For that comparison to work, we'd have to accept a parallel between expressing racist sentiment and boycotting a company run by someone making material contributions to the oppression of our fellow citizens. I can't tell if you're just explaining the concern or actually advocating it, but it seems ridiculous on the face of it.
The parallel is exactly as I have stated it: both challenge core American political values. This does not imply a parallel in the moral standing of the victims, or in any other respect. My point is simply to respond to Pfisiar's argument that they "have every right" to do this by pointing out that just because you have the right to do something doesn't mean you should. Do you dispute this claim?
I do, actually. There's a core American value: freedom of speech (with VERY few exceptions) without fear of government or violent reprisal. That's not the issue here, though.
There's no such thing as just business - business is business with somebody and I think it's totally appropriate for consumers to avoid giving their money (directly or, in Mozilla's case, indirectly through their patronage) to businessmen who are actively taking steps which violate other core American values (in this case, contributing their wealth towards the active oppression of a minority).
I'm not going to support a company that I know is run by someone who not only believes those things but donates money to those causes.
Just judging by the average age and political disposition of American CEOs, I'm going to venture that if you apply this principle consistently you may find yourself not supporting a lot of companies. The particular specimen of Brendan Eich has come to our attention for one reason alone: OKCupid decided to paint a target on him. I'm not going to support bullying, no matter the victim.
You're right; I'm not going to find it possible to apply this principle universally. In some cases there will be no acceptable alternative. In others I simply won't ever know.
As far as bullying goes, universal tolerance is a trap. Citizens engaged in unacceptable behavior don't deserve the respect of being left in peace to pursue their ugly agenda. This issue isn't academic - isn't an ivory tower debate, or for that matter isn't just a discussion. This is someone using their wealth to actively support the repression of citizens on a basis that we should find morally reprehensible. If you want to label this bullying, that's your prerogative, but certainly I will never be bothered by being accused of 'bullying' people using their money to oppress gays.
Reasonableness is great and all, but we're long past the point where people should have stopped treating anti-gay activism as reasonable, just as we're in fact long past treating racist activism as reasonable.
Reasonableness has nothing to do with it. Free speech is not just for speech we deem reasonable.
Free speech is not at issue here. It has never meant freedom from the consequences of your actions, just freedom from government intervention. There's no American principle that I'm aware of that says that no matter what you say, we all have to be completely civil to you - just the principle that we can't perpetrate violence against you or get our government to do it for us.
If Mozilla promoted someone to be their CEO who had contributed money to get a racist ballot measure passed, would you have any reservation at all about people boycotting them?
Honestly, no, not really. But I should. I may not find it within myself to get worked up over the misfortunes of racists, but my emotional response or lack thereof should not be the primary guide of my ethical judgment. If it were, I'd say forget boycotting, it's perfectly okay just to hunt down racists and beat the crap out of them. It's my reason that's telling me that tolerance of all opinions is best for a stable, civil, democratic society, even as my emotions are telling me, "**** 'em."
There's a huge difference between vigilante attacks and avoiding putting my dollars in a position where I know they're going to contribute to doing harm.
As far as bullying goes, universal tolerance is a trap. Citizens engaged in unacceptable behavior don't deserve the respect of being left in peace to pursue their ugly agenda. This issue isn't academic - isn't an ivory tower debate, or for that matter isn't just a discussion. This is someone using their wealth to actively support the repression of citizens on a basis that we should find morally reprehensible. If you want to label this bullying, that's your prerogative, but certainly I will never be bothered by being accused of 'bullying' people using their money to oppress gays.
You don't buy clothes from places that use sweatshop labor, right?
As far as bullying goes, universal tolerance is a trap. Citizens engaged in unacceptable behavior don't deserve the respect of being left in peace to pursue their ugly agenda. This issue isn't academic - isn't an ivory tower debate, or for that matter isn't just a discussion. This is someone using their wealth to actively support the repression of citizens on a basis that we should find morally reprehensible. If you want to label this bullying, that's your prerogative, but certainly I will never be bothered by being accused of 'bullying' people using their money to oppress gays.
You don't buy clothes from places that use sweatshop labor, right?
When I can avoid it. There are, of course, limits. To quote myself:
Quote from Drawmeomg »
You're right; I'm not going to find it possible to apply this principle universally.
It's pretty much irrelevant though. Even if you could demonstrate that I was a hypocrite (I contend that I'm someone who is aware that my resources are finite and prioritizes accordingly, but hey), we're discussing the principle of whether or not it is wrong to boycott a company because you disagree with the actions taken by the people running that company.
As far as bullying goes, universal tolerance is a trap. Citizens engaged in unacceptable behavior don't deserve the respect of being left in peace to pursue their ugly agenda. This issue isn't academic - isn't an ivory tower debate, or for that matter isn't just a discussion. This is someone using their wealth to actively support the repression of citizens on a basis that we should find morally reprehensible. If you want to label this bullying, that's your prerogative, but certainly I will never be bothered by being accused of 'bullying' people using their money to oppress gays.
