[wahsd]

The liberal mob will have its way. But it's of course not anything like any other tyrannies and controlling mobs. It's different of course. I don't necessarily agree with his donation either, but what he does with his own money should be up to him within the realm of the legal framework. You don't just smother dissenting opinions. You are no different than that which you feel yourself superior to.

[lukifer]

What would you consider the line to be? What if he had donated to a organization against interracial marriage? What if he had donated to a Neo-Nazi group? There are many consider causes against same-sex marriage to be equally morally repugnant (to the first one, anyway).

[wahsd]

The fact that my rather legitimate and rational and fundamentally American point is being down-voted kind of makes my point. To be honest, I really don't think that no matter how repugnant that I may think one or the other organization or movement may be that it be smothered, banned, or hidden, let alone controlled. Unfortunately, and this is something that many in the liberal mob don't quite comprehend about themselves, is that they are quite a bit more like the very things and people they wish to shame than not. Just because you have the power and dominance to control the issue, doesn't mean you should abuse that power to stifle other people's beliefs and freedom of speech and expression.

What is the difference between lynch-mobbing someone because they don't support {fill in your individual preferences or proclivities} and lynch-mobbing someone because they do support {fill in your individual preferences or proclivities}. There is absolutely nothing different than the perspective. Everyone should have the right to express their opinions, even if you don't like them and they are not your favorite thing (to invoke Louis CK) and then a conversation may lead to a debate and that is how better ideas come about.

The process that society is going through right now is really nothing but a hardening of positions, a "liberal" form of tyranny if you will; the overbearing imposition of a particular perspective upon others. Ironically, that is the very thing the "liberal" side claims is done by the "right/conservatives".

What the current state of civilization in the west shares is an apparent inherent stupidity and irrationality that is quite stunning. Up is right, left is forward, down is blue, billion dollar valuations for what is essentially marketing middle-ware, people maintain their own personal state surveillance dossiers on themselves. It's like the world has gone god damn ape shit mad.

[tedunangst]

Perhaps the line is somewhere beyond donating money, regardless of cause. Maybe the line is throwing bricks through windows or chasing people with a bat.

[toyg]

I really didn't want to get involved but your argument is specious. If I don't get my hands dirty, but I financially support organisations that do (and lots of right-wing groups are not exactly squeaky clean in that regard), it's all well and good?

[icebraining]

> what he does with his own money should be up to him within the realm of the legal framework

But what a private foundation and/or company promotes or demotes isn't up to its members?

Sounds like a double standard to me.

[syoc]

It is. He is not saying that they should not be able to fire him. The fact that they can fire him does not mean that they should.

[icebraining]

So it's a position against California's at-will employment rules? I can sympathize, but it seems like a weird case to use to make that point, considering that both the board and Eich himself deny he was fired.

[olavk]

He worked to destroy some peoples marriages. Then some people worked to get him fired. What is the difference? Which is worse? I'm not asking a rhetorical question here, I'm genuinely interested in why you think the one thing is OK and the other not?