5 ms·

I think you might be missing the overarching issue here. It isn't so much about the specifics of gay marriage, or Eich's donation, or him losing his job becaus

by Pacabel 13y ago

I think you might be missing the overarching issue here. It isn't so much about the specifics of gay marriage, or Eich's donation, or him losing his job because of his opinions. The real issue is hypocrisy, contradiction and double-standards. We've seen one group (in this case the pro-gay-marriage crowd) act in a way towards others (Eich and the anti-gay-marriage crowd) that the first group would think is absolutely abhorrent were they the target, yet they consider perfectly acceptable when they direct it towards others. On one hand, we've seen arguments like, "There is no right to free speech without consequences." and, "he had views that the community was overwhelmingly against" used in this very submission's discussion to justify Eich losing his job merely for expressing an opinion that may be construed as against gay marriage. Yet imagine the uproar if somebody lost his or her job for merely expressing an opinion in favor of gay marriage, and those exact same arguments were used to justify it. It's difficult to take people seriously when they claim to support "equality" and "tolerance", or when they claim to be against "discrimination", yet they act in a way that's completely contradictory to all of those ideals. If one group of people is going to hold another group of people to a certain set of standards, they really should make sure that they're willing to live by that exact same set of standards, too.

stephenr 13y ago
Not tolerating intolerance, is not intolerance.
- jdbernard 13y ago
  I don't like this idea. Any strong disagreement by one side could reasonably be called intolerance by there other. And then where does it end? Tolerating other people, even when they act in a way contradictory to your own moral convictions is the definition of tolerance. What Eich did was not illegal. It was disagreeable to many. But tolerant people would chose instead to strive the more for their position without directly attacking him and his career. That is what the intolerant do. Intolerance says "I disagree with your actions and your thoughts therefore I must prevent you from having any power or influence in our society." Tolerance says, "I disagree with your thoughts and actions, therefore I will work to persuade you otherwise. Failing that I will find a way to coexist with you, despite our disagreements. We will build a society that that respects the differences, and protects the weak from abuse by the strong, regardless of their beliefs."
  - stephenr 13y ago
    It isn't about acting in a certain way. No one expects Eich to get married - he wanted to prevent other people from getting married because they are gay. His personal actions were not illegal, but the movement he supported (banning same sex marriage) was deemed to be unconstitutional.
- mcphage 13y ago
  If you only tolerate those people who are tolerant, then how is that even a virtue?
tomelders 13y ago
When people talk about equality, what they really mean is that people should not be punished, mistreated or excluded because of something they have no control over such as their gender, or skin color. But you seem to think that equality means people can think and do exactly as they please without consequence. > We've seen one group (in this case the pro-gay-marriage crowd) act in a way towards others Who exaclty? Which crowds? Because from where I'm looking it looks like people in the Mozilla organisation were responsible for this. > If one group of people is going to hold another group of people to a certain set of standards, they really should make sure that they're willing to live by that exact same set of standards, too. No. Society as a whole decides who's in, who's out. For centuries the gays were out and all the same sex marriage opponents were fine with that. Now the tides have turned and the homophobes are out. And good riddance because we lost some good people under the old tyranny. Not everyone on this side of the argument is a tree hugging vegan liberal who thinks everyone should get along and form a consensus. I'm personally little more than an angry lump with fists and a strong sense of right and wrong. Appealing to some sense of balance you think I should have is a non starter. Show me a point in history where society was balanced and then we'll talk. I'm just hoping the people who hate unconditionally have to live under the tyranny of those who believe in real world fairness and real world equality.
- dalke 13y ago
  "what they really mean .. because of something they have no control over" That's not fully correct. Equality usually extends to religion, and people have some control over which religion and church they belong to. In the US, veteran status is also a protected class, even though membership in the military is voluntary. Others say that single and married employees should be treated the same, even though people have some say over their marriage status. I think it's not a good idea to focus on the "no control over" aspect in arguments concerning homosexuality since some believe that homosexuals choose to be that way, and because equality doesn't depend only on intrinsic attributes.

by Pacabel 13y ago

stephenr 13y ago

Not tolerating intolerance, is not intolerance.

jdbernard 13y ago
I don't like this idea. Any strong disagreement by one side could reasonably be called intolerance by there other. And then where does it end? Tolerating other people, even when they act in a way contradictory to your own moral convictions is the definition of tolerance. What Eich did was not illegal. It was disagreeable to many. But tolerant people would chose instead to strive the more for their position without directly attacking him and his career. That is what the intolerant do. Intolerance says "I disagree with your actions and your thoughts therefore I must prevent you from having any power or influence in our society." Tolerance says, "I disagree with your thoughts and actions, therefore I will work to persuade you otherwise. Failing that I will find a way to coexist with you, despite our disagreements. We will build a society that that respects the differences, and protects the weak from abuse by the strong, regardless of their beliefs."
- stephenr 13y ago
  It isn't about acting in a certain way. No one expects Eich to get married - he wanted to prevent other people from getting married because they are gay. His personal actions were not illegal, but the movement he supported (banning same sex marriage) was deemed to be unconstitutional.
mcphage 13y ago
If you only tolerate those people who are tolerant, then how is that even a virtue?

tomelders 13y ago

When people talk about equality, what they really mean is that people should not be punished, mistreated or excluded because of something they have no control over such as their gender, or skin color. But you seem to think that equality means people can think and do exactly as they please without consequence. > We've seen one group (in this case the pro-gay-marriage crowd) act in a way towards others Who exaclty? Which crowds? Because from where I'm looking it looks like people in the Mozilla organisation were responsible for this. > If one group of people is going to hold another group of people to a certain set of standards, they really should make sure that they're willing to live by that exact same set of standards, too. No. Society as a whole decides who's in, who's out. For centuries the gays were out and all the same sex marriage opponents were fine with that. Now the tides have turned and the homophobes are out. And good riddance because we lost some good people under the old tyranny. Not everyone on this side of the argument is a tree hugging vegan liberal who thinks everyone should get along and form a consensus. I'm personally little more than an angry lump with fists and a strong sense of right and wrong. Appealing to some sense of balance you think I should have is a non starter. Show me a point in history where society was balanced and then we'll talk. I'm just hoping the people who hate unconditionally have to live under the tyranny of those who believe in real world fairness and real world equality.

dalke 13y ago
"what they really mean .. because of something they have no control over" That's not fully correct. Equality usually extends to religion, and people have some control over which religion and church they belong to. In the US, veteran status is also a protected class, even though membership in the military is voluntary. Others say that single and married employees should be treated the same, even though people have some say over their marriage status. I think it's not a good idea to focus on the "no control over" aspect in arguments concerning homosexuality since some believe that homosexuals choose to be that way, and because equality doesn't depend only on intrinsic attributes.