User Tag List

First 678910 Last

Results 71 to 80 of 108

  1. #71
    Tempbanned
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Enneagram
    8w9
    Posts
    14,031

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Alea_iacta_est View Post
    Ironically, in the Laissez-Faire style economy businesses might prefer, corporations probably don't see the difference in terms of economic value. It is bad for business to criticize a branch of consumers, and thus it might stand to reason that any alienation of any branch of consumers would be considered unnecessarily detrimental to the profit of the corporation. We third-person bystanders view this in terms of individual liberty with the right to freedom of speech being punished by the corporation while the first-person viewers inside the corporation view that the C.E.O. has ultimately hurt the corporation by acting fairly "selfishly" (advocating a belief and donating to a cause that ultimately allows the C.E.O to vocalize his own opinions freely while throwing the corporation under the bus, potentially turning away an entire group of consumers in favor of the individual's right to say whatever he damn pleases). We look at what is right according to the individual, but the corporations are looking at what is profitable to the collective entity, ultimately cutting losses to save face in circumstances such as these, an ethically brutal tactic that limits the freedom of speech of the individual that preserves the collective's consumer base and therefore profit.

    Essentially, why let one man stain the work of thousands with his controversial utilization of freedom of speech and advocation when you could simply remove the man? Ethically it is wrong to remove a man for his opinions, but corporations don't build their empires on ethics.
    You could have just said "No Disco I don't see the difference."

    It would have been much faster.

  2. #72
    Tempbanned
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Enneagram
    8w9
    Posts
    14,031

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Chanaynay View Post
    Gif's are supposed to move buddy.

  3. #73
    Senior Member Alea_iacta_est's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Socionics
    ILI
    Posts
    1,838

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DiscoBiscuit View Post
    You could have just said "No Disco I don't see the difference."

    It would have been much faster.
    The point however was that corporations don't see the difference, because they don't care about ethics, they care about profit.

    I, as an individual, do see the difference as being one of utilizing freedom of speech juxtaposing the use of freedom of organization to suppress a minority.

  4. #74
    untitled Chanaynay's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    MBTI
    ENFP
    Enneagram
    7w6 sx/so
    Posts
    5,151

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DiscoBiscuit View Post
    Gif's are supposed to move buddy.
    I went to my /me tag on tumblr to find a proper gif to reply with but I had to turn my computer on and it was too late.

    But I think it's funny to see right underneath Alea's big paragraph.
    7w6 - 2w3 - 8w7 sx/so


  5. #75
    i love skylights's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    MBTI
    INFP
    Enneagram
    6w7 so/sx
    Socionics
    EII Ne
    Posts
    7,835

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DiscoBiscuit View Post
    I like people that have differing opinions on gun control. (not all of them necessarily, but agreeing with me on deeply held beliefs is not a litmus test for whether or not I can like someone)
    Nah, I mean, I like different opinions too in many cases. I am not entirely decided on gun control and it's good to hear all sides of it. It's good to keep the floor open and tolerant to opinions, even those I don't like. But this whole scenario and the uproar seems like overkill to me. People in business get ousted all the time for far less than this. There was that one CEO in Vegas who laid off 20 or so people when Obama got reelected because of his fear of additional socioeconomic reforms... the people he got rid of didn't even do anything. I'm working a part-time retail job right now to fund my way through school and the last person I know who got fired was terminated because she called HR on our manager for inserting lunches into her work days when she hadn't taken any. That's totally illegit, but situations like that happen with frequency. Business is historically unconcerned with personal wellbeing of employees (not against employee wellbeing - just that it's not typically a driving factor in the marketplace). So I really have a hard time coming to terms with people talking about this issue as an unfair business scenario. I think it demonstrates how much people feel about gay marriage controversy, but I think it has little to do with the actual business situation, especially since conservative platforms traditionally include a lack of regulation in business. It seems like many people are dragging in a lot of cover-up reasons for why they are so enraged about this issue when in reality it's almost completely about gay marriage, which is totally fine, but then that's what needs to be said, not "this is newly unfair business", because the truth is it's no different from business as usual.

