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."
It's not like he's the one who made the software.
Yes. I went there.
I look forward to the 2nd or April
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?
you mean a rebranded chromium cuz they couldnt hack it on their own?
Longtime Firefox user here and traditional family values supporter. I don't even know what OKCupid is, have no plans to visit that site, will definitely keep using Firefox!
It's probably a dating site -- no interest in validating their behaviour by visiting the site and potentially generating ad revenue for them. It's just the latest Chik-Fil-A.
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
OK Cupid is in the process of getting rid of all Javascript on the site, since Brendan Eich was the creator of that too. All interactive content will be replaced with the more LGBT-friendly Adobe Flash.
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.
Stop using JavaScript
That's a good idea in general, considering its history of problems.
Maybe what we need is a push to persuade browser makers to link to perl and python implementations. Those are both much better languages for the purposes that JS was invented, and they're both completely open-source.
Actually, the right way to do it would be to replace all the embedded browsers' languages with tools for communicating efficiently with an arbitrary language plugin. Then we could use any programming language we like, including languages that haven't been developed yet. But what are the chances that we could persuade all the major browser makers to implement something as (conceptually ;-) simple as that?
Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
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.
Why is it that people who preach tolerance are themselves so intolerant?
They can take my LifeAlert pendant when they pry it from my cold dead fingers.
So it'd be alright if Firefox plastered over every page of sites that didn't support prop8 that they were supporting immoral and disgusting behavior? We have the right to free thought and expression in this country, even if you don't like it.
But making a stand against someone because they're gay seems petty...and I'm straight.
What happened to live and let live?
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
Firefox users! Boycott OKCupid!
So this guy was against Prop 8 six years ago. Big deal. I wonder what Steve Balmer's position (ouch!) was on Prop 8 back then, are visitors allowed to use Internet Planet Exploder? The guy in charge of Apple now? Is Safari access welcome?
This has to be an April 1 thing, right?
Mielipiteet omiani - Opinions personal, facts suspect.
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
Not April's day joke. But a little bit misrepresentation. Prop 8. was about recognition of marriage by the state of California, it was not about whether or not same-sex marriage is legal or illegal. I wouldn't go so far as to say that Eich wants gay-couples to be outlawed.
From https://www.okcupid.com/
Hello there, Mozilla Firefox user. Pardon this interruption of your OkCupid experience.
Mozilla’s new CEO, Brendan Eich, is an opponent of equal rights for gay couples. We would therefore prefer that our users not use Mozilla software to access OkCupid.
Politics is normally not the business of a website, and we all know there’s a lot more wrong with the world than misguided CEOs. So you might wonder why we’re asserting ourselves today. This is why: we’ve devoted the last ten years to bringing people—all people—together. If individuals like Mr. Eich had their way, then roughly 8% of the relationships we’ve worked so hard to bring about would be illegal. Equality for gay relationships is personally important to many of us here at OkCupid. But it’s professionally important to the entire company. OkCupid is for creating love. Those who seek to deny love and instead enforce misery, shame, and frustration are our enemies, and we wish them nothing but failure.
If you want to keep using Firefox, the link at the bottom will take you through to the site.
However, we urge you to consider different software for accessing OkCupid:
Google Chrome Internet Exploder Opera
http://www.mueller-public.de - My site http://www.anr-institute.com/ - Advanced Natural Research Institute
Because tolerance it's just tolerating any "thing." It's being against discrimination based on traits a person has no control over.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
It's funny how they are principled enough to boycott the company he is steering, but not principled enough to stop using the thing that he is credited with inventing.
lose != loose
If he opposed Prop 8 he would have been in support of gay marriage, not opposed to it. Prop 8 was a California constitutional amendment to define marriage as between a man and a woman. I assume he was in support of Prop 8 and not opposed to it as indicated in the summary.
Eagles may soar, but weasels don't get sucked into jet engines.
Google at last count provides 90% of Mozilla's revenue - http://thenextweb.com/insider/...
Boycott Firefox AND Chrome! Long live Lynx!
.
Prisencolinensinainciusol. Ol Rait!
Boycott OKCupid!
Since most users have no idea what browser they are using, or that they are even using a browser, then just boycotting OKCupid period is the safest thang.
That's how stuff can backfire easily.
LOL ROFL!
I'm here for the experience, not the Hyperbole.
It's just the latest Chik-Fil-A.
Well then, it looks like a rosy future for Mozilla.
Chick-Fil-A Sales Soar In 2012 Despite Bad PR
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
Seriously, who does? Especially here on /. ?
Because without OKCupid, most of the readers here are probably down to a one-handed sex life.
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.
I sympathize with the sentiment, but I have yet to find a workable equivalent for Firefox + NoScript. (Sounds like a motivation for socially conscious techs to finally get Chrome up to the required standards for secure browsing.)
Editor, A1-AAA AmeriCaptions
I care.
From now on, I shall only surf OkCupid using LOIC.
If OKCupid is really that against FF as a browser, block the useragent string. Then I'll believe they really want to take a stand.
Also, as the FF CEO also created Javascript, get rid of that on the site.
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)
They'd be perfectly within their rights, just as OKCupid is. Or would you rather OKCupid refrain from expressing themselves on their own website, just because you don't like it? :)
I'm confused. Should I keep watching Duck Dynasty and Honey Boo Boo? Where should I eat? Is it ok to eat at Taco Bell and Subway still?
He donated in support of prop 8 (banning gay marriage), not in opposition of it. Seriously, what's the point of having editors if they're not going to, you know, EDIT!?
Shockingly, parent companies don't always dictate everything their sub companies do.
OKCupid's next step should be a button all users see on login: "Do you support the marriage-equality movement?" [yes/no]. If you click No it deletes your account.
In for a penny, in for a pound, right?
The World Wide Web is dying. Soon, we shall have only the Internet.
There's nothing wrong with JavaScript, language-wise. I mean, sure, I'd prefer for closures to be explicit rather than implicit, in part because it tends to confuse the newbies a bit, but otherwise, it's a reasonable language. The problems mostly stem from:
None of those things would improve with a different language except possibly the first one.
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
PC is designed to invert reality, so that the strong are weak and the weak are strong.
There are many reasons to oppose liberal programs, but liberals want to not only disagree, but make those objections into a moral wrong.
They literally want to censor dissident voices out of existence by prohibiting them in advance of social changes, not wait for social changes to actually drive that change.
In the meantime, no parent ever said, "I'm so glad my child turned out gay!"
Futurist Traditionalism
It's April 1st, not "jump the shark" day.
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
Well, it is kind of an April Fools story. It says he came out against Prop 8 (a gay marriage ban), which would mean that he was in favor of gay marriage. Unless all the previous stories I've read were wrong, I'm pretty sure they got that backwards.
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
Longtime Firefox user here and traditional family values supporter.
How many wives do you have and how many goat did you pay for each one?
People like Steve Ballmer are smart enough to not get involved with controversial political issues and polarize customers of his company.
...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
It's April 1st, not "jump the shark" day.
That's every other day of the year.
This is very insightful, but let me correct.. it is NOT a sin to BE homosexual at all.. it is a sin to engage in homosexual acts - whether one is homosexual or not.
This is a very important issue, especially for the many gay people who believe and are Christian. and there are many.
I could care less who people screw, but when it is constantly shoved into peoples faces that sends me back over the fence to the other side.
If you want an enemy to your cause, just keep complaining about it.
I think this feature should stay for good.
It will help all the lower IQ'd slashdot editors actually comprehend what they are putting on the site.
Autoplay audio, seriously ?
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
But you think you're being cute about "Internet Exploder", right?
But go visit the page yourself!
Did they get hacked? The blue link button ACTUALLY SAYS "Internet Exploder"!!?
So what kind of mixed message is that?!
P.S. I saved a copy of the page in case it's actually a hack that gets reverted later. Such reversions could be post-April-Fools...
My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
I'm glad these sort of tactics weren't so extensively employed in war as they are in disputes of this nature. To explain; this guy holds/held an opinion, donated to a campaign that supported his beliefs, but was not actually executive in discrimination (has this been proven of him?). He then goes on to a job at the top of Mozilla, something that takes a considerable degree of skill to do, and promises - and has kept - the maintainence of same sex benefits. He has effectively maintained the status quo put in place through the use of laws of equality. He fought a battle, lost, capitulated and worked within the new system respecting the beliefs held by that system. How is that bad? Should we be angry that we were able to work with Germany and Japan following World War 2 instead of conquering them and ruling over them with an iron fist? We'd have nuked all of Germany and Japan despite their surrender if we followed this philosophy on display here. Recognise the dude for his accomplishments in the field in which he is employed, not make churlish, inane gestures about a cause to stir some controversy.
*Insert ridiculous, apparently intelligent but ultimately meaningless phrase here*
Simplistic boycots, and especially the sensationalist news stories which give rise to them, are just not doing any good. Mozilla's mission is incredibly important, and Firefox is the single best tool we have to further that mission. No matter how important the position of CEO, it's completely overwhelmed by the position of everyone else.
I recommend reading some opinions of people who actually work together with Brendan Eich, or who make up the wider Mozilla community. Though Mozilla always fumbles publicity, the open debate which invariably follows is equally always heartening for the understanding and passion which pours out of the words.
The following list should get you started:
But the page changed on April 1, right?
No. It changed on March 31. I think it is simply a marketing trick. Pretend to take a stand. Gets lots of buzz for free. Give the impression that you are still hip. Never mind that for the last year or two, Okcupid has been showing that they don't even care about their own user community. Function has been reduced drastically. Non-mainstream users have been marginalized. Forums are no longer monitored. The only communication that comes out is the occasional obvious lie. "We are working hard and making the site better for you!" (my removing all the features that you used and adding virtually nothing)
Yay for capitalism.
Being a dick isn't illegal. People calling you a dick and making sure everyone knows about it isn't either.
Sorry if I don't feel a lot of sympathy for a bully getting bullied.
What doesn't kill you only delays the inevitable
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.
what happened to live and let live?
This is someone who has documented history of not being able to do so. Instead of just letting other people live they way they want to, he is spending money and political clout to force others to live only the way he wants people to live.
We were all warned a long time ago that MS products sucked, remember the Magic 8 Ball said, "Outlook not so good"
Executives at FB, Google, Intel, Apple and Adobe illegally colluded to drive down their employees' salaries. No punishments, no boycotts, no indignant calls for resignation. Donating to Prop 8 was crumby but it is not even in the same league.
The fact that he hasn't issued an apology makes forgiving him a little more difficult. (Yes, he offered a statement that was like "we as a company are committed to freedom," but it didn't address his prior actions or views).
Maybe once he deigns to say the word "sorry" I'll worry about whether or not he's a good person.
Make it completely fair and get rid of legal contracts for marriage for all. Make it a strictly social and religious thing, like it should have been all along.
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.
This same argument came up with the Ender's Game boycott. And really I can't bother to care about what everyday employees do. It would indeed be madness. It would be a lot of effort for tracking a small amount of influence. But a CEO can afford a massive amount of influence, maybe more than all their employees combined, and there's only one per company.
It is just STUPID to boycott anything or anyone because of one aspect of who they are. It is the worst form of bigotry and I'll not condone. it.
[...]
They were and nothing happened, because boycotting is inaction and only action stopes people.
Boycotts have worked a number of times throughout history, are you denying this? Also am I to assume you were against the boycotts of apartheid South Africa?
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
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)
Meanwhile, that shitty site is getting a tonne of coverage on various sites. Yay for the champions of diversity.
They have good PR people, I'll give them that.
You can just click through to use the site normally. It's just a suggestion.
This is a valid point. Trans/non-binary support is sadly still very rare online. However, I kinda doubt you care all that much, as you call us "transgenders" and "transgendered" (and seem to believe trans ladies and trans dudes are interchangeable?).
Boycott is not inaction. ... that is a pretty active thing. Goolge for the last centuries big boycorr successes (well, in the eye of the beholder, ofc)
Boycott is the activity choosing something 'different' or not using something at all.
Suppose you had a taxy boycott, all cabs would be empty
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
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.
The proper comparison would be that if you don't like gay marriage, don't marry someone of the same sex.
Wouldn't call this a Chic-Fil-A. They're anti-gay lobbying is done with corporate funds. This is just one guy donating his own money. It's his opinion and he is allowed to have one. I can stand by him for having an opinion even though I don't agree with him.
Chewbacon
The Bible is like Wikipedia: written by a bunch of people and verifiable by questionable sources.
This thread is going the same direction as our society at large. You can't become emotionally intelligent in a vacuum, but our technological capabilities are increasing the air gap between opposing views. i sit back and smile as News Junkies (substitute Opinionistas ) work to influence their audiences. They appear oblivious to the corner that their groups have congregated into. Shouting louder and feeding uniquely palatable crap to their followers is standard practice. The saddest thing is to see these Opinistas wonder aloud why the world can't see things in the same way. LMAO because it beats crying.
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.
In the name of all that is holy STOP the auto playing audio! Who are you trying to impress?
In this case, it's not a matter of boycotting a corporation for being harmful to society; rather, it's a case of boycotting a corporation because we want to inflict pain and harm and vitriolic hatred on an individual associated with the corporation.
The message here is that Brendan Eich does not deserve rights and should be barred from any highly-gainful employment. He could work at McDonalds, but then he would be making hamburgers we'd refuse to eat. Not until Brendan Eich is on the streets starving to death will we be satisfied.
Feels good to attack someone whose opinions on what social policies are good for society as a whole you disagree with, eh?
Support my political activism on Patreon.
If he's making normal people money I couldn't be bothered to care what he thinks. But if he's among the planet's top earners, he becomes a big easy target.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
Hey man, sometimes I used both hands!
Seriously though, it's actually a pretty great site for the nerdy crowd (which their demographics strongly support). Yes, I met my girlfriend through there (as did my roommate, who I know from when we were both in CS together).
There's no place I could be, since I've found Serenity...
Believe it or not, some slashdotters are gay.
And some slashdottters who are not gay themselves think that gay people deserve equal rights under the law.
Hard to imagine, I know.
I think that the fact that he's actually spending money against gay marriage is what makes this so morally wrong. If he just had a silly opinion it'd be one thing, but he's actually doing something against all that people. People who don't affect him in any way. Them marrying isn't a problem for him.
In my country gay marriage is legal and has been for a few years. Despite the heated protests of the religious zealots, nothing went wrong in the country, at least nothing related to gay marriage (political corruption is another story).
Of course that's what it was about. What's next, going to tell us that Arizona's birth certificate laws had nothing to do with "illegal" immigrants?
Choosing a different form of transport is an action.
"Boycotting an opinion" is so nebulous as to have no meaning.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Is that you'd almost certainly support the boycott of a company that was divergent from your political views.
Honestly, why are you even on this site? Slashdot is kinda meant for tech talk, and all you do is rant with right-wing Rushtalk.
I'm all over political discussions of a dispassionate, objective nature, but you clearly aren't. And this site, while certainly willing to engage the political side of technology, is, at its core, a *technology* site. And yet after looking at many, many of your posts, I'm yet to see *ONE* that discusses something technical. Have you noticed the tagline, "News for nerds, stuff that matters"? I'm thinking you're just here because you love trolling.
Please go away. Slashdot will be better for it.
So you want an insincere political show indistinguishable from genuine remorse?
You prefer to put people into power and have them manipulate you publicly?
Support my political activism on Patreon.
So it's no longer his right to participate in full in society because he exercised his right to participate in full in society?
Support my political activism on Patreon.
You're not taking into account that this is slashdot, and there's a news-time-dilation effect in play. Even SoylentNews had this story yesterday.
Because promoting gay rights is all about punishing a blameless minority on account of the acts of the majority, right?
Idiot.
There's no place I could be, since I've found Serenity...
no, the problem with JavaScript is Date. :-)
You know, Mozilla could easily make that happen.
Right... because while there is no benefit to Mozilla or its CEO from using their software, using JavaScript heavily supports Mr. Eich. Oh, and there are no alternative browsers so it wouldn't be practical to tell people to switch anyhow, while there are any number of near-universally supported scripting languages.
What the fuck? What color is the sky on your world? I don't much want to live on this one anymore, but I sure as hell don't want to wind up on one where people "think" like you.
There's no place I could be, since I've found Serenity...
I don't understand those homo's, I never cared for them what they do in the bedroom. But they always need to push the life style on us. So I switched to firefox for them....
Are corporate funds being used? Are corporate resources? If not, then boycotting the corporation is pointless. Now I have no problem throwing eggs at the guy's house. Oh wait, that's considered terrorism these days. I guess we have to embarrass him on twitter or something.
The only thing worse than a Democrat is a Republican.
How do you define marriage? That seems to be the issue. The definition in the USA is changing, but it varies through out the world. Is marriage defined as
Between one man and one woman who are both adults
Between to two consenting adults
Between one man and up to four women
Between one man and many women
Between a man and a girl entering puberty
Between a boy and a girl as dictated by the families
Or something else that is less common than the above
What determines what is acceptable? Is it trampling on one's human rights if you disagree with some of the above options? How will Mozilla and Firefox be view in parts of the world with a different marriage definition if Eich is forced to resign? There are likely unintended consequences if Eich is forced to resign. Is this the best way to advance gay rights?
Well yeah, no shit.
To be fair, the only notable impact I noticed from the takeover of OKC was the removal of one of their blog posts wherein they slammed for-pay dating sites using math and logic to make their argument. They may have moved a few mostly-trivial features behind their own paywall as well - I think you used to be able to easily see everybody who had rated you highly, and now that's slightly less convenient - and they advertise the paid accounts more heavily, but they have preserved most of the rest of their casual and largely irreverent attitude towards corporate issues. I always get a chuckle out of one of their survey questions, which reads:
There's no place I could be, since I've found Serenity...
You own marriage? Kindly produce the documentation.
Then please explain why you invented polygamy, because it's kind of weird.
Because tolerance it's just tolerating any "thing." It's being against discrimination based on traits a person has no control over.
Most people have accepted that sexual orientation is typically an uncontrollable trait, just as is my desire to sleep with about everything that has a pulse. A key question here is, do we legalize acting upon those urges with the full support of our legal infrastructure.
There's nothing wrong with 'this'. Why do people keep bringing 'this' up? What do you think is wrong with it? It works exactly like you would expect it to work.
Perhaps if you took a few minutes to learn even a little bit about the language, you wouldn't have so much trouble with it.
Sure, it has a few warts, like every language ever made. It's astonishingly well-designed and remarkably capable. If you think that Javascript isn't a good language you are 100% mistaken. Some people may complain about it but those people would complain about anything - simply because they haven't spend time to understand the language doesn't mean the language is a problem after all.
Required reading for internet skeptics
A lot of people seem to be making the assumption that because Eich, or any other person, supported measures such as Proposition 8, they are hateful, or bigoted, or support the restriction of the rights of the LGBT community. While I'm sure there are those supporters that do, this view often doesn't apply to a majority of these people. In this case, the rights that concern many members of the LGBT community with regards to gay marriage have to do with a gay couple getting the benefits that a straight couple would, as well as the freedom to not be persecuted for their union. For the most part, there is no problem with this among the opposition.
While the benefits associated with marriage were originally put in place to ease the challenges of raising a family, financial or otherwise, there's no reason why a gay couple couldn't raise a family of their own through adoption/surrogacy/etc. As such, these benefits should certainly apply to them. Likewise, a straight couple may get married, but have no children, meaning the benefits are probably of less need, but are still given. So for the most part, people opposing gay marriage aren't necessarily doing so to restrict the benefits a gay couple would receive. And with regards to the freedom from persecution for a gay couple, there is even less reason to oppose it.
More often than not, the focus of the opposition often boils down to the spiritual concept of marriage. This has less to do with the rights and freedom of gay couples, and more to do with the preservation of marriage as a spiritual concept. You can bet that if it were only a question of the government administering the rights and benefits of a civil union to a gay couple, there would be a lot less of a furor from those that oppose gay marriage.
As such, it's fairly presumptuous to assume that those who are against gay marriage are against the rights of gay couples. Sure, there are those who walk around with signs saying "God Hates Fags," but they certainly don't represent the majority. As such, vilifying those who supported such measures as Prop 8 comes across as hypocritical, especially from a community that has had to endure similar persecutions for such a long time. (It's reminiscent of how after WWII, Germans across Europe were thrown in concentration camps as revenge for the actions of the Nazis during the Holocaust.)
So this whole reaction to Brendan Eich is pretty disappointing to me, since it was his own, personal money that he contributed, and especially since he has stated he won't let his personal viewpoints affect Mozilla. As another Slashdotter pointed out above, if you boycotted all the companies lead by those whose personal opinions you disagreed with, you might as well become a hermit.
Also, bite me, OKCupid. I'll use whatever internet browser I want to use. You know what I won't use? Your website.
I was with you on getting rid of Javascript till you mentioned Perl.
Wow, that's a mighty high horse you're on there.
So what I hear you saying is that it's ok to sit by when people make laws preventing a black man from marrying a white woman. Let's not rock the boat there and recognize that we all have precious opinions and none of them are more right than others.
Or it's OK that little Billy doesn't want to sit next to that wetback in his classroom. After all, we wouldn't want him to think we were intolerant of his unique view of the world.
No no no, you're right. We've got to make sure we include all opinions and make sure we treat them as equally valid.
Or we can continue to fight bigotry where we find it and shrug off people like you that do mental gymnastics to define "tolerance" in a way that no one else does.
What doesn't kill you only delays the inevitable
So why are they using javascript then? And didn't they know Eich already had a high place at Mozilla before actually becoming CEO.. But then again, I never even heard about OKCupid before, and now they had some free advertisement.. Smart marketing...
Four. I wouldn't want to go overbroad...
Ok ok, I'll take my goat and go.
He was the only Apostle who met Christ once, and while Romans is the pinnacle of his epistles, he is also a human being and therefore fallible. What you're citing there is what Paul wrote, not what Jesus wrote, not what any of the original Apostles wrote, but what a homophobic Christian Apostle wrote. Not just that, it's portraying people as being robots--or worse, already-repressed homosexuals who finally decided that enough was enough and they'd be themselves. You don't get to cite this with Biblical Authority, I'm calling BS on the Biblical Inerrancy here.
Here's to hot beer, cold women, and Glaswegian kisses for all.
What the fuck did I just read?
Religious institutions did not invent marriage. It's existed for much longer than religion has, so... well, rather than repeating all your rant I'll just suggest you re-read it yourself.
For a site about things like basic rights, Slashdot users sure do like to censor "dissent".
Pretty much NO product out there on ANY market, free or otherwise is going to be completely and utterly inoffensive to everyone. Nor are the people connected to said products.
Basically telling people to use another product because YOU are offended is asinine. People will use the product that does what they want, how they want, and at the price point they want.
If you want to try and alienate people based on their product choices? First off, you're cutting off your OWN nose. As you're turning away potential customers.
Second, how are YOU being any more tolerant than the so-called "bigot" you're trying to hate on?
Some shit matters.
Some shit matters a lot.
The fact that the guy now running Mozilla happened to donate to an anti-LGBT cause WITH HIS OWN FUCKING MONEY, a few years ago? That just doesn't matter, and no I'm NOT sorry for saying so. You're giving money to political movements promoting LGBT causes, hopefully with YOUR own money (and and possibly trying to convince companies to do the same). But you're going to excoriate this guy because his opinion differs from the one you consider "right"?
Fuck you and the horse you rode in on.
For the record, I figure what goes on between any given number of consenting adults, so long as it doesn't violate other laws (like taxing and child welfare type things), IS THEIR OWN FUCKING BUSINESS. But if someone doesn't feel that way, that's their own business. So long as they're not trying to force me to comply with THEIR lifestyle choices.
People nowadays are too soft and conditioned to want everything to be as inoffensive to them as possible. News flash, TOUGH FUCKING NOOGIES! Shrug off the shit that doesn't matter and focus on the stuff that actually means something. That pretty much goes for EVERYONE. And my expressing that makes you feel rather...sandy...have a nice tall glass of I DON'T GIVE A SHIT!
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
Wow, OKStupid's PR and marketing agency have just hit the jackpot! Got everyone all riled up and ready to argue into the small hours of the morning about who's right https://xkcd.com/386/
Don't do internet dating but if I did it'd be with OKStupid's immediate competitor.
Have gnu, will travel.
Seriously, who does? Especially here on /. ?
I don't have any interest in it at all. Just reading the replies to see any mention of Opera 12; many sites claim it's outdated, OhCupid (on purpose) doesn't say a word about it.
This is just advertisement of the only gay dating site I'm aware of (or establishing a clientèle), but then I don't do dating sites. What better way of doing so than with the "most popular" browser.
LlL!
I reserve the write to mangle english.
...why my OKcupid profile gets more visits from gay dudes than attractive straight women. I'll take that as a complement, I guess.
Most of the straight women on there are either BBWs, or neurotic vegans/vegetarians. There are a few hotties, but why bother if they're just attention-validation seeking narcissists.
I'd rather take my chances w/ the hoodrats on Plenty of Fish.
the only permanence in existence, is the impermanence of existence.
Marriage (or the purchase of women as property) predates religion. It's religion that made it official policy though.
READY.
PRINT ""+-0
OKCupid's actions are motivated and validated by Political Correctness.
Do you deny this?
No, but I'm seeing lots of people like you tell me what you think is true when I see everyday people still interested in biological lives.
It's the freaks and geeks taking over the class, using guilt (political correctness; see above) to manipulate others into allowing them to do it.
In the meantime, the only real minority are those who can actually think, and they want no part of this illusion. The majority are either indifferent to it while planning to avoid it, or outright opposed to it.
Why are so many leftists so sneeringly nasty? Again: it's a mental health condition, not a political philosophy.
Futurist Traditionalism
I received this message when I went to the site last night. I immediately went to the "Contact" section to complain. The jist of the complaint said that while OKCupid and I may not agree with Mr. Eich's political views that it is an even more dangerous problem in government and society to let politics interfere with what is a technological decision(browser choice). I'm not saying Firefox is the best browser for everyone but it's the best browser for me. To be advocating against a particular technology based on purely political motives is a much more dangerous precedent than this simple civil contract matter which will probably be resolved nationally within the next 5 years. Let's encourage individuals, organizations, and governments to make more technological decisions based on merit instead of politics.
I think marriage is medieval property-transferring bullshit, but I really don't agree with anyone who thinks only straight couples should be allowed a screw-up.
However, the NSA is already spying on everyone, so I think you'd be stupid to write off the leading open-source browser for a machine with anything of importance on it. Choose some goddamn battles! I'm going to put basic privacy from abusive power higher on my list.
That's a thought-provoking comment.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
These discussions honestly make me very happy. Why? Because it's become very clear that all the right-wing, religiously-tinted ink spilled on ridiculous word games and nonsense logical conundrums to hold back the advance of civil rights and equality has been for naught. It's all headed straight for the trashbin of history, with much wailing and gnashing of teeth along the way. Much like, say, decades of condemnation heaped upon the tyranny of abolitionists in the 1800's. It's delicious, beyond my expectations, and the more I read the more secure I am about which side is winning.
We know where leadership by an anti-intellectual "strongman" who scapegoats minorities and likes boisterous rallies goes
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.
You would have a point if corporation didn't have legal rights like a person.
But they do, and he can use his position to influence actual politics. That's why it matters.
"But you're going to excoriate this guy because his opinion differs from the one you consider "right"?"
when their opinion is to take rights away from other human beings? yes.
"Shrug off the shit that doesn't matter "
denying people rights doesn't matter?
"focus on the stuff that actually means something. T"
if basic human rights doesn't matter, then what does?
"Second, how are YOU being any more tolerant than the so-called "bigot" you're trying to hate on?"
How come no one on this site seems to know what intolarance means?
http://www.merriam-webster.com...
Since the context is human rights, number 2 applies
a : unwilling to grant equal freedom of expression especially in religious matters
b : unwilling to grant or share social, political, or professional rights : bigoted
You are rather short sighted and small minded.
Do you even see the irony in you post? at all? It's just information OKCupid is giving people. People can make up their own ,minds. You are advocating OKCupid should not share information.
It seems to me you screed is based on the fact that you know you wrong to keep using the browser, you just too much of a coward to admit it.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
how did he come out against Prop 8 when he donated money to it?
"The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
if it supported threads without webworker shit then it would be just fine for 90% of uses.
world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
His name sounds biblical to me, so I will go out on a limb and assume it's one of them Old Testament quotes, they all sound like that.
Ezekiel 23:20
Forex Trading team want to say that all the information you have been provided in the video very useful and hope that others will also benefit from this valuable knowledge. Really excellent ! Thank you for giving such type of nice article.
... by denying equal access to your website? This is a propaganda move to generate interest, but it's supremely hypocritical, divisive, and reflects the same attitude that is being campaigned against. In the words of the song... "Fighting for peace? It's like f**king for virginity." This website is limiting equality as a protest against inequality. nice move OKCupid. The bottom line is that all this propaganda they're using still hasn't enticed me to visit their site to see what all the fuss is about.
"Is the Chief Priest an Offlian? Do dragons explode in the wood?"
Nobody is asking you to "agree with homosexuality", anymore than we ask you to "agree with the black skin color". There is nothing to agree about. Your words are utterly meaningless.
-- Julien Pierre http://www.madbrain.com/blog
Boycotting the product of an organisation because of the personal views of someone within it is frankly, stupid, where those the views of mozilla the protest might have some point but this is not the case.
Lifesigns: Present Hair: Escaped Age: Increasing
Actually, yes. Obama is a right-winger who only switched his stance on gay marriage when it became clear that more people (esp. Democrat voters) really wanted that and he didn't want to further disillusion the Democratic base with his right-wing stances.
We do it for straight couples so why not? I see it as, should we extend the same rights to gays that straights currently enjoy?
(or in the case of Prop. 8, where the rights were already in place: should we deny these rights to a specific group?)
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
Marriage was secular originally, and is not yours to own
Fuck off.
He has that right. But we also have the right to choose not to support him.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
Yes but that's getting into circular logic and odd philosophy.
The philosophy behind Aikido categorizes aggression. It says the lowest form of aggression is to attack an individual and kill him. The second lowest form of aggression is to goad an individual (not originally assailant) into attacking you, then kill or maim them. Close is responding to an aggressor by killing or maiming them. The highest form of aggression is to apply the minimum amount of force necessary to end hostilities, inflicting the least harm on your opponent. I feel Morihei Ueshiba is more appropriate to this discussion than Miyomoto Musashi.
In this case, we have people claiming that Eich's participation in society has an impact on other people whom he disagrees with on a philosophical level, and that such behavior which is inconvenient to others is wrong. This is followed by claims that we also have the right to behave in the same way, and can actively seek to harm Eich because our opinions diverge from his. It is as if we are saying that such behavior is not wrong when we do it to someone we don't like, but it is wrong when they do it.
Ueshiba's third form of aggression is similar, although both the second and third are similar philosophically. In both of these, we assume in one form or another that attacking someone is wrong; then we either wait for someone to attack us or we encourage them to do so, in either case applying far more force than we believe is necessary. We respond to Eich's actions not simply by shooting down Prop 8, or by placing the pressure of society's views upon him, but rather by placing the pressure of society's rejection upon him: we want to exclude him from society, so that he may live a less-fulfilling life and ultimately suffer. This action is not to defend ourselves, but to inflict harm and vengeance.
Is this who we are as a people? Is this who we are as Americans?
Support my political activism on Patreon.
Regardless, polygamy and dowries are a tradition going back to the dawn of civilization (at least). The kind of marriage that most proponents of "traditional family values" are involved in are a fairly recent development.
Naked Lunch, by William S Burroughs.
"Flyin' in just a sweet place,
Never been known to fail..."
There's nothing circular about my logic or philosophy. We all have the right to express our views, but also the right to choose not to support others if we don't like their views. So expressing your views may have consequences. I have certain opinions I don't tell employers about because of the consequences. If they found out through some other channel there may still be consequences.
In this case, we have people claiming that Eich's participation in society has an impact on other people whom he disagrees with on a philosophical level, and that such behavior which is inconvenient to others is wrong. This is followed by claims that we also have the right to behave in the same way, and can actively seek to harm Eich because our opinions diverge from his. It is as if we are saying that such behavior is not wrong when we do it to someone we don't like, but it is wrong when they do it.
What? This is completely wrong. First, Eich's behavior isn't just "philosophically disagreeable" or "inconvenient." He donated money to strip others of rights. More than an inconvenience. And how is a boycott "actively seeking to harm?" It's just choosing not to support him with money or labor. If I decide the service in a convenience store is shitty and I'm not going to shop there anymore, am I actively seeking to harm that store? Would it be different if I did it because the store owner donated to Prop 8? Would it be different if it were an employee strike?
We respond to Eich's actions not simply by shooting down Prop 8, or by placing the pressure of society's views upon him, but rather by placing the pressure of society's rejection upon him: we want to exclude him from society, so that he may live a less-fulfilling life and ultimately suffer. This action is not to defend ourselves, but to inflict harm and vengeance.
The action is defensive in the same way that a sanction against North Korea is. We make it harder for those who work to harm us to get the resources they need to do so, until they decide they no longer want to harm us. Any harm they suffer is just a side-effect.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
You keep talking about "rights", but I don't see any "rights" involved. I see a privileged class getting tax deductions and a standard contract of asset ownership, estate transfer, and limited power of attorney.
Boycotts are the societal-scale equivalent of not feeding your kid. You're not "harming" them, you're just not "supporting them with money or labor." In this case, a boycott of Mozilla would cause collateral damage to Mozilla Inc due to their association with Eich; this would then show the industry that they need to not support Eich, making him less hirable. If we took it out to completion, we could boycot McDonalds if he ends up as a burger flipper; this would soundly tell the industry not to hire him, because WalMart doesn't want a quarter of 8 billion dollars of lost revenue for this dude etc. Then he would die on the streets alone.
The action is defensive in the same way that a sanction against North Korea is. We make it harder for those who work to harm us to get the resources they need to do so, until they decide they no longer want to harm us. Any harm they suffer is just a side-effect.
By that logic, I have a strong incentive to boycott OKCupid and you personally. You are harming my right to participate in the political process.
I believe, based on rational economic analysis, that supplying higher education (college, vocational training) to everyone as a default societal benefit is wrong. Firmly wrong. I believe this comic is fundamentally incorrect in many assumptions. Panel 5 especially: "Free education reduces social inequality, and benefits both individuals and society in the long run." I believe this is fundamentally backwards: Free education increases social inequality, and harms both individuals and society in the long run.
The equal supply of free education to all individuals creates a huge societal problem: when a particular vocational skill is in demand, a lot of people invest years of their time into developing that skill. The work force saturates, and these individuals find that the demand for hundreds of thousands of computer programmers or nurses or accountants is still there... but there are now millions of programmers, or nurses, or accountants. Thus they cannot get jobs, and the i.e. 1 in 10 who can get jobs are paid a paltry salary. In the interim, their employment opportunities were limited to unskilled labor--which we can replace with machines (hotdog and hamburger prep machines, automatic checkouts, janitorial robotics), and probably will when the minimum wage gets high enough and the cost of such automation becomes lower.
Without this supply or any government backing, businesses would suffer. Without skilled labor, they would pay excessively high salaries to hire experienced skilled labor--and then fail to support their business strategy, because another firm would poach their labor with higher salaries. The only way to escape this is for businesses to hire entrants to offset their skilled laborers, shifting the less-skilled tasks onto the entrants so the skilled laborers can apply themselves more effectively, while simultaneously training the entrants on the job and by paying their education. These entrants would become the new crop of skilled laborers, gaining modest salary increases above living wage.
Can you imagine if I were CEO of Mozilla Inc, having openly campaigned against the United States providing any sort of economic benefit to encourage education? No funding of universities, no government-backed loan program, no grants. You want school? Pay for it, either from your own funds or by employer sponsorship.
I would be burned alive.
There would be massive media backlash against Mozilla Inc. I would be forced out by the board as CEO to save the company. Nobody would hire me. Even in engineer-level or middle management positions, interviewers would recognize me as "that anti
Support my political activism on Patreon.
I think you have a demonstrably wrong view of how people choose college degrees - however similar things have happened before on a small scale with education being FAR from free and what you said hasn't happened. I wish the "exceedingly high salaries" situation is what had happened because businesses could easily afford to pay people well instead of racking up high-score numbers in the 1%'ers bank accounts.
You can't express your anti-public-eduction views unless you want to face the consequences.
I can't express my post-capitalist views unless I want to face the consequences.
So we both have to limit ourselves. I deal with the existence of the consequences. What's so special about you?
And at some point people will look past the bad PR. A company may not want Eich as a CEO but they'd be fine having him do project management etc. There's no point in activists worrying about everyday people with everyday amounts of influence, lost among the noise. As an extreme example, even ex-cons can get bottom-tier jobs.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
Oh really? Then how was that 1999 $250k programmer salary, Web designers making $120k, nurses making ass loads? And now they make $40k. These economic behaviors happen again and again in our society.
You say I can't try to do what I think is right without facing the consequences. Like Martin Luther King, who was assassinated.
Support my political activism on Patreon.
Nurses still make good money. Programmers and web designers don't get paid well anymore because of the dot-com bust, outsourced/H1B labor, and anti-poaching agreements. Even if what you said was true, would it be better to have all those people bag groceries so that a few wealthy students could get better-paying jobs?
Assassination and boycott aren't the same thing. MLK was apparently a big fan of boycotts.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
We need to use a more promiscuous browser like Internet Explorer.
Ops, I shuld have usd the prevuwe but in.
"But they do, and he can use his position to influence actual politics."
First, is there any evidence that he used his position to influence actual politics?
Nope? Thanks!
"when their opinion is to take rights away from other human beings? "
Is there ANY evidence that Mozilla has closed ranks behind him and are supporting this POV?
Nope? Thanks.
"denying people rights doesn't matter?"
He didn't deny anyone their rights. He contributed to a political cause to define a right. And yes, son, there IS a difference.
"How come no one on this site seems to know what intolarance means?"
Probably because people like you keep trying to redefine it into whatever wins you an argument.
The fact is, several years ago, this guy donated some money. Now, because you don't happen to like the cause he donated to, you're copacetic with another company harassing their own users, who did NOT support this guy, because they happen to use the product produced by a company, which did NOT support this guy, to access their site?
Seriously?
"You are rather short sighted and small minded."
Ah. Down to the ad hominem. Instead of arguing the point, you simply insult.
I usually don't prefer to win an argument that way, but hey. I don't complain about racking up entries in the W column.
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
You really have to wonder how the left would react to news that global warming was making people gay.
The new right fascists are bilingual. They speak English and Bullshit.
In Washington DC, a nurse with a Master's Degree and 3 years of experience makes $40k.
Support my political activism on Patreon.
However, when *every single* political stance I've seen you take is of the same persuasion, well... if it looks like a rose, smells like a rose, and has thorns like a rose, it's a conservative stance. Perhaps it's your own thinking that's one-dimensional, to the point where you don't see the forest for the trees.
Though I do enjoy your attempt to smear my point by attempting to denigrate my logic. You're very good at verbal judo, and are to be commended. You'd make a fine debater. That does not, however, mean that you'd be one who used facts; I think we've already established that you're very willing to ignore them in the name of making your point. (In case you're wondering what I'm talking about, I've already pointed out several objectively factual statements you've made, the most obvious -- and demonstrable -- being your attempt to blame Obama for high inflation... when there isn't any. The others, while less concretely black-and-white, nevertheless stand.)
Though I have to commend you on one other thing as well: I saw you make a technical comment! Perhaps you are not here *entirely* for the trolling.
I think I see the problem. I'm going out on a limb here, completely without anything other than your words to go by... but you're so willing to engage confrontationally, indeed, even looking for it. And yet you are an anonymous cipher to boot. I think you come to Slashdot to live the life you're afraid to in real life. You're clearly intelligent -- unlike you, I'm willing to acknowledge that in an opponent -- but your willingness to jump for the put-down, to leap with great alacrity to prove you're right, no matter how many disagree, and damn the facts... these all strongly suggest someone who's both deeply insecure, and deeply angry.
I'm sure you'll happily come back with some more of your snappy comebacks; you vastly prefer an argumentative stance instead of considered discourse. And that, right there, is another indicator of your anger and insecurity.
Is it the attention you desire? The need to put forth controversial opinions that you know will get responses? Are you aware that not all attention is good attention?
I ask these things rhetorically, because I don't expect you to engage; I expect you to attack, or ignore. Those are your phases; you're very binary -- and nowhere have I seen you be respectful of an opponent, so I won't even bother considering you as trinary.
I will concede, I initially found your tirades somewhat compelling; it's not often you find someone so willing to piss everyone off. But now that I've come to realize that's *WHY* you do it, it seems trite and silly. Enjoy your high-level linguistic skills, and sophomore-year social skills. I do wish you'd go somewhere where you could rant and rave to a more receptive audience; trolls are the bane of the Internet, and you most certainly qualify. But if you insist on being here, well, I can only hope your karma continues to drop. And I rather doubt you've risen to the point where the administrators bother smacking you down; I think it just falls into your whole need for importance and recognition: it *must* be them! It *couldn't* be because some of my comments are modded down...
Goodbye. I wish you the best... but I rather doubt you'd even bother looking for it. You want your lead lining.
And, no -- barring an actually thoughtful response, something I believe you're almost incapable of -- I have zero intention of reading anything else you have to say. I simply have better things to do with my time.
It's not because you didn't find it that the browser is not up to standards for secure browsing.
So youre equating consensual acts with rape? Wonderful
So someone else being married hurts you? Does someone eating a doughnut hurt you if yuoure trying to slim?
Equal protection, idiot.