Friday, April 4, 2014

I wish I was just paranoid.

I'm reading Preston's Mozilla Burning over at The PJ Tatler.
The progs don’t care what happens to Mozilla. It can live or die, they can’t be bothered about that. It doesn’t matter to them at all. They actively wanted both Chick-Fil-A and Duck Dynasty destroyed. They would probably be content to see Mozilla die too. But it doesn’t matter to them anymore. It did what they want. They will turn and attack some other target when the opportunity arises.
And that has been the point of all this. Terrify people who do not engage in political combat every day, and therefore do not know just how savage and dishonest it has all become. Dry up funding for activist groups opposed to re-defining marriage. Persecute and blacklist one or two famous people to provide an example to others. Destroy livelihoods. Divide. Harass. Intimidate.
Then this...
“It was kind of like how the Romans used to, you know, conquer villages in the Mediterranean. They’d go in to a little Turkish town somewhere, they’d find the first five guys they saw and they’d crucify them.

I'm so use to praying for others, but today.... today I'm going to pray for myself. I need it. If you come across this post, here is my view on the subject.


  1. We covered the reality of corporate interests already here:

    This Mozilla thing is just another data point confirming this.

    It's amazing how confused people still are about how free speech and the private sector works. From a FB friend:

    "I am flabbergasted that so many people are upset somehow this company 'trampled on his free speech'. You are hired at a C-level position to represent a company's interests in a particular area - If you do not represent the company well, you risk losing your job. It's that simple. Companies have to be concerned with public appearance, to think otherwise is fairly naive.

    Additionally, if the public doesn't like what a company does, they have the right to boycott - And companies have the right to respond or not to the boycott.

    So, tell me, what is the actual problem here?"

    1. The problem doesn't lie in the boy/buycott, but the nature of the debate.

      It isn't homophobic, to acknowledge how the act of copulation in by nature, logic, and reason different and not equal to other forms of sexual acts.

      To smear someone like myself as bigot and those who defend kinship as ignorant is wrong, and not a part of honest debate.

      You know why I take faith in God? Because of these conversations. Something so obvious as family or conception in the design of human sexuality, becomes strangely disgusted and repugnant.

      So strange.

      What's the end game here?

      I know what mine is. Jesus was a nice guy, and look at we did to him. I have to love with all my heart, and honest and truthful that there's a difference here.

      I'm not going to sit here and lie to you. Sure you can pressure me to lie and recant, and maybe for the sake of human weakness I may cave in under nothing more then peer pressure. But you didn't change my mind, you just made tell a lie under duress.

      Is that the goal?

    2. As Holy Week approaches, the 'end game' par excellence-- the secularist media always amp up their nonsense during our holiest season-- perhaps the best thing we c a n do is turn in prayer to Him, in the sanctuaries of our churches and families. But after, resistance, in patience and charity, and yet more resistance.

    3. I offer up this to the real victims of homophobia, which are the Ugandans who are being denied treatment for HIV.

      Anthropological kinship charts showing relations of consanguinity isn't hate. But what do I know social media is taken praise of a cookie advertisement that is wholesome. I'm not getting my social cues Nabisco, which is owned by Mondelez International (formally Kraft). They mean 'wholesome' as in values, because their food is unhealthy and they can't use the term 'wholesome' as in nutritional value.

  2. You misundestand - we're not getting cues from Nabisco. Nabisco is getting cues from us, because we have the consumer dollars they want. The social costs that prescribe polite behavior is something society has constructed.

    "The problem doesn't lie in the boy/buycott, but the nature of the debate."

    I'm not sure I understand what you're saying here. So you don't find a boycott illegitimate? If so, does that mean your only real complaint is the actual content of the disagreement?

    It should also be noted that we're talking about a couple of diametrically opposed pieces of evidence, if they are to build a case on the relationship between corporations and public opinion. On the one hand we have Mozilla coming to understand that within their hiring decision for a CEO was a problematic message/cultural problem that ended with them being influenced by popular opinion. It's then very hard to argue that what happened with Nabisco was the exact opposite. It seems to me the evidence is in - the corporations follow the money, and right now (as always) there's money to be made in messaging that agrees with the majority of Americans. Certainly there's money to be lost by agreeing with a majority too - and so you don't see every company taking a position. But those that have taken a position have done the math and they see more upside in one position or another.

    1. We both agree that hedonism as in a form of one's self gratification is the majority view point. I'm being honest about the debate rather then smearing people with lies and distortions.

      I'm not stupid. I'm not ignorant. And I'm not a bigot.

      If someone wants to defame me rather then discuss the issue, our democracy has been lessened. We still have democracy, but we understand less.

      Maybe... Just maybe..... someone disagrees with the redefining marriage for a real public policy reason. But that reasoning relies on understanding marriage brings forward obligations outside just 'the two' and nothing against someone who is gay.

      Believe me I'm spiritually preparing myself for the fall out I may receive.

    2. I understand, you don't get the whole religion and God thing. But people sacrificed themselves for my beliefs, specifically marriage and in 'modern times', as in the last 60 years. At the least I can do is blog about them.

  3. That clarifies your position with regard to your own view of morality, but doesn't actually address my question.

    Was the boycott smearing the CEO with lies?

    Also, it seems every time I comment on the subject, you bring up that you're not a bigot and don't appreciate people labeling you as such. I'd note that I've never accused you of being stupid or a bigot. As to ignorance, we're all ignorant of something. It's a bit disconcerting because it presents my dialogue's character that is an implied misrepresentation.

    "Believe me I'm spiritually preparing myself for the fall out I may receive."

    As to sacrifice, lots of people have died on the wrong side of all kinds of issues (usually some sort of nationalism or tribalism). So I get the tie, I don't think the level of sacrifice actually lends weight to the position, although it can certainly lend weight to you're perceived obligation on the issue.

  4. Im going to follow up on this, in a few days.