The Thought Conditioners

[Galeongirl]

Ah okay, so it's a bit the political spectrum idea? Where left is the 'social' part and right more traditional or something? I think we sorta have a similar distribution here, though we never really talk about "the right" or "the left" or stuff like that. And yea, both right and left pretty much agree here on healthcare and gay marriage and everything. Except the hardcore christian party of course, but that was to be expected.

Kinda funny you put gay agenda and freedom haters in the same group. Freedom, yarr, but not for dem gayz.

[PhilsFan]

Originally Posted by the iron horse

It seems that most here view the political right as the 'thought conditioners' in society today.



I have many reason why I think it is the Left.



Here's a recent one:

Mozilla CEO Brendan Eich forced to resign for supporting traditional marriage laws | WashingtonExaminer.com

Hahahaha this is such bullshit. I am on my phone so I want to ask the reliability of the Washington Examiner. It says "traditional marriage" in the title and "religious beliefs" in the article so I assume it is a fucking rag.

[Vlad n U 2]

Originally Posted by Galeongirl

Kinda funny you put gay agenda and freedom haters in the same group. Freedom, yarr, but not for dem gayz.

Well, they don't really make much sense to be fair.

[Galeongirl]

Originally Posted by PhilsFan

Hahahaha this is such bullshit. I am on my phone so I want to ask the reliability of the Washington Examiner. It says "traditional marriage" in the title and "religious beliefs" in the article so I assume it is a fucking rag.

He donated 10,000 dollar to the prop 8 support, according to the article.

Originally Posted by Vlad n U 2

Well, they don't really make much sense to be fair.

I never really understand the need for people to put everthing in their own little box. Whatever happened to thinking outside the box? You don't have to be left or right to support certain beliefs or views, right? I have absolutely no clue where I would stand in the political spectrum. And frankly I don't really care, since it means virtually nothing.

[Diemen]

I'm going to go slightly against the grain here. I don't agree with Eich's beliefs at all, but is the answer to run anyone out of town who says things we don't like? As far as gay marriage, that war has been waged, and frankly, people like Eich already lost, despite their continued protestations. The tide has turned and their viewpoint is quickly turning into a minority one.

Do we pro-SSM people want to run everyone out of town/office/their job who doesn't agree with us? Is that progress?

[PhilsFan]

We're not running Joe from HR out of his job. We're not banning Cindy from down the block from joining the church group or the neighborhood committee. Hell, I worked with people who were against same-sex marriage. I got along with them fine. If they talked about it, I voiced my thoughts, attempted to correct blatant inaccuracies, and moved on with my day. I'm not worried about the shopworker. We're talking about CEO's of big-time companies no longer being able to wield political power on the wrong side of a right vs. wrong issue. I'm not thickheaded enough to think every issue is right vs. wrong (there are merits to many economic arguments even if I strongly disagree with many of those on the right), but I'm also not a droning centrist who insists every viewpoint has validity. There are issues where it's simply right vs. wrong. This is one of them.

As I hear of another bill being passed that only increases the ability for the extremely wealthy to dominate campaigns with their financing, frankly it's nice to see that something grassroots can accomplish something. People who donated to Prop 8 should be ashamed, and they should be brought into the light. We didn't force Mozilla to force him out. We objected to such a person (a person willing to spend money to deny people rights) holding an influential position, and they realized that it reflected poorly on them. There was no riot at the gates. Mozilla was not taken by force. People voiced their opinions, loudly and with clarity, and Mozilla got the message.

That the "war" has been lost doesn't change the major negative impacts of Prop 8's passing. Every day that such an injustice occurs is wrong, and should not be forgotten so easily simply because the courts eventually got around to righting the wrong. If you are against same-sex marriage, you are on the wrong side of a very simple issue. Get with it or get lost, I say.

[anitram]

Originally Posted by Diemen

Do we pro-SSM people want to run everyone out of town/office/their job who doesn't agree with us? Is that progress?

In this particular instance, it's not so much "we" who are running anyone out of office, it is the way of the corporate world.

When Eich was appointed CEO, I think that half the Board quit. There was then subsequent pressure (from many sources, including the Board) for him to resign. The Board of a Corporation is entrusted with the stewardship of the corporation, the primary goal of which is to increase share value, and consequently profits, for the shareholders. A director has fiduciary duties and would be liable to shareholders for NOT taking action in an instance where some corporate action is decreasing the profitability or shareholder return of the corporation. So, for example, if you have negative publicity and you think that will hurt the bottom line, it's actually a correct step for the Board to take, to exert pressure re: resignation.

[Diemen]

So rather than this being a simple case of The Left's intolerance, this might be more accurately described as a company acting in its best financial interests.

[anitram]

Pretty much the gold standard for corporations!

[digitize]

Mozilla is actually a nonprofit (well, the Mozilla Corporation is a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Mozilla Foundation, a 501(c)(3)). But that's not terribly relevant.

Regardless, one could argue that organizations like that dating website were being absurd by caring so much about SSM that they waged a semi-publicity campaign on Mozilla over their CEO not supporting it.

[anitram]

I think it's a fair question to ask whether it's worth putting up public campaigns targeted against somebody like Eich. To me, it seems like kind of a waste of time, energy and political capital, but then again I don't really have a horse in the race so my opinion only carries so much weight.

[digitize]

Originally Posted by anitram

I think it's a fair question to ask whether it's worth putting up public campaigns targeted against somebody like Eich. To me, it seems like kind of a waste of time, energy and political capital, but then again I don't really have a horse in the race so my opinion only carries so much weight.

