Support NeoGAF

[linsivvi]

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.

It's not a false equivalency to put people fighting for rights and those who fight for stripping rights from others on the same level? Ok.

And if you still can't see how stupid this is, change the subject from sexuality to race and I'd like you to defend it the same way.

 

[TaroYamada]

It's not a false equivalency to put people fighting for rights and those who fight for stripping rights from others on the same level? Ok.

And if you still can't see how stupid this is, change the subject from sexuality to race and I'd like you to defend it the same way.

I'm not defending Eich's views, one adhering to moral relativity doesn't mean they support a view.

 

[SquiddyCracker]

This is a problem.
I don't support companies in charge of douchebags, but I also don't want the ineptitude of IE or "privacy"-enabled Chrome.

Yeah how dare this guy hold the same political view on gay marriage that Hillary Clinton did as far back as March 2013 and that Barack Obama did as far back as March 2012. Fuckin' burn him alive.

 

[linsivvi]

I'm not defending Eich's views, one adhering to moral relativity doesn't mean they support a view.

You're defending his view that bigots and racists and sexists can be compared to those fighting for equal rights.

 

[Polari]

Seems a bit extreme. I have gay friends who are against gay marriage as they believe marriage as a concept preserves patriarchal power structures, and that the gay community shouldn't be buying into/supporting that - a position I'm not entirely in disagreement with. I don't know if being against gay marriage is necessarily homophobic (although in our country same sex civil unions existed for years with equal rights to marriage bar adoption so that may account for a different perspective). They and I probably wouldn't donate to a campaign against gay marriage though, granted.

 

[Sheroking]

Seems a bit extreme. I have gay friends who are against gay marriage as they believe marriage as a concept preserves patriarchal power structures, and that the gay community shouldn't be buying into/supporting that - a position I'm not entirely in disagreement with. I don't know if being against gay marriage is necessarily homophobic (although in our country same sex civil unions existed for years with equal rights to marriage bar adoption so that may account for a different perspective). They and I probably wouldn't donate to a campaign against gay marriage though, granted.

Your gay friends are idiots, and whether or not they believe the institution of marriage is a good one, they should have their right to do so as a matter of equality.

I like how you say: "Equal rights to marriage except adoption", which, withholding adoptions for same-sex couples might be more horrid than withholding marriage, all things considered.

 

[TaroYamada]

You're defending his view that bigots and racists and sexists can be compared to those fighting for equal rights.

I'm defending his view that both are moral positions, if that is his actual position. He's not lying; some followers of some religions would absolutely oppose gay marriage and consider a pro-gay marriage position "stupid", I've been lambasted by some who fit that definition. Organized religion is quite arguably the biggest proponent of moral universalism and in some cases absolutism.

It wasn't that long ago that some who supported gay marriage were the ones adopting some form of moral relativity to stick to that position. Moral relativism is often a philosophy associated with the left wing (you can tell by how hilariously biased conservapedia's entry is on the topic). Regardless of that, I don't wish to derail this thread into a discussion on philosophical stances for which debates will endlessly wage on. NeoGAF isn't the best place for such a debate anyways.

In closing, one of my favorite quotes on morality from Oscar Wilde's An Ideal Husband:

Morality is merely the attitude we adopt towards those of whom we personally dislike.

 

[linsivvi]

I'm defending his view that both are moral positions

Not in 2014. Go ahead and defend his view but it's wrong. Period.

 

[TaroYamada]

Not in 2014. Go ahead and defend his view but it's wrong. Period.

Just before I leave and so there's no confusion for anybody reading the above quote lin used, I didn't mean moral in the sense of a moral vs. immoral spectrum. I meant moral in the sense that both are positions firmly rooted within moral codes or doctrines.

 

[Zelias]

Don't use OKC but good on them for taking a stand. I wouldn't give a shit about Eich if he hadn't actually donated to restrict people's rights. I'd be happy if he simply recanted his views and apologized though. Until then, Chrome it is.

