Support NeoGAF

[Mercury Fred]

clearly you missed the point then. sorry about that.

No, I'm understanding the drivel you're trying to pass off as an argument.

 

[Devolution]

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

Is a job an inalienable right? No. There. You lose.

 

[Mercury Fred]

Is a job an inalienable right? No. There. You lose.

Correct.

And even moreso, other outcomes aside from firing have been laid out in this thread.

 

[TCRS]

and use what instead? chrome, opera? been there, done that, both are rubbish. whatever the opinion of the CEO, FF remains the best browser.

 

[foodtaster]

Is a job an inalienable right? No. There. You lose.

lose what? this was not a competition, please, don't be childish. and also, dispute your little tantrum, I am still correct in saying that losing a job because of an action is a punishment for said action. it's just a fact.

 

[Devolution]

lose what? this was not a competition, please, don't be childish.

Your comparison is simply made of straw and I'm blowing your house down.

lose what? this was not a competition, please, don't be childish. and also, dispute your little tantrum, I am still correct in saying that losing a job because of an action is a punishment for said action. it's just a fact.

You can keep thinking this way but it is in no way is comparable to the denial of rights.

 

[JABEE]

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.

Yeah. This is where I am right now. He's the CEO of a company. He is under scrutiny for everything. This kind of publicity is bad for Mozilla.

From the perspective of whether people are fighting for what is unequivocally right. I agree. It is clear that taking away or preventing gay people from marrying has no good argument. This seems to stem from people using religious texts as a way to push forward bigoted views.

Now that this is public, Mozilla and its CEO are going to have to deal with this.

 

[foodtaster]

No, I'm understanding the drivel you're trying to pass off as an argument.

the fact that you said what means you did not. why ask a question if you understand?

 

[Mercury Fred]

lose what? this was not a competition, please, don't be childish. and also, dispute your little tantrum, I am still correct in saying that losing a job because of an action is a punishment for said action. it's just a fact.

You're for real actually telling someone else not to be childish?

OK.

 

[Kangi]

lose what? this was not a competition, please, don't be childish.

Says the one who is constantly trying to act like he has a checkmate when all he has left is a pawn. You didn't even address what she actually said, and what she said is accurate. Losing your job is not able to be compared to having an entire minority stripped of their rights. You keep trying this dated "intolerant of intolerance" argument and it's just not working.

 

[foodtaster]

You're for real actually telling someone else not to be childish?

OK.

i'm curious, what have I said that is childish? i'd like quotes, you know, to not do it against in the future.

Says the one who is constantly trying to act like he has a checkmate when all he has left is a pawn. You didn't even address what she actually said, and what she said is accurate. Losing your job is not able to be compared to having an entire minority stripped of their rights. You keep trying this dated "intolerant of intolerance" argument and it's just not working.

what are you even talking about? no one made the claim you're suggesting. i do not respond to claims i never made.

You can keep thinking this way but it is in no way is comparable to the denial of rights.

again, this is obviously the case. i'm not against gay marriage, in fact, unlike (probably) most of the people in this thread i actually helped the cause in a meaningful way (voting in MA). but that's besides the point.

 

[Ninja Scooter]

again, this is obviously the case. i'm not against gay marriage, in fact, unlike (probably) most of the people in this thread i actually helped the cause in a meaningful way (voting in MA). but that's besides the point.

By voting for gay marriage in MA do you feel like you were being bigoted and intolerant towards people against gay marriage?

 

[Mercury Fred]

i'm curious, what have I said that is childish? i'd like quotes, you know, to not do it against in the future.


what are you even talking about? no one made the claim you're suggesting. i do not respond to claims i never made.


again, this is obviously the case. i'm not against gay marriage, in fact, unlike (probably) most of the people in this thread i actually helped the cause in a meaningful way (voting in MA). but that's besides the point.

Childish? Jeez it's already here in your edited post-- "unlike most people in this thread..." How the hell do you know that? You don't.

 

[Devolution]

again, this is obviously the case. i'm not against gay marriage, in fact, unlike (probably) most of the people in this thread i actually helped the cause in a meaningful way (voting in MA). but that's besides the point.

Appeal to authority.

Nice try but I'm an activist.

