6 ms·

The issue I, and I think others, have with this appointment is what the appointment implies: in a world where many hateful people hold power, yet another hatefu

by dmazin 13y ago

The issue I, and I think others, have with this appointment is what the appointment implies: in a world where many hateful people hold power, yet another hateful person should hold power (in, of all places, an organization seemingly rooted in progress).

sliverstorm 13y ago
But if we discriminate against him purely on the basis of his beliefs (and not his actions on the job), we are no better than he. (If his personal beliefs do pollute his work then do as you will, run the guy out of town on a rail if you must)
- dmazin 13y ago
  I disagree. There are actions which should be applied to oppressors and not the oppressed. Publicly embarrassing bigots is necessary to show that such beliefs will not be socially accepted; public embarrassment of minority groups is hatred. Just a disclaimer: I fully support discrimination against bigots such as refusal of service.
  - sliverstorm 13y ago
    So it's ok only when done to the people you don't like.
    - zorpner 13y ago
      If you're accusing him of "not liking" bigots, you're probably correct. Why, specifically, is it okay for Eich to fund the oppression of homosexuals and not okay for people to say that they find that upsetting and therefore would prefer not to use or serve products he's associated with? What level would his bigotry have to ascend to before people were no longer obligated to use these products or, at least, not tell anyone they're not using them and why?
      - jebblue 13y ago
        Google says this about bigotry: "big·ot·ry ˈbigətrē/Submit noun 1. bigoted attitudes; intolerance toward those who hold different opinions from oneself." Gays who want to oppress anyone for not thinking like them are also being bigots by that definition. Marriage has been between a man and a woman throughout the history of humans. I think Gays should have legal equality. They can not usurp a word that has had such a clear meaning throughout the core existence of humankind.
        zorpner 13y ago
        Tell me more about this English word that "has had such a clear meaning throughout the core existence of humankind". Retreating to dictionary definitions does not make a point, nor does asserting that prejudice by an oppressive class against an oppressed class is the same as the converse.
        jebblue 13y ago
        >> Retreating to dictionary definitions does not make a point Well, yea, actually, it made it quite clearly, hence my post. >> nor does asserting that prejudice by an oppressive class against an oppressed class is the same as the converse. Oppression is oppression, elegance and articulation do not change that. Your attempt to say that my belief and understanding of the meaning if a single word describing a single legal institution is oppression underestimates what I was stating originally; that we who believe and understand the meaning of the word marriage are being oppressed by a very vocal, sometimes very vocally belligerent and socially irreverent group in context minimally and notwithstanding.
        zorpner 13y ago
        > are being oppressed Are you being beaten to death for your sexual orientation? Are you having your fostered children of many years removed from your family? Are you being denied the right to be with your spouse in the hospital or on their deathbed? You are in no sense "being oppressed". This is the way in which your "oppression" is not oppression, and one of many reasons why retreating to dictionary definitions of words is a cowardly, useless way to argue.
    - dhmholley 13y ago
      Action against those in positions of power who cause harm to others is meaningfully different to action against those who are already victimised. The first is a movement for social change that increases the net good in the world, the second is simple oppression. In the same sense, one might say that overthrowing a fascist dictator is more morally justified than overthrowing a peaceful democracy to install said dictatorship. Both are violence against a government, but they exist in different moral contexts.
    - baddox 13y ago
      That's how it works for the vast majority of people, who believe that moral truths exist as real attributes of humans or the Universe. Their own morals are right, and all other morals are wrong.
  - ScottBurson 13y ago
    But then you wind up feeding the narrative, which we've heard so much, that gay marriage opponents are the ones actually being oppressed here. I think that's mostly crap... except, perhaps, for cases like this one. I'm not even sure what I think about it, but I can't reject silverstorm's point out of hand.
  - baddox 13y ago
    And someone else could just say that the people arguing in favor of gay rights are the oppressor, and the argument has gone nowhere.
- GFK_of_xmaspast 13y ago
  "you gotta be tolerant of the intolerant" is a really shitty argument.
  - sliverstorm 13y ago
    No, my argument is more like "Don't fight intolerance with intolerance"
  - SimHacker 13y ago
    Philosopher Karl Popper asserted, in The Open Society and Its Enemies Vol. 1, that we are warranted in refusing to tolerate intolerance. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance Michael Walzer asks "Should we tolerate the intolerant?" He notes that most minority religious groups who are the beneficiaries of tolerance are themselves intolerant, at least in some respects. In a tolerant regime, such people may learn to tolerate, or at least to behave "as if they possessed this virtue". Philosopher Karl Popper asserted, in The Open Society and Its Enemies Vol. 1, that we are warranted in refusing to tolerate intolerance. Philosopher John Rawls concludes in A Theory of Justice that a just society must tolerate the intolerant, for otherwise, the society would then itself be intolerant, and thus unjust. However, Rawls also insists, like Popper, that society has a reasonable right of self-preservation that supersedes the principle of tolerance: "While an intolerant sect does not itself have title to complain of intolerance, its freedom should be restricted only when the tolerant sincerely and with reason believe that their own security and that of the institutions of liberty are in danger."
- redthrowaway 13y ago
  He materially supported a campaign to deny rights to a subset of the population. That action, not belief.
  - fleitz 13y ago
    You may want to look into the principles of common and natural law... Pretty much every law in the common law system, including the constitution, is a law that denies rights to subsets of the population. The only question is whether you are in favor of such regulation. I'm personally not in favor of regulating homosexuality or marriage.
  - sliverstorm 13y ago
    But what did that have to do with his job? Did he divert company funds to that campaign?

