And I haven't once said that the protestors are punishing him. Mozilla punished him. If you think he wasn't "pushed" to resign, you're dreaming. CEO's don't get fired very often, they "resign".
Mozilla could have said something like
"While we understand your concern, Eichs opinions are his own, and do not reflect the beliefs or opinions of Mozilla, it's parent company, subsidiaries, or affiliates. Mozilla supports equality, but also free speech, and the exercise of ones beliefs in their own privacy. We hope our customers will understand and support the right of everyone to vote their own conscious."
Something like that.
I'm confused. Are we talking about whether it was a good idea for people to boycott, or are we talking about how Mozilla handled the situation?
All I see here is what amounts to "he's rich, **** him!"
So the Janitor can be a racist homophobe, but he gets off easy.
Also, your point is rather weak when sources have pointed out on several occasions that he only donated $1000.
That's small potatoes, even smaller considering he is a CEO of such a lucrative company.
It's as if I donated .75 cents.
I've already addressed this exact point. It has nothing to do with him being rich. It has to do with the position of leadership. When you're the leader of the company, its success contributes to your prestige and influence.
So you admit that you don't care about the countless others who are voting for Prop 8., just the rich and famous ones. Gotcha.
I mean, it seems ridiculously flawed reasoning, but at least you admit it.
That's...not even close to what I said. I don't think their job is relevant to their advocacy. Their job doesn't contribute to the effectiveness with which they can advocate.
I disagree. It's hypocrisy, period.
Wow, what a crushing rebuttal.
Jesus, try to keep up.
It's the "living in the closet" that I was talking about - not HIS personal donations.
If getting fired from your job is a REAL possibility if people find you you have opposing beliefs, you will hide those beliefs, you will live in the closet, you will keep your true voice quiet, a secret. THAT is the anthesis of democracy.
Voices kept silent out of fear.
Welcome to the real world. If I say that I don't think people deserve equal rights, people are going to think less of me. People are going to be less inclined to interact with me. People aren't going to want to support my business.
Hmmmm, it's 2014, the mob with torches and pitchforks has changed it's style no doubt, it is now a legion of twitter pages and Facebook followers, but it's still a mob. The pitchforks are now "likes" and the torches "shares".
You DO know what an analogy is right?
But that changes the crucial part - a mob can forcibly silence its target. Twitter shares aren't a threat of violence. They're just people expressing their opinion.
Should I avoid saying I think Brendan Eich is a person of low character, lest I leave him scared to express himself?
No one disagrees about what a boycott is. We disagree about what forcing someone means.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I've already provided a substantive definition of the effects of a boycott. Your response was to quote the dictionary.
No.
Quote from magickware99 »
By this argument boycotts have no purpose and cannot actually do harm or place pressure on people in an attempt to force them to change...
Quote from Tiax »
I agree, boycotts cannot force people to change. When you boycott something, you're simply refusing to support it. You've weighed the implications of giving them your business, and decided that, for one reason or another, you'd be better off spending your money elsewhere. You're not harming the target of your boycott. If people wanted to harm Mozilla they could go vandalize their offices, or DDOS their websites. They could assault Eich. That would be harmful, and that would be censorship.
And in that statement you specifically stated that "boycotts cannot force people to change". But that's all you did. You didn't support this claim. You just wrote a bunch of following sentences that expand on the claim, but little else. Essentially, you provide no proof.
I countered with conventional definitions of a boycott. All of which state that a boycott is meant to bring force onto its target in an attempt to create a response.
Like I said, you're doing nothing but writing empty words at this point. Substantiate them. Actually find some sort of proof outside of your own head that boycotts are not meant to force change and merely a decision to avoid the business/what have you.
I'm not sure what more you're looking for. Boycotting is fundamentally not an act of force nor a threat of force. When you're forced to do something, the choice is taken away from you. When someone is boycotted, the choice is not taken away from them. That's all there is to it.
The person being boycotted might decide to change. But that doesn't mean they've been forced to do so. If I tell someone I think they're a bad person, and they decide to change their behavior as a result, that doesn't mean I've forced them to change. If I tell someone I don't want to hang out with them as long as they're saying hateful things, they might decide to stop saying them, but that doesn't mean I've forced them to stop.
When you're forced to do something, the choice is taken away from you. When someone is boycotted, the choice is not taken away from them. That's all there is to it.
So when a man holds a gun to your head and tells you to give him all your money, you're not being forced? Because you still have the choice not to give the money, right?
The person being boycotted might decide to change. But that doesn't mean they've been forced to do so. If I tell someone I think they're a bad person, and they decide to change their behavior as a result, that doesn't mean I've forced them to change. If I tell someone I don't want to hang out with them as long as they're saying hateful things, they might decide to stop saying them, but that doesn't mean I've forced them to stop.
As I written before, intent matters. Now I'll add another. Context matters too.
None of the examples you gave actually fit within the context of a boycott and the context within the word "force" is normally used.
That being said, would you say it's a use of force if my mother decided not to give me dinner unless I cleaned my room? Most normal people would. I would imagine you would say the same if it weren't in this particular thread and discussion.
And I haven't once said that the protestors are punishing him. Mozilla punished him. If you think he wasn't "pushed" to resign, you're dreaming. CEO's don't get fired very often, they "resign".
Mozilla could have said something like
"While we understand your concern, Eichs opinions are his own, and do not reflect the beliefs or opinions of Mozilla, it's parent company, subsidiaries, or affiliates. Mozilla supports equality, but also free speech, and the exercise of ones beliefs in their own privacy. We hope our customers will understand and support the right of everyone to vote their own conscious."
Something like that.
I'm confused. Are we talking about whether it was a good idea for people to boycott, or are we talking about how Mozilla handled the situation?
I think I've been clear, even earlier in this very thread, that I'm talking about how Mozilla handled the situation.
People have a right, I'd even argue a duty in some cases, to boycott.
Nothing is wrong with boycotting. Mozilla should not have pushed him out.
He donated $1000 in support of Prop 8. back in 2008. They find out in 2013, and show the guy the door because Okcupid and thousands in the twitter-culture boycott?
Yeah, that isn't the right thing to do. If you think it was, fine, but I'm still not talking about the morality or righteousness of the boycott, I'm talking about him losing his job.
All I see here is what amounts to "he's rich, **** him!"
So the Janitor can be a racist homophobe, but he gets off easy.
Also, your point is rather weak when sources have pointed out on several occasions that he only donated $1000.
That's small potatoes, even smaller considering he is a CEO of such a lucrative company.
It's as if I donated .75 cents.
I've already addressed this exact point. It has nothing to do with him being rich. It has to do with the position of leadership. When you're the leader of the company, its success contributes to your prestige and influence.
So VIP's better hide their beliefs in the closet, but not janitors. Got it.
[quote]
[quote]
So you admit that you don't care about the countless others who are voting for Prop 8., just the rich and famous ones. Gotcha.
I mean, it seems ridiculously flawed reasoning, but at least you admit it.
That's...not even close to what I said. I don't think their job is relevant to their advocacy. Their job doesn't contribute to the effectiveness with which they can advocate.