You don't buy clothes from places that use sweatshop labor, right?
When I can avoid it. There are, of course, limits. To quote myself:
Quote from Drawmeomg »
You're right; I'm not going to find it possible to apply this principle universally.
It's pretty much irrelevant though. Even if you could demonstrate that I was a hypocrite (I contend that I'm someone who is aware that my resources are finite and prioritizes accordingly, but hey), we're discussing the principle of whether or not it is wrong to boycott a company because you disagree with the actions taken by the people running that company.
The principle I'm discussing is: whether it's ok to only stand up for your moral principles when it happens to be convenient for you.
You said "Citizens engaged in unacceptable behavior don't deserve the respect of being left in peace to pursue their ugly agenda...This is someone using their wealth to actively support the repression of citizens on a basis that we should find morally reprehensible."
If you only stand by this principle when it's both popular and convenient to do so, I don't think its a principle you actually hold. You're just following the crowd and doing whatever's in style, not necessarily what's right.
Wait. So if you have the right to do something, that does mean you should do it? I just want to be clear on this, because I don't think you paid particularly close attention to what I said.
There's a core American value: freedom of speech (with VERY few exceptions) without fear of government or violent reprisal. That's not the issue here, though.
The issue here is nonviolent but nevertheless injurious reprisal. Is it as bad as government thugs burning books and breaking heads? Of course not. Is it still troubling? Yes.
There's no such thing as just business - business is business with somebody and I think it's totally appropriate for consumers to avoid giving their money (directly or, in Mozilla's case, indirectly through their patronage) to businessmen who are actively taking steps which violate other core American values (in this case, contributing their wealth towards the active oppression of a minority).
First of all, in this particular case, "actively" seems to be a misstatement, and marriage inequality is more "injustice" than "oppression". But that's beside the point. The attitude I detect here from the boycotters is not so much "I don't my money going to do bad things" as "Let's get this guy whom OKCupid told us is a homophobe fired... yay we got him fired!" This is mob justice, and it's a terrible habit for us to acquire, because it can just as easily be turned towards the good guys as the bad guys (and it has). You may want it to serve as a lesson that unjust opinions will face consequences, but it's more than that: it's a lesson that unpopular opinions will face consequences. The best way that we as a species have found to discourage unjust opinions but protect unpopular opinions, to give the good guys an edge over the bad guys, is to encourage the open exchange of ideas without fear of reprisal. Gay rights aren't progressing by leaps and bounds because we're getting homophobes fired from their jobs until they're afraid to be homophobic anymore; they're progressing because we can listen to what the homophobes have to say, and then explain in the public forum exactly why their positions are unjust. And if public opinion were reversed on the subject of homosexuality, we could just as easily be getting gay rights advocates fired from their jobs until they're afraid to advocate anymore... but with free speech, the advocates' rebuttal of homophobia would run exactly the same way, and everybody else would be obliged to hear them out.
As far as bullying goes, universal tolerance is a trap. Citizens engaged in unacceptable behavior don't deserve the respect of being left in peace to pursue their ugly agenda.
These sentences could have been written, without any modification, by a homophobe. How do we as a society determine that his idea of "unacceptable behavior" is wrong and your idea of "unacceptable behavior" is right? By letting both of you have your say and judging your arguments.
If you want to label this bullying, that's your prerogative, but certainly I will never be bothered by being accused of 'bullying' people using their money to oppress gays.
There's a huge difference between vigilante attacks and avoiding putting my dollars in a position where I know they're going to contribute to doing harm.
You missed the point. I don't have sympathy for the target in either case. You tried to get me to admit that the boycott is acceptable by appealing to those indifferent emotions. But I can know that something is wrong intellectually even when I'm kind of rooting for it emotionally because the victim is a douchebag. Consider the possibility that you're letting that douchebag status cloud your judgment.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Do we really want to send a message that people need to hide their beliefs?
Especially when we're desperately seeking transparency in campaign finance.
I actually don't think this particular incident rises to the level of political bullying. A CEO is a major public figure, and refusing to do business with a firm is well within anyone's rights. But people (on all sides, of course) definitely do use the public donor rolls as a target list for harassment. And what it does is strengthen the argument that anonymity in political donations is necessary to protect that freedom. Does that make anyone else uncomfortable?
If I post something online with my full name, my work, where I live, and ect. Then my "future employers" are fully able to Google what I believe in and so forth all at their finger tips. Equally, if I ran for office, I'd have an anal probe and my entire life up for grabs. Anything and everything would be up for grabs. The same thing if I was rich and famous, my life would become a part of TMZ's bottom line.
Whereas years ago, you could actually have sex with your secretary as a politician and it wouldn't be headline news. You could actually write something in college and not have it follow you. The more I mull this over, I feel that we're seeing the upper portions of our society finally see the bad side of unlimited harassment with unlimited information. Let's call not hiring someone for being an anarchist, that's a form of exclusion and considered shunning and bullying. Just because it's "within someone's rights" doesn't mean that we shouldn't have decorum and an understanding about people's lives and choices.
