3 ms·

There are two problems with this: - Everyone's voice (when it comes to money) is not equal. CEOs and corporations defacto have a greater voice in the public sp

There are two problems with this: - Everyone's voice (when it comes to money) is not equal. CEOs and corporations defacto have a greater voice in the public sphere than other people. The primary way for average people to counteract this is through controlling where, what, and who they spend their money on. By painting this as unethical you remove the voice of everyone who can't spend $1000 on a political campaign, which is usually a group that aligns with groups that are disproportionately harmed by policies like Prop8. It is not my responsibility to support a bigot with my money (or eyes that turn into money) in the name of some higher ideal of clean discourse the other side doesn't even play by. - No argument of moral equivalence can survive that rests on one side having real and practical harm done to it and the other none at all. No one's rights are infringed by gay marriage existing and many many people's rights are infringed by prop8. It's inherently oppressive to say that those people harmed by it should sit idly by and wait for the people picking up their hand, smacking it into their face, and saying "why are you hitting yourself?" to have a change of heart when there are no consequences for their public effort to harm them. One side gets to hit, the other side has no right to hit back? That's wrong. And on a somewhat tangent, I have not seen anyone call for him to be fired. Him being an employee of Mozilla is not a problem. Even being a founder or the creator of javascript. Being a CEO is not the same as being an employee, though, and carries with it a connection to the ethical core of a business. This has far more to do with him being appointed than with his political views directly.

apsec112 13y ago
Right now, the United States is about evenly divided between people who support and oppose gay marriage. If everyone on the gay-marriage side "refuses to support bigots", and everyone on the anti-gay-marriage side "refuses to support sinners", then we wind up with two totally separate economies and social groups that don't talk to each other at all. This is very bad. You really, really don't want to live in a country where Blues can only eat in Blue restaurants and live in Blue apartments and wear Blue clothing, and Greens can only eat in Green restaurants and live in Green apartments and wear Green clothing. See: Northern Ireland, Iraq, Syria... "I am a pro-choice atheist. When I lived in Ireland, one of my friends was a pro-life Christian. I thought she was responsible for the unnecessary suffering of millions of women. She thought I was responsible for killing millions of babies. And yet she invited me over to her house for dinner without poisoning the food. And I ate it, and thanked her, and sent her a nice card, without smashing all her china. Please try not to be insufficiently surprised by this. Every time a Republican and a Democrat break bread together with good will, it is a miracle. It is an equilibrium as beneficial as civilization or liberalism, which developed in the total absence of any central enforcing authority." http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/02/23/in-favor-of-niceness-community-and-civilization/ http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/02/23/in-favor-of-niceness-co...
- stormbrew 13y ago
  And welcome to reductio ad absurdum. If we boycott this one thing we will boycott all the things and then we will live in a 70s dystopic film where the people who wear KFC shirts can't talk to the people who wear McDonalds shirts! Somehow we've gotten along just fine so far with the existence of boycotts without turning into a world where half the people are boycotting half the other people. Again, no one is saying boycott Mozilla because they hired a bigot. They're boycotting Mozilla because they chose a bigot as their chief executive knowing full well this blowback might happen (since it happened on a smaller scale with the CTO appointment in 2012). That means it doesn't matter to them, and for people to whom this issue matters a great deal that is unacceptable. Nor, incidentally, is anyone saying you should poison the guy's food. It is not "mean" to choose what you spend your money on.
gkya 13y ago
> One side gets to hit, the other side has no right to hit back? That's wrong. "Hitting back", that's wrong.
- stormbrew 13y ago
  Easy to say if you're not the one getting hit. Look, politics exist to make this kind of 'hitting' of the metaphorical sort that doesn't get people killed as much as possible, because we have disagreements and we always will. One of the only political tools oppressed people often have is their voice and the little power their money or commercial value gives them.
  - gkya 13y ago
    > Look, politics exist to make this kind of 'hitting' of the metaphorical [...] This kind of hitting is not metaphorical and is not apt. Firstly, it is misdirected. I am a Firefox user, and I would have to change my browser in order to access this website. This is like a female car park owner not letting me in because the CEO of the manufacturer of my car is misogynist, and telling me to buy another car, regardless of her not knowing whether I am misogynist or not also. Secondly, should we not use natural deduction because Gerhard Gentzen was a Nazi? I fully support equal treatment of gay people and gay marriage, albeit I cannot back this move from OKCupid, regardless of the fact that via this article did I get to know the website for the first time, as it is unequal treatment of Firefox users and an attempt to counteract an idea with a non-idea that is destructive to the targeted party.
    - stormbrew 13y ago
      > I would have to change my browser in order to access this website. This is not true. You click through the interstitial and there's the site. It won't even re-show it to you on repeat visits. > Secondly, should we not use natural deduction because Gerhard Gentzen was a Nazi? This would still be a poor analogy even if it weren't for the fact that people aren't boycotting JS, they're boycotting Mozilla, a corporation with a board of directors that made a decision with full knowledge of all the facts. We are not leaving behind knowledge by not using firefox, we're just not using firefox. It's really incredibly silly to argue for freedom of speech on one side (he should not have any consequences for his public donation) while arguing against it on the other side (I .. what... have to keep using firefox now because stopping would be mean to him? I can choose my own browser, thanks).

apsec112 13y ago

Right now, the United States is about evenly divided between people who support and oppose gay marriage. If everyone on the gay-marriage side "refuses to support bigots", and everyone on the anti-gay-marriage side "refuses to support sinners", then we wind up with two totally separate economies and social groups that don't talk to each other at all. This is very bad. You really, really don't want to live in a country where Blues can only eat in Blue restaurants and live in Blue apartments and wear Blue clothing, and Greens can only eat in Green restaurants and live in Green apartments and wear Green clothing. See: Northern Ireland, Iraq, Syria... "I am a pro-choice atheist. When I lived in Ireland, one of my friends was a pro-life Christian. I thought she was responsible for the unnecessary suffering of millions of women. She thought I was responsible for killing millions of babies. And yet she invited me over to her house for dinner without poisoning the food. And I ate it, and thanked her, and sent her a nice card, without smashing all her china. Please try not to be insufficiently surprised by this. Every time a Republican and a Democrat break bread together with good will, it is a miracle. It is an equilibrium as beneficial as civilization or liberalism, which developed in the total absence of any central enforcing authority." http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/02/23/in-favor-of-niceness-community-and-civilization/ http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/02/23/in-favor-of-niceness-co...

stormbrew 13y ago
And welcome to reductio ad absurdum. If we boycott this one thing we will boycott all the things and then we will live in a 70s dystopic film where the people who wear KFC shirts can't talk to the people who wear McDonalds shirts! Somehow we've gotten along just fine so far with the existence of boycotts without turning into a world where half the people are boycotting half the other people. Again, no one is saying boycott Mozilla because they hired a bigot. They're boycotting Mozilla because they chose a bigot as their chief executive knowing full well this blowback might happen (since it happened on a smaller scale with the CTO appointment in 2012). That means it doesn't matter to them, and for people to whom this issue matters a great deal that is unacceptable. Nor, incidentally, is anyone saying you should poison the guy's food. It is not "mean" to choose what you spend your money on.

gkya 13y ago

> One side gets to hit, the other side has no right to hit back? That's wrong. "Hitting back", that's wrong.

stormbrew 13y ago
Easy to say if you're not the one getting hit. Look, politics exist to make this kind of 'hitting' of the metaphorical sort that doesn't get people killed as much as possible, because we have disagreements and we always will. One of the only political tools oppressed people often have is their voice and the little power their money or commercial value gives them.
- gkya 13y ago
  > Look, politics exist to make this kind of 'hitting' of the metaphorical [...] This kind of hitting is not metaphorical and is not apt. Firstly, it is misdirected. I am a Firefox user, and I would have to change my browser in order to access this website. This is like a female car park owner not letting me in because the CEO of the manufacturer of my car is misogynist, and telling me to buy another car, regardless of her not knowing whether I am misogynist or not also. Secondly, should we not use natural deduction because Gerhard Gentzen was a Nazi? I fully support equal treatment of gay people and gay marriage, albeit I cannot back this move from OKCupid, regardless of the fact that via this article did I get to know the website for the first time, as it is unequal treatment of Firefox users and an attempt to counteract an idea with a non-idea that is destructive to the targeted party.
  - stormbrew 13y ago
    > I would have to change my browser in order to access this website. This is not true. You click through the interstitial and there's the site. It won't even re-show it to you on repeat visits. > Secondly, should we not use natural deduction because Gerhard Gentzen was a Nazi? This would still be a poor analogy even if it weren't for the fact that people aren't boycotting JS, they're boycotting Mozilla, a corporation with a board of directors that made a decision with full knowledge of all the facts. We are not leaving behind knowledge by not using firefox, we're just not using firefox. It's really incredibly silly to argue for freedom of speech on one side (he should not have any consequences for his public donation) while arguing against it on the other side (I .. what... have to keep using firefox now because stopping would be mean to him? I can choose my own browser, thanks).