Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Storm Rider

We Pick Our Sacred Cows

Recommended Posts

 

That doesn't make any sense to me.

If people should be able to vote according to the dictates of their own conscience without fear of punishment, then that is true regardless of whether or not the ballot is kept secret.

Either they should have that right, or they shouldn't. 

 

 

I'm not spinning anything.  

 

The CEO voted for something he personally believed in which some of his employees didn't agree with or like, and they worked to get him fired.  That's the simply fact of what happened.    

 

 

 

So you believe that getting someone fired for voting according to their beliefs is better (not the best option, but better) than someone else voting according to their conscience.

 

Without fear of punishment?  Yes.  Without fear of reaction from their peers?  Probably not.  I don't think that's a "right".

 

The CEO wasn't fired.  You're spinning.  And so you're final statement here about my belief is incorrect.

Share this post


Link to post

Does an employee have a right to speak up about their boss's actions?  Does an associate of a business have the right to say that they don't want to engage with another company based on the values of the CEO?

 

He was a co-founder of the company and the CEO - does an employee have a write to speak up?  Interesting question.  Does a CEO have a right to review the voting records of each employee and then fire them?  Or does he have a right to require a company meeting a berate anyone that has a contrary opinion from his own?  What type of society are you supporting?  Should each of us only work with and frequent from businesses that ONLY support what we believe and want?  Should each of us ensure that anyone with a contrary opinion be fired from their jobs and advertise that they were fired because they had an unfavorable opinion to the "chosen" group?  

 

For someone that appears to support a group that has known hardship, you have an interesting way of ensuring a peaceful society.  What you support will end in chaos and conflict.  People will move from destroying the livelihood of individuals to actually physically destroying people.....and why?  Simply because they had a contrary opinion and belief system.  

 

Your way of thinking terrifies me because you actually think you are right and are completely blind to the ramifications of your support.  Those who support this way of life and punishing others for contrary opinions and thoughts will reap the whirlwind.  

Share this post


Link to post

He was a co-founder of the company and the CEO - does an employee have a write to speak up?  Interesting question.  Does a CEO have a right to review the voting records of each employee and then fire them?  Or does he have a right to require a company meeting a berate anyone that has a contrary opinion from his own?  What type of society are you supporting?  Should each of us only work with and frequent from businesses that ONLY support what we believe and want?  Should each of us ensure that anyone with a contrary opinion be fired from their jobs and advertise that they were fired because they had an unfavorable opinion to the "chosen" group?  

 

For someone that appears to support a group that has known hardship, you have an interesting way of ensuring a peaceful society.  What you support will end in chaos and conflict.  People will move from destroying the livelihood of individuals to actually physically destroying people.....and why?  Simply because they had a contrary opinion and belief system.  

 

Your way of thinking terrifies me because you actually think you are right and are completely blind to the ramifications of your support.  Those who support this way of life and punishing others for contrary opinions and thoughts will reap the whirlwind.  

 

I haven't supported anyone in destroying anything.  I've actually only spoken in support of freedom of speech.

 

Does a CEO have a right to review the voting records of each employee and then fire them?  No.  Nor have I even remotely suggested that anyone should have such a right.

 

Or does he have a right to require a company meeting a berate anyone that has a contrary opinion from his own?  "Right" probably isn't the correct word to use in that question.  If a CEO chooses to run a company that way and if his/her board allows it, I suppose s/he could but probably wouldn't last long.

 

What type of society are you supporting?  The constitutional republic in which we live (at least for the U.S. residents on this board which seems to be the majority).

 

Should each of us only work with and frequent from businesses that ONLY support what we believe and want?  We certainly have that right.  What each of us *should* do is a matter of individual discernment for each situation.

 

Should each of us ensure that anyone with a contrary opinion be fired from their jobs and advertise that they were fired because they had an unfavorable opinion to the "chosen" group?  No.  Nor have I suggested such a course of action.

Share this post


Link to post

Without fear of punishment?  Yes.  Without fear of reaction from their peers?  Probably not.  I don't think that's a "right".

 

The CEO wasn't fired.  You're spinning.  And so you're final statement here about my belief is incorrect.

 

And I'm guessing that if you asked the CEO, that he wasn't "voting to remove marriage equality from a minority."  

