OKCupid Asks Firefox Users To Support LGBT Rights, Switch Browsers

[Loonyyy]

I'm going to say it- this feels like the Adria Richards thing. Someone with an opposing view trying in a roundabout way to publicly shame someone for negative effect.

They're currently trying to prevent this man from being hireable based on his personal beliefs.

No. They are asking if people would use someone else's browser to access their site. This is not going to cost him even his current, high profile job. It would not make him unhireable.

Of course the CEO isn't going to lose his job over this, but at any point in the future, if/when he's trying to get involved in a project, a simple google search will reveal controversy, and controversy = liability. So yes, they are attempting to publicly shame over a personal position, which by doing so would definitely affect future business.

Exactly. They are protesting the mere fact that this guy got hired. It is somewhat ironic to see anyone support discriminatory hiring practices on the side of the LGBT community.

I know this happens a lot on the internet, but I really think you're working with a severely warped definition of irony.

And I'm going to leave it at that, because I've seen your posts here, and I don't think we'd have a productive discussion.

 

[Lightknight]

I'm going to say it- this feels like the Adria Richards thing. Someone with an opposing view trying in a roundabout way to publicly shame someone for negative effect.

They're currently trying to prevent this man from being hireable based on his personal beliefs.

No. They are asking if people would use someone else's browser to access their site. This is not going to cost him even his current, high profile job. It would not make him unhireable.

Of course the CEO isn't going to lose his job over this, but at any point in the future, if/when he's trying to get involved in a project, a simple google search will reveal controversy, and controversy = liability. So yes, they are attempting to publicly shame over a personal position, which by doing so would definitely affect future business.

Exactly. They are protesting the mere fact that this guy got hired. It is somewhat ironic to see anyone support discriminatory hiring practices on the side of the LGBT community.

I know this happens a lot on the internet, but I really think you're working with a severely warped definition of irony.

And I'm going to leave it at that, because I've seen your posts here, and I don't think we'd have a productive discussion.

Their actions are ironic. A group fighting to not be discriminated against is advocating for discrimination. How is this not ironic? Situational irony, check. Desired result = fight for equality/anti-discrimination. Actual Result = fighting for discrimination.

FYI, the internet is not the only place grammatical mistakes happen all the time. Irony is misused everywhere you go in countless scenarios. The unfortunate truth is that even society's mistakes will cause linguistic drift in sometimes infuriating ways. The easiest point of reference is the recent move to include emphasis as a definition of literal instead of exactness.

 

[Lightknight]

Compeltely irrelevent, people can procreate without marriage, gay people can still care for children, increasing that child's survival and chance to procreate. which is exactly the purpose that homosexuality serves in nature.

What's more, allowing gay marriage would not affect the ability of straight people to marry OR procrete. In other words, allowing gay marraige would only serve to increase human survival by ensuring that more offspring have better care, and can survive to become parents themselves. In addition to the straight couples and their offspring. Entirely contrary to your claim that it would inhibit survival.


So the "monetary" argument is false, the "reproduction" argument is patently false.

Increase? Not necessarily. Not any more than allowing gay couples to adopt would. But do no harm? Certainly.

The population argument of Marriage is really quite a red herring. I wouldn't advocate for an infertile couple to not be able to Marry. The eventual logic of this red herring should demand fertility tests before marriage too.

 

[2012 Wont Happen]

...And what about those who seek to not give a shit? Must we embrace the spam of LGBT? I suppose nowadays you're either with them or against them.

You either support equality or do not support it. Anyone who does not support equality being granted to an institutionally repressed minority is an accesory to their societal suppression. So yes, you are either with them or against them.

 

[The Material Sheep]

...And what about those who seek to not give a shit? Must we embrace the spam of LGBT? I suppose nowadays you're either with them or against them.

You either support equality or do not support it. Anyone who does not support equality being granted to an institutionally repressed minority is an accesory to their societal suppression. So yes, you are either with them or against them.

Unfortunately such black and white views and belief systems have led to a lot of terrible situations through out history. So if you want to assert such dogma, and that's what that statement you just said was, ideological dogma, you aren't going to win many hearts and minds. So unless you want to start pointing a gun at people and telling them either your with us or against us, that method only serves to piss people off and push them away from your movement.

