4 ms·

This reasoning is bending over backwards a little too far. If the goal was to have marriage equality, then supporting a ban on marriage equality is not going to

• ChuckMcM 14y ago
  Hmm, ok so definitely not communicating successfully. First, I don't know if Brendan is pro-Gay, anti-Gay or agnostic. My assertion is that with one data point (a contribution to the prop 208 campaign) is, by itself insufficient deduce his actual feelings. My exposition on the strategy of passing it in order to change the country was not in a vacuum. Several people, myself included, who very much support a bias-blind right to marriage, agreed that adjudicating the issue would be both faster and more effective than legislating it. Prop 208 needed to pass in order for that to happen. And yes, there were people who argued in favor of more legislative work. But the history of this issue inside of California looked to be a predictor of a national debate on the issue. "fixing" it in one state is necessary but insufficient to ensure the rights of the married. Had Brendan been a member of that group I could have represented his actual position, but since he was not, I can only share that folks on the list of donors included people opposed to the concept of a marriage ban but with a strategy of getting it adjudicated and settled. The argument was made and rebutted that supporting it might make it the law of the land when we opposed it, the counter argument is that it is either constitutional or it isn't. If it is constitutional then our modest group did not have the financial resources to counter a very vocal and well funded religious constituency so opposing it might kill it for now but it would keep coming back again and again. If it is not constitutional then by getting it on the books now, we start the clock on the adjudication process sooner rather than later, and can sponsor the prosecution effort to make that case. At the end of the day one has to know the shape of the problem and where to fix it, until prop 208 started winding its way up to the Supreme Court there was no definitive statement on if the problem could be fought that way or not. The second point was that making a job choice based on the politics of the people you may or may not work with means you may miss out on some great opportunities. One of the reasons given for anti-discrimination hiring practices is that discrimination isn't about the quality of the work someone can do, and by discriminating you miss out on quality workers you would hire in a non-discriminatory way. Granted it's not the primary reason, or even a major reason, but it's a reason to avoid your personal biases when hiring that can benefit you personally. That also applies to people looking at a company, they can choose not to work for a company because their future manager has a point of view or a race or a gender the potential employee finds distasteful, but if they let those tendencies rule their choices they miss out on things which could be really really good. An example of that was when I was walking around 'career' day at USC with a fellow engineering student talking to various company recruiters. My companion was adamant about not working for any company where women were put in management roles over engineers. Their reasoning was that women didn't understand engineering and so would be unable to manage well. (this in spite of having women classmates who were excellent engineers!) He could have been trolling, I didn't really know him well enough to say. But I thought at the time that was really sad. So my points were simply that one data point is a weak place to start drawing conclusions, and writing off a company because of one employee risks robbing you of some excellent experience. I suspect too many words got in the way of the point.
  • eropple 14y ago
    > First, I don't know if Brendan is pro-Gay, anti-Gay or agnostic. My assertion is that with one data point (a contribution to the prop 208 campaign) is, by itself insufficient deduce his actual feelings. I don't mean to reply to this too pithily, but some pith kind of fits here: When you hear hoofbeats, assume horses, not zebras.
  • jules 14y ago
    This one data point may be insufficient to have 100% certainty about the opinion of Brendan Eich, but it certainly is enough for 99% certainty. I'm assuming you are a programmer? ;-) Inside a computer predicate logic works very well, but in the real world probabilistic logic usually works very well, rather than using the rule that after k number of data points your belief suddenly flips over from 0 to 1. Your first (big) paragraph I do not follow. You did not give any justification for why it's better to get the issue into the Supreme Court ASAP while suffering the disadvantages I mentioned, rather than opposing the ban. The Supreme Court does not just take into consideration the constitutionality in some fixed legal sense. They have the freedom to interpret laws, and they do so according to the current sentiment. Just read the court transcripts and you'll see this. For example they constantly debate whether same-sex marriage will be beneficial to society or not. Since you did not reply to any of the arguments I made, I'll repeat one of them: if there would be a next ban (perhaps in a different state) that is successful, then that will go to the Supreme Court. This is no worse than prop 8 going to the Supreme Court, in fact it's better for the reasons I outlined previously. Do you think that people who are against marriage equality are doing themselves a disservice by donating to anti-marriage equality groups? I really do not understand this, but I'd love to be convinced otherwise by logical arguments. I certainly agree with the next paragraph where you say that it would be stupid to let a difference in political belief heavily influence your job choice. However, insofar as these differences have practical effects on your treatment, chances of being fired, and mental well-being (it's bad for your mental well-being to be in the closet at work or anywhere else), it is smart to take such things into account.
  • Jaundiced 14y ago
    Point 1: We understood the argument, we just felt that was a ridiculously problematic Rube Goldberg solution that has serious negative repercussions. I wouldn't want to take strategic direction from somebody who thought it was the best way forward. Point 2: You directly stated that not wanting to work for bigots is the same as employment discrimination. That's a moronic argument. If you think your most exciting possible opportunity is to go work for a homophobic bigot, then go ahead, nobody is stopping you, but don't piss on people who have more than one opportunity. too many words got in the way of the point No. You just have an incredibly naive position... and you're being incredibly rude to those who disagree with utterly insane positions. It's disgusting that you compare not wanting to work for a woman to not wanting to work for a bigoted asshole. I can't even begin to fathom what made you think that was a reasonable argument to make. But I assume whatever broken made you think that was okay is also what keeps you from realizing that it was a stupid point... no need for further replies, at this point we understand that you're an idiotic blowhard who supports bigotry, and insults those who don't.