    My personal opinion, for what it's worth, is that I think the government should just de-legalize marriage and let it be a social institution. If churches don't want to marry gay people then other social institutions will crop up to do so. Let people write in who has medical visitation rights and so on in their legal records, and leave the rest be. I don't even think the government should be dealing with it at all. I actually don't have a problem with people who don't want to define marriage as more than man+woman - I just have a problem with the government granting rights to people with certain beliefs but not others.

    So I don't want to come across like I'm hating those with different views. I'm fine with it; I just don't think it should enter legislation. It is not the government's job to make our moral choices for us, just to enable us all to live safe and fulfilling lives.

    Quote Originally Posted by Tellenbach View Post
    You can persuade a party to your way of thinking through intimidation or education. Right now, we are witnessing intimidation techniques and such tactics aren't going to work in many parts of the country. I would point to the backlash against A&E for suspending Phil Robertson and the backlash against protestors of Chik-fil-a back in 2012. The recent proposition in Arizona is yet another backlash against intimidation that haven't even occurred yet. Expect to see more of this until the Supreme Court finally steps in and settles the matter of gay marriage.
    Do you think that's intimidation? I boycotted Chik-fil-a for a long time, but I never thought of it in the light of intimidation. I only thought of it in terms of I didn't want my money ending up supporting a cause that I didn't believe in. To me that isn't intimidation, it's just being aware of where my money is going and what agendas it is ultimately being used to support. That's technically how supply and demand are supposed to work in the the free market, isn't it? People putting their money into what they want and not into what they don't. I don't know, I never really saw it as a "tactic", but I might be naive when it comes to that.

    Quote Originally Posted by DiscoBiscuit View Post
    All contributors to the Volokh Conspiracy at the Washington Post are Law Professors.

    A little about the author:
    Just because he's a law professor doesn't mean he is immune from belief bias or cultural prejudice. Legislators, lawyers, and policymakers used plenty of legal arguments against interracial marriage in the past. And they used plenty of legal arguments against women voting in the past as well.

    That is not what the author is saying at all.

    I'll requote the important bits.

    Please respond to:

    But organizing boycotts and applying pressure to get people fired ought to require extraordinary justification in a diverse and pluralistic country.
    For example, in my political cabinet, I have red files labeled “Hitler” and “Jim Crow” that I pull out when I meet actual fascists and Bull Connors, not someone who made a comparatively modest $1000 contribution to a $40 million campaign that, however nasty in execution, was an attempt to restore an understanding of marriage that prevailed in all 50 states and almost every country four years prior.
    Just because it existed in legislation or was a widely held opinion does not mean that it is any less wrong or harmful than if it had been questioned or overturned long ago, or if it was unpopular.

    We’re not at the point where we’re entitled to say that those who don’t support gay marriage are just as odious as the racists of the Old South. There’s nothing quite like our racial history.
    This seems like pure opinion to me, a logical fallacy of argument from authority. "We're (who?) not at the point where we're entitled (why not?) to say [this]. Other situation is paramount." No reasoning here... no evidence... just statement of opinion.

    A spirit of live-and-let-live tolerance, the spirit that made the gay-rights revolution possible, means being more cautious before turning disagreements, even over very important questions about which we feel strongly, into a replay of black-and-white historical struggles.
    The author is asserting here that we should be tolerant of intolerance. He says that since the live-and-let live spirit is what made the gay rights revolution possible, we should apply that same attitude towards people who are against same sex marriage. In theory, this is fine. In reality, this means denying legal status to a group of people, which is exactly what was being fought against in the civil rights movement. I understand why someone who is against gay marriage and/or homosexuality would balk at the idea of it being the same as racial discrimination, especially as many people believe that homosexuality is something that is chosen. However, to those of us who see the issue as denying rights to a group of people based on something they did not choose, it is in effect the exact correlate. The goal of using this comparison is not to create hatred or to be intolerant of differing opinions but to point out that what was once seen as a clear moral line has been completely upturned. What was once seen as obviously right by the majority is now seen as obviously wrong by the majority.

    It means being willing to entertain the 1% possibility that we might be wrong. It means not treating people the way they treated us, but the way they should have treated us.
    Like I said, I don't think Mozilla behaved the right way. They're treading murky moral waters at best, IMO. I don't think they should have pressured Eich to resign as they did. The way they behaved was hollow and unkind.

    At the same time, these are my counterpoints:

    1) Eich's pressured resignation does not deviate significantly from established norms of business operation. Conservatives have traditionally upheld these norms and advocated for less regulation if anything. Now that the norms have brought about an undesirable result, there is outcry from this same group about unfairness of business practice. This seems like an ad-hoc resistance.

    2) While there are many differences between the civil rights movement and the gay rights movement, and certainly historical climate ranks among them, there is structural overlap which is not made lesser because of the differences. How odious either situation may be and how they compare falls to personal belief, especially because the morality of gay rights depends on beliefs including the origin of sexual orientation and religious teachings regarding sexual practice. In my own personal beliefs, I see them essentially being on par with one another, but I recognize that is informed by my opinions. I would not seek to prescribe it as fact to an audience.

    3) Regardless of the entire debate, there is still a large group of people being denied equal treatment. To imply that those who seek rights for themselves are intolerant because of the outcome of a situation that was fairly removed from the lives of the vast majority of gay individuals is not a justifiable conclusion. Nor is that efforts to seek rights for this group should be put on hold because a private company acted in a hypocritical manner.

  6. #76
    @.~*virinaĉo*~.@ Totenkindly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    FREE
    Enneagram
    594 sx/sp
    Socionics
    LII Ne
    Posts
    42,333

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tellenbach View Post
    It wouldn't surprise me, but I've never heard a gay person use the argument that marriage is an exercise of religion.
    I'm losing track of what the point was anymore.

    In the United States at least, much of the opposition to same-sex marriage is because conservative Christianity stresses that homosexuality is a sin, which would make same-sex marriage an abomination. Also, many denominations will for the same reasons not permit people in leadership who are openly gay or in gay relationships, and often people will be socially driven out of church / ostracized even if generally people saying they accept gay people as "sinners like everyone else."

    Meanwhile, this doesn't mean that gay people aren't believers. Some just move their faith to the personal realm and abandon organized religion (just like many non-gay people do who are sick of the institutionalized judgmentalism); other denominations like the MCC (metropolitan church of Christ) have sprung up that have a very high gay membership percentage while resembling in many ways the postmodern/evangelical style churches, and a few denominations (I think Episcopaleans and Lutherans and a few others) have safe congregations where gay people are accepted.

    I don't know what you're referring to in the quote here, but yeah, there are gay people who are believers, believe that God accepts them and their marriages, and want to be married within the church and be part of church life.
    "Hey Capa -- We're only stardust." ~ "Sunshine"

    “Pleasure to me is wonder—the unexplored, the unexpected, the thing that is hidden and the changeless thing that lurks behind superficial mutability. To trace the remote in the immediate; the eternal in the ephemeral; the past in the present; the infinite in the finite; these are to me the springs of delight and beauty.” ~ H.P. Lovecraft

  7. #77
    deplorable basketcase Tellenbach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    MBTI
    ISTJ
    Enneagram
    6w5
    Posts
    3,953

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by skylights
    Do you think that's intimidation? I boycotted Chik-fil-a for a long time, but I never thought of it in the light of intimidation.
    No, that's not intimidation. However, I believe 2 mayors did threaten to change zoning laws to prevent Chik-fil-a from doing business in their cities. Also, in Washington state, a little old lady is being sued by the state for not baking a cake for a wedding. In another state, a photographer is sued and threatened with a fine if he does not photograph a gay wedding. I just think forcing someone to be someplace or to participate in an event where they don't want to be (for any reason) is unAmerican.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jennifer
    I don't know what you're referring to in the quote here, but yeah, there are gay people who are believers, believe that God accepts them and their marriages, and want to be married within the church and be part of church life.
    Sorry about the confusion. Someone upthread made the point that marriage is an exercise of religious freedom. I thought it was a terrific point, but I hadn't seen it made by anyone actually in the movement.
    Senator Rand Paul is alive because of modern medicine and because his attacker punches like a girl.