by dmazin 13y ago

sliverstorm 13y ago

But if we discriminate against him purely on the basis of his beliefs (and not his actions on the job), we are no better than he. (If his personal beliefs do pollute his work then do as you will, run the guy out of town on a rail if you must)

dmazin 13y ago
I disagree. There are actions which should be applied to oppressors and not the oppressed. Publicly embarrassing bigots is necessary to show that such beliefs will not be socially accepted; public embarrassment of minority groups is hatred. Just a disclaimer: I fully support discrimination against bigots such as refusal of service.
- sliverstorm 13y ago
  So it's ok only when done to the people you don't like.
  - zorpner 13y ago
    If you're accusing him of "not liking" bigots, you're probably correct. Why, specifically, is it okay for Eich to fund the oppression of homosexuals and not okay for people to say that they find that upsetting and therefore would prefer not to use or serve products he's associated with? What level would his bigotry have to ascend to before people were no longer obligated to use these products or, at least, not tell anyone they're not using them and why?
    - jebblue 13y ago
      Google says this about bigotry: "big·ot·ry ˈbigətrē/Submit noun 1. bigoted attitudes; intolerance toward those who hold different opinions from oneself." Gays who want to oppress anyone for not thinking like them are also being bigots by that definition. Marriage has been between a man and a woman throughout the history of humans. I think Gays should have legal equality. They can not usurp a word that has had such a clear meaning throughout the core existence of humankind.
      - zorpner 13y ago
        Tell me more about this English word that "has had such a clear meaning throughout the core existence of humankind". Retreating to dictionary definitions does not make a point, nor does asserting that prejudice by an oppressive class against an oppressed class is the same as the converse.
        jebblue 13y ago
        >> Retreating to dictionary definitions does not make a point Well, yea, actually, it made it quite clearly, hence my post. >> nor does asserting that prejudice by an oppressive class against an oppressed class is the same as the converse. Oppression is oppression, elegance and articulation do not change that. Your attempt to say that my belief and understanding of the meaning if a single word describing a single legal institution is oppression underestimates what I was stating originally; that we who believe and understand the meaning of the word marriage are being oppressed by a very vocal, sometimes very vocally belligerent and socially irreverent group in context minimally and notwithstanding.
        zorpner 13y ago
        > are being oppressed Are you being beaten to death for your sexual orientation? Are you having your fostered children of many years removed from your family? Are you being denied the right to be with your spouse in the hospital or on their deathbed? You are in no sense "being oppressed". This is the way in which your "oppression" is not oppression, and one of many reasons why retreating to dictionary definitions of words is a cowardly, useless way to argue.
  - dhmholley 13y ago
    Action against those in positions of power who cause harm to others is meaningfully different to action against those who are already victimised. The first is a movement for social change that increases the net good in the world, the second is simple oppression. In the same sense, one might say that overthrowing a fascist dictator is more morally justified than overthrowing a peaceful democracy to install said dictatorship. Both are violence against a government, but they exist in different moral contexts.
  - baddox 13y ago
    That's how it works for the vast majority of people, who believe that moral truths exist as real attributes of humans or the Universe. Their own morals are right, and all other morals are wrong.
- ScottBurson 13y ago
  But then you wind up feeding the narrative, which we've heard so much, that gay marriage opponents are the ones actually being oppressed here. I think that's mostly crap... except, perhaps, for cases like this one. I'm not even sure what I think about it, but I can't reject silverstorm's point out of hand.
- baddox 13y ago
  And someone else could just say that the people arguing in favor of gay rights are the oppressor, and the argument has gone nowhere.
GFK_of_xmaspast 13y ago
"you gotta be tolerant of the intolerant" is a really shitty argument.
- sliverstorm 13y ago
  No, my argument is more like "Don't fight intolerance with intolerance"
- SimHacker 13y ago
  Philosopher Karl Popper asserted, in The Open Society and Its Enemies Vol. 1, that we are warranted in refusing to tolerate intolerance. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance Michael Walzer asks "Should we tolerate the intolerant?" He notes that most minority religious groups who are the beneficiaries of tolerance are themselves intolerant, at least in some respects. In a tolerant regime, such people may learn to tolerate, or at least to behave "as if they possessed this virtue". Philosopher Karl Popper asserted, in The Open Society and Its Enemies Vol. 1, that we are warranted in refusing to tolerate intolerance. Philosopher John Rawls concludes in A Theory of Justice that a just society must tolerate the intolerant, for otherwise, the society would then itself be intolerant, and thus unjust. However, Rawls also insists, like Popper, that society has a reasonable right of self-preservation that supersedes the principle of tolerance: "While an intolerant sect does not itself have title to complain of intolerance, its freedom should be restricted only when the tolerant sincerely and with reason believe that their own security and that of the institutions of liberty are in danger."
redthrowaway 13y ago
He materially supported a campaign to deny rights to a subset of the population. That action, not belief.
- fleitz 13y ago
  You may want to look into the principles of common and natural law... Pretty much every law in the common law system, including the constitution, is a law that denies rights to subsets of the population. The only question is whether you are in favor of such regulation. I'm personally not in favor of regulating homosexuality or marriage.
- sliverstorm 13y ago
  But what did that have to do with his job? Did he divert company funds to that campaign?