I honestly don't know how I feel about this. I've been thinking about this since I found out he was in hospice care. AS a Christian, I should feel some kind of remorse. I'm finding it hard to mourn his passing.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Lots of talk of people protesting at his funeral.
My favorite suggestion was to have a gay pride party across from his funeral.
Posted by AchillesHeel (Member # 11736) on :
quote: "I take no solace or joy in this man's passing.
"We will not dance upon his grave, nor stand vigil at his funeral holding 'God Hates Freds' signs, tempting as it may be. He was a tormented soul, who tormented so many.
"Hate never wins out in the end. It instead goes always to its lonely, dusty end."
George Takei takes all the fun out of justifiable spite.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Derrell: I honestly don't know how I feel about this. I've been thinking about this since I found out he was in hospice care. AS a Christian, I should feel some kind of remorse. I'm finding it hard to mourn his passing.
I know God is deeply disappointed in Mr. Phelp's use of the gifts he was given. As all men are brothers, I mourn that he squandered his time, and harmed so many people, and now leaves this life adrift.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
May God have more mercy on his soul than he had for others while alive.
Posted by Sean Monahan (Member # 9334) on :
Here is an interesting article (and there are many similar) about how Phelps actually helped to further the cause of gay rights.
Posted by Wingracer (Member # 12293) on :
quote:Originally posted by AchillesHeel:
quote: "I take no solace or joy in this man's passing.
"We will not dance upon his grave, nor stand vigil at his funeral holding 'God Hates Freds' signs, tempting as it may be. He was a tormented soul, who tormented so many.
"Hate never wins out in the end. It instead goes always to its lonely, dusty end."
George Takei takes all the fun out of justifiable spite.
If there is one person on Earth that could make his death be an incredibly funny thing (and be justified in doing so), it would be George Takei. The fact that he hasn't gives me even more respect for him.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Bear in mind that Takei, as wonderful as he is, hires writers for his Twitter feed.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
There's nothing to celebrate in any person dying — not in and of itself, and also not in Fred Phelps' case at all, as he had become irrelevant to his own movement and no active harm is abated by his expiration. There's also the fact that he got to live a full life, which means that the conclusion of that life doesn't offer much meat to celebrate. 84 years! He had a pretty good run and he seemed to be in good health for most of that — we should all be so lucky. Hooray?
However.
The excommunication from his own church, though. That's just poetic. The miserable old shit reaps what he sows, in the end, in the most astoundingly quintessential way. Kicked from his own movement in a power struggle — of all things, for suggesting they not be so hostile to each other. Confined in exile in a hospice, left to rot, as isolated from the rest of humanity as a person can be. If anything, death is a mercy from that. If you were really spiteful, if you really harbored antipathy for him, you'd have wanted him to last a while longer in that hell.
Phelps is really a pretty clean case of "and nothing of value was lost" — his estranged kids all describe a remarkably horrid home environment, with a painkiller addicted, psychotic, abusively overlording Phelps sr. having psychotic screaming fits and demolishing furniture and plates on a regular basis, eventually forcing all the kids to support the family by selling cookies for "charity" door to door after school each day. If the kids didn't reach a quota (or phelps was just in a foul mood) they were beaten heavily. One phelps child was beaten into shock with over 200 strikes with a rattan cane or a similar instrument. All the while, Phelps preached all the best fire and brimstone and held as many of his children in his thrall with tales of the hell that awaited them if they stepped outside his command. One Phelps child literally sprinted out of the compound the night he turned 18, convinced utterly that he would be going to Hell for doing so, but still thinking the alternative was worse.
As a minister he was one of the odiously common Christian champions of inflicting physical violence on children. Or wives, for that matter. He encouraged men to beat their wives heavily for disobedience; one of his followers had to get bailed out of jail after following his advice. Phelps' wife at the time was even literally thrown down stairs as a method of punishment. The man was a demented and violent maniac, but he was able to threaten or coerce local government officials out of prosecuting him, so the abuse continued nearly unabated at home, as did the constant (further) endangerment of the children being sent long distances into the city to keep selling cookies to support dad's drug habits.
Nothing else about the man manages to be more than marginally less abhorrent.
Posted by vineyarddawg (Member # 13007) on :
Actually, as I understand it, Phelps was excommunicated specifically because he was dying. His warped theology teaches that true "sanctified" followers of Christ will never die, but will be taken directly into Heaven. By physically dying, he proved that he was not one of God's "elect," so he was excommunicated from the church.
I agree, though, that it's a poetic turn of events during the final days of his misspent life.
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
Well, he reaped what he sowed. Hopefully the bitterness he brought into so many lives can now begin to soften so healing can begin. And hopefully the church he founded will lose its potency without him.
Posted by Foust (Member # 3043) on :
So, here's a thought: on balance, Phelps was a force for good in the world.
I'm sure he hurt many people in his immediate vicinity.
But from a wider perspective? Didn't he do a lot to discredit homophobia?
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
quote:Originally posted by Foust: So, here's a thought: on balance, Phelps was a force for good in the world.
I'm sure he hurt many people in his immediate vicinity.
But from a wider perspective? Didn't he do a lot to discredit homophobia?
Sure, and Warren Jeffs did a lot to bring to light the negative aspects of polygamy, the KKK did a lot to discredit racism, and 9/11 helped us understand that there are terrorists in the world.
We've been looking at this all wrong. Why aren't these groups given legitimacy and their leaders given medals?
IT'S AN OUTRAGE!
Posted by Foust (Member # 3043) on :
Was support for polygamy, terrorism or racism things?
Look, nationalism/racism got killed dead by WW2, but WW2 was apocalyptic.
Phelps was just a dummy with a sign.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Foust: ... nationalism/racism got killed dead by WW2 ...
?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Geraine:
quote:Originally posted by Foust: So, here's a thought: on balance, Phelps was a force for good in the world.
I'm sure he hurt many people in his immediate vicinity.
But from a wider perspective? Didn't he do a lot to discredit homophobia?
Sure, and Warren Jeffs did a lot to bring to light the negative aspects of polygamy, the KKK did a lot to discredit racism, and 9/11 helped us understand that there are terrorists in the world.
We've been looking at this all wrong. Why aren't these groups given legitimacy and their leaders given medals?
IT'S AN OUTRAGE!
Geraine, here Foust is right, so the not exactly comparative comparisons don't work. Phelps did more damage to his own side and ended up being a utilitarian compliment that effectively further delegitimatized religious objections to gay rights.
quote:Look, nationalism/racism got killed dead by WW2
and here Foust is pretty much as wrong as it gets so.
Posted by Foust (Member # 3043) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: and here Foust is pretty much as wrong as it gets so.
What I mean is, that since WW2, racism and nationalism have increasingly become verboten topics of polite conversation, in a way they never had been before in history.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
It's pretty specious to say that WW2 was 'what killed it' and I'd have to be convinced of an argument that tyjk7kljihjuytrykll-]][uitgy5rtf43rthlo;[p']'wertyuiop[] poop
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
uh sorry about that, other sentient beings decided it would be hilarious to share my keyboard ANYWAY as I was saying i would have to be convinced of an argument that ww2 was the primary instigator of anti-racism, but I suppose it could be done
Posted by Foust (Member # 3043) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: uh sorry about that, other sentient beings decided it would be hilarious to share my keyboard ANYWAY as I was saying i would have to be convinced of an argument that ww2 was the primary instigator of anti-racism, but I suppose it could be done
Can we agree that the holocaust was a main factor in the discrediting of anti-Semitism, at least in the west?
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Foust:
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: uh sorry about that, other sentient beings decided it would be hilarious to share my keyboard ANYWAY as I was saying i would have to be convinced of an argument that ww2 was the primary instigator of anti-racism, but I suppose it could be done
Can we agree that the holocaust was a main factor in the discrediting of anti-Semitism, at least in the west?
Tony Judt wrote an interesting treatment of the post-war ideological shifts in Postwar, his history of Europe from 1945 on.
An interesting takeaway is this: anti-semitism and racism against Roms (Gypsies) was aided as a political imperative in Germany and elsewhere at all turns by an unassimilated, or seemingly unassimilable, population of actual Jews and Roms. Following the war, the population of European Jews and Roms had been so badly reduced as to eliminate any remotely reasonable fear (or whatever was closest to reasonable before the war) of an actual Jewish cabal against western society. The Jewish population of Poland was reduced from some millions into less than 2,000. There was not a single wealthy Jew left on the continent with his businesses and estates intact following the war.
To add to this effect, Poland, the former center of world Jewry for centuries, opened its borders to Aliyah, making it the only soviet satellite to do so. As a result, the 2-3 hundred thousand Jews who returned to Poland after the war fled in massive numbers. There are more Jewish Polish citizens alive even today in Israel, than in Poland.
Think about that. Judt points out that it was rather convenient to embrace anti-racism and reconciliation after the war, as there was essentially no place in European life left for Jews to occupy anyway, and they were strongly incentivized to leave Europe by the partitioning of Israel. People get very magnanimous when even the mere appearance of a threat is gone.
Judt also dismisses the impact of Allied re-education efforts in postwar Germany as misdirected and largely fruitless. People became aware of the atrocities of Nazi Germany, often by forced viewing of documentaries, but the popular culture quickly segregated its thinking to differentiate Nazi Germany from Germany itself. This was not helped by the Allied efforts that focused their attention on the elimination of Naziism rather than of deeper ideological reconditioning. But there was very little imperative to actually re-educate. The Jews were not coming back.
Posted by Emreecheek (Member # 12082) on :
I really don't think Phelps was a help. If anything, WBC gives bigots something to point at so they can say "See, guys? THOSE are bigots. Those WBC people. We're nice, though. We're nice people who don't want you to have equal rights in our society." It's super frustrating.
It gives some kind of false "Moderate" place that people can stand and pretend to be nice.
Very good article.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
I really like that article, mainly because the "it's ok to advocate really horribly things so long as you do it with the best intentions" mentality has always really disturbed me. If you advocate oppression, the person being oppressed doesn't care if you're kind and sweet about it or are screaming like a lunatic, you're still just as much of a bully either way.
Actually, having been bullied, I can tell you I much preferred the bullies who were just straight up rude or even violent as opposed to the condescending, smug ones who belittle and torment you with a smile on their face.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dogbreath: I really like that article, mainly because the "it's ok to advocate really horribly things so long as you do it with the best intentions" mentality has always really disturbed me.
For me it's any sentiment that if your oppressors are being 'polite' or 'have good intentions' you should in any way be expected to be polite back, or you're the 'intolerant' one and they are showing 'tolerance'
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
The "intolerance" thing bothers me quite a bit as well. Quite a few people legitimately believed they're the ones being oppressed for not supporting SSM. Paraphrase of a conversation with an a friend of mine a few nights ago (the topic of homosexuality had come up, and she rolled her eyes and sighed, which prompted this):
Me: (jokingly) "Hey, what've you got against gay people? Her: "Oh, nothing against gays themselves. I have a couple gay friends. I wish they'd stop forcing their agenda down my throat." Me: "Wait, what? Who's tried to do that?" Her: "You know, the gays running around calling us "breeders", saying "you have to accept us or you're a bigot", ostracizing people who don't agree with them." Me: "Really? This has happened to you?" Her: "Yeah! Well, not me personally, but you see it happening all the time now. If you're not a supporter of the gay agenda, you're a pariah." Me: "What agenda?" Her: "Supporting gay marriage, that sort of thing" Me: "Do you think gay marriage should be legal?" Her: "No. I'm not a homophobe! I just don't think it's natural, it's not part of God's plan." Me: "Ok. You're Catholic, right? Do you think Muslims are following God's plan?" Her: "No." Me: "Do you think Muslims should be able to build and worship in Mosques? Do you think we should recognize marriages between Muslims performed by Muslim clergy? Or do you think that they should be forced to have a Catholic wedding if they want to be legally married?" Her: "Yes, no, of course not!" Me: "Why not?" Her: "Because of the 1st Amendment! You can't make religious laws. Just because they don't follow my religion doesn't mean that that they can't get married how... oh. Well, it's different." Me: "How?" Her: "Because Muslim or Christian, marriage is between a man and a woman!" Me: "Why?" Her: "Because God says so!" Me: "But you just said we can legislate religion..."
After this, she decided she wanted to change the subject. But one thing that's fascinating to me is that people might even equate the two positions as having similar levels of intolerance. Are SSM supporters trying to prevent straight Christians from being able to marry? Are they trying to pass laws making it legal for businesses to discriminate against people who don't approve of gay marriage? Are they trying to use legislation in *any* way to oppress or harass people who don't support gay marriage?
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
No, they'll just push you to resign for donating to causes that reflect your values and oppose theirs even if you fully intend to support pro equality culture and policies within a company.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
If your "values" involve trying to make laws legalizing discrimination, then it's perfectly reasonable for people to not want to use your products. There's a huge difference between "I'm not going to use your products/financially support you because I disagree with you" and "I'm going to try and pass laws to discriminate against you and keep you from having the same rights I do, because I disagree with you." One is a strictly voluntary act (choosing not to buy/use something), the other is coercive. How exactly is it "intolerant" for me to not give money to people who use that money to do things I disagree with?
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
You pay for Firefox?
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
No, thus the "use their products."
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
But that's all beside the point. The point is, if I disagree with Mozilla appointing a bigot as their CEO, there's no reason I should feel obligated to continue using Firefox. And if, as a business owner, said CEO advocates discriminatory laws that actively attack and disenfranchise a meaningful percentage of my customers, I'm well within my rights to stand beside my customers and ask people visiting my site not to use Firefox. Again, it's a free country, people can use other browsers, or they can use other dating sites. At no point am I trying to pass a law to make using Firefox illegal. I'm simply exercising my right to do as I wish with my time and resources. The other side is not content with this, and is actually trying pass laws to *force* people to live according to their religious beliefs. I see no reason why I should feel obliged to support said people in the name of "tolerance."
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
You can do what you want as a consumer, including being a bigot towards people who are hetero-normative. You may not be aware of this, but when Mr. Eich was appointed CEO, employees of Mozilla posted on Twitter calling for his resignation specifically because of his donation to Proposition 8. Enormous pressure was put on the board to ask for his resignation internally and externally.
Mr. Eich had unequivocally expressed support for the established policies that Mozilla had in place. Again, he unequivocally stated he would absolutely support Mozilla's equality policies in place. But we won't know if he meant it because nobody wanted to give him a chance to demonstrate that. He was gone within 10 days.
I'm just stuck with my consternation that so many people won't believe the logical extension of this behavior. Pick your stance, there are horrible implications involved with it. Iraq/Afghanistan, abortion, drugs, 2nd Amendment, trade protectionism, minimum wage, tax rates. Would any of these warranted protesting a CEO's appointment because he donated towards a cause that advanced a position on *any* one of these issues?
No, absolutely not.
We'd call it McCarthyism if it did. And during McCarthyism there were actual communists seeking to infiltrate our government and steal its secrets. The evidence of harm from a belief system does not by itself warrant treating advocates of that position as worthy of exile. Drugs kill thousands every day, abortions have resulted in the deaths of millions of viable human beings, Iraq and Afghanistan have killed hundreds of thousands if not millions and obliterated the fabric of our due process and summoned the modern surveillance state, but we suppose that the denying of millions of our gay American brothers and sisters the right to equal protection under the law is somehow unique in the damage being caused?
I would be aghast if a firm in Utah was demanding the resignation of a CEO for donating to a group attempting to block proposition 8. I would be enraged if I heard somebody say, "Mrs. Smith quit her job at Company X, she said, "Management told me I wouldn't be promoted because I said abortion shouldn't be illegal, and donated to planned parenthood."
Why should we afford same-sex marriage a unique place where all members of one side of that issue are to be shunned and shamed? Is it because the issue is one-sided to us? Is it because the arguments they advance have too much religious justification so we can just ignore them? Is that why we can treat them with the prejudice we castigate them for exhibiting?
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
As somebody else said,
"Hiring somebody that has personal beliefs that may be considered offensive is not supporting bigotry. Deciding to not hire somebody solely on the fact that you disagree with their beliefs... that's bigotry."
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
Dogbreath, I think it's inconsistent to refer to a man who financially supported Prop 8 a "bigot," and then act all confused when your friend from the example above claims that the same label has been applied to her or people like her.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
There's a huge difference between being fired for your political beliefs (which is, afaik, illegal) and resigning. Do you seriously think it was wrong of Mozilla employees expressing concern over their new CEO being a bigot? Like, how would you feel as a black man if your company appointed a CEO who donated money to organizations that supported making interracial marriage illegal and wanted to bring back Jim Crow laws, but reassured you he wouldn't enact racist policies in your specific workplace?
So no, Mozilla employees expressing concern over a having a CEO who actively supports anti-gay interest groups isn't Mccarthyism, that's free speech. And right now Eich is realizing that if he chooses to exercise his rights to support bigotry, other people are free to exercise their right to call him out on it. Nobody attempted to pass a law to disenfranchise him, nobody fired him,there was no congressional hearing on whether or not he was a homophobe, nobody told him he's not allowed to be married to his wife. He's still perfectly free to believe what he wants and say what he wants and believe whatever kind of bigoted garbage he wants. And I'm free to say what I want and use my money and time and resources as I please, too. Me expressing my diagreement with him because of things he supports and choosing not to use his products is a perfectly valid choice for me to make. What would you suggest? Force people to keep using Firefox just so you don't hurt his feelings? What's more important?
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
quote:Originally posted by PSI Teleport: Dogbreath, I think it's inconsistent to refer to a man who financially supported Prop 8 a "bigot," and then act all confused when your friend from the example above claims that the same label has been applied to her or people like her.
No it's not. He's not a bigot because he follows a religion that teaches that homosexuality is wrong, just as my friend isn't a bigot for following a religion that teaches that Islam is wrong.
He's a bigot because he supports passing laws to disenfranchise people. He believes that some people deserve more rights than others and supports treating a whole group of people as second class citizens.
That's what makes him a bigot.
If my friend were to, say, support passing a bill to make illegal for Islamic people to marry, I would call her a bigot too.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:There's a huge difference between being fired for your political beliefs (which is, afaik, illegal)
It might be in this case, it's not clear if CEOs are covered by the same legal protections afforded employees. It's certainly illegal to treat regular employees this way. Can you explain why we protect employees but not the CEO in this way?
quote:Do you seriously think it was wrong of Mozilla employees expressing concern over their new CEO being a bigot?
What? No! Expressing concerns is a very normal productive thing. Calling for somebody's resignation on a social media site is not an appropriate way to express concerns with your company's choice in CEOs, even if your concern is legitimate (In this case I don't think it is). If you can, you speak to the person privately. If you can't you apply upward pressure by speaking to your manager and having them relay your concerns down the chain. You circulate a petition within the office, secure signatures, and then send it up.