So unless we're out here advocating for fascism, which I wouldn't put past a lot of internet activism, let's cut out the with us or against us argument, because it's just a way further divide people into groups your allowed to hate. As if the LGBT community didn't deal with the absolute worst of what they kind of behavior causes.

 

[2012 Wont Happen]

...And what about those who seek to not give a shit? Must we embrace the spam of LGBT? I suppose nowadays you're either with them or against them.

You either support equality or do not support it. Anyone who does not support equality being granted to an institutionally repressed minority is an accesory to their societal suppression. So yes, you are either with them or against them.

Unfortunately such black and white views and belief systems have led to a lot of terrible situations through out history. So if you want to assert such dogma, and that's what that statement you just said was, ideological dogma, you aren't going to win many hearts and minds. So unless you want to start pointing a gun at people and telling them either your with us or against us, that method only serves to piss people off and push them away from your movement.

So unless we're out here advocating for fascism, which I wouldn't put past a lot of internet activism, let's cut out the with us or against us argument, because it's just a way further divide people into groups your allowed to hate. As if the LGBT community didn't deal with the absolute worst of what they kind of behavior causes.

Can you tell me a possibility of belief that is neither supporting or not supporting gay rights? Any given thing can be A or not A, with no outside possibility.

Now, someone's belief being not A (not supporting gay rights) doesn't mean that it is the opposite, opposing gay rights. However, when a minority is in a state of suppression by the law anything but support of extension of rights to that group is tacit agreement to the legal norm. It is admitting that, while maybe not necessarily praiseworthy, the norm is fine and doesn't need be changed. The extension of rights stems only from the belief that they should be extended, but the stagnation of rights can be brought about by either opposition to their extension or by apathy regarding it. Therefore, a person who is either opposed to gay rights or is totally apathetic towards it will both hinder that aim. They are "against them" from a point of political reality.

Also it should be noted that OkCupid isn't attacking generally people who don't support gay rights, they are attacking somebody who has actively opposed them.

 

[kaizen2468]

Uh oh, I use firefox so now I'm anti gay. I'm starting to find the supporters of LGBT thing just as pigheaded and prejudiced as the people against it.

 

[Whispering Cynic]

If someone wants me to stop using my browser they'd better provide a good and rational reason. I don't consider condemning products of an entire company based on opinions of a single person (even a CEO) justifiable.

 

[Lightknight]

...And what about those who seek to not give a shit? Must we embrace the spam of LGBT? I suppose nowadays you're either with them or against them.

You either support equality or do not support it. Anyone who does not support equality being granted to an institutionally repressed minority is an accesory to their societal suppression. So yes, you are either with them or against them.

Eh, no. I'd say there's a significant difference between someone who is against equality, someone who doesn't state either way (for whatever reason, including not caring), and someone who is for equality.

There's even a wide spectrum in between where people are more in favor of certain areas of equality than others and such. Active support vs verbal support. Someone who doesn't give a shit but would still speak up if the occasion arose. Such a black and white view of the scenario is incredibly flawed.

 

[Lightknight]

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/133481-Mozilla-CEO-Brendan-Eich-Steps-Down?utm_source=latest&utm_medium=index_carousel&utm_campaign=all

Eich stepped down from his position in response to this.

 

[AgedGrunt]

I'm going to say it- this feels like the Adria Richards thing. Someone with an opposing view trying in a roundabout way to publicly shame someone for negative effect.

At the high-profile levels, that's basically all the gay rights activists do: name, shame and defame. It's petty and repulsive means to advance civil rights.

And since no one can question certain infallible classes of people, we end up with this:

So yes, you are either with them or against them.

It's sad to look back into history, when people were still willing to fight for their rights rather than assume them through federal laws and people in black robes. I'm not gay and I feel embarrassed for all the homosexuals who have to put up with these sociopaths and idealists who don't care how much damage they do to society, the ends justifying any means.

 

[Easton Dark]

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/133481-Mozilla-CEO-Brendan-Eich-Steps-Down?utm_source=latest&utm_medium=index_carousel&utm_campaign=all

Eich stepped down from his position in response to this.

Lesson is: Don't be a dick to people if you want to be in a public office.

You'd think that'd be common sense.

 

[Vegosiux]

However, when a minority is in a state of suppression by the law anything but support of extension of rights to that group is tacit agreement to the legal norm. It is admitting that, while maybe not necessarily praiseworthy, the norm is fine and doesn't need be changed.

