OKCupid Asks Firefox Users To Support LGBT Rights, Switch Browsers

[Emanuele Ciriachi]

So instead of supporting removal of the state's control over marriage, you just want to keep he state in control and needlessly exclude a bunch of people who just want the same state benefits.

Because state benefits should be given with a good reason behind them - continuation of society is a perfectly valid one, being in love isn't.

 

[Saetha]

Snip

Or people just don't want to condemn a company - the vast majority of which is staffed by people who probably do support gay rights, and who only have this one source of income, that you're damaging by boycotting the company they work for or demanding they switch jobs (Not an easy thing in this market) all because of some shitty thing the CEO did nearly a decade ago.

That's my biggest problem here. If Mozilla was ran and staffed entirely by What's-His-Name, then I'd be rather fine with all this. It's the fact that people are advocating a course of action that probably won't affect the CEO in anyway, but probably will get innocent people fired, and then those same people turn around and call everyone who finds issue with this "insidious homophobes" as though this issue was so black-and-white, as though Mozilla is a hive-minded entity and everyone involved deserves harm because of the actions and thoughts of the one - yeah, I'mma call bullshit on that.

I mean, look around at all the people who complain about CEO's who will toss their employees into the fire before suffering a small burn themselves. But suddenly it's okay to ritualistically sacrifice employees, because of something one guy did eight years ago? Because that's the sort of hypocrisy that makes ME feel kinda sick.

 

[Thaluikhain]

Also, fixed your second sentence so it's easier to understand, and I disagree. If someone can arbitrarily consider a majority of the population who share their opinion a "hate group", then they can be blamed for promoting an "us or them" ideology.

If enough people hate you, it's your own fault?

It doesn't matter if it is the majority doing it. They can't decide that another group is inherently less, without an "us or them" ideology. That other group is not to blame for opposing that.

In the vast majority of cases it will be due to homophobia, which is bigotry, yes.

Most people don't have an ideology where marriage is solely for the purpose of raising kids.

How can you be sure that this is the case of Mozilla's CEO?

Absolutely sure? I can't be. But I feel fairly confident in saying it's the case.

If that's what he was doing, why was he supporting restrictions on gay marriage? Why wasn't he trying to get marriage itself overturned? Not the same thing at all.

 

[Emanuele Ciriachi]

If that's what he was doing, why was he supporting restrictions on gay marriage? Why wasn't he trying to get marriage itself overturned? Not the same thing at all.

Perhaps having to choose between two different forms of inequality, he was more comfortable with that one - as I would be as well, all things considered.

 

[Robert Marrs]

Ugh. He has the right to believe whatever he wants. That is the whole point of america. If you want to be against gays have at it so long as you don't go around committing crimes against them. It seems like the very people who preach tolerance are the most intolerant of anyone who doesn't share their views. So long as he does not inject his political views into company policy he can believe anything he wants about marriage. How about dropping the you're either with us or against us mentality? We need to start reverting back to a "I mind my own business if you mind yours" model and stop worrying so much about what other people are doing and thinking. That goes for both sides.

Firstly, this isn't simply about what he believes. He went out of his way to support a hate group.

Secondly, Okcupid didn't restrict his right to believe what he wants. They didn't demand he changes his views. They didn't push for laws restricting his right to marry. They didn't stop Firefox working on their site. All they did was point of his homophobia to their users, many of whom are LGBT, and ask if they'd want to use a different browser.

When someone decided to fund a hate group, then you can't blame people unhappy for that for promoting an us or them ideology.

I wasn't really saying Okcupid was restricting his rights. Not to mention calling anti-gay groups hate groups is a bit of a slippery slope. Most of them don't hate anyone they just feel like its wrong, usually for religious reasons. We have freedom of religion in america and if part of that religion says being homosexual is wrong they have every right to believe it. They have every right to campaign for their views. Just as you have every right to oppose those views. Majority rules and thankfully that is majority is starting to shift towards a more accepting demographics but that does not mean we should start publicly shaming individuals for their individual views nor should we automatically shun whatever company they have to work for.

