I meant "Left" and wish we had an edit buttton. I made the error become itss interchangable with liberal today since they've become quasi-brand names.
But hey if you can't argue against a statement, re-define it or ridicule it.
![[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
But hey if you can't argue against a statement, re-define it or ridicule it.
The sentiment is far dumber than the spelling error
InternationalHat
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Aug 13, 2004
- Messages
- 1,481
You are going completely off the deep end. It is these kind of reactions that are bad. THAT is what is a big part of the problem here. You are going completely overboard as much as whatever it is you're opposing. And your opponent on the other side taking the opposite position that these people need to be imprisoned or whatever... if that's not just a crazy straw man in your head... they're there in the same crazy barrel as you. You're both causing a complete breakdown in reasonable discussion.
I don't care about this guy's opinion on gay marriage. I didn't want him fired and I don't really care that he resigned either. Neither impacts me. I don't really have the time or energy to worry about it.
My point was simply that you can phrase the argument many ways depending on your position. And you can do so by making the opposition sound sub-human, intolerant, whatever which is pretty annoying. Not one of those is objectively correct. If you both (both positions) would stop acting like your MORAL position is the only right one you wouldn't polarize people into treating your position as an "enemy."
This isn't something with data like building a structure where we know doing X or Y is going to lead to a more beneficial result as far as longevity and bearing load.
How is firing someone for the beliefs not discriminatory?
On this, I actually agree. If anything, the reaction to this CEO demonstrates just how much power consumers have to shape corporate decision making, despite constant claims to the contrary.
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
My mention of imprisonment was referencing this. I am genuinely terrified by the growing "punish those who disagree" mindset, mostly prevalent on the Left.
InternationalHat
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Aug 13, 2004
- Messages
- 1,481
Addition to Godwin's Law. Anyone who mentions, or blames, or compares something to Communism or Communists in this day and age automatically loses.
Haha, so you nitpick my use of quotation marks and my use of should versus does, and somehow that constitutes an argument against what I wrote? Try again.
What are considered righs evolve with time. Just like slaves were property once, and women did not have the right to vote, both groups eventually received recognition and protection by the government. This is no different than recognizing the rights of gay people to have the same benefits as their heterosexual fellow citizens/legal residents; Does this not fit with your argument from a previous post that government IS people? And aren't people's sentiments toward gay rights changing, and as a result, the government's position is also changing because of it.
The entire Gawker network is well-known as having a left-wing bent by anyone who studies media, from Jezebel to Kotaku.
Also you're intellectually dishonest and have an addiction to playing dumb, although I concede the "playing" part is in question.
Since Stiletto seems to be confused over the standard applied here:
If the CEO of a company espousing inclusion and tolerance donated to a cause supporting inclusion and tolerance it would not have been a story at all...pretty much by definition.
Now if, for example, the guy was a high ranking Klan member and people later found out that he was funding hate-speech legislation the members would call for some sort of negative response.
This really shouldn't be too difficult to understand. But just because I suspect it might be for Stiletto I'll give another example of double standards that don't rise to the level of hypocrisy:
if a CEO of an oil business starts funding legislation to ban off-shore drilling his corporation might ask him to resign
if the CEO of the same oil business starts funding legislation to expand off-shore drilling his corporation would be happy with him
I know that's probably difficult to understand for some people in this thread, particularly Stiletto since he keeps bringing it up, but the general principle here is that when a CEO advocates for a position in line with his or her company's general mission people will think that is good and when he or she advocates for a position contrary to his or her company's mission statement then people will think that is bad.
If the CEO of a company espousing inclusion and tolerance donated to a cause supporting inclusion and tolerance it would not have been a story at all...pretty much by definition.
Now if, for example, the guy was a high ranking Klan member and people later found out that he was funding hate-speech legislation the members would call for some sort of negative response.
This really shouldn't be too difficult to understand. But just because I suspect it might be for Stiletto I'll give another example of double standards that don't rise to the level of hypocrisy:
if a CEO of an oil business starts funding legislation to ban off-shore drilling his corporation might ask him to resign
if the CEO of the same oil business starts funding legislation to expand off-shore drilling his corporation would be happy with him
I know that's probably difficult to understand for some people in this thread, particularly Stiletto since he keeps bringing it up, but the general principle here is that when a CEO advocates for a position in line with his or her company's general mission people will think that is good and when he or she advocates for a position contrary to his or her company's mission statement then people will think that is bad.
...um, what? Godwin's Law refers to Nazi invocations. You don't get to expand the definition just to avoid an unpleasant historical precedent of collectivist ideology.
It's still amazing to me how little self awareness you have
I'm a Libby lib lib and I find gawker insufferable
In other words, you'll be posting as usual.
bigots lose... great.
I'm a conservative/libertarian and I find Fox News insufferable, so they must be politically neutral.
I really don't know what else to say when I get an "aww that's nonsense" argument against a claim of the existence ideological nepotism in one sector of the media in a thread about a specific case of ideological nepotism in a different sector of the media. Denying something in the face of evidence around you is insanity. And trying to have a productive discussion with such a person is equally insane.
InternationalHat
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Aug 13, 2004
- Messages
- 1,481
I kind of want to know what kind of jobs these guys have where they can come on here and be REALLY ANGRY AT LIBERALS in basically any thread like this and eat up 90% of it.
I get this sick feeling in the pit of my stomach if I get embroiled in one of these arguments and type too much crap wasting more than a few minutes of my time.
I get this sick feeling in the pit of my stomach if I get embroiled in one of these arguments and type too much crap wasting more than a few minutes of my time.
So now you're upset that people have free time? Sounds like the REAL ANGER is being projected.
Anyone who mentions, blames, or compares someone to Stalin or Mao, or something to Communism, Communists or Collectivism in this day and age automatically loses.
Nothing in his comment suggested he was upset.
I didn't say they weren't liberal. I said they don't speak for liberals. If you think gawker and Fox News are equivalent, give me a break.
I have no idea what you're talking about it, and it's not because you use big words.
I was talking more along the lines of it being commonly accepted, even by journalists, that there is a liberal bias to their world views. I expounded upon that a bit more, and I can only assume that's what you took issue with.
Here's a bit more reading on the topic. Recent article too. Or will you refuse to read it because it's "propaganda" by the liberal media?
http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2013/12/journalist-consensus-media-leans-left-179852.html
Your argument is nonsense because it's not based on any obvious/implied observation other than the one in your head. Just because you say it's propaganda, all the way from Stalin's days does not make it so. Jesus fuck!!!
Then that would be called qdemn7's Law, and it's pretty stupid. Communism and collectivism not only still exist in today's world, but both are actively advocated for worldwide. You're not too bright, are you?
By wanting to take his livelihood away for speaking his mind with his money. The guy used his own money to support an idea that other don't like and this is the intolerance heaped towards him. You're a tool at this point. He put his money where his mouth was, what did you do except sit back and say, "NO H8". Yeah, you showed them.
Yep reminds me of the time I was fired for being a Nazi. It was so intolerant of them.
I'm glad I'm not the only one blaming Obama for this. It was getting lonely in the anti-Obama corner.
Because opposing gay marriage is the same as being a Nazi. Thanks for cutting through the bullshit to the Left's real argument.
So I guess we can add hyperbole to the list of things you don't understand
You mean the anti-gay marriage Obama or the one that just showed up a couple years ago?
Sorry I shouldn't have used the Nazi reference. I'll use a Stalin reference since you support that.
Look I'm a good old fashioned valued Stalinist. I support the simpler things in life such as communism and sending hundreds of thousands of gays to Gulags. When my work found out they fired me??? Can you believe it?!?!
- Status