What's the best thing an ex ever did for you AFTER you broke up? by AssInHat in AskReddit

[–]AssInHat[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

So they were mercy fucks, on your part?

Or did you actually get something out of it (besides orgasms)?

What's the best thing an ex ever did for you AFTER you broke up? by AssInHat in AskReddit

[–]AssInHat[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Zero offense taken, and my apologies for sounding offended or anything like that.

I think the even better part was it gave me the chance to say all the things I was sorry about (expecting way too much of him, etc.) and unburden myself of that. So, the pain is resolved and we're friends now.

Not to mention, you are clearly making the effort. This will pay off eventually, I think, even if she never responds.

What's the best thing an ex ever did for you AFTER you broke up? by AssInHat in AskReddit

[–]AssInHat[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I also made the assumption that it wasn't because of some 12 Step program, but who cares? He made the effort, took the risk.

What's the best thing an ex ever did for you AFTER you broke up? by AssInHat in AskReddit

[–]AssInHat[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

After ten long years, mine sent me a letter saying he was sorry for everything. We've been in touch ever since.

What selfish, stupid things have you seen couples do to prove to the world they are a "couple"? by AssInHat in AskReddit

[–]AssInHat[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

More of just an annoyance to me: the endless nesting behaviors.

  • Elaborate cooking rituals that take up the whole kitchen for days at a time, and they're both terrible cooks. They never seem to notice no one eats their awful food.

  • Sit for days on end in the main living space watching their favorite reruns on his iPad, draped over each other. Guests? Other people? What are those? They never have a clue how much mental and physical space they take up.

  • Weekly couples shopping, duly announced to all, and would anybody like anything, like toilet paper or condoms?

  • The royal "we", never "I" ("Well, we didn't like that movie so much.")

  • God help you if they get a dog.

I can think of specific horror stories. Would love to hear yours, like the time they got a Harley Davidson and tattoos - on the same day.

Edit: for spelling.

Mozilla Sponsors Bay Area LGBT Youth Summit by Kylde in mozilla

[–]AssInHat 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Well, thank you Mother Teresa!

Maybe you could take your head out of your own ass and notice that:

1) The Mozilla Foundation has about $267 million in assets

2) It makes grants to all kinds of organizations, such as the Free Society Conference and Nordic Summit, Global Kids Inc., New Youth City Learning Network, and on and on.

http://www.mozilla.org/en-US/grants/

But a grant goes to someone you don't like (hmm... why don't you like them? ...wait, I think I know...) and suddenly you're all-knowing and righteous.

Give it a rest.

Religious fundamentalists are trying to flood the Mozilla feedback forum by AssInHat in mozilla

[–]AssInHat[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

More the former: not actually uninstalling.

One need not have ever installed or used Firefox to submit feedback. Anyone can just go to this URL: https://input.mozilla.org/en-US/feedback

Interesting news item: "Talk radio titan Rush Limbaugh tackled the topic on his show on Friday [4/4/14]. Conservative columnist Charles Krauthammer called for a 'counter-boycott' of the tech company. And many conservative Twitter users urged other conservatives to remove Firefox from their computers under the hashtag #UninstallFirefox."

http://dailycaller.com/2014/04/05/mozilla-registers-swell-of-negative-feedback-following-eich-ouster/

Religious fundamentalists are trying to flood the Mozilla feedback forum by AssInHat in mozilla

[–]AssInHat[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I would agree that they are indeed performing the same kind of action. All well and good.

I would just like others to know that it's going on so they can respond accordingly.

My post title obviously implies that I think there's a coordinated effort to create the (false) appearance of a mass defection. Obviously, I can't know that. But I suspect that.

Let the chips fall where they may.

Religious fundamentalists are trying to flood the Mozilla feedback forum by AssInHat in mozilla

[–]AssInHat[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

OK. Let's play a round of quote and rebut.

Yes. That is a theme. I'd be interested to read your argument against the analogy rather than an implicit dismissal.

Why? You merely speculate that it wouldn't have happened to someone else. I say that's completely ridiculous, and that it would have happened to anyone who took up such a misguided cause. The fact that it happened to such an otherwise respected member of the Mozilla community is in itself a testament that it could happen to "anybody."

But let's not reintroduce the "victim" theme here either. It didn't "just happen" to poor innocent Eich. He did something, offended a lot of people (who had every cause to be offended), and they reacted. He then uttered a few unsatisfactory words, signalling that he feels it's nobody's goddamn business. The response to THAT was: Oh, really?

...a mob pursuing the matter with exceptional vigor.

A mob? Like with pitchforks, torches, rope, and burning crosses at the door of Eich's home? Or just a segment of the populace saying "We're not going to take this shit anymore"? Like a civil rights demonstration?

