New Mozilla (Firefox) CEO Brendan Eich Donated To Anti-Gay Charity - Boycott Started!
- Thread starter Jasper
- Start date
- Status
Oh, I agree. My comment was tongue in cheek.
Gemüsepizza;106637831 said:
Holy moly. Does Mozilla even have PR staff? Because that's a train wreck. Honest, while I was worried about Eich's ability to effectively do the job because browsers aren't apolitical and sometimes have to take a stand on freedom issues (as I cited earlier in the thread), I thought the actual fix to that was for the CEO position in Firefox to hold less power, rather than the personal lives of the people in it.
But between the fact he's clearly lost the confidence of the staff with public calls for his resignation, and that interview, he's a dead man walking.
Well, to be fair Eich was the former CTO and invented Javascript. He has an awful lot of code commits in Firefox.
If he's the dick responsible for Australis I want him gone.
But chrome has JavaScript support which Eich invented
you are obviously a gay rights opponent
/s
Darkmakaimura
Can You Imagine What SureAI Is Going To Do With Garfield?
Sticking with the ol'e Firefox. I dislike and disagree with the CEO but I still find Firefox to be the best browser for me and as long as Firefox itself doesn't promote prejudice, I'll continue to use it.
Good on those employees for resigning but hopefully they can find other work.
Good on those employees for resigning but hopefully they can find other work.
What's the problem? I'm a homosexual (because I really have to say this) and I'm not offended by this. He can do as he pleases. I will still use Firefox.
What kind of planet do you live on? How or why would his views ever be implemented into Firefox?
Suikoguy
I whinny my fervor lowly, for his length is not as great as those of the Hylian war stallions
There is a stark difference between a CEO using his personal funds and time to support something, versus using the corporation to do the same thing.
That being said, the bolded part is bullshit. There is nothing "tough" about it, just ignorance.
Dude Abides
Banned
No it wasn't "reserved for the worst atrocities committed by mankind." That's complete nonsense.
It's not a tough subject matter.
It must also be weird to apologize for something you believe in. Regardless of what it is.
Google gives Mozilla money
Google is killing our privacy
Google works together with other tech companies to keep wages low
Just on the top of my head. As stupid as this CEO is, Google is far more destructive.
There's a difference between him merely having an opinion and him ACTIVELY working to legally oppress a minority.
It's exactly the same as if he funded a movement preventing black people from voting.
Escape Goat
Member
Dont piss of the Millennials.
Mercury Fred
Banned
Hmm. Donating money to strip people of civil rights they have already been granted for no justifiable reason whatsoever seems pretty evil to me. Especially after remaining unrepentant about it.
Maidenpool?
Member
I don't mean to be a snark, but the irony here is off the charts.
This isn't tough subject matter, this is civil rights. It's frankly unacceptable, standing in the way of that, I don't really care what people call him. I couldn't care less about the strength of the word "evil" either, at the end of the day.
Mercury Fred
Banned
Battersea Power Station
Member
That's incredibly offensive.
Mercury Fred
Banned
I simply interpreted it as him having literally no understanding of the word "ironic." Made me laugh, honestly.
ZombiePlatypus
Member
What if he used his personal money to donate to racist causes? Something like the KKK? Or what if it was to a cause/group that strived to keep women unequal to men in society?
Personal funds or not, if you're choosing to be a proponent of oppression, then people have every right to reject you and the entities that choose to get involved with you.
No. First of all, voting is a right. Marriage is a privilege, and even in this discussion, it is all about granting this privilege to one new group. And not even all of them. We are not talking about brother marrying his brother, we are not talking about a woman marrying many women. So even if this "right" is granted to this one new group, it remains a privilege based on culture colonialism. And even if that privilege is granted, it is still discriminating homosexuals. If you are, for example, a lesbian singlemother, you would receive less benefits than a married couple, despite having one less income to pay the rent, one less income to pay the car and one less income to care of child/ren.
Marriage is a privilege, and even if it would include more people, it would still discriminate.
What.
Welcome to the age of the internet. Things like this are literally worse than Hitler.
You never questioned marriage, didn't you?
No one has said anything like that in this thread. Stop talking out of your ass.
Mercury Fred
Banned
People will tie themselves in truly embarrassing knots to defend the indefensible, as evidenced by this thread.
You can keep regurgitating that lie though samantics all you want, the Supreme Court of the United States disagrees with you.
Mysterious
Banned
.
Stop believing in a lie. Or can you explain why homosexual married couples shouldn't be discriminated but muslims and mormons should be hunted?
Mormons and Muslims are allowed to marry and before you bring up a silly polygamy argument, gay people are fighting to marry SOMEBODY, in other words the same rules that apply to all marriages. They are not fighting to marry everybody and everything that comes within a 5 mile radius of them. Which is the difference.
I wouldn't equate someone having a different opinion on marriage to torture. It's not like he believes gay people should be tortured or that ethnic minorities should be burned at the stake like the ku klax clan. Those are very different extremes and making such huge assumptions about someone is actually quite a stretch.
At the end of the day people make their own minds up and we all think differently. You can't force people to take up your position on all issues. We're all different people with different minds. And I think that it's extreme to think all people with a different view from yours should automatically lose their jobs - no matter how good they are at that job and how professional they conduct themselves at work. It's a total waste of the talent pool and has a negative net effect on society.
Personally I think marriage is an outdated institution, not compatible with modern lifestyles. It wouldn't change much if it all if marriage were completely abolished. If you look at many developed countries the marriage rate is actually in a decline, co-habitation is the new way of life for many young people. And I think the trend is set to continue that way for the long term. So basically we're talking about an old institution on it's way out and soon to be confined to the pages of history.
the fact that you think it is the exact same thing boggles my mind. Legally and historically they are not even close to the same thing.
- Status