So, who will stop using Firefox?
- Thread starter Wormbo
- Start date
-
Two Factor Authentication is now available on BeyondUnreal Forums. To configure it, visit your Profile and look for the "Two Step Verification" option on the left side. We can send codes via email (may be slower) or you can set up any TOTP Authenticator app on your phone (Authy, Google Authenticator, etc) to deliver codes. It is highly recommended that you configure this to keep your account safe.
If it is important for someone to preserve that, ok then. It is important for them. Then that is where it ends; not where you attempt to pass Proposition 8 and impose on others. Preserving cultural identity cannot be shoved down throats of others. I may comment however that culture never stays the same, it is always shifting and evolving. No single generation has gone through a steady culture with no shifts.
Why must gay marriage be permitted? Because that is what our judicial rulings have set precedent for in previous legal cases. We could change the amendments that enable it. Or we could scrap state based marriage, weighing the pros and cons of having it official. Scrap it and the only thing we need to ensure is equal protection under the law for sexual orientation, and fine rules for marriage can be left to religion.
But that is not what I was discussing, I was discussing the fallacy of whining about feeling "persecuted" (which this is far from) when gays have been ostracized for thousands of years and forced to hide in the closet. It is ignorance of history.
We all benefit highly from inventions, discoveries, and devices made from people very different than us, including using Firefox even if they have a few dumb CEO's. To follow a path where society is divided into castes and levels will only stifle. But again, this is not about a metaphysical debate on "progress" or how much of tradition we should question. The US constitution has amendments and can be proposed and changed, something I feel "traditionalists" should recognized can benefit them should come a time when we would like to scrap things we have done. Not that I see it likely with discrimination any time soon.
Last edited:
No long, multi-quote rambling? Lucky I'm here to save the day!
Lurker field deactivated, we're going in . . .
We don't want to eliminate the opposition though: we want to nullify it to the point that it's not impacting on our lives constantly. The less people feel victimised, the less radical and more lazily mainstream they become. Thus in the UK, which, in terms of legislation, is about as pro gay as you get at the moment, I'm seeing ever growing numbers of white, middle-class suburba-gays drifting sickeningly towards the right wing. Smug bastards.
Let's get brizzical . . .
If sexuality isn't really a big deal to you, the idea that such a thing is a fundamental 'redefinition' of any note at all, seems to evaporate: hence the dearth of anti-gay marriage arguments devoid of moralising.
It may feel to some people as though they've dug in, but they may find that the ground is slowly slipping away from beneath them.
Lurker field deactivated, we're going in . . .
I'm not sure there was ever a 'give us gay marriage and we won't care about the whole prejudice thing' deal going on. The idea was that it wouldn't affect 'straight marriage' in its function.
If your contribution to the public discourse is that gay people are wrong for the way they are and that certain legislation should reflect that, then that's not really very 'live and let live', is it? That's 'fine, live: but we'll keep interfering'. It's very much a mark of a long history of inequality and privilege that people seem to be increasingly upset by the idea that there might be a backlash for what they dish out.
We don't want to eliminate the opposition though: we want to nullify it to the point that it's not impacting on our lives constantly. The less people feel victimised, the less radical and more lazily mainstream they become. Thus in the UK, which, in terms of legislation, is about as pro gay as you get at the moment, I'm seeing ever growing numbers of white, middle-class suburba-gays drifting sickeningly towards the right wing. Smug bastards.
Let's get brizzical . . .
That only really works if you give real weight to the term 'redefining'. And that very much seemed as though it was a question based upon what you thought of the people (or their 'lifestyle' if you wish).
If sexuality isn't really a big deal to you, the idea that such a thing is a fundamental 'redefinition' of any note at all, seems to evaporate: hence the dearth of anti-gay marriage arguments devoid of moralising.
I think it depends on the topic and what their feelings are. Certainly when it comes to homosexuality and the preceding civil rights movements I would say the evidence runs contrary to this: we've repeatedly seen things picking up a certain level of societal toxicity and somewhat diminishing as a result. There's been a short term polarising effect each time, but a gradual shift over the long term, accelerated by generational acceptance.
