The right to protest is fine. I don't like people protesting merely because someone exercised his/her political rights.
Oh, we should only be able to protest for superfluous things, like the color tie he wore today?
The word he used is "merely", so it's pretty obvious he is saying the opposite: we should save our protests for more harmful things than political speech.
If anything, we should be protesting the protesters who protested because someone exercised his/her political rights.
Its not something so simple and easy to slam as "Oh, they promote tolerance, but not tolerating intolerance is itself intolerant, ergo, lol"
I'd say that anyone trying that line of reasoning is over-simplifying what the "tolerance" movement is. I view it more in a utilitarian framework. Promoting tolerance, particularly in a legally equal live and let live kind of way, is a net good. Letting two dudes get married or letting people who previously couldn't vote vote or what have you provides tangible gains that are not equivalent to whatever it is that the people opposing those activities gain by believing its moral or whatever. We could almost liken it to the Pareto efficiency from gains from trade.
And in this case a CEO was forced to resign because of his beliefs.
It seems more to me that it is a trade-off rather than a net-gain.
However, popular speech rarely need protecting. It's the unpopular speech that requires it.
There is no market of ideas when people remain silent out of fear.
You mean like gay people afraid of coming out because of people who say they are going to hell and bullying them?
What of the day when MY beliefs become those of an unpopular minority?
On that day you are going to have to decide, what is more important, your belief or social acceptance.
Should racists/bigots be allowed to work, and keep a job to provide for themselves and their family?
How so, if we punish their employers for employing them to the extent they get fired (or asked "politely" to resign)?
Do we follow that bigot to their next job, and punish that employer too?
Why should I have to give money to someone who will use it to spend on activities I do not agree with? Is it wrong of me to not give $5 to a person who spends all their money on drugs? All the people were saying was, we aren't going to give our money to you to give to someone who will use it to attack gay rights, you can either keep him or lose us as customers. What is wrong with that?
Was there, no, is there STILL not days when a homosexual feels they must hide themselves from exposure in order to keep their job, or keep their social capital in tact?
Do we not consider this an unfortunate wrong, and a travesty of equal justice?
I see there being a difference between intolerance of people and intolerance of intolerance itself.
Last I checked, we didn't elect private business managers.
They are hired or promoted based on job performance, education, and qualifications.
All of which this guy meets no doubt, or at least met when they hired him - but his disqualifying trait? No, not a felony conviction, not a DUI, or a rape charge. His crime was supporting his political beliefs with his own money.
Anyone remember someone getting fired just because they turned out to be gay?
I do, it wasn't that long ago. It was wrong then, and it's wrong now. The reverse, likewise.
You can still be fired for being gay in many states. The argument I was addressing was the overarching statement that we can't protest peoples activities because of their political stance, I gave an example showing that is in fact, generally not agreed upon.
"We understand your concern, and Mozilla does not share the beliefs of it's individual employees, but Mozilla also does not punish it's employees for their political beliefs, nor do we intend to punish them for exercising their first amendment rights."
Seems like something I'd love to hear them say.
But we will pay him a very hefty salary based on money we earn from having you as users of Firefox that will with good possibility go to discriminate against gay people.
And we have arrived at that conclusion by CONVINCING MOST PEOPLE THAT THOSE IDEAS ARE MORALLY REPREHENSIBLE.
Don't you ******* get it? We didn't force the ideas through their throats. We convinced enough people until that the overwhelming majority accepts our ideas.
What we should be doing is "This idea is right, and this is WHY it's right. Please listen to me!"
Instead, what happened here is "This idea is right, and you MUST accept it. If you do not, then bye bye!"
That is incredibly dangerous. It is tyranny at its most basic form.
And, the problem is, many liberals seem to be operating under that ideal nowadays. It really does scare me that they cannot see how they're doing essentially the same thing that everyone they oppose are doing.
You see, it DOESN'T MATTER THAT YOU THINK IT IS A GOOD IDEA/MORALITY/HAVE HAVE YOU. What matters is that your idea is so damned good that it can CONVINCE OTHERS.
The Civil Rights Era was most certainly shoving things down people's throats. The South didn't want to integrate, they were forced to. The country was better for it. We weren't going to wait until enough of the southerners were okay with it.
However, popular speech rarely need protecting. It's the unpopular speech that requires it.
There is no market of ideas when people remain silent out of fear.
You mean like gay people afraid of coming out because of people who say they are going to hell and bullying them?
As a matter of fact, YES.
Just like that.
What of the day when MY beliefs become those of an unpopular minority?
On that day you are going to have to decide, what is more important, your belief or social acceptance.
Ohhhhhhh, okay.
So I should change my beliefs to fit in with popular opinion. Gotcha.
Should racists/bigots be allowed to work, and keep a job to provide for themselves and their family?
How so, if we punish their employers for employing them to the extent they get fired (or asked "politely" to resign)?
Do we follow that bigot to their next job, and punish that employer too?
Why should I have to give money to someone who will use it to spend on activities I do not agree with? Is it wrong of me to not give $5 to a person who spends all their money on drugs? All the people were saying was, we aren't going to give our money to you to give to someone who will use it to attack gay rights, you can either keep him or lose us as customers. What is wrong with that?
Do you not realize that it's precisely what we do a hundred times everyday.
What, so no gas pumper, Walmart grocery clerk, cable repairman, oil changer, cellular customer service rep...ever spends their money on drugs, or god forbid, supporting a cause I disagree with??
LOL. Really, LOL.
I know I give my money to probably hundreds of people who use their paychecks to do things I disagree with.
Let me go live in the woods off-grid to avoid giving my money to a company who employs someone who votes against my interests.
Was there, no, is there STILL not days when a homosexual feels they must hide themselves from exposure in order to keep their job, or keep their social capital in tact?
Do we not consider this an unfortunate wrong, and a travesty of equal justice?
I see there being a difference between intolerance of people and intolerance of intolerance itself.
Intolerance wasn't pressured to resign from their job.
Hate the sin, not the sinner?
Last I checked, we didn't elect private business managers.
They are hired or promoted based on job performance, education, and qualifications.
All of which this guy meets no doubt, or at least met when they hired him - but his disqualifying trait? No, not a felony conviction, not a DUI, or a rape charge. His crime was supporting his political beliefs with his own money.
Anyone remember someone getting fired just because they turned out to be gay?
I do, it wasn't that long ago. It was wrong then, and it's wrong now. The reverse, likewise.
You can still be fired for being gay in many states. The argument I was addressing was the overarching statement that we can't protest peoples activities because of their political stance, I gave an example showing that is in fact, generally not agreed upon.