Eichs job was pretty damn irrelevant to his advocacy. $1000 in 2008 cost him his job in 2013?
I disagree. It's hypocrisy, period.
Wow, what a crushing rebuttal.
It's not a complicated position.
You support in principle the occasional job killing mass protest of a CEO who donated $1000, while ignoring the reality that thousands of janitors give their votes, and/or maybe $1 or more.
You're fighting a belief system by canning a few priests, while ignoring the congregation.
Jesus, try to keep up.
It's the "living in the closet" that I was talking about - not HIS personal donations.
If getting fired from your job is a REAL possibility if people find you you have opposing beliefs, you will hide those beliefs, you will live in the closet, you will keep your true voice quiet, a secret. THAT is the anthesis of democracy.
Voices kept silent out of fear.
Welcome to the real world. If I say that I don't think people deserve equal rights, people are going to think less of me. People are going to be less inclined to interact with me. People aren't going to want to support my business.
"Welcome to the real world. If I say I'm gay, people are going to think less of me. People are going to be less inclined to interact with me. People aren't going to want to support my business."
See the injustice yet? Oh no wait, you can only be racist if you're white! (err, something like that)
Hmmmm, it's 2014, the mob with torches and pitchforks has changed it's style no doubt, it is now a legion of twitter pages and Facebook followers, but it's still a mob. The pitchforks are now "likes" and the torches "shares".
You DO know what an analogy is right?
But that changes the crucial part - a mob can forcibly silence its target. Twitter shares aren't a threat of violence. They're just people expressing their opinion.
Should I avoid saying I think Brendan Eich is a person of low character, lest I leave him scared to express himself?
Force is NOT limited to physical harm. If you believe it is, you're politicking wrong.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Thanks to Xenphire @ Inkfox for the amazing new sig
“Thus strangely are our souls constructed, and by slight ligaments
are we bound to prosperity and ruin.”
― Mary Shelley, Frankenstein
So when a man holds a gun to your head and tells you to give him all your money, you're not being forced? Because you still have the choice not to give the money, right?
No, they're going to take your money either way. That's being forced.
As I written before, intent matters. Now I'll add another. Context matters too.
None of the examples you gave actually fit within the context of a boycott and the context within the word "force" is normally used.
This is not a coherent sentence. What does "the context within the word 'force' is normally used" mean? I think there are some words missing there.
That being said, would you say it's a use of force if my mother decided not to give me dinner unless I cleaned my room? Most normal people would. I would imagine you would say the same if it weren't in this particular thread and discussion.
It depends. If you're a child, and your mother is your only reasonable source of food, then yes, that's forcing, because you have no viable alternative. Starving isn't a reasonable choice.
I think I've been clear, even earlier in this very thread, that I'm talking about how Mozilla handled the situation.
People have a right, I'd even argue a duty in some cases, to boycott.
Nothing is wrong with boycotting. Mozilla should not have pushed him out.
He donated $1000 in support of Prop 8. back in 2008. They find out in 2013, and show the guy the door because Okcupid and thousands in the twitter-culture boycott?
Yeah, that isn't the right thing to do. If you think it was, fine, but I'm still not talking about the morality or righteousness of the boycott, I'm talking about him losing his job.
Sorry, I joined late, I might have missed from of your earlier posts, so I apologize if I've misunderstood you due to that.
[quote]
Eichs job was pretty damn irrelevant to his advocacy. $1000 in 2008 cost him his job in 2013?
I'm not talking about his past donation. That's not the issue, that just reveals the issue, which is that he's someone who advocates against equality. His success as CEO is relevant to his potential future advocacy. Obviously he's not going to travel back in time and undo his donation.
It's not a complicated position.
You support in principle the occasional job killing mass protest of a CEO who donated $1000, while ignoring the reality that thousands of janitors give their votes, and/or maybe $1 or more.
You're fighting a belief system by canning a few priests, while ignoring the congregation.
Boycotting a company is not the only means of advocacy on this issue. It is not that the "congregation" is ignored, it's just that a boycott would not be a relevant or effective means of responding to them.
"Welcome to the real world. If I say I'm gay, people are going to think less of me. People are going to be less inclined to interact with me. People aren't going to want to support my business."
See the injustice yet?
The injustice is in the thinking less of gay people. Not in the natural response to thinking less of people.
Oh no wait, you can only be racist if you're white! (err, something like that)
What the hell does this sentence have to do with anything?
Force is NOT limited to physical harm. If you believe it is, you're politicking wrong.
I'm certainly not suggesting it is. As I've said, forcing in this context is taking away choice. Eich has not had his choices taken away from him. Therefore he has not been forced. He is just as free to choose to continue advocating or not as he was before all this.
This is not a coherent sentence. What does "the context within the word 'force' is normally used" mean? I think there are some words missing there.
None of the examples you gave would be situations where the word "forced" would normally be used. In other words, the sentences and the context within them wouldn't normally match those where the word "force" would normally be used.
And do you plan on answering-
And I've written multiple times that dictionaries and conventional sources disagree with you.
You cannot come up with new definitions of words and their usage without giving clear and compelling reasons. You have not.
To remove choice. You are forced when you are restricted to only one option.
None of the examples you gave would be situations where the word "forced" would normally be used. In other words, the sentences and the context within them wouldn't normally match those where the word "force" would normally be used.
Yes, that's exactly the point I'm making. These things are not force. They are analogous to a boycott. They exert the same sort of influence on a person, but they are not force. Therefore a boycott is also not force.
And do you plan on answering-
And I've written multiple times that dictionaries and conventional sources disagree with you.
You cannot come up with new definitions of words and their usage without giving clear and compelling reasons. You have not.
I gave you a whole bunch of definitions of what I intended "harm" to mean. And like I said, if you know of a better word to use here then I'm all ears. I'm sure you know what I'm trying to convey here.
While you have posted a few definitions of harm you have yet to connect the concept of harm to this boycott. You have merely restated the same naked assertion with no substance to back up your claim.
Show me how this boycott has created any harm in a legal or moral sense of the word. It is not enough to throw around words like coercion, force, or censorship based off of your beliefs.
And you tell me what a boycott is meant to do then.
A boycott is a form of free speech that uses an association of like minded individuals and money to magnify the speech. A boycott is meant to send a collective message. Just like political donations which you have staunchly defended. Please explain to me how your argument is not special pleading.
If you are talking about harm to the C.E.O. that was not done by the boycotters. That was done by mozilla. Mozilla had a choice and they choose to fire him.
This is incredibly disingenuous. It's like saying that I didn't kill someone, a knife did.
This is not analogous. In my description I attributed harm to a group of moral agents with the ability to make decisions. Your analogy involves an inanimate object that cannot make decisions. Try again.
Since I have re-read my own quote, I am not even sure if the board did create harm to the c.e.o.
... Are you seriously saying that coercion is irrelevant so long as you make the choice that you are coerced into making?
Coercion requires force. You have yet to show a boycott constitutes force. You have repeatedly expressed your opinion that you think it is force.