 

Using your definition, i guess we are both spinning.  :pardon:

 

At this point we'll just have to agree to disagree, because I think it's really silly to try to suggest that fearing your peers might react by trying to get you fired because of how you voted isn't the same as being punished for how you voted.

Share this post


Link to post

And I'm guessing that if you asked the CEO, that he wasn't "voting to remove marriage equality from a minority."  

 

Using your definition, i guess we are both spinning.   :pardon:

 

At this point we'll just have to agree to disagree, because I think it's really silly to try to suggest that fearing your peers might react by trying to get you fired because of how you voted isn't the same as being punished for how you voted.

 

I'm sure that he didn't view it that way.  And calling it "marriage equality" is probably a spin on my part since not all agree on that definition.  I apologize.  But he did financially support a ballot measure that removed legal marriage rights from a minority.  That isn't spin.

 

We don't actually know how he voted so your statement is, once again, incorrect.  They reacted based on the public knowledge of his donation in support of Prop 8.  And, again, he wasn't fired.  If you want to drop it, fine.  But how, exactly, did the employees try to force his resignation?

Share this post


Link to post

But how, exactly, did the employees try to force his resignation?

 

This is how Mozilla described what happened-

 

"Amid organized boycotts, protests and intense public scrutiny, Brendan resigned and stepped down as CEO."

 

It is important to note that there were actually only a few employees of Mozilla who wanted him fired (roughly 10 i think) and that most of the pressure came from outside sources, such as OKCupid and other companies who called for a boycott of Mozilla from their customers.

 

So no, it wasn't just employees who tried to force his resignation, it was more so the general public.  But since the topic is how our current culture makes it acceptable to punish people who do things we don't agree with, i'm not sure that it matters (except in regards to accuracy, which should be noted).

Share this post


Link to post

This is how Mozilla described what happened-

 

"Amid organized boycotts, protests and intense public scrutiny, Brendan resigned and stepped down as CEO."

 

It is important to note that there were actually only a few employees of Mozilla who wanted him fired (roughly 10 i think) and that most of the pressure came from outside sources, such as OKCupid and other companies who called for a boycott of Mozilla from their customers.

 

So no, it wasn't just employees who tried to force his resignation, it was more so the general public.  But since the topic is how our current culture makes it acceptable to punish people who do things we don't agree with, i'm not sure that it matters (except in regards to accuracy, which should be noted).

 

Correct... I've stated a few times in this thread that it was employees/associates/customers but I agree that the point is the same.

 

So you condemn the boycotts of Mozilla?

Share this post


Link to post

Correct... I've stated a few times in this thread that it was employees/associates/customers but I agree that the point is the same.

 

So you condemn the boycotts of Mozilla?

 

In general i condemn all boycotts of any organization that are based upon the way someone thinks or believes.   

 

I don't have a problem with someone personally not wanting to give money to a business for whatever reason, but i don't support organized boycotts focused on bullying someone into agreeing with a specific point of view.

 

It's way to easy to end up on the losing end of such a thing-society's beliefs are fickle and can change at any moment.  And besides that, majority rule is almost always a scary proposition.  People aren't smart enough to wield such power successfully.  

 

And i really do mean that literally-we just are not smart enough to handle it.

Share this post


Link to post

In general i condemn all boycotts of any organization that are based upon the way someone thinks or believes.   

 

I don't have a problem with someone personally not wanting to give money to a business for whatever reason, but i don't support organized boycotts focused on bullying someone into agreeing with a specific point of view.

 

It's way to easy to end up on the losing end of such a thing-society's beliefs are fickle and can change at any moment.  And besides that, majority rule is almost always a scary proposition.  People aren't smart enough to wield such power successfully.  

 

And i really do mean that literally-we just are not smart enough to handle it.

 

That is a position that I can respect as long as it is applied equally (no "sacred cows" per the title of this thread).  Given what you've stated here, I assume that you equally condemn the protests and boycotts against JC Penny (for hiring Ellen Degeneres as spokesperson) and Honey Maid (for referring to gay-parented families as wholesome).

