Gay Rights: Is it time to Boycott Firefox?

[Revoltingest]

Boycotts are primarily intended to put pressure on a company, not to punish it.

Hair splitting. The pressure is in the form of punishment.
I could replace "punishment" with "adverse action to cause a loss".

And again, you're comparing apples to oranges. Eich was not rejected because of his _views_, but because of his _activism_.

No, I'm discussing grapefruits. He was an employee who had views & took action outside of his position with the gay friendly company. The boycotters threatened the company in order to police the advocacy of an employee. Now, if he'd directed the company in an anti-gay direction, I'd see merit in the boycott. But this is just thuggish sanctimony.

 

[Drolefille]

Sure there's a comparison. Obama opposed gay rights with his inaction on DADT,
waiting til Congress made the change, & he signed the bill....leading by following.

Wait a minute. I don't believe DADT was something that any president could have done something about. It was a law and had to be overturned in court, or by congress, all the president could do was sign/veto it. As Clinton signed it, what else would Obama be able to do? Am I missing something here?

 

[Revoltingest]

Wait a minute. I don't believe DADT was something that any president could have done something about. It was a law and had to be overturned in court, or by congress, all the president could do was sign/veto it. As Clinton signed it, what else would Obama be able to do? Am I missing something here?

He is the Commander In Chief of all armed forces.
I say he could've rammed new policy down their throats.
He also could've used the bully pulpit to speed up change.
But what we have is a semi-fundie Xian who once opposed gay marriage.

 

[Drolefille]

He is the Commander In Chief of all armed forces.
I say he could've rammed new policy down their throats.
He also could've used the bully pulpit to speed up change.
But what we have is a semi-fundie Xian who once opposed gay marriage.

A. Noted, but not relevant to the law itself.
B. They did stop/slow down discharges IIRC, but that didn't change the law.
C. True. It's possible. However it's also the case that some people just oppose things that he supports because he supports them. Is it possible that choosing not to speak louder is as strategic as speaking louder?
D. I don't think that's accurate as far as the "semi-fundie" part. The church he attended in Chicago wasn't semi-fundie. But then I think one has to talk a certain way to get ahead in politics. I think that's stupid, but I also think it's true. However, he was far better than the McCain we saw in the election - he goes back and forth.

 

[dust1n]

What does Obama even have to do with this?


None of this has anything to do with the government. As far as I can tell, the debacle was all free market. So, what's the problem, exactly?

 

[Revoltingest]

A. Noted, but not relevant to the law itself.
B. They did stop/slow down discharges IIRC, but that didn't change the law.
C. True. It's possible. However it's also the case that some people just oppose things that he supports because he supports them. Is it possible that choosing not to speak louder is as strategic as speaking louder?
D. I don't think that's accurate as far as the "semi-fundie" part. The church he attended in Chicago wasn't semi-fundie. But then I think one has to talk a certain way to get ahead in politics. I think that's stupid, but I also think it's true. However, he was far better than the McCain we saw in the election - he goes back and forth.

I don't dispute that he's less fundie than McCain & others. But to oppose gay marriage strikes me as right of the middle of Xianity, & the direction it's heading. To write it off as disingenuous political pandering is possible, but to paraphrase Kurt Vonnegut, you are what you pretend to be.

 

[Drolefille]

I don't dispute that he's less fundie than McCain & others. But to oppose gay marriage strikes me as right of the middle of Xianity, & the direction it's heading. To write it off as disingenuous political pandering is possible, but to paraphrase Kurt Vonnegut, you are what you pretend to be.

That's fair, but then you have to acknowledge the change, which would put him out in liberal Christian territory. Which would make him as much that now as he was anything else before.

And yet, I generally still support him, because while I don't think he's gone far enough I think he's gone as far as anyone else would have gone. And if we can avoid backsliding, I'd like to see someone else go farther.

 

[Revoltingest]

What does Obama even have to do with this?

Obama is part of a larger picture of perceived hypocrisy by those who
single out some for adverse action while ignoring others.

None of this has anything to do with the government. As far as I can tell, the debacle was all free market. So, what's the problem, exactly?

It begins to involve gov, as we see in NY, where they effectively made
it illegal for some to support organizations which would boycott Israel.
The problem with OKcupid's boycott is that it smacks of thought police.

 

[Revoltingest]

That's fair, but then you have to acknowledge the change, which would put him out in liberal Christian territory. Which would make him as much that now as he was anything else before.

And yet, I generally still support him, because while I don't think he's gone far enough I think he's gone as far as anyone else would have gone. And if we can avoid backsliding, I'd like to see someone else go farther.

