INTENSITY²
Start here => What's your crime? Basic Discussion => Topic started by: El on March 31, 2014, 07:16:54 PM
-
http://www.theverge.com/2014/3/31/5568136/okcupid-asks-users-to-boycott-firefox-because-of-ceos-gay-rights (http://www.theverge.com/2014/3/31/5568136/okcupid-asks-users-to-boycott-firefox-because-of-ceos-gay-rights)
Anyone accessing the popular dating site OKCupid with Firefox today is in for a surprise. Instead of the homepage, OKCupid.com is serving Firefox users with a message calling out Mozilla CEO Brendan Eich for his support of California's Proposition 8, highlighted by a $1000 donation made in 2008. "Mozilla’s new CEO, Brendan Eich, is an opponent of equal rights for gay couples," the message tells users. "We would therefore prefer that our users not use Mozilla software to access OkCupid."
It's not the first controversy the incoming CEO has faced. Last week, one of Mozilla's board members resigned over the Proposition 8 donation. (Eich responded by acknowledging their concerns, but refusing to step down.) Still, this is the strongest outcry that has come from another site, using the browser ID tags to effectively boycott the Firefox browser. The message allows OKCupid users to continue to the site via a link at the bottom, but not before they've seen download links for the other four major browsers and a very strong call to action: "Those who seek to deny love and instead enforce misery, shame, and frustration are our enemies, and we wish them nothing but failure."
Update: Mozilla has responded to OKCupid's letter with an official statement: "Mozilla supports equality for all, including marriage equality for LGBT couples. No matter who you are or who you love, everyone deserves the same rights and to be treated equally. OKcupid never reached out to us to let us know of their intentions, nor to confirm facts."
-
So has Eich changed his mind? I'd be interested in hearing what he has to say. :orly:
-
So has Eich changed his mind? I'd be interested in hearing what he has to say. :orly:
I'm guessing he loves money more than he hates gays?
-
That's just ridiculous. If I got preachy message from a site because I use a certain browser I'd abandoned that site in a heartbeat. I'll be the controversial one here to say who cares if he doesn't support gay marriage? That's his choice and I'm still going to use firefox, no fucks given and no-one is going to extort me to do otherwise. Only if I was actually paying for the goods/service and the money was ending up in something malicious I'd change my mind on that.
-
Yup. I wouldn't use that site again.
-
Its his choice to oppose gay marriage. I tolerate most beliefs, its only enforcing them on others and using those beliefs to justify acts of violence and hatred that I don't tolerate. So I'm still going to use Firefox, unless it begins to cram anti-gay messages down my throat (highly unlikely)
-
Now I am going to watch Duck Dynasty online through Firefox while eating Chik-fil-a.
-
I'm posting this using Firefox.
-
Heh, the same guy who is the CEO of Mozilla also created javascript. Good luck trying to boycott that. Might do the internet a favor if they did. :zoinks:
-
Heh, the same guy who is the CEO of Mozilla also created javascript. Good luck trying to boycott that. Might do the internet a favor if they did. :zoinks:
Set Firefox to disable Javascript. :trollface:
-
Heh, the same guy who is the CEO of Mozilla also created javascript. Good luck trying to boycott that. Might do the internet a favor if they did. :zoinks:
Set Firefox to disable Javascript. :trollface:
You're not helping. :M :P
-
And he resigned.
Why is it that freedom of speech only seems to be acceptable if you agree with what's being said?
-
Americans, especially the young, care about identity politics way too much. When is the last time you heard about a CEO in this country resigning over public pressure due to something that they're directly responsible for, like unfair wages?
-
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. :dunno:
Americans, especially the young, care about identity politics way too much. When is the last time you heard about a CEO in this country resigning over public pressure due to something that they're directly responsible for, like unfair wages?
THAT is the best point in this thread thus far IMO.
-
Let's boycott Firefox because he resigned :zoinks:
-
Let's boycott Firefox because he resigned :zoinks:
While still using javascript?
-
Let's boycott Firefox because he resigned :zoinks:
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 :green:
-
Let's boycott Firefox because he resigned :zoinks:
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 :green:
One has to be precise in things like these.
Companies should hire personnel, not for their skills, but for their lack of offensive opinions.
