Seamonkey is dead

>>60189605
Why are all so fat and ugly?

what the fuck is seamonkey

>company says something you disagree with
>every decision they make after this is due to the thing you disagree with
autism

>>60189605
They already killed FirefoxOS, Thunderbird is a walking corpse and Firefox is bleeding market shares.

"Diversity and inclusion" is probably the best way to spend money, instead of paying competent developers and aggressive marketing for their products. Way to go Mozilla!

>>60189616
I would still smash though

>>60189636
> :^)

>>60189657
If rust dead is good thing

File: latchkey-kids-2.jpg (21KB, 640x425px) Image search: [Google]

21KB, 640x425px

>>60189616
>why don't real people look like anime?
Go outside, neckbeard

>>60189605
when will mozilla die?

>>60189657
remember this is the company that fires people because of their political donations.

>>60191594
>political donations
It's not like he was donating to a think tank that advocates for fiscalism or monatarism or something relatively disconnected to gay bashing. He was literally pro gay bashing, stop pretending that's a good idea for a CEO to take a public position in support of

When you're actively supporting anti-human-rights groups, you're a problem and you need to be disposed of. I don't know where this meme came from that says if you're progressive it means you have to tolerate intolerance. That isn't how this shit works

>>60189616
Why are you?

>>60189605
What do these two things have to do with each other? Keep your propaganda in your containment board, fucking shill.

>>60189605
So seamonkey is dead and I know nobody is going to be willing to pick it up since even the current devs had little motivation to make it better and thunderbird is also kill, that means firefox is the only major mozilla project left?

File: 1463714495432.jpg (340KB, 1352x1462px) Image search: [Google]

340KB, 1352x1462px

>>60189605
Fuck Mozilla, fuck Firefox.

Pic related... their homepage.

>>60191941
Lack of leadership is killing firefox. Listening to some vocal tumblerite minority is fucking stupid. What other respectable, major company does this? Fucking none.

Firefox has killed every single other product they have apart from their browser, and even that is losing marketshare. Entire company is a sinking ship.

>>60192033
>a joke which reflects an inconvenient truth
>propaganda
Enjoy your delusions, fucking retard.

>>60192081
>moz://a
I think it's clever but I hate it at the same time

>>60192033
OP doesn't care about seamonkey, he just wanted to talk about politics. I bet he never cared about anything mozilla related and just wanted to shill whatever faggot ideology he believes in.

>>60192081
REMINDER THAT FIREFOX IS STILL THE ONLY MAJOR BROWSER 100% OPEN SOURCE
>REMINDER THAT FIREFOX IS STILL THE ONLY MAJOR BROWSER 100% OPEN SOURCE
REMINDER THAT FIREFOX IS STILL THE ONLY MAJOR BROWSER 100% OPEN SOURCE
>REMINDER THAT FIREFOX IS STILL THE ONLY MAJOR BROWSER 100% OPEN SOURCE
REMINDER THAT FIREFOX IS STILL THE ONLY MAJOR BROWSER 100% OPEN SOURCE
>REMINDER THAT FIREFOX IS STILL THE ONLY MAJOR BROWSER 100% OPEN SOURCE
REMINDER THAT FIREFOX IS STILL THE ONLY MAJOR BROWSER 100% OPEN SOURCE
>REMINDER THAT FIREFOX IS STILL THE ONLY MAJOR BROWSER 100% OPEN SOURCE
REMINDER THAT FIREFOX IS STILL THE ONLY MAJOR BROWSER 100% OPEN SOURCE
>REMINDER THAT FIREFOX IS STILL THE ONLY MAJOR BROWSER 100% OPEN SOURCE

>SJW
so is google, microsoft and apple.

i rather be SJW than SJW + botnet!

>>60192110
>listening to mainstream public opinion is stupid
Sure thing buddy. When a company's revenue stream is entirely based on what essentially amounts to charity, the best thing to do of course is for the CEO to take an incendiary position on a divisive topic that has nothing to do with that company's business model. That's surely a recipe for success, no risk could come of that!

>>60192384
>What is Lightning for Android
inb: But my """comfy""" PC-shitposting!

>>60192459
Just a skin for android webview.

>>60192053
It also means google chrome apps are the only real app options left. Annoying af future.

>>60191366
i don't live in the US, so outside isn't filled with fat and ugly people.

>>60192384
what is chromium?
what is qupzilla?
what is w3m?
what is lynx?

File: asuka.jpg (131KB, 900x561px) Image search: [Google]

131KB, 900x561px

>>60192738
Does it really matter what country you live in if you never go outside?

>>60192753
>what is chromium?
A browser which includes spyware by default. It's still not un-googled and still leaks personal data.
>what is qupzilla?
>what is w3m?
>what is lynx?
Autism browsers.

