6 ms·

Hey, Dave. I’m not sure why you thought I was a libertarian. I haven’t identified as such since the ‘80s. As for Buchanan in the ‘90s, I don’t support everythin

Hey, Dave. I’m not sure why you thought I was a libertarian. I haven’t identified as such since the ‘80s. As for Buchanan in the ‘90s, I don’t support everything he said - I was most supportive of his economic nationalism. Did you ever support a politician (say, Obama) only to find they said something you disavowed? Sam Yagan of okcupid did. I disavow Buchanan’s unconstitutional AIDS registry, and probably other proposals he has made. As for “social authoritarian”, California regulates and licenses marriage via family law, as do all states. I come from an older generation of allies who supported Mark Leno et al. when they labored over, passed, and amended to full positive-rights equivalence with marriage, CA’s Domestic Partner Law (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domestic_partnership_in_California https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domestic_partnership_in_Cali...). This was considered just and sufficient, until it was not — and then anyone who questioned the revolutionary tactics used to cast former allies as haters and bigots became a hater too. I dissent from all such revolutionary tactics and agendas. I agree with dissenting LGBTQ scholars of note on this point re marriage equality, e.g., Camille Paglia. (I don’t agree with those scholars on everything, of course. Same as with most people, including politicians I’ve supported in the past.) Now the shoe is on the other foot. Marriage equality is law and I’m an officer of a corporation with a genuinely diverse roster of employees. I am committed to the fullest definition of inclusivity, which covers right wingers as well as left, libertarians and non-libertarians. For you to gin up a case that I pretended to be a libertarian is silly (I never pretended that). But worse, if you judge Brave by a past and too-narrow slice of my opinions, you are doing what haters who boycott Apple because of Tim Cook do. It is your right, of course, but it looks like consequentialism (end justifies means) or really just Who/Whom ax-grinding. I hope you will use Brave in view of what we are trying to do, as a group of people who share a cause and set of beliefs, whatever our other or past causes and beliefs.

dragonwriter 9y ago
> I come from an older generation of allies who supported Mark Leno et al. when they labored over, passed, and amended to full positive-rights equivalence with marriage, CA’s Domestic Partner Law [...] This was considered just and sufficient, until it was not Oh, please, no, it wasn't by, well, almost anyone. Most LGBTQ advocates and allies never considered it “just and sufficient”, they (at best) considered it at best a distasteful compromise that was better than the pre-existing state and at worst a capitulation to those who wanted to give religious groups a veto over he definition of civil marriage which ignored the enduring lesson of the struggle for civil rights that separate institutions are inherently unequal nnyour and entrenched in law the othering of LGBTQ people and thir families and relationships. The idea that there was ever a consensus, either in society or among LGBTQ advocates and allies, that the separate institution of domestic partnership was “just and sufficient” is rewriting history.
- BrendanEich 9y ago
  > Oh, please, no, it wasn't by, well, almost anyone. False. Mark Leno said so. http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Gay-marriage-up-to-governor-now-Landmark-2610923.php http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Gay-marriage-up-to-govern... You may not be familiar, but in previous decades, Mark Simpson, Michel Foucault, and many other gay writers were against "gay marriage", often expliciltly arguing it was an embourgeoisement to be rejected. Andrew Sullivan and others (with lots of documentary and eyewitness evidence) have written about how they had to move the consensus even among gay people toward marriage equality when it was far away. http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2012/11/gay_marriage_votes_and_andrew_sullivan_his_landmark_1989_essay_making_a.html http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/201...
  - dragonwriter 9y ago
    > Mark Leno said so. I can believe Leno said that, but I am also quite aware that it was a very small minority opinion even among supporters of the legislation. I'll also note that Leno isn't quoted as saying anything like that in the article you cite to support that Leno said it, though. > You may not be familiar, but in previous decades, Mark Simpson, Michel Foucault, and many other gay writers were against "gay marriage", often expliciltly arguing it was an embourgeoisement to be rejected. You are misrepresenting Foucault, who did not argue against (or for, it just simply wasn't a controversy he addressed) equality in marriage but that the limitations (irrespective of sexual preference of the partners) of socially acceptable and institutionalized relationships to only marriage and family-by-descent ought to be lifted and additional forms of relationship recognized and valorized. Neither did Simpson come from the radical, anti-embourgeoisement, angle you suggest, instead simply buying into the (historically inaccurate) religious right story about the origin of civil marriage and the pro-state-establishment-of-religion argument of the religious right that would give the religious right veto power over the civil definition of religion. That's certainly a viewpoint that exists—and which AFAICT Simpson still holds—but it wasn't a dominant one among LGBTQ activists and allies anytime in the 1999-2011 history of the establishment and expansion of California's Domestic Partnership system. Not even when aggregated with people who did take the radical position you identify, even though neither Simpson nor Foucault are among them. > Andrew Sullivan and others (with lots of documentary and eyewitness evidence) have written about how they had to move the consensus even among gay people toward marriage equality when it was far away. I'm not sure why you are pointing to an Slate article that is simply a reprint of one of Sullivan's 1989 articles laying out a conservative case for gay marriage to support your contention that Sullivan and others still had to move the consensus of LGBTQ advocates and allies to support marriage sometime after the time in 2011 when California harmonized domestic partnership with marriage so that the two arguably differed in name only. Sullivan was certainly important in moving the needle in terms of what people thought was reasonable to set as a near term goal and how they sought to sell it (whether he really shifted the ground on the long-term goal, or just made it seem less quixotic and pie-in-the-sky might be a debate), but he did that well before the time you are referencing. You spin a fine tale, but it seems to be entirely historical revisionism backed with red herring links and name dropping.
KirinDave 9y ago
I actually supported Brave in spite of your history. We've talked on Mastodon.social about it. I am always a fan of humans being complex and redemption being contextual. Then I read about BAT. Your business plan soured me. I'm very sorry that I missed ended your politics Brendan. Sincerely. O obviously misinterpreted what you said. But that changes very little, and I've already spoke at length about what it doesn't change elsewhere in this thread.
- BrendanEich 9y ago
  You say more about BAT sourness? Here, twitter DM, whatever works. Thanks.