I never said you couldn't protest.
Heck, I never said you couldn't or shouldn't or wouldn't boycott.
I myself am planning to boycott the TMNT reboot by Michael Bay.
Hopefully, I'll have an army of supporters gathered at the local theater.
"We understand your concern, and Mozilla does not share the beliefs of it's individual employees, but Mozilla also does not punish it's employees for their political beliefs, nor do we intend to punish them for exercising their first amendment rights."
Seems like something I'd love to hear them say.
But we will pay him a very hefty salary based on money we earn from having you as users of Firefox that will with good possibility go to discriminate against gay people.
I'd like you to post the credible link that shows me that I do not currently give a single cent of my money to a liberal anti-gun democrat who has been supporting more gun control or a ban on guns from the following companies...
Apple, ABC, Google, Chevron, Mazda, Chase, Comcast, Direct TV, Fred Meyers, Pfizer, Dickies, Bic, Head & Shoulders...
Vicariously, I'm sure my hard earned money has gone to the paychecks of hundreds of people I disagree with ideologically.
I go to the voting booth and vote against liberal gun grabber initiatives, and right wing bigot initiatives, I DON'T demand their resignations from General Mills.
For how dare the person who ships my Honey Nut Cheerios think differently than I do.
Here is the thing, the CEO of a company represents that company at all times. All his decisions and actions directly or indirectly impact the company he works for. The company has every right to foster a tolerant view of LGBT people. They feel they can not foster this belief with a CEO who does not share this view. My opinion would be much different if it were an hourly worker but this former CEO actions has created a lot publicity and resulted in negative actions being taken against firefox.
We have the right to free speech. We also have to accept the responsibility and consequences that comes with it. If your company stands for equality how can you have an intolerate CEO and hold any sort of credibility?
The Civil Rights Era was most certainly shoving things down people's throats. The South didn't want to integrate, they were forced to. The country was better for it. We weren't going to wait until enough of the southerners were okay with it.
If that is how you understood the Civil Rights movement of the 50s and MLK JR's tactics, then I'm not surprised that you don't get it.
The entire point of MLK Jr's strategy was to reveal the brutality of the Southern states to the other U.S. states, showing that Southern black population was truly and genuinely suffering and being discriminated against.
The Civil Rights movement of the 50s was incredible because Thurgood Marshall PROVED (or so they claimed, the evidence that they used is admittedly a bit spotty) that segregation cannot be "separate but equal".
In short... They did everything that I said is required in order to change minds. They worked to CHANGE MINDS through DIALOGUE.
And, in doing so, the vast majority of the U.S. population agreed with them, and so the national government destroyed the "separate but equal" causes and began a wave of civil rights legislation.
Of course some people won't come along. But you don't need everyone to come along. You only need a good majority (say 70%+? Spit-balling here)to come along.
The following is the key. This is probably by far the most important thing I've ever written on this site; probably anywhere for that matter. So I would personally enjoy it if you actually took the time to read it and digest it-
So long as everyone engages with one another and have frank discussions of whether the legal means is serving us properly and takes the time to adjust things as needed (something that our government hasn't done in a long, long time, and in real great need of imo)
, you most certainly do not need to force them to believe in your beliefs. They are certainly welcome to try every legal means available to them to have their beliefs represented in some manner in politics and the law. They are most certainly allowed to voice their disagreement in every avenue available to them.
Because that is the true strength of Democracy and the Republican method of government. That no opinion, however distasteful, should be silenced merely because it angers people.
Democracy isn't about having people agree with one another. It is about allowing the minority, the opinions that anger people, to shine and have its say, but ultimately letting the majority have its way while being respectful and listening to the minority and constantly taking time to think on their opinion and engage in dialogue. If you didn't allow this, then you wouldn't have legalized abortions. You wouldn't have gays accepted more and more into society. You wouldn't have blacks considered equal. And so many other things.
This is why I find this entire situation so horrifying. You are essentially saying that certain opinions are anathema. That's why the Mozilla CEO was forced to resign; because his opinion angered so many people that they decided to take it out on Mozilla.
I repeat. Do you not see how that is in any way equivalent to having a company force its CEO to resign because said CEO believed IN gay rights?
The right to protest is fine. The right of the company to force its CEO to resign because he is hurting their bottom-line is fine. But the act of protesting an individual opinion... no, not fine. Not fine at all.
In fact, it is the greatest harm one can do to democracy.
Then how will you arrange for one night stands with local women with self esteem issues? Craigslist? You gone get mugged, son.
LOL. You're right. I probably should be on one of those affair sites anyways, seeing as I have a girlfriend and such
Honestly, though, the response from the internet in general shocked me. I have no problem with someone telling mozilla to get a new CEO or they won't use firefox, but this internet rage crap was incredibly childish and I have absolutely no respect for the people that did it. Even worse were the actions of a site like OkCupid - if I was a shareholder of their parent company, I'd be asking for the head of whoever decided to pull that stunt.
Edit: Magickware: Well said. Now I don't feel I can contribute much more because you've so eloquently articulated the correct position on this topic >_<
My problem is that the people who jumped on the "boycott this bigot" bandwagon show a clear philosophical dishonesty, or, at the very least, a lazy internal conviction.
Are they boycotting every business that employs a conservative, traditional marriage supporter?
Are they going to get everyone who voted for or supported Prop 8. fired from their job??
I'm a very staunch 2nd Amendment supporter, and pro-gun rights.
If I went out of my way to boycott anti-gun supporters, to the extent that they lose their job...
I must rally against (just to name a few):
Disney (Michael Eisner, CEO)
MacGuyver (Richard Dean Anderson)
Nickelodeon (Herb Scannel, Pres.)
Time Warner (Gerald Levin)
Ben & Jerry's
Hallmark cards
Levi Strauss & Co.
Sara Lee foods
CBS
Richard Donner films
Rob Reiner films
Mark Walhberg
and even
Kevin mother******* Bacon!
Cherry picking just ONE of those many people who lend their financial and celebrity support to more gun control, and costing that person their job, while frequenting the others on the regular...seems hypocritical and smells of douchery.
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
The word he used is "merely", so it's pretty obvious he is saying the opposite: we should save our protests for more harmful things than political speech.
He didn't just engage in political speech, he donated to a group. That has him actively doing harm. Why is it wrong, then, for someone to protest that?
A company does a thing I don't like, I stop using the company and tell my friends. But if we call it a protest...are you saying that's somehow different?
