1357: "Free Speech"

This forum is for the individual discussion thread that goes with each new comic.

Moderators: Moderators General, Prelates, Magistrates

User avatar
addams
Posts: 9999
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2010 4:44 am UTC
Location: Oregon Coast: 97444

Re: 1357: "Free Speech"

Postby addams » Sat Apr 26, 2014 1:52 pm UTC

The Boycott is effective.
What was it effective in doing?

Stoping the Free Expression of Ideas.
How?

That group controls The Idea.
What They say is interesting is what is interesting.

What They say is important is important.
The concerns of Others? No.

Free Speech is an old fashioned idea.
So are Boycotts.

(ho-humm) (big sigh)Like Teams.
Just another kind of Indoor Game.

you're saying that the most compelling thing you can say for your position is that it's not literally illegal to express.


Gay People getting Married?
It is not an Illegal thing to support.
Not only That! It is not illegal to do.

Marry Away! Go Ahead!
Now; What are you Really Bitching about?

Can't find anyone you want to Marry that wants to Marry you?
Great! You have Equality, too! Stop bitching and be more charming.

That won't work? BSMTDLBJ? (fuck)
You ask a lot.

A Man with a Golden Parachute gets 5-6 long internet pages.
A woman that was attacked personally, professionally, financially for public and private political statements does not interest you?
If you wanted to Shut Him Up! You would do to him what was done to me. 1st. Jail him. I can give you The List. It will shut him up.

You don't want to type about Me and People Like Me.
Because, we don't need the PR? We can't afford the PR.

Of course, Not!
Who controls The Conversation?
How is That Done?

This Tread is a Good Example.
Cheney is a Cynical Bastard.

He understands you and these conversations.
He and I agree that The People must develop the Inner Man.

He and I disagreed about the ability of the Common Man to do that.
Cheney may very well be Smarter than he looks.

I may very well be Stupider than I look.
I look plenty Stupid.
Life is, just, an exchange of electrons; It is up to us to give it meaning.

We are all in The Gutter.
Some of us see The Gutter.
Some of us see The Stars.
by mr. Oscar Wilde.

Those that want to Know; Know.
Those that do not Know; Don't tell them.
They do terrible things to people that Tell Them.

rmsgrey
Posts: 3464
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2011 6:35 pm UTC

Re: 1357: "Free Speech"

Postby rmsgrey » Sat Apr 26, 2014 3:02 pm UTC

jpk wrote:
rmsgrey wrote:
jpk wrote:What would the "right reasons" be in this case?

I'm sure I said something earlier... Something about not supporting people who support causes you disagree with...


Patronizing the employer of someone that you despise is not the same as supporting that person. I've covered this before, if you have any response I'd love to read it, but I'm already having to repeat myself far too much for my taste.

Likewise, if you could say a few words about how your distaste for supporting opponents of marriage equality fails to translate into boycotting the employers of the 52% of Californian voters who supported the measure, that would be great. I know, I know - "a foolish consistency is a hobgoblin of little minds" - but my mind is little, and I like consistency. So if you have any, maybe you could show me some?


A) Eich was an employee of Mozilla when this first blew up two years ago, and, as far as I know, there wasn't a boycott then. This isn't about Eich as Mozilla employee; it's Eich as the avatar of Mozilla - the living embodiment of the company - the person with whom the metaphorical buck stops...

B) Since I haven't boycotted Mozilla over this issue, I don't see why I should have boycotted anyone else. Not that I'm in a position to boycott many Californians anyway... There's a difference between not choosing to participate in a given boycott and thinking that that boycott is wrong.

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26529
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: 1357: "Free Speech"

Postby gmalivuk » Sat Apr 26, 2014 3:03 pm UTC

jpk wrote:
gmalivuk wrote:Wow, it's almost as if you still don't get the fucking difference between a CEO and an average employee.
Oh, I know the difference. The CEO gets a golden parachute, and the average employee gets kicked to the curb. So what?
Are you willfully ignoring the actual difference the rest of us have been talking about? Or do you actually have that much difficulty remembering things?

None of us in this thread would advocate, support, or probably even engage in a boycott targeted at a company with some bigoted average employees. Hell, the people who did in fact advocate for this boycott themselves didn't worry about it before Eich became CEO.
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

jpk
Posts: 607
Joined: Sat Nov 13, 2010 7:33 am UTC

Re: 1357: "Free Speech"

Postby jpk » Sat Apr 26, 2014 3:19 pm UTC

PM 2Ring wrote:Again, nobody here is trying to stop Brendan Eich from expressing his opinions or supporting causes he believes in. I (and others) have previously agreed that boycotting is a form of bullying. OTOH, that doesn't mean that I think that the boycott was unethical or unjustified under the circumstances. The boycott wasn't (primarily) to punish Eich for not being Our Kind Of People - it was to punish Mozilla for appointing someone with anti-equality views like Eich to be their public figurehead because that seems inconsistent (or at least, hypocritical) given their stated policy on equality (that I linked to & quoted on the previous page).


I guess it's possible that you personally might have this view, but since the focus of the boycott was getting Eich fired for his views, it's hard to see how its primary goal is anything but "to punish Eich for not being Our Kind Of People". Your statement also seems to be inconsistent with much of what appears above in this thread, though most of the people arguing the anti-Eich position are pretty vague about what they actually think, apart from mostly-unanimous agreement that anyone who thinks differently is probably evil.

