Do you have adblock enabled?
 
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.

(The Spectator UK)   RIP, diversity of opinion (1770-2014)   (spectator.co.uk ) divider line
    More: Sad, free speeches, English Defence League, New York Times best-seller, New Statesman, Brandeis University, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, diversity, Leveson Inquiry  
•       •       •

6071 clicks; posted to Politics » on 17 Apr 2014 at 1:21 PM (2 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2014-04-17 02:17:41 PM  
Does this mean you can't order a double soy vente machiotto with a scoop of fried onions and sprinkles?

img.fark.net
 
2014-04-17 02:18:18 PM  

sprawl15: so does this mean it's now illegal to put shiatposters on ignore


~fartz~
 
2014-04-17 02:19:20 PM  

Jjaro: I didn't know critcizing a stance is the same as trying to get someone fired.


Unless you can substantiate it with evidence, the accusation you made that those petitioners "didn't care about their team's stance" (that is what you said) is a lie.
 
2014-04-17 02:20:22 PM  
This reeks of the ol' "I like [the free market || freedom of speech] until it comes back to fark me" song and dance.

Sounds like someone is trying to argue for a moral bailout.
 
2014-04-17 02:22:07 PM  

Dr Dreidel: qorkfiend: Jjaro: And Cheney, and other Republicans, supported Gay Mariage before Obama or Clinton "came around."

[i.imgur.com image 562x437]

IIRC, Dick Cheney didn't "support" marriage equality so much as "didn't join the Republican fight against it". Privately, I think it's clear he does support it, but publicly, it was "No comment. We love our daughters" for Junior's whole tenure in office.

And LOL "other Republicans supported gay marriage". Yeah - supported it so hard they kicked the LCR out of CPAC, what, 3 years running? And made "maridge = 1 hoohoodilly + one cha-cha" an official part of the Party Platform.


And pushed for a Constitutional Amendment outlawing gay marriage.
 
2014-04-17 02:22:10 PM  

vharshyde: "Debate" "Climate Change". Yeah. There IS no debate.


Agreed. It's a thinly veiled attack on free enterprise. End of discussion.
 
2014-04-17 02:23:11 PM  

TheBlackrose: This reeks of the ol' "I like [the free market || freedom of speech] until it comes back to fark me" song and dance.

Sounds like someone is trying to argue for a moral bailout.


Nah, it's that society is turning on the social conservatives and they don't really know how to deal with it.  It's mind-blowing to them that their reactionary actions and words can come back to haunt them.

Basically, they're irate that they're not able to be hateful to others without others coming down on them for it in meaningful ways that they can't ignore.
 
2014-04-17 02:23:35 PM  

lantawa: Like a virulent disease, Baathist political methodology and ideology has reached the West, and it has, hydra-like, been grafted onto socialist ideologies like liberation theology.  Baathist techniques involve swarming, supressive thuggery and brute intellectual and physical silencing of dissenting opinion.  If the rule of law were not so completely and effectively ensconced in U.S. legal systems, the thuggery, dogma, and ideological suppression of this gross, sick political movement would move forward in the West.  It is a very good thing that the system of checks and balances are in place to stop this type of political machine.  Be aware of it:  It is real.  And, man, it is one dirty, sucky political movement.  No  wonder it finds a home grafted onto collectivism and excessive socialist posturing.

Personally, I'd really like to see da Mooslins adopt a friendliness to "beer."  "Beer" is a great and beautiful substance, and can sweep away the bad craziness of hysterical intellectual and political obsessiveness.  Alcohol!  The cause of and the answer to all of life's problems.


I would like to subscribe to and/or suppress your newsletter.
 
2014-04-17 02:24:29 PM  

stpauler: Gulper Eel: stpauler: It seems the author doesn't understand the often repeated "free speech doesn't mean free from consequences".

By and large these aren't cases of businesses doing as they see fit - these are governments cracking down on a free press, and even supposedly liberal journalists asking governments to crack down on those who disagree with them.

Let's see:
In Galway, at the National University of Ireland, a speaker who attempts to argue against the BDS (Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions) programme against Israel is shouted down with cries of 'farking Zionist, farking pricks... Get the fark off our campus.'
Sounds like two people got their free speech. And no government involvement

In California, Mozilla's chief executive is forced to resign because he once made a political donation in support of the pre-revisionist definition of marriage.
Yeah, don't see the government here either.


At Westminster, the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee declares that the BBC should seek 'special clearance' before it interviews climate sceptics, such as fringe wacko extremists like former Chancellor Nigel Lawson.

The BBC is owned and run by....the government itself. Moreover, they were found to be giving climate skeptics favorable coverage. The BBC has come under fire from the chairman of an influential committee of MPs for favouring climate change sceptics in its coverage - and, according to documents seen by the Guardian, replied by saying that putting forward opinions not backed by science is part of its role.


