16 ms·

I'm concerned that it's only going to get worse. Look at Brendan Eich, no matter what we think of Proposition 8, I think it's crazy that his support of a polit

I'm concerned that it's only going to get worse. Look at Brendan Eich, no matter what we think of Proposition 8, I think it's crazy that his support of a political position that was also supported by a very narrow majority of his fellow Californians could cause him to have to leave his job six years later. It's entirely possible that Eich could become a verb, like Bork. Any one of us could support one side of a contentious political fight today and in six years get Eiched because the winning side chooses to be vindictive and petty. I hesitated to bring this up because I thought about the last time I was moderated -4 for something I said here. In the end we need to decide, how serious we are about the marketplace of ideas. We need to decide if we really believe in the ideals that we claim to. If I disagree with you, I'll challenge your ideas. I'll challenge your thinking. I'll debate you. I will not attempt to silence you.

seiji 12y ago
his support of a political position The problem is his support was for an anti-human rights issue, not just another "either side has valid points" political argument.
- obvious_throw 12y ago
  This is only accurate within the perpetually-expanding conception of "human rights" that many seem to assume is static.
- flatdeviant 12y ago
  This is hindsight bias. You can compare this to racism: back in the 18th and 19th centuries, racist and antisemitic people were in the overwhelming majority, and this only changed recently. And yet, applying 21st century moral values to the 18th century is completely meaningless, as every historian who studied these time periods will tell you.
  - seiji 12y ago
    This is hindsight bias. Except Prop 8 was five years ago and not 200 years ago? I know I'm sure not absolved of my mistakes (or even debt) from five years ago. Public activism during one's lifetime is on the table as a factor for judging that someone. Now, you can try to argue whether the decisions of the person are actually what the person believes or if they were just following to feel like they belong or feel important or be around their _other_ bigoted friends. Either way, it doesn't show great capacity for independent thought.
    - flatdeviant 12y ago
      I don't see how you can think your beliefs are the product of "independent thought" while theirs are just an attempt are "feeling important". This is awfully arrogant and dismissive. For the record, I support gay marriage, but that doesn't mean I'm ready to let go of rational thinking: conservatives' opinions are not inferior to mine simply because I disagree with them, and I hope you can understand that. There is no such thing as a "moral high ground", only self-deception.
- LordKano 12y ago
  I was tempted to ignore this but my desire to combat this canard won out. There were more than two sides to the Proposition 8 fight. I happen to be neutral on the issue of whether or not same sex unions should be recognized by the government but I too supported Proposition 8. Not because I want to deny anyone anything but because the way to go about doing it should be legislative and not by having a judicial activist issue a fiat. Some other states moved to legally recognize same sex unions via the legislative process and in those states, once the law passed, the fight was over. Why is this distinction important? Because once we set the precedent that it's a "human rights issue" to be able to marry whomever you wish, what is to stop the FLDS church from suing because we don't recognize their polygamous marriages? Once you accept the premise that marrying whomever you wish is a "human rights issue", there's no argument in favor of same sex marriage that doesn't equally apply to three or five person marriage.
  - seiji 12y ago
    having a judicial activist issue a fiat. legislative process and in those states, In 2004, Karl Rove maneuvered "anti-marriage" amendments to voted on in many states during the presidential election season. So, the republican establishment riled up all the religious nutters to vote both for bush and, while they were there, why not vote your bible faith to restrict rights for actual humans too? That's our legislative process—easily manipulatable, corruptible by riled up motivated voters who don't actually represent the majority. So, we fix wrong decisions of the people with checks and balances. We dissolve the tyranny of the many and restore balance to the force. suing because we don't recognize their polygamous marriages? there's no argument in favor of same sex marriage that doesn't equally apply to three or five person marriage. Doesn't seem unreasonable to me. Is there any downside to multi-marriage besides it just making you feel squicky?