File: tay.png (64KB, 272x361px) Image search: [Google]

64KB, 272x361px

>>60192805
>ranting and raving like a tinfoil hat-wearing lunatic
>accuses others of being autistic

Really makes you think.

File: Screenshot_20170503-221452.jpg (82KB, 409x589px) Image search: [Google]

82KB, 409x589px

>>60189657
wat? how dare u complain

r u kind of sexist or something

>>60191941

Having a belief in marriage doesn't equal hate. I know everything's offensive and hatred and everyone's a Nazi though so just keep moving on to the drum beat

>>60193750
>having a belief in marriage
You mean supporting laws that punish people for being gay by forcing them to pay higher taxes on the pretext that "they can't reproduce oh but heterosexual couples who choose to get married and not reproduce don't count".

That is what you *actually* mean. It's like saying belief in letting people buy and sell black people as property = "having a belief in white people"

Please say what you mean and don't beat around the bush, this is why you get accused of bigotry.

>>60191491
>being this mad some asshole CEO doesn't have his gigabucks
Look, just because you don't want to be cucked by (((diversity))) doesn't mean you should crave being cucked by the (((business elite))) instead.

>>60191941

Since when is marriage a human right?

>>60193809
You're a fucking jerkoff. If the dude doesn't believe in gay marriage, that is his belief. Personally I don't give a shit but assholes like you are the reason people are repulsed by your ideology. kys

>>60193809
i find not supporting gay marriage ridiculous myself but not once did he get politics involved with work. what he did was on his own time, after hours, away from work. it was his own personal belief and he has every right. he never showed any ounce of interest in getting his personal politics involved at mozilla. clearly shown for the YEARS he worked at mozilla and NO ONE knew until he admitted he donated to an anti-gay marriage organization, outside of work, with his own money. he should have never been fired for his own beliefs outside of work. what an adult does in his own home is his own right and he wasn't committing any crimes.

what mozilla did was borderline nazism and seeing all the other crap they have been doing since then, turned me off from mozilla completely. i don't want to support a company that cares more about politics than technology. their browser went to shit when they started to care more about slave and master terms and what their employees do after hours. its sad.

>>60189616
>t. actual ugly and obese neckbeard

>>60191366
>why don't real people look like anime?
Real people aren't obsessed with food and haven't inherited bad Brit genes.
Those real people constitute the majority of the planet save for USA and UK.

>>60189605
>diversity
>they are all girls of the same type

>>60192400
He took the political position a whole DECADE before his termination. Back when the Clintons and Obama and the whole damn Democrat Party was still against gay marriage.

It wasn't a fucking public announcement. It was a personal donation. How fucking vindictive are useless parasites like you?

>>60193809
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KrD8zvCUtWc

Saying marriage and slavery are even comparable issues is patently retarded, or intentionally dishonest.

>>60189636
Forced diversity leads to lower quality

File: Diversity2.jpg (39KB, 640x553px) Image search: [Google]

39KB, 640x553px

>>60189616

File: firefox_2017-05-03_18-27-52.png (105KB, 114x358px) Image search: [Google]

105KB, 114x358px

>>60189605
mmmm sure love me some petite niggra diversity

I don't really have a problem with diversity, but what does bother me is the hostile attitude towards white guys.

It's just this attitude of "you've had your time, stands aside and let us rule" strikes me as equally toxic as the one they are supposedly fighting against

>>60196269
There is no such thing as "on your own time" when you're the public face of the company

That kind of argument works when you're a rank and file employee, not when you're a CEO

>>60198870
>petite

>>60199067
>t. manlet
when will they learn

>>60191941
Tumblr ----->

>>60192400
>listening to mainstream public opinion is stupid

The mainstream public is dumping firefox and their shit products. Everything is kill except Rust and Firefox browser, which has been in total decline every quarter for the past several years.

So yeah, maybe Firefox ought to actually listen to the mainstream public before they go out of business. Hopefully their toxic femininist work culture dies with them.

File: 1493752275818.gif (666KB, 320x240px) Image search: [Google]

666KB, 320x240px

Well it's pretty much proven at this point that 'diversity' is a fucking cancer that stifles the productive output of any organization, unless they have insane amounts of capital to throw and preening affirmative action incentives to avoid getting sued

can't wait until POZilla goes out of business

>>60200007
Except that revenue went UP after they dumped him

Firefox is dying because everything is phones now, phones are more personal than PCs, and almost everyone just uses the default browser that came with their phone because "my computer geek son" is not going to rice out his mom's phone like back in the day where a family shared a PC

There's no solution to that without becoming another Google, and Mozilla is basically just a charity project of Google, and has been for a long time. It exists to create the illusion of competition

>>60189605
I had no idea someone still used Seamonkey.

>>60200175
>Except that revenue went UP after they dumped him

Mozilla is non-profit. Any revenue they have is not real either way, the purpose of their products is to spread free software and have a veto-power in internet standards like W3C, through their market-share. Instead of spyware corporations like Google and friends deciding everything.