And that is what happened here. His donations came out and people stopped using his company because of it.
If you want an example of the boot being on the other foot, there's World Vision. They announced they were changing their rules to allow the employment of married homosexual people, and 10,000 people pulled their sponsorships in a week, such that World Vision have now announced they're reversing the change.
Again, it's a group of people exerting influence over a company, because they're unhappy with a decision it made. In this case, no one lost their jobs (though a board member resigned after the decision reversal), but a great many children nearly lost their sponsorships. (I understand that the money came flooding back as soon as World Vision decided not to hire married homosexual people after all.)
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Quote from MD »
I am willing to bet my collection that Frozen and Solid are not on the same card. For example, Frozen Tomb and Solid Wall.
If Frozen Solid is not reprinted, you are aware that I'm quoting you in my sig for eternity?
Edit: Magickware: Well said. Now I don't feel I can contribute much more because you've so eloquently articulated the correct position on this topic >_<
I take liberty, and freedom of thought in particular, very seriously.
And I'm saddened greatly whenever people unknowingly attack those ideals, and then defend themselves by saying that they are merely sticking up for the rights of others.
He didn't just engage in political speech, he donated to a group. That has him actively doing harm. Why is it wrong, then, for someone to protest that?
Donating IS engaging in political speech.
And politics is, among many other things, the business of doing people and their interests harm. If your side wins, then the other side gets harmed. If your side loses, then you get harmed while the other side benefits.
Are you against politics? Or merely politics that harm your side?
Nothing. I don't know why your objection to an individual's opinion must be so strong that you refuse to do anything with them. An individual is more than just a singular opinion, you know. What you're proposing lies in a similar vein with the Christians saying that they refuse to do business with gay people. I'd imagine that you'll object to that.
Then how will you arrange for one night stands with local women with self esteem issues? Craigslist? You gone get mugged, son.
LOL. You're right. I probably should be on one of those affair sites anyways, seeing as I have a girlfriend and such
Honestly, though, the response from the internet in general shocked me. I have no problem with someone telling mozilla to get a new CEO or they won't use firefox, but this internet rage crap was incredibly childish and I have absolutely no respect for the people that did it. Even worse were the actions of a site like OkCupid - if I was a shareholder of their parent company, I'd be asking for the head of whoever decided to pull that stunt.
Edit: Magickware: Well said. Now I don't feel I can contribute much more because you've so eloquently articulated the correct position on this topic >_<
Honestly, I wouldn't be surprised if OKCupid just has had a decline in usage and someone saw an opportunity. To the best of my knowledge there isn't a well known pro-gay free dating site that caters to both gay and straight relationships. Ever since the college students who created the site sold it off it has been very corporate. I really miss the statistical analysis blog posts they used to do back when it was a class project.
The rage though is more incidental. I don't support their former CEO's actions. I'm about as LGBTQQ friendly as a straight, white male can be. On tuesday I table for my Universities yearly [3rd year in a row! and only the first year we've gotten a "weren't the last two years enough"} Gender Neutral Bathroom Week. Supporting, mostly, trans people after an incident in which some individuals repeatedly got chased out of a bathroom. Twice, that is. Twice in a row. In the span of, and I admit I'm belaboring this. But the gist is that someone wasn't able to use a bathroom because people freaked out at both of the bathrooms on that floor. That are side by side. Not a good day and our campus lacks easy access to single stall family style bathrooms. We have 2, one in a nurses office and another in a basement thats only single stall because thats all they could fit in for the janitors to use.
Oh, and Ashley Madison is a good choice. You might even find a suga moma
Its not something so simple and easy to slam as "Oh, they promote tolerance, but not tolerating intolerance is itself intolerant, ergo, lol"
I'd say that anyone trying that line of reasoning is over-simplifying what the "tolerance" movement is. I view it more in a utilitarian framework. Promoting tolerance, particularly in a legally equal live and let live kind of way, is a net good. Letting two dudes get married or letting people who previously couldn't vote vote or what have you provides tangible gains that are not equivalent to whatever it is that the people opposing those activities gain by believing its moral or whatever. We could almost liken it to the Pareto efficiency from gains from trade.
And in this case a CEO was forced to resign because of his beliefs.
It seems more to me that it is a trade-off rather than a net-gain.
Someone lost his job for doing something that enough people didn't like that it became a net loss, financially, for the company and they chose to take action.
Isn't this the kind of response from a company we'd expect after a sit in, boycott or other similar action. Companies changing their activities in response to consumer demand is a core part of the invisible hand of the free market and I don't find a specific reason to dislike a company firing an unpopular with the customers CEO aside from some of the concerns ICM stated about the haphazard targeting.
As to it being a trade off? I disagree. The example here is not indicative of the situations of most people, which means that its hard to draw an analogy from this in the first place. Additionally, its not as though the guy is going to be destitute as a result of this. I don't know his net worth, but the people who are CEO's of tech companies aren't exactly poor. Additionally, if he had the skillset to become the CEO for Mozilla then he has the skills to become the CEO of another company. Unless people maintain their hounding of him his life isn't going to be impacted on the level of, say, someone outed as being gay just a few years ago and fired as a result. For people who aren't at the top of the corporate ladder that can have devastating consequences.
He didn't just engage in political speech, he donated to a group. That has him actively doing harm. Why is it wrong, then, for someone to protest that?
Donating IS engaging in political speech.
Legally. Luckily I'm not a law-man so I'm not really bound to make such equivocations.
And isn't this the big joke here? If money is speech, then spending my money elsewhere would also be speech. I'm showing my disgust with his opinions by not giving him my dollars.
Unless not giving him my dollars means I'm actually inhibiting his speech, since after all he'd be able to speak more if he did? Then shouldn't people be paying me so that I get more of the speech I'm entitled too?
Money isn't speech. Its a tool designed to facilitate the transaction of goods and services. If we're going to pretend money is speech then we might as well pretend bitcoins are money too. Free speech can only go up! uP! UP!
Nothing. I don't know why your objection to an individual's opinion must be so strong that you refuse to do anything with them. An individual is more than just a singular opinion, you know. What you're proposing lies in a similar vein with the Christians saying that they refuse to do business with gay people. I'd imagine that you'll object to that.
A waiter spits in my food, I tell the manager and stop going to that restaurant.
The manager spits in the collective food of all my gay pals? Also not going to that restaurant anymore.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
What's the big deal? You could have played multiple Righteous Avengers for years now.
Someone lost his job for doing something that enough people didn't like that it became a net loss, financially, for the company and they chose to take action.