In Massachusetts, Brandeis University withdraws its offer of an honorary degree to a black feminist atheist human rights campaigner from Somalia.
And still not the government. And OH NOES! They withdrew an honorary degree? Yet she can still speak her mind?


In London, a multitude of liberal journalists and artists responsible for everything from Monty Python to Downton Abbey sign an open letter in favour of the first state restraints on the ...


Good lord, what an epic smackdown.  Wow, Gulper, you must feel like quite the twat.
 
2014-04-17 02:25:25 PM  

Nabb1: Infernalist: Free speech doesn't mean you can say whatever you like with no consequences.  It just means the government can't retaliate against you for speaking your mind in public with a few legal requirements.  No inciting riot or panic or inciting violence against someone.

Other than that, that's all 'free speech' means.

Sure, but as a society, do their have to be "consequences" for merely disagreeing with each other? Is that what we want?


Of course - otherwise we wouldn't be free. Freedom is a two way street.

I'm free to publicly espouse whatever beliefs I wish to - no matter how odious. Others are free to react as they feel appropriate (violence no withstanding, of course). That includes their own speech, and choosing whether or not to patronize my business. If someone's beliefs turn others away from them that is EXACTLY freedom.

If others are not free to react and impose the consequences they see fit within legal bounds then what you're suggesting is freedom for me, but not for thee.
 
2014-04-17 02:25:52 PM  

MaudlinMutantMollusk: Whining, apparently, is free enough

/and in abundant supply


And fun, too!
 
2014-04-17 02:26:23 PM  

Serious Black: I don't necessarily think Eich should have been fired or resigned from his position as CEO of Mozilla over his donation to the Prop 8 campaign. But if the board of directors or Eich decided that they shouldn't continue the contract, that's their right as a participant in the free market.


The employees decided they weren't going to work for a bigot -- which is a simple general term for "one who would deny equal rights to a minority group." They openly signed letters using their real names, prepared to leave the company. The Board didn't force a resignation because of his donation, they didn't give a damn about that, they forced him out because he could never lead and he'd have been a serious impediment to the company's progress.

If we want to frame this in right-wing terms, the employees were prepared to exercise their capitalist rights to not work for a company they didn't like, and the company decided it was in their best interest to prevent that.
 
2014-04-17 02:26:45 PM  

mongbiohazard: Nabb1: Infernalist: Free speech doesn't mean you can say whatever you like with no consequences.  It just means the government can't retaliate against you for speaking your mind in public with a few legal requirements.  No inciting riot or panic or inciting violence against someone.

Other than that, that's all 'free speech' means.

Sure, but as a society, do their have to be "consequences" for merely disagreeing with each other? Is that what we want?

Of course - otherwise we wouldn't be free. Freedom is a two way street.

I'm free to publicly espouse whatever beliefs I wish to - no matter how odious. Others are free to react as they feel appropriate (violence no withstanding, of course). That includes their own speech, and choosing whether or not to patronize my business. If someone's beliefs turn others away from them that is EXACTLY freedom.

If others are not free to react and impose the consequences they see fit within legal bounds then what you're suggesting is freedom for me, but not for thee.


They want the freedom to say what they like, do as they like, just without social consequences.
 
2014-04-17 02:27:21 PM  
Of course you're always entitled to express your opinion.  How else are we to know that you're a raging farkwit?
 
2014-04-17 02:27:48 PM  

cchris_39: Agreed. It's a thinly veiled attack on free enterprise. End of discussion.


Only to the extent that you believe "free-enterprise" to be a thinly-veiled attack on humanity.....
 
2014-04-17 02:28:46 PM  
Dafuq happened in 1770? Saint Reagan holy essence spawned the seed of 'Merica?
 
2014-04-17 02:29:31 PM  
Gah, TF gone! Damn it Drew, shut up and take my money
 
2014-04-17 02:31:09 PM  

Satanic_Hamster: Mentat: Once you cut through the levels of derp, there is a valid debate topic here.  Take the Mozilla CEO for instance.  Does his personal views, no matter how reprehensible, disqualify him from a job that has nothing to do with those views?  If so, do his views disqualify him from every job?  Does the right of customers to boycott a product extend to denying someone their livelihood because we disagree with them?  These aren't easy questions to answer which is why we've been dealing with them for 240 years.  Moreover, we on the left sometimes fall into the trap of thinking of bigotry as a zero sum game, that because there's so much bigotry on the right that there's a corresponding lack of bigotry on the left, and that's not necessarily true.  One of the struggles I face as a liberal is distinguishing between the views which I find odious and the people who hold those views whom I call friends and family(red state Oklahoma y'all).

I'm still confused about him resigning.  He didn't even try to do any damage control.  It was just a few whiny bloggers and one dating site that was freaking out.

There had to be something else going on.


Like three people on mozilla's board resigned when he was appointed CEO
 
2014-04-17 02:31:35 PM  

bdub77: How the Left, here and abroad, is trying to shut down debate

[i340.photobucket.com image 250x272]

/more like Spec-tater.


