OKCupid asks users to boycott Firefox because of CEO's gay rights stance

['andersom']

Let's boycott Firefox because he resigned

While still using javascript?

[Parts]

Let's boycott Firefox because he resigned

While still using javascript?

Of course,  I never said I make any sense,  just want to jump on the boycotting band wagon and ride along for awhile

['andersom']

Let's boycott Firefox because he resigned

While still using javascript?

Of course,  I never said I make any sense,  just want to jump on the boycotting band wagon and ride along for awhile

One has to be precise in things like these.

Companies should hire personnel, not for their skills, but for their lack of offensive opinions.

[Parts]

Let's boycott Firefox because he resigned

While still using javascript?

Of course,  I never said I make any sense,  just want to jump on the boycotting band wagon and ride along for awhile

One has to be precise in things like these.

Companies should hire personnel, not for their skills, but for their lack of offensive opinions.

One reason I will never be hired

['andersom']

Let's boycott Firefox because he resigned

While still using javascript?

Of course,  I never said I make any sense,  just want to jump on the boycotting band wagon and ride along for awhile

One has to be precise in things like these.

Companies should hire personnel, not for their skills, but for their lack of offensive opinions.

One reason I will never be hired

You made it to be an admin here. 

[Semicolon]

Let's boycott Firefox because he resigned

While still using javascript?

Of course,  I never said I make any sense,  just want to jump on the boycotting band wagon and ride along for awhile

One has to be precise in things like these.

Companies should hire personnel, not for their skills, but for their lack of offensive opinions.

One reason I will never be hired

You made it to be an admin here. 

Having offensive opinions is a prerequisite here.

[odeon]

And he resigned.

Why is it that freedom of speech only seems to be acceptable if you agree with what's being said?

He still had (and has) freedom of speech.  He wasn't facing legal action for doing something politically unpopular (let's pretend that counts as "speech" in the first place); he was facing public backlash.  Firefox could have kept him on, but they didn't want to piss off their customers.  I fail to see how anyone's freedom of speech was affected.   

How is it *not* affected? The message is clear: don't even think about supporting a politically incorrect opinion if you want to keep your job. That kind of pressure is very, very effective because on the surface of it all, freedom of speech is preserved, the weak protected and the rain forests kept intact.

Freedom of speech is only actually useful if the unpopular views are tolerated, too.

[odeon]

Let's boycott Firefox because he resigned

[odeon]

Let's boycott Firefox because he resigned

While still using javascript?

Of course,  I never said I make any sense,  just want to jump on the boycotting band wagon and ride along for awhile

One has to be precise in things like these.

Companies should hire personnel, not for their skills, but for their lack of offensive opinions.

One reason I will never be hired

You made it to be an admin here. 

Having offensive opinions is a prerequisite here.

Yes. You'll be sacked if you are too PC.

[El-Presidente]

Let's boycott Firefox because he resigned

While still using javascript?

Of course,  I never said I make any sense,  just want to jump on the boycotting band wagon and ride along for awhile

One has to be precise in things like these.

Companies should hire personnel, not for their skills, but for their lack of offensive opinions.

One reason I will never be hired

You made it to be an admin here. 

Having offensive opinions is a prerequisite here.

Did someone say offensive opinions? 

EL PRESIDENTE DEMANDS NOODZ!!

[El]

And he resigned.

Why is it that freedom of speech only seems to be acceptable if you agree with what's being said?

He still had (and has) freedom of speech.  He wasn't facing legal action for doing something politically unpopular (let's pretend that counts as "speech" in the first place); he was facing public backlash.  Firefox could have kept him on, but they didn't want to piss off their customers.  I fail to see how anyone's freedom of speech was affected.   

How is it *not* affected? The message is clear: don't even think about supporting a politically incorrect opinion if you want to keep your job. That kind of pressure is very, very effective because on the surface of it all, freedom of speech is preserved, the weak protected and the rain forests kept intact.

Freedom of speech is only actually useful if the unpopular views are tolerated, too.

What you do in your personal life can affect your professional life if it's outrageous enough and/or if you're in a position to be under scrutiny.  I doubt every single employee at firefox is- or ever will be- held to the same standard as the head of the company.  If you're a public figure, yeah, you're under the microscope.  Again, capitalism:  If you're the head of a giant company, you have strong potential to be a public figure.  That is what it is.  I strongly doubt he'd have trouble finding a new job working with a small startup- his career is already beyond what most of us could ever dream of achieving.  I mean, the dude's also free to tattoo "God hates fags" on his forehead if he wants to.  There's consequences to that, as well.

I think we're operating under different definitions of 'freedom of speech.'

[Parts]

I always find it kinda ironic that people who say they strive for tolerance and acceptance  are so intolerant and unaccepting  of the people who oppose them. 

[Jack]

Parts has no tolerance for the unacceptable intolerance of the intolerant and unaccepted. Jack finds this all highly unacceptable.

[RageBeoulve]

Yup. I wouldn't use that site again.

Which is the answer. The guy is free to believe however he wants, and do as he pleases with his own property. I think he is a gigantic faggot for being so homophobic, but I wouldn't think of using force to try and get my own way with HIS company. Its his, and it belongs to HIM.

I think these social justice fucks need to get over themselves.

[odeon]

And he resigned.

Why is it that freedom of speech only seems to be acceptable if you agree with what's being said?

He still had (and has) freedom of speech.  He wasn't facing legal action for doing something politically unpopular (let's pretend that counts as "speech" in the first place); he was facing public backlash.  Firefox could have kept him on, but they didn't want to piss off their customers.  I fail to see how anyone's freedom of speech was affected.   

How is it *not* affected? The message is clear: don't even think about supporting a politically incorrect opinion if you want to keep your job. That kind of pressure is very, very effective because on the surface of it all, freedom of speech is preserved, the weak protected and the rain forests kept intact.

Freedom of speech is only actually useful if the unpopular views are tolerated, too.

What you do in your personal life can affect your professional life if it's outrageous enough and/or if you're in a position to be under scrutiny.  I doubt every single employee at firefox is- or ever will be- held to the same standard as the head of the company.  If you're a public figure, yeah, you're under the microscope.  Again, capitalism:  If you're the head of a giant company, you have strong potential to be a public figure.  That is what it is.  I strongly doubt he'd have trouble finding a new job working with a small startup- his career is already beyond what most of us could ever dream of achieving.  I mean, the dude's also free to tattoo "God hates fags" on his forehead if he wants to.  There's consequences to that, as well.

I think we're operating under different definitions of 'freedom of speech.'

So the irony here is that one freedom of speech kills another. Also, in your world, the larger (or rather, more public) the company, the less freedom of speech, actually allowing everyone to hold their opinions without fear of losing their jobs.

Sorry, I disagree, and disagree strongly.

His opinions, in this case, had nothing to do with his ability to lead the company. Nothing. IMHO, this is not freedom of speech, it's not even defending a set of predefined values, it's just being fearful of how the market might react. It's populism.

My choice of browser is not affected by the opinions of an individual at Mozilla. It is, however, affected by how Mozilla as a company reacts to inconvenient opinions held by its employers.