Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Graknorke]

Except surely all a boycott says is "We are uncomfortable supporting this man's life by using or supporting products which directly and significantly benefit him through our usage, so we are no longer using or supporting the use of those products".

So you would not knowingly give custom to any business where you knew him to work? So would still boycott Mozilla if he were to be demoted rather than pressured to leave?

[WealthyRadish]

Donating money is one of the more controversial forms of political expression out there, since it gives such a disproportionate amount of influence to the wealthy, but at its core political expression is another right that should be guaranteed regardless of the position being expressed. I hate to use analogies, because there have been so many in this thread that get picked apart as part of a tangential argument, but if a white supremacist group were banned from doing marches or protests on the basis of being white supremacist, I'd be opposed to it. Likewise, I'm glad that the police goes out to protect these marches from what would otherwise probably be a violent reaction and riot from counterprotesters. Supporting (peaceful and legal) political action is an extension of belief, and is consequently protected in the same way. Now, as a disclaimer, I do think that the Supreme Court ruling that removed the limit on campaign donations was wrong, but that's a different discussion. You still can't say that the company Mozilla is responsible for his personal beliefs and personal actions, and I still think that the claim that its the duty of consumers to punish him is weak. Calling it an action that he should experience consequences for is at odds with democracy and freedom and all that nonsense.

[MorleyDev]

So you would not knowingly give custom to any business where you knew him to work? So would still boycott Mozilla if he were to be demoted rather than pressured to leave?

Well, practically speaking there's also a matter of scale and degrees. Working in a warehouse pushing boxes around isn't exactly the same to an outside observer so the discomfort is lesser because you're enabling less of a lifestyle. Call it hypocrisy or call it realism, the matter is the scale and visibility is less so there's less of an inherent distaste response that goes along with it.

So it would depend on the level of demotion and his position in the other business where he currently works. Practicality and pragmatism must always play a part.

[Leafsnail]

Donating money is one of the more controversial forms of political expression out there, since it gives such a disproportionate amount of influence to the wealthy, but at its core political expression is another right that should be guaranteed regardless of the position being expressed. I hate to use analogies, because there have been so many in this thread that get picked apart as part of a tangential argument, but if a white supremacist group were banned from doing marches or protests on the basis of being white supremacist, I'd be opposed to it. Likewise, I'm glad that the police goes out to protect these marches from what would otherwise probably be a violent reaction and riot from counterprotesters. Supporting (peaceful and legal) political action is an extension of belief, and is consequently protected in the same way. Now, as a disclaimer, I do think that the Supreme Court ruling that removed the limit on campaign donations was wrong, but that's a different discussion. You still can't say that the company Mozilla is responsible for his personal beliefs and personal actions, and I still think that the claim that its the duty of consumers to punish him is weak. Calling it an action that he should experience consequences for is at odds with democracy and freedom and all that nonsense.

Sure, and that march would receive that legal protection.  But are you saying that you also shouldn't take personal action against the people marching on it, such as boycotting their businesses?  I really find this viewpoint bizarre, it's like everyone gets a right to free speech unless that speech is criticizing someone else, then it's completely unfair and disallowed.

[Gentlefish]

I think what this argument is boiling down to is whether or not is was the correct move of Mozilla to remove the man from his status as CEO, is it not?

His previous actions and his current lack of damage control is costing Mozilla money because of the social environment we have. Therefore Mozilla felt it prudent to remove the man from a position of power to prevent them from looking bad to the public eye and maintaining their "inclusiveness" which I have caught a few times.

I think I'm going to dive into the Mozilla charter and see if he violated anything there.

_{This has been a PTW brought to you by the Pufferfish Broadcasting Company.}

[Graknorke]

So you would not knowingly give custom to any business where you knew him to work? So would still boycott Mozilla if he were to be demoted rather than pressured to leave?

Well, practically speaking there's also a matter of scale and degrees. Working in a warehouse pushing boxes around isn't exactly the same to an outside observer so the discomfort is lesser because you're enabling less of a lifestyle. Call it hypocrisy or call it realism, the matter is the scale and visibility is less so there's less of an inherent distaste response that goes along with it.

So it would depend on the level of demotion and his position in the other business where he currently works. Practicality and pragmatism must always play a part.

