Slashdot Mirror
Steve Ballmer Responds to Discrimination Issue
sriram_2001 writes "In a long email to all Microsoft employees, Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer laid out the reasons for Microsoft changing its stance to neutral on the anti-discrimination bill. He explains that Microsoft wanted to focus on fewer legislations and that the anti-discrimination bill was one of the bills that they didn't have the resources to follow. Also, far from caving in to Rev.Hutcherson, Microsoft told him to take a hike when he asked them to fire 2 employees for testifying during the legislation consideration period. He goes on to explain how though he personally supports the bill, a lot of employees and shareholders don't. Finally, he raises the question on whether corporations should get involved in social issues."
"Finally, he raises the question on whether corporations should get involved in social issues."
They may as well. They're the only ones with any influence other than organized religions.
Tired of Political Trolls? Opt Out!
That would be economic and fiscal policy, dear. I have to agree that corporations should stay out of social policy, however. Corporate leaders involved in the political maneuvering we hear so much about are extremely wealthy individuals whose experience is largely limited to the upper echelons of urban, business society. How can people like this possibly represent the majority of Americans? The fact is they can't. Rather than taking our moral lessons from Steve Ballmer and the rest of the elitist business class, we should go to our local diners, town halls, and places of worship to find the way in the complex social environment of the modern world. It is regular people, not urban elites we should be listening to!
-- Molly Lipton, Born Again Technologist.
No they should not. They are not real persons, and by definitions have no interests except profits.
Yes, large corporations should maintain their present trend of social unaccountability.
Economic and fiscal policy IS social policy, dear, no matter how much you may try to pretend it's not. To suggest otherwise is disingenous.
And no matter how much you don't like it, corporations call the tune on everything these days, from economic policy to social legislation to national defense. Why? Because the outcome of that liegislation affects them too. And they've got more resources than you or I can muster to get their way.
Don't like it? Start working for legislation that will change the legal status of corporations. Oterwise, they'll just continue to shove laws you don't like down your throat, and there's not a damn thing you or I can do about it.
The ironic thing in all of this is that discrimination towards homosexuality is based on the belief it is a choice which has strong evidence against it (i.e. the fact gay rats can literally be manufactured and there is data from WWII-era German births providing a link to the same phenomena in humans). They also somehow believe people wake up one morning and say "I want to be a member of the most vocally hated minority in the US." and such.
The ironic twist is that, assuming being gay is a choice, the same arguments against gay rights based on choice also negate civil rights based on religion. You choose to be Catholic/Protestant/Jewish/etc. so why should they get protection based on that then?
Anonymous Cowards generally receive no replies because you're a coward and I'm a bitch
My hat goes off to you -- your cynicism is awe inspiring.
Oddly, all the things you list as negatives, I think of as positive. The Internet stops you knowing if the person talking is a minor? Good - maybe we shouldn't use our age to discount opinions. Doesn't pay taxes in your area? Shouldn't matter - they still have to argue against the consequences to convince those who do. We should be able to accept the truth from Mickey Mouse if it is the truth. And likewise, we should be able to use rational argument against those who would otherwise use volume, intimidation or mobs to drown us out.
Reducing people to making their case in a written form where we can read at our own pace, re-read at our leisure and respond without the pressure of being interrupted, lays bare that which we should be basing our decisions on - the ideas and the logic, not the people.
Aide-toi, le Ciel t'aidera - Jeanne D'Arc.
Good - maybe we shouldn't use our age to discount opinions
I disagree; back when I was a teenager, I was a font of wisdom. Now I'm puzzled by quite a lot. We should definitely discount the opinions of middle aged and older people.
Saying that he called the people psychotic merely because of a disagreement is clearly misrepresenting his point of view. If you read what he said, he called those people psychotic for having what he saw as "megalomania, religious flagwaving egotism, and the 'membership' into the 'Big Fat Christian Gun-Toting Whiteman kicks the Worlds Ass' Society" as a source of pride. If you disagree, that's fine, argue away, but it's unethical to misrepresent his views.
And here you actually do call people psychotic over a disagreement (about how the post should be moderated), rather than a personality trait of the person in question.