SJWs foist inventor of JavaScript out of CEO position over 6 year old personal donation (self.TheRedPill)

TheRedPill

163 ups - 56 downs = 107 votes

Brendan Eich, inventor of JavaScript, and co-founder of The Mozilla Foundation is stepping down as CEO amidst pressure from the social media world over a personal donation he made to prop 8 over 6 years ago. He donated $1000 from his own personal money to support [Prop 8](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CaliforniaProposition8_(2008) (the 2008 ballot measure to ban gay marriage in California). He says he is stepping down, but the reality is he is being foisted out. In several interviews this week, Eich had insisted that he would not step down from the job he was only recently appointed to.

Brendan Eich, (bachelor's degree in mathematics, master's degree in computer science, inventor of JavaScript) says:

> "So I don’t want to talk about my personal beliefs because I kept them out of Mozilla all these 15 years we’ve been going, ... I don’t believe they’re relevant."

Mozilla Executive Chairwoman Mitchell Baker (BA in Asian studies, inventor of nothing at all) says:

> "It’s clear that Brendan cannot lead Mozilla in this setting," said Baker, who added that she would not and could not speak for Eich. "The ability to lead — particularly for the CEO — is fundamental to the role and that is not possible here."

He seemed to be doing one helluva great job for the past 15 years. It wasn't until SJW's appeared on the scene that he stopped having the "ability to lead". The mind bending irony of all this is how the main guiding principle of the Mozilla Foundation is based around openness and freedom. In more and more cases around the internet "openness and freedom" is reserved for people whose opinions are politically correct.

What's the red pill take away here? Our world is changing. You can invent something everyone uses, and found a company based on beautiful utopian ideals -- and still get royally screwed by social justice warriors. Brendan was too much of an idealist and he's been burned by it. Learn from his mistakes.

132 comments submitted at 20:20:27 on Apr 3, 2014 by MightyCrotch

  • [-]
  • tenpointsix
  • 25 Points
  • 00:13:19, 4 April

For those keeping count, he's number 153 to have been purged.

  • [-]
  • twinburner
  • 81 Points
  • 21:21:31, 3 April

Another great man who built an empire destroyed by the politically correct elite.

  • [-]
  • typicalcollegebrah
  • 4 Points
  • 16:37:24, 4 April

People need to stop being such little bitches and realize that a man can have his own personal beliefs that don't interfere or have anything to do with the way he does business.

  • [-]
  • ReadingWhilstHigh
  • 17 Points
  • 22:45:15, 3 April

Sad day for open source. I just hope he starts some private company instead of retiring. What a loss of talent for Mozilla.

I wonder if this lady has participated in or donated to a private organization that would prompt her to resign from her position.

  • [-]
  • rebuildingMyself
  • 6 Points
  • 06:32:19, 4 April

I highly doubt she's donated any of her precious money to anyone.

  • [-]
  • Clauderoughly
  • 26 Points
  • 21:13:43, 3 April

So next they will be ejecting every member of the Mormon church ?

The LDS church was the BIGGEST backer of Prop 8, and it was directly funded with members thithes.

  • [-]
  • throwawayyy8675309
  • 9 Points
  • 04:07:38, 4 April

Well the Mormons have a strong moral culture based in something greater than government and money. So they'll be fine.

  • [-]
  • FloranHunter
  • 7 Points
  • 05:08:54, 4 April

After the South Park episode I looked into it and yeah, Mormonism's secular aspects are pretty great. Makes me wish I could believe or fake it well enough, sometimes.

  • [-]
  • boston_019
  • 2 Points
  • 13:39:12, 4 April

Agreed. I disagree with the theology but their society is top-notch.

  • [-]
  • 87GNX
  • 2 Points
  • 16:29:42, 4 April

If I could retroactively convert to mormonism, I would. I'd do it for the virgin wife and the 4.5 kids.

At this point I love caffeine too much.

  • [-]
  • Skotufjordur
  • 4 Points
  • 10:49:24, 4 April

Exmormon here. Can confirm.

  • [-]
  • MrStinky
  • 54 Points
  • 22:24:30, 3 April

She looks like this. That explains everything

  • [-]
  • Blaw40
  • 70 Points
  • 22:28:04, 3 April

Trigger Warning!!!! TRIGGER WARNING!!!!

  • [-]
  • RojoEscarlata
  • 22 Points
  • 23:17:27, 3 April

Isn't that a man?, a very ugly man.

How long until:

She runs Mozilla to the ground.

Or

Is forced to step down do incompetence.

  • [-]
  • YouCanChangeIt
  • 6 Points
  • 09:58:32, 4 April

> She runs Mozilla to the ground.

Whenever that happens, they'll just blame the patriarchy and list it as an example of "Why women still can't succeed in today's male society."

  • [-]
  • FatStig
  • 5 Points
  • 23:37:29, 3 April

She looks like a redhead screech from saved by the bell.

  • [-]
  • Hamsterminator
  • 8 Points
  • 02:06:37, 4 April

She looks like she had the Mozilla fox mascot clubbed and grafted onto her skull.

  • [-]
  • 9000sins
  • 5 Points
  • 02:14:23, 4 April

That's how they came up with the icon.

  • [-]
  • Hamsterminator
  • 1 Points
  • 03:08:24, 4 April

Holy shit you're right!

If her dome was painted blue, they would look pretty damn similar.

  • [-]
  • _social_caterpillar
  • 9 Points
  • 14:41:00, 4 April

Just so you guys know Michelle Baker is a great, close friend of Brendan Eich and the only thing she had to do with this whole bullshit situation is being forced to make her good friend resign. She's anything but the villain here. The statement that OP is quoting is from that final PR piece that her PR team was forced to write. Just wanted to clear that up before we start grabbing pitchforks and blame the first thing we see with a vagina.

  • [-]
  • Adroxiom
  • 7 Points
  • 05:08:33, 4 April

I really want this to be a joke... A BA in Asian Studies!??! CUUUUNTS!!!

