Mozilla CEO forced out because of Prop 8 Donation
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 06:13:15 PM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  U.S. General Discussion (Moderators: The Dowager Mod, Chancellor Tanterterg)
  Mozilla CEO forced out because of Prop 8 Donation
« previous next »
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5
Author Topic: Mozilla CEO forced out because of Prop 8 Donation  (Read 7952 times)
SteveRogers
duncan298
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,155


Political Matrix
E: -3.87, S: -5.04

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #75 on: April 06, 2014, 03:31:38 PM »


Marriage law is not bigoted. It is intended to regulate people who share community property and who produce biological offspring. Over the years, married people have been given quite a few special privileges in the name of parenthood. These special privileges have created an Equal Protection crisis for all unmarried individuals. Gay marriage is a small part of a much bigger issue. Our modern regulatory problems have not transformed marriage into an inherently bigoted, anti-gay institution.
The passage of Prop 8 was an affirmative action taken to strip a group of people of their right to marriage. Thus, that law was indeed bigoted.


Legally-speaking, it was a good argument. Unfortunately for the bigots, it was not a correct argument. Genetic diversity is an imperative for producing biological offspring. Also, Virginia could not have created an effective legal method for defining "white" and "black". The anti-interracial laws were appearance-based, unenforceable, and designed to prevent people of different races from being together and producing biological children.

All of that is true, and the Court did point out all of those problems with the law, but none of those issues represented the core reason for striking down the law on equal protection grounds.

The implication of your post was that I'm using a bigoted legal defense; therefore, I must have a bigot's agenda. A legal defense is not inherently bigoted, and the rest of your implied point was a non-sequitur since the subject matter is different.

The point of my post was to show that in your attempt to argue that opposition to SSM is not analogous to the racial discrimination of the past, you inadvertently showed exactly why they are analogous by using literally the same arguments that were used to justify miscegenation laws. You're intentionally dancing around the obvious parallels in order to avoid the real question.

Furthermore, the US is not particularly hostile to gays so the lack of gay marriage does not exclude the possibility of Equal Protection.

What? Lack of gay marriage absolutely excludes equal protection of the law in the realm of marriage law because gays are singled out by the state and treated differently than other citizens, and the government has not legitimate interest in doing so. Saying, "well, gays could have it worse off than they do" doesn't justify the discrimination that does exist in the U.S.

Anyway, the real bigots are the people in DC, who don't want to lose revenue by giving married tax benefits to all single people. Follow the money.

I take your position to be that the government should either (1) stop granting marriage benefits altogether, or (2) grant similar benefits to all people regardless of their relationship status. This is of course the classic libertarian cop-out. Not that position itself, but the fact that you're using that view to sidestep the question of gay marriage. You could hold such a view regardless of your stance on gay marriage because two completely different questions are involved. The one you want to ask is should the state grant government benefits to couples, and if so what kind? The question involved in the gay marriage debate is, IF the government is going to grant benefits to married couples, THEN should they have to grant those benefits regardless of sexual orientation.
Logged
ingemann
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,226


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #76 on: April 06, 2014, 06:45:18 PM »

How long do you people think it will take this guy to find a new job? A few month a year?

So let celebrate this great success, where the Conservative movement have gotten a martyr, the LGBT movement look like a bunch of McCarthians, which have used media time on a completely irrelevant case from pro-LGBT perspective and there it likely have zero consequence medium or long term for the person (while in short term he has gotten a very well paid vacation, while he look for his next job), people seek to punish.

Go team gay rights.
Logged
bedstuy
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,526


Political Matrix
E: -1.16, S: -4.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #77 on: April 06, 2014, 06:56:12 PM »

To me, the differences comes down to creating a tolerant work environment.  If the boss has some position that a group of employees do not deserve equal rights, it's just problematic.

You can't jump to that conclusion for the same reason right-wingers cannot assume that proponents of government expansion are supporters of communism. The SSM debate is just modern day McCarthyism run amok.

