The End of Firefox

[Stu]

http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/2336520/mozilla-defends-ceo-over-homophobic-claims

MOZILLA'S controversial CEO appointment, Brendan Eich, continues to draw opponents.

Dating website OK Cupid has asked its users to consider using a browser from a company with less homophobic associations than Firefox, and a petition that asks the firm to remove him from office is very close to its 75,000 target.
The petition, hosted on the Credoaction website, is aimed at Mozilla's board of directors and tells it in no uncertain terms to remove Eich from office unless he announces support for gay marriage, and replace him with someone with different views.
"The people at Mozilla and their massive community of users deserve better than a leader that advocates for inequality and hate," it says.
"CEO Brendan Eich should make an unequivocal statement of support for marriage equality. If he cannot, he should resign. And if he will not, the board should fire him immediately."

I gotta say, I will miss firefox but will switch in 30 days if this butt head stays

 

[invisible]

how did he get this far? poor thing cant do business.

 

[Lark]

I cant believe this, is homosexuality double plus good then? Isnt it still a thought police action if its liberal thought policing?

Failing to announce support for same sex "marriage" does not amount to homophobia, every single critical response to, or even increasingly neutral responses to, homosexuality is considered homosexuality and its a very insidious kind of political correctness rather than the correct useage of the word.

Although it shouldnt surprise I guess, the same people as made this a trend could not get their head around marriage being a relationship between members of the opposite sex and set out to change the meaning of that to whatever they felt it should be for the time being, when's there going to be some sort of break to this newspeak crappola?

Orwell was right, people never recognise fascism or totalitarianism because they're on the watch for something foreign rather than something familiar or apparently innoxious.

Boycotting people and depriving them of their employment, income, livelihood etc. over stuff like this is totally and utterly criminal, its outsourcing from the state to mobs of groupthinkers doesnt make it any the less of a crime.

 

[Stu]

ailing to announce support for same sex "marriage" does not amount to homophobia, every single critical response to, or even increasingly neutral responses to, homosexuality is considered homosexuality and its a very insidious kind of political correctness rather than the correct useage of the word.

I disagree, I have no problem boycotting (my right as a free individual) what I perceive as folks who harbor hate against my loved ones.

 

[invisible]

why is marriage a relationship between two people with different genitalia? dont understand.

what about people who are born with indeterminate genitalia? who do they marry? how do they find a person with genitalia opposite to theirs? what if someone determined after they were born that they were going to be a particular gender, usually female? then is it a real marriage for them to marry a man? because they are not really a woman! or are they really a woman? how do we decide? are they supposed to just accept that they are excluded from marriage, because they dont meet the natural genital criteria?

it doesnt make sense. people are always saying "marriage is between a man and a woman!" but they dont say why. they just say it as though thats the way it is, that there can be no other way about it. why is it that way?? it just doesnt really make sense properly.

and seriously... he is a guy in business. if he didnt want to get his personal views mixed up with his business, then he should not have made his personal views public. this is a capitalist economy and entities including both people and other businesses are free to boycott whatever businesses they want to however they choose. im not saying its right. its just reality.

 

[cvp12gh5]

why is marriage a relationship between two people with different genitalia? dont understand.

what about people who are born with indeterminate genitalia? who do they marry? how do they find a person with genitalia opposite to theirs? what if someone determined after they were born that they were going to be a particular gender, usually female? then is it a real marriage for them to marry a man? because they are not really a woman! or are they really a woman? how do we decide? are they supposed to just accept that they are excluded from marriage, because they dont meet the natural genital criteria?

it doesnt make sense. people are always saying "marriage is between a man and a woman!" but they dont say why. they just say it as though thats the way it is, that there can be no other way about it. why is it that way?? it just doesnt really make sense properly.

and seriously... he is a guy in business. if he didnt want to get his personal views mixed up with his business, then he should not have made his personal views public. this is a capitalist economy and entities including both people and other businesses are free to boycott whatever businesses they want to however they choose. im not saying its right. its just reality.

I think for many people, the "basic biology" argument makes sense. Not saying that it's right, but this is definitely an argument based in fact in their eyes. Procreation is a big reason for that line of thinking; marriage is between a man and a woman, no exceptions. But there are flaws in this argument. One is left to wonder about infertile couples. Since they can't procreate, does that mean they don't have a right to be married?

All in all, if two people are in love, regardless if they are same sex or not, then they should be able to be married...and be miserable like the rest of us married folk. Lol, jk, my marriage is awesome but you get my point.

