4 ms·

What, Brendan Eich, did was comparable to opposing the fair housing act in 1966. At the time, he was a member of the majority vote, fighting to continue oppress

What, Brendan Eich, did was comparable to opposing the fair housing act in 1966. At the time, he was a member of the majority vote, fighting to continue oppressing a minority group. While, he no doubt would find support, since he is part of the status quo, it’s still reasonable to protest his actions. I don’t think his life was destroyed. He remained a multimillionaire, and immediately founded another competing company. The people whose lives were destroyed were the millions who didn’t have basic marriage rights for decades, and who were systematically humiliated merely for openly being in love.

afiori 6y ago
Voting for and supporting the wrong side is part of the democratic process. As far as we know Eich was never biased or prejudiced on on that topic as work, his co-workers in that minority never even realized that he held such political opinions, and there is no reason to think he thought lesser of them. He simply wished for the laws not to change.
- camgunz 6y ago
  Hate, prejudice, and discrimination are not valid political views. Slavery was once a political issue, and your comment would fit right in with that era also.
  - afiori 6y ago
    > Hate, prejudice, and discrimination are not valid political views. My point is that there is no indication that hate and prejudice where ever part of Eich's views. > your comment would fit right in with that era also. I agree, in that era my comment would have supported people campaigning against slavery in racist states.
    - camgunz 6y ago
      > My point is that there is no indication that hate and prejudice where ever part of Eich's views. Can you explain to me how donating in support of Prop 8 (which would have banned gay marriage) isn't homophobic (and thus hateful, prejudicial, and discriminatory)? Can you explain it in such a way as it would make sense for LGBTQ people but not, say, people of color? > I agree, in that era my comment would have supported people campaigning against slavery in racist states. This isn't a good faith response. Being pro-slavery was never a valid political position. It was simply hateful and cruel. We cannot accept stances like this as civil discourse. Any debate over "well, does group of humans X get the same rights as group of humans Y" is done. The answer is always yes.
      - afiori 6y ago
        I am saying that we are conflating some terms. I agree with you that it is discriminatory to bar non-hetero couples from marriage. Given that there is no basis to conflate the intent to be hateful and prejudicial. Based on the very little information we have this is a case of someone having wrong opinions but not being an actual danger to anyone. > Can you explain it in such a way as it would make sense for LGBTQ people but not, say, people of color? no, because I disagree with him and I don't really know of a good reasoning for it. (The only non-contradictory one (a low bar) being that the federal government should not be allowed to decide who can and cannot marry) Regarding slavery it was a good faith response, also it was tongue-in-cheek response. > Being pro-slavery was never a valid political position. It was, it also no longer is, with progress we improve what is a valid position and what is not. Once upon a time in many places abolishing slavery was not a valid political position. Ultimately these are moral decision that each of us needs to take responsibility for.
  - rini17 6y ago
    Cancel culture is a kind of discrimination, too.
    - camgunz 6y ago
      It does seem that way at first, but (stipulating that it's a thing) cancel culture is based on someone's actions. Discrimination is based on someone's attributes that they cannot change, that are fundamental to who they are. This is why deplatforming someone who's being a racist (or a cop, or a Democrat) is not the same as deplatforming someone because they're LGBTQ. You can go a little further with this into ascribed vs. achieved status [1][2]. I'm not saying achieved status discrimination is good or OK, nor am I saying it isn't. But it's not the same as ascribed status discrimination. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ascribed_status https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ascribed_status [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Achieved_status https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Achieved_status
      - rini17 6y ago
        So you argument "cancel culture is based on someone's actions" and give not some action examples but unrelated achieved status - being a cop or a Democrat? This stinks and the result is the Brandon Eich and Leni Riefenstahl who did not actually discriminate anyone are given same treatment as other people who were directly responsible for discrimination or genocide.
  - fulafel 6y ago
    Do you mean they are not nice political views or tjat they don't fit in the category? Political thought generally has top level values and then more detailed plans drawing from the top level ideas. Discrimination and hate are examples of these high level political values.

afiori 6y ago

Voting for and supporting the wrong side is part of the democratic process. As far as we know Eich was never biased or prejudiced on on that topic as work, his co-workers in that minority never even realized that he held such political opinions, and there is no reason to think he thought lesser of them. He simply wished for the laws not to change.

camgunz 6y ago
Hate, prejudice, and discrimination are not valid political views. Slavery was once a political issue, and your comment would fit right in with that era also.
- afiori 6y ago
  > Hate, prejudice, and discrimination are not valid political views. My point is that there is no indication that hate and prejudice where ever part of Eich's views. > your comment would fit right in with that era also. I agree, in that era my comment would have supported people campaigning against slavery in racist states.
  - camgunz 6y ago
    > My point is that there is no indication that hate and prejudice where ever part of Eich's views. Can you explain to me how donating in support of Prop 8 (which would have banned gay marriage) isn't homophobic (and thus hateful, prejudicial, and discriminatory)? Can you explain it in such a way as it would make sense for LGBTQ people but not, say, people of color? > I agree, in that era my comment would have supported people campaigning against slavery in racist states. This isn't a good faith response. Being pro-slavery was never a valid political position. It was simply hateful and cruel. We cannot accept stances like this as civil discourse. Any debate over "well, does group of humans X get the same rights as group of humans Y" is done. The answer is always yes.
    - afiori 6y ago
      I am saying that we are conflating some terms. I agree with you that it is discriminatory to bar non-hetero couples from marriage. Given that there is no basis to conflate the intent to be hateful and prejudicial. Based on the very little information we have this is a case of someone having wrong opinions but not being an actual danger to anyone. > Can you explain it in such a way as it would make sense for LGBTQ people but not, say, people of color? no, because I disagree with him and I don't really know of a good reasoning for it. (The only non-contradictory one (a low bar) being that the federal government should not be allowed to decide who can and cannot marry) Regarding slavery it was a good faith response, also it was tongue-in-cheek response. > Being pro-slavery was never a valid political position. It was, it also no longer is, with progress we improve what is a valid position and what is not. Once upon a time in many places abolishing slavery was not a valid political position. Ultimately these are moral decision that each of us needs to take responsibility for.
- rini17 6y ago
  Cancel culture is a kind of discrimination, too.
  - camgunz 6y ago
    It does seem that way at first, but (stipulating that it's a thing) cancel culture is based on someone's actions. Discrimination is based on someone's attributes that they cannot change, that are fundamental to who they are. This is why deplatforming someone who's being a racist (or a cop, or a Democrat) is not the same as deplatforming someone because they're LGBTQ. You can go a little further with this into ascribed vs. achieved status [1][2]. I'm not saying achieved status discrimination is good or OK, nor am I saying it isn't. But it's not the same as ascribed status discrimination. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ascribed_status https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ascribed_status [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Achieved_status https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Achieved_status
    - rini17 6y ago
      So you argument "cancel culture is based on someone's actions" and give not some action examples but unrelated achieved status - being a cop or a Democrat? This stinks and the result is the Brandon Eich and Leni Riefenstahl who did not actually discriminate anyone are given same treatment as other people who were directly responsible for discrimination or genocide.
- fulafel 6y ago
  Do you mean they are not nice political views or tjat they don't fit in the category? Political thought generally has top level values and then more detailed plans drawing from the top level ideas. Discrimination and hate are examples of these high level political values.