Gay Marriage

No, the IRS Didn't Leak Mozilla Ex-CEO's Donation in Opposition to Gay Marriage

|

Outrage upon outrage upon outrage, like an infinite number of browser tabs.
Mozilla

Dear conservatives: Please don't make me have to write in defense of the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). I certainly don't enjoy it.

As Nick Gillespie has noted, Brendan Eich stepped down yesterday as chief executive officer of Mozilla in the wake of the scandal that he donated $1,000 in support of California's Proposition 8, the ballot initiative that forbid state recognition of same-sex marriage.

The outrage has now completely flipped to the opposite direction, with conservatives accusing those who railed against Mozilla of intolerance. Twitter has remained submerged beneath a sea of outrage and generalizations for the duration.

Two days ago, an anonymous tech industry worker wrote a piece about the outrage against Eich at First Things, a journal produced by nonprofit Institute on Religion and Public Life. The anonymous worker stated that Eich's donation came to light in 2012, "after the Internal Revenue Service leaked a copy of the National Organization for Marriage's 2008 tax return to a gay-advocacy group." This information is now being attached and included in coverage on other conservative blogs as well.

But it's not accurate. The names of donors in the Proposition 8 battle, for and against, have always been public information, even before the election. The Los Angeles Times has a searchable database here. Eich's name is on it (as is mine—I gave $100 in opposition and ultimately regretted it after seeing the horrible, useless ads they put together to fight Prop. 8). The information came from the California secretary of state's office, not some IRS leak. This database is not dated, but they were available and were online at some media outlets prior to the 2008 vote.

The possible IRS leak is a real thing, though. First Things didn't invent it, just misunderstood it. The IRS is accused of leaking the National Organization for Marriage's (NOM) tax records from 2008 to the Human Rights Campaign. The IRS has claimed the release of the records was "inadvertent." The records included names of donors to NOM, but while NOM was responsible for organizing and pushing forward Proposition 8, it's not the same list. Eich donated to Prop. 8, not to NOM. Eich's name and donation to Proposition 8 was always a public record and searchable even before the election. People were facing public criticism for their donations at their workplaces even at the time of the vote. Eich is not the first guy to deal with this sort of backlash, and it prompted debate over whether names of donors should be public.

We can blame a multitude of sins on the IRS and President Barack Obama, but the outrage over Eich is not one of them.

UPDATE: First Things has updated its post and acknowledged the error.

NEXT: What Are You Going to Do Now That You've Lost the Drug War? Blame George Soros!

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Dear conservatives: Please don’t make me have to write in defense of the Interanl Revenue Service (IRS).

    Interanl Revenue Service? Never heard of them.

    1. Interanal is what he meant.

      1. That makes sense. No one would want to write in defense of Warty.

  2. As Nick Gillespie has noted, Brendan Eich stepped down yesterday as chief executive officer of Mozilla in the wake of the scandal that he donated $1,000 in support of California’s Proposition 8, the ballot initiative that forbid state recognition of same-sex marriage.

    Since when is someone exercising their first amendment rights a “scandal”? Really Sakford? Really?

    1. Acknowledging the existence of a scandal should not be considered endorsement of the idea that it should be a scandal. Nobody can reasonably say that this isn’t a scandal, though we can argue as to whether it should be.

      1. I can reasonably say it is not a ‘scandal’. A scandal is a accusation of wrong doing. Saying this is a scandal is like saying the Dryfus affair was a “scandal in the French Army”.

        By using the word “scandal” Shakford implies that there was an allegation of actual wrong doing.

          1. God damn it!

            Everyone knows the proper quote is

            J’accuse, Terrance

        1. You should perhaps look up the definition of “scandal” then.

          1. Perhaps I should. And maybe you should have a look as well.

            1. a disgraceful or discreditable action, circumstance, etc.
            2. an offense caused by a fault or misdeed.
            3. damage to reputation; public disgrace.
            4. defamatory talk; malicious gossip.
            5. a person whose conduct brings disgrace or offense.

            http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/scandal?s=t

            Every one of those definition requires some actual act of disgrace or the malicious and false accusation of one.

            So again, exactly how does Eich exercising his 1st Amendment Rights amount to a disgraceful action?

            1. Because the PC police, always fair and evenhanded, say so.

            2. So again, exactly how does Eich exercising his 1st Amendment Rights amount to a disgraceful action?

              He supported an intolerant position. That qualifies as disgraceful and malicious, because the only possible reason to support such a position is a deep hatred of homosexuals. You should know this by now.

            3. To be fair, it has become definition 3 in that it has damaged his reputation and caused him public disgrace.

            4. John, this isn’t a first amendment issue.

              Has Congress made a law restricting speech? This is citizens applying peer pressure to an action they find (1 above) disgraceful or discreditable.

              It’s ridiculous, granted, but no one’s rights are being violated. The correct remediation would have been for Eich to tell his critics to fuck off and die in a fire.

              1. The correct remediation would have been for Eich to tell his critics to fuck off and die in a fire.

                This x 1,000,000

              2. I nave said about a thousand times this isn’t a 1st amendment issue. Why do think I feel otherwise?

                1. It’s probably this sentence: exactly how does Eich exercising his 1st Amendment Rights amount to a disgraceful action? that’s confusing people.

                  😛

                  1. Yeah, it might have been that. 😉

                  2. It is his first amendment rights. He has a right to do it. Maybe it is just me but I think that free expression is a good thing, not just something that the government should not screw with.

                    1. Except at 1:44 you said it WASN’T a 1a issue.

                      So which is it? Non 1a issue or freedom of expression issue?

          2. scan?dal
            ?skandl/
            noun
            noun: scandal; plural noun: scandals

            1. an action or event regarded as morally or legally wrong and causing general public outrage.

    2. Since when is the board of a company exercising its right to fire a CEO a scandal?

      Depends on whether you think gays should have rights, apparently.

      1. It is a scandal Tony when he does that because a bunch of intolerant thugs forced them to.

        Good luck with this Tony. It is just a matter of time before the other side in the culture war starts doing the same thing. Wait until people won’t do business with the company you work for because they employ you. Have fun with that.

        1. Not defending Tony, but how were people peacefully protesting his position “intolerant thugs”?

          1. If you won’t do business with someone not because of their business practices but because of their political opinions, you are an intolerant thug. If you want to have a free society, you need to have a society that tolerates diversity of opinion. And that means people agree to disagree and still do business with each other and conduct other relations with each other even though they don’t agree about politics or religion or whatever.

            I don’t understand why you think this is a good idea sloopy. Why is politics so fucking important to you that you want it to seep into every area of your life including what browser you use? I understand why Tony thinks that. But you should know better.

            1. I’m an intolerant thug because I don’t want to buy Progressive insurance? I’m an intolerant thug because I don’t want to eat at “The Klan Burger” or get my car fixed at “Jew Hater Transmission Repair” because they’re $10 cheaper than “Free Market Auto”?

              You tried this shit the other day and it didn’t sell too well. We all make decisions based on how a company conducts itself. And I’m happy to say that I will spend a little more on a product sold by a company that is more aligned with a free-market philosophy than a bunch of bigots. You, on the other hand, are nothing but a utilitarian dope that would give money to a fucking hate group if it saved you a few bucks.

            2. If you won’t do business with someone not because of their business practices but because of their political opinions, you are an intolerant thug.

              Are bakers who won’t make a wedding cake for a same sex couple also intolerant thugs?

              1. Are bakers who won’t make a wedding cake for a same sex couple also intolerant thugs?

                Sure they are. They have a right to be and it was wrong for the government to force them. But those bakers are stupid. They only became sympathetic when the government put a gun to their heads.

            3. Are you fucking serious?!? So if people go and buy from Chik-Fil-A to show their solidarity, they’re just as wrong in your opinion then, right John? Jesus Christ, you are tone-deaf beyond any comprehension.

              1. They only going to chick fila because other idiots were boycotting it. Both sides were being idiots in that case. You could however at least say the ones who went to chick fila were only doing so in reaction to the initial idiocy.

                I am surprised you don’t get this Episiarch. You are the one who always rails about how much you hate the culture war. If you hate the culture war so much, why do you think it is a good idea for the people who fight it to turn it into a commerce war? You think things suck now, wait until Team Red refuses to do business with Team Blue and vice versa. It will really suck then.

                Understand we are not talking about this being illegal. We are talking about whether someone who makes their purchasing decisions based on the politics or the side of the culture war of the person selling them products is an idiot or not. And I can’t believe you of all people think such a person is anything but an idiot.

                1. I do hate the KULTUR WAR, John, and you are fully engaging in it by pretending to decry it whilst doing it 100%. Which was my point. I expected you to miss it, though, thus my tone-deaf comment.

                  1. I am saying this Episiarch. Boycotts are stupid and destructive to society because it both allows the mob to determine what is and is not acceptable opinion and it caused people to turn their political and cultural differences into economic differences. What about that do you find objectionable?

                    You think I am fighting the culture war because you seem to think this story is about whether the CEO of Mozilla should have been fired. That is not the issue. The issue is, is it right to demand someone be fired for expressing a political opinion. And my answer to that is no.

                    Again, if you hate the culture war so much, you should be just as bothered as I am by people fighting it via economics.

                    1. Boycotts are stupid and destructive to society because it both allows the mob to determine what is and is not acceptable opinion and it caused people to turn their political and cultural differences into economic differences.

                      IOW, John, you don’t like the free market…

                      John, just stop digging. You are making a fool of yourself and your pride is making it worse.

                      You can’t honestly believe that people don’t have the right to not buy (or support) a product because they don’t like the company’s politics. I don’t buy MSNBC’s services, PRECISELY because I don’t like their politics. Just stop it.

                    2. IOW, John, you don’t like the free market…

                      God you are fucking stupid. Since when does the free market make any judgement on what people do?

                      I think it is a stupid idea to borrow $200 thousand to get a worthless degree. Saying that is a bad idea and not something we encourage, doesn’t mean I don’t like the free market. It just means some actions taken in the free market are dumb and counter productive. Pointing that out says nothing one way or another about the free market

                      Are you so fucking stupid that you think that supporting the free market is the same thing as saying anything anyone does within that market is good or something that people should applaud? I don’t think you are, but that is what you are saying.

                      Someone needs to stop digging here but it isn’t me. Just set aside the culture war for a moment and your glee at someone you hate getting theirs and think about this for a moment.

                    3. John, you really need to calm down.

                      If you want to have a free society, you need to have a society that tolerates diversity of opinion.

                      Obviously.

                      And that means people agree to disagree and still do business with each other and conduct other relations with each other even though they don’t agree about politics or religion or whatever.

                      Or people decide to take their business elsewhere even if it means getting a worse deal. It should be pretty obvious that the second assertion isn’t a direct function of the first.

                    4. Just because people are free to do it snark doesn’t mean it is a good thing or a good idea. You guys seem to think it is.

                    5. The “worse deal” is relative. If you’re only saving a little bit (ten buck difference between mechanics) by going to the asshole, objectively you aren’t making yourself that much poorer vs. doing business with someone who’s not an asshole.

                    6. Sure designate. Small things never add up to something big in the aggregate and I am sure only the right people will refuse to do business based on politics. Good luck with that.

                    7. Just because people are free to do it snark doesn’t mean it is a good thing or a good idea. You guys seem to think it is

                      I can’t speak for the collective, but I think it’s an awesome thing for people to be able to buy or use whatever product they want, whether or not that choice is based on price or ideology.

                      Arguing about whether or not people are right to boycott companies for perceived infractions is a different topic altogether.

                    8. You are wrong snark. There is nothing awesome about a society where the various factions refuse to do business with each other unless you like hate and poverty. You are telling me you think it is awesome for people to choose politics over competence. Bad idea.

                    9. You really do think it’s more important to get the last word than to argue honestly, acknowledge any other viewpoints or simply do anything other than double down and repeat yourself over and over again.

                    10. You think it is great snark. I don’t and told you why. Tell me why it Is good. Not that it isn’t a legal right to do if they choose but why it is good.

