Support NeoGAF

[RedAssedApe]

I should boycott Okcupid because it says that I am in the bottom 50th percentile of attractiveness on the site and only shows girls to me that fall under the same category.

lol

 

[Laughing Banana]

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.

Hmm, I suppose so.

Google is not "just associated" with Mozilla though. They give Mozilla most of their funds.

But I suppose I can see your POV.

 

[Drensch]

Why not? He has just as much right to have an opinion on the issue as you do. I disagree with his opinion, but I think taking away his right to have one isn't fair.

I think he had his right to an opinion. He gave a sizable contribution to a campaign. Now if you're equating the CEO job to his opinion or rights? I will have to protest since my rights were violated, they never offered me the job.

 

[Calamari41]

Surprisingly that wonderful poster has not returned to this thread after being embarrassed

I actually went to go see a movie (Muppets Most Wanted, highly recommended). I decided not to continue on in this thread because people were getting weirdly personal and emotional, and ignoring the fact that I never said those two actively gave money to or endorsed Prop 8. I even outright said as such. I said that they held he same belief at the time that this Mozilla guy did, in 2008,which is actually verified in those little time lines you quoted.

And before anyone else threatens me via PM, I am actually to the extreme libertarian end of the spectrum on gay marriage in that I don't think any marriage should be recognized by the state, but as that will never happen then I believe they all should be recognized.

Now that I've clarified once again, I'm out. Enjoy distorting what I said and high fiving each other in your vicious echo chamber.

 

[faceless007]

Hmm, I suppose so.

Google is not "just associated" with Mozilla though. They give Mozilla most of their funds.

But I suppose I can see your POV.

Was Eich CEO while Google gave them funds?

Did they give Mozilla funds with full knowledge of Eich's stance?

Was Google funding Mozilla the company in any way, shape, or form a show of support for Eich's outside actions?

If none of these are true I don't see why Google's actions are relevant.

 

[rocketknight]

Then that's his choice to, and as long as he doesn't let it change how he runs his company that's his personal choice. There's a difference between what he does in his private life and what he does leading the company, and I think that's an important distinction. He could be an awful person in his own personal life, but that should only affect how you view him, not how you think he can perform his job.



Why not? He has just as much right to have an opinion on the issue as you do. I disagree with his opinion, but I think taking away his right to have one isn't fair.

He has every right to have an "opinion" on this "issue," the same as he's free to have an "opinion" on the "issues" of evolution and the earth being round. But don't pretend that actively working (not simply having an "opinion," but actively working) to strip people of their human and civil rights is something that's confined to his "private life" - it's stepping into and ruining other people's private lives.

 

[Laughing Banana]

Was Eich CEO while Google gave them funds?

Did they give Mozilla funds with full knowledge of Eich's stance?

Was Google funding Mozilla the company in any way, shape, or form a show of support for Eich's outside actions?

If none of these are true I don't see why Google's actions are relevant.

I guess my thinking is more like this way:

You don't want to support/give money to company A for doing something that betrays your principle. Cool. That means you don't want them to benefit from you.

But then you give money to company B, who is known to give money to company A. So in this way don't you think it can be said you support A although indirectly?

Seems like a contradiction to me, but anyways, I guess I should just drop this.

 

[Drensch]

Why is it shocking to people that people who do not agree with a business or their representatives choose not to use their products?


This has been going on forever.

 

[Mercury Fred]

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.

Nothing idiotic about it whatsoever.

This isn't about "beliefs" it's about actions. He could issue a proper apology, come out in favor of marriage equality and make a sizable donation to back up that claim and this could go away. It's not about punishing Mozilla rather than it is turning away from a company that has a bigot as a CEO.

 

[You Are Viewtiful]

I guess my thinking is more like this way:

You don't want to support/give money to company A for doing something that betrays your principle. Cool. That means you don't want them to benefit from you.

But then you give money to company B, who is known to give money to company A. So in this way don't you think it can be said you support A although indirectly?

Seems like a contradiction to me, but anyways, I guess I should just drop this.

Or it could be that people drop Firefox to send a message to Mozilla. Dropping Chrome does not really send a message to Mozilla.

It probably does send a message to Google, I don't know. Why does Google give Mozilla money? Because they use their search engine?

 

[y2dvd]

Commendable of OKC. It actually worked and got me to switch to Chrome for now.

 

[Black Nectar]

So does a gay person that goes to OKcupid, see this and still uses Firefox makes him/her a homophobic and against gay marriage? Does it make him/her a supporter of a supporter of no gay marriage? Is it self hate?