I disapprove of why they're boycotting, not the act of boycott itself. I'm pretty sure I've made this clear.
You go much further than disapproval with your descriptions. You like to throw out words like harm, coercion, force, censorship, and punishment. These are more than disapproval these words convey a moral or legal wrong. Whenever you are asked to defend the use of these words you backtrack to this statement.
So please do me a favor and make a decision and then argue for that decision. Either there is a moral or legal wrong or there is not. Again this just seems like special pleading. Your argument can be summed up as "I think this use of free speech (boycott) is wrong because i do not like the intent of or why they are boycotting." Try to give more to this debate than your emotions and opinions.
Quote from algebra »
Political donations are used to institutionalize bigotry when a boycott can never do this.
is your bias showing loud and clear. Here-
It is not my bias that is showing here. It is you lack of any commitment to make this an adult conversation. You completely ignored the most important word in that quote. Institutionalize. That word means to codify into an institution. Based on that quote, specifically a governmental institution like a state law. While there may be some rare occurrence where a boycott does lead to a law that institutionalizes bigotry. It is far cry from the ballot initiative that you have so vehemently defended in this thread that actual did institutionalize bigotry on the very topic this thread is centered around prop 8.
So spare me your tired "is your bias showing loud and clear" retort when you cannot not even engage the quote directly.
That's what your and Algebra's claims regarding boycott amounts to- nothing but words. You need to give it substantiation.
You got mad when I asked you to define your terms. When I asked you to use a rigorous definition of harm you choose not to. Then you have the gall to write this. If you are not willing to elevate this debate above the common usage of force and harm then do not complain about anyone's argument for lack of substance.
While you have posted a few definitions of harm you have yet to connect the concept of harm to this boycott. You have merely restated the same naked assertion with no substance to back up your claim.
My understanding of a boycott is that it is an act enacted by a great number of people to force an individual or organization to change their stance, otherwise known as coercing them to change. They achieve through either bringing negative spotlight onto their target or causing financial loss through lack of sales.
I am associating the second sentence in the above with an intent to "harm". I hope this is enough for you to go on.
A boycott is a form of free speech that uses an association of like minded individuals and money to magnify the speech. A boycott is meant to send a collective message. Just like political donations which you have staunchly defended. Please explain to me how your argument is not special pleading.
As you can see. Our definitions "differ". They both largely mean the same, but mine and the dictionary definitions I brought in clearly state that coercion is involved. Yours does not. I don't know what to make of this.
This is not analogous. In my description I attributed harm to a group of moral agents with the ability to make decisions. Your analogy involves an inanimate object that cannot make decisions. Try again.
A decision that they made based on coercion from others. My analogy is meant to show that the one that actually does the damage may not be the cause of the damage.
It is not my bias that is showing here. It is you lack of any commitment to make this an adult conversation. You completely ignored the most important word in that quote. Institutionalize.
You got mad when I asked you to define your terms. When I asked you to use a rigorous definition of harm you choose not to. Then you have the gall to write this. If you are not willing to elevate this debate above the common usage of force and harm then do not complain about anyone's argument for lack of substance.
I got annoyed because, in my perspective, you're focusing on semantics. You know full well what I mean by the word but you focus on it in an attempt to trap me in a semantic failure.
That is why I'm annoyed with your attempts to force me to define specific words like "coercion", "harm", etc. They all have common meanings and those are what I refer to. I see no need for them to be elevated beyond their common usage. They are meant to be descriptive of how I see the actions of the boycotters. As such, your claim that my use of those words show that I do more than "disapprove" doesn't make sense to me either.
And, yes, I do have the gall to write that. Because you claim boycotts involve no use of force, when virtually every definition I can find online states that it involves the use of force or coercion.
You do not get to make up new definitions for words without very good reason. You may be correct in saying that I am being disingenuous for not properly defining certain words. But at least I'm not making up definitions, merely adhering to common usage.
So please do me a favor and make a decision and then argue for that decision. Either there is a moral or legal wrong or there is not. Again this just seems like special pleading. Your argument can be summed up as "I think this use of free speech (boycott) is wrong because i do not like the intent of or why they are boycotting." Try to give more to this debate than your emotions and opinions.
Clean slate time. You're right. I probably did go overboard with the descriptions. But that is exactly why I find it semantics; ultimately the descriptions don't mean much to me so much as my opinion and reasoning. That's why I find all this focus on "boycott" and "harm" pointless; they're tangential to my reasoning afaik. I would appreciate it if you focused on what followed instead of the previous. It is probably my best attempt to voice my full reasoning on this issue.
Fact- Someone discovered that the Mozilla CEO publicly donated money to Prop. 8. Words of this gets to OKCupid, which begins a boycott and a wave of protests hit Mozilla. Mozilla responds by (presumably) forcing the CEO to resign and releasing the following- https://blog.mozilla.org/blog/2014/04/03/brendan-eich-steps-down-as-mozilla-ceo/
My opinion - I fully respect OKcupid's right to boycott Mozilla and for people to protest Mozilla. That being said, I feel that they made a mistake.
Reason-
It seems counterproductive and possibly dangerous (slippery slope fallacy possibly, but knowing things about the past I don't really consider it slippery slope) to protest an individual who is utilizing his legal right. I personally equate him donating money to the organization meant to support Prop. 8 as him voting for it. Whether this is correct or not I don't know for certain. I do believe that 1k is a lot of money and whoever donates that much must also be making the time to vote. Furthermore, the money goes towards creating awareness for Prop. 8, so presumably it helped get more people to vote.
Therefore, I consider this situation as them protesting his vote.
This is why I consider this a step above protesting/boycotting a private company or individual doing something. In general, those "something" are not integral to our country's political idealism. But voting is the single foundation of our country's political structure and idealism. It is meant to be our legal ability to actually enact change that we desire, and a right that I don't think any citizen of the U.S. should be deprived of.
Thus, I am now making a distinction between what I believe should and shouldn't be protested. One can protest the ***** out of the Mozilla CEO publicly announcing that he is pro-Prop. 8 without me making a noise.
But I find it disturbing when one protests the ***** out of the Mozilla CEO because it was revealed that he donated money to Prop. 8.
You may think of this as a silly distinction to make, but I disagree. I disagree because I feel that this distinction is the only way we can actually preserve the idea that voting is an inviolable right of everyone in the U.S.
I probably forgot a couple of things. I am sleepy and my tendency as a writer is to require a number of revisions to fully flesh out my thoughts and correct wrong word usage/beliefs spoken improperly/etc. In any case, I think it's the best representation of "why" so far in the thread.
As someone who is bisexual, and someone who is also a Libertarian, and a user of Mozilla, my views on this are mixed. The CEO donated towarda Prop 8, a nasty, unconstitutional little bill which would have made life for people like myself much harder. He has the right to express his views however he wishes, but Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Expression works both ways. If you are willing to stand up and express your views, then you should be willing to take whatever social consequences may fall your way. Freedom of Speech covers the right to say what you wish, without one's liberty being threatened.