Mozilla needed to do something different and radical, and instead they just doubled down on wasting their time and effort on SJW bullshit that is not going to have any meaningful impact apart from make this industry even more toxic than it already has become.

File: average_open_source_fan.png (53KB, 816x536px) Image search: [Google]

53KB, 816x536px

>>60200316
>Any revenue they have is not real either way
In the real world, and not your fantasy NEET world, it costs money to attract talent and keep them under your control so they can do stuff you want them to do

Being broke, and having a notorious homophobe tarnishing your "brand", are both great ways to make it completely impossible to hire anyone good

File: 10 - RI0l5hp.jpg (106KB, 720x480px) Image search: [Google]

106KB, 720x480px

>>60191366
Just because they look like fat ugly bitches doesn't mean all women need to look like that you know.

>>60200337
The thing is, he didn't use company money to promote his own personal beliefs. He used his own private money to do so. In addition, so what he believes in traditional marriage? I don't care either way, but using someone's beliefs as a basis to essentially fire them is tantamount to discrimination on the basis on ones political/personal beliefs.

Let's not forget that most of these people being hired are diversity hires, meaning they have little talent and are only there to fill a quota.

>>60200337
Talent is not the same as revenue. Hiring expensive developers doesn't guarantee success, just ask Yahoo. Mozilla's explicit aim and goal is not to generate revenue, but to promote a free and open internet for all. This can only be achieved by remaining relevant and competitive in internet browser market share, through Firefox.

Mozilla doesn't have any real talent working for them anymore, hence their shit-tier products. They have long-since abandoned this sinking ship.

>>60200437
You can believe whatever you want. He *acted*, that more than just belief. He didn't sit down in an interview about tech and get surprised with a pop question about his personal feelings about gay marriage. He went out there and made a political contribution that he knew would me a matter of public record. Much like the difference between hating black people and publishing an article on the internet under your name that black people are terrible, there is a fundamental difference between a personal belief and a public action

Also, nothing about the selection process or compensation structure of a CEO position fits the notions of "fair" that conventionally apply to a rank-and-file job. He is not an anonymous engineer making $90k a year and getting a 401(k) and a health plan. He was paid exceptionally well, and in return he was held to exceptional standards. People get skipped for the CEO job because someone on the selection committee didn't like their handshake, or because the other guy liked boats and the chairman likes boats. Stop pretending the C suite is like taking the SAT

>>60200585
>Hiring expensive developers doesn't guarantee success

That's like saying "hiring expensive engineers doesn't put you in space". That's taken for granted. The point is that NOT being able to hire talent puts you at a serious disadvantage. The labor market in tech is competitive, you need a sexy story or money, preferably both. Not having money, and having a very un-sexy story (well, our boss hates gays but he's a standup guy!) is a big handicap

>seamonkey has been replaced with just monkeys

>>60200622
> He went out there and made a political contribution that he knew would me a matter of public record.
With his own money, not the company's money. It doesn't matter if he gave money to the KKK, Antifa or any other political contribution. What Eichs did with his money was perfectly legal and outside of the realm of any sort of action on the behalf of Firefucks. Sure, maybe the people employed by him could be pissed at him for contributing to the cause because of their own beliefs, but literally no one ad the right to force him to resign over a private contribution on his behalf to a cause he believed in, unless it literally is flying in the face of the law (which it isn't). Also, a CEO is hired to manage a business and to watch over it's growth and what-not, not to be the public face of the business. I know the latter is the case for many businesses, but wasn't the reason why he was brought to that title in the first place He was overseeing the management of Firefox and the expansion of it as a brand, not playing the moral figurehead of the company. The investors of Firefox don't give two shits about whether it is branded as the most SJW-friendly brand or something /pol/ would absolutely love. All they want to see is if heir investment in the company was worth the risk, and Eichs ran Firefox pretty competently for his duration there. It's plain as fucking day that faggots like you were the reason that he essentially was forced to resign, because you can't deal with the fact that not everyone is a progressive and you didn't judge the company by the product they produced but by what Eichs fucking did in his leisure time. So you essentially abused your buying power and forced him out over a petty difference in opinion about a thing unrelated to the product itself. If the product was defective or broken in anyway extremely significant, yeah his resignation would be necessary, because it would show that he can't keep the trust of the
consumer.

>>60200705
Codemonkeys are preferable to the Feminazis that work at Mozilla.

>>60200908
(cont.)
But how does the fact that he believes that marriage is between Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve (a perfectly valid and non extreme idea (even though I don't care at all about this issue) or most people that has nothing to do with Firefox at all) have to do with Firefox's ability to do what it was intended to do: satisfy the customer, especially when he used his own private funds to finance his beliefs?

