7 ms·

We need to stop this trend of calling anti-equal rights views "politics" as a way of playing down their severity. If your personal opinions are that others don'

by kjakm 6y ago

We need to stop this trend of calling anti-equal rights views "politics" as a way of playing down their severity. If your personal opinions are that others don't deserve the same basic rights that you have you should face the consequences of holding those beliefs. Gay marriage is no different than any other civil rights issue and we wouldn't excuse someone who was against equal rights for women or people of another race because it's their "personal politics" and they're entitled to their view.

ampdepolymerase 6y ago
Except when more important things are on the line. Werner Von Braun begs to differ.
- heavenlyblue 6y ago
  Are you trying to say rockets would not be invented without him?
heavenlyblue 6y ago
Amusing to see people at the top of the most fashionable industry while holding the moral views of a 19th century.
CitrusFruits 6y ago
While you may be right in that allowing for gay marriage is a good thing, I think talking about it in this manner is really divisive. I mean, in one comment your bundling together a group of people, assuming that one belief begets another, then comparing that belief with other popular less divisive beliefs. It feels like an attempt at shaming, which I personally don't think is productive.
waterhouse 6y ago
Consider how your meta-views apply to the issue of abortion. How do you recommend the pro-life people treat the pro-choice people?
nobody9999 6y ago
>We need to stop this trend of calling anti-equal rights views "politics" as a way of playing down their severity. If your personal opinions are that others don't deserve the same basic rights that you have you should face the consequences of holding those beliefs. I believe that who and how one loves is no one else's business except that of the consenting adults involved. Full stop. No equivocation, no caveats. Anyone else needs to mind their own fucking business. However, trashing someone's career because of their personal beliefs (with the caveat that those beliefs play no role in their professional position) is wrong. Assuming Eich didn't bring those beliefs into the office (whether that be by his speech or actions as an employee), it's irrelevant to his job. If we believe in liberty (such as the right of consenting adults to love how they need to do so), then we have to accept that others have liberty too -- within the constraint that the exercise of one's liberty doesn't impinge on the liberty of others[0]. Want to hate on Eich because he's a homophobe? Go for it. Want to call him out on his homophobia? Get on wit' yo' bad self! But none of that had anything to do with Eich's qualifications or ability to run Mozilla. What if you had a homophobic boss who hounded you out of your job because of your beliefs? Is that right? If you want to have a truly free society, you need to allow unpopular opinions to be held and expressed. And unless and until those opinions/beliefs actually impinge on the rights of others, we should tolerate (note I say 'tolerate' not embrace, endorse or accept) them. [0] As in "Your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins."
- mason55 6y ago
  > Want to hate on Eich because he's a homophobe? Go for it. Want to call him out on his homophobia? Get on wit' yo' bad self! But none of that had anything to do with Eich's qualifications or ability to run Mozilla. Ignoring the other arguments about comparing this to other basic human rights, if his politics are bringing a bunch of hate onto the company then it does impact his ability to do his job effectively.
  - nobody9999 6y ago
    >Ignoring the other arguments about comparing this to other basic human rights, if his politics are bringing a bunch of hate onto the company then it does impact his ability to do his job effectively. That's a fair point. I'd only say that I find it illiberal and deeply reactionary and regressive to hound someone professionally because of their private actions (in that case, a monetary political donation). As much as I believe that all of us, regardless of ethnicity, melanin content, chromosome configuration, religion, or any of many, many other "differences" should equally benefit from the rule of law and equality under those laws, whether that be loving who and how we choose, agency over what happens to/with our bodies or any other human/civil right, I also believe that we need to extend that to those who disagree with me. Because if we are only free to live/speak/believe as we wish as long as other folks don't kick up a fuss about it, and along the way destroy our livelihoods, is that really freedom? And if it's okay to do so for those who hold "vile" beliefs, who's to say that beliefs we hold won't be considered "vile" next week, next month or next year? As such, by all means call out those who espouse hate and discrimination. But destroying someone's livelihood because you don't like what they think or say is antithetical to the ideals of liberty and equality.
taT6S5xj 6y ago
> we wouldn't excuse someone who was against equal rights for women or people of another race because it's their "personal politics" and they're entitled to their view I would. I considered RMS's previous personal politics on pedophilia similarly deplorable and distasteful and I actively, financially support him as Chief Gnuisance because it was his personal politics and he is entitled to his view, and all humans are naturally imperfect and many of the most brilliant in some ways have the greatest weaknesses in others. I still like Roald Dahl's books after learning about his antisemitism and I don’t resent Terry Davis over his racism.
horsawlarway 6y ago
This kind of comment and attitude don't work. Full stop. The world is not black and white. We should do our best to work constructively with those around us to improve the world. That often includes tolerating ideas and beliefs that you may personally disagree with. For what it's worth, as a die hard card carrying liberal - I find your attitude cancerous to both society and democracy.
nshepperd 6y ago
"Face the consequences"? What consequences? Anything you want? Is this supposed to be a license to extrajudicially impose arbitrary consequences on people? I'll note that it's mainly users of Firefox who had to "face the consequences" of firing Eich for his views...

by kjakm 6y ago

ampdepolymerase 6y ago

Except when more important things are on the line. Werner Von Braun begs to differ.

heavenlyblue 6y ago
Are you trying to say rockets would not be invented without him?

heavenlyblue 6y ago

Amusing to see people at the top of the most fashionable industry while holding the moral views of a 19th century.

