Harvard Business Review censors some of my comments. Why? Because “diversity and openness.”

Saved here (for posterity) is my part of the debate with the censored comments – the horror – speech crimes, every one of them! Although I am surprised they didn’t delete all my comments – that’s usually the gaystapo tactic used.

But here, it was just a couple. Read the moderator’s “explanation” for shutting down the debate at the end. Truly Mozillian/Orwellian!

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
dan828 • 3 hours ago

According to Mozilla’s official response on this issue, only a handful of employees that were not in the same organization as Eich complained. The pressures were almost entirely from external sources.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Alessandra replied to dan828 • an hour ago

right, including a dating site!!! and lots of Twitter people!! LOL

As we can see, Mozilla is an organization that bases its important business decisions on the scientific findings of OKCupid! Rationality! Knowledge!
I’m surprised they didn’t take Eich down based on some piece on the National Enquirer!

================

rulierose  replied to Wize Adz • 4 hours ago

it’s obvious why it happened: the gay nazis would like to stifle dissent.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
MElastiGirl replied to  rulierose • 3 hours ago

The gay community had nothing to do with this. Prominent gay activists (Andrew Sullivan, Dan Savage) have made a point to speak out against it–noting it actually sets back the gay rights movement. This happened because the leader of Mozilla was out of step with those under his employ. But it hurts full equality for gay people because of bigots like you. The right side is winning–get over it.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Alessandra replied to MElastiGirl • an hour ago

These LGBT louts have been for decades attacking every single social conservative they can malign and destroy. This includes the grubby Sullivan and Savage. They have everything to do with this.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Alessandra • a day ago

Vilifying perfectly good people and engaging in character assassination is nothing new either. But it is rather new for employees to do that to their own CEO because the former have such a warped ideology.

Thus all the articles in the media associating what happened to witch hunts, McCarthyism, and last but certainly not least, the increasingly hardened anti-semitic measures in Germany and the expulsion of Jews first from their positions, and shortly later, society itself.

This case is like a bunch of Nazis objecting to having a Jewish CEO, or a
bunch of slimy NAMBLA supporters wanting the scalp of a decent
conservative CEO, or a bunch of pimps wanting to oust someone because
they uphold a law against prostitution.

Fundamental democratic rights or normalization of homosexuality – choose one

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Actually, it’s more like the allied forces coming in and waging war against nazis for denying rights based on how people are born, but keep with your embarrassing argument. I’m sure you would have been defending the nazis in the 40s for just expressing their beliefs (with horrible actions.)

/godwin

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

      CENSORED:    This comment by Alessandra was deleted.

Alessandra replied to MosquitoControl

Complete ignorance.

If LGBTs resolved their profound psychological problems and twisted minds, they could live out their heterosexuality like they were born to do. Having a deformed mind doesn’t give you any rights.

American culture has lost the fundamental notion that many people have all kinds of deformed and dysfunctional mindsets regarding sexuality.
The healthy answer is not to normalize psychological dysfunctions like homosexuality but to treat it.

Everyone is born heterosexual (except the intersex, but these are not homosexuals) and only after a baby
is born, can the mind be distorted and deformed any which way (homosexuality, bisexuality, pedophilia, bestiality, porn, etc)
Until society starts telling people with a homosexual problem to go treat their problem, you can only expect the persecution of decent social conservatives to get worse and worse.

The goal is to make you shut up and they won’t stop until they get there.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
J replied to  Alessandra • a day ago

What an embarrassing argument
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
T62 replied to J • a day ago

Why embarrassing??!! What if he had supported LGBT cause would have he been removed. Why one is right and the other is wrong? This is typical discrimination in reverse.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Ev replied to T62 • 12 hours ago

Andre basically covered everything that was wrong but “Fundamental democratic rights or normalization of homosexuality – choose one” is what appalled me the most, basic human rights should include normalisation of homosexuality.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
        CENSORED:    This comment by Alessandra was deleted.

