whats the deal with this boycott firefox over the CEO gay rights stance

[anything I don't mind]

Any evidence to support that?

Well its obvious. What sort of evidence were you after or expecting?

 

[OhEsEcks]

But my opinion is that making a public example of somebody for (seemingly) doing nothing more than exercising their legal rights as part of a democratic process, this is a worse abuse of freedom of speech than being on the wrong side when exercising the afore mentioned legal right.

And my opinion is that anyone that uses their legal right as part of a democratic process to donate to a political agenda to deny equal rights to people simply because of who they choose to love should stand up and take the criticism that comes with that stance from all those exercising the aforementioned legal right to free speech.

 

[cheesyboy]

Well its obvious. What sort of evidence were you after or expecting?

It's not obvious.

 

[Tunney]

Most people don't care about mozilla's employee opinions on same sex marriage (although the group think would have you believe otherwise). But now that the ceo was attacked publicly for his views, Mozilla is forced in to the position where they have to get him to resign to save face. Most Mozilla staff and their organisation as a whole end of day have more respect for people's individual opinions than the people that are asking for him to be fired.

It's worth remembering that many Mozilla employees spoke out against the CEO's appointment.

This wasn't a mob of outsiders asking the CEO of an organisation to step down, it was employees inside the organisation supported by those outside.

 

[anything I don't mind]

There was also employees that supported his right to have an opinion without being publicly shamed for it as well. Although the group think makes it look otherwise, there was never a majority in any sense that wanted him to step down.

 

[DangerMoose]

This is one of the most interesting points to me. People would do well to remember that believing that being gay is fine, or believing that it's not fine, is just a point of view, an opinion.

To me, a deliberate movement to change public opinion is far more sinister than being astonished by a man wanting to marry another man.

All you attention seeking "oh my god, it's a homophobe, quick to the batmobile" people should remember that your grandparents probably thought that gays were hellbound deviants and the majority of societies throughout history have discouraged it, often with extreme prejudice. And while I appreciate we live in a society where everyone is always right and nobody could possibly know better, the hysterical reactions to people who don't hold the same opinions as you are a bit pathetic.

Its all about how such a movement is conducted though. In my opinion, the vocal minority are often too quick to assume homophobia at the first sign of disagreement. True, this is sometimes the case but refusal to recognise same sex marriage can potentially be sufficiently explained by one being merely stuck in their ways and resistant to change.

But I would like to believe that there is a more balanced option, where you try to reason with people in order to change their views. Preferably accepting that sometimes a live and let live result is the best that you can achieve (after all, you don't need to be tolerant of something you agree with; that is called "agreeing").

 

[Tunney]

There was also employees that supported his right to have an opinion without being publicly shamed for it as well. Although the group think makes it look otherwise, there was never a majority in any sense that wanted him to step down.

What are you basing that assertion on? I haven't seen any poll of Mozilla employees to ask their views on his resignation.

 

[anything I don't mind]

I saw some tweets from Mozilla employees that were supporting the ceo and opposing what was happening.

 

[DangerMoose]

And my opinion is that anyone that uses their legal right as part of a democratic process to donate to a political agenda to deny equal rights to people simply because of who they choose to love should stand up and take the criticism that comes with that stance from all those exercising the aforementioned legal right to free speech.

So your opinion then is that it is right to subvert the legal process? Do you have any guidelines for when this is appropriate? In this case, the democratic element of it perhaps failed but the system on the whole seems to have succeeded, when the bill was struck down as unconstitutional.

And you assume too much about motives. Being against same sex marriage might often be motivated by homophobia but it is not homophobia in itself.

 

[RDM]

Its all about how such a movement is conducted though. In my opinion, the vocal minority are often too quick to assume homophobia at the first sign of disagreement. True, this is sometimes the case but refusal to recognise same sex marriage can potentially be sufficiently explained by one being merely stuck in their ways and resistant to change.

He financially supported a bill to make sure gay people cannot marry. That is more than just "believing gay marriage is wrong" it is "actively working against gay marriage".

Because of this some people decided to act completely lawfully and using their freedom of speech to call for people to boycott the products of the company the man was the head of.

I don't really see that as sinister, that's just advocacy in action.

But I would like to believe that there is a more balanced option, where you try to reason with people in order to change their views. Preferably accepting that sometimes a live and let live result is the best that you can achieve (after all, you don't need to be tolerant of something you agree with; that is called "agreeing").

But he wasn't interested in a "live and let live" result as he actively supported a bill designed to restrict gay rights.

 

[Burnsy2023]

Well its obvious. What sort of evidence were you after or expecting?

Quite frankly I would have been happy with anything other than "well it's obvious".

 

[RDM]

So your opinion then is that it is right to subvert the legal process?

In what way was the legal process subverted?

 

[OhEsEcks]

So your opinion then is that it is right to subvert the legal process? Do you have any guidelines for when this is appropriate? In this case, the democratic element of it perhaps failed but the system on the whole seems to have succeeded, when the bill was struck down as unconstitutional.

And you assume too much about motives. Being against same sex marriage might often be motivated by homophobia but it is not homophobia in itself.

Where did I say anything about subvertion?

How is being motivated by homophobia not homophobia?

 

[anything I don't mind]

Quite frankly I would have been happy with anything other than "well it's obvious".

Well its obvious to me, based on incentive. People who have an incentive behind gay marriage will be the one that are advocating it, that is just how things like that work. Of course its not exclusive but a large percentage of people advocating gay marriage will be gay. That should go without saying. It was not even the point of what I was saying anyway. Sexual preference of the people advocating for the boycott of firefox is ultimately irrelevant. Replace my usage of the term with gay, with the term gay marriage advocate in that post then.

Its most likely when like this, a gay marriage advocate (most likely gay) got hold of the donor list for prop8, then went through the list and researched each name on it so they could promote a boycott of all the people on the list and their associated companies. Obviously Mozilla was an easy target with their philosophy being about openness etc.

 

[TheLegendOfMart]

Its most likely when like this, a gay marriage advocate (most likely gay) got hold of the donor list for prop8, then went through the list and researched each name on it so they could promote a boycott of all the people on the list and their associated companies. Obviously Mozilla was an easy target with their philosophy being about openness etc.

You have an active imagination, funny how it's always a gay person, never anyone else, in all of your theories.

What would said gay person have to gain from attacking the CEO of a web browser that donated money 6 years ago!?!?

 

[anything I don't mind]

You have an active imagination, funny how it's always a gay person, never anyone else, in all of your theories.

What would said gay person have to gain from attacking the CEO of a web browser that donated money 6 years ago!?!?

well its only talking about gay people because the topic is about gay marriage? its not all my theories i'm talking about gay people, wtf.

You asking me what they would have to gain? You need to ask them. I have already stated that no one benefited from this episode. If they think doing this is going to scare people away from donating to causes that they believe in then that is not a positive outcome either.

 

[TheLegendOfMart]

You are talking about this figment of your imagination as if it is fact. If a gay person got hold of Prop8 donors list I think there would be more news articles other than this Mozilla one.

I don't agree with the things you say but respect your right to say them, but don't make up nonsense to make out that gays are bad.

 

[anything I don't mind]

Whatever dude. I did not make up non sense, i said most likely, i never said it was fact. I never made out that "gays were bad".

 

[unwashed potato!]

seems to me you post random nonsense based on your dislike for gays and then whenever someone comes back to you on it you hide behind how loosely you said it, "oh i didn't say it was fact, but 'almost fact' so therefore you're wrong".

reading back you've been that way the whole way through this thread.

people are silly if they think this is the gays trying to restrict this guy having a view. it was 6 years ago, not 6 days ago, that this donation was made. nothing has happened to this guy regarding that donation, until he becomes the CEO of a company that is obviously about equality amongst other things, and then people are only boycotting the company and not the guy which is partly why javascript isn't being boycotted.

 

[aslco]

seems to me you post random nonsense based on your dislike for gays and then whenever someone comes back to you on it you hide behind how loosely you said it, "oh i didn't say it was fact, but 'almost fact' so therefore you're wrong".

I agree that he's wrong, but i don't like it when people try and shout people down for being "homophobic, facist, racist" etc at the earliest chance. They're pretty horrid things to say and far too many people jump on that bandwagon too readily without ensuring the person doing the anti-argument to them is so.

Admittedly i've only read the first page and this one so perhaps i've missed something, but what i've seen I wouldn't describe him as having a "dislike for gays". Perhaps i've missed something on the middle pages.

I'm glad the CEO has gone, i'm surprised Mozila appointed him and furthermore reacted so slowly to the news. The boycott was a pretty dumb idea, the issue should be highlighted and only if after an initial lack of reaction should further action should be called for.

Hopefully the entire episode is over now and some people, especially the now ex-CEO have learnt something.