But it would be inappropriate to call for somebody's resignation purely on the strength of one political position. Was Mr. Eich failing to do the job? Was he disparaging other employee's beliefs? Was he trying to get employees to take a position on that issue? No, he was doing his job. He was asked to be CEO. They didn't ask him to resign when his donation was made public years ago.
quote:Like, how would you feel as a black man if your company appointed a CEO who donated money to organizations that supported making interracial marriage illegal and wanted to bring back Jim Crow laws, but reassured you he wouldn't enact racist policies in your specific workplace?
To the extent he was true to that claim, I would work under him. I went to a school where Mormons were classified in inter-faith chapels as separate from Christianity. It hurt. But because they treated me with respect and dignity otherwise, and didn't mistreat me, and because I understood that their beliefs mandated I be classified in this way, I was willing to continue going to school there. When my gymnastics teacher told me that because I wouldn't attend competitions (they were held on Sundays) that therefore my dedication to the team was suspect, and I was not going to be invited to our team party, I quit. If I hadn't quit I would have told my instructor that policy was unacceptable. If he had allowed me to remain on the team as a full member, and accept I couldn't participate in competition on Sundays, even if he loathed that belief. I would have stayed on the team.
quote:So no, Mozilla employees expressing concern over a having a CEO who actively supports anti-gay interest groups isn't Mccarthyism.
Them refusing to work for somebody because of a political position absolutely is McCarthyism in spirit.
quote:Nobody attempted to pass a law to disenfranchise him, nobody fired him,there was no congressional hearing on whether or not he was a homophobe, nobody told him he's not allowed to be married to his wife.
No, they didn't do any of those things. those would just be even bigger outrages. But they did say he can't work at Mozilla because of his beliefs. He didn't say he wouldn't work and be fair to homosexuals or those who believe they should be afforded marriage recognition.
But I ask again, why same-sex marriage? Why not myriad other issues? Should the next CEO be given a political background check that establishes if he is on the right side of all political issues based on his political donations?
[ April 05, 2014, 09:52 PM: Message edited by: BlackBlade ]
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
Did they actually refuse to work for him, though? Or tell him he can't work there? They asked him to resign, and AFAIK he resigned of his own volition.
Also, it's my right as a human being to work for whomever I wish (so long as they're willing to employ me) and likewise, not work for whomever I wish, for whatever reason. Slavery is illegal. (though right now I actually am bound by contract to work, that's an exceptional case that doesn't really apply to the civilian job market. Likewise, I have no real right to free speech for similar reasons)
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Did they actually refuse to work for him, though? Or tell him he can't work there? They asked him to resign, and AFAIK he resigned of his own volition.
I am confident (though not sure) that he was asked to resign, and he complied. Because really, if you are being asked to quit after 10 days by your board how effective are you going to be at your job? He voluntarily resigned in pretty much the same way Nixon voluntarily resigned. He read the writing on the wall, and knew the organization wasn't going to let him continue on there.
Frankly, if I was an employee there who had also donated to Prop 8, I would be terrified that I would be similarly pressured by co-workers posting on line demanding my resignation as well.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: ... Iraq and Afghanistan have killed hundreds of thousands if not millions and obliterated the fabric of our due process and summoned the modern surveillance state, but we suppose that the denying of millions of our gay American brothers and sisters the right to equal protection under the law is somehow unique in the damage being caused?
This is an odd step in reasoning. The fact that the people that are responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands and violating the privacy rights of billions haven't been prosecuted for their crimes doesn't mean that lesser acts of oppression should be ignored. Two wrongs don't make a right.
Edit to add: To be clear, the government officials responsible for these acts definitely should be prosecuted. If we're talking about a CEO that enabled spying on billions of people, then you're damn right they should step down.
[ April 05, 2014, 11:06 PM: Message edited by: Mucus ]
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: We'd call it McCarthyism if it did.
I think that this has gone awry as well.
McCarthyism was horrifying since it was a "witch-hunt" in that numerous people were being accused of being Communists or being blacklisted without proof that they actually were communists.
In this case, this doesn't apply. This Mozilla CEO is not being falsely accused of being an opponent of same-sex marriage. He freely declared himself, the "witch" declared himself to be a witch.
You're just using McCarthyism as a provocative and in my opinion, misleading word here. What you really have here is just an old fashioned boycott.
[ April 05, 2014, 11:59 PM: Message edited by: Mucus ]
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
Yeah, and it's not like action hasn't been taken on those fronts, either.
For example, as far as boycotting goes, I haven't actually boycotted Firefox. (I'm using it right now) I've gone into more detail in the "boycott Ender's Game" threads, but I think a lot of boycotts are misaimed or unnecessary. I do avoid buying Nike shoes and shopping at Wal*Mart, because of their immoral business practices. I absolutely support the boycott of industries that pressure the U.S. government to engage in warfare, though since a lot of those industries get most of their money from the government in the first place, I think political reform is the best way to go about this. I know many, many people who boycott companies that contribute to planned parenthood. (though I don't, I fully support their right to oppose abortion in any way they choose)
I guess the main reason why you're seeing so much of this happening with regards to gay marriage is:
A) This is an issue that is currently a very hot topic. B) It's something that we can actually directly affect. No matter how many political rallies I go to, or how many protests I take part in, I can't really do much to convince congress not to go to war. But with things like Proposition 8, we can pretty directly affect the outcome of the SSM debate. C) The issue with opposing SSM comes down to more than a political position. It's about whether or not it's right to create laws based on religious beliefs, and whether or not it's right to discriminate against homosexuals. I believe it's absolutely wrong to involve religion in government, and I also believe it's absolutely wrong to deny basic human rights to anyone due to their sexual orientation. I feel, much like with racism, we need to be as firm as possible in stopping the encroachment of personal or religious opinion in the creation of laws.
Here's a recent example of another boycott: Soffe is a sportswear company that primarily caters to the military. Recently, it was discovered that they ran at least one sweatshop in Bangladesh, and the Marine Corps responded by pulling all their products from exchanges and no longer offers any Soffe products. I'm sure quite a few people at Soffe lost their jobs as a result. Do you feel like this boycott is an example of McCarthyism, just because the Marine Corps has different "values" than the people at Soffe and was being intolerant of their belief that it's ok to exploit people in other countries for cheap labor? Or do you think, when it comes to issues of human rights, it's important to take a stand and boycott/protest people and corporations who disregard and show contempt for those rights? Even if you might be viewed as being rude or intolerant?
I obviously believe the latter, and indeed, I have put my career on the line several times in the military due to various issues like this. (Several times in protest of DADT, once over the treatment of a mentally ill service member, other times in smaller issues) I think our nation needs morally courageous men and women who are willing to stand up for what's right more than it needs people to be polite and obsequious to bigots and religious fanatics.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Mucus:
quote:The fact that the people that are responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands and violating the privacy rights of billions haven't been prosecuted for their crimes doesn't mean that lesser acts of oppression should be ignored. Two wrongs don't make a right.
Two wrongs don't make a right that's true. Unless you're willing to apply the same standard of conduct towards other equally important political issues you must explain why you are singling one out for special treatment.
quote:Edit to add: To be clear, the government officials responsible for these acts definitely should be prosecuted. If we're talking about a CEO that enabled spying on billions of people, then you're damn right they should step down.
So basically every single CEO who contributed to George W. Bush's reelection campaign?
quote:McCarthyism was horrifying since it was a "witch-hunt" in that numerous people were being accused of being Communists or being blacklisted without proof that they actually were communists.
You misunderstand me. It wasn't the lack of proof that was the most awful thing about McCarthyism, it was the belief that if somebody subscribes to communism they should be treated like an enemy to American society. Certain industries jumped all over the anti-communism furor and internally aggressively sought out communist leaning individuals and saw to it that they lost their livelihoods and self-respect.
quote:You're just using McCarthyism as a provocative and in my opinion, misleading word here. What you really have here is just an old fashioned boycott.
I'm using McCarthyism because it applies. The quest for rooting out out-of-step ideologies and aggressively punishing them is a long sordid thread in history. The mind boggles how just a few short years ago when positions were flipped, this very board said that people shouldn't lose their jobs because they support gay rights, they should be treated based on the merits of their work.
Personally I think many of the people arguing with me find it easy to excuse this behavior because it's for a cause they agree with. But I'll lay off the accusations of fellow board members' motives if you'll refrain from trying to tell me what I'm trying to do, and just address what I say.
Dogbreath:
quote: A) This is an issue that is currently a very hot topic.
No disagreement there.
quote:B) It's something that we can actually directly affect. No matter how many political rallies I go to, or how many protests I take part in, I can't really do much to convince congress not to go to war. But with things like Proposition 8, we can pretty directly affect the outcome of the SSM debate.
The die as they say has already been cast on this issue. I think we all know on this board that marriage equality is coming, I'm glad for that. Trying to bludgeon ideological purity though is something human beings are too quick to engage in, and it's always harmful, even when they are good ideals.
quote:C) The issue with opposing SSM comes down to more than a political position. It's about whether or not it's right to create laws based on religious beliefs, and whether or not it's right to discriminate against homosexuals. I believe it's absolutely wrong to involve religion in government, and I also believe it's absolutely wrong to deny basic human rights to anyone due to their sexual orientation. I feel, much like with racism, we need to be as firm as possible in stopping the encroachment of personal or religious opinion in the creation of laws.
Well, now we have a serious disagreement. To be sure, I don't believe in utilizing the government as a vehicle to enact religious compliance. This is exactly why I belong to a religion that says that all out of wed-lock sex is sinful, and same-sex couples cannot marry, yet I advocate against passing laws requiring others to institutionalize that belief.
But I do not believe it is right to tell the religious that their beliefs have no place in law, or how they vote. To be sure, I'm all for there being a secular justification for laws that we pass. I'm not for telling the religious people that their beliefs are not valid justifications for even their own votes. I hate that that has increasingly become a thing where you cannot have a respectable opinion unless you cut religion completely out of it.
quote:I'm sure quite a few people at Soffe lost their jobs as a result. Do you feel like this boycott is an example of McCarthyism, just because the Marine Corps has different "values" than the people at Soffe and was being intolerant of their belief that it's ok to exploit people in other countries for cheap labor?
This isn't a good example of what I'm angry at. I'm not lambasting OK Cupid for asking people not to use Firefox. I'm not angry that gay rights advocates think donating to Proposition 8 is odious and shouldn't happen. I am angry that a CEO who has assured his company that he will uphold the equality policies and procedures it has in place, was asked to resign for only one reason. He donated to a political cause he felt obligated to support. We would not countenance that were it numerous other causes of equal importance.
I'm angry that employees of Mozilla thought it was appropriate to undermine their leadership by going to social media to air their grievances without (from what I can tell) making any effort to do so internally.
I'm a big fan of protesting, I've participated in it myself. But I would be stunned if my co-workers went online found my name on a list of Obama donors, and then publicly requested that I be fired for supporting the anti-business legislation "Obamacare". Then, not only were they not disciplined, they were applauded for standing up for business and freedom. And then I was asked to quit.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
BB, I agree with you that it would have been better for there to be some conciliatory neutral ground between approving of the guy's politics and hounding him out of the job. I think - especially since the fight was already won in CA - it would have been both more charitable, and more politically savvy to let it go.
However, I wanted to respond to a couple of points you've made.
quote:He donated to a political cause he felt obligated to support. We would not countenance that were it numerous other causes of equal importance.
You seem to be forgetting that the people who are countenancing what happened with Eich regard the battle over Prop 8 in a very similar way to how they view the civil rights movement in the 1960s - that there's one very clear right side and one very clear wrong side. That Eich (apparently) considered it important is hardly an excuse when you view it that way.
I understand why you approach the subject this way. You belong to a community and a family where good people are on the "wrong" side here - and you know exactly where they are coming from, even though you disagree. It seems quite reasonable to you that Eich was standing up for principles that he believed in, and it seems wrong to punish him for it - you can see the same sort of reaction being pointed at the good people you worship with and attend family reunions with. I have that same problem - I understand very well where my conservative LDS family and friends are coming from. But to others, what Eich did isn't reasonable, and is only understandable as bigotry, and is completely indefensible.
So it's a bit tone deaf to say that if it had been some other comparable issue, nobody would put up with the ire recently directed at Eich - because, in the view of many, the only comparable issues are things that would have resulted in the same (or quite possibly much more universal) disapproval and distancing.
I think it's better to be conciliatory and very important NOT to perpetuate the meme that the "gay agenda" won't be fulfilled until everyone is forced to pretend to agree. But it's also important for us to understand that it's very difficult to set aside what Eich did - to understand that it's very much the same as if he was advocating for racial segregation - in the view of those who don't feel like they can ignore it.
The other thing:
quote:I'm angry that employees of Mozilla thought it was appropriate to undermine their leadership by going to social media to air their grievances without (from what I can tell) making any effort to do so internally.
Internally agitating for a change in leadership is quite possibly worse than individually airing opinions on social media. You can't do it without using company resources. It's directly insubordinate. I get that you disapprove of what they DID do, but this is not a realistic or better alternative.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
On the subject of McCarthyism: the truly scary and bad thing about the red scare was that the government was trying to root out and punish people for having the wrong opinions. What happened with Eich happened in the private sector. You can think it's wrong, and draw some limited comparisons to McCarthy, but until the government is involved in persecuting people for their opposition to SSM, it's not the same.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: ... you must explain why you are singling one out for special treatment.
I think you first need to demonstrate that I am singling one out.
quote:
quote:Edit to add: To be clear, the government officials responsible for these acts definitely should be prosecuted. If we're talking about a CEO that enabled spying on billions of people, then you're damn right they should step down.
So basically every single CEO who contributed to George W. Bush's reelection campaign?
Go on? I'm not sure where you're headed with this.
quote: Certain industries jumped all over the anti-communism furor and internally aggressively sought out communist leaning individuals and saw to it that they lost their livelihoods and self-respect.
Again, that's just describing an economic boycott. Economic boycotts affect livelihoods. That's what they do, that's pretty much the point.
Affecting livelihoods is not a unique aspect to McCarthyism.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
quote:Originally posted by scifibum: You seem to be forgetting that the people who are countenancing what happened with Eich regard the battle over Prop 8 in a very similar way to how they view the civil rights movement in the 1960s - that there's one very clear right side and one very clear wrong side. That Eich (apparently) considered it important is hardly an excuse when you view it that way.
I think this is the crux of the issue, and it's one I've brought up to BlackBlade (and others) about this and other issues with the church. When you're surrounded by a group of people who believe in something really horrendous, and they seem to otherwise be good and decent people who live moral lives, it's easy to try justify their beliefs, or at least soften them and make them more palatable, even when you don't agree with them. I've had this happen to me too, and I still catch myself doing it with other issues. (like misogyny in the military, for example)
The thing is, I really, legitimately have no problem with people who believe homosexuality is a sin. Much like I have no problem with people who think drinking coffee is a sin, or premarital sex is a sin, or giving blowjobs is a sin, or using electricity is a sin, or not wearing a head covering is a sin, or eating meat on Fridays is a sin, or not living with your parents until you marry is a sin. (yes, that's a real thing)
The difference is, those people despite being sometimes very passionate about said beliefs, never try and legislate any of the other offenses. I don't see people picketing outside of Starbucks with "God hates lattes!" signs, or trying to pass laws to get butcher shops closed on Fridays, or any number of other ways of legislating morality. Which is why I don't really buy it when people who support the NOM and other groups say they're just "staying true to their beliefs." They're more than capable of realizing that other things (coffee, blowjobs, hats) are things that, while important to their religion, should not be forced on nonbelievers. So why should their views on sexuality be forced on nonbelievers?
I honestly think, much like with the flimsy attempts to use religion to support bans on interracial marriage (something the Mormons apparently also oppose), it's a case of people hiding behind a handful of Bible verses to support bigotry and oppression. If it was merely a religious issue, and not a social and prejudice issue, it would be treated like any other special religious commandment and not be inflicted on the public at large.
So, imagine if it was discovered Mozilla's new CEO supported the KKK financially. Except, the KKK wasn't the joke it is now, but actually a fairly powerful organization with real political influence. Would your reaction be the same? My grandpa told me about when they found KKK members in their town in the late 50s, the men of the town got together and drove them out of town. I'm not saying that's not an overreaction, and I realize the NOM doesn't commit hate crimes or advocate violence on the same level as the KKK, but these are comparable situations.
I guess in conclusion, I'd say nobody is discriminating against Eich because of his beliefs (or if they are, they've wrong to do so), they're opposing having him as a representative of their company because he actively advocates treating certain people as second class citizens.
Posted by Darth_Mauve (Member # 4709) on :
Dogbreath--that is a great explanation of my thoughts exactly.
backers of Proposition 8 said, in effect, "My faith and religion thinks your relationship is wrong. So my beliefs demand that your relationship is not recognized by the state."
There is a lot of Ick factor some see in gay marriage, but that same excuse could be used to invalidate all types of marriages.
By the very definitions of some churches, getting married outside of the church is not really getting married. According to the Catholic church, I am living in sin with my wife because we were married in the botanical gardens and not their cathedral. How valid is a wedding held by Elvis in Vegas, or those Jews who don't even mention Jesus, or the Muslims, or LDS, or atheists.
If we allow the church of the majority to define who can get married based solely on their religious faith, isn't everyone in trouble of having their marriages eventually outlawed?
Racism is an attack. It says, "I am right and you are wrong."
Boycotting hetro-supremisists is self defense, no matter what your sexuality is. It is not a complaint about that person's beliefs, but a complaint about that person's insistence that their beliefs are imposed on others.
I like chocolate. My wife like's peanut butter. A flavorist is the a person who judges you based on what flavors you like. I do not judge my wife on her love of peanut butter. However, if my wife tried to outlaw chocolate because it wasn't peanut butter, I would judge her.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:But I do not believe it is right to tell the religious that their beliefs have no place in law, or how they vote. To be sure, I'm all for there being a secular justification for laws that we pass. I'm not for telling the religious people that their beliefs are not valid justifications for even their own votes. I hate that that has increasingly become a thing where you cannot have a respectable opinion unless you cut religion completely out of it.
I don't think an attitude of 'don't be religious in your voting!' is actually very common at all. Perhaps someday it will be. What I *do* think has begun to happen without being common yet in the slightest is an attitude of 'don't be religious in your voting of how *someone else's* behavior will be governed and then expect the traditional cloak of religious respectability to cover you'.