  • [-]
  • 9000sins
  • 3 Points
  • 02:13:29, 4 April

That...can't...

Really?

  • [-]
  • blazingcopper
  • 1 Points
  • 11:10:07, 4 April

I thought I could handle anything after seeing some crazy gore pics etc. This picture actually made some vomit come to my mouth.

  • [-]
  • sniperhiding
  • 2 Points
  • 00:07:15, 4 April

Are you sure that's her? Looks like a still from a kid movie set about witches and goblins. /s

  • [-]
  • Petrarch1603
  • 29 Points
  • 23:23:53, 3 April

Its funny, 6 years ago Obama was elected on the position that "marriage is between a man and a woman" the exact same position as this guy and the Chic-fil-a president. Where was all the outrage at Obama from the SJW's?

  • [-]
  • ajswdf
  • 11 Points
  • 03:43:25, 4 April

That's not entirely correct. Until Biden forced him to come out in favor of gay marriage, he said his views were "evolving", which is code for "I'm in favor of gay marriage but I'm too much of a wuss to come out and say it"

  • [-]
  • FuckBeard
  • 14 Points
  • 04:48:38, 4 April

Obama's supporters are almost entirely in support of gay marriage and he only came out in support of gay marriage right before his re-election: http://www.cnn.com/2012/05/09/politics/obama-same-sex-marriage/

Obama didn't have anything negative to say about the NSA, the surveillance state, the use of the IRS against conservatives, or any other government abuses in 2013 but now that the democrats might lose this years election he's changed his mind and voiced an opinion against warantless wiretapping. In 2008 he vowed to stop warrantless wiretapping. He could have forbidden his employees at the NSA from violating the law, but he didn't, because it wasn't in his immediate self-interest. http://www.cnet.com/news/obama-no-warrantless-wiretaps-if-you-elect-me/ https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2012/10/fact-check-obamas-misleading-answer-about-warrantless-wiretapping-daily-show

Obama isn't "too much of a wuss". He just waits until an election is coming and then he makes a bunch of speeches in which he says what other people want to hear. Watching people hamster over him is ridiculous.

  • [-]
  • SolaireAstora
  • 13 Points
  • 06:39:54, 4 April

> Watching people hamster over him is ridiculous.

Yup.

"Oh, he was never against gay marriage and always secretly was for it even though he came out against it multiple times!"

Atheists:

"Obama is a secret Atheist"

I've seen this a lot with Obama. People seem to take whatever qualities that they think are important and just project them right onto the president.

Pot heads:

"Obama is secretly for pot legalization. Oh, all of those federal raids? He is powerless to stop them! When he laughed at us during a town hall meeting for suggesting that weed should be legal? Probably a figment of your imagination!"

The hamsters are working overtime.

  • [-]
  • tlazolteotl
  • 1 Points
  • 16:04:14, 4 April

> "Obama is a secret Atheist"

I have actually heard my liberal neighbors whispering this to themselves in the stairwell. Too true.

  • [-]
  • dropit_reborn
  • 0 Points
  • 07:09:47, 4 April

This is surprisingly accurate. It doesn't necessarily mean Obama's a bad president, or that he's inconsistent (draw your own conclusions). The more interesting insight is that the actual dude Barack is not who people are talking about, but the god-king they've created in their heads. I'm sure he's a great guy: I'm also convinced he's not perfect, but that is what the voters demand, and like the Grinch, if they can't find a reindeer, they'll make one instead.

  • [-]
  • quadrophenia515
  • 4 Points
  • 04:10:09, 4 April

No. The "evolving" comment was his justification for flip-flopping publicly although I'm sure he secretly favored gay marriage all along.

  • [-]
  • _Petruccio
  • 2 Points
  • 08:05:31, 4 April

"I'm in favor of gay marriage but ~~I'm too much of a wuss to come out and say it~~ why risk my poll numbers in swing states for it"

  • [-]
  • rebuildingMyself
  • 4 Points
  • 06:32:59, 4 April

Doesn't matter, he was a black dude running for president after GWB.

  • [-]
  • 9000sins
  • 3 Points
  • 02:15:26, 4 April

Extremely relevant.

  • [-]
  • semigod__
  • 10 Points
  • 23:18:57, 3 April

can you get sued in the US if you dont hire women at all?

if not i see huge business opportunities.

  • [-]
  • lightfire409
  • 11 Points
  • 00:05:12, 4 April

Yeah, you can. Anything over 50 employees is subject to Equal Opportunity laws i believe.

  • [-]
  • FloranHunter
  • 7 Points
  • 05:10:59, 4 April

What exactly prevents structuring a corporation as a federation of smallish corporations? Aside from the annual $800 or w/e per license.

  • [-]
  • Aerobus
  • 2 Points
  • 07:48:25, 4 April

How about you open up multiple offices, each office hires 49 men?

If not that, what's the minimum proportion of women I can get away with hiring. 10%? 20%? Does it have to be 50%?

  • [-]
  • FatStig
  • 8 Points
  • 23:45:23, 3 April

You can avoid the equality laws by employing less than a certain number of people I believe.

  • [-]
  • rebuildingMyself
  • 9 Points
  • 06:33:48, 4 April

Explains why small businesses are the backbone of America.

  • [-]
  • SolaireAstora
  • 9 Points
  • 07:07:50, 4 April

The scariest thing about political correctness witch hunts like this is that the goal posts are always moving. You always have to be more tolerant of something every day.

The word homosexual has now fallen out of flavor. Perhaps we will have a Paula Dean type witch hunt where we ask people if they have ever used the word "homosexual" in the past.

Predicting what will be the new social justice cause is impossible to predict. The only thing you can count on is that it will keep moving. Forward! Comrades.

If you told someone thirty years ago that in the future you could be fired if you didn't think gays should get married, people would laugh in your face.

The best case scenario is that SJWs keep trying to make people out to be oppressed who are not. If SJWs start moving on to new groups of oppressed, we are in some serious trouble. Especially since they ran out of actually oppressed groups a long time ago.

