5 ms·

Which issues would remain private political matters? Short answer: none, if somebody disagrees with them. This is another sign of our increasingly polarized

Which issues would remain private political matters? Short answer: none, if somebody disagrees with them. This is another sign of our increasingly polarized (and politicized) society. If Eich supported Prop 8 in California, then clearly he's a homophobic tool of the Koch Brothers. If Eich opposed Prop 8, then clearly he's a leftist degenerate and tool of George Soros. I'd like to propose an addition to Shakespeare's list: after the lawyers, we go after the damn partisans.

JohnBooty 13y ago
If Eich supported Prop 8 in California, then clearly he's a homophobic tool of the Koch Brothers. If Eich opposed Prop 8, then clearly he's a leftist degenerate and tool of George Soros. You're doing something at least as logically incorrect as the application of partisan labels if you're characterizing this discussion in such a way. I see a pretty good discussion where the overwhelming majority of people are expressing disappointment in one of Eich's actions, not engaging in partisan name-calling.
- MrZongle2 13y ago
  So it's only partisan if they agree with Eich?
  - jbooth 13y ago
    It's only partisan if the community's split on the issue -- it's not partisan to be against slavery or support women's suffrage, even though it once was, and it's rapidly becoming non-partisan to support equal rights for gay relationships.
    - MrZongle2 13y ago
      So is "the community" an accurate reflection of society at large?
      - deleted 13y ago
        [deleted]
      - jbooth 13y ago
        Does it matter? The job is a tech community job. If he were publicly in favor of warrantless wiretapping, he'd be catching even more crap about it from the tech community, yet the tech community is even further out of step from mainstream society on that issue.
        MrZongle2 13y ago
        Does it matter? Apparently it does matter to quite a few people here. If the community represents society as a whole, then it is a serious issue. If the community does not, then this is a tempest in a teapot.
        deleted 13y ago
        [deleted]
  - JohnBooty 13y ago
    There are a few possible meanings of partisanship. The definition most relevant to American politics involves acting/thinking along party lines, as opposed to thinking independently about specific issues.
- wwweston 13y ago
  > I see a pretty good discussion where the overwhelming majority of people are expressing disappointment in one of Eich's actions If it were really about expressing disappointment, then the work would have been done the last time(s) this was hashed out. Bringing it up at the time he's receiving the office carries a clear implication: support for prop 8 should be a mark against considering someone for high profile positions like this or should perhaps outright disqualify them.
  - JohnBooty 13y ago
    Wait. If we're disappointed, it can only be expressed during some specific window? And we can only be disappointed... once? For whatever it's worth, I'd somehow missed this news about Brandon Eich the first time around.
    - wwweston 13y ago
      > And we can only be disappointed... once? I'd think the "plural" on times would cover the answer to that question, on the level you're asking, anyway. More to the point, yes, there are limits to what a financial contribution to prop 8 implies that thoughtful people will recognize. One of them might be bound to what an action taken 5 years ago would imply about positions today. > For whatever it's worth, I'd somehow missed this news about Brandon Eich the first time around. Clearly, you have been long and deeply engaged in the relevant topics.
protomyth 13y ago
"If Eich supported Prop 8 in California, then clearly he's a homophobic tool of the Koch Brothers." The Koch Brothers have given money to support gay marriage. If you intend to slander people at least be truthful on what they support or don't support.
- MrZongle2 13y ago
  Read my post again. Who exactly did I slander, besides nameless partisans?
  - protomyth 13y ago
    The Koch Brothers as you misrepresented their stance and perpetuated a myth.
    - MrZongle2 13y ago
      I'll repeat: read my post again. I posted two typical positions held by partisans on either end of the political spectrum. Neither did I represent as my opinion, and definitely not as fact. Why did you latch on to one of these positions? Aren't you equally outraged about the "leftist degenerate and tool of George Soros" position as well? Did it occur to you that perhaps if I was posting two diametrically opposing viewpoints, I was making a larger point and not simply spouting my personal beliefs? Have the downvotes proven my point?
      - protomyth 13y ago
        Yes, I got that you were "posting two diametrically opposing viewpoints", but that doesn't mean that you should get a pass on misrepresenting the example you gave for one of your opposing viewpoints since it was in error and not the viewpoint of the party you attributed it to. I didn't look up George Soros's view on the issue to find out if your example's mention represented his belief or not. Making larger points doesn't give one license to misrepresent the view of people in such a contentious issue. I'm sure if someone attributed that belief to you as part of a larger point, you would feel a bit slighted. > Have the downvotes proven my point? I cannot down vote you, and I don't know what the down voters found about your post that lead them to take their action. Perhaps they will comment also.