Its a low blow from Okcupid that makes me lose respect for them as a company. I'm sure there has to be at least one racist or sexist or gay basher at Okcupid possibly even a higher up. Would it be cool for another company to publicly call that person out and put the word out that so and so over at Okcupid does not like black people so we won't support the website? Automatically assume that the persons personal beliefs are not only representative of the companies but will have an influence on how it operates in the future?

Or maybe just put it out in hopes that it will rile up all the over enthusiastic social justice warriors and start some sort of internet campaign against this man. I never knew about him until now So I would imagine this will bring all sorts of unwanted attention to firefox. If that was Okcupids original intentions? To do this just in hope that he will lose his job or have to step down? Then they are just attacking another person for their political beliefs. Its one thing to disagree but trying to get people fired is crossing the line. Of course this is all just speculation but its not really an uncommon scenario.

 

[EvilRoy]

Snip

Or people just don't want to condemn a company - the vast majority of which is staffed by people who probably do support gay rights, and who only have this one source of income, that you're damaging by boycotting the company they work for or demanding they switch jobs (Not an easy thing in this market) all because of some shitty thing the CEO did nearly a decade ago.

That's my biggest problem here. If Mozilla was ran and staffed entirely by What's-His-Name, then I'd be rather fine with all this. It's the fact that people are advocating a course of action that probably won't affect the CEO in anyway, but probably will get innocent people fired, and then those same people turn around and call everyone who finds issue with this "insidious homophobes" as though this issue was so black-and-white, as though Mozilla is a hive-minded entity and everyone involved deserves harm because of the actions and thoughts of the one - yeah, I'mma call bullshit on that.

I mean, look around at all the people who complain about CEO's who will toss their employees into the fire before suffering a small burn themselves. But suddenly it's okay to ritualistically sacrifice employees, because of something one guy did eight years ago? Because that's the sort of hypocrisy that makes ME feel kinda sick.

I'm pretty with you on this. Reading some of the posts in the thread here, I can't help but think that this is revenge. The CEO hurt some people nearly a decade ago, and now he's finally in a position where he actually has something that people can take from him. I know its supposed to be best served cold, but you would think there's an expiry date on this shit somewhere.

Its pretty awful that the people set on their revenge are more or less blind to the rest of the village that they're burning down to get to him. If this was a shitty fantasy novel I would be looking for the kids that will inevitably grow up bitter and angry, nursing a deep grudge against the people who wrongly hurt them.

 

[The Material Sheep]

So instead of supporting removal of the state's control over marriage, you just want to keep he state in control and needlessly exclude a bunch of people who just want the same state benefits.

Because state benefits should be given with a good reason behind them - continuation of society is a perfectly valid one, being in love isn't.

Two consenting adults going into contract with each other is all marriage is these days. It's got nothing to do with procreation, as it's no longer necessary to foster direct procreation. Especially since us in the gay community are doing quite while having children as well.

Well let me actually give a hypothetical. When science gets to the point that a woman can get another woman pregnant through SCIENCE, which is honestly pretty close, will it be acceptable for the state to allow lesbians to marry?

 

[Thaluikhain]

Not a mental illness, hasn't even been considered a mental illness in the United States for over forty years, and the overwhelming majorty of psychiatric professionals will tell you that its not, alongside with scientists who have evidence that its not.

So why keep using a term that is used to describe a mental illnesses then. Because it has that nice "racist" ring to it, I guess.

It isn't. Also, homophobia has nothing to do with racism.

Nobody else seems to be hung up on the "phobia" part of the word, and assuming it must be a mental illness, just as nobody thinks baseball players swing winged mammals around.

I wasn't really saying Okcupid was restricting his rights. Not to mention calling anti-gay groups hate groups is a bit of a slippery slope. Most of them don't hate anyone they just feel like its wrong, usually for religious reasons. We have freedom of religion in america and if part of that religion says being homosexual is wrong they have every right to believe it. They have every right to campaign for their views. Just as you have every right to oppose those views. Majority rules and thankfully that is majority is starting to shift towards a more accepting demographics but that does not mean we should start publicly shaming individuals for their individual views nor should we automatically shun whatever company they have to work for.