Then we fundamentally disagree that porn, promiscuity, bestiality, S&M, pedophilia, and homosexuality are natural phenomena, if you mean by “natural” that these are healthy sexual psychologies and behaviors.

It clearly shows your lack of knowledge however, not mine. And what’s more, if your side had any knowledge, it wouldn’t want to shut down debate and silence people who question your views. But this is exactly what’s happening in society, take academia and the Internet as two perfect examples.

All your side does is call people who don’t agree with you a bigot and a hater (i.e., the same thing as a Nazi) and you don’t want us to voice our views.

Normalizing every dysfunctional and deformed sexual attitude and behavior that is produced in the mind of an individual is not knowledge – it’s just running away from facing how deformed, unethical, and dysfunctional sexual psychology can be and is for many people.

Shouting “I’m normal” doesn’t make one normal. Persecuting people who object to your notions of normality doesn’t make you normal either.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
grannybunny  replied to Alessandra • 2 hours ago

Of course, you are entitled to hold and express your unusual opinions, but surely you know that homosexuality is not considered — by medical professionals — to be either “deformed,” “disfunctional,” “warped,” a “psychological problem,” or any other of the inaccurate, pejoritive terms you choose to lob at it. Nor are homophobes — or others who, self-righteously, preach hatred, whether clothing themselves in Nazi uniforms, Klu Klux Klan robes, or other such garb — in any respect entitled to be considered “decent.” Please get some professional help for the hostility that is eroding your eternal soul.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
1
Ev  replied to Alessandra • 10 hours ago

So, by your logic, you shouldn’t have any rights? And before you jump on the ad hominem bang wagon, I’ll be clear by saying that I’m basing my assumptions on how you’ve used your own subjective viewpoint to call a natural phenomenon “deformed.” I can also never agree with a person who places homosexuality in the same set as bestiality or pedophilia. That clearly shows your lack of knowledge on the subject and makes your TLDR post moot. This is what’s wrong with the world’ people who don’t know about a subject, which also doesn’t concern them, actively advocate against it.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
                   CENSORED: This comment by Alessandra was deleted.

A healthy society does not normalize every kind of deformed and dysfunctional sexual psychology and behavior that can be produced inside the warped mind of its individuals.

Thus it does not normalize homosexuality, bisexuality, pedophilia, bestiality, porn, promiscuity, adultery, etc.

If LGBTs resolved their profound psychological problems and twisted minds, they could live out their heterosexuality like they were born to do. Having a deformed mind doesn’t give you any rights.

American culture has lost the fundamental notion that many people have all kinds of deformed and dysfunctional mindsets regarding sexuality.
The healthy answer is not to normalize psychological dysfunctions like homosexuality but to treat it.

Everyone is born heterosexual (except the intersex, but these are not homosexuals) and only after a baby is born, can the mind be distorted and deformed any which way (homosexuality, bisexuality, pedophilia, bestiality, porn, etc)
Until society starts telling people with a homosexual problem to go treat their problem, you can only expect the persecution of decent social
conservatives to get worse and worse.

The goal is to make you shut up and they won’t stop until they get there.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Ev  replied to Alessandra • 10 hours ago

We wouldn’t want to shut down a debate? Ok fine, please do provide the links of peer-reviewed journals (not blog posts/articles) which testify your “supported” viewpoint. Share your knowledge since I’m clearly lacking of it. I’m open to be challenged.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Alessandra  replied to Ev • 10 hours ago

Why do you want a peer-review journal? Do you believe that you are going to get the Truth in a peer-reviewed journal? Who told you that? Let me guess, you read in a peer-reviewed journal that only peer-reviewed journals are capable of stating the Truth! I must read this declaration – which journal established itself as the “Truth and nothing but”? Peer-review journals are like the Ministry of Truth, are they? Interesting!