    - LordKano 12y ago
      There is one very big downside. Our insurance premiums are based upon the idea that at worse, there will be one working spouse, one non-working spouse and their children (who will at some point grow up and get their own insurance). Where will the money come from to pay for Elder Smith's four wives and their fifteen children? Everyone else's premiums, of course! But then, that only strengthens the case for "Single Payer", right?
- cgore 12y ago
  In general, freedom of speech is one of the places where conservatives tend to do a lot better than liberals. You are making a really good example of that.
  - seiji 12y ago
    Freedom of speech means the government (notably: federal government, though most states have similar rights) can't stop you from saying things or shut you down just because they don't like what you have to say. Freedom of speech has nothing to do with private parties exacting revenge on you for saying, doing, or promoting objective wrongness. Freedom of speech is not freedom of equality of validness of opinion.
    - LordKano 12y ago
      Because of the 14th Amendment, the states are bound by the 1st Amendment's prohibitions against abridging the freedom of speech. "Freedom of speech" is a concept that is bigger and more far reaching than the government. If someone threatens to punch you in the face for saying something that he doesn't want you to say, he has violated your freedom of speech. If your employer fires you for something that you said outside of work and separate from your duties as an employee, that employer has also violated your freedom of speech. The notable difference being that in most circumstances, there's nothing illegal about that. The point that I'm making here is that it's absolutely possible to suppress suppress freedom of speech without violating the law.
      - JoeAltmaier 12y ago
        A common misconception. The freedom to speech is the guarantee that the government will not silence you. In contrast being shouted down at a meeting or losing your job is common and not protected. If your employer doesn't want to support your opinions, they are free to stop paying you. That is a freedom too.
        cgore 12y ago
        The philosophical concept of freedom of speech and the legal protections of that concept are not the same thing, although the one protects the other from which it derives. The protections are a viewpoint legally enshrined that was common in the political circles at the time and that I still agree with: No matter how much I disagree with your viewpoint, I think you should be allowed to express that viewpoint. If I am a family member or a friend I'm not going to disown or disavow you for them. I think it is very important that bosses embrace this view too, because otherwise you just get a lot of sycophantic yes-men, an echo chamber. The correct approach is to let everyone be free to voice their opinion before the decision is made: if you don't want their opinions, then what are you paying them for? Once a decision is made it is necessary for everybody to work towards that, but making a good decision requires lots of input, and those who disagreed with the final choice shouldn't be punished in any way, otherwise there quickly won't be any disagreement.
dba7dba 12y ago
I see stickers on cars 'Coexist'. And I look at what's going on. And I have to say it was bait-and-switch. Will I get down votes for this?
- gagege 12y ago
  I think I agree with you, but still, very low quality comment.
  - dba7dba 12y ago
    Haha, sorry. Is it because it was short or talking about up/down votes? Just curious.
    - NortySpock 12y ago
      It's because it was short. You could have been short but particularly insightful, but your comment was not insightful (most people could "remember" "that one time" someone with a coexist sticker cut them off in traffic or turned out to be a bigot). So that is all it is: a comment that people might agree with but provides low value to the reader in that context.
drhayes9 12y ago
Nobody silenced Brendan Eich. He is free to say whatever he wants about his political affiliations and his personal ideals. With that freedom comes the concomitant responsibility for the consequences of that speech. In fact, I think it's admirable that he didn't back down from his position or try and weasel-word his way out of a difficult situation. He stuck to his guns in the face of a firestorm of controversy.
- dba7dba 12y ago
  Eich was silenced. And not only that, OTHERS were taught a lesson to be silent on that issue and other issues as well. Nothing is more effective to silence someone or groups of people than threatening someone's livelihood.
  - drhayes9 12y ago