>>60200908
>It doesn't matter if he gave money to the KKK, Antifa or any other political contribution.
Of course it does, it creates a public relations problem for the company, unless you are going to argue that those are not "real" problems much like money isn't "real" unless the company is restructured as a for-profit
>What Eichs did with his money was perfectly legal
It's perfectly legal for me to show up at work wearing piss stained sweat pants too
>CEO is hired to manage a business and to watch over it's growth and what-not, not to be the public face of the business
The CEO has people under him doing public relations, engineering, financials, etc, but that doesn't mean that none of those things are "not his responsibility". It's ALL his responsibility, that is why there's a CEO, if there is an oil spill the CEO of Exxon takes heat, even though he was not driving the boat. If the CEO of Exxon goes on CNN and says "well, fuck the ducks they're pretty dumb, and everyone whose water is contaminated can suck my dick", it doesn't matter how effectively he manages corporate strategy, everyone is now focused on his being an asshat.
>branded as the most SJW-friendly brand
That's a nice /pol/ spin on it, another more conventional way to put it is "isn't creating any unnecessary drama". This is really not that much different from the "dongle" drama where that woman was fired for bringing her company into an unnecessary scandal
>It's plain as fucking day that faggots like you were the reason that he essentially was forced to resign
I'm not gay, and I barely paid attention when it was going on, but I've had this drama thrown in my face at least once a week on /g/ ever since, I've developed some opinions as a result.

>>60189605
>https://wiki.mozilla.org/Diversity_and_Inclusion_Strategy

The team is made up of all women. So much for diversity.

>>60201061
>Of course it does, it creates a public relations problem for the company, unless you are going to argue that those are not "real" problems much like money isn't "real" unless the company is restructured as a for-profit
Unless he used company money, it's a non-issue really. A company shouldn't fire someone on the basis of their personal beliefs or expression thereof. That's literally a form of discrimination m8.

>It's perfectly legal for me to show up at work wearing piss stained sweat pants too
Yeah and?

>The CEO has people under him doing public relations, engineering, financials, etc, but that doesn't mean that none of those things are "not his responsibility". It's ALL his responsibility, that is why there's a CEO, if there is an oil spill the CEO of Exxon takes heat, even though he was not driving the boat. If the CEO of Exxon goes on CNN and says "well, fuck the ducks they're pretty dumb, and everyone whose water is contaminated can suck my dick", it doesn't matter how effectively he manages corporate strategy, everyone is now focused on his being an asshat.
But what he does on his off-time shouldn't be related to what he fucking does at work. If he wants to donate to any initiative whose goals
are within the realms of the law and not using company resources, then it's not the company's problem. It's his business. It has nothing to do with Firefox PR in any sense since Firefox wasn't involved in his contributions.
>Le /pol/ boogeyman
Nice reading comprehension you got there Tex.
Also, the woman at the center of Dongglegate used company resources to go to the conference where she got 2 men fired for a stupid penis joke in order to get . Eichs used his own money and his own resources to contribute to the traditional marriage initiative; it literally was unrelated to anything going on at Firefox at the time, so your comparing apples
to oranges really.

>>60193809
>punish people for being gay
For not marrying*, this is not about only gays you know. Somehow it has to be about gays and this behaviour pisses the world off, and you wonder why you go through so much shit with people.
Kill yourself.

>>60201235
>I'm not gay, and I barely paid attention when it was going on, but I've had this drama thrown in my face at least once a week on /g/ ever since, I've developed some opinions as a result.
I'm not talking about your sexuality. I'm talking about you activist types that get offended by the fact that people hold different opinions than you and try to censor them, then force people in a company to try and fire him for his on personal beliefs, which are unrelated to the fucking product your selling. If you were doing this because the product was shit, or exploitation was involved in making the product sure that would be fine. But the personal beliefs a man holds about a topic unrelated to his business shouldn't be the basis of asking for his resignation because that is literal discrimination against someone else's perfectly legal political beliefs, which are protected by those Workspace Laws you faggots bring up when some faggot pretends he was fired for being trans or gay, when in reality he was fired for being a lazy piece of shit.

>>60201235
>it's a non-issue
You keep saying that, as if it makes it true
> fire someone
He wasn't fired, he stepped down
>on the basis of their personal beliefs
Except it wasn't just his personal beliefs
>or expressions thereof
Dongle dongle dongle, I can't believe those men said dongle!
>shouldn't be related
More wishful thinking. You would like it not to be related. The fact is, a person's "outside of work" life is taken into account, and that starts well before he takes on the job of CEO.
>It has nothing to do with Firefox PR
You keep saying that as if it will make it true. Public relations is not defined as "stuff that the company published on company letterhead or the official company social media accounts by company employees whose official job title includes the word 'public relations'", no matter how much you would like it to be true

>>60189628
another sjw botnet

>>60201349
>I'm not talking about your sexuality.
Do you understand what "faggot" means?
>I'm talking about you activist types that get offended by the fact that people hold different opinions than you and try to censor them
I really don't give a shit what his opinion is, he eliminated himself from the job because he caused a problem for the company, period. It's a bit ridiculous to call it "censorship" if he successfully donated money to a cause he believed in. "Free speech" does not mean "free speech without consequences", it's surprising to me that so many people don't grasp this.