                    11. It’s good, John, because it allows society to dictate acceptable behavior without force.

                    12. It’s good, John, because it allows society to dictate acceptable behavior without force.

                      How is “society dictating accecptable behavior” a good thing or anything we would like to have? The reason why we don’t trust government is because government generally is a tool of society’s worst most oppressive urges. If society didn’t have the desire to oppress the shit out of everyone, we wouldn’t have to worry about government so much. Government is not some alien being. It is a reflection of the society it governs. And it needs to be limited because human societies are generally oppressive as hell given the opportunity.

                    13. Since when does the free market make any judgement on what people do?

                      Really? Did you just write that?

                      Making judgments is all the free market is.

                    14. That is like saying gravity judges. Some things are stupid and counter productive. Just because the market accounts for and reacts to them in predictable ways doesn’t make them less stupid or counter productive.

                      Me pointing out that jumping off a cliff is a bad idea is not me rejecting gravity. Same here me saying a society where people fight their cultural battles through commerce is not me rejecting the free market. It is me pointing out what the results of the action will be.

                    15. John, have you ever heard libertarians say instead of making laws, let the free market take care of it?

                      How do you think that works?

                      Instead of making a law (CRA) that says the owner of a diner must serve blacks, I would prefer the market eliminate the problem by people choosing not to frequent a diner that doesn’t serve blacks.

                      In this case a group of people have threatened to stop buying a browser from a company who they perceive (rightly or wrongly) has a CEO hostile to gays.

                      There is no difference. You can’t support one and be against the other.

                      You can criticize whether their perception is faulty, just not their action.

                    16. Have you ever heard of “it is your right to do it but it is idiotic”? Fransisco just because it it is their right to do this doesn’t mean them doing it is good or that people shouldn’t point out what assholes they are and what a bad idea this is.

                      You seem to think that just because it is legal and in the market it must be good. That is utter nonsense. It is and should be legal for me to go into debt for a worthless degree. That doesn’t change the fact that it is stupid of me to do it or that the country as a hole will be a lot worse off if a lot of people follow my lead.

                    17. I can totally criticize their actions. Just because I don’t think it should be illegal doesn’t mean I can’t criticize it.

                    18. So you’d criticize me for not going into a diner just because the owner won’t serve blacks?

                    19. No. There are making a decision based on there business practices. That is more than just their opinion it is how they run their business and should effect your decision. That is not what happened here and not the right analogy. The analogy is if you knew the head chef gave to a cause you thought was racist but the restaurant operated in a totally race neutral way. Would you refuse to then? You can but you are being in my opinion dumb.

                    20. Would you refuse to then?

                      I would refuse. I won’t eat at a place where the owner would hire a racist.

                      The owner has every right to hire a racist. I have every right to disagree with him. I have every right to not frequent his establishment because of it.

                      He is penalized for his actions by not getting my dollars. I get penalized by settling for a poorer quality meal elsewhere.

                      His choice, my choice, no force. That is how trading value for value works. Not eating at a racist diner has value for me. Not using a homophobic browser has value for others. People place value differently and make business decisions based on that.

                    21. You can make whatever choice you want. We get that. The question is, why does it make so much difference to you what the owner of a business is thinking on his own time? You guys bitch and moan about the SOCONS. But my God, if you sit around and worry about what the owner of a business thinks outside of work and think that you need to make sure you only do business with people who hold the proper views, you make the SOCONS look like tolerant free spirits. Seriously.

                      In the end, you are saying you are going to fight “racist thought” through commerce. That is fine and all. A lot of other people would like to fight a lot of things through commerce. When they do that, we are going to end up with a pretty shitty country.

                      I am sorry, but if you worry about whether the owner of a business might be THE RACIST, you are stupid. It would be one thing if the guy came out and started yelling racist shit at you as you where there. But I am talking about you heard from a friend this guy was a “racist” and you still refused to go there. Just because you buy his product doesn’t mean you endorse his views or think much of anything beyond the fact that he is a good businessman.

                      In the end Fransisco, you want to manage society just as much as the Progs do. You just want to do it through commerce. I guess that is better than using the gun. But it is still stupid and puritanical and nothing I would want to be involved in.

                    22. The point fransisco is that if I run my business in a non political way and don’t inject my politics into our business relationship you should do the same as a consumer. I am entitled to my opinion and you yours. Why should we not set aside those differences in a business environment?

                    23. Why should we not set aside those differences in a business environment?

                      Why would I want to give my disposable income to somebody that I know will use it to propose laws/policies that will ultimately cost me my liberty? Why would I give it to a company that stole my taxpayer money when an alternative exists?

                    24. Why? Because they run a good business and their views outside of their business have nothing to do with the business.

                      They support something I don’t like. Why should that bother me sloopy? If they run their business in a way I don’t like, sure I won’t go there. I don’t see any reason to refuse to do business with them over what they think about things unrelated to our transaction. What do I or you care? It is a free country they can think what they like. That shouldn’t stop me from rewarding them for running a good business. We are back to you wanting to settle political arguments through refusing to trade. I think that is dumb.

                    25. Sloopy, Fransisco.

                      I understand how you would not want to reward bad business practices. To put it in less stark terms, I don’t like mayonnaise on hamburgers. So I don’t go to Burger King because I don’t like their practice of doing so. In the same way, I don’t like businesses who won’t serve black people and thus would not go to a business that did as much. I don’t give them my money because I don’t want my money to go to a business that does things I don’t like.

                      If however, burger king didn’t put mayo on their burgers, I would go there even if the CEO swore that mayo was the greatest thing ever. Why? Because his opinion doesn’t change what the restaurant actually does. The same is true of the race analogy. If a business is run well, I don’t care if the guy who owns it is a scheming racist so long as his racism doesn’t affect the way he runs his shop.

                      Ask yourself, why would you not want to give your money to someone simply because they believed something you didn’t like? Isn’t it because you want them to change their opinion or at the very least because you just don’t want to associate with people who have opinions you don’t like? Well, I would ask, why is it your goal to make everyone agree with you or only associate with people who hold what you see as “acceptable views”? Isn’t that pretty authoritarian when you think about it? Who says your views are so great? Why can’t other people have their own views and still be able to at least sell you a product?

                    26. Well, I would ask, why is it your goal to make everyone agree with you or only associate with people who hold what you see as “acceptable views”?

                      The key word is

                      make

                      , John, implying force. I’m not making anyone do anything. Me not buying a product from a bigot doesn’t force him to not be a bigot. I can take my business elsewhere and he can go on being a bigot.

                      Likewise, these people didn’t force Eich to resign. He chose to resign (or the board chose to fire him).

                    27. Fransisco,

                      Just because you don’t want to use the gun doesn’t make the goal any less fanatical and stupid.

                      You think “well as long as I don’t want to use a gun, anything I do or any way I would like the world to look is good,” no.

                      The racist may not want to use a gun either. But he is still an idiot. And you are still an idiot for basing various nonpolitical decisions in your life on politics. I get, you don’t want to use a gun. But that just makes you less dangerous. It doesn’t make you any less stupid or intolerant.

                    28. Just because you don’t want to use the gun doesn’t make the goal any less fanatical and stupid.

                      You think this because you are as unprincipled as Tony. You think everything is okay as long as you believe it’s okay. There is no guiding forethought, only…JOHN LIKE.

                      You think “well as long as I don’t want to use a gun, anything I do or any way I would like the world to look is good,” no.

                      I’ve said this before John. I believe in the NAP and the following corresponding principles:

                      1. A person may do as they choose, PROVIDED in doing so, they do not infringe upon the rights of others.

                      2. The ONLY legitimate purpose of government is to protect the rights of the individual.

                      Force means making people do something against their will. I am not forcing anyone to do anything when I choose not to buy their product based upon politics.

                      Do I wish the whole world agreed with me? Sure. Do I try to convince them my way is better? You bet. But I don’t force them to, and YES, that’s what makes me different from the prog or the socon.

                    29. Do I wish the whole world agreed with me? Sure. Do I try to convince them my way is better? You bet.

                      You just like the SOCON because both you and the SOCON are bothered so much by people disagreeing with you you think it is your mission in life to change them even if doing so means refusing to do business with them.

                      To me that is crazy. Why do you care so much what the guy who fixes your car think? I really don’t care. I go to bed every night and sleep well with the knowledge that people think things that I find repulsive and don’t worry for a second that I might have done business with them.

                      If you decide where you shop based on politics, politics pervades your life in a way that is not healthy for you or for society at large. You can scream “well it is my right” all you want.

                      You guys think that just because you don’t want the government to make something illegal, you are tolerant. No you are not. Being tolerant means actually accepting people on some levels even if they think things you don’t agree with. You apparently can’t do that. You can’t past politics. That makes you very similar to Progs and Socons. You are just smart enough to know the government doesn’t work.

                    30. Being tolerant means actually accepting people on some levels even if they think things you don’t agree with. You apparently can’t do that.

                      No, that’s acceptance. Me tolerating a racist bigot’s business is me not calling for it to be shut down. Me accepting them is to do business with them.

                      I’m tolerant of racists/homophobes/bigots in the business world. But I won’t be accepting of them in personal transactions if I’ve been made aware of their bigotry.

                    31. Me tolerating a racist bigot’s business is me not calling for it to be shut down. Me accepting them is to do business with them.

                      That is the heart of the matter. You guys are so obsessed with government you think that as long as you don’t call for something to be illegal that makes you tolerant. And that is just complete horseshit.

                      Like I told Fransisco below, by your definition, a conservative Christian who refuses to do business or talk to a Jew is “tolerant” as long as they don’t want the government to go after the Jew.

                      You guys are no different than that Christian. You just have a different set of enemies. But neither of you are in any meaningful way “tolerant”.

                    32. You guys are so obsessed with government you think that as long as you don’t call for something to be illegal that makes you tolerant.

                      Actually, that’s pretty much the textbook definition of tolerance.

                      Like I told Fransisco below, by your definition, a conservative Christian who refuses to do business or talk to a Jew is “tolerant” as long as they don’t want the government to go after the Jew.

                      Yes, he is tolerant. That doesn’t mean he’s not an anti-Semite bigot.

                      You guys are no different than that Christian. You just have a different set of enemies. But neither of you are in any meaningful way “tolerant”.

                      Again, I’m tolerant. I may, however, not be accepting of the bigoted business owner.

                      And “hate” is a pretty strong word to start accusing people with. I wouldn’t throw it around so loosely.

                    33. Yes, he is tolerant. That doesn’t mean he’s not an anti-Semite bigot.

                      No he is not. You can’t tolerant and be a bigot. Tolerant means that you look over your differences and actually treat the person as a human being.

                      You can call yourself tolerant all you want. It is just a word and you can define it any way you like. But that doesn’t make being that way good.

                      Again, I’m tolerant. I may, however, not be accepting of the bigoted business owner.

                      Why? As long as he doesn’t run a bigoted business, why does it bother you so much? Again, you put a moral dimension to commerce that just shouldn’t be there.

                    34. I find this modern pseudo-puritanism very tedious. Fanatical anti-perceived bigot zealotry is such a tired cause.

                      Please throw away every single product from Japan you own if you won’t do business with racists.

                      Stop using Javascript if feel soo strongly about gay marriage.

                      And on and on. If you only do business with people who share you particular wobby then you have decided (and it is your right to do so) to make yourself materially poorer and close trading opportunities.

                      You are the mirror reflection of the racist who will never know the sublime perfection of a particular BBQ joint because it is run by coloreds.

                    35. You know what’s fucking rich? All of the shit spouting out of John’s mouth is coming from the same guy that said the Muslims that built the community center near the WTC site were assholes and should not have been allowed to build there. He also said this:

                      John|7.27.12 @ 11:28AM|#|?|filternamelinkcustom

                      I agree. But I also think the people in Skokie had a right to knock the shit out of them when they did.

                      Talk about an about face on what someone says in their free time.

                      https://reason.com/blog/2012/07…..nt_3165861

                    36. Of course, that same Nazi you said should have the shit beat out of him for voicing his views in his private life will get your business as long as he makes a burger without mayonnaise.

                    37. Beyond that Sloopy, you again use a false analogy. Marching through the streets and yelling fuck you at people is not doing business. Yeah, if someone comes up and tells me to fuck off, I am not going to like them and might punch them out.