As I said in my first post, AFAIK the people calling for a boycott weren't asking for Eich to be expelled from Mozilla, they just wanted him out of the CEO spot. If you have citation that disproves this point, please feel free to post it here.


It's difficult to find a unified position for the anti-Eich faction, even on this forum, but the CREDO petition and the OK Cupid posting seem to be leading documents here. The CREDO petition called for Eich to "reverse his anti-gay stance, resign or be replaced". While I suppose you could contort "be replaced" to mean "be replaced as CEO and remain at Mozilla", the more straightforward reading of this is "be fired", particularly since it's offered as an alternative to "resign". (and not, for example, "step down as CEO and take some other position at Mozilla") So there's one point. Interestingly, Credo does not seem particularly proud of their role in this whole affair - at least, I can find no mention of it on their site, and as far as I can tell they no longer serve a copy of the full text of the petition at all. If you can find a copy of their original petition, feel free to post it and we'll have a bash at it.

As for the OK Cupid love letter to Eich, here's two lines that I think go against your claim:

Mozilla’s new CEO, Brendan Eich, is an opponent of equal rights for gay couples. We would therefore prefer that our users not use Mozilla software to access OkCupid.
...
Those who seek to deny love and instead enforce misery, shame, and frustration are our enemies, and we wish them nothing but failure.


I find it hard to read "we wish them nothing but failure" as "we wish them nothing but a different office in the company". I see nothing else in the text (accessed here: http://techcrunch.com/2014/03/31/okcupid-offers-firefox-visitors-links-to-alternate-browsers-to-protest-new-mozilla-ceo/) since OK Cupid also seems a little ashamed of their role in all of this, and is not sharing anything about it now that they've got their way. (or at least, I can't find anything on the site - feel free to correct me if I'm wrong)
Last edited by jpk on Sat Apr 26, 2014 3:41 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.

jpk
Posts: 607
Joined: Sat Nov 13, 2010 7:33 am UTC

Re: 1357: "Free Speech"

Postby jpk » Sat Apr 26, 2014 3:39 pm UTC

gmalivuk wrote:
None of us in this thread would advocate, support, or probably even engage in a boycott targeted at a company with some bigoted average employees.


Are you sure you can speak for everyone in the thread? the people I'm arguing with don't seem to have a consistent story on any of the details here. Maybe it's better to speak for yourself.
Either way, though, that's kind of the weird thing. Why does it matter to you what position the guy holds? If you want the guy destroyed for disagreeing with you, why does it matter to you whether you destroy a CEO or a mechanic? I mean, the moral failing is the same in either case. A bigoted homophobic mechanic is just as evil as a bigoted homophobic CEO, isn't she?


Hell, the people who did in fact advocate for this boycott themselves didn't worry about it before Eich became CEO


Actually, that's incorrect. They freaked out about it then, that's how it became known in 2012. Surely you're aware of this, it's been mentioned in just about every piece of reporting on the matter that did any background at all.
Last edited by jpk on Sat Apr 26, 2014 3:41 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
addams
Posts: 9999
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2010 4:44 am UTC
Location: Oregon Coast: 97444

Re: 1357: "Free Speech"

Postby addams » Sat Apr 26, 2014 3:41 pm UTC

gmalivuk wrote:
jpk wrote:
gmalivuk wrote:Wow, it's almost as if you still don't get the fucking difference between a CEO and an average employee.
Oh, I know the difference. The CEO gets a golden parachute, and the average employee gets kicked to the curb. So what?
Are you willfully ignoring the actual difference the rest of us have been talking about? Or do you actually have that much difficulty remembering things?

None of us in this thread would advocate, support, or probably even engage in a boycott targeted at a company with some bigoted average employees. Hell, the people who did in fact advocate for this boycott themselves didn't worry about it before Eich became CEO.

But; Why Not?
To speak to people about Shit like that seem good and correct.

To speak to the CEO may be difficult.
His money protects him.

To speak to the Rank and File seems doable.
To attack One Rich Man does seem silly.

To talk to him.
That does not seem silly.

Who wants this conversation?
Who needs this conversation?

The age old problem with Education.
If they wanted to hear about Gay Sex they would seek it out.

Oh! And; They Do!
So funny.

Gay Sex!
BMDSTLGK! YEAH!

The Freedom!
The fucking freedom to Look Away!

I would like to discuss the Idea of Freedom of Speech.
Such a funny world. People pay to talk.

Those that have the most money get to talk the most and the loudest.
Freedom. Freedom to Speak.

Do you remember the Four Freedoms?

Freedom from Fear
Freedom from Want
Freedom of Religion
Freedom of Speech.

The first two are Gifts from Society to the Individual.
The second two are Gifts from the Individual to Society.

I think inside the US, Agents of the Government Do arrest people for what they say and write.
The guy that does the Arresting does not always know that is what he is doing.

I got arrested for that. I am not always disagreeable.
I used to have some Solid Opinions and Was Not too Shy about sharing them, inside my own home.

That happened to Me.
I got arrested and worse, much worse.

Not some Rumor Person.
Me.

I did not know that is what was happening.
Neither did the guy that arrested me, the first time.
(that is what I think)

Layers of Bureaucracy can separate a man from The Orders.
One of The Things I might talk or write about.

If the Rank and File knew Right from Wrong we (I?) would have less to worry about.
Life is, just, an exchange of electrons; It is up to us to give it meaning.

We are all in The Gutter.
Some of us see The Gutter.
Some of us see The Stars.
by mr. Oscar Wilde.