Freedom of religion should not equate to freedom to restrict other people's freedoms due to your religion.

Anyway, if people have the right to campaign, how is this any different?

Would it be cool another company to publicly call that person out and put the word out that so and so over at Okcupid does not like black people so we won't support the website? Automatically assume that the persons personal beliefs are not only representative of the companies but will have an influence on how it operates in the future?

Well, yes, that happens all the time. Maybe not for some random that sweeps the floors, but for someone important, like a CEO, it makes sense. They chose to hire someone like that to run their company. Now, you might not think that's a big deal, in which case you can still use Firefox if you like. If people don't want to support a company that hires someone like him, it shouldn't be a big deal.

Or maybe just put it out in hopes that it will rile up all the over enthusiastic social justice warriors and start some sort of internet campaign against this man. I never knew about him until now So I would imagine this will bring all sorts of unwanted attention to firefox. If that was Okcupids original intentions? To do this just in hope that he will lose his job or have to step down? Then they are just attacking another person for their political beliefs. Its one thing to disagree but trying to get people fired is crossing the line. Of course this is all just speculation but its not really an uncommon scenario.

Well, to put this in context for me, I first read about this on a blog by a gay man who basically said "I know what browser I won't be using."

Given that lots of LGBT people use OKcupid, informing users about this and asking if they'd like to use another browser doesn't seem that outlandish.

 

[maxben]

When you boycott a company based purely upon the personal beliefs of the person in charge, I believe you're being hypocritical. You're discriminating against the company purely because the person in charge holds a different belief than yours. You're essentially using the exact same argument that the Bush administration used for those people protesting the war: "If you're not totally in support of this war, you might as well be rooting for the terrorists." Sorry, I didn't realize that I was no longer allowed to have a personal opinion. Just because someone disagrees with boycotting a company based on the CEO's personal beliefs does not mean they agree with or condone said beliefs. Just because I'm not out on the streets demanding gay-rights doesn't mean I believe that gays shouldn't have rights.

Bush was RIGHT! By not supporting the Wars promoted by a democratic leader you are fundamentally going against the concept of democracy and the nation. And that is FINE! You do not have to support the state as it is, much like you do not have to support a company as it is, but at the same time support the country/company as it could be. There is no hypocrisy here. The argument that you can go against the executive+congress+senate+supreme court+ by extension the American people and their votes, and say that you support the country is silly, you support the concept of the country without the very democratic system that is fundamentally it's nervous system and brain. America without the system is a meaningless empty concept that you can put whatever ideas you want into. The "No real Scotsmen" fallacy comes into play here, we can just call it "that's not really America"

Again though, it is fine to be against your country when you think it is doing wrong. Too many of us are obsessed with the idea that you must be patriotic at all times to the point where we turn our opposition and sedition into patriotism when it's really not. And I say this as someone who is not even American, as we do it here in Israel all the time and I saw similar things in Canada when I lived there. My favourite argument was "Harper is ruining the country" when Harper was voted more then enough times into power and therefore represents the very will of the country.

So just because someone's democratically elected you suddenly have to change your views to support them? What about all the people that didn't vote for Bush? What about all the people who voted members into congress but never wanted to go to war? Are they supposed to just shrug their shoulders and be like "Well they won the fair, democratic elections so I guess that means that I have to change my opinions to align with theirs"? I disagree with Obama and everything he stands for, but I'm not out there hoping something bad happens to him. I'm not going to start a rebellion against my country because I disagree with the president and congress. Indeed, they all won fair democratic elections, so I intend to voice my disapproval of the democratic party come November when it's election time.

Of course not, don't change your views. If you choose to disagree but go with it, then you might as well believe in it because from a consequential point of view you are equivalent to a supporter. If you choose to rebel, protest, or boycott, you are against the country or company as it is. It is fine to be unpatriotic, it is fine to be against your country when you think it's wrong. A country is not a person, you don't owe it anything.