                      I can’t see how that has any bearing on whether I should do business with someone who disagrees with me politically.

                    38. You call for violence against people for speaking their views in a non-violent way…
                      …15 months later you think I should give that same Nazi my money if he does the best work.

                      That’s quite the transformation.

                    39. Sloopy,

                      Knocking someone in the head who marches thought your neighborhood is not the same thing as refusing to do business with anyone who disagrees with you politically.

                      If you can’t see that, you are either stupid or lying.

                    40. it is not an about face Sloopy, it is called learning.

                      I used to think boycotts were great. And I was dead wrong. I will save you the trouble of hunting the threads and admit to it.

                      I used to totally agree with you. But I have rethought the issue. It is a stupid and counter productive thing to do.

                      Now you can claim that “well you are just mad it happened your team” and maybe you are right. But big fucking deal. That doesn’t change my thinking now or make me any less wrong before or any less right now.

                    41. That doesn’t change my thinking now or make me any less wrong before or any less right now.

                      What a shame you gave up on having a moral code when it comes to where you spend your money. Perhaps you’ve lived in the swamp too long to have a moral compass.

                    42. What a shame you gave up on having a moral code when it comes to where you spend your money. Perhaps you’ve lived in the swamp too long to have a moral compass.

                      No. What I did Sloopy was I had a thought experiment of “hey what if everyone did this about everything they felt strongly about” and didn’t like the results.

                      That is what happened. It is all fun and games to go punish the unbelievers until you see what society would actually look like if everyone did that.

                      In fact, my moral code is what caused me to turn against it. My moral code told me that if it is wrong for the other side to do it, it is wrong for me to do it.

                    43. So all of this is based off of a thought-experiment of how you think people MIGHT act?

                    44. DesigNate|4.4.14 @ 4:30PM|#

                      So all of this is based off of a thought-experiment of how you think people MIGHT act?

                      Ah no. If a decision isn’t only right because “I do it”, then it is not the right thing to do. It has nothing to do with what I think people might do. It has to do with whether I would want to live in a world where everyone acted like that. If I wouldn’t, then it is the wrong thing to do. Whether people actually would or not is immaterial.

                      What I said wasn’t that hard to understand. How you got that meaning is beyond me.

                    45. So, in your world view, it’s worse to not give your money to a racist/homophobe/bigot than it is to be that racist/homophobe/bigot?

                      Wow.

                    46. So, in your world view, it’s worse to not give your money to a racist/homophobe/bigot than it is to be that racist/homophobe/bigot?

                      What the fuck are you talking about? That makes absolutely no sense. You have just lost this argument so badly, you are now just saying nonsense.

                      I never said anything like that. All I am saying is your doing business with someone should have nothing to do with their personal politics.

                      I keep trying to get you to come around. And you just keep getting more irrational. Snap out of it and think about it. I know you can do it.

                    47. The point fransisco is that if I run my business in a non political way and don’t inject my politics into our business relationship you should do the same as a consumer. I am entitled to my opinion and you yours. Why should we not set aside those differences in a business environment?

                      You seem to think that because you have the right to free speech that your free speech should have no consequences.

                      Some political positions are important enough to me that it will affect our business relationship, some are not. You may disagree with me, but tough shit, it’s MY choice.

                    48. You seem to think that because you have the right to free speech that your free speech should have no consequences.

                      I don’t think that at all. I do however think that anyone who makes their business decisions based on the private politics the people they are dealing with are politically obsessed morons.

                      Some political positions are important enough to me that it will affect our business relationship, some are not. You may disagree with me, but tough shit, it’s MY choice.

                      For the 500th time, yes that is your right. But you should understand that thinking that way makes you a fanatic and generally an intolerant jerk. I will risk my life to defend your right to be a fanatical intolerant jerk.

                      That, however, doesn’t make you any less of one or mean other people should not be like you.

                    49. So basically you’re protesting against their position, right?

                      The irony…

                    50. No Sloopy. I am calling them stupid and intolerant. I am not demanding they lose their jobs. If one of them runs a good business that has nothing to do with politics, I would go there even though it would serve them right for me not to.

          2. I think “thug” is too strong a word, but “intolerant” is appropriate. Remember, people were calling for Eich to lose his job because of a non-job-related donation he made years ago, or at least for him to ritually auto-flagellate for his unacceptable views.

        2. What do you want exactly? For people not to express their opinions in an organized way? For companies not to push out CEOs for bad publicity? Which aspects of freedom of association and freedom of speech do you think should be squelched?

          You guys are being shameless hypocrites on this and I would have thought you’d have slept it off by now. I’m actually pretty shocked about the whole thing.

          1. You guys

            Casting a pretty wide net, aren’t we?

            1. For those of you who have managed to practice the bare minimum of what you preach, I exempt you. But I was there on yesterday’s thread and the hypocrisy was as thick as I’ve probably ever seen it.

            2. It makes sense, since Tony only ever argues with the libertarians in his head.

          2. I don’t want anything Tony other than for people on both sides not to follow this example and to call the people who did it the intolerant idiots that they are.

            1. I think you’re pissed that gay people are getting rights because you’re an intolerant fuckface, and that’s what’s really going on.

              1. Project some more Tony. You think this is great because someone you don’t like was harmed. That is all you care about. I, in contrast, see things in a bit broader context. Sine you are unable to do that, you assume I am just like you and judge every issue in the same hateful and idiotic way you do.

                1. I too am seeing this in a broader context. I see that being anti-gay can now cost a CEO his job. And that’s a great thing. Just as it would be if a CEO was a racist. It means gay acceptance have turned another corner.

                  But that’s what really bothers you. It’s why you are absurdly calling gay rights supporters the bigots and thugs. It’s because you don’t think gay people should have the same rights as you. There really can be no other reason, though I would have hoped you’d pick a cause that was somewhat less obviously a losing one to become a shameless hypocrite over.

                  1. I too am seeing this in a broader context. I see that being anti-gay can now cost a CEO his job. And that’s a great thing.

                    The irony, it burns like acid.

                  2. “I see that being anti-gay can now cost a CEO his job. And that’s a great thing.”

                    So only people with certain viewpoints are allowed to be CEOs now? People with the wrong views are not allowed to rise above a certain level of employment? And you don’t see how that smacks of enforced cultural conformity?

                    1. Well it’s not being enforced at the point of a government gun, is it?

                      Yes, I think there should be consequences for bigots in the marketplace. I thought that precise guarantee is why you guys are against anti-discrimination laws.

                    2. Well it’s not being enforced at the point of a government gun, is it?

                      So what? That doesn’t make it right or desirable or the people who do it any less loathsome.

                    3. Well I think people who donate money to a cause that wants to use government force to take away gay people’s rights are loathsome. But whatever!

          3. You guys are being shameless hypocrites on this

            As for you, asshole, John does NOT speak for the group and claiming he does is mendacious bullshit (your trademark).

            1. Yes Fransisco some of you are so obsessed with politics you can’t even do business or associate with the other side. That is not a good thing.

              1. If we were really obsessed with politics, we’d be ferreting out information on everyone we do business with. I’m not seeing anyone advocating that, much less practicing it.

                If however we overhear Tony in the steam room of the gym say “I fucking hate straights.” it is perfectly logical for us to say “Well fuck you, I’ll buy my widgets from someone else. Good day.”

                1. If however we overhear Tony in the steam room of the gym say “I fucking hate straights.” it is perfectly logical for us to say “Well fuck you, I’ll buy my widgets from someone else. Good day.”

                  It is rational sure. But, assuming Tony makes the best widgets, it would be stupid. What is the point of not buying them? Are the widgets unclean or something because they were made by Tony?

                  Would I be friends with Tony? No. But assuming he gave me a good deal and doing business with him did not require listening to him tell me how much he hated me, I would buy the widgets from him. Why? Because I don’t give a fuck what Tony thinks of straights or much of anything else beyond widgets. I don’t consider his political or cultural views important enough to affect an actual important decision like where I buy my widgets.

                  1. What is the point of not buying them?

                    The point, which you still seem incapable of grasping, is “why would I want to give a heterophobe (in this unlikely scenario)disposable income so he can spread his heterophobia?”

                    The same would go for a racist, a homophobe, a religious bigot or a socialist/statist.

                    1. The point, which you still seem incapable of grasping, is “why would I want to give a heterophobe (in this unlikely scenario)disposable income so he can spread his heterophobia?”

                      Do you realize how crazy that sounds? I am giving tony my money because he makes a good product. What he thinks about straight or anything else is his business. Since when is it my right to ensure only those with the proper chaste views receive my money?

                      Just because he is an idiot who believes idiotic even immoral things, doesn’t make it immoral for me to make a rational business judgement to buy something from him. You are attaching all of this moral significance to commerce that just shouldn’t be there.

                      I am not a moral crusader and I don’t like those who are. Why the hell does it bother you so much for Tony to get your money? Not giving him your money isn’t going to change him and giving him your money isn’t going to make you responsible for his views.

                    2. Why the hell does it bother you so much for Tony to get your money? Not giving him your money isn’t going to change him and giving him your money isn’t going to make you responsible for his views.

                      Giving him my money when I know what his racist/homophobic/bigoted views are is like giving him my tacit approval to maintain and attempt to further those views that I abhor. Why would I financially support someone I find morally repugnant if/when a reasonable alternative exists?

                    3. Giving him my money when I know what his racist/homophobic/bigoted views are is like giving him my tacit approval to maintain and attempt to further those views that I abhor.

                      Why? Do you think that anyone who is a racist should not be allowed to own a business? I don’t. And if you don’t think that, why do you think giving them money is “tacit approval”? Approval is just that, approval. When you give them your money you are giving approval to how they run their business and to the idea that anyone is free to run a business and be judged by how they run that business not by their private political views.

                      To say that it is immoral to do any business with a “racist” is to say that being racist somehow makes them unclean and you by extension unclean for being associated with them.

                      If you are giving a racist tacit approval by doing business with them, then doing business with WARTY makes you a Cleveland Browns fan.

                    4. To say that it is immoral to do any business with a “racist” is to say that being racist somehow makes them unclean and you by extension unclean for being associated with them.

                      Abso-fucking-lutely! Racists are unclean and unworthy of my financial support and I will disassociate myself with them professionally as well as personally when made aware of their bigotry.

                      I hope that’s clear enough for you.

                    5. Racists are unclean and unworthy of my financial support and I will disassociate myself with them professionally as well as personally when made aware of their bigotry.

                      Yes, you are a fucking nut who worries that the guy who bags his groceries or fixes his car might be THE RACIST or God knows what else. We already knew that. You restating it doesn’t make it any more desirable of a way to be.

                    6. I never once said I am worried about anybody’s beliefs. But if I am made aware and can confirm that they are a racist/homophobe/bigot against something I support then the days of me voluntarily doing business with them are over.

                      You’re a disingenuous fuck, do you know that? You keep trying to put words into peoples’ mouths and I keep having to come back here and defend myself against your accusations. You need to go suck a turd.

                    7. I never once said I am worried about anybody’s beliefs.

                      If you think I am immoral because I would do business with a racist, you should be worried. How can you claim that it is so wrong to do business with people who hold what you view are immoral beliefs and then claim you don’t worry about the political beliefs of the people you do business with?

                      That makes no sense. If you think it is immoral, you should be worried because if you are not you may be committing all sorts of immoral acts and not know it.

                    8. Well thank you for telling me how I should fell and what I should believe. But what I meant was that I don’t go out of my way to worry about anybody’s beliefs. But once made aware of them, they may impact my decision to do business with them.

                      And if that makes no sense to you, as I’ve now said it twice, then nothing will make sense to you and you are beyond reaching. Good day.

                    9. Why? Do you think that anyone who is a racist should not be allowed to own a business?

                      Of course not. You have every right to be a racist provided you don’t infringe upon the rights of others.

                      To say that it is immoral to do any business with a “racist”

                      No one said it was immoral to do business with a racist. No one is saying you have to boycott a business because the owner’s a racist. We are saying that it’s not wrong to do so.

                      You may do as you choose.