 

[foodtaster]

By voting for gay marriage in MA do you feel like you were being bigoted and intolerant towards people against gay marriage?

that's irrelevant. i'm not changing people's ability to express. now, if one of those people publicly shamed me for voting for gay marriage there would be a problem, haha.

anyway, i have to sleep soon. good talk with all of y'all. i'm really not trolling, i just believe that people should use the political process rather than trying to change people's behaviors directly (which is good in the short run, but leads to bad things imo, like the oppressing of groups)

Childish? Jeez it's already here in your edited post-- "unlike most people in this thread..." How the hell do you know that? You don't.

of course i don't know. i just said probably. most people on this forum prolly aren't old enough to vote.

Appeal to authority.

Nice try but I'm an activist.

nice. but that wasn't my point. my point was it was the form of activism that matters in the end.

 

[Timedog]

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.

You may want to re-read those bolded parts over and over again followed by editing your post to remove the word "logically" because you have in no way presented a logical argument.

 

[Ninja Scooter]

that's irrelevant. i'm not changing people's ability to express. .

How is anybody changing Mr. CEO's ability to express? Even if he is fired does not still not retain the right to express whatever opinions he wants? Freedom of expression=freedom from being arrested and detained over your opinions. Unless this CEO ends up in jail then you're constant use of "Freedom of expression" is really misguided.

 

[foodtaster]

How is anybody changing Mr. CEO's ability to express? Even if he is fired does not still not retain the right to express whatever opinions he wants? Freedom of expression=freedom from being arrested and detained over your opinions. Unless this CEO ends up in jail then you're constant use of "Freedom of expression" is really misguided.

it's basic human psychology that if someone is punished for a behavior they're less likely to do said behavior again. the behavior in question was "expression." being fired would be a pretty significant punishment, imo. like if you were fired for being against gay marriage (which happens often as you noted).

 

[rocketknight]

it's basic human psychology that if someone is punished for a behavior they're less likely to do said behavior again. the behavior in question was "expression." being fired would be a pretty significant punishment, imo. like if you were fired for being against gay marriage (which happens often as you noted).

We have a very strong incentive as a society to discourage racist and homophobic behavior, or do you disagree?

 

[Ninja Scooter]

it's basic human psychology that if someone is punished for a behavior they're less likely to do said behavior again. the behavior in question was "expression." being fired would be a pretty significant punishment, imo. like if you were fired for being against gay marriage (which happens often as you noted).

So you don't think there should be punishments for freedom of expression? If I walk into work tomorrow and tell my boss that I hate black people I shouldn't expect any sort of repercussion? If I worked at an ice cream shop and an interracial couple came in and I told them I thought they were unnatural and sinners should I not expect any sort of punishment from my boss? If that interracial couple and their friends decided to no longer frequent that establishment and voiced their displeasure to my boss, should he just say "Sorry guys, freedom of expression!" shrug his shoulders?

 

[foodtaster]

We have a very strong incentive as a society to discourage racist and homophobic behavior, or do you disagree?

I agree. this isn't the way to do it. let's say we do what you're implying and just socially shun people who disagree with. let's say we eliminate racism and homophobic behavior. awesome! however, by that same magnitude (a lot, if we eliminated racism), we've told society that an effective way of dealing with things is to shun people who disagree with. needless to say people can find other things to disagree about and the whole thing starts over again.

i personally think it's better to do it via the political process (which needs work, I know), that way even if people are intolerant (like the ceo), they can have their expression, but at the same time people who'd like to participate in same sex marriage can do so.

So you don't think there should be punishments for freedom of expression? If I walk into work tomorrow and tell my boss that I hate black people I shouldn't expect any sort of repercussion? If I worked at an ice cream shop and an interracial couple came in and I told them I thought they were unnatural and sinners should I not expect any sort of punishment from my boss? If that interracial couple and their friends decided to no longer frequent that establishment and voiced their displeasure to my boss, should he just say "Sorry guys, freedom of expression!" shrug his shoulders?

that's an interesting example. if your hatred of black people was somehow completely isolated from your behavior towards black people it'd be ok (like if you hated black people, but somehow treated them equally anyway). i know you're rolling your eyes because that's obviously not what would happen. so in your example, yeah your boss would judge you.

let's have a example more like the op. let's say donated $10 to a non profit organization that was pro-segregation, and then your boss somehow fired you and punished you for that. would that be ok? it's my personal opinion that it's not.

