Forum posts made by monocle

Topic Never tolerate the intolerant
Posted 10 Apr 2014 17:12


All your posts are the same! They all presuppose that you know what every other persons motive is, well I'm sorry but you don't.
Yours have quite the presupposition about me, and it's consistently incorrect. I don't presume to know what everyone else thinks. I know for a fact, however, that many (I never said or assumed all) prop 8 supporters were homophobes. And many (I never said or assumed all) supported it with the express intent of denying rights.

You seem hell bent on calling every single person that opposes your view a bigot
I'm not responsible for your laughable misinterpretation of my position.

Am I a bigot as well just because I can understand the view of others?
No. That was neither said nor implied. I think you're not a particularly good judge of the intent or meaning of others, though.

Topic Never tolerate the intolerant
Posted 10 Apr 2014 03:47


Who mentioned fired? Although there does seem to be a prima facie case for constructive dismissal.
I'd love to see someone try. However, Eich wouldn't testify for them because he doesn't agree.

I'm talking about one religious group calling for a boycott. A few more join in and the snowball starts to roll.
Already done. There are several conservative/right winger pushes to do so, and they may have financial impact. It doesn't make them right, and it won't change Eich's decision or Mozilla's behavior which is motivated by their corporate philosophy, not fear of a group. This retaliation movement is based, fundamentally, on bigotry.

Social media also blows the clarion call and before you know it the protest is much bigger than the first.
And it exposes its own ridiculousness as well. You can already find
#firefoxboycott
#uninstallfirefox
#firefoxfree
#NoZilla
and others.

What's to be done?
Reverse the resignation?
How can you do that?

You don't reverse jack, because it wasn't wrong, and these jokers are the hypocrites.

Topic Never tolerate the intolerant
Posted 09 Apr 2014 19:27


My biggest concern with the whole situation is, that the door has been opened for religious groups to scream discrimination.

They can scream until they're blue in the face, but it'd be for a lie. Eich wasn't fired for his beliefs. He wasn't fired at all.

Topic Never tolerate the intolerant
Posted 09 Apr 2014 17:57


The only thing that he supported was the old definition of marriage, which has in place for thousands of years throughout the world.

To say that that was the whole intent of Prop 8 is disingenuous. Prop 8 did not have the sole intent of protecting a religious definition of marriage. Its intent was to deny rights to a segment of the population. And many of its supporters supported it for that specific reason.

Topic Never tolerate the intolerant
Posted 09 Apr 2014 05:52


Proposition 8 was about the redefining of marriage and was in fact carried by 52% of the voters in California.
The equality issue was not the primary concern of the pro voters, it was the religious aspect.
I sincerely doubt that. But perhaps you have knowledge not in evidence.

He proved that he was inclusive in all aspects of equality except for the definition of what "marriage" is.
Not really. If he had, he'd still be CEO.

Balancing conflicting beliefs can be problematical.
Always.

Topic Never tolerate the intolerant
Posted 09 Apr 2014 03:40


Eich was one of the executives that put together the Mozilla Code of Practice that ensures that same sex couples receive equal benefits as married couples.
It seems pretty strange that not one gay or lesbian Mozilla employee has come forward to complain about his attitude or behaviour.

Then he's exhibited two contrary behaviors, because Prop 8 would have denied those self-same benefits. And he still hasn't, to my knowledge withdrawn his support for it or legislation like it. It's his contrary actions I find strange. He could have completely deflected the criticism by saying he no longer supports legislation like prop 8 - even if he'd said out loud and in the open civil unions are fine with him. But he didn't, so he leaves people to conclude hey really aren't for him.
As well, a company isn't just about internal culture. It's about external perception as well, for good or ill.

Topic Never tolerate the intolerant
Posted 08 Apr 2014 16:49



Freedom of speech keeps you out of prison. That's pretty much all it does.

It doesn't protect you from the consequences freedom of speech may bring.

Funny how so many people interpret it as, 'Say what you want without having to answer for it.'




