Slashdot Mirror
OKCupid Warns Off Mozilla Firefox Users Over Gay Rights
PortWineBoy writes: "The Beeb is reporting that OkCupid is prompting Mozilla Firefox users to switch browsers over Brendan Eich's support of Prop 8 in California in 2008. Users are met with a message stating that OKCupid would prefer no one access their site with Mozilla software. Eich is the new CEO of Mozilla."
But making a stand against someone because of their religious beliefs seems petty... and I'm an Athiest...
what happened to live and let live?
Not an april fools story, this one is real.
"In America, first you get the sugar, then you get the power, then you get the women..." -H. Simpson
And Facebook didn't make the Oculus Rift, Apple didn't create AAC, etc.
Haters gotta hate.
Get free satoshi (Bitcoin) and Dogecoins
I'm fully in support of gay marriage, and have been to a few same-sex ceremonies for friends.
But in no way do I support the demonization or boycott of people just because they have a different opinion of something than I do. To me that's a for of bigotry itself, and why would I want to be bigoted?
I'm pretty sure that there are almost no two people on earth who have the same opinion on every single subject. If we go down this road of shunning those who think differently, we all wind up as islands - and not the fun kind with umbrellas in in drinks, for we will have shunned all of the umbrella makers...
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Want to get unpaid product placement on BBC? Boycott Mozilla! I suppose that not watching Ender's Game is already not enough.
News for tomorrow: Kazakhstan Airlines cancel flights to Vatican quoting lack of official support for gay priests from the Pope.
So we're politicizing browser selection now? This amounts to dragging end users into a political dispute that they have nothing to do with. Is this really a road we want to go down? How long before people start blocking IE because they don't like Microsoft's business tactics, or before Apple starts blocking Google Chrome users with a message complaining about alleged patent infringement?
Once this Pandora's box is open, it will be impossible to close. This time it may be aimed at Brendan Eich for the heinous crime of holding onto outdated views of gay marriage a whole two years longer than President Obama, but next time it could be anyone.
There's an important point that I think is often lost in these discussions. Orthodox Christian theology maintains several points: (1) Homosexuality is a sin, (2) unrepentant sin goes hand-in-hand with alienation from God, and (3) alienation from God leads to both unhappiness in this present life and a missed opportunity for happiness after death.
Based on that set of axioms, it can be completely loving to encourage someone to repent of his sins and choose to follow Jesus. Practicing homosexuality is a sign that someone isn't doing that. It would therefore be unloving or even hateful to affirm homosexual relations.
Now I'm sure 90% of the Slashdot crowd disagrees with those axioms. And it's certainly the case that a person can proclaim to be Christian but actually hate gay people. But there are some Christians for whom that's not the case, and I don't think any of us knows Mozilla's CEO well enough to guess in which group he sits.
If the torch & pitchfork crowds are going after this dude now because he supported CA Prop 8, shouldn't they also call for a boycott of the state of California? You know, since a majority of their voters voted for the infamous Proposition 8 and passed it. I would say that voting for it counts as supporting it, right?
It's all good and well that he spent $1,000 of his own money on legalizing bigotry.
Look at it from the other side of history: he *wasted* $1,000 for pretty much no reason at all, now that the courts have asserted that the ban was unconstitutional.
"But remember, most lynch mobs aren't this nice." (H.Simpson)
-- Joe
Fuck off and die.
This whole internet activism bullshit has gotten out of hand. Hey, stop using JavaScript if you want to put your money where your mouth is.
Not using Firefox will change nothing.
KONY2014
People's attitudes on this are extremely hypocritical. We rail against hatred and discrimination, and yet here we are with a "BURN THE HEATHENS!" mob mentality the second we find out about someone donating a relatively measly $1000 to Prop8. With the way some people are acting, you would think we just discovered that the guy was a raging pedophile. Did he really give out anywhere near the amount of damage that he and Mozilla are now receiving? Is this how we win the battle against discrimination? By replacing one form of irrational hatred and bias with another? We may view it as poetic justice, but it's hypocrisy; plain and simple. People love to hate. The only thing that ever changes is who the current easy target is. Plenty of CEOs are vile, unscrupulous pigs who cheat on their wives and sexually harass female employees, but you won't see this sort of backlash against them because it isn't the current political hot topic.
Seems to me, OKCupid trying to boycott a perfectly good company and product over a single person's political views, is grounds for boycotting OKCupid.