CitrusFruits 6y ago

While you may be right in that allowing for gay marriage is a good thing, I think talking about it in this manner is really divisive. I mean, in one comment your bundling together a group of people, assuming that one belief begets another, then comparing that belief with other popular less divisive beliefs. It feels like an attempt at shaming, which I personally don't think is productive.

waterhouse 6y ago

Consider how your meta-views apply to the issue of abortion. How do you recommend the pro-life people treat the pro-choice people?

nobody9999 6y ago

>We need to stop this trend of calling anti-equal rights views "politics" as a way of playing down their severity. If your personal opinions are that others don't deserve the same basic rights that you have you should face the consequences of holding those beliefs. I believe that who and how one loves is no one else's business except that of the consenting adults involved. Full stop. No equivocation, no caveats. Anyone else needs to mind their own fucking business. However, trashing someone's career because of their personal beliefs (with the caveat that those beliefs play no role in their professional position) is wrong. Assuming Eich didn't bring those beliefs into the office (whether that be by his speech or actions as an employee), it's irrelevant to his job. If we believe in liberty (such as the right of consenting adults to love how they need to do so), then we have to accept that others have liberty too -- within the constraint that the exercise of one's liberty doesn't impinge on the liberty of others[0]. Want to hate on Eich because he's a homophobe? Go for it. Want to call him out on his homophobia? Get on wit' yo' bad self! But none of that had anything to do with Eich's qualifications or ability to run Mozilla. What if you had a homophobic boss who hounded you out of your job because of your beliefs? Is that right? If you want to have a truly free society, you need to allow unpopular opinions to be held and expressed. And unless and until those opinions/beliefs actually impinge on the rights of others, we should tolerate (note I say 'tolerate' not embrace, endorse or accept) them. [0] As in "Your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins."

mason55 6y ago
> Want to hate on Eich because he's a homophobe? Go for it. Want to call him out on his homophobia? Get on wit' yo' bad self! But none of that had anything to do with Eich's qualifications or ability to run Mozilla. Ignoring the other arguments about comparing this to other basic human rights, if his politics are bringing a bunch of hate onto the company then it does impact his ability to do his job effectively.
- nobody9999 6y ago
  >Ignoring the other arguments about comparing this to other basic human rights, if his politics are bringing a bunch of hate onto the company then it does impact his ability to do his job effectively. That's a fair point. I'd only say that I find it illiberal and deeply reactionary and regressive to hound someone professionally because of their private actions (in that case, a monetary political donation). As much as I believe that all of us, regardless of ethnicity, melanin content, chromosome configuration, religion, or any of many, many other "differences" should equally benefit from the rule of law and equality under those laws, whether that be loving who and how we choose, agency over what happens to/with our bodies or any other human/civil right, I also believe that we need to extend that to those who disagree with me. Because if we are only free to live/speak/believe as we wish as long as other folks don't kick up a fuss about it, and along the way destroy our livelihoods, is that really freedom? And if it's okay to do so for those who hold "vile" beliefs, who's to say that beliefs we hold won't be considered "vile" next week, next month or next year? As such, by all means call out those who espouse hate and discrimination. But destroying someone's livelihood because you don't like what they think or say is antithetical to the ideals of liberty and equality.

taT6S5xj 6y ago

> we wouldn't excuse someone who was against equal rights for women or people of another race because it's their "personal politics" and they're entitled to their view I would. I considered RMS's previous personal politics on pedophilia similarly deplorable and distasteful and I actively, financially support him as Chief Gnuisance because it was his personal politics and he is entitled to his view, and all humans are naturally imperfect and many of the most brilliant in some ways have the greatest weaknesses in others. I still like Roald Dahl's books after learning about his antisemitism and I don’t resent Terry Davis over his racism.

horsawlarway 6y ago

This kind of comment and attitude don't work. Full stop. The world is not black and white. We should do our best to work constructively with those around us to improve the world. That often includes tolerating ideas and beliefs that you may personally disagree with. For what it's worth, as a die hard card carrying liberal - I find your attitude cancerous to both society and democracy.

nshepperd 6y ago

"Face the consequences"? What consequences? Anything you want? Is this supposed to be a license to extrajudicially impose arbitrary consequences on people? I'll note that it's mainly users of Firefox who had to "face the consequences" of firing Eich for his views...