Gay Rights: Is it time to Boycott Firefox?

[Revoltingest]

What action could he take on DADT?

I only recalled that Obama stated that he shouldn't void DADT, instead wanting Congress to do it. From this, I deduced he had the authority. But since you asked, I had to do a little research. I found this....
Don't ask, don't tell - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

On September 9, 2010, Judge Virginia A. Phillips ruled in Log Cabin Republicans v. United States of America that the ban on service by openly gay servicemembers was an unconstitutional violation of the First and Fifth Amendments.[52][53] On October 12, 2010, she granted an immediate worldwide injunction prohibiting the Department of Defense from enforcing the "Don't Ask Don't Tell" policy and ordered the military to suspend and discontinue any investigation or discharge, separation, or other proceedings based on it.[54][55] The Department of Justice appealed her decision and requested a stay of her injunction,[56] which Phillips denied but which the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals granted on October 20[57][58] and stayed pending appeal on November 1.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don't_ask,_don't_tell#cite_note-59http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don't_ask,_don't_tell#cite_note-Ed_O.27Keefe-60

I assume that Obama could give direction to the AG (Holder), whom he appointed.

 

[technomage]

I assume that Obama could give direction to the AG (Holder), whom he appointed.

He could have ... maybe. But by doing so, he may very well have provoked a legislative or social backlash that would have radically delayed the advances that have been made.

Power politics is all about pragmatism.

Now, that's certainly not to say that Obama or Holder had that much foresight in this particular case ... predicting something like that would have needed a darn good crystal ball. But it does illustrate that the situation is not as simple as you are describing.

 

[Revoltingest]

He could have ... maybe. But by doing so, he may very well have provoked a legislative or social backlash that would have radically delayed the advances that have been made.
Power politics is all about pragmatism.

True dat.

Now, that's certainly not to say that Obama or Holder had that much foresight in this particular case ... predicting something like that would have needed a darn good crystal ball. But it does illustrate that the situation is not as simple as you are describing.

I don't say that the process would've been simple.
But the decision to take that side would've been.

 

[esmith]

He could have ... maybe. But by doing so, he may very well have provoked a legislative or social backlash that would have radically delayed the advances that have been made.

Power politics is all about pragmatism.

I assume you are unaware of the actions that DOJ has taken in enforcing some laws and ignoring others. Seems that Obama and Holder are unconcerned about a social backlash except from Obama's political base. Just saying.

 

[technomage]

I assume you are unaware of the actions that DOJ has taken in enforcing some laws and ignoring others.

How about if you assume less? **edit**

 

[dust1n]

The 2 issues don't seem related.

Exactly, because doesn't make sense to apply "thought crime" to OKCupid, or to the responses thousands of consumers made to the revelation of the CEO, nor to the those who sit there on report on events as such (ok, well maybe them, but media is most often untrustworthy). Thus my confusion.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

Today, users of the dating website OKcupid were asked not to access the website using Mozilla Firefox. OKCupid told users: "Mozilla’s new CEO, Brendan Eich, is an opponent of equal rights for gay couples," the message reads. "We would therefore prefer that our users not use Mozilla software to access OkCupid."

I, for one, shall switch to chrome! For Freedom!

This is almost as absurd as those people who wanted to boycott Apple because Steve Jobs was an atheist.

Do what you will, and I'm not in the mood to debate this; especially because I don't care what you want to boycott or why you want to boycott it, but I'm just really curious as to how this is any different from the anti-atheist Apple boycott (aside from the obvious; one's a computer, one's a browser)?

Similarities: 1) Both figures do not believe in something that others do. 2) Both boycotts are targeting entire products from entire companies for just one person. 3) Neither figures have hurt anyone for their beliefs (aside from the unintended hurting the feelings) 4) Both boycotts are against something widely used and are unlikely to ever succeed or change the views of the figure.

 

[Revoltingest]

Exactly, because doesn't make sense to apply "thought crime" to OKCupid....