More like "if my side does it, who cares?"

i58.tinypic.com
 
2014-04-17 02:33:32 PM  

Infernalist: I won't begrudge anyone the right to speak whatever they believe, but at the same time, I'm sure as hell not going to be friendly and welcoming to people who make it plain that their viewpoints and intentions are at odds with my own life.  So, no, you can't come to my party.  Not yours.


Except that the press and academic institutions pitch themselves as the places where ideas are to be openly debated  without reprisals - but when push comes to shove, institutions like Brandeis side with the people doing the pushing and shoving.

The idea is that you should  expectyour positions to be challenged, welcome it, and be ready to debate - not to smugly strut off flatly stating that no debate is necessary.

Shouting down the opposition is a coward's move. It's a minor-league variation on what those batshiat Koran-felchers in Tehran did to Rushdie.
 
2014-04-17 02:33:57 PM  
         RIP, diversity of opinion (1770-2014)


Long live the invisible hand of the market!
 
2014-04-17 02:34:19 PM  

Wooly Bully: Jjaro: I didn't know critcizing a stance is the same as trying to get someone fired.

Unless you can substantiate it with evidence, the accusation you made that those petitioners "didn't care about their team's stance" (that is what you said) is a lie.


How do you want me to prove a negative?  There's not gonna be a news article of "Gay rights activists don't chide Obama for his stance."  I'm speaking from personal experience.  I don't remember many people beating Obama (or other Democrats) up over his early statements on gay marriage.  If I am wrong, please, I am more than happy to be corrected.

skozlaw: Jjaro: How is that not hypocritical?

Well, mostly because it's not true. Obama has been taking flak for his vacillating opinion on the issue since he ran for his senate seat and Clinton was president 20 years ago during a time period when social opinions on homosexuality were just beginning to come around. You can't just look back to a time period when EVERYBODY'S opinions were different and then criticize one of those people for changing it.

Back to the point of Obama, unlike the unapologetically homophobic Eich, Obama opposed Prop 8 and his opinion, while shifting with the political winds, has never been firmly anti-gay. He has always supported, at a bare minimum, civil unions and has never donated to restrict the rights of others based on their sexual orientation. Apples, meet oranges.

But, whatever. If they didn't have completely inapt analogies and similes the right wouldn't have any at all, it seems.


I'd argue views on homosexuality were coming around in 2008 as well.  Which is why over half of CA, one of the more liberal states in the country, voted for Prop 8 in the first place.  And I think you are going out on a limb saying Eich is "unapologetically homophobic."  While that may be true, he did in fact, apologize.  And, as far as any one can tell, never did anything to restrict the rights of gays at Mozilla.  I don't want to speak for the guy, but his actions seem to state that he accepted the conservative view of marraige.  And you don't know for a fact that like Obama, he wasn't in favor of civil unions, as Prop 8 only mentioned marraige.
 
2014-04-17 02:35:27 PM  

Scrotastic Method: Serious Black: I don't necessarily think Eich should have been fired or resigned from his position as CEO of Mozilla over his donation to the Prop 8 campaign. But if the board of directors or Eich decided that they shouldn't continue the contract, that's their right as a participant in the free market.

The employees decided they weren't going to work for a bigot -- which is a simple general term for "one who would deny equal rights to a minority group." They openly signed letters using their real names, prepared to leave the company. The Board didn't force a resignation because of his donation, they didn't give a damn about that, they forced him out because he could never lead and he'd have been a serious impediment to the company's progress.

If we want to frame this in right-wing terms, the employees were prepared to exercise their capitalist rights to not work for a company they didn't like, and the company decided it was in their best interest to prevent that.


I do remember hearing that. I also remember that the board had a lot of resignations after his promotion. The resignation/quitting/firing/whatever may not have explicitly been over his donation, but that was what precipitated it. But I think the reasoning is irrelevant; if either Mozilla or Eich didn't want to continue the contract making him CEO because of an employee mutiny, it's their right to not continue it. If they didn't want to do so specifically because of the donation, it's still their right. If they didn't want to do so for any reason other than those specifically outlined in federal and California anti-discrimination statutes, it's still their right.
 
2014-04-17 02:38:30 PM  

Gulper Eel: Infernalist: I won't begrudge anyone the right to speak whatever they believe, but at the same time, I'm sure as hell not going to be friendly and welcoming to people who make it plain that their viewpoints and intentions are at odds with my own life.  So, no, you can't come to my party.  Not yours.

Except that the press and academic institutions pitch themselves as the places where ideas are to be openly debated  without reprisals - but when push comes to shove, institutions like Brandeis side with the people doing the pushing and shoving.

The idea is that you should  expectyour positions to be challenged, welcome it, and be ready to debate - not to smugly strut off flatly stating that no debate is necessary.

Shouting down the opposition is a coward's move. It's a minor-league variation on what those batshiat Koran-felchers in Tehran did to Rushdie.