Share this post


Link to post

That is a position that I can respect as long as it is applied equally (no "sacred cows" per the title of this thread).  Given what you've stated here, I assume that you equally condemn the protests and boycotts against JC Penny (for hiring Ellen Degeneres as spokesperson) and Honey Maid (for referring to gay-parented families as wholesome).

 

I haven't heard a thing about those protests, but yeah, i condemn them as well.

 

I stopped my support of Focus on the Family (or some similar group-it's been so long i don't remember if that's who it was or not) years ago because they were always calling for some stupid boycott of some company because they supported gay marriage in one way or another.

 

Our personal opinions should not have that much power.  We put ourselves up on pedestals we don't deserve to be on when we start to believe that people should either agree with us, be forced to agree with us, or suffer.

 

A society where the majority of people start to believe they are that kind of special, is a frightening prospect.

Share this post


Link to post

This'll probably just get lost in all the noise, but ... Whatever.

 

Yeah, I do think there's a distinction between voting one's conscience in private, in a voting booth (even if he votes for The Local Loon for City Council, who gets a fraction of one percent of the vote [maybe I was the only one stupid enough to be persuaded]), and even giving money to causes one supports (even unpopular ones), on the one hand, and villainizing, demonizing, and marginalizing someone, on the other hand.

 

I don't support gay marriage, but I still voted against Utah's Prop 3 (I think it was) when it came up on the ballot a few years ago because I thought it would simply invite litigation.  The cure for a "bad" opinion is dialogue, persuasion, et cetera.  If you think I'm wrong persuade me otherwise.  (Hint: Saying "You're an idiot who doesn't even deserve the basic necessities of life, so we're going to do everything we can to put you out of business, even if your business otherwise happens to be worthwhile," isn't going to do the trick.)

 

And yes, I think one can make a logical case for not supporting gay marriage on the one hand, yet supporting, for example, the Employment Nondiscrimination Act on the other.  And yes, I think there's a vast difference between voting a particular way or advocating a particular cause, even publicly, and doing what some misguided Christian restaurant patrons did a few months ago and withholding a tip from a gay waiter.  (I'm still trying to figure out how they knew the waiter was gay, but, whatever! :unknw:)

 

P.S.:  And that's a big part of the problem: there doesn't seem to be a lot of willingness to give credit for nuance.  There seems to be only a lot of shrill braying accompanied by fingerpointing: "He opposes gay marriage!  He must be silenced/put out of business [or imprisoned or killed, if we had the power to do that] at all costs!"

Share this post


Link to post

I haven't supported anyone in destroying anything.  I've actually only spoken in support of freedom of speech.

 

Does a CEO have a right to review the voting records of each employee and then fire them?  No.  Nor have I even remotely suggested that anyone should have such a right.

 

Or does he have a right to require a company meeting a berate anyone that has a contrary opinion from his own?  "Right" probably isn't the correct word to use in that question.  If a CEO chooses to run a company that way and if his/her board allows it, I suppose s/he could but probably wouldn't last long.

 

What type of society are you supporting?  The constitutional republic in which we live (at least for the U.S. residents on this board which seems to be the majority).

 

Should each of us only work with and frequent from businesses that ONLY support what we believe and want?  We certainly have that right.  What each of us *should* do is a matter of individual discernment for each situation.

 

Should each of us ensure that anyone with a contrary opinion be fired from their jobs and advertise that they were fired because they had an unfavorable opinion to the "chosen" group?  No.  Nor have I suggested such a course of action.

 

Hello Rock.  Voting records - but someone went back and found out this poor soul had the temerity to donate all of $1,000 to a cause he believed in.  It seems wrong to me and any fruit gained from that behavior should not benefit OR everyone gets to walk around so that all can see all of our causes, how we voted, who we supported, what our beliefs are, etc.  

 

What you stated above that it is more moral for "employee dissent" this is spin for forcing someone out of a job than for individuals to vote for what you think is right and supporting their ideas by donating to that cause.  I hope you can appreciate how drastic this is because when your children or you lose their job because your beliefs and the issues you support to found to offend those sacred cows chosen by someone else; who is supposed to think you were wronged or that you did not have it coming for having had your own opinion and beliefs.