 

[The Material Sheep]

Mars Atlas. Someone's capability as CEO has little to do with their politics a lot of the time. They're administrators and they chart a company's direction. It's a publicly traded so I doubt the share holders would be in favor of any anti gay stuff, because tbh that's a really bad pr move. The man's view's on this stuff are completely disconnected from the skill set necessary to be a CEO, therefore it shouldn't be a factor in the hiring process. OKcupid I feel was being quite overzealous in their immediate condemnation.

So long as the corporation is not supporting anti LBGT stuff, I have no problem with them, and no one else should. At least not on those grounds, I suppose there are a lot of problems one could have with firefox outside this mess.

I'd also like to comment that it's a really slippery slope to condone the firing or keeping people from being hired for a job that has nothing or only tangentially related to politics. It sets a horrid precedent, and it's not the kind of precedent you want to have set when the political momentum pushes swings the other way.

 

[Emanuele Ciriachi]

Two consenting adults going into contract with each other is all marriage is these days. It's got nothing to do with procreation, as it's no longer necessary to foster direct procreation. Especially since us in the gay community are doing quite while having children as well.

Again... why two and not three? Where is the rationale behind it?
Procreation is still key to any society's survival - it's a collective duty that it simply does't make any sense to put on the same level of mere affection.

Well let me actually give a hypothetical. When science gets to the point that a woman can get another woman pregnant through SCIENCE, which is honestly pretty close, will it be acceptable for the state to allow lesbians to marry?

Yes, in that case there would be almost no difference.

 

[Thomiroth]

Honestly, I doubt my choice of web browser is going to change anything major, but I'm glad they at least made me aware of it. After all, it's nice to be in the know about things like this.

I do find it a tad invasive, but I can understand the reasons behind it and, as far as I can see, it's not like they're punishing people for using Firefox.

However, I'm unsure how my usage of a free web browser is supporting anything. I've not given them any money, I'm just using a free browser I know how to use. Switching would not only inconvenience me, but it would actively aggravate me, since I've used Chrome and don't like it (and as for IE...).

Either way, I'm not going to suddenly turn against a group of people that contains people I genuinely love and care for, simply because the CEO of the company that makes the web browser I use dislikes them. They're still my friends, I'm still theirs and I will continue to try to be worth knowing to them. If they hate me over something this silly (and I kinda feel this is a bit of a silly reason to get upset at someone, especially someone who has always been and always will be supportive of them) then so be it.

 

[Emanuele Ciriachi]

Can we please stop using that silly word now? Nobody here is afraid of gay people, and nobody suffers of a mental illness solely for having moral values. Thank you.

Can we please stop pretending that homophobia doesn't mean what every single english-speaking person in North America and Europe over the age of twelve knows what it means? Thanks.

It's still demonstrably wrong, an artificial word that is often being used to redefine our values as prejudices and create an artificial sense of guilt in the minds of many.

Some people genuinely believe it's a sickness, and it is still an insulting term far too freely handed around. Like this thread proves beyond any reasonable doubt.

 

[Thaluikhain]

I'm pretty with you on this. Reading some of the posts in the thread here, I can't help but think that this is revenge. The CEO hurt some people nearly a decade ago, and now he's finally in a position where he actually has something that people can take from him. I know its supposed to be best served cold, but you would think there's an expiry date on this shit somewhere.

Its pretty awful that the people set on their revenge are more or less blind to the rest of the village that they're burning down to get to him. If this was a shitty fantasy novel I would be looking for the kids that will inevitably grow up bitter and angry, nursing a deep grudge against the people who wrongly hurt them.

...

Wrongly hurt them by not using firefox to browse okcupid?

Was anyone obliged to use firefox to browse okcupid? Where they obliged to use firefox to browse okcupid before this came to light?

 

[Strain42]

Is this one of those things where if I continue to use Firefox I'm going to be deemed a homophobic jackass by the LBGT community, who I would like to remind that I have actually donated my time, signatures, and even money to supporting?