You may have seen the press and academic institutions like that, but the very idea of publicly expressed views as being consequence-free is ridiculous.  That's not how the world works, no matter how you might view it.

Debate is all well and good, but the idea that every idea is valid and worthwhile is preposterous and utterly retarded.  We don't debate the merits of some things and ideas.  Which ones?  Well, society decides that and society has largely concluded that bigotry is a bad thing and not to be condoned and to be openly discouraged through social consequences.

In short, bigotry is not a valid stance to take in society any longer and those that cling to it openly will suffer for it.
 
2014-04-17 02:39:14 PM  

Gulper Eel: Except that the press and academic institutions pitch themselves as the places where ideas are to be openly debated  without reprisals - but when push comes to shove, institutions like Brandeis side with the people doing the pushing and shoving.

The idea is that you should  expectyour positions to be challenged, welcome it, and be ready to debate - not to smugly strut off flatly stating that no debate is necessary.

Shouting down the opposition is a coward's move. It's a minor-league variation on what those batshiat Koran-felchers in Tehran did to Rushdie.


Losing in the marketplace of ideas is not being "shouted out."

Academia is not the place where "everything goes" academically, it is a place where ideas are judged on their merits, especially according to the scientific method.  This article and the white knights here are merely complaining that it's not fair that some ideas don't stand up to such scrutiny.
 
2014-04-17 02:43:24 PM  

MurphyMurphy: Wait... some of you are confused and even concerned about the Mozilla thing??!

welcome to the real world, kiddies.

If your actions can, by association, reflect poorly on your employer (which is usually a matter of pure opinion on the part of your employer unless the action is legally protected) bye bye moron.

He wasn't shown the door for being Jewish or male. He opened his gob up (and his wallet, which is apparently the same thing).

Mozilla had no obligation to keep him, defend his right to personal view, waste time and money on a p.r. campaign to differentiate a from z.

Businesses exist to make money, not to protect snowflake employees giving them a shiat public image.


Right, and don't forget which party has been crusading to strip down any remaining workers' rights in favor of all the cards being held solely by the employer - Just the word "union" is enough to get most of them riled up. Yep, employers can do whatever the fark they want and employees don't matter. "Right to work" and all that. Don't need a reason to fire people in most states now because somehow giving workers any rights is "socialism." As if individual workers are totally able to take on corporations they work for as if it were an equal footing and no rights for employees are needed. Think about that, dumbasses.
 
2014-04-17 02:44:58 PM  

Jjaro: Lionel Mandrake: SauronWasFramed: stpauler: It seems the author doesn't understand the often repeated "free speech doesn't mean free from consequences". I wonder if he would like his home address published with a target painted over his face and the words "America's Biggest Pedophile" written under it.  If he's all about free speech, then he should be totes OK with that, right?

/ because the left holds democrats to such stringent standards

// Remembers that Obama and Clinton both opposed ssm until they were for it and nary a discouraging word was uttered.

Aw, poor baby...the left is clearly keep you and all freedom-loving Americans down.

Seriously, dude, that was some weak-ass "b-b-b-b-but" shiat

I'm pretty sure he's not utlilizing a "b-b-b-b-but" against Obama or the Clinton's.  He is commenting on the people who were so adament about getting that guy fired, for making a donation 6 years ago, when his views dont affect his work at all, while not even caring about their "teams" recent stance on the very same issue.  How is that not hypocritical?

Nuance seems to be something that the Right has a really hard time understanding. Voting for Obama did not mean you agreed with every position he took. In 2008, gay marriage supporters had two choices: (1) vote for the guy who supports civil unions and hope that his stance on same-sex marriage changes changes over time or (2) vote for a candidate from the party that supports a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage. Doesn't seem like hypocrisy to me.

OTOH, there are many people qualified to be the CEO of Mozilla. It wasn't like they had to choose between Eich (who only believed in discriminating against his gay employees outside of the office) and zombie Fred Phelps.
 
2014-04-17 02:45:17 PM  

Dimensio: In California, Mozilla's chief executive is forced to resign because he once made a political donation in support of the pre-revisionist definition of marriage.

This country has come to a sad state of affairs when homosexualist advocates are allowed to freely advocate a boycott of a private company.


I'm sure they feel the exact same way when Family Research Council (or other Conservative entities) boycott some company over abortion, homosexual rights, or 'fer the chilldrun' complaints to the FCC, et al. There is no way they would have a double-standard. Double-standards are for liebruls and MSM Lamestream media.

/snicker
 
2014-04-17 02:45:51 PM  

SauronWasFramed: Remembers that Obama and Clinton both opposed ssm until they were for it and nary a discouraging word was uttered.


Oh, bullshiat. Anyone who says Obama or Clinton got a free pass from the left for anything is just betraying their loyalty to right-wing "news" outlets.
 
