5 ms·

> I think in part because they're likely smarter than the average person so they've completely convinced themselves that they're the rational ones. The average

> I think in part because they're likely smarter than the average person so they've completely convinced themselves that they're the rational ones. The average Californian voted for the proposition Eich donated to. Is it rational to compare the majority of Californian voters to the KKK? Is it rational to call the positions of both Obama and Clinton in 2008 hateful?

leereeves 11y ago
The KKK was likewise once supported by a majority of voters and many politicians.
- humanrebar 11y ago
  I need a citation to believe that a majority of (which states?) supported assassination and terrorism. In fact the presidents of both parties (Eisenhower and LBJ) signed legislation (two civil rights acts) in direct opposition of the Klan's goals. I'm not saying people need to agree with Eich, but it's an awful false equivalence to compare him to terrorists.
  - leereeves 11y ago
    The people didn't support assassination and terrorism, in fact those helped bring down the KKK, but they did support the goal of white Protestant supremacy. At its height in the 1920s, before the KKK's downfall in scandal, "claimed Klan membership exceeded four million and comprised 20% of the adult white male population in many broad geographic regions, and 40% in some areas". (cited on Wikipedia). Klan member Edward L. Jackson was elected governor of Indiana, and "Although the full extent of the Klan's power was unknown at that time, it claimed that its members occupied more than half the seats in the Indiana General Assembly, and a large percentage of the local offices in Indiana." (Wikipedia again, but uncited) Regarding Eich, while I don't think he himself supports violence, it's not such a huge leap to violence from a platform whose roots are in the Biblical verses: "You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination" (Leviticus 18:22) and "If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall be put to death; their blood is upon them" (Leviticus 20:13)
    - humanrebar 11y ago
      The roots of the Bible are much more clearly: Romans 12 Repay no one evil for evil, but give thought to do what is honorable in the sight of all. If possible, so far as it depends on you, live peaceably with all. Beloved, never avenge yourselves, but leave it to the wrath of God, for it is written, “Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord.” To the contrary, “if your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink; for by so doing you will heap burning coals on his head.” Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good. Christians who love the Bible know this passage by heart. Very few care to memorize the (no-longer-followed) legal code of Israel. The ignorant choose to take the Bible out of context to justify their hate. Please don't make the same mistake.
      - leereeves 11y ago
        I meant opposition to homosexuality and gay marriage, not Christianity in general.
        humanrebar 11y ago
        Jesus and the apostles clearly taught that sexual immorality is harmful. It's a sticky proposition for one to call herself a Christian and reject Christ's teachings. It's stickier yet for someone who doesn't claim Christ at all to define what Christianity entails or what good or bad Christians do.
        leereeves 11y ago
        I don't want to debate theology; I meant only that the Bible says homosexuals should be put to death, and it's easy to see how repeating and emphasizing that verse encourages violence. It's not much harder to see how defining homosexuals as "immoral" or simply as a lesser class of people not entitled to all the same rights as heterosexuals also encourages violence.
        humanrebar 11y ago
JamesBarney 11y ago
I think a better what to say this is the majority of Californian voters. Voter demographics tend to swing more conservative than the population at large on these issues.
nickpsecurity 11y ago
Yes. They're both about harming and dividing people in the name of irrational beliefs supported by their emotions. These beliefs in the past even led to consensuses of imprisonment, beatings, and murders. If Eich merely had an opinion, I'd just disagree with it and say let him keep doing his good work. Putting money into active attacks on Americans' liberties, including his own employees/contributors, is totally different. Keep him or get rid of him is a grey area for me where I'm not decided on morale superiority of either yet. It could have wide-ranging effects in other areas of political participation. Nonetheless, eliminating the wallet of someone paying to split you from your lover seems like self-defense rather than an attack. Their reaction was justified to say the least. The real evil here is the consistent trend of one group of people trying to limit another they disagree with. Let them be them, us be us, whatever so long as no provable harm is happening. That's my baseline for civil liberties.
- Turing_Machine 11y ago
  By your standard, everyone who supported Obama should be fired, given that he also opposed gay marriage in 2008. You okay with that?
  - jazzyk 11y ago
    You missed his/her point - I don't think Obama donated money to the people opposing gay marriage.
    - Turing_Machine 11y ago
      I don't think I missed the point at all. Are you seriously arguing that a donation to a statewide ballot issue has more wide-reaching influence than a donation to the President of the entire country? Obama didn't have to "donate money". He's the one getting donations for making the policy, not the one giving money to influence it.
      - nickpsecurity 11y ago
        Obama is supposed to act as an agent of his constituents and a leader at the same time. His constituents are tens of to 100+ million Americans with a variety of demands. He has to vote or act their way a good amount of time to get or stay elected. It's very constrained and dirty due to inherently corrupt environment between cost of elections (excludes good folks, promotes lobbying) and tyranny of majority. System and demand side are problem because they exclude all honest, decent people from President. Name a counterexample in past two decades if you doubt that. So, Presidents and often (not always) Congress are a special situation compared to a group voluntarily creating organizatikns to push for harm and people supporting that over better organizations. Totally different in both what options are available to people starting nonprofits and which people can donate to vs what specific actions a President or Congress can pull off.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
ZeroGravitas 11y ago
Yes. I just read a quote the other day. Roe vs. Wade passed while Nixon was president, but he didn't really get involved publicly. Some private tapes were made though, in one of them he said that abortion was "necessary" in some circumstances. Such as mixed race pregnancies!