-
Let's boycott Firefox because he resigned :zoinks:
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 :green:
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 :zoinks:
-
Let's boycott Firefox because he resigned :zoinks:
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 :green:
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 :zoinks:
You made it to be an admin here. :viking:
-
Let's boycott Firefox because he resigned :zoinks:
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 :green:
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 :zoinks:
You made it to be an admin here. :viking:
Having offensive opinions is a prerequisite here.
-
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. :dunno:
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.
-
Let's boycott Firefox because he resigned :zoinks:
:laugh:
-
Let's boycott Firefox because he resigned :zoinks:
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 :green:
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 :zoinks:
You made it to be an admin here. :viking:
Having offensive opinions is a prerequisite here.
Yes. You'll be sacked if you are too PC. :zoinks:
-
Let's boycott Firefox because he resigned :zoinks:
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 :green:
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 :zoinks:
You made it to be an admin here. :viking:
Having offensive opinions is a prerequisite here.
Did someone say offensive opinions? :orly:
EL PRESIDENTE DEMANDS NOODZ!!
-
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. :dunno:
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.'
-
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.
-
Parts has no tolerance for the unacceptable intolerance of the intolerant and unaccepted. Jack finds this all highly unacceptable. :laugh:
-
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.
-
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. :dunno:
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.
-
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.
People often confuse freedom of speech with populism.
We are talking about a person who privately donated money to a cause he happens to believe in. Mozilla as an organisation should have done the decent thing and defended their employers' right to keep whatever opinions they like instead of worrying about OKCupid sympathisers abandoning them for another browser.
Instead they invented a whole new set of standards (well, an old one, actually) and showed that they have the backbone of an amoeba.
-
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.
-
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. :dunno:
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.
I thought about this a bit more- I had to try and consider what I'd think of it if he'd expressed an opinion I'd agreed with rather than was strongly opposed to, which was a little difficult to come up with (especially with it being what I see as an actual action directly against human rights, not merely an opinion- it's tough to think of an opposite correlate that would actually piss off the public), but I do see your point. Still feel like raging against it is windmill-tilting, but I do see it. (We're talking about a country where only a decade or so ago we were ready to impeach a president for lying about a consensual blowjob. We pick weird battles here.)
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?
-
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?
-
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.
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?
As a side note, I find the whole concept of money being "free speech" really kind of disturbing, at least in terms of this: http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2014/04/03/campaign-finance-donations-free-speech-democracy-column/7273303/ (http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2014/04/03/campaign-finance-donations-free-speech-democracy-column/7273303/) Like, jesus fucking christ.
-
OkCupid's co-founder and CEO Sam Yagan once donated to an anti-gay candidate. (Yagan is also CEO of Match.com.) Specifically, Yagan donated $500 to Rep. Chris Cannon (R-Utah) in 2004, reports Uncrunched. During his time as congressman from 1997 to 2009, Cannon voted for a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage, against a ban on sexual-orientation based job discrimination, and for prohibition of gay adoptions.
Link (http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2014/04/okcupid-ceo-donate-anti-gay-firefox)
Opps :hahaha:
-
:laugh:
-
OkCupid's co-founder and CEO Sam Yagan once donated to an anti-gay candidate. (Yagan is also CEO of Match.com.) Specifically, Yagan donated $500 to Rep. Chris Cannon (R-Utah) in 2004, reports Uncrunched. During his time as congressman from 1997 to 2009, Cannon voted for a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage, against a ban on sexual-orientation based job discrimination, and for prohibition of gay adoptions.
Link (http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2014/04/okcupid-ceo-donate-anti-gay-firefox)
Opps :hahaha:
LOL. Fucking hypocrites. :laugh:
-
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.
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.
As a side note, I find the whole concept of money being "free speech" really kind of disturbing, at least in terms of this: http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2014/04/03/campaign-finance-donations-free-speech-democracy-column/7273303/ (http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2014/04/03/campaign-finance-donations-free-speech-democracy-column/7273303/) Like, jesus fucking christ.
It is disturbing, yes. Not sure what to think about it, tbh.