Stupidity abounds. This is a grand example of the INtolerance of opposing views we have been seeing since Obama took office. (I'm not blaming him, just pointing out the approximate timing.)
For once /. got it right.. (hand-shake)
I think and feel using tech to promote your views on life and werld around us in a negative manner is BS!!
or example, when clicking on the link, a sound byte came up, unsolicited.. Promoting someone'[s views.
While I agree that gay rights are IMPORTANT, I feel those whom feel strongly about this should be the ones to act. like the LGBT or something of that nature..
Not the owners of websites, whom may cater to this, but not have an opinion either way, and are looking for a business tactic.. I feel it de-value's the true intent and really helps us to understand how stupid, bitchy, and cowardly these business individuals are..
Moving past that, I truly think and feel OK cupid is wrong for forcing their agenda those whom do not necessarily agree..
If there was an option to allow display, etc then it would not be so bad.
But the forceful aspect is BS.
wouldn't it be funny if bevcause of this ignorace, stupidity, etc there was a major outbreak from a security perspective, credid card numbers, personal info leaked, etc all because some one hast to make the community use a less secure method of accessing their site because of their social beleifs.
This is just stupid, all together..
thanks for your time (stepping off soap box)
...To Okay Stupid. This requested boycott is a cynical media troll that plays on people's lowest impulses. I doubt this gutter play buys Stupid Cupid much goodwill just some media attention. Besides, Eich has stated that he supports a diverse workplace. And a lot of people have evolved on this issue over the years.
"No fear. No envy. No meanness." Liam Clancy
If I based every software purchasing decision on whether or not the company CEO was a prick, I wouldn't have many products left to choose from. Even choosing an OS would be next to impossible. Apple would be out (Steve Jobs was a notorious asshole who parked in handicapped spaces and refused to give to charities). MS would be out (one word: Ballmer). Shit, even Linux would be out (ever seen one of Torvalds' infamous rants?). I guess I could use FreeBSD or OS2/Warp. But I'm sure someone would have some bone to pick about their creators/parent companies too.
I just don't have the time to vet every goddamned person over every goddamned thing. It would be one thing if Mozilla as a company were putting up big "We hate gays!" banners on their webpage or something. But I just can't bring myself to care that their CEO may be a prick as an individual. After all, most of them are.
SJW's don't eliminate discrimination. They just expropriate it for themselves.
Intolerance abounds these days under the theme of "shouting down bigotry". People blithely unaware they're acting much the same as those who opposed civil rights laws in the first place.
In this specific case, however, eHarmony is perfect for anyone offended by OKCupid's behavior, given their own history here. Heck, this could improve the utility of both dating services by filtering up front on this issue.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
Because tolerance of intolerance is intolerance. I don't understand why you Republicans can't comprehend that. In other to be tolerant, you must be extremely intolerant of things that aren't tolerant.
Only if you have no belief whatsoever in the power of your own example and your own message. In that case, I suppose you would want to use some form of coercion.
But then, I question your true motives for believing what you believe. Is it to join the majority and avoid the shame and invective of being accused of intolerance? Or is it because you truly believe that tolerance is superior? If the latter, why not act like it's superior and let it stand on its own merits? Why not show everyone a shining, pure, hypocrisy-free example of what real tolerance is?
See, what many of you really want is is to issue righteous judgment against those who disagree with you. You think the fact that you are right excuses this desire. You still haven't performed the introspection and the difficult internal work of overcoming and transforming your own hatred. You think espousing the correct doctrine makes you superior, but you did not eliminate your own hatred at all. You merely found a socially acceptable way to channel it. This still fails to reduce the amount of hatred in the world. Hating evil does not make you good, no matter how desperately you want to feel self-righteous.
The failure to comprehend this is not because it is so difficult to understand. It's really simple, in fact. No, the failure to understand this is the same failing behind most of the vices that remain today: it raises too many difficult and uncomfortable questions concerning who you really are and why you believe what you believe. It's so much easier to find something external to yourself to hate. Isn't it?
It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
California is a State that recognizes that people have a legal right to participate in lawful activities outside of work without consequence to their job. I voted against Proposition 8 and I am disappointed in everyone who supported it, but people have a right to their private lives and their religious freedom.