I'm often troubled enough when it's one group of evolved primates telling another what they can and cannot do, on their own behalf. Even when I agree with the group doing the telling. But then when that same group of evolved primates-just like me-sticks the magic words 'God says...' in front of their effort-and it has been nothing else for this issue, fancy it up how we may-yeah, the sooner such thinking is shunned and relegated to history, the better. Frankly, conservative religious types in this country would appreciate this virtue of secularism a lot more if they weren't convinced-rightly so-that it's unlikely for a politically powerful group in this country to stand up and say 'God says...!' for anything they themselves disapproved of.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
The whole part where people boycotting mozilla over brendan eich got called/conflated/hyperboled into "mccarthyism" is fairly ridiculous but there is a point in that the eich boycott represents another step into decidedly illiberal territory working on ultimately counterproductive initiatives and incentives
i would feel worse about it if eich hadn't been given an opportunity to illustrate in any meaningful way that he was no longer in support of homophobic law, but he opted to stand his ground
that's fine, it's his right to stick to his guns. and mozilla had to fire him pretty much, wouldn't have survived with that image of "that one with the homophobe at the helm"
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
scifibum:
quote:You seem to be forgetting that the people who are countenancing what happened with Eich regard the battle over Prop 8 in a very similar way to how they view the civil rights movement in the 1960s - that there's one very clear right side and one very clear wrong side. That Eich (apparently) considered it important is hardly an excuse when you view it that way.
How is that any different than religious people who think all issues are black/white and you either support what God wants or what the devil wants (which is anything altered from what God wants).
Eich didn't donate to a cause because it furthered his career, or made business easier for Mozilla. He had to be aware that in his industry his position was very unpopular, yet he still donated.
Maybe it was because he's a bigot and wants gays to be miserable, or he felt for whatever reason that Proposition 8 was good for California. But this is getting back into a previous discussion where we endlessly debate about whether a persons motivations matter when they are being shamed.
quote:Internally agitating for a change in leadership is quite possibly worse than individually airing opinions on social media. You can't do it without using company resources. It's directly insubordinate. I get that you disapprove of what they DID do, but this is not a realistic or better alternative.
I'm not married to the alternative I posited. But I do believe bringing a grievance to a party privately if possible is *always* better than airing it in public.
quote:On the subject of McCarthyism: the truly scary and bad thing about the red scare was that the government was trying to root out and punish people for having the wrong opinions. What happened with Eich happened in the private sector. You can think it's wrong, and draw some limited comparisons to McCarthy, but until the government is involved in persecuting people for their opposition to SSM, it's not the same.
McCarthyism was not just scary only because the government got involved. Witch hunts don't have to involve the government to be awful and sordid. People find plenty of other ways to punish ideas they don't like.
quote:I think you first need to demonstrate that I am singling one out.
My original contention wasn't that *you* were singling one out. I was saying that the employees at Mozilla were. Are you on board with what they did?
quote:Go on? I'm not sure where you're headed with this.
I don't really need to go beyond this. If people knew that President Bush's policies were leading to war in Iraq, torture, and the surveillance state, and they voted to reelect him, and if we also accept that voting and donating politically towards causes that cause harm are worthy of exile from society. Then people should be constantly trying to get everybody who disagrees with them on just about every major political issue fired, dismissed, etc.
quote:Again, that's just describing an economic boycott. Economic boycotts affect livelihoods. That's what they do, that's pretty much the point.
Affecting livelihoods is not a unique aspect to McCarthyism.
Trying to force a resignation is not a boycott. Trying to punish a belief is not a boycott. What OK Cupid did was a boycott, and I'm not talking about that.
Dogbreath:
quote:I think this is the crux of the issue, and it's one I've brought up to BlackBlade (and others) about this and other issues with the church. When you're surrounded by a group of people who believe in something really horrendous,
I don't agree it is "really horrendous". We don't know why Eich supported Proposition 8. Maybe he felt that marriages should be the exclusive purview of heterosexual relationships, while gays are given civil unions with equivalent rights. There are many people who feel that way. But they are all painted with the same brush and told they hate or are irrationally afraid of gay people.
quote:The difference is, those people despite being sometimes very passionate about said beliefs, never try and legislate any of the other offenses. I don't see people picketing outside of Starbucks with "God hates lattes!" signs, or trying to pass laws to get butcher shops closed on Fridays, or any number of other ways of legislating morality.
People legislate morality all the time dude. What are efforts to ban genetically modified food, blue laws, prohibition, affirmative action, anti-polygamy laws, handgun bans if not efforts to legislate morality?
quote:So why should their views on sexuality be forced on nonbelievers?
Look, when farmers are given a subsidy by the government, that nobody else gets, do you feel like those farmer's views are being shoved down your throat?
I do sorta, but I'm not going to call what farmers are doing theft, and aggressively root out everybody who votes or donates to that cause. Nor am I going to call that subsidy farmers shoving their beliefs down my throat. By that standard we are all constantly scarfing down other people's beliefs involuntarily.
Look my point is being lost because I can't stay focused on it. Same-sex marriage is not the most important issue facing our country right now, nor will it likely ever be. I don't mean that condescendingly. The issues I am often loud about probably aren't either. And yes I agree that because we can influence same-sex marriages more tangibly there's a greater desire to do so. But if we let a person be bullied out of a job because of their political beliefs, we are straying towards the realm of ideological purity. And that sounds exactly like what the Puritans and yes Joe McCarthy were interested in.
quote:something the Mormons apparently also oppose)
In the past the leadership of the church has discouraged interracial marriages. I does not do so today. At all. It does suggest that a marriage between races when there are major cultural differences is often inadvisable. But that's pretty common sense. They do not suggest however that races are somehow superior or inferior or that they must not mix just cuz.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
quote:What are efforts to ban genetically modified food, blue laws, prohibition, affirmative action, anti-polygamy laws, handgun bans if not efforts to legislate morality?
Public health and safety? Social justice? Prohibition is probably the closest on that list, and unlike SSM, there are legitimate secular reasons to want to ban alcohol as well. (It's an addictive drug that can cause unpredictable and sometimes violent behavior, drunk drivers kill tens of thousands of people yearly, it causes numerous health problems, etc.)
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dogbreath:
quote:What are efforts to ban genetically modified food, blue laws, prohibition, affirmative action, anti-polygamy laws, handgun bans if not efforts to legislate morality?
Public health and safety? Social justice? Prohibition is probably the closest on that list, and unlike SSM, there are legitimate secular reasons to want to ban alcohol as well. (It's an addictive drug that can cause unpredictable and sometimes violent behavior, drunk drivers kill tens of thousands of people yearly, it causes numerous health problems, etc.)
We must not be using morality in the same way then.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:People legislate morality all the time dude. What are efforts to ban genetically modified food, blue laws, prohibition, affirmative action, anti-polygamy laws, handgun bans if not efforts to legislate morality?
Not to mention that in most of those cases, when morality legislation is attempted, it must stand its own ground and win or lose on its own. Opposition to genetically modified food is not undertaken with holy support. That particular bunch of apes is telling the rest of us apes that something is dangerous and needs to be banned. Ok, so we can examine that. They're not saying god says so, and we know it because god has told us, and if you think god told you something different you're just wrong, or if you think god doesn't exist or made no pronouncement on the issue, you're wrong because we're better in tune with god.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:Originally posted by Dogbreath:
quote:What are efforts to ban genetically modified food, blue laws, prohibition, affirmative action, anti-polygamy laws, handgun bans if not efforts to legislate morality?
Public health and safety? Social justice? Prohibition is probably the closest on that list, and unlike SSM, there are legitimate secular reasons to want to ban alcohol as well. (It's an addictive drug that can cause unpredictable and sometimes violent behavior, drunk drivers kill tens of thousands of people yearly, it causes numerous health problems, etc.)
We must not be using morality in the same way then.
If my use of the term is confusing, I'll rephrase it as "legislation with religious justification." If you're going for gun control and your main argument is "God doesn't like people who use guns" or even "there are no guns mentioned in the Bible, clearly they're not a part of God's plan" then you're getting into anti-SSM territory.
[ April 07, 2014, 10:59 AM: Message edited by: Dogbreath ]
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:In the past the leadership of the church has discouraged interracial marriages. I does not do so today. At all. It does suggest that a marriage between races when there are major cultural differences is often inadvisable. But that's pretty common sense. They do not suggest however that races are somehow superior or inferior or that they must not mix just cuz.
they do not at this point, no. but when talking about the past ..
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: scifibum:
quote:You seem to be forgetting that the people who are countenancing what happened with Eich regard the battle over Prop 8 in a very similar way to how they view the civil rights movement in the 1960s - that there's one very clear right side and one very clear wrong side. That Eich (apparently) considered it important is hardly an excuse when you view it that way.
How is that any different than religious people who think all issues are black/white and you either support what God wants or what the devil wants (which is anything altered from what God wants).
Short answer: Because not all beliefs are equal no matter the reason someone holds that belief.
Posted by JanitorBlade (Member # 12343) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: The whole part where people boycotting mozilla over brendan eich got called/conflated/hyperboled into "mccarthyism" is fairly ridiculous but there is a point in that the eich boycott represents another step into decidedly illiberal territory working on ultimately counterproductive initiatives and incentives
i would feel worse about it if eich hadn't been given an opportunity to illustrate in any meaningful way that he was no longer in support of homophobic law, but he opted to stand his ground
that's fine, it's his right to stick to his guns. and mozilla had to fire him pretty much, wouldn't have survived with that image of "that one with the homophobe at the helm"
What do you mean by Eich standing his ground? Are you referring to his refusing to apologize to a developer because the developer's partner could not get a visa because their relationship was not recognized?
Posted by JanitorBlade (Member # 12343) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:In the past the leadership of the church has discouraged interracial marriages...
Yeah, in the past...
[ April 07, 2014, 02:01 PM: Message edited by: JanitorBlade ]
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Yes. That's the point. The context of "in the past" makes the 'however' part of your post a .. bit off, syntax wise.
i also think that if you go back to smith and young, 'discourage' is putting it quite mildly. i guess excommunication/exile/death is in all practical senses an encouragement not to mix blood with the inferior races.
quote:What do you mean by Eich standing his ground? Are you referring to his refusing to apologize to a developer because the developer's partner could not get a visa because their relationship was not recognized?
quote:. The initial revelation of that donation, back in 2012, led to a welter of criticism that eventually died down. But, by elevating Eich to C.E.O., the Mozilla board brought his past to the forefront once again. While Eich attempted to defuse the problem with conciliatory blog posts and interviews about diversity and inclusiveness, he didn’t actually say that his views on gay marriage had changed. That, inevitably, provoked a uprising within the Mozilla community
he would not have had made this omission inadvertently, which is how the Mozilla project (and pretty much anyone watching this) knew he was sticking to his guns about gay marriage.
which, sure, he can do. but it meant that it was impossible to expect he could stay at the helm.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:I think you first need to demonstrate that I am singling one out.
My original contention wasn't that *you* were singling one out. I was saying that the employees at Mozilla were. Are you on board with what they did?
I'm not sure how you can assume that the employees at Mozilla are singling any one thing out either if you can't demonstrate that I'm singling one thing out.
Am I "on board" with what they did? Let's be clear: * Do I think what they did was strategically the best thing to do to promote same-sex marriage in the US? Maybe not. * Do I think what they did was strategically the best thing globally? I'm ambivalent * Do I think what they did was within the bounds of what is acceptable for a boycott in our society? You bet. * Do I support their free-speech rights to go outside the company to get support against the CEO? Yup.
quote:... Then people should be constantly trying to get everybody who disagrees with them on just about every major political issue fired, dismissed, etc.
Don't they? For a given definition of "major" we have boycotts happening all the time. Consumers boycotting Chick-Fil-A were inherently trying to get the whole company including the CEO shut down. America boycotts Cuba and Iran, which harms the livelihoods of people both inside and outside the relevant countries with the implicit goal of "regime change."
quote:
quote:Again, that's just describing an economic boycott. Economic boycotts affect livelihoods. That's what they do, that's pretty much the point.
Affecting livelihoods is not a unique aspect to McCarthyism.
Trying to force a resignation is not a boycott. Trying to punish a belief is not a boycott.
I disagree. What is the purpose of a boycott if not to get the people that are on the other side of an issue to either step down and punish those that refuse? When countries around the world boycotted South Africa, they were definitely trying to get the supporters of apartheid out of power and punish those that believed in the racial superiority of whites.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I admit I'm baffled at the notion that a boycott *isn't* an effort to punish a belief.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: Yes. That's the point. The context of "in the past" makes the 'however' part of your post a .. bit off, syntax wise.
i also think that if you go back to smith and young, 'discourage' is putting it quite mildly. i guess excommunication/exile/death is in all practical senses an encouragement not to mix blood with the inferior races.
quote:What do you mean by Eich standing his ground? Are you referring to his refusing to apologize to a developer because the developer's partner could not get a visa because their relationship was not recognized?
quote:. The initial revelation of that donation, back in 2012, led to a welter of criticism that eventually died down. But, by elevating Eich to C.E.O., the Mozilla board brought his past to the forefront once again. While Eich attempted to defuse the problem with conciliatory blog posts and interviews about diversity and inclusiveness, he didn’t actually say that his views on gay marriage had changed. That, inevitably, provoked a uprising within the Mozilla community
he would not have had made this omission inadvertently, which is how the Mozilla project (and pretty much anyone watching this) knew he was sticking to his guns about gay marriage.
which, sure, he can do. but it meant that it was impossible to expect he could stay at the helm.
In terms of being potentially less reprehensible, I see no difference between punishing somebody for previously having a position and punishing them for not changing it because you demand it.
Rakeesh:
quote:Not to mention that in most of those cases, when morality legislation is attempted, it must stand its own ground and win or lose on its own. Opposition to genetically modified food is not undertaken with holy support. That particular bunch of apes is telling the rest of us apes that something is dangerous and needs to be banned. Ok, so we can examine that. They're not saying god says so, and we know it because god has told us, and if you think god told you something different you're just wrong, or if you think god doesn't exist or made no pronouncement on the issue, you're wrong because we're better in tune with god.
There is a perfectly secular justification for ensuring that heterosexual unions are protected by the state. There are several Western nations that are now subsidizing heterosexual marriages and pregnancy aggressively because they are dealing with negative population growth. That of course doesn't address the interests of same-sex couples.
Dogbreath:
quote:If my use of the term is confusing, I'll rephrase it as "legislation with religious justification." If you're going for gun control and your main argument is "God doesn't like people who use guns" or even "there are no guns mentioned in the Bible, clearly they're not a part of God's plan" then you're getting into anti-SSM territory.
What if my argument is "God doesn't want us to kill each other and guns enable that."? To me making the state religion secularism doesn't really solve the problem of the past where people were expected to argue why their belief fit in with what the Bible proscribed. You've simply substituted your belief system and made it ascendent.
I don't think we do ourselves any favors by saying spirituality should be discounted and criticized as not good enough to justify a belief or a vote. Spirituality was what guided me to the very important belief that efforts to define marriage as being between a man and a woman were toxic and needed to be opposed.
kmbboots:
quote:Short answer: Because not all beliefs are equal no matter the reason someone holds that belief.
I believe that. I do. I just don't want a litmus test for where acceptable ideas may come from.
Samprimary:
quote:Yes. That's the point. The context of "in the past" makes the 'however' part of your post a .. bit off, syntax wise.
i also think that if you go back to smith and young, 'discourage' is putting it quite mildly. i guess excommunication/exile/death is in all practical senses an encouragement not to mix blood with the inferior races.
There wasn't a single mixed racial relationship that I am aware of that was responded to with excommunication/exile/death.
Yes Brigham Young said the penalty of such a coupling was death, but as far as I am aware that belief died with him, and was never actually followed by anybody. Can we continue believing that mixed racial marriages are not a problem in Mormonism now?
Mucus:
quote:I'm not sure how you can assume that the employees at Mozilla are singling any one thing out either if you can't demonstrate that I'm singling one thing out.
Presumably there has never been another case in Mozilla's history where an employees political donations were cause to require they resign. Would you say that's a safe assumption?
quote:Don't they? For a given definition of "major" we have boycotts happening all the time. Consumers boycotting Chick-Fil-A were inherently trying to get the whole company including the CEO shut down. America boycotts Cuba and Iran, which harms the livelihoods of people both inside and outside the relevant countries with the implicit goal of "regime change."
I'm not contending that people use boycotts to punish people's ideology. What I meant is that while all boycotts punish people for acting in a certain way, not all punishing actions are boycotts. And increasingly we are seeing people being punished just for thinking something, or not participating in actions that prove they believe the right things. For example, I know somebody who does not believe that homosexuals should be given the exact same marriage status as heterosexuals. While he believes strongly in treating gay employees no different than straight ones, he is required by the company to participate in equality activities and donate to funds that support those causes.
He's being required to pay obeisance to the beliefs of the organization. I don't think that's right anymore than I would think it's right to require employees to donate to Prop 8 if you were a Utah firm.
quote:I disagree. What is the purpose of a boycott if not to get the people that are on the other side of an issue to either step down and punish those that refuse? When countries around the world boycotted South Africa, they were definitely trying to get the supporters of apartheid out of power and punish those that believed in the racial superiority of whites.
The purpose of a boycott is to get people to stop *doing* something. Should we then boycott all people who do things that enable behavior we think is harmful. Which is more to your next point.
quote:Don't they? For a given definition of "major" we have boycotts happening all the time. Consumers boycotting Chick-Fil-A were inherently trying to get the whole company including the CEO shut down. America boycotts Cuba and Iran, which harms the livelihoods of people both inside and outside the relevant countries with the implicit goal of "regime change."
I'm pretty sure the US doesn't boycott countries for any bad behavior. I suspect we are disagreeing on how horrible it is that people support measures like Prop 8. Many on this board see it akin to supporting segregation and worthy of harsh reprisals. I see it as a very bad position, but that well meaning people disagree with me on it. They should be reasoned with, not forced to bow down or get out of polite society.
I think that behavior is easily applied to numerous other political positions and leads to a (ironically) intolerant society that doesn't brook beliefs outside what is popular.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
quote: What if my argument is "God doesn't want us to kill each other and guns enable that."? To me making the state religion secularism doesn't really solve the problem of the past where people were expected to argue why their belief fit in with what the Bible proscribed. You've simply substituted your belief system and made it ascendent.
It's still just as bad, because it requires "God wants" to justify your argument.
As far as replacing it with a "secular belief system", if a system of government based on logic, reason, basic human rights and equality is a "belief system" then yes, absolutely it's superior to your "let's make whatever God wants the law" belief system. We don't live in a theocracy, religion has no place in our government. That doesn't mean you can't be inspired by your religion to do good things, but if you're trying to force other people to do them too, you better have a better reason than "because God said so."