Those that want to Know; Know.
Those that do not Know; Don't tell them.
They do terrible things to people that Tell Them.

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26529
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: 1357: "Free Speech"

Postby gmalivuk » Sat Apr 26, 2014 4:25 pm UTC

jpk wrote:
gmalivuk wrote:None of us in this thread would advocate, support, or probably even engage in a boycott targeted at a company with some bigoted average employees.
Are you sure you can speak for everyone in the thread?
Unlike you, apparently, I have actually read the thread, so I know what position others take. And helpfully, you are far from the first idiot to come in here demanding that we defend that ridiculous straw man of randomly getting people fired every time they disagree with our views or whatever, so I've seen other people make the point again and again and again.

Either way, though, that's kind of the weird thing. Why does it matter to you what position the guy holds?
Read the fucking thread. CEO is a different kind of position.

If you want the guy destroyed for disagreeing with you, why does it matter to you whether you destroy a CEO or a mechanic? I mean, the moral failing is the same in either case. A bigoted homophobic mechanic is just as evil as a bigoted homophobic CEO, isn't she?
Who said we wanted him "destroyed"? Who said it was only for disagreeing and not, for example, for disagreeing and being the head and public face of a company we interact with?


Hell, the people who did in fact advocate for this boycott themselves didn't worry about it before Eich became CEO
Actually, that's incorrect. They freaked out about it then, that's how it became known in 2012. Surely you're aware of this, it's been mentioned in just about every piece of reporting on the matter that did any background at all.
The directors of OkCupid worried about this in 2012?
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

User avatar
addams
Posts: 9999
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2010 4:44 am UTC
Location: Oregon Coast: 97444

Re: 1357: "Free Speech"

Postby addams » Sat Apr 26, 2014 4:59 pm UTC

Free Speech.
An Antidote.

A few days ago, I was at a State Owned and Operated Educational Institution.
Those have been around sense I was young. (I know. Hard to believe)

A conversation between to people was rolling along nicely.
Something was said.

There was an Administrator Present.
The Position in Highest Authority said, "We don't allow Politics Talk, here."

We don't allow arguing and bickering.
That would be ok.

In the US, I have learned to Accept it and Expect it. I don't have to like it. What do you know? How do you it?
Still...Once upon a time it was in Institutions of Learning that people learned about how to discuss and look for Truth.

Political Truth.
Science Truth.
Truth about where The Meeting was moved to.

There were Methods.
Those Methods could be taught and used.

Boycott?
Is the Political Discourse in the US allowed to go as deep as a Bumper Sticker and a Boycott and no more?

The Bumper Stickers may be a Step Too Far.
To be able to discuss Bumper Stickers should be fun.

No wonder the Administrators do not want people to discuss Ideas on Campus.
They must fear Riots. Like the ones Santa Barbara had?

That Riot was not caused by Politics.
It was caused for Fun.

ok. The Puritans win this round.
Hedonists can be problematic.

Has The Internet done this to us?
The level of discourse on the Internet is reflected in the level of discourse we have in 3D?

We suck.
Life is, just, an exchange of electrons; It is up to us to give it meaning.

We are all in The Gutter.
Some of us see The Gutter.
Some of us see The Stars.
by mr. Oscar Wilde.

Those that want to Know; Know.
Those that do not Know; Don't tell them.
They do terrible things to people that Tell Them.

avocadoowl
Posts: 88
Joined: Fri Apr 18, 2014 1:05 pm UTC

Re: 1357: "Free Speech"

Postby avocadoowl » Sat Apr 26, 2014 6:27 pm UTC

jpk wrote:
gmalivuk wrote:
None of us in this thread would advocate, support, or probably even engage in a boycott targeted at a company with some bigoted average employees.


Are you sure you can speak for everyone in the thread? the people I'm arguing with don't seem to have a consistent story on any of the details here. Maybe it's better to speak for yourself.
Either way, though, that's kind of the weird thing. Why does it matter to you what position the guy holds? If you want the guy destroyed for disagreeing with you, why does it matter to you whether you destroy a CEO or a mechanic? I mean, the moral failing is the same in either case. A bigoted homophobic mechanic is just as evil as a bigoted homophobic CEO, isn't she?


Hell, the people who did in fact advocate for this boycott themselves didn't worry about it before Eich became CEO


Actually, that's incorrect. They freaked out about it then, that's how it became known in 2012. Surely you're aware of this, it's been mentioned in just about every piece of reporting on the matter that did any background at all.


Answer my questions. I already reposted them once.

jpk
Posts: 607
Joined: Sat Nov 13, 2010 7:33 am UTC

Re: 1357: "Free Speech"

Postby jpk » Sat Apr 26, 2014 7:12 pm UTC

avocadoowl wrote:ANSWER ME!!!!!! ME ME ME ME ME ANSWER ME!!!!!!!

(paraphrased)
Oh my fucking god. Okay. Last time for these answers, so take notes this time. I've made this as simple as possible. If you still can't understand it, there's no helping you.