>>60192081
Disgusting

>>60201468
>"Free speech" does not mean "free speech without consequences", it's surprising to me that so many people don't grasp this.
Yes it does. If speech has consequences, it has a price. If it has a price, it isn't free. This isn't hard.

>>60192081
>rainbow haired niggress
>people
even blacks are getting cucked to hell and back, i am already starting to feel sad for Tyrone.

>>60191366
wish to purge fatties like you from this realm

>>60192777
checked

>>60201416
>You keep saying that, as if it makes it true
Because it is. It doesn't involve the company so they don't need to weigh in on the issue barring he literally murdered someone or committed a major crime.

>He wasn't fired, he stepped down
When someone resigns form because o a scandal, force or otherwised, they were essentially force to resign. So in essence, he was fired.
>Dongle dongle dongle, I can't believe those men said dongle!
And then get them fired from their fucking jobs because they offended m. If she just said what you said it wouldn't be controversial in any sense.

>More wishful thinking. You would like it not to be related.
So discrimating against someone's political/personal beliefs is justified, even though the law protects anyone from this sort of abuse?

>You keep saying that as if it will make it true. Public relations is not defined as "stuff that the company published on company letterhead or the official company social media accounts by company employees whose official job title includes the word 'public relations'", no matter how much you would like it to be true
But how does it relate to Firefox though? It was HIS money he spent on HIS personal beliefs. It's not like he used Firefox HQ's money to do this that would be justified in that case. He did something that shouldn't involve PR because it had nothing to do with Firefox in the first place: it had to do with his personal beliefs

>Do you understand what "faggot" means?
Do you know where you are, plebbitor?

>"Free speech" does not mean "free speech without consequences"
See >>60201547. If free speech has consequences, than it's not exactly free in the first place since it has limitations past the "Shouting fire in a theater room when there is no fire" clause. You can disagree with what someone says, but you can't silence them because you'd be violating their rights.

>>60201600
12% bodyfat, neckbeard-kun

When was the last time you broke a sweat doing something other than answering the doorbell for the Pizza Hut guy?

>>60201613
>since it has limitations past the "Shouting fire in a theater room when there is no fire" clause
Truly free speech allows you to do that, though.

>>60189657
>Thunderbird is a walking corpse
why?

>>60201613
>It doesn't involve the company so they don't need to weigh in
Once again, you can keep saying that but that doesn't make it true
>So in essence
So in essence, we'll play fast and loose with the definition of "fired", but we'll split hairs over the exact notion of what "caused a PR crisis" means
>"Shouting fire in a theater room when there is no fire"
This isn't about shouting fires in theaters. "Free speech" means the feds can't toss you in the slammer for saying controversial stuff. It doesn't mean you get to play the victim card when you publicly take a controversial stance and all of a sudden a segment of the population doesn't like you anymore. Unless you are going to advocate nerve stapling now?

>>60201613
What Eichs did was a perfectly legal expresion of his personal beliefs that had nothing to do with the product he was managing. He has the right to do what he wants on non-company time. Just because you have to look for an excuse to be enraged doesn't mean that that is a good reason to force him to resign. You actually have to give valid reasons relating to the company and the software itself, not the personal vies of the CEO to force him to resign (or maybe he committed a major crime and he should resign because of that. That would make more sense that calling for his resignation over his goddamn personal life when he isn't breaking the law. ).

>>60201632
Well,you run the risk of actually killing people or harming them when you do that because if you shout fire in a theater, people are going to run out in a stampede, making it very likely that someone will die directly because of what you did.

>Fixing typos
*because of a scandal, forced or otherwise

*they offered him

>>60201687
Are you saying the risk of killing random people is too high a price for free speech?

>>60201680
>Once again, you can keep saying that but that doesn't make it true
Well, tell me how his personal life involves the company in any way shape or form, please? Because I really can't see any way what he does on his off time affects the company in any sense.

>So in essence, we'll play fast and loose with the definition of "fired", but we'll split hairs over the exact notion of what "caused a PR crisis" means
What caused the PR crisis was progressive activists getting enraged he had a different opinion on marriage, which had little to do with his job as CEO at Firefox.


>"Free speech" means the feds can't toss you in the slammer for saying controversial stuff.
There are literally federal workplace regulations in place preventing people from being discriminated on the basis of race, gender, sexual preference, religion and POLITICAL AFFILIATION. What Eichs did was covered under those statutes, so why was he forced to resign, because the gov't thought his speech in the company was protected. So I don't see why it wouldn't be protected at all.