2014-04-17 02:46:04 PM  

bdub77: How the Left, here and abroad, is trying to shut down debate

[i340.photobucket.com image 250x272]

/more like Spec-tater.


I stopped reading at "How the Left-"
 
2014-04-17 02:46:16 PM  
the fun part of this one is way out in tangentville from what's typically discussed - the 'money=speech' routine we've all become innoculated with.

It's now normal to evaluate the politcal stances of the businesses where you buy underwear, a chicken sammitch, or apparently a free browser. It isn't just the businesses speech expressed by the money given by it or its constituent members, it's now *your* money that you'll either give to these companies, or keep in your pocket...that's considered speech.

There are groups dedicated to letting people stay abreast of whether their perveyor of Fruit Loops thinks the right things about gays, guns, and god (on both sides of the issues). This is apparently like...normal.

Can't we just save some time and have the right wing hardware store and the left wing grocery store have a rumble in the shared parking lot? I swear to zombie jesus, the moment that lining up to buy a chicken sammich became seen as a political statement by those involved, Fonzie jumped over 37 sharks.
 
2014-04-17 02:47:02 PM  
So, I guess we should invite Ahmadinnerjacket to our university to speak out about how no homosexuals exist in Iran and that the Holocaust did not exist and sit quietly and respectfully as he makes his remarks?  Or are we allowed by the Right to at least publicly and loudly guffaw as he declares the nonexistence of gay people and Jews killed in the death camps?

Right, that's exactly what the Right said.
 
2014-04-17 02:47:26 PM  

Infernalist: Debate is all well and good, but the idea that every idea is valid and worthwhile is preposterous and utterly retarded.  We don't debate the merits of some things and ideas.  Which ones?  Well, society decides that and society has largely concluded that bigotry is a bad thing and not to be condoned and to be openly discouraged through social consequences.

In short, bigotry is not a valid stance to take in society any longer and those that cling to it openly will suffer for it.


So let me get this straight - the black atheist lesbian undocumented-immigrant victim of genital mutilation calls out the theocratic medieval fark-knobs for their seventh-century drooling gibberish, and  she's the one to be denounced as a bigot.

Why, yes, that most certainly IS preposterous and utterly retarded.
 
2014-04-17 02:47:29 PM  
I actually don't really agree with what happened to the Firefox CEO, but stuff like that has been happening since free markets began.

Anytime a brand is associated with a violation of societies' norms it hurts business.  Think about it, if the same CEO was taking a stand against mixed race marriages or a women's right to vote there would be no butthurt from the right, they accept those things as norms now (in general of course).  Most people would say the CEO was racist and sexist and probably will run the business that way.  I know I would avoid that CEOs products until he was let go.

The only controversy in this case is because gay right/marriage is not accepted at that level yet.  Things sometimes happen faster than we think.

But make no mistake, this is less a function of liberal power than a function of the free market.
 
2014-04-17 02:49:28 PM  

cchris_39: vharshyde: "Debate" "Climate Change". Yeah. There IS no debate.

Agreed. It's a thinly veiled attack on free enterprise. End of discussion.


Because reasons.
 
2014-04-17 02:50:43 PM  

Infernalist: Nabb1: Mentat: Once you cut through the levels of derp, there is a valid debate topic here.  Take the Mozilla CEO for instance.  Does his personal views, no matter how reprehensible, disqualify him from a job that has nothing to do with those views?  If so, do his views disqualify him from every job?  Does the right of customers to boycott a product extend to denying someone their livelihood because we disagree with them?  These aren't easy questions to answer which is why we've been dealing with them for 240 years.  Moreover, we on the left sometimes fall into the trap of thinking of bigotry as a zero sum game, that because there's so much bigotry on the right that there's a corresponding lack of bigotry on the left, and that's not necessarily true.  One of the struggles I face as a liberal is distinguishing between the views which I find odious and the people who hold those views whom I call friends and family(red state Oklahoma y'all).

In the case of Mozilla, my question would be what was the corporate policy towards LGBT employees, did they offer benefits to domestic partners, etc. If there is no indication whatsoever that his personal views were carrying over into Mozilla corporate policy, who cares what he thinks?

Clearly, a lot of people.

Since money is now considered 'free speech'(thanks, SC!), it's perfectly acceptable to enact legal consequences against him for his 'free speech' expression.

To my way of thinking, a boycott against Mozilla because he donated money to Prop 8 is the same as boycotting a diner because the cook is constantly using racial slurs.


This.  If speech = money then you would technically be able to verbally bribe someone or be charged with paying for sex by talking for it.
 
2014-04-17 02:51:18 PM  

heap: the fun part of this one is way out in tangentville from what's typically discussed - the 'money=speech' routine we've all become innoculated with.

It's now normal to evaluate the politcal stances of the businesses where you buy underwear, a chicken sammitch, or apparently a free browser. It isn't just the businesses speech expressed by the money given by it or its constituent members, it's now *your* money that you'll either give to these companies, or keep in your pocket...that's considered speech.

