6 ms·

There was no evidence Eich was anti-gay. It was discovered he had donated to Prop 8, the California initiative which restated the status quo, that marriage is b

There was no evidence Eich was anti-gay. It was discovered he had donated to Prop 8, the California initiative which restated the status quo, that marriage is between one man and one woman, and which passed by a majority of California voters. For that political donation, he was ostracized and effectively run out of his job in Silicon Valley. San Francisco has always been one of the most liberal cities in the country, so it is no surprise to me that a liberal political bias is inherent in Silicon Valley companies. The issue arises when this bias is combined with the enormous power some of these young companies have in order to abuse those whose political views are not the same as theirs.

pj_mukh 10y ago
Do you really see no problem with telling others who they can and can't marry? I can't see myself supporting or working for a CEO that thinks it's okay to donate to Propositions that support this level of imposition on other peoples'lives. I guess the board of Firefox agreed.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- Chris2048 10y ago
  Would someone who supported the Iraq war be similarly ostracised? Guam? Israel? Or maybe Palestine? I have pretty strong views on privacy, maybe some tech CEOs that supported prism-like initiatives should also be ousted? This issue is pure liberal, SJW-ist influence, no consistency behaviour exists in the rest of the political spectrum.
  - pj_mukh 10y ago
    Red herring. Has that happened yet? Can we talk about it when it does? Making the bullying of homosexuals (esp in the workplace) "not cool" is one of the proudest achievements of the "SJW's" you so derisively mention. The message is pretty consistent. Don't punch down. P.S: "maybe some tech CEOs that supported prism-like initiatives should also be ousted", I would love it if that happens, unfortunately, supporting prism-like initiatives might make them more money. Board's voting against making money doesn't make sense. Maybe if we could create strong a loud dis-incentive against this, the board would react as we expect but then again Glenn Beck doesn't like this kind of corporate shaming.
    - Chris2048 10y ago
      > Making the bullying of homosexuals (esp in the workplace) "not cool" We're not talking about that. We're talking about losing your job for (being found to) support[ing] prop 8. > The message is pretty consistent. Don't punch down. Unless you live in Palestine? No liberal ousting of pro-Israel CEOs. Of course, the reason might be is that the issue is a complex one, there are many reasons to be pro-Israel other than wishing ill of Palestine/Palestinians. Why is that nuance not exist here? "Support prop 8? Must be homephobe then!". If it's political, it should not be treated in this way. Any more than I should harass you for your political beliefs. SJWs belief their pet topics are different, special; That they get to behave in a different manner. I disagree.
      - pj_mukh 10y ago
        I'd love to hear a reason for supporting Prop 8 that doesn't explicitly degrade homosexual relationships. I can't think of any and I would be uncomfortable working around Prop 8 supporters (esp if I was gay). What is this nuance you speak of? Why must all issues be treated the same? Some issues are more complex than others.
        Chris2048 10y ago
        If I were uncomfortable with a co-workers religion, should they be fired? I can't see this as any more than allowing punishment for having certain political beliefs... > Why must all issues be treated the same? Some issues are more complex than others. These issues are complex, they are just oversimplified to binary "with or against", "good or bad" by activists.
        pj_mukh 10y ago
        This is specifically not about religion or some kind of hatred for war-hawks. Both of which are choices and therefore more complex. You are still skirting the issue. Why would someone support Prop 8 without trying to enforce some level of heteronormativity on the people around them? Until, I see any way for someone to care about who else can or cannot get married without being bigoted, this issue remains pretty binary. Deal with everything on a case-by-case basis, is my point.
- Chris2048 10y ago
  Would someone who supported the Iraq war be similarly ostracised? Guam? Israel? Or maybe Palestine? I have pretty strong views on privacy, maybe some tech CEOs that supported prism-like initiatives should also be ousted? This issue is pure liberal, SJW-ist influence, no consistency behaviour exists in the rest of the political spectrum.
tomlock 10y ago
From your perspective, restricting marriage to a man and a woman isn't anti-gay. And that belief isn't inherently anti-gay in my view. But the real effect of enforcing laws surrounding that view includes: missing tax breaks, missing legal protections, not being able to visit your dying partner because you aren't next of kin. So the real world outcomes of the legal enforcement of that view are anti-gay and unfair.
- lostmsu 10y ago
  At this moment, why would government give any tax breaks to gay couples if most of them (even in the states, where they are allowed) do not raise children (which, I believe, is the reason for those tax breaks in the first place)?
  - dragonwriter 10y ago
    > At this moment, why would government give any tax breaks to gay couples if most of them (even in the states, where they are allowed) do not raise children (which, I believe, is the reason for those tax breaks in the first place)? The tax breaks for raising children (e.g., deductions for dependents, child tax credit, etc.) aren't tied to marriage, they are tied to having legally-dependent children. Insofar as there are tax breaks for marriage rather than having children, there's a long discussion possible about what the public policy rationale for them is, but the best explanation is probably incentive to the social stability of a stabilizing relationship and the reduced risk of dependency on public support programs that comes from a mutually supportive relationship (which, even if it fails, still often comes with legal support obligations.) These are just as valid with childless, including same-sex, marriage as with any other marriage.
    - lostmsu 10y ago
      So we've just got from 'evil' "votes against same-sex marrige" that Mozilla CEO guy was fired for, to "cosiders tax breaks are for families to (eventually) get children" -> "votes against gay marriages because they don't get children even if though they can", which does not look evil at all. I could probably summarize opinions of those voted against same-sex marriage in "marriage and any tax benefits coming from it are there to support people who will eventually raise children". I see, that gay people are not happy, because opposite-sex marriages still get some benefits, but some of them do not end up having kids. In my opinion, to separate the bugs from the meatloafs, we should separate living together and having kids legally. And the first one should be available to any kinds of partners, but should not provide any benefits, and the second should give benefits, and be positively recognized in society as "family". But allowing gay-marriages is in no way makes lives closer to that.
jgroszko 10y ago
I can't attest to Eich's personal views, but giving money to maintain a status quo that is discriminatory against gays is anti-gay.
- Chris2048 10y ago
  > that is discriminatory And supporting abortion is supporting murder. And so is eating meat, etc etc. This is all political Framing & labelling. If it's on the ballot, its a valid politics, and so should be off the table wrt things like getting people fired.
  - jgroszko 10y ago
    Sure, straight white cis men can say "Oh that's all just political" but for someone who's gay, black, transgender, or female these issues effect nearly every aspect of your life. Every situation is viewed through that lens. Things like casually mentioning something you did with your spouse last weekend might not be "political" to you, but it is to me.
    - Chris2048 10y ago
      You added glib-ness to my statement, but being "political" doesn't mean it's not important, it means it's up for debate. This kind of attitude shuts down debate, demands one true opinion only.
    - Chris2048 10y ago
      > Things like casually mentioning something you did with your spouse last weekend might not be "political" to you How is it political for you? If it is political for you, shouldn't you support the idea of being able to express political views without fear of repriosal?
      - unprepare 10y ago
        you mean without fear of /government/ reprisal. There is no freedom from criticism in this country, your fellow citizens are absolutely free to judge you, talk mean about you, and otherwise belittle your views. If a public official arrests you for talking about your political beliefs, then and only then have your rights been infringed upon.