The lack of Equal Protection in relationship contract law affects everyone who is not married. Gays are a tiny subset of the affected population, but Democrats exploit gays because they offer more political capital than other unmarried demographics.

I don't know what on earth you're talking about.  Unmarried people haven't decided to get married.  They may not have a serious, committed relationship or they may not want to get married.  That's totally different from gay people who cannot get married, even if they have a serious committed relationship and they want to get married.  It's about the equality of being allowed to get married at all.  No offense, but you're clearly being obtuse as an argumentative strategy.  There's no point in having this conversation if you're going to be willfully obtuse. 

I understand that those who tried to pressure him out of the job justify it by saying that this is more than just a run of the mill political issue, it's about basic equality.  But OTOH, there are plenty of other political issues that are literally about life and death.  Why not investigate every CEO's political statements and political donations on abortion, capital punishment, drone warfare, the US intervention in Libya, etc., and then organize boycotts of the companies whose CEO has the incorrect position on one or more of those issues?


To me, the differences comes down to creating a tolerant work environment.  If the boss has some position that a group of employees do not deserve equal rights, it's just problematic.  If someone says women shouldn't be able to vote or black people shouldn't be able to serve on a jury, can they really effectively manage an organization including women and black folk?  As any kind of organization, you need some type of norms of respect for each individual.  There at some level is going to be a clash between a tolerant environment of gay people and tolerance of homophobic and intolerance.  Unlike political issues, these types of civil rights issues are always going to matter in the workplace.

The question to me is whether opposing SSM is so heinous and disruptive to a good workplace environment that this was merited.  I would say no.

"Oh come on you gays, of course I'm a supporter of gay rights and all, but it's not THAT big of a deal you can't get married and can get fired for being gay! Just sit down, shut up, and wait for the level of support to become ~80-90% so we milquetoast straight people can finally hand you your civil rights."

That's not really my point.  I just think we need to value an open and honest debate where people can speak their mind openly, even when they say dumb things.  Will firing this guy convince anyone or advance the cause of gay rights?  I just think it will silence people, which can be good in a work environment, but generally isn't good in a public debate.  I would rather just have this guy embarrass himself and suffer the consequences of people seeing him in this negative way.  Ultimately, that's what happened, but I wouldn't actually fire him.  There are some beliefs where I do not extend that courtesy , like that homosexuality is immoral.  If someone said that, you couldn't really have them in your workplace or organization.
Logged
Simfan34
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,744
United States


Political Matrix
E: 0.90, S: 4.17

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #78 on: April 06, 2014, 06:57:28 PM »

Oakvale is just totally right- I really cannot add anything he hasn't said. The intolerance of some for dissenting opinions is alarming.

Would you feel the same way if the CEO had donated to segregationist causes?

Remember, it's not the government who did this. This is pure free market, which Republicans worship when it's convenient.

You must really be enjoying yourself.
Logged
AggregateDemand
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,873
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #79 on: April 06, 2014, 06:57:46 PM »
« Edited: April 06, 2014, 07:16:04 PM by AggregateDemand »

The point of my post was to show that in your attempt to argue that opposition to SSM is not analogous to the racial discrimination of the past, you inadvertently showed exactly why they are analogous by using literally the same arguments that were used to justify miscegenation laws. You're intentionally dancing around the obvious parallels in order to avoid the real question.

If you're not interested in the value of the non-sequitur, why do you insist on lumping me in with the miscegenation crowd? You could just as easily have lumped me in with the anti-polygamists. Non-sequitur is your motivation.

Saying, "well, gays could have it worse off than they do" doesn't justify the discrimination that does exist in the U.S.

I said, if gays lived in a systemically hostile nation, it would be reasonable to associate laws like Prop 8 with violations of Equal Protection. It would be reasonable to assume further hostility if homosexual couples tried to use civil union to seek equal protection or "SSM". We don't live in an openly hostile system or culture (for the most part) so there is no reason to allege bigoted conspiracy.