>>60201753
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schenck_v._United_States

>>60201775
I'm not asking about the law as it stands. I'm asking about your values. Do you want speech to be truly free, or not?

>>60191462
Very soon

>>60201759
>Because I really can't see any way what he does on his off time affects the company in any sense.
widespread calls to "uninstall firefox" doesn't affect the company, I guess, because as we agreed before, it's a nonprofit and therefore none of this is real
>What caused the PR crisis was progressive activists
Yes, fuck them for having opinions. Only CEOs are allowed to have opinions
>There are literally federal workplace regulations in place preventing people from being discriminated on the basis of race, gender, sexual preference, religion and POLITICAL AFFILIATION
Sometimes, yes. In most cases it's pretty much impossible to prove those cases in court. Funny because the same people who are getting buttfurious about "muh workplace regulations" are usually quick to defend stuff like 90% of resumes with black names being dumped in the trash because "well it's different if the person is a protected class I don't like"

Look, I'd be totally in agreement with you if this was anything other than a C suite position, but the C suite is a brutal environment where "the rules" and "fairness" have never applied, and never will apply. Should rank-and-file employees be punished for giving money to the KKK or whatever? Absolutely not. But when a top level executive does that, and attracts the ire of the internet as a result, I have zero sympathy.

>>60192384
>i rather be SJW than SJW + botnet!
As if Firefox isn't a botnet too

>>60189628
You must be 18 to post here.

>>60201836
>it's a nonprofit and therefore none of this is real
It gets its money through donations meaning that all that donation money dried up during that time period where these social activists elt that Eichs personal business was their problem. It was the same fucking deal with Chick-Fil-A and their CEO's personal beliefs. People felt they were entitled to know the man's personal beliefs and decided that since he had more traditional beliefs, his business must suffer (didn't work though. Thank God).

>Only CEOs are allowed to have opinions
You autists can have opinions, but don't ask for a man to step down for what he himself personally believes (and he wasn't even saying anyone else had to believe it too).

>Funny because the same people who are getting buttfurious about "muh workplace regulations" are usually quick to defend stuff like 90% of resumes with black names being dumped in the trash because "well it's different if the person is a protected class I don't like"
If the company can justify their reasoning behind doing what they did with the resumes (maybe they were all relatively unqualified), then I wouldn't care at all. If they don't, then I would hold the company to the same standards I'm holding Firefox to now. it is federal law afterall and if they were discriminating against those applicants because of their race, then the applicants should sue, just lik Eichs should've allowed himself to be fired and then sue Mozilla

Also, I don't care what you think. It's the fucking law that discriminating against someone based on the factors listed above is breaking the law in any business, whether you are a CEO or not. Your feelings mean nothing when we have the word of the law to measure this situation by, and according to the law, this is discrimination, plain and simple.

>>60202210
>meaning that all that donation money dried up during that time period where these social activists elt that Eichs personal business was their problem
So we agree that it affected the company in a real sense. Good.
>It was the same fucking deal with Chick-Fil-A and their CEO's personal beliefs
No, not the same deal. The CEO of CFA is the founder's son, i.e., he didn't just work for CFA, it's his company, and by playing the oppressed white christian male card, they drummed up a tremendous following in their native and most lucrative market, the deep south. Or did you think kale-chomping progressives from Palo Alto were keen on eating shitty junk food and suddenly would abandon CFA because the owner had wrong opinions? Most people in the north had no idea CFA even existed until they made national news in the right wing press for being defenders of family values. And as a result CFA is expanding in the north. So no, not the "same fucking deal"
>maybe they were all relatively unqualified
Mm hmm. And maybe Eichs disqualified himself from being CEO by engulfing the company he was charged with managing in an internet conflagration that had nothing to do with the business.
>Also, I don't care what you think. It's the fucking law
And the flip side of that is that YOUR feelings mean nothing if there is no case brought against Mozilla for terminating him. As with all the other examples, no case will be brought against Mozilla. Because like, maybe he was relatively unqualified :^)

>>60191941
Gay bashing, you are a fucking retard.

>>60189605
Well shit.

Maybe somebody will pick up where they leave off

>>60202544
>they drummed up a tremendous following in their native and most lucrative market, the deep south.
Except they already had a big following down in the South for years before that. Why do you think Chick-Fil-A is always closed on Sundays? Hell, fried chicken is literally a staple of Southern cuisine, so making a business centered aroun that in the South is literally the most common sense business idea. If he wanted to do PR in the North he wouldn't be sharing conservative views on the radio, because a lot of the Northeast and the Pacific Northwest are staunchly liberal so he just lost any opportunity there. In fact, he almost had his store removed from New York for his personal beliefs, which goes to sow you how tolerant the left s and how stupid your theory is since he had a presence in the North already . Also, he didn't play the oppressed white Christian male card. he just shared his opinion on a topic he had a traditional belief about and the SJWs tried to jump down his throat for it.