There are groups dedicated to letting people stay abreast of whether their perveyor of Fruit Loops thinks the right things about gays, guns, and god (on both sides of the issues). This is apparently like...normal.

Can't we just save some time and have the right wing hardware store and the left wing grocery store have a rumble in the shared parking lot? I swear to zombie jesus, the moment that lining up to buy a chicken sammich became seen as a political statement by those involved, Fonzie jumped over 37 sharks.


Hadn't you heard? Corporations are people now, and just like people, a disturbingly large number of them are loudmouth dipsh*ts with ill-formed political opinions.
 
2014-04-17 02:52:36 PM  

Jjaro: I'd argue views on homosexuality were coming around in 2008 as well


Which is immaterial since I was talking about the Clinton administration's behavior being in-line with the prevailing attitude of the time.

Jjaro: Which is why over half of CA, one of the more liberal states in the country, voted for Prop 8 in the first place


No, "over half of CA" did not vote for prop 8. Over half of the people who showed up did. So 52% of 80% of registered voters - which is 78% of eligible voters - voted for prop 8. So, no, nowhere near half of CA voted for prop 8. It doesn't really matter what the state as a whole thinks if a good chunk of it can't be bothered to actually go vote to make it happen, which is a constant problem for the democratic party in every state.

Jjaro: he did in fact, apologize


No, he did not. The foundation offered an apology, not Eich.

Jjaro: never did anything to restrict the rights of gays at Mozilla.


That has nothing to do with anything as he was never attacked for "restricting the rights of gays at Mozilla". You can't just make up arbitrary things he didn't do as redeeming qualities when nobody is saying he did them in the first place.

Jjaro: And you don't know for a fact that like Obama, he wasn't in favor of civil unions


I don't know a lot of things about him, what's your point? I do know that at a bare minimum Obama has never supported prop 8 and has always supported at least civil unions. He is also the first sitting president to state unequivocal support for gay marriage and he was integral in the overturning of DADT, one of the bigger mistakes of the Clinton years.

I also know for a fact that Eich supported prop 8 and nothing else has really been said about him on the subject.

Unlike opinions. There is no comparison between the two. You cannot claim that there is hypocrisy when a person supports one and derides the other when the two are entirely unalike.
 
2014-04-17 02:54:18 PM  

RyogaM: So, I guess we should invite Ahmadinnerjacket to our university to speak out about how no homosexuals exist in Iran and that the Holocaust did not exist and sit quietly and respectfully as he makes his remarks?  Or are we allowed by the Right to at least publicly and loudly guffaw as he declares the nonexistence of gay people and Jews killed in the death camps?

Right, that's exactly what the Right said.


Were my college to invite him, I'd say let him come. Let him say his piece. Let him make a fool of himself in the name of his faith. Let the community see what a shiat he is.

You don't extend the invite and then withdraw it at the first sign of a little heat.

You mentioned Ahmagonnagityousucka. Funny you should mention him. Columbia University invited him to speak. They  did it right. And in the end, he revealed himself as a buffoon.

Brandeis did it wrong, and with a vastly less objectionable speaker.
 
2014-04-17 02:54:58 PM  

heap: the fun part of this one is way out in tangentville from what's typically discussed - the 'money=speech' routine we've all become innoculated with.

It's now normal to evaluate the politcal stances of the businesses where you buy underwear, a chicken sammitch, or apparently a free browser. It isn't just the businesses speech expressed by the money given by it or its constituent members, it's now *your* money that you'll either give to these companies, or keep in your pocket...that's considered speech.

There are groups dedicated to letting people stay abreast of whether their perveyor of Fruit Loops thinks the right things about gays, guns, and god (on both sides of the issues). This is apparently like...normal.

Can't we just save some time and have the right wing hardware store and the left wing grocery store have a rumble in the shared parking lot? I swear to zombie jesus, the moment that lining up to buy a chicken sammich became seen as a political statement by those involved, Fonzie jumped over 37 sharks.


It's funny... all we ever hear is "vote with your wallet", but then, when you actualy do it, somehow that's wrong.
 
2014-04-17 02:55:01 PM  

Mentat: Once you cut through the levels of derp, there is a valid debate topic here.  Take the Mozilla CEO for instance.  Does his personal views, no matter how reprehensible, disqualify him from a job that has nothing to do with those views?  If so, do his views disqualify him from every job?  Does the right of customers to boycott a product extend to denying someone their livelihood because we disagree with them?  These aren't easy questions to answer which is why we've been dealing with them for 240 years.  Moreover, we on the left sometimes fall into the trap of thinking of bigotry as a zero sum game, that because there's so much bigotry on the right that there's a corresponding lack of bigotry on the left, and that's not necessarily true.  One of the struggles I face as a liberal is distinguishing between the views which I find odious and the people who hold those views whom I call friends and family(red state Oklahoma y'all).


