Mozilla CEO pays the price for not being in favor of gay marriage

[Inner_Stickler]

Well, speaking as an unabashed homosexual activist, I plan on waging the same war on OKcupid as I did on Firefox.

tsk

[magellan01]

@wolfpup

Sure. We can start with the kinds of answers one always hears out of homophobic theocrats like Rick Santorum when asked questions about SSM directly. I’ve heard Santorum try to address the issue and it always turns on something like, if it’s tolerated it will become mainstream – do you want this kind of thing taught in schools, to our children? In other words, it’s a circular argument that begins with the assumption that the thing is intrinsically evil, and obviously Evil must must be opposed. QED. There is no rationality there. You make a similar statement yourself when you say that such decisions will determine the future direction of society. Of course they will. That’s why we have to make the right decisions based on rationality and not religious fervor or some vague knee-jerk feeling that SSM is “disgusting”.

To the extent that any tangible reason at all has ever been offered for objection to SSM, it seems to hinge on “the sanctity of marriage”. I’m tempted to make a snide comment about how the “sanctity of marriage” is often promoted by the same crowd who support hikers of the Appalachian trail or serial adulterers like Newt Gingrich, but that isn’t even an important point. You’re quite right – marriage really is a cornerstone of society. And this is indeed why a Supreme Court of Canada decision some years ago prohibited bans on SSM; the reasoning was that it relegated gays to the status of second-class citizens, expressing a social disapproval that undermined their fundamental human right to family and household. Meanwhile, in stark contrast, some US states in which SSM is already illegal have seen fit to hold referendums to double down on the illegality by passing a constitutional amendment prohibiting it, an entirely symbolic move that seemed intended to send a loud and clear message to gays that they were not wanted. The only thing more they could have done is actively start an anti-gay pogrom and burn down their houses.

You seem to confuse “ideology” with lack of sincerity. I’m sure that most people opposed to SSM are quite sincere. They are also wrong, because discrimination is discrimination, and discrimination is actively hurtful and harmful.

As I said, I have no vested interest in SSM, and I admit at one point I was, if not opposed to such things, at least indifferent to them. What has made me feel a lot more strongly about it was meeting gays in the course of everyday life and realizing that they’re just normal people with the same wants and fears and vulnerabilities as all the rest of us, and how hurtful discrimination can be, especially to the young. Indeed there is hardly anything worse than a young person struggling with their sexual identity being harassed and bullied and shunned, and it has driven many to suicide.

In my area, the students in a high school recently tried to set up, on their own initiative, an anti-bullying club that would seek to promote tolerance and help to normalize the view of gays. But it happened to be a school that was part of the separate Catholic school system, and the Catholic board expressly prohibited the club on principle when they found out the focus was on protecting gays from discrimination. A Catholic bishop wrote a thundering editorial endorsing the board’s decision and denouncing the “sin” of homosexuality. The supposed love professed by his religion was nowhere to be found. The end result of this is going to have harmful and hurtful consequences to students throughout that school system. It might cost some their lives, but will certainly rob them of dignity and self-respect. There is no upside to it that I can fathom. Perhaps this might give you a better idea of what I mean by “ideology”.

I was reading a book recently about the heroes of Bletchley Park, the famous British codebreaking institution that did so much to help the allies in WW2. One of the most prominent contributors was the brilliant Alan Turing, who was also a major computer pioneer. I had forgotten that in 1952, Turing was convicted of “indecency” for having a homosexual affair, and subjected to hormone treatments to “cure” him that had horrific side effects. Two miserable and despondent years later, in June 1954, the man who had helped save his country was found dead, of self-administered poison. In 2009, Prime Minister Gordon Brown delivered a public apology. Later a formal pardon was proposed, and in 2013, faced with the possibility of some minor opposition, the government bypassed debate under the royal prerogative of mercy, and in December 2013 Queen Elizabeth signed the official pardon, putting an end to the most publicized shameful episode of homophobic discrimination in the UK, but certainly not the only one. We’ve come a long way since the 50’s but not yet far enough. Discrimination in any form is an ugly, ugly thing. And that is another example of what I mean by “ideology”.

