If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Gawker)   TechCrunch CEO defends former Mozilla CEO. "My point is this. WE'VE WON. After eons gays can now mostly feel free to be themselves, love whoever, with no stigma." You hear that gays and gals? "MOSTLY" feel free. Yay   (valleywag.gawker.com) divider line 289
    More: Stupid, Mozilla, Mozilla CEO, TechCrunch CEO, TechCrunch, Michael Arrington, undecidable problem  
•       •       •

3043 clicks; posted to Main » on 04 Apr 2014 at 9:31 PM (20 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



289 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-04-04 07:55:29 PM
WE'VE WON

Is he gay?
 
2014-04-04 08:13:57 PM

fusillade762: WE'VE WON

Is he gay?


I don't know, he sounds kind of angry to me.
 
2014-04-04 08:14:31 PM
As long as there's fundamentalist Christianity there will only be that "mostly"...
 
2014-04-04 08:54:17 PM
 
2014-04-04 08:55:05 PM

Because People in power are Stupid: As long as there's fundamentalist Christianity there will only be that "mostly"...


That's not true.  The KKK still exists but Blacks are not "mostly" free from slavery.  Yes, racism still exists, it but exists throughout the world by all type of people, not just Christians.  Same with hatred of gays.  Religion gives extremists a mask to hide behind.  Just to name the major players, most Christians, Muslims, Buddhists, and Hindus are not racist, elitist farks.

In a world without religion, we would still have the same number of asshole idiots.  They would hide behind politics, nationalism and economic standing.  Oh wait, they already do that too.
 
2014-04-04 09:08:39 PM

beautifulbob: In a world without religion, we would still have the same number of asshole idiots.  They would hide behind politics, nationalism and economic standing.  Oh wait, they already do that too.


I don't understand. Are you saying that since there are other things they can hide behind, it's okay that they hide behind those things without being called on it? What's your point here, aside from a weak defense of fundamentalism for some reason?
 
2014-04-04 09:09:48 PM

beautifulbob: In a world without religion, we would still have the same number of asshole idiots.


Also, I'm reminded of this quote:

"With or without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion." -Steven Weinberg
 
2014-04-04 09:18:44 PM
So the issue here is something the guy did on his own time, his own money, and wasn't using the company to further his political agenda? Sounds like a non-issue to me. Congratulations, liberals, you've become just as bad as evangelicals.
 
2014-04-04 09:33:38 PM
4.bp.blogspot.com

Homosexual lobby (pictured)
 
2014-04-04 09:38:21 PM
Is this like saying "at least indentured servitude is not slavery?"

Mostly free?
 
2014-04-04 09:38:33 PM

Because People in power are Stupid: As long as there's fundamentalist Christianity there will only be that "mostly"...


What a ignorant statement.
 
2014-04-04 09:40:55 PM
"anti-" people are no fun to be around
 
2014-04-04 09:41:40 PM
Couldn't get the Chick-a-fil CEO so go after a non profit CEO.
/We won
 
2014-04-04 09:42:03 PM
And Eich is mostly free to say whatever the hell he wants. Problem?
 
2014-04-04 09:43:08 PM
"Mostly" won?
1.bp.blogspot.com

Woo-hoo-hoo, look who knows so much!
 
2014-04-04 09:43:09 PM

BrassArt: Because People in power are Stupid: As long as there's fundamentalist Christianity there will only be that "mostly"...

What a ignorant statement.


Indeed, he should have said 'fundamentalist religions of all sorts.'

Other than that, though, he's right.  Fundamentalists are farking retarded.
 
2014-04-04 09:44:17 PM
Because shiattcanning the CEO of a browser company whose product has no political impact whatsoever, who he made a political contribution we don't like six years ago and who never discriminated against any of his employees makes it all better.
 
2014-04-04 09:45:58 PM
Browsing this thread with Firefox, getting a kick ect...
 
2014-04-04 09:47:09 PM
Did okCupid give up JavaScript?

