Mozilla CEO resigns after donation to Prop 8

Hasa Diga Eebowai said:
Well, when fake libertarians and pretend supporters of free market principles argue that it implies a homosexual can be fired but demand "tolerance" when some rich white homophobe resigns is there any wonder why?

You are still embellishing. We don't have any proof he was forced out.

I can't imagine that scenario. It's a bad analogy. Libertarians support many different things, many of them quite controversial, but it's not a single issue like gay marriage. If you donate to a libertarian candidate maybe it's because you are pro 2nd amendment, pro immigration (since REAL libertarians are) or you support gay marriage. No one would really have much idea why. I doubt it would cause much outcry. If one donated to the kkk or a Nazi party I am sure it would cause some problems for you as the CEO of a major company. A lower level employee might get away with that, but a CEO is the face of the company. I don't see how there is much way to avoid a negative response to that information being public. But again, I don't think we should be forced to disclose such information publicly.

I don't get what you guys are whining about or what it is you are suggesting as a solution. Either you are suggesting his critics be silenced or you are just a bunch of tools falling for the culture war nonsense about the vague and ill defined "liberal."
Click to expand...

Hasa Diga Eebowai said:
Strawman. Where did I say he did say homosexuals can be fired? Nowhere.

Sorry about your butthurt, crybaby. But you don't have the proof to support your argument. It's quite possible he was forced out, but it's not an established fact nor is there even an accusation of it from those who might know, yet.
Click to expand...

Right above you liar.

LMAO... keep defending your ignorant position that he 'might' have not been forced out. It just shows what a moron you truly are.
 
Superfreak said:
Again moron... you are the ONLY one who doesn't think it was forced. Even other idiots are intelligent enough to see that he was forced out. Everything we know points to that being the case. You are simply being as obtuse as one can be.



LMAO... ok Mr. Group think.

Try reading this...

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics...e-litmus-test-violates-liberal-values/360156/
Click to expand...


BULLSHIT! Nothing you know points to it.

Why should I read that? There is nothing in it to support your claim that he was forced to resign and I am not arguing he should have resigned.
 
Superfreak said:
Right above you liar.

LMAO... keep defending your ignorant position that he 'might' have not been forced out. It just shows what a moron you truly are.
Click to expand...

Not there liar.

when fake libertarians and pretend supporters of free market principles argue that it implies a homosexual can be fired

Where is the reference to cawacko? Did I use his name or a pronoun that indicated I was speaking about him? No, i did not. You fail, but I know full well you won't show the personal dignity to admit your error, so I won't bother demanding the apology I deserve.
 
Bonestorm said:
You seem to be upset about it, but then again you aren't libertarian so I guess you're right.
Click to expand...

Which goes to prove, you are capable of knocking down your own straw men.

1) I stated both had the right to voice their opinions, he in making his donation and the employees/consumers in voicing theirs.

2) I stated it is the company that I have a problem with. They state they support people exercising their rights to free speech and to hold their own opinions, but then they force him out because his donation six years ago doesn't fit with their political beliefs. This is a group thought situation where he is being punished at work for his political beliefs that he expressed outside of work.

But I don't expect you to read any of the above, you are too busy creating your next straw man.
 
Hasa Diga Eebowai said:
BULLSHIT! Nothing you know points to it.

Why should I read that? There is nothing in it to support your claim that he was forced to resign and I am not arguing he should have resigned.
Click to expand...

Yes, nothing in there except of course the fact that they too state he was forced out... why? Because they aren't idiots like you.

You are either an idiot or dishonest. You can tell us which it is... or is it both?
 
Abraxas said:
Holy fuck, this guy is a computing god, he was instrumental in getting the Mozilla Foundation up and running, along with Firefox and he invented Javascript. It's pretty sickening that a bunch of talentless twats whose whole raison d'etre is to be professional offence takers have forced him out.
Click to expand...

Super made a good point.
Can you imagine the wailing from the left, he had made a donation to planned parenthood and then "resigned".
 
Hasa Diga Eebowai said:
You don't yet have any proof that it was forced.

My position is absolutely libertarian. You don't know a fucking thing about the topic. Like grind, you are an unenlightened butt licker for the aristocracy and little more. This is a free market reaction to his controversial views. His position makes it more difficult for him to work with others. Many board members resigned (does that mean they were forced to???). Several of their employees were upset and it would have made it far more difficult for them to compete for top talent. Their employees are not pimple faced teenagers that can be easily replaced. They are in a desperate battle for top talent and their culture is a key selling point to that talent.