Employer Googling is a target list for harassment, even if someone has a drink on Facebook in their hand there's pressure to remove those pictures. I for one am glad that people are finally seeing the heat. It's started with our young people going onto sex predator lists for sexting each other, then cyber bullying, then employees getting screwed with search, celebrities having a camera up their posterior for their careers, politicians always being judged, and now finally it's the lone guy who gives money. I for one welcome them into the new world order, because when everyone gets screwed equally by this system then we can start having a conversation about decorum and what is acceptable to harass over and what is not.
Digital ethics and policies have been a long time coming, and things have to get really bad until they get better. Once this vigilante voyeurism in our society is reckoned with, then we can move on as a society and enjoy more of the fruits of the internet revolution. This is no different than any other commercial revolution in the past, we just need to start and update our culture a bit. But that normally takes a few thunks to the head at all strata.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Ambition must be made to counteract ambition.
Individualities may form communities, but it is institutions alone that can create a nation.
Nothing succeeds like the appearance of success.
Here is my principle: Taxes shall be levied according to ability to pay. That is the only American principle.
For that comparison to work, we'd have to accept a parallel between expressing racist sentiment and boycotting a company run by someone making material contributions to the oppression of our fellow citizens. I can't tell if you're just explaining the concern or actually advocating it, but it seems ridiculous on the face of it.
The parallel is exactly as I have stated it: both challenge core American political values. This does not imply a parallel in the moral standing of the victims, or in any other respect. My point is simply to respond to Pfisiar's argument that they "have every right" to do this by pointing out that just because you have the right to do something doesn't mean you should. Do you dispute this claim?
I'm not going to support a company that I know is run by someone who not only believes those things but donates money to those causes.
Just judging by the average age and political disposition of American CEOs, I'm going to venture that if you apply this principle consistently you may find yourself not supporting a lot of companies. The particular specimen of Brendan Eich has come to our attention for one reason alone: OKCupid decided to paint a target on him. I'm not going to support bullying, no matter the victim.
Reasonableness is great and all, but we're long past the point where people should have stopped treating anti-gay activism as reasonable, just as we're in fact long past treating racist activism as reasonable.
Reasonableness has nothing to do with it. Free speech is not just for speech we deem reasonable.
If Mozilla promoted someone to be their CEO who had contributed money to get a racist ballot measure passed, would you have any reservation at all about people boycotting them?
Honestly, no, not really. But I should. I may not find it within myself to get worked up over the misfortunes of racists, but my emotional response or lack thereof should not be the primary guide of my ethical judgment. If it were, I'd say forget boycotting, it's perfectly okay just to hunt down racists and beat the crap out of them. It's my reason that's telling me that tolerance of all opinions is best for a stable, civil, democratic society, even as my emotions are telling me, "**** 'em."
Is this former-Mozilla CEO the only person who is allowed an opinion, or something? Because this seems like a case of "guy has opinion, other people have opposing opinions." Like, yeah, you're allowed to have an opinion about things but so is everyone else. If you've got a despicable world view, then it's fair game to remark upon once you have brought it into the public domain, ie openly supporting anti-gay legislation. It is, in fact, how the whole freedom of speech thing is supposed to work.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
“A man's at odds to know his mind cause his mind is aught he has to know it with. He can know his heart, but he dont want to. Rightly so. Best not to look in there. It aint the heart of a creature that is bound in the way that God has set for it. You can find meanness in the least of creatures, but when God made man the devil was at his elbow. A creature that can do anything. Make a machine. And a machine to make the machine. And evil that can run itself a thousand years, no need to tend it.”
― Cormac McCarthy, Blood Meridian, or the Evening Redness in the West
Is this former-Mozilla CEO the only person who is allowed an opinion, or something? Because this seems like a case of "guy has opinion, other people have opposing opinions." Like, yeah, you're allowed to have an opinion about things but so is everyone else. If you've got a despicable world view, then it's fair game to remark upon once you have brought it into the public domain, ie openly supporting anti-gay legislation. It is, in fact, how the whole freedom of speech thing is supposed to work.
Your right, everyone has the right and should have the right to speak out about this guy how they see fit.
I just find it a bit distasteful when people seek revenge on someone for saying or doing something that they didn't agree with. They still have a right to do it, but I still find it distasteful.
The marketplace of ideas works great when you try to prove somebody wrong or convince them otherwise, but when you cross the line of seeking revenge or trying to remove their voice, than you're being harmful to the marketplace of ideas.
---
If you fire people for supporting positions like prop 8, than how can you expect people to not fire you for your political contributions(perhaps even contributions in favor of prop 8)
Is this former-Mozilla CEO the only person who is allowed an opinion, or something? Because this seems like a case of "guy has opinion, other people have opposing opinions." Like, yeah, you're allowed to have an opinion about things but so is everyone else. If you've got a despicable world view, then it's fair game to remark upon once you have brought it into the public domain, ie openly supporting anti-gay legislation. It is, in fact, how the whole freedom of speech thing is supposed to work.