Or maybe the CEO of firefox is divorced and doesn't want anyone to go through what he did and since straight marriage is already legal hes trying to help out where he can. What if there was a bill banning straight marriage and he would of supported that too?


edit: oh yeah, and the billions (yes billions) of people on Earth who are anti gay marriage either work for a company or own one, are you going to boycott most companies/businesses on planet Earth? Because if you boycott Mozilla you have to boycott them all, its only fair. You can't pick and choose at your own convenience.

 

[Ninja Scooter]

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...

Nobody is punishing him. NObody is asking for him to go to jail for his views. But people can express their disapproval via a boycott of his business' services. The business that, as CEO, he publicly represents and during which he publicly donated money to the cause of stripping people of their civil rights. Nobody in this thread or asking for a boycott has the power to fire this dude, but if enough of a stink is made the people who DO have that power, Mozilla, might see him as enough of a distraction or bad enough for business (and, ultimately, their bottom line) that they will can him. And if that happens, sorry if I don't feel any worse for him than the random McDonalds employee who goes on twitter and calls Obama a nigger and gets fired for it. This is not about a simple political issue that you can agree or disagree on, this is about having a bigoted, ignorant, hopefully soon to be outdated viewpoint on par with being "for" public segregation in the 1950s.

 

[Mercury Fred]

So does a gay person that goes to OKcupid, see this and still uses Firefox makes him/her a homophobic and against gay marriage? Does it make him/her a supporter of a supporter of no gay marriage? Is it self hate?

Or maybe the CEO of firefox is divorced and doesn't want anyone to go through what he did and since straight marriage is already legal hes trying to help out where he can. What if there was a bill banning straight marriage and he would of supported that too?

wow

 

[Black Nectar]

wow

Great counter argument. But yes my post was mostly jest except for my edit.

 

[Enter The 36 Chambers]

Uhhhh mozilla didn't donate.

So who the fuck cares, I'll keep using ff on my laptop because it's the better product.

It's only some ceo's personal opinion, it's not like he's using his position to promote his views or run the company in guide of those views.

 

[rkn]

Half hearted, at the very least OKC should announce they aren't using javascript anymore, the language created by a confirmed bigot.

 

[Mercury Fred]

Uhhhh mozilla didn't donate.

So who the fuck cares, I'll keep using ff on my laptop because it's the better product.

It's only some ceo's personal opinion, it's not like he's using his position to promote his views or run the company in guide of those views.

Actually no. He contributed money to a campaign to strip gay people of rights they had already been legally granted.

That is not a "personal opinion."

 

[TAJ]

I could buy the religious excuse if it came from someone who believes in and follows every stupid rule in Leviticus. But no one does... seriously no one.

 

[Azerare]

Nothing idiotic about it whatsoever.

This isn't about "beliefs" it's about actions. He could issue a proper apology, come out in favor of marriage equality and make a sizable donation to back up that claim and this could go away. It's not about punishing Mozilla rather than it is turning away from a company that has a bigot as a CEO.

We are barely discussing the same thing. I'm saying don't hold all of mozilla responsible. You're more so wanting him to apologize for his past actions, which is all fine and dandy. Just realize they should address him as the individual, not the entirety of Mozilla.

If he used mozilla funds? Sure go grab the pitchforks, but he didn't.

They didn't make him CEO because he's a 'bigot', they did it because of his experience. If I turned away from a company and it's products just because of one individuals past/beliefs... I'd be Amish.

Though I'm done discussing this further, these arguments are going on a loop.

 

[foodtaster]

Nobody is punishing him. NObody is asking for him to go to jail for his views. But people can express their disapproval via a boycott of his business' services. The business that, as CEO, he publicly represents and during which he publicly donated money to the cause of stripping people of their civil rights. Nobody in this thread or asking for a boycott has the power to fire this dude, but if enough of a stink is made the people who DO have that power, Mozilla, might see him as enough of a distraction or bad enough for business (and, ultimately, their bottom line) that they will can him. And if that happens, sorry if I don't feel any worse for him than the random McDonalds employee who goes on twitter and calls Obama a nigger and gets fired for it. This is not about a simple political issue that you can agree or disagree on, this is about having a bigoted, ignorant, hopefully soon to be outdated viewpoint on par with being "for" public segregation in the 1950s.

sure, however, the people on the other side see your views as the one that are bigoted, and ignorant. this type of behavior only perpetuates the very discrimination you're against. if you're for gay marriage you should attack the issue itself, not the people.