-
OkCupid's co-founder and CEO Sam Yagan once donated to an anti-gay candidate. (Yagan is also CEO of Match.com.) Specifically, Yagan donated $500 to Rep. Chris Cannon (R-Utah) in 2004, reports Uncrunched. During his time as congressman from 1997 to 2009, Cannon voted for a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage, against a ban on sexual-orientation based job discrimination, and for prohibition of gay adoptions.
Link (http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2014/04/okcupid-ceo-donate-anti-gay-firefox)
Opps :hahaha:
:laugh:
He should step down, of course. :P
-
I will not use OkCupid from now on, and in the past. :hyke:
-
That's an important stance to make. I fully support your right to do so.
-
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?
-
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. :arrr:
-
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. :arrr:
Good, one cannot be too thorough, with things like this.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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?
-
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. :arrr:
Good, one cannot be too thorough, with things like this.
I absolutely refuse to have used OKCupid in the past. Just so you know.
-
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?
-
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 (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 (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.
-
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.
-
I'm enjoying the debate in this thread. :include: Carry on!
-
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?
-
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. :apondering:
-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ben_Curtis_%28actor%29 (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 (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. :trollface:
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.
-
I'm enjoying the debate in this thread. :include: Carry on!
Yeah, me too.
-
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. :trollface:
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.)
-
That last one is not a design flaw with democracy but rather your country. :trollface:
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. :trollface:
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.
-
That last one is not a design flaw with democracy but rather your country. :trollface:
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. :P Though my main issues aren't about crushing individuality, they're about how totally broken the whole goddamn system is.
-
That last one is not a design flaw with democracy but rather your country. :trollface:
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. :P Though my main issues aren't about crushing individuality, they're about how totally broken the whole goddamn system is.
Ah, right. I misread.
But was it broken because of a design flaw? :-\
-
That last one is not a design flaw with democracy but rather your country. :trollface:
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. :P Though my main issues aren't about crushing individuality, they're about how totally broken the whole goddamn system is.
Ah, right. I misread.
But was it broken because of a design flaw? :-\
The original design has neither aged well nor scaled well.
-
Well, the original design had a few holes in it, IMHO.
It's been a few days. Do you think anyone remembers the Mozilla incident now?
-
Well, the original design had a few holes in it, IMHO.
It's been a few days. Do you think anyone remembers the Mozilla incident now?
The what? :autism:
-
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?
Its coercive. Trying to force people to think in a way you find preferable is no different than the bigotry these homophobic types are accused of.
-
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?
Its coercive. Trying to force people to think in a way you find preferable is no different than the bigotry these homophobic types are accused of.
Again, devil's advocate: I'm not sure donating a grand is quite the same as just *thinking.*
-
There is a flaw in the LOCAL education system AND I can not understand why it is that I am one of a few complaining about.
We pay over four hundred dollars to the school every year for a book charge, but this year there were no books distributed. All assignments arrive on printed out, even hand written in math, printer paper.
IF I need to refresh my child's mind about his lesson, I can not just whip open a book and read it for myself and ask about the pertinent points. There is NO book, only a work sheet and in rare cases, a study sheet, all printed from a computer.
I know this is more personal than general as you have been discussing, but FUCK!! Why do they (the local school boards) still need to make us (parents) spend over four hundred dollars on a book fee if there will be no books?
:police:
-
Well, the original design had a few holes in it, IMHO.
It's been a few days. Do you think anyone remembers the Mozilla incident now?
The what? :autism:
Never mind. I'm sure there's a reality soap or two to fill the void with.
-
There is a flaw in the LOCAL education system AND I can not understand why it is that I am one of a few complaining about.
We pay over four hundred dollars to the school every year for a book charge, but this year there were no books distributed. All assignments arrive on printed out, even hand written in math, printer paper.
IF I need to refresh my child's mind about his lesson, I can not just whip open a book and read it for myself and ask about the pertinent points. There is NO book, only a work sheet and in rare cases, a study sheet, all printed from a computer.
I know this is more personal than general as you have been discussing, but FUCK!! Why do they (the local school boards) still need to make us (parents) spend over four hundred dollars on a book fee if there will be no books?
:police:
Because window taxes are too obvious?
-
There is a flaw in the LOCAL education system AND I can not understand why it is that I am one of a few complaining about.