dragonwriter 9y ago

> I come from an older generation of allies who supported Mark Leno et al. when they labored over, passed, and amended to full positive-rights equivalence with marriage, CA’s Domestic Partner Law [...] This was considered just and sufficient, until it was not Oh, please, no, it wasn't by, well, almost anyone. Most LGBTQ advocates and allies never considered it “just and sufficient”, they (at best) considered it at best a distasteful compromise that was better than the pre-existing state and at worst a capitulation to those who wanted to give religious groups a veto over he definition of civil marriage which ignored the enduring lesson of the struggle for civil rights that separate institutions are inherently unequal nnyour and entrenched in law the othering of LGBTQ people and thir families and relationships. The idea that there was ever a consensus, either in society or among LGBTQ advocates and allies, that the separate institution of domestic partnership was “just and sufficient” is rewriting history.

BrendanEich 9y ago
> Oh, please, no, it wasn't by, well, almost anyone. False. Mark Leno said so. http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Gay-marriage-up-to-governor-now-Landmark-2610923.php http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Gay-marriage-up-to-govern... You may not be familiar, but in previous decades, Mark Simpson, Michel Foucault, and many other gay writers were against "gay marriage", often expliciltly arguing it was an embourgeoisement to be rejected. Andrew Sullivan and others (with lots of documentary and eyewitness evidence) have written about how they had to move the consensus even among gay people toward marriage equality when it was far away. http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2012/11/gay_marriage_votes_and_andrew_sullivan_his_landmark_1989_essay_making_a.html http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/201...
- dragonwriter 9y ago
  > Mark Leno said so. I can believe Leno said that, but I am also quite aware that it was a very small minority opinion even among supporters of the legislation. I'll also note that Leno isn't quoted as saying anything like that in the article you cite to support that Leno said it, though. > You may not be familiar, but in previous decades, Mark Simpson, Michel Foucault, and many other gay writers were against "gay marriage", often expliciltly arguing it was an embourgeoisement to be rejected. You are misrepresenting Foucault, who did not argue against (or for, it just simply wasn't a controversy he addressed) equality in marriage but that the limitations (irrespective of sexual preference of the partners) of socially acceptable and institutionalized relationships to only marriage and family-by-descent ought to be lifted and additional forms of relationship recognized and valorized. Neither did Simpson come from the radical, anti-embourgeoisement, angle you suggest, instead simply buying into the (historically inaccurate) religious right story about the origin of civil marriage and the pro-state-establishment-of-religion argument of the religious right that would give the religious right veto power over the civil definition of religion. That's certainly a viewpoint that exists—and which AFAICT Simpson still holds—but it wasn't a dominant one among LGBTQ activists and allies anytime in the 1999-2011 history of the establishment and expansion of California's Domestic Partnership system. Not even when aggregated with people who did take the radical position you identify, even though neither Simpson nor Foucault are among them. > Andrew Sullivan and others (with lots of documentary and eyewitness evidence) have written about how they had to move the consensus even among gay people toward marriage equality when it was far away. I'm not sure why you are pointing to an Slate article that is simply a reprint of one of Sullivan's 1989 articles laying out a conservative case for gay marriage to support your contention that Sullivan and others still had to move the consensus of LGBTQ advocates and allies to support marriage sometime after the time in 2011 when California harmonized domestic partnership with marriage so that the two arguably differed in name only. Sullivan was certainly important in moving the needle in terms of what people thought was reasonable to set as a near term goal and how they sought to sell it (whether he really shifted the ground on the long-term goal, or just made it seem less quixotic and pie-in-the-sky might be a debate), but he did that well before the time you are referencing. You spin a fine tale, but it seems to be entirely historical revisionism backed with red herring links and name dropping.

KirinDave 9y ago

I actually supported Brave in spite of your history. We've talked on Mastodon.social about it. I am always a fan of humans being complex and redemption being contextual. Then I read about BAT. Your business plan soured me. I'm very sorry that I missed ended your politics Brendan. Sincerely. O obviously misinterpreted what you said. But that changes very little, and I've already spoke at length about what it doesn't change elsewhere in this thread.

BrendanEich 9y ago
You say more about BAT sourness? Here, twitter DM, whatever works. Thanks.