I gave you a whole bunch of definitions of what I intended "harm" to mean. And like I said, if you know of a better word to use here then I'm all ears. I'm sure you know what I'm trying to convey here.
While you have posted a few definitions of harm you have yet to connect the concept of harm to this boycott. You have merely restated the same naked assertion with no substance to back up your claim.
Show me how this boycott has created any harm in a legal or moral sense of the word. It is not enough to throw around words like coercion, force, or censorship based off of your beliefs.
It caused someone to lose their job, it caused a harm for Mozilla through public boycott and loss of their CEO. The argument isn't about whether harm was caused, the purpose of the boycott was to cause harm, it's whether it was moral/right to cause that harm.
And you tell me what a boycott is meant to do then.
A boycott is a form of free speech that uses an association of like minded individuals and money to magnify the speech. A boycott is meant to send a collective message. Just like political donations which you have staunchly defended. Please explain to me how your argument is not special pleading.
The purpose of any boycott is to apply force to others, the same as any political movement, including donations. Yes both use free speech as a means to apply force, but that fact don't exclude either from being force.
... Are you seriously saying that coercion is irrelevant so long as you make the choice that you are coerced into making?
Coercion requires force. You have yet to show a boycott constitutes force. You have repeatedly expressed your opinion that you think it is force.
What is the point of a boycott if it's not to apply force? If you didn't care for the product you'd simply not purchase it. The only reason to boycott is to force the company to change or scare others away from acting the same way as that company. In both cases, the intention is to force the actions of others. There is no reason to create public outcry and start a boycott if you don't want to force people to do something.
I disapprove of why they're boycotting, not the act of boycott itself. I'm pretty sure I've made this clear.
You go much further than disapproval with your descriptions. You like to throw out words like harm, coercion, force, censorship, and punishment. These are more than disapproval these words convey a moral or legal wrong. Whenever you are asked to defend the use of these words you backtrack to this statement.
So please do me a favor and make a decision and then argue for that decision. Either there is a moral or legal wrong or there is not. Again this just seems like special pleading. Your argument can be summed up as "I think this use of free speech (boycott) is wrong because i do not like the intent of or why they are boycotting." Try to give more to this debate than your emotions and opinions.
Why are those words necessarily bad? Are they bad because you think they are bad? What if he doesn't think they are as bad as you do? Calling something force/coercion/penalty/harm/censorship doesn't mean I disagree with it. I am very much in favor of force/coercion/penalty/harm when it stops someone from murdering me. I would think that most people would agree that these terms can be used both morally and immorally.
To remove choice. You are forced when you are restricted to only one option.
So, "You may either give me all of your money, or I'll kill your children." isn't force? You have 2 choices, you can either let your children die or give up your money. Any restriction of choices is force, it doesn't matter if you are left with one choice or a thousand choices, all that matters is that you have less.
The current argument seems to stand on the assumption that words are meaningless. It claims that words can't apply force or enact change. What good are words then? Why have words, why use them? Words are useless if they cannot enact changes in the world around us.
So, "You may either give me all of your money, or I'll kill your children." isn't force? You have 2 choices, you can either let your children die or give up your money. Any restriction of choices is force, it doesn't matter if you are left with one choice or a thousand choices, all that matters is that you have less.
This is a non-choice. No one would consider letting their children die a viable option.
Thus, I am now making a distinction between what I believe should and shouldn't be protested. One can protest the ***** out of the Mozilla CEO publicly announcing that he is pro-Prop. 8 without me making a noise.
But I find it disturbing when one protests the ***** out of the Mozilla CEO because it was revealed that he donated money to Prop. 8.
You may think of this as a silly distinction to make, but I disagree. I disagree because I feel that this distinction is the only way we can actually preserve the idea that voting is an inviolable right of everyone in the U.S.
Donating is not voting. Donating is advocacy. Donating money has the same effect as him publicly announcing his support. It does not have the same effect as voting. Voting is secret and should be secret. Advocating is not.
"Welcome to the real world. If I say I'm gay, people are going to think less of me. People are going to be less inclined to interact with me. People aren't going to want to support my business."
See the injustice yet? Oh no wait, you can only be racist if you're white! (err, something like that)
"Welcome to the real world. If I say I'm a murder, people are going to think less of me. People are going to be less inclined to interact with me. People aren't going to want to support my business."
I trust you see how ridiculous this is. There is nothing wrong with this line of reasoning as long as a person believes that the idea in question is morally deplorable. And so many years ago, a lot of people believed being gay was morally deplorable. The problem isn't the train of logic, the problem is the claim; and people are finding out that there is very little behind the claim that homosexuality is morally deplorable.
Mozilla presumably asked their CEO to resign because bad publicity is bad for a company, especially a browser company in the growing age of the internet. He wasn't let go because Mozilla didn't agree with his beliefs, he was let go because certain sectors of the public disagreed with his beliefs (and actions, however small they may have been) which the company believed would hurt their business. This is not an oppression of free thought, this is a product of it. If Eichs believes that he is right in his support of heterosexual marriage, he should stand by it, but he should not expect to keep his job if his position harms the company. It is, unfortunately, not as simple as you would like it to be.
"If you're Havengul problems I feel bad for you son, I got 99 problems and a Lich ain't one." - FSM
"In a world where money talks, silence is horrifying."
Donating is not voting. Donating is advocacy. Donating money has the same effect as him publicly announcing his support. It does not have the same effect as voting. Voting is secret and should be secret. Advocating is not.
Yes. I understand this. It should have been something I wrote in the post but I forgot.
My position on that-
You say that donating is advocacy and then wrote that donating is not voting. Ergo, I can only assume that you mean voting is not advocacy.
But, iirc, you also wrote that voting leads to actual effects. As such, how can voting be considered anything BUT the truest sense of advocacy?
My reasoning on this-
Donating money doesn't actually help to get the initiative you desire to succeed in the legal sense. Voting does. Given that advocacy is generally defined as showing support for any particular cause and working to secure said cause in a sense of power, both donating money and voting should be considered advocacy. Except voting is a "higher" form of it, since it is ultimately what holds actual legal power. Organizations that you donate money to are supposed to be working to secure more votes, after all.
The only difference is that one is public and the other is private.
We recognize that voting needs to be secret so that people cannot be targeted for how they voted. Now, here is the disconnect.
We know from history that people frequently target others who disagree with them, especially by trying to remove their ability to actually act on their beliefs. Voter intimidation, stuff like that. These people do so because they disagree with what the others believe, and believe in this disagreement strongly enough that they decide that action is the only viable way to fulfill their wishes.
This action ranges from boycotts to destroying their places of business/homes to outright murdering them. In short, it is a matter of scale.
It is this matter of scale that holds great importance in my mind, and probably the single reason why you folks disagree with me so much on this. I see a great big slippery slope whereas you do not. You see no potential harm that can come from accepting this kind of action whereas I've seen what happens when you allow action to speak for opinion.
Yes, this is most likely emotional. Slippery slope arguments generally are. But I also know that perfectly normal people are driven to do grotesque things in the defense of their beliefs and this happens frequently enough.
