[briantakita]

> I find it very puzzling that you say I am practicing all this hatred by saying I find Eich's actions repugnant

> If I have any vitriol at all, it's directed at his defenders and those that want to make him a martyr for "freedom of speech".

I'm saying Eich freedom is being violated. I'm just repeating what you said and referring to your "vitriol".

I understand where you are coming from. However, it's easy to misconstrue a position that someone took. Notice I used some weasel words such as "it sounds like". I could misconstrue your statement as you hating me.

I believe that Eich's support & position is being misconstrued. He should be able to express the reasons for his support without fear of reprisal. I would not be surprised if he & his family were harassed, as harassment seems to accompany such emotionally charged situations. I would be fearful if I were publicly targeted like that. Even if you are right, you never bully people into agreeing with your position.

I watched the commercials. The last one is ridiculous, since the couple should have answered that marriage is about love and not necessarily about having children. However, none of the commercials struck me as overtly discriminatory. The one with the two princesses, is somewhat discriminatory; However the position of parents (with religious convictions) should have control over their children's education at least deserved some consideration. To a parent, it coercive to (without warning), teach a child something that they disagree with.

The ads expressed some legitimate concerns that should be addressed. There was even a point where someone was afraid that people's jobs would be targeted for their beliefs. Obviously that fear is well founded.

I'm failing to see how this is a hate group. I believe some of the Prop 8 supporters were bigots, however, the campaign itself does not seem like it is based on hate.

I fail to see how Eich is an aware supporter of hate groups.

[Karunamon]

I'm saying Eich freedom is being violated

But it simply isn't. First, consider the fact that he chose to step down. He wasn't booted out by Mozilla.

Secondly, You have no entitlement, legally or morally to any particular job with any particular company. Eich is free to support any cause he wants, and everyone else is free to react to that how they want.

That's freedom of speech - plain and simple. This same noise was made when A&E chose to (temporarily) end their contract with one of the stars of Duck Dynasty over his public comments in a magazine - again, no freedom being violated. That person was free to make whatever comments he wanted, and everyone else is free to criticize those comments, and the company in question is free to conduct their business operations in accordance with whatever contract law.

Freedom of speech does not, and never has meant, freedom from criticism/repercussions. This is the system working as intended.

I believe that Eich's support & position is being misconstrued

How so? In what other circumstances does one donate to any cause, go out of their way to avoid directly addressing concerns with said donation, and eventually quit their jobs rather than address those concerns?

That's not misconstruing, that's basic logical induction. If you have another plausible theory, I'd love to hear it.

He should be able to express the reasons for his support without fear of reprisal.

Again, freedom of speech != freedom from criticism. You do not have the right to say anything and never be challenged for it. You do have the right to say whatever you please and not have the government take some action against you.

However, none of the commercials struck me as overtly discriminatory.

We will have to agree to disagree on that. I find them to be offensive, inaccurate, hateful fear-mongering. Partially because they target me personally.

Hate doesn't necessarily imply violence or the threat thereof.

The campaign itself does not seem like it is based on hate.

Then what is it based on?

[briantakita]

> But it simply isn't. First, consider the fact that he chose to step down. He wasn't booted out by Mozilla.

He stepped down under enormous political pressure. Also, OK Cupid had a campaign against Firefox, not Eich. Firefox's brand was being hurt. At that point, he did the honorable thing under such attack, which was to step down.

> You have no entitlement

Does that mean discrimination is ok? If we have no entitlement, than someone can fire another for being black, gay, a woman, a member of a religion, a political outlook? At what point does the attacking stop? Why does being gay give you more protection than having a private ideology where nobody is hurt by you?

> In what other circumstances does one donate to any cause, go out of their way to avoid directly addressing concerns with said donation, and eventually quit their jobs rather than address those concerns?

When no matter what you say, you are going to get backlash. He said he does not want to be coerced into changing his opinion. That is his right. I think his is also right to have that opinion. He also deserves respect, like any other human.

> That's not misconstruing, that's basic logical induction. If you have another plausible theory, I'd love to hear it.