Isn't this the kind of response from a company we'd expect after a sit in, boycott or other similar action. Companies changing their activities in response to consumer demand is a core part of the invisible hand of the free market
I see, so people in companies should also believe in certain political beliefs because their consumers demand it? That's nice.
The "invisible hand" was meant to be in response to services that the company provides. If the company provides lackluster services and there are better options available, then people should go to the better options.
I'm not sure that because someone doesn't believe in gay marriage means that they'll provide worse services.
Again, can you not see how this is equivalent to having people refuse to do business with gay businesses?
and I don't find a specific reason to dislike a company firing an unpopular with the customers CEO aside from some of the concerns ICM stated about the haphazard targeting.
As to it being a trade off? I disagree. The example here is not indicative of the situations of most people, which means that its hard to draw an analogy from this in the first place. Additionally, its not as though the guy is going to be destitute as a result of this. I don't know his net worth, but the people who are CEO's of tech companies aren't exactly poor. Additionally, if he had the skillset to become the CEO for Mozilla then he has the skills to become the CEO of another company. Unless people maintain their hounding of him his life isn't going to be impacted on the level of, say, someone outed as being gay just a few years ago and fired as a result. For people who aren't at the top of the corporate ladder that can have devastating consequences.
And what if the other company is also pressured into not hiring him as a CEO by the internet people? What if some people are so angry that he supported Prop 8 that they hound his professional career for life?
When I refer to a trade-off, I mean the switching of intolerance of gays to intolerance of anti-gays. It's not like those anti-gay people will magically become pro-gay people when the appropriate laws are signed in. At that point you're forcing them to stay silent, or else face consequences.
Oh gee. That sounds awfully similar. Where have I seen that before.
Legally. Luckily I'm not a law-man so I'm not really bound to make such equivocations.
And isn't this the big joke here? If money is speech, then spending my money elsewhere would also be speech. I'm showing my disgust with his opinions by not giving him my dollars.
Unless not giving him my dollars means I'm actually inhibiting his speech, since after all he'd be able to speak more if he did? Then shouldn't people be paying me so that I get more of the speech I'm entitled too?
Money isn't speech. Its a tool designed to facilitate the transaction of goods and services. If we're going to pretend money is speech then we might as well pretend bitcoins are money too. Free speech can only go up! uP! UP!
By giving money to an organization that supports whatever politics you support, you are expressing your support for that politics, and in doing so utilizing your power to free speech.
It's not that complicated.
You are over-complicating it with the claim that money spent=>support of that individual's policy/politics. No, intentions behind how you spend money matters.
If I spend money to buy food to eat, then I'm spending money to buy food to eat. If I spend money to support a political organization, then I am spending money to support a political organization. The act of supporting a political organization is an act of engaging in free speech.
A waiter spits in my food, I tell the manager and stop going to that restaurant.
The manager spits in the collective food of all my gay pals? Also not going to that restaurant anymore.
So a man's singular opinion is so offensive that you equate it to them spitting in your food?
Ohhhhhhh, okay.
So I should change my beliefs to fit in with popular opinion. Gotcha.
I never said that, you are perfectly able to hold onto your opinion. You will just choose to be ostracized by people just like KKK members are.
Do you not realize that it's precisely what we do a hundred times everyday.
What, so no gas pumper, Walmart grocery clerk, cable repairman, oil changer, cellular customer service rep...ever spends their money on drugs, or god forbid, supporting a cause I disagree with??
LOL. Really, LOL.
I know I give my money to probably hundreds of people who use their paychecks to do things I disagree with.
Let me go live in the woods off-grid to avoid giving my money to a company who employs someone who votes against my interests.
First off, it is called picking your battles. Just because you can't fight all good fights, doesn't mean you aren't doing good. There is also a big difference between a person who runs a company and that company's rank and file.
Intolerance wasn't pressured to resign from their job.
Hate the sin, not the sinner?
No, a bigot was forced to resign from his highly public and leadership position. I see no problem with that.
I'd like you to post the credible link that shows me that I do not currently give a single cent of my money to a liberal anti-gun democrat who has been supporting more gun control or a ban on guns from the following companies...
Long Post that nothing is gained by reposting it since it will be spammy.
You want us to have a dialogue with the 40% of the country that also believes the Earth is 6000 years old? You want us to impose logic on those who refuse to adhere to logic? You want us to WAIT while people's civil liberties are being neglected.
These are a large percentage of the population who see gay people as evil solely because they believe a book tells them to have that belief. You are going to have to quite literally wait for them to die off and hope their kids are more tolerant. Why should gay people have to wait that long before it becomes publicly unpopular to bully and harass them?
You will never convince me that intolerance of bigotry is a bad thing. So I guess I am done here. Have fun with the rest of this debate.
Ohhhhhhh, okay.
So I should change my beliefs to fit in with popular opinion. Gotcha.
I never said that, you are perfectly able to hold onto your opinion. You will just choose to be ostracized by people just like KKK members are.
Should anyone affiliated with the KKK be fired from their job for being a racist?
If not, why not, when it's what was forced on this guy?
If so, are you really supporting the idea that a certain class of people don't deserve jobs?
I'm trying to get you to be consistent here, I'm failing.
Do you not realize that it's precisely what we do a hundred times everyday.
What, so no gas pumper, Walmart grocery clerk, cable repairman, oil changer, cellular customer service rep...ever spends their money on drugs, or god forbid, supporting a cause I disagree with??
LOL. Really, LOL.
I know I give my money to probably hundreds of people who use their paychecks to do things I disagree with.
Let me go live in the woods off-grid to avoid giving my money to a company who employs someone who votes against my interests.
First off, it is called picking your battles. Just because you can't fight all good fights, doesn't mean you aren't doing good. There is also a big difference between a person who runs a company and that company's rank and file.
If your war is "I'm not going to support bigotry"
You're losing, by a magnitude, if the only battle you fought was against the Mozilla CEO.
I'm not just talking about the internal consistency of NOT fighting the other battles, I'm talking about the clear dissonance of fighting one battle, while still shipping supplies to your enemy everyday.
Which is what you're doing if you throw Mozilla-guy in front of the guns - while still giving your money to virtually every other bigot out there. Mozilla-guy isn't the only one voting for Prop 8.
What about the guy who owns his own welding company? The lady who owns a car dealership? Are you sending the hounds to find them or not?
"Hey we got OBL, who cares if we're still trafficking weapons to the muslim brotherhood. I mean, pick your battles right."
Intolerance wasn't pressured to resign from their job.
