4 ms·

Can you blame them? There's examples already. Brendan Eich got witch hunted out of Mozilla when somebody discovered some $3000 worth of donations to causes th

Can you blame them? There's examples already. Brendan Eich got witch hunted out of Mozilla when somebody discovered some $3000 worth of donations to causes that don't align with the loudest voices of today. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brendan_Eich#Mozilla https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brendan_Eich#Mozilla

happytoexplain 6y ago
>witch hunted [for] donations to causes [to ban gay marriage] that don't align with the loudest voices of today Regardless of whether I agree that this is a good example, you're embodying the exact same problem the article is lamenting from the politically opposite side.
- tabbycorn 6y ago
  What do you mean, because I created a throwaway account to comment?
elil17 6y ago
“Causes that that don’t align with the loudest voices of today” is a funny way of writing “a campaign to ban gay people from getting married.” Not all views are equally valid. Some are antithetical to a free and equal society and are deserving of harsh criticism. There’s nothing wrong with a society where people feel uncomfortable saying that they think their peers don’t deserve equal rights.
- tabbycorn 6y ago
  > There’s nothing wrong with a society where people feel uncomfortable saying that they think their peers don’t deserve equal rights. It's possible that the reason he donated was because he disagreed with the particular wording of the proposition as written, not that he thinks his peers don't deserve equal rights. And for the tiny donation, he lost his job. He's unfit for employment in tech, it seems, unless he's the owner of the company. That is a chilling effect. Suddenly people who aren't perfectly in alignment with, again, the loudest voices, have to choose their every word (and donation) perfectly or risk losing their livelihood. Consider that there are fiscal conservatives who think that we don't get nearly enough value from our tax dollars, so we should reduce taxes. Can they donate to conservative causes without losing their jobs? Can you imagine the insanity if voting records got leaked?
  - elil17 6y ago
    Really, what language in prop 8 might he have disagreed with? Being a CEO of a large organization is not a human right. Part of the job is being the public face of the organization, and that means that, if you’re a CEO, you can lose your job if you say or do something stupid in your personal life. Everyone knows that when they sign up. Brendan knew the stakes, messed up, and now has to face the punishment. Which is being the CEO of a slightly smaller organization.
    - tabbycorn 6y ago
      I can't put words in his mouth. I recall at the time wishing that, while they were "redefining marriage", they could go ahead and formalize a separation between civil unions and marriage in the church, because I was concerned about the state of California telling priests that they needed to perform weddings for whoever asked them to be married, or else face fines / jail time. Nobody said being a CEO was a 'right'. You're correct that part of being a CEO is being the public face of the company, and I agree with you that it's reasonable for the members to not want to be represented by somebody who is repulsive to them. Maybe something like an actual vote of confidence or vote of self-similarity is not out of the question. But, we don't vote for this kind of thing, rather, people get run out town by a (sometimes literal) mob in the court of public opinion by, again, the loudest voices. And, because blood is in the air, they don't get support (quiet or loud) from all the people at the company who either agree with them or who just don't want mob rule to exist (because even though they're not socialists, or trade unionists, or Jews, they see that the wheel of "social justice" will eventually turn on them, too). > if you say or do something stupid in your personal life Easy with the name calling. I'm here taking the opposite position and you jump to the word 'stupid'. No need to get personal. Okay, maybe you didn't mean "stupid" like "no right-minded person would have that opinion" instead of "it would be stupid, given the current political climate, to say this publicly"... but I think then you would be agreeing with me, so you probably meant the first sense.
      - elil17 6y ago
        How is same sex marriage redefining marriage when it was already legal prior to prop 8? Again, where is your example of someone getting run out of town by a literal mob? This guy is still incredibly wealthy.
- bzb3 6y ago
  So basically what you're saying is that only progressive views are valid.
  - tabbycorn 6y ago
    That isn't what elil17 said. I happen to agree with both sentences in elil17's comment and I'm fairly conservative. I'm pretty sure elil17's idea of which views are "antithetical to a free and equal society" doesn't match my own, though.
    - Simulacra 6y ago
      I think what constitutes "antithetical to a free and equal society" varies dramatically. I believe that no speech is "antithetical to a free and equal society" because to do so is to assume one speech is greater than another. I think that’s how we got to this point. So long as the speech does not infringe on the rights of someone else, it should be absolutely allowed. A public discussion on overthrowing the government, yes. A public discussion on school segregation and how to achieve it, yes. But a discussion about how to violate someone’s rights, fire someone because of their race, gender, sexuality, any of that, or in anyway trying to Directly harm another person, that’s where it becomes bad speech.