 

[linsivvi]

Just before I leave and so there's no confusion for anybody reading the above quote lin used, I didn't mean moral in the sense of a moral vs. immoral spectrum. I meant moral in the sense that both are positions firmly rooted within moral codes or doctrines.

That doesn't make those "moral codes" moral. Those beliefs are immoral and thus he's been dropping false equivalency in this thread all day.

 

[TheDanger]

What do I care if some CEO doesn't like gay people? He is entitled to his opinion, just as we are. Maybe his views are stupid, but I care about the product I use from a company not about the views of their CEO who probably never even saw the source code.

In my country almost everyone who is older than 30 is against gays, many people wouldn't have a job if they chose to not work for someone who doesn't share their beliefs.

 

[SquiddyCracker]

Not in 2014. Go ahead and defend his view but it's wrong. Period.

Not really, you could be against marriage full stop.
That is not an immoral position to hold, and the consequence of such a position would be to support any legislation that results in less marriages all around.

 

[linsivvi]

Not really, you could be against marriage full stop.
That is not an immoral position to hold, and the consequence of such a position would be to support any legislation that results in less marriages all around.

What does that have to do with this argument? That's not what fucking Prop 8 is. Stop sidetracking by introducing scenarios where everybody knows is not the case here.

 

[Polari]

Your gay friends are idiots, and whether or not they believe the institution of marriage is a good one, they should have their right to do so as a matter of equality.

I like how you say: "Equal rights to marriage except adoption", which, withholding adoptions for same-sex couples might be more horrid than withholding marriage, all things considered.

I don't really see how they're idiots. If equality means condoning patriarchal norms they don't want any part of it. If you can't understand that then I think you're the one with a problem.

I agree that withholding adoptions is horrid. The point is they would have been happy if the status quo with civil unions was maintained but the adoption law amended to allow same sex couples those rights.

 

[TaroYamada]

Not really, you could be against marriage full stop.
That is not an immoral position to hold, and the consequence of such a position would be to support any legislation that results in less marriages all around.

An adherent of moral relativity would be unlikely to force their views on others as we typically view morality as cultural or individual (I personally adhere to the individual stance) and subjective. Basically if they decided they opposed marriage they'd let that come into play in their own life, maybe present an argument and their reasoning for such a position but not maintain it as an absolute truth.

I vote for politicians on the left who disagree with my moral set on the mere basis that I don't perceive my morals as truth for anybody but myself.

 

[Valtýr]

Seems like a shitty PR stunt to me.

 

[Kangi]

I don't really see how they're idiots. If equality means condoning patriarchal norms they don't want any part of it. If you can't understand that then I think you're the one with a problem.

It's one thing to be against marriage in general, but to be against gay marriage just because they don't want to be married is not much better than any other anti-marriage equality argument. It's not as if marriage is being forced upon them, and us others who do actually want the freedom to marry shouldn't have our progress toward that impeded by them (so I suppose it's nice that they haven't donated against it or whatnot).

Honestly, I'm surprised that idea has gained any traction. It used to be known as something conservatives fabricated. "No no, they don't actually want marriage!" But I feel it's still too niche an idea to actually bring up and use to represent even a portion of LGBs.

 

[tkscz]

Wait, this isn't an April fools joke? Okcupid is serious about this?

 

[Polari]

It's one thing to be against marriage in general, but to be against gay marriage just because they don't want to be married is not much better than any other anti-marriage equality argument. It's not as if marriage is being forced upon them, and us others who do actually want the freedom to marry shouldn't have our progress toward that impeded by them (so I suppose it's nice that they haven't donated against it or whatnot).

Honestly, I'm surprised that idea has gained any traction. It used to be known as something conservatives fabricated. "No no, they don't actually want marriage!" But I feel it's still too niche an idea to actually bring up and use to represent even a portion of LGBs.

It's more about feminism and gender equality. I guess it depends where your priorities lie. These are women that would probably identify as feminists as strongly as they would as gay.