Hate the sin, not the sinner?
No, a bigot was forced to resign from his highly public and leadership position. I see no problem with that.
Oh, so as long as they are an insignificant minimum wage bigot, it's cool.
I'd like you to post the credible link that shows me that I do not currently give a single cent of my money to a liberal anti-gun democrat who has been supporting more gun control or a ban on guns from the following companies...
I don't care what you choose to spend money on.
I want you to SUPPORT your stance that you're not going to financially support bigots who might be using their paychecks (funded by your spending) to oppress gay equality.
Ready. Set. Go.
The Civil Rights Era was most certainly shoving things down people's throats. The South didn't want to integrate, they were forced to. The country was better for it. We weren't going to wait until enough of the southerners were okay with it.
The Civil Rights Movement was the most vigorous sustained exercise of First Amendment rights in American history. No, the protests weren't going to persuade every Southerner to change their ways. That wasn't the point of the exercise. Recall who actually did the forcing: the federal government. Which was - even more then than now - very, very white. But MLK and company couldn't force anything down its throat. They had to persuade, and in the end they did so spectacularly. In short, the Civil Rights Movement worked because activists had the protected right to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. Even though their convictions were unpopular in much of the country and especially in the part of the country where most of them hailed from, nobody could legally stop them from speaking their mind. And we, looking back on that era, feel nothing but scorn for the bullies who tried to strongarm them into silence.
You may see a difference because the civil rights activists were the good guys and the anti-gay-marriage activists are the bad guys. But ask yourself this: once you start thinking that being the good guys means that you can play by a different set of rules, are you really the good guys anymore?
He didn't just engage in political speech, he donated to a group. That has him actively doing harm. Why is it wrong, then, for someone to protest that?
A company does a thing I don't like, I stop using the company and tell my friends. But if we call it a protest...are you saying that's somehow different?
And that is what happened here. His donations came out and people stopped using his company because of it.
I thought corporations weren't people and couldn't have beliefs.
But no, I'm not saying that. See my first post in this thread for my take on this incident and the bigger picture.
A waiter spits in my food, I tell the manager and stop going to that restaurant.
The manager spits in the collective food of all my gay pals? Also not going to that restaurant anymore.
This analogy is far less problematic than the actual event in question because expectoration is not a key component of a functioning democratic society. I have zero concern about social coercion having a chilling effect on disrespectful and unsanitary food service. But I have great concerns about social coercion having a chilling effect on free speech.
As to it being a trade off? I disagree. The example here is not indicative of the situations of most people, which means that its hard to draw an analogy from this in the first place. Additionally, its not as though the guy is going to be destitute as a result of this. I don't know his net worth, but the people who are CEO's of tech companies aren't exactly poor. Additionally, if he had the skillset to become the CEO for Mozilla then he has the skills to become the CEO of another company. Unless people maintain their hounding of him his life isn't going to be impacted on the level of, say, someone outed as being gay just a few years ago and fired as a result. For people who aren't at the top of the corporate ladder that can have devastating consequences.
Is it crazy not to want anyone to be hounded?
You're absolutely right that a few years ago this could easily have gone the other way: someone could be pilloried in public opinion and fired for being gay, or for donating to a gay rights cause. And for all we know, in another generation or two, the pendulum will swing that way again. This is precisely why it is so vitally important we defend the principle that free speech is for everyone, everywhere. And I don't just mean in the law, but in our own social consciousness. We have to be a people who will respectfully listen to the opinions of others, even when we find them wrong or outright morally abhorrent. Once they have had their say, we will of course oppose them vigorously, but we will not shout them down or bully them into silence.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
You want us to have a dialogue with the 40% of the country that also believes the Earth is 6000 years old? You want us to impose logic on those who refuse to adhere to logic? You want us to WAIT while people's civil liberties are being neglected.
...
Well, it's rather abundantly clear that you didn't read my post, cause I clearly addressed this already.
Here, I'll repost the relevant part because you clearly were too concerned with getting your own opinions out instead of taking the time to read and digest mine.
And, in doing so, the vast majority of the U.S. population agreed with them, and so the national government destroyed the "separate but equal" causes and began a wave of civil rights legislation.
Of course some people won't come along. But you don't need everyone to come along. You only need a good majority (say 70%+? Spit-balling here)to come along.
-------------------------
Democracy isn't about having people agree with one another. It is about allowing the minority, the opinions that anger people, to shine and have its say, but ultimately letting the majority have its way while being respectful and listening to the minority and constantly taking time to think on their opinion and engage in dialogue. If you didn't allow this, then you wouldn't have legalized abortions. You wouldn't have gays accepted more and more into society. You wouldn't have blacks considered equal. And so many other things.
Will you actually read what I wrote and address it instead of just doing your own thing? Somehow I very much doubt it, but I am hopeful that you can learn to change your ways.
You will never convince me that intolerance of bigotry is a bad thing. So I guess I am done here. Have fun with the rest of this debate.
I am trying to convince your that INTOLERANCE is a bad thing. The very act of intolerance, of shutting someone's opinion out merely because it pisses you off and you disagree with it, is terrible and dangerous. THAT is what I refer to when I say that your opinion is tyrannical.
Yes. I WANT you to have an actual, meaningful dialogue, one where people actually address each other's point and try to convince the opposing party of your cause. If those differences cannot be worked out then fine. You have hit a wall. Then you go onto the next person. And the next person. And the next person. And you do this over and over and over until your opinion becomes the majority opinion. Then you take the immense power of this majority opinion and you set what you will into law. And you will readily allow others to do the same thing to possibly challenge you in the future.
This is the foundation of our Republic today, and it depends entirely on people willing to actually TALK with one another. This is the supreme ideal that we, even the founders of the Republic themselves, have never been able to live up to. But it is my firm belief that, so long as we keep these ideals in mind, we can still be better people than those who forget them.
FYI- We never engaged in debate. What happened between us is this- You wrote post #46. I responded in detail. Then you responded to a single point in my post with what amounts to a severe misunderstanding of a great social event. I then responded and attempted to correct your severe misunderstanding. And then you respond with something that I already answered in my post, and then decide to cut off all further "discussion" by claiming that i'm arguing something that I'm not.
How can you even begin to call that a debate? That isn't even a conversation. You're not even willing to discuss things with me.
By giving money to an organization that supports whatever politics you support, you are expressing your support for that politics, and in doing so utilizing your power to free speech.
It's not that complicated.
You are over-complicating it with the claim that money spent=>support of that individual's policy/politics. No, intentions behind how you spend money matters.