Yeah, I feel the same way. I can understand publicity campaigns against someone like Truett Cathy, who used Chick-fil-a to broadcast anti-SSM messages very vocally. But I imagine that the corporate world is littered with people like Eich, who are against SSM privately, and perhaps donate to causes against it, but don't use their corporate position to broadcast their views to the world. Eich's views were publicly exposed, but I can't imagine that publicly exposing everyone like Eich, and then running publicity campaigns against each and every one of them, would be terribly productive. Maybe I'm wrong, though.

[PhilsFan]

Originally Posted by anitram

I think it's a fair question to ask whether it's worth putting up public campaigns targeted against somebody like Eich. To me, it seems like kind of a waste of time, energy and political capital, but then again I don't really have a horse in the race so my opinion only carries so much weight.

Was there really that much of a campaign? I know eHarmony posted something on their site encouraging users to use other browsers, but that's about all I know.

[KhanadaRhodes]

i had also seen an article on facebook that okcupid had a message pop up for its users logging in via firefox announcing their...displeasure of the guy, i guess you could say. i'm not sure if they outright blocked firefox users from continuing to use the site, but they definitely at least made them aware of what was going on.

[the iron horse]

Originally Posted by Diemen

I'm going to go slightly against the grain here. I don't agree with Eich's beliefs at all, but is the answer to run anyone out of town who says things we don't like? As far as gay marriage, that war has been waged, and frankly, people like Eich already lost, despite their continued protestations. The tide has turned and their viewpoint is quickly turning into a minority one.

Do we pro-SSM people want to run everyone out of town/office/their job who doesn't agree with us? Is that progress?

Diemen is on target with what I am trying to say.

"...is the answer to run anyone out of town who says things we don't like?"

Are we so willing to embrace a society that censors minority views?

Also, to correct some misinformation:

He donated the money without making a big to do about it and the donation was
1,000 dollars not 10,000.

From the article:

Mozilla CEO Brendan Eich resigned under pressure after gay rights activists demanded that he step down or recant his support of traditional marriage laws.

Eich donated $1,000 to support Proposition 8, the California ballot initiative that amended the state's constitution to define marriage as between one man and one woman.

"I don't want to talk about my personal beliefs because I kept them out of Mozilla all these 15 years we've been going,” Eich told The Guardian. “I don't believe they're relevant.”

[Irvine511]

Originally Posted by PhilsFan

Hahahaha this is such bullshit. I am on my phone so I want to ask the reliability of the Washington Examiner. It says "traditional marriage" in the title and "religious beliefs" in the article so I assume it is a fucking rag.

the Washington Examiner is a free, right wing rag passed out on the DC metro and targeted at minority audiences. it features lots of "articles" by people like Byron York, Mona Charen, Phillis Schafley, Michelle Malkin, etc.

it makes the NRO look intellectual.

as for this bru-ha-ha, i have mixed feelings. i don't think someone should lose their job over a political decision, particularly one that was held 6 years ago and has been overturned.

yet, if this guy came out against interracial marriage, he would have been forced to resign.

[PhilsFan]

Originally Posted by the iron horse

Are we so willing to embrace a society that censors minority views?

Do you know what censorship is?

[Irvine511]

Originally Posted by anitram

Pretty much the gold standard for corporations!

which are people too! with free speech and religious convictions!

[Irvine511]

Originally Posted by the iron horse

Diemen is on target with what I am trying to say.

"...is the answer to run anyone out of town who says things we don't like?"

Are we so willing to embrace a society that censors minority views?

Also, to correct some misinformation:

He donated the money without making a big to do about it and the donation was
1,000 dollars not 10,000.

From the article:

Mozilla CEO Brendan Eich resigned under pressure after gay rights activists demanded that he step down or recant his support of traditional marriage laws.

Eich donated $1,000 to support Proposition 8, the California ballot initiative that amended the state's constitution to define marriage as between one man and one woman.

"I don't want to talk about my personal beliefs because I kept them out of Mozilla all these 15 years we've been going,” Eich told The Guardian. “I don't believe they're relevant.”

did you read what was said? this was a financial decision made about the best financial interests of the company. this happens all the time. you can dislike it, but if the CEO of Wal-Mart gave $1000 to a local chapter of the KKK, would you expect everyone to nod and say, "well, those are just his views, he's got a right to them." he does have a right to those views. he doesn't have the right to be free from the consequences of holding views. if he really believes in second class citizenship for gay people, is he not willing to resign his job over these deeply held, sincere convictions?

i'm sorry that you can no longer kick the gays and not get any blowback, and i'm also sorry that the gays are now incredibly well organized, funded, and politically astute that they can advance their interests as well as any other group in America.

i also don't think that quoting that "article" from the WE really helps your case. i suggest you do some wider reading, that will probably help you understand the situation better.

[Diemen]

Originally Posted by Irvine511

as for this bru-ha-ha, i have mixed feelings. i don't think someone should lose their job over a political decision, particularly one that was held 6 years ago and has been overturned.

yet, if this guy came out against interracial marriage, he would have been forced to resign.

That's pretty much where I'm at. I don't know that we need an organized campaign to oust everyone who holds odious views, but at the same time, if those views are such that, if made public they would anger a large portion of your shareholders, then hey, maybe you should be more careful what you donate your money and time to. Andrew Sullivan has gone ape shit over it, decrying it as liberal McCarthyism and only digging his heels in further when readers have dissented. I generally like Sullivan and find his viewpoint and willingness to air dissent refreshing, but boy, when he gets a stick in his craw he can be insufferable.