                    10. No one said it was immoral to do business with a racist.

                      Then why won’t you do business with one. You want to have it both ways. You won’t do business but you also want to pretend that your not doing business has any broader meaning.

                      That is bullshit. You won’t do business with one because you think it is wrong to give a racist your money. If it is wrong for you to do it, it is wrong for everyone to do it.

                      You guys want to pretend there is this huge moral dimension to this right up until I point out what that means. If you think it is wrong to do business with a racist, then you think it is wrong for a racist to have a business. You can’t have a business without customers.

                    11. Then why won’t you do business with one.

                      I have already answered this. Giving money to a racist lowers the value of the transaction, FOR ME, for you it may not. You don’t hear me trying to FORCE you to not buy products from racists. Value is subjective.

                      If it is wrong for you to do it, it is wrong for everyone to do it.

                      This is the statist in you talking, and it’s simply not true because not everyone values the same things. I don’t get to make your decisions for you.

                      If you think it is wrong to do business with a racist, then you think it is wrong for a racist to have a business. You can’t have a business without customers.

                      False equivalence. I’m not taking his customers away. I’m taking ONE of his customers away. ME. If enough people happen to agree with me and do the same then he has a choice to either modify his behavior or find another line of work. CHOICE, not force.

                    12. Giving money to a racist lowers the value of the transaction, FOR ME, for you it may not.

                      Way to beg the question. Why does it lower the value? Seems to me that would be because you think the transaction is immoral. Is there another reason?

                      This is the statist in you talking, and it’s simply not true because not everyone values the same things. I don’t get to make your decisions for you.

                      No. That is the rationalist and the moral absolutist talking you half wit. It has nothing to do with the state. How you think it does is quite puzzling. It is not moral for you to cheat on your wife or kill someone and immoral for me to do so under the same circumstances. You are not a moral relativist. So stop pretending to be one. If it is immoral for you to do business with a racist, it is just as immoral for me or anyone else to. Statist? Are you fucking kidding me? You think that dumb ass shit is going to work?

                      False equivalence. I’m not taking his customers away.

                      Of course you are not. You are just saying it is immoral for them to go there. And that means there is no way a racist can own a business consistent with morality since anyone who does business with him is committing an immoral act.

                      Try again. That was a sorry ass effort.

                    13. Why does it lower the value?

                      It lowers the value because I’m supporting, with my dollars, views I disagree with by purchasing his product.

                      You are not a moral relativist.

                      No, I’m not. Cheating on your wife and killing someone are immoral because they violate tenet 1:

                      1. A person may do as they wish, Provided in doing so they do not infringe upon the rights of others.

                      If it is immoral for you to do business with a racist, it is just as immoral for me or anyone else to.

                      As I’ve said, it isn’t immoral to do business with a racist, as it does not violate tenet 1.

                      I happen to disagree with the racist and don’t approve of his views, so I choose not to do business with him.

                      You are just saying it is immoral for them to go there. And that means there is no way a racist can own a business consistent with morality since anyone who does business with him is committing an immoral act.

                      Doing business with a racist isn’t immoral. Unless the racist has actually infringed upon someone’s rights, he is not immoral. He simply has views, which he’s entitled to, that I do not agree with or approve of.

                    14. Since when is it my right to ensure only those with the proper chaste views receive my money?

                      That became your right the second your fetus became a person.

                    15. Sure it is “my right”. But since when is it a good or a moral thing to do?

                      For 501st time. You can be as intolerant and crazy as you want Fransisco. That is your right. But it being your right to be so, will not make you any less intolerant or crazy.

                    16. tol?er?ant ?t?l?r?nt

                      adjective
                      adjective tolerant

                      1. showing willingness to allow the existence of opinions or behavior that one does not necessarily agree with.

                      I certainly allow the existence of opinions other than my own. I simply do not support those opinions.

                      Voluntary action vs force.

                      Words, how do they work?

                    17. I certainly allow the existence of opinions other than my own. I simply do not support those opinions.

                      That is not what makes you intollerant. It is your contention that having any association with anyone who holds an opinion you don’t like that makes you intolerant.

                      By your definition of “tolerant” a conservative Christian who refuses to speak with or do business with a Jew, but fully recognizes their legal right to be a Jew is tolerant.

                      You are basically exactly the same, you just have different sets of people you hate.

                    18. That is not what makes you intollerant. It is your contention that having any association with anyone who holds an opinion you don’t like that makes you intolerant

                      .

                      I simply never said this.

                      In fact, I said that there were “certain” political issues that would preclude us doing business, because of the value I place on them. Not any/all issues.

                      Here is my exact quote, but you must have missed that part:

                      Some political positions are important enough to me that it will affect our business relationship, some are not. You may disagree with me, but tough shit, it’s MY choice.

                  2. You know what happens when you assume?

                    How is my not wanting to give him money any different than a worker in a union shop not wanting to pay dues because the union supports politicians/policies they don’t like?

                    1. How is my not wanting to give him money any different than a worker in a union shop not wanting to pay dues because the union supports politicians/policies they don’t like?

                      Because supporting politics is what a union does. If you don’t like a union’s politics, you don’t like the union. So when the union supports bad politics, it is like burger king putting mayo on my hamburger.

                      Again, you confuse actual business practices that affect your transaction with personal opinions.

                    2. What if the union is dumping money into political causes that don’t have a direct impact on the union’s relationship with the employer?

                      Because supporting politics is what a union does.

                      A union is supposed to be an advocate for the employees in their collective bargaining and to enforce the union contract with the employer. The rest is not anywhere near the scope of what a union is supposed to do for an employee.

                      Again, you confuse actual business practices that affect your transaction with personal opinions.

                      Political advocacy by a union is pretty fucking far from “actual business practices”.

                    3. Political advocacy by a union is pretty fucking far from “actual business practices”.

                      Really? I have never heard of a union that wasn’t political. You know, they are the ones who gave us the weekend.

                      And where does this end? You won’t do business with the Racists!!! or the evil unions. What else? Is there any commercial decision you make that isn’t determined by politics?

                      You are running around judging everyone by their politics and refusing to associate with anyone who doesn’t mean your strict set of views. You really think me, the person who will accept people for how they relate to them and not their politics is the immoral one? Really?

                    4. Is there any commercial decision you make that isn’t determined by politics?

                      Yes. Most of them in fact.

                      You are running around judging everyone by their politics and refusing to associate with anyone who doesn’t mean your strict set of views.

                      Again, putting words into my mouth.

                      You really think me, the person who will accept people for how they relate to them and not their politics is the immoral one? Really?

                      I’m not here to judge you morally. I just said I will not do business with a known racist/bigot and give them the disposable income to spread their views at my expense when there is an alternative to doing so.

                      You’ve developed a bad habit of making assumptions about other people and expanding on those assumptions by making wild accusations. You ought to stop if you want to be taken seriously.

                    5. I just said I will not do business with a known racist/bigot and give them the disposable income to spread their views at my expense when there is an alternative to doing so.

                      If you giving them money is enabling them to “spread their views” then me giving them money is the same and we both are morally culpable.

                      That is the thing. You giving them money has nothing to do with them “spreading their views”. One has nothing to do with the other.

                      Beyond that, what do you care if they “spread their views”? You sound like a prog. Isn’t them spreading their views a good thing since it will just expose how stupid they are? If them spreading their views is a problem, then free speech is a problem. But free speech isn’t a problem because dumb views get exposed by being spread.

                      So I think your concern about you “spreading their views” is pretty misplaced.

                    6. That is the thing. You giving them money has nothing to do with them “spreading their views”. One has nothing to do with the other.

                      Oh, so someone having more and more disposable income doesn’t give them the means to spread their views?

                      Beyond that, what do you care if they “spread their views”?

                      I don’t care. I’m just not going to underwrite it.

                      You sound like a prog. Isn’t them spreading their views a good thing since it will just expose how stupid they are? If them spreading their views is a problem, then free speech is a problem.

                      Again, you choose to put words into my mouth. They are free to say what they want. I just refuse to underwrite it.

                      So I think your concern about you “spreading their views” is pretty misplaced.

                      More words in my mouth (you should be a ventriloquist). I have no “concern” about them spreading their views. I just refuse to underwrite it.

                      Can you please at least get that simple point through your fucking head?

                    7. If you are not concerned about it Sloopy, why do you care so much about whether you do it? You can’t hand on the one hand claim “I won’t do risk enabling this” and then on the other say “them doing it is no concern of mine”. That makes no sense. If you are concerned enough not to want to enable it, you are concerned about it and I think that is foolish.

                    8. Once more, and for the last time because I’m done arguing with you, I don’t go out of my way to worry about other peoples’ beliefs. But if I am made aware of them, they may impact whether or what amount of business I give them.

                      How fucking hard is that to understand?

                    9. The unions job is to represent me to the managment. It has fuck all to do with politics.

                    10. Designate,

                      If they are taking your money and wasting it and not using it to provide you a service, they are a bad union and you shouldn’t join.

                      The problem is that they are wasting your money. It really doesn’t matter how.

                  3. Why, that sounds like the sort of mindset that an actually tolerant person would have, as opposed to moral grandstanding for the latest fashion.

        3. It is a scandal Tony when he does that because a bunch of intolerant thugs forced them to

          .

          Forced? Really?

          Did they come into the building with guns and point them at the board members and say fire him or we’ll shoot?

          1. Because force only can involve guns. Threatening to run someone out of business is threatening to do so, guns may or may not be involved, but the result is the same.

            1. First off, shithead, they never threatened to run them out of business. They just said they would prefer their subscribers not use the FF browser.

              Oh the humanity! They asked their subscribers to not use a particular product to access their site. It’s like fucking Auschwitz for Mozilla execs!

              1. So…Mouschwitz?

  3. OK, I’m mad at First Things that I got burned for relying on them

    Now let’s ask about California’s compulsory disclosure laws. Where controversial initiatives are concerned, how is this different from Jim Crow Alabama requiring the NAACP to make its membership list public?

    1. The argument over making donations is one I’ve gone back-and-forth on over the years. I was pretty firmly persuaded a few years back that there should always be an allowance for anonymous editorials, etc. Ditto for people giving to organizations, etc. And, my support for anonymity grew after the left sent demonstrators to protest at the houses of Goldman Sachs employees.

      I’m more on the fence about direct contributions to politicians based on the idea that it is good to know who is giving to politicians in an effort to curry favor.

      Thoughts?

      1. For once, I’m inclined to agree with the Supreme Court – they are in general OK with compelled disclosure, but they make an exception when there is a real danger of retaliation against donors, eg, the NAACP in Jim Crow Alabama or anti-gay-marriage people in California – and soon in the entire U.S.

        1. I’d rather not leave it to the judges to decide after the fact that “oops, guess that group was a little more passionate and dangerous than we thought”.

          I go back and forth on disclosure as well.

        2. Why do you think disclosure should be compelled?

    2. I see you’re now the second person to make the comparison to the danger black people in the Jim Crow South faced.

      All I have to say about that is that you people are ridiculous and extremely ignorant/naive if you think that’s a valid comparison.

  4. Here’s a link so you can gather the data yourself if you like.

    http://cal-access.sos.ca.gov/C…..ssion=2007

    1. Yeah, outing those $100 dollar donors and exposing them to retaliation is totally worth it to keep our elections clean.

  5. Who can we blame for Firefox continuously sucking worse and worse for years?

    1. Teh gayz?

        1. The hermaphrodites have been getting a pass. I say we blame them.

    2. It’s still better than IE.

      1. Is that all you’ve got? ANYTHING is better than IE.

        1. You are not kidding. IE is fucking horrible. It is just unusable. You tell me how you unfuck IE’s default security settings so you can go to a website without it automatically blocking half the content as unsafe or giving you endless popup warnings asking you if you really want to view this or that “unsafe” content.

          Firefox is not as good as it used to be. Chrome is probably the best overall but even it isn’t that great.

          Maybe it is just me, but it seems like each new version of software is less user friendly and less functional than the last. This seems to be true of every program I use. Word sucks now compared to what it was 10 years ago. Itunes was once a beautiful simple and intuitive program. It is not a complete ugly mess that makes it damn near impossible to manage your music. I really would like to hunt down and beat severely the asshole at Apple who decided that people should no longer manage the music on their devices by clicking and dragging and should instead have the device “sync” with every piece of music available on the computer.

