3 ms·

How does this "smack of the thought police"? OKCupid is not a government organization. At worst, they are expressing their own political belief. If you are cons

How does this "smack of the thought police"? OKCupid is not a government organization. At worst, they are expressing their own political belief. If you are considering the situation outside of the context of OKCupid, then I do not understand the relevance of the comment. And outside of the context of OKCupid, again, no authority is 'policing' Eich's thoughts. He donated money and this is information which is known publicly; there is no reason that he should be immune from critique. Given that he has offered several thousand dollars in support of legislative measures which would seek to actively discriminate against citizens, his employees among them, I believe that any and all scrutiny is necessary.

meddlepal 13y ago
The term "thought-police" does not necessarily have a government connotation. This whole situation reeks of some splinter group of gay-rights activists attempting to take out a high-profile target because he has a different opinion on marriage than they do. They are attempting to guide people's opinions by showing them what happens if you decide to go against them. Quite frankly, I think it is morally disgusting and it weakens there cause ultimately. Mr. Eich's personal politics are none of our business unless he starts allowing those politics to influence Mozilla... which until that occurs I see do not see a reason to criticize him.
- dragonwriter 13y ago
  > The term "thought-police" does not necessarily have a government connotation. Only if you rob it of all substance does it not necessarily imply an oppressive government.
  - nilkn 13y ago
    I think the notion of thought-police posited by meddlepal is just as scary as that of an oppressive government. Governments, at least, can be overthrown.
    - devilshaircut 13y ago
      And private individuals or organizations cannot? The flaw of logic is obvious.
      - nilkn 13y ago
        I don't really know what you're trying to say. I'm not talking about one person or one organization.
        devilshaircut 13y ago
        From the poster who suggested the use of the term "thought police": > "The term 'thought-police' does not necessarily have a government connotation." If it is not government, then the party under discussion therefore must be a private individual or organization. I don't understand how this is anything like the commonly accepted understanding of "thought police". It is simply one private party critiquing the behavior (in this case, a monetary donation to support certain legislation) of another private party. It is an inherent double standard. Also: if Eich, rather than fund legislation which discriminates against gays, funded legislation that discriminated against, for example, black people, would you be confident that black people who worked for Mozilla would be working in a fair environment? Would another private organization, like OKCupid, be justified in questioning such an individual? If this is to be branded the "thought police" then I worry about freedom of expression and our cultural mores, in general.
        nilkn 13y ago
        Eich is being critiqued right now by more than just one private party. That's why I was confused with your post. Also, "critique" is a rather kind way of putting it. It's more like doing everything possible to take his job away. And that's the real problem. Trying to sabotage someone's career over a difference of political opinion is not a mature or effective way to advance your message. How would you like it if all your coworkers publicly petitioned for you to quit because it was discovered you were pro-choice (hypothetically)? There are people who think abortion is plain old murder. People like that will think a pro-choice stance is absolutely unacceptable, and they might even think an example should be made of anybody who supports such legislature.
  - devilshaircut 13y ago
    I agree with you and regarding the poster to whom you were replying, all I can say is that I find it really disturbing that she or he believes publicly held beliefs from private citizens should be immune from public commentary. The consequences of this reasoning are severe and dangerous. To disagree with someone makes me the "thought police"? I just don't see how this applies at all. EDIT: I am adding this as an afterthought but honestly to totally disregard the Orwellian connotation of the term "thought police" I think is a very liberal application of the term.

meddlepal 13y ago

The term "thought-police" does not necessarily have a government connotation. This whole situation reeks of some splinter group of gay-rights activists attempting to take out a high-profile target because he has a different opinion on marriage than they do. They are attempting to guide people's opinions by showing them what happens if you decide to go against them. Quite frankly, I think it is morally disgusting and it weakens there cause ultimately. Mr. Eich's personal politics are none of our business unless he starts allowing those politics to influence Mozilla... which until that occurs I see do not see a reason to criticize him.

dragonwriter 13y ago
> The term "thought-police" does not necessarily have a government connotation. Only if you rob it of all substance does it not necessarily imply an oppressive government.
- nilkn 13y ago
  I think the notion of thought-police posited by meddlepal is just as scary as that of an oppressive government. Governments, at least, can be overthrown.
  - devilshaircut 13y ago
    And private individuals or organizations cannot? The flaw of logic is obvious.
    - nilkn 13y ago
      I don't really know what you're trying to say. I'm not talking about one person or one organization.
      - devilshaircut 13y ago
        From the poster who suggested the use of the term "thought police": > "The term 'thought-police' does not necessarily have a government connotation." If it is not government, then the party under discussion therefore must be a private individual or organization. I don't understand how this is anything like the commonly accepted understanding of "thought police". It is simply one private party critiquing the behavior (in this case, a monetary donation to support certain legislation) of another private party. It is an inherent double standard. Also: if Eich, rather than fund legislation which discriminates against gays, funded legislation that discriminated against, for example, black people, would you be confident that black people who worked for Mozilla would be working in a fair environment? Would another private organization, like OKCupid, be justified in questioning such an individual? If this is to be branded the "thought police" then I worry about freedom of expression and our cultural mores, in general.
        nilkn 13y ago
        Eich is being critiqued right now by more than just one private party. That's why I was confused with your post. Also, "critique" is a rather kind way of putting it. It's more like doing everything possible to take his job away. And that's the real problem. Trying to sabotage someone's career over a difference of political opinion is not a mature or effective way to advance your message. How would you like it if all your coworkers publicly petitioned for you to quit because it was discovered you were pro-choice (hypothetically)? There are people who think abortion is plain old murder. People like that will think a pro-choice stance is absolutely unacceptable, and they might even think an example should be made of anybody who supports such legislature.
- devilshaircut 13y ago
  I agree with you and regarding the poster to whom you were replying, all I can say is that I find it really disturbing that she or he believes publicly held beliefs from private citizens should be immune from public commentary. The consequences of this reasoning are severe and dangerous. To disagree with someone makes me the "thought police"? I just don't see how this applies at all. EDIT: I am adding this as an afterthought but honestly to totally disregard the Orwellian connotation of the term "thought police" I think is a very liberal application of the term.