We pay over four hundred dollars to the school every year for a book charge, but this year there were no books distributed. All assignments arrive on printed out, even hand written in math, printer paper.
IF I need to refresh my child's mind about his lesson, I can not just whip open a book and read it for myself and ask about the pertinent points. There is NO book, only a work sheet and in rare cases, a study sheet, all printed from a computer.
I know this is more personal than general as you have been discussing, but FUCK!! Why do they (the local school boards) still need to make us (parents) spend over four hundred dollars on a book fee if there will be no books?
:police:
Because window taxes are too obvious?
LOL!
wish it was so easy!
To ME it IS obvious!
-
Well, the original design had a few holes in it, IMHO.
It's been a few days. Do you think anyone remembers the Mozilla incident now?
The what? :autism:
Never mind. I'm sure there's a reality soap or two to fill the void with.
HEARTBLEED
-
Well, the original design had a few holes in it, IMHO.
It's been a few days. Do you think anyone remembers the Mozilla incident now?
The what? :autism:
Never mind. I'm sure there's a reality soap or two to fill the void with.
HEARTBLEED
Heads should roll! :arrr:
-
Today's xkcd:
(http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/free_speech.png)
-
I'm going to sue.
-
So am I let's make it a class action :2thumbsup:
-
There's money to be made. My rights have been violated. :zoinks:
-
Today's xkcd:
(http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/free_speech.png)
EXACTUMUNDO! (except the part about yelling or boycotting) Instead of picking up a bunch of torches and pitchforks, all that is necessary is to just refuse to interact if one doesn't agree. If the way someone does business rubs you the wrong way, don't use their services.
People need to stop using force. It will NEVER solve problems, but smash them into a bunch of new ones. I once thought whipping some ass was an acceptable solution, and I still joke about it.
It never was.
-
It depends on who's arse is being whipped and why.
-
You need to sue if rights are being violated.
-
When this came up in the news it made me think of this thread:
http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2014/04/24/radiumone_founder_pleads_guilty_to_domestic_abuse.html (http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2014/04/24/radiumone_founder_pleads_guilty_to_domestic_abuse.html)
Is It OK to Invest in a Company if Its CEO Beats Women?
Back in August, Gurbaksh "G" Chahal, the millionaire founder, CEO, and chairman of online ad network RadiumOne, was allegedly caught on tape viciously beating his girlfriend for half an hour, hitting her 117 times in his San Francisco penthouse. After his arrest, prosecutors charged him with 45 felony counts. But once their case began to unravel partly on a technicality—first the girlfriend chose not to cooperate, then a judge tossed the incriminating home security system footage from evidence, citing a Fourth Amendment violation—the district attorney’s office offered Chahal an easy deal.
Jordan Weissmann Jordan Weissmann
Jordan Weissmann is Slate's senior business and economics correspondent.
Last week, he pleaded guilty to a pair of misdemeanors—one count of domestic violence battery and one count of battery, according to the San Francisco Business Times.* The marketing mogul was sentenced to three years probation, 25 hours of community service, a 52-week domestic-violence training program, and no jail.
In the meantime, Chahal’s company appears to be doing splendidly. RadiumOne is planning a $100 million IPO. It signed a partnership with Condé Nast. Because Chahal avoided any felony convictions, he will be allowed to remain on RadiumOne's board. He’s also scheduled to appear as a featured speaker at a fancy marketing conference. As Valleywag’s Nitasha Tiku noted yesterday, these “promising career developments occurred well after Chahal's arrest in August.”
This leads to an obvious question: Is it acceptable to invest in, or do business with, a company run by a man who has admitted to beating his girlfriend? I think there’s an equally obvious answer: No, it is not.
I don’t want to dwell too long on the specifics of Chahal’s case, because I’ve only read about it through news reports, and haven’t personally pored over the court filings. But at the very least he has now admitted to committing an act of domestic violence. RadiumOne has not responded to my request for comment. But he is still listed on its website as founder and chairman. I cannot imagine how Condé Nast, which makes much of its money off of women’s magazines, could justify partnering with RadiumOne if he remains there. And while I obviously can’t speak for Chahal’s female employees, I suspect not all of them are perfectly comfortable working for the man.