/wouldn't blame em...
 
2014-04-04 09:47:30 PM
Hey. The guy is looking around and saying, 'This is what I see.'

If YOU guys dont see it as that, you're deluding yourselves.
 
2014-04-04 09:47:47 PM

lousyskater: Browsing this thread with Firefox, getting a kick ect...


I'm using IE because of its close association with abortion.
 
2014-04-04 09:47:58 PM

MacEnvy: beautifulbob: In a world without religion, we would still have the same number of asshole idiots.

Also, I'm reminded of this quote:

"With or without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion." -Steven Weinberg


wojdylosocialmedia.com
 
2014-04-04 09:48:39 PM
I'm using Ice Weasel.

It's what conscious, and few updates behind,  FF users use.
 
2014-04-04 09:48:52 PM
I really don't care if someone is gay or not, it affects my life 0 percent. Do i understand two guys wanting to be with one another? Nope, as I'm straight. Not saying its wrong, but just that i don't understand it. Personally, i don't really care what people do in the privacy of their own homes, or in public. I don't expect to be judged for being straight, so who am i to judge someone for liking the same sex? I would hope that someday, we can all accept one another and "be equal" in the eyes of everyone, and the laws. Equal rights for all couples, equal benefits. This is America after all, when will we start to live up to the creed that started the whole thing?

/We hold these truths to be sacred & undeniable; that all men are created equal & independant, that from that equal creation they derive rights inherent & inalienable, among which are the preservation of life, & liberty, & the pursuit of happiness; ...( and yes, all you women too. don't know why they left that out)
 
2014-04-04 09:50:21 PM
When the constitution was written they wrote into it that congress could not deal with the issue slavery for 20 years. One of the reasons that this compromise worked is because the smart bet was that the institution would be ready to die off in twenty years anyway because, economically, it had become unviable. Then Eli Witney perfected the cotton gin. You haven't won until you win.
 
2014-04-04 09:50:45 PM
"Because I too have supported marriage equality and a slew of other civil rights, I have the authority and moral standing to decide once and for all on the behalf of everyone else when we should be happy and satisfied with our progress."

What a fantastically arrogant, f*cking absurd argument that's bubbled up over the past 24 hours.
 
2014-04-04 09:52:06 PM

MacEnvy: beautifulbob: In a world without religion, we would still have the same number of asshole idiots.

Also, I'm reminded of this quote:

"With or without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion." -Steven Weinberg


No, it takes fanatical devotion to a cause -- frequently religion, but as is evident in the cases of the Khmer Rouge, Stalinism, and a host of others, not always. Unless you're going to tell me that every single person under those regimes who did something evil was naturally evil and not pressured either by force or by ideology.

Sensei Can You See: Because shiattcanning the CEO of a browser company whose product has no political impact whatsoever, who he made a political contribution we don't like six years ago and who never discriminated against any of his employees makes it all better.


Agreed. He's a scapegoat. And his leaving will solve about as many problems as sacrificing a scapegoat usually does. (And no, I don't agree with his contributing. But I really, really hate mobs, of any sort).
 
2014-04-04 09:53:04 PM

Bit'O'Gristle: I really don't care if someone is gay or not, it affects my life 0 percent. Do i understand two guys wanting to be with one another? Nope, as I'm straight. Not saying its wrong, but just that i don't understand it. Personally, i don't really care what people do in the privacy of their own homes, or in public. I don't expect to be judged for being straight, so who am i to judge someone for liking the same sex? I would hope that someday, we can all accept one another and "be equal" in the eyes of everyone, and the laws. Equal rights for all couples, equal benefits. This is America after all, when will we start to live up to the creed that started the whole thing?

/We hold these truths to be sacred & undeniable; that all men are created equal & independant, that from that equal creation they derive rights inherent & inalienable, among which are the preservation of life, & liberty, & the pursuit of happiness; ...( and yes, all you women too. don't know why they left that out)


My POV is that the government should not be involved with marriage to begin with.  If people want to hook up in a church, great.  If you want a legal arrangement, draw up a contract. That can be between two or three, and a tree. It makes no difference.
 