You don't see how the two bolded statements are the same?
If I spend money to buy food to eat, then I'm spending money to buy food to eat. If I spend money to support a political organization, then I am spending money to support a political organization. The act of supporting a political organization is an act of engaging in free speech.
and...
There is another consequence of giving them money beyond buying food to eat. Buying boy scout popcorn has a greater consequence than "popcorn now!"
A waiter spits in my food, I tell the manager and stop going to that restaurant.
The manager spits in the collective food of all my gay pals? Also not going to that restaurant anymore.
So a man's singular opinion is so offensive that you equate it to them spitting in your food?
I'd say it's worse since the incident with my food ends when I wash my mouth out. I still haven't gotten the taste of prop eight our of my mouth.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
What's the big deal? You could have played multiple Righteous Avengers for years now.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
If anything, we should be protesting the protesters who protested because someone exercised his/her political rights.
Because they're so much more dangerous.
And in this case a CEO was forced to resign because of his beliefs.
It seems more to me that it is a trade-off rather than a net-gain.
You mean like gay people afraid of coming out because of people who say they are going to hell and bullying them?
On that day you are going to have to decide, what is more important, your belief or social acceptance.
Why should I have to give money to someone who will use it to spend on activities I do not agree with? Is it wrong of me to not give $5 to a person who spends all their money on drugs? All the people were saying was, we aren't going to give our money to you to give to someone who will use it to attack gay rights, you can either keep him or lose us as customers. What is wrong with that?
I see there being a difference between intolerance of people and intolerance of intolerance itself.
You can still be fired for being gay in many states. The argument I was addressing was the overarching statement that we can't protest peoples activities because of their political stance, I gave an example showing that is in fact, generally not agreed upon.
But we will pay him a very hefty salary based on money we earn from having you as users of Firefox that will with good possibility go to discriminate against gay people.
The Civil Rights Era was most certainly shoving things down people's throats. The South didn't want to integrate, they were forced to. The country was better for it. We weren't going to wait until enough of the southerners were okay with it.
As a matter of fact, YES.
Just like that.
Ohhhhhhh, okay.
So I should change my beliefs to fit in with popular opinion. Gotcha.
Do you not realize that it's precisely what we do a hundred times everyday.
What, so no gas pumper, Walmart grocery clerk, cable repairman, oil changer, cellular customer service rep...ever spends their money on drugs, or god forbid, supporting a cause I disagree with??
LOL. Really, LOL.
I know I give my money to probably hundreds of people who use their paychecks to do things I disagree with.
Let me go live in the woods off-grid to avoid giving my money to a company who employs someone who votes against my interests.
Intolerance wasn't pressured to resign from their job.
Hate the sin, not the sinner?
I never said you couldn't protest.
Heck, I never said you couldn't or shouldn't or wouldn't boycott.
I myself am planning to boycott the TMNT reboot by Michael Bay.
Hopefully, I'll have an army of supporters gathered at the local theater.
I'd like you to post the credible link that shows me that I do not currently give a single cent of my money to a liberal anti-gun democrat who has been supporting more gun control or a ban on guns from the following companies...
Apple, ABC, Google, Chevron, Mazda, Chase, Comcast, Direct TV, Fred Meyers, Pfizer, Dickies, Bic, Head & Shoulders...
Vicariously, I'm sure my hard earned money has gone to the paychecks of hundreds of people I disagree with ideologically.
I go to the voting booth and vote against liberal gun grabber initiatives, and right wing bigot initiatives, I DON'T demand their resignations from General Mills.
For how dare the person who ships my Honey Nut Cheerios think differently than I do.
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
We have the right to free speech. We also have to accept the responsibility and consequences that comes with it. If your company stands for equality how can you have an intolerate CEO and hold any sort of credibility?
calling liberals loons=not okay
The standard to which the forum moderators apply the rules here.
I guess I would have liked it if they stood for free speech too.
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
If that is how you understood the Civil Rights movement of the 50s and MLK JR's tactics, then I'm not surprised that you don't get it.
The entire point of MLK Jr's strategy was to reveal the brutality of the Southern states to the other U.S. states, showing that Southern black population was truly and genuinely suffering and being discriminated against.
The Civil Rights movement of the 50s was incredible because Thurgood Marshall PROVED (or so they claimed, the evidence that they used is admittedly a bit spotty) that segregation cannot be "separate but equal".
In short... They did everything that I said is required in order to change minds. They worked to CHANGE MINDS through DIALOGUE.
And, in doing so, the vast majority of the U.S. population agreed with them, and so the national government destroyed the "separate but equal" causes and began a wave of civil rights legislation.
Of course some people won't come along. But you don't need everyone to come along. You only need a good majority (say 70%+? Spit-balling here)to come along.
The following is the key. This is probably by far the most important thing I've ever written on this site; probably anywhere for that matter. So I would personally enjoy it if you actually took the time to read it and digest it-
So long as everyone engages with one another and have frank discussions of whether the legal means is serving us properly and takes the time to adjust things as needed (something that our government hasn't done in a long, long time, and in real great need of imo)
, you most certainly do not need to force them to believe in your beliefs. They are certainly welcome to try every legal means available to them to have their beliefs represented in some manner in politics and the law. They are most certainly allowed to voice their disagreement in every avenue available to them.
Because that is the true strength of Democracy and the Republican method of government. That no opinion, however distasteful, should be silenced merely because it angers people.
Democracy isn't about having people agree with one another. It is about allowing the minority, the opinions that anger people, to shine and have its say, but ultimately letting the majority have its way while being respectful and listening to the minority and constantly taking time to think on their opinion and engage in dialogue. If you didn't allow this, then you wouldn't have legalized abortions. You wouldn't have gays accepted more and more into society. You wouldn't have blacks considered equal. And so many other things.
This is why I find this entire situation so horrifying. You are essentially saying that certain opinions are anathema. That's why the Mozilla CEO was forced to resign; because his opinion angered so many people that they decided to take it out on Mozilla.
I repeat. Do you not see how that is in any way equivalent to having a company force its CEO to resign because said CEO believed IN gay rights?
The right to protest is fine. The right of the company to force its CEO to resign because he is hurting their bottom-line is fine. But the act of protesting an individual opinion... no, not fine. Not fine at all.
In fact, it is the greatest harm one can do to democracy.