  • [-]
  • drrrrrr
  • 9 Points
  • 08:05:58, 4 April

This reads like a scene from Atlas Shrugged

  • [-]
  • Hamsterminator
  • 7 Points
  • 02:08:04, 4 April

Hope he got a fat severance package for the barely-any-time that he was there. Corporate officer contracts can be sweet like that.

Mozilla can keep their SJW values. A guy like this dude could build his own competing corporation up from nothing and beat them into the fucking ground with it.

  • [-]
  • icanteventhecat
  • 33 Points
  • 21:32:41, 3 April

I saw that stupid propaganda when I tried to log into OK Cupid from Firefox. Yes, I vehemently support gay rights, but that doesn't fucking factor into my choice of browser. I'm sick of everyone's opinions being everyone's business. SJWs need to get it through their thick fucking heads that someone who believes in something, no matter how contemptible, is entitled to hold that opinion as long as it does not affect their actual work.

  • [-]
  • zyk0s
  • 20 Points
  • 22:46:53, 3 April

OKCupid's move was insane. I can't think of any other instance where a website would deny people access based on politics. I can't even think of a tech company calling for the boycott of another for some political issue. You'd think we were in 1950 and Eich was found to have contributed to the communist party.

  • [-]
  • FatStig
  • 11 Points
  • 23:43:50, 3 April

only 10% of their users used mozill. It was a huge pr win they had a 30% increase in subscribers.

I found all this out after getting banned for employing the red pill a little too strongly. The strangest thing is though I apparently offended enough butthurt little princesses to get banned I got 3 numbers in one night.

Whatever I can't tell if its a shit test or actual outrage when we're on line.

  • [-]
  • zyk0s
  • 1 Points
  • 00:08:37, 4 April

30% increase? Wow, I wasn't expecting people to be this idiotic (well, maybe a little). You got banned from OKC? What exactly did you say?

  • [-]
  • FatStig
  • 2 Points
  • 08:37:08, 4 April

Basically two lines. If after perusing their profile I thought they were bluepill I'd ask "Are you tight butthole?" ( a reference to the show workaholics) This snags the feminist who wants to be degraded and is dying to be buttfucked.

The other for what I perceived to be rational girls was "I bet you like to be picked up and tossed into bed."

The former got more attention and numbers. Probably what got me banned too.

The typical(at least in real life) hi with a smiley got almost no responses. These two got about 60% response rate and 90% actually looked at my profile vice no interest at all with polite hello's.

  • [-]
  • neo-nonpua
  • 10 Points
  • 23:36:59, 3 April

> zyk0s wrote: OKCupid's move was insane. I can't think of any other instance where a website would deny people access based on politics. I can't even think of a tech company calling for the boycott of another for some political issue. You'd think we were in 1950 and Eich was found to have contributed to the communist party.

It had nothing to do with politics. They didn't deny anyone access to the site; OkCupid's move was an attempt to ingratiate themselves to the more gullible of their love-starved flock and distract from the fact that OkC is an advertising website designed to buy and sell people's personal data (including answers to the Match questions, as well as private messages sent back and forth using the site). The bottom line was revenue, as usual.

  • [-]
  • ekjohnson9
  • 1 Points
  • 11:42:24, 4 April

I would have bought their bullshit if they found an alternative to JavaScript, which this former CEO invented.

  • [-]
  • Adroxiom
  • 9 Points
  • 05:07:03, 4 April

Ah, SJW cunts. Out to get the men that actually produce anything of substance in this world. I was livid after reading this earlier. I hope people begin to realize how much more left this fucking world is becoming; almost dogmatic.

  • [-]
  • vaker
  • 3 Points
  • 07:05:36, 4 April

Nothing 'almost' about it.

  • [-]
  • _T_T
  • 9 Points
  • 20:50:20, 3 April

http://www.jonathanrauch.com/jraucharticles/indefenseofprejudice/

> THE new crusade against prejudice waves aside such warnings. Like earlier crusades against antisocial ideas, the mission is fueled by good (if cocksure) intentions and a genuine sense of urgency. Some kinds of error are held to be intolerable, like pollutants that even in small traces poison the water for a whole town. Some errors are so pernicious as to damage real people's lives, so wrongheaded that no person of right mind or goodwill could support them. Like their forebears of other stripe--the Church in its campaigns against heretics, the McCarthyites in their campaigns against Communists--the modern anti-racist and anti-sexist and anti-homophobic campaigners are totalists, demanding not that misguided ideas and ugly expressions be corrected or criticized but that they be eradicated. They make war not on errors but on error, and like other totalists they act in the name of public safety--the safety, especially, of minorities.

> The sweeping implications of this challenge to pluralism are not, I think, well enough understood by the public at large. Indeed, the new brand of totalism has yet even to be properly named. "Multiculturalism," for instance, is much too broad. "Political correctness" comes closer but is too trendy and snide. For lack of anything else, I will call the new antipluralism "purism," since its major tenet is that society cannot be just until the last traces of invidious prejudice have been scrubbed away. Whatever you call it, the purists' way of seeing things has spread through American intellectual life with remarkable speed, so much so that many people will blink at you uncompre-hendingly or even call you a racist (or sexist or homophobe, etc.) if you suggest that expressions of racism should be tolerated or that prejudice has its part to play.

http://www.spiked-online.com/newsite/article/gay-marriage-the-fastest-formed-orthodoxy-ever/14855

> This intolerant, confrontational style of the gay-marriage lobby, its virtual trawling for the remaining few people who oppose gay marriage so that they, too, might be pressured into mandatory celebration, reveals something about the true nature of this issue - which is that it has become a barometer of social decency, one of the few things which otherwise at-sea politicians and campaigners can use to define themselves as purposeful in these morally amorphous times. This leads, inevitably, to ostentatious showdowns with the other side, the bad side, making gay marriage into a ‘zero sum game’, in Damon Linker’s words, where campaigners demand not just tolerance of their views but ‘psychological acceptance and positive affirmation’ of them. The more the political and media classes define their moral worldview through gay marriage, the more they need to hunt down and point a finger at the lingering opponents of it in increasingly intolerant exercises in moral juxtaposition. This leads, not to a genuine acceptance of gay marriage, but to a kind of acquiescence to it, a compliance with it, as individuals sign up under duress, certainly under pressure.