Here's your questions:

I'm not sure what's more no holds barred, any means necessary, than a constitutional amendment against equality, which is what Prop 8 was. You seem to oppose the right to marry because every single argument you've made against the boycott can be made against the Prop 8 movement. Absolutely no good came of that either (though I'm not conceding that nothing good came of the boycott). It's not even like one could argue it eventually lead to marriage equality because there already was marriage equality in California, and Prop 8 stopped it. So why was the boycott wrong but Prop 8 wasn't?
[/quote]



You seem to oppose the right to marry

I have said repeatedly that I support the right to marriage equality

because every single argument you've made against the boycott can be made against the Prop 8 movement


Since I oppose Proposition 8 as an act of legal discrimination against a class just as much as I oppose the boycott as a legal act of aggression against an individual and an assault on the rights of all persons, I'm not surprised to find that you could apply my arguments against the anti-Eich movement to the anti-marriage movement.


Absolutely no good came of that either


I agree with this entirely. Nothing good came from either of those efforts, unless you count the rejection of Prop 8 by the Supreme Court, which in a sense was only possible because it was passed. If you do count that, then the only good that came from Prop 8 was its ultimate rejection, and the limitations that placed on discrimination of that kind.

(though I'm not conceding that nothing good came of the boycott)

So you should learn to write what you mean. In any case, you haven't come up with one good thing that came from the boycott, and you've had plenty of time to think of something, so that's a concession of a sort.

It's not even like one could argue it eventually lead to marriage equality because there already was marriage equality in California

I agree, that would be a stupid argument to make. There was nothing good about Prop 8, as I've said many times already. Happy to repeat it though, because it's true.

So why was the boycott wrong but Prop 8 wasn't?[


I have never once said that Prop 8 was not wrong. Proposition 8 was a misguided and evil-spirited law and it's an embarrassment to the state of California that it ever passed. But it was the right of the people who proposed it and supported it to do so.

avocadoowl
Posts: 88
Joined: Fri Apr 18, 2014 1:05 pm UTC

Re: 1357: "Free Speech"

Postby avocadoowl » Sat Apr 26, 2014 7:30 pm UTC

The issue I had with your posts is that it seemed like you had much less issue with, or at least spent much less time discussing, the wrongness of Prop 8 versus your perceived wrongness of the boycott. It seemed hypocritical to me. However, in this comment, it does seem like you're maintaining that you find both equally wrong? Or something along those lines. So while I still disagree with you re: the boycott, we're somewhat on the same page re: Prop 8.

I and others have stated multiple times on this thread the good that has come from the boycott. It's just that you're dismissing those things with no cause. The main good is that these boycotts help change and shift our culture. It's also showing companies that if they want to get on the diversity bandwagon, they have to do more than lip service.

Do you really not understand the difference between a bigoted CEO versus a bigoted guy who works in accounting? How one is the face of the company and has a huge say in how the company is run?

User avatar
Pfhorrest
Posts: 4974
Joined: Fri Oct 30, 2009 6:11 am UTC
Contact:

Re: 1357: "Free Speech"

Postby Pfhorrest » Sat Apr 26, 2014 8:23 pm UTC

blowfishhootie wrote:I just want to clarify what it is you're arguing here. You're saying that in each of these pairings, the first argument is more rational than the second:

You seem to be severely misinterpreting me, so here's my position on every stage of this story spelled out completely and simply:

- Gays absolutely should be allowed to marry each other. Anyone should be allowed to marry anyone they want, and nothing should be discriminated based on things like sexual orientation.
- Eich or anyone should be allowed to argue (or pay others to argue) otherwise (because freedom of speech), but he is wrong to do so (because that position is wrong).
- Anyone should be allowed to disassociate themselves from Eich or his affiliates if they feel like it for any reason, and they are not wrong to do so (because freedom of association).
- OKCupid should be allowed to actively campaign for the boycott of Mozilla as a way to punish Eich for his advocacy (because freedom of speech), but they are wrong to do so (because Mozilla employing Eich does not mean they endorse his views, and trying to get someone fired because they advocate a position you disagree with is escalating the conflict unnecessarily).
- Mozilla should be allowed to get rid of Eich because his advocacy spurred a boycott that's embarrassing them (because freedom of association), but they would be wrong to do so (because firing someone otherwise right for the job because other people demand it is generally not ok, and Mozilla can issue a statement explicitly denying their support of Eich's political views while affirming that he is the right man for this technical job if that is their stance and they want it known).
- The state should absolutely not force anyone to patronize Mozilla against their will, nor force Mozilla to employ Eich, nor force OKCupid to refrain from boycotting Mozilla, nor force Eich to refrain from supporting Prop 8, nor force gays to refrain from marrying, and it would be wrong of it to do any of those things. (All because freedom of association and freedom of speech and freedom in general).
Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of All Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
The Codex Quaerendae (my philosophy) - The Chronicles of Quelouva (my fiction)

User avatar
zmic
Posts: 419
Joined: Fri Mar 02, 2012 10:38 pm UTC

Re: 1357: "Free Speech"

Postby zmic » Sat Apr 26, 2014 9:14 pm UTC

avocadoowl wrote:Do you really not understand the difference between a bigoted CEO versus a bigoted guy who works in accounting? How one is the face of the company and has a huge say in how the company is run?


Everyone is entitled to his own little bigotries, even a CEO. What if Eich had been a little more discrete about supporting Prop 8 -- like passing the money through a third person? An employer does not have the right to ask for your political opinions. Then Mozilla would have a bigoted CEO and you would never have noticed because Eich would never use his professional capacity to speak out against gay marriage or promote anti-gay sentiments, unless he's crazy.

People here same to labor under the delusion that CEOs are saints.