If the company, Mozilla, were discriminating in any way against employees or customers because of their sexual orientation, then taking them to task would be appropriate and ethical. However, hounding a private citizen at work is not ethical. Imagine if someone read the blog post of a pro same-sex marriage activist and got 1000 of their Christian friends to bombard the activist's place of employment with thousands of phone calls and dozens of angry citizens trying to gain access to the premises and talk to the employer about their employee's "immoral" behavior.
It is not McCarthyism, but it is the same sort of attitude, ruin the professional lives of all your perceived political opponents. While only a tiny sliver of proposition 8 opponents engaged in this sort of behavior, it does nothing but a disservice to their cause. When conservative Christians talk about being persecuted by homosexuals for their beliefs, most people rightfully laugh in their face, but actions like this do lead an iota of credibility to their claims, and we all know that anecdotes of someone claiming to have been forced to quit their job because of harassment from "homosexual activists" speak a lot more convincingly to many people than the millions of proposition 8 supporters who were not harassed.
The bottom line is understanding the difference between tolerance and acceptance. I tolerate a lot of bad behavior and stupid ideas because I am a tolerant person. When you go to work or school, you are required by law (at least here in California) to tolerate the beliefs of your coworkers, those who believe that same-sex couples should wed and those who are religiously opposed to the idea. You do not have to accept their beliefs, just tolerate them and their rights to them.
Acceptance of same-sex marriages is something that should flow naturally out of tolerance, not something that activists should try to force on people. As it becomes legal in more States and acquires more popular support, those who do not accept it will tend to die off or change their mind. You are never going to get 100% acceptance and harassing people in their workplace for what they believe in their personal life is not doing the same sex marriage cause any justice or service.
"You're only noticing it more because YOU are paying more attention now than you did before."
No, I am referring to a definite trend that I have observed over the last 6 years.
Of course intolerance has always been around. But when the Left, which promotes itself as the group most behind social and civil tolerance, instead becomes an intolerant bully to those who politely disagree, it is noticeable. VERY noticeable.
Many people, not just me, have noticed how the political Left has turned into "the party of political correctness and intolerance". It isn't something I imagined.
Christians that hold that view need a STRONG lesson in civics then. Its fine they hold that view, but we are going to constantly remind them it is immoral to force their morality on the rest of us. This is exactly where the religious need to be reminded of what the limits of tolerance are.
Good-bye
False Equivalency Buuuuuullshit Is Coming
When a not-even-boycott of Firefox results in Eich not having custody, visitation, medical or inheritance rights, then you can whine about hypocrisy. Until then, you are simply full of shit to pretend that the public shaming of bigots is in anyway shape or form equivalent to legalized discrimination.
I'm sorry, but I am intolerant of your intolerance toward intolerance.
Thinking one group of people is subhuman, and not worthy of the same rights isn't "an opposing view", it's bigotry.
According to the Right, liberals are racists, because they are the only ones who talk about race issues. Apparently liberals are also the intolerant ones, because they are concerned about intolerance.
Because the people who "preach tolerance" are advocating tolerance of things that don't hurt anybody.
You're gay? Cool, whatever. You want to create legislation that makes gay people into second-class citizens? You're an asshole.
I don't know why this is so hard to understand.
Karma: Terrifying (mostly affected by atrocities you've committed)
Christians that hold that view need a STRONG lesson in civics then. Its fine they hold that view, but we are going to constantly remind them it is immoral to force their morality on the rest of us. This is exactly where the religious need to be reminded of what the limits of tolerance are.
Unless you're a uniquely talented moral philosopher, you are unable to define "moral" in a way that all rational persons would accept. So I think you're just kicking the can down the road by saying that you plan to give Christians a lesson.
PROSECUTED? Are you frakking SERIOUS, or is this some lame 4/1 type joke?
The man gave his own funds to a campaign for a proposition, and you think he should be PROSECUTED?
Donating money to a group that me I'm not allowed to marry who I want isn't politely disagreeing with someone: it's taking an active measure that will have a negative impact on my life. I know you feel like you're being civil, but telling people that "It's just my opinion that you shouldn't be allowed to marry who you want" is far more insulting than I think you realize it is.
Real problems are among others lack of _good_ modularity support - abstraction and data hiding, single numeric datatype, global variables, "this" etc.
It is possible to hack around some problems but the language as such just sucks. IMHO - YMMV.
There's not much you can do about Jobs, Balmer, or Cook being assholes, but we probably can force Mozilla to kick Eich to the curb.
