OK Cupid Urges Users to Dump Firefox Browser Over Marriage Equality

courtesy OK Cupid

If you use Mozilla Firefox to access dating site OK Cupid, you'll be met by the above message urging you to choose another browser.

This strikes me as an interesting and appropriate way for a company to lobby for change without resorting to regulations or calling for government action to limit people's choices or ban something. (Side note: Reading about this on Buzzfeed caused me to open Firefox for the first time in years.)

Whether you agree or disagree with OK Cupid's stance on this particular issue (I'm in favor of marriage equality myself), I think most people can appreciate the way in which the company is acting here. If nothing else, this sort of action complicates the idea that corporations or businesses can't have "personality" or take stances on things, kinda/sorta like real people, doesn't it? We ascribe intention to businesses all the time, based on their practices and leadership.

I'm curious as to the responses of conservatives, who often say they want the government out of our lives but tend to be against marriage equality, and of liberals, who often say that corporations should be "socially responsible" but then harp on businesses that have conservative identities (Dominos, anyone, or Hobby Lobby?).

I am also curious as to how individuals decide when a company's policies or personnel choices rise to such a level that you will stop buying its goods or services. After all, one of the great things about markets is that they allow people to trade with relative or absolute strangers and they don't force single standards of anything on the folks involved. Lord knows it would be punishing to have to agree with every merchant or customer on every issue before a deal could be struck.

Thoughts on this? Hit the comments!

I wrote about corporate social responsibility (CSR) in light of Apple CEO Tim Cook's statement that climate-change skeptics should sell the company's stock for Time. Read that here. 

And read Reason's classic 2005 debate on CSR with Whole Foods' John Mackey, Cypress Semiconductor's T.J. Rodgers, and Nobel laureate Milton Friedman here.

Comments

[Apatheist ?_??]

I'm sure John will be around the disagree, or is this more acceptable to you than boycotts?

[Agile Cyborg]

Seems hoax-like.

[Pl?ya Manhattan.]

Almost. But it hit the news yesterday.

[Apple]

Sure. It's the right way to do something completely unnecessary, I guess.

[Acosmist]

Making everything political, every fucking thing, is really distasteful. Since you wanted my thoughts.

[Neoliberal Kochtopus]

Right here. What OKCupid said isn't even true anyway.

[Apatheist ?_??]

Yes, the bit about how gay relationships would be illegal is absurd.

[Sudden]

Exactly. So not only do they let the political interfere in every facet of life, but they do so with the most hyperbolic and fear-mongering language.

I'm all for gay marriage (though I see it as a right of contract/association grounds, as opposed to EP argument), but I think it's highly disingenuous to act like the current legal treatment of gays and lesbians is anything remotely comparable to the Jim Crow south.

I often wonder how many people who are similarly minded like myself will eventually tire of the hyper-politicization and grievance appeals of the gay lobby and become hostile to gay causes simply because of how exhausting the cultural push can be.

[Neoliberal Kochtopus]

It's already happening. I feel exactly like you do.

This started for me when the web-version of Minecraft went down for a day to protest SOPA. Like, I paid for that you assholes - don't drag me into your slacktivism.

[Paul.]

slacktivism.

🙂

[Tony]

You can only hope.

Precisely what fraction of full equality do you declare gay people should have? As long as it's not quite the apartheid-like conditions of the recent American South, we're cool?

[tarran]

Precisely what fraction of full equality do you declare gay people should have?

He told you Tonykins. He said he was for full equal rights. He said it in the first sentence of the second paragraph!

[Tony]

He said exactly the opposite.

[tarran]

He said:

I'm all for gay marriage

For you, Tony, the enlightenment was something that happened to other people, wasn't it?

[Restoras]

Tony|4.1.14 @ 11:04AM|#

He said exactly the opposite.

This. This right here is how you do stupid, people.

[Sudden]

Outside of the same-sex marriage issue (which I already registered my support for above), precisely what treatment are they suffering from at the hands of the state due to their status?

[Tony]

You registered your support outside of equal protection. Why is that?

[tarran]

You registered your support outside of equal protection. Why is that?

I think it's funny that if Tony isn't a sock puppet, he's a guy who has been reading a libertarian forum for years and doesn't understand the concept of Freedom of Association and the role it plays in libertarian political theory.

If Tony isn't some attempt to discredit progressives by painting them as blithering nincompoops, he is an example of something incredibly pathetic; a human being who is incapable of learning.

[Neoliberal Kochtopus]

but he is a sockpuppet.

[Sudden]

In all fairness to Tony, he didn't ask why the freedom of association applies. Rather, he asked why the EP argument doesn't hold water for me. I think this has been explained before and many I know quarrel with me on it. But it seems the most logically consistent position in my view.

[Pl?ya Manhattan.]

This is Tony 3.0. The handlers rotated the last one out a month or 2 ago, and the new one is minor league material.

[sarcasmic]

I think it's funny that if Tony isn't a sock puppet, he's a guy who has been reading a libertarian forum for years and doesn't understand the concept of Freedom of Association and the role it plays in libertarian political theory.

My father "thinks" just like Tony. No amount of facts, logic or reason will change what he feels about economics and politics.

[Tony]

But you don't have to either support free association or equal protection. Do libertarians just not care about the latter? Or, if it's specific to this matter, why shouldn't it apply?

I can't think of a reason other than you think gay people don't actually deserve equal protection.

[sarcasmic]

I can't think of a reason other than you think gay people don't actually deserve equal protection.

ftfy

You don't think, Tony. You emote. Not that I'd ever expect you to comprehend the distinction.

[Restoras]

Tony|4.1.14 @ 11:18AM|#

I can't think of a reason other than you think gay people don't actually deserve equal protection.

You answered your own question, shit for brains.

[Restoras]

Dammit...

[sarcasmic]

Ha ha!

[Jeff R.]

I, for one, support gay marriage, but only if it's in the context of gay slavery. Like if one of my gay male field hands wants to marry another one, who am I to judge, as long as the cotton is still getting picked, right?

[Sudden]

Because I'm similarly barred by law from wedding someone of the same sex. In fact, the only equal protection argument I can see is a sex-discrimination argument as opposed to a sexual-orientation one. If a woman can marry a man, a man should be afforded the equal protection of the law. However, a gay man and a heterosexual man are equally prohibited by law from marrying another man.

I realize that most people find that reasoning spurious due to the simple reality that it imagines some unfelt discrimination from two same sex heteros trying to wed. But consistency demands framing issues in every scenario of logical extension.

[Tony]

I haven't seen that corpse of an argument in a while. Frame it this way: heteros can marry people they actually want to marry, while gay people cannot. Not equal.

[Sudden]

I haven't seen that corpse of an argument in a while.

Calling it a corpse doesn't negate its internal consistency.

Frame it this way: heteros can marry people they actually want to marry, while gay people cannot. Not equal

That is frankly not true. It is entirely within the realm of possibility that two hetero men would wish to get wed simply for some benefit or financial gains. That eros not be the underlying rationale doesn't make it any less noteworthy (many an opposite-sex marriage isn't made for eros and historically the notion of marriage for love is a fairly recent phenomena). And those two men, whether heterosexual or gay, are disallowed from being considered married on part of the state. Therefore, they are denied the same association as a same-sex gay couple.

And this isn't to say that I don't think sexual-orientation deserves equal protection. Were a law passed that singled out gay people for a different standard of treatment than the hetero community enjoys, I'd argue for its overturning on EP grounds. I only make the logical argument here why the EP grounds don't exist in the case of same-sex marriage as the prohibition against SSM applied equally regardless of sexual orientation.

[sarcasmic]

I only make the logical argument here...

That's your problem. Tony don't do logic. He does emotion.

[Sudden]

Perhaps a futile exercise, but I continually hope that repeated presentations of logic will have the Pavlovian effect of one day registering and an "aha!" moment ensues.

That said, I realize that I'm fighting an uphill battle since logical compositions require some level of reading and legitimate examination and therefore cannot be repeated as often as tautological and infantile talking points such as "homophobe!" "intolerant!" and "meanie!"

[sarcasmic]

since logical compositions require some level of reading and legitimate examination

That requires effort. It's so much easier to emote.

[DesigNate]

It's only futile in that Tony will never learn. However, responding in a clear, logical, and dispassionate manner may bring someone browsing the comments to reconsider their hatred of us.

I personally, if I can't control myself any longer and just have to reply to it, prefer mockery and vitriol.

[Tony]

You don't see that this is inherently unequal? Straight people can choose to marry for love or any other reason. Gay people can only get married basically by engaging in deceit and fraud, and not for any reason people actually do get married.

[Sudden]

I do see it as having unequal impact. But it is not a different standard of treatment before the law in the most literal sense. There are lots of laws and policies that affect different groups in unequal ways. But it is only if different groups are treated before the law unequally that it becomes an EP issue.

And fortunately enough I think the remedy comes from freedom of association, rendering the inequality of effects moot.

[MJGreen]

Gay people can marry for any reason, to another adult of the opposite sex. That's why it doesn't violate equal protection. Reframing the issue or changing the 'point' of marriage to make it appear unequal is simply evading the argument, not engaging it.

Considering we have other reasons to support gay marriage - reasons that have convinced many of us - why bother continuing a bad argument? Must all possible arguments for a good thing be adopted and defended?

[Tony]

Because you're irrelevant and it pisses me off that you're clinging to an absurdity when nobody is going to fault you for just supporting the equal protection argument.

[Michael S. Langston]

Tony -

Your problem here is when you say "supporting equal protection" you are really envisioning new, positive rights.

& since positive rights require actions on behalf of others, the idea that they exist is both wrong and immoral.

This is why libertarians see no conflict with freedom of association and your narrowly defined "equal protection".

& while I know full well you don't agree with that - you should know this is how libertarians think of the issue. & the fact you don't is either extreme ignorance, combined with a complete inability to grasp libertarian concepts over a very long time period, or you are directly lying about your opponent's positions to paint them in the most negative light possible.

Your choice Tony - either you're really, really stupid - or you're a lying scumbag.

& note - you might be leaning to really, really stupid as minimally it's not malicious, but I'd urge you to consider scumbag. I know at first it seems bad, but at the very least you could use it as evidence for sentience.

[JD the elder]

Amen to that. Am I supposed to do a deep background investigation of everyone I might possibly do business with, and boycott everybody I disagree with? This is the new tolerance, apparently: it's wrong to refuse to do business with someone because of their race, religion, language, sexual practices, etc., but if they disagree with you on politics you should boycott them.

[sarcasmic]

Tolerance means not tolerating intolerance.

[Sudden]

Exactly. Hell, its not even like its official Mozilla policy or that Mozilla is lobbying for some policy affecting teh gheyz. Its the guy they just hired to be the CEO, and when considering his resume, his personal position on gay marriage ment fuck-all to the board. Hell, I'd dare to say that it is far more disturbing a world where every hiring decision requires making sure the person you hire doesn't offend some grievance industry. That is chilling.

[Pl?ya Manhattan.]

Sometimes a delicious chicken sandwich is a delicious chicken sandwich. Nothing more, nothing less.

[pan fried wylie]

All I know is, if obamacare forces companies to pay for birth control, then it damn well better force Chik to open on Sundays.

[Bean Counter]

Hadn't thought of that. But, you're right. Why should I be denied the only semi-not-unhealthy chicken nuggets around because some guy 3,000 years ago decided to force everybody to sit on their asses all day one day a week?

[Pl?ya Manhattan.]

Nice. I'm going to borrow that.

[DRourk]

Indeed.

[R C Dean]

I'm with Acosmist.

I almost wish that I used OKCupid, just so I could dump them for this.

I do find it amusing that they are urging that Firefox be punished for taking the same position as the President did at the time.

[Paul.]

Hint, OKCupid wants the publicity. They're getting it.

