4 ms·

Sure there's nothing wrong with having an unpopular opinion but it's wrong to hurt other people based on an opinion (in this case he hurt them by limiting their

by dwild 12y ago

Sure there's nothing wrong with having an unpopular opinion but it's wrong to hurt other people based on an opinion (in this case he hurt them by limiting their right).

angersock 12y ago
You do realize that he didn't actually limit their rights, correct? He cast a dollar vote in support of a proposition, same way any of us could give campaign donations to a candidate we liked. He participated in the political framework in a widely-accepted way, and the system failed to effect the outcome he seems to have voted for: democracy prevailed, the system worked, nobody was harmed. You might as well round up every Republican who voted against Obama or Democrat who voted against Bush because they're clearly enemies of liberty. Be careful what you wish for.
- Aloha 12y ago
  Yes. The issue I have with the whole Brendan Eich situation was he was professing thru his right to free speech a profoundly held religious belief, I disagree with his interpretation of scripture, and conceptually that scripture should determine who can get married - but as gay male (who came out at 15, in 1998) I'd fight to the death for his rights to speak his mind. I have an extreme distaste of Social Justice Warriors - there are people whom I firmly believe would never stand up to try to stop a gay bashing, but are more than content to stir up a huge ruckus online. Brendan Eich did the internet community a great service in his time - he didnt deserve to be drummed out for his beliefs, a thoughtcrime is not yet a crime, and I'd rather see him judged for his actions in his management roles not for just what he thinks.
- function_seven 12y ago
  > democracy prevailed, the system worked, nobody was harmed. That's not true. For several years, people in California were denied marriage rights because of Prop 8. It was judicially overturned, not democratically so. He actually did limit their rights.
  - trhway 12y ago
    >> democracy prevailed, the system worked, nobody was harmed. >That's not true. that's not true. It is exactly the difference between democracy and ochlocracy - both are the rule by majority - that in democracy some minority rights are protected from even the majority rule, and such a judicial overturn is exactly a part of the democracy that ochlocracy lacks.
    - function_seven 12y ago
      There's nothing inherent in the definition of democracy that requires protection of minority rights. It is true that many forms of democratic government include checks on majority power, but democracy per se doesn't automatically incorporate those protections. Thankfully we have constitutions and a judiciary that define and enforce these protections. That being said—even if I'm wrong on this point—it's the third clause that I took exception with, that "nobody was harmed." EDIT: I think maybe I'm being pedantic here. While a democracy doesn't automatically include these protections, you're certainly right that ochlocracy excludes them.
  - wtbob 12y ago
    > That's not true. For several years, people in California were denied marriage rights because of Prop 8. No, they weren't denied their marriage rights: under Prop 8, any unmarried lesbian was free to marry any consenting unmarried man, and any unmarried homosexual was free to marry any consenting unmarried woman. The state did not recognise 'marriages' between men or women, but that's not denying anyone's rights, nor is it harming anyone. Pope Francis is not harmed if the State of California doesn't recognise him as the Vicar of Christ.
- dwild 12y ago
  He voted for limiting their rights. He actively acted against people rights. The fact that it wasn't successful doesn't make it right. Even if the majority of people decide that jews need to be killed, I will still believe it's wrong.
- dreamweapon 12y ago
  You do realize that no one advocated that Eich be physically "rounded up", right? They were just saying they didn't want to have him as their CEO.
gfodor 12y ago
Donating money to support a campaign on a proposition supported by 52% of voters is not 'hurting people', and saying so is hyperbolic and ridiculous. The reality is that the gay rights movement did not have the unprecedented swiftness it did by alienating those who feel differently about homosexuality. It traditionally has been a movement predicated on the idea that people who didn't support gay rights could be converted if they could only be reached in the proper context. The effectiveness of this approach speaks for itself. It's a shame and an embarrassment that people think it's appropriate or rational behavior to do what was done to Eich. If that type of behavior was the common reaction to someone who, privately I might add, had opinions counter to the movement then we would have been set back decades.
- dwild 12y ago
  Supporting a cause that limit someone right based on their sexual orientation is hurting people. The fact that 52% support it doesn't change the fact that you limit someone right. Even if 99% people believe that brown hair people shouldn't have the right to take the bus, it wouldn't be less wrong. It's not magically right to limit rights because the majority agree. I never said that what people did to Eich is right, I currently don't have an opinion on that because I doesn't know enough.
  - gfodor 12y ago
    Sorry, if you are going to re-define 'hurting people' to mean 'making a modest political donation to a mainstream position that some argue is discriminatory' I don't know what to tell you. This hard line perspective stifles an open society. In this case, money is speech, and regardless of how wrong it is it's not the kind of speech I'd classify as harmful. ("Fire in a crowded theater.")
    - dwild 12y ago
      What's hurt people in this situation is to remove them their right. If you do an action with the goal to remove right from people, even if it's small, even if it's really indirect, if you do it with the goal to remove right from people, then yeah I believe it's wrong. We are all equals, we should have equals rights. Having equals right doesn't hurt anyone but having different rights does.

by dwild 12y ago

Sure there's nothing wrong with having an unpopular opinion but it's wrong to hurt other people based on an opinion (in this case he hurt them by limiting their right).

angersock 12y ago

You do realize that he didn't actually limit their rights, correct? He cast a dollar vote in support of a proposition, same way any of us could give campaign donations to a candidate we liked. He participated in the political framework in a widely-accepted way, and the system failed to effect the outcome he seems to have voted for: democracy prevailed, the system worked, nobody was harmed. You might as well round up every Republican who voted against Obama or Democrat who voted against Bush because they're clearly enemies of liberty. Be careful what you wish for.