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:There is a perfectly secular justification for ensuring that heterosexual unions are protected by the state. There are several Western nations that are now subsidizing heterosexual marriages and pregnancy aggressively because they are dealing with negative population growth. That of course doesn't address the interests of same-sex couples.
Having seen you address this before, I'm sure you realize that what this is at best is simply a single secular argument in favor of opposing SSM, and a weak one at that. Which does nonjng to engender respect for the American* virtues of those opposing SSM.
For starters, population decline is basically nowhere advanced in the US as a reason to bar SSM. None of the 'serious' opponents, thankfully on the decline as a political force to be reckoned with, used this as a key argument. Heck, Card has gotten mighty insistent let's just say on the subject and if this was an argument of his, I don't remember it featuring much.
No, in the United States opposition has centered around labeling advocates of SSM as arrogant liberals who don't care about tradition (this when opponents of SSM have been defanged into civility) or the deviant agenda of perverts who loathe decency and wish to subvert children away from goodness (this being a common argument when opponents have *not* been faced with a helpless, impotent rival).
But OK, let's pretend for a moment that population decline is an argument used by opponents of SSM. Pretty bad case to make: there is no such decline in the US, unless you want to start courting racism. Furthermore, encouraging pregnancy does not at all mean barring SSM. Barring gays from marrying does not make heterosexual couples hornier and more fertile.
*This is what we're left with when 'God says so' is taken off the table. An argument as weak as 'population growth, or perhaps one involving mediocre at best science about the inferiority of homosexuals as parents or pseudo history involving the decline of societies for decadence. In the name of doing what we have a solid ethic of not doing: compelling the behavior of our fellow citizens because of what our god supposedly told us to do.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Also, I'm not sure why you're conflating criticism of religious justification for votes with religious justification for private beliefs, or beliefs for the congregation. I have no issue with the latter except when it bleeds into the former as for example 'God says we should not do this, therefore we will try to use the force of law ensure no one anywhere does this'.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dogbreath: [QUOTE] If a system of government based on logic, reason, basic human rights and equality is a "belief system" then yes, absolutely it's superior to your "let's make whatever God wants the law" belief system.
That's frankly an extremely ungenerous and inaccurate summation of what I'm advocating.
quote:We don't live in a theocracy, religion has no place in our government.
Yeah, that's not at all what the founding fathers established, nor is it a charitable invitation for religious people to be involved in civil affairs. The Constitution forbids the establishment of a state religion or to give preferential or detrimental treatment to any one religion. It doesn't mean that the founding fathers sought after a country where religion is kept in the closet so to speak. My religion is part of who I am, it informs me of what the world around me means.
quote: That doesn't mean you can't be inspired by your religion to do good things, but if you're trying to force other people to do them too, you better have a better reason than "because God said so."
As opposed to forcing me to do something because "the majority society says so"? Or "enlightenment says so"? We all vote for what we believe will serve our self interests and those we care about.
A secular justification for a belief is not the end all be all you seem to think it is. But for whatever reason it seems like you believe it's the only basis that is valid. Don't get me wrong, I think a secular justification is correct for laws that govern a diverse society. I'm just dismayed that you think religion has no place in the market place of ideas that become law.
Sounds no different to me than the Puritan ideal of the perfect society.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Also, I'm not sure why you're conflating criticism of religious justification for votes with religious justification for private beliefs, or beliefs for the congregation. I have no issue with the latter except when it bleeds into the former as for example 'God says we should not do this, therefore we will try to use the force of law ensure no one anywhere does this'.
Religious justifications for voting and political donations are exactly at the heart of what's going on. It's not enough that laws may or may not have a secular justification, what the secular justification for making labor day a federal holiday? It's religious opinions that inform voting and donations should be vigorously decried and shamed.
I can't fully control my religion. It's part of who I am. My conscience is a critical part of how I vote, just as yours is. That you cannot articulate a spiritual direction to your conscience doesn't make yours superior to mine. Why can't we both converse as equals and in the end vote honorably what we feel is best for the country?
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
I need to pull back for the night. I can tell my thoughts are not forming fully before I write them, and I may be saying things that if taken to their natural conclusion would be disagreeable to me.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Mucus:
quote:I'm not sure how you can assume that the employees at Mozilla are singling any one thing out either if you can't demonstrate that I'm singling one thing out.
Presumably there has never been another case in Mozilla's history where an employees political donations were cause to require they resign. Would you say that's a safe assumption?
Sure, let's for the sake of argument assume that. I don't, however, see that it demonstrates that the employees are necessarily singling anything out.
An example: Bob is an employee of corporation Mozilla. He has a CEO Joe who advocates torturing brown people. Bob tweets about it and wants him to be kicked out, it gets no traction. Joe is replaced with CEO Dan who advocates against same-sex marriage. Bob tweets about it, the tweet gets traction and Dan is kicked out.
Did Bob "single out" same-sex marriage? Not really, it just happened to be the one that gained traction in the press. That's just one example.
quote:. What I meant is that while all boycotts punish people for acting in a certain way, not all punishing actions are boycotts.
Sure, not all punishing actions are boycotts. But a refusal to conduct business transactions or social relations with an employer would seem to me to be within the bounds of a boycott.
Being all dictionary about it for example
quote:boycott: verb 1. withdraw from commercial or social relations with (a country, organization, or person) as a punishment or protest. noun 1. a punitive ban that forbids relations with certain groups, cooperation with a policy, or the handling of goods. synonyms: ban, veto, embargo, prohibition, sanction, restriction;
quote: ... he is required by the company to participate in equality activities and donate to funds that support those causes.
Again, two wrongs don't make a right. If your characterization via your friend is correct ("activities" could have a number of meanings), then I would agree that's wrong. However, I don't see why your friends injustice at some completely different company should have any bearing on how the Mozilla employees should act in this case.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: [QUOTE]Originally posted by Dogbreath: That's frankly an extremely ungenerous and inaccurate summation of what I'm advocating.
How so?
quote:Yeah, that's not at all what the founding fathers established, nor is it a charitable invitation for religious people to be involved in civil affairs. The Constitution forbids the establishment of a state religion or to give preferential or detrimental treatment to any one religion. It doesn't mean that the founding fathers sought after a country where religion is kept in the closet so to speak. My religion is part of who I am, it informs me of what the world around me means.
As opposed to forcing me to do something because "the majority society says so"? Or "enlightenment says so"? We all vote for what we believe will serve our self interests and those we care about.
A secular justification for a belief is not the end all be all you seem to think it is. But for whatever reason it seems like you believe it's the only basis that is valid. Don't get me wrong, I think a secular justification is correct for laws that govern a diverse society. I'm just dismayed that you think religion has no place in the market place of ideas that become law.
Sounds no different to me than the Puritan ideal of the perfect society. [/QB]
You seem to be conflating terms here which are really discrete concepts. I guess I need a somewhat lengthy reply to explain what I mean, but I think my main disagreement with NOM and such groups is philosophical.
I believe religion can inspire one to create laws, good or bad. Much like you, much of my worldview is informed by my religious upbringing. In many ways, even at times when I strongly disagree with it, I tend to frame everything I experience (religion, books, tv, politics, arguing with people on the internet) in terms of Biblical morality and philosophy. This can be rather exasperating, as I read a new book and my stupid brain starts automatically trying to find parallels and references to Christianity and the Biblical narrative that, for better or worse, still comprises the bulk of my moral intelligence and conscience. I'm sure you can relate.
So it's absolutely true that religion can inspire the creation of laws. Your belief that man was created in the very image of God can inspire a deep belief in the sanctity and sacredness of human life, which turns into a moral system that advocates human rights and dignity. Your belief in the total depravity of mankind, that we are sinners in the hands of an angry God, worms who cannot even lift our heads but by the grace of our spiteful creator, might lead you to belief that men are wicked and worthless and desperately evil, and need a strong tyrant to exercise some check on the depths of their depravity. But either way, your moral upbringing, religious or otherwise, is the lens through which you view the world and profoundly affects your decisions. That cannot be avoided, nor should it not be taken into account. That is what I mean by inspiration.
When it comes to laws, though, we speak of justification. And the justification for most laws (though it may be supported by facts and other theories) is that "we must pass this law for it is right."
Yes, but what is right? This is where we come to an epistemological quandary, and must as a nation, as a people, choose how we determine what is right and wrong, and what definitions of right and wrong we use. I would argue these methods of defining morality fall into several discrete theories:
0) (Chaos) There is no right or wrong. Let every man do what is right in his own eyes. 1) (Argument from authority) There is absolute right and wrong, and we know which is which because God/the King/the Party/the prophet says it is wrong. Arguments from authority are usually backed by threats, as well. (Do as I say or else you'll burn in hell/you'll get your head cut off/etc.) 2) There is absolute right and wrong, and we can use reason to discern what is right and what isn't, and to discover fundamental principles to help us know what is right and what isn't. (the Hammurbic Code, eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth justice reflects this somewhat) 3) Right and wrong are relative, we must use reason to find absolute principles that define morality, but we need to take situation into account in order to justly apply those principles. (i.e, so while killing is wrong, killing in self defense might be more morally acceptable than killing in a fit of rage, which is more morally acceptable than premeditated murder, etc.)
I don't want to digress too much into this (mostly because I am no philosopher, and am not confident in my ability to adequately argue this), but in my humble opinion, the spirit of the 1st amendment, and of the way our secular democracy works, is that we do not justify laws based on arguments from authority, but rather we use reason, philosophy, science, and logic to help us decide what "right" actually is. We assume certain tautologies in order to allow us to have this free discourse in the first place (the "self-evident" truths from the Declaration of Independence), but we don't go about establishing laws based on religious edicts or commandments. At most, we might be inspired by our religion to seek out a secular justification for a law.
And this is why I'm so strongly opposed to the current anti-SSM movement. It's not that I even care so much about gay rights (though I do think it's important), it's that a large group of people are trying to impose religiously justified laws on us. I don't have a problem with people who argue "I believe God disapproves of same sex marriage." Nor do I have a problem with people who argue "Same sex marriage should be illegal because it's harmful to our society, for x, y, and z reasons" (though I think those reasons are weak and easily discredited at the judicial level). I have a *huge* problem with people who say "we think gays should be forced to live according to our moral standards, because God wants it that way." I really, truly believe that it’s an incredibly dangerous argument, and if it's allowed to take hold and grow in our nation, it will lead to the weakening or outright destruction of our democracy.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
BlackBlade,
quote:Religious justifications for voting and political donations are exactly at the heart of what's going on. It's not enough that laws may or may not have a secular justification, what the secular justification for making labor day a federal holiday? It's religious opinions that inform voting and donations should be vigorously decried and shamed.
Again, I have no issue with a religious justification for voting. It's the 'voting to govern the behavior of others on a religious basis' that is problematic. In fact it's problematic to *everyone*-to you, me, and the late unlamented Fred Phelps. It's just that many people lose sight of that problem when the religion calling the shots is theirs, and they are unlikely to face being on the short end of that stick.
As for Labor Day, setting aside past reasons, surely a national day off need not have a religious motive?
quote:I can't fully control my religion. It's part of who I am. My conscience is a critical part of how I vote, just as yours is. That you cannot articulate a spiritual direction to your conscience doesn't make yours superior to mine. Why can't we both converse as equals and in the end vote honorably what we feel is best for the country?
I'm not sure which 'you' is being used here. Do you mean that to say 'a viewpoint which has religion as a central tenet'? If so, then I'm afraid I have to disagree. In fact even if you are too polite, too decent (you yourself, here) to presume to claim your conscience is superior...well, you're in tune with the author I the universe, right? At least to a better degree than I am. Assuming that author exists, surely to be more closely aligned with it is to be superior in some way.
Likewise for conversing as equals. I've got the strength of my own convictions, whatever those might be-in this case, a belief in the dignity of human beings and loving relationships. The religious person claims the moral authority of *God*, and although he might be too courteous to say so, cannot rationally help but think his stance is better than mine. Not just because he believes he is right and I am wrong-as I do him-but because God is on his side.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
pretty much every religion in the entire world except for a small bundle of creedless unitarian style ones are actually pretty assuredly saying that the conscience of its followers is better than the conscience of nonbelievers, or the believers of wrong (i.e. every other religion on earth) faiths, because that conscience is informed by the correct religion
whether the religious authorities in charge of that religion in that time are stating more or less in favor of judging other people actively for their mistaken faith is a different matter entirely from if they say a conscience informed by having the correct (their) religion is better than and superior to conscience informed by incorrect faiths or not having faith
best you can hope for generally is some paternalistic sheen over it saying "we must be respectful of these people who have a greater way to go and greater challenges in their spiritual journey to find god's love and hear his message and guidance for them!"
this 'respectful' ≠ treating as equals.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Every single time I see this thread it plays in my head to the tune of Jud Fry.
Posted by theamazeeaz (Member # 6970) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:Don't they? For a given definition of "major" we have boycotts happening all the time. Consumers boycotting Chick-Fil-A were inherently trying to get the whole company including the CEO shut down. America boycotts Cuba and Iran, which harms the livelihoods of people both inside and outside the relevant countries with the implicit goal of "regime change."
I'm pretty sure the US doesn't boycott countries for any bad behavior. I suspect we are disagreeing on how horrible it is that people support measures like Prop 8. Many on this board see it akin to supporting segregation and worthy of harsh reprisals. I see it as a very bad position, but that well meaning people disagree with me on it. They should be reasoned with, not forced to bow down or get out of polite society.
I think that behavior is easily applied to numerous other political positions and leads to a (ironically) intolerant society that doesn't brook beliefs outside what is popular.
The US absolutely boycotts countries for bad behavior. My boss, who works for the government in a sense, is no longer allowed to go to Russia or spend any money in a way that directly benefits Russia on NASA business. He is waiting a few more weeks to see if this blows over, but needs to cancel his trip to Russia, otherwise.
Posted by theamazeeaz (Member # 6970) on :
I'm not advocating for letting religion run roughshod over everybody. I specifically voted against same-sex marriage bans because I feel it was an instance of religion imposing its beliefs on others. So lets stop revisiting the theocracy stance.
quote:I don't want to digress too much into this (mostly because I am no philosopher, and am not confident in my ability to adequately argue this), but in my humble opinion, the spirit of the 1st amendment, and of the way our secular democracy works, is that we do not justify laws based on arguments from authority, but rather we use reason, philosophy, science, and logic to help us decide what "right" actually is. We assume certain tautologies in order to allow us to have this free discourse in the first place (the "self-evident" truths from the Declaration of Independence), but we don't go about establishing laws based on religious edicts or commandments. At most, we might be inspired by our religion to seek out a secular justification for a law.
I just don't believe this is what our country was founded on. Specifically I agree that the government should not be attempting to evangelize for a religion, but it should *also* protect the religious practices of its citizens. Even when those practices are demonstrated ala secular justifications to be harmful to the adherents. Again the devil is in the details, but I'm just not comfortable with the code of conduct increasingly being pushed onto the religious by secular society. Where essentially religious belief is not permitted in the same conversation as a person's areligious justifications. Or lamely, "You can have religious justifications, but don't expect me to take you seriously you deluded ignoramus."
Look at Chic Fil A. The CEO speaks out against same-sex marriage and a Chicago city councilman denies the franchise a zoning permit purely on those grounds. That's just as much a violation of the 1st Amendment as the councilman saying, "I'm only going to give this zoning permit to a good Christian man."
But in all my attempts to explain this, everybody here tut tuts me, or says Christians had it their way for so long it's jarring to hear them claim to be victims, nobody bends even a little bit. It makes it really difficult for me to carry on conversations here about this topic because I feel alone, and nobody is going to change their mind anyway, so why try to write mountains of text trying to address 4-5 other people who all disagree with me, when I've got nobody who agrees or is going to agree with me?
I can't keep up the time commitment. And I'm sorry if that seems disingenuous or feels like I'm "ducking" your well thought out posts.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
FYI, I didn't mean to imply anything negative by saying you ducked out, for us it's a perfectly neutral expression. (I didn't even think of the negative connontation) I completely understand and respect time constraints, it's why I can't participate in the vast majority of conversations here even though I would like to.
All I can say is I think you and I agree completely that the government should protect the religious practices of it's citizens, I'm not sure why that's a point of contention?
I think the main thing is, I (and from what I can gather, most people here) differentiate between political stances and religious beliefs. I honestly don't see anyone being condemned for belonging to a religion that says homosexuality is wrong or for believing that religion, or enacting those beliefs in their personal lives and community. Arguably, the majority of the United States falls into that group.
What I do see people being protested against is active attempts to change the law in order to force that religious belief on other people. I don't see that as free exercise of religion, I see it as attempting to keep others from freely exercising their religion.
I'm not sure if what the Chicago City Councilman did is legal, btw. I don't think you can take political or religious beliefs into consideration. Like, I remember where there was an adopt-a-highway program and there was one highway adopted by the american Nazi Party. I think they're a touch more nefarious than Chic-Fil-A...
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Look at Chic Fil A. The CEO speaks out against same-sex marriage and a Chicago city councilman denies the franchise a zoning permit purely on those grounds. That's just as much a violation of the 1st Amendment as the councilman saying, "I'm only going to give this zoning permit to a good Christian man."
And was promptly labeled such by more than a few secularists, because it was a clear and public violation of the First Amendment. I think I said as much here, but it's been awhile. Except when religious people complain about backlash against CFA-even boycotts!-it's couched in terms of a 'war on Christianity', not 'violation of the sacred secular rights in the First Amendment' which are, let's face it, generally regarded as inferior to higher law anyway.
The problem is that Christians *aren't* victims in the United States, not really, not yet. Occasionally there will be isolated instances of 'attacks' which are more often than not defenses against what would once have been unchallenged religious presumption. Opposition to 'under God' in the Pledge? That's an attack, supposedly, when the truth is it was only until recently even conceivable to challenge such a thing. Intelligent Design in science class? It's in living memory that an explicitly monotheistic religious stance in science classes was even called into question! Questions about prayer in school? Likewise. Ten Commandments up on a courtroom wall? Mandatory swearing in on a bible? I mean, the list goes on.
Then we get to SSM. After centuries of keeping gays so far in the closet, the very notion of gay rights as a political issue was far removed from even a neighbor of a never-remotely-considered question...well now, in the past three generations these questions are *finally* being discussed openly. And what do we hear? War on Family. War on Christianity. Secularists being too aggressive and too confrontational. The first chance the oppressed minority actually has an authentic chance at not equality but a place in the public forum, and it's 'whoa, whoa, slippery slope! You're trying to restrict religious thought!'