User avatar
yanfan388
Posts: 21
Joined: Fri Apr 25, 2014 8:55 pm UTC

Re: 1357: "Free Speech"

Postby yanfan388 » Sat Apr 26, 2014 9:26 pm UTC

just curious.

how did this very big thread get to be about Mozilla and homosexuals? i wouldn't get that from the original cartoon, which mentions hosting first and "getting banned from an internet community" last. that sounds like censorship of forum messages ("yelled at" sure works there, too, huh?)

never mind. don't yell at me!

User avatar
PeteP
What the peck?
Posts: 1451
Joined: Tue Aug 23, 2011 4:51 pm UTC

Re: 1357: "Free Speech"

Postby PeteP » Sat Apr 26, 2014 9:37 pm UTC

yanfan388 wrote:just curious.

how did this very big thread get to be about Mozilla and homosexuals? i wouldn't get that from the original cartoon, which mentions hosting first and "getting banned from an internet community" last. that sounds like censorship of forum messages ("yelled at" sure works there, too, huh?)

never mind. don't yell at me!

Timing, it does mention boycotts and appeared shortly after the the guy stepped down. So it is not unlikely that the comic is a reaction to the discussion and even if it is not it was treated as such so the thread became about the issue.

avocadoowl
Posts: 88
Joined: Fri Apr 18, 2014 1:05 pm UTC

Re: 1357: "Free Speech"

Postby avocadoowl » Sat Apr 26, 2014 9:42 pm UTC

zmic wrote:
avocadoowl wrote:Do you really not understand the difference between a bigoted CEO versus a bigoted guy who works in accounting? How one is the face of the company and has a huge say in how the company is run?


Everyone is entitled to his own little bigotries, even a CEO. What if Eich had been a little more discrete about supporting Prop 8 -- like passing the money through a third person? An employer does not have the right to ask for your political opinions. Then Mozilla would have a bigoted CEO and you would never have noticed because Eich would never use his professional capacity to speak out against gay marriage or promote anti-gay sentiments, unless he's crazy.

People here same to labor under the delusion that CEOs are saints.


Not at all. We're simply saying that the CEO is the ultimate face of a corporation so if it becomes a public fact, and a public issue, that the face of the corporation goes against one of the core values of the corporation, the corporation is more than justified in seeking/accepting a resignation.

User avatar
addams
Posts: 9999
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2010 4:44 am UTC
Location: Oregon Coast: 97444

Re: 1357: "Free Speech"

Postby addams » Sat Apr 26, 2014 10:07 pm UTC

yanfan388 wrote:just curious.

how did this very big thread get to be about Mozilla and homosexuals? i wouldn't get that from the original cartoon, which mentions hosting first and "getting banned from an internet community" last. that sounds like censorship of forum messages ("yelled at" sure works there, too, huh?)

never mind. don't yell at me!

I could try to explain.
That would take 5 more internet pages.

Do you want to discuss Freedom of Speech?
Do you want to discuss The Comic?

That would be Great!

Hey! Come Back! Don't Go!
Hey! You might be Sane!

We could use some of That.
A Forum can never have too much Sane.
Life is, just, an exchange of electrons; It is up to us to give it meaning.

We are all in The Gutter.
Some of us see The Gutter.
Some of us see The Stars.
by mr. Oscar Wilde.

Those that want to Know; Know.
Those that do not Know; Don't tell them.
They do terrible things to people that Tell Them.

User avatar
yanfan388
Posts: 21
Joined: Fri Apr 25, 2014 8:55 pm UTC

Re: 1357: "Free Speech"

Postby yanfan388 » Sat Apr 26, 2014 10:16 pm UTC

addams wrote:
yanfan388 wrote:just curious.

how did this very big thread get to be about Mozilla and homosexuals? i wouldn't get that from the original cartoon, which mentions hosting first and "getting banned from an internet community" last. that sounds like censorship of forum messages ("yelled at" sure works there, too, huh?)

never mind. don't yell at me!

I could try to explain.
That would take 5 more internet pages.

Do you want to discuss Freedom of Speech?
Do you want to discuss The Comic?

That would be Great!

Hey! Come Back! Don't Go!
Hey! You might be Sane!

We could use some of That.
A Forum can never have too much Sane.



i am not sane.

it won't be long before somebody probably says, hey, a T.R.O.L.L.

:(

User avatar
addams
Posts: 9999
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2010 4:44 am UTC
Location: Oregon Coast: 97444

Re: 1357: "Free Speech"

Postby addams » Sat Apr 26, 2014 10:23 pm UTC

yanfan388 wrote:
addams wrote:
yanfan388 wrote:just curious.

how did this very big thread get to be about Mozilla and homosexuals? i wouldn't get that from the original cartoon, which mentions hosting first and "getting banned from an internet community" last. that sounds like censorship of forum messages ("yelled at" sure works there, too, huh?)

never mind. don't yell at me!

I could try to explain.
That would take 5 more internet pages.

Do you want to discuss Freedom of Speech?
Do you want to discuss The Comic?

That would be Great!

Hey! Come Back! Don't Go!
Hey! You might be Sane!

We could use some of That.
A Forum can never have too much Sane.



i am not sane.

it won't be long before somebody probably says, hey, a T.R.O.L.L.

:(

Well...?
You could pretend to be Sane.
You might like it.

It can't be That hard to Fake.
Most people admit to Faking it.
Life is, just, an exchange of electrons; It is up to us to give it meaning.

We are all in The Gutter.
Some of us see The Gutter.
Some of us see The Stars.
by mr. Oscar Wilde.