happytoexplain 6y ago

>witch hunted [for] donations to causes [to ban gay marriage] that don't align with the loudest voices of today Regardless of whether I agree that this is a good example, you're embodying the exact same problem the article is lamenting from the politically opposite side.

tabbycorn 6y ago
What do you mean, because I created a throwaway account to comment?

elil17 6y ago

“Causes that that don’t align with the loudest voices of today” is a funny way of writing “a campaign to ban gay people from getting married.” Not all views are equally valid. Some are antithetical to a free and equal society and are deserving of harsh criticism. There’s nothing wrong with a society where people feel uncomfortable saying that they think their peers don’t deserve equal rights.

tabbycorn 6y ago
> There’s nothing wrong with a society where people feel uncomfortable saying that they think their peers don’t deserve equal rights. It's possible that the reason he donated was because he disagreed with the particular wording of the proposition as written, not that he thinks his peers don't deserve equal rights. And for the tiny donation, he lost his job. He's unfit for employment in tech, it seems, unless he's the owner of the company. That is a chilling effect. Suddenly people who aren't perfectly in alignment with, again, the loudest voices, have to choose their every word (and donation) perfectly or risk losing their livelihood. Consider that there are fiscal conservatives who think that we don't get nearly enough value from our tax dollars, so we should reduce taxes. Can they donate to conservative causes without losing their jobs? Can you imagine the insanity if voting records got leaked?
- elil17 6y ago
  Really, what language in prop 8 might he have disagreed with? Being a CEO of a large organization is not a human right. Part of the job is being the public face of the organization, and that means that, if you’re a CEO, you can lose your job if you say or do something stupid in your personal life. Everyone knows that when they sign up. Brendan knew the stakes, messed up, and now has to face the punishment. Which is being the CEO of a slightly smaller organization.
  - tabbycorn 6y ago
    I can't put words in his mouth. I recall at the time wishing that, while they were "redefining marriage", they could go ahead and formalize a separation between civil unions and marriage in the church, because I was concerned about the state of California telling priests that they needed to perform weddings for whoever asked them to be married, or else face fines / jail time. Nobody said being a CEO was a 'right'. You're correct that part of being a CEO is being the public face of the company, and I agree with you that it's reasonable for the members to not want to be represented by somebody who is repulsive to them. Maybe something like an actual vote of confidence or vote of self-similarity is not out of the question. But, we don't vote for this kind of thing, rather, people get run out town by a (sometimes literal) mob in the court of public opinion by, again, the loudest voices. And, because blood is in the air, they don't get support (quiet or loud) from all the people at the company who either agree with them or who just don't want mob rule to exist (because even though they're not socialists, or trade unionists, or Jews, they see that the wheel of "social justice" will eventually turn on them, too). > if you say or do something stupid in your personal life Easy with the name calling. I'm here taking the opposite position and you jump to the word 'stupid'. No need to get personal. Okay, maybe you didn't mean "stupid" like "no right-minded person would have that opinion" instead of "it would be stupid, given the current political climate, to say this publicly"... but I think then you would be agreeing with me, so you probably meant the first sense.
    - elil17 6y ago
      How is same sex marriage redefining marriage when it was already legal prior to prop 8? Again, where is your example of someone getting run out of town by a literal mob? This guy is still incredibly wealthy.
bzb3 6y ago
So basically what you're saying is that only progressive views are valid.
- tabbycorn 6y ago
  That isn't what elil17 said. I happen to agree with both sentences in elil17's comment and I'm fairly conservative. I'm pretty sure elil17's idea of which views are "antithetical to a free and equal society" doesn't match my own, though.
  - Simulacra 6y ago
    I think what constitutes "antithetical to a free and equal society" varies dramatically. I believe that no speech is "antithetical to a free and equal society" because to do so is to assume one speech is greater than another. I think that’s how we got to this point. So long as the speech does not infringe on the rights of someone else, it should be absolutely allowed. A public discussion on overthrowing the government, yes. A public discussion on school segregation and how to achieve it, yes. But a discussion about how to violate someone’s rights, fire someone because of their race, gender, sexuality, any of that, or in anyway trying to Directly harm another person, that’s where it becomes bad speech.