 

[Devolution]

If you alienate your employees with your views, that's a problem.
If you alienate your shareholders with your views, that's a problem.
If you alienate your customers with your views, that's a problem.

Sometimes this is dealt with via an apology other times this is dealt with by removing the person from the company (firing).

 

[Madness]

it's basic human psychology that if someone is punished for a behavior they're less likely to do said behavior again. the behavior in question was "expression." being fired would be a pretty significant punishment, imo. like if you were fired for being against gay marriage (which happens often as you noted).

Everything we learn and do is social engineering. What you would want as a society is to reward favorable behaviors and punish unfavorable ones. You're forgetting the numerous times people are fired or punished for something in their personal lives, for something they say, believe.

 

[Ninja Scooter]

I agree. this isn't the way to do it. let's say we do what you're implying and just socially shun people who disagree with. let's say we eliminate racism and homophobic behavior. awesome! however, by that same magnitude (a lot, if we eliminated racism), we've told society that an effective way of dealing with things is to shun people who disagree with. needless to say people can find other things to disagree about and the whole thing starts over again.

i personally think it's better to do it via the political process (which needs work, I know), that way even if people are intolerant (like the ceo), they can have their expression, but at the same time people who'd like to participate in same sex marriage can do so.

This seems to be a point that keeps going over your head but HE HAS HIS FUCKING EXPRESSION. NOBODY HAS TAKEN THAT AWAY. NOBODY IS TRYING TO TAKE IT AWAY. How hard is that for you to get?

 

[Devolution]

After he's fired he can still espouse his views. The company is under no obligation to keep him on as CEO.

 

[rocketknight]

I agree. this isn't the way to do it. let's say we do what you're implying and just socially shun people who disagree with. let's say we eliminate racism and homophobic behavior. awesome! however, by that same magnitude (a lot, if we eliminated racism), we've told society that an effective way of dealing with things is to shun people who disagree with. needless to say people can find other things to disagree about and the whole thing starts over again.

i personally think it's better to do it via the political process (which needs work, I know), that way even if people are intolerant (like the ceo), they can have their expression, but at the same time people who'd like to participate in same sex marriage can do so.

Eliminating racism and homophobia with social sanction doesn't send the message that we silence people we disagree with, it sends the message that it is not acceptable to be a racist or a homophobe. The CEO is going to have his right to idiotic, bigoted speech whether he works at Mozilla or not. He can go donate another thousand dollars to NOM the day he gets fired, if he wants. You can still find dumbass white supremecist newsletters to read if you want to jack off to freedom of expression - those things continue to not be illegal. We just don't put up with that shit when we don't absolutely have to, and we're no worse off for it - quite the opposite.

 

[foodtaster]

This seems to be a point that keeps going over your head but HE HAS HIS FUCKING EXPRESSION. NOBODY HAS TAKEN THAT AWAY. NOBODY IS TRYING TO TAKE IT AWAY. How hard is that for you to get?

what? if you punish someone for a behavior, again they're less likely to do said behavior. in that sense you're making it less likely for them to want to do the behavior again. so yes, you are taking away their expression.

it's like saying that if you talk and you're shocked no one is taking away your ability to talk. well, that's true, but it's probably better to stay silent if you're going to be shocked, right?

Eliminating racism and homophobia with social sanction doesn't send the message that we silence people we disagree with, it sends the message that it is not acceptable to be a racist or a homophobe. The CEO is going to have his right to idiotic, bigoted speech whether he works at Mozilla or not. He can go donate another thousand dollars to NOM the day he gets fired, if he wants.

hmm, I disagree. you're correct, but that depends on how you do it. if mozilla simply did not hire people who were not pro-gay, that's one thing, but for someone who is anti-gay to be effectively forced out for displaying such behavior is another. if you boycott organizations because their members say things you disagree with, then you're effectively silencing them, no? since there's a financial incentive to avoid the boycott which can only be done if you say nothing.

 

[Devolution]

You mean if he keeps being bigoted others might not want to hire him? Aww I feel so bad for him now.

 

[Ninja Scooter]

what? if you punish someone for a behavior, again they're less likely to do said behavior. in that sense you're making it less likely for them to want to do the behavior again. so yes, you are taking away their expression.

it's like saying that if you talk and you're shocked no one is taking away your ability to talk. well, that's true, but it's probably better to stay silent if you're going to be shocked, right?

