wonder what kind of world we live nowadays, where everyone has to be 100% perfect and believe in the same things as us, or else!
Everyone has different lines they don't want crossed, and seeing a gay rights bigot promoted to CEO of a huge, influential company is pretty hard to handle for a lot of people.
OrangeJulius
Member
But why care that we cant live in modern society without committing some kind of moral infraction?
Why can't we let the convenience of a moral action impact whether or not we perform it (I mean obviously we'd be more moral for making harder moral choices, but I think making easier moral choices is better than doing no moral choices)? Yes, boycotting CFA or Firefox while buying a smartphone is hypocritical to a degree. But chicken sandwiches and a browser are easier to go without or replace than a smartphone.
I'm not going to boycott Firefox over this, but I really don't see why someone shouldn't feel free to boycott Firefox over this. If you think that the boycott would harm more than it would help, that should be your argument. Not some bullshit "you're being hypocritical so just give it up."
Man, you have a very strange argument. So convenience drives your morals? Glad I don't know you in person, no offense. I'm sure you feel the same about me. So basically by your logic, it would be ok for Hitler to kill all the jews because it's more convenient then letting them take all of they aryan German jobs? After all, it's more convenient to have less people hogging all the jobs amiright? Maybe I'm just not following you because I'm a bit sleepy. Are you saying our morals should be ignored if it's convenient to ignore them?
I mean, who the fuck doesn't have a smart phone right? We all need those or we'd die. It totally makes it ok for companies to build them with child labor, cuz it's convenient?
Liu Kang Baking A Pie
Member
This argument is along the boring lines of the usual "if you can't do it right, don't do anything at all" sort of thinking. It can be frustrating watching people direct their attention and passion to the wrong things or in wrong ways, or to watch them have holes in their logic, but ultimately I don't see "well fuck this browser" as that serious of a thing to stress over. I don't need to be mentally pure with my chosen causes and the ways I choose to express myself toward them to think Firefox's CEO is pretty gross.I never once inferred it's meaningless, taking a stand against injustice is never meaningless. I simply asked that people direct the fight at those worthy of the charge and to direct it in all areas of their life. And also to admit that we are ALL (including myself) hypocrites in the products and companies we support vs the things we believe in.
Oof.Man, you have a very strange argument. So convenience drives your morals? Glad I don't know you in person, no offense. I'm sure you feel the same about me. So basically by your logic, it would be ok for Hitler to kill all the jews because it's more convenient then letting them take all of they aryan German jobs? After all, it's more convenient to have less people hogging all the jobs amiright? Maybe I'm just not following you because I'm a bit sleepy. Are you saying our morals should be ignore if it's convenient to ignore them?
faceless007
Member
Of all the invocations of Godwin's Law I have ever seen, that may be the stupidest.
OrangeJulius
Member
Of all the invocations of Godwin's Law I have ever seen, that may be the stupidest.
It's eerie how that law is almost absolute isn't it? Sorry I'm too tired to think of a better analogy right now.
Liu Kang Baking A Pie
Member
There's nothing wrong with people only going as far with their beliefs as they feel they can. It feels like you're lecturing us to live this min/maxed life that would satisfy your logic, but people are aware of their personal limits and do what they can. It feels like you've just kind of forgotten that life isn't a game full of consistent personal achievement and benevolence.I mean, who the fuck doesn't have a smart phone right? We all need those or we'd die. It totally makes it ok for companies to build them with child labor, cuz it's convenient?
OrangeJulius
Member
There's nothing wrong with people only going as far with their beliefs as they feel they can. It feels like you're lecturing us to live this min/maxed life that would satisfy your logic, but people are aware of their personal limits and do what they can. It feels like you've just kind of forgotten that life isn't a game full of consistent personal achievement and benevolence.
I'm really not asking anyone to satisfy my logic though Liu. Saying people only do as much as they can in their personal limits is a cop out to me. It's saying "I will support these causes only if they don't interfere with my first world quality of life".
I'm sorry but I think that's weak. That's exactly why you will never see me boycott a company like Mozilla over this, not only is it not Mozillas fault and they likely didn't know about this. Even if they did, who the fuck cares? We ALL use products in our lives made by the mozillas and apples of the world. Like I said earlier, we'd all be living an Amish lifestyle if we all went balls to the wall with this boycotting nonsense. I don't want anyone to be min/max all or nothing about it. I want people to be able to acknowledge they are being more than a bit hypocritical when they support some bigoted companies but not another, all for the sake of personal convenience. Saying you can't do without your smart phone is a cop out, you can do it, you just don't want to because it isn't convenient for you.
I'll say it again, pick your battles. If this is one you feel strongly about then go get em tiger. You will never hear me say the struggle against bigotry is meaningless. My biggest point I've tried to make in this thread, and I think it's been lost in the back and forth is that I feel boycotting Mozilla for the CEO's action is the wrong play. If others disagree that is a-ok with me.
Yekshemesh
Member
This situation sucks, but not enough for me to stop using firefox. One person does not stink up a project IMO, especially one as great as firefox. Besides I don't have to agree with everyone and they to me... so meh. Political vote's and donations should be private matters anyways.