leereeves 11y ago

The KKK was likewise once supported by a majority of voters and many politicians.

humanrebar 11y ago
I need a citation to believe that a majority of (which states?) supported assassination and terrorism. In fact the presidents of both parties (Eisenhower and LBJ) signed legislation (two civil rights acts) in direct opposition of the Klan's goals. I'm not saying people need to agree with Eich, but it's an awful false equivalence to compare him to terrorists.
- leereeves 11y ago
  The people didn't support assassination and terrorism, in fact those helped bring down the KKK, but they did support the goal of white Protestant supremacy. At its height in the 1920s, before the KKK's downfall in scandal, "claimed Klan membership exceeded four million and comprised 20% of the adult white male population in many broad geographic regions, and 40% in some areas". (cited on Wikipedia). Klan member Edward L. Jackson was elected governor of Indiana, and "Although the full extent of the Klan's power was unknown at that time, it claimed that its members occupied more than half the seats in the Indiana General Assembly, and a large percentage of the local offices in Indiana." (Wikipedia again, but uncited) Regarding Eich, while I don't think he himself supports violence, it's not such a huge leap to violence from a platform whose roots are in the Biblical verses: "You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination" (Leviticus 18:22) and "If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall be put to death; their blood is upon them" (Leviticus 20:13)
  - humanrebar 11y ago
    The roots of the Bible are much more clearly: Romans 12 Repay no one evil for evil, but give thought to do what is honorable in the sight of all. If possible, so far as it depends on you, live peaceably with all. Beloved, never avenge yourselves, but leave it to the wrath of God, for it is written, “Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord.” To the contrary, “if your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink; for by so doing you will heap burning coals on his head.” Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good. Christians who love the Bible know this passage by heart. Very few care to memorize the (no-longer-followed) legal code of Israel. The ignorant choose to take the Bible out of context to justify their hate. Please don't make the same mistake.
    - leereeves 11y ago
      I meant opposition to homosexuality and gay marriage, not Christianity in general.
      - humanrebar 11y ago
        Jesus and the apostles clearly taught that sexual immorality is harmful. It's a sticky proposition for one to call herself a Christian and reject Christ's teachings. It's stickier yet for someone who doesn't claim Christ at all to define what Christianity entails or what good or bad Christians do.
        leereeves 11y ago
        I don't want to debate theology; I meant only that the Bible says homosexuals should be put to death, and it's easy to see how repeating and emphasizing that verse encourages violence. It's not much harder to see how defining homosexuals as "immoral" or simply as a lesser class of people not entitled to all the same rights as heterosexuals also encourages violence.
        humanrebar 11y ago

JamesBarney 11y ago

I think a better what to say this is the majority of Californian voters. Voter demographics tend to swing more conservative than the population at large on these issues.

nickpsecurity 11y ago

Yes. They're both about harming and dividing people in the name of irrational beliefs supported by their emotions. These beliefs in the past even led to consensuses of imprisonment, beatings, and murders. If Eich merely had an opinion, I'd just disagree with it and say let him keep doing his good work. Putting money into active attacks on Americans' liberties, including his own employees/contributors, is totally different. Keep him or get rid of him is a grey area for me where I'm not decided on morale superiority of either yet. It could have wide-ranging effects in other areas of political participation. Nonetheless, eliminating the wallet of someone paying to split you from your lover seems like self-defense rather than an attack. Their reaction was justified to say the least. The real evil here is the consistent trend of one group of people trying to limit another they disagree with. Let them be them, us be us, whatever so long as no provable harm is happening. That's my baseline for civil liberties.

Turing_Machine 11y ago
By your standard, everyone who supported Obama should be fired, given that he also opposed gay marriage in 2008. You okay with that?
- jazzyk 11y ago
  You missed his/her point - I don't think Obama donated money to the people opposing gay marriage.
  - Turing_Machine 11y ago
    I don't think I missed the point at all. Are you seriously arguing that a donation to a statewide ballot issue has more wide-reaching influence than a donation to the President of the entire country? Obama didn't have to "donate money". He's the one getting donations for making the policy, not the one giving money to influence it.
    - nickpsecurity 11y ago
      Obama is supposed to act as an agent of his constituents and a leader at the same time. His constituents are tens of to 100+ million Americans with a variety of demands. He has to vote or act their way a good amount of time to get or stay elected. It's very constrained and dirty due to inherently corrupt environment between cost of elections (excludes good folks, promotes lobbying) and tyranny of majority. System and demand side are problem because they exclude all honest, decent people from President. Name a counterexample in past two decades if you doubt that. So, Presidents and often (not always) Congress are a special situation compared to a group voluntarily creating organizatikns to push for harm and people supporting that over better organizations. Totally different in both what options are available to people starting nonprofits and which people can donate to vs what specific actions a President or Congress can pull off.

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

ZeroGravitas 11y ago

Yes. I just read a quote the other day. Roe vs. Wade passed while Nixon was president, but he didn't really get involved publicly. Some private tapes were made though, in one of them he said that abortion was "necessary" in some circumstances. Such as mixed race pregnancies!