3 ms·

I'm not spinning, I saw Leno on the news. I'll try to find a decent link. As for Simpson, others should read him and decide for themselves: https://www.theguar

I'm not spinning, I saw Leno on the news. I'll try to find a decent link. As for Simpson, others should read him and decide for themselves: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2008/dec/02/proposition-8-gay-marriage https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2008/dec/02/propos... (among other pieces) Pretending marriage equality was always on deck when Leno et al. were working on domestic partnership is the spin here. Either the advocates of the previous decade's reform were not telling the truth (and Obama was strategically lying when he too endorsed civil unions but rejected marriage equality), or they meant what they said at the time. You can't have it both ways. Again the revolutionary (full Alinsky) playbook is evident: down the memory hole with the past; lie (to self and others, doesn't matter) about goals, promising no further; then go further the minute you get it and isolate and demonize anyone who objects. No thanks.

dragonwriter 9y ago
> Pretending marriage equality was always on deck when Leno et al. were working on domestic partnership is the spin here I'm not sure what you mean by “on deck”. If you mean tactically attainable, yes, there was a wide view even among advocates and allies that it was not. DP was a tactical advance, on that there was broad consensus (though, ironically, the anti-embourgeoisement radicals you point to support this weren't part of it, as they generally viewed marriage as an archaic social institution not to be sought or imitated, but to be eliminated.) But your claim wasn't about what was viewed as politically pragmatic, but about DP status being seen by advocates and allies generally as “just and sufficient”, rather than unjust and insufficient because it was separate, but at least better than the status quo ante because it was—to the extent possible for the state alone—formally equal. > and Obama was strategically lying when he too endorsed civil unions but rejected marriage equality Disagreeing with a movements aspirations isn't a lie. Now, whether Obama was a secret supporter tactically lying to placate opponents, a moderate opponent of the goals of the movement telling the truth, or a stronger opponent telling tscticsl lies to get support of the movement while not alienating it's opponents is...well, completely irrelevant to whether the movement itself saw civil unions as “jist and sufficient” rather than merely a lesser injustice than the status quo ante. > Either the advocates of the previous decade's reform were not telling the truth [...] or they meant what they said at the time. You are conflating LGBTQ advocates with the politicians who were (or, in Obama's case, were not) involved in reforms. Those may be overlapping groups, but they aren't the same groups. Now, if all you meant to say was that you identified with the narrow, political establishment group that endorsed civil unions as the end goal rather than the mainstream of LGBTQ advocates and allies at the time who openly called for marriage equality as the goal but accepted formally equal unions as a tactical advance, that's defensible. But it's not at all defensible to claim that the movement saw civil unions as “just and sufficient”, that was overtly never the case, whatever a handful of politicians trying to balance between the movement and conflicting groups might have said (and, who knows, might have even believed it when they said it.)
- KirinDave 9y ago
  It's pretty wild how far into this we are given that Eich wants to present himself as somehow pro-LGBT for Prop8 support. Perhaps it has been lost to the sands of time, but it seems curious that this didn't come up as a publicly stated defense while the Mozilla board was contemplating what to do with their total PR disaster out of a corporate office.
  - BrendanEich 9y ago
    Why might that be? You are smart, I think you will figure it out from public info. I’m bound by non-disclosures so cannot say much.
    - KirinDave 9y ago
      Your decisions are your own. But trying to suggest that donating for CA's prop-8 was in fact a pro-LGBT act is simply not going work well here. Please stop insulting our collective intelligence suggesting this. If you've changed your mind, or have reasons, or whatever? Great. But trying to suggest that in fact you were a better advocate and steward of LGBT rights while (perhaps unintentionally, perhaps deliberately) suggesting everyone else was wrong in what they wanted? No. You could also just say, "I have changed my mind" or "I have decided this issue is less important to me now" or even maybe, "I thought I was doing the right thing, but in hindsight I chose a bad strategy." A million other phrases that own your actions and don't project onto others.
      - BrendanEich 9y ago
        > trying to suggest that donating for CA's prop-8 was in fact a pro-LGBT act... I suggested no such thing. I said explicitly I was sticking to a previous bargain. Hate on that if you must, but don’t put words in my mouth. At this point you have misread so many declarative statements I’ve made here that I am going to let you have the last word, if you like. But no, I never suggested that. It seems to me you are engaging in faulty logic to cast what I wrote in an either/or. Stopping here.