I respect the hell out of you, BB, and have never been anything less than convinced of your good intentions, but damnit, why is it so important to chastise the newly emerging underdog-now that it's actually a contest!-rather than the enormous titan who has had it his own way for time out of mind? Right now, in most of the country a legally consenting adult cannot marry the partner of their choice, because god says so, whatever tissue-thin sociological pretexts there might be. But a pipsqueak municipal politician overreaches into some unAmerican behavior, and whoa! Let's pump the brakes, let's talk about how secularists shouldn't be trying to sideline religious discourse in politics!
I'll tell you what, in two years there will be a disproportionately powerful group of voters demanding a host of politicians catering to their whims. In spite of being an obvious fringe, in spite of their beliefs on questions of religion being well outside the public norm, they will be listened to, in fact there's a good chance they will force the debate to cater to them even though they stand no chance in a broader contest. There's a solid chance they will bludgeon through their candidate for the Presidency.
That group ain't gonna be leftist secularists, and we all know it. Left leaning liberal secularists have *never* been that group. So I can sympathize with your position as a single voice, but I think it's an important point to make: if political pressure to eschew religion in public affairs is a dangerous spark, well the house is already on fire and has been burning for a long, long time!
Posted by theamazeeaz (Member # 6970) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Dogbreath:
quote:How so?
I'm not advocating for letting religion run roughshod over everybody. I specifically voted against same-sex marriage bans because I feel it was an instance of religion imposing its beliefs on others. So lets stop revisiting the theocracy stance.
quote:I don't want to digress too much into this (mostly because I am no philosopher, and am not confident in my ability to adequately argue this), but in my humble opinion, the spirit of the 1st amendment, and of the way our secular democracy works, is that we do not justify laws based on arguments from authority, but rather we use reason, philosophy, science, and logic to help us decide what "right" actually is. We assume certain tautologies in order to allow us to have this free discourse in the first place (the "self-evident" truths from the Declaration of Independence), but we don't go about establishing laws based on religious edicts or commandments. At most, we might be inspired by our religion to seek out a secular justification for a law.
I just don't believe this is what our country was founded on. Specifically I agree that the government should not be attempting to evangelize for a religion, but it should *also* protect the religious practices of its citizens. Even when those practices are demonstrated ala secular justifications to be harmful to the adherents. Again the devil is in the details, but I'm just not comfortable with the code of conduct increasingly being pushed onto the religious by secular society. Where essentially religious belief is not permitted in the same conversation as a person's areligious justifications. Or lamely, "You can have religious justifications, but don't expect me to take you seriously you deluded ignoramus."
Look at Chic Fil A. The CEO speaks out against same-sex marriage and a Chicago city councilman denies the franchise a zoning permit purely on those grounds. That's just as much a violation of the 1st Amendment as the councilman saying, "I'm only going to give this zoning permit to a good Christian man."
But in all my attempts to explain this, everybody here tut tuts me, or says Christians had it their way for so long it's jarring to hear them claim to be victims, nobody bends even a little bit. It makes it really difficult for me to carry on conversations here about this topic because I feel alone, and nobody is going to change their mind anyway, so why try to write mountains of text trying to address 4-5 other people who all disagree with me, when I've got nobody who agrees or is going to agree with me?
I can't keep up the time commitment. And I'm sorry if that seems disingenuous or feels like I'm "ducking" your well thought out posts.
You have this story about Chick-Fil-A so very very wrong.
The city in question was Boston, specifically Mayor Menino who very recently left office after decades as Boston's mayor due to health problems. And the CEO gives multiple millions of dollars of Chick-Fil-A profits specifically to anti-gay marriage organizations. With Massachusetts being the first state in the country to permit gay marriage, you can imagine a large fraction of those services were in fact performed at city hall. You can also imagine that for many years, Massachusetts had a unique little tourist niche with all these gay weddings, and people from around the country who wanted to get the deed done there, where it was legal.
Aside from the CEO's remarks, Menino cited his LBGQT constituency, the "Freedom trail", and Boston's role in facilitating gay marriage. Keep in mind that Chick-Fil-A barely has a presence in Massachusetts-- I hadn't heard of them until the whole flap. It wasn't like he was kicking out Legal Sea Foods, or (god forbid) Dunkin' Donuts (people would probably riot). Instead banning a chain that almost nobody in Mass knows about is a pretty shrewd business move to remain popular with voters.
/Until last sumer, I lived a 15-minute walk from Boston city limits and my sister and her husband used to live in the gay part of Boston (south end)
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
No, I am afraid you are mistaken. I am talking about Chicago.
Ah, you're right. There were three cities who made a big stink about Chick-Fil-A (the third, unsurprisingly, was San Francisco). Living in Boston, it just sounded like the only one.
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: ... a Chicago city councilman denies the franchise a zoning permit purely on those grounds. ... But in all my attempts to explain this, everybody here tut tuts me, or says Christians had it their way for so long it's jarring to hear them claim to be victims ...
I would note that it isn't that Christians "had" their way. They're still having their way. Let's not overestimate the level of religious diversity in the US, taking a quick look, roughly 70% of even the self-identified Democrats are Christian.
Case in point, this is how that Chicago city councilman explains it:
quote:"It's unfortunate that the cardinal, as often happens, picks parts of the Bible and not other parts," said Moreno, who added that he was raised Catholic in western Illinois, attended a Catholic grade school and was an altar boy. Moreno said he now occasionally attends church.
"The Bible says many things," Moreno said. "For the cardinal to say that Jesus believes in this, and therefore we all must believe in this, I think is just disingenuous and irresponsible. The God I believe in is one about equal rights, and to not give equal rights to those that want to marry, is in my opinion un-Christian."
This isn't a story about non-Christians putting an end to Christians having their way. This is a story about Christians fighting amongst themselves over which group of Christians gets to have their way.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Mucus: Coincidentally the council man's flip-side argument corresponds with what I said earlier,
quote:"I'm only going to give this zoning permit to a good Christian man."
People for thousands of years have demanded people conform to an ideology in order to be full members of that society. You are right in this instance we have a Christian persecuting another Christian, but do you really think that Alderman was not inundated with emails and phone calls from nonreligious people demanding he teach Chic Fil A a lesson that intolerance will not be tolerated? As we debated before, Ender's Game was up to the gills with people saying Lion's Gate should be ashamed of releasing a film based on a novel by somebody that opposes same-sex marriage, and thinks ill of the movement seeking to establish it.
quote:I would note that it isn't that Christians "had" their way. They're still having their way.
YES! I've said this a million times. Do you think I suddenly get all accommodating when Christians try to force people to say "under God" in the pledge of allegiance?
The fact that even Christians are getting in on the action of being intolerant towards heteronormative folks should be a huge red flag that maybe an idea is being take further than it should.
-------------
Rakeesh:
quote:And was promptly labeled such by more than a few secularists,
I never read anything by secularists suggesting this was an egregious violation of the 1st Amendment. I'd be happy to do so.
quote:The problem is that Christians *aren't* victims in the United States, not really, not yet.
As much as other groups, probably not, at an institutional level maybe not distinctly so. Look I get that there are a lot of crazy pundits who have been screaming this message for years now, using every instance of a minority succeeding, to scream what now it's time to stop discriminating against white males by dumping affirmative action, or that white people can't hold "white pride" festivals.
But I can only speak to my own observations, but I'm seeing an increase of the belief that Christians can't vote their consciences absent a compelling areligious argument for those beliefs. Maybe nobody here is advocating it, but it's obnoxious that I'm the only one who seems to notice it.
Maybe part of it is that I do live in two worlds. But maybe that gives me the perspective to see that both sides are actually seeking the same awful thing. Ideological purity.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: ... I'm seeing an increase of the belief that Christians can't vote their consciences absent a compelling areligious argument for those beliefs.
And you're backing up this observation with an example of a Christian Chicago alderman that is clearly voting based on what he thinks is Christian or un-Christian?
You're clearly working from a different definition of "can't" from me. Maybe you meant "shouldn't" instead of "can't" here?
Edit to add: If that is, then I would agree. A good leader should be able to set aside their own personal religious beliefs when dealing with other people. None of this silly, a Muslim leader should be able to ban pork for non-Muslims nonsense that you've got going in the other thread.
I would also add that one could join the religious arbitration system if they wanted to make laws for their own people.
[ April 13, 2014, 05:49 PM: Message edited by: Mucus ]
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
My reaction to this sort of question is that "voting one's conscience" is not something I universally endorse even when there's no religious aspect to it. If the deliverance of your conscience is something you arbitrarily settled on for no reason and can't justify, that's no good either.
So for example, if a secular person votes against SSM because homosexuality seems gross to them, that's a bad reason to vote. Shouldn't be illegal, but should be looked askance at. I feel the same way when conservative Christians vote their consciences on this issue.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Mucus: I didn't say we should let Muslims ban pork. I said I was not sure how I felt about the hypothetical. And my examples are not nonsense. If you think I am posting a lot of nonsense and obfuscation then by all means leave my remarks alone because they can't do you any good and I don't want to waste both our times.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
BlackBlade,
There are hosts of remarks by various constitutional scholars casting doubts onto whether such a ban would be legal. Enough that they're easy to find. For someone make specific, you can look to what Bloomberg had to say on the matter, and he keeps his religious convictions about as out of his political life as anyone religious has in this country.
As for victimization, again I am baffled. Christians are 'probably' not as much victims as other groups in this country? How on Earth is this even in doubt? Are Christians being denied marriage rights? Do Christians have to recite oaths of allegiance disavowing God in public schools? Are Christians subjected to a hugely powerful small minority of 'values' voters who demand they pass religious muster before even having a chance at being elected? Are Christians put to death at a greater rate than other religions for the same crimes? Are Christians denied housing at a higher...I mean, sheesh, I could go on, but I think my point is clear.
As for voting one's religious conscience, I'm not sure how it can be made any clearer except to state it again: no one is saying people should be restricted legally from voting their religious conscience. I challenge you to find one person anywhere who has done so. Aside from the problem of how on Earth that would even be done, what is actually being said is that they *shouldn't*. That it is a bad thing to do. That people should stop. The same simply cannot be said in reverse. *Regularly* the American-ness of agnostics and atheists, and for that matter Muslims and still to some extent Jews, is called into question. I would love to hear about the atheist attorney general who said the United States 'has no king but Marx' or something. As for me, I can reach back into recent history to find a fundamentalist AG who said the the religious version of that statement. The frigging *attorney general* openly states that the US has no king but Jesus, and that is the source of our power and goodness.
Where is there even *remotely* an equivalent example in the other direction? It's not enough to be a Christian, you have to be the *right kind* of Christian to get to the White House. 'Probably not' victimized as much?
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
I'm not sure playing Christian v. secular Oppression Olympics is the right way to approach this issue. If the rights of Christians are being violated, that's a problem all people should recognize as such. I do think you're right on the question of fact, non-Christians have it worse, but I don't see why it matters much.
For example, I do think Eich's dismissal was seriously wrong.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Rakeesh:
quote:As for victimization, again I am baffled. Christians are 'probably' not as much victims as other groups in this country?
Probably is my diplomatic way of agreeing with on something of which I have absolutely no way of quantifying or proving. I'm try to be uncomfortable with saying something is unequivocally so.
quote:As for voting one's religious conscience, I'm not sure how it can be made any clearer except to state it again: no one is saying people should be restricted legally from voting their religious conscience. I challenge you to find one person anywhere who has done so.
Legally? I never argued legally. Nobody has advocated for a law that bars voting based on religious conscience.
What people *are* doing is dismissing people from being full participants of the discussion and society at large because of where their beliefs are derived from. Don't buy their books, see the movie based on that book they wrote, don't contract them to write something for you, don't hire them at all, require them to resign, sue them for refusing to provide a service they say violates their beliefs, require them to teach that same-sex marriage is exactly the same as heterosexual marriage regardless of their own convictions.
Look, any one of those things can be dissected and possibly justified. You might think every single one of those things is right. But I don't think it should be said that,
1: Christians do this stuff too, so they have no room to complain.
2: Christians are only whining now because they can't get away with it all the time.
3: Christians are still far more entrenched institutionally so these things are like bugs splattering on the windshield of the Jesus Train.
Maybe you don't mean to give these impressions, and I honestly respect so much of what you have to say. But all these things I've listed, when taken as a whole bother me. If I flip them and hypothesize them being done to proponents of gay marriage, it makes my blood boil. If the only reasons my offense is decreased because a more powerful bloc is the aggrieved party, I refuse to let that on its own justify that change in feeling.
I'm not trying to pat myself on the back, but when I decided to support same-sex marriage and stand up for those being mistreated, I agreed to do so for anybody, be they the most privileged in society down to the most down-trodden.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
to bb's credit there is a mass undercurrent of social justice culture which is, to some degree, awash in the idea that you can't be a real ally to marginalized groups if you want to bring attention to or work against something bad that is happening to groups which are otherwise an empowered social majority, or find personal distaste with being stereotypically slandered as a member of those groups (usually whites or men) and it's pretty polarizing and lolterribad
at the same time though this is all in a level of nuance way above that crap (hooray?) and so I think that yes some of the persecution complex here about Poor Christians needs to be reanalyzed for what it actually is. there is no real equivalence in the hypothesized flip between <bad thing> happening to <marginalized nonvoluntarily associated group> and <bad thing> happening to <powerful dominant majority elective religion representing literally about 80 percent of all americans>
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
BB, the analogy I keep coming up with is this. It is like Christianity has been sitting on the side of a pool and everyone else - atheists, Muslims, Jews and so forth - have been struggling to get out of the pool. Once in a while Christianity gives them a hand but usually we push them back under. Now we are, for the most part, no longer holding them under but we are shrieking our heads off when we get splashed as they emerge.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
I would be pretty frustrated if because somebody else at the pool was acting like a dick, a person getting out splashed me and told me to shut up because he wasn't going to take my abuse anymore.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
BB, I am not talking about individuals; I am talking about groups. "Somebody else" is us.
Posted by DustinDopps (Member # 12640) on :
BlackBlade: You mentioned earlier in this thread that you feel alone in your beliefs. You are not. I feel very similar to you on many of these issues. I just don't have the time or determination to get on here regularly and espouse my views.
I appreciate you putting words to some of my own feelings.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: I would be pretty frustrated if because somebody else at the pool was acting like a dick, a person getting out splashed me and told me to shut up because he wasn't going to take my abuse anymore.
I don't think there's anything wrong with a calm reminder not to splash people.
The problem is when the splashing is portrayed as worse than the original status quo. OSC is a bit guilty of this, unfortunately. You aren't.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: to bb's credit there is a mass undercurrent of social justice culture which is, to some degree, awash in the idea that you can't be a real ally to marginalized groups if you want to bring attention to or work against something bad that is happening to groups which are otherwise an empowered social majority, or find personal distaste with being stereotypically slandered as a member of those groups (usually whites or men) and it's pretty polarizing and lolterribad
at the same time though this is all in a level of nuance way above that crap (hooray?) and so I think that yes some of the persecution complex here about Poor Christians needs to be reanalyzed for what it actually is. there is no real equivalence in the hypothesized flip between <bad thing> happening to <marginalized nonvoluntarily associated group> and <bad thing> happening to <powerful dominant majority elective religion representing literally about 80 percent of all americans>
I would agree you can't totally flip the situation each time. Sometimes it's a useless comparison I guess. But I said, "If the only reasons my offense is decreased is because a more powerful bloc is the aggrieved party, I refuse to let that on its own justify that change in feeling."
I was involved with Occupy Wall Street, and I remember seeing a picture of two protestors holding signs over two bankers trying to get to work's heads that said something along the lines of, "I am a bankster, and I stole from the 99%"
The bankers had their heads ducked down and they were running, just trying to get away. I was pretty ticked off. Those protestors 99% (not trying to make a joke) didn't know squat about those people other than they were on Wall Street and they were wearing suits. It pisses me off when people think the righteousness of their causes covers up a multitude of sins.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
scifibum: I agree saying the new offense is worse than the status quo is not accurate.
kmbboots: Looking at a group as identical in attitudes, behaviors, actions is part of the problem though.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Depends on what you are doing and why you are looking. BB, I am not saying that splashing is right but it is both understandable and sooo not a big deal when put in perspective or weighed in the balance.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
kmbboots: So at what point does splashing become so prevalent and accepted that we then say, "Hmmm, that's a bit too far?"
Why not say, "Let's put a stop to the people pushing you back in, but splashing is not the way to exit the pool."?
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
I assumed the splashing was just the natural consequence of a nearly-drowned person springing desperately out of the pool. Once no one is getting shoved under water any more I expect the egress will be smoother.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:What people *are* doing is dismissing people from being full participants of the discussion and society at large because of where their beliefs are derived from.
Is that really the wrong thing to do, though? I mean, if your beliefs are derived from something arbitrary, like you just flipped a coin and decided what to believe that way, your opinion should be dismissed from public consideration. To give another example that's less random, if your religious beliefs tell you that the tarot is reliable, and you're on a jury and do a tarot reading that says I'm guilty, you're being an awful citizen if you vote to convict me on that basis.
Where do we draw the line here? I think the only non-arbitrary place to draw it is, beliefs that have objective evidence backing them up are legitimate support for policy positions, voting and the like. Other beliefs are not.
To go through your list of grievances:
quote:Don't buy their books, see the movie based on that book they wrote, don't contract them to write something for you,
Seems OK to me, except that I think boycotts are dumb. If it went very far I would worry about a chilling effect on speech.
quote: don't hire them at all, require them to resign,
Not OK.
quote: sue them for refusing to provide a service they say violates their beliefs,
Definitely OK. Labor protection laws are there for a reason and religion shouldn't be a free pass to ignore them. Nor should it be a free pass to not do your job to the full extent if you're a doctor, for example.
quote:require them to teach that same-sex marriage is exactly the same as heterosexual marriage regardless of their own convictions.
Nobody should be required to teach that it's ethical. If science supports the view that it doesn't have bad effects, though, teachers should be required to present that science fairly when they address the subject in class.
quote:at the same time though this is all in a level of nuance way above that crap (hooray?) and so I think that yes some of the persecution complex here about Poor Christians needs to be reanalyzed for what it actually is. there is no real equivalence in the hypothesized flip between <bad thing> happening to <marginalized nonvoluntarily associated group> and <bad thing> happening to <powerful dominant majority elective religion representing literally about 80 percent of all americans
I don't think BB needs to say that there is equivalence. Just that what's happening when Christians get silenced is also wrong (maybe not equally wrong, but bad enough to warrant our attention).
