Blacks are STILL regularly beaten by police, however that has changed somewhat. Now the police just beat/stun/kill/anally search EVERYONE, so that's a kind of equality, I guess.
![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
-
Some users have recently had their accounts hijacked. It seems that the now defunct EVGA forums might have compromised your password there and seems many are using the same PW here. We would suggest you UPDATE YOUR PASSWORD and TURN ON 2FA for your account here to further secure it. None of the compromised accounts had 2FA turned on.
Once you have enabled 2FA, your account will be updated soon to show a badge, letting other members know that you use 2FA to protect your account. This should be beneficial for everyone that uses FSFT.
Mozilla CEO Resigns
- Thread starter HardOCP News
- Start date
- Status
Blacks are STILL regularly beaten by police, however that has changed somewhat. Now the police just beat/stun/kill/anally search EVERYONE, so that's a kind of equality, I guess.
Vildayyan2003
Gawd
- Joined
- Aug 17, 2004
- Messages
- 617
Tolerance in America now means "Support gays and gay rights or (insert anything you don't agree with and Democrats do) or you'll be fired and black listed." Neat system.
- Joined
- Nov 30, 2008
- Messages
- 230
Sums it up perfectly.
Actually it's more like "I am so angry that this person disagrees with me that they should lose their job".
Can't wait till it's done to you.
InternationalHat
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Aug 13, 2004
- Messages
- 1,481
If you phrase it like an asshole you can make this sound terrible for any side. Watch:
Tolerance in America now means "Donating money and supporting causes that actively seek to discriminate and prevent groups of people from performing activities or receiving services available to others in similar circumstances should come with absolutely no repercussions and ought to be protected against any kind of organized backlash." Neat system.
Sometimes it seems like the people who want freedom really attach this little asterisk at the end for themselves that reads like this freedom* (for me to say and do pretty much whatever I want and reap no social repercussions from the the actions I've sown)
Wow ... please seek professional help.
There is that tolerance shinning through again. What is it like to get so incredibly angry over something which has no effect on your life what-so-ever ... must be terrible.
In other words, having the opposite opinion of you on a political issue.
You can't leave it there, can you? Just like everyone else who has defended this abominable behavior, you refuse to allow the opinion of being against gay marriage to be recognized as valid. To you and the rest, it's not even a political opinion. It's oppression. It's the denial of rights(that don't exist). To even hold the position is so wrong, so mean, so evil...that people should be punished for even holding the position. They should lose their jobs. Or be sued. Or be imprisoned. You have to keep thinking this way, or else you might actually have to deal with the fact that not everyone thinks the same way you do, and you can't stand that shit. Fucking agree or shut up, already! I don't have time to hear your side of the argument! It won't be trendy a few years from now, so hurry up!
kbrickley
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- May 13, 2012
- Messages
- 7,514
CEOs are public figures of public companies ... as such they are NOT entitled to the same privileges and protections as normal people ... actually most workers have lots of legally binding restrictions about what they can do or say (they just aren't important enough to warrant lots of external monitoring) ... a CEO needs to be prepared for the wrath of his board, the investors, his employees, or his consumers if he takes a controversial stand on something (which is why most CEOs are very quiet about things that are controversial or that they think will negatively affect their business) ... freedom of speech doesn't guarantee freedom from responsibility or consequences (especially in the private sector where there is no legal right to free speech 
)
)What is it like never having anything of substance to say on an issue? Oh, that's right. If you were interested in actual debate, you wouldn't be in favor of mobs calling for a human sacrifice over disagreement on a political issue. You fear listening to the other side's rational explanations for why they think differently, because it might force you to think critically about your own values. Instead, it's just better to shut those evil people up for daring to disagree, and then sneering at anyone who questions those lynch mob tactics.
andrewaggb
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Oct 6, 2004
- Messages
- 438
maybe it's because I'm in Canada and I don't understand prop 8 well enough...
But I guess I don't see how a personal contribution made years ago to something unrelated to mozilla should affect his ability to be CEO. I've worked with people who do all sorts of 'objectionable things'* on their own time and dime, but so long as they are good at their job I don't really care a whole lot. I understand a CEO must bear public scrutiny, but this doesn't seem like a scandal.