dragonwriter 9y ago

> Pretending marriage equality was always on deck when Leno et al. were working on domestic partnership is the spin here I'm not sure what you mean by “on deck”. If you mean tactically attainable, yes, there was a wide view even among advocates and allies that it was not. DP was a tactical advance, on that there was broad consensus (though, ironically, the anti-embourgeoisement radicals you point to support this weren't part of it, as they generally viewed marriage as an archaic social institution not to be sought or imitated, but to be eliminated.) But your claim wasn't about what was viewed as politically pragmatic, but about DP status being seen by advocates and allies generally as “just and sufficient”, rather than unjust and insufficient because it was separate, but at least better than the status quo ante because it was—to the extent possible for the state alone—formally equal. > and Obama was strategically lying when he too endorsed civil unions but rejected marriage equality Disagreeing with a movements aspirations isn't a lie. Now, whether Obama was a secret supporter tactically lying to placate opponents, a moderate opponent of the goals of the movement telling the truth, or a stronger opponent telling tscticsl lies to get support of the movement while not alienating it's opponents is...well, completely irrelevant to whether the movement itself saw civil unions as “jist and sufficient” rather than merely a lesser injustice than the status quo ante. > Either the advocates of the previous decade's reform were not telling the truth [...] or they meant what they said at the time. You are conflating LGBTQ advocates with the politicians who were (or, in Obama's case, were not) involved in reforms. Those may be overlapping groups, but they aren't the same groups. Now, if all you meant to say was that you identified with the narrow, political establishment group that endorsed civil unions as the end goal rather than the mainstream of LGBTQ advocates and allies at the time who openly called for marriage equality as the goal but accepted formally equal unions as a tactical advance, that's defensible. But it's not at all defensible to claim that the movement saw civil unions as “just and sufficient”, that was overtly never the case, whatever a handful of politicians trying to balance between the movement and conflicting groups might have said (and, who knows, might have even believed it when they said it.)

KirinDave 9y ago
It's pretty wild how far into this we are given that Eich wants to present himself as somehow pro-LGBT for Prop8 support. Perhaps it has been lost to the sands of time, but it seems curious that this didn't come up as a publicly stated defense while the Mozilla board was contemplating what to do with their total PR disaster out of a corporate office.
- BrendanEich 9y ago
  Why might that be? You are smart, I think you will figure it out from public info. I’m bound by non-disclosures so cannot say much.
  - KirinDave 9y ago
    Your decisions are your own. But trying to suggest that donating for CA's prop-8 was in fact a pro-LGBT act is simply not going work well here. Please stop insulting our collective intelligence suggesting this. If you've changed your mind, or have reasons, or whatever? Great. But trying to suggest that in fact you were a better advocate and steward of LGBT rights while (perhaps unintentionally, perhaps deliberately) suggesting everyone else was wrong in what they wanted? No. You could also just say, "I have changed my mind" or "I have decided this issue is less important to me now" or even maybe, "I thought I was doing the right thing, but in hindsight I chose a bad strategy." A million other phrases that own your actions and don't project onto others.
    - BrendanEich 9y ago
      > trying to suggest that donating for CA's prop-8 was in fact a pro-LGBT act... I suggested no such thing. I said explicitly I was sticking to a previous bargain. Hate on that if you must, but don’t put words in my mouth. At this point you have misread so many declarative statements I’ve made here that I am going to let you have the last word, if you like. But no, I never suggested that. It seems to me you are engaging in faulty logic to cast what I wrote in an either/or. Stopping here.