[Ron]

I agree as soon as any company makes a political stance of any type, other than protecting its ability to exist, I normally just ignore those companies and go somewhere else for the day. Unless they are being attacked just because some person within that company has a belief and everyone is attacking the company for a persons personal belief that has nothing to do with how they run their business.

[Auric Demonocles]

One of my quickest reasons for moving on from a particular profile is that they show they can't do this.

[db]

I'm going to start boycotting businesses that believe they have any responsibility to anyone other than their investors, their customers, and their employees.

[Griffin3]

If a website nags me to use change my browser, I wouldn't fool with that website unless I had to. Boycott OKcupid! No nagware!

[or just change your user agent. Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.0.2) Suckit okCupid.com/7.02 works for me.]

[Auric Demonocles]

They give you an option at the bottom to just keep using Firefox.

[Griffin3]

But what fun is that?

[sarcasmic]

alt-text killed cupid

[Hugh Akston]

I've only ever used OKC to find herosexual dates. Does Firefox even allow you to look for homos or does it only return opposite-gender results with the message "maybe you just haven't met the right girl yet"?

[Pl?ya Manhattan.]

Herosexual?
Bah, I got nothin'.

[R C Dean]

Could well be the typo of the year.

[Hugh Akston]

I'm just bringin sexy back.

[Brett L]

But all you get is Aquaman and not REAL heroes, amirite?

[Michael Price]

There are disadvantages to herosexuality.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fAFP0IoMfsA

[Notorious G.K.C.]

"I'm curious as to the responses of conservatives, who often say they want the government out of our lives but tend to be against marriage equality"

The entire premise is wrong. What on earth does getting the government out of our lives have to do with the current push for govt-recognized SSM?

I'm referring to the laws actually enacted, not some libertarian-seminar musings about "deregulating marriage."

The actual laws being enacted at best change the definition of government-recognized marriage, and at worst tell businesses they cannot choose their customers/employees.

Under the evil old regime, a business could decide for itself whether to recognize same-sex relationships. Now, they are being deprived of that choice.

[Hugh Akston]

Were businesses allowed to refuse to recognize opposite-sex marriages under the old regime?

[Sudden]

If I ran my own business, I would refuse to recognize all marriages on principle. Of course, my business would also be a wedding planning business, so I would never make any money.

Instead, I would apply for my quarterly federal bail-out. Too big to fail!

[Apatheist ?_??]

Under the evil old regime, a business could decide for itself whether to recognize same-sex relationships. Now, they are being deprived of that choice.

Different laws, you can have one and not the other. For example, the infamous New Mexico case was the enforcement of an anti-discrimination law when there was no state recognized gay marriage.

[Notorious G.K.C.]

But they recognize it now.

Whenever there's an SSM bill in a state legislature, and someone offers an amendment to protect the right of private businesses to conscientiously object, the amendment gets shot down amid cries of "omg we can't let businesses discriminate," etc.

[Calidissident]

"But they recognize it now."

Doesn't that kinda poke a hole in your argument that SSM causes anti-discrimination laws?

[Pro Libertate]

I guess I'm a bad person for reading this post in Firefox.

[Sudden]

Not just a bad person, you are the moral equivalent of Bull Connor and Adolph Hitler combined.

[Snark Plissken]

No, you are simply displaying your increasing obsolescence as a human being.

[Auric Demonocles]

I came across that pop up myself earlier this morning.

Refreshingly the response in the reddit for OKCupid was actually pretty negative, despite the community's strong bias in favor of gays.

[Snark Plissken]

Opposing gay marriage by donating 1000 bucks at the same time Lightbringer Obama opposed gay marriage is intolerable.

[sarcasmic]

Those who seek to deny love and instead enforce misery, shame, and frustration are our enemies, and we wish them nothing but failure.

Let's see. So if you oppose redefining the government's definition of marriage, then you seek to deny love and enforce misery, shame and frustration?

The term non sequitur immediately comes to mind.

[Calidissident]

I've made my stance on this issue pretty clear on multiple occasions, but I think it's a bit ridiculous to take the stance OKC is just because Mozilla's CEO personally opposes gay marriage. That said, it's clearly within their rights, and I would prefer if these sort of non-coercive forms of protest were used more often (generally speaking).

[John]

We have had this discussion before. It is clearly within their rights. What would we want to do about it? Have the government force them to do otherwise? I don't think so.

That said, I think boycotts based on the political views of business owners is very bad for a free society. If they become common and accepted, they allow for the majority to essentially deprive people with unpopular minority views of the means to make a living. Once that happens, people just stop expressing unpopular views for fear of boycott and you no longer have a free society.

We always see this with regard to gay marriage and I think some miss how loathsome it is because they support gay marriage. Imagine instead if the good Progs of upper east side of Manhattan decided to run someone out of business because it was revealed they were an NRA member. Yeah, they can do that, but would it be a good thing? I don't think so.

Lastly, the existence of boycotts shows how privacy and the 1st Amendment are so dependent on one another. If you can't donate to a political cause or express personal views in private without fear of them being exposed to a wider audience and suffering the resulting social probation, you really don't have free speech, at least with regards to unpopular or controversial opinions.

[sarcasmic]

That said, I think boycotts based on the political views of business owners is very bad for a free society. If they become common and accepted, they allow for the majority to essentially deprive people with unpopular minority views of the means to make a living. Once that happens, people just stop expressing unpopular views for fear of boycott and you no longer have a free society.

What you describe is the goal of those who call themselves tolerant.

[Calidissident]

Why does this not apply the other way around (businesses refusing to serve particular customers)?

[John]

It does. I think that is equally bad for society, though the cure in the form of government coercion to the contrary is probably worse than the disease.

I would totally agree that refusal to serve people based on their politics is not good for a free society and a real threat to one if it ever becomes commonplace.

[Calidissident]

I wasn't just referring to politics. You never bring up this argument on articles talking about businesses refusing to serve gay people. Only when its about boycotting (allegedly) anti-gay businesses.

Personally, I don't give a shit if a business owner has differing political views, or even if they're personally racist, homophobic, sexist, etc. If they brought those beliefs into the way they did business, however, then I would care and it would affect whether or not I did business with them. I wouldn't buy a cake from a bakery that refused to do gay weddings, and (in the absence of anti-discrimination laws) I wouldn't go to a restaurant that refused to serve black people.

[John]

Sure. And there are a lot of other people who would refuse to go into a restaurant or buy from someone who voted Democrat or supported gay marriage.

If you can act on your conscience, why shouldn't they? And once they do, we will have a society that settles its political differences by refusing to trade with each other. That would be a disaster.

[Calidissident]

"Sure. And there are a lot of other people who would refuse to go into a restaurant or buy from someone who voted Democrat or supported gay marriage."

Which is their right. And I agree with you that I think refusing to do business with someone for their personal political views is stupid. However, that's entirely different from the scenario I gave, where the businesses were the ones who brought their personal views into the business realm. If they refuse to serve certain customers, why should they be shocked or pitied when other customers refuse to buy from them? You can't let personal views affect your business practices and then get mad when customers let their views determine shopping habits, which is what they'd be doing in this case.

Also, you ignored my point that you only bring this argument up when we're talking about gay groups boycotting a company, and never in any of the threads when companies discriminate against gay people.

[Tony]

If they become common and accepted, they allow for the majority to essentially deprive people with unpopular minority views of the means to make a living.

So... ought there be a law, or oughtn't there?

[John]

No Tony. We ought to call out people like you and shame you into not doing it.

The government cannot save us if society decides to follow your lead and become politically intolerant and dogmatic.

[sarcasmic]

You can't shame disingenuous people who are intellectually dishonest.

[Tony]

You've actually bought into this Orwellian bullshit, haven't you?

Let's be clear. If you oppose marriage equality, you are wrong, and you deserve any and all of the consequences of expressing that opinion, short of government beating down your door (that's what the First Amendment protects you from). You are the problem. You are the cancer, and I make no secret of my desire to see you ridiculous old idiots die off and leave the rest of us in peace and sanity.

But I fully support your right to retaliate with more speech.

[John]

You are the problem. You are the cancer, and I make no secret of my desire to see you ridiculous old idiots die off and leave the rest of us in peace and sanity.

Yes Tony, you are a totalitarian who wants to crush anyone who dissents from your views. But we already knew that.

[Restoras]

you deserve any and all of the consequences of expressing that opinion

Including what, exactly? Would a beating by some guys wearing brownshirts fall under the definition of something deserved?

[WTF]

Would a beating by some guys wearing brownshirts fall under the definition of something deserved?

Yes, that's why people like 'Tony' want the populace disarmed.

[Tony]

Well, excluding government retaliation and violence.

[Restoras]

So, then yes you are in favor of a beatdown by a group of privately organized thugs as long as those thugs support your position. You see, jackass, the brownshirts were doing that before they gained power in order to strike fear into thier opposition.

Thanks for the further confirmation that is what you stand for.

[Tony]

By violence I meant all violence.

[Restoras]

Yeah, sure.

[WTF]

Would a beating by some guys wearing brownshirts fall under the definition of something deserved?

Yes, that's why people like 'Tony' want the populace disarmed.

[John]

What a dreary and depressing life it must be judging every single thing by politics. Once you start, there never seems to be an end. These people can't seem to exist unless they have some political issue to judge someone else over and to feel aggrieved and angry about. If it wasn't gay marriage it would be something else.

I just can't fathom living life like that and not being able to just say "well that is their opinion" and go on with life. They really are totalitarians. Everything is either part of the collective or an enemy of the collective to be either destroyed or assimilated.

[sarcasmic]

To the left, freedom means forcing your will upon others, and politics is how you do that. So of course everything is political to the left. It's freedom!

[Palin's Buttplug]

What a dreary and depressing life it must be judging every single thing by politics

That is hilarious coming from you.

[John]

It only seems that way because you are retarded and compulsively engage in projection. You think I judge everything by politics because that is what you do and you so lack self awareness that you don't even realize you do that much less project it onto everyone else. It is one of those times where your mental illness, as opposed to your stupidity, makes itself apparent.

[Palin's Buttplug]

You troll women's sites (Amanda Marcotte?) looking for political poutrage that you then bring here. EVERYTHING is TEAM RED to you. Quit denying it.

[Fluffy]

I love to engage in Marcotte hate and it has nothing to do with Team Red.

Who needs an excuse to hate Marcotte?

That's like needing an excuse to eat ice cream.

[Red Rocks Rockin]

You troll women's sites (Amanda Marcotte?) looking for political poutrage that you then bring here.

That's Coeus who posts those links, you dumbass. You can't even get screennames correct, much less basic math.

[Tony]

If this was Christian Mingle and they set up a similar letter on Chrome over Google's CEO's support of Obamacare, you'd be involuntarily soiling yourself with glee, so shut the fuck up.

[sarcasmic]

Empty assertions are empty.

[barfman2014]

*barf*

[The Laconic Marc F Cheney]

1. Fantasize about what someone else would say in a different situation.
2. Act as if that actually happened.
3. Add gratutitous profanity.
4. ...
5. Win argument!

[Tony]

This is John. Did everyone take a stupid pill this morning?

[JurisCani]

I don't know about everyone, but it's pretty obvious that one person did.

[The Laconic Marc F Cheney]

No, they're all sold out of stupid pills.

Because you bought them all.

And then consumed them.

JERK STORE BURN

[Specail Sauce]

Trollin, trollin, trollin

He likes his anus swollen

Just open up your colon

RAWHIDE!

[Certified Public Asskicker]

Colon trollin'?

[JD the elder]

"I bet you guys would totally be the fantasy I have of you in my head!"

[Ron]

"These people can't seem to exist unless they have some political issue to judge someone else over"

thats the only way sociolistic group, the democrats, can exist. They need someone to blame for other peoples problems weather it be wealth inequality or a different scientific view or even a different religion they will always find something so that they have a reason to be voted for.

