|
Notices |
It's been a while, Unregistered -- Welcome back to Eratosphere! |
|
|
04-05-2014, 08:53 PM
|
Member
|
|
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 365
|
|
The firing of the CEO by Mozilla is a good financial/economic/business decision.
Here's why:
Social media sites get their income mostly from ads. Their target industries are populated by gay men--fashion, beauty, and design.
We all know that generally, even before gay marriage, pink money as discretionary income is huge. You can ask designer fashion boutiques how gay men helped them survive during the financial/economic crisis two or three years ago.
Now that gay marriage is a reality, pink money is doubled or combined--rich gay man + rich gay man = very rich gay couple. Businesses, corporations, and industries cannot ignore that reality and money.
My pink two cents.
Raul
Last edited by Raul Puzon; 04-05-2014 at 09:05 PM.
|
04-05-2014, 09:32 PM
|
Moderator
|
|
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Columbus, OH
Posts: 2,159
|
|
While it's a slippery slope, I think that if he had a defensible position, he probably could have kept his job. I don't see the problem.
|
04-05-2014, 09:59 PM
|
|
Member
|
|
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Massachusetts
Posts: 697
|
|
Eich has a right to make a point and support his beliefs in speech and in cash. Similarly, society has a right to counter point in kind. It's fair.
|
04-06-2014, 12:32 AM
|
Member
|
|
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 2,041
|
|
Hi Seree,
Since the Oklahoma City bombing back some years ago, politicians such as Bill Clinton have waged a meticulous war on free "conservative speech" much as Adolph Hitler did to his opposition in the 1930's. Clinton tried to attach Timothy McVeigh to conservatives and conservative talk radio, and labeled anything conservatives said as "hate speech" in an attempt to quash free thinking, especially if the Democrat party line was crossed. It has been relentless, pervasive, and persuasive in nature and practice. Liberals/socialists/communists/progressives and their ilk have made it a part of American politics and changed the discourse in this country. There is a continual attack on the Constitution, to nullify it, to date(outdate) it, and replace it with Mob rule. Some would call that democracy. We are actually constituted as a democratic republic, for now. What the Founders intended was to protect the minority opinion at every turn, something not done in all of recorded history. Freedom of speech suffers fools when those fools try to limit speech. I hope that answers point (1).
Point 2. By the same token, the siege at Waco, Texas where 130 people were killed by Clinton's (again) illegitimate justice department/military thugs and the Ruby Ridge massacre in Idaho where FBI agents trumped up charges to take out Randy Weaver and his family, was to deny those people, however diverse their religious beliefs, their right to practice them. Therefore, if you are conservative or libertarian, those are just code words for "bitter clingers with shotguns behind their truck seats, which really means: those Christians. It is not unique to the US or Christians this is happening to. It is happening to Jews all over Europe again.
Point 3. One has to ask the question: How did a private donation become public in the first place? We all should care. Let's turn this around. What happens if Republicans win the White House and both houses of congress in 2016? You will hear democrats howl about their civil rights being abused and destroyed. Lots of people who claim intelligence are shallow. They don't understand, neither do they care if conservatives and libertarians suffer. They can't see past their own noses that freedom is a fragile creature. If Mr. Obama can shred the constitution with executive orders, then why can't republicans or some other party that gets elected? Since 9/11, people have been willing to give up a little freedom in the name of safety. It was wrong for Mr. Bush and his congress to facilitate those laws and it is no different with the fellow in the White House now. Politicians don't define freedom, they just tax it and regulate it. It is the Rise and Fall of the Roman Empire all over again, except this is much worse.
Point 4. Business, private sole ownership and corporations should have to pay no income tax as it is construed today. It encourages and promotes cheating and influence peddling. Business can't be transparent because of the yoke that gov't. places on it. You will get some people to say that some big so and so Corp. pays no taxes, but you never hear how much they spend to keep from doing so. So now, American business is leaving for other countries, taking jobs with them.
Mr. Obama, as well as Mr. Clinton, never believed in One man, One woman marriage AFTER they got elected, meaning they never believed it at all. The radical homosexual community was very vocal, and still is. Even if you gave them everything they wanted, they would eventually demand reparations for being discriminated against throughout our history. (tongue in cheek.) Politicians will pay them off to shut them up. It's the way things work. Until there is push back from the heterosexual community or the homosexual community comes to its senses, it will get worse.
Mr. Eich has been defamed and ruined by the intentional leaking of his private affairs. It should be a concern to all of us, straight and homosexual, religious and non religious, black and white or otherwise. Whoever leaked Mr. Eich's private information should be prosecuted, not applauded. It could happen to any of us tomorrow. (NSA, FBI, CIA, IRS) and so on.
What was done to him is so wrong on every level.
I hope this helps.
|
04-06-2014, 06:56 AM
|
Member
|
|
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Plum Island, MA; Santa Fe, NM
Posts: 11,168
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Charlie Southerland
I hope this helps.
|
It certainly does, Charlie. It's nice in a strange way when all your worst impressions - those notions that you were almost ashamed of because they were based partly on sense rather than fact - turn out to be confirmed.
|
04-06-2014, 07:42 AM
|
Member
|
|
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 2,041
|
|
Likewise, I'm sure, Michael.
Fondly,
charlie.
|
04-06-2014, 08:13 AM
|
|
Member
|
|
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Dayton, Ohio
Posts: 1,035
|
|
To answer Seree’s point, yes it is unjust to fire a person for their personal convictions and legal actions to fulfill those convictions. Bigots have rights too!