I do approve of his ostensible change....genuine or not.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...a/president-barack-obamas-shift-gay-marriage/
I wouldn't trust him.

Our ruling

Obama, a consistent supporter of civil rights for gay couples, nevertheless said as early as 2004 and through 2008 that he didn’t support same-sex marriage. He had written that he believed "that American society can choose to carve out a special place for the union of a man and a woman." In 2010, he said he wasn’t prepared to reverse himself. This week, the president said he thinks same-sex couples should be able to get married. On the Flip-O-Meter, he earns a Full Flop.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

I don't think the guy should've had to leave his job because of how he chose to spend his personal money. This is much ado about nothing.

 

[Drolefille]

I do approve of his ostensible change....genuine or not.
President Barack Obama's shifting stance on gay marriage | PolitiFact
I wouldn't trust him.

And yet, even if he's just blowing with the current wind, I'd rather him than pretty much any other viable option right now. Because I see people going against the wind.

I don't think the guy should've been fired because of how he chose to spend his personal money. This is much ado about nothing.

He wasn't?

 

[Revoltingest]

And yet, even if he's just blowing with the current wind, I'd rather him than pretty much any other viable option right now. Because I see people going against the wind.

I understand supporting less than perfect candidates.
It can be tough to decide between voting for imperfect mainstream & lovable but marginalized 3rd party types.

 

[Drolefille]

I understand supporting less than perfect candidates.
It can be tough to decide between voting for imperfect mainstream & lovable but marginalized 3rd party types.

I voted Green in IL when my choices were Blagojevich and Topinka. I actually liked Whitney, and my vote helped put Green on the ballot for the next cycle automatically, but then they lost it the next time around.

I think it was Topinka, my complaint about the GOP candidate was their lack of presence, and my complaint about Blago was obvious.

 

[Revoltingest]

The guy had pretty hair though.

I recall him on David Letterman Show.
He said that he wanted to win office in the worst way.
Letterman said that he did.

 

[esmith]

Are you suggesting people don't already?

Boycott List of Anti-gun companies, corporations and celebrities | National Liberty Federation

No, I'm just asking if you agree with what they are doing.

 

[Drolefille]

The guy had pretty hair though.

I recall him on David Letterman Show.
He said that he wanted to win office in the worst way.
Letterman said that he did.

His post-impeachment media tour was really pathetic. Celebrity Apprentice, all the talk shows. The thing was, he seemed to really BELIEVE what he was saying, in the way that if you say it hard enough it might be true.

I'm glad he's in prison. I feel bad for his kids. I wonder if we should just size our governors for jumpsuits before they take office.

 

[dust1n]

Obama is part of a larger picture of perceived hypocrisy by those who
single out some for adverse action while ignoring others.

Well, if it makes you feel better, I don't excuse Obama of any of the many terrible things that have occurred under his administration.

It begins to involve gov, as we see in NY, where they effectively made
it illegal for some to support organizations which would boycott Israel.
The problem with OKcupid's boycott is that it smacks of thought police.

Did we enter an OKcupidtocracy overnight or something? I'm so lost. Is OKcupid's boycott and advertisement of such a boycott somehow make them a police force? Is there anywhere comparable towards, say, the 40$ billion dollars Koch industries (or so many other lobby groups that exist) in terms of shutting out "thought"?

I don't know anything about the NY thing. I don't see why it should ever be okay to prevent boycotting. It's a matter of freedom of speech.

 

[dust1n]

No, I'm just asking if you agree with what they are doing.

I agree with the large portions donated to cancer research (though I detest the dude working for the National Cancer Institute, as appointed by Bush, and then working to fight regulation concerning chemicals that he makes), and I don't care if the Cato institute is going about their work or not. But concerning the obvious attempts to create many groups in which to funnel campaign money to candidates, and fund lobby groups to sway politicians to their political aims, it's really inexcusable.

Thus, crony capitalism. It's not a right or left problem.

 

[technomage]

Sure there's a comparison. Obama opposed gay rights with his inaction on DADT,

What action could he take on DADT?

 

[Revoltingest]

Well, if it makes you feel better, I don't excuse Obama of any of the many terrible things that have occurred under his administration.

I already knew you're an odd duck.

Did we enter an OKcupidtocracy overnight or something? I'm so lost. Is OKcupid's boycott and advertisement of such a boycott somehow make them a police force? Is there anywhere comparable towards, say, the 40$ billion dollars Koch industries (or so many other lobby groups that exist) in terms of shutting out "thought"?

The 2 issues don't seem related.

I don't know anything about the NY thing. I don't see why it should ever be okay to prevent boycotting. It's a matter of freedom of speech.

Aye, this strikes me as the bigger story here.