First of all, attacking others solely based on our "theories" is a "preemtive strike". It's an unprovoked assault. You don't know the truth. You are only speculating. This speculation has grown rampant. No matter what Eich does, he will be criticized. There is no way for him to win. That's the nature of mob mentality.

My theory is he & his family were being harassed from this. People usually start receiving death threats & other drama that causes unhappiness & suffering. I also think he didn't appreciate the group coercion to change his stance on an issue. Coercion is bad. Sometimes, a job is not worth that drama.

> You do not have the right to say anything and never be challenged for it

Challenging is fine. However, it should be done with respect of the person. Having manipulative press activity is not fine. Having a mob mentality is not fine. It's legal, but it's also not conducive to a tolerant society.

> I find them to be offensive, inaccurate, hateful fear-mongering. Partially because they target me personally.

I didn't see any targeting. The ads never said "homosexuality is wrong" nor did they attack homosexuals. The last ad had some questionable premises, however it was obviously ridiculous from a moderate's perspective.

They were mainly appealing to people's autonomy, respecting moral stances on this issue, and protecting people's careers for having a certain stance. Yes, even intolerant people should be able to have work. Aren't we all a little intolerant? I understand that you are persecuted. I'm also persecuted in some areas of my life. Everyone is persecuted to some degree. We need to remove the persecution. If we can reduce or remove this societal issue, then people change in positive ways.

Politics is never black & white. Prop 8 has positions & a constituency. Even if it does not pass, popular support brings leverage on related issues.

> The campaign itself does not seem like it is based on hate. > Then what is it based on?

It's not based on one thing. There are a number of motivations for Prop 8. Some people are motivated by hate. Some people have legitimate issues. I think most supports don't approach it from a standpoint of hate.

Eich did not seem like a hateful person. He never spoke out publicly against homosexuals. His campaign donation is not speech. It was meant to be private.

I'm for making campaign contribution public. However, we should also be responsible & not jump to conclusions about supporters of a campaign. Maybe it's evidence. However, it's not proof of anything.

If Eich openly discriminated against homosexuals, that's one thing. However, supporting a Proposition is not proof.

The notion that Prop 8 is H8, is conjecture & a political campaign in itself. It's a redefinition that you obviously buy into. I was a supporter, but now I'm not because it seems to give people license to demonize Prop 8 supporters (without any other evidence of discrimination). I disagree & I think it's dangerous to our culture & it's dangerous to Progressive movements. This demonization is against the progressive ideal of tolerance & intelligent discussion.

Also, the tone of justifiers of this demonization seems off. I'm often a contrarian & think differently from the crowd. The force of this justification reminds me of how groups will force individuals to change & to stop thinking independently or face ostracization. Ostracization is a powerful force. It's has a strong psychological influence on someone's well being & happiness. People are often more afraid of ostracization than death.

[Karunamon]

Does that mean discrimination is ok?

Not all discrimination is bad (another difference between the legal and dictionary versions of the same word). In particular, I think the common difference between okay discrimination and not-okay discrimination is judging people for what they are vs what they do.

The first is unfair and cruel, the second is a necessity of daily life and may or may not be cruel depending on circumstances.

Judging someone because of their race, sex, orientation, religious beliefs? Things they have absolutely no direct control over? Pretty much universally decried as unfair at best.

Judging someone because their actions negatively impact other people? The only way laws are created and society moves.

No matter what Eich does, he will be criticized. There is no way for him to win.

First, this is false. The things Eich could have done are wide and varied, and detailed in particular by me and others elsewhere in this very thread. This isn't about "winning". Critical evaluation of actions is not a game where there are winners and losers.

Why does being gay give you more protection than having a private ideology where nobody is hurt

Having a private ideology is one thing. You can think as negatively as you want to of any race, sex, orientation or gender identity. At the moment you throw money at a cause to legislate that thinking, to directly repress people you don't even know, or speak about those opinions in public, it ceases being private. And per the freedom of speech we all get in this country, everyone has the right to comment on it.

