5 ms·

If I understand your position correctly, then if there really was a prop to ban interracial marriage we should all be okay with that? I don't see any difference

by smtddr 12y ago

If I understand your position correctly, then if there really was a prop to ban interracial marriage we should all be okay with that? I don't see any difference between a ban on gay marriage and a ban on interracial marriage. I just want to be sure I understand your calibration settings. If you think a prop on banning interracial marriage should be just as acceptable as what you seem to be saying for prop8, then I'm done discussing this with you.

scintill76 12y ago
Since you linked xkcd: https://xkcd.com/1431/ https://xkcd.com/1431/ It's easy to look down on interracial marriage bans from our oh-so-enlightened modern view, but it took a long time to even get there. You have to look at these ideologies in the context that they were formed in. If the graph is correct, then when Eich donated, same-sex marriage didn't have majority support. (Setting aside what California's specific numbers were.) This isn't to say that "might makes right", but that Eich expressed his vision for how society should be, and it's only fair to also consider how the rest of the society felt about it. In other words, how do you know views you hold today won't be considered the vilest bigotry in 30 years? Is your moral compass so special, that you would have fought for interracial marriage, even if you were born a white in the southern US in the 1800's?
- smtddr 12y ago
  I have no way to argue against your comment. You're completely right that our moral compass is not static. So I can only say that I hope society overall always moves towards accepting humanity & life in all the shapes and forms it presents itself. I have no way of justifying that belief; it's just something in my core being. It's in the same part of me that has decided kicking puppies and other animal cruelty is not good. Anyone publicly supporting animal cruelty I think should be publicly shamed. I don't know how to justify that either. Perhaps this takes this whole discussion to another level. Where does humanity's moral compass come from and how do we justify it as something worthy of being followed & upheld?
- icebraining 12y ago
  If the graph is correct, then when Eich donated, same-sex marriage didn't have majority support. It did among the society composed of Mozilla supporters. This idea that society is not people you interact and work with (and in this case, even direct) but the random populace in your general geographic area was wrong before the Internet, and it's completely wrong today. If he didn't realize that, I'd say his out of touch with the people he was supposed to work with. Is your moral compass so special, that you would have fought for interracial marriage, even if you were born a white in the southern US in the 1800's? What's with this topic and strawmen? Nobody demanded he fought for gay rights. Most people don't fight for gay rights, and you don't see them get criticized (in this community). Just not to invest his time and money to fight against it. Regardless of either his ousting was justified or not (personally, I'm conflicted), most arguments here are terrible.
  - waps 12y ago
    I find this extremely hypocritical. Does this justify obstructing his career and publicly nailing him to the cross ? NO. If you're a liberal : please explain why Mozillans don't have the right to their own political opinion, right to do whatever they want with their money, ... If I ever met anyone who expressed this opinion to me, you or anyone else, I'd do the very best I can to remove them from my presence, company, sabotage their career, whatever I can. And I'll feel as smug about it as you. I'm defending freedom and democracy by doing that.
    - icebraining 12y ago
      I specifically said that I'm divided on the issue and I haven't taken position one way or the other, I just disagree with those particular arguments. If you want to make me into the enemy, go ahead, but you're the Quixote here.
    - wpietri 12y ago
      Nobody's denying Eich's legal right to have a political opinion, or to act on it within the bounds of the law. But note that Eich supported stripping people of one of their constitutional rights. Prop 8's explicit goal was to remove the right of equal protection before the law. And further, other people were exercising their political rights: freedom of speech and freedom of association. Having a fancy-pants CEO position is not a legal right. People are free to decide not to work with the guy. And really, if you're defending using the ballot process to strip people of constitutional protections, I'm not so sure you're truly on the side of freedom and democracy. Prop 8 was mob democracy, a classic example of tyranny of the majority.
- jackmaney 12y ago
  > You have to look at these ideologies in the context that they were formed in. No. No, I do not.
- wpietri 12y ago
  > how do you know views you hold today won't be considered the vilest bigotry in 30 years Ah, the classic argument: if we can't have perfect right now, then we obviously can't work toward the good.
downandout 12y ago
>If I understand your position correctly, then if there really was a prop to ban interracial marriage we should all be okay with that? I would strongly oppose such a measure. But I would certainly respect the rights of others to support the opposing side and vote their conscience, and when the vote was over I would not go scouring donation records to figure out whom I should fire or force out of their jobs.
- icebraining 12y ago
  Nobody did that, you're inventing a straw man. The results were published on the website of a well-known newspaper[1] in a format that Google could parse. It was only a matter of time for it to be found out and spread.
- courtf 12y ago
  "I would certainly respect the rights of others to support the opposing side" No such right exists in this context. A proposition to ban interracial marriage has nothing to do with people's consciences and everything to do with the letter of the law, where marriage is an established legal construct to which access is guaranteed under the 14th amendment. Voting to have rights stripped from other citizens for arbitrary reasons is not a protected freedom and such a proposition is patently unconstitutional on its face. You don't need to be impartial here.
  - icebraining 12y ago
    No such right exists in this context. Sure they do. Free speech applies even if what you defend is illegal or unconstitutional. Brandenburg v. Ohio made it very explicit. Besides, while it may seem weird to Americans, constitutions do change. Ours is not yet 40 years old, and already we're speaking about changing it.
    - courtf 12y ago
      Free speech != voting to legislate away the rights of some minority. This is a rampant conflation.

