3 ms·
Yes, that is what you wrote. People had just gotten very, very, VERY tired of the pseudo-tolerant stance he was endorsing [1], and didn't want to feel
by ta0o0o0 11y ago
Yes, that is what you wrote.
People had just gotten very, very, VERY tired of the
pseudo-tolerant stance he was endorsing [1], and didn't
want to feel that they were lending credibility to it,
by having him at the head of an organization they were a
part of.
[1] "Love the sinner, hate the sin".
Can you please explain how this could possibly mean anything other than "The CEO of Mozilla must not hold the viewpoint 'Love the sinner, hate the sin' because then it is implied that the members of the Mozilla community endorse that view". Because the logical consequence of that position is that Eich must either 1) renounce his view or 2) be removed.
- kafkaesq 11y agoNobody protested Eich for privately "holding" a particular point of view. Their concern was around his donating money (and implicitly, legitimacy) to groups they felt were engaged in various harmful activities (running TV ads with derogatory rhetoric, for example). The two phenomena are very different. You understand this - yes?
- ta0o0o0 11y agoFine, but that's not what you wrote above. And so then we're back to demanding that a defeated political opponent repent. "Here is our political issue, you advocated against it, you lost, so now you must beg our forgiveness or lose your job which is completely unrelated to the issue." Like I said, that's not the world I want to live in. If others like it they are welcome to it, but then they shouldn't start complaining if abortion-rights advocates are fired from their jobs in the American South.
- kafkaesq 11y agoFine, but that's not what you wrote above. True, it wasn't the exact quote you cherry-picked. But it was the main point of what I was saying, if you look at my remarks collectively.