2014-04-04 09:54:15 PM

RenownedCurator: Agreed. He's a scapegoat. And his leaving will solve about as many problems as sacrificing a scapegoat usually does. (And no, I don't agree with his contributing. But I really, really hate mobs, of any sort).


Andrew Sullivan wrote just now that if this is what the gay rights movement has come to, count him out; it's become exactly the sort of bully it was created to fight.
 
2014-04-04 09:54:43 PM

salvador.hardin: When the constitution was written they wrote into it that congress could not deal with the issue slavery for 20 years. One of the reasons that this compromise worked is because the smart bet was that the institution would be ready to die off in twenty years anyway because, economically, it had become unviable. Then Eli Witney perfected the cotton gin. You haven't won until you win.


Yet the washing machine was invented and we still have marriage.
 
2014-04-04 09:55:23 PM

MacEnvy: beautifulbob: In a world without religion, we would still have the same number of asshole idiots.  They would hide behind politics, nationalism and economic standing.  Oh wait, they already do that too.

I don't understand. Are you saying that since there are other things they can hide behind, it's okay that they hide behind those things without being called on it? What's your point here, aside from a weak defense of fundamentalism for some reason?


That's not what I meant.  I get tired of the one-liner "Lets blame Religion" that is tossed around here.  What I was trying to say, maybe poorly, is that when you focus on blaming one small subset of the population you do miss out on the the rest of the idiots.
 
2014-04-04 10:00:13 PM

uber humper: I'm using Ice Weasel.

It's what conscious, and few updates behind,  FF users use.


Love is a snowmobile racing across the tundra and then suddenly it flips over, pinning you underneath. At night, the ice weasels come.
 
2014-04-04 10:00:49 PM

Sensei Can You See: RenownedCurator: Agreed. He's a scapegoat. And his leaving will solve about as many problems as sacrificing a scapegoat usually does. (And no, I don't agree with his contributing. But I really, really hate mobs, of any sort).

Andrew Sullivan wrote just now that if this is what the gay rights movement has come to, count him out; it's become exactly the sort of bully it was created to fight.


He's an idiot, with an extremely narrow perception of the threat of discrimination most homosexual Americans face every day, like being fired or evicted simply for being gay.

But then again, he's a privileged white male conservative, so that's no surprise.
 
2014-04-04 10:00:51 PM

Sensei Can You See: Andrew Sullivan wrote just now that if this is what the gay rights movement has come to, count him out; it's become exactly the sort of bully it was created to fight.


Which, unless Sullivan starts promoting and actively voting against marriage equality or other measures in any way related to gay rights out of some strange sense of spite, means squat.
 
2014-04-04 10:02:43 PM

beautifulbob: The KKK still exists but Blacks are not "mostly" free from slavery.


Slavery and human trafficking still exists in the United States.
 
2014-04-04 10:02:58 PM
mostly

You fail.

People are either equal or they are not.

End.

of.

discussion.

That is, I understand that "most" people recognize that he said "most", but if this were about gun rights or free speech the argument that "most" of us "mostly" enjoy the argued rights the "most" argumen would be rejected.

So, fark off.

Right are rights. I agree that it's retarded that "most" people enjoy unlimited to "rights" to guns or monied "free speech"..... but our system recognized them. So, fark off.

"Most" isn't good enough when it comes to rights. So... again... go fark yourself.
 
2014-04-04 10:03:05 PM

beautifulbob: one small subset of the population


That makes up a significant portion of the federal and state legislatures and actively pushes policies based on their whacko dogma. Come on man, don't play stupid.
 
2014-04-04 10:03:19 PM
I'm not seeing why anyone cares. CEOs are representative of their company, personal politics included. The free market decided that those politics were unacceptable and made it known that the company would take a hit in popularity if they kept him. The company made a sensible business decision in response. No one's rights were violated, and the market worked as intended.