http://takimag.com/article/lechwalesaspolishsausagefestjimgoad/print

> Apparently there is a new morality afoot, and heroically enduring persecution and incarceration to help dismantle the Iron Curtain cannot begin to make up for insinuating that gays—who, as is often suggested about Jews, may be a privileged elite rather than an oppressed minority—are hell-bent on forcing their sense of what’s moral upon a largely unwilling and unsympathetic public. And apparently one is no longer permitted to merely be a pro-labor economic leftist anymore, as Walesa was in his prime; one also has to lick every last morsel off the Cultural Marxist dinner plate or risk continual condemnation and eternal banishment from polite society.

> One of Walesa’s critics lamented:

> > Oh, how the once mighty have fallen….He has now condemned himself and his legacy by his own works and deeds. He once stood up to Soviet puppet communist oppressors for the good of the working person, and now he seeks to oppress those who have less rights and freedoms than he has. The oppressed had become the oppressor.

> But one might well say the same thing about gay activists—they once claimed to represent a group that historically had been shunned and beaten and ostracized, but once they acquired a bit of power, they immediately tried to humiliate and isolate their opponents while accusing them of being evil at worst or mentally ill at best.

http://unqualified-reservations.blogspot.com/2013/09/technology-communism-and-brown-scare.html

> The logic of the witch hunter is simple. It has hardly changed since Matthew Hopkins' day. The first requirement is to invert the reality of power. Power at its most basic level is the power to harm or destroy other human beings. The obvious reality is that witch hunters gang up and destroy witches. Whereas witches are never, ever seen to gang up and destroy witch hunters. By this test alone, we can see that the conspiracy is imaginary (Brown Scare) rather than real (Red Scare).

> We do not see Pax Dickinson and Paul Graham ganging up to destroy Gawker. We see them curling up into a fetal position and trying to survive. An America in which hackers could purge journalists for communist deviation, rather than journalists purging hackers for fascist deviation, would be a very different America. Ya think?

> Whereas the real America, the America in which a journalist little more than an intern, with no discernible achievements but a sharp tongue, a Columbia degree and trouble using MySQL, can quite effectively bully one of the most accomplished hackers of his era, not to mention a way better writer - this is the remarkable America that we live in and need to explain.

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/366896/age-intolerance-mark-steyn

> Here are two jokes one can no longer tell on American television. But you can still find them in the archives, out on the edge of town, in Sub-Basement Level 12 of the ever-expanding Smithsonian Mausoleum of the Unsayable. First, Bob Hope, touring the world in the year or so after the passage of the 1975 Consenting Adult Sex Bill:

> > “I’ve just flown in from California, where they’ve made homosexuality legal. I thought I’d get out before they make it compulsory.”

> For Hope, this was an oddly profound gag, discerning even at the dawn of the Age of Tolerance that there was something inherently coercive about the enterprise. Soon it would be insufficient merely to be “tolerant” — warily accepting, blithely indifferent, mildly amused, tepidly supportive, according to taste. The forces of “tolerance” would become intolerant of anything less than full-blown celebratory approval.

  • [-]
  • DexterousRichard
  • 1 Points
  • 13:00:10, 4 April

I could not agree more. Thanks for such an amazing collection of references.

  • [-]
  • 87GNX
  • 1 Points
  • 16:31:46, 4 April

Nice links, bro.

  • [-]
  • jacks1000
  • 39 Points
  • 20:28:49, 3 April

Leftists are totalitarian monsters. Just look at their history. Anytime a leftist movement gets into power, they turn the society into a nightmare far worse than the traditional society that was replaced.

Russia, France, Cambodia, China, etc.

  • [-]
  • ibuprofiend
  • 23 Points
  • 21:43:43, 3 April

Just goes to show that SJWs are the least tolerant people out there. According to them you can do/be anything you want, as long as it corresponds to their bizarre leftist/collectivist ideology.

These are dark days. If they can topple a CEO so quickly it's not long before this trickles down to you and me.

  • [-]
  • abXcv
  • 28 Points
  • 23:02:44, 3 April

Yeah it's just weird.

They preach tolerance, but they're not tolerant at all of people who are pro-life, racist, homophobic etc.

I personally am pretty liberal, if someone wants to do something (homosex, sex changes, have abortions) I'm fine with that - it's their choice.

However, I also think people should be allowed to be as racist, as homophobic and as transphobic as they want.

Now I'm not saying you should be able to beat up a gay guy just because he's gay, but equally you shouldn't have to condone what he does if you don't agree with it.

That to me, is actual tolerance.

  • [-]
  • ChaddeusThunderloins
  • 12 Points
  • 01:05:21, 4 April

Yeah I'm there with you. I find a lot of SJW's are weird leftist analogues of the hardcore religious right: people who are supposed to love their neighbour but instead condemn them for being poor, or having buttsex in the privacy of their bedrooms.

Extremes on both ends degrade society badly.

  • [-]
  • vaker
  • 2 Points
  • 07:25:18, 4 April

Once you realize that liberalism is a religion, with its own (scientifically unsupported) dogmas, zealots, and inquisitors then everything falls into place.

  • [-]
  • leftyguitarist
  • 7 Points
  • 04:56:52, 4 April

Yep. Tolerance is not liking something but dealing with it as a functioning member of society. The guy donating money is expressing support for a political opinion, but it's the "wrong" opinion, so he is not allowed tolerance. SJWs wish us to trade the sometime-harsh master of liberty with an always-harsh master with themselves imagined as being on top.

It's sad that people can't learn from history what happens when opinion is stifled. As JFK said, those who make peaceful revolution impossible make violent revolution a necessity.