Your right, everyone has the right and should have the right to speak out about this guy how they see fit.
I just find it a bit distasteful when people seek revenge on someone for saying or doing something that they didn't agree with. They still have a right to do it, but I still find it distasteful.
The marketplace of ideas works great when you try to prove somebody wrong or convince them otherwise, but when you cross the line of seeking revenge or trying to remove their voice, than you're being harmful to the marketplace of ideas.
---
If you fire people for supporting positions like prop 8, than how can you expect people to not fire you for your political contributions(perhaps even contributions in favor of prop 8)
Oh, well then it's fabulous that nobody "sought revenge."
EDIT: He wasn't fired, he resigned. And even if he had not willingly stepped down, it would have been fine to fire him for being a PR nightmare.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
“A man's at odds to know his mind cause his mind is aught he has to know it with. He can know his heart, but he dont want to. Rightly so. Best not to look in there. It aint the heart of a creature that is bound in the way that God has set for it. You can find meanness in the least of creatures, but when God made man the devil was at his elbow. A creature that can do anything. Make a machine. And a machine to make the machine. And evil that can run itself a thousand years, no need to tend it.”
― Cormac McCarthy, Blood Meridian, or the Evening Redness in the West
Is this former-Mozilla CEO the only person who is allowed an opinion, or something? Because this seems like a case of "guy has opinion, other people have opposing opinions."
More accurately, it is "guy has opinion, other people have opposing opinions. Those with opposing opinions boycott the company the guy who has opinions works at and force him to resign."
You have a child in a daycare. You find out that a daycare worker posts everyday on social media that they have sexual thoughts and desires about young children. This person also describes everyday how they resist their sexual urges and that they have never done something inappropriate with children. Your child has never shown signs of fear with this worker. You pull your kid from the daycare anyway. You convince other parents to do the same.
What did the parent do wrong?
Before you scoff at the hypothetical realize that this daycare worker has only voiced an unpopular opinion and nothing more. So is this parent a bully and someone that is working to destroy the very fabric of free speech?
Is this former-Mozilla CEO the only person who is allowed an opinion, or something? Because this seems like a case of "guy has opinion, other people have opposing opinions."
More accurately, it is "guy has opinion, other people have opposing opinions. Those with opposing opinions boycott the company the guy who has opinions works at and force him to resign."
Notice the difference?
No. Both are expressing their opinions. I do not understand how you believe the world should work, but it is a strange and confusing place.
You cannot be persecuted for your beliefs.
He was? And says who, anyway? There are literally zero negatives to persecuting bigots, except that a bad person's feelings might be hurt. Oh, wow, cry me a river.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
“A man's at odds to know his mind cause his mind is aught he has to know it with. He can know his heart, but he dont want to. Rightly so. Best not to look in there. It aint the heart of a creature that is bound in the way that God has set for it. You can find meanness in the least of creatures, but when God made man the devil was at his elbow. A creature that can do anything. Make a machine. And a machine to make the machine. And evil that can run itself a thousand years, no need to tend it.”
― Cormac McCarthy, Blood Meridian, or the Evening Redness in the West
You have a child in a daycare. You find out that a daycare worker posts everyday on social media that they have sexual thoughts and desires about young children. This person also describes everyday how they resist their sexual urges and that they have never done something inappropriate with children. Your child has never shown signs of fear with this worker. You pull your kid from the daycare anyway. You convince other parents to do the same.
What did the parent do wrong?
Before you scoff at the hypothetical realize that this daycare worker has only voiced an unpopular opinion and nothing more. So is this parent a bully and someone that is working to destroy the very fabric of free speech?
That's slightly different though than a person who runs a software company donating to a ballot proposal. One, in theory at least, affects the individuals ability to do their job in a professional (not to mention legal) way. The other seems to have no such connection.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Proving god exists isn't hard. Proving god is God is the tricky part" - Roommate
No. Both are expressing their opinions. I do not understand how you believe the world should work, but it is a strange and confusing place.
Just to be clear then, you would have no issue with people boycotting a CEO who expressed pro-gay rights thoughts and forced him to resign? Because both are people expressing their opinions and the target company is merely responeding?
He was? And says who, anyway? There are literally zero negatives to persecuting bigots, except that a bad person's feelings might be hurt. Oh, wow, cry me a river.
The 1st Amendment.
Try to focus less on the "bigot" for a second and more on the "persecuting". Persecution is still persecution; it doesn't matter whether it is being done towards people that you believe are bigots or not.
You have a child in a daycare. You find out that a daycare worker posts everyday on social media that they have sexual thoughts and desires about young children. This person also describes everyday how they resist their sexual urges and that they have never done something inappropriate with children. Your child has never shown signs of fear with this worker. You pull your kid from the daycare anyway. You convince other parents to do the same.
