5 ms·

It's not treating everyone equally, which is why it is cognitive dissonance on full display. All of the religious arguments against gay marriage are fine and da

by rmxt 11y ago

It's not treating everyone equally, which is why it is cognitive dissonance on full display. All of the religious arguments against gay marriage are fine and dandy for marriage within, and as defined by, that religion, but once they are extended to civil matters their arguments fall to pieces. The GP is arguing for this split/dual nature of "equality." To paraphrase: "I want to be free to criticize and make illegal the lifestyle choices of others, but I myself want to be free from repercussion and public criticism." Good thing saner minds have prevailed on the particular topic of gay marriage in the US. Also, I would love to see any hard evidence there is, that someone making lucid and noninflammatory arguments against legalizing civil gay marriages was actually fired from any job.

nsxwolf 11y ago
Brendan Eich. He didn't even have to open his mouth.
- rmxt 11y ago
  Since these arguments are inherently over nits, a couple of points: - He didn't have to open his mouth, since he had already opened his wallet. Money is a language of its own nature. - Importantly, he wasn't fired because of what he did. He stepped down of his own accord. - To say that there is wrong doing in Brendan Eich's case is to go full blown hypocrite: one cannot expect freedom from public backlash due to political donations. Especially when those political donations are ones that are restrictive and critical of the dignity and freedom of others. Yes, that he was forced to resign sucks...but admittedly, I can only muster a "too bad." Public people should expect public scrutiny. https://blog.mozilla.org/blog/2014/04/05/faq-on-ceo-resignation/ https://blog.mozilla.org/blog/2014/04/05/faq-on-ceo-resignat...
  - nsxwolf 11y ago
    This is my big problem with the whole thing - how the left framed this issue. Instead of a debate between two conflicting but legitimate viewpoints, you framed it as one legitimate side and one completely illegitimate, hateful, bigoted, evil side. There was absolutely no reason to do this - you were going to win anyway. The divisiveness does nothing for national unity. People on HN easily forget that about half the country isn't happy about this, and those people are going to be around for a long time.
    - rmxt 11y ago
      Drawing comparisons between my arguments and the political spectrum at large does nothing for your Swiss cheese argument against Brendan Eich's treatment. Why shouldn't he be subject to public criticism for his public campaign donations? Don't want criticism? Don't donate to causes that are going to cause strife between you and your resident demographic. I don't actually think that everyone that opposes civil recognition of gay marriage is "hateful, bigoted, and evil." I merely think they are short-sighted and often eerily reminiscent of 1960s era pro-Jim Crow rhetoric. Re-read your post and think "black people" and "Jim Crow" and then come back to me about "national unity". No rights are being removed from those that oppose gay marriage... the only blow to "national unity" is one where gay marriage is disallowed. Resist change all you want, but for the foreseeable future, the Overton window isn't moving back to a place where disallowing gay marriage is going to be palatable. EDIT: There are some arguments where "the other side" might not be worth it's weight. Gay marriage and acceptance of equal rights for LGBT people is one of them. See "False Balance" and "Argument to Moderation" on Wikipedia.
      - nsxwolf 11y ago
        Why shouldn't he be treated that way? Because I'd like to think we live in a society full of reasonable adults that can say things like "I strongly disagree with this person's beliefs on issue X, but I otherwise can get along". But we don't, and I find it shameful and childish and potentially dangerous.
        rmxt 11y ago
        We don't live in such a society. Hence why "not supporting gay marriage" and "I am able to fully support people from all walks of life (e.g. all people are created equal)" are contradictory statements, full of cognitive dissonance. This is "shameful and childish and potentially dangerous" for someone who is trying to be the CEO of a company. The questions raised about his fitness for that role are fair ones. Considering his beliefs, I think he handled his ascendance with grace. [1] Frankly, I think he could have succeeded and supported the overall cause of Mozilla. Do I think what happened to him was unfair? No. [1] https://brendaneich.com/2014/03/inclusiveness-at-mozilla/ https://brendaneich.com/2014/03/inclusiveness-at-mozilla/

by rmxt 11y ago

nsxwolf 11y ago

Brendan Eich. He didn't even have to open his mouth.

rmxt 11y ago
Since these arguments are inherently over nits, a couple of points: - He didn't have to open his mouth, since he had already opened his wallet. Money is a language of its own nature. - Importantly, he wasn't fired because of what he did. He stepped down of his own accord. - To say that there is wrong doing in Brendan Eich's case is to go full blown hypocrite: one cannot expect freedom from public backlash due to political donations. Especially when those political donations are ones that are restrictive and critical of the dignity and freedom of others. Yes, that he was forced to resign sucks...but admittedly, I can only muster a "too bad." Public people should expect public scrutiny. https://blog.mozilla.org/blog/2014/04/05/faq-on-ceo-resignation/ https://blog.mozilla.org/blog/2014/04/05/faq-on-ceo-resignat...
- nsxwolf 11y ago
  This is my big problem with the whole thing - how the left framed this issue. Instead of a debate between two conflicting but legitimate viewpoints, you framed it as one legitimate side and one completely illegitimate, hateful, bigoted, evil side. There was absolutely no reason to do this - you were going to win anyway. The divisiveness does nothing for national unity. People on HN easily forget that about half the country isn't happy about this, and those people are going to be around for a long time.
  - rmxt 11y ago
    Drawing comparisons between my arguments and the political spectrum at large does nothing for your Swiss cheese argument against Brendan Eich's treatment. Why shouldn't he be subject to public criticism for his public campaign donations? Don't want criticism? Don't donate to causes that are going to cause strife between you and your resident demographic. I don't actually think that everyone that opposes civil recognition of gay marriage is "hateful, bigoted, and evil." I merely think they are short-sighted and often eerily reminiscent of 1960s era pro-Jim Crow rhetoric. Re-read your post and think "black people" and "Jim Crow" and then come back to me about "national unity". No rights are being removed from those that oppose gay marriage... the only blow to "national unity" is one where gay marriage is disallowed. Resist change all you want, but for the foreseeable future, the Overton window isn't moving back to a place where disallowing gay marriage is going to be palatable. EDIT: There are some arguments where "the other side" might not be worth it's weight. Gay marriage and acceptance of equal rights for LGBT people is one of them. See "False Balance" and "Argument to Moderation" on Wikipedia.
    - nsxwolf 11y ago
      Why shouldn't he be treated that way? Because I'd like to think we live in a society full of reasonable adults that can say things like "I strongly disagree with this person's beliefs on issue X, but I otherwise can get along". But we don't, and I find it shameful and childish and potentially dangerous.
      - rmxt 11y ago
        We don't live in such a society. Hence why "not supporting gay marriage" and "I am able to fully support people from all walks of life (e.g. all people are created equal)" are contradictory statements, full of cognitive dissonance. This is "shameful and childish and potentially dangerous" for someone who is trying to be the CEO of a company. The questions raised about his fitness for that role are fair ones. Considering his beliefs, I think he handled his ascendance with grace. [1] Frankly, I think he could have succeeded and supported the overall cause of Mozilla. Do I think what happened to him was unfair? No. [1] https://brendaneich.com/2014/03/inclusiveness-at-mozilla/ https://brendaneich.com/2014/03/inclusiveness-at-mozilla/