  • [-]
  • Phokus
  • -4 Points
  • 02:50:19, 4 April

This is going to be an unpopular opinion here, but this wasn't some low level guy or even VP, this was the CEO. He is the public face of the company, he is the final arbiter of company policies that affect his employees, and the message the company is trying to project on the world. I don't think someone who supports anti-civil rights is really a very good leader for a company, especially one that supports open source software. If he donated money to the KKK, could he be an effective leader?

  • [-]
  • SolaireAstora
  • 5 Points
  • 06:49:42, 4 April

> I don't think someone who supports anti-civil rights is really a very good leader for a company, especially one that supports open source software. If he donated money to the KKK, could he be an effective leader?

You've worked under plenty of racists. You just didn't know it.

A relative of mine's accountant believes in a religion that says that a spaceship will pick him up in a couple of years and take him to another planet.

But he can do taxes really well, so who gives a fuck.

How well you do your job has nothing to do with anything else.

  • [-]
  • wtfamiwatching
  • 1 Points
  • 15:30:58, 4 April

Church of the Subgenius?

  • [-]
  • Phokus
  • 0 Points
  • 13:20:40, 4 April

Your relative's accountant isn't the CEO of a corporation, big distinction there. Again, the CEO is ultimately responsible for every policy that affects their employee and is the public face of the company.

  • [-]
  • throwawayyy8675309
  • 6 Points
  • 04:04:32, 4 April

> civil rights

Gay marriage isn't a civil right.

  • [-]
  • Endless_Summer
  • 1 Points
  • 09:03:13, 4 April

Well, that's not true.

  • [-]
  • throwawayyy8675309
  • 0 Points
  • 14:37:48, 4 April

How so?

  • [-]
  • Endless_Summer
  • 1 Points
  • 17:09:20, 4 April

The ability to get married is a civil right...

  • [-]
  • DexterousRichard
  • 1 Points
  • 12:51:06, 4 April

It's not fucking civil rights. It's an idiotic plea by gays to be something they simply are not. Homosexual marriage is an oxymoron, and doesn't make any sense to any same person.

Now, gays can have lovers and do whatever the hell they want, but they can't call their relationship a marriage because the word has a meaning.

  • [-]
  • DragonHarem
  • 13 Points
  • 20:34:58, 3 April

And North Korea.

Or just read about their personal lives. Usually a mess. Alice Walker is one example:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1021293/How-mothers-fanatical-feminist-views-tore-apart-daughter-The-Color-Purple-author.html

  • [-]
  • jacks1000
  • 18 Points
  • 20:44:18, 3 April

I'm always skeptical of people who want to "change society" instead of improving themselves.

Ever notice how these people's "utopia" is a dystopia for everyone else?

  • [-]
  • ss4james_
  • 17 Points
  • 21:41:41, 3 April

It's dystopia for them as well but they don't realize it cause they're dumb. They think they'll have life on easy street because essentially everything will be provided for them, even sex if anti "fat shaming" and "slut shaming" movements actually took hold in the psyche of the masses (it won't).

What most these idiots don't realize is that if everyone else has that mindset (which they seem to be fighting for considering how much energy they put into erasing opposing opinions) then there's no reason to ever excel. And the industry rewards advancement, not stagnant businesses that are quickly replaced. Advancement is what ultimately makes things better for everyone. The economy fails when competing with inherently more competitive economies.

Women wouldn't even be capable of doing what they do today if it wasn't for industrial advancement creating office jobs and causing the work environment to be safer in every way. It was men that invented oral birth control and modern abortion practices. American democracy was only a couple hundred years old before women got the right to vote, and they got the right to vote only about 50 years after men who didn't own property (poor people), not to mention that a few states already allowed women to vote even before the suffrage...

Feminism wouldn't have much to fight for if men didn't create those things themselves. We're just testing it out first, ladies.

  • [-]
  • Katoska
  • 7 Points
  • 22:34:58, 3 April

Yup. The welfare system, the safety net in America today... It makes people complacent.

"Oh, I can just work at McDonalds part time, I won't pay taxes and I can count on papa govt for whatever I don't make.".

What is the point in trying to make money? You're entitled to x amount a month based on how much you 'neeeed', and you'll get that by not working, so what's the point?

I hate to say it, but lefts include everybody and drag us down to our lowest common denominator. It isn't healthy for a society.

  • [-]
  • ss4james_
  • 5 Points
  • 22:55:21, 3 April

I actually lean more on the liberal side and think a safety net is pretty important. It's ideologies and attitudes that that try to keep people from breaking free from the safety net that bother me. It's pretending that you should proudly be exploiting the government assistance (tax payer money) when you're perfectly capable of working for a living and bettering yourself. It's hypocritical things like blaming the government and society for your position in life while receiving welfare and food stamps. It's pressuring kids to take out loans to go to college when they don't even know what they want from life instead of learning a trade to earn a living in the mean time.

  • [-]
  • FatStig
  • 3 Points
  • 23:40:37, 3 April

Unfortunately these two things come hand in hand for most. You sound solipsistic suggesting you can separate the two.

  • [-]
  • ss4james_
  • 7 Points
  • 23:56:57, 3 April

Agree to disagree I guess, I think a society that can take care of it's sick and weak is a mark of a civilized society. The problem is when the system is taken advantage of by lazy and selfish people.

  • [-]
  • fuzzyglocks
  • 2 Points
  • 05:16:50, 4 April

But are state sanctioned public insurance systems the only/best way to accomplish this? I mean, historically it was the institution of the family, mutual aid societies and charity which served this function. Of course it is well known that some would fall through the cracks, so to speak. The rise of public welfare systems provided a surety of sorts for protection against this. This was a big deal back in the day because people were poor and technology was limited.
Many think that this has caused a negative restructuring of social relations in the west - from concepts such as community and the family, to relationships between the sexes, etc. We can observe these changes and understand how they influence our lives today.

Also, with respect to your concern about abusing such assistance, consider the difference in the dynamics between cheating a large, monolithic, impersonal entity such as the state compared to a friend, family member, mutual aid group, or your community. Which systems actually woild disincentivize free-riding?