Now, assholes don't much care about being assholes, but this will make at least some of them think of the future implications of supporting something assholish like Prop 8.
You must be pretty young, or have a very selective memory, because when I voiced my objections to the US invading Iraq in 2002 and '03, I encountered quite a bit of intolerance for differing opinions. If you had to choose between being called an asshole and having your company boycotted, or being called a traitor and threatened with physical violence and potentially imprisonment, which would you choose?
I'm writing this post via Firefox, and would agree that this boycott is a bit silly (if I'm going to boycott the products of every company whose CEO has stupid, fucked up political opinions, I might as well pack up and go live in a log cabin in the woods and make my own soap). But laying this at the feet of "The Left" much less Obama is utter horseshit. Hell, I remember when I was a kid in the late 1970's, and my dad wouldn't take us to Burger King because they were supposedly supporting communists somehow.
So it makes you feel better that he used his own money to deny another person their rights? Wow....
Companies are made up of many, many people and some of them may have disagreeing opinions. And people are not the company.
OKCupid is only providing support for the idea an employer has a right to control their workers personal lives when they're off the clock, and being wage or salary has nothing to do with it, as folks here like to drag into the situation. Even if I'm a salaried worker I'm not "at work" 24/7. I have specific hours I'm doing my job, and hours I'm not. We are human beings and have our own opinions on issues, sometimes unpopular opinions. If you don't like the ideas of a single person you have an issue with the human, not the company. There's no reason to take any action against Mozilla just because you don't like their new CEO. Now, if his personal beliefs begin to shape corporate policy or find their way into product design, then you have an issue with Mozilla the company.
And I am sure that you spent money supporting gay marriage. Some people disagree. I just don't see why people can't be polite while they disagree, instead of all of this jumping up and down and screaming.
Homosexuality has been taboo for the last few centuries in western culture. Some things take time to change. You cannot be surprised if centuries of social inertia take longer than than a generation or two to turn around.
Here is an idea: try winning people over to your side with NICENESS! Radical thought, I know.
"-1 Troll" is the apparently the same as "-1 I disagree with you."
The Left has become fascist in the name of tolerance. Tolerance will be imposed and all who stand in the way will put against the wall.
Yeah, I mean on the one hand we have people who wish to use the power of the state to deny the recognition of relationships of a minority group because it doesn't fit with their own view of the world, and on the other we have people refusing to use a company's product because they disagree with the politics of the CEO.
OKCupid are clearly the fascists here...
"If God created us in his own image, we have more than reciprocated"
Nobody is denying you your opinion, they are just telling you what an asshole you are.
That's the thing about liberty. It means that you have to tolerate people that you disagree with and don't particularly like. It's not liberty if everyone only tolerates people with their own brand of group think. That's more like communism or theocracy.
Your intolerance is the same as his intolerance.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
People blithely unaware they're acting much the same as those who opposed civil rights laws in the first place.
Yes, except for the fact that they aren't lynching niggers.
After all, I am strangely colored.
know you feel like you're being civil, but telling people that "It's just my opinion that you shouldn't be allowed to marry who you want" is far more insulting than I think you realize it is.
I realize it. And I even agree that his political views may reasonably be seen as offensive, or wrong-headed, or harmful. But you're missing my point. Or rather points.
The first point is: those are his personal views, not those of his company. Attempting to punish the entire (large) project because of the opinions of one person is just stupid. Even if they felt that what he did is a crime, trying punish everybody else for his behavior is not exactly acceptable behavior.
The second point is: he is ENTITLED, legally and morally, to his opinions on politics. If you don't like his views, vote against them. That is the way the United States is supposed to work. Here are a couple of quotes that illustrate the point:
"Freedom of speech is worthless without the freedom of offensive speech. Goebbels and Himmler were for freedom of speech... that was inoffensive to the state." -- Noam Chomsky
---
"I may disagree with everything that you say, but I shall defend to the death you're right to say it." -- Voltaire
---
"Popular speech does not need protection. Part of the Founders' concern in writing the First Amendment was that majorities might try to use the force of government to silence people with unpopular views." -- U.S. Supreme Court, National Socialist Party of America v. Village of Skokie, 1977
There's nothing wrong with not tolerating bigotry. If someone believes something stupid or morally objectionable and spends money trying to deprive a group of people of their rights because of their sexuality, it's perfectly fine to criticise them.