The fact that you are writing this on some kind of an electronic device determines that you're giving your tacit support to worker and environment exploitation.

 

[Lightknight]

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/133481-Mozilla-CEO-Brendan-Eich-Steps-Down?utm_source=latest&utm_medium=index_carousel&utm_campaign=all

Eich stepped down from his position in response to this.

Lesson is: Don't be a dick to people if you want to be in a public office.

You'd think that'd be common sense.

By public office do you mean employed in a company?

Public office generally means an elected or government position. Not a company.

Additionally, while I don't agree with him over 60% of Americans did at the time of his contribution. It's bullshit to say that so many people should be unhireable just because they can't tell the difference between the government's marriage license and their own personal religious/cultural expression of it. Wrong? Sure. Unhireable? Bullshit.

The notion that you can lose your job over supporting a political cause financially in America is hilariously backwards. This has been a public shaming supporting the discrimination of people based on belief and political affiliation. I certainly don't agree with the man but this sets a terrible precedence.

 

[The Material Sheep]

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/133481-Mozilla-CEO-Brendan-Eich-Steps-Down?utm_source=latest&utm_medium=index_carousel&utm_campaign=all

Eich stepped down from his position in response to this.

Lesson is: Don't be a dick to people if you want to be in a public office.

You'd think that'd be common sense.

he's not in public office. It's a private company, with little to nothing to do with the LGBT movement and with no seeming intentions of doing so as a company.

 

[Easton Dark]

he's not in public office. It's a private company, with little to nothing to do with the LGBT movement and with no seeming intentions of doing so as a company.

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/133481-Mozilla-CEO-Brendan-Eich-Steps-Down?utm_source=latest&utm_medium=index_carousel&utm_campaign=all

Eich stepped down from his position in response to this.

Lesson is: Don't be a dick to people if you want to be in a public office.

You'd think that'd be common sense.

By public office do you mean employed in a company?

Public office generally means an elected or government position. Not a company.

Public as in visible to the public. Like the PR guy, or mods on a forum.

CEO of an apparently very popular internet browser seems pretty visible.

I'm not sharing my opinion on whether it's right that this happened. Just that being the un-PC face of a company based around the internet seems doomed to fail.

 

[ReinWeisserRitter]

Can't see a reason to care much. Mozilla and its affiliates are staffed by people who aren't bigots, too.

He's one man, and his contributions are misguided, but that doesn't mean there's anything wrong with the product itself. This is getting on a soapbox just for the sake of doing so, even if their intentions are good.

...Of course, I just now saw the link stating that he's stepping down, probably because of this. I'm not sure how to feel about that.

 

[The Material Sheep]

he's not in public office. It's a private company, with little to nothing to do with the LGBT movement and with no seeming intentions of doing so as a company.

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/133481-Mozilla-CEO-Brendan-Eich-Steps-Down?utm_source=latest&utm_medium=index_carousel&utm_campaign=all

Eich stepped down from his position in response to this.

Lesson is: Don't be a dick to people if you want to be in a public office.

You'd think that'd be common sense.

By public office do you mean employed in a company?

Public office generally means an elected or government position. Not a company.

Public as in visible to the public. Like the PR guy, or mods on a forum.

CEO of an apparently very popular internet browser seems pretty visible.

I'm not sharing my opinion on whether it's right that this happened. Just that being the un-PC face of a company based around the internet seems doomed to fail.

It wouldn't have been public knowledge if OKcupid had gone out of their way to shame the man. Even then a CEO is only a face in so far as the company wants him to be. Officially the job is more an administrator and long term planner.

 

[Easton Dark]

It wouldn't have been public knowledge if OKcupid had gone out of their way to shame the man. Even then a CEO is only a face in so far as the company wants him to be. Officially the job is more an administrator and long term planner.

I'm confident in the thought that there are gay-marriage... uh, anti-activists, in programming jobs at each of the companies with internet browsers. It's just that the hiring and firing of these individuals don't affect a company, or its stocks, as much as a change in CEO does, so those don't get reported.

Like, you don't often hear about the guy who designed the AK47 and SPAS in CoD multiplayer. You hear about the Ken Levines, the Reggie Fils-Aimes, the Gabe Newells, etc. (None of whom, to my knowledge, ever did anything politically to offend a significant population)