[The Laconic Marc F Cheney]

Has OK Cupid ever hired someone later convicted of a felony? Because I think people should be able to make an informed decision about where to do their internet dating. What if some of their HTML was written by a dude who exposed himself to a child?

[Tony]

I'm curious as to the responses of conservatives, who often say they want the government out of our lives but tend to be against marriage equality

Look no further. It's a twisted panties convention right here on H&R.

and of liberals, who often say that corporations should be "socially responsible" but then harp on businesses that have conservative identities (Dominos, anyone, or Hobby Lobby?).

Yes, "harp on," as in engage in free expression, just like OKC here. What's the difference?

[sarcasmic]

I see the average IQ in here just dropped by ten points.

[Lord Humungus]

you're too kind.

[Lord Humungus]

When exactly did gay marriage become the cause of the moment?

I can't remember it ever mentioned in the 70s or the 80s. My memory in the 90s - hello, college binge drinking - doesn't ring a bell either.

Of course gay marriage - or marriage in general - is not a topic that I get all wrapped up over. I'm married myself - but could easily be happy without it. In fact I went out with my then GF for over ten years before the two of us got married. Nothing really changed in our relationship afterward - though I suppose the legality helps in property transfer, wills, and that sort of thing.

[Tony]

In the 70s and 80s gay people were nearly completely restricted from even being honest about their identities in mainstream society.

[sarcasmic]

It's fun to stay at the...

[Michael Price]

Am I naive because I didn't know they were gay? I was very young.

[Lord Humungus]

True - homosexuality has become more accepted.

I just don't remember anyone pushing for gay marriage back then. It was an "alternative" lifestyle that was often at odds with mainstream America. It just seems odd that the rush is toward normalizing it. I know if I was gay, I would be saying "fuck that, I'll live my own life without any needed social recognition".

[Tony]

You're confused about why people who were forced into the fringes of society didn't have as much of a political movement behind them as they now do?

I don't personally believe in getting married, but the principle of equality demands that I get to make that choice for myself just like straight people can.

[Lord Humungus]

I am, repeat, not against gay marriage. But marriage itself is a rather a dull (and pointless) exercise. "Why the rush to join it?" is my question.

[Tony]

I don't want to get married. I think the institution is stupid and old-fashioned, weddings garish displays of narcissism, and lifelong monogamy for the birds. However, I think the time for equal rights under the law was yesterday.

[Lord Humungus]

my longer version would be based on your point - the institution of marriage has often been ridiculed by those on the left - patriarchal, etc - but now it's a burning issue of much importance.

It just seems at odds for a better, more flexible alternative.

[Tony]

The movement isn't about marriage specifically to me, but about equality under the law. I don't know what alternative you want, but there is only one outcome to this so everyone might as well get used to the idea.

[Lord Humungus]

My alternative would allow people to do whatever they wanted, marriage or not. Two girls want to live together, bound together by a contract? Sure. A group of people? Sure.

Marriage? If that makes you feel happy in a religious sense, then go ahead.

If someone wants to rail against homosexuality and its "evils"? Go ahead.

If someone wants to promote an alternative lifestyle? Go ahead.

[Tony]

Okay but the law should treat people equally, regardless of how silly the institutions it has set up.

[Michael S. Langston]

Except polygamists.

[John]

When exactly did gay marriage become the cause of the moment?

When the Left figured out they could use it to punish their enemies.

[Tony]

Poor you.

[tarran]

When exactly did gay marriage become the cause of the moment?

I think because it's the major form of official discrimination that gays face.

Those of us who grew up in the 80's remember a different time. I encourage people to watch the Barney Miller reel for minor character Mary Morrison to get a sense of what life was like for gays prior to the 1990's.

The moral hysteria surrounding homosexuality was as hyperbolic as the moral hysteria involving marijuana or heroin.

And, in some ways the hysteria continues. I can't find the link to it, but when California reorganized its sex offender list, all the people who had been put on it for the crime of picking up a cop and offering to have sex with him were not only not purged, but lumped in with child molesters. Several of them endured SWAT raids because someone had kidnapped a child nearby, based solely on the fact that in 1965 they had decided to pick up the handsome guy who had been flirting with them at the train station.

[Lord Humungus]

I'm a child of the 80s, and any accusation of being gay was tantamount to dropping the gloves and asking for fisticuffs. It turns out my best friend in HS was gay and never told me about it until years later.

Anyway - it just seems strange that after years and years of ostracization, one would rush toward the very institutions that pushed one out.

The first (admittedly rotten) analogy that comes to mind is being an atheist in a conservative Christian community, but want to be able to join the local church council.

[Lord at War]

Those of us who grew up in the 80's remember a different time.

Bullshit.

My sister was an "out" lesbian the 70's.

She got more shit for being a "pothead" than for anything dealing with her sexual preference.

I wanted to marry her for her SS survivor benefits before she died in 2005, but no gays showed up to defend an "incestuous" marriage (To a post-menopausal lesbian).

Fuck 'em.

[#]

I really can't wait until this decade;s culture war football passes. I'm pretty sure at this point it has less to do with the actual leagl rights of marriage and more to do as a proxi for people to feel good about themselves in a stupis culture war fight.

If anything, in recent years all of this has gotten me to question what the state premise for marriage is in the first place. And not just in the Libertarian talk about "privatising marriage", but rather what is the justification for the state to discriminate between married people and non-marries people? Why is the tax different for these two groups? Why are welfare state benifits different? and so forth.

Does anyone have an argument now for why the state is even doing this in the first place?

Historically, it seems to have just ocured by accident. The first marriage licences were created in order to stop certain people from getting married, and then later on they builod the welfare state around it under the assumption that a married man had to take care of a wife and a non-married man didn't.

Why is this construction still relevent?

Part of me just wants to say in my own life, fuck getting leaglly married, I don't need to ask the state permission to enter into a personal relationship.

[robc]

I remember it in the very late 80s.

[Longtorso, Johnny]

So are we giving out our OKCupid user IDs? I just switched my profile pic to the one of me shirtless, in front of my Camaro, holding the head of the deer I just killed, while taking a selfie in a mirror. Displaying my tats.

[Lord Humungus]

fuck ya!

[Longtorso, Johnny]

Displaying my Bea Arthur tats, that is.

[Auric Demonocles]

It's amazing how little I actually have to do to stand out on that site. And ask tarran, I'm an ugly gingery guy.

[Restoras]

Your secret, please? I have had little luck there.

[Auric Demonocles]

For the most part don't do any of the things that Longtoso mentioned and write using complete sentences.

[Sudden]

That section on OKC where it gives qualities of a person "more caring"/"less traditional" etc shows me as "more capitalistic". Therefore, women of teh interwebz think my cock is a tool of patriarchical oppression.

[Auric Demonocles]

I've never looked at my own personality section, and I think I looked at 2 girl's before I decided it was stupid and started skipping it.

[Longtorso, Johnny]

I just want to see the personality match percentage between Warty and me.

[Sudden]

wreckoncile is mine.

I don't check it often, as I've preferred tinder and actually meeting wimminz in the course of real life myself.

[Auric Demonocles]

Profile views from dudes incoming.

[Auric Demonocles]

I don't think they need that personality section to see you as more capitalistic. Though I don't remember if there is a "more cynical" personality bar.

[BoscoH]

When someone in business lashes out at you personally like that, you take note of that and wreck them later. Then you wreck their spouse and their best friend, and their kids. The kids just for sport. He runs a browser company. They run a website. There will be plenty of opportunity.

[The Laconic Marc F Cheney]

Look, either you're a homosexual or a homophobe. So shut up or bend over. END OF STORY.

[Ken Shultz]

"This strikes me as an interesting and appropriate way for a company to lobby for change without resorting to regulations or calling for government action to limit people's choices or ban"

I appreciate this sentiment--I really do. ...but I'm starting to get a little nervous about every single thing I do being politicized somehow.

It was like the spat over Guinness pulling out of the St. Patrick's Day parade--because they wouldn't officially allow gay groups to march. Now the beer I order is a statement on gay rights? Really, I'd just rather my beer choices weren't politicized, and I kind resent Guinness politicizing my beer choices like that--even though I support gay marriage.

Now what browser I use is politicized, too?

What about the toilet paper I buy? Surely there should be some parts of our lives that don't make a statement about gay marriage. I guess that's what I'm trying to get across. In communist countries, or even society's like Venezuela under Chavez, everything you do is politicized.

And I really don't want every consumer choice I make being made into a statement on gay rights. Sometimes I just want to order my favorite beer or use my favorite browser--without it saying anything about gay rights at all.

[EDG reppin' LBC]

What about the toilet paper I buy?

If you buy Quilted Northern, you are funding THE KOCHTOPUS!

[Ken Shultz]

It's even that way if I don't buy it!

If I don't buy Guinness on St. Patrick's Day, does that mean I'm against gay marriage? What if I don't like Guinness?

If I wasn't going to use Firefox anyway because I like Chrome, does that mean I support gay marriage, too?

This is what I mean by politicizing everything. It's not just what I do that supports bigots; it's all the stuff I don't do, too?

If I make a presentation and use Firefox in front of gay people, is that saying something to them about my stance on gay marriage? Are they supposed to boycott me now--even though I support gay marriage--just because I don't want my browser choice to be a statement on gay marriage either way?

If you're getting drafted into a culture war over gay marriage by every third consumer choice you make, you might start to resent the gay rights movement after a while.

Like I said, one of the major features of an authoritarian/totalitarian state is that everything you do or don't do is politicized. In a totalitarian state, you cannot escape politics, and I don't want to live in a society like that, where I can't do or not do things without it making a political statement.

I support gay marriage! Now, can I just use whatever god damn browser I want?

[Fluffy]

I'm very much a supporter of the boycott as a political tool and as an absolutely necessary expression of our 5th and 1st Amendment rights.

I'm SO MUCH a supporter of the boycott that to me one of the primary reasons that Sherman and Clayton and the corpus of our labor laws are unjust is the way they penalize so-called "restraint of trade" and so-called "blackballing" or "retaliation".

That being said, piss on OKCupid. Prior to May 8, 2012, Obama opposed gay marriage. Where was OKCupid's message demanding that people refuse to support Obama and boycott the Obama campaign?

[Neoliberal Kochtopus]

but he was sweetness and light and he didn't really mean it, Fluffy.

[Fluffy]

Anyone who does not judge their friends and their enemies by the same standard, utterly without alteration, is scum.

[R C Dean]

I expect better of my friends than my enemies. Is that bad?

[Fluffy]

Touche. You found the hole in my maxim.

Thank you for correcting me.

[Longtorso, Johnny]

It's not really a lie if you lie to people who don't matter, like for this and keeping your insurance if you like it.

Hey, they're also shocked about the lies conserning NSA, drones, GitMo, etc. "I just thought he'd like to them, never to meeeeeeee!!!"

[John]

If you think boycotts are proper, then how do you avoid an intolerant minority crushing controversial or dissenting opinions by running anyone who expresses such out of business?

I don't think saying "well boycotts wouldn't really happen much or be misused such that people actually went out of business" is a good answer. You are okay with this because you like the cause.

If it is great that OK Cupid does this, why can't someone on the other side do it too? There are a lot of places where you would have a hard time running a business if the population decided to not do business with you because you were pro gay marriage. This is all fun and games when it is about Firefox, but what about the guy who owns the dry cleaners in Blackwell, Oklahoma who goes broke because he made the mistake of putting an equality sticker on his car?

I know I know "freedom of association and that is their loss" and all of that. But that guy still lost his business. If it becomes common or standard practice for people to judge businesses based on the political views of their owners, then no one who owns a business and has any sense is going to express anything but the majority and accepted view on anything.

That seems like a really shitty result to me. I can't see how Libertarians can support boycotts. Say that people are free to do them, sure. But I can't see how you can say they are a good thing.