 

Me, I am sort of done with the idea of a democratic governments.  Republics and the like only function when there is an educated populace rather than indoctrinated sheep that follow whatever the media is dishing out.  The political/social pendulum is swinging and I would expect to see some really harsh dictatorships and other similar forms.  We are quickly being taught as a people that we cannot trust governments and we certainly cannot trust those who live on the other block. Heck, we don't even want to buy from their stores; they just think too weirdly for us that know better on "this" block.  I mean, we like to choose with discernment where we spend our money and it ain't with them.  God, I am glad I have rights....unless I am not in-line with the sacred cow du jour.  Then I will lose my job, be destroyed in the media, etc. etc. etc.

 

Rock, you are rather reticent to condemn the actions of those that support your causes and pretty quick to condemn those with contrary opinions to your own.  To me, I seek fairness and one standard, and I want a news forum that chooses to report rather than entertain and choose the sacred cows for for society.  For example, I remain against SSM and will always vote that way BUT I also acknowledge that I don't see a way to prevent them with the current judicial structure.  To me it is a question of rights and the rights should have been granted long ago; however, none of those rights have anything to do with marriage and everything to do with how government chose to define who gets what rights and who does not. 

 

It is not fair for a gay person to lose his job for being gay nor is it fair for the founder of a company to be drummed out of company for having beliefs that reject the concept of SSM.  I reject these witch hunts by automatons that never think, but are only seeking a cause to rebel and reject.  The cause is obviously pretty irrelevant; it is whatever is the cause du jour spoon fed to those who hang on every word by.....that group that is choosing the sacred cows this week.  

Share this post


Link to post

I see donations to political causes as part of attempts to persuade people to change their own beliefs. While the end result may be seen as punishment by some, the end result will be based on how the majority wants their beliefs applied.

Calling for someone's resignation or acting in other ways punitively unless the person recants their position does not change any hearts and minds IMO.

Share this post


Link to post

I see donations to political causes as part of attempts to persuade people to change their own beliefs. While the end result may be seen as punishment by some, the end result will be based on how the majority wants their beliefs applied.

Calling for someone's resignation or acting in other ways punitively unless the person recants their position does not change any hearts and minds IMO.

As the old saying goes, "A man convinced against his will, is of the same opinion ... still." ;)

Share this post


Link to post

The great part is that it is not being tolerated.  I really don't know how this type of things continue in the present day, but then again I often overlook a lot of things.  Living in the Middle East I am faced with consistently seeing racist behavior from Arabs toward almost all other races including whites.  Some of this may be tied up in religious overtones, but it often looks racist than religious.

 

What is important to remember is that those Arabs who practice this behavior are NOT observing many of the tenants of Islam.  Just as we don't like when all LDS are judged by the example of a single LDS, I should not judge what is happening in the Middle East and apply to all Arabs.  

Share this post


Link to post

The great part is that it is not being tolerated.  I really don't know how this type of things continue in the present day, but then again I often overlook a lot of things.  Living in the Middle East I am faced with consistently seeing racist behavior from Arabs toward almost all other races including whites.  Some of this may be tied up in religious overtones, but it often looks racist than religious.

 

What is important to remember is that those Arabs who practice this behavior are NOT observing many of the tenants of Islam.  Just as we don't like when all LDS are judged by the example of a single LDS, I should not judge what is happening in the Middle East and apply to all Arabs.  

Moderates everywhere, and of all stripes, need to do a better job of speaking up (and everyone else needs to do a better job of listening).  (Muslim moderates, Christian moderates, Mormon Christian moderates, political moderates, et cetera).  There seem to be shrill extremists on either side of any issue under discussion who, alas, ignore the Vast, Moderate Middle (a segment which could easily be engaged in civil, reasoned discourse but which, as I said, is ignored by the extremists on either side who are too busy screaming at each other). :huh::fool:

Share this post


Link to post

Some of us do.  Don't tar whatever entire demographics that idiot happens to belong to by using him as your broad brush with which to tar everyone else in any of those demographics.  As the old saying goes, "We're not where we should be, we're not where we could be, we're not where we oughta be ... but thank goodness we're not where we were."