Even a civilian thought police is thuggish.
I say that a company should be able to hire workers whose personal beliefs & activities (which don't direct the
company) are diverse, eg, pro-gay, anti-gay, atheist, believer, capitalist, commie. So I'm boycotting OKcupid.

 

[CynthiaCypher]

So what good will a boycott accomplish?

 

[Revoltingest]

So what good will a boycott accomplish?

In my case?
Nothing.

 

[CynthiaCypher]

In my case?
Nothing.

So far all I have seen, all this scapegoating and witch hunting is having a negative impact. I don't think this is being done with any good intentions at all.

 

[Badran]

Similarities: 1) Both figures do not believe in something that others do.

3) Neither figures have hurt anyone for their beliefs (aside from the unintended hurting the feelings)

Those two aren't accurate descriptions of Eich's case though, for the same reason in both points. For (1) as clarified a few times this wasn't in response to something Eich believed or didn't believe, it was in response to a political action he took. For (2), though his contribution was small it was to the removal of rights from citizens, so it's not just a held non-harmful belief.

I think this is a key difference being ignored in the thread in a lot of posts. I don't think the boycott was necessary like i clarified, but i think painting Eich as a victim or comparing his case to others where their beliefs are in question is inaccurate and unfair criticism.

4) Both boycotts are against something widely used and are unlikely to ever succeed or change the views of the figure.

I don't think the intention is to change the figure's view in either cases.

 

[CynthiaCypher]

I don't think the intention is to change the figure's view in either cases.

And that is why I see it as morally wrong.

It is about revenge.

It is about an eye for an eye.

The Montgomery Bus Boycott was about changing minds, this is about revenge.

 

[Badran]

And that is why I see it as morally wrong.

It is about revenge.

It is about an eye for an eye.

The Montgomery Bus Boycott was about changing minds, this is about revenge.

I don't think it's either this or that. Boycotts are generally aimed at making a change through social pressure, it's generally a movement making a statement. In some cases like this one, it can revolve around an incident or an ongoing problem with a specific figure at it's center, but that doesn't necessarily translate into the boycott being a personal thing (either for changing that specific figure's mind or for hurting him/her).

Negative intentions are always possible, but i'm saying that at least ideally, the boycott here doesn't have to be seen as a personal campaign against Eich so much so as it is against his actions, which are directly related to a bigger social issue that currently concerns rights and legal matters which are being fought for within the whole nation. The pressure was aimed at Mozilla in this case, if we read this in a straight forward fashion, and the change would be expected from it rather than Eich (which is what happened).

 

[The Sum of Awe]

Those two aren't accurate descriptions of Eich's case though, for the same reason in both points. For (1) as clarified a few times this wasn't in response to something Eich believed or didn't believe, it was in response to a political action he took. For (2), though his contribution was small it was to the removal of rights from citizens, so it's not just a held non-harmful belief.

I think this is a key difference being ignored in the thread in a lot of posts. I don't think the boycott was necessary like i clarified, but i think painting Eich as a victim or comparing his case to others where their beliefs are in question is inaccurate and unfair criticism.



I don't think the intention is to change the figure's view in either cases.

I agree. I'm not victimizing Eich at all.

 

[Mycroft]

Update: The CEO of Mozilla resigned this week.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

Update: The CEO of Mozilla resigned this week.

Congrats on bringing someone down!

 

[Mycroft]

Congrats on bringing someone down!

I'm quite sure he'll scuttle off somewhere else and earn lots of money. But thanks!

 

[Apex]

I am always amazed at how some groups can claim to preach tolerance, and then turn around act as if they didn't hear a word that came out of their own mouths.

 

[Revoltingest]

I am always amazed at how some groups can claim to preach tolerance, and then turn around act as if they didn't hear a word that came out of their own mouths.

It's a double standard.
Tolerance is great when it's towards people we like.
But when we don't like'm, it's another story.