What did the parent do wrong?
Before you scoff at the hypothetical realize that this daycare worker has only voiced an unpopular opinion and nothing more. So is this parent a bully and someone that is working to destroy the very fabric of free speech?
Probably not on "bully" (keep in mind that no one here argued that the protesters were in the wrong for protesting, they just wrote that they're uncomfortable with the ramifications), probably on "destroy the very fabric of free speech", most likely on violating that whole bit of "innocent before proven guilty" that we like to live by.
Is this former-Mozilla CEO the only person who is allowed an opinion, or something? Because this seems like a case of "guy has opinion, other people have opposing opinions." Like, yeah, you're allowed to have an opinion about things but so is everyone else. If you've got a despicable world view, then it's fair game to remark upon once you have brought it into the public domain, ie openly supporting anti-gay legislation. It is, in fact, how the whole freedom of speech thing is supposed to work.
Your right, everyone has the right and should have the right to speak out about this guy how they see fit.
I just find it a bit distasteful when people seek revenge on someone for saying or doing something that they didn't agree with. They still have a right to do it, but I still find it distasteful.
The marketplace of ideas works great when you try to prove somebody wrong or convince them otherwise, but when you cross the line of seeking revenge or trying to remove their voice, than you're being harmful to the marketplace of ideas.
---
If you fire people for supporting positions like prop 8, than how can you expect people to not fire you for your political contributions(perhaps even contributions in favor of prop 8)
Oh, well then it's fabulous that nobody "sought revenge."
EDIT: He wasn't fired, he resigned. And even if he had not willingly stepped down, it would have been fine to fire him for being a PR nightmare.
I don't see what protesting/boycotting the organization or trying to get It's CEO fired can possibly accomplish in this case aside from making the CEO suffer for his heresy.
I can't see how that can be anything BUT seeing revenge.
No. Both are expressing their opinions. I do not understand how you believe the world should work, but it is a strange and confusing place.
Just to be clear then, you would have no issue with people boycotting a CEO who expressed pro-gay rights thoughts and forced him to resign? Because both are people expressing their opinions and the target company is merely responeding?
Of course I'd take issue with it. Because remember, I can say whatever I want.
I just want you to be consistent on this.
I am 100% consistent. In return, I just want you to be less patronizing.
The 1st Amendment.
Wait, doesn't the first amendment specifically protect and endorse exactly what occurred? It seems to me like what happened was the application of that particular right. What the hell do you even think happened? Pro-gay rights people put a freaking geise on Mozilla to fire the guy, or something? A delusion about an insane wizard cabal ruling the world would explain an awful lot of your opinion.
Persecution is still persecution; it doesn't matter whether it is being done towards people that you believe are bigots or not.
You don't want your opinion to be publicly challenged, don't make your opinion public. The second you do it's fair game for people to yell at you for it. First amendment, in action.
[quote from="The Pursuer" url="http://www.mtgsalvation.com/forums/outside-magic/debate/550607-mozilla-ceo-resigns-because-he-donated-to-support?comment=168"][quote from="Sam I am" url="http://www.mtgsalvation.com/forums/outside-magic/debate/550607-mozilla-ceo-resigns-because-he-donated-to-support?comment=167"]
I don't see what protesting/boycotting the organization or trying to get It's CEO fired can possibly accomplish in this case aside from making the CEO suffer for his heresy.
I can't see how that can be anything BUT seeing revenge.
Yeah I don't get the big deal about Rosa Parks either.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
“A man's at odds to know his mind cause his mind is aught he has to know it with. He can know his heart, but he dont want to. Rightly so. Best not to look in there. It aint the heart of a creature that is bound in the way that God has set for it. You can find meanness in the least of creatures, but when God made man the devil was at his elbow. A creature that can do anything. Make a machine. And a machine to make the machine. And evil that can run itself a thousand years, no need to tend it.”
― Cormac McCarthy, Blood Meridian, or the Evening Redness in the West
I am 100% consistent. In return, I just want you to be less patronizing.
So says the person who wrote "I do not understand how you believe the world should work, but it is a strange and confusing place" and " A delusion about an insane wizard cabal ruling the world would explain an awful lot of your opinion."?
Ya, I do not think you're in any position to claim that I am patronizing anyone.
Wait, doesn't the first amendment specifically protect and endorse exactly what occurred? It seems to me like what happened was the application of that particular right.
It does. That's why I have no problem with them actually doing it.
But I am uncomfortable with the ramifications of such actions. Because persecuting someone for their beliefs is still persecuting someone for their beliefs.
You don't want your opinion to be publicly challenged, don't make your opinion public. The second you do it's fair game for people to yell at you for it. First amendment, in action.
Do you believe that all donations should be private? Do you believe that there should be transparency in political donations and politics?
And, no I disagree with people yelling at publicly gay individuals, or anyone whose actions may anger the majority. I'd imagine you would too.