WE are not punishing him. WE DO NOT HAVE THE POWER OR ABILITY TO DO THAT.

Again, why is that so hard for you to get?

If you hire a dude with a swastika tattooed on his forehead to work the front desk of your hotel, and your hotel loses business, is this the fault of the people who stop coming to your hotel?

 

[Mercury Fred]

what? if you punish someone for a behavior, again they're less likely to do said behavior. in that sense you're making it less likely for them to want to do the behavior again. so yes, you are taking away their expression.

it's like saying that if you talk and you're shocked no one is taking away your ability to talk. well, that's true, but it's probably better to stay silent if you're going to be shocked, right?

Please answer this:

So you don't think there should be punishments for freedom of expression? If I walk into work tomorrow and tell my boss that I hate black people I shouldn't expect any sort of repercussion? If I worked at an ice cream shop and an interracial couple came in and I told them I thought they were unnatural and sinners should I not expect any sort of punishment from my boss? If that interracial couple and their friends decided to no longer frequent that establishment and voiced their displeasure to my boss, should he just say "Sorry guys, freedom of expression!" shrug his shoulders?

 

[foodtaster]

Please answer this:

please keep up. already did.

WE are not punishing him. WE DO NOT HAVE THE POWER OR ABILITY TO DO THAT.

Again, why is that so hard for you to get?

If you hire a dude with a swastika tattooed on his forehead to work the front desk of your hotel, and your hotel loses business, is this the fault of the people who stop coming to your hotel?

your example isn't accurate. but to answer your question, that's just a matter of whether the hotel wants more expression for the employees or money. the same example could be said for tattoos in general, actually.

and again, if the "masses" force mozilla to fire him. he was indirectly fired by the masses. that's how boycotts do. the entire purpose of a boycott is to punish. people do not protest to hear themselves speak, they protest for actual change.

Everything we learn and do is social engineering. What you would want as a society is to reward favorable behaviors and punish unfavorable ones. You're forgetting the numerous times people are fired or punished for something in their personal lives, for something they say, believe.

right. my point (my original point, actually) is that even if this strategy is successful, you're just perpetuating the behavior that led to the discrimination to begin with. (since there are people who thought gay marriage was an "unfavorable behavior" that should be punished.

 

[Timedog]

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.

Absolutely incorrect. They are punishing people who were born differently. Being gay is not a "view". All of your posts are based off the assumption that being gay is a "view" and therefore reversing the roles works. Your argument is exceedingly shitty. Please stop.

 

[foodtaster]

Absolutely incorrect. They are punishing people who were born differently. Being gay is not a "view". All of your posts are based off the assumption that being gay is a "view" and therefore reversing the roles works. Your argument is exceedingly shitty. Please stop.

what? wanting gay marriage is a view. what are you talking about? not wanting gay marriage is a view. they are both views. no one said the act of being gay is a view. if I did, I apologize as that is not what i meant. (though I know I never said such a thing)

 

[Ninja Scooter]

right. my point (my original point, actually) is that even if this strategy is successful, you're just perpetuating the behavior that led to the discrimination to begin with. (since there are people who thought gay marriage was an "unfavorable behavior" that should be punished.

discriminating against someone for having stupid viewpoints and discriminating against someone for simply being black or being gay are not the same thing. If you want to stretch your shitty logic further you could say we are discriminating against rapists and murderers by putting them in prison.

 

[Devolution]

what? wanting gay marriage is a view. what are you talking about? not wanting gay marriage is a view. they are both views. no one said the act of being gay is a view. if I did, I apologize as that is not what i meant. (though I know I never said such a thing)

One is the desire to restrict rights and discriminate.

The other isn't.

 

[foodtaster]

One is the desire to restrict rights and discriminate.

The other isn't.

that doesn't change the fact that they're views. there's no need to inject emotion into everything.

discriminating against someone for having stupid viewpoints and discriminating against someone for simply being black or being gay are not the same thing. If you want to stretch your shitty logic further you could say we are discriminating against rapists and murderers by putting them in prison.

my entire point is that "stupid viewpoints" is subjective. there are people who think gay marriage is a "stupid viewpoint" that is the entire point. anyway, i'm done here. pretty hard to talk to someone who just attacks the other person. sounds familiar eh? (like people who attack pro-gay people, sometimes even literally!)

 

[Devolution]

that doesn't change the fact that they're views.