          1. It’s called feature creep.

            1. Yeah. All a program like Itunes has to do is allow the user to navigate the store and manage their music on their devices. That is it. They originally had a simple and intuitive system to do that. But they kept adding features that few customers needed or wanted and in doing so managed to fuck up the program’s core function.

              1. I work in software and see it every day.

                1. Hey, engineers gotta eat, right?

                  If anything, iTunes is the way it is because the collective spouses needed the engineers to stop adding features to stuff around the house for 40+ hrs. every week.

          2. And let’s not forget the epic fuck up that was the first iteration of iTunes v11 (I think).

            OK, I’m not a software designer so I’m sure it’s much harder than most people think. And, I’m grateful for all the products that tech people produce. But I guess I don’t understand the testing process. I know they go through betas, etc. and have some users try new upgrades.

            But, at some point, wouldn’t it make sense to download the new software on your own Macbook (for example), wander down to the local coffee shop and just use the program and see what goes wrong?

            1. I was always skeptical of the real importance of a CEO. Apple, however, has made me rethink that a bit. When Jobs got sick, Apple clearly went down hill. They had never fucked up an update like they did the one refer to. And most telling of all, each new update to the Iphone seems to be uglier than the last.

              The one thing Apple, love them or hate them, always had was beautiful design. Their devices and programs always looked better than the Microsoft counterparts. The last few updates to the Iphone look like a 7th grade computer graphics class did them. No way would Jobs have allowed such an ugly product to go out.

          3. And 10 years ago, the music was better, people were friendlier and the women were prettier! And you had real hip-hop music, not that mechanically-enhanced DumbStep like the kids listen to nowadays.

            1. “In those days spirits were brave, the stakes were high, men were real men, women were real women and small furry creatures from Alpha Centauri were real small furry creatures from Alpha Centauri.”

              ? Douglas Adams, The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy

              1. “And nobody was truly poor. Or, at least, nobody that mattered.”

            2. And sure they had baggy pants, but it was *ironic,* not like today’s baggy pants.

              And people have started to talk so quietly you can’t even hear them!

            3. And sure they had baggy pants, but it was *ironic,* not like today’s baggy pants.

              And people have started to talk so quietly you can’t even hear them!

            4. And sure they had baggy pants, but it was *ironic,* not like today’s baggy pants.

              And people have started to talk so quietly you can’t even hear them!

              1. And you didn’t have triple-posting squirrels, you just posted a comment and it either appeared or it didn’t.

              2. And you didn’t have triple-posting squirrels, you just posted a comment and it either appeared or it didn’t.

                  1. And sure they had baggy pants, but it was *ironic,* not like today’s baggy pants.

                    I know I’m not alone in missing my baggy Z Cavaracci’s with 12 pleats.

                    1. I know I’m not alone in missing my baggy Z Cavaracci’s with 12 pleats

                      You are correct. Although what I really wanted was Morris Day’s zoot suit.

          4. I wasn’t too impressed by Chrome. Never tried Opera.

            But after this fiasco I may give it a try.

            1. Chrome isn’t that impressive. Yet, it is still probably the best available. That is how bad these things have gotten.

              Whatever happened to netscape?

              1. One of the problems we have where I work (university) is that Chrome is not yet fully compatible with all the on-line educational software we use. Compounding things is that it APPEARS to be working but comes up with nonsensical results at times.

              2. It went the way of Juno.

                Chrome is a memory hog. I use it basically just for Reasonable.

                1. It is a memory hog, especially if you have a couple of tabs running.

                  1. It seems to be better with AdBlock, fwiw.

                2. Chrome is a memory hog. I use it basically just for Reasonable.

                  Basically any modern browser, whether it be IE, Safari, Chrome, or Firefox, is a memory hog to some degree. Like a lot of software, as the amount of memory available in home computers has increased, browsers have increased the amount they allow themselves to consume — free RAM is wasted RAM.

                  Moreover, modern web pages and web applications are complicated and use more memory. And all major browsers are written in C++ and, like most complex software written in managed languages, very vulnerable to memory leaks.

              3. Whatever happened to netscape?

                AOL purchased Netscape and gifted the source code to a nonprofit it formed — the Mozilla Foundation, which continued to develop and distribute the Mozilla Suite.

                Eventually the Mozilla Suite was stripped down to create Mozilla Firefox, and later, the Mozilla Suite was renamed Mozilla Seamonkey.

                TL;DR: Firefox is the descendant of Netscape. The last versions of Netscape to be distributed were skinned versions of Firefox, in fact.

                1. Interesting, I didn’t realize that.

                2. Correction to my own post: Netscape was open-sourced a bit less than a year prior to AOL announcing its acquisition.

              4. It turned into Firefox.

    3. FF has worked well enough for me over the years, but I don’t tax it with full immersion 3-D porn with haptic interfaces like you do, to be fair.

      1. [closes FF]
        [opens chrome]

        Thanks, Pro L

        1. Episiarch is out there on the cutting edge, just for you.

  6. The IRS is accused of leaking the National Organization for Marriage’s (NOM) tax records from 2008 to the Human Rights Campaign. The IRS has claimed the release of the records were “inadvertent.” The records included names of donors to NOM, but while NOM was responsible for organizing and pushing forward Proposition 8, it’s not the same list. Eich donated to Prop. 8, not to NOM.

    So the IRS leaked a document for political purposes and probably subjected lots of innocent people to the Prog mob but Eich wasn’t one of them. Okay, that is true as far as it goes, but I don’t quite see how it is supposed to make me think any differently about either the IRS or the Prog Mob.

    1. I don’t think it’s supposed to change your mind about the groups.

      It is, however, important to not bear false witness, even if it’s against someone who would do what you are alleging if they got the chance.

    2. Criminal Penalties: The Privacy Act of 1974, as amended, lists the following criminal penalties in sub-section (i).

      a. Any officer or employee of an agency, who by virtue of his employment or official position, has possession of, or access to, agency records which contain individually identifiable information the disclosure of which is prohibited by the Privacy Act or by rules or regulations established thereunder, and who knowing that disclosure of the specific material is so prohibited, willfully discloses the material in any manner to any person or agency not entitled to receive it, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and fined not more than $5,000.

      So, were they punished? I know, but they should be. I understand why some people hate the IRS.

      1. Of course not. All of your tax records are now subject to review by some Prog apparatchik who will turn them over if he feels you have done something worthy of public shame.

    3. It’s good to know John, a lot people here were harping about how this whole thing wouldn’t have happened if the IRS hadn’t leaked the information. Turns out that had nothing to do with this particular event.

        1. I think Notorious is saying it best, he feels duped, which he was.

      1. ^THIS^

        I’m still pissed that they are leaking the information, even if it didn’t have anything to do with this particular incident.

        And California’s disclosure laws are bullshit.

  7. Dear First Things,

    Opinion magazines need to get their facts straight. And this goes double for conservative periodicals. You won’t get graded on a curve like the special-ed students at ABC or CBS, they won’t let you get away with mistakes so long as they conform to a pre-existing narrative. You need to be more careful, and you need to think about the people who cite you on Internet comment boards and get burned if you’re full of it.

  8. Perhaps a little history would serve here to place things in perspective, to clear the waters an show who the real bigots are here.

    The Disgraceful Case Of The Intolerance Shown Against Entrepreneur S. B. Fuller Who Would Not Toe The Party Line, Either

    Forty years ago next week, a prominent black businessman, SB Fuller of the Fuller Products Company, addressed the National Association of Manufacturers.

    Because Fuller refused to “toe the party line,” his speech touched off a firestorm of rage that would lead to much of black America boycotting his businesses — thus destroying much of his fortune.

    Nevertheless, although his business enterprises were forced through bankruptcy, he managed to hold on to at least a portion of his wealth. When the great businessman died some 25 years later, at age 83, he was still quite a prosperous man.

    SB Fuller was born into abject poverty. His rise to wealth and prominence has to be one of the great success stories of all time. It is hard to imagine a least likely candidate for success.

    1. con’t.

      Unfortunately, blacks believe that there is a racial barrier in America which keeps them from succeeding, yet if they would learn to use the laws of observation, concentration, memory, reason, and action, they would realize that there is a world of opportunity right in their own communities. . . .

      Black people must pool their capital in order to help themselves. They must establish retail sales organizations throughout their communities and also must go into light manufacturing where retail selling has already produced an outlet for the products light manufacturing can produce. This will enable blacks to help solve their own problems. . .

      For this speech, this wonderful and talented man was chastised by the very community that needed people like him the most.

      I see very close parallels between S.B Fuller and Brendan Eich, who helped FOUND Mozilla.

      1. Freedom is messy, isn’t it?

        1. Re: Tony,

          Freedom is messy, isn’t it?

          So messy, people frightened by the prospect of freedom will go at great lengths to stomp on it, like those black leaders… and you.

          1. This is beyond all belief. I know you’re mostly a bunch of right-wing assholes, but you really can’t handle people exercising their freedom–no government involved–if it means some antigay bigot gets what’s coming to him?

            Are you really cut out for all the freedom you claim you’re in favor of?

            1. There is a difference between acknowledgement that what happened was perfectly legal (and should remain so) yet still distasteful, petty, and reminiscent of mob rule.

              1. Really, because it seems like you’re being extremely selective in your outrage over whose ox gets gored in the marketplace. Correct me if I’m wrong, but I’m pretty sure if it were a CEO firing an employee, or a Boy Scout troop sacking a gay troop leader, you’d be all over the “that’s the price of freedom” argument.

                1. If a CEO were firing an employee for a political viewpoint, there would be an employment law case in a heartbeat. As your politics are largely irrelevant to whether or not you can do your job.

                  The Boy Scouts are a cultural organization and as such, political viewpoints begin to matter more, although I still think the BSA’s obsession with homosexuality has gotten out of hand.

                  1. The BSA was once very progressive (in a good sense) – open to kids of all races and religious backgrounds. They’ve stepped in it big time with their position on gays and its going to take at least a decade for them to dig their way out.

            2. Re: Tony,

              […]but you really can’t handle people exercising their freedom–no government involved–if it means some antigay bigot gets what’s coming to him?

              “What’s coming to him?” “Anti-gay bigot”? He only gave $1000 to a political action committee. That’s all he did.

              People are perfectly free to call for boycotts. Mozilla was also perfectly free to tell them to go fuck themselves and let the customers decide but, instead, they became sniveling weasels and forced the guy to step out.

              Are you really cut out for all the freedom you claim you’re in favor of?

              I don’t call for people’s head on a silver platter only because they give money to different causes than I would support, so I would say I am much better cut than you.

              1. But what was that cause? Wasn’t it a law taking away gay people’s rights?

                To think I once assumed you applied principles in too much of a blanket, unthinking manner. Now I feel that I need to draw a diagram.

                1. Re: Tony,

                  But what was that cause? Wasn’t it a law taking away gay people’s rights?

                  Actually, nobody has a right to a marriage – the ceremony, the venue, the whole kit and kaboodle – if you think that the right to marry includes making people give you stuff. Prop 8 was sold as a law that would prohibit homosexuals from suing churches for not marrying them. At least, that is how it was sold – I used to live in California at that time, so I know. It is not inconceivable that Brendan saw the law in that light. Does that turn him into a bigot?

                  To think I once assumed you applied principles in too much of a blanket, unthinking manner.

                  Reading your comments and getting the gist from them, I always assumed that you took all of us for shills for rich people and shit like that, nothing more sophisticated than that, nothing more intelligent than that, as banal and superficial as that.

        2. Sure it is Tony. It is just that intolerant nasty people like you make it more messy than it has to be.

          You have a right to be intolerant and nasty but that doesn’t make you being so a good thing.

          1. So the real victim here is the anti-gay CEO, not the people who are lacking a basic human right because of the law he supported with money…

            1. Yes Tony. He is the real victim here. He did nothing that isn’t protected by the constitution. He expressed his opinion and he has a right to it. The idea that your ability to be CEO of a software company should be dependent on you holding a particular set of societal approved political views is and should be repugnant to anyone who believes in a free society.