 

[keuja]

Anyway, this is just further proof that Chrome users are the true Master Race.

Can the master race open a URL from the address bar (or from a bookmark) in a new tab by default?

 

[Kangi]

It's more about feminism and gender equality. I guess it depends where your priorities lie. These are women that would probably identify as feminists as strongly as they would as gay.

In that sense I believe marriage equality and gender equality go hand-in-hand. After all, what better way to dissolve traditional gender roles in marriages than to make marriage gender-neutral?

But I suppose I shouldn't start arguing against people I'm not actually speaking to just as much as you can't really represent them for such an argument, so I'll drop it. The whole "settle for less" thing just tends to irk me.

 

[Coreda]

Show me some browser code or experience that is biased towards any set of personal beliefs and then I'd agree; but when you have the person who created Javascript - a backbone of the web as we all know it - and co-founded Mozilla itself, I don't see a solid reason to think that with such a history we suddenly need to boycott the browser.

 

[Madness]

Eh, never mind. I feel others have said it already in the thread.

 

[ZehDon]

I'm all for freedom of expression, and freedom of reaction to that expression - sans violence, of course. I don't think there is anything wrong with OKCupid urging a boycott for whatever reasons. You might think that they "shouldn't", but that's opinion. They should be free to conduct business however they so choose.
However, I have to ask: are they currently boycotting every other company that employ people opposed to gay marriage? Is it a question that they ask potential business partners? Do they deny people access to their service if they oppose gay marriage? Is that a question they're legally allowed to ask? Because, if they're not going that far with this, then even though I'm all for people taking a stand, it feels pretty damn hollow - and I wouldn't be surprised if it were a business move of some kind, or a marketing stunt, and little else.

On a more personal note, and somewhat off topic I suppose, I think we need to be careful with how far we're OK with digging. This gentlemen made a US$1,000.00 political donation from his personal finances to support the democratic process in a non-violent way. Regardless of ones personal opinion on this topic, he didn't break the law and did not harm anyone. Is he restricting people's rights, via the democratic process? Of course. But, gay marriage will be legalised in Western societies via the democratic process - without bloodshed - within a few years time. It's a statistical inevitability at this point. Time is against the opposition.
Once gay marriage is legalised, are we going to continue on this path? We ask for non-violence, we ask for democratically elected leaders producing democratically elected laws, and we ask for tolerance. And we're getting everything. I don't know - I feel like there needs to be a line somewhere.
The law itself respects everyone - religious, atheists, environmentalists, industrialists, capitalists, racists, anti-homosexuals, sexists - and says that we're all allowed to believe whatever we want, as long as we're not hurting people. Democracy ensures that whatever the majority believes, will eventually be what the law reflects. I think we need to be careful that we don't overstep, and start bullying people. There's no law, nor should there be, against being a dick. And that protects each and everyone of us if we have unpopular beliefs and opinions: freedom of expression, and freedom of reaction to that expression - sans violence, of course.

 

[Fuchsdh]

To be clear, it's not quite prior opposition; I suspect a lot of this ruckus would have died down had Eich said "This is something from my past, over the last few years my opinions on this subject have evolved, blah blah blah cautionary tale about putting money towards a cause when you haven't considered the full ramification"; the failure to distance from past actions is seen as tacit continuation of it.

I don't think that makes a difference to me. He's not diverting company funds to it, or using Firefox's brand recognition or anything like that, it's his own personal support.

If I support gun control legislation, does that mean my conservative boss would be within my rights to fire me? I'd say no--if it has no bearing on my output, it shouldn't matter. Likewise views on abortion, compulsory education, vaccines, climate change, Israel-Palestinian conflict and whatever else generally turns into a divisive discussion when it's the topic.

TaroYamada knows what's up.

 

[POWERSPHERE]

People still use Firefox?

 

[BossLackey]

It blows my mind that gay rights are still an issue. People are stupid.