(After writing the below, I've realized that it goes more into a stream of consciousness writing than any real answer to people; so treat it as such. It is me simply thinking about my opinions on the general matter at hand and various counterpoints)
But back to the voting thing- Voting is meant to your legal voice showing your opinion on the matter. We recognize that votes should be secret so that people cannot be targeted for how they vote. But we can already fairly accurately predict how people will vote if they're vocal with their beliefs.
So, if we have to keep votes a secret in order to protect an individual's opinion and ensure their safety, then why are we allowed to target and commit actions against people's public opinion? Is the mere fact that an opinion is public enough for us to commit action against them?
I suppose it depends on the action. We're not allowed to fire someone based on their beliefs, because that would be discriminatory (though we're allowed to pressure them into resigning).
We're allowed to refuse any business with those whose beliefs we disagree with, since the entire act of interaction and business is meant to be voluntary. What is voluntarily given can be voluntarily taken, and this is the gist of the counter-argument against what I'm saying here. I don't have a good answer to it, besides that if everyone takes this at face value and we hold every opinion dear, then I very much doubt anyone will be able to interact with one another. I mean, I know for a fact that my parents and I disagree on a number of big things.
I know the counterpoint to that is that most people don't voice their opinions publicly, and so long as you don't voice your opinions publicly you'll be fine. But that just sounds... wrong to me. Aren't we supposed to be able to voice our opinions without fear of consequences?
To which the counterpoint I've seen in this thread thus far goes something like this - "Aren't I allowed to voice my opinion that rejects his opinion?". To which I have to reply "yes, you are, but I maintain that you shouldn't be allowed to make an action against it". (And even then we run into a debate over just what exactly "action" means. Speaking is an action. Breaking things is an action. Then I would have to get into talk about what are acceptable and unacceptable actions. It would get hopelessly convoluted and beyond the scope of what reasonably occurs on this subforum.)
But boycotts slightly more unique in that if I choose to deny your ability to refuse to buy at a business, then I would be denying your ability to voluntarily choose where you shop. Which is also wrong.
Voting is not advocacy. Advocacy is an attempt to get other people to vote the way you want them to. Voting and advocacy are both means of advancing a cause, but that does not imply that voting is advocacy any more than it implies that advocacy is voting. Voting is exercising your own voice in the process, whereas advocacy, be it a donation or a speech, is an attempt to influence others. And when they hear your attempt at influencing them, what can you expect but that it will alter the way they think of you and interact with you? That's the price you pay for advocacy - you're bringing your view to the public, and that interaction is a two-way street.
So, "You may either give me all of your money, or I'll kill your children." isn't force? You have 2 choices, you can either let your children die or give up your money. Any restriction of choices is force, it doesn't matter if you are left with one choice or a thousand choices, all that matters is that you have less.
This is a non-choice. No one would consider letting their children die a viable option.
And if the first choice was to commit suicide, instead? There are plenty of people that would let their children die rather than commit suicide.
Voting is not advocacy. Advocacy is an attempt to get other people to vote the way you want them to.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
whereas advocacy, be it a donation or a speech, is an attempt to influence others. And when they hear your attempt at influencing them, what can you expect but that it will alter the way they think of you and interact with you? That's the price you pay for advocacy - you're bringing your view to the public, and that interaction is a two-way street.
There are different ways to define advocacy in a political meaning. In all honesty, donation in the manner that the CEO did doesn't really fit in the advocacy as you would generally use it when referring to advocacy groups or lobbying, which is what you seem to be attempting to define it as in the above quote.
Why? For all we know, the man merely donated money and never went out to join an advocacy or lobbyist group, nor did he apparently ever talk about his views in public. Hence the reason it never became an issue until someone went through the public donor rolls to Prop. 8.
Your definition of donation=advocacy is simply too broad.
Either advocacy means support of an issue, in which cause donation and voting are equal in that regard and merely different ways to express support, or advocacy means the normal definition embodied by interest/advocacy/lobbyist groups and their intent/actions. In which case the definition is very specific and public donation wouldn't normally be included.
There are different ways to define advocacy in a political meaning. In all honesty, donation in the manner that the CEO did doesn't really fit in the advocacy as you would generally use it when referring to advocacy groups or lobbying, which is what you seem to be attempting to define it as in the above quote.
Why? For all we know, the man merely donated money and never went out to join an advocacy or lobbyist group, nor did he apparently ever talk about his views in public. Hence the reason it never became an issue until someone went through the public donor rolls to Prop. 8.
Your definition of donation=advocacy is simply too broad.
Either advocacy means support of an issue, in which cause donation and voting are equal in that regard and merely different ways to express support, or advocacy means the normal definition embodied by interest/advocacy/lobbyist groups and their intent/actions. In which case the definition is very specific and public donation wouldn't normally be included.
Giving money to have someone else do the persuading for you does not magically transform advocacy into voting.
What makes a situation a dilemma instead of an actual choice?
Obvious typo... I meant to write "a supposed impossible choice".
And if you read what the definition of a dilemma is, you'd notice that it refers to a supposed impossible choice, for any number of reasons. Still, choice means the same thing as it does regardless of how you use it. If you are given two or more options, then you are given a choice. If those choices all lead to incredibly undesirable or unclear consequences such that it's impossible to know whether you made the correct choice, then you have a dilemma on your hands.
But a choice is still a choice. You cannot reasonably decide that choices you don't like are "non-choices" or simply not viable. You are merely creating different levels of acceptability within a given choice, but the word and its meaning still remains the same.
I imagine you mean donating instead of advocacy in that sentence?
Maybe. That's why I said I'm not sure if my reasoning behind how I equated donating in this case with voting is a good one.
Your claim of donating=advocacy and voting=/= advocacy isn't a valid counterpoint though.
No, I mean advocacy. He donated money so that other people could go out and advocate. It's still advocacy.
Voting is what directly impacts policy. Direct advocacy is a step removed from that, where you try to convince someone else to vote in a particular way. You are apparently fine with boycotting or whatever other response to this direct advocacy. Donating to someone engaged in direct advocacy is another step removed. You seem to feel that this second step somehow brings us back to being in the same category as voting. How does that make any sense?
So why is donating a form of advocacy, even if you're not out giving the speech or appearing in the commercial? Because the money goes to produce those speeches and commercials. That's the thing you're helping to create.
From a legal standpoint, we see in cases like Citizens United that donating money is considered a form of political advocacy. Some feel it is the same as political speech. Those who disagree feel that it is a step removed from speech - that is, they place it further from voting, and believe it deserves less protection.
Obvious typo... I meant to write "a supposed impossible choice".
And if you read what the definition of a dilemma is, you'd notice that it refers to a supposed impossible choice, for any number of reasons. Still, choice means the same thing as it does regardless of how you use it. If you are given two or more options, then you are given a choice. If those choices all lead to incredibly undesirable or unclear consequences such that it's impossible to know whether you made the correct choice, then you have a dilemma on your hands.