Here's the problem - his job has very much to do with his view, and how the public views them.  The job of a CEO isn't like the job of a carpenter or a clerk.  A CEO's job is to maintain public image and increase the value of the company.  Your public image and personal views go to the very heart of your job.  It doesn't matter if you are good at merger and acquisition activity, speeches, and leading a team of executives.  If your public image can hurt the brand of company, you're directly hurting your job.

We live in a free market, right to work job environment.  The right has embraced this concept for centuries.  With that comes certain drawbacks.  A company can let you go (or ask you to leave) for any reason that hasn't been legally defined as related to a protected class.  As long as they embrace that model, and there aren't safeguards that ensure that only your job performance matters, people WILL be fired for secondary things that the company finds a disruption to their goals, values, or interests.

Now, the government can't censor those views, and can't criminally penalize you for it, but that's it.  The private market can make its own judgements.  Mozilla was legally and ethically justified in asking their CEO to step down.  His views can seriously damage the brand and the company, and it was in their best interests to let him go.

As painful as it is, the free market worked EXACTLY as intended.
 
2014-04-17 02:55:04 PM  

menschenfresser: MurphyMurphy: Wait... some of you are confused and even concerned about the Mozilla thing??!

welcome to the real world, kiddies.

If your actions can, by association, reflect poorly on your employer (which is usually a matter of pure opinion on the part of your employer unless the action is legally protected) bye bye moron.

He wasn't shown the door for being Jewish or male. He opened his gob up (and his wallet, which is apparently the same thing).

Mozilla had no obligation to keep him, defend his right to personal view, waste time and money on a p.r. campaign to differentiate a from z.

Businesses exist to make money, not to protect snowflake employees giving them a shiat public image.

Right, and don't forget which party has been crusading to strip down any remaining workers' rights in favor of all the cards being held solely by the employer - Just the word "union" is enough to get most of them riled up. Yep, employers can do whatever the fark they want and employees don't matter. "Right to work" and all that. Don't need a reason to fire people in most states now because somehow giving workers any rights is "socialism." As if individual workers are totally able to take on corporations they work for as if it were an equal footing and no rights for employees are needed. Think about that, dumbasses.


"Right to work" is a loaded topic I'm not about to dive in to... but it really is far from on-topic.

You'very always been able to be fired from a private enterprise for any or even no reason at all.

What is and has been illegal is being fired for a very specific list of protected things. And the freedom to say whatever you want is not amongst them.
 
2014-04-17 02:58:05 PM  

js34603: Headso: Basically they want freedom speech and they also want people who disagree with them to have no freedom of speech to take a shiat on the original free speech.

Not like us. We want our free speech and to make sure people who disagree with us face the consequences. That's much better.


Yes it is. People who disagree with us have a right to say what they want as well and take matters in hand to make us face a consequence if we disagree, apart from anything illegal or immoral.
 
2014-04-17 02:58:19 PM  

heap: the fun part of this one is way out in tangentville from what's typically discussed - the 'money=speech' routine we've all become innoculated with.

It's now normal to evaluate the politcal stances of the businesses where you buy underwear, a chicken sammitch, or apparently a free browser. It isn't just the businesses speech expressed by the money given by it or its constituent members, it's now *your* money that you'll either give to these companies, or keep in your pocket...that's considered speech.

There are groups dedicated to letting people stay abreast of whether their perveyor of Fruit Loops thinks the right things about gays, guns, and god (on both sides of the issues). This is apparently like...normal.

Can't we just save some time and have the right wing hardware store and the left wing grocery store have a rumble in the shared parking lot? I swear to zombie jesus, the moment that lining up to buy a chicken sammich became seen as a political statement by those involved, Fonzie jumped over 37 sharks.


Now that corporations can buy as much "speech" as they want, how to you propose that us serfs influence the political process? It's perfectly valid for me to choose not to contribute to the profits of a company who's speech I find abhorrent.
 
2014-04-17 02:58:33 PM  

theknuckler_33: lantawa: Baathist political methodology and ideology has reached the West

Is 'Baathist' the new socialist or Marxist? First time I'm seeing this derp.

/whynotboth.jpg


You've never heard of Baathism?  Well hell, son, you'd better brush up on your backstroke.  Here's a couple of links to get you going:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ba'athism  (check out the "reactionary classes" chapter on that page, to answer your question)

http://iraqimojo.blogspot.com/2009/09/baathism-modelled-after-nazism .h tml

But really, get up to speed.  This is a topic that I've studied since 1987-88, when Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait.  I was in the U.S. Army Reserves Medical Corp, and deactivated about three weeks before my entire old Company (a MASH Unit), went to Saudi Arabia for support work.  I wanted to know who this jacktard was that had invaded Kuwait, and he was, well, a vicious Baathist tyrant.  I learned pretty much everything that I needed to know about Baathism. (TFA discusses this a little bit, but that part of the article is quite far down in the essay.)

