3 ms·

Speaking for myself, I find the idea that a line should be drawn to be downright antithetical. What I support is individual liberties. Which means that it doe

Speaking for myself, I find the idea that a line should be drawn to be downright antithetical. What I support is individual liberties. Which means that it doesn't necessarily matter whether or not I support something. Individuals and organizations are generally free to do what they want, including being free to do things I don't like, and vice versa. Meaning: 1. Brendan Eich was perfectly free to make political contributions. 2. He was perfectly free to say whatever he wants about the issue in public. 3. People who don't mind are perfectly free to not care. 4. People who do mind are perfectly free to complain loudly. 5. People who do mind are free to walk away from the company. 6. Companies are free to respond to the above according to their interests. Yes, the upshot of all of this is that the court of public opinion can feel like a meat grinder sometimes. But as far as I'm aware there's not necessarily anything you can do about that without resorting to curtailment of some of our most sacred human rights.

twoodfin 13y ago
That's very clear, and I appreciate your distillation of the issue as you see it. But it still bothers me: How do you distinguish this approach from the blacklisting of alleged Communists in 1950's Hollywood? Or was that an unfortunate but unavoidable consequence of the neutral or beneficial practice of people's political views being subject to the court of public (and institutional) opinion? I would like to say: I respect your right to not hire someone you believe to be a Communist, but I don't believe you're acting in the best interests of society as a whole when you choose to allow someone's personal political activities to inform your hiring decisions.
- nostromo 13y ago
  McCarthyism at its core was the US Federal Government suppressing speech. Not just Congressman McCarthy, but scary agencies like the FBI. The first amendment protects your freedom of speech from limitation by the government. It does not protect you from customer revolt because of your CEO's opinions.
  - bunderbunder 13y ago
    In particular, it's probably no coincidence that Hollywood adopted its blacklisting policy immediately after the HUAC started going after major Hollywood figures. Congress had sent a clear message that the First Amendment did not apply to anyone who was perceived to be friends with a communist, and Hollywood responded with what was probably originally an act of self-preservation. That kind of authoritarian curtailment of freedom of expression and freedom of association is precisely why I railed against the idea of drawing any lines up above. When we start talking about drawing lines we're implicitly talking about criminalizing a certain kind of behavior. It's the first well-intentioned paving stone in a road that leads directly to tyrannies such as McCarthyism.
coldtea 13y ago
How's that different from lynching? Or McCarthyism?
- necubi 13y ago
  Lynching involves rounding somebody up, typically a black man, and murdering them. Let's not get carried away with our metaphors.
- mpyne 13y ago
  Well it's kind of obvious how it'd different from lynching, I hope. I'm not so sure how it's different from McCarthyism though. "The Company is infested with homophobes. I have here in my hands a list of names that were made known to the Board as being contributors to and members of anti-gay organizations and who nevertheless are still working and shaping policy in the Company..." McCarthy's "speech" wasn't illegal either. It's not a crime to inquire of people whether they were or were not a Communist. And before you comment that this is different, but of a gay person's moral rights, keep in mind that Communists actually were on a designed program of the violent overthrow of capitalist societies in order to bring about international Communism. To protect gay marriage, a first step is to defend the very legal framework that would make gay marriage possible in the first place, which is what McCarthy actions were (when taken at face value).
  - bradleyjg 13y ago
    I think you draw the wrong lesson from McCarthyism. If McCarthy had only gone after people that were actually trying to violently overthrow the US government and/or working for Stalin, history would look at him a lot differently. There were Soviet spies and they did a fair bit of damage. However, the people on his list were not in fact spies or communists and there was no good reason for him to believe they were.
    - rfrey 13y ago
      So the only thing wrong with McCarthyism was accuracy?
shasta 13y ago
7. People who don't like people who walk away from the company can complain about that. 8. People who don't like the people from 7 can complain about that. 9. People who want to derail interesting conversation about how people ought behave with uninteresting observations about freedoms of speech are ... free to do so. etc. etc.

twoodfin 13y ago

That's very clear, and I appreciate your distillation of the issue as you see it. But it still bothers me: How do you distinguish this approach from the blacklisting of alleged Communists in 1950's Hollywood? Or was that an unfortunate but unavoidable consequence of the neutral or beneficial practice of people's political views being subject to the court of public (and institutional) opinion? I would like to say: I respect your right to not hire someone you believe to be a Communist, but I don't believe you're acting in the best interests of society as a whole when you choose to allow someone's personal political activities to inform your hiring decisions.

nostromo 13y ago
McCarthyism at its core was the US Federal Government suppressing speech. Not just Congressman McCarthy, but scary agencies like the FBI. The first amendment protects your freedom of speech from limitation by the government. It does not protect you from customer revolt because of your CEO's opinions.
- bunderbunder 13y ago
  In particular, it's probably no coincidence that Hollywood adopted its blacklisting policy immediately after the HUAC started going after major Hollywood figures. Congress had sent a clear message that the First Amendment did not apply to anyone who was perceived to be friends with a communist, and Hollywood responded with what was probably originally an act of self-preservation. That kind of authoritarian curtailment of freedom of expression and freedom of association is precisely why I railed against the idea of drawing any lines up above. When we start talking about drawing lines we're implicitly talking about criminalizing a certain kind of behavior. It's the first well-intentioned paving stone in a road that leads directly to tyrannies such as McCarthyism.

coldtea 13y ago

How's that different from lynching? Or McCarthyism?

necubi 13y ago
Lynching involves rounding somebody up, typically a black man, and murdering them. Let's not get carried away with our metaphors.
mpyne 13y ago
Well it's kind of obvious how it'd different from lynching, I hope. I'm not so sure how it's different from McCarthyism though. "The Company is infested with homophobes. I have here in my hands a list of names that were made known to the Board as being contributors to and members of anti-gay organizations and who nevertheless are still working and shaping policy in the Company..." McCarthy's "speech" wasn't illegal either. It's not a crime to inquire of people whether they were or were not a Communist. And before you comment that this is different, but of a gay person's moral rights, keep in mind that Communists actually were on a designed program of the violent overthrow of capitalist societies in order to bring about international Communism. To protect gay marriage, a first step is to defend the very legal framework that would make gay marriage possible in the first place, which is what McCarthy actions were (when taken at face value).
- bradleyjg 13y ago
  I think you draw the wrong lesson from McCarthyism. If McCarthy had only gone after people that were actually trying to violently overthrow the US government and/or working for Stalin, history would look at him a lot differently. There were Soviet spies and they did a fair bit of damage. However, the people on his list were not in fact spies or communists and there was no good reason for him to believe they were.
  - rfrey 13y ago
    So the only thing wrong with McCarthyism was accuracy?

shasta 13y ago

7. People who don't like people who walk away from the company can complain about that. 8. People who don't like the people from 7 can complain about that. 9. People who want to derail interesting conversation about how people ought behave with uninteresting observations about freedoms of speech are ... free to do so. etc. etc.