But a choice is still a choice. You cannot reasonably decide that choices you don't like are "non-choices" or simply not viable. You are merely creating different levels of acceptability within a given choice, but the word and its meaning still remains the same.
If you don't like my definition of choice, I'd be happy to present a different definition of force: to force is to reduce a situation to only one (or zero) non-vacuous option. Whether you want to call the vacuous options "choices" is really irrelevant to this discussion.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I'm confused. Are we talking about whether it was a good idea for people to boycott, or are we talking about how Mozilla handled the situation?
I've already addressed this exact point. It has nothing to do with him being rich. It has to do with the position of leadership. When you're the leader of the company, its success contributes to your prestige and influence.
That's...not even close to what I said. I don't think their job is relevant to their advocacy. Their job doesn't contribute to the effectiveness with which they can advocate.
Wow, what a crushing rebuttal.
Welcome to the real world. If I say that I don't think people deserve equal rights, people are going to think less of me. People are going to be less inclined to interact with me. People aren't going to want to support my business.
But that changes the crucial part - a mob can forcibly silence its target. Twitter shares aren't a threat of violence. They're just people expressing their opinion.
Should I avoid saying I think Brendan Eich is a person of low character, lest I leave him scared to express himself?
No.
And in that statement you specifically stated that "boycotts cannot force people to change". But that's all you did. You didn't support this claim. You just wrote a bunch of following sentences that expand on the claim, but little else. Essentially, you provide no proof.
I countered with conventional definitions of a boycott. All of which state that a boycott is meant to bring force onto its target in an attempt to create a response.
Like I said, you're doing nothing but writing empty words at this point. Substantiate them. Actually find some sort of proof outside of your own head that boycotts are not meant to force change and merely a decision to avoid the business/what have you.
The person being boycotted might decide to change. But that doesn't mean they've been forced to do so. If I tell someone I think they're a bad person, and they decide to change their behavior as a result, that doesn't mean I've forced them to change. If I tell someone I don't want to hang out with them as long as they're saying hateful things, they might decide to stop saying them, but that doesn't mean I've forced them to stop.
And I've written multiple times that dictionaries and conventional sources disagree with you.
You cannot come up with new definitions of words and their usage without giving clear and compelling reasons. You have not.
So when a man holds a gun to your head and tells you to give him all your money, you're not being forced? Because you still have the choice not to give the money, right?
As I written before, intent matters. Now I'll add another. Context matters too.
None of the examples you gave actually fit within the context of a boycott and the context within the word "force" is normally used.
That being said, would you say it's a use of force if my mother decided not to give me dinner unless I cleaned my room? Most normal people would. I would imagine you would say the same if it weren't in this particular thread and discussion.
I think I've been clear, even earlier in this very thread, that I'm talking about how Mozilla handled the situation.
People have a right, I'd even argue a duty in some cases, to boycott.
Nothing is wrong with boycotting. Mozilla should not have pushed him out.
He donated $1000 in support of Prop 8. back in 2008. They find out in 2013, and show the guy the door because Okcupid and thousands in the twitter-culture boycott?
Yeah, that isn't the right thing to do. If you think it was, fine, but I'm still not talking about the morality or righteousness of the boycott, I'm talking about him losing his job.
Eichs job was pretty damn irrelevant to his advocacy. $1000 in 2008 cost him his job in 2013?
It's not a complicated position.
You support in principle the occasional job killing mass protest of a CEO who donated $1000, while ignoring the reality that thousands of janitors give their votes, and/or maybe $1 or more.
You're fighting a belief system by canning a few priests, while ignoring the congregation.
"Welcome to the real world. If I say I'm gay, people are going to think less of me. People are going to be less inclined to interact with me. People aren't going to want to support my business."
See the injustice yet? Oh no wait, you can only be racist if you're white! (err, something like that)
Force is NOT limited to physical harm. If you believe it is, you're politicking wrong.
Thanks to Xenphire @ Inkfox for the amazing new sig
“Thus strangely are our souls constructed, and by slight ligaments
are we bound to prosperity and ruin.”
― Mary Shelley, Frankenstein
No, they're going to take your money either way. That's being forced.
This is not a coherent sentence. What does "the context within the word 'force' is normally used" mean? I think there are some words missing there.
It depends. If you're a child, and your mother is your only reasonable source of food, then yes, that's forcing, because you have no viable alternative. Starving isn't a reasonable choice.
Sorry, I joined late, I might have missed from of your earlier posts, so I apologize if I've misunderstood you due to that.
I'm not talking about his past donation. That's not the issue, that just reveals the issue, which is that he's someone who advocates against equality. His success as CEO is relevant to his potential future advocacy. Obviously he's not going to travel back in time and undo his donation.
Boycotting a company is not the only means of advocacy on this issue. It is not that the "congregation" is ignored, it's just that a boycott would not be a relevant or effective means of responding to them.
The injustice is in the thinking less of gay people. Not in the natural response to thinking less of people.
What the hell does this sentence have to do with anything?
I'm certainly not suggesting it is. As I've said, forcing in this context is taking away choice. Eich has not had his choices taken away from him. Therefore he has not been forced. He is just as free to choose to continue advocating or not as he was before all this.
What?
Remind me what your definition of force is again?
None of the examples you gave would be situations where the word "forced" would normally be used. In other words, the sentences and the context within them wouldn't normally match those where the word "force" would normally be used.
And do you plan on answering-
?
To remove choice. You are forced when you are restricted to only one option.
Yes, that's exactly the point I'm making. These things are not force. They are analogous to a boycott. They exert the same sort of influence on a person, but they are not force. Therefore a boycott is also not force.
I'm giving you explanations of my reasons.
While you have posted a few definitions of harm you have yet to connect the concept of harm to this boycott. You have merely restated the same naked assertion with no substance to back up your claim.
Show me how this boycott has created any harm in a legal or moral sense of the word. It is not enough to throw around words like coercion, force, or censorship based off of your beliefs.
A boycott is a form of free speech that uses an association of like minded individuals and money to magnify the speech. A boycott is meant to send a collective message. Just like political donations which you have staunchly defended. Please explain to me how your argument is not special pleading.
This is not analogous. In my description I attributed harm to a group of moral agents with the ability to make decisions. Your analogy involves an inanimate object that cannot make decisions. Try again.
Since I have re-read my own quote, I am not even sure if the board did create harm to the c.e.o.
Coercion requires force. You have yet to show a boycott constitutes force. You have repeatedly expressed your opinion that you think it is force.
You go much further than disapproval with your descriptions. You like to throw out words like harm, coercion, force, censorship, and punishment. These are more than disapproval these words convey a moral or legal wrong. Whenever you are asked to defend the use of these words you backtrack to this statement.
So please do me a favor and make a decision and then argue for that decision. Either there is a moral or legal wrong or there is not. Again this just seems like special pleading. Your argument can be summed up as "I think this use of free speech (boycott) is wrong because i do not like the intent of or why they are boycotting." Try to give more to this debate than your emotions and opinions.