It may feel to some people as though they've dug in, but they may find that the ground is slowly slipping away from beneath them.
Last edited:
Good riddance. I'm glad this was handled rather quickly.
I was all "DO NOT WANT" before this scandal happened because of Javascript alone.
also this thread revealed that i'll never support /r/UnrealTournament, thanks twd
Last edited:
I would hope anyone who boycotted Firefox also boycotts the entire internet, or at the very least removes everything from their noscript whitelist. Anyone who knows anything about Brendan Eich other than his terrible opinions will understand why.
ps if you boycotted firefox ur dum
ps if you boycotted firefox ur dum
Hey wait, this thread was about Firefox wasn't it . . .
I feel kinda relieved he stepped down. I use Firefox and probably wouldn't have ditched unless this kept going - but I did feel sort of bad about using it, as arbitrary and pointless as it all may be.
I could almost feel sorry for him, had it not been for his statement turning out to just be spin.
I feel kinda relieved he stepped down. I use Firefox and probably wouldn't have ditched unless this kept going - but I did feel sort of bad about using it, as arbitrary and pointless as it all may be.
I could almost feel sorry for him, had it not been for his statement turning out to just be spin.
How did this thread degenerate into...
...wait, I get it. "...is supposedly anti-gay - will you stop using Firefox..."
And, of course, the fact that it is in the OT section of BUF.
...wait, I get it. "...is supposedly anti-gay - will you stop using Firefox..."
And, of course, the fact that it is in the OT section of BUF.
OK guys, here's a blog post of a Mormon revealing to everyone that he's gay and is happily (yes, happily) living with his wife.
http://www.joshweed.com/2012/06/club-unicorn-in-which-i-come-out-of.html
It's a great post all around so I highly recommend everyone give it a read.
And finally, my browser choice does not equal my ethical stance. I thought some of you guys would be smart enough to figure that out by now.
http://www.joshweed.com/2012/06/club-unicorn-in-which-i-come-out-of.html
It's a great post all around so I highly recommend everyone give it a read.
If you're really gonna be that immature about this then I don't think I would personally want you there anyway.
And finally, my browser choice does not equal my ethical stance. I thought some of you guys would be smart enough to figure that out by now.
Last edited:
It doesn't really. I would define "marriage" as between a man and a woman, I guess. But I would also define marriage as "not a social construct". In other words, I don't think the government should have any say in, or control over, that aspect of a person's life. If two people decide to be married by whatever "power" or "authority" they want, more power to them.
What the government should care about is whether someone is dependent on you, and who your "next of kin" rights belong to. Fixing those problems is far more serious than a dumb definition of marriage at the social level. There are still thousands/millions of people who can't visit people they love in the hospital because there is no way to transfer those rights or the process to transfer them is ridiculously complicated without getting married (and last time I checked, siblings/close relations, polygamists, and a bunch of other groups that might have no interest in the social construct can't get married).
There's the 2 second version.
For a lot of people, it has a lot of weight. To them, it's one of the fundamental building blocks of society (a core class, as it were). You can't really make an argument that the traditional social structure was defined as between a man and woman, so changing it is entirely a "redefinition" of the tradition.
That shift doesn't happen by demonizing, though. That shift happens by making your presence known, and showing people that you are being treated unfairly. It doesn't come by intolerance and bigotry, revenging emotions just entrenches people further.
Most of the African American leaders pushing heavy for civil rights called for non-violent protest and not demonizing the other side. Even President Obama, when he announced his support for gay marriage, said a similar thing. Demonizing people does nothing to promote their cause. If anything, it makes people that support their cause not want to support it anymore because the association becomes more and more negative. That's absolutely what is going on right now, there is a certain stigma around both sides of the issue that really has no need to exist.
That blog post, while I believe it is true, I do find it sad that he believes so much in the "teachings" he so rigilously believes it to be true so it must be and he is so happy because of that. But that's like taking pills, placebo etc. And for me placebo effect hardly ever worked. Because I just won't fool myself.