              You love this Tony because you are just fine with the mob determining what views people can hold. That is because you are intolerant and can’t abide by the idea that someone who disagrees with you is allowed to live, much less do business.

              1. CEOs are part of the public relations operation of a company. The Mozilla board that pushed him out was also exercising their right. Nobody was doing anything but exercising rights.

                Sometimes freedom doesn’t give you what you want. This is something you probably need to learn before you adopt a political philosophy of maximum freedom, I should think.

                1. CEOs are part of the public relations operation of a company.

                  Sure they are. All you are saying is that because the world is filled with crazy intolerant fucks like you, CEOs need to be careful. That may be true, but that doesn’t make it a good thing.

                  1. It’s pretty fucking ridiculous, but I’m sure a lot of CEOs are taking note of this mess. When your company serves a wide range of people, including the politics-obsessed, it probably makes sense to be as vanilla as possible.

                    1. Sure it does Tundra. And I don’t see that as a good thing. Don’t we want free expression and debate?

                    2. Of course, but I want to protect my livelihood from crazy fuckers, too!

                      No easy answers, here. You and I can separate CEO-guy’s personal opinions from their business (otherwise what non-proggie would buy Apple or shop at REI?), but I don’t think that is the case for most progressives. Gotta tow the lion, right?

                    3. Tundra,

                      Progressives like Tony are too far gone to help. The rest of us need to understand that one of the great goals of the Progs is to politicize every aspect of life. It is tempting to view this as “well that is just the market working”. That is a good answer in the short term but a disastrous one in the long term. Encouraging this kind of thing is just letting the progs further politicize life and making the country a much worse and less free place.

                    4. The rest of us need to understand that one of the great goals of the Progs is to politicize every aspect of life.

                      Right, because Culture Warrior SoCons like Lindsay Graham and Rick Santorum don’t do the same thing.

                      It is tempting to view this as “well that is just the market working”. That is a good answer in the short term but a disastrous one in the long term.

                      It’s either good or its bad. The free market can’t be good short term but not long term. This is the free market, John. The free market of ideas. You just don’t like the results. I’d be curious to go back in the archives and see what you have to say about the people flocking to Chik-Fil-A locations to buy sammiches. I’m sure your condemnation of them is just as full-throated as it is of OKC, right?

                    5. It’s either good or its bad.

                      God you are fucking stupid. I am sorry but you are just fucking stupid. The market is not right or wrong. But the things people do in it can certainly be right or wrong. And that is what the debate is about. The fact that these actions have consequences in the market says nothing about their morality or desirability.

                      And yes, I don’t like the results. The results are intolerant crazy fucks like you end up turning our economy into culture war zone where no one can voice an opinion without having to worry about some crazy fuck like you trying to get them fired.

                      If you can’t separate your private life and your economic life from yours and other people’s politics’, you believe in a free society. You may be smart enough to understand that the government shouldn’t run society, but you don’t want a free society.

                    6. God you are fucking stupid. I am sorry but you are just fucking stupid….

                      The results are intolerant crazy fucks like you …

                      I try to keep a somewhat dispassionate view of the arguments on this site – but John, could you please consider dialing back the profane accusations of idiocy, stupidity and such as soon as you draw an opposing argument? I think we can agree that Ken is not intolerant crazy or stupid? I don;t think you are either, but be damned if you don’t have a hair trigger here.

                      Apart from American, the trolls, and Mary Stack, I like to think this commentariat is fairly intelligent, and generally dedicated to a libertarian outlook. Can we please act like it, despite serious disagreements?

                2. Re: Tony,

                  CEOs are part of the public relations operation of a company. The Mozilla board that pushed him out was also exercising their right. Nobody was doing anything but exercising rights.

                  Of course. Nobody is saying that Mozilla or anybody else did anything illegal or even in violation of the NAP.

                  The case is being looked at more as evidence of the level of intolerance being demonstrated by pro-gay marriage groups whenever a person of relatively high social-recognition speaks his or her mind. It is the same level of hysterical attitude that you’re showing right now by calling this man a bigot even when in 2008 (when Prop 8 was voted on) candidate and president-elect Obama held the exact same views.

                  Sometimes freedom doesn’t give you what you want.

                  An amazing admission from your part, being a positive-rights advocate and all:

                  “Healthcare is a right!”

                  1. But but he evolved.

                    1. haha, I didn’t even catch that the third time I read over my comment.

                  2. Well shame on us. It’s not like Prop 8 was about denying a basic human right to a whole class of people in a mean-spirited religiously motivated hate-fest. Oh, yes it was.

              2. He is the real victim here. He did nothing that isn’t protected by the constitution. He expressed his opinion and he has a right to it.

                Protected =/= consequence-free

                The idea that your ability to be CEO of a software company should be dependent on you holding a particular set of societal approved political views is and should be repugnant to anyone who believes in a free society.

                Image is important. Can’t you see that? Or would you not expect there to ba a bit of backlash if, say, a neo-Nazi were appointed CEO of a Fortune 500 company?

                You love this Tony because you are just fine with the mob determining what views people can hold.

                What part of peaceful protest don’t you grasp?

                That is because you are intolerant and can’t abide by the idea that someone who disagrees with you is allowed to live, much less do business.

                I don’t see anybody taking away this man’s right to live or do business. Mozilla merely calculated the risk of having him at the helm vs not and they made a decision to seek his resignation.

                You’re acting like this is the greatest injustice since lynchings.

                1. “Protected =/= consequence-free”

                  You’re acting like all consequences are equally valid and defensible, which they are not. If a company were to hire a Jew as a CEO, and they were subsequently hounded by bigots until he had to resign, I guess that would be just a “consequence of hiring a Jew”, but I don’t think anybody would consider it defensible, probably including you.

                2. He is the real victim here. He did nothing that isn’t protected by the constitution. He expressed his opinion and he has a right to it.

                  Protected =/= consequence-free

                  No one says it should be consequence free. The debate is about whether those consequences are just or not.

                  You love this Tony because you are just fine with the mob determining what views people can hold.

                  What part of peaceful protest don’t you grasp?

                  The people who bankrupted Fuller were peaceful too. Are you so dense that you think that as long as something is done peacefully that it is automatically just or right? You seem to be unable to grasp the concept that just because something is within your rights to do legally doesn’t mean it is good or desirable.

                  That is because you are intolerant and can’t abide by the idea that someone who disagrees with you is allowed to live, much less do business.

                  I don’t see anybody taking away this man’s right to live or do business. Mozilla merely calculated the risk of having him at the helm vs not and they made a decision to seek his resignation.

                  You don’t see anyone talking that way? Did you miss the gay activists who threatened Mozilla’s business?

                  Let me explain the debate one more time. Is what the gay activists did in starting a boycott and getting the CEO fired over his political views something that is good or something that people should condemn?

                  1. I’m not here to weigh in on whether or not the man deserved to lose his job, but the protesting bullshit cuts both ways. I distinctly remember the butthurt gay rights protesters that went after Chik-Fil-A, only to see their business increase. I remember butthurt UAW workers bitching for Americans to buy from GM instead of Ford after the bailout only to see people flock to Ford. So there are outlets for people of all beliefs and political dispositions and companies for them to land at and run to.

                    So in answer to “Is what the gay activists did in starting a boycott and getting the CEO fired over his political views something that is good or something that people should condemn?” I would say yes to both.

                    I am no huge fan of divisiveness, but it exists and we all make moral decisions on where to spend our money. Not all the time, but we do occasionally when we know the social, political or religious beliefs of the seller. It’s why I’ll never buy another new GM product or Progressive insurance. It’s also why I buy my rosary or crucifix at the Catholic store instead of a chain store.

                    1. am no huge fan of divisiveness, but it exists and we all make moral decisions on where to spend our money.

                      Since when is someone’s political differences with you automatically a moral issue?

                      The best argument you seem to be making is that “well this is no big deal because it won’t get out of hand”. Well I hope so, though I bet the Eich has a different opinion of how out of hand it is than you do.

                      Beyond that sloopy, I fail to see how this ends, especially if we follow your lead and applaud it. Right now the gays have made it that anyone associated with a tech company can’t have unapproved political views on marriage. Why do you think they will stop there or that the other side won’t see their success and take up the same tactics?

                      You mention Chik Fila. The only reason people went to Chik Fila was to defend it against these same thugs. I don’t see how that is a good thing or excuses the thugs. Maybe it would be better if everyone ate where they liked the food and service the best and stopped caring so much about the political opinions of the owners? That sounds like a lot better society to me than various mobs battling it out over chicken sandwiches.

                    2. Since when is someone’s political differences with you automatically a moral issue?

                      Since I developed a moral code that I live by.

                      The best argument you seem to be making is that “well this is no big deal because it won’t get out of hand”.

                      No, I’m not saying that at all. I’m just saying that it happens as a normal course of human activity, free association and political awareness.

                      Right now the gays have made it that anyone associated with a tech company can’t have unapproved political views on marriage. Why do you think they will stop there or that the other side won’t see their success and take up the same tactics?

                      I’m starting to see a trend here when you come out swinging against the gay rights groups organizing and making their opinions known. Would you feel exactly the same if it were a Tea Party group calling for people to not buy GM cars because of the bailout?

                      Maybe it would be better if everyone ate where they liked the food and service the best and stopped caring so much about the political opinions of the owners?

                      SO you’d eat at “Kill Niggers Burger” over “Liberty Burger” because it saved you a dime? Does that sound like a better society to you? Because when you give money to people with a like-mind, they can use that money. The same goes for when you give money to people you disagree with.

                    3. Since I developed a moral code that I live by.

                      Very few political differences are moral difference. If you think they are, you probably should consider being a prog, it might suit you better. I don’t think of myself as being “morally better” than people who are on the other side politically. For me or you or anyone else to say that is to assume monopoly on morality and reason that no one I know of has ever had.

                      No, I’m not saying that at all. I’m just saying that it happens as a normal course of human activity, free association and political awareness.

                      Who cares? Call it what you like, but that doesn’t make refusing to do business with someone or demanding they be fired because of a political differences any less idiotic and counter to a free society.

                    4. I’m starting to see a trend here when you come out swinging against the gay rights groups organizing and making their opinions known. Would you feel exactly the same if it were a Tea Party group calling for people to not buy GM cars because of the bailout?

                      First, the bailout is a political issue and business issue. I don’t see that as being analogous to this. Yeah, GM took a bunch of federal money and shouldn’t be in business and the tax payers have a right to say they don’t approve of that business practice. That is more than just expressing a political opinion. The analogy would be the Tea Party refusing to buy GM because the CEO gave money to Obama. And then, yes they would be intolerant idiots for doing that. I am sensing a trend too, you assume I am as obsessed with politics as you are. I am not.

                      SO you’d eat at “Kill Niggers Burger” over “Liberty Burger” because it saved you a dime? Does that sound like a better society to you?

                      You commit the same brand of sophistry here as you do above. You can’t seem to distinguish between actual business practices that affect your relationship withe company and the outside opinions of their employees.

                    5. If they make a kill nigger burger, I am not going there because I don’t want one. If they make a fine burger and the CEO says something I don’t like, I am still going there because the CEO has a right to his opinion. He doesn’t have a right to sell me a burger that I don’t like. But he does have a right say and think what he likes without me trying to run him out of business.

                    6. John, you can keep being a utilitarian that does business with whoever provides him the best deal, regardless of how they do so or their beliefs. I, OTOH, will continue to conduct business with companies who support free minds and free markets (Reason, you owe me a nickel) when the alternative is a company that doesn’t.

                      I am finished discussing this with you. I would rather appreciate you for the things we agree on than continue to despise you more and more over your idiotic stance on this issue, which I am thinking more and more has to do with you being such an opponent of gay marriage than it does with you thinking this CEO is getting fucked over.

                    7. So saying “you are entitled to your opinion” is not being a “utilitarian”? If that is utilitarian, then anything other than outright dogmatic bigotry is also.

                      You should be finished, I have spent two hours whipping the floor with your dumb ass and you haven’t learned a single thing.