Do you believe that peer-reviewed journals have a monopoly on the Truth? When did peer-reviewed journals become the only source of Truth in your opinion, was there a particular year in history when this happened? I’m unaware of this momentous event, so please fill me in.

Meanwhile, you can read a little of what I think here:

http://alessandrareflections.wordpress.com/not-born-lgbt/

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

grannybunny  replied to Alessandra • 2 hours ago

What an ignoramus! It’s a waste of time to try to intelligently debate with these anti-science bigots. What’s next? Book burning?

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Alessandra  replied to grannybunny • an hour ago

Because blind Faith in Authority is so scientific!

Just call people “ignorant” and be done with it. You’ve won the debate by name-calling.

Well done! Your superior intelligence on display…

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Ev  replied to Alessandra • 10 hours ago

Then what is the point of this debate if you only want me to agree with you by only having Faith in your words or words of others.
Peer reviewed journals are not the Only source of truth, but they’re far more trust worthy than blog comments because experts (notice the use of plural) in the respective field have seen and conceded to the study conducted. Now would you like me to tell you about primary and secondary sources of information as well? How else would people form opinions, if not by judging the credibility of information. I’ve already got a gist of what you think, I wanted to know how you came to think what you do, what proof did someone give you to come to this conclusion.
And I wouldn’t have asked you if you hadn’t clearly mentioned that you, in fact, do have the knowledge.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Alessandra  replied to Ev • 9 hours ago

Where did I say you needed to a) agree with me, b) agree with me by only having Faith in my words?

You completely made that up. Let me be clear: nowhere did I say you need to agree with me, much less by only having Faith in my words.

But what I see is that you don’t even want to read what I think. You may not want to silence me, but you surely cannot engage with what I think.

How do you know if what I think is correct or not? You don’t.

On the other hand, you have a blind Faith that anything that is ever printed in a peer review journal is the Truth! Apparently you are completely unaware of how many peer review articles have been shown to be complete lies, to have very harmful ideas and corrupt studies – and which get debunked over time.

So much for your peer review Ministry of Truth! Not that much Truth after all. And yet, for you, it’s what you put all your blind Faith into.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Ev  replied to Alessandra • 9 hours ago

a) You mentioned debate, I wonder what you thought of achieving with a debate otherwise b) if not faith in your words, please provide me with someone else’s words. But oh, since we have absolutely no way to get correct information, well… we’re in a pickle. Maybe I’ll just flip a coin and decide my stance. Also, can we start a campaign to dump all academic textbooks used in schools because they’re also based on peer-reviewed scientific studies?

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Alessandra  replied to Ev • 9 hours ago

You are in a pickle indeed, not me.

So far the only thing you have going for your “debate” is: a) I’m not going to read what you think because without reading, I have already declared it all wrong.

That’s not debate. You haven’t argued a single point. You haven’t shown that anything I have written is wrong. Where is your knowledge? Nowhere. By your own standards, you’re not an expert, therefore, you are incapable of having knowledge. You only have blind Faith in the people you call Experts – which you even grudgingly admit have a history of publishing lies and incorrect information in peer review journals. Blind faith in lies and distortions? tsk tsk!

“You must be wrong because I say so” is not debate. And it’s not knowledge.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Ev  replied to Alessandra • 8 hours ago

Ok, we’re going round and round. The thing is, you said I don’t have knowledge. I said ok, fine, I know nothing. Just show me yours. Now you’re just arguing how I’ll perceive knowledge. How about some actual facts though? Just say you have nothing supporting you and I’ll stop asking, have faith in me.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Alessandra  replied to Ev • 8 hours ago

I did post a link and you said “that’s all wrong because I said so.” Without reading it and debating it.

So we are going round and round, but it’s not because I don’t have any knowledge, as you claim.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Andre  replied to Ev • 8 hours ago

OP can’t process basic facts without muddling them and doesn’t understand proportion.