What is your solution here? Do you want the government to silence the consumers and employees that were critical of his promotion to CEO?
Click to expand...

Then you explain why he was hired as the CEO, in the first place.
 
Superfreak said:
Which goes to prove, you are capable of knocking down your own straw men.

1) I stated both had the right to voice their opinions, he in making his donation and the employees/consumers in voicing theirs.
Click to expand...

OK

Superfreak said:
2) I stated it is the company that I have a problem with. They state they support people exercising their rights to free speech and to hold their own opinions, but then they force him out because his donation six years ago doesn't fit with their political beliefs. This is a group thought situation where he is being punished at work for his political beliefs that he expressed outside of work.
Click to expand...

Well, what's the libertarian principle being violated here? The company is free to associate with whomever it wishes to associate. It does not wish to associate with this fellow because his of his retrograde political opinions. What's the problem?

Now, I personally think that people should not suffer workplace consequences for their personal political beliefs, but I'm not a libertarian.
 
Bonestorm said:
OK
Click to expand...

I will assume that means you admit you created the straw man. Sorry I took away your victory over your creation.
Well, what's the libertarian principle being violated here? The company is free to associate with whomever it wishes to associate. It does not wish to associate with this fellow because his of his retrograde political opinions. What's the problem?

Now, I personally think that people should not suffer workplace consequences for their personal political beliefs, but I'm not a libertarian.
Click to expand...

The problem is that he is being forced out for views that he holds in private. Libertarians have a problem with that. Everyone is entitled to express their views, to vote as they choose in private. As long as they are not trying to force someone else to adhere to their views, no problem. But in this case, the company is forcing him to either quit or reject his personal opinion. That is flat out insane. He must either adhere to group think or be forced out? Yeah, libertarians have a problem with that.
 
Bonestorm said:
OK



Well, what's the libertarian principle being violated here? The company is free to associate with whomever it wishes to associate. It does not wish to associate with this fellow because his of his retrograde political opinions. What's the problem?

Now, I personally think that people should not suffer workplace consequences for their personal political beliefs, but I'm not a libertarian.
Click to expand...

Even donations?
 
Superfreak said:
Yes, nothing in there except of course the fact that they too state he was forced out... why? Because they aren't idiots like you.

You are either an idiot or dishonest. You can tell us which it is... or is it both?
Click to expand...


Where do they state that? Did he offer any proof?

I have proven that you are liar and it's obvious you are an idiot too.
 
Hasa Diga Eebowai said:
Where do they state that? Did he offer any proof?

I have proven that you are liar and it's obvious you are an idiot too.
Click to expand...

LMAO... what exactly do you need moron? Do you honestly think he just said... 'screw it, I will walk away from the company I helped build just because I feel like it today?'

You have proven nothing of the kind. You have proven that you are a fucking moron.
 
Superfreak said:
The problem is that he is being forced out for views that he holds in private. Libertarians have a problem with that. Everyone is entitled to express their views, to vote as they choose in private. As long as they are not trying to force someone else to adhere to their views, no problem. But in this case, the company is forcing him to either quit or reject his personal opinion. That is flat out insane. He must either adhere to group think or be forced out? Yeah, libertarians have a problem with that.
Click to expand...

Libertarians shouldn't have a problem with that. Under a libertarian view, the company has the right to associate with whomever it wishes. Regardless of whether his opinion was private (it wasn't) or public (it was), the company is under no obligation to associate with someone whose opinions it does not share. In fact, one of the major problems I have with libertarianism is the fact that it fails to account for coercion by private parties (like the Compnay here) and is instead only concerned with coercion by the goverment (which I think should be employed in instances like this).
 
Superfreak said:
Again moron... you are the ONLY one who doesn't think it was forced. Even other idiots are intelligent enough to see that he was forced out. Everything we know points to that being the case. You are simply being as obtuse as one can be.



LMAO... ok Mr. Group think.

Try reading this...

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics...e-litmus-test-violates-liberal-values/360156/
Click to expand...

Using the faux-liberal and left's "logic", there is no way they can support Hillary; because of the comments she made about Obama during the 2008 Presidential campaign.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top