    Except for threatening someone's life? Let's not get too hyperbolic here. A rich, white guy was forced out of a CEO position and he was "silenced"? He could have given interviews about his position at any tech magazine he could reach by phone. He could publish a blog post on his site. None of this suggests that he was silenced. Let's save the powerful terms for bigger travesties is all I'm saying.
    - angersock 12y ago
      You do realize, of course, that exact same argument goes for a lot of QUILTBAG folks, right? What happened to Eich should be considered at best an embarrassment to the otherwise progressive image of folks seeking sexual respect--at worst, it's a fine example of the same sort of bigotry they've fought against themselves, in some ways justifying many of the petty accusations made against their ilk. It was not a good time to be an ally in tech.
      - drhayes9 12y ago
        I disagree. The strict definition of bigotry is viewing other groups with suspicion, hatred, whatever. So, yes, I'm okay with being bigoted against people who kick puppies. I think the more meaningful definition of bigotry within the context of social equality is an expression of power that flows from those with power to those without it. In this case, the one with power (rich white guy) trying to remove previously granted rights from marginalized folks (gays wanting to get married). The fact that the rich white guy, in this case, was the newly minted CEO of a corporation that strives to bring "Internet equality" added a spice of irony to the whole thing.
vezzy-fnord 12y ago
My main beef with the Eich case wasn't the fact that people protested his decision, it was how they did it. The main method of protest was to boycott Firefox. Yet this was a stupid thing to do, because Firefox is the result of over a decade of wide-scale community effort, all done on a non-profit basis, and has been instrumental in advancing web standards. Firefox was also the initial spark that got us out of the stagnation caused by IE6. By boycotting Firefox, people were punishing pretty much everyone except Eich. A much more blunt statement would have been to boycott JavaScript, something Eich was directly responsible for. Of course, that would actually require some effort in a major overhaul of one's browsing habits. Then it was OKCupid just blatantly jumping on the bandwagon, encouraging Firefox users to leave their browser, all in an absolutely farcical attempt to assert their moral superiority. Finally, most people don't seem to be aware that gay marriage is often a red herring in general, and the topic of marriage privatization is rarely discussed in public. But that's heading towards my personal views.
- bhauer 12y ago
  I thoroughly agree. In fact, I wrote very similar sentiments in a blog entry in April [1]. The calls for a boycott of Mozilla and Firefox in particular from left and right were embarrassing for our society. Mozilla was wrongly targeted to make a political point and as a fan of Mozilla, I found that disappointing, especially considering Mozilla as an organization is among the most well-aligned with the rights of individuals. [1] http://tiamat.tsotech.com/do-not-punish-mozilla http://tiamat.tsotech.com/do-not-punish-mozilla
- rimantas 12y ago
  Actually I doubt there is anything left from the Mozilla that brought the initial Firefox in todays Mozilla. All the good things did happen a decade and more ago. And if organisation does not take dare deciding whom to put in the top position it is ok to bear consequences.
  - vezzy-fnord 12y ago
    Yes, but it's not like Firefox exists in a closed company vacuum or anything.
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
xienze 12y ago
> If I disagree with you, I'll challenge your ideas. I'll challenge your thinking. I'll debate you. I will not attempt to silence you. The fact that fewer and fewer people online think this way is what makes me think twice about saying anything. Once you say anything slightly outside the accepted progressive viewpoint on Touchy Subject X, here comes the downvote and "you're a horrible human being" brigade. Online debate is effectively dead, and it's a shame.
- jdmichal 12y ago
  > Online debate is effectively dead, and it's a shame. Debate in pretty much any form has been dead for a long time. Few people know how to debate properly, and simply introduce fallacy after fallacy into the discussion. For instance, you cited appeal to emotion, maybe more specifically appeal to pity depending on why "you're a horrible human being." Alternatively, they just constantly move the target. As soon as you address one point, they just move on to another without even acknowledging the previous point. Any attempt to pin them on that point will be addressed that you have "misunderstood" them, and what they are stating now is what they meant the entire time. The worst part is that this is all done, as best as I can tell, not even maliciously but almost subconsciously. Most likely, they have learned over their life that these methods produce results and so they continue to use them. (And by "results", I generally mean reinforcing their mental status quo, bonus points if they can vilify their opponent.)