But even compared to that guy, you are way forcing and delusional yourself. At least he does live his religious drugged way and doesn't interfere with others in telling him its the universal truth.
Yay i can go back to using the internet again!
as pro gay rights Firefox user, i couldn't use firefox to download another browser when i found out the news. So i just didn't go on the internet
^tehehe
as pro gay rights Firefox user, i couldn't use firefox to download another browser when i found out the news. So i just didn't go on the internet
^tehehe
This.
It's as if there aren't any more important things to boycott. Half the internet went: "Oh look, Mozilla got an anti-gay CEO now, they must have become evil beyond all hope!!1" And what was the preferred way of protesting? By telling people to abandon a product the CEO's organization distributes for free. Way to hurt them! What else? Oh yes, let's all beat him for actually having an opinion! Doesn't matter if it's his private opinion and that Mozilla have a different opinion as an organization, but who cares. That opinion is evil because it goes against gays and was reinforced by a $1000 donation.
Good god, that guys really has his very own opinion - that scared people. Most of them don't really have the brains to make up their own opinions, they just "download" one from somewhere. "Freedom of speech? Great concept, unless someone abuses it to voice an opinion different from the one someone imbued into my mind!"
Really, most people just jumped the bandwagon because Eich donated those $1000 to an anti-gay marriage purpose. If they knew more, they'd probably wouldn't have done so, because Eich's inventions helped build the platforms they used to attack him now. Imagine Facebook, Twitter, Gmail, etc. without JavaScript. You'd enter text as plain unformatted text, every time you click a button or link, the entire page reloaded. Or even worse: It'd all be even more infested by browser plug-ins. Probably not by Flash, because that uses ActionScript, which really is based on JavaScript.
More reading, which I'm sure TWD, Arnox and others who think like them won't even look at:
On Brendan Eich as CEO of Mozilla - by a "queer woman" (her own words)
Community and Diversity - by Brendan Eich himself
A much better thing to rage about:
David "Debt" Graeber evicted, implicates NYPD intelligence, claims revenge-harassment for OWS participation
Early supporters of the "Occupy Wallstreet" movement are being harassed by all kinds of administrative institutions. They have to deal with the entire range of minor things normal people may have to do at some point - only they have to deal with them in curiously small intervals.
Unfortunately there's no browser you could boycott to achieve anything here, so it's probably uninteresting for the pitchfork-bearing internet mob.
*shrug* Would you call me drugged up? Don't worry about being honest with me. I can take it. A big reason why I follow the LDS religion is because the more I find out about it, the more sense it makes. (although that's not the biggest reason why, believe it or not)
Last edited:
I read both of those links several days ago, but you can believe whatever makes you feel smart. If it's any consolation I'm not even reading Arnox's posts. That line of argument has no interest to me.
But here's another article written by an anonymous employee.
http://www.firstthings.com/web-exclusives/2014/04/mozilla-mo-problems
What I have gleaned from this conversation is that homosexuals are so insecure that they must force others to not only accept them, but to acknowledge validation as well. How does this not go against the grain of free thought and speech?
Although one can agree that each individual employee brings a bit of himself to the job, the primary function of the business must take a direct front seat over any and all political and social ideals unless those ideals are critical pieces of the organization's business model. I might understand there being some sort of conflict of interest if Phil Robertson worked for BET, but in this case, this is a witch hunt of the worst kind against Eich. What's next, you go to a job interview and get shot down because a background investigation shows that you contributed to a conservative PAC or candidate?
Although one can agree that each individual employee brings a bit of himself to the job, the primary function of the business must take a direct front seat over any and all political and social ideals unless those ideals are critical pieces of the organization's business model. I might understand there being some sort of conflict of interest if Phil Robertson worked for BET, but in this case, this is a witch hunt of the worst kind against Eich. What's next, you go to a job interview and get shot down because a background investigation shows that you contributed to a conservative PAC or candidate?