Eich absolutely has a right to his beliefs, just as consumers have the right to criticize them. If he doesn't like that, he should have kept them private.
 
2014-04-04 10:04:29 PM

fusillade762: uber humper: I'm using Ice Weasel.

It's what conscious, and few updates behind,  FF users use.

Love is a snowmobile racing across the tundra and then suddenly it flips over, pinning you underneath. At night, the ice weasels come.


So, good love breaks your pelvis and rearranges your face?
 
2014-04-04 10:05:20 PM

RenownedCurator: No, it takes fanatical devotion to a cause -- frequently religion, but as is evident in the cases of the Khmer Rouge, Stalinism, and a host of others, not always. Unless you're going to tell me that every single person under those regimes who did something evil was naturally evil and not pressured either by force or by ideology.


No, I just disagree that those movements weren't religious in nature. It doesn't have to meet in a compound to be a cult, and it doesn't have to meet in a church to be religious in nature. It's baseless worship either way and acts the same.
 
2014-04-04 10:07:10 PM

Sensei Can You See: Because shiattcanning the CEO of a browser company whose product has no political impact whatsoever, who he made a political contribution we don't like six years ago and who never discriminated against any of his employees makes it all better.


But his personal views are different, you see. Therefore he must be shunned in the streets and tarred and feathered for not believing what you and I do.

/let us find out which CEOs are registered Republicans, and have them all fired
//maybe find out which CEOs have donated to churches as well, after all most religions are against gay marriage
 
2014-04-04 10:08:17 PM

skozlaw: mostly

You fail.

People are either equal or they are not.

End.

of.

discussion.

That is, I understand that "most" people recognize that he said "most", but if this were about gun rights or free speech the argument that "most" of us "mostly" enjoy the argued rights the "most" argumen would be rejected.

So, fark off.

Right are rights. I agree that it's retarded that "most" people enjoy unlimited to "rights" to guns or monied "free speech"..... but our system recognized them. So, fark off.

"Most" isn't good enough when it comes to rights. So... again... go fark yourself.


No marriage is a better answer.  If you want to be recognized by a church, they can set, or not set, all the rules they want. It's not a government issue.

Marriage should be treated like a prenup or a cohabitation agreement. Put your agreement on paper and sign it.  Have DIY forms for simple cases.
 
2014-04-04 10:09:25 PM

uber humper: Bit'O'Gristle: I really don't care if someone is gay or not, it affects my life 0 percent. Do i understand two guys wanting to be with one another? Nope, as I'm straight. Not saying its wrong, but just that i don't understand it. Personally, i don't really care what people do in the privacy of their own homes, or in public. I don't expect to be judged for being straight, so who am i to judge someone for liking the same sex? I would hope that someday, we can all accept one another and "be equal" in the eyes of everyone, and the laws. Equal rights for all couples, equal benefits. This is America after all, when will we start to live up to the creed that started the whole thing?

/We hold these truths to be sacred & undeniable; that all men are created equal & independant, that from that equal creation they derive rights inherent & inalienable, among which are the preservation of life, & liberty, & the pursuit of happiness; ...( and yes, all you women too. don't know why they left that out)

My POV is that the government should not be involved with marriage to begin with.  If people want to hook up in a church, great.  If you want a legal arrangement, draw up a contract. That can be between two or three, and a tree. It makes no difference.


You lose, pal.
 
2014-04-04 10:09:34 PM

Max Awesome: Sensei Can You See: RenownedCurator: Agreed. He's a scapegoat. And his leaving will solve about as many problems as sacrificing a scapegoat usually does. (And no, I don't agree with his contributing. But I really, really hate mobs, of any sort).

Andrew Sullivan wrote just now that if this is what the gay rights movement has come to, count him out; it's become exactly the sort of bully it was created to fight.