Aloha 12y ago
Yes. The issue I have with the whole Brendan Eich situation was he was professing thru his right to free speech a profoundly held religious belief, I disagree with his interpretation of scripture, and conceptually that scripture should determine who can get married - but as gay male (who came out at 15, in 1998) I'd fight to the death for his rights to speak his mind. I have an extreme distaste of Social Justice Warriors - there are people whom I firmly believe would never stand up to try to stop a gay bashing, but are more than content to stir up a huge ruckus online. Brendan Eich did the internet community a great service in his time - he didnt deserve to be drummed out for his beliefs, a thoughtcrime is not yet a crime, and I'd rather see him judged for his actions in his management roles not for just what he thinks.
function_seven 12y ago
> democracy prevailed, the system worked, nobody was harmed. That's not true. For several years, people in California were denied marriage rights because of Prop 8. It was judicially overturned, not democratically so. He actually did limit their rights.
- trhway 12y ago
  >> democracy prevailed, the system worked, nobody was harmed. >That's not true. that's not true. It is exactly the difference between democracy and ochlocracy - both are the rule by majority - that in democracy some minority rights are protected from even the majority rule, and such a judicial overturn is exactly a part of the democracy that ochlocracy lacks.
  - function_seven 12y ago
    There's nothing inherent in the definition of democracy that requires protection of minority rights. It is true that many forms of democratic government include checks on majority power, but democracy per se doesn't automatically incorporate those protections. Thankfully we have constitutions and a judiciary that define and enforce these protections. That being said—even if I'm wrong on this point—it's the third clause that I took exception with, that "nobody was harmed." EDIT: I think maybe I'm being pedantic here. While a democracy doesn't automatically include these protections, you're certainly right that ochlocracy excludes them.
- wtbob 12y ago
  > That's not true. For several years, people in California were denied marriage rights because of Prop 8. No, they weren't denied their marriage rights: under Prop 8, any unmarried lesbian was free to marry any consenting unmarried man, and any unmarried homosexual was free to marry any consenting unmarried woman. The state did not recognise 'marriages' between men or women, but that's not denying anyone's rights, nor is it harming anyone. Pope Francis is not harmed if the State of California doesn't recognise him as the Vicar of Christ.
dwild 12y ago
He voted for limiting their rights. He actively acted against people rights. The fact that it wasn't successful doesn't make it right. Even if the majority of people decide that jews need to be killed, I will still believe it's wrong.
dreamweapon 12y ago
You do realize that no one advocated that Eich be physically "rounded up", right? They were just saying they didn't want to have him as their CEO.

gfodor 12y ago

Donating money to support a campaign on a proposition supported by 52% of voters is not 'hurting people', and saying so is hyperbolic and ridiculous. The reality is that the gay rights movement did not have the unprecedented swiftness it did by alienating those who feel differently about homosexuality. It traditionally has been a movement predicated on the idea that people who didn't support gay rights could be converted if they could only be reached in the proper context. The effectiveness of this approach speaks for itself. It's a shame and an embarrassment that people think it's appropriate or rational behavior to do what was done to Eich. If that type of behavior was the common reaction to someone who, privately I might add, had opinions counter to the movement then we would have been set back decades.

dwild 12y ago
Supporting a cause that limit someone right based on their sexual orientation is hurting people. The fact that 52% support it doesn't change the fact that you limit someone right. Even if 99% people believe that brown hair people shouldn't have the right to take the bus, it wouldn't be less wrong. It's not magically right to limit rights because the majority agree. I never said that what people did to Eich is right, I currently don't have an opinion on that because I doesn't know enough.
- gfodor 12y ago
  Sorry, if you are going to re-define 'hurting people' to mean 'making a modest political donation to a mainstream position that some argue is discriminatory' I don't know what to tell you. This hard line perspective stifles an open society. In this case, money is speech, and regardless of how wrong it is it's not the kind of speech I'd classify as harmful. ("Fire in a crowded theater.")
  - dwild 12y ago
    What's hurt people in this situation is to remove them their right. If you do an action with the goal to remove right from people, even if it's small, even if it's really indirect, if you do it with the goal to remove right from people, then yeah I believe it's wrong. We are all equals, we should have equals rights. Having equals right doesn't hurt anyone but having different rights does.