Those that want to Know; Know.
Those that do not Know; Don't tell them.
They do terrible things to people that Tell Them.

Nick O
Posts: 6
Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2014 4:10 pm UTC

Re: 1357: "Free Speech"

Postby Nick O » Sun Apr 27, 2014 1:54 am UTC

Are we seriously suggesting that fundamentalist Christians should be barred from all high-profile jobs on account of their beliefs? That's horrifying.

avocadoowl
Posts: 88
Joined: Fri Apr 18, 2014 1:05 pm UTC

Re: 1357: "Free Speech"

Postby avocadoowl » Sun Apr 27, 2014 1:59 am UTC

Nick O wrote:Are we seriously suggesting that fundamentalist Christians should be barred from all high-profile jobs on account of their beliefs? That's horrifying.


Way to not read the thread. Eich was CEO of a company with a stated mission of diversity and acceptance. Donating to Prop 8 directly contradicts that mission. If a CEO does not align with the point of the company, the board is well within its rights to accept a resignation.

Nick O
Posts: 6
Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2014 4:10 pm UTC

Re: 1357: "Free Speech"

Postby Nick O » Sun Apr 27, 2014 2:17 am UTC

The thread is 23 pages, of course I didn't read more than a few introductory posts and a few of the last posts; I have too much to do. I'm sure you do, too. If you have read the whole thread, then that is probably because you have been following it from the time it started, and it was not as hard to follow in that way.

Of course the board was well within its rights to accept his resignation. I just don't see why I should care what Mozilla's CEO believes unless it (adversely) affects the way the company conducts business.

I guess I might understand better if Eich had been making speeches on the issue or had made recent donations.... if he has done so, then I am just unaware.
Last edited by Nick O on Sun Apr 27, 2014 2:19 am UTC, edited 1 time in total.

rmsgrey
Posts: 3464
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2011 6:35 pm UTC

Re: 1357: "Free Speech"

Postby rmsgrey » Sun Apr 27, 2014 2:19 am UTC

Nick O wrote:Are we seriously suggesting that fundamentalist Christians should be barred from all high-profile jobs on account of their beliefs? That's horrifying.

Only the high-profile jobs where they're required to represent the company to the public, and the company has an official position which conflicts with their (publicly expressed) beliefs.

I also believe that serious questions would need to be asked before appointing someone who campaigned to lower the age of consent to 12 to run a youth group for teenagers. Actually, that's less of a clear conflict of interest than appointing someone who campaigned against gay marriage to run a company that supports gay marriage...

avocadoowl
Posts: 88
Joined: Fri Apr 18, 2014 1:05 pm UTC

Re: 1357: "Free Speech"

Postby avocadoowl » Sun Apr 27, 2014 2:20 am UTC

Nick O wrote:The thread is 23 pages, of course I didn't read more than a few introductory posts and a few of the last posts; I have too much to do.

Of course the board was well within its rights to accept his resignation. I just don't see why I should care what Mozilla's CEO believes unless it (adversely) affects the way the company conducts business.

I guess I might understand better if Eich had been making speeches on the issue or had made recent donations.... if he has done so, then I am just unaware.


He specifically refused to recant his views, thus confirming that he is still a bigot. The CEO is the main figurehead of a company. It's really not good PR when a company that prides itself on diversity has a bigot CEO.

Nick O
Posts: 6
Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2014 4:10 pm UTC

Re: 1357: "Free Speech"

Postby Nick O » Sun Apr 27, 2014 2:23 am UTC

rmsgrey wrote:Only the high-profile jobs where they're required to represent the company to the public, and the company has an official position which conflicts with their (publicly expressed) beliefs.


That is reasonable. But this reminds me of the Chick-Fil-A fiasco a while back, in which case the company in question clearly had socially conservative values.
Last edited by Nick O on Sun Apr 27, 2014 2:24 am UTC, edited 2 times in total.

jsharpminor
Posts: 14
Joined: Wed May 11, 2011 5:24 am UTC

Re: 1357: "Free Speech"

Postby jsharpminor » Sun Apr 27, 2014 2:23 am UTC

avocadoowl wrote:He specifically refused to recant his views, thus confirming that he is still a bigot. The CEO is the main figurehead of a company. It's really not good PR when a company that prides itself on diversity has a bigot CEO.


I like jpk's position. Nothing good comes of reverse bigotry.

CLARIFYING EDIT: You're essentially saying that you're bigoted against bigots, and that you want to stop them and stomp them down from high levels of society simply because they have views opposite of your own.

This behavior is no better than theirs.

Nick O
Posts: 6
Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2014 4:10 pm UTC

Re: 1357: "Free Speech"

Postby Nick O » Sun Apr 27, 2014 2:42 am UTC

I don't want to sound like I'm arguing both sides here, but I do think that some good can come of what you call "reverse bigotry". For example, in spite of WBC's right to protest at funerals, I think it is a good thing for people (but not law enforcement officials) to step up and prevent them from carrying out their protests. However, I don't think that we should generally be concerned about other people's positions on social matters. Life would be awful if I had to avoid everyone whose beliefs disgust me.

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26529
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: 1357: "Free Speech"

Postby gmalivuk » Sun Apr 27, 2014 4:27 am UTC

jsharpminor wrote:This behavior is no better than theirs.
Yes, that is exactly right. It is no worse to deny a group of people their basic human rights, than it is to dislike them for doing so.

And putting murderers in jail is just as bad as murder.

