First of all, "better than" doesn't mean good. So we're more accepting of LGBTs than we used to be. As if that was a high bar to jump. Things used to be worse, therefore people should just stfu and accept the status quo. Thats what your argument boils down to, and its bs.Ninmecu said:
Except the protestors, apparently.Ninmecu said:
Again with the "there are bigger fish to fry and the smaller battles don't matter, because culture can be changed overnight with a magic bullet" meme.Ninmecu said:
Again, he didn't just "held a belief," he codified discrimination into law and denied LGBTs a basic right. To say he is a victim of backlash from the (actual) victims of his discrimination is pretty much the definition of the reverse-victim meme, of which I have repeatedly stated that I'm sick to death and zombie reanimation and getting my undead brains splattered by wide-gauge shotgun. LGBTs were actual victims of discrimination. Eich helped make said discrimination into law. Calling Eich a victim because his victims protested is bs.Ninmecu said:
My money and speech divide is for a clear reason. If I, in any way, give money to a person to a person who then, or has, turns around and gives it to a campaign so directly opposed to me, and I find out about it, the only logical thing to do would be to stop giving them money. The reason that I make a distinction between speech and money is that I can choose to address or ignore someone's opinion and nothing about my day will have been changed, but the moment money is involved that's when I have to ask myself the question: Could I have contributed to that? Because that's the moment that my own being has been given as a spear to stab my person.Strazdas said:
This has nothing to do with what we've been talking about but he resigned and they issued a public statement that Mozilla supports all kinds of people and equality, indicating it was indeed related to the OKcupid situation.balfore said:
It has a lot to do with the topic, as in it is directly related to the title of the original post. However though Board members typically don't resign after a CEO is selected. And they issued that statement as well in regards to the fact that their own employees were publicly denouncing him on twitter, but his overall resignation most likely has more to do with the Board members leaving as well.Lightknight said:
So whenever people choose not to use a product because they don't like the people running it, it's murder? Better tell that to all the people who boycotted Oreos when they came out in support of gay marriage then.nikago said:
Who says we don't?ToastiestZombie said:
What do you mean? You pretty much have to use Javascript on the Escapist to use the captcha, quote people, play videos and pretty much do anything except view an adless, nonworking site. Oh, and you know what other site uses Javascript yet publicly hates Mozilla for this? OKCupid.Ratty said:
Well then! Here we have it, I'd be interested to see how many people act on that information (and just who it's available to, mind, I mean, is it restricted to US citizens, etc?). But if that's so, well, there's a lot of room for more action here - of course, hopefully a tad more on the level, as I say usually, criticism is OK, public shaming, not so much.kiri2tsubasa said:
I see. I was talking more about noscript. You do assume that nobody here is using it because anyone who admitted they did would be banned pretty swiftly. *shrugs* I do remember I uninstalled javascript a few years ago, but then had to reinstall it because it's so ubiquitous.ToastiestZombie said:
By no means is he some innocent hero. That's not the point at all. I mean, if anything he may have been turned into the everyman's anti-discrimination martyr. The problem is that OKCupid advocated boycotting a product (even if just on their site) because they did not discriminate against a person based on their beliefs and political affiliations. This indicates that they support discriminating against people based on religion, belief, and/or political positions. The LGBT community of all communities should be mindful of the importance of such anti-discriminatory practices.NortherWolf said:
Providing material support to passing a discriminatory bill into law isn't just a "private expression." The law, by definition, is public.Strazdas said:
No participant gets to be the final arbiter on when a discussion is over, honestly, only mods do. I mean, there have been lines of it in which you weren't involved, and I actually learned a thing or two on this last page - such as the fact that whoever donated more than 100$ to Prop 8 campaign is on public record. As in, there's a database of people, publicly accessible database, who supported legislation against you.EiMitch said:
I don't see how this changes anything.Lightknight said:
What? People don't understand why a minority group would want the same right as a majority group, so they vote no on whatever they are after. Is that supposed to be ok, somehow? I can't get a lick of sense out of your post.
Not supporting a product is "unspeakable"? What about all of the Christian groups who boycotted Kraft foods after they dared to show support for Pride Day? How exactly should this CEO be able to sue OkCupid? For expressing an opinion? Then how come people don't sue each other for having different opinions all the time? Because we have freedom of speech in America, you can disagree with someone's speech, you can ignore it, but you can't take away their right to express their opinion. And you can choose not to buy or support a product for any reason you choose, including not liking someone who makes it.forgo911 said:
Citations needed. And specify "100% fall in line". Someone trying to prevent you from having equal rights under the law, and donating money to that effect, then refusing to apologize, is pretty good justification to dislike them and not support their endeavors.Super Not Cosmo said:
Since when is voting with your wallet "controlling through fear and intimidation"?Super Not Cosmo said:
Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation, there is quite a difference.Super Not Cosmo said:
Again, since when does boycotting a product make you a "thug"? Better tell all those "Religious" and other "family values" groups that boycotted -Super Not Cosmo said:
Strazdas said:
Also this. Eich can tattoo his opinion on his forehead for all I care. That's his right. He still has to deal with the consequences from the people he's marginalizing. Or rather "the people who disagree with him" as some would put itFlatfrog said:
