User Tag List

First 7891011 Last

Results 81 to 90 of 108

  1. #81
    @.~*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 DiscoBiscuit View Post
    Yes but the unwarranted outrage from the internet forced the board to ask him to resign.
    Obviously the board felt he had damaged their brand. Were they really that afraid of OKC, for pete's sake? They were afraid on a wider level, apparently.

    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
    I don't think you actually answered my question, tbh.

    Mozilla apparently thought he had damaged their brand or they wouldn't have asked him to resign.

    And the CEO does have a very public, very particular role in a company and is even considered synonymous with the company name and image.


    ... hell, you know as well as I do that it all revolves around money. I just see now that Dan Cathy has backed way off on the Chick-Fil-A "anti-gay-marriage" thing why...? Because Chick-Fil-A is trying to push into non-Southern markets and compete with the kings of fast food. His views haven't changed, but he's publicly shut his yap in order to expand the company and make more money.

    In a way, it's almost more sick (being outspoken and then shutting up for, in essence, money), but... oh well.
    "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

  2. #82
    Tempbanned
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Enneagram
    8w9
    Posts
    14,031

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jennifer View Post
    Obviously the board felt he had damaged their brand. Were they really that afraid of OKC, for pete's sake? They were afraid on a wider level, apparently.



    I don't think you actually answered my question, tbh.

    Mozilla apparently thought he had damaged their brand or they wouldn't have asked him to resign.

    And the CEO does have a very public, very particular role in a company and is even considered synonymous with the company name and image.


    ... hell, you know as well as I do that it all revolves around money. I just see now that Dan Cathy has backed way off on the Chick-Fil-A "anti-gay-marriage" thing why...? Because Chick-Fil-A is trying to push into non-Southern markets and compete with the kings of fast food. His views haven't changed, but he's publicly shut his yap in order to expand the company and make more money.

    In a way, it's almost more sick (being outspoken and then shutting up for, in essence, money), but... oh well.
    The difference being that Eich never publicly opened his yap.

    Now if Eich was say, helping to run the prop 8 campaign, or threw a huge gala for that cause, the situation would be a little different.

    But he didn't do either of those things. The brand was damaged because a gay rights activist went above and beyond the call of duty to damage it.

    Im not arguing that the ceo is not the face of a company, or even that one shouldn't be fired for damaging the brand.

    I am arguing that its fucking ridiculous to round up an internet lynch mob over a $1000 donation to a cause (THAT PASSED) six years ago.

    This is taking it too far. There can be no dissent from liberal orthodoxy or you will be punished.

  3. #83
    @.~*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 DiscoBiscuit View Post
    The difference being that Eich never publicly opened his yap.

    Now if Eich was say, helping to run the prop 8 campaign, or threw a huge gala for that cause, the situation would be a little different.

    But he didn't do either of those things. The brand was damaged because a gay rights activist went above and beyond the call of duty to damage it.

    Im not arguing that the ceo is not the face of a company, or even that one shouldn't be fired for damaging the brand.

    I am arguing that its fucking ridiculous to round up an internet lynch mob over a $1000 donation to a cause (THAT PASSED) six years ago.

    This is taking it too far. There can be no dissent from liberal orthodoxy or you will be punished.
    I too think that what offends me is just that either someone seemed interested in ruining him (a personal attack) or he was just seen as a tool of an ideological position to be destroyed as collateral damage, and they were just digging to see what they might find and found something to use. I agree also that in the big scale of things, donating $1000 isn't really that large or publicly prominent.

    Of course, once it came to light, then there's still an issue regardless. It doesn't matter how it became public, it just was.

    Let's face it, this whole situation has gotten very ugly on both sides (it's not just gay activists, and TBH the anti-gay folks have been doing this shit for decades to discredit gay people, the topic of same-sex marriage aside -- it's a bunch of bad blood, where a lot of crows are coming home to roost); and I'm looking forward to 20-30 years from now, when a lot of this stuff will be over and done with.
    "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

  4. #84
    Tempbanned
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Enneagram
    8w9
    Posts
    14,031

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jennifer View Post
    and I'm looking forward to 20-30 years from now, when a lot of this stuff will be over and done with.
    Mind you I support SSM, but I will only be looking forward to the future if you can maintain religious belief without being publicly tarred and feathered.

    EDIT: who makes up a larger portion of the populace, gay folks or those who disagree with SSM?

  5. #85
    Senior Member Nicodemus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    9,128

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DiscoBiscuit View Post
    who makes up a larger portion of the populace, gay folks or those who disagree with SSM?
    In 30 years, hard to say. But how is that at all relevant?

  6. #86
    Tempbanned
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Enneagram
    8w9
    Posts
    14,031

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nicodemus View Post
    In 30 years, hard to say. But how is that at all relevant?
    It matters because gays make up about 1% of the population.

  7. #87
    @.~*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 DiscoBiscuit View Post
    It matters because gays make up about 1% of the population.
    It's not just "gays" silly (and I think gays are actually 2-4% here EDIT: "4.1% of Americans aged 18–45 identify as gay, lesbian, or bisexual" from the 2010 census) -- it's all the people who are supportive of gay people and don't see why they should be treated as second-class citizens.

    This second category of people (which is far larger than the gay population, and now seemingly has grown beyond the size of those against SSM or the size of hardcore religious fundamentalists) is what is contributing to the social power shift.

    As a relevant matter: As of 2010, African-Americans only comprised 12.6% of the population and Asian-Americans only 4.8%. Yeah, go figure -- you might know more gay people than you do Asians.