I appreciate this, but I’m still not sure what you meant by the phrase you used. I know what the general ideologies of both sides are—in fact, all sides, because there are not just two.

Here is what you wrote that sparked my question:

[QUOTE=wolfpup]
Those who do have a vested interest in SSM are those who wish to have a same-sex relationship and be left in peace. Those who actively oppose it, like this guy, despite the fact that it affects them not at all, have an ideological axe to grind.
[/QUOTE]

I’m not trying to be coy, but I’m still not clear on what you mean by that particular phrase in that context. What is Eich’s particular “axe to grind”? Doe he think gays are disgusting and want them purged from the earth? Is he a religious man, and finds SSM in conflict with his religion? Does he, like me, believe that while gay couples should enjoy all the benefits and privileges that hetero couples do, except marriage, because it’s too foundational to our society to screw with it?

That’s what I’m trying to understand.

[magellan01]

@ISiddiqui

Speaking of…

Oops:
OkCupid’s CEO Donated to an Anti-Gay Campaign Once, Too – Mother Jones

Laughing my friggin’ ass off.

Grab the pitchforks!!!

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

It’s not quite as direct, but it’s certainly embarrassing.

[Cheesesteak]

@Really_Not_All_That_Bright

If you work for Mozilla (and the lion’s share of backlash was internal) you sure as hell do.

This is a fair point*, though I think focusing entirely on the internals was a big error on his part.

*Mozilla claims that he did not resign due to internal pressures, but I concede that he did need to touch on that point in his statement.

[wolfpup]

@magellan01

I’m not trying to be coy, but I’m still not clear on what you mean by that particular phrase in that context. What is Eich’s particular “axe to grind”? Doe he think gays are disgusting and want them purged from the earth? Is he a religious man, and finds SSM in conflict with his religion? Does he, like me, believe that while gay couples should enjoy all the benefits and privileges that hetero couples do, except marriage, because it’s too foundational to our society to screw with it?

That’s what I’m trying to understand.

If you’re not trying to be coy, then you’re being purposely obtuse. The e-dictionary I have at hand defines “ideology” as “a system of social beliefs” in the broadest sense, where “social” means anything that a society does, and “beliefs” means any kind of belief, whether religious, political, or perhaps resulting from the brainwashing of a cult… whatever its source may be.

As such, a belief doesn’t require evidence, it only requires a gut-level conviction.

The purpose of my lengthy diatribe above was to show that I have never been able to find any evidence to support opposition to SSM, but there’s lot of objective evidence and court rulings supporting the case that banning SSM is a socially harmful form of discrimination. The fact that marriage is foundational to society is a major reason to support SSM, not condemn it, because of the social significance and stigma of being excluded – unless of course one just has an ideological problem with gays in the first place.

Getting back to the topic, the problem was that Eich apparently felt strongly enough about it to contribute to what was basically a hate campaign promoting discrimination.

[magellan01]

@wolfpup

If you’re not trying to be coy, then you’re being purposely obtuse. The e-dictionary I have at hand defines “ideology” as “a system of social beliefs” in the broadest sense, where “social” means anything that a society does, and “beliefs” means any kind of belief, whether religious, political, or perhaps resulting from the brainwashing of a cult… whatever its source may be.

As such, a belief doesn’t require evidence, it only requires a gut-level conviction.

The purpose of my lengthy diatribe above was to show that I have never been able to find any evidence to support opposition to SSM, but there’s lot of objective evidence and court rulings supporting the case that banning SSM is a socially harmful form of discrimination. The fact that marriage is foundational to society is a major reason to support SSM, not condemn it, because of the social significance and stigma of being excluded – unless of course one just has an ideological problem with gays in the first place.

Getting back to the topic, the problem was that Eich apparently felt strongly enough about it to contribute to what was basically a hate campaign promoting discrimination.