 

[Ninja Scooter]

sure, however, the people on the other side see your views as the one that are bigoted, and ignorant. this type of behavior only perpetuates the very discrimination you're against.

They are wrong. There are arguments where there is a moral right and wrong. This is one of them. History will look back on people who were vehemently against gay rights the same way we now look back at people who thought black people should have their own water fountains and should sit in the backs of buses. Frankly, if those people think I'm ignorant, I couldn't give a hot fuck.

 

[JordanN]

They skipped leg day.

 

[foodtaster]

They are wrong. There are arguments where there is a moral right and wrong. This is one of them. History will look back on people who were vehemently against gay rights the same way we now look back at people who thought black people should have their own water fountains and should sit in the backs of buses. Frankly, if those people think I'm ignorant, I couldn't give a hot fuck.

you're probably right, but it still doesn't change the fact that basically people in this thread want to punish people with views differently than themselves, which is what ironically the people on the other side have been doing. you're no different than them. how many people in this thread actually would go out of their way to stand up for gay marriage? prolly a slim amount, it's not really about gay marriage, it's more about the self selected group in this thread who are for gay marriage not liking the guy because he has a different opinion.

your last sentence nicely summarizes why social progress only happens when people die.

 

[Mercury Fred]

We are barely discussing the same thing. I'm saying don't hold all of mozilla responsible. You're more so wanting him to apologize for his past actions, which is all fine and dandy. Just realize they should address him as the individual, not the entirety of Mozilla.

If he used mozilla funds? Sure go grab the pitchforks, but he didn't.

They didn't make him CEO because he's a 'bigot', they did it because of his experience. If I turned away from a company and it's products just because of one individuals past/beliefs... I'd be Amish.

Though I'm done discussing this further, these arguments are going on a loop.

He's not a random employee. He's the CEO, essentially the leader of the company. And he's a bigot. I'm sure there's a lovely candidate out there who does't like to spend his or her discretionary income to intentionally harm and marginalize an entire segment of the population.

 

[Ninja Scooter]

you're probably right, but it still doesn't change the fact that basically people in this thread want to punish people with views differently than themselves, which is what ironically the people on the other side have been doing. you're no different than them.

They don't want to "punish" anyone as they do not have the power to "punish" the CEO of a major corporation. What they have the right to do is voice their own opinions, boycott the products of this company, and if the company decides that they cannot or do not want to take the financial hit that might come along with that, they can fire their CEO. If that happens, it's capitalism and consumerism at work. People "voting with their wallets" if you will. I see nothing wrong with that.

It's not what the 'other side' has been doing because nobody is asking for this CEO's civil rights to be taken away.

 

[foodtaster]

They don't want to "punish" anyone as they do not have the power to "punish" the CEO of a major corporation. What they have the right to do is voice their own opinions, boycott the products of this company, and if the company decides that they cannot or do not want to take the financial hit that might come along with that, they can fire their CEO. If that happens, it's capitalism and consumerism at work. People "voting with their wallets" if you will. I see nothing wrong with that.

It's not what the 'other side' has been doing because nobody is asking for this CEO's civil rights to be taken away.

let's not kid ourselves. the whole point of said boycott would be to get him removed, which is punishment, for what? his views against gay marriage. this is not voting with your wallets, because when you vote with your wallets freedom of expression is not being removed, in fact voting with your wallet is a freedom of expression in itself. ironically, that's what the ceo did, and he's being boycotted. ahh, the irony.

let's reverse the thread. if he were donating towards gay marriage and anti-gay people were boycotting mozilla would you find it ridiculous? the answer is obviously yes. now, reverse the situation and what do you have? what we're discussing right now. equally ridiculous. if people want to support gay marriage boycotting organizations their affiliated with will not work. if you take the organizations that have anti-gay people in them you would probably have 80% of all organizations on this planet.

him being the ceo, dispute popular belief in this thread, is irrelevant.

 

[Ninja Scooter]

let's not kid ourselves. the whole point of said boycott would be to get him removed, which is punishment, for what? his views against gay marriage. this is not voting with your wallets, because when you vote with your wallets freedom of expression is not being removed, in fact voting with your wallet is a freedom of expression in itself. ironically, that's what the ceo did, and he's being punished. ahh, the irony.