[sarcasmic]

Show me a boycott not backed by government force that was effective. I can't think of any.
It's difficult to get enough people on board to make a difference unless the government gets involved.
I wouldn't worry too much about it.

[John]

Show me a boycott not backed by government force that was effective. I can't think of any.

That just means we are lucky and live in a generally tolerant society that ignores this nonsense. That doesn't mean that boycotts are a good thing.

While it is not true now, it was true in the past. I would imagine a local business owner who married a black woman in the 1950s, would have had a real problem attracting customers in a lot of places.

Beyond that, even if it isn't always effective, it still has a chilling effect. If people start boycotting any business whose owner of CEO expresses a view they don't like, business people will just stop expressing political view so they don't alienate customers.

Do we really want the price of owning a business to be giving up your right to express your opinion? I don't.

[sarcasmic]

What if Title II of the Civil Rights Act didn't exist, and businesses were free to discriminate against blacks?

Would it be a bad thing if business owners were forced into changing their policies due to consumer boycotts?

Not that I am equating the opposition redefining marriage with racism like some idiots here do.

Just putting things into a different context.

[sarcasmic]

opposition *to*

[John]

In principle, yes, sarcasmic it would. The racist would then be free to boycott stores that didn't discriminate.

In practice such boycotts would result in good since we are generally not a racist society and the racists are in the minority. But if our society were less enlightened and the racists were the majority, boycotts would be a very bad thing.

That is my point. Yeah, boycotts are great when you agree with the majority view. But they are real instruments of oppression when you don't. This is why I object to them and don't think they are good things.

[Tony]

You are constitutionally incapable of applying your stated principles when it might be bad for your tribe, aren't you?

[Fluffy]

Do we really want the price of owning a business to be giving up your right to express your opinion? I don't.

It already is.

Business owners typically refrain from their customers to go fuck themselves.

The incentive of opportunities for commerce smooths out the rough edges of A LOT of personal conduct. And it's good that it does so.

Can you point to situations where business owners might bow to some general cultural injustice, rather than lose business? Sure. But generally with the greatest injustices you end up with business owners who are noncompliant anyway, and they drag the rest of the market along over time.

[Neoliberal Kochtopus]

that's sort of eliding the differences John is talking about. Sure we want businesses to be polite and customer-service oriented and friendly. That's a far cry from wanting them all to be Democrat.

[John]

Can you point to situations where business owners might bow to some general cultural injustice, rather than lose business? Sure. But generally with the greatest injustices you end up with business owners who are noncompliant anyway, and they drag the rest of the market along over time.

Okay. since it only occasionally results in injustice in your view, things will never get out of hand and boycotts are totally cool.

I get it fluffy. You think gay marriage is great and you will be ecstatic to see Firfox go out of business over this. Good for you.

But there are bigger issues at stake. Generally I find your thinking to be well grounded and principled. But wow is this a blind spot. You are telling me that you are totally okay and think it is great when the majority judges businesses by the politics of their owners and uses commerce to ruthlessly punish anyone who deviates from the norm.

Really? You really think that is a good idea? You do understand that if that becomes the norm, someone with your views will no longer be employable or have any way to make a living outside of the dole?

[Fluffy]

You are telling me that you are totally okay and think it is great when the majority judges businesses by the politics of their owners and uses commerce to ruthlessly punish anyone who deviates from the norm.

Yes.

I would never hire a Communist.

I would never hire a really virulent racist, even if my legal liability for doing so was restored to zero.

I would LOVE to "ruthlessly punish" people who disagree with me by withholding commerce from them. Awesome. That would be great. I'd do it, and pat myself on the back and say, "Fluffy, you rock. You are so cool!"

No problem with that at all.

[John]

In the end fluffy, you are no different than Tony in that you both think it is great for the majority to stick it to the minority. You just disagree on the proper methods for the majority to do so.

You think you are different because you object to using the gun as the method. But you are really not. You are either a tolerant person who is willing to deal with and judge people based on something other than their politics or you are not. And since politics drives every judgement you and Tony make, you are just different sides of the same coin.

The fact that you think it is great for the mob to run someone out of business who dissents from the majority and Tony thinks it is okay for the police to do so is a distinction without difference.

[sarcasmic]

I don't think that's entirely fair, John.

Boycotts are voluntary and do not use force.

Say some company like Smith and Wesson gets on board with gun control (like they did in the 90s)?

What is wrong my with refusing to purchase their products?

Remember that all boycotts are done by individuals, not groups. Groups don't buy stuff. Individuals do. Individuals may act as a group, but it still comes down to individual voluntary action.

And isn't individual voluntary action the essence of the free market?

[DesigNate]

I don't want them to give up their rights, but I don't give a flying fuck what What-a-burger's CEO says or thinks about stem cell research. Just make sure your employees are making good chicken strips and gravy.

[Paul.]

Show me a boycott not backed by government force that was effective. I can't think of any.

I believe the boycott of Smith & Wesson by gun owners in the 90s was withering.

[sarcasmic]

Is that why I got my Model 10 for so cheap?

[Paul.]

Possibly.

The boycott os S&W is usually hailed as one of the more successful major boycotts ever.

It was so successful... get this, the Clinton administration attempted to investigate the boycotters in an FTC investigation.

Gun clubs and gun rights groups responded to this agreement by initiating large-scale boycotts of Smith & Wesson and by consumers refusing to buy their new products while Police agencies flooded the firearms market with used S&W guns. The sudden flood of used guns came primarily from law enforcement agencies that were trading their department issued revolvers for semi-automatic pistols, additionally the trade in pistols were often considered better quality than the revolver products being produce by Smith and Wesson during the late 1990's.[5][6][7] After a 40% sales slide,[8] the sales impact from the boycotts led Smith & Wesson to suspend manufacturing at two plants.[9] The success of the boycott led to a Federal Trade Commission antitrust investigation's being initiated under the Clinton administration,[7] targeting gun dealers and gun rights groups, which was subsequently dropped in 2003.[10]

Can you imagine that shit? You boycott a company that's in the President's pocket, and he investigates YOU!

[Ken Shultz]

"Show me a boycott not backed by government force that was effective. I can't think of any."

Here's a list of some successful boycotts:

http://www.ethicalconsumer.org.....cotts.aspx

I think the anti-fur boycotts were effective...

I think private companies are more responsive to their customers than governments are to voters and that boycotts can be effective, too. It's just that a lot of times, the people doing the boycotting aren't really the customers.

A lot of boycotts are announced simply for the publicity they generate; again, you can't control what the media says about your cause, but you can manipulate the media into talking about your issue by staging spectacles and events that generate coverage. A boycott is one such spectacle, and getting your issue into the headlines is more than half the battle.

[Ken Shultz]

Union strikes are essentially boycotts.

[Tony]

You hit the nail without realizing it. In certain parts of this country you're much more at risk for supporting gay rights than opposing them.

But you only get your meddling busybody dander up when it's those poor persecuted Christian bigots who are getting targeted.

When will heterosexual Christians ever catch a break in this country, really?

[John]

Tony. I am not like you. I would consider anyone losing their business because they expressed an unpopular opinion to be a very bad thing.

That is the difference between you and I. I actually believe in abstract concepts and principles. You don't. You believe in the crude material world and nothing else. So when I say "hey if it is wrong to boycott this person it is wrong to boycott this other person", you look at me like my dog would if I tried to explain algebra to her. All you see is the real world results of people you don't like being harmed. Any of these "principles" I claim to hold that prevent that are just worthless since they give results you don't like.

[sarcasmic]

I actually believe in abstract concepts and principles.

Tony has a guiding principle: Might makes right.

He worships violence.

[Tony]

I would consider anyone losing their business because they expressed an unpopular opinion to be a very bad thing.

I'm going to ignore the incoherent stream of insults and bullshit and focus on this actual, solid claim.

What a strange opinion. Especially here, where I'm told we don't need laws against discrimination because market forces and freedom of association will drive bigoted proprietors out of business, and deservedly so. Since when, in the entire history of free speech, has this argument ever been made, that people ought to be free of the consequences of their speech? It's novel to me.

[John]

It is only strange Tony because you really don't just hate freedom, you don't understand it.

If people do business based on business and not other things like politics or race, there won't be any bigotry. That is the point. All supporting boycotts does is say "I think it is great to be bigoted as long as it is being bigoted about thinks I hate."

[Tony]

You are making no sense whatsoever. But then, it is a Tuesday. Whose freedom is being squelched here? What do you propose to do about it?

[sarcasmic]

"I think it is great to be bigoted as long as it is being bigoted about thinks I hate."

Principals trump principles.

[Fluffy]

But I can't see how you can say they are a good thing.

I'm happy to remove the majority's ability to work its will by passing laws dictating what the minority must do with its property.

Boycotts provide the majority with a non-violent (including non-state-violence) way to have influence.

That's not the primary issue to me - the primary issues are property rights and associational rights - but this strikes me as one of those times that a good outcome arises from the application of disparate individual rights, not as the goal of or justification for those rights, but as an emergent property of those rights.

[John]

You missing the forest for the trees. The issue of "property rights" only comes up if you think the government should step in and stop this.

I don't think that. That would be worse than the problem it seeks to solve.

The issue here is are boycotts a good thing that Reason or anyone else should be promoting and encouraging. Sure, you have a right to do it. It is your property. But that doesn't mean you doing it is a good thing or something anyone who believes in a free society should join in or encourage you to do.

Nick is saying this is an interesting and great way for people express their opinion. I think Nick is completely full of shit and that he hasn't really thought about the issue very much or he wouldn't think that.

[Fluffy]

But that doesn't mean you doing it is a good thing or something anyone who believes in a free society should join in or encourage you to do.

But I do think it is a good thing.

Nick is saying this is an interesting and great way for people express their opinion.

It sure beats both a Molotov cocktail and a policeman's truncheon.

Beats the HELL out of those.

[John]

But I do think it is a good thing.

Then you by extension think it is a good thing for majorities to run business owners with unpopular opinions out of business.

You do understand that is the foreseeable consequence of your support don't you? I can't understand how anyone who believes in a free society could think that is a good thing.

It sure beats both a Molotov cocktail and a policeman's truncheon.

Not really. I can turn the damage in on my insurance and fix it. I can also defend myself against the mob. I can't so anything, if no one will do business with me.

Beyond that, even if it is better so fucking what. All you are telling me is "well it is better to let people be intolerant politically obsessed fucks and express it though boycotts because otherwise they would be burning shit down."

I suppose that is true. But how about we encourage people not to be politically obsessed intolerant fucks and let other people believe and say what they like? That sounds like a better idea to me.

[Fluffy]

Then you by extension think it is a good thing for majorities to run business owners with unpopular opinions out of business.

Yes.

For example, perhaps businessman X has the "unpopular opinion" that he should call every housewife who walks into his store a "stupid cunt".

If he expresses that opinion, he will be run out of business.

Yay! The market worked.

Just about every positive result we attribute to the market arises from the fact that customers control firm behavior by spending money. Customers spend money at businesses they like and don't spend money where they don't. WIN.

[John]

Fluffy,

You example is idiotic because it is not political views but insulting customers. Two different things.

Beyond that, you seem to either not understand or just won't admit because you know it would lose the argument, that the majority isn't always going to be right. Saying this is okay is giving the majority the power to dictate what views can be expressed in public.

You would never support such a thing in any other context. You only do now because you haven't thought it through or you see the magic words market and property and can't understand that just because something shouldn't be illegal doesn't mean it is a good thing.

[robc]

Whats the difference between political views and insulting customers?

If you have swasticas on your wall and you aint a WW2 memorabilia dealer, are you insulting customers or expressing political views?

Ditto for hammer & sickle.

[John]

Rob,

The difference is that when I insult you in my store, that is related to my service and thus our transaction. If I treat you well in my store and give you a good product, the fact that I gave a speech two days ago you don't like or hold some political view you don't like shouldn't matter.

