hardcastlemccormick
Banned
Doesn't really matter unless they publicly donate a lot of money to those causes, does it?
OKCupid urges users to not use Firefox
- Thread starter jasonng
- Start date
- Status
Doesn't really matter unless they publicly donate a lot of money to those causes, does it?
I mean that's nice and all, but it doesn't really change my point.
If the CEO of the company I work for was a homophobic moron but kept his private and professional lives separate, I would certainly hope that people wouldn't boycott my company as it would only hurt my colleagues and I.
davepoobond
you can't put a price on sparks
I don't know. Does it? I think it would matter regardless if they donated to anything or not.
Earthstrike
Member
I am not sure. How does this change the fact that I wouldn't want to work with them?
Angry Puppy
Member
Maybe I should switch to the legendary internet exploder i guess
davepoobond
you can't put a price on sparks
It doesn't.
But you disagreed that companies shouldn't pry into personal lives of employees. So would you want your company to ask everyone if they were a homophobe or a mysoginist so that you wouldn't have to work with them?
That would include asking you.
appaws
Banned
It's been interesting over the last few years watching the evolution of a generally libertarian position, essentially "everybody should be able to do action A if they so choose." I was able to get on board with this...
...to a position of "everybody better agree with action A, or else." This one makes me uncomfortable.
...to a position of "everybody better agree with action A, or else." This one makes me uncomfortable.
hardcastlemccormick
Banned
If somebody's being public about their opinions, but not actively helping the cause, I would dislike working with them. If somebody's being public about their opinions and actively helping the cause, I would dislike working with them even more.
I would prefer to associate with someone who doesn't hold those views over someone who does privately, but in the end I wouldn't really know either way, so it's entirely theoretical.
Or else people will tell you you're wrong. What a horrible world we live in today.
appaws
Banned
But it is more than that...right? Isn't a lot of this thread about whether people deserve certain employment if they happen to hold the position disliked by the current hivemind?
Green Biker Dude
Banned
i didn't know firing someone was the same as telling them they're wrong
man, i've been fired from the internet so many times
man, i've been fired from the internet so many times
Ampersands
Member
I wonder what people would think if the CEO didn't donate money to Prop 8 but still held these beliefs. Probably the same thing.
ProudCanuck
Banned
The history argument stands because people have their principles which they are for and against. Many people who support gay marriage might have been against it just a couple years ago and supported candidates who held a position against it . Does it mean if someone has a certain position that you bar that person from having a career position in society where he is educated enough to have and have him demoted in the corner rooms and deride him to the point where he doesn't accept though his or her own convictions but the forceful nature of society which force changes a position ? That kind of thinking just creates a manufactured belief not a legitimate belief
Drake
Member
Yeah me too. Not changing anytime soon.
I assume the donation information is public information?
eBay Huckster
Member
i honestly wouldn't give two shits about the man if he hadn't donated any money, and i doubt most of this thread would, either
I think this is a good point.
I'm still torn.
How is any boycott fair then? It's not like the average employee has the ability to enact enough change in a company to respond to any boycott.
Tech Company B has bad human rights record in manufacturing, get's boycotted. What really is the difference as far as the affect on the employees, as well as their "fault" in the matter, in general? Majority of employees in general are not involved in whatever a company is being boycotted for.
There are differences between my rhetorical situation and a controversial private life decision, but not really for the majority of employees.
It's definitely in that dude's best interest to apologize and donate some money to a LGBT rights charity. It's going to be a PR nightmare for Mozilla if he stays CEO without trying fix things. Pretty weird to spend money to support depriving people of rights anyway...
Come on man, no need for personal attacks on people
Come on man, no need for personal attacks on people
Mercury Fred
Banned
The exact same thing can be said about mixed race marriages by moving the dates slightly.
Eh, he has every right to vote and donate how he sees fit, OkCupid has every right to boycott what they want.
I think it's a bit of a non-controversy. Did Mozilla hire him for his personal beliefs or his technical ability? As long as he isn't promoting them at his place of business, I couldn't care less what he does/says at home.
I think it's a bit of a non-controversy. Did Mozilla hire him for his personal beliefs or his technical ability? As long as he isn't promoting them at his place of business, I couldn't care less what he does/says at home.
Earthstrike
Member
For the purposes of your question let's presume that "asking" actually worked. Yes I wouldn't mind at all if my company did this. And I wouldn't care if they asked me.
Surprisingly that wonderful poster has not returned to this thread after being embarrassed
The Faceless Master
Member
a $1000 political contribution isn't private. it is a matter of public record. if he were privately homophobic this issue wouldn't have popped up.
Darkmakaimura
Can You Imagine What SureAI Is Going To Do With Garfield?
I'll be sticking with Firefox until another browser personally feels better for me. I switched over a year or two ago after Chrome became somewhat shitty. Anyways, I don't agree with said CEO but then again, there's products I own that I'm sure are from people whose political or social views may be against my own. Regardless, I'm sticking with the Fox.
