3 ms·

Here's what I don't understand - we're continually told that the Hollywood blacklist in the 40s and 50s was a terrible thing, a shameful episode in America's hi

by defen 12y ago

Here's what I don't understand - we're continually told that the Hollywood blacklist in the 40s and 50s was a terrible thing, a shameful episode in America's history. But how is it different? No one has a right to work as a screenwriter, actor, director, etc. I'm genuinely curious and not trolling, how is the Hollywood blacklist different from what happened to Eich, and why is one ok and the other something that needs to be atoned for?

drhayes9 12y ago
I'll risk more downvotes, I guess, what the heck. Here are the main differences I see: the power dynamic at play, the scale of the effort, and the availability of concrete proof of action. The Hollywood Blacklist was an attempt by studios and directors and some in the US government (those in power) to ban those underneath them based on, largely, unfounded allegations of Communist sympathies. It also had anti-union motivations, but I might be wrong? It took down dozens of actors, directors, and producers. No concrete "anti-American" actions were proven (that I know of). Brendan Eich stepped down after his customers (and some of his employees) found proof that he'd donated to a cause supporting Prop 8, a piece of legislation that would have removed previously granted rights to homosexuals trying to marry. The donation was a specific action that Eich took that his customers disagreed with. I think the power dynamic is the telling one. Oligarchic vs. grassroots, etc.
- tbrownaw 12y ago
  And yet both are meant to stifle/punish dissenting political opinions. Are the only differences really who is doing the stifling and how flimsy their evidence is?
  - dasil003 12y ago
    Obviously not. The political opinions are objectively different even outside the bubble of current political correctness. One is about the form of government and the other is about human rights.
    - tbrownaw 12y ago
      Having the government dictate where you live and work and what you can buy is very much a matter of human rights. And, it's more so than bikeshedding over what terminology the government should use to talk about inheritance and visitation rights. (Also, isn't having an elected government being viewed more and more as basic human rights these days?)
      - dasil003 12y ago
        I can't tell if you're trolling. Did you really just say that gay marriage rights are about bikeshedding?
        tbrownaw 12y ago
        From what I understand, a significant part of the fight (in general, not just California) has been about wanting to legally use the word "marriage", with all the social/religious connotations it's picked up over the years, rather than about just getting equal legal rights thru the law and then sorting out social perception thru social means. This also comes at the expense of other non-traditional relationships, by making the argument about making a narrow change to what's called "marriage" rather than about handling the associated legal rights more flexibly. So yes, bikeshedding.
        dasil003 12y ago
        You are conveniently ignoring the material grievances that they suffer by focusing on one aspect of the debate and pretending it's the whole thing. The fact is that gay people's life partners can not be granted power of attorney or numerous other marriage benefits is huge glaring inequity in our legal system. Also, your original argument that a debate about Communism is also about human rights is applicable to any political debate, because of course politics is all about deciding things that affect people. If you can't understand the difference between a class of people being denied common rights, and standard political debate about rules that ostensibly apply to everyone then I have no additional argument to try to help you see the light.
  - drhayes9 12y ago
    Yes, but don't minimize it. Metaphorically, it's the difference between a guy with a big stick who makes stuff up so he can beat your face and a crowd of people voting on what court system to set up to give you a trial.
- dba7dba 12y ago
  The twist to the story is Prop 8 was voted into law by majority (slim for sure) of the state. Not saying I agree with or not (haha censoring myself there again), but he basically took a stand on a piece of law that was being debated. So I can't even compare this with the witch hunt against alleged communists in Hollywood in 50s. Afaik, he did not force others under him to agree. Nor force the idea onto Firefox. It was guilty by association.

by defen 12y ago

drhayes9 12y ago

I'll risk more downvotes, I guess, what the heck. Here are the main differences I see: the power dynamic at play, the scale of the effort, and the availability of concrete proof of action. The Hollywood Blacklist was an attempt by studios and directors and some in the US government (those in power) to ban those underneath them based on, largely, unfounded allegations of Communist sympathies. It also had anti-union motivations, but I might be wrong? It took down dozens of actors, directors, and producers. No concrete "anti-American" actions were proven (that I know of). Brendan Eich stepped down after his customers (and some of his employees) found proof that he'd donated to a cause supporting Prop 8, a piece of legislation that would have removed previously granted rights to homosexuals trying to marry. The donation was a specific action that Eich took that his customers disagreed with. I think the power dynamic is the telling one. Oligarchic vs. grassroots, etc.

tbrownaw 12y ago
And yet both are meant to stifle/punish dissenting political opinions. Are the only differences really who is doing the stifling and how flimsy their evidence is?
- dasil003 12y ago
  Obviously not. The political opinions are objectively different even outside the bubble of current political correctness. One is about the form of government and the other is about human rights.
  - tbrownaw 12y ago
    Having the government dictate where you live and work and what you can buy is very much a matter of human rights. And, it's more so than bikeshedding over what terminology the government should use to talk about inheritance and visitation rights. (Also, isn't having an elected government being viewed more and more as basic human rights these days?)
    - dasil003 12y ago
      I can't tell if you're trolling. Did you really just say that gay marriage rights are about bikeshedding?
      - tbrownaw 12y ago
        From what I understand, a significant part of the fight (in general, not just California) has been about wanting to legally use the word "marriage", with all the social/religious connotations it's picked up over the years, rather than about just getting equal legal rights thru the law and then sorting out social perception thru social means. This also comes at the expense of other non-traditional relationships, by making the argument about making a narrow change to what's called "marriage" rather than about handling the associated legal rights more flexibly. So yes, bikeshedding.
        dasil003 12y ago
        You are conveniently ignoring the material grievances that they suffer by focusing on one aspect of the debate and pretending it's the whole thing. The fact is that gay people's life partners can not be granted power of attorney or numerous other marriage benefits is huge glaring inequity in our legal system. Also, your original argument that a debate about Communism is also about human rights is applicable to any political debate, because of course politics is all about deciding things that affect people. If you can't understand the difference between a class of people being denied common rights, and standard political debate about rules that ostensibly apply to everyone then I have no additional argument to try to help you see the light.
- drhayes9 12y ago
  Yes, but don't minimize it. Metaphorically, it's the difference between a guy with a big stick who makes stuff up so he can beat your face and a crowd of people voting on what court system to set up to give you a trial.
dba7dba 12y ago
The twist to the story is Prop 8 was voted into law by majority (slim for sure) of the state. Not saying I agree with or not (haha censoring myself there again), but he basically took a stand on a piece of law that was being debated. So I can't even compare this with the witch hunt against alleged communists in Hollywood in 50s. Afaik, he did not force others under him to agree. Nor force the idea onto Firefox. It was guilty by association.