LOL. You're right. I probably should be on one of those affair sites anyways, seeing as I have a girlfriend and such
Honestly, though, the response from the internet in general shocked me. I have no problem with someone telling mozilla to get a new CEO or they won't use firefox, but this internet rage crap was incredibly childish and I have absolutely no respect for the people that did it. Even worse were the actions of a site like OkCupid - if I was a shareholder of their parent company, I'd be asking for the head of whoever decided to pull that stunt.
Edit: Magickware: Well said. Now I don't feel I can contribute much more because you've so eloquently articulated the correct position on this topic >_<
G MGC
WB Teysa Tokens
BR Wortsnort
UG 23.5-No Edric
URG Noncombo Animar
GUB Damia Stax
WBR Alesha Hatebear Recursion
WBR Daddy Tariel
UBR [Je]love-a Your Deck
GWU Almost Critterless Enchantress
WUB Sydri+Artifacts=WUB
WURG Glint-Eye Combo
EDIT: I cant speak out against another persons opinion?
calling liberals loons=not okay
The standard to which the forum moderators apply the rules here.
Depends on what you mean by "speak out", doesn't it?
Engage in dialogue? Try to convince the other party that they're wrong, and why they're wrong?
Or do what happened here? Boycott an entire organization merely on the basis that the CEO's opinion happens to differ from yours?
Like I said, you absolutely can do that if you wish. I just don't think it's a very good thing for people to do.
Are they boycotting every business that employs a conservative, traditional marriage supporter?
Are they going to get everyone who voted for or supported Prop 8. fired from their job??
I'm a very staunch 2nd Amendment supporter, and pro-gun rights.
If I went out of my way to boycott anti-gun supporters, to the extent that they lose their job...
I must rally against (just to name a few):
Disney (Michael Eisner, CEO)
MacGuyver (Richard Dean Anderson)
Nickelodeon (Herb Scannel, Pres.)
Time Warner (Gerald Levin)
Ben & Jerry's
Hallmark cards
Levi Strauss & Co.
Sara Lee foods
CBS
Richard Donner films
Rob Reiner films
Mark Walhberg
and even
Kevin mother******* Bacon!
Cherry picking just ONE of those many people who lend their financial and celebrity support to more gun control, and costing that person their job, while frequenting the others on the regular...seems hypocritical and smells of douchery.
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
He didn't just engage in political speech, he donated to a group. That has him actively doing harm. Why is it wrong, then, for someone to protest that?
A company does a thing I don't like, I stop using the company and tell my friends. But if we call it a protest...are you saying that's somehow different?
And that is what happened here. His donations came out and people stopped using his company because of it.
What, then, is the appropriate response?
Again, it's a group of people exerting influence over a company, because they're unhappy with a decision it made. In this case, no one lost their jobs (though a board member resigned after the decision reversal), but a great many children nearly lost their sponsorships. (I understand that the money came flooding back as soon as World Vision decided not to hire married homosexual people after all.)
I take liberty, and freedom of thought in particular, very seriously.
And I'm saddened greatly whenever people unknowingly attack those ideals, and then defend themselves by saying that they are merely sticking up for the rights of others.
Donating IS engaging in political speech.
And politics is, among many other things, the business of doing people and their interests harm. If your side wins, then the other side gets harmed. If your side loses, then you get harmed while the other side benefits.
Are you against politics? Or merely politics that harm your side?
Nothing. I don't know why your objection to an individual's opinion must be so strong that you refuse to do anything with them. An individual is more than just a singular opinion, you know. What you're proposing lies in a similar vein with the Christians saying that they refuse to do business with gay people. I'd imagine that you'll object to that.
Honestly, I wouldn't be surprised if OKCupid just has had a decline in usage and someone saw an opportunity. To the best of my knowledge there isn't a well known pro-gay free dating site that caters to both gay and straight relationships. Ever since the college students who created the site sold it off it has been very corporate. I really miss the statistical analysis blog posts they used to do back when it was a class project.
The rage though is more incidental. I don't support their former CEO's actions. I'm about as LGBTQQ friendly as a straight, white male can be. On tuesday I table for my Universities yearly [3rd year in a row! and only the first year we've gotten a "weren't the last two years enough"} Gender Neutral Bathroom Week. Supporting, mostly, trans people after an incident in which some individuals repeatedly got chased out of a bathroom. Twice, that is. Twice in a row. In the span of, and I admit I'm belaboring this. But the gist is that someone wasn't able to use a bathroom because people freaked out at both of the bathrooms on that floor. That are side by side. Not a good day and our campus lacks easy access to single stall family style bathrooms. We have 2, one in a nurses office and another in a basement thats only single stall because thats all they could fit in for the janitors to use.
Oh, and Ashley Madison is a good choice. You might even find a suga moma
Someone lost his job for doing something that enough people didn't like that it became a net loss, financially, for the company and they chose to take action.
Isn't this the kind of response from a company we'd expect after a sit in, boycott or other similar action. Companies changing their activities in response to consumer demand is a core part of the invisible hand of the free market and I don't find a specific reason to dislike a company firing an unpopular with the customers CEO aside from some of the concerns ICM stated about the haphazard targeting.
As to it being a trade off? I disagree. The example here is not indicative of the situations of most people, which means that its hard to draw an analogy from this in the first place. Additionally, its not as though the guy is going to be destitute as a result of this. I don't know his net worth, but the people who are CEO's of tech companies aren't exactly poor. Additionally, if he had the skillset to become the CEO for Mozilla then he has the skills to become the CEO of another company. Unless people maintain their hounding of him his life isn't going to be impacted on the level of, say, someone outed as being gay just a few years ago and fired as a result. For people who aren't at the top of the corporate ladder that can have devastating consequences.
Oh, and by "a few years ago" I, of course, mean its still legal in over half the country
Legally. Luckily I'm not a law-man so I'm not really bound to make such equivocations.
And isn't this the big joke here? If money is speech, then spending my money elsewhere would also be speech. I'm showing my disgust with his opinions by not giving him my dollars.
Unless not giving him my dollars means I'm actually inhibiting his speech, since after all he'd be able to speak more if he did? Then shouldn't people be paying me so that I get more of the speech I'm entitled too?
Money isn't speech. Its a tool designed to facilitate the transaction of goods and services. If we're going to pretend money is speech then we might as well pretend bitcoins are money too. Free speech can only go up! uP! UP!
A waiter spits in my food, I tell the manager and stop going to that restaurant.
The manager spits in the collective food of all my gay pals? Also not going to that restaurant anymore.
I see, so people in companies should also believe in certain political beliefs because their consumers demand it? That's nice.
The "invisible hand" was meant to be in response to services that the company provides. If the company provides lackluster services and there are better options available, then people should go to the better options.