pj_mukh 10y ago

Do you really see no problem with telling others who they can and can't marry? I can't see myself supporting or working for a CEO that thinks it's okay to donate to Propositions that support this level of imposition on other peoples'lives. I guess the board of Firefox agreed.

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
Chris2048 10y ago
Would someone who supported the Iraq war be similarly ostracised? Guam? Israel? Or maybe Palestine? I have pretty strong views on privacy, maybe some tech CEOs that supported prism-like initiatives should also be ousted? This issue is pure liberal, SJW-ist influence, no consistency behaviour exists in the rest of the political spectrum.
- pj_mukh 10y ago
  Red herring. Has that happened yet? Can we talk about it when it does? Making the bullying of homosexuals (esp in the workplace) "not cool" is one of the proudest achievements of the "SJW's" you so derisively mention. The message is pretty consistent. Don't punch down. P.S: "maybe some tech CEOs that supported prism-like initiatives should also be ousted", I would love it if that happens, unfortunately, supporting prism-like initiatives might make them more money. Board's voting against making money doesn't make sense. Maybe if we could create strong a loud dis-incentive against this, the board would react as we expect but then again Glenn Beck doesn't like this kind of corporate shaming.
  - Chris2048 10y ago
    > Making the bullying of homosexuals (esp in the workplace) "not cool" We're not talking about that. We're talking about losing your job for (being found to) support[ing] prop 8. > The message is pretty consistent. Don't punch down. Unless you live in Palestine? No liberal ousting of pro-Israel CEOs. Of course, the reason might be is that the issue is a complex one, there are many reasons to be pro-Israel other than wishing ill of Palestine/Palestinians. Why is that nuance not exist here? "Support prop 8? Must be homephobe then!". If it's political, it should not be treated in this way. Any more than I should harass you for your political beliefs. SJWs belief their pet topics are different, special; That they get to behave in a different manner. I disagree.
    - pj_mukh 10y ago
      I'd love to hear a reason for supporting Prop 8 that doesn't explicitly degrade homosexual relationships. I can't think of any and I would be uncomfortable working around Prop 8 supporters (esp if I was gay). What is this nuance you speak of? Why must all issues be treated the same? Some issues are more complex than others.
      - Chris2048 10y ago
        If I were uncomfortable with a co-workers religion, should they be fired? I can't see this as any more than allowing punishment for having certain political beliefs... > Why must all issues be treated the same? Some issues are more complex than others. These issues are complex, they are just oversimplified to binary "with or against", "good or bad" by activists.
        pj_mukh 10y ago
        This is specifically not about religion or some kind of hatred for war-hawks. Both of which are choices and therefore more complex. You are still skirting the issue. Why would someone support Prop 8 without trying to enforce some level of heteronormativity on the people around them? Until, I see any way for someone to care about who else can or cannot get married without being bigoted, this issue remains pretty binary. Deal with everything on a case-by-case basis, is my point.
Chris2048 10y ago
Would someone who supported the Iraq war be similarly ostracised? Guam? Israel? Or maybe Palestine? I have pretty strong views on privacy, maybe some tech CEOs that supported prism-like initiatives should also be ousted? This issue is pure liberal, SJW-ist influence, no consistency behaviour exists in the rest of the political spectrum.

tomlock 10y ago

From your perspective, restricting marriage to a man and a woman isn't anti-gay. And that belief isn't inherently anti-gay in my view. But the real effect of enforcing laws surrounding that view includes: missing tax breaks, missing legal protections, not being able to visit your dying partner because you aren't next of kin. So the real world outcomes of the legal enforcement of that view are anti-gay and unfair.

lostmsu 10y ago
At this moment, why would government give any tax breaks to gay couples if most of them (even in the states, where they are allowed) do not raise children (which, I believe, is the reason for those tax breaks in the first place)?
- dragonwriter 10y ago
  > At this moment, why would government give any tax breaks to gay couples if most of them (even in the states, where they are allowed) do not raise children (which, I believe, is the reason for those tax breaks in the first place)? The tax breaks for raising children (e.g., deductions for dependents, child tax credit, etc.) aren't tied to marriage, they are tied to having legally-dependent children. Insofar as there are tax breaks for marriage rather than having children, there's a long discussion possible about what the public policy rationale for them is, but the best explanation is probably incentive to the social stability of a stabilizing relationship and the reduced risk of dependency on public support programs that comes from a mutually supportive relationship (which, even if it fails, still often comes with legal support obligations.) These are just as valid with childless, including same-sex, marriage as with any other marriage.
  - lostmsu 10y ago
    So we've just got from 'evil' "votes against same-sex marrige" that Mozilla CEO guy was fired for, to "cosiders tax breaks are for families to (eventually) get children" -> "votes against gay marriages because they don't get children even if though they can", which does not look evil at all. I could probably summarize opinions of those voted against same-sex marriage in "marriage and any tax benefits coming from it are there to support people who will eventually raise children". I see, that gay people are not happy, because opposite-sex marriages still get some benefits, but some of them do not end up having kids. In my opinion, to separate the bugs from the meatloafs, we should separate living together and having kids legally. And the first one should be available to any kinds of partners, but should not provide any benefits, and the second should give benefits, and be positively recognized in society as "family". But allowing gay-marriages is in no way makes lives closer to that.

jgroszko 10y ago

I can't attest to Eich's personal views, but giving money to maintain a status quo that is discriminatory against gays is anti-gay.

Chris2048 10y ago
> that is discriminatory And supporting abortion is supporting murder. And so is eating meat, etc etc. This is all political Framing & labelling. If it's on the ballot, its a valid politics, and so should be off the table wrt things like getting people fired.
- jgroszko 10y ago
  Sure, straight white cis men can say "Oh that's all just political" but for someone who's gay, black, transgender, or female these issues effect nearly every aspect of your life. Every situation is viewed through that lens. Things like casually mentioning something you did with your spouse last weekend might not be "political" to you, but it is to me.
  - Chris2048 10y ago
    You added glib-ness to my statement, but being "political" doesn't mean it's not important, it means it's up for debate. This kind of attitude shuts down debate, demands one true opinion only.
  - Chris2048 10y ago
    > Things like casually mentioning something you did with your spouse last weekend might not be "political" to you How is it political for you? If it is political for you, shouldn't you support the idea of being able to express political views without fear of repriosal?
    - unprepare 10y ago
      you mean without fear of /government/ reprisal. There is no freedom from criticism in this country, your fellow citizens are absolutely free to judge you, talk mean about you, and otherwise belittle your views. If a public official arrests you for talking about your political beliefs, then and only then have your rights been infringed upon.