Yeah, if the guy goes up to every customer and berates them about their political views, that is a reason not to go there. But the reason is the fact that he will berate you not his political views. He could be berating you about your taste in NFL team and it would be just as bad.

[Tony]

Heal thyself.

[robc]

The key, John, is to boycott the boycotters.

For example, if you think OKC is stupid for trying to make politics out of browsers, then boycott OKC.

[John]

That only works Rob is you are a big enough minority. What if your view is a really small one? You are fucked.

To base freedom of speech on economic power is to say that speech should be judged acceptable or not by how many people hold the opinion. I disagree.

[sloopyinca]

Right, because SoCons are just such a small minority in this country that their political power is nonexistent.

Your arguments here are just laughable, John.

[John]

Right, because SoCons are just such a small minority in this country that their political power is nonexistent.

It is not about SOCONS or gays you fucking half wit. That is what you don't get. You are so fucking in love with the culture war and punishing your enemies you can't see how destructive the overriding principle of boycotts are.

We can't have a free society if people make their economic decisions based on politics. You know why so many countries are so damned poor? One of the big reasons is they are tribal and people make their economic decisions based on tribal loyalties rather than economic sense. Well, politics is nothing but tribalism carried on in a Democracy. You can't have a successful economy if the Blue Tribe refuses to do business withe Red Tribe and vice versa.

[robc]

There is a reason Publius and etc published anonymously.

The problem is the public nature of donations. And 50,000 other thinks that you should be able to do anonymously.

What if your view is a really small one?

From this thread it appears the view of "dont politicize things" isnt a tiny minority, so you should be fine. Most people, myself included, think OKC is being stupid.

[robc]

thinks was a typo for things, but Im gonna let it stand.

[John]

From this thread it appears the view of "dont politicize things" isnt a tiny minority, so you should be fine.

That is not the point Rob. It is not about me or you being fine. It is about the principle. And if making economic decisions stops being about economics and starts being about politics, a lot of people won't be so fine.

[robc]

Economics is the study of decision making. If the decision is made on political grounds, that is still economics.

Its impossible for economic decisions to not be about economics, because it is all-encompassing.

[robc]

Its like how I dont see a difference between commercial speech and political speech.

All commercial speech IS political speech.

[John]

Sure Rob.

See my point above. Politics is nothing but tribalism. Good luck having an economy when the various political tribes refuse to do business with one another. And that is exactly the kind of society you and Fluffy and Nick are advocating for.

You really think it is a good idea for people to make business decisions based on what political tribe the other person is in? Have fun running a competitive company basing your supplier decisions on what the various CEOs think of gay marriage or drug policy or whatever. I am sure that will work out well. But really, that is what you guys are saying people should do.

[sloopyinca]

There are three ways for people to express their opinion.
1. Express it openly and try to influence others. (boycott in this case)
2. Try to get the government to express it through making laws (outlaw dissenting opinions)
3. Keep their mouth shut. (not voice a political opinion at all)

Sorry John, but I agree with Nick that this is an interesting and great way for people to express their opinion, especially in Iight of the alternatives.

[Neoliberal Kochtopus]

I don't want what browser I use to be a political exercise. That's extremely wearing.

[sloopyinca]

Do you want what gun manufacturer you purchase from to be one? How about what news outlet you get your info from? Or what sports team you follow?

I guess my point is that the line is drawn in different places for different people. I agree with you in your first sentence, butiwill not begrudge people their right to politicize the browser they use.

[sloopyinca]

I suppose there is a fourth option of the company privately confronting Mozilla and asking them to remove the CEO or to at least get him to publicly disavow his earlier comments and donation. But that's an extension of 1 above, IMO.

[John]

Sorry John, but I agree with Nick that this is an interesting and great way for people to express their opinion, especially in Iight of the alternatives.

I am sure you do. When Progs make it that anyone who expresses anything but the approved opinion can be employed or do business in large sections of the country, I don't think you are going to like it very much.

You think this is great because you like the result. But when it gets applied to things you don't like so well, you won't like it. And remember, most businesses run a pretty tight margin. So it doesn't take everyone to buy into the boycott to run someone out of business. It just takes enough to drive the business into the red.

You and Nick and Fluffy are encouraging the means by which Progs and fascists are able to control society and stop free speech. You don't need government restrictions on free speech when you can just get your various fanatical supporters to run anyone out of business who has a dissenting view.

[sloopyinca]

First off, I think Progs are largely ignored when theyull these kinds of stunts. And there is enough Prog-hate that most businesses will get an equal Neo-con bump to offset what they've lost from progs.

Second, I think it's great because I think the alternatives are horrifying, not because I like the result. You see, you're not the only one with principles that thinks in absolutes. So climb down from your fucking high horse and appreciate the fact that other people with principles can like a process for the sake of the process, not for the results.

Finally, don't pretend to tell us what were doing. We're appreciating the fact that boycotts are a hell of a lot more appealing than government coercion is. As an addendum, isn't where you shop often an expression f support for political beliefs? I know the fact that I come here for news is in a way a boycotting of other outlets I don't support the political beliefs of.

Boycotting a business is no different that supporting one business over others because of the politics of the owners.

[John]

Sloopy,

Saying "if we don't do boycotts the mob will do worse" is not an endorsement of boycotts. How about we encourage people to be tolerant and keep politics out of their economic lives? That sounds like a whole hell of a lot better than saying everyone should be dogmatic intolerant fucks who base their decisions on politics.

[sloopyinca]

So you voicing your opinion to them in an attempt to sway their opinions is righteous and holy but them doing the same is immoral and dogmatic?

They're trying to encourage people to change their beliefs in a peaceful manner that is free from utilizing the heavy hand of government. Whether or not you agree with their positions, you have to appreciate the fact that their coercion doesn't rely on the force of government and that people are free to support them, ignore them or actively oppose them (by using Firefox if they hadn't before).

I'm sorry, but I really think your hatred of them is based on their beliefs instead of their methods, which makes you as intolerant as them.

[John]

So you voicing your opinion to them in an attempt to sway their opinions is righteous and holy but them doing the same is immoral and dogmatic?

Voice all you like. But refusing to give them business because you don't agree with their politics is you effectively saying they have no right to yours or any other right thinking person's money because of their political views. That is not persuasion, that is intolerance.

You shouldn't do anything you wouldn't want every one to do. And if everyone follows your lead, the business either changes to your view or goes out of business, which means that no one who disagrees with you has a right to own a business.

If you disagree with them tell them why. But don't boycott them. Buy your products based on who gives you the best service. That way everyone is free to make a living and hold whatever opinions they like and you don't have to worry about someone running you out of business because they don't like your political opinions.

[Fluffy]

they have no right to yours or any other right thinking person's money

They do have no right to my money.

A purchase requires the purchaser's consent.

I can give or withhold that consent for any reason. It doesn't matter if it seems like a good reason to you, or a fair one.

When other people know they have no right to my money, they then figure out that to get my money they have to make me happy.

That is a good thing. That is the essence of trade.

The essence of trade isn't "the invisible hand leading resources to their most productive reasons." The essence of trade is "Fluffy only gives you his money when he wants to."

[John]

I can give or withhold that consent for any reason. It doesn't matter if it seems like a good reason to you, or a fair one.

Absolutely you do. And if you do so based on politics, you are an intolerant tribal moron. And if we end up with a society of intolerant tribal morons like you, we will end up with a really shitty intolerant and poor society.

That is my point. You have a right to be an intolerant moron. I just don't think Reason or anyone else should be encouraging you to be such.

[sloopyinca]

Extending your fucked up logic, I should never base my business decisions on the politics of the owners. I should read the NYT as often as H&R. I should buy a GM car as readily as a Ford because them taking the bailout money shouldn't matter. I should drink in bars that support La Raza financially as often as I walk into a BW3's.

We all make decisions on who we do business based on politics from time to time. If you didn't, then why are you here instead of the co,Kent's section of a WaPo article espousing the greatness of Obamacare?

[John]

Sloopy,

In a sense, no you shouldn't. And if you think there is something fucked up about saying that having a tribal society where everyone bases their purchasing decisions on politics, I don't know what to tell you.

All you really say here is "but I like this result" and "but the other side is big and will be fine". That is true. But it misses the point. The point is not this or that case. The point is where this kind of thinking leads. You don't worry about that because you think it will never work against you or lead to any intolerance you don't like.

You are very mistaken in that.

[sloopyinca]

You keep telling me and others what we are thinking, and at least when it comes to me you're dead-fucking wrong.

I am looking at this as an absolutist an a totally principled way. And I believe you're just arguing to argue..

As for your statement about why I don't worry about it, you're dead wrong. It's not that I don't worry because I don't think it will ever work against me; it's that I don't worry about it because I have principles and respect everybody's right to vote with their feet, whetherdne individually or in an organized manner.

[John]

If you worried about these things Sloopy, you would think Nick is as big of a fool as I do.

[DesigNate]

Are you not getting sloopy's point John? All of our decisions are based on some kind of politics. Maybe you don't like the color red so you refuse to shop at Target. Maybe you support gay marriage but you think Chick-Fil-A has the best damn sandwich around so you eat there anyways. I don't like that Target won't donate to certain charities, but I shop their because they have good prices and decent goods.

The vast majority of people just don't care enough to change their buying habits based on a CEO's position. On anything.

[John]

The vast majority of people just don't care enough to change their buying habits based on a CEO's position. On anything.

The vast majority of people in this country are not racist either. That doesn't make the few who are any less loathsome or racism anything that Reason should say is "intriguing".

Boycotts are counter productive and something that if ever became common would wreck the country as more and more people chose to settle their political differences by refusing to do business with the other side.

You people are short sighted fools not to understand that and to think boycotts are something to be encouraged.

[robc]

as often as I walk into a BW3's

[hyprocrite mode]
You really should never do that. They are just awful. Really, they shouldnt exist.
[/hypocrite mode]

Yes, I go to them far too often.

[Lord at War]

John

But refusing to give them business because you don't agree with their politics is you effectively saying they have no right to yours or any other right thinking person's money because of their political views

I will never, ever buy a GM car due to the politics behind the bailout.

Is this wrong?

[robc]

And there is enough Prog-hate that most businesses will get an equal Neo-con bump to offset what they've lost from progs.

See, Chick-Fil-A.

The boycott helped them.

[The Laconic Marc F Cheney]

Prior to May 8, 2012, Obama opposed gay marriage.

Comrade Obama has always supported gay marriage. Please report for re-education.

[The Immaculate Trouser]

Leaving aside whether it is an "interesting and appropriate way for a company to lobby for change", I am curious to know if anyone has ever had their minds changed by such petitions being successful. I don't use Firefox, but what positive effect would take place if OKCupid's user base switched en masse to using Google Chrome over Firefox as a result of this campaign? I don't see the point of this campaign, unless one earnestly believes that those against gay marriage should be completely isolated from the rest of society and prevented from doing business with anyone else.

[John]

I think few people have. And that is a good thing. But that misses the larger point. If the Jackett thinks these sorts of actions are so great, then he should be fine with them being successful. And if he is fine with them being successful, he is fine with people being run out of business for holding dissenting or unpopular views. That doesn't strike me as being very pro freedom.

[sarcasmic]

Do the two t's change the pronunciation to something French like Jackette?

[John]

LOL

[tarran]

It will have an effect on the margins, certainly. Some users will say, "meh" and go no further.

OK Cupid is a site that specializes in hookups. I'm sure a significant portion of its user base ( greater than 1%? ) is gay. Those guys may jump ship for alternative sites.

Will they fire the CEO over it? Dunno.

[Auric Demonocles]

OK Cupid is a site that specializes in hookups.

That's not really true. There's a pretty broad spectrum of what people are looking for on it (for instance, I'm looking specifically for a long term relationship).