Freedom of speech != Freedom from criticism.

Oh, and as mentioned elsewhere, it's expressly illegal in this country to have civil rights unequally applied. Case law recognizes marriage as one of those rights, so even if we remove all ethics from this discussion, it's still illegal.

It's legal, but it's also not conducive to a tolerant society.

And again we disagree at a basic level. Tolerance does not mean accepting intolerance. Intolerance should be named, shamed, and driven out of our society as an ugly and corrupting influence.

This is a favorite tactic of social regressives, mind - upon making some comment or taking some action that incites mass outrage (Akin's "legitimate rape" comment from the election comes to mind, or Limbaugh's calling a woman a "slut" for campaigning for birth control coverage), trying to paint the opposers as the true evil, and usually invoking these flawed, incorrect comparisons to freedom of speech in an attempt to turn the outrage around.

It seldom works.

First of all, attacking others solely based on our "theories" is a "preemptive strike". It's an unprovoked assault. You don't know the truth.

One does not directly support the backers of a bill unless they want that bill passed. His reasons for doing so are irrelevant, but supporting something that unfairly targets and attempts to remove rights from people can be recognized for the evil that it is. Evil doesn't necessarily imply malice aforethought.

Further, his continued support after being informed that this was seen as unacceptable has only one logical conclusion.

Challenging is fine. However, it should be done with respect of the person.

Why should I respect someone who has absolutely none for me, and wants to make my life miserable having never met me? Respect is a two way street, and Eich has not only not earned mine, he's actively went out of his way to destroy any respect he might have had.

You don't support an attack on rights on people you "respect".

My theory is he & his family were being harassed from this.

Your theory has no more support than mine.

I also think he didn't appreciate the group coercion to change his stance on an issue. Coercion is bad.

I'm sure the people who support apartheid didn't appreciate the group coercion to change their stance either. Yet without that coercion, blacks would still be treated as three fifths of a human for the purpose of law. And women would be unable to vote or have most civil rights. And interracial marriages wouldn't be allowed.

Not all coercion is bad. Sometimes coercion is necessary for progress.

Aren't we all a little intolerant?

Thoughts and actions are different things.

One of my coworkers, who I respect greatly, was raised as a devout Christian and thinks that gay marriage is wrong from a moral perspective. You can't logic someone out of something they didn't logic themselves into in the first place - and believe me we've had some interesting talks bout this very topic :)

Do you know why I respect him? Because despite those beliefs, he doesn't support legislation that codifies his moral restrictions on other people into law. He doesn't vote for politicians that do that. He doesn't give money to boosters of laws that would restrict my equal rights. He did what Eich does not - he recognizes that what people do in their private lives has no effect on him or his morals. He doesn't attempt to legislate his moral restrictions in this matter so that everyone must abide by his narrower version of allowed conduct.

We're getting more into legislative philosophy here, but in this country, generally things are allowed unless there is a good reason for them not to be. Restrictions need to have a good reason, and religious beliefs and personal moral qualms are not a good reason for restricting the conduct of the population. Even less so when that comes to restricting a recognized right.

I think most supports don't approach it from a standpoint of hate.

Maybe, maybe not. But I can only judge what they do - and the fact that they want to treat me as a second class citizen is a case of either ignorance (they don't know that this is a big deal, why this is important, why change what isn't broken), arrogance (they feel they have the right to impose their moral restrictions on the world), disdain (they actually feel that I am strange, broken person that should not have my weirdness recognized by law), or religion (they feel that by denying me this right, they are preventing me from sinning against their deity of choice)

All four of those things reflect pretty badly on the person supporting the law. And you're probably tired of hearing me beat this particular drum, but the same four failings I just mentioned played heavily in the interracial marriage fight many years ago... which is why I find it very puzzling that someone can support interracial marriage (or not speak out against it) and then turn around and oppose gay marriage. Puzzling to the point it calls the supposed pure motives of the person into question.

Also, the tone of justifiers of this demonization seems off.

