3 ms·

> a position which caused actual damage [citation needed]. Also, he supported a cause that the majority of the voters did. How can you prove that withholding

> a position which caused actual damage [citation needed]. Also, he supported a cause that the majority of the voters did. How can you prove that withholding his $1k or whatever, or even him advocating for the opposite position, would have changed the outcome of the vote, thus averting "actual damage" to people? Sorry if this is overly snarky, nitpicky, emotionally charged. I guess every comment in these threads is, pretty much.

matthewmacleod 13y ago
I can almost guarantee the opposite, if you want. If he'd not got involved at all, nothing would have changed. That's really not the point is it, though? You can't say "Hey, this guy was campaigning for policies that objectively harm a group of people. But we can ignore that, because it wouldn't make a difference if we wasn't involved." If you did, there would be almost no personal moral responsibility for any action you took, subject to the condition that the outcome wasn't really altered by your participation. To take it to an absurd extreme, it'd be a bit like saying "Okay, he was a KKK member, but he never actually beat anybody to death, and the KKK would still have existed, so it's okay." So, the views he held and the campaign he actively helped caused objective damage to people. The rights and wrongs of that are irrelevant; the point is, it's ludicrous to claim that those people who were harmed should shut up and respect his "right to free speech" by way of not objecting to his appointment.
- scintill76 13y ago
  You're right, the "personal responsibility" argument was weak. I guess my point is, one guy is being bullied for having an opinion that the majority (of Californians who turned out for the vote, at least) had. He was just unlucky enough to be required by law to leave a paper trail, and has enough integrity to not back down from his beliefs under political pressure. I'm not saying "might makes right", but that this is still not commonly seen as equivalent to human rights[3]; that opposing gay marriage should not be equated with "hating gays"; and that by all appearances this political opinion had no affect on his treatment of people in his professional life. You still haven't shown how this position caused damage. I do think it would be fairly easy to quantify in, say, lost tax benefits, but I'd just prefer that to be actually stated so everyone knows what's actually at stake, instead of using vague, emotional language like "harm, damage, wrong". It's not honest to pin all the discrimination and hate that gays experience, on just being denied marriage, which I feel is what's implied by being vague. I feel like you've kind of Godwin'd this discussion by invoking the KKK. I really don't think you can compare terrorizing and killing people for the color of their skin or their religion, to voicing your opinion, as a part of society, on how a civil contract should be defined. It's easy to equate "KKK = pure evil" in today's age. Part of the reason I invoked the majority who supported Prop 8, is that, at least at that time, gay marriage wasn't such a settled issue to most people (in California, in 2008.) If you reject that relativist argument, I understand; but any comparison of lynching and legislating seems relativist too. I don't think anyone is saying LGBT people should 'shut up and respect his "right to free speech"'. To be honest, I can't blame them for protesting. You had some good points about Mozilla's image and how this whole thing was sort of poorly handled. I guess what I and others are troubled by, is how many other people, out of fear or mob mentality, are jumping on the bandwagon, and what this means for the careers of anyone who ever wants to make any political statement. There are a few employees who are supporters of LGBT rights who did not object.[1][2] I hope for the sake of their future careers, that the taint of supporting Prop 8 isn't transitive! Maybe this thing is a win for LGBT, but more in a "opponents will shut up to avoid being torn apart by vocal supporters" way than "the majority of the people are happily supporting them." At the risk of sounding like the slippery slope fallacy, how far does this kind of logic carry? Should women employees start calling for resignations of anyone who has donated to a Republican, because they oppose contraception or whatever? It sounds insane, but now that we've opened this door, why not? [1]: https://twitter.com/jason_duell/status/449265719474008064 https://twitter.com/jason_duell/status/449265719474008064 [2]: https://twitter.com/zbraniecki/status/449250865820348416 https://twitter.com/zbraniecki/status/449250865820348416 [3]: One way to illustrate what I mean, is that it would be acceptable to many people if he took no position on it. On the other hand, it would be considered racist to most people to take no position on, say, "Are whites superior to blacks?"

matthewmacleod 13y ago

I can almost guarantee the opposite, if you want. If he'd not got involved at all, nothing would have changed. That's really not the point is it, though? You can't say "Hey, this guy was campaigning for policies that objectively harm a group of people. But we can ignore that, because it wouldn't make a difference if we wasn't involved." If you did, there would be almost no personal moral responsibility for any action you took, subject to the condition that the outcome wasn't really altered by your participation. To take it to an absurd extreme, it'd be a bit like saying "Okay, he was a KKK member, but he never actually beat anybody to death, and the KKK would still have existed, so it's okay." So, the views he held and the campaign he actively helped caused objective damage to people. The rights and wrongs of that are irrelevant; the point is, it's ludicrous to claim that those people who were harmed should shut up and respect his "right to free speech" by way of not objecting to his appointment.

scintill76 13y ago
You're right, the "personal responsibility" argument was weak. I guess my point is, one guy is being bullied for having an opinion that the majority (of Californians who turned out for the vote, at least) had. He was just unlucky enough to be required by law to leave a paper trail, and has enough integrity to not back down from his beliefs under political pressure. I'm not saying "might makes right", but that this is still not commonly seen as equivalent to human rights[3]; that opposing gay marriage should not be equated with "hating gays"; and that by all appearances this political opinion had no affect on his treatment of people in his professional life. You still haven't shown how this position caused damage. I do think it would be fairly easy to quantify in, say, lost tax benefits, but I'd just prefer that to be actually stated so everyone knows what's actually at stake, instead of using vague, emotional language like "harm, damage, wrong". It's not honest to pin all the discrimination and hate that gays experience, on just being denied marriage, which I feel is what's implied by being vague. I feel like you've kind of Godwin'd this discussion by invoking the KKK. I really don't think you can compare terrorizing and killing people for the color of their skin or their religion, to voicing your opinion, as a part of society, on how a civil contract should be defined. It's easy to equate "KKK = pure evil" in today's age. Part of the reason I invoked the majority who supported Prop 8, is that, at least at that time, gay marriage wasn't such a settled issue to most people (in California, in 2008.) If you reject that relativist argument, I understand; but any comparison of lynching and legislating seems relativist too. I don't think anyone is saying LGBT people should 'shut up and respect his "right to free speech"'. To be honest, I can't blame them for protesting. You had some good points about Mozilla's image and how this whole thing was sort of poorly handled. I guess what I and others are troubled by, is how many other people, out of fear or mob mentality, are jumping on the bandwagon, and what this means for the careers of anyone who ever wants to make any political statement. There are a few employees who are supporters of LGBT rights who did not object.[1][2] I hope for the sake of their future careers, that the taint of supporting Prop 8 isn't transitive! Maybe this thing is a win for LGBT, but more in a "opponents will shut up to avoid being torn apart by vocal supporters" way than "the majority of the people are happily supporting them." At the risk of sounding like the slippery slope fallacy, how far does this kind of logic carry? Should women employees start calling for resignations of anyone who has donated to a Republican, because they oppose contraception or whatever? It sounds insane, but now that we've opened this door, why not? [1]: https://twitter.com/jason_duell/status/449265719474008064 https://twitter.com/jason_duell/status/449265719474008064 [2]: https://twitter.com/zbraniecki/status/449250865820348416 https://twitter.com/zbraniecki/status/449250865820348416 [3]: One way to illustrate what I mean, is that it would be acceptable to many people if he took no position on it. On the other hand, it would be considered racist to most people to take no position on, say, "Are whites superior to blacks?"