Share this post


Link to post

A few years ago, I was on a committee charged with guiding a massive transition in a nonprofit in which I was involved.  We hired a consultant (He called himself an "insultant" ;)) who told us we would have to give up many of our sacred cows for the transition to be successful.  He said, "Sacred cows are best butchered and barbecued." :P  (Dang! :huh:  Now I'm hungry! :D)

Share this post


Link to post

Some of us do.  Don't tar whatever entire demographics that idiot happens to belong to by using him as your broad brush with which to tar everyone else in any of those demographics.  As the old saying goes, "We're not where we should be, we're not where we could be, we're not where we oughta be ... but thank goodness we're not where we were."

 

The collective we, not the individual we. The exception that proves the rule type thing.

Share this post


Link to post

The collective we, not the individual we. The exception that proves the rule type thing.

OK.  Your mileage may vary, but I think there's a thriving grievance industry which quickly would run out of steam if enough people were convinced that, however much racism, sexism, and [insert-bad-"ism"-here] might continue to exist, they certainly aren't nearly as prevalent today as they once were, and people holding such views are much more quickly marginalized today than they once were.

Share this post


Link to post

OK.  Your mileage may vary, but I think there's a thriving grievance industry which quickly would run out of steam if enough people were convinced that, however much racism, sexism, and [insert-bad-"ism"-here] might continue to exist, they certainly aren't nearly as prevalent today as they once were, and people holding such views are much more quickly marginalized today than they once were.

 

True. Though I'm not convinced there is a grievance industry per say. The rock in your shoe still hurts while you're avoiding the boulder aimed at your head. 

Share this post


Link to post

Hello Rock.  Voting records - but someone went back and found out this poor soul had the temerity to donate all of $1,000 to a cause he believed in.  It seems wrong to me and any fruit gained from that behavior should not benefit OR everyone gets to walk around so that all can see all of our causes, how we voted, who we supported, what our beliefs are, etc.  

 

What you stated above that it is more moral for "employee dissent" this is spin for forcing someone out of a job than for individuals to vote for what you think is right and supporting their ideas by donating to that cause.  I hope you can appreciate how drastic this is because when your children or you lose their job because your beliefs and the issues you support to found to offend those sacred cows chosen by someone else; who is supposed to think you were wronged or that you did not have it coming for having had your own opinion and beliefs.

 

Me, I am sort of done with the idea of a democratic governments.  Republics and the like only function when there is an educated populace rather than indoctrinated sheep that follow whatever the media is dishing out.  The political/social pendulum is swinging and I would expect to see some really harsh dictatorships and other similar forms.  We are quickly being taught as a people that we cannot trust governments and we certainly cannot trust those who live on the other block. Heck, we don't even want to buy from their stores; they just think too weirdly for us that know better on "this" block.  I mean, we like to choose with discernment where we spend our money and it ain't with them.  God, I am glad I have rights....unless I am not in-line with the sacred cow du jour.  Then I will lose my job, be destroyed in the media, etc. etc. etc.

 

Rock, you are rather reticent to condemn the actions of those that support your causes and pretty quick to condemn those with contrary opinions to your own.  To me, I seek fairness and one standard, and I want a news forum that chooses to report rather than entertain and choose the sacred cows for for society.  For example, I remain against SSM and will always vote that way BUT I also acknowledge that I don't see a way to prevent them with the current judicial structure.  To me it is a question of rights and the rights should have been granted long ago; however, none of those rights have anything to do with marriage and everything to do with how government chose to define who gets what rights and who does not. 

 

It is not fair for a gay person to lose his job for being gay nor is it fair for the founder of a company to be drummed out of company for having beliefs that reject the concept of SSM.  I reject these witch hunts by automatons that never think, but are only seeking a cause to rebel and reject.  The cause is obviously pretty irrelevant; it is whatever is the cause du jour spoon fed to those who hang on every word by.....that group that is choosing the sacred cows this week.  

 

For the record, I am opposed to what happened to the Mozilla CEO.  What I have tried to communicate here is that I disagree with this view that what he did to financially support and, presumably, vote for the removal of legal rights from gay couples was okay (or moral) and what the employees/customers/associates of Mozilla did (speaking up, boycotting) was wrong.

 

It's not moral to support and vote for something simply because it was successfully placed on a ballot in our democratic process.  And those associated with Mozilla who argued against Eich, really ought to take a hard look at how those actions will ultimately impact the company culture there.

Share this post


Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...