tedks 12y ago
Trying to keep queer people out of acceptable models of life like marriage, having families, and being responsible is a literal attempt to silence and kill them. There is a straight line from homophobia to the effective genocide Reagan committed against queer people in the 80s by turning a blind eye to the AIDS crisis. I think it's entirely correct that Eich was deposed and shamed for what he did. I wish that we had the Internet in the 60s so that we could have done the same to George Wallace. Be on the right side of history or you'll inevitably end up on the wrong side of it.
- wtbob 12y ago
  > Trying to keep queer people out of acceptable models of life like marriage, having families, and being responsible is a literal attempt to silence and kill them. You literally didn't use 'literally' properly. > effective genocide Reagan committed against queer people in the 80s by turning a blind eye to the AIDS crisis. You literally are wrong about history, c.f. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2014/06/01/ronald_reagan_and_aids_correcting_the_record_122806.html http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2014/06/01/ronald_... et al.
- LordKano 12y ago
  You're attempting to look back into 1983 with the knowledge that we have today. In those days, the LGBT community fought against attempts to close the bath houses where the disease was spreading because they didn't know what was going on either. The sentiment that you're expressing here is precisely why discussion is dying. There is nothing shameful about Eich's activity, he chose a side, his side won and the side that lost were so outraged that they began to threaten the business of his employer.
calibraxis 12y ago
"Have to leave his job"? He had a job as CTO for many years, and could've kept a Mozilla job. But he wanted the most powerful seat of authority. With the entitlement of those who attack marginalized people's love lives, he wanted ultimate executive power. Knowing that if he failed, he can trivially drown himself in wealth. No need to shed fake tears over elite white male perverts who care overmuch about other people's sexuality, and bribe the government to police it. He can live the high life on Alan Turing's back. Instead, there's many people with little money who work all day in places with zero free speech. Who have real fears of losing their jobs.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
mkr-hn 12y ago
Brendan Eich is a bad example. Donating to a campaign that uses hateful, bigoted language and false information (Prop 8) is different from just sharing an opinion. I'll think less of a person who thinks I'm less of a person for being gay, but I'll still be civil toward them. That'll change real quick if they support a hateful campaign to take rights away from me. There are so many better examples, like that mindless, misguided rage against Penny Arcade over a comic that was objectively not about condoning sexual assault.
wzdd 12y ago
This is a nonsensical post in this topic. Eich didn't post (or fail to post) on social media, he donated to a political campaign. In fact, social media outcry -- in other words, the opposite of what this article is discussing -- is what actually effected the change. I understand that plenty of people don't think that Eich should have been ousted from his position as a result of his political beliefs, but your post is not just not on-topic, it is actually the opposite of the topic. It looks like you're using this post to grandstand.
- tbrownaw 12y ago
  One of the things noted in the study, is that being on social media makes people less likely to discuss topics in person. I'm thinking Eich is an example of just why that might happen. The more involved you are, the more aware you are of just how quickly the crowd can turn on you if you say something wrong.
  - wzdd 12y ago
    > One of the things noted in the study is that being on social media makes people less likely to discuss topics in person No, that's not noted in the study at all. The study only notes that people who don't want to discuss it in person certainly don't want to discuss it on social media. It didn't say anything about whether a person's use of social media made them less likely to discuss the topic in person.
    - tbrownaw 12y ago
      From the article: For instance, the average Facebook user (someone who uses the site a few times per day) was half as likely as other people to say they would be willing to voice their opinion with friends at a restaurant.

seiji 12y ago

his support of a political position The problem is his support was for an anti-human rights issue, not just another "either side has valid points" political argument.

obvious_throw 12y ago
This is only accurate within the perpetually-expanding conception of "human rights" that many seem to assume is static.
flatdeviant 12y ago
This is hindsight bias. You can compare this to racism: back in the 18th and 19th centuries, racist and antisemitic people were in the overwhelming majority, and this only changed recently. And yet, applying 21st century moral values to the 18th century is completely meaningless, as every historian who studied these time periods will tell you.
- seiji 12y ago
  This is hindsight bias. Except Prop 8 was five years ago and not 200 years ago? I know I'm sure not absolved of my mistakes (or even debt) from five years ago. Public activism during one's lifetime is on the table as a factor for judging that someone. Now, you can try to argue whether the decisions of the person are actually what the person believes or if they were just following to feel like they belong or feel important or be around their _other_ bigoted friends. Either way, it doesn't show great capacity for independent thought.
  - flatdeviant 12y ago
    I don't see how you can think your beliefs are the product of "independent thought" while theirs are just an attempt are "feeling important". This is awfully arrogant and dismissive. For the record, I support gay marriage, but that doesn't mean I'm ready to let go of rational thinking: conservatives' opinions are not inferior to mine simply because I disagree with them, and I hope you can understand that. There is no such thing as a "moral high ground", only self-deception.
LordKano 12y ago
I was tempted to ignore this but my desire to combat this canard won out. There were more than two sides to the Proposition 8 fight. I happen to be neutral on the issue of whether or not same sex unions should be recognized by the government but I too supported Proposition 8. Not because I want to deny anyone anything but because the way to go about doing it should be legislative and not by having a judicial activist issue a fiat. Some other states moved to legally recognize same sex unions via the legislative process and in those states, once the law passed, the fight was over. Why is this distinction important? Because once we set the precedent that it's a "human rights issue" to be able to marry whomever you wish, what is to stop the FLDS church from suing because we don't recognize their polygamous marriages? Once you accept the premise that marrying whomever you wish is a "human rights issue", there's no argument in favor of same sex marriage that doesn't equally apply to three or five person marriage.
- seiji 12y ago
  having a judicial activist issue a fiat. legislative process and in those states, In 2004, Karl Rove maneuvered "anti-marriage" amendments to voted on in many states during the presidential election season. So, the republican establishment riled up all the religious nutters to vote both for bush and, while they were there, why not vote your bible faith to restrict rights for actual humans too? That's our legislative process—easily manipulatable, corruptible by riled up motivated voters who don't actually represent the majority. So, we fix wrong decisions of the people with checks and balances. We dissolve the tyranny of the many and restore balance to the force. suing because we don't recognize their polygamous marriages? there's no argument in favor of same sex marriage that doesn't equally apply to three or five person marriage. Doesn't seem unreasonable to me. Is there any downside to multi-marriage besides it just making you feel squicky?
  - LordKano 12y ago
    There is one very big downside. Our insurance premiums are based upon the idea that at worse, there will be one working spouse, one non-working spouse and their children (who will at some point grow up and get their own insurance). Where will the money come from to pay for Elder Smith's four wives and their fifteen children? Everyone else's premiums, of course! But then, that only strengthens the case for "Single Payer", right?
cgore 12y ago
In general, freedom of speech is one of the places where conservatives tend to do a lot better than liberals. You are making a really good example of that.
- seiji 12y ago
  Freedom of speech means the government (notably: federal government, though most states have similar rights) can't stop you from saying things or shut you down just because they don't like what you have to say. Freedom of speech has nothing to do with private parties exacting revenge on you for saying, doing, or promoting objective wrongness. Freedom of speech is not freedom of equality of validness of opinion.
  - LordKano 12y ago
    Because of the 14th Amendment, the states are bound by the 1st Amendment's prohibitions against abridging the freedom of speech. "Freedom of speech" is a concept that is bigger and more far reaching than the government. If someone threatens to punch you in the face for saying something that he doesn't want you to say, he has violated your freedom of speech. If your employer fires you for something that you said outside of work and separate from your duties as an employee, that employer has also violated your freedom of speech. The notable difference being that in most circumstances, there's nothing illegal about that. The point that I'm making here is that it's absolutely possible to suppress suppress freedom of speech without violating the law.
    - JoeAltmaier 12y ago
      A common misconception. The freedom to speech is the guarantee that the government will not silence you. In contrast being shouted down at a meeting or losing your job is common and not protected. If your employer doesn't want to support your opinions, they are free to stop paying you. That is a freedom too.
      - cgore 12y ago
        The philosophical concept of freedom of speech and the legal protections of that concept are not the same thing, although the one protects the other from which it derives. The protections are a viewpoint legally enshrined that was common in the political circles at the time and that I still agree with: No matter how much I disagree with your viewpoint, I think you should be allowed to express that viewpoint. If I am a family member or a friend I'm not going to disown or disavow you for them. I think it is very important that bosses embrace this view too, because otherwise you just get a lot of sycophantic yes-men, an echo chamber. The correct approach is to let everyone be free to voice their opinion before the decision is made: if you don't want their opinions, then what are you paying them for? Once a decision is made it is necessary for everybody to work towards that, but making a good decision requires lots of input, and those who disagreed with the final choice shouldn't be punished in any way, otherwise there quickly won't be any disagreement.

dba7dba 12y ago

I see stickers on cars 'Coexist'. And I look at what's going on. And I have to say it was bait-and-switch. Will I get down votes for this?

gagege 12y ago
I think I agree with you, but still, very low quality comment.
- dba7dba 12y ago
  Haha, sorry. Is it because it was short or talking about up/down votes? Just curious.
  - NortySpock 12y ago
    It's because it was short. You could have been short but particularly insightful, but your comment was not insightful (most people could "remember" "that one time" someone with a coexist sticker cut them off in traffic or turned out to be a bigot). So that is all it is: a comment that people might agree with but provides low value to the reader in that context.

drhayes9 12y ago

Nobody silenced Brendan Eich. He is free to say whatever he wants about his political affiliations and his personal ideals. With that freedom comes the concomitant responsibility for the consequences of that speech. In fact, I think it's admirable that he didn't back down from his position or try and weasel-word his way out of a difficult situation. He stuck to his guns in the face of a firestorm of controversy.

dba7dba 12y ago
Eich was silenced. And not only that, OTHERS were taught a lesson to be silent on that issue and other issues as well. Nothing is more effective to silence someone or groups of people than threatening someone's livelihood.
- drhayes9 12y ago
  Except for threatening someone's life? Let's not get too hyperbolic here. A rich, white guy was forced out of a CEO position and he was "silenced"? He could have given interviews about his position at any tech magazine he could reach by phone. He could publish a blog post on his site. None of this suggests that he was silenced. Let's save the powerful terms for bigger travesties is all I'm saying.
  - angersock 12y ago
    You do realize, of course, that exact same argument goes for a lot of QUILTBAG folks, right? What happened to Eich should be considered at best an embarrassment to the otherwise progressive image of folks seeking sexual respect--at worst, it's a fine example of the same sort of bigotry they've fought against themselves, in some ways justifying many of the petty accusations made against their ilk. It was not a good time to be an ally in tech.
    - drhayes9 12y ago
      I disagree. The strict definition of bigotry is viewing other groups with suspicion, hatred, whatever. So, yes, I'm okay with being bigoted against people who kick puppies. I think the more meaningful definition of bigotry within the context of social equality is an expression of power that flows from those with power to those without it. In this case, the one with power (rich white guy) trying to remove previously granted rights from marginalized folks (gays wanting to get married). The fact that the rich white guy, in this case, was the newly minted CEO of a corporation that strives to bring "Internet equality" added a spice of irony to the whole thing.

vezzy-fnord 12y ago

My main beef with the Eich case wasn't the fact that people protested his decision, it was how they did it. The main method of protest was to boycott Firefox. Yet this was a stupid thing to do, because Firefox is the result of over a decade of wide-scale community effort, all done on a non-profit basis, and has been instrumental in advancing web standards. Firefox was also the initial spark that got us out of the stagnation caused by IE6. By boycotting Firefox, people were punishing pretty much everyone except Eich. A much more blunt statement would have been to boycott JavaScript, something Eich was directly responsible for. Of course, that would actually require some effort in a major overhaul of one's browsing habits. Then it was OKCupid just blatantly jumping on the bandwagon, encouraging Firefox users to leave their browser, all in an absolutely farcical attempt to assert their moral superiority. Finally, most people don't seem to be aware that gay marriage is often a red herring in general, and the topic of marriage privatization is rarely discussed in public. But that's heading towards my personal views.

bhauer 12y ago
I thoroughly agree. In fact, I wrote very similar sentiments in a blog entry in April [1]. The calls for a boycott of Mozilla and Firefox in particular from left and right were embarrassing for our society. Mozilla was wrongly targeted to make a political point and as a fan of Mozilla, I found that disappointing, especially considering Mozilla as an organization is among the most well-aligned with the rights of individuals. [1] http://tiamat.tsotech.com/do-not-punish-mozilla http://tiamat.tsotech.com/do-not-punish-mozilla
rimantas 12y ago
Actually I doubt there is anything left from the Mozilla that brought the initial Firefox in todays Mozilla. All the good things did happen a decade and more ago. And if organisation does not take dare deciding whom to put in the top position it is ok to bear consequences.
- vezzy-fnord 12y ago
  Yes, but it's not like Firefox exists in a closed company vacuum or anything.

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

xienze 12y ago

> If I disagree with you, I'll challenge your ideas. I'll challenge your thinking. I'll debate you. I will not attempt to silence you. The fact that fewer and fewer people online think this way is what makes me think twice about saying anything. Once you say anything slightly outside the accepted progressive viewpoint on Touchy Subject X, here comes the downvote and "you're a horrible human being" brigade. Online debate is effectively dead, and it's a shame.

jdmichal 12y ago
> Online debate is effectively dead, and it's a shame. Debate in pretty much any form has been dead for a long time. Few people know how to debate properly, and simply introduce fallacy after fallacy into the discussion. For instance, you cited appeal to emotion, maybe more specifically appeal to pity depending on why "you're a horrible human being." Alternatively, they just constantly move the target. As soon as you address one point, they just move on to another without even acknowledging the previous point. Any attempt to pin them on that point will be addressed that you have "misunderstood" them, and what they are stating now is what they meant the entire time. The worst part is that this is all done, as best as I can tell, not even maliciously but almost subconsciously. Most likely, they have learned over their life that these methods produce results and so they continue to use them. (And by "results", I generally mean reinforcing their mental status quo, bonus points if they can vilify their opponent.)

tedks 12y ago

Trying to keep queer people out of acceptable models of life like marriage, having families, and being responsible is a literal attempt to silence and kill them. There is a straight line from homophobia to the effective genocide Reagan committed against queer people in the 80s by turning a blind eye to the AIDS crisis. I think it's entirely correct that Eich was deposed and shamed for what he did. I wish that we had the Internet in the 60s so that we could have done the same to George Wallace. Be on the right side of history or you'll inevitably end up on the wrong side of it.

wtbob 12y ago
> Trying to keep queer people out of acceptable models of life like marriage, having families, and being responsible is a literal attempt to silence and kill them. You literally didn't use 'literally' properly. > effective genocide Reagan committed against queer people in the 80s by turning a blind eye to the AIDS crisis. You literally are wrong about history, c.f. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2014/06/01/ronald_reagan_and_aids_correcting_the_record_122806.html http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2014/06/01/ronald_... et al.
LordKano 12y ago
You're attempting to look back into 1983 with the knowledge that we have today. In those days, the LGBT community fought against attempts to close the bath houses where the disease was spreading because they didn't know what was going on either. The sentiment that you're expressing here is precisely why discussion is dying. There is nothing shameful about Eich's activity, he chose a side, his side won and the side that lost were so outraged that they began to threaten the business of his employer.

calibraxis 12y ago

"Have to leave his job"? He had a job as CTO for many years, and could've kept a Mozilla job. But he wanted the most powerful seat of authority. With the entitlement of those who attack marginalized people's love lives, he wanted ultimate executive power. Knowing that if he failed, he can trivially drown himself in wealth. No need to shed fake tears over elite white male perverts who care overmuch about other people's sexuality, and bribe the government to police it. He can live the high life on Alan Turing's back. Instead, there's many people with little money who work all day in places with zero free speech. Who have real fears of losing their jobs.

deleted 12y ago
[deleted]

mkr-hn 12y ago

Brendan Eich is a bad example. Donating to a campaign that uses hateful, bigoted language and false information (Prop 8) is different from just sharing an opinion. I'll think less of a person who thinks I'm less of a person for being gay, but I'll still be civil toward them. That'll change real quick if they support a hateful campaign to take rights away from me. There are so many better examples, like that mindless, misguided rage against Penny Arcade over a comic that was objectively not about condoning sexual assault.

wzdd 12y ago

This is a nonsensical post in this topic. Eich didn't post (or fail to post) on social media, he donated to a political campaign. In fact, social media outcry -- in other words, the opposite of what this article is discussing -- is what actually effected the change. I understand that plenty of people don't think that Eich should have been ousted from his position as a result of his political beliefs, but your post is not just not on-topic, it is actually the opposite of the topic. It looks like you're using this post to grandstand.

tbrownaw 12y ago
One of the things noted in the study, is that being on social media makes people less likely to discuss topics in person. I'm thinking Eich is an example of just why that might happen. The more involved you are, the more aware you are of just how quickly the crowd can turn on you if you say something wrong.
- wzdd 12y ago
  > One of the things noted in the study is that being on social media makes people less likely to discuss topics in person No, that's not noted in the study at all. The study only notes that people who don't want to discuss it in person certainly don't want to discuss it on social media. It didn't say anything about whether a person's use of social media made them less likely to discuss the topic in person.
  - tbrownaw 12y ago
    From the article: For instance, the average Facebook user (someone who uses the site a few times per day) was half as likely as other people to say they would be willing to voice their opinion with friends at a restaurant.