Plus... sometimes people change, their opinions change, etc. He may very well not feel the same way about the issue today as he did back then. There's been many social issues that I've initially felt one way and over time come to see it's not so black/white/clear and had a change of opinion. That's kinda how life works.
I know many churches 'encouraged' members to support prop 8. Could be that this guy was pressured into supporting it. Who knows...
Personally I'd have cut him some slack, he said it wouldn't be an issue, give him a chance to prove it. There are no perfect people, if this is the worst they can dig up on this guy, I'd say he's doing alright. Particularly because it's not financial, fraud, or dishonest. If he was the head of the HR department, it might be a big deal, but I don't see the same relevance as CEO.
But I guess I don't see how a personal contribution made years ago to something unrelated to mozilla should affect his ability to be CEO. I've worked with people who do all sorts of 'objectionable things'* on their own time and dime, but so long as they are good at their job I don't really care a whole lot. I understand a CEO must bear public scrutiny, but this doesn't seem like a scandal.
Plus... sometimes people change, their opinions change, etc. He may very well not feel the same way about the issue today as he did back then. There's been many social issues that I've initially felt one way and over time come to see it's not so black/white/clear and had a change of opinion. That's kinda how life works.
I know many churches 'encouraged' members to support prop 8. Could be that this guy was pressured into supporting it. Who knows...
Personally I'd have cut him some slack, he said it wouldn't be an issue, give him a chance to prove it. There are no perfect people, if this is the worst they can dig up on this guy, I'd say he's doing alright. Particularly because it's not financial, fraud, or dishonest. If he was the head of the HR department, it might be a big deal, but I don't see the same relevance as CEO.
There is nothing to debate. Equality is a basic human right ... not a belief.
Hear, hear.
CEOs are public figures of public companies ... as such they are NOT entitled to the same privileges and protections as normal people ... actually most workers have lots of legally binding restrictions about what they can do or say (they just aren't important enough to warrant lots of external monitoring) ... a CEO needs to be prepared for the wrath of his board, the investors, his employees, or his consumers if he takes a controversial stand on something (which is why most CEOs are very quiet about things that are controversial or that they think will negatively affect their business) ... freedom of speech doesn't guarantee freedom from responsibility or consequences (especially in the private sector where there is no legal right to free speech
Awesome. So when will Barack Obama be resigning?
Being against gay marriage is no more of a controversial stand than being in favor of gay marriage. It's a heavily contested issue. The only reason one side is being called "controversial" is because the opposite side wants to make opposition to gay marriage socially unacceptable as a viewpoint. It's too hard for them to actually make a reasoned argument, so instead they just want to paint those who disagree as "evil". It's little different than when gun control advocates claim that their opponents want children to die, or when socialized medicine advocates claim that their opponents want poor people to die, etc.
The only real difference here is that the issue is far less important than those other issues, and serves only as a distraction from serious problems that affect EVERYONE, including homosexuals who do and do not want to get married.
That's not an argument, and no, "equality" has not, and never will be, a "right".
The fact that you refuse to acknowledge that there can even be debate on an issue shows just how closed-minded, bigoted, and intolerant those of your mindset truly are.
kbrickley
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- May 13, 2012
- Messages
- 7,514
He worked for a private company and he left a private company ... the only protections granted to employees on the hiring and firing fronts are those related to discrimination ... firing people for taking a stand on an issue is perfectly legal for any company as long as it doesn't violate his rights on the discrimination front ... if he had claimed a religious reason for opposing gay marriage then the company trying to force him out would be very problematic ... I am not aware that he took that position
As to your itemized list, the constitution only protects people's rights as they are related to the government (except in those rare circumstances where it has been amended more broadly) ... losing your job is perfectly acceptable (unless it was a government job, where it might be seen as the government restricting free speech) ... Sued (the government can't sue you unless you violate one of their laws concerning Hate Speech), individuals can sue you anytime they want (doesn't mean they will win though) ... imprisonment is impossible as that can only be done legally by the government and the constitution does prohibit that
It's a heavily contested issue because some people think they should be able to impose their religious views on others, but really what it boils down to is that they think it's icky and so it should be illegal. Which is why I'm making my formal announcement right here that I'm running for president, and my cornerstone issue will be banning ugly people from having sex. Vote for me!