It is not my bias that is showing here. It is you lack of any commitment to make this an adult conversation. You completely ignored the most important word in that quote. Institutionalize. That word means to codify into an institution. Based on that quote, specifically a governmental institution like a state law. While there may be some rare occurrence where a boycott does lead to a law that institutionalizes bigotry. It is far cry from the ballot initiative that you have so vehemently defended in this thread that actual did institutionalize bigotry on the very topic this thread is centered around prop 8.
So spare me your tired "is your bias showing loud and clear" retort when you cannot not even engage the quote directly.
You got mad when I asked you to define your terms. When I asked you to use a rigorous definition of harm you choose not to. Then you have the gall to write this. If you are not willing to elevate this debate above the common usage of force and harm then do not complain about anyone's argument for lack of substance.
My understanding of a boycott is that it is an act enacted by a great number of people to force an individual or organization to change their stance, otherwise known as coercing them to change. They achieve through either bringing negative spotlight onto their target or causing financial loss through lack of sales.
I am associating the second sentence in the above with an intent to "harm". I hope this is enough for you to go on.
As you can see. Our definitions "differ". They both largely mean the same, but mine and the dictionary definitions I brought in clearly state that coercion is involved. Yours does not. I don't know what to make of this.
A decision that they made based on coercion from others. My analogy is meant to show that the one that actually does the damage may not be the cause of the damage.
You're right. I missed that word. I apologize.
I got annoyed because, in my perspective, you're focusing on semantics. You know full well what I mean by the word but you focus on it in an attempt to trap me in a semantic failure.
That is why I'm annoyed with your attempts to force me to define specific words like "coercion", "harm", etc. They all have common meanings and those are what I refer to. I see no need for them to be elevated beyond their common usage. They are meant to be descriptive of how I see the actions of the boycotters. As such, your claim that my use of those words show that I do more than "disapprove" doesn't make sense to me either.
And, yes, I do have the gall to write that. Because you claim boycotts involve no use of force, when virtually every definition I can find online states that it involves the use of force or coercion.
You do not get to make up new definitions for words without very good reason. You may be correct in saying that I am being disingenuous for not properly defining certain words. But at least I'm not making up definitions, merely adhering to common usage.
Clean slate time. You're right. I probably did go overboard with the descriptions. But that is exactly why I find it semantics; ultimately the descriptions don't mean much to me so much as my opinion and reasoning. That's why I find all this focus on "boycott" and "harm" pointless; they're tangential to my reasoning afaik. I would appreciate it if you focused on what followed instead of the previous. It is probably my best attempt to voice my full reasoning on this issue.
Fact- Someone discovered that the Mozilla CEO publicly donated money to Prop. 8. Words of this gets to OKCupid, which begins a boycott and a wave of protests hit Mozilla. Mozilla responds by (presumably) forcing the CEO to resign and releasing the following- https://blog.mozilla.org/blog/2014/04/03/brendan-eich-steps-down-as-mozilla-ceo/
My opinion - I fully respect OKcupid's right to boycott Mozilla and for people to protest Mozilla. That being said, I feel that they made a mistake.
Reason-
It seems counterproductive and possibly dangerous (slippery slope fallacy possibly, but knowing things about the past I don't really consider it slippery slope) to protest an individual who is utilizing his legal right. I personally equate him donating money to the organization meant to support Prop. 8 as him voting for it. Whether this is correct or not I don't know for certain. I do believe that 1k is a lot of money and whoever donates that much must also be making the time to vote. Furthermore, the money goes towards creating awareness for Prop. 8, so presumably it helped get more people to vote.
Therefore, I consider this situation as them protesting his vote.
This is why I consider this a step above protesting/boycotting a private company or individual doing something. In general, those "something" are not integral to our country's political idealism. But voting is the single foundation of our country's political structure and idealism. It is meant to be our legal ability to actually enact change that we desire, and a right that I don't think any citizen of the U.S. should be deprived of.
Thus, I am now making a distinction between what I believe should and shouldn't be protested. One can protest the ***** out of the Mozilla CEO publicly announcing that he is pro-Prop. 8 without me making a noise.
But I find it disturbing when one protests the ***** out of the Mozilla CEO because it was revealed that he donated money to Prop. 8.
You may think of this as a silly distinction to make, but I disagree. I disagree because I feel that this distinction is the only way we can actually preserve the idea that voting is an inviolable right of everyone in the U.S.
I probably forgot a couple of things. I am sleepy and my tendency as a writer is to require a number of revisions to fully flesh out my thoughts and correct wrong word usage/beliefs spoken improperly/etc. In any case, I think it's the best representation of "why" so far in the thread.
Have at it.
It caused someone to lose their job, it caused a harm for Mozilla through public boycott and loss of their CEO. The argument isn't about whether harm was caused, the purpose of the boycott was to cause harm, it's whether it was moral/right to cause that harm.
The purpose of any boycott is to apply force to others, the same as any political movement, including donations. Yes both use free speech as a means to apply force, but that fact don't exclude either from being force.
What is the point of a boycott if it's not to apply force? If you didn't care for the product you'd simply not purchase it. The only reason to boycott is to force the company to change or scare others away from acting the same way as that company. In both cases, the intention is to force the actions of others. There is no reason to create public outcry and start a boycott if you don't want to force people to do something.
Why are those words necessarily bad? Are they bad because you think they are bad? What if he doesn't think they are as bad as you do? Calling something force/coercion/penalty/harm/censorship doesn't mean I disagree with it. I am very much in favor of force/coercion/penalty/harm when it stops someone from murdering me. I would think that most people would agree that these terms can be used both morally and immorally.
So, "You may either give me all of your money, or I'll kill your children." isn't force? You have 2 choices, you can either let your children die or give up your money. Any restriction of choices is force, it doesn't matter if you are left with one choice or a thousand choices, all that matters is that you have less.
The current argument seems to stand on the assumption that words are meaningless. It claims that words can't apply force or enact change. What good are words then? Why have words, why use them? Words are useless if they cannot enact changes in the world around us.
This is a non-choice. No one would consider letting their children die a viable option.
Donating is not voting. Donating is advocacy. Donating money has the same effect as him publicly announcing his support. It does not have the same effect as voting. Voting is secret and should be secret. Advocating is not.
"Welcome to the real world. If I say I'm a murder, people are going to think less of me. People are going to be less inclined to interact with me. People aren't going to want to support my business."
I trust you see how ridiculous this is. There is nothing wrong with this line of reasoning as long as a person believes that the idea in question is morally deplorable. And so many years ago, a lot of people believed being gay was morally deplorable. The problem isn't the train of logic, the problem is the claim; and people are finding out that there is very little behind the claim that homosexuality is morally deplorable.
Mozilla presumably asked their CEO to resign because bad publicity is bad for a company, especially a browser company in the growing age of the internet. He wasn't let go because Mozilla didn't agree with his beliefs, he was let go because certain sectors of the public disagreed with his beliefs (and actions, however small they may have been) which the company believed would hurt their business. This is not an oppression of free thought, this is a product of it. If Eichs believes that he is right in his support of heterosexual marriage, he should stand by it, but he should not expect to keep his job if his position harms the company. It is, unfortunately, not as simple as you would like it to be.