JohnBooty 13y ago

If Eich supported Prop 8 in California, then clearly he's a homophobic tool of the Koch Brothers. If Eich opposed Prop 8, then clearly he's a leftist degenerate and tool of George Soros. You're doing something at least as logically incorrect as the application of partisan labels if you're characterizing this discussion in such a way. I see a pretty good discussion where the overwhelming majority of people are expressing disappointment in one of Eich's actions, not engaging in partisan name-calling.

MrZongle2 13y ago
So it's only partisan if they agree with Eich?
- jbooth 13y ago
  It's only partisan if the community's split on the issue -- it's not partisan to be against slavery or support women's suffrage, even though it once was, and it's rapidly becoming non-partisan to support equal rights for gay relationships.
  - MrZongle2 13y ago
    So is "the community" an accurate reflection of society at large?
    - deleted 13y ago
      [deleted]
    - jbooth 13y ago
      Does it matter? The job is a tech community job. If he were publicly in favor of warrantless wiretapping, he'd be catching even more crap about it from the tech community, yet the tech community is even further out of step from mainstream society on that issue.
      - MrZongle2 13y ago
        Does it matter? Apparently it does matter to quite a few people here. If the community represents society as a whole, then it is a serious issue. If the community does not, then this is a tempest in a teapot.
        deleted 13y ago
        [deleted]
- JohnBooty 13y ago
  There are a few possible meanings of partisanship. The definition most relevant to American politics involves acting/thinking along party lines, as opposed to thinking independently about specific issues.
wwweston 13y ago
> I see a pretty good discussion where the overwhelming majority of people are expressing disappointment in one of Eich's actions If it were really about expressing disappointment, then the work would have been done the last time(s) this was hashed out. Bringing it up at the time he's receiving the office carries a clear implication: support for prop 8 should be a mark against considering someone for high profile positions like this or should perhaps outright disqualify them.
- JohnBooty 13y ago
  Wait. If we're disappointed, it can only be expressed during some specific window? And we can only be disappointed... once? For whatever it's worth, I'd somehow missed this news about Brandon Eich the first time around.
  - wwweston 13y ago
    > And we can only be disappointed... once? I'd think the "plural" on times would cover the answer to that question, on the level you're asking, anyway. More to the point, yes, there are limits to what a financial contribution to prop 8 implies that thoughtful people will recognize. One of them might be bound to what an action taken 5 years ago would imply about positions today. > For whatever it's worth, I'd somehow missed this news about Brandon Eich the first time around. Clearly, you have been long and deeply engaged in the relevant topics.

protomyth 13y ago

"If Eich supported Prop 8 in California, then clearly he's a homophobic tool of the Koch Brothers." The Koch Brothers have given money to support gay marriage. If you intend to slander people at least be truthful on what they support or don't support.

MrZongle2 13y ago
Read my post again. Who exactly did I slander, besides nameless partisans?
- protomyth 13y ago
  The Koch Brothers as you misrepresented their stance and perpetuated a myth.
  - MrZongle2 13y ago
    I'll repeat: read my post again. I posted two typical positions held by partisans on either end of the political spectrum. Neither did I represent as my opinion, and definitely not as fact. Why did you latch on to one of these positions? Aren't you equally outraged about the "leftist degenerate and tool of George Soros" position as well? Did it occur to you that perhaps if I was posting two diametrically opposing viewpoints, I was making a larger point and not simply spouting my personal beliefs? Have the downvotes proven my point?
    - protomyth 13y ago
      Yes, I got that you were "posting two diametrically opposing viewpoints", but that doesn't mean that you should get a pass on misrepresenting the example you gave for one of your opposing viewpoints since it was in error and not the viewpoint of the party you attributed it to. I didn't look up George Soros's view on the issue to find out if your example's mention represented his belief or not. Making larger points doesn't give one license to misrepresent the view of people in such a contentious issue. I'm sure if someone attributed that belief to you as part of a larger point, you would feel a bit slighted. > Have the downvotes proven my point? I cannot down vote you, and I don't know what the down voters found about your post that lead them to take their action. Perhaps they will comment also.