                    8. I’m saying you’re a utilitarian because you’ll give your money to a scumbag because it saves you a dime over a liberty-minded company. I’m saying it because you think it’s wrong of people to make moral or political decisions in all cases where spending money is involved.

                      And “whipping the floor”? Really? I’d have to say what you’ve done is more akin to a full body temper tantrum/seizure the likes of which are usually seen when a mother refuses to buy a spoiled kid a toy.

                    9. I’m saying you’re a utilitarian because you’ll give your money to a scumbag because it saves you a dime over a liberty-minded company.

                      Yes, because I judge people on merit, not their politics. What matters is what kind of product they are giving me and how good they are at their job. I am not giving money to an inferior business because they are on my political team. If they want my money, they should worry less about politics and worry more about making a better product.

                      You really think that a society where everyone judges everyone else on their politics instead of their objective merit is a good one much less one that would have any kind of economic prosperity?

                    10. If all things are equal, I will always choose to do business with like-minded people. If they’re even close I will. What you said the other day is that we should all spend our money where we get the best service or value regardless of the political, moral or social beliefs of the companies. I wholeheartedly disagree with this and cited a few pretty sound examples.

                      Like I said, you would take your car in to “Jew Haters Auto Shop” over “Liberty Mechanic” if they saved you $10 on an alignment. That’s utilitarian, is it not? But hey, at least you’re not helping to fracture society by giving money to a bigot.

                    11. Sloopy you can’t seem to comprehend the difference between actual business practices like what signs hang in the shop and the personal political opinions of the employees. Are you stupid or just being mendacious?

                    12. Sloop, I have tried to address this, in my mild way, above.

                    13. I saw that. Thanks, but he’s gone off the rails on this one. There’s no coming back from Crazytown.

                    14. if it were a Tea Party group calling for people to not buy GM cars because of the bailout?

                      That’s not really a great analogy sloop since that was actual action and business related. I think a better one would be if it were the CEO of Ford saying that government bailouts are wrong and the UAW boycotting to have him removed.

    2. Ok now it’s up to three. Jesus Christ, the victim complex is ridiculous.

  9. If I were that guy, I would extort a big fat buyout, and then use the money for billboards with the message,

    MOZILLA- BROUGHT TO YOU BY BIGOTS

    1. Mozilla – now with the second-cousins of gay boycott leaders serving on our board, so they won’t say we’re bigots any more!

      1. (I mean, that’s what I’d do if I were Mozilla – just a helpful suggestion)

  10. So this mob loves it both ways. Bigots are exposed and boycotts, etc. are proposed and it works. Yet the mob is also working to drive bigots underground, through anti-discrimination laws, where they can’t easily be exposed. Given this success with Mozilla, the LGBT community should be demanding bigoted businesses, such as bakeries,
    put signs “We Don’t Serve Gays” in their windows.

  11. the scandal that he donated $1,000 in support of California’s Proposition 8

    Has he been able to offer exculpatory evidence, like a vote for the Great and Powerful Obama?

    1. Has he been able to offer exculpatory evidence, like a vote for the Great and Powerful Obama?

      Any evidence of a desire to offer exculpatory evidence?

      The excerpts of the blog post I read sounded very ‘mutual interest’ to me.

    2. To be fair, in 2008 he and Obama shared the same views on gays, but Obama gets a pass.

  12. Chavismo dipshit passes law to continue destroying Venezuela:

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new…..rtage.html

    -[Property] Owners leasing for 20 years ‘must sell’, evicted if don’t pay fine in five days

    -Law dictates they must sell for ‘fair price’ to prevent dip in the market

    -Landlords must submit prospective sale prices to the government

    -Comes as ‘grocery ID’ scheme launched to monitor amount people buy

    1. Food Minister Felix Osorio says it will sound an alarm when it detects suspicious purchasing patterns, barring people from buying the same goods every day.

      But he also says the cards will be voluntary, with incentives like discounts and entry into raffles for homes and cars.

      Why is it that the first thing anyone promising paradise does is build a barbed-wire fence?

  13. (as is mine?I gave $100 in opposition and ultimately regretted it after seeing the horrible, useless ads they put together to fight Prop. 8)

    “No H8” not heady enough for you either?

    1. I think when they trotted out the state superintendent of schools as the big “get” for their ads is when I did a pretty big facepalm.

  14. Freedom is messy, isn’t it?

    Yes, it is, Robespierre.

  15. as is mine?I gave $100 in opposition

    Why?

  16. Suck my balls, Kyle. They are real dry, Kyle.

    Andrew S.|4.4.14 @ 9:44AM|#|?|filternamelinkcustom
    The leak was by the IRS, and it was illegal by federal law. I’m not sure how Cali law would play into it.

    SugarFree|4.4.14 @ 9:50AM|#|?|filternamelinkcustom
    Cal-Access: Searchable political donation database put up by the state of California. Brendan Eich comes right up.

    gaijin|4.4.14 @ 9:53AM|#|?|filternamelinkcustom
    The Feds found a convenient time to support Federalism and give priority to state law?

    SugarFree|4.4.14 @ 10:00AM|#|?|filternamelinkcustom
    I’m not defending the IRS. I think everyone of them should be in jail. But it seems a little too conspiracy-minded to suggest that the IRS leaked information that was already publicly available. I found the database with one google search.

    1. Jail? You’re getting soft in your later years. Crucifixion? Good, one cross each.

      1. You don’t know the jail I have in mind. Think Muppets Take Manhattan crossed with Battle Royale.

      2. Crucifixion is boring to watch. How about some old school drawing and quartering?

        1. Look, if it was good enough for the Romans and good enough for Jesus to make his point, then it’s good enough for us. Besides, nothing says “We’re sorry” like lining a major highway with crucified people. Each with signs apologizing to all of us.

          1. I’m suddenly imaging the DC Beltway lined with crucified bureaucrats & politicians…

              1. Ok, fine. Crucifixion it is. Can we sell some ad space on the crosses, at least?

                1. Brilliant! Reason could buy advertising over the slowly-dying director of the NSA.

                2. Of course. After all, we are not communists.

  17. So the real victim here is the anti-gay CEO

    Do we know for a fact the man is anti-gay?
    I know it confounds your comic-book Manicheaism, but what are the chances he actually doesn’t give a shit about teh ghey, but merely takes offense at creating a new species of government-sanctioned social class?

    1. what are the chances he actually doesn’t give a shit about teh ghey, but merely takes offense at creating a new species of government-sanctioned social class?

      Or is he just a fan of state-based popular initiatives rather than top-down federal mandates (and repeals)?

      Or was donating as a gift to friend, family, or relative?

      Or lost a bet?

      Or any/all of the above?

      Meh, we judge people by their actions not some convoluted set of emotions that describe how they feel about themselves and others… hang ’em.

    2. Extremely low?

    3. Actually he was donating a cause that was about using the government to deny basic rights that were already being recognized. If it were any other right on the chopping block you’d think he was an asshole of the first order.

      1. Man, you really do like inventing basic rights, don’t you?

        And what makes him different than the man who could have killed dadt with the stroke of a pen but chose not to?

  18. I still don’t see that we should be applauding mobs enforcing the equivalent of thoughtcrime.

    Suppose that there were a religious revival in the US, one of the consequences of which is that Christians would refuse to do business with people who renounce Christianity. Should such a movement be legal? Yes. Would it be good if it were to happen? Hell no. This is similar: there is no policy that Mozilla is undertaking that is hostile to gays; the purpose is merely to either force someone to publicly renounce their principles or to be hounded out of a job.

    1. mobs enforcing the equivalent of thoughtcrime.

      Otherwise known as a protest having consequences.

      There oughta be a law!

    2. Exactly. People on here like Sloopy and Sugar Free and Tony think this is great because they love gay marriage and are happy to see someone who disagrees with them get fired. That is great today, but I don’t they are going to like it very much if this sort of thing becomes commonplace.

      1. I’ve been told ad nauseum that the reason we don’t need workplace anti-discrimination laws is because the marketplace will do the work of weeding out the bigots. Is that now a bad thing we should condemn?

        1. Re: Tony,

          I’ve been told ad nauseum that the reason we don’t need workplace anti-discrimination laws is because the marketplace will do the work of weeding out the bigots. Is that now a bad thing we should condemn?

          You insist on begging the question by calling this man a bigot. I am now starting to think that you’re simply being irrational and hysterical.

          I believe he is wrong in his views about gay marriage, but my opinion does not turn him into a bigot.

          Also, I am honest enough to admit that maybe your misunderstanding of market forces come not from your own ignorance but because of poorly-thought pragmatic arguments against anti-discrimination laws made by libertarians. I am against making such arguments; my arguments always stem from natural rights, not from results. Anti-discrimination laws violate the NAP, private property rights and freedom of association. One can argue that a company run by bigoted owners will suffer in the market when their potential customers stop buying from them, but I don’t see that outcome as the justification to drop anti-discrimination laws.

      2. Calm down, John. Not getting hysterical over a situation is not the same as endorsing it. I mostly just don’t care. Mozilla fired him over a PR issue, he wasn’t dragged out on the streets and burned at the stake by a screaming gay mob.

        1. It is the principle of the thing. And I would say losing your job is a pretty big deal. And of course, the message has been sent to everyone else. If they threw the Kochs in jail for a night that wouldn’t in the grand scheme of things be a big deal. But the message it sent to them and anyone else thinking of dissenting sure would be.

          1. Gotta hand it to you John. You can hold fast to a losing argument like nobody in the business.

          2. Now you’re comparing a peaceful boycott (no state action) with people being thrown in jail (by the state).

            Are you wearing your life preserver, Fonzie?

            1. Yes Sloopy I am. The effect is the same. The message is “get in line and only express approved view points”.

              Do you honestly think that any action is okay and desirable just as long as the government is not doing it?

              There are more ways to have an oppressive fucked up society than just using the government gun. Society can oppress itself.

              1. Then you’re a fucking idiot. No rational person would equate a peaceful action that OKC took to the state throwing political opponents in prison.

                In this way, our society is extremely free. As I said the other day, people are free to support the protest, ignore the protest or support the company being protested. Equating that to the state jailing the Koch brothers is absurd.

                1. In this way, our society is extremely free.

                  No rational person could think that a society where a mob shows up and runs you out of business if you express an unpopular political view is “free”. That is what you don’t get. You think that well, we can just have this society where people express their political difference by not associating with one another and it will be “free”. That is not how works. Either society gets very poor and is constantly at war with itself as various factions refuse to trade with one another or these differences are settled at the price of one side losing and the unpopular viewpoint being effectively impossible to hold.

                  A country where the government comes and forces my employer to fire me because I hold an unapproved political view is no worse than a country where the people themselves force the same thing. The result from my end is the same in both cases and the overall result, of unpopular views being impossible to voice is also the same.

                  1. No rational person could think that a society where a mob shows up and runs you out of business if you express an unpopular political view is “free”.

                    Sorry, but I didn’t see the folks at OKC donning pitchforks and torches.

                    You think that well, we can just have this society where people express their political difference by not associating with one another and it will be “free”. That is not how works.

                    Actually, that’s exactly how a free society works.

                    A country where the government comes and forces my employer to fire me because I hold an unapproved political view is no worse than a country where the people themselves force the same thing.

                    Well that clinches it. You’ve gone full retard.

                    1. Actually, that’s exactly how a free society works.

                      It is. You just don’t see it because you are politics obsessed moron who thinks freedom only relates to the government. You get rid of the government tommorow and a country like Saudi Arabia wouldn’t be free because the people who live there are intolerant fucks who would probably do worse things if they didn’t have the government to do it for them.

                      There is more to having a free society than having a small government. You have to have a free “society”. That means the people who live in that society are willing to tolerate one another and agree to disagree about things.

                      That doesn’t mean we can or should have government enforced tolerance. People are free to be intolerant of each other. What it does mean is that those of us who want to live in a free society should do what we can to encourage people to be tolerant. And that means not fucking letting politics rule your life.

                      I don’t you are really this stupid. I think you have just lost this argument so badly you are forced to say really stupid things rather than give up.

                    2. Jesus Tittyfucking Christ. Are you really pulling the fucking “Social Contract” card. Holy fuck, you are in a fantasy world.