But just as a general principle, I don’t know how anybody can justify supporting a company that is run by someone with a recent history of domestic violence. At least not if you believe that where you spend money, or where you invest capital, is any kind of statement about values.
Some people make horrible mistakes. Some people have momentary psychotic breaks. Over time, maybe it’s possible to atone for them. But as a rule, men with a fresh track record of beating women shouldn’t be managing them. Female employees shouldn't have to answer to a superior with a threatening history of misogynistic violence.
That’s not to say such men don’t deserve a chance to do something else with their professional lives. But they absolutely 100 percent shouldn’t be the boss of a corporation. Certainly, as one astute Twitter user pointed out, if you believe Brendan Eich deserved to get the boot from Mozilla because he opposed same-sex marriage, you ought to be appalled by a case like Chahal’s. And if you were bothered by the Eich case, domestic abuse can at least offer a clear example of what should count as a fireable offense. Arguably bigoted personal beliefs might be one thing. Reprehensible personal behavior is another.
If what I’m saying sounds like common sense, it isn’t always treated that way in corporate America. One of the more famous examples involved former HBO CEO Chris Albrecht, who was fired in 2007 after being arrested and charged with attacking his girlfriend in a parking lot. It was quickly revealed that in 1991, HBO had paid at least $400,000 to settle allegations that he had choked a female subordinate. Then the Deadline Hollywood editor later reported that at the network had quietly covered up past incidents with women at the company.
I like to think we’ve come a long way from the time when a corporation would simply hush up that sort of thing. But in cases where there’s not much the company can do—say, a tech startup with a charismatic CEO-founder—it’s incumbent on investors and customers to take their money elsewhere. It’s the only decent response.
Update, April 25, 2014: After this post was published, Condé Nast contacted me to take issue with the phrase "partner." I had meant it in the sense that the two companies were doing business together. Condé felt like it made the relationship more involved than it was. But, good news, they're apparently reconsidering the deal entirely. Here's the company's statement: "Condé Nast is not and has never been an investor in or partner of RadiumOne. Our Britain division has a vendor relationship for sales software with the company, as do many other UK-based media companies. We do not condone abusive behavior and the UK company is reviewing its association." One hopes that "review" will end in a termination.
Update, April 26, 2014: The pressure on RadiumOne is growing. TechCrunch announced today that it was dropping the company as a sponsor for its New York Disrupt hackathon. Meanwhile, Re/code's Kara Swisher reports that RadiumOne's board is debating whether to remove Chahal from his position. The board, by the way, is entirely male.
Update, April 27, 2014: RadiumOne has fired Chahal.
-
I stopped using Firefox because I didn't like the new update and look that came with it, I am using Pale Moon which is a FF knock off that is more like it used to be before the update
-
I stopped using Firefox because I didn't like the new update and look that came with it, I am using Pale Moon which is a FF knock off that is more like it used to be before the update
It looks like chrome now. Took getting used to,
-
I don't like the new look either. :-\
-
It depends on who's arse is being whipped and why.
Shut up and take your whipping! :whipped:
-
I stopped using Firefox because I didn't like the new update and look that came with it, I am using Pale Moon which is a FF knock off that is more like it used to be before the update
I don't want to look at a pale moon. :moon: :GA:
-
I don't like the new look either. :-\
Then you must kill it! Kill it with fire! :flamer:
-
I stopped using Firefox because I didn't like the new update and look that came with it, I am using Pale Moon which is a FF knock off that is more like it used to be before the update
I don't want to look at a pale moon. :moon: :GA:
Perhaps the pale moon will contrast well with WP. :zoinks:
-
I don't like the new look either. :-\
Then you must kill it! Kill it with fire! :flamer:
Thinking of using Chrome instead, since they now look the same.
-
I don't like the new look either. :-\
Then you must kill it! Kill it with fire! :flamer:
Thinking of using Chrome instead, since they now look the same.
chrome should rearrange their look to look like firefox now.
-
I don't like the new look either. :-\
Then you must kill it! Kill it with fire! :flamer:
Thinking of using Chrome instead, since they now look the same.
chrome should rearrange their look to look like firefox now.
Great minds think alike. :P