The punishment wouldn't be coming from the people, it would be coming from his employer, as in "you did something stupid that is costing us money so we are going to fire you". Nobody is removing his freedom of expression. He has the right to continue to be as "anti-gay marriage" as he wants to be, but the problem so many people run into is thinking "Freedom of expression" is freedom from consequences. If Mozilla decides he is becoming a negative for the company, then he can go express his freedom somewhere else. Again, I see ZERO problem with this.

let's reverse the thread. if he were donating towards gay marriage and anti-gay people were boycotting mozilla would you find it ridiculous? the answer is obviously yes. now, reverse the situation and what do you have? what we're discussing right now. equally ridiculous. if people want to support gay marriage boycotting organizations their affiliated with will not work. if you take the organizations that have anti-gay people in them you would probably have 80% of all organizations on this planet.

This shit happens ALL THE TIME. Right wing radical groups try to boycott everything under the sun. It doesn't take or have an effect because usually the issues they are trying to boycott are issues where they are not on the right side, and losing favor as time passes. 10-15 years ago nobody would have cared if the CEO of a major company were a bigot. Now they do. That's progress. I don't see how you can't see it any other way. As for whether or not this can cause any change or have an effect, as Chick-Fil-A
http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2014...ke-to-oppose-same-sex-marriage/6421395174118/

 

[Mercury Fred]

let's not kid ourselves. the whole point of said boycott would be to get him removed, which is punishment, for what? his views against gay marriage. this is not voting with your wallets, because when you vote with your wallets freedom of expression is not being removed, in fact voting with your wallet is a freedom of expression in itself. ironically, that's what the ceo did, and he's being boycotted. ahh, the irony.

let's reverse the thread. if he were donating towards gay marriage and anti-gay people were boycotting mozilla would you find it ridiculous? the answer is obviously yes. now, reverse the situation and what do you have? what we're discussing right now. equally ridiculous. if people want to support gay marriage boycotting organizations their affiliated with will not work. if you take the organizations that have anti-gay people in them you would probably have 80% of all organizations on this planet.

him being the ceo, dispute popular belief in this thread, is irrelevant.

In what way is the ceo's freedom of expression being removed?

Here's a hint: freedom of speech does not equal freedom from consequence.

 

[foodtaster]

The punishment wouldn't be coming from the people, it would be coming from his employer, as in "you did something stupid that is costing us money so we are going to fire you". Nobody is removing his freedom of expression. He has the right to continue to be as "anti-gay marriage" as he wants to be, but the problem so many people run into is thinking "Freedom of expression" is freedom from consequences. If Mozilla decides he is becoming a negative for the company, then he can go express his freedom somewhere else. Again, I see ZERO problem with this.

let's take your logic.

let's go against gay marriage. if we do so, no one is removing their freedom of expression. they still have the right to continue to be as "pro-gay marriage" as they want to be. but the problem so many people run into is thinking "freedom of expression" is the freedom from consequences. if people decide they are becoming a negative for them, then they can go express their freedom somewhere else.

and lookie here. this is the exact logic anti-gay people have towards gay. "go move to a state where it's legal, not in my backyard".

i understand what you're trying to say, but the process is just wrong, because it's the same process that led to the discrimination to begin with. if people didn't think in the way you're describing there would be no "anti-gay" or "pro-gay" to begin with, because people wouldn't meddle with other people's ability to express to begin with.

This shit happens ALL THE TIME. Right wing radical groups try to boycott everything under the sun. It doesn't take or have an effect because usually the issues they are trying to boycott are issues where they are not on the right side, and losing favor as time passes. 10-15 years ago nobody would have cared if the CEO of a major company were a bigot. Now they do. That's progress. I don't see how you can't see it any other way. As for whether or not this can cause any change or have an effect, as Chick-Fil-A
http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2014/...6421395174118/

no one is arguing said strategy is not effective. however, bigotry is relative.

In what way is the ceo's freedom of expression being removed?

Here's a hint: freedom of speech does not equal freedom from consequence.

ah, that's what they said about the blacks. "you can express your rights for equality, but you're not exempt from the beatdown we'll give you when you try." result? people stop expressing. let's not kid ourselves. the point of consequences is to change behavior. eventually you will not express if there are consequences, hence removal of said expression.

 

[Kangi]

"You're no different than <x>!" is quickly becoming the new Godwin's law.

 

[Devolution]

Some people get off on being willfully obtuse and this thread is evidence of it.

 

[rocketknight]

let's reverse the thread. if he were donating towards gay marriage and anti-gay people were boycotting mozilla would you find it ridiculous?