I take your position to be that the government should either (1) stop granting marriage benefits altogether, or (2) grant similar benefits to all people regardless of their relationship status. This is of course the classic libertarian cop-out. Not that position itself, but the fact that you're using that view to sidestep the question of gay marriage. You could hold such a view regardless of your stance on gay marriage because two completely different questions are involved. The one you want to ask is should the state grant government benefits to couples, and if so what kind? The question involved in the gay marriage debate is, IF the government is going to grant benefits to married couples, THEN should they have to grant those benefits regardless of sexual orientation.

Please. Democrats want to start a war so they can stack a W in the win column. Social costs be damned. This has been the MO of Democrats since the 1960s. Sensible Americans would rather disarm unnecessary confrontation and focus on populist politics that work for everyone.

Our regulations, not our culture, created friction between married and unmarried individuals. Democrats don't acknowledge the situation because they support the progressive statutory tax rate system that causes single people in the middle-income quintiles to pay up to 50% more tax than their married counterparts, and liberals cling to the employer-provided system of job lock (regardless of what Nancy says). Liberals should be ashamed themselves, but they are proud instead.
Logged
7,052,770
Harry
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 35,220
Ukraine


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #80 on: April 06, 2014, 07:03:31 PM »

How long do you people think it will take this guy to find a new job? A few month a year?

Some company that wants a spike in sales will hire him immediately. Just look at Chick-fil-A and Duck Dynasty, both of which were almost certainly intentional media ploys to get right-wing Christians to buy their stuff. Both worked beautifully.
Logged
AggregateDemand
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,873
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #81 on: April 06, 2014, 07:14:00 PM »

I don't know what on earth you're talking about.  Unmarried people haven't decided to get married.  They may not have a serious, committed relationship or they may not want to get married.  That's totally different from gay people who cannot get married, even if they have a serious committed relationship and they want to get married.  It's about the equality of being allowed to get married at all.  No offense, but you're clearly being obtuse as an argumentative strategy.  There's no point in having this conversation if you're going to be willfully obtuse.

I said lack of Equal Protection affects everyone who's not married. My statement was not a prompt for misguided rationalization of the virtues inherent to discriminating against people who don't want to be married.

If we cannot have a conversation, it's because you cannot understand the complexity of the issue.
Logged
Brittain33
brittain33
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 21,933


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #82 on: April 06, 2014, 07:19:09 PM »


Am I wrong that this was almost entirely an issue driven by people internal to Mozilla, and not the "gay rights" bogeyman? The only external issue I saw was OKCupid's protest page. After that, I've read a lot about Mozilla's culture of openness, social activism, etc. and how Eich was a bad fit and not popular even before the Prop 8 issue arose.
Logged
Small Business Owner of Any Repute
Mr. Moderate
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,431
United States


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #83 on: April 06, 2014, 07:20:01 PM »

I don't know what on earth you're talking about.  Unmarried people haven't decided to get married.  They may not have a serious, committed relationship or they may not want to get married.  That's totally different from gay people who cannot get married, even if they have a serious committed relationship and they want to get married.  It's about the equality of being allowed to get married at all.  No offense, but you're clearly being obtuse as an argumentative strategy.  There's no point in having this conversation if you're going to be willfully obtuse.

I said lack of Equal Protection affects everyone who's not married. My statement was not a prompt for misguided rationalization of the virtues inherent to discriminating against people who don't want to be married.

If we cannot have a conversation, it's because you cannot understand the complexity of the issue.

lol, you're being such a moderate hero conservative hero
Logged
Brittain33
brittain33
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 21,933


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #84 on: April 06, 2014, 07:20:13 PM »

How long do you people think it will take this guy to find a new job? A few month a year?

Some company that wants a spike in sales will hire him immediately. Just look at Chick-fil-A and Duck Dynasty, both of which were almost certainly intentional media ploys to get right-wing Christians to buy their stuff. Both worked beautifully.