Give me a fucking break.
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

User avatar
Jave D
chavey-dee
Posts: 1042
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2010 4:41 pm UTC

Re: 1357: "Free Speech"

Postby Jave D » Sun Apr 27, 2014 4:35 am UTC

jsharpminor wrote:
avocadoowl wrote:He specifically refused to recant his views, thus confirming that he is still a bigot. The CEO is the main figurehead of a company. It's really not good PR when a company that prides itself on diversity has a bigot CEO.


I like jpk's position. Nothing good comes of reverse bigotry.

CLARIFYING EDIT: You're essentially saying that you're bigoted against bigots, and that you want to stop them and stomp them down from high levels of society simply because they have views opposite of your own.

This behavior is no better than theirs.


Ah, the "Oh me yarm u dont tolerate intolerance so ur intolerant" gotcha-argument rears its tumorous head again.

jpk
Posts: 607
Joined: Sat Nov 13, 2010 7:33 am UTC

Re: 1357: "Free Speech"

Postby jpk » Sun Apr 27, 2014 4:42 am UTC

avocadoowl wrote:
Nick O wrote:Are we seriously suggesting that fundamentalist Christians should be barred from all high-profile jobs on account of their beliefs? That's horrifying.


Way to not read the thread. Eich was CEO of a company with a stated mission of diversity and acceptance. Donating to Prop 8 directly contradicts that mission. If a CEO does not align with the point of the company, the board is well within its rights to accept a resignation.



Let's bear in mind that Eich founded the company.

jsharpminor
Posts: 14
Joined: Wed May 11, 2011 5:24 am UTC

Re: 1357: "Free Speech"

Postby jsharpminor » Sun Apr 27, 2014 4:46 am UTC

Jave D wrote:
Ah, the "Oh me yarm u dont tolerate intolerance so ur intolerant" gotcha-argument rears its tumorous head again.


Yes and no. What are we tolerating here? If you're talking about someone who for instance has the worst possible intolerant opinion, say they think all gays should be rounded up and shot, well, that person is clearly intolerant. But holding that opinion is not illegal. Acting on it clearly is, but we're not taking about that. We're asking what is tolerant. A tolerant society will allow any opinion to be expressed, no matter how stupid.

On the other hand, we're not saying we should actually allow the behavior. Tolerance of both means both get to live, and without fear of the other.

jpk
Posts: 607
Joined: Sat Nov 13, 2010 7:33 am UTC

Re: 1357: "Free Speech"

Postby jpk » Sun Apr 27, 2014 4:50 am UTC

Jave D wrote:
Ah, the "Oh me yarm u dont tolerate intolerance so ur intolerant" gotcha-argument rears its tumorous head again.


If you don't allow other voices to be heard, you are intolerant. That's what intolerant means. Deal with it. If you want to be a bigot, that's your business, but you may as well own it.

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26529
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: 1357: "Free Speech"

Postby gmalivuk » Sun Apr 27, 2014 5:02 am UTC

jsharpminor wrote:A tolerant society will allow any opinion to be expressed, no matter how stupid.
That doesn't mean the society will just stand by and let terrible opinions be expressed (and acted on, let's not forget, since donating to a political campaign is different from simply expressing an opinion) without responding.
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

jsharpminor
Posts: 14
Joined: Wed May 11, 2011 5:24 am UTC

Re: 1357: "Free Speech"

Postby jsharpminor » Sun Apr 27, 2014 5:10 am UTC

gmalivuk wrote:
jsharpminor wrote:A tolerant society will allow any opinion to be expressed, no matter how stupid.
That doesn't mean the society will just stand by and let terrible opinions be expressed (and acted on, let's not forget, since donating to a political campaign is different from simply expressing an opinion) without responding.


Yes, it does. All that is happening here is speech. You propose to censure and destroy men simply because their ideas are not in line with yours. I cannot think of a more intolerant action. Show me where he has hurt people and then we'll talk.

You are also free to respond to his speech with speech of your own, be it in the form of campaign donations or literal speech.

But if you start destroying people for the harm their ideas might potentially do, that is VERY dangerous ground.

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26529
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: 1357: "Free Speech"

Postby gmalivuk » Sun Apr 27, 2014 5:20 am UTC

Boycotts are speech if campaign donations are.
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

User avatar
Jave D
chavey-dee
Posts: 1042
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2010 4:41 pm UTC

Re: 1357: "Free Speech"

Postby Jave D » Sun Apr 27, 2014 5:31 am UTC

jpk replied to a post I made! How lovely that would have been when I was actually addressing him. I guess it's just easier to make snarky interjections in defense of other people's failed arguments at this point. Why bother reading the thread, after all.

jsharpminor wrote:
gmalivuk wrote:
jsharpminor wrote:A tolerant society will allow any opinion to be expressed, no matter how stupid.
That doesn't mean the society will just stand by and let terrible opinions be expressed (and acted on, let's not forget, since donating to a political campaign is different from simply expressing an opinion) without responding.


Yes, it does. All that is happening here is speech. You propose to censure and destroy men simply because their ideas are not in line with yours. I cannot think of a more intolerant action. Show me where he has hurt people and then we'll talk.

You are also free to respond to his speech with speech of your own, be it in the form of campaign donations or literal speech.

But if you start destroying people for the harm their ideas might potentially do, that is VERY dangerous ground.


"destroying people?" Oh, when did that happen? Who was destroyed?