I'm sure a significant portion of its user base ( greater than 1%? ) is gay. Those guys may jump ship for alternative sites.

This part is true. Alternative dating patterns (gay, lesbian, bi, poly, etc) are represented much more highly in online dating than the general population (probably due to it being harder to find people into that same subculture). This is definitely a PR move to try and make OKC seem more appealing to that community.

[Warty]

A hundred or so years ago, people fell all over themselves to convince other people how godly they were. Now people fall all over themselves to convince others how tolerant they are. Nothing ever really changes.

[John]

No it doesn't. The old Protestant establishment just stop being Christian and became the secular left. Now instead of showing the world how Godly you are, you cleanse your sins by showing how "tolerant" you are.

[Sudden]

This is really an excellent point. Every so often you demonstrate a keen understanding of the base motivators at the heart of the human condition. And then you rape.

[R C Dean]

So, since its a Bad Thing to discriminate against people because of their sexual preferences, and should be illegal for any business to do so, I'm sure our proggy brethren will be decrying the lesbian-only cemetery planned for Berlin.

http://www.nationalreview.com/.....ew-johnson

[Paul.]

Freedom of association!

[Ken Shultz]

Misogynist!

[Ron]

I wonder how OKcupid would feel if Firefox suddenly didn't allow anyone to access OKcupid. Two can play at this stupid game and guess what both will loose in the end.

[Auric Demonocles]

I was almost as annoyed when I saw this popup this morning as I was when I saw this thread on it... without alt-text.

[Notorious G.K.C.]

Boycotts are neither good nor bad in themselves. It depends on the cause for which the boycott is launched.

[Fluffy]

If you can't donate to a political cause or express personal views in private without fear of them being exposed to a wider audience and suffering the resulting social probation, you really don't have free speech, at least with regards to unpopular or controversial opinions.

OK, John touches on one important point here:

If the only reason anyone knows about the Mozilla CEO's donation is government-mandated reporting of that donation, then the boycott is in fact tinged by McCarthyism.

Remember, what made McCarthyism bad was that McCarthy (and HUAC on the House side) used the police force to force people, at the point of a gun, to declare their political sympathies - specifically to make that information available to the Hollywood studios, so they could create a blacklist. The blacklist in and of itself wasn't wrong - it was the unholy alliance of the blacklist and the illicit use of the Congress' subpoena power that was wrong.

So I guess I have to amend my earlier remarks to say that I love me some boycotts - but don't necessarily love this once if it has the taint of McCarthyist method to it.

[Paul.]

If the only reason anyone knows about the Mozilla CEO's donation is government-mandated reporting of that donation, then the boycott is in fact tinged by McCarthyism.

Yes, the constant need to make all speech to any candidate disclosed is a violation of our rights. There's no denying that. I should be able to make political associations in private. Period, the end.

[DesigNate]

Only your vagina has a right to privacy.

[Paul.]

to declare their political sympathies - specifically to make that information available to the Hollywood studios, so they could create a blacklist.

Progressives now call this responsible politics.

[John]

Sorry Fluffy, you should love this one too. If you think it is okay not to do business with someone based on their politics, I don't see how that allows for an exclusionary rule for when the government outs the person.

The CEO of Mozilla is a bad guy and doesn't deserve to be in business. If he were not, then you wouldn't be boycotting him. Why should he be allowed to have this view and keep his business just because the government did the country a service by informing it of his views?

You should be thanking the government. Without them telling you, someone who held political views you don't like would be running Mozilla. And that is a pretty bad thing isn't it? If it is not, why are you boycotting?

[Auric Demonocles]

I don't really agree with Fluffy's position, but thinking the ends don't justify the means is completely valid.

[John]

Not really. The guy is still a bigot. Once you know that, how can you morally do business with him? If you can, then why are you boycotting him in the first place?

[Auric Demonocles]

Yeah. If the guy stole, he should be in jail. Once you know that, how can you just let him go? If you can, why were you going to lock him up in the first place?

Who cares if you found out he stole by SWAT raiding every house in a 3 mile radius without a single warrant?

[John]

This is not jail AD. If the guy stole and didn't go to jail because of a technicality, would you hire him to handle your money? I mean he did get acquitted.

It is the same thing here. You may disagree with the methods that his views were brought to light. But in the end, the moral reasoning behind not doing business with him remain. Just because you object to the government action, doesn't make it any more moral to give your money to a bigot.

[sloopyinca]

He extends an olive branch and makes a valid point and your response is to shit all over him.

Stay classy, John.

[John]

It wasn't an olive branch, it was him denying the full implications of his position. Why are you boycotting someone? Because you think their political views are such they shouldn't be in business.

If you think that, why the hell should the government telling you they are a bad person make any difference? He is still a bigot who hates gay marriage isn't he? And people who hate gay marriage should be getting yours or any other right thinking person's business right?

I don't see how, well the government made him tell us his views, changes any of that. He is still a bigot and in fluffies view shouldn't be in business.

[sloopyinca]

Your reading comprehension rivals your ability to spell. Because that's not anywhere near what he said.

[John]

That is exactly what he said. IF you won't do business with him, why should anyone else? Why are you refusing to do business with him if you do not think his political views make him unfit to get your business. Well, if he is unfit to get your business, isn't he also unfit to get anyone else'

You guys act like a boycott is just about you. It is not. The point of a boycott is to force someone to choose between their political views and staying in business. It is to make it such that someone who holds that view cannot run a business. If you are not comfortable with that, don't engage in boycotts.

[robc]

IF you won't do business with him, why should anyone else?

Because they have different preferences and priorities than I do.

[Fluffy]

The point of a boycott is to force someone to choose between their political views and staying in business.

But it's not just political views.

"Fluffy is a stupid douchebag," is a view that a business owner might express.

Should the business owner feel like he "has to choose" between expressing that view and getting my business?

Yup.

The problem is that you think there is some qualitative difference between saying, "Fluffy is a stupid douchebag" and "I hate gay marriage". There isn't. If it's legitimate and fair for me to react to the first statement by withholding my business, it's legitimate and fair for people to react to the second statement by withholding THEIR business. Because everybody gets to make up a "banned statement list" for themselves.

[John]

Fluffy,

You continually confuse direct personal insults with political views. Someone saying in an interview "I support gay marriage" is not the same as someone saying "Hey douche bag" when you walk through the door of their business.

The latter is a direct assault on you and a part of your interaction with them. The former is them expressing an opinion that is neither directed at you or should in anyway effect your interaction with them other than because you just can't stand the idea that someone might disagree with you.

The problem is that you think there is some qualitative difference between saying, "Fluffy is a stupid douchebag" and "I hate gay marriage". There isn't.

Yeah, that is the problem. The problem is you think someone disagreeing with you or holding an opinion you don't like is the same thing as walking up to you and personally insulting you. I don't see it that way. But that is because I am tolerant of other people's politics and don't consider people who disagree with me to be personally insulting me. You do. That is what makes me tolerant and you intolerant.

I am just saying Reason should fall on the side of tolerance not intolerance.

[Fluffy]

The problem is you think someone disagreeing with you or holding an opinion you don't like is the same thing as walking up to you and personally insulting you.

From the point of view of the business owner's freedom, you can't really draw that distinction.

In both cases, the business owner has an opinion he would like to express. But he expresses it, he might lose my business.

OH NOES HE BE OPPRESSED!

But that is because I am tolerant of other people's politics and don't consider people who disagree with me to be personally insulting me.

That is so completely irrelevant to what we're discussing now.

You're finding fault with the basic truism that people who are engaged in business need to worry about their customers liking them.

You're concerned that this somehow fails liberty. It does nothing of the kind.

The need to get counterparties to like you in order to get their money is a civilizing influence on men overall. It's a feature, and not a bug.

The way you buy the ability to not care about getting people to like you is by producing something that people need so desperately that they won't boycott it. Can't do that? Then tough shit, you get to moderate your behavior to appeal to your customers the same way that other people get haircuts and put on ties to appeal to employers.

[John]

In both cases, the business owner has an opinion he would like to express. But he expresses it, he might lose my business.

Of course you do. And when you do that, you just proved yourself to be a dumb ass who would rather be poor than refrain from scoring political points.

I think a society of dumb asses like you who view politics as more important than economic well being is a very bad idea.

[sloopyinca]

The point of a boycott is irrelevant to its being a just way for people to express their opinions. Some people will Jon the boycott, some will ignore it and some will actively oppose it. Whatever the result, fluffy was right that the only reason this boycott (probably) came to be was the disclosure of the donation by the Mozilla CEO being required by law.

OKC boycotting Mozilla is a good thing. The fact that the CEO of Mozilla had to disclose his speech to the government leading to the boycott is bad.

IOW, what is chilling here isn't the boycott so much as the forced disclosure to the government of political speech that led to it in the first place.

[John]

The point of a boycott is irrelevant to its being a just way for people to express their opinions.

No. It is you expressing your opinion by withholding your money. If you think it is wrong to shop there, wouldn't you encourage me to think the same thing? Indeed, don't you think it would be good if everyone thought that way?

If it is the right thing for you to withhold your business, then it is the right thing for everyone to withhold their business.

[sloopyinca]

Right, because it's not human nature to try to sway people to your opinions.

Me refusing to even look at the rates at Progressive insurance is a boycott. If I did look at them and refused to buy their product if they were marginally cheaper than State Farm based on their politics, would that make me a bigot and a bad person, John? Based on what you said in the thread, it would make me a tribal asshole. But I look at it the other way: if I give someone I politically oppose my money, it gives them the power to further espouse their views with my money. And why the hell would I want to do that?

[John]

See my point below Sloopy. You are just engaging in tribalism. If Progressive makes the best product and you refuse to deal with them out of politics, you just made yourself poorer because of politics.

Imagine everyone making every or even most decisions like that. We would be really fucking poor wouldn't we? You can't have a successful modern society if people refuse to do what makes the most economic sense because they see their dollars as expressions of their politics and politics as the defining trait in everything. That is just a form of tribalism.

[sloopyinca]

How have I made myself poorer? What, by saving $50 a year but doing business with someone I morally oppose I've made myself poorer?

I guess I look at it as a wise tradeoff because that $50 doesn't end up in their pockets to further causes that will ultimately cost me a lot more than I'd save if I initially bought their product.

Tribalism isn't necessarily a bad thing. Hell, I wouldn't even call it tribalism as much as I'd call it Moralism. And we all make moral decisions every day. It's what sets us apart from animals.

[John]

If I choose to buy an inferior product or take a worse deal because the better deal or product is from someone whose politics I object to, I have made myself poorer.

[DesigNate]

You've also made a decision for yourself so it matters fuckall what anyone else thinks about it.

[John]

Sure I have. But that doesn't make less self defeating and idiotic Desinate or the cumulative effects of everyone thinking like me any less devastating to a society.

[DesigNate]

I guess it's a good thing we aren't the borg then.

[John]

We don't have to be the Borg Designate. In fact our diversity makes it even worse. If this sort of idiocy just resulted in a few small minorities getting rubbed out, that would be bad enough. But that is not what will happen. What will happen is the country will break down into the various political tribes and refuse to hire or do business with each other. That would be a lot worse.

Sorry but "we will just do it this time" doesn't answer the mail on this. It is just a matter of time before the other side in the culture war starts engaging in the same tactics. When that happens, our economy and really our entire society will just be one big extension of the culture war. Won't that be great?

How about we tell Gillespie to go fuck himself and leave the culture war out of our commerce? We still have to live with each other and it makes sense to do business since we do.

[DesigNate]

Except that has happened never in the history of, well history.

[John]

Except that has happened never in the history of, well history.

Bullshit. It happens every day. Go to any tribal country and you will see it. You don't hire or do business with the other tribe at the expense of your own.