    So I think it's irrelevant. I wouldn't support slapping restrictions on blacks and Asians either, and if a guy had donated money to an org that wanted to restrict blacks and Asians, I'd have a negative view of him. Not saying he can't; but it would lower my opinion of him.
    "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

  8. #88
    Tempbanned
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Enneagram
    8w9
    Posts
    14,031

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jennifer View Post
    This second category of people (which is far larger than the gay population, and now seemingly has grown beyond the size of those against SSM or the size of hardcore religious fundamentalists) is what is contributing to the social power shift.
    Well you illustrate my point. If pro SSM folks get to tell those who disagree what to do because they out number them, then why can't any group tell any smaller group what to do?

    For instance, I would posit that pro gun folks out number anti-gun folks (hence why gun control continues to go no where). By that logic, we should be free to force a federal concealed carry law across the nation.

    The only reason the media/left/whoever care is that it is right leaning constituencies on the receiving end of the current shittyness.

    On a greater point what diversity matters? Is it just diversity of race, sexual orientation, gender that matters?

    Does ideological diversity matter? Some say we choose what we believe, and because of that, beliefs should not be protected in the same way that Race, Sexual Orientation etc.. are.

    I disagree, I think we are born (to a greater extent than we are nurtured) to our political outlook. In studies (which I don't have the time to google at the moment) R and D brains actually operate differently.

    Show each the same image or situation and they see it completely differently. Either way, I think ideological diversity is every bit as important as racial, sexual or any other kind of diversity.

    That's what scares me about this, that it has been decided that those who don't agree with liberals on social issues should no longer be allowed a place in the public sphere in certain circles.

    It's the idea that we don't have to combat their ideas, we just need to call them racist/bigotted/un-caring/whatever and call it a day.

    It would scare me just as much if a Nascar crew chief was fired for volunteering at planned parenthood. I probably wouldn't make a stink about it, because I have no real stake in protecting planned parenthood volunteers, but if asked I would definitely say its wrong.

  9. #89
    @.~*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 DiscoBiscuit View Post
    Well you illustrate my point. If pro SSM folks get to tell those who disagree what to do because they out number them, then why can't any group tell any smaller group what to do?

    For instance, I would posit that pro gun folks out number anti-gun folks (hence why gun control continues to go no where). By that logic, we should be free to force a federal concealed carry law across the nation.

    The only reason the media/left/whoever care is that it is right leaning constituencies on the receiving end of the current shittyness.

    On a greater point what diversity matters? Is it just diversity of race, sexual orientation, gender that matters?

    Does ideological diversity matter? Some say we choose what we believe, and because of that, beliefs should not be protected in the same way that Race, Sexual Orientation etc.. are.

    I disagree, I think we are born (to a greater extent than we are nurtured) to our political outlook. In studies (which I don't have the time to google at the moment) R and D brains actually operate differently.

    Show each the same image or situation and they see it completely differently. Either way, I think ideological diversity is every bit as important as racial, sexual or any other kind of diversity.

    That's what scares me about this, that it has been decided that those who don't agree with liberals on social issues should no longer be allowed a place in the public sphere in certain circles.

    It's the idea that we don't have to combat their ideas, we just need to call them racist/bigotted/un-caring/whatever and call it a day.

    It would scare me just as much if a Nascar crew chief was fired for volunteering at planned parenthood. I probably wouldn't make a stink about it, because I have no real stake in protecting planned parenthood volunteers, but if asked I would definitely say its wrong.
    So you are worried that, as a representative of a former majority that has been dominating our country since 1792, of what it means to now be a minority and how you might be repressed and exploited and silenced?

    Good. I think that will make more of a difference in how our citizens get along here in our quickly changing country (where whites will no longer be a majority around 2042 or so, even if the largest race group still in the US) than any kind of doctrinal arguments. Experience is the best teacher.

    It's a good thing that many of the immigrants (the immigrant flow is higher than our internal birth rate now) came here to find that freedom and are more aware of what it means than those who were born into a supermajority for such a long time, so you might have more traction than many of the prior minorities in our country.
    "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. #90
    Tempbanned
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Enneagram
    8w9
    Posts
    14,031

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jennifer View Post
    So you are worried that, as a representative of a former majority that has been dominating our country since 1792, of what it means to now be a minority and how you might be repressed and exploited and silenced?
    I'm not worried about being a minority because I will never be one in terms of political power.

    I'm worried about what seems to be a growing cultural consensus that it is unacceptable to disagree with liberal social positions. So unacceptable in fact that should someone be found to hold differing social view, it would then be reasonable to round up an internet lynch mob to force them out of polite society.

    That's scary.

    Good. I think that will make more of a difference in how our citizens get along here in our quickly changing country (where whites will no longer be a majority around 2042 or so, even if the largest race group still in the US) than any kind of doctrinal arguments. Experience is the best teacher.
    If that is your opinion. That we deserve our "medicine", then you will not find the civil discourse you seek.

    You will instead find an intransigent enemy that will use every tool at their disposal to over throw whatever cultural consensus has developed up to this point.

    If that means that R's end up having to support SSM across the board, to then gain the White House and enough of congress to push change through so be it.

    To the extent that the left act like sore winners, your sins will revisit you 10 fold the next time we take power.

    My one question at this point is if anyone really wants to compromise. I'm fairly agnostic about it myself seeing as how I can't predict whether polarization will diminish or not.

    If you want to come together and bury the hatchet I'm cool with that, if you want to demonize and punish us I'm cool with that too.

    Like Remy says on House of Cards, power is great while it lasts, but it never lasts. Control of gov't will change hands.

    Your actions now determine how generous or how punitive the future Republican administration will be.

    The choice is yours.

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