The key difference is that gay people can't help being gay, any more than black people can help being black or women can help being women. They guy's view is something he decided on himself, something he could easily change, something he chooses to believe.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
You confuse freedom of opinion with freedom from consequences.
The first is impossible to take away. The latter is impossible to grant.
So really your argument makes no sense at all.
The people who run OKCupid are afforded those same rights. They chose to run an ad on their website bringing the issue to users' attentions, and giving them instructions how to act. Those users are then free to choose to switch browsers, quit using OKCupid, and hell, they could even choose to continue to browse the website using Mozilla. You're linking all of these quotes saying that unpopular speech must be offered the same protection as popular speech, but so far the only difference I see here is that you agree with Eich's views and disagree with OKCupid's, and you've reached the conclusion OKCupid is doing something either illegal or immoral (or something along those lines). Why are Eich's actions acceptable to you while OKCupid's are not?
another willfully ignorant christian, here let me help you out: (Christians will kill you for being gay just as quick as Muslims) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U...
Shouting down bigotry is the best way to deal with bigotry. It doesn't violate anyone's rights. Laws which deny people equal protection under the law actually do violate people's rights.
So yes shouting down bigotry and opposing civil rights are the same thing in the sense that they are both shouting, except that one is shouting in support of bigotry and the other in opposition to it, which is in my view, a big enough of a difference to make supporting one and not the other perfectly reasonable.
To me this is like claiming that the slavery abolitionists were just as intolerant as the slave owners because they were intolerant of slavery. Yes you can look at it this way, but I don't think it serves any real purpose other than to confuse the issue.
I don't think it's profound at all to claim that those opposed to intolerance are intolerant of intolerance. This just seems like an obvious and necessary exception to the concept of intolerance.
The Bible says that homosexuality is a sin... period...
The Bible also says that spandex is a sin. Yet I don't see lines of Christians pushing for bans on it. Why?
The only reason I can think of is that the Bible is the excuse for denying the right, not the generator of the hate.
Learn to love Alaska
OS/2 hasn't been IBM's for the better part of a decade, its controlled by eComstation who does a decent amount of business supporting financial markets.
As for those trying to make excuse for Mozilla? 1.- like it or not the CEO is the face of the company and in this case the face belongs to a bigot, 2.- For those that use the "the state voted for it" excuse? The southern states voted repeatedly and by a VERY large margin that Jim Crow was fine, so by your argument the southern states should still be segregated, and finally 3.- Those that make the lame "gay agenda" bullshit excuse? Did you say the same about blacks in the 60s, that it was a "Negro agenda"? Its about CIVIL RIGHTS, PERIOD.
The state gives preferential treatment to married couples when it comes to taxes, child visitation, property inheritance, there are VERY few places that the government doesn't give some sort of preferential treatment to couples. While I personally believe it is unconstitutional since its clearly joining church and state until we are ALL treated as individuals under the law by the government? it very much IS a civil rights issue, since straight couples are given rights and privileges that gay couples do not get. Oh and before somebody makes the foolish statement about wills and the like? In most states the will does NOT change the tax burden which will be felt by a surviving spouse, which again isn't the same if that spouse was in a hetro marriage.
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
It was a metaphor.
A metaphor for what?
Once he came, those laws were, in essence, fulfilled.
But Jesus never condenmed homosexuality, did he?
Learn to love Alaska
The CEO of a company, and anyone in general, has a right to influence the society he lives in and how his government makes laws. He can do what he wishes with his money.
He should not be punished for taking part in the democratic process, he shouldn't be silenced, he should be outvoted. So, if you care enough, you need to become politically active. Boycotting things amounts to mob rule, it works the same way repression works.
The CEO of Mozilla doesn't own Mozilla, nor was he using it to influence his worldview. He's essentially an employee
OKCupid is leveraging it's own brand and Mozilla's to benefit itself and real losers are gays who let themselves be taken cynically taken advantage of.
Corporations don't have opinions, they only reflect those of it's customers. Where was the Rainbow Oreo in the 80's and 90's when gay rights was a divisive issue? Why didn't Oreo have an opinion then? These kinds of corporations only support the winning side of the culture wars. As we saw with Duck Dynasy and Cracker Barrel, if enough people complain, the company will unashamedly backflip. It's purely business, not ideological.