It looked like it was going to be that way for Duck Dynasty, and maybe sales of duck calls went up, but their tv show returned from hiatus to a big drop in ratings. That surprised me because I expected watching Duck Dynasty to become a form of political activism.
Logged
Small Business Owner of Any Repute
Mr. Moderate
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,431
United States


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #85 on: April 06, 2014, 07:28:48 PM »


Am I wrong that this was almost entirely an issue driven by people internal to Mozilla, and not the "gay rights" bogeyman? The only external issue I saw was OKCupid's protest page. After that, I've read a lot about Mozilla's culture of openness, social activism, etc. and how Eich was a bad fit and not popular even before the Prop 8 issue arose.

You're correct. The only reason why this got to the place it did was that the internal Mozilla team was in revolt. After the news hit the tech blogs, OKCupid decided to capitalize on the issue and blocked Firefox connections to its site. That news jumped to the mainstream news, and then partisans started getting involved, and now it's the worst example of liberal abuse ever since Barack Hussein Benghazi shredded the constitution to whatever whatever whatever.

Mozilla staffers publicly trashed their CEO on Twitter because he was the antithesis of what drove them to work at Mozilla in the first place. There was no retribution, because the people who were in power to deal the retribution were the ones slamming the CEO the worst. Opposition to Eich went, for lack of a better term -- viral inside the company. The board gave him some time to right the ship, but he couldn't. Things were getting worse by the day. There was no way the guy could stay on.
Logged
AggregateDemand
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,873
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #86 on: April 06, 2014, 07:32:30 PM »

lol, you're being such a moderate hero conservative hero

lol, you have no idea what's going on
Logged
H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY
Alfred F. Jones
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,075
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #87 on: April 06, 2014, 08:04:21 PM »


wtf else do you call someone who spends his money on amending the law to take rights away from a discriminated-against group of people??

I'm just taking the proper moderate hero position on the logical development of this thread.  And yes, I think almost everyone here agrees that old fatass guy who was CEO of so and so company is a bigot.  My barb was at the two sides in this thread who both come in here just wanting the sexual high they get from throwing labels at somebody over a political pundit article rather than discuss things that matter like how did NC-05 vote in 1972.

Hey, man, don't hate. You have to remember that most of us have literally no other place to get a sexual high.
Logged
bedstuy
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,526


Political Matrix
E: -1.16, S: -4.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #88 on: April 06, 2014, 09:13:40 PM »

I don't know what on earth you're talking about.  Unmarried people haven't decided to get married.  They may not have a serious, committed relationship or they may not want to get married.  That's totally different from gay people who cannot get married, even if they have a serious committed relationship and they want to get married.  It's about the equality of being allowed to get married at all.  No offense, but you're clearly being obtuse as an argumentative strategy.  There's no point in having this conversation if you're going to be willfully obtuse.

I said lack of Equal Protection affects everyone who's not married. My statement was not a prompt for misguided rationalization of the virtues inherent to discriminating against people who don't want to be married.

If we cannot have a conversation, it's because you cannot understand the complexity of the issue.

Do you think people get married solely for more beneficial tax treatment?
Logged
Associate Justice PiT
PiT (The Physicist)
Atlas Politician
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 31,135
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #89 on: April 07, 2014, 03:50:37 AM »

     His views on gay marriage are irrelevant to the job. I couldn't care less what they are. The only thing I have to say about the outcome is that anyone who would actually boycott a company over this has too much time on their hands. Maybe they should focus their time on something a little more non-trivial.
Logged
Brittain33
brittain33
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 21,933


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #90 on: April 07, 2014, 07:44:26 AM »

     His views on gay marriage are irrelevant to the job. I couldn't care less what they are. The only thing I have to say about the outcome is that anyone who would actually boycott a company over this has too much time on their hands. Maybe they should focus their time on something a little more non-trivial.

The pressure against Eich was internal, but that said, boycotting a browser is one of the least time-consuming acts I can imagine. All you have to do is switch to Chrome and maybe post that you're boycotting. Just a few minutes.
Logged
Holmes
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,719
Canada


Political Matrix
E: -6.45, S: -5.74

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #91 on: April 07, 2014, 11:17:27 AM »


Am I wrong that this was almost entirely an issue driven by people internal to Mozilla, and not the "gay rights" bogeyman? The only external issue I saw was OKCupid's protest page. After that, I've read a lot about Mozilla's culture of openness, social activism, etc. and how Eich was a bad fit and not popular even before the Prop 8 issue arose.