 

[SealHammer]

Yeah the guy doesn't think gay people should be equal to straight people, surprise. If OKCupid were interested in actually seeing change in management, they would do well to make the story more prominent instead of making impotent demands of the company that knew Eich was a bigot before they made him the CEO. Shit, half the board of directors resigned when he was appointed CEO - why exactly is a mystery to me but apparently the guy is either unlikable or incompetent, or both.


Also, this shit

I cant believe this, is homosexuality double plus good then? Isnt it still a thought police action if its liberal thought policing?

Failing to announce support for same sex "marriage" does not amount to homophobia, every single critical response to, or even increasingly neutral responses to, homosexuality is considered homosexuality and its a very insidious kind of political correctness rather than the correct useage of the word.

Although it shouldnt surprise I guess, the same people as made this a trend could not get their head around marriage being a relationship between members of the opposite sex and set out to change the meaning of that to whatever they felt it should be for the time being, when's there going to be some sort of break to this newspeak crappola?

Orwell was right, people never recognise fascism or totalitarianism because they're on the watch for something foreign rather than something familiar or apparently innoxious.

Boycotting people and depriving them of their employment, income, livelihood etc. over stuff like this is totally and utterly criminal, its outsourcing from the state to mobs of groupthinkers doesnt make it any the less of a crime.

is retarded, you should stop posting it.

 

[invisible]

the ultimate funnies is that proponents of m/f only marriage are basing their argument for the supposed sacredness of the institution on the compatibility of penis and vagina. not exactly transcendent is it?

 

[Lark]

I disagree, I have no problem boycotting (my right as a free individual) what I perceive as folks who harbor hate against my loved ones.

Its interesting you know, the only negative thumbs down feedback I've received has been this thread and the other crazy guy who thinks that all white people are racist, because white.

I had thought about responding at length about how crazy this sort of knee jerk, I'm offending on someone elses behalf reaction is going into detail about whether or not validation is a legitimate expectation of your neighbour or whether it should be legislated or what the eventual backlash against this kind of thing may look like but right now I'm thinking it would just be a waste of time.

 

[muir]

But nobody questions if marriage itself is a good idea

Why do people gay or straight need their relationship recognised by the state?

Fuck the state and fuck the church too

 

[Lark]

why is marriage a relationship between two people with different genitalia? dont understand.

what about people who are born with indeterminate genitalia? who do they marry? how do they find a person with genitalia opposite to theirs? what if someone determined after they were born that they were going to be a particular gender, usually female? then is it a real marriage for them to marry a man? because they are not really a woman! or are they really a woman? how do we decide? are they supposed to just accept that they are excluded from marriage, because they dont meet the natural genital criteria?

it doesnt make sense. people are always saying "marriage is between a man and a woman!" but they dont say why. they just say it as though thats the way it is, that there can be no other way about it. why is it that way?? it just doesnt really make sense properly.

and seriously... he is a guy in business. if he didnt want to get his personal views mixed up with his business, then he should not have made his personal views public. this is a capitalist economy and entities including both people and other businesses are free to boycott whatever businesses they want to however they choose. im not saying its right. its just reality.

George Orwell wrote this great novel once called 1984, I really recommend it to you, seeing as you dont understand why the messing with language for political ends is a bad idea.

Now it was written in a different era, so it deals with things which may be unfamiliar such as totalitarianism in its more obvious varieties, state violence and the ideas exploited or seized upon by those wanting to create division and conflict they can personally capitalise on are different, ie socialism rather than validating minority sexual orientation, but I'm sure if you read it and reread it perhaps you could get the meaning.

Then again, maybe not.

 

[Lark]

Yeah the guy doesn't think gay people should be equal to straight people, surprise. If OKCupid were interested in actually seeing change in management, they would do well to make the story more prominent instead of making impotent demands of the company that knew Eich was a bigot before they made him the CEO. Shit, half the board of directors resigned when he was appointed CEO - why exactly is a mystery to me but apparently the guy is either unlikable or incompetent, or both.


Also, this shit

is retarded, you should stop posting it.

"This shit is retarded"

Jesus Christ, you are a master for reasoned debate and have persuaded me to your way of seeing things.

On second thoughts, nope, you're not and you're also a failure as a wit. A good representative for your way of thinking on this topic though, perhaps there's nothing more to be done than to let all you guys with the phony tolerance have your platform and remember it long enough for the fashion to change.

 

[LucyJr]

the ultimate funnies is that proponents of m/f only marriage are basing their argument for the supposed sacredness of the institution on the compatibility of penis and vagina. not exactly transcendent is it?