CornBurrito
Member
Man, you have a very strange argument. So convenience drives your morals? Glad I don't know you in person, no offense. I'm sure you feel the same about me. So basically by your logic, it would be ok for Hitler to kill all the jews because it's more convenient then letting them take all of they aryan German jobs? After all, it's more convenient to have less people hogging all the jobs amiright? Maybe I'm just not following you because I'm a bit sleepy. Are you saying our morals should be ignored if it's convenient to ignore them?
I mean, who the fuck doesn't have a smart phone right? We all need those or we'd die. It totally makes it ok for companies to build them with child labor, cuz it's convenient?
No I precisely didn't say any of that and I suggest you reread my post. Particularly, pay attention to where I said: We'd be more moral for making harder moral choices, but I think making easier moral choices is better than doing no moral choices.
For example: if someone considered eating meat immoral but didn't have the willpower to completely give it up, then it would be better for them to give up meat once a week than never at all.
OrangeJulius
Member
No I precisely didn't say any of that and I suggest you reread my post.
Why can't we let the convenience of a moral action impact whether or not we perform it
Are you sure about that?
I realize the absurdity of my Hiltler and the Jews analogy, but it was only to show the ridiculousness of you saying we should let convenience drive our moral values. Glad I don't live in that world or I'd have been shot by now for being a sarcastic twat.
CornBurrito
Member
Are you sure about that?
I mean please feel free to single out a single line, instead of looking at the rest of the content surrounding it. If your goal is to be an asshole, you're succeeding. If your goal is to have a discussion then you are doing a poor job.
Convenience shouldn't shape our morals. But it undeniably does, and I think we have to live with that and accept it rather than just calling each other hypocrites endlessly. Humans aren't capable of moral perfection. It is easier for me to give up murder (to the point where I have no desire to do it) than it is to give up lying. So I don't murder, but I do lie sometimes. I'm a hypocrite of course, but I think I'm a better person than someone that lies and murders. That's what I meant when I said we should let convenience impact our moral actions. Not that we should just do whatever is easy. Being moral is doing what is hard. But we aren't capable of being perfectly moral and at the very least we should do the easy stuff rather than doing nothing.
Liu Kang Baking A Pie
Member
I've been vegan, so I know the disconnect between some who think everyone should do it and the more reasonable thought process that veganism is a good moral and political goal if you care about animals and have the privileges and opportunity to do it all the way. Not everyone is so lucky, so it's valid and accepted that there are people out there eating a lot of $1 burgers.I'm really not asking anyone to satisfy my logic though Liu. Saying people only do as much as they can in their personal limits is a cop out to me. It's saying "I will support these causes only if they don't interfere with my first world quality of life".
I'm sorry but I think that's weak. That's exactly why you will never see me boycott a company like Mozilla over this, not only is it not Mozillas fault and they likely didn't know about this. Even if they did, who the fuck cares? We ALL use products in our lives made by the mozillas and apples of the world. Like I said earlier, we'd all be living an Amish lifestyle if we all went balls to the wall with this boycotting nonsense. I don't want anyone to be min/max all or nothing about it. I want people to be able to acknowledge they are being more than a bit hypocritical when they support some bigoted companies but not another, all for the sake of personal convenience. Saying you can't do without your smart phone is a cop out, you can do it, you just don't want to because it isn't convenient for you.
I'll say it again, pick your battles. If this is one you feel strongly about then go get em tiger. You will never hear me say the struggle against bigotry is meaningless. My biggest point I've tried to make in this thread, and I think it's been lost in the back and forth is that I feel boycotting Mozilla for the CEO's action is the wrong play. If others disagree that is a-ok with me.
I think you need to be a little more open to the idea that we can all be a little different in our goals and what we go "all the way" on depending on our life situations. I feel like people thinking gay rights is a serious issue and deciding they can do without a free browser because of it is pretty reasonable, and I also think people feeling the CEO isn't that big of a deal is also pretty reasonable. In the end, the actual issue did get more attention, which is a positive for everyone anyway. This doesn't need to be compared to people having expensive smartphones that they can't give up.
OrangeJulius
Member
I've been vegan, so I know the disconnect between some who think everyone should do it and the more reasonable thought process that veganism is a good moral and political goal if you care about animals and have the privileges and opportunity to do it all the way. Not everyone is so lucky, so it's valid and accepted that there are people out there eating a lot of $1 burgers.
I think you need to be a little more open to the idea that we can all be a little different in our goals and what we go "all the way" on depending on our life situations. I feel like people thinking gay rights is a serious issue and deciding they can do without a free browser because of it is pretty reasonable, and I also think people feeling the CEO isn't that big of a deal is also pretty reasonable. In the end, the actual issue did get more attention, which is a positive for everyone anyway.
I can agree with all of that. I just hope that the boycott doesn't catch on to the point that Mozilla loses money and has to lay off employees that had nothing to do with the CEO being a prick. It won't, I realize this, but you never know. I'm just saying I'd feel bad, I don't know about the rest of you.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.