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Because it is kind of obnoxious and whiny. It disregards and disrespects the fact that we (collectively and historically) have been holding their heads under water for centuries. After struggling to get out from under, we now decide to lecture them on pool etiquette? And (not in your case) sometimes it is an excuse to shove them back in the pool.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:I assumed the splashing was just the natural consequence of a nearly-drowned person springing desperately out of the pool. Once no one is getting shoved under water any more I expect the egress will be smoother.
I think that's misguided. I think the only way to get people to stop being jerks at the pool is to tell everybody to stop being jerks at the pool, not just the people who need to be told the most.
Destineer:
quote:Is that really the wrong thing to do, though? I mean, if your beliefs are derived from something arbitrary, like you just flipped a coin and decided what to believe that way, your opinion should be dismissed from public consideration.
Will you similarly be dismissing people who say, "I heard scientists think X" and then vote for X, without any hard grounding in statistics, or the subject matter they are voting on? If they put their faith in what the popular media says about it, will we also tell them to get out of the conversation?
And not all religious beliefs are arbitrarily reached. Many of them are the results of thousands of years of contemplation by billions of people. Perhaps we shouldn't accept beliefs that are 0% rationality and 100% feelings, but we shouldn't tell people that religion is an invalid way to wrestle with a problem and find answers. Even ones that go against evidence we think is strong.
And just to be clear, when I say something is, "Just as wrong" I am not also saying, "It's as big a problem as..." So yes, it warrants our attention.
kmbboots:
quote:It disregards and disrespects the fact that we (collectively and historically) have been holding their heads under water for centuries.
I couldn't disagree with this more. If anything, to me, you disregard the principles of fairness and equality if you unequally apply them only to one subset of the populace, and tell the others they aren't oppressed enough to need it.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:I think that's misguided. I think the only way to get people to stop being jerks at the pool is to tell everybody to stop being jerks at the pool, not just the people who need to be told the most.
I'm not saying anyone should be a jerk, but that it's not necessary to lecture the kid who's shouting an insult back at the bully on his way home from getting beat up. It's a transitory experience, largely built on the previous greater harm done by the bully and as the bullies dwindle these aftershocks will as well.
[ April 15, 2014, 11:32 PM: Message edited by: MattP ]
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:Will you similarly be dismissing people who say, "I heard scientists think X" and then vote for X, without any hard grounding in statistics, or the subject matter they are voting on?
If they have good reason to think scientists actually do think X, then their method makes perfect sense. Learning from expert testimony is objectively reasonable. If they are going off rumors of what scientists think, on the other hand, they are being bad voter.
quote: If they put their faith in what the popular media says about it, will we also tell them to get out of the conversation?
They shouldn't vote that way. I suppose my view is not that people who reason subjectively should be left out of the conversation, but rather that all parties to the conversation should avoid bringing subjective reasoning into it.
quote:And not all religious beliefs are arbitrarily reached. Many of them are the results of thousands of years of contemplation by billions of people. Perhaps we shouldn't accept beliefs that are 0% rationality and 100% feelings, but we shouldn't tell people that religion is an invalid way to wrestle with a problem and find answers. Even ones that go against evidence we think is strong.
I agree with this, I think? We shouldn't tell people that religion is a bad way to find answers for their own personal questions. But if you are going to try to influence someone else's life without their agreement, you need to provide objective, publicly available reasons for doing so.
What do you think of my tarot example?
Posted by Heisenberg (Member # 13004) on :
I'm okay with the pointing and laughing, the boycotts, even the employees and customers of a company rising up to strongly suggest that a bigot resign his post. Just the same way that I wouldn't mind if these things were done to a member of the Klan or someone who supported a proposition that allowed only members of the same race to marry each other.
All of this is true so long as it is not the government doing it. Then, I would be concerned. Fellow citizens? No problem at all.
As to people voting for what the voices in their head tell them is best, I'll agree with most other here. People should be free to vote for whatever they want, for whatever reason they want.
When they try to pass laws restricting and demeaning others for no better reason then godsaidso, then they quite rightly deserve ridicule and any other non violent/non theft (and someone deciding NOT to give their money to someone, or encouraging others not to, is not theft) that their fellow citizens can dish out.
We have to respect each other's right to vote. We're under no ethical or moral rule saying that we have to respect each other's reasons for voting what they do.
People can say that this is going to hurt the cause or whatever, but it won't, not really. Within a generation or two today's old folks will have died out and the only opposition to gays will come from the lunatic religious fringes. The battle is won. The bigots have lost. A lot of them just haven't realized it yet, which may well be to their detriment, but again, don't ask me to shed tears for bigots facing completely legal consequences for their actions from non government sources.
I suppose if the LDS had decided that the black priesthood ban indicated that blacks shouldn't have been allowed to serve in elected office, and tried to get a proposition passed to that affect, that people in the early 20th century would have been wrong to shun people giving money to that cause?
What utter rubbish.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
this whole pool etiquette thing is surreal and paternalistic.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Okay. Care to elaborate? Maybe I didn't explain it well enough.
[ April 16, 2014, 11:11 AM: Message edited by: kmbboots ]
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
no you pretty much have the right of it. assuming ive spent my life metaphorically having my head dunked under the socioeconomic and sociocultural waters by oppressing classes, the one thing i can't wait to experience is getting lectured about how i splashed water on the people oppressing me, oh no!
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I am not sure if you are arguing with me or with BB.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
Yeah, you're being a bit obscure here, Sam.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
The side I find surreal and paternalistic is the BB-side take on it, because it's just a reiteration of tone policing marginalized people when they don't go out of their way to avoid 'splashing'
this is something we've been over in detail before, now that I think about it. it is yet another expression of "it is a virtue to be tolerant of an oppressor's good intentions" beliefs, now beng discussed in another form.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:it is yet another expression of "it is a virtue to be tolerant of an oppressor's good intentions" beliefs, now beng discussed in another form.
I'm sort of of two minds about this. I think it is good to maintain civility in democratic processes. Also, psychology as well as common sense back up the view that anger and self-righteousness are at least correlated with unresponsiveness to good evidence (although so is a sense of oneself as "objective," weirdly enough--might be one of those social psych results that won't hold up). So if oppressed people are Christlike enough to be tolerant in this way, that's admirable. And it's not like the oppression of the non-religious by the religious is the most invidious example of repression in history, compared with others.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Thanks, Sam. I thought you meant the analogy itself was paternalistic and was confused.
Destineer, historically religious oppression has been no picnic and, even when the oppression has not been religious in origin, we have have seldom been better than the rest in opposing it. For example, biblical texts were as often used to support slavery in the US as to abolish it and, at the first, those abolitionists were a radical fringe. We do have some shining moments but far fewer than we should have.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
Right, but it's nothing like racial oppression, which persists to this day and whose effects span generations (eg in that the relative poverty of black people today is in part a consequence of slavery and sharecropping). As an atheist in the present day, I experience essentially no oppression.
Obviously the issue of gay people is a separate one, but if we're talking about oppression of the non-religious by the religious I don't see that as occasion for much continuing anger.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:As an atheist in the present day, I experience essentially no oppression.
that's good, but think about how much of the entire world that means you obviously don't live in.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
OK, so atheists in other parts of the world are entitled to feel oppressed.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: The side I find surreal and paternalistic is the BB-side take on it, because it's just a reiteration of tone policing marginalized people when they don't go out of their way to avoid 'splashing'
this is something we've been over in detail before, now that I think about it. it is yet another expression of "it is a virtue to be tolerant of an oppressor's good intentions" beliefs, now beng discussed in another form.
Yes, I still expect people who have been oppressed to avoid being oppressive to others.
I don't think being tone deaf to ones own words by comparison is an admirable quality or excusable.
------------
Destineer:
quote:To give another example that's less random, if your religious beliefs tell you that the tarot is reliable, and you're on a jury and do a tarot reading that says I'm guilty, you're being an awful citizen if you vote to convict me on that basis.
That's not a very good comparison. Juror's often form their opinions by less than objective means and we certainly don't make jurors pass an objectivity test when voting either way. Some would say internally, "I can tell just by looking at him/her that they're guilty." Or, "She's a nun, she'd *never* do that."
I would suspect that if somebody got down on their knees and started praying in the deliberation room that if asked what they were doing, responded, "Asking God if the defendant is guilty." that they would be dismissed.
Look we both agree in principle that a religion shouldn't force people to obey their rules. But it's not so easily defined. Again, I'd point you to the Germany circumcision debacle. I can't recall many people on this board standing up for a parent's right to raise their children as they saw fit. Some argued the parents were mutilating their child, and that the state could step in to stop circumcision from happening because it was harmful.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:That's not a very good comparison. Juror's often form their opinions by less than objective means and we certainly don't make jurors pass an objectivity test when voting either way. Some would say internally, "I can tell just by looking at him/her that they're guilty." Or, "She's a nun, she'd *never* do that."
Well, they are also being bad citizens. If you're saying voting on the basis of your religious beliefs is as respectable as thinking "I can tell who's guilty just by looking," that's basically my position.
quote:Again, I'd point you to the Germany circumcision debacle. I can't recall many people on this board standing up for a parent's right to raise their children as they saw fit. Some argued the parents were mutilating their child, and that the state could step in to stop circumcision from happening because it was harmful.
It depends on if it is harmful. Tough question there, I guess. But the principle doesn't change. I know that if the tradition was to cut off a hand or a finger, I would not want to permit it.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Look we both agree in principle that a religion shouldn't force people to obey their rules. But it's not so easily defined. Again, I'd point you to the Germany circumcision debacle. I can't recall many people on this board standing up for a parent's right to raise their children as they saw fit. Some argued the parents were mutilating their child, and that the state could step in to stop circumcision from happening because it was harmful.
I'm sorry to be blunt, but if you believe parents should be able to perform an elective surgical procedure on their children before the children can possibly consent to it on even the slightest level (that is to say, infancy), then 'in principle' we don't agree that religion shouldn't force people to obey their rules. Performing a circumcision before a child can even speak certainly qualifies.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Destineer: What about a brand? A tattoo? A piercing? Multiple piercings? What about teaching kids to trust their feelings even when common sense says not to? What about teaching children that the Godless world will hate them for being religious and that is just proof they are doing the right thing? What about teaching children to stay away from those who do not share their beliefs? Or to join a cult?
Rakeesh: I'm not surprised you think the state should step in and interfere with a religious belief like circumcision. So what sort of harmful religious behaviors would you insist the state not step in and prevent?
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
Once again, xkcd has a particularly fitting strip.
[ April 18, 2014, 01:06 PM: Message edited by: Dogbreath ]
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Not trying to be rude but I am pretty clear on the difference. And I think everybody here is too. What I'm talking about is the state interfering with religious expression as well as people falling into the ideological purity trap and trying to crush those with beliefs they think deserve it or else exiling them from society.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Yes, I still expect people who have been oppressed to avoid being oppressive to others.
And I expect that in your view of things, the splashback counts as oppression.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
I would say that sometimes it does... Eich's dismissal, for example.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:Destineer: What about a brand? A tattoo? A piercing? Multiple piercings? What about teaching kids to trust their feelings even when common sense says not to? What about teaching children that the Godless world will hate them for being religious and that is just proof they are doing the right thing? What about teaching children to stay away from those who do not share their beliefs? Or to join a cult?
I'm not sure what the existence of hard-to-call borderline cases like these is supposed to prove.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
I don't think a wealthy tech luminary who has been subjected to not feeling like he can't stay on as the CEO of a major brand has been particularly oppressed. That doesn't really jibe with the connotation of oppress, and seems to be a poor fit for the denotation as well.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
If I were made unwelcome at my job--even if I were rich enough not to care about the money--I would feel absolutely horrible, and yes, oppressed. I think there is a massive failure of empathy going on when some people on the left consider Eich's situation. Worse things happen every fraction of a second, of course, but that doesn't make what happened to him OK.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
Interestingly, I think a lot of the failure of empathy is informed by overreactions from people who are saying that his civil rights are being infringed and this is the start of a Stalin-esque reign of terror (I argued with a guy who said exactly that). Of course nothing happened to his civil rights, and there's no Stalin to be seen on the scene. But it's hard to argue against that viewpoint without seeming like you're cheering for what happened to Eich, I've found. And it doesn't surprise me that the overreaction is often met with mockery, when it pretends the "splashing" is just about the worst thing possible.
Still, I think it is best to have empathy, and when correcting the hyperbole not to engage in any in return. This is hard, but worth it.
(I'm not great at it. I got really mad at that guy, in fact. He wouldn't hear what I was saying or admit when he was indulging in wild distortion.)
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:I think there is a massive failure of empathy going on when some people on the left consider Eich's situation.
I would gladly take all of Eich's money in exchange for not working at Mozilla.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Destineer:
quote:Destineer: What about a brand? A tattoo? A piercing? Multiple piercings? What about teaching kids to trust their feelings even when common sense says not to? What about teaching children that the Godless world will hate them for being religious and that is just proof they are doing the right thing? What about teaching children to stay away from those who do not share their beliefs? Or to join a cult?
I'm not sure what the existence of hard-to-call borderline cases like these is supposed to prove.
I guess part of me feels like people here largely think that when push comes to shove, religion should lose every time.
I appreciate your understanding that what happened to Mr. Eich was pretty horrific. I really do. But everybody else here seems to think that because he was super rich it hardly matters what is done to him as he can just erase whatever hurt is done to him with his money. And if not that, he deserves it for having horrific views. It's so frustrating to see such an abject lack of empathy.
Posted by DustinDopps (Member # 12640) on :
I think "lack of empathy" is a perfect way to sum up what you are saying, BB. I feel the same way.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
BlackBlade, do you really stand by this?
quote:But everybody else here seems to think that because he was super rich it hardly matters what is done to him as he can just erase whatever hurt is done to him with his money. And if not that, he deserves it for having horrific views. It's so frustrating to see such an abject lack of empathy.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: So what sort of harmful religious behaviors would you insist the state not step in and prevent?
This seems like a more general question, i.e. you could lift out the word "religious" and it wouldn't make a difference. What sort of harmful behaviours should the state not step in and prevent? Presumably those where the state would cause more harm by stepping in than the harm caused by the behaviour in the first place. Presumably, we just disagree on the weighing on the harms.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by scifibum: BlackBlade, do you really stand by this?
quote:But everybody else here seems to think that because he was super rich it hardly matters what is done to him as he can just erase whatever hurt is done to him with his money. And if not that, he deserves it for having horrific views. It's so frustrating to see such an abject lack of empathy.
To the extent I can stand by what "seems" to the case yes. It's an easily disproven perception.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
So you're taking the least charitable view of the behavior of the worst actors and assigning it to everyone who is not on the correct side of the argument? Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
On the issue of Eich, two quotes that I've found helpful.
The first from "Mike," a commenter on whatever.scalzi.com referring to this widley-shared XKCD comic and its mouseover text, "I can't remember where I heard this, but someone once said that defending a position by citing free speech is sort of the ultimate concession; you're saying that the most compelling thing you can say for your position is that it's not literally illegal to express.":
quote:The cartoon makes a good point, and the mouse-over text is worth reading but that isn’t all there is on this subject. If you decide to respond to speech by boycotting, cancelling the speaker’s show, banning someone from an internet community, and give an argument like the one in this cartoon as the reason why, you are saying that the most compelling argument for your position is that it’s literally not illegal to suppress the speaker because you aren’t the government. If a university invites a speaker and a student group turns up to shout him or her down, or raises such a ruckus that speaker or the university cancel the appearance, the free exchange of ideas has likely been harmed. The fact that it’s not literally a violation of the first amendment is very small comfort.
The second, from John Stuart Mill:
quote:Our merely social intolerance kills no one, roots out no opinions, but induces men to disguise them, or to abstain from any active effort for their diffusion. With us, heretical opinions do not perceptibly gain, or even lose, ground in each decade or generation; they never blaze out far and wide, but continue to smoulder in the narrow circles of thinking and studious persons among whom they originate, without ever lighting up the general affairs of mankind with either a true or a deceptive light. And thus is kept up a state of things very satisfactory to some minds, because, without the unpleasant process of fining or imprisoning anybody, it maintains all prevailing opinions outwardly undisturbed, while it does not absolutely interdict the exercise of reason by dissentients afflicted with the malady of thought. A convenient plan for having peace in the intellectual world, and keeping all things going on therein very much as they do already. But the price paid for this sort of intellectual pacification, is the sacrifice of the entire moral courage of the human mind. (On Liberty, chapter 2, paragraph 19)
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Destineer: Yeah, I agree completely. I said something along these lines on Facebook. I used the dialogue,
"Can I ask you a question?"
"It's a free country."
To me that illustrates not that,
"Legally there are no consequences to substance of your question."
But rather,
"Our society values a diversity of thought and the meaningful exchange of ideas as evidenced by the legal protections afforded in our Constitution, so ask your question."
I feel that when somebody is being sanctioned by society and they cry out,
"What about free speech?"
They are actually saying is,
"But I think many of your views are just as terrible, but I was willing to be a member of the society of which you are a valued member. Why won't you keep that compact as represented by free speech."
The more diverse a society is, (and I would argue the United States is probably the most diverse society in the history of mankind) the more we should respect that diversity. Ideological purity is good for small communities and clubs, not nations.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
That depends on what we are being ideologically pure about.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: That depends on what we are being ideologically pure about.
Well that's almost always the case. Are there concepts you think demand ideological purity, and what does that look like?
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
I tend to see the problem in a different way, which I think is closer to what Mill has in mind in the quote. Why do we have a problem with the government trying to control our speech? Because the government is so powerful and no one can be trusted to exert power fairly over free expression (in a way that doesn't distort the marketplace of ideas).
But one of the central insights of the left has been that the government is not the only powerful entity, which is to say it's not the only potential source of tyranny. Employers can be tyrannical, special interest groups can be tyrannical, etc, because these entities have considerable power over us and are sort of like "private governments" in their own right. So if we think it's wrong for the actual government to control speech, the same reasoning should suggest that it's wrong for private governments to try to control it.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
In this case Eich *is* the government. As CEO he's effectively president of the Mozilla nation. As such, it's appropriate for the citizens of that government (employees/partners/customers) to speak out about their concerns with his views and actions, past or present. I think most of us would nod approvingly at a gay person who said he could not vote for Obama because of his claim, at the time that we was running, that he didn't support SSM. We would also consider his advocacy to others to not vote for him to be appropriate, given his stated principles.
So no, Mozilla shouldn't be firing anyone for having unpopular views, and they didn't do so here. He resigned, possibly under pressure from other members of management, because of complaints from the proletariat.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:I think most of us would nod approvingly at a gay person who said he could not vote for Obama because of his claim, at the time that we was running, that he didn't support SSM.