> And maybe Eichs disqualified himself from being CEO by engulfing the company he was charged with managing in an internet conflagration that had nothing to do with the business.
So when people decide to be nosy for an unjustified reason seeing it doesn't affect how the product is made or the workers who make it), that disqualifies him from being CEO? Well then, let's disqualify all those black people from our workpool for listening to hip-hop because that makes complete sense right.

>And the flip side of that is that YOUR feelings mean nothing if there is no case brought against Mozilla for terminating him.
No shit. I'm arguing from the standpoint of the letter of the law, which disallows any sort of discrimination of any employee (CEO or otherwise) that isn't related to their performance at work, their legal status (or lack thereof) or whether they actively harmed the company (as in they traded company secrets).

>>60202814
>Why do you think Chick-Fil-A is always closed on Sundays?
You seem really confused about what this is about. It's a family owned company, beloved by its customers, who tend to be conservative Southerners. The family ran the company according to conservative Christian values from the start, the customers knew this from the start because what fucking fast food joint closes on a Sunday, they were in a conservative Christian part of the country already, and CFA had every reason to expect that they'd come out ahead by doubling down on the "family values" thing, and, of course, they did. They alienated maybe 0.00001% of their actual or potential customers, and on top of that, every "oppressed" conservative in the north is now fanatically supportive of CFA because they feel that they're friends because they hate the gays.

Mozilla on the other hand is a nonprofit that took on Eich to run a business that had no demographic association with gay bashing or anything along those lines. Mozilla "customers" might be, depending on your point of view, the donors, or the users. In either case, not people you necessarily want to start a culture war with, because you don't know what side they're on, and you'll likely alienate a significant portion of them. Which, of course, is exactly what happened.

>they actively harmed the company (as in they traded company secrets).
Lol, you have a very interesting view of what "harming the company" means. I suppose Oscar Munoz's clumsy handling of the passenger incident isn't "harming the company" either because he didn't sell fare tables to Jet Blue

>>60189605
What kind of kindergarden is that

File: y.png (643KB, 1280x738px) Image search: [Google]

643KB, 1280x738px

Goddammit, it was the only good browser ever since Opera died

>>60203032
Firstly, believing in traditional marriage != gay bashing or gay hate. One is just believing in the traditional belief that marriage is between a man and a woman and for the sake of procreation. The another is literally abusing someone (usually physically) because they are gay. Honestly, the biggest problem with these two debacles was that it alienated many people from the cause of the protesters in the first place. From their perspective (which is the correct one), they saw people on the far left abusing more traditional-minded folk for nothing than what they believed. The mayor of New York proposed shutting down the CFAs in New York and this sentiment was echoed by cities like Boston and the like, just because he said he had traditional views on marriage. The same thing happened with Eich. He had traditional views on marriage, and he got attacked for it. The stinker is that their opinions had little to do with their actual line of work. Eich oversees Mozilla products and CFA produces fast food (it's traditionally minded, but it's still a fast food place). Not to mention, they literally pointed out that this was their opinion and their opinion alone. So what was the point of the protest? If someone has a different view than you on a topic like this, why would you want to force them out seeing that they aren't forcing you to listen to their opinion nor are they even making it evident that they have that opinion in their products? It's called respecting the rights of others. You can't try to discriminate against anyone (or attempt to) in the workplace just like you can't do so in relation to race or religion. Trying to remove someone from their job because of their beliefs is discrimination. I admit that I could have worded the last part better, but still the idea is clear: discriminating against anyone or what they believe in (politically or religiously) is wrong.

>>60203505
That's why we have statutes literally protecting anyone who feels they are being discriminated against in the workplace.

>>60203505
First off, food is one of the most politicized products in the world, you can't possibly be arguing that CFA is "just" a restaurant. Fast food vs slow food, organic vs conventional agro, "mohammad jihad shitskin" food vs "real murrkin" food, soda bans, GMO bans, blacks chomping on watermelons, skittles jokes, white supremacists chugging milk, this goes way back. Tapas, the spanish appetizer, started as a way of rooting out hidden Jews and Muslims. It would be hard to pick a product with more political baggage than food. So, no, the lines were drawn in the sand before the supposed crucifixion of the poor oppressed CFA owners who can't even say Merry Christmas anymore. What they did was exploit those lines to make it seem like they were "under attack" from people who wouldn't have been customers in the first place. So on the contrary, it alienated no one (the minds were made up), and brought people together (the kale-chomping liberals who hate fast food anyway, and the flag waving gay bashing conservatives who grow obese devouring fast food because eating deep fried garbage is a sign of patriotism)

Mozilla on the other hand is technology, largely associated with web browsers. Who the fuck thinks of their web browser as a political choice? Maybe somewhat now that this happened, but never before. But Eich changed that, and that's what he will be remembered for. You can plug your ears and go LA LA LA but the fact is he brought the baggage where there was none.