Equal treatment of its constituents under the law is indeed a "right" that government should guarantee. That you disagree "shows just how closed-minded, bigoted, and intolerant those of your mindset truly are."
Advocates for intolerant views and intolerant people
Calls people who disagree with that intolerant
/boggle
Those who wish to discriminate against others based on something as inconsequential as their sexual preference don't deserve tolerance. What a failure of logic ... "I am going to be intolerant of you as a person ... but I want tolerance of my point of view"
Is it intolerant to refuse to debate about whether the earth is flat or not? Of course not such a view is archaic and outdated and simply doesn't deserve any time ... the exact same as the belief that ones sexual preference should open one up to discrimination.
You can be as anti-gay marriage as you want. Inside your own head, inside your own home. But, if you do so in a business setting that causes that business to lose money, then you are going to find you will probably soon be out of a job.
You just do not seem to understand, or can't accept, that America is changing its views on this subject. Being anti-gay marriage is going to eventually be seen like being against interracial marriage. And anti-gay marriage laws are going the way of anti-miscegenation laws.
If you honestly believe that Stalin was a liberal it's very difficult to take anything else you write with any level of credibility.
- Joined
- Apr 26, 2009
- Messages
- 11,556
Reminds me of this commercial:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YrZ2Tf08AQU
Some people will say yes a thousand times to preserve their way of life. Right or wrong, at least he manned up to it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YrZ2Tf08AQU
Some people will say yes a thousand times to preserve their way of life. Right or wrong, at least he manned up to it.
And would you feel the same if he had been fired for making the same donation to the other side? Although, let's be honest...if he had donated to the other side, this wouldn't have been a story. Somehow, only one side sees the need to engage in these tactics.
As to your itemized list, the constitution only protects people's rights as they are related to the government (except in those rare circumstances where it has been amended more broadly) ... losing your job is perfectly acceptable (unless it was a government job, where it might be seen as the government restricting free speech) ... Sued (the government can't sue you unless you violate one of their laws concerning Hate Speech), individuals can sue you anytime they want (doesn't mean they will win though) ... imprisonment is impossible as that can only be done legally by the government and the constitution does prohibit that
Not sure why you keep talking about the Constitution as I never brought it up, nor have I blamed the government for this incident. Federal and state laws protect against things like wrongful termination, libel, and slander.
Parja
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Oct 4, 2002
- Messages
- 12,671
It would be super cool if someone would actually quote this entire post and attempt to formulate an argument against it.
Crazy Canadians, all goin' and makin' perfectly logical sense and stuff. I tell ya, if you guys weren't so damn polite, you could take over the world.
kbrickley
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- May 13, 2012
- Messages
- 7,514
I couldn't care less which side of the issue he took but I will defend a company's "RIGHT" to hire and fire who they wish, when they wish, and with any sort of compensation they wish ... employees (including CEOs) work at the pleasure of the company's owners (private or public) ... if you do not meet the requirements of those people then you should not have any special protections
We have added some protections related to certain aspects that weren't related to a person's performance and that are generally out of their control (Race, Creed, National Origin, Sex, etc) ... I am not totally happy with all the protected classes but they are generally there for a reason ... I would oppose the inclusion of speech as a new protected right ... we have already restricted business more than we should, the right to hire and fire as THEY see fit should be THEIR RIGHT (not the employee's right)
See, it's a "right", but not a right. You know what a "right" is? It's some bullshit you made up. You know what a right is? Something the government does, not should, guarantee.
Not really. You're talking about fake, made-up, bullshit rights with no legal backing, and asserting that anyone who doesn't think they're awesome should be either punished or silenced. I'm simply asserting that we should have a debate about them, while others are saying "No, shut up and agree or pay the price". That pretty much lays the bigotry in your court.