He's an idiot, with an extremely narrow perception of the threat of discrimination most homosexual Americans face every day, like being fired or evicted simply for being gay.

But then again, he's a privileged white male conservative, so that's no surprise.


Could I get a cite for a person who was fired because they were gay? In the last decade? And wasn't a fark-up who deserved to be fired?
 
2014-04-04 10:09:39 PM

Sensei Can You See: Because shiattcanning the CEO of a browser company whose product has no political impact whatsoever, who he made a political contribution we don't like six years ago and who never discriminated against any of his employees makes it all better.


The important lesson is that the Citizens United ruling in 2010 now protects an individual's right to donate money to any hateful or bigoted political cause they support in secret and without recriminations.

Progress!
 
2014-04-04 10:12:35 PM

Seven Mason: Could I get a cite for a person who was fired because they were gay?


Just in general? No caveats/conditions to that request, like in a certain sector, business type, anything?
 
2014-04-04 10:13:47 PM

jso2897: uber humper: Bit'O'Gristle: I really don't care if someone is gay or not, it affects my life 0 percent. Do i understand two guys wanting to be with one another? Nope, as I'm straight. Not saying its wrong, but just that i don't understand it. Personally, i don't really care what people do in the privacy of their own homes, or in public. I don't expect to be judged for being straight, so who am i to judge someone for liking the same sex? I would hope that someday, we can all accept one another and "be equal" in the eyes of everyone, and the laws. Equal rights for all couples, equal benefits. This is America after all, when will we start to live up to the creed that started the whole thing?

/We hold these truths to be sacred & undeniable; that all men are created equal & independant, that from that equal creation they derive rights inherent & inalienable, among which are the preservation of life, & liberty, & the pursuit of happiness; ...( and yes, all you women too. don't know why they left that out)

My POV is that the government should not be involved with marriage to begin with.  If people want to hook up in a church, great.  If you want a legal arrangement, draw up a contract. That can be between two or three, and a tree. It makes no difference.

You lose, pal.


You gotta do better than that.  Why?
 
2014-04-04 10:14:46 PM
When the government forces its programs on you and fines you for non-compliance then "mostly free" is as good as you're gonna get.
 
2014-04-04 10:17:04 PM

Kuta: The important lesson is that the Citizens United ruling in 2010 now protects an individual's right to donate money to any hateful or bigoted political cause they support in secret and without recriminations.


You have a cite for that? Because Wikipedia seems a little contradictory, but then again it's wikipedia
The Supreme Court held in Citizens United that it was unconstitutional to ban free speech through the limitation of independent communications by corporations, associations, and unions,[21] i.e. that corporations and labor unions may spend their own money to support or oppose political candidates through independent communications like television advertisements.[22] This ruling was frequently interpreted as permitting corporations and unions to donate to political campaigns,[23] or else removing limits on how much a donor can contribute to a campaign.[24] However, these claims are incorrect, as the ruling did not affect the 1907 Tillman Act's ban on corporate campaign donations (as the Court noted explicitly in its decision[25]), nor the prohibition on foreign corporate donations to American campaigns,[26] nor did it concern campaign contribution limits.[

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._Federal_Election_Co mmi ssion#Overview

I couldn't find anything about the decision eliminating transparency laws.
 
2014-04-04 10:17:29 PM

Sensei Can You See: Because shiattcanning the CEO of a browser company whose product has no political impact whatsoever, who he made a political contribution we don't like six years ago and who never discriminated against any of his employees makes it all better.


If it was a white supremacist organization would your math crunch out the same way? Your perspective seems to be the objective way to look at it, but that is only because you are compartmentalizing gay rights as a political issue. It is only a political issue because a group of politicians have been using hatred and fear to get elected. It is a moral issue, and any company with a public face needs to manage its image as a moral entity. That is not a recent development. It is the reason that public relations and philanthropy programs exist. If you want people to give you their business, don't try to use the government to make their lives harder.
 
Displayed 50 of 289 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report