OKCupid Asks Firefox Users To Support LGBT Rights, Switch Browsers

[EvilRoy]

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?

Although the proposed boycott is clearly intended to punish the CEO for his views, it cannot be avoided that a loss in usage could result in downsizing in the company - perfectly innocent individuals losing their jobs because of a decrease in business precipitated by what is essentially empty revenge. You were never obliged to use firefox before, but if you choose to stop using it because of this then you are choosing to participate in this revenge - something I don't think a good person would do.

 

[Fasckira]

Only 8% of successful relationships form OKCupid are gay? Someone of a sillier state of mindset could have a field day with that one and make up all sorts of deductions from it!

 

[Thaluikhain]

Although the proposed boycott is clearly intended to punish the CEO for his views, it cannot be avoided that a loss in usage could result in downsizing in the company - perfectly innocent individuals losing their jobs because of a decrease in business precipitated by what is essentially empty revenge. You were never obliged to use firefox before, but if you choose to stop using it because of this then you are choosing to participate in this revenge - something I don't think a good person would do.

The company chose him as the CEO. I don't see why it's wrong that people should want not to associate with a company that chooses as CEO someone notable for his bigotry.

It's not simply revenge to say "I don't want anything to do with this".

 

[Dewey Square]

What is the rationale for providing tax breaks (and, I suppose, residence permit) for married couple then? Does it apply to polygamous and polyandrous unions as well? Can relatives marry, and if not, why?

This is getting a bit off-topic, I guess, but in England there are tax breaks for married couples separate from child benefits because marriage, with or without children, helps make communities more tight-knit. That's also why the Conservative PM we have at the moment was in favour of same-sex marriage (or it's one reason and one he talked about a lot.) If my son marries your daughter (or your son, or whatever), our family members will be more well-disposed to one another, our community will have fewer strangers, and if someone loses their job or whatever they'll have more support options without the government being involved.

Relatives becoming married wouldn't really help that objective, since they're already part of the same family. Polyamorous marriages aren't legal because apart from anything else, no-one's figured out the legal details yet for things like divorce and so on -- I expect it will be legalised when we get round to it, but we're doing same-sex marriage at the moment.

So here, anyway, marriage isn't explicitly linked to procreation, and there are still perfectly sensible reasons why it's organised the way it is.

OT: Personally I don't use FireFox, but if I did, I would probably stop. It's not that I don't think their CEO should be allowed to think whatever he wants -- it's just, if I use FireFox, I'm supporting him, and if I support him and he decides to contribute to another group I disagree with, that contribution pretty much comes from me. I don't want to support groups that oppose same-sex marriage, so I don't want to help him do so.

(I guess this would be more straightforward if I was talking about actually buying a Mozilla product with my own money, because then my money might end up going towards a cause that I don't want to support. I assume their monetisation depends on advertising, or at least on having a high profile so that people buy things that do cost money, so either way I'd be contributing to their profits indirectly if I used Firefox.)

 

[Emanuele Ciriachi]

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.

Why not. Most of us exist, use internet, and are capable of critical thinking because our parents (or guardian) at a huge cost of personal freedom raised and educated us. And as a father trust me, it's hard.

The more people are alive, the more likely is that someone is born could contribute significantly to scientific advancement. (not to mention that the more videogames players are there, the more company can release complex titles because of a larger market... ).
I think it's perfectly reasonable to claim that having children (in a sustainable way) is a moral duty toward humanity.

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?

Define "invest in gay couples" - as long as there is no significant difference in the quality of parenting, I see no reason to single out a specific demographic.

It's still demonstrably wrong,

No.

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.

It's a word that is used scientifically to denote a sickness - how more clear can it get?
Also it's not only being used for prejudice against gay people, but also for people, like me, that have the healthy moral value of seeing reproduction as a necessary imperative, and thus frowning of those that for reason of convenience decide not to have them - regardless of their sexual tendencies.

I believe that people that have the possibility of raising children, but choose not to, should feel guilty. So should I go around calling people "biophobic"?

 

[Lightknight]

Great, so people shouldn't be hired based on their personal beliefs. Glad to know that that tolerance is a one way street. Not that I give two shits east who marries who. I just consider it an epic double standard to demand that people who hold a different belief, even controversial ones, should be un-hire-able and shrivel up and die.

Now, if his personal beliefs flooded into the way the company functions? That's quite another thing.

 

[Vegosiux]

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.