It's sad to see that Baathist ideology and methodology has been adopted in the West.  Very troublesome development to unsuspecting political opponents.  People will catch on soon enough, though.
 
2014-04-17 02:58:48 PM  
I clicked on that shiat, subby. I demand an apology.
 
2014-04-17 02:59:43 PM  

skozlaw: Jjaro: I'd argue views on homosexuality were coming around in 2008 as well

Which is immaterial since I was talking about the Clinton administration's behavior being in-line with the prevailing attitude of the time.

Jjaro: Which is why over half of CA, one of the more liberal states in the country, voted for Prop 8 in the first place

No, "over half of CA" did not vote for prop 8. Over half of the people who showed up did. So 52% of 80% of registered voters - which is 78% of eligible voters - voted for prop 8. So, no, nowhere near half of CA voted for prop 8. It doesn't really matter what the state as a whole thinks if a good chunk of it can't be bothered to actually go vote to make it happen, which is a constant problem for the democratic party in every state.

Jjaro: he did in fact, apologize

No, he did not. The foundation offered an apology, not Eich.

Jjaro: never did anything to restrict the rights of gays at Mozilla.

That has nothing to do with anything as he was never attacked for "restricting the rights of gays at Mozilla". You can't just make up arbitrary things he didn't do as redeeming qualities when nobody is saying he did them in the first place.

Jjaro: And you don't know for a fact that like Obama, he wasn't in favor of civil unions

I don't know a lot of things about him, what's your point? I do know that at a bare minimum Obama has never supported prop 8 and has always supported at least civil unions. He is also the first sitting president to state unequivocal support for gay marriage and he was integral in the overturning of DADT, one of the bigger mistakes of the Clinton years.

I also know for a fact that Eich supported prop 8 and nothing else has really been said about him on the subject.

Unlike opinions. There is no comparison between the two. You cannot claim that there is hypocrisy when a person supports one and derides the other when the two are entirely unalike.



I wasn't around then but one day it was OK to be against mixed race marriages, and the next day it wasn't.  It was OK to say the n-word and the next day it wasn't.  It was OK to be against women voting and the next day it wasn't.  Etc.....

We are at that sort of time with gay marriage right now.
 
2014-04-17 03:00:29 PM  

Mitt Romneys Tax Return: Now that corporations can buy as much "speech" as they want, how to you propose that us serfs influence the political process? It's perfectly valid for me to choose not to contribute to the profits of a company who's speech I find abhorrent.


I aint suggesting solutions, I'm content to look at reality and find it royally frigged.

There are just moments where it's clear that botulism has gotten into the American Experiment's petri dish - this is one of them.
 
2014-04-17 03:01:12 PM  

Infernalist: In short, bigotry is not a valid stance to take in society any longer and those that cling to it openly will suffer for it.


Hence the universal use of that term for any and all objections.

If you want the immigration laws enforced - BIGOT! (xenophobe),
If you oppose anything gay - BIGOT! (homophobe),
If you don't want to buy other people's birth control pills - BIGOT! (war on women),
If you think a viable fetus has the right to be born - BIGOT! (more war on women),
If you bring up black illegitimacy and drop out rates - BIGOT! (racist),
If you think you should have to prove who you are to vote - BIGOT! (more racist),
If you think white western culture has contributed more to humanity than all others combined - BIGOT! (extremely racist).

Pretty much any disagreement with the left will get you the bigot label in one form or another.

Also, if you're religious you can't possibly believe or enjoy science.

And if you think any government program should ever be cut or people should get to keep more of the money they earn, you're an evil straight from Dickens snatching the last morsel from a starving child.

If you think people can and should succeed on their own, you are dreaming of something foolishly "bootstrappy" that they cannot possibly be expected to achieve without government.

/proud bootstrappy bigot.
 
2014-04-17 03:03:25 PM  

Mitt Romneys Tax Return: heap: the fun part of this one is way out in tangentville from what's typically discussed - the 'money=speech' routine we've all become innoculated with.

It's now normal to evaluate the politcal stances of the businesses where you buy underwear, a chicken sammitch, or apparently a free browser. It isn't just the businesses speech expressed by the money given by it or its constituent members, it's now *your* money that you'll either give to these companies, or keep in your pocket...that's considered speech.

There are groups dedicated to letting people stay abreast of whether their perveyor of Fruit Loops thinks the right things about gays, guns, and god (on both sides of the issues). This is apparently like...normal.

Can't we just save some time and have the right wing hardware store and the left wing grocery store have a rumble in the shared parking lot? I swear to zombie jesus, the moment that lining up to buy a chicken sammich became seen as a political statement by those involved, Fonzie jumped over 37 sharks.

Now that corporations can buy as much "speech" as they want, how to you propose that us serfs influence the political process? It's perfectly valid for me to choose not to contribute to the profits of a company who's speech I find abhorrent.


Right, who thinks Mozilla would have forced him out if it wasn't going to affect their bottom line?
 
Displayed 50 of 743 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report