Ding! Give the Lady a cigar. (I'll smoke it myself if you don't like 'em)

Topic Never tolerate the intolerant
Posted 08 Apr 2014 16:46


So you are fine as long as everyone agrees with you.
Usually.
I'm also pretty fine if they don't, as long as that disagreement is honest.

You are quite happy to take away free speech and freedom to practice religion as long as I, not you because you already have it, gain the right to marry.
I'm not happy at all when someone attributes to me opinions which I do not have, which you do here. Nowhere have I advocated the abridgment of free speech or freedom of religion.

That strikes me as being very singular society.
It's not singular at all when it's composed of your own straw men.

Marriage is not about equality! It's the legal benefits that go with it that is the issue. If a same sex union had the same legal standing as a marriage then that would satisfy the majority. It is usually religious beliefs that cause the problem with same sex "marriage". People see it as a religious ceremony, in the Catholic Church it is a sacrament.
I agree that the main freedom/rights issue are the legal benefits. The argument over "Marriage" is semantic and tangles in religion unnecessarily. However, there are those on both sides of the rights issue who absolutely do conflate the word as well. My interpretation of Prop 8 and its supporters is exactly that. They were anti gay marriage and against the legal benefits afforded that type of union for gay couples. Show me I'm wrong on that and I'll happily recant that opinion. Show me Eich was anti gay "marriage" but pro civil union and I'll likely change my opinion on the whole chain of events.

Topic Never tolerate the intolerant
Posted 08 Apr 2014 15:23



About 30 years ago I had the unearned and thrilling opportunity to work with one of the great scientific minds of the 20th century for two weeks. He told me that a scientist will spend far more time and energy on seeking out information that disproves his or her theories than on information that supports them.

I must assume you are not a scientist.

You assume wrong.

What does Yagan think and say about same sex marriage now? What does Eich say now? My bet is they are not the same.

However, to be clear:
If Yagan hasn't publicly changed his stance, he's a hypocrite. If he has, he's evolved (like many others have) and he has every right to call others out for not evolving. If Eich hasn't changed his stance, he's remained true to himself, and to Mozilla. If he has, good for him.

It's interesting, too, your scientist friend is really half-right. Theories need to be challenged and tested and given as many opportunities as can be found for them to either fail _or_ succeed. That's how they survive, or evolve, or are discarded.

Topic Never tolerate the intolerant
Posted 08 Apr 2014 15:19


However I would ask you to read the latest articles by Andrew Sullivan and Conor Friedsdorf, both of whom are pro gay marriage writers.

That'd be easier with a link or two.

"Entrenched" is an interesting descriptor. Yeah. I'm pretty entrenched that against the denial of equal rights in pretty much any form. Maybe there are more important battles. But that doesn't mean this was ignorable.

Topic Never tolerate the intolerant
Posted 08 Apr 2014 05:37


It is a semantic paradox though.

I'll give you that.

Topic Never tolerate the intolerant
Posted 08 Apr 2014 04:29


You still haven't said how the furour was hypocritical!
I don't think the protest against Eich was hypocritical. I think the backlash against it is.

Openness and inclusiveness, really? Is that as long as doesn't upset the tunnel visionaries?
Mozilla was designed to be an open software platform. The philosophy is core to the company.

Surely if you are open and inclusive then there is room for all. Are we to cross examine every board member of every public company on their personal views on matters, unconnected with the running of the company?
I think if they actively supported policies that went against core company philosophy, you, board member or client or customer, would want to know. As a customer, Id want to make an informed decision on whether to support such a company so I could vote with my feet. As a board member I'd want to know my company was fronted by someone consistent with the company's goals - and I would also be aware my customers _do_ vote with their feet.

Gay marriage isn't even legal in every State, he was not supporting an illegal act!
He was supporting the institutionalization of inequality, something Mozilla stands against.

As far as resigning or being forced out, we don't know the facts and maybe never will know all of them.
You're right, but you could easily get a different impression with all the cocksure right wingers wailing how he was 'forced out'.

What I do know is that he would still be in the job if the witch hunt hadn't arisen and that's what it was! A bullying, intollerant campaign that we are quick enough to denounce when they are aimed at us.
That's bull.
I think it's astonishing that "intolerance of intolerance" is considered a negative for even 5 seconds.
"Except for the fact he wants to deny equal rights to millions of people, he'd make a great CEO of a company founded on equal access."
Yeah, bull.

Topic Never tolerate the intolerant
Posted 08 Apr 2014 03:32

Mozilla's core foundation, it's software philosophy is openness and inclusiveness. Prop 8 and its supporters stood for the opposite. It's easy math to show that support of one is inconsistent with support of the other. It's not the message Mozilla wants to broadcast. Eich chose to resign. He could have chosen not to and fought, but did not. This is not the action of someone "forced out". It's the action of someone who realized he's the wrong person for the job.

Topic Never tolerate the intolerant
Posted 07 Apr 2014 20:10


So you are saying that the ensuing shitstorm on social media over his views on the rights of homosexuals to marry, based on a campaign contribution, had absolutely no bearing on his decision to resign as CEO of Mozilla? A shitstorm that was fueled by hypersensitivity? Not because of intolerance of his views whatsoever?

The shitstorm itself was an opportunity for him to demonstrate what he thought 5 years after his donation. He showed he thought the same - and therefore showed that his personal view wasn't in line with Mozilla's philosophy, so he wouldn't make a good head of company.

Hypersensitivity depends on your point of view. I think Prop 8 was a good definition of hypersensitivity in and of itself.

Topic Never tolerate the intolerant
Posted 07 Apr 2014 18:26

Eich did not resign due to the intolerance of anyone.

Topic Never tolerate the intolerant
Posted 07 Apr 2014 16:10


I quite agree. That's why I think it was ridiculous.
It is permissable to donate money for an advertising campaign in favour of it but not for a campaign against.
Do I detect a trace of inequality there? A hint of intollerance maybe? Is it correct to ride roughshod over the beliefs of others? Isn't that the very thing we are accusing others of doing to us?
I think I have realized the hypocrisy that Monocle was refering to!

I think you are precisely missing it.

Topic Never tolerate the intolerant
Posted 07 Apr 2014 16:09



In Eich's case, it was all about visibility. Fame and recognition are double edged swords. If he had been some low end employee, probably nothing would have happened to him because exactly no one would care what he did with his money before he worked there. However, he was CEO. That makes him one of the most powerful public faces of the company. That means that even the smallest thing will get him crucified, even unjustly.

He put his money where his mouth (or mind) was at the time -- something all of us do at some time in our lives -- and got severely punished for it later. It may not be right, but unfortunately it's one of the prices of being important.

There's still no evidence I've seen that his mind is not still there, and that's the real issue. Mozilla's brand philosophy is openness and inclusiveness, and standing by a political statement (money equals speech, remember) that denied inclusiveness meant Eich was a _bad_ ambassador for Mozilla.

Topic Never tolerate the intolerant
Posted 07 Apr 2014 16:05



Cannot agree more. The newly-approved U.S. Assistant Secretary of the Interior for Fish and Wildlife, Rhea Suh, believes that the Sage Grouse needs to be placed on the protected species list. She may be correct, although not every environmentalist or ornithologist agrees with her. Placing it on the list will take between 80,000 and 155,000 square miles of land out of any productive use. That includes privately-owned land.

That presumes that preservation of the endangered species doesn't count as productive use - and fails to differentiate "productive use" of any kind from individual rights or the issue of tolerance. Next straw man, please.

The U.S. Department of Labor bureaucrats believed that a blueberry picker could only pick sixty pounds of blueberries per hour.

This was a faulty labor/value equation, and an error of the governments that was, apparently rectified, not an issue of rights and freedoms or tolerance. Next straw man, please.

I assume that you find government imposition of beliefs on citizens to be equally reprehensible.

I do. If you could come up with non-bullshit examples we might agree.

Topic Never tolerate the intolerant
Posted 07 Apr 2014 03:55

On's belief stops being merely one's belief when they act on it to reduce or restrict the freedom or equality of others. Eich did exactly that with his donation. He had a choice not to that could have remained true to his religion or other dogma. He was free to act, and chose to. Others are also free to act, and chose to protest. He then chose to resign, which was, in my opinion the honorable thing to do. The furor over it is pure hypocrisy.

Topic Never tolerate the intolerant
Posted 06 Apr 2014 06:49

I haven't found any article saying Eich has changed his views, and indeed one issue is that he didn't say anything of the sort after the hubbub was raised. So I call bullshit on the entire contention of this thread. Two of the three people mentioned evolved their opinions over time, and changed from opponents to advocates. One did not, and turned out to stand for opposite principles of what the company he was going to run stood for.

Topic Never tolerate the intolerant
Posted 05 Apr 2014 19:05


All three have since changed their positions on the issue and taken affirmative steps in support of gay marriage.

Cite for Eich changing his position, please.

Topic United America
Posted 02 Apr 2014 20:23





Is it though?

thenewamerican
goodnewsaboutgod
infowars

Holy crap. Taking "news" stories from those sites seriously is not what I would recommend.

Topic Regulation on Bondage gear.. your thoughts about it..
Posted 22 Mar 2014 11:48

Well said, Clifford.

Topic Time to Ban and Burn confederate flags
Posted 22 Mar 2014 11:37

The "What do you think when you see a Confederate flag" is at least 4 years old on the internet and no less condescending for its age. To claim a flag does not carry symbolism of history beyond its original intent is to be ignorant _of_ history (and there are no citations in that article that would lead one to believe the interpretation presented has any real historical veracity). The failings of the article are numerous, and any article that simply takes "the War of Northern Aggression" at face value is not objective history. The fact that the flag was adopted by the United Confederate Veterans, and came to symbolize, post-war, the 'confederate battle flag' for Southern veterans is ignored by this essay. The fact that many, if not most in the US - south and north alike - do not share the article's interpretation of the meaning or history of the flag shows that the flag has multiple meanings and current historical context.

The flag is not inherently racist, but is perceived as such by most of the country (and the world) because it's used today by racists to convey exactly that message. That's not everyone who wishes to use it, but it's the majority - or at least the loudest among - those who do.

"History is written by the Victors" is attributed to Winston Churchill, as opposed to Capt. Picard, and is more likely a truism that predates that use. I think that also can be used as a comment on your historical acccuracy, krimexplorer.

Topic Legalise prostitution?
Posted 09 Mar 2014 11:06

It's also a physical trade labor.

Yes.

Topic The Ukraine Crisis
Posted 06 Mar 2014 18:42

You've been watching "House of Cards" again.

Heheh. And mistaking it for reality. Damn but that's a good show.

Topic The Ukraine Crisis
Posted 06 Mar 2014 04:13

I find myself agreeing with Roberts on a number of things, but to call Obama a "warmonger" is laughable, and pretty much destroys his current events cred for me.

Topic The Ukraine Crisis
Posted 05 Mar 2014 21:24

"Far-left news organization Huffington Post asks why the administration was surprised by the Crimea invasion since it had obviously been in the works for six years. "

Obviously. I saw this being warned about since 2008 on all kinds of centrist and right-leaning analysis sources. Except for that's bull.

Topic The Ukraine Crisis
Posted 03 Mar 2014 15:20


THIS IS JUST A JOKE.
I do not see people caring about disease, wars, death and orphans jokes , so why this stupid joke bother you?

Gotcha. Hilarious.

Topic The Ukraine Crisis
Posted 03 Mar 2014 11:05

What would you do, Sandrita? Freezing assets, freezing trade, travel bans (including Russian oligarchs), being kicked off the G-8... those are options short of armed confrontations. You have others?