I never understand why the most insightful comments about the topic at hand, the one that actually sheds some light on the topic by someone who might know a little about it, is always at the bottom of a thread on/.
So what is the limit here? If he had donated all 30,000,000 of that money, would it then be ok to go after him? What about 50$?
The issue is the principle of the thing. I dislike Sheldon Adelson, and so when I go to Vegas, I try not to stay at any of his hotels, because I don't want to give money to a man who actively supports causes that I find offensive. Am I "blowing it out of proportion" but not staying at his hotels, even when the amount of money I'd give him by doing so is very small?
At the end of the day, this guy actively supports a cause that, rightly or wrongly, many of his employees find offensive; that is, the quest to deny gay folks the right to marry whomever they choose. For a lot of people, that is an incredibly important issue, and so, yes, even donating 1000$ to that cause would cause me to seriously question working for him.
Strangely, they all have one thing in common: restrictive gun laws.
The US has 80 guns per 100 people, and an extremely high rate of gun deaths.
Ergo, restrict guns, enfoce it, and you will have less gun violence. It's quite simple. It's not a fantasy...there are places in the world where people can walk the streets without fear of being shot, and those places by and large ban or restrict private ownership of guns.
It's simple, because it's true. And I know you pro-gun fetishists won't ever admit it. But fewer guns = less gun violence. It's a fact. Wiggle around all ya want.
The laws about marriages have only until recently said that two consenting adults could marry. With the passage of anti-gay marriage laws, those laws were changed to specify that marriages were only to be between a man and a woman, because idiots like you were afraid that guy folks would marry each other.
So before, they DID have the same rights as straight folks...the ability to marry WHOMEVER THEY CHOSE.
But by passing the anti-gay marriage laws, you are RESTRICTING their rights to marry whoever they choose, and LIMITING it to a marriage between a man and a woman. Why is it so hard for you bigots to get this SIMPLE FACT?
Well, we don't actually know. He was quite the technologist, and so he may simply had decided on his own that he would be unable to lead the company successfully under the current situation. We just don't know.
It's neither arbitrary or ill defined. Wanting to reduce gun deaths by making guns illegal or very difficult to obtain is a perfectly rational response. Less guns = less gun violence.
Because polygamy, in actual modern practice, actually does involve often underage women. I have no problem with it as a right people should be allowed to have. But the people who actually practice it have often been accused of supporting underage marriages, so much so that the leaders of these little sects often wind up in jail.
That's why you won't find many otherwise liberal folks supporting polygamy.
There are many safe opinions. Black folks should have equal employment rights. Neo-nazis are bad folks. Women should be allowed to vote. You shouldn't be allowed to own slaves.
Those are all safe opinions that at one time were unsafe.
It's now unsafe, in corporate America to have the following opinion: "Gay folks shouldn't be able to marry who they choose."
No one ever is saying that Eich should not be able to LEGALLY donate to prop 8.
But, as others have pointed out, there are consequences. And other people have a right to publicly condemn him and make it difficult or impossible for him to do his job as a CEO.
As soon as there is a large-scale social movement, with people marching in the streets in multiple states, supporting polygamy. When that day comes, I'll be happy to support removing those restrictions.
Ironically, the very people who would support such a movement, Mormons, pretty much shot themselves in the foot by actively opposing allowing gays to get married, so they won't find many friends to help them in their movement.
So the answer to your question is, not any time soon.
Well, we don't actually know this. Lots of people here are saying "he wasn't fired, he quit" but the board may have told him "Quit or you'll be fired", which is pretty much the same thing.
Communism, even fairy-tale versions of it, is hardly a threat to the actual lives of Americans today. There are no communists in American government. It is filled to the brim with people who want to deny gay folks certain rights.
Why? People are free to work for an employer, and in many cases speak out about the actions of that employer. Gay folks at Mozilla had an underdstandable issue with this guy, and it turns out, many straight folks support gay folks in their efforts to gain marriage equality.
There are two issues here: one, the tactics that were used (i.e., making a social protest against Eich) and two, what the protesters were protesting against.
I have no problem with the folks in your example using those tactics to promote their cause. I have a serious issue with the cause they are promoting, so yet, I would have a problem with them.
Slashdot Mirror
That the Fugitive Slave Act was deemed constitutional? But the 13th Amendment to the CONSTITUTION made that irrelevant, didn't it?
Clearly, you aren't salaried.
I never understand why the most insightful comments about the topic at hand, the one that actually sheds some light on the topic by someone who might know a little about it, is always at the bottom of a thread on /.
Pedantry is alive and well, it seems. I understood him just fine. Perhaps you should of not been so pedantic.
Rush isn't really all that well known for journalistic integrity.
Yeah, except for the simple fact that you are wrong and he is right. You may be painting with a broad stroke but you are using the wrong color.
Well, it would depend entirely on his reasons for taking over the world. I have an open mind about these sorts of things.
So what is the limit here? If he had donated all 30,000,000 of that money, would it then be ok to go after him? What about 50$?
The issue is the principle of the thing. I dislike Sheldon Adelson, and so when I go to Vegas, I try not to stay at any of his hotels, because I don't want to give money to a man who actively supports causes that I find offensive. Am I "blowing it out of proportion" but not staying at his hotels, even when the amount of money I'd give him by doing so is very small?
At the end of the day, this guy actively supports a cause that, rightly or wrongly, many of his employees find offensive; that is, the quest to deny gay folks the right to marry whomever they choose. For a lot of people, that is an incredibly important issue, and so, yes, even donating 1000$ to that cause would cause me to seriously question working for him.
We don't know this...he could have faced the "resign or be fired" ultimatum from the board, which is pretty much the same thing.
Europe is virtually free of gun-related deaths.
Strangely, they all have one thing in common: restrictive gun laws.
The US has 80 guns per 100 people, and an extremely high rate of gun deaths.
Ergo, restrict guns, enfoce it, and you will have less gun violence. It's quite simple. It's not a fantasy...there are places in the world where people can walk the streets without fear of being shot, and those places by and large ban or restrict private ownership of guns.
It's simple, because it's true. And I know you pro-gun fetishists won't ever admit it. But fewer guns = less gun violence. It's a fact. Wiggle around all ya want.
The laws about marriages have only until recently said that two consenting adults could marry.
With the passage of anti-gay marriage laws, those laws were changed to specify that marriages were only to be between a man and a woman, because idiots like you were afraid that guy folks would marry each other.
So before, they DID have the same rights as straight folks...the ability to marry WHOMEVER THEY CHOSE.
But by passing the anti-gay marriage laws, you are RESTRICTING their rights to marry whoever they choose, and LIMITING it to a marriage between a man and a woman. Why is it so hard for you bigots to get this SIMPLE FACT?
You didn't expect your statement to be so profound...you should be criticized for this.
Well, we don't actually know. He was quite the technologist, and so he may simply had decided on his own that he would be unable to lead the company successfully under the current situation. We just don't know.
--Jeremy
It's neither arbitrary or ill defined. Wanting to reduce gun deaths by making guns illegal or very difficult to obtain is a perfectly rational response. Less guns = less gun violence.
Because polygamy, in actual modern practice, actually does involve often underage women. I have no problem with it as a right people should be allowed to have. But the people who actually practice it have often been accused of supporting underage marriages, so much so that the leaders of these little sects often wind up in jail.
That's why you won't find many otherwise liberal folks supporting polygamy.
There are many safe opinions. Black folks should have equal employment rights. Neo-nazis are bad folks. Women should be allowed to vote. You shouldn't be allowed to own slaves.
Those are all safe opinions that at one time were unsafe.
It's now unsafe, in corporate America to have the following opinion: "Gay folks shouldn't be able to marry who they choose."
No one ever is saying that Eich should not be able to LEGALLY donate to prop 8.
But, as others have pointed out, there are consequences. And other people have a right to publicly condemn him and make it difficult or impossible for him to do his job as a CEO.
As soon as there is a large-scale social movement, with people marching in the streets in multiple states, supporting polygamy. When that day comes, I'll be happy to support removing those restrictions.
Ironically, the very people who would support such a movement, Mormons, pretty much shot themselves in the foot by actively opposing allowing gays to get married, so they won't find many friends to help them in their movement.
So the answer to your question is, not any time soon.
Well, we don't actually know this. Lots of people here are saying "he wasn't fired, he quit" but the board may have told him "Quit or you'll be fired", which is pretty much the same thing.
I in fact AM an 8-armed, 64-handed Octopus! Good call!
Communism, even fairy-tale versions of it, is hardly a threat to the actual lives of Americans today. There are no communists in American government. It is filled to the brim with people who want to deny gay folks certain rights.
Why? People are free to work for an employer, and in many cases speak out about the actions of that employer. Gay folks at Mozilla had an underdstandable issue with this guy, and it turns out, many straight folks support gay folks in their efforts to gain marriage equality.
Your statement is mind-blowingly stupid. Of course having an opinion can be the same as being a bigot. It depends on the opinion.
There are two issues here: one, the tactics that were used (i.e., making a social protest against Eich) and two, what the protesters were protesting against.
I have no problem with the folks in your example using those tactics to promote their cause. I have a serious issue with the cause they are promoting, so yet, I would have a problem with them.
Possibly true.