It turns out that Eich regretted making that donation anyway before he was fired and he regretted the harm he caused. Intolerance is a double-edged sword and can swing back to cut either way. People have a right to a conviction whether right or wrong. Gays should engage with their opponents, not punish them. The treatment of Eich is a witch hunt and very much rubs me the wrong way.
Everyone wants freedom of speech and lawful action until they are used against one’s self. Yet we have to do better than that. We must put aside our convictions and allow others to be wrong, or right. For example, as a gay man, I don’t think Chick Fil A should be closed down, for example, or even boycotted (neither will happen anyway!). Let the founder and others at Chick Fil A have the right to their convictions. Needless to say, I don’t go to Chick Fil A but I don’t care if others do. It’s my choice. In this case freedom swings both ways.
But, THEN, we get this:
Therefore, if you are conservative or libertarian, those are just code words for "bitter clingers with shotguns behind their truck seats, which really means: those Christians. It is not unique to the US or Christians this is happening to. It is happening to Jews all over Europe again.
We can leave aside the lie that Obama is shredding the Constitution. Remember, it is Bush II who did that to the Constitution when he set up torture chambers and suspended habeas corpus and, yes, both parties agreed to it!
It's true that liberals have some bad ideas about rural, conservative Americans. I count them among some parts of my extended family and I love them. Even if they don't support my right to marry. I can let that go.
But, if we're breaking Godwin's Law, gays asserting their right to marry (under the government, not in the churches!) are hardly an example of a beer putsch or lebensraum. This thinking is hysterical and, really, downright stupid.
Above all, however, the most shocking thing about this statement is that it implicitly compares the experience of libertarians and conservatives to the Jews of Europe just before the Holocaust. This is deeply disrespectful to the 6,000,000. Such a comparison is morally obscene. Please reconsider.
Mr. Obama, as well as Mr. Clinton, never believed in One man, One woman marriage AFTER they got elected, meaning they never believed it at all. The radical homosexual community was very vocal, and still is. Even if you gave them everything they wanted, they would eventually demand reparations for being discriminated against throughout our history. (tongue in cheek.) Politicians will pay them off to shut them up. It's the way things work. Until there is push back from the heterosexual community or the homosexual community comes to its senses, it will get worse.
Well, you should be happy to note that while Clinton was in office he may have been insincere in his convictions but he did a great deal of hurt to gays. I don’t follow you on Obama. He actually evolved from civil unions to civil marriage. He was never anti-gay in the way you clearly are in your written implications and outright denunciations of gays, to which I would give my life in battle to support the right of for you, my fellow citizen. To bad you can't do the same for me. Libertarian indeed.
Besides, Clinton doesn’t really believe in anything but raw power. So, what’s your point whether or not he believed in marriage of one man with one woman?
Radical homosexual community?
Who? The movement for civil gay marriage is a conservative politics, not radical. In fact, the gay left at first deeply opposed the movement for the marriage rights of gays.
Gays desire to have steady and committed relationships like heterosexuals, relationships protected by civil law. That is not radical. It is a politics of assimilation, not rejection of family or society.
Even if you gave them everything they wanted, they would eventually demand reparations for being discriminated against throughout our history.
Where do you find evidence for this? It is not true. Reparations? Horseshit. Your statement about “them” is devoid of the truth. We are asking the right to marry. It is not a special privilege.
Politicians will pay them off to shut them up.
Again, really? Sounds like outright paranoia. I guess gays are the new cabal. Gays are getting rich by being paid off to shut up about a viable and honorable civil rights issue! Gee, if that were the case I’m in the wrong line of business.
Oh, and this from a different paragraph:
They don't understand, neither do they care if conservatives and libertarians suffer.
Now you're sounding like a whining liberal entrenched in identity politics. Woe is you. But hardly. No one is persecuting you. You have no idea what that feels like. Sure, you are being blasted right now for your inane comments but that is, huh, democracy in action. Your civil rights are not being abridged or withdrawn.
Stop being a whiny right winger.
|
04-06-2014, 08:22 AM
|
Member
|
|
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 365
|
|
Amen, Don. Too bad I cannot do my rebuttal. I got a warning from a moderator, and one of my posts was deleted. To be on the safe side, I'll just support you.
Raul
Last edited by Raul Puzon; 04-06-2014 at 09:32 AM.
|
04-06-2014, 08:30 AM
|
Member
|
|
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: New York
Posts: 16,476
|
|
The company fired him, not the government. I think how one feels about this might depend on how one feels about gay marriage. Few people would be questioning the move if the donation had been to the Ku Klux Klan or to a Neo-Nazi group, and if you agree with that, the question is whether gay civil rights is so important to you that you put it in that category or whether, even if you support gay marriage, it's a political viewpoint more like whether to raise the gasoline tax by a penny. I don't see what he did to be quite as bad as donating to the Ku Klux Klan, but I do see it as an important civil rights issue and I have no problem with any occasion for people to recognize that it is no longer acceptable to discriminate against people for sexual orientation.
|
04-06-2014, 08:44 AM
|
Member
|
|
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 365
|
|
This is the funny thing.
Even plumbers see money in gay marriage. Check their ads in gay mags. Single gay man - apartment renter; gay couple - house owner.
Do you expect Mozilla, a big company, to ignore that money?
Economics, Jose, economics.
Raul
|
|
|
Thread Tools |
|
Display Modes |
Linear Mode
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Member Login
Forum Statistics:
Forum Members: 8,399
Total Threads: 21,841
Total Posts: 270,811
There are 1526 users
currently browsing forums.
Forum Sponsor:
|
|
|
|
|
|