 

[linsivvi]

It blows my mind that gay rights are still an issue. People are stupid.

It blows my mind even more that people are bringing up that relative morality bullshit. I feel stupider after addressing it.

 

[Buzzati]

"Ooh, you know what Bill's doing now, he's going for the righteous indignation dollar. That's a big dollar. A lot of people are feeling that indignation. We've done research. Huge market. He's doing a good thing."

 

[nature boy]

Can't support OKCupid on this.

It's much more important to have an open-source browser thrive than to boycott said browser because it's CEO made an infortunate donation. CEOs come and go, ffs and it's not like the Mozilla Foundation and its contributors endorse that donation.

 

[Daffy Duck]

Maybe they should tell people to stop using Javascript too, and stop using it on their site.

 

[Snkfanatic]

I'm not making the connection Not in support of gay marriage=Homophobe. Sorry, but I honestly believe you can have no problem with homosexuality and still not be in favour of gay marriage, In the same way you can be homophobic and not give a shit..

What kind of crazy logic is this...

 

[davepoobond]

It blows my mind that gay rights are still an issue. People are stupid.

Sheltered existence?

There are still race issues, too.

 

[Elfforkusu]

Show me some browser code or experience that is biased towards any set of personal beliefs and then I'd agree; but when you have the person who created Javascript - a backbone of the web as we all know it - and co-founded Mozilla itself, I don't see a solid reason to think that with such a history we suddenly need to boycott the browser.

Clearly a boycott of Javascript is in order.

 

[APF]

It's more about feminism and gender equality.

The point is they're against the institution of marriage, not equal rights. If there weren't entangling issues of patriarchal power structures or however you phrased it, they would likely wish to have the same rights and have their relationships be seen as entirely equal by society, not segregated into a separate category. It can't be seen in the same light as someone who wishes to deprive gay couples fundamental rights or fundamental respect / acknowledgement as human beings.

 

[inm8num2]

Sheltered existence?

There are still race issues, too.

"A black man is POTUS. Racism is over!"

 

[PatBot]

If I support gun control legislation, does that mean my conservative boss would be within my rights to fire me? I'd say no--if it has no bearing on my output, it shouldn't matter.

Thats the point, it is actually affecting his output. People stop using his company's product, and a possibly somewhat influencial website is asking its users not to use the product any longer...

 

[Empty]

i don't really like this. as i don't see a direct link between using a web browser and the anti-marriage push i think it betrays a lack of democratic spirit and as someone who holds some fringe political opinions, if letting someone tell me i shouldn't be able to get married without such grandiose shaming is what it takes to discourage public bullying based on my own then so be it. obviously i don't think you should just ignore opinions you disagree with, but i think going about it with such spectacle and a sense of retribution in an unrelated sphere like which browser you should use is rude in a democratic society where you have to learn to tolerate some philosophical disagreements.

 

[Why would you do that?]

This is a problem.
I don't support companies in charge of douchebags, but I also don't want the ineptitude of IE or "privacy"-enabled Chrome.

Why does nobody ever remember Opera? It's even the very 3rd alternative OKCupid gives you on the site...

Poor Opera

(But really, though, if you worry about privacy, try Chromium. It's Chrome without Google.)

 

[Mondy]

The CEO of Mozilla did not build Firefox. The large team of programmers, designers and web designers under him did, who no doubt have a very diverse range of views on this issue.

I'm not sure if OKCupid is going with the right approach here.

 

[Dec]

People still use Firefox?

Curious what you use that you think is better.

 

[Mercury Fred]

i don't really like this. as i don't see a direct link between using a web browser and the anti-marriage push i think it betrays a lack of democratic spirit and as someone who holds some fringe political opinions, if letting someone tell me i shouldn't be able to get married without such grandiose shaming is what it takes to discourage public bullying based on my own then so be it. obviously i don't think you should just ignore opinions you disagree with, but i think going about it with such spectacle and a sense of retribution in an unrelated sphere like which browser you should use is rude in a democratic society where you have to learn to tolerate some philosophical disagreements.