Beyond that, even if you are right all you are saying is "it is okay for me to do this because there is no danger of everyone else doing it.". Okay, but that doesn't make what you are doing right or something that should be encouraged.

I can be an idiot racist if I choose to and in this day and age there is little chance of the the country coming with me. But that doesn't mean that my being racist is something laudable. It just means we have a society that generally is smart enough not to be racist.

All you are telling me is that it is okay for you to fight the culture war via commerce because the rest of the country is smart enough to know better. Maybe. I hope so. But that doesn't make economic boycotts any more laudable.

[DesigNate]

You know what would be laudable though?

Boycotting you for your racist ideals.

[John]

Sure Designate, lets tell everyone in America to boycott anyone they think is racist. I am sure you will get a lot of help in that message from the Progs.

Good luck with that.

[Fluffy]

I don't see how that allows for an exclusionary rule for when the government outs the person.

No, it's not.

The solution to your dilemma - "How can a business person support an unpopular position without jeopardizing his business?" is right there: anonymous speech. Anonymous speech, or anonymous support of the speech of others.

That's precisely why anonymous speech is an important part of free speech.

HUAC destroyed the ability of citizens to engage in private political conduct.

Remember that part of what protects us in a free society is the fact that our fellow citizens are not omniscient. The balance that exists between public and private behavior, and between the known and the unknown, mitigates most of the things you're concerned about when the government doesn't put its finger on one side of the scale.

I'd love to boycott all Communists. Not employ them, not buy their products, boycott their employers also. But I can't succeed at that if I don't know who the Communists are.

[John]

So what you are telling me is that you are okay with free speech just as long as no one engages in it in any public way.

Yes, we have privacy to protect people from people like you. That is true. And since there will always be people like you, we should always protect privacy.

But again, you miss the larger point. We protect privacy as an admission of how awful people can be. We don't it because we think people being awful and intolerant is a good thing but figure we will throw a bone to the unpopular by letting them speak anonymously or at least have their own thoughts.

The ideal is to live in a society where people can express their opinions without having to worry about people like you firing them or running them out of business. That is the ideal we work for. Privacy is just a necessity since we never get to that ideal.

[Fluffy]

The ideal is to live in a society where people can express their opinions without having to worry about people like you firing them or running them out of business.

That is not the ideal at all.

You're verging on Tony territory, now.

It is not ideal for everyone to be able to engage in whatever speech they want with no economic, reputational, or social consequences.

It's an ideal to eliminate the political consequences.

It would not, for example, be an ideal if you could form the "Let's Murder Fluffy" party with no fear that your action would result in my refusing to employ you. How would that be an ideal? For whom?

The entire reason that we count on "good speech driving out bad speech" is because we believe that, in the absence of government action, social and economic pressure will over time incent people to behave in a way that benefits everyone.

I never promised to protect you from social or economic pressure from non-state actors and demanding protection of that kind is Tonyist "I can't be free if I have to moderate my behavior to get a job" nonsense. You may as well have written these posts in Ebonics.

[John]

It is not ideal for everyone to be able to engage in whatever speech they want with no economic, reputational, or social consequences.

Yeah. Damn straight I do. If you don't have it like that we end up with what amounts to a tribal society. Tribal societies are poor because people cut off their noses to spite the other tribe.

You can't run a competitive company in a tribal society. Why? Because in a tribal society, you can't base your decisions on what is best for the company. You can't fire the deadbeat because he is in your tribe. You can't buy from that guy down the street and instead by from an inferior supplier because the inferior guy is in my tribe and the good guy isn't.

That is the society you are arguing for you just want the tribes to be defined by politics rather than birth. The result is the same in both cases. Fluffy starts a company and can't hire the best employee because he overheard the employee say something nice about Marx. John opens a business and can't get the best parts because the CEO of the really good part supplier supports the drug war and so forth.

You admit yourself you would make yourself poorer and your business run less if doing so meant not hiring a communist or someone you thought was racist. Put that over an entire society and see what happens. I have seen it and it is not good.

[sloopyinca]

"You can't run a competitive company in a tribal society."

Haha. People have need doing so since tribal societies came into being, numbnuts.

[John]

No they haven't. You have never been to a tribal society Sloopy. The companies in places like Iraq or Saudi are nowhere near as efficient or well run as the ones in the US. There are some good ones. But overall it is not even close. And the reason for that is not that Americans are smarter. We are not. The reason is Americans base their decisions on what is good for business not what feeds their tribal prejudices.

From a business perspective, not hiring a guy, who is the best qualified because you don't like his politics is just as stupid and self defeating as not hiring him because of his race. His politics don't affect his ability to code or fix shit any more than his race does.

In the same way, the CEO of Mozilla's views of gay marriage have no effect on how good their product is. If they have the best browser and you refuse to use it because of politics, you just made yourself poorer over politics.

That is fucking stupid and you know it.

[Fluffy]

You admit yourself you would make yourself poorer and your business run less if doing so meant not hiring a communist or someone you thought was racist.

Absolutely.

Satisfying my indignation would be a luxury good. Not unlike engaging in leisure, which would also make me less successful than I might otherwise be.

But I never promised you maximum productivity. Once again, that was some OTHER libertarian.

And this is ANOTHER feature, and not a bug. Since my boycott punishes me, too, and not just the boycott target, I'd only undertake one when the subjective value I gained by satisfying my indignation exceeded the value I lost by engaging in the boycott. The fact that I have to engage in that calculation means (again) that your nightmare vision of social and economic breakdown arising from boycotts won't happen, because the tool contains within itself a regulating mechanism.

[John]

Sure fluffy. And an entire society of people who think like you, is a really poor one. This is especially true if the two tribes are even close to evenly matched.

Just imagine how fucked up our economy would be if every business was Team Red or Team Blue and refused to do business with any business from the other team.

That is effectively what you are arguing for. If it is right and good for you to fire the communist, then it is right and good for the Prog to fire the Librarian. Meanwhile, no one is getting hired making sales anymore based on making money or the quality of their product.

We wend up with a society of ignorant and poor fluffies happily waging the culture war and paying to do so. This is why boycotts are stupid and ultimately dangerous to a free society.

[DesigNate]

And an entire society of people who think like you, is a really poor one.

Flog that strawman John.

[John]

Yeah Designate, it will be okay. Only the right people will do it.

If you admit that this would be a bad thing if everyone did it, then you are admitting it is a bad thing.

You can't say "well it is okay as long as just I do it". If you can do it and it is a good thing and a valid way to express your opinion, everyone can. And that leads to a society where people wage their political wars via commerce. And that is stupid.

[DesigNate]

We don't have an entire society that agrees on anything John and it's stupid to argue otherwise.

It would be right and good for the Communist to fire the Libertarian for whatever fucking reason he wanted, and it's none of our goddamn business why he did it.

The only way for your doomsday scenario to happen is for everyone to be omnipotent or for the government to force you to disclose your stance on everything in order to participate in commerce.

[John]

We don't have an entire society that agrees on anything John and it's stupid to argue otherwise.

That makes it even worse. That means that the culture war never ends and everyone has a reason not to do business with someone. If it were just a few people, we would rub out the minority and end it. We won't be so lucky.

And sorry but "I can do this stupid and unproductive thing and it is okay because not every is as dumb as I am" really isn't much of a defense.

[John]

You guys don't realize the full effects of what you are saying because you don't understand politics taken to the personal level is just tribalism and you don't understand how horrible tribalism is for a society.

[sloopyinca]

Thank God you're here to tell us the error of our ways, O Wise One.

Except, of course, you are admonishing people,e that support political dissent or those that make business decisions based on morals, which every human in the world probably does...except you of course...because you're so enlightened.

[John]

Except, of course, you are admonishing people,e that support political dissent or those that make business decisions based on morals, which every human in the world probably does...except you of course...because you're so enlightened.

NO. I am saying people should get politics and the culture war out of business decisions. There is no end to this once it starts. You won't do business with people you don't like and they won't do business with you.

Really, your point above about us being an evenly divided society and both sides in the culture war being pretty evenly matched makes boycotts even more destructive. Okay, all of the pro gay marriage people stop doing business with the anti gay marriage people and vice versa. That is just millions of people refusing to engage in beneficial transactions. You don't see that as a one way ticket to poverty?

[sloopyinca]

You're right, John. Now I have to leave, because I'm hungry. I'm off to Klan Burger for lunch, because regardless of their politics they make the best burger in town.

[Auric Demonocles]

John has a really hard time understanding people who don't give a shit about utilitarianism.

[John]

No AD,

I understand that you can't have a successful or good society if people who disagree with one another politically refuse to do business with each other.

You guys don't. Actually you do, but you are so blinded by your love of the culture wary you can't admit it. The moment Team Red starts pulling this shit and people you don't like get harmed, you will understand what I mean. But then it will be too late.

[DesigNate]

That's right John, it's all because of our love of the culture war.

[John]

The truth hurts designate. If you don't love the culture war so much, why are saying people should base their economic decisions on it? Saying the culture war should permeate every aspect of society to include what people we do business with, is an awfully strange way of showing how much you hate the culture war.

[DesigNate]

Maybe you should read what people write.

People make decisions on where to buy things every hour of every day that they are awake. My decision to never eat at Wendy's because chili shouldn't have beans in it is no less valid than your decision to donate money to Mozilla because their CEO holds the same views on gay marriage as you do.

I and sloopy and fluffy have repeatedly said that people should base their economic decisions on whatever they want. If (and that's a big fucking if) the "culture war" permeates who someone does business with, that's on them. If they want to try and get people on their side using non-coercive methods, they are well within their rights to do so. Saying as much is not an endorsement of any culture war bullshit.

I really think you're chasing ghosts on this, I just don't see society getting as stratified as you do.

[John]

I and sloopy and fluffy have repeatedly said that people should base their economic decisions on whatever they want.

You are as bad as Tony. People can do whatever they like. I have never said otherwise. The issue isn't whether people can do this. It is whether them doing so is a good thing. I would never say the government should make boycotts illegal or make people do business with people they otherwise wouldn't.

What I am saying is that when people engage in boycotts over politics, they are engaging in stupid and counter productive activity that further drags us into a state where politics permeates everything in life. Boycotts are not a good method of expressing your opinion because it creates an environment where people who don't agree with each other are encouraged to not trade with each other as well.

You have every right to boycott whatever you want. My telling you that is the wrong thing to do doesn't mean I don't understand it is your right to do so.

[DesigNate]

Fuck you John. There was no need to say I am as bad as Tony.

[John]

I apologize for that one. No one is as bad as Tony. That was uncalled for.

[DesigNate]

Thank you.

[Impudent Rapscallion]

Marriage is a cultural phenomenon, and it should stop there. I fail to see why marriage needs to be intertwined with any legal sort of legal status. Once you remove marriage from the equation you have a situation where churches can marry people based on whatever cultural tradition it wants. At the same time government can extend legal status to any couples it chooses. Well, no reason which would be able to stand up against an equal protection challenge.

Separating the two concepts creates a strong mandate for government to provide legal status to all couples regardless of sexual orientation. There isn't a compelling reason at that point for government to say only one man and one woman can be joined in some form of legal status.

Two things I have never been able to reconcile is why the heterosexuals feel marriage is lessened by same sex couples. I would think the high rate of divorce is a larger problem for the institution of marriage than two men or two women being married. On the other hand I find it absolutely ludicrous that the homosexual community is hyper focused on marriage, even though it's clearly upsetting to a large number of people.

It appears to me that decoupling marriage from any legal status would solve most of the conflicts in this debate.

[Sudden]

I fail to see why marriage needs to be intertwined with any legal sort of legal status.

Because it is a contract and even the most minarchistic among us believe that one proper role for government is the enforcement and adjudication of contractual disputes.

Of course, the marriage contract has spawned a whole series of law that treats it separately from a traditional contract (a legal status with which I disagree and would like to see amended since the present jurisprudence on marital laws often rewards the party in breach of contract), but it is nonetheless a contract.