                    3. Jesus Tittyfucking Christ. Are you really pulling the fucking “Social Contract” card. Holy fuck, you are in a fantasy world.

                      You are an illiterate apparently too. I did no such thing. I just said that if you believe in a free society, you should not believe in boycotts over political opinions. That has nothing to do with the social contract.

                      Just stop it sloopy. You just keep saying dumber and dumber things.

          3. John, you act like someone getting fired for questionable reasons (and given the PR nightmare for Mozilla, it probably was the right move, although you can still criticize the people who made it an issue) is some new, dangerous precedent. How many people have been fired for opposing gay marriage in comparison to the number of people who have been fired for being gay?

            1. I didn’t say it was new. But it is absolutely dangerous. And the people who fired people for being gay were wrong. Just like the people who refused to do business with Fuller were wrong. That is a stupid way to live and not consistent with having a free society. The fact that these sorts of things are just going to cause the other side to do the same and end up hurting a lot of gay people is to me a pretty good reason why this is a bad thing.

              Is this one event huge? Probably not. But it not being a huge thing doesn’t make it any less of a bad thing.

              1. The fact that these sorts of things are just going to cause the other side to do the same and end up hurting a lot of gay people

                [citation required]

                1. Okay sloopy this thing is great because only the right people will do to. Wow are you fucking stupid on this issue.

      3. You can suck my dick, John. I never said I supported this guy getting fired for the reasons you claim. I just said that I have no issue with the way the protest went down and the consequences of Eich’s actions. I also said I was perfectly fine with teh spike in business Chik-Fil-A saw when the gay rights people went after them.

        You want to be taken seriously? Then stop misattributing motives and positions to people that respectfully disagree with you. Now, go fuck yourself.

        1. You should have a problem with it. That doesn’t mean you should think it should be illegal. It just means you should think the people doing the protesting are assholes and people shouldn’t follow their lead.

          Just because you are fine with counter protests doesn’t justify the initial protest. I don’t understand why you can’t just admit that anyone who demands an otherwise good CEO be fired for making a political donation is an asshole. Why is that so hard?

          1. It just means you should think the people doing the protesting are assholes and people shouldn’t follow their lead.

            What makes you think I don’t?

            I don’t understand why you can’t just admit that anyone who demands an otherwise good CEO be fired for making a political donation is an asshole.

            I won’t admit it because I don’t agree with it. I think it’s fine to do so. Personally, I will just refuse to give them my money. Of course, you think that’s equally abhorrent.

            1. I won’t admit it because I don’t agree with it. I think it’s fine to do so. Personally, I will just refuse to give them my money. Of course, you think that’s equally abhorrent.

              That would make you obsessed with politics and so intolerant you can’t even do business with someone you think is on the other side. That is a crazy and stupid way to live. A society full of people who think like you is going to a pretty oppressive place and probably a pretty poor one too as the various sides in the culture war refuse to engage in otherwise mutually beneficial trade.

              1. That would make you obsessed with politics and so intolerant you can’t even do business with someone you think is on the other side.

                Hardly. It would make me a normal human being that would rather give my money to people of a like mind instead of people I disagree with on important matters.

                That is a crazy and stupid way to live.

                What were you saying above that people shouldn’t claim some moral superiority?

                A society full of people who think like you is going to a pretty oppressive place and probably a pretty poor one too as the various sides in the culture war refuse to engage in otherwise mutually beneficial trade.

                What’s mutually beneficial for me to buy a GM car when I could pay a little bit more for one built by a company that didn’t steal from the taxpayers? What’s mutually beneficial for me to get my insurance from a company that openly wants to create barriers to entry and wants to impose a soft socialism on me?

                1. It would make me a normal human being that would rather give my money to people of a like mind instead of people I disagree with on important matters.

                  Even if those people make an inferior product? Again, you think politics determines whether someone should get your money, not their merit. That is stupid and counter productive. If your car mechanic does a great job and gives you a good deal, you should judge him by that not his political views. If you say otherwise, you are telling me we shouldn’t have a meritocracy. That sounds like a really bad idea.

                  What’s mutually beneficial for me to buy a GM car when I could pay a little bit more for one built by a company that didn’t steal from the taxpayers?

                  You don’t like your business practices so your analogy is wrong. Beyond, what is beneficial to you is if they make the best car. If they do and you don’t buy it out of politics, you are harming yourself out of political spite. A whole society that does that is going to end up ignorant and poor.

                  If everyone bases their purchasing decisions and hiring decisions on politics, merit and competence start to matter a lot less. And that is a ticket to poverty and ignorance.

                  1. There’s no evidence that this is a society wide trend that is on the uptick.

                    I think the solution to retarded protests like this is to not back down (ala chick-fil-a) and defend your position.

                    1. That is the problem do you fight back and look like a hypocrite and let people like sloopy win by making society more intolerant and political or not fight back and never make them pay a price? Tough choice.

                    2. Yes, John. My goal is to make society more intolerant.

                      You’ve absolutely lost your mind on this one. I mean lost it.

                      You think people should be completely amoral in their business dealings and I disagree. You also equate protests to state imprisonment of political opposition and claim that the former will lead to a complete breakdown of society.

                      IOW, you’re completely insane.

                    3. You think doing business with someone who disagrees with you politically is immoral. Worse still you think the CEO giving money to a cause you don’t like is the same thing as putting a no niggers allowed sign up.

                      That is why we disagree. Here is a hint, if you think everyone who disagrees with you is like a Jim Crow sherif and immoral, you are a pretty intolerant person.

                    4. You sure enjoy putting words into peoples’ mouths. I never fucking said any of that. What I did say is that I will pay a little more for a like product if its to someone I agree with more politically, socially or even religiously (based on the situation). You said it was wrong to ever spend more for less or even more for the same and said it would lead to the total breakdown of society.

                      And the examples I stated weren’t as you just put them. But now that you mention it, you are saying that you would refuse to do business with a mechanic that hung a sign that said he wouldn’t service a black person’s car. Why the about face? If he’s cheaper or gives better service then why are you letting his different political or social opinion prevent you from doing business with him? Holy shit, you’re just like…me.

                    5. Because going there and looking at the sign is part of my business relationship with him. If he hung pictures of naked fat women I wouldn’t go there either. What he says on his own time has nothing to do with me and does not affect my decision.

                      You only think I made an about face because you refuse to see the difference between actual business practices and expressing personal opinions.

                    6. If he hung pictures of naked fat women I wouldn’t go there either.

                      If you’d have said naked skinny women I might have believed you.

                    7. What he says on his own time has nothing to do with me and does not affect my decision.

                      If he says it openly then you are subject to guilt by association. And I’m sorry, but if I find out my mechanic is a racist bigot or a socialist statist who would use the money I pay him to further statist causes, I’ll be likely to find a replacement even if it costs me a little more.

                    8. Because going there and looking at the sign is part of my business relationship with him.

                      So I’m in the grocery store and I overhear Dan say, “I hate niggers.” You’re telling me it’s wrong to not buy my used cars from Dan based upon that action?

                    9. So I’m in the grocery store and I overhear Dan say, “I hate niggers.” You’re telling me it’s wrong to not buy my used cars from Dan based upon that action?

                      Sure. But his doing that affects how he runs his business. Going there apparently means having to listen to him. If he thinks running a good business is telling his customers racist stuff, well good luck with t hat.

                      But if you heard that he once said that in private, would you go? You wouldn’t I am sure. But that is because you are a fanatic who thinks only people who hold proper views are worthy of doing business with. I am not and thus would not care.

                    10. You are a scumbag that would do business with a known racist, homophobe or likely a child molester as long as he could get that tranny rebuilt better than others.

                    11. No Sloopy, if someone is a criminal, they should be in jail. If they are not, then they have a right to make a living just like I do. And if they have a right to do that, I ought to judge them by the service they provide just like I would like them to judge me by the same.

                      You act like doing business with someone is one and the same as endorsing their political views. That is crazy. One has nothing to do with the other. If I buy from a convicted child molester who served his time, I am not endorsing child molesting. I am just saying, anyone, provided they have served their debt to society and run a good business, can run a business in this country.

                      Sorry, but you have a pretty warped view of morality if you think affirming that is “immoral” or that we all have a moral duty to refuse to do business with or associate with anyone who isn’t “acceptable” by our standards.

  19. Prior to this hysteria, was there ever any complaint about the quality of Eich’s work, or the value of his contribution to Mozilla?

    Its wrong, I know, but sometimes I long for the good old days, when these sorts of decisions broke down to, “He may be a drunk and a wifebeater, but goddammit he puts the ball right over the goddam plate.”

    1. Prior to this hysteria, was there ever any complaint about the quality of Eich’s work, or the value of his contribution to Mozilla?

      Well, he did invent Javascript. Some would say he deserves to be shunned for that. 😉

      1. That would be a valid reason to do so.

      2. I think you’re confusing JavaScript with Oracle’s Java. Those are not one and the same.

        1. Eich did invent JavaScript.

    2. I think that’s the gist of it. The people defending the CEO are basically saying, “goddammit, why does this matter? If this is the way we go through life then I don’t want to live on this planet anymore.”

      Seriously people, it’s a small donation made six years ago. Let it go already. It’s not like he’s using his position as CEO to agitate in favor of the policy in question (which actually would be a fireable offense at each company that I’ve worked for).

      1. “goddammit, why does this matter? If this is the way we go through life then I don’t want to live on this planet anymore.”

        THIS. I don’t want to live in a country full of politics obsessed intolerant assholes who make every decision in life based on the political views of other people.

        1. Then leave. Go to a place where everyone is as apolitical and easygoing as you are. Like Gaza.

          1. Yes Tony, you being a politically obsessed asshole who would put people in ovens if you could, think such a place is great. But we already knew that. You are not really the audience I am looking to persuade.

          2. Re: Tony,

            Then leave. Go to a place where everyone is as apolitical and easygoing as you are.

            How quaint. The “Put Up Or Get Out” argument. It’s been a long time since I’ve seen it, not since my days of arguing with socialists when the HowStuffWorks website had a forum.

            1. It’s kind of ironic that liberals can now say “if you don’t like it, go to Russia”.

            2. I love how he tries to pretend that there’s some difference between him and socon’s when they use the exact same argument.

            3. The comment was more about John’s hilarious lack of self-awareness.

    3. Wasn’t he just hired?

  20. Oh my fucking Raptor Jesus do people go full retard / full Dunnings-Kruger when it comes to browsers, apparently.

    See my rant from last night.

  21. I think there is a huge difference between a CEO or an owner having non-conforming political ideas and them actively using their company/store/restaurant to promote those ideas. The CEO or owner that will take your money anyways might eventually be swayed on their opinion, the latter probably not so much.

  22. The information came from the California secretary of state’s office, not some IRS leak.

    Why can’t it be both? Just because the infor is available at one source, hardly precludes some IRS operative from giving a bunch activists info from the IRS files.

    Given the overt DemOp thuggishness of the IRS in recent years, I would say that I find the accusation credible, regardless of what the CA SecState had on a public website.

    1. From what it says, the IRS didn’t leak a a list of Prop 8 donors, but a list of donors to an anti-gay marriage org that Eich didn’t donate to.

      1. So we do know about one illegal leak.

        That doesn’t mean its the only one.

        1. Ok, but what’s your point? The IRS is corrupt? We know that. In this specific instance, I don’t see how they’re to blame for Eich’s situation. Occam’s Razor leads me to believe that the information that has been public for six years was the source in this instance rather than a possible, hypothetical leak of which there is no evidence.

  23. Wasn’t he just hired?

    I was under the impression he has worked at Mozilla for a long time, but was just recently promoted to CEO. I could be wrong.

  24. But I thought money wasn’t speech. Jon Stewart told me so last night. So how does anyone KNOW that this guy is against gay marriage just because he donated money in the fight against it?

  25. Can’t have high trust institutions in a low trust society.

  26. How one obtains information does not make it incorrect. If they had found it in the database you mention it would make sense that they would source that.

    Being reasonable about providing an excuse for an “IRS Leak” is not laudable given goober-mental abuses.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.