It's easy to say that, but let's be consistent. Can you say that in your life, you never utilize products and services the creation of which involves unsavory people and/or despicable business practices?

Because, if we're going for the "Oh but if you're not boycotting X, then you're supporting Y" argument, then we can only conclude that we're all truly terrible people, and none of us is really in a position to preach superiority/righteousness because they happen to be more invested in solving one particular issue.

That said, I use both Chrome and Mozilla, and I do prefer Mozilla's more compact functionality as opposed to all the tacked-on Google stuff in Chrome. And I'm not entirely sure every single Google employee/developer/bigwig is bigotry-free, either.

 

[The Material Sheep]

It's still demonstrably wrong,

Sure, if you still think the word "******" means a bundle of sticks maybe.

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.

What values are these again? Calling people, members of this forum, "mentally ill" as a blatant perjorative in the face of professional medical opinion?

Yeah, I'm not exactly sorry for calling your bigotry out for what it really is.

Funny history on that word, and how it became a derogatory term for homosexual. It's also the same source for terminology for flaming in terms of how gay someone is.

 

[Emanuele Ciriachi]

This is getting a bit off-topic, I guess, but in England there are tax breaks for married couples separate from child benefits because marriage, with or without children, helps make communities more tight-knit. That's also why the Conservative PM we have at the moment was in favour of same-sex marriage (or it's one reason and one he talked about a lot.) If my son marries your daughter (or your son, or whatever), our family members will be more well-disposed to one another, our community will have fewer strangers, and if someone loses their job or whatever they'll have more support options without the government being involved.

Relatives becoming married wouldn't really help that objective, since they're already part of the same family. Polyamorous marriages aren't legal because apart from anything else, no-one's figured out the legal details yet for things like divorce and so on -- I expect it will be legalised when we get round to it, but we're doing same-sex marriage at the moment.

So here, anyway, marriage isn't explicitly linked to procreation, and there are still perfectly sensible reasons why it's organised the way it is.

Fair enough, that's a reasonable way to put it; I still won't ascribe to it until it will truly be egalitarian - it's not just that people "haven't figured out the legal details", it's that nobody is seriously considering it, and the idiot Cameron never ever mentioned this.

As it is the law, it does not recognize the effort and personal sacrifice implicit in starting a family; to put it on the same level of mere "love", and usurping the name that this union had for millennia, is just downright insulting.

 

[Someone Depressing]

Firefox is a good browser... but I don't want to use Google because, fuck, they'd look through my Internet Cat images to find my prefferences (perhaps to add the data to their huge mass of useless knowledge and disapointed users)

Really, I think it's more newsworthy that the new CEO is a bigoted prick than anything else.

 

[Fsyco]

\
Also it's not only being used for prejudice against gay people, but also for people, like me, that have the healthy moral value of seeing reproduction as a necessary imperative, and thus frowning of those that for reason of convenience decide not to have them - regardless of their sexual tendencies.

I believe that people that have the possibility of raising children, but choose not to, should feel guilty. So should I go around calling people "biophobic"?

That's a really unhealthy attitude. The human population is rapidly expanding to the point where we may no longer be able to sustain ourselves. So the idea that everyone should all reproduce alot is silly at best and harmful to the environment in the long run at worst. And besides, children are obnoxious and disgusting. We need less of them.

I get the impression that anyone who holds a really child-centric worldview has had their mind warped by parenthood. Just because you made an extremely poor choice you have to live with for at least 18 years (less if you get lucky), everyone else should make that same choice and deal with it. You stepped in a giant cow turd, and now are demanding everyone else step in the cow turd as a moral obligation to society.

To bring it closer on topic, homosexuality is perfectly natural and observed in plenty of other animals. Maybe the rise in gay couples and such is a natural response to our increasing overpopulation problem, like the declining fertility rate?

Actual on topic opinion: Yea this seems slacktivistic. I switched from Chrome to Firefox after Firefox had an aneurysm and stopped working. They both work fine, but I like Chrome now. I'm pretty sure the topic has been talked to death already so I won't go any further.

 

[Thaluikhain]

It's a word that is used scientifically to denote a sickness - how more clear can it get?

It's almost as if words can have more than one meaning.

Also it's not only being used for prejudice against gay people, but also for people, like me, that have the healthy moral value of seeing reproduction as a necessary imperative, and thus frowning of those that for reason of convenience decide not to have them - regardless of their sexual tendencies.

If that is true, then it's been used incorrectly. We don't do away with words because someone makes a mistake with one.