But we wouldn't if he was an employee of the government, particularly in the military, or the diplomat core, or a cabinet aide.
We'd also frown on them if they said, "I won't vote for a person who took a stance against gay marriage in the past, even if he has continued to support the pro-gay policies of his predecessor."
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:But we wouldn't if he was an employee of the government, particularly in the military, or the diplomat core, or a cabinet aide.
The higher up the chain you go, the less sympathy I have for the person affected. Not only because of their existing privilege because of their wealth and membership in the ruling class, but also because hiring people for those positions is a business strategy move, not a staffing decision. You aren't just hiring someone for a skill set at that point, you are also hiring an ambassador for the brand. If your employees, customers, and partners feel like they or their friends have been slighted by that person then of course they can't effectively run the company.
The same calculus doesn't apply to rank-and-file. They are cogs in a machine and their job-specific skills are all that should matter.
[ April 21, 2014, 06:21 PM: Message edited by: MattP ]
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:But we wouldn't if he was an employee of the government, particularly in the military, or the diplomat core, or a cabinet aide.
We'd also frown on them if they said, "I won't vote for a person who took a stance against gay marriage in the past, even if he has continued to support the pro-gay policies of his predecessor."
Vowed a change of heart away from substantial support for anti-gay policies was authentic, in this case.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by Destineer:
quote:require them to teach that same-sex marriage is exactly the same as heterosexual marriage regardless of their own convictions.
Nobody should be required to teach that it's ethical. If science supports the view that it doesn't have bad effects, though, teachers should be required to present that science fairly when they address the subject in class.
Science has nothing to say about whether or not something has or does not have bad effects. It takes moral philosophy to determine that.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
Moral philosophy defines which affects are good or bad. Science can often address whether a given phenomenon has those effects. In this case it could address the various negative affects postulated in the arguments that have been addressed in the court cases over SSM.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:Originally posted by MattP: Moral philosophy defines which affects are good or bad. Science can often address whether a given phenomenon has those effects. In this case it could address the various negative affects postulated in the arguments that have been addressed in the court cases over SSM.
Yeah, that's how I see it. So a teacher shouldn't be allowed to teach disproven psychological theories of the effects that gay marriage has on the children of gay couples, for example.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
BlackBlade,
quote:"What about free speech?"
They are actually saying is,
"But I think many of your views are just as terrible, but I was willing to be a member of the society of which you are a valued member. Why won't you keep that compact as represented by free speech."
The more diverse a society is, (and I would argue the United States is probably the most diverse society in the history of mankind) the more we should respect that diversity. Ideological purity is good for small communities and clubs, not nations.
This will be a repetition, but I would remark that in the subtext of what you feel is actually being said by someone who references freedom of expression, the thing is, in this case in particular-the SSM argument in the United States-the people now complaining about freedom of speech didn't respect 'the compact'.
They're the same people who historically and in some cases even presently wished for legal condemnation of private homosexual behavior. I'm not even just talking about denial of equal rights, but actual criminal punishments for homosexual behavior between consenting adults.
So to that person? I will reply to the subtext 'absolutely I respect your right to freedom of speech, and if anyone should try to use force to restrain that right, I will oppose them as best I can. But I will not blithely accept your narrative wherein you are a proponent of freedom of speech which is now being violated, because you ain't.'
quote:But we wouldn't if he was an employee of the government, particularly in the military, or the diplomat core, or a cabinet aide.
Positions within the government, which represents us all, are not the same as public figureheads and leaders of privately held businesses. Though I will remark again, since it needs to be said, that the very same people who are crying most loudly about violations of freedom of speech are the very people who would not have thought twice about barring an openly homosexual man from serving as a Chief of Staff or an Attorney General twenty or even ten years ago. To say nothing of Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, atheists, assorted pagans, and of course sometimes women and Jews as well.
A high minded defense of freedom of expression I can absolutely get behind, and in fact I think it's a really important question that I appreciate you raising in light of the ways in which social media add substantial 'oomph' to social disapproval as faced by Eich. It's an important discussion. But man, I wish* you'd stop asking us to pity the 'victims' of intolerance and regard what is happening to them as some sort of injustice.
*That is not to say I hope you stop speaking your mind, which would be a lovely little irony. Rather I mean it in the sense that man I just don't get why you're championing such a singularly unworthy set of 'victims' when it seems to me that freedom of expression is quite sufficient in and of itself a cause to champion.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
For example on the much more important and relevant freedom of speech issue, the SSM debate illustrates quite well the perils of curtailing that right-because you are creating a weapon that could be used against them-and will be, usually.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Rakeesh:
quote:This will be a repetition, but I would remark that in the subtext of what you feel is actually being said by someone who references freedom of expression, the thing is, in this case in particular-the SSM argument in the United States-the people now complaining about freedom of speech didn't respect 'the compact'.
Oh? All of them? It's pretty risky painting all opponents of same-sex marriage as advocating, "fire gay employees and CEOS, all of them!" I know that's not the case for many of them. And they would absolutely agree that same-sex marriage advocates should be able to express those views without repercussions. Perhaps you don't know any.
I'll grant that people as a general rule are much better about seeing to their own self-interests, while simultaneously finding it hard to empathize with different people's efforts/needs/requests. I have no doubt there are Christians who are suddenly realizing that it sucks going down a peg or two on the privilege totem pole. But I'm a big fan of what Christ said,
quote:Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt alove thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy.
But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;
That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.
For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? do not even the publicans (tax collectors) the same?
And if ye salute your brethren only, what do ye more than others? do not even the publicans so?
We are not so different, you and I. We share mutual respect for each other. You matter to me.
I also care about people who think my views are abhorrent. I guess that is one thing I've gained by being a Mormon. I've learned how to be in the minority, to be misunderstood, to be lied about, to be looked askance at, laughed at, but also honestly questioned, admired, appreciated. I've also learned that our beliefs are very fringe by many people's standards, so what room do we have to not afford others space?
Why do you see so clearly the intolerance, hate, and coercion that the religious dish out, but don't seem to identify (what to me is clearly analogous behavior) those behaviors in what progressives do? Is it because you think only the conservative religious right engages in those behaviors as an institution? Or that somehow because progressives say they value diversity that it's not likely they are only paying lip service to that virtue? I think it's readily apparent that for all the talk Christians make about being in love with Jesus, we as a group are remarkably bad at doing what he said to do.
Are all progressives somehow immune to that same kind of shortcoming? I don't think they are to be honest. I think many celebrate diversity with one side of their mouth, and scream that an idea has no place in their discourse with the other. But there are incredibly Christlike Christians, and there are progressives who are wonderfully diverse in their views. In Utah I knew several gay people who were very "What the hell Utah, let me get married." A minute later they were saying, "Damn progressives want to destroy the private sector with Obamacare, I hope Utah never implements the exchanges."
quote:Positions within the government, which represents us all, are not the same as public figureheads and leaders of privately held businesses.
You're right, but it was Matt who compared an employee of a company Vs the CEO with a voter Vs the president.
quote:A high minded defense of freedom of expression I can absolutely get behind, and in fact I think it's a really important question that I appreciate you raising in light of the ways in which social media add substantial 'oomph' to social disapproval as faced by Eich. It's an important discussion. But man, I wish* you'd stop asking us to pity the 'victims' of intolerance and regard what is happening to them as some sort of injustice.
I get that. You think the more victimized segment should get more of my sympathy and indignation. I'll freely admit that I don't equitably apportion my outrage exactly as justice demands. I respond to things as they are brought to my attention, often by the news media whose job it is to get me riled up. Often it's things that speak directly to me. I didn't get as up in arms about the Seattle scout troop that had their charter revoked by BSA because they wouldn't dismiss their gay scoutmaster. I mentioned it elsewhere, and said I thought the BSA's policy was stupid when they implemented it, and it's still stupid now. But I imagine I'm speaking to the choir on that.
But it's freaking important to me (having been once a "I salute my friends and hate my enemies" kind of guy) to speak out against things that are wrong, even when my friends can't/won't see it. Even if the victims are people who 99% of the time get away all sorts of chicanery. I don't want to dish out justice to my opponents and mercy to my friends only.
I would hope y'all would do the same for me if I came on Hatrack and said, "I've got no sympathy for that person/position, they deserve whatever they get for believing such awful stuff."
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Oh? All of them? It's pretty risky painting all opponents of same-sex marriage as advocating, "fire gay employees and CEOS, all of them!" I know that's not the case for many of them. And they would absolutely agree that same-sex marriage advocates should be able to express those views without repercussions. Perhaps you don't know any.
Where were all these people just twenty years ago? There's a lot of whitewashing going on here, frankly. If the sort of thinking I'm describing was a minority opinion in recent history, it's so difficult for many homosexuals to come out...why, exactly?
Twenty years ago it would hardly have ever even come up, 'fire the gay CEO', because she wouldn't be out in the first place. That gay man was in the closet...because of the widespread respect for freedom of expression amongst people who disapproved of homosexuality?
quote:Why do you see so clearly the intolerance, hate, and coercion that the religious dish out, but don't seem to identify (what to me is clearly analogous behavior) those behaviors in what progressives do? Is it because you think only the conservative religious right engages in those behaviors as an institution? Or that somehow because progressives say they value diversity that it's not likely they are only paying lip service to that virtue? I think it's readily apparent that for all the talk Christians make about being in love with Jesus, we as a group are remarkably bad at doing what he said to do.
I do see it. This is the primary reason I value a strong, unyielding defense of freedom of expression-because it's threatened by everyone. I suspect on this issue, though, one of our chief differences is that I can regard it as important to have the discussion about what freedom of expression means in the 21st century without wasting undeserved sympathy for people who are, in fact, complaining now that they're *just starting* to be a bit lower on the totem pole. They don't get my sympathy. They're victims of their own methods-well, to an extent anyway. Not many SSM opponents being lynched after all.
The thing is, and the reason why I don't think the contradiction you see applies to me, is that I'm always glad when the argument is happening on pretty much any contentious issue. Lets off steam and helps us discover new ideas. What I *don't* insist on is that the discourse be verbally peaceful. If you want people to be nicer to opponents of SSM-which in this case actually means refraining from using the same tactics they were subject to in the past-don't sell it as poor, poor conservatives, they don't deserve this. Sure they do, if a home deserves anything. You can love your enemy if you like-asking me to love mine is probably futile. It's not about being nice to former and would-be present oppressors and bigots-it's about keeping the public discourse open to all comers because if you don't, it's dangerous and harmful to everyone.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:So to that person? I will reply to the subtext 'absolutely I respect your right to freedom of speech, and if anyone should try to use force to restrain that right, I will oppose them as best I can.
Just by way of clarification, do you agree with me that boycotts and political pressure from shareholders are ways of using force?
quote:It's not about being nice to former and would-be present oppressors and bigots-it's about keeping the public discourse open to all comers because if you don't, it's dangerous and harmful to everyone.
I agree with this for sure.
Posted by JanitorBlade (Member # 12343) on :
Rakeesh:
quote:Where were all these people just twenty years ago?
Well I imagine everybody 40 or younger today was either not born yet, or too young to have much of an opinion on the matter right? That's a lot of Americans who are now in the debate.
quote:Where were all these people just twenty years ago? There's a lot of whitewashing going on here, frankly. If the sort of thinking I'm describing was a minority opinion in recent history, it's so difficult for many homosexuals to come out...why, exactly?
I didn't call your opinion a minority opinion. I said it wasn't safe to say that everybody who is concerned with same-sex marriage opponents being sanctioned by society all kept their mouths shut and were happy to let homosexuals face the very consequences they now decry.
quote:I do see it. This is the primary reason I value a strong, unyielding defense of freedom of expression-because it's threatened by everyone. I suspect on this issue, though, one of our chief differences is that I can regard it as important to have the discussion about what freedom of expression means in the 21st century without wasting undeserved sympathy for people who are, in fact, complaining now that they're *just starting* to be a bit lower on the totem pole. They don't get my sympathy. They're victims of their own methods-well, to an extent anyway. Not many SSM opponents being lynched after all.
Lynching is an incredibly low bar for behavior. I think if we are going to hold back sympathy for an individual it should be because we have established that they were willing to silence others, or otherwise harm them in the very ways they are now decrying.
But even then, that doesn't make what is happening to them right. Maybe in movie land poetic justice is fun but in real life when you silently let somebody else be mistreated you sully your own hands.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
There's two equivalences here that I'd like to address.
quote:Originally posted by Destineer: ... So if we think it's wrong for the actual government to control speech, the same reasoning should suggest that it's wrong for private governments to try to control it.
Let's get down the real nuts and bolts of this. On one hand, you have the US government, an entity that has granted itself the ability to imprison without charge, to torture without legal recourse, and to execute by drone or by whatever means a particular barbaric state has deemed legal in its jurisdiction.
On the other hand you have, some employees at Mozilla and some bloggers that were vocal, a "private government" apparently. I'm going to say that the potential abuse of power is much more of an issue with the former than the latter.
(And that's accepting for the sake of argument that what Eich did was "speech" when what he really did was contribute money)
In fact, I'm not even sure about the root assumption. While I may not necessarily trust the US government to restrict Nazi speech, I'm not necessarily opposed to the German government doing the same.
quote:Originally posted by Destineer:
quote:So to that person? I will reply to the subtext 'absolutely I respect your right to freedom of speech, and if anyone should try to use force to restrain that right, I will oppose them as best I can.
Just by way of clarification, do you agree with me that boycotts and political pressure from shareholders are ways of using force?
I wouldn't really agree. If you equate boycotts and political pressure with force rather than speech as one would expect, you get weird consequences like Gandhi being one of the most forceful guys around
quote:Gandhi Leads Boycott of 1920 Prince of Wales’ Visit to India
... During the latter part of 1920 Gandhi advocated a triple boycott. He wanted an absolute boycott of the Government and all government institutions, including schools, colleges, and courts.
quote:Gandhi encouraged Indians to boycott British goods and buy Indian goods instead. This helped to revitalise local economies in India and it also hit home at the British by undermining their economy in the country.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Real Clear Politics said some relevant things about this issue.
Posted by AchillesHeel (Member # 11736) on :
When I saw that topic based on the fact that Fred Phelps is dead reached a fourth page, I actually thought "he's still dead right? He had better still be dead."
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Still dead.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Real Clear Politics said some relevant things about this issue.
Most of these appear to be libertarians, I would hasten to note.
Posted by stilesbn (Member # 11809) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro:
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Real Clear Politics said some relevant things about this issue.
Most of these appear to be libertarians, I would hasten to note.
At 16 hrs 17 mins your haste needs some work.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
I would. Not that I did.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
John Corvino is not a libertarian. He's a very well-respected left-liberal ethicist.
quote:Let's get down the real nuts and bolts of this. On one hand, you have the US government, an entity that has granted itself the ability to imprison without charge, to torture without legal recourse, and to execute by drone or by whatever means a particular barbaric state has deemed legal in its jurisdiction.
On the other hand you have, some employees at Mozilla and some bloggers that were vocal, a "private government" apparently. I'm going to say that the potential abuse of power is much more of an issue with the former than the latter.
Sure, as a matter of degree the one is much worse than the other. I even said above:
quote:Worse things happen every fraction of a second, of course, but that doesn't make what happened to him (Eich) OK.
quote:In fact, I'm not even sure about the root assumption. While I may not necessarily trust the US government to restrict Nazi speech, I'm not necessarily opposed to the German government doing the same.
What would be the ethically relevant difference between us doing it and them doing it?
quote:I wouldn't really agree. If you equate boycotts and political pressure with force rather than speech as one would expect, you get weird consequences like Gandhi being one of the most forceful guys around
I do think at least some nonviolent resistance should be understood as a form of force. I mean, if fines are a way of forcing you to comply with a law, that means costing you money as a consequence of your actions is a way of forcing you to act a particular way. So boycotts are just as forceful as fines.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
I'm also not sure why libertarians would want to sign that statement, since they don't accept that private dictatorships are problematic.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
The difference is in the threat of violence - i.e, I know if I continue to rack up fines and not pay them, men with guns will come to my house and force me to pay them/take me to jail and keep me until someone pays them on my behalf. (or I serve a sentence) Or at least, they'll forcibly take away my car/drivers license/ability to rack up more fines.
With a boycott, there's no threat of violence or forcible coersion. As a private consumer, it's entirely my choice whose products I use/purchase. If I feel a company is acting in an immoral fashion, it's entirely my perogative to boycott them. And interestingly enough, nobody here has raised any objection to, say, the fact I boycott companies that use child labor, or friends of mine boycott companies that support Planned Parenthood. Are we using force to oppress other people's political beliefs? (those who support child labor or abortion) Or are we simply acting in a manner that we believe to be moral? Why is bigotry against gays the one type of political speech that should be immune? Like I askes earlier, what if Eich was a member of the KKK? Or NAMBLA?
That being said, I thing there's a difference between a boycott being moral and being effective. I didn't boycott Mozilla because I didn't think Eich was going to do any harm as CEO. I didn't boycott Ender's Game and I obviously still participate on this forum because I believe the amount of good Card has done with his writing (especially in my own life) has vastly outweighed any damage he's caused, and I think he has some really great things to say in many of his books.
But no, I can't equivocate boycotts with force, not in a way analogous with government policy. They are a completely legitimate way of expressing one's political speech, just as donating to the NOM or the NRA or any other political group is.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
quote:Originally posted by Destineer: I'm also not sure why libertarians would want to sign that statement, since they don't accept that private dictatorships are problematic.
That's a highly inaccurate and unjustified generalization.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
i think they would accept that private dictatorships are problematic, but are convinced that such a scenario would not arise in any localized or microfederalized scenario given perfectly free markets (it would but whatever)
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
More or less. More charitably put, Libertarians generally seem to believe that private dictatorships, inasmuch as they exist/might exist in the future, do so because of the federal government propping up large "too big to fail" corporations rather than letting them fail, as all oversized corporations inevitably will. The logic behind this is that as soon as a corporation is large enough to seriously start imposing their will on people through monopolies and other unfair trade practices, they'll either collapse under their own weight and/or consumers (who are apparently far better educated and proactive than consumers now, for whatever reason) will actively avoid them.
How practical those ideas are is not something I’m going to debate, though the fact that I’m not a libertarian should indicate I obviously disagree with them. But to state that libertarians either support, or at least don't view as problematic, the idea of private dictatorships is just absurd. Depending on whom you ask, libertarian philosophy doesn’t differentiate between “private” and “public” government. By which I mean, they reject the legitimacy and authority (and in some cases, the concept of authority) of the government and see it as just being the largest, most tyrannical private dictatorship around.