I know you think you've found some winning argument, but since being a bigot and not being a bigot aren't equivalent, "reversing the thread" really doesn't do anything.

"Okay, so you're fine with firing a CEO for puppy-kicking, but what if he actually loved puppies, and an anti-puppy company fired him for petting puppies? Would you want that to happen? No? HA! CHECKMATE!"

It just doesn't work.

 

[foodtaster]

I know you think you've found some winning argument, but since being a bigot and not being a bigot aren't equivalent, "reversing the thread" really doesn't do anything.

"Okay, so you're fine with firing a CEO for puppy-kicking, but what if he actually loved puppies, and an anti-puppy company fired him for petting puppies? Would you want that to happen? No? HA! CHECKMATE!"

It just doesn't work.

what? bigotry is not an absolute thing, which is my entire point. so if you attack people and not the issues you're just removing people's ability to express. unless you're arguing that "bigotry" is absolute. gay marriage is one thing, but there are other issues that are not so "cut and dry" i'm for gay marriage, but i was just pointing out that the logic in this thread is what led to the discrimination to begin with.

 

[Ninja Scooter]

let's take your logic.

let's go against gay marriage. if we do so, no one is removing their freedom of expression. they still have the right to continue to be as "pro-gay marriage" as they want to be. but the problem so many people run into is thinking "freedom of expression" is the freedom from consequences. if people decide they are becoming a negative for them, then they can go express their freedom somewhere else.

and lookie here. this is the exact logic anti-gay people have towards gay. "go move to a state where it's legal, not in my backyard".

i understand what you're trying to say, but the process is just wrong, because it's the same process that led to the discrimination to begin with. if people didn't think in the way you're describing there would be no "anti-gay" or "pro-gay" to begin with, because people wouldn't meddle with other people's ability to express to begin with.


no one is arguing said strategy is not effective. however, bigotry is relative.


ah, that's what they said about the blacks. "you can express your rights for equality, but you're not exempt from the beatdown we'll give you when you try." result? people stop expressing. let's not kid ourselves. the point of consequences is to change behavior. eventually you will not express if there are consequences, hence removal of said expression.

Wanting the right to marry by law is not an "expression". You are making some really bad comparisons. People who want the right to marry are not "bigots". It's not a 1:1 comparison. It's not a black/white issue like you are making it out to be. The people on either side of this issue are not equal. One group want to take away rights from another. The other group want everyone to have the same rights. People who are taking their own, personal stand to boycott Firefox are not bigots.

You seem to be making this really bad comparison that "People who boycott a product" and "People who want to take away people's civil rights" are on opposite ends of the same issue. They are not. Not by a long shot.

 

[foodtaster]

Wanting the right to marry by law is not an "expression". You are making some really bad comparisons. People who want the right to marry are not "bigots". It's not a 1:1 comparison. It's not a black/white issue like you are making it out to be. The people on either side of this issue are not equal. One group want to take away rights from another. The other group want everyone to have the same rights. They are not both "bigots", only one is.

what? if you want something you are expressing a desire. and I do not think they are, but there might exist a group of people who think that is the case. and you're right about the last part, but that's not what you've been saying. if that was what was the case, the ceo part, and mozilla itself would be irrelevant, and ultimately it would just be another instance of supporting gay marriage.

and again, a duality exists inherently in bigotry, by definition:

"bigoted attitudes; intolerance toward those who hold different opinions from oneself."

 

[Devolution]

Wanting the right to marry by law is not an "expression". You are making some really bad comparisons. People who want the right to marry are not "bigots". It's not a 1:1 comparison. It's not a black/white issue like you are making it out to be. The people on either side of this issue are not equal. One group want to take away rights from another. The other group want everyone to have the same rights. People who are taking their own, personal stand to boycott Firefox are not bigots.

Scooter why can't you tolerate my intolerance?

 

[Black Nectar]

No seriously guys, hes a recent divorcee whose just trying to stop other people from going through what he did any way he can.

 

[Mercury Fred]

ah, that's what they said about the blacks. "you can express your rights for equality, but you're not exempt from the beatdown we'll give you when you try." result? people stop expressing. let's not kid ourselves. the point of consequences is to change behavior. eventually you will not express if there are consequences, hence removal of said expression.

Uh so just to be clear, you're saying that boycotting Mozilla because its rich CEO donated money to a political campaign TO STRIP GAY PEOPLE OF CIVIL RIGHTS is the same as black people being beaten during the civil rights struggle.