I'm not sure that because someone doesn't believe in gay marriage means that they'll provide worse services.
Again, can you not see how this is equivalent to having people refuse to do business with gay businesses?
You're fine with censorship?
And what if the other company is also pressured into not hiring him as a CEO by the internet people? What if some people are so angry that he supported Prop 8 that they hound his professional career for life?
When I refer to a trade-off, I mean the switching of intolerance of gays to intolerance of anti-gays. It's not like those anti-gay people will magically become pro-gay people when the appropriate laws are signed in. At that point you're forcing them to stay silent, or else face consequences.
Oh gee. That sounds awfully similar. Where have I seen that before.
By giving money to an organization that supports whatever politics you support, you are expressing your support for that politics, and in doing so utilizing your power to free speech.
It's not that complicated.
You are over-complicating it with the claim that money spent=>support of that individual's policy/politics. No, intentions behind how you spend money matters.
If I spend money to buy food to eat, then I'm spending money to buy food to eat. If I spend money to support a political organization, then I am spending money to support a political organization. The act of supporting a political organization is an act of engaging in free speech.
So a man's singular opinion is so offensive that you equate it to them spitting in your food?
Why is so offensive?
I never said that, you are perfectly able to hold onto your opinion. You will just choose to be ostracized by people just like KKK members are.
First off, it is called picking your battles. Just because you can't fight all good fights, doesn't mean you aren't doing good. There is also a big difference between a person who runs a company and that company's rank and file.
No, a bigot was forced to resign from his highly public and leadership position. I see no problem with that.
I don't care what you choose to spend money on.
You want us to have a dialogue with the 40% of the country that also believes the Earth is 6000 years old? You want us to impose logic on those who refuse to adhere to logic? You want us to WAIT while people's civil liberties are being neglected.
These are a large percentage of the population who see gay people as evil solely because they believe a book tells them to have that belief. You are going to have to quite literally wait for them to die off and hope their kids are more tolerant. Why should gay people have to wait that long before it becomes publicly unpopular to bully and harass them?
You will never convince me that intolerance of bigotry is a bad thing. So I guess I am done here. Have fun with the rest of this debate.
Should anyone affiliated with the KKK be fired from their job for being a racist?
If not, why not, when it's what was forced on this guy?
If so, are you really supporting the idea that a certain class of people don't deserve jobs?
I'm trying to get you to be consistent here, I'm failing.
If your war is "I'm not going to support bigotry"
You're losing, by a magnitude, if the only battle you fought was against the Mozilla CEO.
I'm not just talking about the internal consistency of NOT fighting the other battles, I'm talking about the clear dissonance of fighting one battle, while still shipping supplies to your enemy everyday.
Which is what you're doing if you throw Mozilla-guy in front of the guns - while still giving your money to virtually every other bigot out there. Mozilla-guy isn't the only one voting for Prop 8.
What about the guy who owns his own welding company? The lady who owns a car dealership? Are you sending the hounds to find them or not?
"Hey we got OBL, who cares if we're still trafficking weapons to the muslim brotherhood. I mean, pick your battles right."
Oh, so as long as they are an insignificant minimum wage bigot, it's cool.
I want you to SUPPORT your stance that you're not going to financially support bigots who might be using their paychecks (funded by your spending) to oppress gay equality.
Ready. Set. Go.
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
You may see a difference because the civil rights activists were the good guys and the anti-gay-marriage activists are the bad guys. But ask yourself this: once you start thinking that being the good guys means that you can play by a different set of rules, are you really the good guys anymore?
I thought corporations weren't people and couldn't have beliefs.
But no, I'm not saying that. See my first post in this thread for my take on this incident and the bigger picture.
This analogy is far less problematic than the actual event in question because expectoration is not a key component of a functioning democratic society. I have zero concern about social coercion having a chilling effect on disrespectful and unsanitary food service. But I have great concerns about social coercion having a chilling effect on free speech.
Is it crazy not to want anyone to be hounded?
You're absolutely right that a few years ago this could easily have gone the other way: someone could be pilloried in public opinion and fired for being gay, or for donating to a gay rights cause. And for all we know, in another generation or two, the pendulum will swing that way again. This is precisely why it is so vitally important we defend the principle that free speech is for everyone, everywhere. And I don't just mean in the law, but in our own social consciousness. We have to be a people who will respectfully listen to the opinions of others, even when we find them wrong or outright morally abhorrent. Once they have had their say, we will of course oppose them vigorously, but we will not shout them down or bully them into silence.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
...
Well, it's rather abundantly clear that you didn't read my post, cause I clearly addressed this already.
Here, I'll repost the relevant part because you clearly were too concerned with getting your own opinions out instead of taking the time to read and digest mine.
Will you actually read what I wrote and address it instead of just doing your own thing? Somehow I very much doubt it, but I am hopeful that you can learn to change your ways.
I am trying to convince your that INTOLERANCE is a bad thing. The very act of intolerance, of shutting someone's opinion out merely because it pisses you off and you disagree with it, is terrible and dangerous. THAT is what I refer to when I say that your opinion is tyrannical.
Yes. I WANT you to have an actual, meaningful dialogue, one where people actually address each other's point and try to convince the opposing party of your cause. If those differences cannot be worked out then fine. You have hit a wall. Then you go onto the next person. And the next person. And the next person. And you do this over and over and over until your opinion becomes the majority opinion. Then you take the immense power of this majority opinion and you set what you will into law. And you will readily allow others to do the same thing to possibly challenge you in the future.
This is the foundation of our Republic today, and it depends entirely on people willing to actually TALK with one another. This is the supreme ideal that we, even the founders of the Republic themselves, have never been able to live up to. But it is my firm belief that, so long as we keep these ideals in mind, we can still be better people than those who forget them.
FYI- We never engaged in debate. What happened between us is this- You wrote post #46. I responded in detail. Then you responded to a single point in my post with what amounts to a severe misunderstanding of a great social event. I then responded and attempted to correct your severe misunderstanding. And then you respond with something that I already answered in my post, and then decide to cut off all further "discussion" by claiming that i'm arguing something that I'm not.
How can you even begin to call that a debate? That isn't even a conversation. You're not even willing to discuss things with me.
You don't see how the two bolded statements are the same?
and...
There is another consequence of giving them money beyond buying food to eat. Buying boy scout popcorn has a greater consequence than "popcorn now!"
I'd say it's worse since the incident with my food ends when I wash my mouth out. I still haven't gotten the taste of prop eight our of my mouth.