  • [-]
  • cookiecutterbullshit
  • 12 Points
  • 01:04:59, 4 April

Anyone interested in exploring these types of views from a historical standpoint should read Liberal Fascism by Jonah Goldberg. It's intricate and tells the history of America in a way that text books would never touch on.

  • [-]
  • vaker
  • 1 Points
  • 07:27:12, 4 April

> Anytime a leftist movement gets into power, they turn the society into a nightmare ... Russia, France, Cambodia, China, etc.

Soviet Union(20 million murdered), China(65 million), Kambodia(2 million) and N.Korea(2 million). See the Black Book.

Considering that the nazis were national-socialists you can add that too.

  • [-]
  • pachan
  • 1 Points
  • 14:37:13, 4 April

japan, germany, italy are good examples of the right doing it better.

  • [-]
  • nignog28
  • 1 Points
  • 01:32:02, 4 April

When those from any extreme get into power, bad things happen. If you look at traditional union type democrats it's a world apart from other (feminist) parts of the left. Far elements of the right have the same problem, e.g. KKK.

  • [-]
  • jaydavisb
  • 4 Points
  • 06:06:00, 4 April

The KKK was aligned with the left/democrats. I challenge you to support your claim that it is right-wing in nature.

  • [-]
  • SolaireAstora
  • 9 Points
  • 06:53:34, 4 April

The Nazi's were also socialists.

But let's just keep calling them "far right" and pretend like no one will notice.

  • [-]
  • nignog28
  • 1 Points
  • 13:38:48, 4 April

Democrats were not always liberal. Southern democrats have traditionally been very conservative until many switched to the republican party.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KuKluxKlan

>The Ku Klux Klan (KKK), informally known as the Klan or the "Hooded Order", is the name of three distinct past and present far-right organizations

If you go to far in either direction on the political spectrum you get bad results.

  • [-]
  • zwarag
  • -1 Points
  • 09:53:53, 4 April

I once spoke to an old man, that was one of the most fucked up realizations i ever had. It took me a while to realize what he ment and i'm not sure if I realized it all by now but....

(i was very young and all like: lets save the wooorld) He said where do i want to know that the lefts are the good and the rights are the bad. The rights take some rights from people, and the lefts want to take some rights from the right movement people. So actually the lefts are kinda right. And think about the nazis, if you put the anti semism by side, you have a perfect kommunists society, so the rights are leftists after all? -- And i set there and thought he is kinda right, but but... why is he right? He shouldn't. But he is right because the majority of leftists take the right to say whatever shit a person (indipendent whatever they may beleaf or not) is against theyr own beleaf and therefore should not be tollerated (so they are intollerant) which is also against the democratic principle! Which is pretty fucked up. And like the femminists they drag this actually private thing into the business world and fuck it up there even more.

I mean JS is one of the best, when not the most best thing ever happen to the Web. We wouln't have the freedom JS gives us today and it's so fucking simple yet so damn potetial, its widly awailable, you use it on client site on server site you can do big data stuff or just funny animations, quite everything on the fucking web is awesome because of JS. Fuck his private opinions about whatever gays may marry or not, this dude improoved the Web for everyone, including gays!

  • [-]
  • TheOpposingView
  • 6 Points
  • 22:36:24, 3 April

It seems more likely that this is a small part of someone's internal move to out him. I find it hard to believe they would force his resignation if they thought he could make them a lot of money--I will be interested to see who directly benefits from this, and why his company hung him out to dry.

Or, I could be vastly underestimating how much attention SJWs get amongst the rich and business types.

He could say things like "That was 15 years ago, I was dumb, uneducated, ignorant..." and this would go away with the right backing from the establishment. Who did he piss off that he is now on his own?

  • [-]
  • Akyu
  • 9 Points
  • 23:00:06, 3 April

Thats a good point. I believe a decent percentage of this SJW stuff in the business world is just females trying to clear out competition for promotions etc. Take out the most capable males so you don't have to compete with them

  • [-]
  • jsl2837
  • 3 Points
  • 12:40:09, 4 April

Vox Day has posted his analysis: >No one who saw this picture and understands Game was even remotely surprised by the way the Mozilla debacle played out over the last week. Human socio-sexuality is visible to the naked eye; just look at the soft features, the large, teddy-bearish frame, and most important, the uncertain, ready-to-please smile.

>This is the very image of a white knight, of a pedestalizer, of a man who would rather surrender than fight. It is the very image of the Delta Male

>This is not to say that Brandon Eich is a bad man, an idiot, a failure, or a man to be despised. Quite to the contrary, he is a good man, a highly intelligent man, a massive success, and a man to be admired for his many good qualities. Which, therefore, make him an object lesson in how socio-sexuality is orthogonal to many of those qualities.

>Eich responded to his critics in a classic Delta manner. He attempted to assuage and to reason with them. And that is why he failed. He did not snipe back passive-aggressively and appeal to the crowd like a Gamma, he did not enlist superior allies like a Beta, and he did not wreak vengeance upon his challengers like an Alpha. Given his position as Mozilla CEO, the Alpha response was the correct one, indeed, it was the only one that would have ensured his status.

>But, here we see how a man's contextual socio-sexual status always gives way to the man's true rank. Given sufficient time, Eich's rank might have eventually grown to reach his contextual status, but he met with the challenge much too soon into his new position, responded inappropriately, and unsurprisingly, met with complete failure.

(http://alphagameplan.blogspot.com/2014/04/delta-face.html)

  • [-]
  • throwwhatthere
  • 2 Points
  • 15:03:30, 4 April

So, just what would the Alpha move have been in this case. I mean precisely. It's one thing to say "wreak vengeance upon his challengers." I'm not sure precisely how he could have done that, or what it would have looked like, and if he did do it, if it would have worked.

Anyone care to illustrate?

Sometimes there's this thing called taking the L.

On another note, maybe the failure was in not guarding his position closely enough. He should perhaps have made it so the company COULD NOT function without him, and made this obvious to everyone.