It is one thing to disagree and voice that disagreement. It is another thing entirely to take your disagreement into action in a way that negatively affects the people you disagree with. Sometimes it is acceptable (disagreement into action via the viable established political method) and sometimes it is not (disagreement into action by harassing the individual, physically attacking them, what have you)
That's slightly different though than a person who runs a software company donating to a ballot proposal. One, in theory at least, affects the individuals ability to do their job in a professional (not to mention legal) way. The other seems to have no such connection.
So it is o.k. to boycott an individually for what they theoretically might do?
Probably not on "bully" (keep in mind that no one here argued that the protesters were in the wrong for protesting, they just wrote that they're uncomfortable with the ramifications), probably on "destroy the very fabric of free speech", most likely on violating that whole bit of "innocent before proven guilty" that we like to live by.
You seem to be talking out both sides of your mouth. You keep saying stuff like "this boycott is persecution of ideas" and "it is an attack on freedom of speech" then you will say "they are not wrong for protesting." Do you think that there is nothing wrong with persecution? If you think persecution is wrong then you are clearly arguing that the boy-cotters where wrong to protest. Pick a side.
As for the whole innocent until proven guilty thing. Would you tell your kids to accept candy and rides form strangers? I mean they are innocent until proven guilty.
Wait, doesn't the first amendment specifically protect and endorse exactly what occurred? It seems to me like what happened was the application of that particular right.
It does. That's why I have no problem with them actually doing it.
But I am uncomfortable with the ramifications of such actions. Because persecuting someone for their beliefs is still persecuting someone for their beliefs.
Is donating money to an effort to oppress a group of people a belief, or an action?
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?
You seem to be talking out both sides of your mouth. You keep saying stuff like "this boycott is persecution of ideas" and "it is an attack on freedom of speech" then you will say "they are not wrong for protesting." Do you think that there is nothing wrong with persecution? If you think persecution is wrong then you are clearly arguing that the boy-cotters where wrong to protest. Pick a side.
There is no need to pick a side.
I stated that they have the freedom to protest, so long as it remains peaceful. But I am disturbed by the fact that they are protesting someone who voiced an opinion in a legal manner that also happens to be a part of the cornerstone of our political and moral system.
As for the whole innocent until proven guilty thing. Would you tell your kids to accept candy and rides form strangers? I mean they are innocent until proven guilty.
I would not. I would also feel bad that I chose the safety of my children over innocent until proven guilty.
So he's being persecuted for his action, rather than his belief?
When the action involves him exercises his rights to an integral part of the rights given to him by the U.S., and one that involves him expressing his opinions, there really is no difference.
Stop trying to trap me into something. Speak your mind.
I would never want to take away someone's right to be anti-gay, but it's possible he was fired for crossing a line in the company's policy by directly supporting a proposition to take away the rights of others, not just for his beliefs.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I do, actually. There's a core American value: freedom of speech (with VERY few exceptions) without fear of government or violent reprisal. That's not the issue here, though.
There's no such thing as just business - business is business with somebody and I think it's totally appropriate for consumers to avoid giving their money (directly or, in Mozilla's case, indirectly through their patronage) to businessmen who are actively taking steps which violate other core American values (in this case, contributing their wealth towards the active oppression of a minority).
You're right; I'm not going to find it possible to apply this principle universally. In some cases there will be no acceptable alternative. In others I simply won't ever know.
As far as bullying goes, universal tolerance is a trap. Citizens engaged in unacceptable behavior don't deserve the respect of being left in peace to pursue their ugly agenda. This issue isn't academic - isn't an ivory tower debate, or for that matter isn't just a discussion. This is someone using their wealth to actively support the repression of citizens on a basis that we should find morally reprehensible. If you want to label this bullying, that's your prerogative, but certainly I will never be bothered by being accused of 'bullying' people using their money to oppress gays.
Free speech is not at issue here. It has never meant freedom from the consequences of your actions, just freedom from government intervention. There's no American principle that I'm aware of that says that no matter what you say, we all have to be completely civil to you - just the principle that we can't perpetrate violence against you or get our government to do it for us.
There's a huge difference between vigilante attacks and avoiding putting my dollars in a position where I know they're going to contribute to doing harm.
You don't buy clothes from places that use sweatshop labor, right?
When I can avoid it. There are, of course, limits. To quote myself:
It's pretty much irrelevant though. Even if you could demonstrate that I was a hypocrite (I contend that I'm someone who is aware that my resources are finite and prioritizes accordingly, but hey), we're discussing the principle of whether or not it is wrong to boycott a company because you disagree with the actions taken by the people running that company.
The principle I'm discussing is: whether it's ok to only stand up for your moral principles when it happens to be convenient for you.
You said "Citizens engaged in unacceptable behavior don't deserve the respect of being left in peace to pursue their ugly agenda...This is someone using their wealth to actively support the repression of citizens on a basis that we should find morally reprehensible."