So it's basically an issue of "out of sight out of mind"?

[WealthyRadish]

Sure, and that march would receive that legal protection.  But are you saying that you also shouldn't take personal action against the people marching on it, such as boycotting their businesses?  I really find this viewpoint bizarre, it's like everyone gets a right to free speech unless that speech is criticizing someone else, then it's completely unfair and disallowed.

Yep, I think it's misguided to take personal action against people for their political views. Mozilla did nothing homophobic, so boycotting them for being homophobic doesn't make sense, even if they do have a homophobic CEO. At that point, you're boycotting the CEO, not the company, and I think it's wrong to single someone out like that for their beliefs. Thankfully we have protections against that stuff in government (or at least, against the government doing it to us, politicians are forced to step down from dumb scandals all the time), but again, you're free to boycott whoever you like for whatever reason. I just disagree, is all.

I think I'm going to dip out of this argument, we're reaching the beginning of the next cycle of the same arguments.

[Tack]

Also on your bread boycott analogy, because you dislike the head and have stopped buying flour from him, you've caused a loss of business for his entire company, affecting every employee underneath him who doesn't share the same views and ideals. You then spreading this boycott means that you're willingly removing an income base, causing poverty an starvation amongst many people who are completely innocent.
This of course is an exaggeration, as I doubt you could have that much effect on Mozilla.
But it wouldn't take much for them to be forced to make a few job cuts.

As for the CEO re: Janet.
If he was a racist I think he'd be ok. Many CEO's probably are- doesn't stop them following the equal opportunities guidelines.
But if they donated money to a racist policy, yeah, I could see some backlash from that.

What I find sad is that this guy seemed to keep his views to himself, but because he did that donation way back, it got found out and he was instantly harassed. I wonder if all of the board members were just looking for an excuse to bail, or were fine with him- even liked him, before said ugly truth came out.

[Cheeetar]

If I stop buying bread from somebody, their company will suffer and maybe they'll lose some employees. Instead, I'll buy bread from a completely different company which doesn't happen to have a horrible person as a CEO, and they'll be able to hire more people and gain employees- the net effect being that the level of unemployment stays the same. Hurrah.

[Tack]

And who's going to be that company? Internet Explorer?

[Cheeetar]

Anything! Safari, Chrome, IE. If I think it's worth switching to a different brand of bread that tastes worse but leaves me feeling free of the thought that I'm supporting a bigot in maintaining a high salary job, I'm allowed to.

[Gunner-Chan]

But if they donated money to a racist policy, yeah, I could see some backlash from that.

This is what I meant. Not just being a Bigot. That's fine so long as you don't go hurting anyone honestly.

What I find sad is that this guy seemed to keep his views to himself, but because he did that donation way back

Six years is not way back, there's been progress since then but it's not so long that anyone should be considering it irrelevant. And doing a large donation to something like proposition 8 is quite simply not keeping it to himself.

[Zangi]

I dunno man, if these people are willing to go crucify this Mozilla CEO guy... why don't they dig up the whole donator's list for Proposition 8 and start sending each and every one of em death threats too?

[Mictlantecuhtli]

Were you intending to be hyperbolical right there?

[GlyphGryph]

Except surely all a boycott says is "We are uncomfortable supporting this man's life by using or supporting products which directly and significantly benefit him through our usage, so we are no longer using or supporting the use of those products".

Here's the thing I think you're not getting, at least about my problem with this. This wasn't a boycott. Companies specifically inserted code to refuse to let other people use the product and enjoy their services.

People not only said 'I don't like this guy and what he does, so I'm not going to use his product... but I'm going to take active measure to prevent other people from using his product too.

Really I think if this man was a racist instead I don't think anyone would be having this discussion, but somehow taking action against same sex couples isn't considered discrimination yet.

Well, nice presumption of guilty and hypocrisy of everyone that disagrees with you about things. Classy.

Because I wouldn't feel personally any different if the man was racist instead. I would still have made this thread. The only thing that would have changed is that there probably wouldn't have been all this media attention about it, and I very well might not have noticed.

I could as equally say that if he was racist, I don't even know if anyone would have cared enough to mobilize against him. It might have been a nonissue for an entirely different reason than you seem to suppose.