"In a world where money talks, silence is horrifying."
Ashcoat Bear of Limited
Yes. I understand this. It should have been something I wrote in the post but I forgot.
My position on that-
You say that donating is advocacy and then wrote that donating is not voting. Ergo, I can only assume that you mean voting is not advocacy.
But, iirc, you also wrote that voting leads to actual effects. As such, how can voting be considered anything BUT the truest sense of advocacy?
My reasoning on this-
Donating money doesn't actually help to get the initiative you desire to succeed in the legal sense. Voting does. Given that advocacy is generally defined as showing support for any particular cause and working to secure said cause in a sense of power, both donating money and voting should be considered advocacy. Except voting is a "higher" form of it, since it is ultimately what holds actual legal power. Organizations that you donate money to are supposed to be working to secure more votes, after all.
The only difference is that one is public and the other is private.
We recognize that voting needs to be secret so that people cannot be targeted for how they voted. Now, here is the disconnect.
We know from history that people frequently target others who disagree with them, especially by trying to remove their ability to actually act on their beliefs. Voter intimidation, stuff like that. These people do so because they disagree with what the others believe, and believe in this disagreement strongly enough that they decide that action is the only viable way to fulfill their wishes.
This action ranges from boycotts to destroying their places of business/homes to outright murdering them. In short, it is a matter of scale.
It is this matter of scale that holds great importance in my mind, and probably the single reason why you folks disagree with me so much on this. I see a great big slippery slope whereas you do not. You see no potential harm that can come from accepting this kind of action whereas I've seen what happens when you allow action to speak for opinion.
Yes, this is most likely emotional. Slippery slope arguments generally are. But I also know that perfectly normal people are driven to do grotesque things in the defense of their beliefs and this happens frequently enough.
(After writing the below, I've realized that it goes more into a stream of consciousness writing than any real answer to people; so treat it as such. It is me simply thinking about my opinions on the general matter at hand and various counterpoints)
But back to the voting thing- Voting is meant to your legal voice showing your opinion on the matter. We recognize that votes should be secret so that people cannot be targeted for how they vote. But we can already fairly accurately predict how people will vote if they're vocal with their beliefs.
So, if we have to keep votes a secret in order to protect an individual's opinion and ensure their safety, then why are we allowed to target and commit actions against people's public opinion? Is the mere fact that an opinion is public enough for us to commit action against them?
I suppose it depends on the action. We're not allowed to fire someone based on their beliefs, because that would be discriminatory (though we're allowed to pressure them into resigning).
We're allowed to refuse any business with those whose beliefs we disagree with, since the entire act of interaction and business is meant to be voluntary. What is voluntarily given can be voluntarily taken, and this is the gist of the counter-argument against what I'm saying here. I don't have a good answer to it, besides that if everyone takes this at face value and we hold every opinion dear, then I very much doubt anyone will be able to interact with one another. I mean, I know for a fact that my parents and I disagree on a number of big things.
I know the counterpoint to that is that most people don't voice their opinions publicly, and so long as you don't voice your opinions publicly you'll be fine. But that just sounds... wrong to me. Aren't we supposed to be able to voice our opinions without fear of consequences?
To which the counterpoint I've seen in this thread thus far goes something like this - "Aren't I allowed to voice my opinion that rejects his opinion?". To which I have to reply "yes, you are, but I maintain that you shouldn't be allowed to make an action against it". (And even then we run into a debate over just what exactly "action" means. Speaking is an action. Breaking things is an action. Then I would have to get into talk about what are acceptable and unacceptable actions. It would get hopelessly convoluted and beyond the scope of what reasonably occurs on this subforum.)
But boycotts slightly more unique in that if I choose to deny your ability to refuse to buy at a business, then I would be denying your ability to voluntarily choose where you shop. Which is also wrong.
That's all I've got for now.
And if the first choice was to commit suicide, instead? There are plenty of people that would let their children die rather than commit suicide.
That is a situation in which there are no viable choices.
What makes a choice "viable"?
There are different ways to define advocacy in a political meaning. In all honesty, donation in the manner that the CEO did doesn't really fit in the advocacy as you would generally use it when referring to advocacy groups or lobbying, which is what you seem to be attempting to define it as in the above quote.
Why? For all we know, the man merely donated money and never went out to join an advocacy or lobbyist group, nor did he apparently ever talk about his views in public. Hence the reason it never became an issue until someone went through the public donor rolls to Prop. 8.
Your definition of donation=advocacy is simply too broad.
Either advocacy means support of an issue, in which cause donation and voting are equal in that regard and merely different ways to express support, or advocacy means the normal definition embodied by interest/advocacy/lobbyist groups and their intent/actions. In which case the definition is very specific and public donation wouldn't normally be included.
Please do.
Because your definition of choice sounds really hamfisted.
A suppose impossible choice is still a choice. That's sort of what the word means.
Giving money to have someone else do the persuading for you does not magically transform advocacy into voting.
What does "a suppose impossible choice" mean?
What makes a situation a dilemma instead of an actual choice?
"A dilemma is a problem offering two possibilities, neither of which is practically acceptable."
Vacuous options are not options.
I imagine you mean donating instead of advocacy in that sentence?
Maybe. That's why I said I'm not sure if my reasoning behind how I equated donating in this case with voting is a good one.
Your claim of donating=advocacy and voting=/= advocacy isn't a valid counterpoint though.
Obvious typo... I meant to write "a supposed impossible choice".
And if you read what the definition of a dilemma is, you'd notice that it refers to a supposed impossible choice, for any number of reasons. Still, choice means the same thing as it does regardless of how you use it. If you are given two or more options, then you are given a choice. If those choices all lead to incredibly undesirable or unclear consequences such that it's impossible to know whether you made the correct choice, then you have a dilemma on your hands.
But a choice is still a choice. You cannot reasonably decide that choices you don't like are "non-choices" or simply not viable. You are merely creating different levels of acceptability within a given choice, but the word and its meaning still remains the same.
No, I mean advocacy. He donated money so that other people could go out and advocate. It's still advocacy.
Voting is what directly impacts policy. Direct advocacy is a step removed from that, where you try to convince someone else to vote in a particular way. You are apparently fine with boycotting or whatever other response to this direct advocacy. Donating to someone engaged in direct advocacy is another step removed. You seem to feel that this second step somehow brings us back to being in the same category as voting. How does that make any sense?
So why is donating a form of advocacy, even if you're not out giving the speech or appearing in the commercial? Because the money goes to produce those speeches and commercials. That's the thing you're helping to create.
From a legal standpoint, we see in cases like Citizens United that donating money is considered a form of political advocacy. Some feel it is the same as political speech. Those who disagree feel that it is a step removed from speech - that is, they place it further from voting, and believe it deserves less protection.
If you don't like my definition of choice, I'd be happy to present a different definition of force: to force is to reduce a situation to only one (or zero) non-vacuous option. Whether you want to call the vacuous options "choices" is really irrelevant to this discussion.