Holding opinions IS NOT the same as contributing money to strip gay people of already granted civil rights.

 

[sixteen-bit]

dat smackdown

good on them

 

[MJLord]

Clearly a boycott of Javascript is in order.

God help us.

 

[Saganator]

Holding opinions IS NOT the same as contributing money to strip gay people of already granted civil rights.

People are having a hard time grasping this concept in here. Its what changes everything. If average Joe of X company expresses his views being against gay marriage, then so be it. He should not be fired for it (unless he harasses gay people or something). Its a different issue if Joe's boss is also against gay marriage and uses hit fat bank account to influence legislation which oppresses a group of people. That is what makes people uneasy. People don't like it when rich powerful people are in favor of oppression of any group of thing. If the CEO of a big company wants to throw his money at some politicians, he/she should really think twice about it. If they were smart they'd just keep out of social issues like gay marriage.

edit:

Anyone else kind of intrigued how someone who is highly technical and probably highly logical, could have such illogical social views?

 

[Empty]

Holding opinions IS NOT the same as contributing money to strip gay people of already granted civil rights.

sure, i agree that there are degrees of political activity from voting individually to talking to your friends to evangelizing online to making political donations of time or money that move things from private to public. i'm talking about opinions because i think that's what's relevant to the current disagreement with firefox and how they identify him in their notice merely as an opponent of gay rights - unless he's still regularly donating in which case please correct me as i'm not completely versed in the issue

 

[MJLord]

Anyone else kind of intrigued how someone who is highly technical and probably highly logical, could have such illogical social views?

Social views are often influenced on emotion and feeling. They're not always logical.

 

[char0n]

Can't support OKCupid on this.

It's much more important to have an open-source browser thrive than to boycott said browser because it's CEO made an infortunate donation. CEOs come and go, ffs and it's not like the Mozilla Foundation and its contributors endorse that donation.

The CEO of Mozilla did not build Firefox. The large team of programmers, designers and web designers under him did, who no doubt have a very diverse range of views on this issue.

I'm not sure if OKCupid is going with the right approach here.

Pretty much my thoughts. It's not like this guy was a loud vocal proponent of prop 8, and his total donation ($1000) is pretty paltry for a man of his position/a drop in what I'm sure was a huge bucket of overall donations. On the other hand he helped found Mozilla and invented the language that the internet and increasingly everything around it runs on, which feels much more important when picking someone to run an internet tech company. If firefox/mozilla came out against gay marriage that would be different, but they actually responded stating they publicly support it. This is getting chillingly close to shaming/boycotting someone/their associations based on their vote in an election.

I do think they know exactly what they're doing though, which is getting free positive publicity from a safe pile-on. If OkC really feels that strongly about gay marriage, when are they going to ban users who answer negatively about it/gay rights in general on their questionnaires, or at least re-educate them with force redirects to material supporting it and only let them back after answering questions about said material correctly?

 

[Mercury Fred]

Pretty much my thoughts. It's not like this guy was a loud vocal proponent of prop 8, and his total donation ($1000) is pretty paltry for a man of his position/a drop in what I'm sure was a huge bucket of overall donations. On the other hand he helped found Mozilla and invented the language that the internet and increasingly everything around it runs on, which feels much more important when picking someone to run an internet tech company. If firefox/mozilla came out against gay marriage that would be different, but they actually responded stating they publicly support it. This is getting chillingly close to shaming/boycotting someone/their associations based on their vote in an election.

I do think they know exactly what they're doing though, which is getting free positive publicity from a safe pile-on. If OkC really feels that strongly about gay marriage, when are they going to ban users who answer negatively about it/gay rights in general on their questionnaires, or at least re-educate them with force redirects to material supporting it and only let them back after answering questions about said material correctly?

Is it? Is that what it is?

I would love to see some of the reactions if this guy had donated money to strip black people of equal rights.