I believe that people that have the possibility of raising children, but choose not to, should feel guilty. So should I go around calling people "biophobic"?

No, because "you think they should feel guilty" and "being prejudiced against someone" are not remotely the same.

It's easy to say that, but let's be consistent. Can you say that in your life, you never utilize products and services the creation of which involves unsavory people and/or despicable business practices?

Chik Fil A made a point of their practices, it became almost PR for them. Secondly, there are plenty of possible substitutes to them.

You don't have to do any particular research to see what they are doing, nor is it difficult to find somewhere else to buy food from.

Now, if they had a monopoly, or everyone in their business (that is, their rivals and competitors) was much the same, or they kept their issues quiet, it'd be a different matter.

That said, I use both Chrome and Mozilla, and I do prefer Mozilla's more compact functionality as opposed to all the tacked-on Google stuff in Chrome. And I'm not entirely sure every single Google employee/developer/bigwig is bigotry-free, either.

Certainly...though the CEO is more high profile than most.

Anyway, I don't have issues with people using Firefox. I do have an issue with people claiming that the LGBT movement is intolerant because okcupid has politely asked firefox users if they'd use another browser.

For example:

Great, so people shouldn't be hired based on their personal beliefs. Glad to know that that tolerance is a one way street. Not that I give two shits east who marries who. I just consider it an epic double standard to demand that people who hold a different belief, even controversial ones, should be un-hire-able and shrivel up and die.

You will note that okcupid is not demanding that anyone be unhireable, or die. They did not demand people not to use Firefox. They asked users to use something else on their site. And that is all.

Because Eich's opposes rights for LGBT people.

Now, if it is fine to oppose rights for LGBT people, but not, as a consequence, ask users of okcupid to use a different browser, then it seems tolerance is indeed a one way street, just not in the way you were pretending it was.

 

[tangoprime]

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...

Sadly, I see that you've already been called out with the typical "if you're not 100% with everything we do, you're 100% against us" behavior.
I'm with you, I've given my time, signature, and money to supporting LGBT causes. But, since I'm not in lock-step, I'm a homophobic bigot I suppose.

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.

It's easy to say that, but let's be consistent. Can you say that in your life, you never utilize products and services the creation of which involves unsavory people and/or despicable business practices?

Because, if we're going for the "Oh but if you're not boycotting X, then you're supporting Y" argument, then we can only conclude that we're all truly terrible people, and none of us is really in a position to preach superiority/righteousness because they happen to be more invested in solving one particular issue.

THANK YOU.
Seriously... with that kind of logic, then the mere act of browsing the escapist on your select electronic device makes you complicit in the terrible labor conditions under which your computer/handheld was likely produced, the mining of it's rare earth components by african children/wage slaves, and likely large energy companies' practices en masse by using their evil electricity they put into the powergrid. On a more specific-to-this note, doing any shopping at Walmart/Sam's Club? Their family donated to a group that opposed gay adoptions.

 

[The Material Sheep]

I dont think this is the same as Chick Fil A, Mars Atlas. They were actively using the company's money to support this stuff, but there has been no such hint that Firefox is doing anything like that.

 

[EvilRoy]

Although the proposed boycott is clearly intended to punish the CEO for his views, it cannot be avoided that a loss in usage could result in downsizing in the company - perfectly innocent individuals losing their jobs because of a decrease in business precipitated by what is essentially empty revenge. You were never obliged to use firefox before, but if you choose to stop using it because of this then you are choosing to participate in this revenge - something I don't think a good person would do.

The company chose him as the CEO. I don't see why it's wrong that people should want not to associate with a company that chooses as CEO someone notable for his bigotry.

It's not simply revenge to say "I don't want anything to do with this".

"The company" is not a hive mind, it is a collection of individuals - more than 95% of whom have no say in the direction or leadership of the group. If the reason you say "I don't want anything to do with this" is that the CEO did something that hurt you, then it is revenge. You're just getting back at a guy, and accomplishing nothing useful in the process.

 

[Thaluikhain]

If the reason you say "I don't want anything to do with this" is that the CEO did something that hurt you, then it is revenge.

Why? Why can't someone not want anything to do with him or people that would hire him?

 

[Seydaman]

Only 8% of successful relationships form OKCupid are gay? Someone of a sillier state of mindset could have a field day with that one and make up all sorts of deductions from it!

There are far less gay people than straight people? That is just statistical

I don't see the available jokes