If you only stand by this principle when it's both popular and convenient to do so, I don't think its a principle you actually hold. You're just following the crowd and doing whatever's in style, not necessarily what's right.
The issue here is nonviolent but nevertheless injurious reprisal. Is it as bad as government thugs burning books and breaking heads? Of course not. Is it still troubling? Yes.
First of all, in this particular case, "actively" seems to be a misstatement, and marriage inequality is more "injustice" than "oppression". But that's beside the point. The attitude I detect here from the boycotters is not so much "I don't my money going to do bad things" as "Let's get this guy whom OKCupid told us is a homophobe fired... yay we got him fired!" This is mob justice, and it's a terrible habit for us to acquire, because it can just as easily be turned towards the good guys as the bad guys (and it has). You may want it to serve as a lesson that unjust opinions will face consequences, but it's more than that: it's a lesson that unpopular opinions will face consequences. The best way that we as a species have found to discourage unjust opinions but protect unpopular opinions, to give the good guys an edge over the bad guys, is to encourage the open exchange of ideas without fear of reprisal. Gay rights aren't progressing by leaps and bounds because we're getting homophobes fired from their jobs until they're afraid to be homophobic anymore; they're progressing because we can listen to what the homophobes have to say, and then explain in the public forum exactly why their positions are unjust. And if public opinion were reversed on the subject of homosexuality, we could just as easily be getting gay rights advocates fired from their jobs until they're afraid to advocate anymore... but with free speech, the advocates' rebuttal of homophobia would run exactly the same way, and everybody else would be obliged to hear them out.
These sentences could have been written, without any modification, by a homophobe. How do we as a society determine that his idea of "unacceptable behavior" is wrong and your idea of "unacceptable behavior" is right? By letting both of you have your say and judging your arguments.
You missed the point. I don't have sympathy for the target in either case. You tried to get me to admit that the boycott is acceptable by appealing to those indifferent emotions. But I can know that something is wrong intellectually even when I'm kind of rooting for it emotionally because the victim is a douchebag. Consider the possibility that you're letting that douchebag status cloud your judgment.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
If I post something online with my full name, my work, where I live, and ect. Then my "future employers" are fully able to Google what I believe in and so forth all at their finger tips. Equally, if I ran for office, I'd have an anal probe and my entire life up for grabs. Anything and everything would be up for grabs. The same thing if I was rich and famous, my life would become a part of TMZ's bottom line.
Whereas years ago, you could actually have sex with your secretary as a politician and it wouldn't be headline news. You could actually write something in college and not have it follow you. The more I mull this over, I feel that we're seeing the upper portions of our society finally see the bad side of unlimited harassment with unlimited information. Let's call not hiring someone for being an anarchist, that's a form of exclusion and considered shunning and bullying. Just because it's "within someone's rights" doesn't mean that we shouldn't have decorum and an understanding about people's lives and choices.
Employer Googling is a target list for harassment, even if someone has a drink on Facebook in their hand there's pressure to remove those pictures. I for one am glad that people are finally seeing the heat. It's started with our young people going onto sex predator lists for sexting each other, then cyber bullying, then employees getting screwed with search, celebrities having a camera up their posterior for their careers, politicians always being judged, and now finally it's the lone guy who gives money. I for one welcome them into the new world order, because when everyone gets screwed equally by this system then we can start having a conversation about decorum and what is acceptable to harass over and what is not.
Digital ethics and policies have been a long time coming, and things have to get really bad until they get better. Once this vigilante voyeurism in our society is reckoned with, then we can move on as a society and enjoy more of the fruits of the internet revolution. This is no different than any other commercial revolution in the past, we just need to start and update our culture a bit. But that normally takes a few thunks to the head at all strata.
Ambition must be made to counteract ambition.
Individualities may form communities, but it is institutions alone that can create a nation.
Nothing succeeds like the appearance of success.
Here is my principle: Taxes shall be levied according to ability to pay. That is the only American principle.
Is this former-Mozilla CEO the only person who is allowed an opinion, or something? Because this seems like a case of "guy has opinion, other people have opposing opinions." Like, yeah, you're allowed to have an opinion about things but so is everyone else. If you've got a despicable world view, then it's fair game to remark upon once you have brought it into the public domain, ie openly supporting anti-gay legislation. It is, in fact, how the whole freedom of speech thing is supposed to work.
― Cormac McCarthy, Blood Meridian, or the Evening Redness in the West
Your right, everyone has the right and should have the right to speak out about this guy how they see fit.
I just find it a bit distasteful when people seek revenge on someone for saying or doing something that they didn't agree with. They still have a right to do it, but I still find it distasteful.
The marketplace of ideas works great when you try to prove somebody wrong or convince them otherwise, but when you cross the line of seeking revenge or trying to remove their voice, than you're being harmful to the marketplace of ideas.
---
If you fire people for supporting positions like prop 8, than how can you expect people to not fire you for your political contributions(perhaps even contributions in favor of prop 8)
Oh, well then it's fabulous that nobody "sought revenge."