Nope. You're lending credence to the same idea as others in this thread that's still just as faulty as when the thread started. That the way we should treat homosexuals is merely a matter of opinion. Simply put one way of dealing with them is discrimination and the other way is granting rights. One is humanist, the other is barbaric.

 

[foodtaster]

Nope. You're lending credence to the same idea as others in this thread that's still just as faulty as when the thread started. That the way we should treat homosexuals is merely a matter of opinion. Simply put one way of dealing with them is discrimination and the other way is granting rights. One is humanist, the other is barbaric.

i agree, but that doesn't change the fact that they're still views. the fact that you're saying one is barbaric and one is not only confirms this.

 

[Sheroking]

what? wanting gay marriage is a view. what are you talking about? not wanting gay marriage is a view. they are both views. no one said the act of being gay is a view. if I did, I apologize as that is not what i meant. (though I know I never said such a thing)

Look, if you do ANYTHING that compromises your employer or your employers business at any job to an extent that exceeds your value, you will be let go. Including and especially your personal politics becoming a news story.

 

[Madness]

I think all of you guys are just speaking in circles. It's simple, he has the right to express whatever he wants, others have the right to express how they react to his expression. Whether it's agreement, boycotts etc.

 

[Ninja Scooter]

i agree, but that doesn't change the fact that they're still views. the fact that you're saying one is barbaric and one is not only confirms this.

So do you think all "views" should be given the same credence and put on the same level? Where do you draw the line? Should NAMBLAs views be given equal footing? How about holocaust deniers? Are we discriminating against people with these views by not wanting to associate with them on a social level?

 

[Mercury Fred]

that doesn't change the fact that they're views. there's no need to inject emotion into everything.

You're creating a false equivalence (again).

You might as well say that someone who loves to drown cats is having his freedom of expression stifled because people don't want to have lunch with people who drown cats. Your argument makes about that much sense.

PS drowning cats is a view! It is you guys.

 

[Timedog]

what? wanting gay marriage is a view. what are you talking about? not wanting gay marriage is a view. they are both views. no one said the act of being gay is a view. if I did, I apologize as that is not what i meant. (though I know I never said such a thing)

Please follow along. Anti-gay marriage people are not punishing "people who want gay marriage legalized", they are punishing gays for being gay. Their battle is not against "people who want gay marriage legalized". It it against gays for being gay. Whether gay marriage laws pass or not, there is no effect on non-gay pro-gay marriage supporters. The direct effect of this legislation is on gay people. Note my use of the word "direct" before responding to that last sentence.

 

[Kangi]

I deny that my desire for basic human rights is a "view". And if it were, the view that I should be oppressed just for existing should not be given equal credence. You can take literally anything and try to make it seem like it's equivalent with that mindset. It's just our view against theirs that we think <insert historical large-scale crime against humanity> was a touch brutal, after all.

 

[Devolution]

Consequences for your speech separate from government intervention is not equivalent to being denied rights foodtaster. That's pretty much what we're saying here.

 

[CyclopsRock]

Being free to express yourself is not the same as being free from the consequences of that expression, and people are free to withhold their custom to anyone for any reason.

Unless they're a Christian bakery, obviously.

 

[Sai-kun]

that doesn't change the fact that they're views. there's no need to inject emotion into everything.

how is there not?

how do I not get furious when I think that myself, my friends, and some of my family don't have the same rights as everyone else?

how do you fucking remove yourself that much from the equation?

 

[Devolution]

Emotional appeals are actually some of the best when it comes to getting people to empathize with a group different from themselves. So that's an unfortunate statement.

 

[linsivvi]

my entire point is that "stupid viewpoints" is subjective. there are people who think gay marriage is a "stupid viewpoint" that is the entire point. anyway, i'm done here. pretty hard to talk to someone who just attacks the other person. sounds familiar eh? (like people who attack pro-gay people, sometimes even literally!)

False equivalency: the poster.

 

[TaroYamada]

False equivalency: the poster.

It's not really a false equivalency to suggest that morality is subjective, moral relativity is a rather realistic position. I think foodtaster is referring to moral relativity? I'm unsure. While I agree with gay marriage (voting record: Wyden, Defazio, Merkeley, Jill Stein, none of whom I voted for solely because of that position), one can rarely craft a factual argument in favor of a variety of human rights issues, which is why so many resort to emotional pleas when these topics come up.