  • [-]
  • jsl2837
  • 1 Points
  • 15:24:54, 4 April

His attitude would certainly have to be unapologetic. I'm just a college student so I have no clue how a real wheeling-dealing alpha businessman would act. But this comedy routine does come to mind:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o1Y-WAzzX-c#t=1620

  • [-]
  • YouCanChangeIt
  • 3 Points
  • 09:56:27, 4 April

That's fucked up. Remember how we're always told how wrong and evil the nazis were, for putting the "Don't buy from jews" signs all over the place? How is this any better? People are being prosecuted for their "political" opinion. Nothing really ever changes.

  • [-]
  • CharlesODriscoll
  • 5 Points
  • 23:56:00, 3 April

Gays ruin everything

  • [-]
  • dirtboxchampion
  • 2 Points
  • 13:59:54, 4 April

SJWs / internet outrage police ruin everything.

  • [-]
  • mast0rz
  • -5 Points
  • 09:23:26, 4 April

This comment is so idiotic it makes me shake with anger at your narrow and shallow perception of the world we live in.

I thought this subreddit was about opening and expanding your mind, not dwelling in some religious belief or choking on views from the 1960s your parents shoved down your throat.

You (and everyone who upvoted you) need to wake the fuck up and realize that your statement is not anchored in any real, scientific proof. Have you ever even spoken to or met a gay person? I bet you have without even knowing it and, his sexual orientation aside, was probably just like you.

I have no idea in fact why this subject is being brought up on this subreddit. OP totally contradicts himself with his statement that the internet should consist of "openness and freedom", yet he thinks it's totally fine to contribute to the banning of gay marriage? How does that have anything to do with openness and freedom? There is nothing politically correct with gay marriage. It's a perfectly natural phenomenon and should have absolutely nothing to do with politics.

In fact, most of the people here seem rather tired with women and their antics, so I'm quite surprised to see this hate towards gays. I mean gays are in a way the most RP it gets, having totally cut women out of their lives and dedicated themselves to men.

G'day.

  • [-]
  • Str8tuptrollin
  • 3 Points
  • 09:48:05, 4 April

Get over it, he didn't put poofs on a pedestal.

  • [-]
  • DarkCircle
  • -2 Points
  • 11:23:15, 4 April

As much as I like trp, there are a contingent of racists and bigots on here.

  • [-]
  • mast0rz
  • -4 Points
  • 11:26:31, 4 April

I hear you brother. Makes me question if TRP really is as everyone else says: fedora wearing meatheads that are just bitter that they don't get laid. I really, really hope it isn't though, because this is my favorite subreddit.

  • [-]
  • ekjohnson9
  • 4 Points
  • 11:45:58, 4 April

Concern trolling. TRP isn't a collective, a voting bloc, or a political organization.

  • [-]
  • Never_cites_sources
  • 2 Points
  • 12:47:47, 4 April

Your critique of TRP became invalid as soon as you mentioned the word "fedora."

Leave it to reddit and the SJWs to come out with the most autistic insult ever.

  • [-]
  • DarkCircle
  • -2 Points
  • 11:32:39, 4 April

I agree with lots of it but some of it is a hateful towards women or other groups. Gotta just take the good and ignore the crap.

  • [-]
  • BroseppeVerdi
  • 3 Points
  • 05:22:19, 4 April

I've always considered myself a gay rights supporter and a social progressive. I was on board with the "Boycott Chick-fil-a" campaign when Dan Cathy used his company's money to further an anti-gay agenda. I'm also a firm believer in choosing the companies you patronize based on said company's business practices and political leanings: In the wake of the Snowden shitstorm, I switched from Chrome to Firefox... and I'm not switching back.

Why? Because this case is not analogous to the previously mentioned ones. Brendan Eich spent his own money (NOT Mozilla's) on a political cause and as far as I know, hasn't made any anti-gay remarks in the wake of this scandal (like Dan Cathy did). Eich getting muscled out of Mozilla for his personal political beliefs reminds me a lot of that handful of conservative small business owners who were bragging about firing employees for voting for Obama in 2012. If Eich were a low level employee getting let go for his political beliefs, that shit would be illegal as fuck. Since a CEO's job is somewhat political in nature, this is not the case here... but it's still tragic that a brilliant luminary lost a leadership position with a great company because someone disagreed with his political beliefs.

I strongly disagree with his decision to contribute money to Prop 8, but it's a grave injustice that he lost his job over it. That shit strikes me as profoundly un-American.

  • [-]
  • mrust
  • 2 Points
  • 10:18:47, 4 April

Not only that, he didn't go out of his way to push his views on anyone. He was required by law to identify his employer as part of the contribution and that's how this whole thing blew up.

  • [-]
  • a_chill_bro
  • 1 Points
  • 06:33:58, 4 April

These "CEOs" need to learn to stand up for themselves.

  • [-]
  • DmDvT
  • 2 Points
  • 11:52:04, 4 April

Progressive Liberal society is ruining America. Innovation and the competitiveness of America will die because of the left. They want everyone to be brought down to the lowest common denominator. They silence ideas and hate freedom of speech. the first thing you hear out of a progressive liberal is "You're racist, misogynist, intolerant" People are afraid to share their views because they may be branded as one of these labels by the left.

  • [-]
  • boaka
  • 1 Points
  • 12:26:25, 4 April

Their loss, I hope he starts something new and thrives ... best revenge is a great life ... and a blow from lupara.

  • [-]
  • attaxx
  • 1 Points
  • 13:07:59, 4 April

Honestly it saddened me how twisted the world had become. I entered okcupid the other day and was greeted by a white screen saying that I shouldn't use mozilla because it's CEO was against gay rights. Seriously? I mean it's his own damn business and your website it's not the place to preach about it, in fact you have no right to impose your views in a private company, they could put fucking Stalin in charge if they think he does a good job.

USA promoted liberalism and freedom, yet it seems that the place where liberalism and freedom are missing the most.