Arguing is pointless against a position that relies of faith and is immune to facts.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Alessandra  replied to Andre • 7 hours ago

That’s exactly why your position and Ev’s is wrong: it relies on blind faith and is immune to facts.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Andre  replied to Alessandra • 7 hours ago

What’s the difference between a witch hunt, a lynch mob, and a protest?

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Alessandra replied to Andre • 7 hours ago

The first two are always wrong whereas a protest can be about anything, wrong or right. In Eich’s case, it’s certainly a witch hunt by a lynch mob who is protesting a healthy view of society that he holds.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Andre  replied to Alessandra • 6 hours ago

Like I said, an ignorance of basic facts. They are all different, and the employees’ protest most certainly was not a witch hunt (there’s no such thing as witches), nor was it a lynch mob, no matter how many times you say it. Nor are they Nazis.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Andre  replied to T62 • a day ago

The argument is embarrassing because it’s a clear-cut case of argumentum ad Hitlerum, i.e., if you disagree with someone, call them a Nazi.

OP is calling those who are *for equal rights* Nazis, while defending a bigoted viewpoint. Only here, one side IS right and the other wrong. The employees didn’t want a bigoted boss, and spoke up.

And no, if the CEO had supported the LGBT cause, he wouldn’t have been removed. Because that’s not a bigoted position, so the employees wouldn’t have complained.

I’m not sure why OP claims “democratic rights” were lost here. This “stifling” of free speech is a red herring. Everyone had their free speech. The CEO in question exercised his right to back a bigoted effort, and employees at his new company squealed that they didn’t want a bigot at the helm. Looks to me like everyone got their democratic rights, and that there was a normalization of homosexuality, as it should be.

It was a case of AND, not OR.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Alessandra  replied to Andre • 11 hours ago

The argument is embarrassing because it’s a clear-cut case of argumentum
ad Hitlerum, i.e., if you disagree with someone, call them a Nazi.

================

How embarrassing to call people who are thinking and behaving like a lynch mob “Nazis”! So embarrassing! I’m glad you don’t have any self-awareness because that guarantees never being embarassed, even when you participate in your nasty witch hunts.

Furthermore, isn’t it plain to see that in everyone’s minds “Nazis” are exactly “haters” and “bigots”?

And what is the first thing that liberals call decent social conservatives to stifle debate and to smear them? “Haters” and “bigots” – these are just synonyms for the very same concept of “Nazis.”

We’re just witnessing a repeat of history here: “Decent Social Conservatives are our misfortune” say people who have a perverted sexuality ideology.

“I’m not sure why OP claims “democratic rights” were lost here.”

In a society that normalizes homosexuality, the only way to enforce such a baseless, deformed ideology is by force and persecution. Decent people must be suppressed and driven from the public square, if not society itself. Everyone who does agree to their deformed homosexuality agenda will be labeled the equivalent of a filthy Jew in Germany – and there goes the market place of ideas and participation in civil society, while they usher in professional and personal persecution, the destruction of religious and ideological freedom, etc.

That’s the choice to be made.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

MosquitoControl  replied to Alessandra • 14 minutes ago

Haha, Alessandra. “Those people are trying to protect equal rights, they must be nazis! That guy is trying to deny rights to someone based upon their birth, he must not be a nazi!”

Don’t you see how ridiculous your analogy is?
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++                •
                Sarah Green Mod  replied to Alessandra • 40 minutes ago

                Alessandra, unfortunately, several of your comments violated our comment policy (below), and I’ve had to delete them. I believe you have made your views clear, and I would ask that you refrain from monopolizing the conversation further. Thanks for weighing in.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
                    Alessandra  replied to Sarah Green • 11 minutes ago

                    No worries. I’m sure that like Mozilla, your site/organization values a “culture of openness that extends to encouraging staff and community to share their beliefs and opinions in public.”

                    And that’s why you’re basically telling me to shut… I mean, not post anything.
                    Excluding views and censoring comments is all about openness and diversity. As Mozilla made it so perfectly clear, so must you!

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s