 

[Ninja Scooter]

what? if you want something you are expressing a desire. and I do not think they are, but there might exist a group of people who think that is the case. and you're right about the last part, but that's not what you've been saying. if that was what was the case, the ceo part, and mozilla itself would be irrelevant, and ultimately it would just be another instance of supporting gay marriage.

They want THE RIGHT. As in the law. Gay people don't give a fuck if homophobes don't like them or learn to accept them. They just want the same LEGAL RIGHTS everyone else has.

To "reverse the issue" like you seem so intent on doing, nobody is trying to make it a LAW that you cannot hire a bigot CEO or have bigoted opinions.

 

[rocketknight]

Yeah, if only America were even more racist than it already is! We really need that KKK brand of ideological diversity, and it's a shame that that expression is squelched! Woe is us!

Not all ideas are morally equivalent. It is okay to treat different things differently. In fact, you should!

 

[foodtaster]

They want THE RIGHT. As in the law. Gay people don't give a fuck if homophobes don't like them or learn to accept them. They just want the same LEGAL RIGHTS everyone else has.

To "reverse the issue" like you seem so intent on doing, nobody is trying to make it a LAW that you cannot hire a bigot CEO or have bigoted opinions.

obviously this is the case. i'm not against the issue, i'm against the logic. you cannot punish people for having opinions that are different than yours yet simultaneously complain when said person has opinions different than yours. why? they are the same.

if people in this thread want to support gay marriage they should go call their congressman. period. trying to manipulate people by extension is simply what got us to this predicament to begin with. that's all i'm saying.

Uh so just to be clear, you're saying that boycotting Mozilla because its rich CEO donated money to a political campaign TO STRIP GAY PEOPLE OF CIVIL RIGHTS is the same as black people being beaten during the civil rights struggle.

what?

 

[Devolution]

Just to be clear boycotts aren't actually punishment. Stop using that word, it doesn't mean what you think it means.

 

[foodtaster]

Just to be clear boycotts aren't actually punishment. Stop using that word, it doesn't mean what you think it means.

the boycott in this case can only lead to punishment, so i'm saving myself typing because yes, it is. either that or you do not know what punishment means.

boycott:
verb
verb: boycott; 3rd person present: boycotts; past tense: boycotted; past participle: boycotted; gerund or present participle: boycotting

1.
withdraw from commercial or social relations with (a country, organization, or person) as a punishment or protest.

 

[rocketknight]

and again, a duality exists inherently in bigotry, by definition:

"bigoted attitudes; intolerance toward those who hold different opinions from oneself."

And with this I just completed my bingo card.

 

[Mercury Fred]

what?

Yes, I actually said the same thing out loud when I read your post making that comparison.

 

[foodtaster]

Yes, I actually said the same thing out loud when I read your post making that comparison.

clearly you missed the point then. sorry about that.

 

[Ninja Scooter]

the boycott in this case can only lead to punishment, so i'm saving myself typing because yes, it is. either that or you do not know what punishment means.

If that leads to punishment, then it's a punishment being handed down by his employer, not by the public or the "pro-gay marriage" lobby or anyone else. And people being punished by their employers for doing things that cost said employer money has been happening since the inception of employment.

If you take issue with that, feel free to boycott Firefox until they hire him back.

 

[Devolution]

the boycott in this case can only lead to punishment, so i'm saving myself typing because yes, it is. either that or you do not know what punishment means.

boycott:
verb
verb: boycott; 3rd person present: boycotts; past tense: boycotted; past participle: boycotted; gerund or present participle: boycotting

1.
withdraw from commercial or social relations with (a country, organization, or person) as a punishment or protest.

In this instance it's a protest but it's hardly punishment in the realm of rights. If you're going to paint that comparison it's simply not apt.

 

[foodtaster]

In this instance it's a protest but it's hardly punishment in the realm of rights. If you're going to paint that comparison it's simply not apt.

the only satisfactory of said protest would be the ceo being fired, no? therefore it is a punishment, for him at least.

If that leads to punishment, then it's a punishment being handed down by his employer, not by the public or the "pro-gay marriage" lobby or anyone else. And people being punished by their employers for doing things that cost said employer money has been happening since the inception of employment.

If you take issue with that, feel free to boycott Firefox until they hire him back.

what? if mozilla is pressured by the public to fire him, then by extension he was fired by the public, hence the protest to begin with. let's please not kid ourselves. the last sentence of your statement, i should point out, is the same logic that allows people to say, donate money to a cause to get certain people, or groups rather, "punished." and with this, the loop is complete.