3 ms·

When it comes to reactionary beliefs, there is a significant contingent on this site that believes one ought to be able to hold them publically with no conseque

When it comes to reactionary beliefs, there is a significant contingent on this site that believes one ought to be able to hold them publically with no consequences in any other space. This happened with that Mozilla CEO that resigned, the scientist who wore the shirt with scantily clad women on it, and a number of other situations where the privileged paid nominal costs for their mistakes. It is very upsetting to a subset of our fellow hners that you can't express antisocial ideas consequence-free.

tptacek 11y ago
Being disinvited from a conference after a writing career that left you most notable for your politics is not the same as being removed from your job over a political position that people had to do research to discover.
- obstinate 11y ago
  I didn't mean to convey that I thought they were the same. Related, though.
13thLetter 11y ago
"Nominal consequences"?!! Eich lost his job. The scientist was forced to make a tearful apology on national television on what should have been the proudest day of his life. Would you be comfortable with losing your job and being humiliated world-wide because some mob was offended at you? If not, why not? Not that it matters, but you palmed a card there by equating holding the same position on gay marriage as Barack Obama in 2008, or wearing a tacky bowling shirt, as "reactionary." It kind of seems like anything which disagrees with a microscopic sliver of online activists is reactionary now.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- obstinate 11y ago
  "Lost his job." Boo hoo, he's still insanely rich, and could probably get a job anywhere less progressive and public than Mozilla. Also, no public indication that he was compelled to leave, although I'll grant you there's a better than even chance that that was the case. "Forced to make a tearful apology" Rather say that he made a tearful apology, because he regretted his wrong action and felt apologetic. Or, if you have access to some sort of privileged information and actually know that he was forced, I've got another rejoinder: forced to apologize!? No! The humanity. Nominal.
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
  - Rk0bizaN 11y ago
    Where'd you get the idea that Eich is insanely rich? http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/09/30/i-can-tolerate-anything-except-the-outgroup/#comment-150288 http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/09/30/i-can-tolerate-anything...
- Dain42 11y ago
  Eich didn't just hold the same nominal position on marriage, though. He donated a large sum of money to actively (and successfully for a time) strip his coworkers of their legal rights. Not only did his position on marriage not change, but he expressed no regret over the actual, tangible harm that he helped to cause to his numerous gay and lesbian coworkers. It doesn't sound quite as soft when you put it that way. There was no big ruckus when he was the CTO for the Mozilla Foundation, either. But when you become the CEO of an organization, you become its public face in many ways. And he had some baggage, there. Like it or not, many corporate CEOs are held to different standards of public discourse by their employers, because companies generally don't want to risk alienating consumers. Now, I don't know that it was right for him to lose his job. That was probably the wrong thing to happen at this point in time. I have big problems with companies being able to exercise control over people's expression of their political beliefs and actions. I feel bad for him losing the position, I really do. On the other hand, if he was not going to be able to effectively run the foundation and there were schisms forming in the community that's so essential to the continuation of the foundation's work...what are you, as Mozilla, to do? I mean, if you had a corporate leader who came out publicly and said, "I don't think mixed race couples should be allowed to marry," she or he probably would not last much longer in that position. And I'll bet most people would not have much of a problem. In fact, I don't have to bet about a situation like that — nobody shed too many tears for Donald Sterling. It's a complicated issue. I'd strongly suggest reading (or listening) to the things that Dan Savage and Andrew Sullivan (both gay writers with very different political bents) had to say afterwards. Savage pointed out, very interestingly, that this ouster, while pinned on the "gay mafia", was really something that came from other large tech companies, from online journalistic enterprises, and from inside Mozilla itself. It may just be the first pang of society saying, "Bigotry against gay people is not socially acceptable, just like many other forms of bigotry." Again, like it or not, society does this all the time. See, again, Donald Sterling for a case study in it.
  - Pinatubo 11y ago
    At the time Eich made his financial contribution to the Yes on Proposition 8 campaign, there was no legal right for gay people to marry in California, so saying that he "stripped his coworkers of their legal rights" is a gross exaggeration of the effect of a perfectly legal, and at the time mainstream campaign contribution (Eich's position on gay marriage was the same as Obama's at the time). He also apologized repeatedly for offending his coworkers, so it's incorrect to say he "expressed no regret." In fact, I think the vilification of Eich neatly demonstrates why Proposition 8 won at the ballot box. Religious people were frightened that their religious beliefs would first be rebranded as bigotry, which would then give their ideological opponents the opportunity to punish them. The fate of Eich seems to confirm these fears.
danhess00 11y ago
"It is very upsetting to a subset of our fellow hners that you can't express antisocial ideas consequence-free." Those who would say that are enemies of intellectual life. Can you safely express ideas outside the Overton Window, for curiosity's sake, on your own time? No, they shout in unison! But now, for any intellectual worthy of the name, the Overton Window is narrow and constraining. If you fancy yourself an intellectual and you think that the present Overton Window is a big enough sandbox to play in, you are not very much of an intellectual. If noting (for instance) that different people are different is outside of the Overton Window, the sandbox is tiny indeed.
gladius17 11y ago
"When it comes to reactionary beliefs" The term "reactionary" being a label you've created, in order to demonize, not understand. "there is a significant contingent on this site that believes one ought to be able to hold them publically with no consequences in any other space. " Also known as "intelligent, rational individuals." "This happened with that Mozilla CEO that resigned, " Under pressure from the faggots, of course. "the scientist who wore the shirt with scantily clad women on it," Another victim of your type's idiocy. "and a number of other situations where the privileged paid nominal costs for their mistakes." Your use of the word "privileged" is a dead giveaway that you're a fucking asshole. "It is very upsetting to a subset of our fellow hners that you can't express antisocial ideas consequence-free." Actually, what's upsetting is that dumb fucks such as you label people as "anti-social", and think there should be "consequences" for expressing ideas you disagree with. OK then, that's the world you want to live in? Two can play you game. I hope somebody shoots you in the fucking face for expressing your ideas.

tptacek 11y ago

Being disinvited from a conference after a writing career that left you most notable for your politics is not the same as being removed from your job over a political position that people had to do research to discover.

obstinate 11y ago
I didn't mean to convey that I thought they were the same. Related, though.