And yes, actively denying gay people the same tax incentives granted to straight people is, in fact, a little more than just "believing in traditional marriage". No need for dog whistles here, this is anonymous 4chan.

>>60204031
What you don't understand about marriage is, if the gays are allowed to marry, then people will have to use Macs instead of Windows.

>>60204031
But, at the end of the day, all they sell is food. Just because you attach ideas of Southern racism to them doesn't mean they are in the business of selling that. They sell chicken sandwiches and fries and assorted foods, nothing more and nothing less. You can mouth off about how they did this or that 50 years ago, but 4 years ago they were a fast food joint and every one treated as such rightly. You speak in such sweeping generalities about the people involved in that debacle, i truly don't think you understand why it's bad for people to use a man's persona opinions (whatever they may be) to try to throw his business out of town, especially in the modern day and age, when his views aren't even that radical.

I keep on repeating it again and again but you don't seem to understand, what Eich does in his house isn't valid criticism of anything Mozilla does. Eich's political beliefs are his and his alone. Whatever he doesn't have anything to do with his works and thus, isn't a reason to force him to resign, unless of course you are for discrimination of things unrelated to work in the workplace, in which case denying 90% of black applicants to a job is a-ok because no one likes niggers amirite? Don't go and pretend you are against workplace discrimination when you actively defend the people who interfered with Eichs livelihood over unrelated political ballocks. Even if he donated to the KKK or to /pol/ directly, that would not be grounds for asking him to resign as he has done nothing wrong (unless having a certain political viewpoint is wrong and ought to be supressed in all cases).

>>60204387
>And yes, actively denying gay people the same tax incentives granted to straight people is, in fact, a little more than just "believing in traditional marriage".
Historically, the lower taxes for married straight couples was due to the fact that they copulated and actually produced children who would in turn become members of the state later on in life. Essentially, it's a tax deduction for having children, a feat that no gay or lesbian couple can do naturally. So it's not so much discrimination as it is incentive to produce more children to those capable of producing children (at least in theory). That's why I don't need dogwhistles to make an argument, because I can understand the basics of the law unlike you for some reason. That and we're on 4chan.

>>60204387
Who gives a shit about whether "it's a criticism"? It pissed off a boatload of people and caused a crisis. The solution to the crisis was his exit.

You keep going back to this "it's not related to his work", but as CEO, every aspect of the company is relate to his work.

Again, he wasn't a rank and file employee, you're projecting your fears onto a position that you will never have in your life. Nobody is going to go after you if you like to dress up in a fursuit or if you think Mexicans are the worst thing ever, because you don't matter. A CEO is under intense scrutiny and every last thing from his haircut to his political donations can affect the company. With an F500 firm a slight change of inflection in a speech can wipe millions off the market cap, and with Mozilla, a $1k donation to a bigoted cause cost the guy his job. Is it fair? Maybe not, but that's the harsh life of a CEO. Don't worry it will never come to that for you.

>>60204408
In that case, sterile couples and couples who choose not to reproduce should be denied the benefits.

>>60204495
>Again, he wasn't a rank and file employee, you're projecting your fears onto a position that you will never have in your life.
No I'm not. i'm just being as objective about this as possible. He was forced to leave because of his personal beliefs about marriage, which is discrimination, CEO or not. I don't care if I become a CEO or not. I just care that the workplace discrimination laws are applied equally to every situation where someone is discriminated against for their personal belief. His being a CEO means jackshit. He was employed at Mozilla and was discriminated against for his personal views, its a s simple as that. That his personal life pissed of many people is literally no one's business but his, because it's his private life and he has the right to do what he pleases within the confines of the law. Even as a CEO, he's an citizen with a right to not be discriminated against for what he does in his private life. Unless it actively relates to his work, what he does in his private life is not the business of Mozilla or autistic social activists who try to get enraged about his personal beliefs (he's not even forcing upon any one at that).

>A $1k donation to a bigoted cause cost the guy his job. Is it fair? Maybe not, but that's the harsh life of a CEO.
If he were a literal homosexual and /pol/ was screaming at him for being a fag and being a part of the Mozilla Corporation, I bet you would be defending him because he would be "oppressed". That's the point of these fucking laws: to provide a basis for fairness within the fucking workplace. Jesus Christ, no one should be fired for something so unrelated to their line of work just because they gave 1K to a "bigoted" (P.S.:this word is used so much it means nothing now sort of like racist or cuck even) cause. Stop defending blatant discrimination just because "he gave money to a bigoted cause boohoo". So what?

>>60204568
Agreed.

>>60192805
>autism browsers.
They shall be our last bastion