EDIT: He wasn't fired, he resigned. And even if he had not willingly stepped down, it would have been fine to fire him for being a PR nightmare.
― Cormac McCarthy, Blood Meridian, or the Evening Redness in the West
More accurately, it is "guy has opinion, other people have opposing opinions. Those with opposing opinions boycott the company the guy who has opinions works at and force him to resign."
Notice the difference?
Uh, no. No. No. Nope. No. No.
You cannot be persecuted for your beliefs.
What did the parent do wrong?
Before you scoff at the hypothetical realize that this daycare worker has only voiced an unpopular opinion and nothing more. So is this parent a bully and someone that is working to destroy the very fabric of free speech?
No. Both are expressing their opinions. I do not understand how you believe the world should work, but it is a strange and confusing place.
He was? And says who, anyway? There are literally zero negatives to persecuting bigots, except that a bad person's feelings might be hurt. Oh, wow, cry me a river.
― Cormac McCarthy, Blood Meridian, or the Evening Redness in the West
That's slightly different though than a person who runs a software company donating to a ballot proposal. One, in theory at least, affects the individuals ability to do their job in a professional (not to mention legal) way. The other seems to have no such connection.
Just to be clear then, you would have no issue with people boycotting a CEO who expressed pro-gay rights thoughts and forced him to resign? Because both are people expressing their opinions and the target company is merely responeding?
I just want you to be consistent on this.
The 1st Amendment.
Try to focus less on the "bigot" for a second and more on the "persecuting". Persecution is still persecution; it doesn't matter whether it is being done towards people that you believe are bigots or not.
Probably not on "bully" (keep in mind that no one here argued that the protesters were in the wrong for protesting, they just wrote that they're uncomfortable with the ramifications), probably on "destroy the very fabric of free speech", most likely on violating that whole bit of "innocent before proven guilty" that we like to live by.
I don't see what protesting/boycotting the organization or trying to get It's CEO fired can possibly accomplish in this case aside from making the CEO suffer for his heresy.
I can't see how that can be anything BUT seeing revenge.
Of course I'd take issue with it. Because remember, I can say whatever I want.
I am 100% consistent. In return, I just want you to be less patronizing.
Wait, doesn't the first amendment specifically protect and endorse exactly what occurred? It seems to me like what happened was the application of that particular right. What the hell do you even think happened? Pro-gay rights people put a freaking geise on Mozilla to fire the guy, or something? A delusion about an insane wizard cabal ruling the world would explain an awful lot of your opinion.
You don't want your opinion to be publicly challenged, don't make your opinion public. The second you do it's fair game for people to yell at you for it. First amendment, in action.
Yeah I don't get the big deal about Rosa Parks either.
― Cormac McCarthy, Blood Meridian, or the Evening Redness in the West
Fair enough.
So says the person who wrote "I do not understand how you believe the world should work, but it is a strange and confusing place" and " A delusion about an insane wizard cabal ruling the world would explain an awful lot of your opinion."?
Ya, I do not think you're in any position to claim that I am patronizing anyone.
It does. That's why I have no problem with them actually doing it.
But I am uncomfortable with the ramifications of such actions. Because persecuting someone for their beliefs is still persecuting someone for their beliefs.
Do you believe that all donations should be private? Do you believe that there should be transparency in political donations and politics?
And, no I disagree with people yelling at publicly gay individuals, or anyone whose actions may anger the majority. I'd imagine you would too.
It is one thing to disagree and voice that disagreement. It is another thing entirely to take your disagreement into action in a way that negatively affects the people you disagree with. Sometimes it is acceptable (disagreement into action via the viable established political method) and sometimes it is not (disagreement into action by harassing the individual, physically attacking them, what have you)
So it is o.k. to boycott an individually for what they theoretically might do?
You seem to be talking out both sides of your mouth. You keep saying stuff like "this boycott is persecution of ideas" and "it is an attack on freedom of speech" then you will say "they are not wrong for protesting." Do you think that there is nothing wrong with persecution? If you think persecution is wrong then you are clearly arguing that the boy-cotters where wrong to protest. Pick a side.
As for the whole innocent until proven guilty thing. Would you tell your kids to accept candy and rides form strangers? I mean they are innocent until proven guilty.
Is donating money to an effort to oppress a group of people a belief, or an action?
There is no need to pick a side.
I stated that they have the freedom to protest, so long as it remains peaceful. But I am disturbed by the fact that they are protesting someone who voiced an opinion in a legal manner that also happens to be a part of the cornerstone of our political and moral system.
I would not. I would also feel bad that I chose the safety of my children over innocent until proven guilty.
It is an action that expresses your belief...
So he's being persecuted for his action, rather than his belief?
When the action involves him exercises his rights to an integral part of the rights given to him by the U.S., and one that involves him expressing his opinions, there really is no difference.
Stop trying to trap me into something. Speak your mind.