  • [-]
  • batman50
  • 1 Points
  • 15:10:17, 4 April

It is hard to respect a man who don't stand to the PC police. He was that CEO, should have more back bone than this.

  • [-]
  • x7CR7x
  • 1 Points
  • 15:58:21, 4 April

Question: What's to stop these CEOs getting toppled from simply laughing and saying "Don't be ridiculous. The scoreboard speaks for itself. Until that changes - please get back to work".

  • [-]
  • Jrix
  • 0 Points
  • 23:12:47, 3 April

I don't necessarily see the relevance to red pill. That aside...

I also am not sure what the issue is. If he say, donated money to ban black people from being married, would admonishing that be considered being a "social justice warrior"?

Rather, are we talking about his beliefs or the degree of magnitude to which his beliefs run counter liberal ethics?

Also, he wasn't CEO of Mozilla for very long, I doubt it was "foul play", but rather, his new found position evoked prying eyes. Additionally, I recall this being an issue of sorts years ago so it's not like no one knew about it.

Lastly, as far as economics is concerned, it's a wise decision to give the guy the boot considering the progressive leanings of the tech crowd.

  • [-]
  • neo-nonpua
  • 7 Points
  • 23:28:47, 3 April

Someone invented a new term that fits this case perfectly: the outrage boner.

Credit to RedSunBlue for coining the term.

Outrage boners are possessed, fittingly, by outrage junkies.

> Outrage Junkie - a person who constantly seeks the feeling of outrage, usually by purposeful consumption or creation of misleading information or by intentional misinterpretation of otherwise benign communication.

See also: the recent topic "Outrage junkies and TRP".

Usually I groan at new jargon, but this one is too perfect not to repeat.

  • [-]
  • Blaw40
  • 9 Points
  • 00:03:17, 4 April

Don't compare what black people went through to the imagined struggle of the mentally ill. That's very disrespectful.

  • [-]
  • Jrix
  • -1 Points
  • 00:58:37, 4 April

So then, it is just the magnitude of the social injustice rather than it being an injustice that lies outside the relevance of the domain the person is being admonished in.

If so, by what metric do we determine the social injustice threshold is met?

  • [-]
  • Blaw40
  • 10 Points
  • 01:03:42, 4 April

One was a social injustice, one is not. One had an actual magnitude, the other invented its magnitude. You cannot compare them because there was only one social injustice done.

> If so, by what metric do we determine the social injustice threshold is met?

First there has to be an injustice before we can gauge and then decide on a threshold for it.

  • [-]
  • Jrix
  • -4 Points
  • 02:43:13, 4 April

The hell? You talk like you have a religion or something. wtf are you doing

  • [-]
  • vaker
  • 5 Points
  • 07:13:27, 4 April

He's exposing your religion. That's why you're upset.

  • [-]
  • Goldilocks_is_cool
  • 1 Points
  • 08:28:30, 4 April

Best to keep your views private.

  • [-]
  • mrust
  • 1 Points
  • 10:19:38, 4 April

He was required by law to identify his employer as part of the contribution. I'm sure he would have preferred to stay anonymous.

  • [-]
  • DexterousRichard
  • 2 Points
  • 13:03:20, 4 April

The only way to be free anymore is to be self-employed.

  • [-]
  • mrust
  • 1 Points
  • 16:54:56, 4 April

No such thing. Even if you don't have a boss or shareholders, you're still beholden to your customers. Also, depending on the country you're in, being self-employed can mean massive bureaucracy.

  • [-]
  • gmater2x
  • 2 Points
  • 12:03:47, 4 April

calling it sjw is buying into their lingo.

  • [-]
  • dirtboxchampion
  • 1 Points
  • 13:59:13, 4 April

Yeah I used to use this term but you're right.

Maybe 'Internet outrage police'?

  • [-]
  • watersign
  • -7 Points
  • 23:43:52, 3 April

Fucking faggots need to be annihilated!!

  • [-]
  • TitaniumDreads
  • -1 Points
  • 06:45:59, 4 April

Looks like the market just reassessed his value.

  • [-]
  • NailedToTheCross
  • 0 Points
  • 14:11:33, 4 April

Brendan Eich's fate wasn't determined by a shadowy chaebol of socialist-feminist-otherkin, by big government or excessive regulation. Instead, it was influenced by the free market, namely people affected by his lobbying taking their custom elsewhere. Given the importance of Mozilla as a force for good causing the evolution of the internet in the last few years (the push towards open standards, breaking IE's monopoly, introduction of HTML5/CSS3), such an important organisation shouldn't be led by such a divisive figure as this would detract from their effectiveness.

Personally, I think there should be some kind of taboo around donating to any "ban what I don't like" movements which impose their will on people's personal liberty. Providing no one gets hurt (I don't care if people are offended though, fuck you you fucking fuck!) then people should be free to do what they want. Ultimately though, individuals should be judged by others on the merits of their actions and the impact it has on others.

  • [-]
  • FaithfulJinn
  • -8 Points
  • 00:18:41, 4 April

Honestly, who gives a fuck? He's a CEO. He's the public face of that company and his public opinions are going to affect how his employees and his customers view that company. If you're going to have dumbass or unpopular public opinions then you have to face the consequences for it.

This is literally the free market at work.

  • [-]
  • CharlesODriscoll
  • 0 Points
  • 00:24:41, 4 April

The unfortunate part of it is that the free market values flamers getting phony weddings over common sense marriage

  • [-]
  • DexterousRichard
  • 2 Points
  • 13:24:29, 4 April

It's not even the free market. People have always been shlubs. They generally absorb the opinions they are fed by the media. And media and Hollywood people have made it very clear that they have been trying very hard to legitimize homosexual marriage and relationships and homosexual parenting, etc.

What gets me though is that they now have enough clout to make businesses in completely unrelated industries quake in their boots at the thought of being perceived as not quite sufficiently rabidly pro-gay.

Fucking pisses the hell out of me.

  • [-]
  • duckducklandwhale
  • -8 Points
  • 00:41:17, 4 April

Nothing to do with rp tho.