3 ms·

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 d

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.

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.