Posted by Darth_Mauve (Member # 4709) on :
quote: When I saw that topic based on the fact that Fred Phelps is dead reached a fourth page, I actually thought "he's still dead right? He had better still be dead."
He always struck me as a damaged heartless shambling Zombie before he died. Would not be surprised if that hadn't changed after death.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
Dogbreath, thanks, I think your objections are basically right. What I said was at best an unfair simplification of what they think.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Destineer: Sure, as a matter of degree the one is much worse than the other. I even said above:
quote:Worse things happen every fraction of a second, of course, but that doesn't make what happened to him (Eich) OK.
Maybe I was being unclear, as I said above, we're really talking about "potential abuse of power." I don't think that either has really abused power (recently anyway) when it comes to speech about same-sex marriage.
quote:
quote:In fact, I'm not even sure about the root assumption. While I may not necessarily trust the US government to restrict Nazi speech, I'm not necessarily opposed to the German government doing the same.
What would be the ethically relevant difference between us doing it and them doing it?
The short answer is that the US actually blew up a Muslim preacher in another country that spoke out against the US. Germany hasn't done anything similar, not recently anyway.
The longer answer is that German restrictions were enacted in the wake of WWII as a part of an Allied effort called denazification. It was correctly judged that the ideology was so widespread and so dangerous that the harm caused by the infringement of free speech in outlawing it was outweighed by the harm that would have been caused by allowing it to continue unrestricted. Plus, Germany was in no shape after WWII to abuse its powers in this area beyond its borders.
Both these considerations aren't in effect at the moment for the US.
quote:I do think at least some non-violent resistance should be understood as a form of force.
Then I think you've devalued the meaning of "force" to such a degree that the general objection to force being used against free speech no longer applies.
Dogbreath covers it well. Boycotts are just part of the accepted public discourse about consumer behaviour. Companies attempt to convince us that they are more green than others, more organic, less approving of sweatshops, more accepting of diversity, etc. Boycotters attempt to convince us that companies are not in fact more green, are not diverse, pollute too much, etc. Are they both now using "force" against free speech? Bah.
In the public discourse, the boycott against Mozilla's Eich is countered by NOM's boycott of Mozilla ( http://www.nomblog.com/39041/ ) for removing Eich and I'm ok with that just like I'm ok with NOM's boycott of Starbucks and General Mills which are still in effect according to their website.
Posted by Heisenberg (Member # 13004) on :
quote:Originally posted by AchillesHeel: When I saw that topic based on the fact that Fred Phelps is dead reached a fourth page, I actually thought "he's still dead right? He had better still be dead."
Actually, the man climbed out of his coffin exactly three days after he died, resurrected and looking as good as new.
The unfortunate implications of this are still being discussed.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Eich petition v Clippers protest Compare and contrast.
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
What are your thoughts, Kate?
Hobbes Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
My thoughts are that it is an interesting juxtaposition. There are a lot of parallels. In both cases it is employees protesting a political/social opinion of the employer. My guess is that the Clipper protest won't create a change in the team's leadership like the Mozilla protest did.
But mostly I was just curious about other people's reaction.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
For me it would be equivalent if Sterling had donated to say an effort to eliminate admissions to college based on race in Michigan, and that was why Clippers players were protesting as in the manner they are.
I don't have fully formed opinions on this instance.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
So you think it might actually *less* appropriate for employees to protest political action vs the discovery of a privately held opinion?
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
I haven't said anything about more or less appropriate. I don't think the actions of Eich and Sterling are functionally identical.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
I'm curious to hear some elaboration once your thoughts have settled. You seemed to have had a pretty firm and early opinion on the employees that spoke out against Eich.
Posted by stilesbn (Member # 11809) on :
If you're looking for what a more conservative take on the issue would be here is what I thought was a decent blog post.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by MattP: I'm curious to hear some elaboration once your thoughts have settled. You seemed to have had a pretty firm and early opinion on the employees that spoke out against Eich.
I sure did, and I sure hope to benefit from carefully considering the matter this time. Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Your assignment for today:
Eich petition v Clippers protest Compare and contrast.
I have to agree with BlackBlade in that the actions aren't identical. Sterling's bigotry seems to be a strictly private matter, whereas Eich actually donated money to a cause that was seeking to disenfranchise gay people. In both cases I say the employee reaction is more or less justified.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by stilesbn: If you're looking for what a more conservative take on the issue would be here is what I thought was a decent blog post.
I read that and it seems to boil down to the old "love the sinner, hate the sin" argument. In other words, they don't dislike people for being gay, they just don't want them doing gay stuff.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:Sterling's bigotry seems to be a strictly private matter, whereas Eich actually donated money to a cause that was seeking to disenfranchise gay people.
This is my initial take as well. I could see principled support or opposition to both, but it's hard for me to see opposing the anti-Eich protests while supporting the anti-Sterling protests.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
quote:Originally posted by MattP:
quote:Sterling's bigotry seems to be a strictly private matter, whereas Eich actually donated money to a cause that was seeking to disenfranchise gay people.
This is my initial take as well. I could see principled support or opposition to both, but it's hard for me to see opposing the anti-Eich protests while supporting the anti-Sterling protests.
I think if one feels that anti-SSM activism is correct it may be easier to justify the latter. In other words, it could be internally consistent to condemn punishing a correct moral belief (whether or not it's tied to any political action), while feeling okay about punishing an immoral belief.
*There's a pretty short hop from this to simply not being able to tolerate people who have different moral convictions, of course.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Sure. But then the "intolerance is always wrong and people should not be punished for their beliefs full stop" arguments don't work.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
It seems to me that anyone who does this the actions of Eich and the words of Sterling are equivalent hasn't put much thought into the issue. Eich gave direct financial support to efforts to prevent homosexuals from marrying. He did this when most other people felt that way too, but (unless something new has come up) he hasn't had an 'evolution' on his opinions regarding SSM to the extent he stated a regret for that support. If he has, I've missed it because I haven't followed as closely as I should.
Sterling on the other hand appears to be a spoken racist, but nothing of tangible support seems to have come out. That said, it's...well, personally I think it's unlikely that someone who doesn't want his (black, Latina) girlfriend to associate him or his team with black people...well, such a man is certainly capable of financial support for racist causes too. But none have come out yet.
All of that said; there *are* some similarities at play here. Should Sterling be fired, it will be for very similar reasons Eich was forced to resign: disapproval of the owners of his 'company' for him due to public statements he made.
Perversely to me at least, though Eich's 'offense' was greater (in terms of prejudice), there is even greater cause to remove Sterling, so much of the financial success of the team due to publicity.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:I think if one feels that anti-SSM activism is correct it may be easier to justify the latter.
Well sure. I meant for a person who objects privately to both opinions. If I think Eich is wrong and I think that Sterling is wrong, I couldn't condemn the Eich protestors while supporting the Sterling protestors.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Sure. But then the "intolerance is always wrong and people should not be punished for their beliefs full stop" arguments don't work.
Personally, I would wholeheartedly agree with and endorse the idea that people ought not be punished for their beliefs. Beliefs being something existing between one's ears. Speech I would agree people ought not to be punished for either, with qualifications for the problem of people not being required to patronize a business with beliefs they don't like and such.
Actuons in expression of beliefs? Such as financial support for discrimination? That I would qualify even further, for fewer definitions of 'punishment' which seems to be used interchangeably with 'consequences' depending on who feels the pinch. It's 'punishment' when Eich is forced to resign, but a 'consequences' of homosexual behavior barring marriage. Of course as said this does work both ways. Supporters of SSM should be expected to be wary of oppressive majority attitudes, and some are, but many aren't.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
MattP: What message do you feel the Clippers players were conveying with their action?
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
That they are ashamed to be associated with Sterling and wish to distance themselves from the brand insofar as the brand is associated with him. Any more than that has to be guessed at as they are likely contractually prevented from actually making statements in opposition to Sterling, the team, or the league.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Do you feel the players were saying Sterling has to go?
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
Several other players in the league have said as much and I assume the players on his team feel similarly. At the very least they are saying "I don't want to work for you."
Though I'd prefer you didn't go all socratic here. It's clear there's a direction you're heading and it's pretty clear what the direction is.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
MattP: I sensed a bit of a rebuke in your statement that I was quick to jump to a conclusion in Mozilla but not here, so I decided rather than just post my thoughts as they exist, I'd see how you come at it because I respect you.
I wasn't consciously trying to apply the socratic method on you, or reach a point that way. I'm still mulling.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
It wasn't a rebuke. I was noting it because it was notable. The fact that there was a pause before coming to judgement in this case was interesting all by itself.
quote:I wasn't consciously trying to apply the socratic method on you, or reach a point that way. I'm still mulling.
OK. I'm sorry for jumping to that conclusion.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
MattP: I don't think I can support the player's chosen means of publicly protesting the owner.
1: I *hate* the manner in which the comments were leaked. Mr. Sterling's girlfriend was clearly trying to bait him into saying these sorts of remarks specifically so that she could then leak those remarks and get him hammered by the public. And I have no confidence she did it for moral reasons. I think embracing the means by which these comments were leaked while trying to simultaneously decry racism muddles the message. Just for consistency's sake, that's also why I have issues with the Boston Tea Party.
2: Like in the case of Mozilla, the employees should express their disgust at the comments through the leadership chain, as well as through their union representative. They should also find out what (if anything) is already being done by the organization. They can also refuse to play, and in fact this plan was already being considered. If they want to distance themselves from the man, don't take his money. Or if you must play because you need to collect your paycheck, express your opposition to the remarks by seeking to openly express approval of racial inclusion.
But I didn't really enjoy writing this post because I do think the two situations are very different.
Rakeesh:
quote:Sterling on the other hand appears to be a spoken racist, but nothing of tangible support seems to have come out.
This is not correct. Mr. Sterling has openly kept minority groups out of housing he owns because he is a racist. From what I have read he has also made many comments over the years that players and coaches all recognized as racist. They just ignored it until now. It may have very well turned out that Eich *would* have discriminated against gay employees in concrete ways. If he had, it's a new conversation.
Posted by stilesbn (Member # 11809) on :
After the dog pile that happened to BlackBlade I can understand why he would be hesitant to make any remarks this time around.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Yeah, that was before I had read more about him. Pretty clear he's more than just a verbal racist.
As for 'voicing complaints in the leadership chain'...why would they be expected to have any confidence in the leadership chain with him at the top, exactly?
Where is it written, morally or professionally, that the only proper venues for expressing disapproval are 'don't take his money' or 'enact a formal public debate' or 'operate strictly within the chain of command', anyway? It's a publicized position relying on publicity and celebrity as well as athletic skill.
It seems to me that the steps you identify as the proper ones are appropriate for employers and people who have earned your respect. For less toxic statements and behaviors than this. But they responded to his noxious speech with speech of their own. It seems to me that, once again, this tone policing (I have to agree with Samprimary's characterization here) is just a means of insisting that one must be *nicer* and *more* polite than someone who is not...or else risk being chastised by someone somewhere because they're not acting in the proper format, in the proper way.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:As for 'voicing complaints in the leadership chain'...why would they be expected to have any confidence in the leadership chain with him at the top, exactly?
Well for one, look at what happened. The commissioner of the organization acted in a timely and appropriate manner yes?
quote:Where is it written, morally or professionally, that the only proper venues for expressing disapproval are 'don't take his money' or 'enact a formal public debate' or 'operate strictly within the chain of command', anyway? It's a publicized position relying on publicity and celebrity as well as athletic skill.
That's kind of a strange question. It's not written explicitly anywhere. There's no book, essay, etc that everybody references for these sorts of moral positions.
quote:But they responded to his noxious speech with speech of their own.
You mean they responded to his very specific private comments with a strong but ambiguous public expression?
quote:is just a means of insisting that one must be *nicer* and *more* polite than someone who is not.
You're not wrong. I believe if you don't carefully consider how you express an opinion you do your cause and opinion a disservice. If we go back to my Boston Tea Party statement. Were I to say, "Destroying the property of British merchants/store owners, and depriving sailors of their income (based on the successful delivery of cargo) is not the correct way to protest terrible abuses committed by the British government.", would your response be I'm tone policing again?
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:The commissioner of the organization acted in a timely and appropriate manner yes?
Given that he was known to be racist prior to this, you don't think the difference in publicity was the deciding factor here? To my eye the league was responding to public outrage, the loss of sponsors, etc. and not to his specific behavior.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
You guys don't think that Sterling's actions express a much more prejudiced attitude toward black people than Eich's actions express toward gay people? "I don't want your marriages to be endorsed by the state" seems a lot less thoroughly bigoted to me than "I don't want you associating with me or my girlfriend."
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
It's not the degree of antipathy that hits a nerve for me. There are a lot of racists out there, but most of them are just quietly thinking their racist thoughts and voting their one racist vote. Eich actually made an effort to amplify his opinion into political action beyond his own personal beliefs and individual action at the ballot box.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Both Sterling and Eich were objectionably working against marginalized groups so I'm fairly content with both outcomes. Especially because the PROCESS behind the outcomes was as varied as the degree in what expressed bigotry was in both Sterling and Eich.
To explain:
The revealed nature of Sterling is much more profoundly odious than any dirt we have on Eich. I do think there's a reasonable way for Eich, the lesser-odious, to have made a different outcome for himself that Sterling didn't have on account of his greater-odiousness: Eich could have renounced his support of anti-gay laws and claimed very completely that he no longer supports 'defense of marriage' acts. He had the opportunity to do this; his responses to the controversy were carefully and deliberately written, and in no way did he forsake the bigotry suggested by his monetary and political support of bigotry. He just reiterated that there is a policy that he would follow involving anti-bigotry at his company, so we would know where his bigotries were not being expressed.
Whereas with Sterling, there's no choice in the matter to be had. His remarks are so odious that they have finally become so much of a financial liability to the league (15 sponsors or more dropped out, I believe, on the day they were revealed) as to require his removal. His potential to influence that with a change of heart is too minimal.
Eich chose to stand his ground and hold on to his views, then personally elected to step down to avoid what his time in the leadership post would necessarily become. Sterling will be unceremoniously stripped and banned and probably go back to doing whatever other bigoted things he does with his money.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
In either situation it is the market working in the way that people apparently want markets to work, ... except when it cuts too close to identifying them as the new thought-pariahs. Funny, that. Maybe it's better just not to be a bigot.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by MattP:
quote:The commissioner of the organization acted in a timely and appropriate manner yes?
Given that he was known to be racist prior to this, you don't think the difference in publicity was the deciding factor here? To my eye the league was responding to public outrage, the loss of sponsors, etc. and not to his specific behavior.
Exactly. The real controversies involving Sterling were ones that the commission was more than willing to turn a blind eye to; it's not out of concern for people of color that sterling's getting ousted now, it's out of concern to the revenue flow. Sterling was a racist before and a racist now, all that changed was that he became too much of a liability to other rich people's pocketbooks. And that, of course, is when you have the course change.
So the world turns.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Destineer: You guys don't think that Sterling's actions express a much more prejudiced attitude toward black people than Eich's actions express toward gay people? "I don't want your marriages to be endorsed by the state" seems a lot less thoroughly bigoted to me than "I don't want you associating with me or my girlfriend."
Not really. One is more personal and one has a veneer of civility but Eich's actions were more harmful.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Hm. I disagree. Eich's "actions" consisted of a political donation to a dumb cause that'll get itself reversed in a few years. Sterling actually refused to rent or employ people, doing direct harm.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Ah. I was just talking about the tape. I didn't know about the rest. You are right, those are harmful as well. But refraining from using ugly words doesn't make Eich's actions less bigoted - even if they will ultimately be unsuccessful.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
The whole mess right now is based on the tape. I don't think the other stuff is a recent revelation so it had already been absorbed in the calculus of whether public outrage should be generated.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
I wonder how long we'll feel the aftershocks of this sudden collective realization that the people who profit from the entertainment industry aren't always nice.
Just kidding.
I think Sterling is a jerk, and the more I hear about him the more I want him to end his life penniless and alone, but...that doesn't really matter.
Eich seemed like a relatively good guy to me (but as a person with a lot of LDS connections I'm predisposed to allow that being against SSM doesn't make someone a bad person). I think he was on the wrong side of the SSM debate, but so was most of the country a few years ago. I think it's forgivable.
I think the fact that I somewhat disapprove of what happened to Eich and don't really feel any sympathy at all for Sterling is down to my overall impression of their character.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: In either situation it is the market working in the way that people apparently want markets to work, ... except when it cuts too close to identifying them as the new thought-pariahs. Funny, that. Maybe it's better just not to be a bigot.
I certainly don't want markets to work that way, at least not in "pure politics" cases like Eich's.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
I totally want markets to work that way, even though I think that the reaction to Eich was basically just unreasonable censorship on the part of Mozilla employees.
It seems like Sam's comment makes the classic mistake of presupposing that because one likes freedom, one therefore has to like every decision free people make. Or supposing that because one thinks people made a terrible decision, one therefore must think that those people should not be free to make such a decision.
What happened to Eich was stupid. And it should be allowed to happen.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:What happened to Eich was stupid. And it should be allowed to happen.
That's kind of how I come at it.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Given that he was known to be racist prior to this, you don't think the difference in publicity was the deciding factor here?
It may very well have been. Even likely.
quote:To my eye the league was responding to public outrage, the loss of sponsors, etc. and not to his specific behavior.
Oh, I don't know about that. Maybe Commissioner Silver (who has been at the job 3 months now) felt he couldn't do anything as his predecessor hadn't done anything to sanction Sterling after decades of being commissioner. Now that Sterling had humiliated the NBA, he could.
But that's pure speculation.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Now I've got this weird conspiracy theory that Silver paid Sterling's girlfriend to draw out the racist remarks on tape so he could be rid of him, and sell the franchise to new management...
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: It seems like Sam's comment makes the classic mistake of presupposing that because one likes freedom, one therefore has to like every decision free people make.
No. It is cutting at the hypocrisies that most people who champion such freedoms expose.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
This doesn't make any sense to me. From what I could tell they were giving Sterling awards for, among other things, sponsoring programs that for allowed minority children to come to Clippers games. Obviously that's good for business, I don't think Sterling was being purely altruistic (then again I don't know what the man thinks) but now Jenkins has to resign for what? Failing to do better due diligence on an award recipient?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
That bears further observation. Obviously they could be in hot water for letting Sterling have an award in spite of his evident record of racist slumlording (which really undercuts the NAACP's ideals — it's basically saying you can pay off your misdeeds with what's supposed to be the preeminent organization for the advancement of the black community)
Or it could be a series of this and similar oversights culminating in a loss of faith.
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)