Oh so glad you deigned revisit the topic. But still not sure what you think Eich’s “axe to grind was”. Which is understandable, as you seem to be unclear on it, as well. I even gave you three ideological mindsets he probably would fit into, as most people who are against SSM would fall into one of those three. ::shrug::

[wolfpup]

@magellan01

Oh so glad you deigned revisit the topic. But still not sure what you think Eich’s “axe to grind was”. Which is understandable, as you seem to be unclear on it, as well. I even gave you three ideological mindsets he probably would fit into, as most people who are against SSM would fall into one of those three. ::shrug::

Not a problem, always glad to oblige. Yes, you provided three examples of irrational lunatic ideological beliefs that may have motivated him, and I thank you for the assistance. It could have been any one of them, or maybe all three. None make any sense, as I’ve already pointed out. Which is precisely why they’re ideological and not rational or evidence-based. Are you under the impression that you still have some kind of argument here?

[magellan01]

@wolfpup

Not a problem, always glad to oblige. Yes, you provided three examples of irrational lunatic ideological beliefs that may have motivated him, and I thank you for the assistance. It could have been any one of them, or maybe all three. None make any sense, as I’ve already pointed out. Which is precisely why they’re ideological and not rational or evidence-based. Are you under the impression that you still have some kind of argument here?

Well, you do make it easy. But I think I see a fundamental problem with any analysis you might come up with. You seem to think that ideology is, by definition, not rational.

But, as you no doubt know by now, I am here to help. So, unless you’re opposed to a bit of introspection, you’ll be thanking me for directing you to this excellent article on the current flap with Eich and the attitude of people like you.

An excerpt:

This politically correct thought control is getting out of hand. For a disturbing percentage of people on the left, freedom doesn’t matter, nor do tolerance, inclusiveness and compassion. If you don’t have the correct views — e.g., if you believe that marriage should still be defined as being between one man and one woman — you are not entitled to respect or even to the same rights and freedoms as others. The rationale is that because of your “intolerance” and “hate,” you are of a different class, a subspecies — vermin — and you forfeit the privilege of being tolerated and deserve to be treated with hate yourself.

Read the article and see if it is you being described. Let me know what you think.

And to stop you from discounting it as yet more right-wing CRAZY, this left-wing homophobe is in agreement with me.

[Marley23]

When was the last time anybody fell for the ‘you must tolerate intolerance or else you are intolerant’ canard?

[Antinor01]

@Marley23

When was the last time anybody fell for the ‘you must tolerate intolerance or else you are intolerant’ canard?

No one, because it’s a ridiculous argument. I have no reason to tolerate anyone opposing my right to marriage, adopt kids (no that I want any!), or to be treated exactly the same by the law as any other couple. I don’t give a shit why they oppose it, they are in the wrong.

[wonky]

@Marley23

When was the last time anybody fell for the ‘you must tolerate intolerance or else you are intolerant’ canard?

I did yesterday. Then a two year old throat punched me and told me not to be so gullible.

[magellan01]

@Antinor01

No one, because it’s a ridiculous argument. I have no reason to tolerate anyone opposing my right to marriage, adopt kids (no that I want any!), or to be treated exactly the same by the law as any other couple. I don’t give a shit why they oppose it, they are in the wrong.

So you say.

But I do commend you for coming out and stating flatly what most others dance around—that you don’t care what the reasons are that one might oppose it, they’re wrong. Period. I like that clarity, even though I didn’t phrase it quite as well as you did.

Now I’ll sit back and wait for you to scramble to qualify your statement and others to come to your assistance. All to recloak the truth that has been stripped bare, albeit for a moment.

[Antinor01]

@magellan01

So you say.

But I do commend you for coming out and stating flatly what most others dance around—that you don’t care what the reasons are that one might oppose it, they’re wrong. Period. I like that clarity, even though I didn’t phrase it quite as well as you did.

Now I’ll sit back and wait for you to scramble to qualify your statement and others to come to your assistance. All to recloak the truth that has been stripped bare, albeit for a moment.

I have nothing to qualify and don’t need defense, it doesn’t matter why. That’s not to say that they can’t be reasoned with depending on what the reason is, but there is no reason that makes their position right.

We’re argued this before, I don’t know why you would think there is a reason I would accept since no decent one has been presented.

[magellan01]

@Antinor01

I have nothing to qualify and don’t need defense, it doesn’t matter why. That’s not to say that they can’t be reasoned with depending on what the reason is, but there is no reason that makes their position right.

Thanks you for stating it again so plainly. But I think someone will come in and want to qualify this for you. Either way, I’ll bookmark this post for future reference.

[wonky]

@Antinor01

I have nothing to qualify and don’t need defense, it doesn’t matter why. That’s not to say that they can’t be reasoned with depending on what the reason is, but there is no reason that makes their position right.

We’re argued this before, I don’t know why you would think there is a reason I would accept since no decent one has been presented.

And I’ve never seen anyone on the pro-SSM side say that there is EVER a valid reason or that they would accept one reason and not another. In fact, all I’ve ever seen is exactly what you say, that there is no reason–not religion or stupidity or spite or goofiness or being elderly–that is ever acceptable.

[Reyemile]

@magellan01

Thanks you for stating it again so plainly. But I think someone will come in and want to qualify this for you. Either way, I’ll bookmark this post for future reference.

I have no reason to qualify my opposition to slavery, either; there is no reason anyone could provide that would convince me that treating another person as property is acceptable.

I’m not sure what you think is the “gotcha” here.

[Bryan_Ekers]

Heck, if a good reason exists, the homophobes should have presented it by now. They’ve certainly received enough invitations to do so.

[Miller]

@magellan01

Thanks you for stating it again so plainly. But I think someone will come in and want to qualify this for you.

Why do you think that?

[wolfpup]

@magellan01

But I think I see a fundamental problem with any analysis you might come up with. You seem to think that ideology is, by definition, not rational.

Then let me correct you on that misconception. Ideology is by no means always irrational, let alone “by definition”. But stupid policies that are not based on reason almost always turn out to be based on ideology. See the difference? If there’s no rational basis for some ridiculous counterproductive policy, always look for ideology. It’ll be lurking right nearby.

@magellan01

So, unless you’re opposed to a bit of introspection, you’ll be thanking me for directing you to this excellent article on the current flap with Eich and the attitude of people like you.

You’re right, I do thank you for linking that article by David Limbaugh. And I invite all interested readers to glance at the rest of the hateful lunatic right-wing trash also authored by him which is conveniently listed nearby.

I particularly like how in this piece he accuses liberals of lacking “tolerance, inclusiveness and compassion”, and he and his ilk apparently believe that there’s no better way of demonstrating such tolerance, inclusiveness and compassion than by making sure that the damn gays are permanently excluded from the most important institution of society and family, lest said institution be tainted by their unholy presence.

@magellan01

And to stop you from discounting it as yet more right-wing CRAZY, this left-wing homophobe is in agreement with me.

Sullivan is hardly “left-wing”. He is a staunch conservative and libertarian who over the years has come to have some liberal views on some issues, obviously including gay rights. But he remains a libertarian who has opposed such things as hate crime laws and non-discrimination in employment laws, apparently viewing everything through the libertarian lens of unconstrained “free speech”. But this isn’t even a free speech issue; no one is arguing that there should be legal sanctions against Eich for saying or supporting whatever he believes in. But speech has consequences; he is free to say or do whatever he believes in, and I will support his right to do so, but I also have the right to not want to work for a bigot and not to do business with his organization, and to support those who feel the same way.

One thing I’ll say about Sullivan to his credit: he has changed his views on a great many things over the years. He has not been afraid to admit he’s been wrong. Given the blowback his position on this issue has caused, he may have something to think about yet again.