What about male horse with male human?
Or female human with a female fox?
I think we should legalise everything. Everything is sacred, right?

 

[Stu]

Say what you want, equate homosexuality to bestiality if that is how you feel. Uphold the withholding of spousal and parenting rights to homosexuals if that is what your heart tells you to do. But I will still think you are messed up inside, backward, hateful and spiteful.


The petition, hosted on the Credoaction website

 

[Stu]

But nobody questions if marriage itself is a good idea

Why do people gay or straight need their relationship recognised by the state?

Fuck the state and fuck the church too

Most of us are living in states governed by laws, many of which can bite us if we behave contrary to their intent.

 

[LucyJr]

Why people assume always is anti-gay... hate? Why the word 'hate'?

Anyway, its amazing to me the support for the gay relationships in power circles.

Compared to other movements, like the feminist movement, or the fight against slavery, against racism...those were alot more hard to get. With gay movement, its like something almost magic is happening. Things just happen, slowly, but with power and certainty.

 

[Lark]

Say what you want, equate homosexuality to bestiality if that is how you feel. Uphold the withholding of spousal and parenting rights to homosexuals if that is what your heart tells you to do. But I will still think you are messed up inside, backward, hateful and spiteful.


The petition, hosted on the Credoaction website

Really? That's remarkable, I mean if you really believe that then do you support the power politics which has attempted to "legalise" homosexual "marriage" on the basis of "equality", meaning uniformity (there's a reason why this is very popular with ideological UK conservatives, it is not simply about pandering to uber-wealthy homosexuals and attracting their money to London)?

Much of the pundits that support these attempts to utilise the state to transform social institutions and public thinking or attitudes are unashamed about the power being exercised, the coercion, they arent content at calling it quits with some name calling and labelling the dissenters as "the bad man".

At least that's my experience, while I'm sure its all well meant being a socialist from a ways back I'm pretty skeptical, to say the least, about using the state to introduce or further any aims and objectives, especially not when there is that unique combination of ideological entrenchment and retrenchment with vagaries. Surely the history of past emancipatory efforts should be sobering for any who presently identify themselves with the same. Instead its not.

 

[Stu]

Really? That's remarkable, I mean if you really believe that then do you support the power politics which has attempted to "legalise" homosexual "marriage" on the basis of "equality", meaning uniformity (there's a reason why this is very popular with ideological UK conservatives, it is not simply about pandering to uber-wealthy homosexuals and attracting their money to London)?

Much of the pundits that support these attempts to utilise the state to transform social institutions and public thinking or attitudes are unashamed about the power being exercised, the coercion, they arent content at calling it quits with some name calling and labelling the dissenters as "the bad man".

At least that's my experience, while I'm sure its all well meant being a socialist from a ways back I'm pretty skeptical, to say the least, about using the state to introduce or further any aims and objectives, especially not when there is that unique combination of ideological entrenchment and retrenchment with vagaries. Surely the history of past emancipatory efforts should be sobering for any who presently identify themselves with the same. Instead its not.

I am talking about affording homosexuals equal protection under the law. I think you are talking about something else.


The petition, hosted on the Credoaction website

 

[Lark]

Most of us are living in states governed by laws, many of which can bite us if we behave contrary to their intent.

Given that this is the case, and I presume you do not believe that this is a good thing, then why would you seek to add further laws having the same consequences for people, likeminded or not, and why would you seek to adopt social sanctions which would have the same or even greater consequences? Such as boycotting?

I dont see that the laws prohibiting "discrimination" in the UK or promoting homosexual norms as having parity with heterosexual ones, despite this not being a lived experience of the vast majority of individuals born and raised every single day, have achieved anything other than outlawing, and frequently punishing, otherwise very honest, lawabidding individuals. I dont believe this is or will be the only impact of these developments, all though I will wait and see, but that is definitely the immediate, and unarguable, impact.

All of which will have a mobilising effect upon people, I do not believe in the support or advocacy role which liberals and gay rights campaigners presently hope for or envisage.

 

[Stu]

Given that this is the case, and I presume you do not believe that this is a good thing...

I am sorry sir, you are mistaken. I also beg your forgiveness If I have offended you by disagreeing with you (at least I think I do, your verbiage is hard for me to follow). I retracted my thumbs down.

I for one am not going to do everyday commerce with homophobic entities.

on that note.....thank you for your comments and sharing your feelings here.



The petition, hosted on the Credoaction website