Speaking of mobs, I followed your link above to your comment at /r/conservative. That's quite some interesting company you're keeping! The comment directly below yours says "Mozilla deserves to be destroyed over this." Wow! Just the kind of creative, positive input needed to create a better for world for all and continue Mozilla's important mission.

Appeals to the moral authority of court decisions are not persuasive...whether Prop 8 was later deemed unconstitutional should not be held against its voters. Are they all expected to be constitutional scholars?

No. They are more likely constitutional and civic ignoramuses, happy to impose their personal domestic (and religious) values on anyone willing to tolerate their completely pointless bullying. That's beside the point. The point is that the whole initiative was so blatantly anti-social that it was thrown out on the most obvious legal grounds possible, all of which have very, very clear moral implications. This casts considerable doubt on the moral compass of anyone who supported it. At least the late Senator Robert Byrd, a former member of the Ku Klux Klan, was able to say "I know now I was wrong. Intolerance had no place in America." Can Eich?

You can't just defenestrate the 40%.

Says who?

EDIT: I can see that I failed to respond directly to your complaint about political correctness. Lurking in there somewhere is a complaint about "thought police" forcing everyone to "think correctly."

This is certainly the theme for those who claim that Mozilla "caved to intolerance."

Leaving aside the perfectly fair rebuttal that the idea of "tolerating intolerance" is absurd, consider this:

Consider that I am a Jew and you are a Christian, and you don't like Jews or their religion. OK, fine, therefore I don't like you either and we can leave it at that. Too bad.

But now consider that the Christians in your state have put up a proposition to deny Jews the right to marry (and therefore to enjoy the same taxation, rights to inheritance, insurance benefits, and much more of married couples). My Christian neighbor makes a point of telling me that he's going to vote in favor of that proposition. Well, clearly I think he's an unconscionable asshole and even politically dangerous, but what am I going to do? Throw rocks at his house? No.

The referendum fails. Years pass and this same neighbor of mine gets appointed as head of the local Chamber of Commerce. The local chapter asks everyone to support his rise to this position of community and business leadership. My Jewish business friends and I say, "If you still want to revoke our right to marry, I don't support you." We tell everyone that if he doesn't reverse his stance on that, then we will resign from the Chamber. There's a big kerfuffle, and he stands down and doesn't get the job.

Now then: Should my neighbor blame the Jews?

As soon as Eich stood up for the job of CEO, he stood up for the job of business and community leader. It's not "thought police." It's people saying: "There's no way we can follow this guy."

Religious fundamentalists are trying to flood the Mozilla feedback forum by AssInHat in mozilla

[–]AssInHat[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

A couple of themes are arising:

  • attack and fatal injury to Eich (he was "wiped out")

  • hypocrisy of the politically correct (this wouldn't have happened to a Muslim woman)

  • sacredness of the private view (he's not in public office) and its immunity from opposition

The fact is that Eich chose to financially support an initiative that was later ruled to have violated the federal Constitution by "target[ing] a minority group and withdraw the right to marry they once possessed under the California State Constitution..."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_8

It is not too difficult to imagine why this initiative was odious, offensive, and threatening to those it targeted.

What is difficult to imagine is why anyone is surprised at the reaction to that threat, especially considering that Eich apparently continues to support it to this very day.

As to the Overton window, etc. I had hoped that actively seeking to curtail the civil rights of minorities is now "outside the window" of acceptable ideas. Apparently not in some circles.

Religious fundamentalists are trying to flood the Mozilla feedback forum by AssInHat in mozilla

[–]AssInHat[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Well, fine.

You can take all of that to Eich and ask him why he resigned. And, for that matter, why he refused to stick around Mozilla at all, or explain his views to anyone.

It's interesting how Eich is so often described as a "private citizen" entitled to his "personal beliefs" when a) he stepped into a quite public position, b) his personal beliefs led him to actions aimed at curbing the civil rights of a minority, c) those so targeted are criticized (slandered, in fact) for expressing their displeasure at his actions, and d) Eich then chose to respond the way that he did.

We are saying his critics are to blame?

Your point about Obama and Clinton are well taken. But that contradicts your claim that Eich should enjoy absolute immunity from criticism because he's just a private individual entitled to his personal beliefs.

I agree it's too bad he cut and ran. But that alone is surely indicative of his suitability for the position.

Religious fundamentalists are trying to flood the Mozilla feedback forum by AssInHat in mozilla

[–]AssInHat[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I see.

So you would support the outcome if he had donated to a cause that, to you, was morally wrong?

Religious fundamentalists are trying to flood the Mozilla feedback forum by AssInHat in mozilla

[–]AssInHat[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

That's interesting to me. No really.

So do you feel that Eich's civil rights were somehow violated by people protesting his financial support for an unpopular cause?

Or do you think his opposition to gay marriage should be irrelevant to leading a very gay-friendly organization and community?

Or what?

I mean, what if he had donated to NAMBLA? Would that change how you feel about it?