Besides, I can blame OKC for making me realize how much a failure I am.
Besides, I can blame OKC for making me realize how much a failure I am.
I kid.
I'm actually kind of frightened by some of you guys now. Not to mention that I almost nearly had an anxiety attack when I first came to this thread. I use Firefox because I like this browser. And it doesn't slow down my computer like Chrome does.
Does this mean some of you are gonna go on a witch hunt for anyone who uses Firefox, or just frown upon anyone claiming to use the browser? Either of those does not sound too appealing.
I don't support the viewpoints of the CEO at all.
Does this mean some of you are gonna go on a witch hunt for anyone who uses Firefox, or just frown upon anyone claiming to use the browser? Either of those does not sound too appealing.
I don't support the viewpoints of the CEO at all.
Mercury Fred
Banned
Yes. There will be gay gangs roving the streets and the internet out for vengeance. Do not fuck with these LGBT gangs.
PS CEOs are the same as consumers of a company's product. Interchangeable really.
Darkmakaimura
Can You Imagine What SureAI Is Going To Do With Garfield?
Honestly, I don't think anyone here would ostracize someone for using FireFox. People on GAF can be very judgmental and berating, but this forum is still one of the few of its kind with mostly mature and intelligent posters.
Honestly, unless he's actually using company money to donate to these anti gay groups, I really don't see the big deal. He may be CEO, but his views doesn't represent the views of the whole company. If he wants to waste his money on fighting a battle that's already been won, let him. I'll continue using Fire Fox.
Octavion Rex
Banned
As long as they agree with you, am I right? Otherwise, they are bigots and immature.
Lop derp derp I just copied that into Pages but nothing's happening send help?
Meanwhile, Mozilla is the same place it was.
Mozilla said:
http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2014/03/31/3420867/mozilla-marriage-equality/
You Are Viewtiful
Member
Do you have an example of non-bigots being called bigots?
I'm not sure who this is directed at, but I've had a lot of agreeable disagreements on this board without people resorting to labeling like that. Moreso than most other places I've been, anyways.
Darkmakaimura
Can You Imagine What SureAI Is Going To Do With Garfield?
I really didn't understand this reply at first but I don't know where the hell you're getting that from.
It's as idiotic as the reasoning for protesting against a product because of one persons beliefs.
Mercury Fred
Banned
Hi, we've been through this.
Personal beliefs are not the same as a public, political donation to strip gay people of civil rights.
ZombiePlatypus
Member
Really cool of OKCupid.
Laughing Banana
Weeping Pickle
Uuuuuuuuhhh isn't Mozilla getting most of their funds from Google?
So... maybe you folks should stop using Chrome too?
I guess if you really support this then the only 'correct' product to use is IE since Microsoft is supposedly great with this sort of thing.
Blood Diamonds
Banned
I don't know, did Google's CEO donate to a cause against Gay rights?
Laughing Banana
Weeping Pickle
The boycott means that Mozilla as an organization should be punished because they pick a bigot like him as the CEO, and thus people are refusing to use their product.
So logically they should also not products associated with Mozilla in any way, shape, or form, yeah? Well, considering that they get their funds mostly from Google, does not mean that logic dictates people should boycott products from Google too? After all, Google's involvement is directly linked to Mozilla as a company.
"Boycott the company! But do not boycott those who give the company their money!" seems weird and illogical to me.
People also have to consider the timeframe of the event too. The donation/proposition happened 6 years ago.
There is no way you can hold a company accountable for such a belief, because of giving a man a CEO position. Which he earned for reasons due to his experience.
He as a person has some understandable backlash, though to hold Mozilla responsible as a whole behind his beliefs is idiotic.
Let me guess, you don't think being against marriage equality is bigoted thinking?
faceless007
Member
Uh, no. Why would you extrapolate to that extreme? Every company on the planet is "associated with Mozilla" if you broaden the definition enough, but they are not responsible for Mozilla so why would anyone care about that?
Blood Diamonds
Banned
Why should people boycott products from Google when the Mozilla CEO was the one who donated the money?
People are boycotting Mozilla because their CEO donated money to an organization that's against gay rights. Not Google or Yahoo or Microsoft or whatever shit, it was Mozilla. I really don't see your point here, lots of things are associated with Mozilla and Google but a lot of those did not do what Mozilla's CEO did, and it's just really silly to stretch things that way.
foodtaster
Banned
his point is that the majority of mozillas revenues come from google, so via extension (the same ridiculous extension that attributes mozilla itself) google is involved.
the hypocrisy of this thread is ridiculous. you can't simultaneously enjoy the freedom of expression yet punish people for said expression because it doesn't agree with you. would people get mad if he donated $1000 for gay marriage? prolly not b/c y'all agree with it, so by extension it's ridiculous to get mad because he [didn't] do what you agree with.
in the end people are mad because they're doing things you don't agree with. the very same reasoning that has led to people being against gay marriage, ironically...
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked