The sheer cost of running for office in the US means that is nothing but feel-good nonsense. If that was the case, there would be candidates of contrary views who could actually effect change. As history has demonstrated, that is clearly not the case. I know that probably makes you feel bad if you accepted the truth as the truth, so I can understand why you'd prefer that feel-good fantasy instead.
That's what he *said*, but his actions speak differently. He gave $1000 to a group which claimed that gay folks were dangerous to kids, and that they deserve to have rights taken away from them because they are gay. That's bigoted. He's a bigot.
And you've just demonstrated you really don't have much of a clue. A "republican" form of government? Republic simply means a country without a dynastic leader. It might be a dictatorship, or it might be a democracy. "Republican" is the opposite of the word "Monarchy". The word "republican" doesn't mean what you seem to think it does. Eich wanted to deny rights to people. People called him out for being a dick. Eich resigned. Where is the problem? The only people whose rights were ever in peril were the gay folks, not Eich.
Because there is a massive difference between choices we make (smoking, having guns, being naked, drinking, spending money) and intrinsic characteristics of our persons (sexuality, gender, race/ethnicity). If you can't see the difference between the two, and why one is bigotry and the other is not, you are beyond hope.
Your population density argument would not be so laughable if ISPs in large cities can't even get their acts together and offer a decent service for a decent price. Stop making excuses! Regulation in the US is killing ISPs.
Everyone is free to make donations to groups which actively try to deny rights to people, get hired as a CEO, have their past donations discovered, and protested. Your point?
He funded an organisation which tried to deny fundamental rights to people. His opinion was never stifled. He has a right to an opinion, but not to a job. He was the bully, not those who don't like injustice.
Not all political contributions are the same. He donated to an organisation which was actively seeking to deny fundamental rights to people it deems are not deserving of those rights, in direct contradiction of the US supreme court and the UN human rights declaration. If he'd donated $11000 to save some pandas, and the "Fuck the Pandas" lobby got all angry and pushed for his resignation - I'd entirely agree with you. But he didn't. He donated $1,000 to deny human rights to people. As the public face of a company which relies heavily on donations, clearly a figure as that is quite capable of rocking the boat and doing some damage to the bottom line and the perception of the company itself. He is entitled to his opinion, as others are entitled to react to it. He is not entitled to his job and others are entitled to call for his dismissal. That's freedom. That's what happens.
It wasn't his beliefs people had issue with - it was his active funding of a group which sought nothing more than to systematically deny fundamental rights to a group of people because of something inherently innocuous such as sexuality. Plus people have never been free from the consequences of their opinions. He was free to hold his opinion, voice his opinion, and financially support his opinion. Just as those who don't agree with his opinion are free to stay away from him and anything associated with him. That's freedom. Pretending this is just about opinion is doing the greatest disservice to the discussion. It's about actions, fundamental human rights, and the usage of the former to arbitrarily impinge the latter.
There's a bit of a difference between using products of and generating revenue for a company headed by a CEO who calls for an entire group of people to be denied rights recognized as fundamental by the US supreme court, and using something developed by someone who did the same, who no longer benefits from the use of such. It's not about tainted products, it's about supporting people who seek to levy injustice to great swathes of people through both a quirk of their birth and whatever happened to Eich to make him an apparent homophobe.
That's fine. Just define what "equal enough" is, get everyone to agree with it, and then make that the new standard. Until then, the supreme court states that everyone is entirely equal, regardless of sexual orientation. What you seem to think is happening is just reflecting very poorly on you as a person - you seem to be getting very defensive, which is strange as you belong to the most powerful demographic the world has ever seen.
He was free to have an opinion. He was free to voice his opinion. He was free to donate money to causes which shared and championed his opinion. People were free to complain about his opinion (as it denied people a fundamental right, according to both the US supreme court and the UN human rights declaration).
This fracas has, for me at least, nothing to do with gay/straight/whatever - the guy wanted to deny people their rights due to a quirk of nature. If he said all people with brown hair don't deserve to get married as they're second-class citizens, I'd feel the same way. He is a man who thinks it's fine to deny the rights of people he disagrees with. Mozilla not liking the negative press of them having someone who would deny the rights of others as a CEO got rid of him.
You are clearly an intelligent person - I've seen your many posts in this thread, and some are simply beautiful. I feel I must, however, regretfully pull you up on your strange definition of "political correctness" - it's not about changing how people think about something, it's about adopting accurate terminology in order to allow accurate discussion of a topic. It has nothing to do with "conditions" or changing how people think about them. If people use inaccurate terminology to discuss people, they include people in their condemnation/praise/support/attacks who they simply don't mean to, due to the fact they don't know how to phrase their input accurately. It's been corrupted slightly in the US due to some rather peculiar peculiarities, but in the rest of the world it has a pretty obvious goal and progress. Political correctness is accuracy. Heck, the clue is in the name - correctness as in accuracy, not politeness.
As that is clearly going to take years to abolish, the only sane thing would be to agree that everyone should be able to get married *now*, and work on abolishing state-sanctioned marriage later. Anything else is discriminatory by definition.
Diversity? The guy tried to have human rights denied to people. He's clearly capable of thinking that some people are worth less than others. You might want to hone your argument.
All of that is completely off-topic, and most of it is conjecture. You're not adding anything to the conversation apart from a big warning to everyone to ignore what you are saying, as you clearly have some political axe to grind by trying to divert this discussion...
Which is fine - as long as you realise those with the controversial views (who are free to act upon those views) are allowed to be challenged/boycotted for holding those views. He wasn't just calling gay people inferior, he was trying to deny them the same rights straight people have. Or do you think Rosa Parks should have given up her seat, in order to respect the bus company's freedom of expression?? Is that what you are really arguing for?
Counter-feminism in the US and anti-Semitism in Europe are not mainstream. If slavery or even segregation was having a legally-supported comeback in the US, you'd have a point. As neither are, and all you have is your conjecture, you don't really have a point.
So if you found a bunch of slaves who were happy being slaves, and one who was not happy, slavery would be fine by you. Gotcha. What a lovely person you are.
Being gay and calling for people to be denied rights because of who they are are clearly not the same. You seem to be having great difficulty realising that "being born" and "denying freedoms to others" are two different things.
So if Eich had made donations to gay extremists who sought to change the law to stop heterosexuals getting married, you'd be fine with that? He used his money to try to deny rights to people simply because of some quirk of their being he doesn't personally like, not because it's bad for anyone or anything logical - just simply a gut-feeling. You're fine with that? Denying people rights? Wow.
It's a human right under the UN, which the US has ratified. So yeah, it's a human right. If the gay causes in question were trying to deny rights to straight people, I'd call for his resignation just the same. It's not about gay or straight, it's about trying to deny people's rights for arbitrary, lazy reasons.
It was only ever a prevailing theory in the minds of hateful ignorant people. I have no idea why you are making excuses for hate-filled, pandering, lazy behaviour. It's not about never having said anything - Eich hasn't come out and apologised for what he supported back then. Let me guess - you're arguing so vociferously because you share these values, and yet you don't want to consider yourself hateful or bigoted, so if you can "clear" Eich, you can clear yourself, and not be upset that your beliefs are despised by the vast majority of good people.
Slashdot Mirror
The sheer cost of running for office in the US means that is nothing but feel-good nonsense. If that was the case, there would be candidates of contrary views who could actually effect change. As history has demonstrated, that is clearly not the case. I know that probably makes you feel bad if you accepted the truth as the truth, so I can understand why you'd prefer that feel-good fantasy instead.
That's what he *said*, but his actions speak differently. He gave $1000 to a group which claimed that gay folks were dangerous to kids, and that they deserve to have rights taken away from them because they are gay. That's bigoted. He's a bigot.
And you've just demonstrated you really don't have much of a clue. A "republican" form of government? Republic simply means a country without a dynastic leader. It might be a dictatorship, or it might be a democracy. "Republican" is the opposite of the word "Monarchy". The word "republican" doesn't mean what you seem to think it does. Eich wanted to deny rights to people. People called him out for being a dick. Eich resigned. Where is the problem? The only people whose rights were ever in peril were the gay folks, not Eich.
Because there is a massive difference between choices we make (smoking, having guns, being naked, drinking, spending money) and intrinsic characteristics of our persons (sexuality, gender, race/ethnicity). If you can't see the difference between the two, and why one is bigotry and the other is not, you are beyond hope.
Your population density argument would not be so laughable if ISPs in large cities can't even get their acts together and offer a decent service for a decent price. Stop making excuses! Regulation in the US is killing ISPs.
Words and phrases change their meanings over time. You should probably get used to it or you might lose your mind.
Everyone is free to make donations to groups which actively try to deny rights to people, get hired as a CEO, have their past donations discovered, and protested. Your point?
He funded an organisation which tried to deny fundamental rights to people. His opinion was never stifled. He has a right to an opinion, but not to a job. He was the bully, not those who don't like injustice.
Not all political contributions are the same. He donated to an organisation which was actively seeking to deny fundamental rights to people it deems are not deserving of those rights, in direct contradiction of the US supreme court and the UN human rights declaration. If he'd donated $11000 to save some pandas, and the "Fuck the Pandas" lobby got all angry and pushed for his resignation - I'd entirely agree with you. But he didn't. He donated $1,000 to deny human rights to people. As the public face of a company which relies heavily on donations, clearly a figure as that is quite capable of rocking the boat and doing some damage to the bottom line and the perception of the company itself. He is entitled to his opinion, as others are entitled to react to it. He is not entitled to his job and others are entitled to call for his dismissal. That's freedom. That's what happens.
It wasn't his beliefs people had issue with - it was his active funding of a group which sought nothing more than to systematically deny fundamental rights to a group of people because of something inherently innocuous such as sexuality. Plus people have never been free from the consequences of their opinions. He was free to hold his opinion, voice his opinion, and financially support his opinion. Just as those who don't agree with his opinion are free to stay away from him and anything associated with him. That's freedom. Pretending this is just about opinion is doing the greatest disservice to the discussion. It's about actions, fundamental human rights, and the usage of the former to arbitrarily impinge the latter.
There's a bit of a difference between using products of and generating revenue for a company headed by a CEO who calls for an entire group of people to be denied rights recognized as fundamental by the US supreme court, and using something developed by someone who did the same, who no longer benefits from the use of such. It's not about tainted products, it's about supporting people who seek to levy injustice to great swathes of people through both a quirk of their birth and whatever happened to Eich to make him an apparent homophobe.
That's fine. Just define what "equal enough" is, get everyone to agree with it, and then make that the new standard. Until then, the supreme court states that everyone is entirely equal, regardless of sexual orientation. What you seem to think is happening is just reflecting very poorly on you as a person - you seem to be getting very defensive, which is strange as you belong to the most powerful demographic the world has ever seen.
He was free to have an opinion. He was free to voice his opinion. He was free to donate money to causes which shared and championed his opinion. People were free to complain about his opinion (as it denied people a fundamental right, according to both the US supreme court and the UN human rights declaration).
This fracas has, for me at least, nothing to do with gay/straight/whatever - the guy wanted to deny people their rights due to a quirk of nature. If he said all people with brown hair don't deserve to get married as they're second-class citizens, I'd feel the same way. He is a man who thinks it's fine to deny the rights of people he disagrees with. Mozilla not liking the negative press of them having someone who would deny the rights of others as a CEO got rid of him.
Where's the problem?
You are clearly an intelligent person - I've seen your many posts in this thread, and some are simply beautiful. I feel I must, however, regretfully pull you up on your strange definition of "political correctness" - it's not about changing how people think about something, it's about adopting accurate terminology in order to allow accurate discussion of a topic. It has nothing to do with "conditions" or changing how people think about them. If people use inaccurate terminology to discuss people, they include people in their condemnation/praise/support/attacks who they simply don't mean to, due to the fact they don't know how to phrase their input accurately. It's been corrupted slightly in the US due to some rather peculiar peculiarities, but in the rest of the world it has a pretty obvious goal and progress. Political correctness is accuracy. Heck, the clue is in the name - correctness as in accuracy, not politeness.
As that is clearly going to take years to abolish, the only sane thing would be to agree that everyone should be able to get married *now*, and work on abolishing state-sanctioned marriage later. Anything else is discriminatory by definition.
Diversity? The guy tried to have human rights denied to people. He's clearly capable of thinking that some people are worth less than others. You might want to hone your argument.
All of that is completely off-topic, and most of it is conjecture. You're not adding anything to the conversation apart from a big warning to everyone to ignore what you are saying, as you clearly have some political axe to grind by trying to divert this discussion...
Which is fine - as long as you realise those with the controversial views (who are free to act upon those views) are allowed to be challenged/boycotted for holding those views. He wasn't just calling gay people inferior, he was trying to deny them the same rights straight people have. Or do you think Rosa Parks should have given up her seat, in order to respect the bus company's freedom of expression?? Is that what you are really arguing for?
Counter-feminism in the US and anti-Semitism in Europe are not mainstream. If slavery or even segregation was having a legally-supported comeback in the US, you'd have a point. As neither are, and all you have is your conjecture, you don't really have a point.
So if you found a bunch of slaves who were happy being slaves, and one who was not happy, slavery would be fine by you. Gotcha. What a lovely person you are.
Being gay and calling for people to be denied rights because of who they are are clearly not the same. You seem to be having great difficulty realising that "being born" and "denying freedoms to others" are two different things.
So if Eich had made donations to gay extremists who sought to change the law to stop heterosexuals getting married, you'd be fine with that? He used his money to try to deny rights to people simply because of some quirk of their being he doesn't personally like, not because it's bad for anyone or anything logical - just simply a gut-feeling. You're fine with that? Denying people rights? Wow.
It's a human right under the UN, which the US has ratified. So yeah, it's a human right. If the gay causes in question were trying to deny rights to straight people, I'd call for his resignation just the same. It's not about gay or straight, it's about trying to deny people's rights for arbitrary, lazy reasons.
It was only ever a prevailing theory in the minds of hateful ignorant people. I have no idea why you are making excuses for hate-filled, pandering, lazy behaviour. It's not about never having said anything - Eich hasn't come out and apologised for what he supported back then. Let me guess - you're arguing so vociferously because you share these values, and yet you don't want to consider yourself hateful or bigoted, so if you can "clear" Eich, you can clear yourself, and not be upset that your beliefs are despised by the vast majority of good people.
Slavery was a traditional value for thousands of years, too - so you must be a slaver, or a hypocrite. Pick one. We can wait.