You are right, but some people don't care if they can blame something negative on the gays.

Was a loyal Mozilla user for years but changed to Chrome when Eich became CEO. Mozilla's board of directors had every right deciding that they didn't want someone with views like his to be the face of their corporation.

Also, a note on Andrew Sullivan. He's a worm, a real Uncle Tom of the gay community. Pay no attention to what he says unless you want to hear a gay man lecture his own community on how to appease the straight man.
Logged
AggregateDemand
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,873
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #92 on: April 07, 2014, 11:36:36 AM »

Do you think people get married solely for more beneficial tax treatment?

Do you think people who get married for love do not benefit from the tax treatment? or any of the other property/healthcare benefits?
Logged
🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸
shua
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 25,665
Nepal


Political Matrix
E: 1.29, S: -0.70

WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #93 on: April 07, 2014, 05:11:59 PM »

I understand that those who tried to pressure him out of the job justify it by saying that this is more than just a run of the mill political issue, it's about basic equality.  But OTOH, there are plenty of other political issues that are literally about life and death.  Why not investigate every CEO's political statements and political donations on abortion, capital punishment, drone warfare, the US intervention in Libya, etc., and then organize boycotts of the companies whose CEO has the incorrect position on one or more of those issues?


To me, the differences comes down to creating a tolerant work environment.  If the boss has some position that a group of employees do not deserve equal rights, it's just problematic.  If someone says women shouldn't be able to vote or black people shouldn't be able to serve on a jury, can they really effectively manage an organization including women and black folk?  As any kind of organization, you need some type of norms of respect for each individual.  There at some level is going to be a clash between a tolerant environment of gay people and tolerance of homophobic and intolerance.  Unlike political issues, these types of civil rights issues are always going to matter in the workplace.

The question to me is whether opposing SSM is so heinous and disruptive to a good workplace environment that this was merited.  I would say no.

"Oh come on you gays, of course I'm a supporter of gay rights and all, but it's not THAT big of a deal you can't get married and can get fired for being gay! Just sit down, shut up, and wait for the level of support to become ~80-90% so we milquetoast straight people can finally hand you your civil rights."

Was there a single instance at all of Eich in all his years helping to build the company ever displaying personal intolerance or animosity toward any gay employees of the company?   
Logged
Associate Justice PiT
PiT (The Physicist)
Atlas Politician
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 31,135
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #94 on: April 07, 2014, 05:14:50 PM »

     His views on gay marriage are irrelevant to the job. I couldn't care less what they are. The only thing I have to say about the outcome is that anyone who would actually boycott a company over this has too much time on their hands. Maybe they should focus their time on something a little more non-trivial.

The pressure against Eich was internal, but that said, boycotting a browser is one of the least time-consuming acts I can imagine. All you have to do is switch to Chrome and maybe post that you're boycotting. Just a few minutes.

     Point taken, I didn't think about that detail. Still, I find it somewhat pointless to boycott a product because of undesirable views by a member of the company making it when those views are altogether tangential to the product in question.
Logged
🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸
shua
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 25,665
Nepal


Political Matrix
E: 1.29, S: -0.70

WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #95 on: April 07, 2014, 05:17:53 PM »
« Edited: April 07, 2014, 05:20:42 PM by shua »


Am I wrong that this was almost entirely an issue driven by people internal to Mozilla, and not the "gay rights" bogeyman? The only external issue I saw was OKCupid's protest page. After that, I've read a lot about Mozilla's culture of openness, social activism, etc. and how Eich was a bad fit and not popular even before the Prop 8 issue arose.

You are right, but some people don't care if they can blame something negative on the gays.

Was a loyal Mozilla user for years but changed to Chrome when Eich became CEO. Mozilla's board of directors had every right deciding that they didn't want someone with views like his to be the face of their corporation.