[robc]

But it would never matter in the vast majority of cases.

A majority would last until the end of the contract period and a big chunk of the remaining would be settled, as with most contract disputes.

So only a tiny fraction would ever need to interact with the state. Unlike today, where it is all of them.

[sloopyinca]

OT, and arguably more important: Tiger Woods has withdrawn from The Masters because of his back.

I guess steroids and hookers was a winning formula after all.

[Auric Demonocles]

Are you sure it wasn't because of some political position the CEO at CBS held 6 years ago?

[sloopyinca]

Rumor has it, Tiger, Nantz and Martha Burk are gonna do a three-way to raise awareness for admitting women into The National.

[Restoras]

Iron My Shirts!

[sloopyinca]

I, for one, will be boycotting the special.

[robc]

You mean other than the first two?

I still think Burk delayed the admittance of women over a decade.

Sometimes (most of the time?) boycotts backfire.

[sloopyinca]

Until women comprise 50% of the membership at Augusta, they will still be a discriminated against second class.

And don't even get me started on how bad they discriminate against poor people there by not admitting any.

[GILMORE]

Is it wrong for me to enjoy using Firefox MORE now?

[GILMORE]

Miles Davis was a wife-beating misogynist.

Will none of the proggies listen to his music ever again?

[sloopyinca]

John thinks nobody should ever discriminate against people who hold different political beliefs when it comes to spending money. He thinks it's being a tribal asshole to do so.

What John fails to realize (among many other things) is that me giving my money indiscriminately to those whose political beliefs I oppose, I am thereby giving them more disposable income and thereby more power to espouse beliefs I oppose.

I'd rather be a tribal asshole than an idiot that empowers those I disagree with by giving them my money without so much as a thought to where it will end up.

[John]

No Sloopy, you refusing to give your money to people whose political beliefs you don't like is just you, assuming you are walking away from the best product, making yourself poorer in order to express your political opinions.

You think that is great. But what you don't realize is that if everyone starts doing that, the cumulative effect is going to be that we are all a lot poorer.

How do you plan to run a company if you base your supplying decisions on the political views of the suppliers rather than the product and cost? If the Islamic company makes you the best deal, well, you won't be taking it because the owner no doubt objects to gay marriage and legal booze.

Tribal societies make their decisions based on tribe instead of economic self interest. And they end up fucked up and backward places as a result. If you make the political the personal such that you view a person's politics as the determinative factor in whether you will do business with them, you have just become tribal.

You give the example of the WAPO above. I don't read their political coverage because I don't like the product. But if I liked their movie reviews I would go there. Not going there out of politics is just me saying politics are more important than getting the best movie review. And politics should not be that important.

[sloopyinca]

Intrinsic value is important to me. Perhaps not as important as financial value, but in some cases it is enough to sway where I take my business when the net financial gain I receive by giving business to someone I politically oppose is marginal.

Why can't you fucking see that? Or if you do, why can't you grasp that that is the way almost all people in the world feel? And that, I don't know, maybe it's right and you're wrong?

[John]

I see it fine. What you don't see is that if you say it is all right to do it in one case, then it is all right for anyone to do it in any case. That is what don't get. You think well, we will just boycott in a few situations. But if it is the right thing for you to boycott this guy for his political views, then it is also the right thing for me to do the same thing to someone else.

Once we go down this road and decide that it is desirable and "intriguing" as Nick puts it to base our economic interactions on politics, there is no stopping it. Nick is saying it is an interesting idea for Team Red to just stop doing business with Team Blue and Team Blue to do the same.

That is economic and societal insanity. Fighting out our political differences through commerce is a ticket to poverty.

[sloopyinca]

You're right. And I agree with you now. So like I said above, I'm off the Klan Burger because they make the best burger in town.

Ooh, and after that it's off the the "Jew Hater Auto Repair And Collission Center" because they are gonna save me $10 on that front end alignment over "Free Market Auto".

[John]

You may have already done that Sloopy. You don't know the politics of everyone you deal with. So who is to say you haven't?

And again, is it your opinion that anyone who is "racist" has not right to own a business? If it isn't, why are you refusing to do business with them?

[DesigNate]

They have every right to own a business and I have every right to tell people that they are racists and wouldn't eat there. And those people have every right to tell me to pound sand, they don't care that the owner is a racist, they just care that he makes the best bbq in Texas.

Why is this a hard concept for you to understand?

[Tony]

John's inability to understand concepts due to a deep tribal loyalty is the root cause of his many, many embarrassing displays of incoherence on this site.

[John]

Tony,

Can you do anything but project? You are exactly the kind of tribalist idiot I am hoping the rest of the country avoids becoming.

You can't make a single decision that isn't informed by your politics. Politics permeates every aspect of your life. God what a horrible existence that must be. And sadly, other people on this board seem to be just as bad.

When I walk into a business I don't care what their politics are just what their product is. You walk in and care first about their politics.

But somehow you think I am the tribalist. No Tony, you might try realizing that everything you think everyone else is, is actually what you are.

[Tony]

John you are too ridiculous for words. But I'll try anyway.

You are making a completely incoherent argument, and it's especially untenable in a libertarian context. People are allowed to speak their mind about whatever the fuck they want, damn the consequences. That's the American way. Now if you want to get into a complicated discussion about the limits that should be placed on speech, that would be fun. Let's start with why corporations can't express religious beliefs.

I hardly ever consider politics when I engage in commerce. My employer is an Obama hating Republican for god's sake. I consume oil daily. To the extent that I'm political or a part of a political tribe, it's in the service of expanding human well-being to whatever limited extent I'm capable of. But I certainly don't let it drive me to defending absurdities.

[Tony]

And the tribalism I'm referring to is your apparent burning need to stay on the quixotic mission to keep antigay bigots a part of polite society and have their views expressed in law. To the extent that you're bleating nonsense about the damage that boycotts to do the social fabric.

[John]

Tony,

It is only seems incoherent to you because you are so stupid you think "this is a bad thing" automatically means "there should be a law". It is your right to base all of your decisions on politics. I would never support any effort to use the force of law to stop you.

But you having the right to do it doesn't mean what you are doing is good or anything that Reason should be supporting. A society filled with people like you who think that commerce is just another political battleground cannot function very well.

Your excuse that "well I don't do it much" is not relevant. That you do it at all is a bad thing and not something that Reason should be encouraging other people to do.

[John]

They have every right to own a business and I have every right to tell people that they are racists and wouldn't eat there.

Sure you do. And ask yourself, "why won't I eat there?" The answer is because you think it is the right thing to do, right?

Well, if it is the right thing for you to do, it is the right thing for everyone to do. What you are saying is "it is wrong to give a racist any business" and that is just saying "racists shouldn't be in business" since if you can't be in business without customers.

Saying "but not everyone agrees with me" doesn't answer my point. You think your right and everyone should. So yes, when you refuse to do business, you are saying that person should have to adhere to what you view as acceptable political views to be in business. The fact that they remain in business just means you haven't succeeded in your boycott not that them going out of business or changing their views isn't your ultimate goal.

[DesigNate]

The thing that is most likely is that I get a hankering for the best bbq in Texas and break down and eat at the racist place anyway because people do moral calculus at every decision and can decide that my craving for good bbq outweighs my dislike of racists.

And of course, if they don't publicly go around espousing their racism, I'll never know and then I get my yummy bbq and they get my money and everyone is happy.

[John]

That is just it Designate, unless their racism affects your relationship with them, who cares what they think? If you go in with your black friend and they won't serve him, then you don't eat there. But that is not because they are racist, that is because they won't serve your friend. The fact that the reason is because he is black is immaterial. It would be just as bad if they wouldn't serve him because he is a Redskins fan.

Gillespie is not talking about the example of the restaurant that won't serve black people. He is talking about how great it is for OK cupid to refuse to do business with firefox because the CEO said something they didn't like. This is like you refusing to eat the barbeque because the owner once said he thought Jim Crow was a good thing but still serves anyone black or white who has the money and still gives you great service.

Gillespie is going a hell of a lot farther down the road than any of the examples you or Sloopy give. He is saying it is not just permissible but laudable and a good thing for people to base their business decisions on the political views of the Ceos and owners of other companies.

That is nothing but tribalism and making everything in life about politics. Gillespie is an idiot if he thinks that is a good idea.

[Ortzinator]

"If you go in with your black friend and they won't serve him, then you don't eat there. But that is not because they are racist, that is because they won't serve your friend."

This is the funniest thing I've seen all day. And it's April Fools.

[Lord at War]

No Sloopy, you refusing to give your money to people whose political beliefs you don't like is just you, assuming you are walking away from the best product, making yourself poorer in order to express your political opinions.

If Progressive Insurance gave you a $5 cut on your car insurance, would you buy his product knowing that a shitbag like Peter Lewis uses his profits to support things you do not support?

[Moe19]

I guess I don't see anything wrong with simple free association. I don't care about gay marriage (either way), and I'd rather see people who have strong opinions (either way) be able to act on them (in the commercial sphere) in any way they think is appropriate (do business, don't do business).

Anything else seems like thought police to me.

[Stormy Dragon]

Hey, you guys should all be appluding this, as it's clearly just the first step of "this joke-stealing code [working] for other industries". Right now they're bad mouthing Brendan Eich. If that doesn't work, they'll stop Firefox viewers from visiting the site. And if that doesn't work, they'll just go beat the ever-loving crap out of Brendan Eich until he resigns.

And since there's no Top Men involved, it's clearly the epitome of Libertarianism, no matter how thuggish the result.

[DesigNate]

There's a lot of derp in that tiny paragraph.

[John]

People on this board are so blind on this issue, they have me agreeing with Stormy Dragon.

Assuming you are not being sarcastic, you are exactly right Stormy.

[Agile Cyborg]

You've stated a lot above and as is usually the case you brightly and tenaciously stick to a point which is laudable. Boards need aggressive thinkers, but I tend to lean more toward Nick's view simply because boycotts are brutally double-edged which creates an organic equalizer. Assuming this whole thing isn't a joke a LOT of people will be encouraged to use Firefox as a result of this move by OK Cupid.

[John]

This board actually caused me to change my opinion. I used to thing boycotts were great. I still catch myself supporting them sometimes. But the boycott threads really got me to think about them and see them as a bad thing no matter much I enjoyed the suffering of the victims of them.

[Agile Cyborg]

You don't avoid purchasing certain products because it perturbs your belief system? Everyone personally boycotts from time to time.

[Stormy Dragon]

For me it depends on whether the thing I'm upset with is actually affecting my business relationship with the company. What political causes Brendan Eich supports in his spare time with his own money would have no impact on the products Mozilla produces or my interactions with me.

Where I will get involved is when it is something that inherently effects the business nature of the business (e.g. a bakery rejecting customers for being gay or a store explicitly using its donations to gun control groups as a marketing point).

[Bubba Jones]

How do I sue OK Cupid for discrimination? I demand that they bake me a cake with a traditional bride and groom and then photograph it.

[MadJayhawk]

To get back at a company's CEO for his personal beliefs some lame-brained liberal outfit like OkStupid asks (or forces?) people to use another browser. Let's say the people who use OkStupid are as lame-brained as the people who run it and quit using Firefox. Firefox, lets say, loses enough business that it has to lay off a large number of employees. This, of course, makes OkStupid and their lame-brained followers, very happy. 100s of people unemployed. Great. Love it, right OkStupid? Is this the way the thugs in America get their crybaby way now? Is this the way the idiots get everyone to say they agree with whatever the idiots want them agree to. What happened to honest discourse? Eich has a right to his personal opinions whether they are stupid, PC incorrect, or whatever. As long as his personal opinions do not enter into policy decisions that result in discrimination in hiring, firing, or promotion who in the hell cares what they are? OkStupor is a bunch of playground crybabies.