You keep bringing up this word, "demonize", "disrespect" and so on. Why do you think that morally judging Eich's actions is either of these things? I'd bet that if you were to poll the people who spoke out against him, you'd find very little "hate" for him, and a great deal of exactly what I've mentioned here, the 3 facts why this is unacceptable, based not on his motivations, but on his actions.

[briantakita]

> Not all discrimination is bad

That's like saying "not all murder is bad" or "not all rape is bad". It's a negative action that we should discourage to progress as a society.

Here's the definition of discrimination.

"the unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people or things"

synonyms: prejudice, bias, bigotry, intolerance, narrow-mindedness, unfairness, inequity, favoritism, one-sidedness, partisanship

---

> Tolerance does not mean accepting intolerance. Intolerance should be named, shamed, and driven out of our society as an ugly and corrupting influence.

Tolerance means respect for all people. It benefits us as a community as well. Positivity or Negativity spreads. Precedents are set by behavior.

I'm against labeling people, because it encourages them to fulfill that label.

I subscribe to Labeling Theory because I have observed this in myself: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labeling_theory

'labeling theory postulates that it is possible to prevent social deviance via a limited social shaming reaction in "labelers" and replacing moral indignation with tolerance. Emphasis is placed on the rehabilitation of offenders through an alteration of their label(s)'

> You keep bringing up this word, "demonize", "disrespect" and so on. Why do you think that morally judging Eich's actions is either of these things?

The line is crossed when you judge Eich as a "bigot". You can criticize his support of Prop 8. But when you attack him, you are assaulting his character & giving him the identity of a bigot. It does not help him. It does not help you. It does not change his mind. Tolerance does change minds. Removing fear changes minds.

The perpetrator/victim role dynamic that we ascribe to others goes beyond this Eich scandal. It's a pattern & certain aspects of the so called "rights" movement have created such a story.

Gay rights & Women rights are emotional subjects. Speaking as a heterosexual male, I'm aware of the power a woman has to get her way. If she were to accuse me of violence, even if it's not true & even if there is no other evidence, I'm going to jail. There is no due process. There are also a number of other rights that the male does not have in these situations.

Public perception is conditioned to side with the "victims" against the "perpetrators". In this example, people are going to side with the woman, independent of evidence in this situation. This also includes harsh & unthoughtful anger toward those who are viewed as perpetrators & even those who speak out against the group. There is a air of self-righteousness to this anger, which makes people even less understanding.

That is the dark side of moral righteousness. The target of the crowd are often the victims of brutality, motivated by self-righteousness.

---

> Freedom of speech != Freedom from criticism. it's expressly illegal in this country to have civil rights unequally applied. Case law recognizes marriage as one of those rights, so even if we remove all ethics from this discussion, it's still illegal.

I agree with both points. Prop 8 was overturned for good reason. I'm mainly disturbed by the mob mentality & how quickly someone is labeled as a "bigot" (a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices). That is a serious accusation & label to put on someone.

---

I suspect that there is a personality divide on people's opinions. I'm relativistic. I appreciate how morals change with society. Our society is also diverse. One aspect of society enforcing their morality on another aspect of society creates conflict. This is part of culture & ideas. Sometimes, there's a battle.

I'm proposing that we settle this through reflective, mature, & deflamatory discourse. The same facts will come out. The same conclusions would be drawn. There would be less shame, stress, & other resentment. I suspect you would have gotten a more satisfactory answer from Eich.

---

> Your theory has no more support than mine.

Exactly. We don't know what happened. He is silent on the issue. There's no evidence of him being a "bigot". He supported prop 8. It would be interesting to know why. Silence is a common response to group criticism.

> the people who support apartheid didn't appreciate the group coercion to change their stance either

Those people were in power used coercion to silence their critics & perpetuate apartheid. The whole system of apartheid was based on disrespect of the individual & labeling races as "inferior".

The only avenue against this system was resistance & to gain the support of other nations. Nelson Mandela did not demonize his opponents. He had respect for his opponents. He won because his vision respects autonomy, inclusiveness, respect, & intelligence.

---

Thank you for the thorough & deep discussion :-)