Also, a note on Andrew Sullivan. He's a worm, a real Uncle Tom of the gay community. Pay no attention to what he says unless you want to hear a gay man lecture his own community on how to appease the straight man.

True, he has done a lot to appease the straight man. If it weren't for Andrew Sullivan and people like him, gay marriage would be more of a fringe left wing position and not nearly so much supported among gays either.
Logged
bedstuy
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,526


Political Matrix
E: -1.16, S: -4.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #96 on: April 07, 2014, 05:23:47 PM »

I understand that those who tried to pressure him out of the job justify it by saying that this is more than just a run of the mill political issue, it's about basic equality.  But OTOH, there are plenty of other political issues that are literally about life and death.  Why not investigate every CEO's political statements and political donations on abortion, capital punishment, drone warfare, the US intervention in Libya, etc., and then organize boycotts of the companies whose CEO has the incorrect position on one or more of those issues?


To me, the differences comes down to creating a tolerant work environment.  If the boss has some position that a group of employees do not deserve equal rights, it's just problematic.  If someone says women shouldn't be able to vote or black people shouldn't be able to serve on a jury, can they really effectively manage an organization including women and black folk?  As any kind of organization, you need some type of norms of respect for each individual.  There at some level is going to be a clash between a tolerant environment of gay people and tolerance of homophobic and intolerance.  Unlike political issues, these types of civil rights issues are always going to matter in the workplace.

The question to me is whether opposing SSM is so heinous and disruptive to a good workplace environment that this was merited.  I would say no.

"Oh come on you gays, of course I'm a supporter of gay rights and all, but it's not THAT big of a deal you can't get married and can get fired for being gay! Just sit down, shut up, and wait for the level of support to become ~80-90% so we milquetoast straight people can finally hand you your civil rights."

Was there a single instance at all of Eich in all his years helping to build the company ever displaying personal intolerance or animosity toward any gay employees of the company?   

There's the support of Prop 8 in question.  I have no idea what else has been alleged or happened.
Logged
Badger
badger
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 40,252
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #97 on: April 07, 2014, 05:45:07 PM »


If we cannot have a conversation, it's because you cannot understand the complexity of the issue.

Please, Arrogant Demand, explain it to us poor simpletons using small words. With brightly-colored pictures too if possible.
Logged
bedstuy
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,526


Political Matrix
E: -1.16, S: -4.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #98 on: April 07, 2014, 05:53:50 PM »

Do you think people get married solely for more beneficial tax treatment?

Do you think people who get married for love do not benefit from the tax treatment? or any of the other property/healthcare benefits?

So, unless we can find a way to get 100% of the population married, gay people can't get married.  Part of the advantage of marriage is sharing another person's life, which isn't something everyone wants or needs or can have at every moment of their life.  There's also disadvantages and responsibilities of marriage, along with potential massive headaches in a divorce.  And, maybe we should have less or no tax benefit for married couples, but that's no argument against gay marriage. 
Logged
Holmes
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,719
Canada


Political Matrix
E: -6.45, S: -5.74

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #99 on: April 07, 2014, 08:50:32 PM »


Am I wrong that this was almost entirely an issue driven by people internal to Mozilla, and not the "gay rights" bogeyman? The only external issue I saw was OKCupid's protest page. After that, I've read a lot about Mozilla's culture of openness, social activism, etc. and how Eich was a bad fit and not popular even before the Prop 8 issue arose.

You are right, but some people don't care if they can blame something negative on the gays.

Was a loyal Mozilla user for years but changed to Chrome when Eich became CEO. Mozilla's board of directors had every right deciding that they didn't want someone with views like his to be the face of their corporation.

Also, a note on Andrew Sullivan. He's a worm, a real Uncle Tom of the gay community. Pay no attention to what he says unless you want to hear a gay man lecture his own community on how to appease the straight man.

True, he has done a lot to appease the straight man. If it weren't for Andrew Sullivan and people like him, gay marriage would be more of a fringe left wing position and not nearly so much supported among gays either.

Can you back that claim up?
Logged
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.065 seconds with 12 queries.