3 ms·

Make no mistake. What happened here is the strongest point one could have against full disclosure and transparency in the electoral system. What we are seeing

by muyuu 13y ago

Make no mistake. What happened here is the strongest point one could have against full disclosure and transparency in the electoral system. What we are seeing here is a person being harshly punished for his campaign donations. Basically for his political opinion (and an opinion that passed with a strong majority in California to boot). This is enormously destructive for democracy. It's McCarthyism of the highest level. Both the fact and its staunch defence by many in the forums. Never had the gay community been casted so intolerant before, or not that I know of, at least.

chasing 13y ago
Is there a "McCarthyism" version of Godwin's law? Seems like that needs a name. Anyway: I'm unclear why it's inappropriate to pass judgment on people based on their political speech. Also, you're playing that trick with the word "intolerance" that people sometimes play... There's "racial and sexual intolerance," which should be weeded out. It has no place in our society. But there are all sorts of "intolerances" which are great! For example: We should be intolerant of things which drag people down and ruin lives. Disease. Scientific illiteracy. Lack of the freedom to marry whomever one wishes. Bigotry.
- muyuu 13y ago
  A campaign donation is not political speech. It's public by law. A law that now shows clear conflicts if the internet mobs are going to be after people based on them. The ways you are defending are the textbook definition of bigotry. I agree that they shouldn't have a place in society.
devindotcom 13y ago
Campaign donations are not a political opinion, they are political speech. You have freedom of speech in that the government cannot prohibit your speaking. You do not have a right to immunity from the consequences of your speaking. As someone else put it once, taking a political position publicly takes a certain amount of civic courage. I am in complete disagreement with everything you say, which I consider alarmist, apologist, and simply wrong.
vectorpush 13y ago
Never had the gay community been casted so intolerant before, or not that I know of, at least. Why would the gay community ever be tolerant of someone who supports anti-gay legislature? I mean, come on, it seems pretty rational for LGBT supporters to be intolerant of individuals who want to prevent them from having the same legal rights as heterosexuals. It's not as if there is some reasonable excuse to oppose gay marriage, this whole thing exploded because the position is unambiguously indefensible. That doesn't mean it's the worst thing in the world, you just come off as a petty asshole when you try to prevent people from living their lives in a way that has absolutely no affect on your own life whatsoever.
- muyuu 13y ago
  That's your opinion, and that's fine. The problem starts when people start rallying active boycott on a person because his opinion is different. It's particularly delicate when it's a prop campaing donation (a prop that passed in California, by the way, so maybe it's not just a bunch of wackos).
  - vectorpush 13y ago
    The problem starts when people start rallying active boycott on a person because his opinion is different. Why is that a problem? People have the right to boycott whatever they want, it's really one of the only peaceful and effective forms of dissent available to ordinary citizens. That "difference of opinion" manifested itself as a financial contribution to an anti-gay cause, what kind of reaction would you expect from those who were exclusively targeted by said law? a prop that passed in California, by the way, so maybe it's not just a bunch of wackos And then it was overturned by the supreme court as unconstitutional, so maybe it is "just a bunch of wackos". Either way, I don't think the fact that a law passes lends any credibility to the substance of the law. To quote the court: DOMA’s unusual deviation from the usual tradition of recognizing and accepting state definitions of marriage here operates to deprive same-sex couples of the benefits and responsibilities that come with the federal recognition of their marriages. This is strong evidence of a law having the purpose and effect of disapproval of that class. The avowed purpose and practical effect of the law here in question are to impose a disadvantage, a separate status, and so a stigma upon all who enter into same-sex marriages made lawful by the unquestioned authority of the States. In other words, the only practical effect of the law is to disparage and stigmatize homosexuals.

by muyuu 13y ago

chasing 13y ago

Is there a "McCarthyism" version of Godwin's law? Seems like that needs a name. Anyway: I'm unclear why it's inappropriate to pass judgment on people based on their political speech. Also, you're playing that trick with the word "intolerance" that people sometimes play... There's "racial and sexual intolerance," which should be weeded out. It has no place in our society. But there are all sorts of "intolerances" which are great! For example: We should be intolerant of things which drag people down and ruin lives. Disease. Scientific illiteracy. Lack of the freedom to marry whomever one wishes. Bigotry.

muyuu 13y ago
A campaign donation is not political speech. It's public by law. A law that now shows clear conflicts if the internet mobs are going to be after people based on them. The ways you are defending are the textbook definition of bigotry. I agree that they shouldn't have a place in society.

devindotcom 13y ago

Campaign donations are not a political opinion, they are political speech. You have freedom of speech in that the government cannot prohibit your speaking. You do not have a right to immunity from the consequences of your speaking. As someone else put it once, taking a political position publicly takes a certain amount of civic courage. I am in complete disagreement with everything you say, which I consider alarmist, apologist, and simply wrong.

vectorpush 13y ago

Never had the gay community been casted so intolerant before, or not that I know of, at least. Why would the gay community ever be tolerant of someone who supports anti-gay legislature? I mean, come on, it seems pretty rational for LGBT supporters to be intolerant of individuals who want to prevent them from having the same legal rights as heterosexuals. It's not as if there is some reasonable excuse to oppose gay marriage, this whole thing exploded because the position is unambiguously indefensible. That doesn't mean it's the worst thing in the world, you just come off as a petty asshole when you try to prevent people from living their lives in a way that has absolutely no affect on your own life whatsoever.

muyuu 13y ago
That's your opinion, and that's fine. The problem starts when people start rallying active boycott on a person because his opinion is different. It's particularly delicate when it's a prop campaing donation (a prop that passed in California, by the way, so maybe it's not just a bunch of wackos).
- vectorpush 13y ago
  The problem starts when people start rallying active boycott on a person because his opinion is different. Why is that a problem? People have the right to boycott whatever they want, it's really one of the only peaceful and effective forms of dissent available to ordinary citizens. That "difference of opinion" manifested itself as a financial contribution to an anti-gay cause, what kind of reaction would you expect from those who were exclusively targeted by said law? a prop that passed in California, by the way, so maybe it's not just a bunch of wackos And then it was overturned by the supreme court as unconstitutional, so maybe it is "just a bunch of wackos". Either way, I don't think the fact that a law passes lends any credibility to the substance of the law. To quote the court: DOMA’s unusual deviation from the usual tradition of recognizing and accepting state definitions of marriage here operates to deprive same-sex couples of the benefits and responsibilities that come with the federal recognition of their marriages. This is strong evidence of a law having the purpose and effect of disapproval of that class. The avowed purpose and practical effect of the law here in question are to impose a disadvantage, a separate status, and so a stigma upon all who enter into same-sex marriages made lawful by the unquestioned authority of the States. In other words, the only practical effect of the law is to disparage and stigmatize homosexuals.