Because if so, I think that's basically bullying.

It's like the whole Chik Fil A thing where people thought I was bigoted because I'm a fat guy who enjoys his waffle fries...

 

[DrOswald]

Funny - I disapprove of gay marriage _precisely_ because the State currently has influence over marriage, and is now actively pushing to redefine it in a way that excludes procreation and is inconsistent with actual equality. Agreed about the rest.

Of the course the state has influence over marriage, marriage is a state institution (Not a religious one like many people argue.)

Marriage being a state institution does not prevent it being a religious institution. And many people see the religious aspect of marriage as being the overriding aspect of marriage. If the state completely stepped away from the idea of marriage and completely removed it as an institution of the state then people would still get married for religious reasons. Hell, if the state outlawed marriages then people would still get married for religious reasons.

Like it or not, marriage is a religious institution.

But to be clear, I am for same sex marriage. I am just not going to pretend that this is a simple, non-complex issue.

 

[The Material Sheep]

Two consenting adults going into contract with each other is all marriage is these days. It's got nothing to do with procreation, as it's no longer necessary to foster direct procreation. Especially since us in the gay community are doing quite while having children as well.

Again... why two and not three? Where is the rationale behind it?
Procreation is still key to any society's survival - it's a collective duty that it simply does't make any sense to put on the same level of mere affection.

Well let me actually give a hypothetical. When science gets to the point that a woman can get another woman pregnant through SCIENCE, which is honestly pretty close, will it be acceptable for the state to allow lesbians to marry?

Yes, in that case there would be almost no difference.

Yes why not three? It's a contract between consenting adults, why the hell not allow them to form said contract, and while you might label procreation as a "civic duty" I doubt the government views it that way, and a good chunk of society doesn't adhere to that. That's a very dark age view of things to say the least.

Also, at least your logically consistent. let's push it one step forward. If gay couples were on a percentage basis raising more children, such as say 95% of gay couples were raising children, to 40% of straight couples would you say its favorable for the government to invest in gay couples and their raising of children?

 

[Thaluikhain]

It's still demonstrably wrong,

No.

an artificial word

As opposed to all those words that grow on trees?

that is often being used to redefine our values as prejudices and create an artificial sense of guilt in the minds of many.

Yeah, if someone value being prejudiced against gay people, they should feel guilty.

If they are unhappy with being considered to be a bigot, they could always try not being a bigot. Bigotry isn't a moral value that should be defended.

Is this one of those things where if I consider to use Firefox I'm going to be deemed a homophobic jackass by the LBGT community, who I would like to remind that I have actually donated my time, signatures, and even money to supporting?

Given that they were asking (not demanding) that you not use firefox to browse that one site, probably not.

Because if so, I think that's basically bullying.

No, it really isn't. People thinking badly of you is not remotely the same as bullying you.

It's like the whole Chik Fil A thing where people thought I was bigoted because I'm a fat guy who enjoys his waffle fries...

...more than boycotting a homophobic business. You can see why that might raise eyebrows.

 

[The Material Sheep]

I'm pretty with you on this. Reading some of the posts in the thread here, I can't help but think that this is revenge. The CEO hurt some people nearly a decade ago, and now he's finally in a position where he actually has something that people can take from him. I know its supposed to be best served cold, but you would think there's an expiry date on this shit somewhere.

Its pretty awful that the people set on their revenge are more or less blind to the rest of the village that they're burning down to get to him. If this was a shitty fantasy novel I would be looking for the kids that will inevitably grow up bitter and angry, nursing a deep grudge against the people who wrongly hurt them.

...

Wrongly hurt them by not using firefox to browse okcupid?

Was anyone obliged to use firefox to browse okcupid? Where they obliged to use firefox to browse okcupid before this came to light?

No but trying to shame a company for the selection of a CEO who has unfortunate politics, when he gets a job that doesn't involve those politics is a very... very... very... petty thing to do, and like I said earlier, it's an exceptionally slippery slope.