4 ms·

Drawing comparisons between my arguments and the political spectrum at large does nothing for your Swiss cheese argument against Brendan Eich's treatment. Why s

by 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/
  - BrendanEich 11y ago
    Thanks, but no thanks. For one thing, your inference from individuals created equal to normative, dyadic special positive rights (marriage) is unsound. Dyadic (or polygamous -- why not?) rights are not individual rights. They do not attach to all pairs of individuals, and never did. There's no cog-dis in my position under my definitions, which do not match your definitions. I'm a founder of Mozilla, which for over a decade admitted everyone, up to (me) co-founder or (again: me, but then Andreas Gal) CTO, or VP, or Distinguished Engineer level, all from various creeds or beliefs or "axiom" backgrounds -- so long as they left their baggage out of their Mozilla work. That changed in the last few years. Now the culture-war dissidents are staying quiet, and living on borrowed time. This is not a matter of contradictions being punished on a logical basis, since there is no contradiction given their choice of axioms. It's about winners burning losers' cultural camps to the ground. In two word, consequentialism; totalitarianism.
    - rmxt 11y ago
      Polygamous marriages change the core identity of marriage: that it is, as you say, a dyadic undertaking. That polygamous marriages might be legalized is a tenuous argument that is being spread up and down these forums. Sliding polygamous marriage in while the topic is about gay marriage is changing the subject at best, and dishonest at worst. Legalizing gay marriage is about equality, allowing polygamous marriages reinforces inequality between individuals. While we are at it, bestiality/pedophilia/etc. won't magically be next either for marriage: those acts are currently illegal because they create a dynamic of harm, as opposed to one of mutual support, between two individuals. I would argue that the right to marry is not inherently a dyadic right. Before the latest law, certain people were categorically denied the sort of marriage they (as an individual) wanted because of a quality that they (as an individual) possessed and likely have no control over. Gay marriage changes nothing about the institution of marriage for any other person, and the administrative differences for the government are practically nil. Accepting your definition of the "right to marry" as a "dyadic right", where do the basis for these sorts of rights come from, if not from the same source as the basis for "individual rights"? Where does the line between "all individuals are equal" and "these pairs of individuals cannot be considered the same as these other pairs of individuals" get drawn? How is the denial of marriage to an individual not a slight to the equality of that individual? Lastly, I would venture to say that I am not a totalitarianist, nor a consequentialist. There is most definitely room for expression of contrasting opinions in the marketplace of ideas. I do apologize for the brashness above, but I fail to see what "culture" people like me are destroying when they are promoting equal application of rights. A culture whose identity is formed around restricting the abilities of others doesn't seem like much of a culture at all. (If it's being burned to the ground by criticism, it seems fair to say that that's a critical part of its identity.) To play the same sort of game that the polygamist argument relies on: these arguments sound an awful lot like the arguments for Jim Crow laws and against interracial marriage. I wish you the best and apologies for any personal vitriol that my posts may seem to contain.

by rmxt 11y ago

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/
- BrendanEich 11y ago
  Thanks, but no thanks. For one thing, your inference from individuals created equal to normative, dyadic special positive rights (marriage) is unsound. Dyadic (or polygamous -- why not?) rights are not individual rights. They do not attach to all pairs of individuals, and never did. There's no cog-dis in my position under my definitions, which do not match your definitions. I'm a founder of Mozilla, which for over a decade admitted everyone, up to (me) co-founder or (again: me, but then Andreas Gal) CTO, or VP, or Distinguished Engineer level, all from various creeds or beliefs or "axiom" backgrounds -- so long as they left their baggage out of their Mozilla work. That changed in the last few years. Now the culture-war dissidents are staying quiet, and living on borrowed time. This is not a matter of contradictions being punished on a logical basis, since there is no contradiction given their choice of axioms. It's about winners burning losers' cultural camps to the ground. In two word, consequentialism; totalitarianism.
  - rmxt 11y ago
    Polygamous marriages change the core identity of marriage: that it is, as you say, a dyadic undertaking. That polygamous marriages might be legalized is a tenuous argument that is being spread up and down these forums. Sliding polygamous marriage in while the topic is about gay marriage is changing the subject at best, and dishonest at worst. Legalizing gay marriage is about equality, allowing polygamous marriages reinforces inequality between individuals. While we are at it, bestiality/pedophilia/etc. won't magically be next either for marriage: those acts are currently illegal because they create a dynamic of harm, as opposed to one of mutual support, between two individuals. I would argue that the right to marry is not inherently a dyadic right. Before the latest law, certain people were categorically denied the sort of marriage they (as an individual) wanted because of a quality that they (as an individual) possessed and likely have no control over. Gay marriage changes nothing about the institution of marriage for any other person, and the administrative differences for the government are practically nil. Accepting your definition of the "right to marry" as a "dyadic right", where do the basis for these sorts of rights come from, if not from the same source as the basis for "individual rights"? Where does the line between "all individuals are equal" and "these pairs of individuals cannot be considered the same as these other pairs of individuals" get drawn? How is the denial of marriage to an individual not a slight to the equality of that individual? Lastly, I would venture to say that I am not a totalitarianist, nor a consequentialist. There is most definitely room for expression of contrasting opinions in the marketplace of ideas. I do apologize for the brashness above, but I fail to see what "culture" people like me are destroying when they are promoting equal application of rights. A culture whose identity is formed around restricting the abilities of others doesn't seem like much of a culture at all. (If it's being burned to the ground by criticism, it seems fair to say that that's a critical part of its identity.) To play the same sort of game that the polygamist argument relies on: these arguments sound an awful lot like the arguments for Jim Crow laws and against interracial marriage. I wish you the best and apologies for any personal vitriol that my posts may seem to contain.