13thLetter 11y ago

"Nominal consequences"?!! Eich lost his job. The scientist was forced to make a tearful apology on national television on what should have been the proudest day of his life. Would you be comfortable with losing your job and being humiliated world-wide because some mob was offended at you? If not, why not? Not that it matters, but you palmed a card there by equating holding the same position on gay marriage as Barack Obama in 2008, or wearing a tacky bowling shirt, as "reactionary." It kind of seems like anything which disagrees with a microscopic sliver of online activists is reactionary now.

deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
obstinate 11y ago
"Lost his job." Boo hoo, he's still insanely rich, and could probably get a job anywhere less progressive and public than Mozilla. Also, no public indication that he was compelled to leave, although I'll grant you there's a better than even chance that that was the case. "Forced to make a tearful apology" Rather say that he made a tearful apology, because he regretted his wrong action and felt apologetic. Or, if you have access to some sort of privileged information and actually know that he was forced, I've got another rejoinder: forced to apologize!? No! The humanity. Nominal.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- Rk0bizaN 11y ago
  Where'd you get the idea that Eich is insanely rich? http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/09/30/i-can-tolerate-anything-except-the-outgroup/#comment-150288 http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/09/30/i-can-tolerate-anything...
Dain42 11y ago
Eich didn't just hold the same nominal position on marriage, though. He donated a large sum of money to actively (and successfully for a time) strip his coworkers of their legal rights. Not only did his position on marriage not change, but he expressed no regret over the actual, tangible harm that he helped to cause to his numerous gay and lesbian coworkers. It doesn't sound quite as soft when you put it that way. There was no big ruckus when he was the CTO for the Mozilla Foundation, either. But when you become the CEO of an organization, you become its public face in many ways. And he had some baggage, there. Like it or not, many corporate CEOs are held to different standards of public discourse by their employers, because companies generally don't want to risk alienating consumers. Now, I don't know that it was right for him to lose his job. That was probably the wrong thing to happen at this point in time. I have big problems with companies being able to exercise control over people's expression of their political beliefs and actions. I feel bad for him losing the position, I really do. On the other hand, if he was not going to be able to effectively run the foundation and there were schisms forming in the community that's so essential to the continuation of the foundation's work...what are you, as Mozilla, to do? I mean, if you had a corporate leader who came out publicly and said, "I don't think mixed race couples should be allowed to marry," she or he probably would not last much longer in that position. And I'll bet most people would not have much of a problem. In fact, I don't have to bet about a situation like that — nobody shed too many tears for Donald Sterling. It's a complicated issue. I'd strongly suggest reading (or listening) to the things that Dan Savage and Andrew Sullivan (both gay writers with very different political bents) had to say afterwards. Savage pointed out, very interestingly, that this ouster, while pinned on the "gay mafia", was really something that came from other large tech companies, from online journalistic enterprises, and from inside Mozilla itself. It may just be the first pang of society saying, "Bigotry against gay people is not socially acceptable, just like many other forms of bigotry." Again, like it or not, society does this all the time. See, again, Donald Sterling for a case study in it.
- Pinatubo 11y ago
  At the time Eich made his financial contribution to the Yes on Proposition 8 campaign, there was no legal right for gay people to marry in California, so saying that he "stripped his coworkers of their legal rights" is a gross exaggeration of the effect of a perfectly legal, and at the time mainstream campaign contribution (Eich's position on gay marriage was the same as Obama's at the time). He also apologized repeatedly for offending his coworkers, so it's incorrect to say he "expressed no regret." In fact, I think the vilification of Eich neatly demonstrates why Proposition 8 won at the ballot box. Religious people were frightened that their religious beliefs would first be rebranded as bigotry, which would then give their ideological opponents the opportunity to punish them. The fate of Eich seems to confirm these fears.

danhess00 11y ago

"It is very upsetting to a subset of our fellow hners that you can't express antisocial ideas consequence-free." Those who would say that are enemies of intellectual life. Can you safely express ideas outside the Overton Window, for curiosity's sake, on your own time? No, they shout in unison! But now, for any intellectual worthy of the name, the Overton Window is narrow and constraining. If you fancy yourself an intellectual and you think that the present Overton Window is a big enough sandbox to play in, you are not very much of an intellectual. If noting (for instance) that different people are different is outside of the Overton Window, the sandbox is tiny indeed.

gladius17 11y ago

"When it comes to reactionary beliefs" The term "reactionary" being a label you've created, in order to demonize, not understand. "there is a significant contingent on this site that believes one ought to be able to hold them publically with no consequences in any other space. " Also known as "intelligent, rational individuals." "This happened with that Mozilla CEO that resigned, " Under pressure from the faggots, of course. "the scientist who wore the shirt with scantily clad women on it," Another victim of your type's idiocy. "and a number of other situations where the privileged paid nominal costs for their mistakes." Your use of the word "privileged" is a dead giveaway that you're a fucking asshole. "It is very upsetting to a subset of our fellow hners that you can't express antisocial ideas consequence-free." Actually, what's upsetting is that dumb fucks such as you label people as "anti-social", and think there should be "consequences" for expressing ideas you disagree with. OK then, that's the world you want to live in? Two can play you game. I hope somebody shoots you in the fucking face for expressing your ideas.