  8. #78
    Tempbanned
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Enneagram
    8w9
    Posts
    14,031

    Default

    I don't think anyone should be forced out of their job b/c of their beliefs.

    If its not related to job performance, there's no grounds for firing.

    If the left leaning blog-o-sphere did not take it upon itself to light the torches and start a smear campaign against Mr. Eich, he would still have a job at the company he founded (he also invented Javascript in case you didn't know).

    If donating money to a political cause is grounds for removal, we could fire most corporate management across the country.

  9. #79
    @.~*virinaĉo*~.@ Totenkindly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    FREE
    Enneagram
    594 sx/sp
    Socionics
    LII Ne
    Posts
    42,333

    Default

    In general I agree with that ^^, and the problem is here is more the high-profile Internet aspect of the company. Eich wasn't removed by outsiders, he was asked to go by the company and/or then he resigned.

    IOW, does the CEO's stance impact the company's ability to do business at all? For some companies, it might; for others, it might not. If Mozilla is positioning itself in one way that the CEO does not align with, then I could see them asking him to step down. He wasn't head of an internal department or a janitor or some other employee without a public face, he was the CEO and such is responsible for setting direction for the company and becomes the "face" of the company.

    It's not like the government stepped in to remove him. And any external pressure was indirect, from places like podunk OKC which certainly has its share of anti-gay members anyway. Mozilla, his employer, forced him out because (I guess) his views did not align with theirs. CEOs resign/get fired all the time over not sharing the same vision as the board / company they represent.
    "Hey Capa -- We're only stardust." ~ "Sunshine"

    “Pleasure to me is wonder—the unexplored, the unexpected, the thing that is hidden and the changeless thing that lurks behind superficial mutability. To trace the remote in the immediate; the eternal in the ephemeral; the past in the present; the infinite in the finite; these are to me the springs of delight and beauty.” ~ H.P. Lovecraft

  10. #80
    Tempbanned
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Enneagram
    8w9
    Posts
    14,031

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jennifer View Post
    Eich wasn't removed by outsiders, he was asked to go by the company and/or then he resigned.
    Yes but the unwarranted outrage from the internet forced the board to ask him to resign.

    IOW, does the CEO's stance impact the company's ability to do business at all? For some companies, it might; for others, it might not. If Mozilla is positioning itself in one way that the CEO does not align with, then I could see them asking him to step down. He wasn't head of an internal department or a janitor or some other employee without a public face, he was the CEO and such is responsible for setting direction for the company and becomes the "face" of the company.

    It's not like the government stepped in to remove him. And any external pressure was indirect, from places like podunk OKC which certainly has its share of anti-gay members anyway. Mozilla, his employer, forced him out because (I guess) his views did not align with theirs. CEOs resign/get fired all the time over not sharing the same vision as the board / company they represent.
    He had on multiple occasions affirmed his commitment to a non discriminatory work place, and no employee has mentioned that he treated them with anything but respect.

    What happened here is that some internet smart guy went through the donor records and found Eich on it and decided that he could whip up an internet frenzy. But for someone going way out of their way to find Eich on the donor records no one would have known.

    And shit Prop 8 passed in 2008. I don't see how something goes from having enough support to pass in '08, to being so unacceptable in 2014 that donating money to it 6 years ago makes it reasonable to dig through donor records in an effort to destroy the career of an otherwise normal person.

    If Eich had been eating babies in his spare time, or raping girl scouts or any number of other actually bad things, then yea I would get it.

    But last time I checked donating was not a capital offense

Similar Threads

  1. Type and the Use of Emoticons
    By MerkW in forum The Bonfire
    Replies: 47
    Last Post: 07-09-2010, 12:59 PM
  2. [INFP] INFPs and the Lack of Initiative
    By nolla in forum The NF Idyllic (ENFP, INFP, ENFJ, INFJ)
    Replies: 40
    Last Post: 09-02-2008, 01:38 PM
  3. Replies: 23
    Last Post: 07-30-2008, 08:38 PM
  4. "Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix" review...
    By The Ü™ in forum Arts & Entertainment
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 07-22-2007, 03:34 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO