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

[El]

Additional question, though/devil's advocate:  Whether or not it's related to the ability to do one's job, is there a point where shit from one's private life becomes unignorable?  Would, for example, you still have the same issue if he'd been drummed out because it turned out he'd donated a grand to NAMBLA?

Provided the organisation is legal, yes. I'd find the man to be completely reprehensible but I'd still defend his right to an opinion without fear of losing his job.

It would be a very difficult thing to defend, though. Can you imagine the outcry from the public against anyone who dared pointing out that what he does with his money on his free time is irrelevant?

Is whether or not it's legal the line you'd draw?  Are there illegal activities you do or don't think should affect his position?  Or a line?  Technically, for example, expanding the example above, if the man had also previously been convicted and had to register as a sex offender, but had served his time and debt to society otherwise, he'd still be able to do his job.  Discrimination against people who flunk CORIs is rampant and is in many ways and instances morally reprehensible.

Oooh, a far more difficult question than I first thought. My gut reaction was to say yes, that's where I draw the line re Mozilla. But thinking about it, I remain doubtful. In principle, it's easier for me to understand why a company might want to sack somebody who financially supported an illegal but unrelated cause, but I'm not sure I agree with such a standpoint anyway. There are plenty of silly laws.

I guess my stance is that if the donation in itself was legal, then fine; it should not result in a dismissal.

A previous conviction might conceivably hurt an employer, depending on the nature of the crime and whether or not the conviction was known when the person was first hired, but that's not really a free speech issue, it's a discrimination issue.

*nod*  And then there's issues like laws that are sort of silly in the first place (remember the "Dude you're getting a dell" guy who got fired for smoking weed?).  That would probably NOT result in a dismissal, now.  Again, it becomes tricky to sort out free speech vs. just plain what's right.

The other tricky part here is this is a part of an overall change in public opinion *against* discrimination, and while the negative side is it's sending a message not to openly disagree with common opinion, the positive side is it's sending the message that being homophobic is not only not OK, but it can fuck you up, down the road.  It's all rather messy.

Also curious- in your opinion, is there a counterpoint to be made re: public opinion also being people exercising their freedom of speech, albeit en masse?  Is this also something of an issue of free speech vs. free speech?

Public opinion as discussed here is a tool and not about free speech per se, IMHO, it's about exerting pressure to enforce a standpoint. Quite a dirty one at that, too. It's not anything as noble as the needs of the many outweighing the needs of the few or anything like that; it's populism at its dirtiest.

I'm sure there is a point to be made, though. One that is slightly related is any democracy where a vote 51/49 results in the opinions of almost half of the population being ignored. Technically, you could say that the system works but the result in many countries is a polarised system without compromises under the pretence of democracy.

How can you get around the issue of populism without restricting free speech in the first place, though?  Where do you draw the line?  Or is this an issue of moral imperative vs. legal one?

Also worth considering- if we're calling money free speech now, speaking together is something most people have access to; dropping a grand at a time to a cause isn't.  Is there something to be said for leveling the playing field?

[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.

Well, it's not really an answer, is it, because it doesn't solve the underlying problem.

Well, people seem to have a problem with the fact that the guy believes a certain way. I think it actually does address the problem to stop using the services provided by someone you don't like if you think their beliefs will somehow "get on you" if you do.

ITT: Don't like someone? Don't associate with them. Don't do business with them. Ostracize them. Just don't try and force them to do anything. People have a lot more control over this stuff than they are willing to admit.

[El]

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.

Well, it's not really an answer, is it, because it doesn't solve the underlying problem.

Well, people seem to have a problem with the fact that the guy believes a certain way. I think it actually does address the problem to stop using the services provided by someone you don't like if you think their beliefs will somehow "get on you" if you do.

ITT: Don't like someone? Don't associate with them. Don't do business with them. Ostracize them. Just don't try and force them to do anything. People have a lot more control over this stuff than they are willing to admit.

Isn't that exactly what happened?

[odeon]

That's an important stance to make. I fully support your right to do so.

Will you follow my lead, and not use it in the past?

I will.

Good, one cannot be too thorough, with things like this.

I absolutely refuse to have used OKCupid in the past. Just so you know.

[odeon]

Additional question, though/devil's advocate:  Whether or not it's related to the ability to do one's job, is there a point where shit from one's private life becomes unignorable?  Would, for example, you still have the same issue if he'd been drummed out because it turned out he'd donated a grand to NAMBLA?

Provided the organisation is legal, yes. I'd find the man to be completely reprehensible but I'd still defend his right to an opinion without fear of losing his job.

It would be a very difficult thing to defend, though. Can you imagine the outcry from the public against anyone who dared pointing out that what he does with his money on his free time is irrelevant?

Is whether or not it's legal the line you'd draw?  Are there illegal activities you do or don't think should affect his position?  Or a line?  Technically, for example, expanding the example above, if the man had also previously been convicted and had to register as a sex offender, but had served his time and debt to society otherwise, he'd still be able to do his job.  Discrimination against people who flunk CORIs is rampant and is in many ways and instances morally reprehensible.

Oooh, a far more difficult question than I first thought. My gut reaction was to say yes, that's where I draw the line re Mozilla. But thinking about it, I remain doubtful. In principle, it's easier for me to understand why a company might want to sack somebody who financially supported an illegal but unrelated cause, but I'm not sure I agree with such a standpoint anyway. There are plenty of silly laws.

I guess my stance is that if the donation in itself was legal, then fine; it should not result in a dismissal.

A previous conviction might conceivably hurt an employer, depending on the nature of the crime and whether or not the conviction was known when the person was first hired, but that's not really a free speech issue, it's a discrimination issue.

*nod*  And then there's issues like laws that are sort of silly in the first place (remember the "Dude you're getting a dell" guy who got fired for smoking weed?).  That would probably NOT result in a dismissal, now.  Again, it becomes tricky to sort out free speech vs. just plain what's right.

I had completely forgotten about that guy. Dell dropped the campaign after he was arrested but claimed it was for other reasons entirely, right?

He wasn't employed by them, though, was he?

The other tricky part here is this is a part of an overall change in public opinion *against* discrimination, and while the negative side is it's sending a message not to openly disagree with common opinion, the positive side is it's sending the message that being homophobic is not only not OK, but it can fuck you up, down the road.  It's all rather messy.

And further muddied by the fact that homophobia is not (or at least doesn't have to be) the same as opposing same-sex marriages--wasn't that the cause that the Mozilla guy donated to? Not saying that he isn't homophobic, but not saying that he is, either. The issue is about political correctness, really, and what's PC changes, constantly. The donation itself happened in 2008. Lots have happened since and I'm not sure it had been an issue at all back then.

Wondering what had happened if he'd donated money to something less conspicuous, such as a campaign for sending illegal Mexican immigrants back to Mexico.

Also curious- in your opinion, is there a counterpoint to be made re: public opinion also being people exercising their freedom of speech, albeit en masse?  Is this also something of an issue of free speech vs. free speech?

Public opinion as discussed here is a tool and not about free speech per se, IMHO, it's about exerting pressure to enforce a standpoint. Quite a dirty one at that, too. It's not anything as noble as the needs of the many outweighing the needs of the few or anything like that; it's populism at its dirtiest.

I'm sure there is a point to be made, though. One that is slightly related is any democracy where a vote 51/49 results in the opinions of almost half of the population being ignored. Technically, you could say that the system works but the result in many countries is a polarised system without compromises under the pretence of democracy.

How can you get around the issue of populism without restricting free speech in the first place, though?  Where do you draw the line?  Or is this an issue of moral imperative vs. legal one?

I'm not sure you can, because populism also highlights another problem with democracy, namely that the voters are really not that knowledgeable and easily swayed in the first place. It's a design flaw, really, in my mind.

Also worth considering- if we're calling money free speech now, speaking together is something most people have access to; dropping a grand at a time to a cause isn't.  Is there something to be said for leveling the playing field?

Absolutely, but if you really want absolute fairness, then you'd need to level the field in so many different ways that it all becomes a bit absurd. Where do you draw that line?

[El]

Additional question, though/devil's advocate:  Whether or not it's related to the ability to do one's job, is there a point where shit from one's private life becomes unignorable?  Would, for example, you still have the same issue if he'd been drummed out because it turned out he'd donated a grand to NAMBLA?

Provided the organisation is legal, yes. I'd find the man to be completely reprehensible but I'd still defend his right to an opinion without fear of losing his job.

It would be a very difficult thing to defend, though. Can you imagine the outcry from the public against anyone who dared pointing out that what he does with his money on his free time is irrelevant?

Is whether or not it's legal the line you'd draw?  Are there illegal activities you do or don't think should affect his position?  Or a line?  Technically, for example, expanding the example above, if the man had also previously been convicted and had to register as a sex offender, but had served his time and debt to society otherwise, he'd still be able to do his job.  Discrimination against people who flunk CORIs is rampant and is in many ways and instances morally reprehensible.

Oooh, a far more difficult question than I first thought. My gut reaction was to say yes, that's where I draw the line re Mozilla. But thinking about it, I remain doubtful. In principle, it's easier for me to understand why a company might want to sack somebody who financially supported an illegal but unrelated cause, but I'm not sure I agree with such a standpoint anyway. There are plenty of silly laws.

I guess my stance is that if the donation in itself was legal, then fine; it should not result in a dismissal.

A previous conviction might conceivably hurt an employer, depending on the nature of the crime and whether or not the conviction was known when the person was first hired, but that's not really a free speech issue, it's a discrimination issue.

*nod*  And then there's issues like laws that are sort of silly in the first place (remember the "Dude you're getting a dell" guy who got fired for smoking weed?).  That would probably NOT result in a dismissal, now.  Again, it becomes tricky to sort out free speech vs. just plain what's right.

I had completely forgotten about that guy. Dell dropped the campaign after he was arrested but claimed it was for other reasons entirely, right?

He wasn't employed by them, though, was he?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ben_Curtis_%28actor%29

The other tricky part here is this is a part of an overall change in public opinion *against* discrimination, and while the negative side is it's sending a message not to openly disagree with common opinion, the positive side is it's sending the message that being homophobic is not only not OK, but it can fuck you up, down the road.  It's all rather messy.

And further muddied by the fact that homophobia is not (or at least doesn't have to be) the same as opposing same-sex marriages--wasn't that the cause that the Mozilla guy donated to? Not saying that he isn't homophobic, but not saying that he is, either. The issue is about political correctness, really, and what's PC changes, constantly. The donation itself happened in 2008. Lots have happened since and I'm not sure it had been an issue at all back then.

Wondering what had happened if he'd donated money to something less conspicuous, such as a campaign for sending illegal Mexican immigrants back to Mexico.

Nooooooo, it was very controversial in 2008, too, odeon, and outright shocking because California is typically such a liberal state.  I remember the ruckus, and I remember some degree of blackballing of supporters of prop 8 then, as well. 

You have to consider that Prop 8 was also not *blocking* gay marriage in CA, but actually *attempting to undo it.*  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_8_%282008%29

I'd forgotten you don't necessarily have the cultural context here, so also remember what rights marriage provides in the US, which include pretty major financial things like the ability to be covered by your spouse's health insurance.  This was a huge, huge deal.

I'm not sure you can, because populism also highlights another problem with democracy, namely that the voters are really not that knowledgeable and easily swayed in the first place. It's a design flaw, really, in my mind.

This gets to a couple of other issues, 1. of "knowledge" (which often is more about what kinds of propaganda you've been exposed to) 2. corporate disconnect (this also applies to politicians) 3. with democracy (at least in the US) the country is so huge and diverse that there's some things that are really impractical to vote on on a federal rather than state level, because needs vary so much across the country.

Also worth considering- if we're calling money free speech now, speaking together is something most people have access to; dropping a grand at a time to a cause isn't.  Is there something to be said for leveling the playing field?

Absolutely, but if you really want absolute fairness, then you'd need to level the field in so many different ways that it all becomes a bit absurd. Where do you draw that line?

That depends on who you're rooting for, I suspect.  We're drawing it the wrong places, here in the US.  It's kind of scary.

[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.

Well, it's not really an answer, is it, because it doesn't solve the underlying problem.

Well, people seem to have a problem with the fact that the guy believes a certain way. I think it actually does address the problem to stop using the services provided by someone you don't like if you think their beliefs will somehow "get on you" if you do.

ITT: Don't like someone? Don't associate with them. Don't do business with them. Ostracize them. Just don't try and force them to do anything. People have a lot more control over this stuff than they are willing to admit.

Isn't that exactly what happened?

No, they took it further and engaged in social justice warfare. That's wrong.

["couldbecousin"]

  I'm enjoying the debate in this thread.    Carry on!

[El]

Well, people seem to have a problem with the fact that the guy believes a certain way. I think it actually does address the problem to stop using the services provided by someone you don't like if you think their beliefs will somehow "get on you" if you do.

ITT: Don't like someone? Don't associate with them. Don't do business with them. Ostracize them. Just don't try and force them to do anything. People have a lot more control over this stuff than they are willing to admit.

Isn't that exactly what happened?

No, they took it further and engaged in social justice warfare. That's wrong.

why?

["couldbecousin"]

Well, people seem to have a problem with the fact that the guy believes a certain way. I think it actually does address the problem to stop using the services provided by someone you don't like if you think their beliefs will somehow "get on you" if you do.

ITT: Don't like someone? Don't associate with them. Don't do business with them. Ostracize them. Just don't try and force them to do anything. People have a lot more control over this stuff than they are willing to admit.

Isn't that exactly what happened?

No, they took it further and engaged in social justice warfare. That's wrong.

why?

  Actually, Rage, while I don't know exactly what you mean by "social justice warfare,"
  it kind of sounds like something you'd be up for, though you might choose different causes. 

[odeon]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ben_Curtis_%28actor%29

Ah, yes. It all comes back to me now.

I'd never buy a computer from Dell again, btw, but for entirely different reasons.

Nooooooo, it was very controversial in 2008, too, odeon, and outright shocking because California is typically such a liberal state.  I remember the ruckus, and I remember some degree of blackballing of supporters of prop 8 then, as well. 

Ah, OK. I can't say I kept track of what was going on there back then. Here, there was very little drama back then, AFAIK.

You have to consider that Prop 8 was also not *blocking* gay marriage in CA, but actually *attempting to undo it.*  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_8_%282008%29

Fucking hell.

I'd forgotten you don't necessarily have the cultural context here, so also remember what rights marriage provides in the US, which include pretty major financial things like the ability to be covered by your spouse's health insurance.  This was a huge, huge deal.

This I actually knew about. Didn't think about it, tbh, but certainly knew about it.

I'm not sure you can, because populism also highlights another problem with democracy, namely that the voters are really not that knowledgeable and easily swayed in the first place. It's a design flaw, really, in my mind.

This gets to a couple of other issues, 1. of "knowledge" (which often is more about what kinds of propaganda you've been exposed to) 2. corporate disconnect (this also applies to politicians) 3. with democracy (at least in the US) the country is so huge and diverse that there's some things that are really impractical to vote on on a federal rather than state level, because needs vary so much across the country.

That last one is not a design flaw with democracy but rather your country.

Kidding. Seriously, though, the very size of your country does present some interesting challenges. I know there are sociologists who believe that your country will eventually break up into smaller ones.

Also worth considering- if we're calling money free speech now, speaking together is something most people have access to; dropping a grand at a time to a cause isn't.  Is there something to be said for leveling the playing field?

Absolutely, but if you really want absolute fairness, then you'd need to level the field in so many different ways that it all becomes a bit absurd. Where do you draw that line?

That depends on who you're rooting for, I suspect.  We're drawing it the wrong places, here in the US.  It's kind of scary.

The rest of the world is not a whole lot better.

Levelling the field borders on the ridiculous sometimes, here. They've completely managed to ruin the school system here with the misguided notion of people being the same rather than having equal rights.

[odeon]

  I'm enjoying the debate in this thread.    Carry on!

Yeah, me too.

[El]

I'm not sure you can, because populism also highlights another problem with democracy, namely that the voters are really not that knowledgeable and easily swayed in the first place. It's a design flaw, really, in my mind.

This gets to a couple of other issues, 1. of "knowledge" (which often is more about what kinds of propaganda you've been exposed to) 2. corporate disconnect (this also applies to politicians) 3. with democracy (at least in the US) the country is so huge and diverse that there's some things that are really impractical to vote on on a federal rather than state level, because needs vary so much across the country.

That last one is not a design flaw with democracy but rather your country.

Kidding. Seriously, though, the very size of your country does present some interesting challenges. I know there are sociologists who believe that your country will eventually break up into smaller ones.

No, it really is a design flaw with the country.  You're not wrong.

Also worth considering- if we're calling money free speech now, speaking together is something most people have access to; dropping a grand at a time to a cause isn't.  Is there something to be said for leveling the playing field?

Absolutely, but if you really want absolute fairness, then you'd need to level the field in so many different ways that it all becomes a bit absurd. Where do you draw that line?

That depends on who you're rooting for, I suspect.  We're drawing it the wrong places, here in the US.  It's kind of scary.

The rest of the world is not a whole lot better.

Well, part of the issue is that capitalism now affects the whole fucking world, thanks to multinational corporations that are "too big to fail" or be held accountable for contributing so heavily to corruption that they are effectively the ruling political parties in a lot of meaningful ways.

Levelling the field borders on the ridiculous sometimes, here. They've completely managed to ruin the school system here with the misguided notion of people being the same rather than having equal rights.

Oh jesus, the stupid fucking educational system.  That's a whole different thread, man.  It's a goddamn pyramid scheme that contributes to social stratification and we're only just now starting to recognize that we've been brainwashed into thinking that eating four or five or six years worth of useless shit does not make us better people, but rather hopelessly indebted peons who, quite often, have no more (or even less) ability to get gainful employment than when they started.  (I feel like I understood that one before it reached the mainstream.  I think I've said this- I knew a lot of liberal arts majors, and it was like being the one person who knew the emperor was naked.)

[odeon]

That last one is not a design flaw with democracy but rather your country.

Kidding. Seriously, though, the very size of your country does present some interesting challenges. I know there are sociologists who believe that your country will eventually break up into smaller ones.

No, it really is a design flaw with the country.  You're not wrong.

/shrugs

If you consider geography to be a design flaw, sure.

That depends on who you're rooting for, I suspect.  We're drawing it the wrong places, here in the US.  It's kind of scary.

The rest of the world is not a whole lot better.

Well, part of the issue is that capitalism now affects the whole fucking world, thanks to multinational corporations that are "too big to fail" or be held accountable for contributing so heavily to corruption that they are effectively the ruling political parties in a lot of meaningful ways.

Now, that's a design flaw with capitalism.

Not sure what to do about it. China's alternative is not particularly appealing.

Levelling the field borders on the ridiculous sometimes, here. They've completely managed to ruin the school system here with the misguided notion of people being the same rather than having equal rights.

Oh jesus, the stupid fucking educational system.  That's a whole different thread, man.  It's a goddamn pyramid scheme that contributes to social stratification and we're only just now starting to recognize that we've been brainwashed into thinking that eating four or five or six years worth of useless shit does not make us better people, but rather hopelessly indebted peons who, quite often, have no more (or even less) ability to get gainful employment than when they started.  (I feel like I understood that one before it reached the mainstream.  I think I've said this- I knew a lot of liberal arts majors, and it was like being the one person who knew the emperor was naked.)

That's actually yet another problem. What I was talking about is the system here where everything seems to be based on the misguided idea that everybody really is the same. They dumb things down, and they take away anything and everything that can be seen as an actual evaluation of one's progress in elementary school because that is seen as "undue pressure".

If you happen to be unlucky enough to possess an actual talent beyond the norm, you will be assimilated.

[El]

That last one is not a design flaw with democracy but rather your country.

Kidding. Seriously, though, the very size of your country does present some interesting challenges. I know there are sociologists who believe that your country will eventually break up into smaller ones.

No, it really is a design flaw with the country.  You're not wrong.

/shrugs

If you consider geography to be a design flaw, sure.

No, treating the whole thing like it's uniform is a design flaw.  Same issue you have with education.    Though my main issues aren't about crushing individuality, they're about how totally broken the whole goddamn system is.