But isn't that who he manipulated? Historically they are the easiest people to manipulate.
Jarod888
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Dec 19, 2005
- Messages
- 3,137
The hell it doesn't. Hello pot, meet kettle. People have a right to be intolerant of others, including things, places, people, cultures, beliefs, etc. Not being tolerant of their intolerance makes you a hippocrit. The entire idea of free speech is that anyone can and should say anything they want unless it specifically causes direct harm, i.e. yelling fire in a crowded theatre, which is specifically said to insight panic and cause harm by getting people trampled. Saying I hate sp*cks or fuck the n*ggers, doesn't harm anyone except overly sensitive whiners and progressive hipsters. Hate is part of life. If you can't stand the heat, get the hell out of the Klan meeting. You also have the right to not listen to what ever you find offensive. "I may not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to death your right to say it."
kbrickley
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- May 13, 2012
- Messages
- 7,514
Yes, I would support the company's actions in either direction ... A company should have the right to fire you for anything that isn't discriminatory (and I think we could eliminate many of those laws as well) ... I think we have restricted corporate rights TOO much in this country ... I don't fully agree with most of the protections granted workers since I think the free market would take care of those ... you mentioned imprisonment so I assumed you were bringing government into the equation (my bad) ... I am a pro corporation libertarian so it tends to put me on the minority side of most arguments
What is civil marriage? Civil marriage is an institution of government. What is government? Hint: Government is NOT a third party. Government is ALL OF US. We ALL make up the government. Ever heard that government is "of the people, by the people, for the people"? No? Doesn't sound like it... So what is an institution of government? It's a creation of the government (the people) that exists in a legal capacity. It's nothing else. Gay marriage in a civil sense is nothing more than what your fellow citizens are willing to recognize in a legal capacity. THAT'S ALL IT IS. So when you spew garbage about "not affecting me," what you're really saying is you don't understand that the essence of legal marriage is nothing more than what your fellow citizens are willing to recognize. If we don't recognize it, it's not law, and it doesn't mean a damn thing. Let me reiterate that point: Gay marriage is nothing but what your fellow citizens are willing to recognize in a legal capacity. So yes, it affects all of us. Your argument would be different if government were a third party, but it is not. Did you ever take a civics class?
As for the whole equality debate, everybody who says this is about equality clearly has their head in the sand. "Equality" has been commandeered by the commies, and you all buy into it hook, line, and sinker. Equality is nothing more than the fact no person can dictate to another how he or she can live his or her life. Those who oppose gay marriage aren't forcing gays to do anything, we're simply saying we refuse to recognize what you tell us we should recognize. We're trying to stop you from imposing your beliefs on us. You have it backwards. And when you leftists say you favor "equality," what you really are saying is you favor SAMENESS (aka communist ideology), where we have to treat all behaviors the equally. And in order to force that "equality," you are demanding that your fellow citizens recognize something that they are unwilling to recognize. You are forcing your views on them, which is hypocrisy to the fullest extent. You're just too stupid to realize it.
The only reason the gay agenda is being pushed is because they're trying to destroy the traditional family by arguing that gay families, where none of the children are raised by both of their natural parents, are somehow equivalent to traditional families. And the reason they are trying to destroy traditional families through indifference to traditional marriage is because the family unit has enabled people to be independent of the government. Destroy that independence and you get dependence on the government, thus giving more power to the politicians and ultra elite. The powers of the left don't care about gays, they just distort the language so all of you idiots buy into it and ultimately give away your freedoms to their ever-expanding grip. Morons, most of you.
lol what?
The only way that Mozilla was going to lose money was if OKCupid kept up their stupid boycott. His opinion had zero effect on the running of the company until a bunch of whiny people took umbrage with his donation. That's all it was...a donation. Right afterwards he went on his blog to clearly explain how his donation had nothing to do with his work whatsoever, and guess what? Nearly a decade passed and Mozilla never saw the need to take action. In fact, they made him their CEO. I guess all the pissy ragers on the internet who like hurting people for disagreeing knew better, though.
- Status