And really, you can't think of a more intolerant action than limiting free speech (which this isn't even an example of, of course)? You have a woefully inept imagination. And knowledge of history. And understanding of current events.

jsharpminor
Posts: 14
Joined: Wed May 11, 2011 5:24 am UTC

Re: 1357: "Free Speech"

Postby jsharpminor » Sun Apr 27, 2014 5:32 am UTC

gmalivuk wrote:Boycotts are speech if campaign donations are.


And campaign donations to an intolerant politician are intolerant speech as are boycotts.

Be tolerant or intolerant as you will.

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26529
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: 1357: "Free Speech"

Postby gmalivuk » Sun Apr 27, 2014 5:41 am UTC

You're trying so hard to draw an equivalence between the two opposing sides, and it's just not going to work. They are not equivalent. In real life, the order of action and reaction fucking matters. It is important who started it, both in morality and in law.

After all, while it is illegal for you to take someone from their house and keep them in your basement, it is not illegal for the police to respond by taking you from your house and keeping you in their jail. And I daresay most people would agree that in that case morality matches up with the law. Someone is depriving another person of freedom in both cases, but that doesn't make them identical.

Similarly, it is morally repugnant to donate money in order to take away someone's basic human rights, but it that doesn't mean it's morally repugnant to boycott your business in response. Someone is (allegedly) being "intolerant" in both cases, but that doesn't make them identical.
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

blowfishhootie
Posts: 486
Joined: Wed Sep 21, 2011 11:13 pm UTC

Re: 1357: "Free Speech"

Postby blowfishhootie » Sun Apr 27, 2014 7:02 am UTC

I think we can all agree that black players, former players, and celebrities who are threatening to boycott Los Angeles Clippers NBA games until owner Donald Sterling (who was recently recorded on a cell phone telling his mistress that he doesn't want her bringing black people to his arena) is gone as owner are fucking assholes. Those demanding that he remove himself by selling the team or demanding that the NBA take action to make that happen are intolerant dicks. And most importantly, we are all of us now obligated to go and buy all the Los Angeles Clippers tickets we can find - or is it only non-racists who are obliged to give their money to this racist now? I'm not clear on that. Regardless, it's clear that Sterling is the victim here. Maybe if black people were nicer to him and smiled at him as he spit on them he wouldn't hate them so much, they obviously are getting what they deserve if they are banned from his building.

http://www.latimes.com/sports/la-sp-nba ... z304FVdeSS
http://espn.go.com/nba/story/_/id/10843 ... -tmz-audio
http://espn.go.com/los-angeles/nba/stor ... er-boycott

User avatar
PM 2Ring
Posts: 3652
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2009 3:19 pm UTC
Location: Mid north coast, NSW, Australia

Re: 1357: "Free Speech"

Postby PM 2Ring » Sun Apr 27, 2014 7:17 am UTC

jpk wrote:
As I said in my first post, AFAIK the people calling for a boycott weren't asking for Eich to be expelled from Mozilla, they just wanted him out of the CEO spot. If you have citation that disproves this point, please feel free to post it here.


It's difficult to find a unified position for the anti-Eich faction, even on this forum, but the CREDO petition and the OK Cupid posting seem to be leading documents here. The CREDO petition called for Eich to "reverse his anti-gay stance, resign or be replaced". While I suppose you could contort "be replaced" to mean "be replaced as CEO and remain at Mozilla", the more straightforward reading of this is "be fired", particularly since it's offered as an alternative to "resign". (and not, for example, "step down as CEO and take some other position at Mozilla") So there's one point. Interestingly, Credo does not seem particularly proud of their role in this whole affair - at least, I can find no mention of it on their site, and as far as I can tell they no longer serve a copy of the full text of the petition at all. If you can find a copy of their original petition, feel free to post it and we'll have a bash at it.


Sorry, I don't see it as much of a contortion: IMHO it's reasonable to assume that Eich would continue to work with Mozilla in some capacity after being deemed unsuitable as CEO after a couple of weeks. After all, he was one of the founders of Mozilla, and he is Mr JavaScript.

I guess I was being a bit lazy in claiming that nobody wanted him kicked out of Mozilla. I asked about that in my 1st post, and since nobody in this fairly active thread had provided any contradictory evidence otherwise, I just assumed that it must be true.

jpk wrote:As for the OK Cupid love letter to Eich, here's two lines that I think go against your claim:

Mozilla’s new CEO, Brendan Eich, is an opponent of equal rights for gay couples. We would therefore prefer that our users not use Mozilla software to access OkCupid.
...
Those who seek to deny love and instead enforce misery, shame, and frustration are our enemies, and we wish them nothing but failure.


I find it hard to read "we wish them nothing but failure" as "we wish them nothing but a different office in the company". I see nothing else in the text (accessed here: http://techcrunch.com/2014/03/31/okcupid-offers-firefox-visitors-links-to-alternate-browsers-to-protest-new-mozilla-ceo/) since OK Cupid also seems a little ashamed of their role in all of this, and is not sharing anything about it now that they've got their way. (or at least, I can't find anything on the site - feel free to correct me if I'm wrong)


Yeah, ok, I'll concede that that one does require a bit more contortion.

...

I see we have a new poster (to the thread) attempting to use good old Icecream Logic...

@blowfishhootie
It's a pity we can't use the Sarcastic font/style on the fora, you had me going at the start of your post. :)


Return to “Individual XKCD Comic Threads”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: DavidSh and 38 guests