by smtddr 12y ago

scintill76 12y ago

Since you linked xkcd: https://xkcd.com/1431/ https://xkcd.com/1431/ It's easy to look down on interracial marriage bans from our oh-so-enlightened modern view, but it took a long time to even get there. You have to look at these ideologies in the context that they were formed in. If the graph is correct, then when Eich donated, same-sex marriage didn't have majority support. (Setting aside what California's specific numbers were.) This isn't to say that "might makes right", but that Eich expressed his vision for how society should be, and it's only fair to also consider how the rest of the society felt about it. In other words, how do you know views you hold today won't be considered the vilest bigotry in 30 years? Is your moral compass so special, that you would have fought for interracial marriage, even if you were born a white in the southern US in the 1800's?

smtddr 12y ago
I have no way to argue against your comment. You're completely right that our moral compass is not static. So I can only say that I hope society overall always moves towards accepting humanity & life in all the shapes and forms it presents itself. I have no way of justifying that belief; it's just something in my core being. It's in the same part of me that has decided kicking puppies and other animal cruelty is not good. Anyone publicly supporting animal cruelty I think should be publicly shamed. I don't know how to justify that either. Perhaps this takes this whole discussion to another level. Where does humanity's moral compass come from and how do we justify it as something worthy of being followed & upheld?
icebraining 12y ago
If the graph is correct, then when Eich donated, same-sex marriage didn't have majority support. It did among the society composed of Mozilla supporters. This idea that society is not people you interact and work with (and in this case, even direct) but the random populace in your general geographic area was wrong before the Internet, and it's completely wrong today. If he didn't realize that, I'd say his out of touch with the people he was supposed to work with. Is your moral compass so special, that you would have fought for interracial marriage, even if you were born a white in the southern US in the 1800's? What's with this topic and strawmen? Nobody demanded he fought for gay rights. Most people don't fight for gay rights, and you don't see them get criticized (in this community). Just not to invest his time and money to fight against it. Regardless of either his ousting was justified or not (personally, I'm conflicted), most arguments here are terrible.
- waps 12y ago
  I find this extremely hypocritical. Does this justify obstructing his career and publicly nailing him to the cross ? NO. If you're a liberal : please explain why Mozillans don't have the right to their own political opinion, right to do whatever they want with their money, ... If I ever met anyone who expressed this opinion to me, you or anyone else, I'd do the very best I can to remove them from my presence, company, sabotage their career, whatever I can. And I'll feel as smug about it as you. I'm defending freedom and democracy by doing that.
  - icebraining 12y ago
    I specifically said that I'm divided on the issue and I haven't taken position one way or the other, I just disagree with those particular arguments. If you want to make me into the enemy, go ahead, but you're the Quixote here.
  - wpietri 12y ago
    Nobody's denying Eich's legal right to have a political opinion, or to act on it within the bounds of the law. But note that Eich supported stripping people of one of their constitutional rights. Prop 8's explicit goal was to remove the right of equal protection before the law. And further, other people were exercising their political rights: freedom of speech and freedom of association. Having a fancy-pants CEO position is not a legal right. People are free to decide not to work with the guy. And really, if you're defending using the ballot process to strip people of constitutional protections, I'm not so sure you're truly on the side of freedom and democracy. Prop 8 was mob democracy, a classic example of tyranny of the majority.
jackmaney 12y ago
> You have to look at these ideologies in the context that they were formed in. No. No, I do not.
wpietri 12y ago
> how do you know views you hold today won't be considered the vilest bigotry in 30 years Ah, the classic argument: if we can't have perfect right now, then we obviously can't work toward the good.

downandout 12y ago

>If I understand your position correctly, then if there really was a prop to ban interracial marriage we should all be okay with that? I would strongly oppose such a measure. But I would certainly respect the rights of others to support the opposing side and vote their conscience, and when the vote was over I would not go scouring donation records to figure out whom I should fire or force out of their jobs.

icebraining 12y ago
Nobody did that, you're inventing a straw man. The results were published on the website of a well-known newspaper[1] in a format that Google could parse. It was only a matter of time for it to be found out and spread.
courtf 12y ago
"I would certainly respect the rights of others to support the opposing side" No such right exists in this context. A proposition to ban interracial marriage has nothing to do with people's consciences and everything to do with the letter of the law, where marriage is an established legal construct to which access is guaranteed under the 14th amendment. Voting to have rights stripped from other citizens for arbitrary reasons is not a protected freedom and such a proposition is patently unconstitutional on its face. You don't need to be impartial here.
- icebraining 12y ago
  No such right exists in this context. Sure they do. Free speech applies even if what you defend is illegal or unconstitutional. Brandenburg v. Ohio made it very explicit. Besides, while it may seem weird to Americans, constitutions do change. Ours is not yet 40 years old, and already we're speaking about changing it.
  - courtf 12y ago
    Free speech != voting to legislate away the rights of some minority. This is a rampant conflation.