[lern_too_spel]

Brave the organization runs and integrates with anarchocapitalist cryptoscams. That's far beyond anything Mozilla the organization has done, and if it's not worse in magnitude by itself, that's only because Brave thankfully remains a miniscule also-ran. Writing copy about sponsoring Web3 gaming expos is far stupider than writing about getting a sneaker designer to add some browser themes.

But yes, Eich and his horrible treatment of gays, which he still hasn't renounced (instead doubling-down and saying that the "deal" was that they could have civil unions but they went too far to get marriage too — they can ride on the same bus, but they can only sit in the back), as well as his nonstop promotion of conspiracy theories is something no sensible person would want to support. If you think Mozilla "[booted Eich] for politics" instead of for taking public actions that tarnished the reputation of the company, you seem like the type of fellow who would have cheered Stephen Douglas in the Lincoln-Douglas debates. As Douglas repeatedly stated, laws concerning the sale of "negroes" are no different from laws concerning the sale of dry goods or liquor, and the people of Illinois should no more tell Missouri how it can sell people than it should tell them how it can sell dry goods — that's Missouri's politics, and Illinois should mind its own business.

[memefrog]

Disagreements about the meaning of the English word "marriage" arent even political disagreements. No more so than any other disagreements about what words mean. Disagreeing that marriage can, by definition, include homosexual relationships isnt "treatment" of anyone. You dont treat someone differently by saying "I think you should be able to have a legally recognised relationship but I refuse to allow language to be actively and deliberately manipulated".

[lern_too_spel]

> You dont treat someone differently by saying "I think you should be able to have a legally recognised relationship but I refuse to allow language to be actively and deliberately manipulated".

You do if the word has a legal definition and you refuse the benefits tied to that legal definition. Eich is free to call it whatever he wants as long as people get the benefits of marriage, something he paid to stop from happening. What kind of asshole thinks it's OK to treat someone poorly because of quibbles over how everyone else is allowed to use a word? For that matter, Douglas is free to call black people "human goods" so long as he doesn't allow them to actually be bought and sold by controlling legal definitions that allow for it.

[memefrog]

There is no "legal definition". There is just the definition. The legal benefits are tied to marriage because of what marriage is, not because of its name. If you want the legal benefits extended to you, then make that the law. But the benefits are restricted to marriage because marriage is a particular institution with a particular social purpose: producing the next generation in a stable environment. That is something only marriage has been proven to be able to do.

[lern_too_spel]

So just to be clear, you agree that you're treating people differently now? You just justify it by tortured logic based on your traditional superstitions. Just like Judge Douglas and Eich.

As far as making that the law, that's exactly what happened. Eich and his fellow ethically-challenged smallbrains then changed the constitution so that the law no longer applied.

[memefrog]

Everyone is different. Thus everyone is treated differently.

> You just justify it by tortured logic based on your traditional superstitions.

Why are the American left so obsessed with religion? You seem to think it is the basis for all disagreement with your absurd views. Guess what: almost everyone in the world disagrees with you. And it isnt on religious grounds.

> As far as making that the law, that's exactly what happened. Eich and his fellow ethically-challenged smallbrains then changed the constitution so that the law no longer applied.

So you are making an argument that one group of people are allowed to unilaterally pass laws that redefine common terms, but you say that anyone trying to undo that illogical change is "trying to change the definition"?

Do you not see how hypocritical that is?

Also FYI, insulting people doesn't make your argument look stronger. It just makes you look very desperate. I know that American leftists almost never have to justify their views to anyone and have no practice defending them, but try a little harder.

[lern_too_spel]

> Thus everyone is treated differently.

Thank you, Judge Douglas.

> Why are the American left so obsessed with religion? You seem to think it is the basis for all disagreement with your absurd views.

Because you're using your superstitions to tell other people what to do. Guess what? Everybody with at least half a post-enlightenment brain disagrees with you.

> So you are making an argument that one group of people are allowed to unilaterally pass laws that redefine common terms

No, my argument from the start has been that one group is wrong to do so, just like Lincoln said that one group is wrong to make laws allowing slavery to expand. This type of consistent thinking is difficult for superstitious people to follow, but with practice, it will come more easily.

> Also FYI, insulting people doesn't make your argument look stronger.

I'm just saying what everyone is thinking. If you don't like it, maybe Eich (and you) should stop being publicly wrong. For that matter, you should see the insults that Lincoln hurled at Douglas. A hint for you: your insults would land better if you were right.

[inferiorhuman]

  There is no "legal definition".

Credit where credit is due, I'm impressed by your mental gymnastics. There is a legal definition (no scare quotes needed) of marriage, and that legal definition is precisely what Eich was trying to change.

[memefrog]

I just explained why that is not true. Repeatedly asserting the truth of disproven allegations makes you just look desperate.