Thoughtcrime

[Crazed Rabbit]

Yea? Link please!

The only information I am seeing is that he has never made a public stance on the morality of the issue.

I believe Montmorency is right;

Throughout the interviews, it was not hard to get the sense that Eich really wanted to stick strongly by his views about gay marriage, which run counter to much of the tech industry and, increasingly, the general population in the U.S. For example, he repeatedly declined to answer when asked if he would donate to a similar initiative today.

Instead, he tried to unsuccessfully hedge those sentiments and, perhaps more importantly, did not seem to understand that he might have to pay the inevitable price for having them.

This is probably one of the only current US political issues where you can claim that opposition is intolerance. Does that mean he must be force to recant his views or not have a leadership position in the industry? It does seem easier to tolerate intolerance once you've won the issue.

There's no militant gay problem causing this, its just a more tolerant generation coming of age that has different standards for what is acceptable. Just wait, it'll keep coming. I'm considered kind of mildly intolerant by many in my own generation, and I'm way to the social left of many of you.

I think, in this specific example, it was a "militant" group going for his resignation.

Out of curiosity, what social group (ie are you calling Eugene liberals representative of your generation?) are you referencing? You seem pretty socially liberal, so I'm wondering why they would view you as intolerant.

CR

[Fisherking]

There is a lot of strong sentiment out there. Most of it stupid, illiberal, and regressive.

OKCupid were small and mean. The company should have engaged them and pointed it out. Instead other closed minds within took over and groupthink stupidity kicked into overdrive.

Big mistake. It certainly does NOT further gay rights or put them in a good light.

Meanwhile

[Kadagar_AV]

The whole campaign on prop 8 seemed about teaching kids about gay marriage. While it may not be a big deal to you now it was more controversial 6 or 7 years ago.

It is not unreasonable to assume that many who voted for prop 8 didn’t care about gay marriage but did care about taking it to the classroom.

Calling it bigotry is only showing your own intolerance. Intolerance breeds more of the same. It is polarizing and divisive.

To lash out at someone who backed a political proposition you opposed six years ago is just mean spirited. It doesn’t show he was engaged in any hate mail campaigns or beating up gays on street corners.

A lot of people have changed their minds on the issue since. I don’t recall that being asked of him.

I am sure you have changed your mind on issues in the past. Yet here you seem to support a vendetta because someone once donated money that you disagree with.

I would not say there is anything mild about your intolerance.

If I read it right, this bill just about mirrors Russia's new gay laws. It's OK to be gay, but don't flaunt it around children?

I of course don't agree with that stance on this issue, but I have some respect for it.

Please show that down anyone's throats - but my children's.

As much as I would accept and respect a homo son or daughter, I don't want it to be a career path advertised overly much. Or even easier put: No Need To Swirle Flaming Batons About It.

[Sigurd]

Money equals speech so actually he said more on this issue than most people ever will.

Or... he is a Mormon. He doesn't actually have an opinion, but was advised by a letter of the first presidency to devote time and resources to this cause. He had no time so he donated some money and could slap his chest supporting the church leadership.

[Sigurd]

The intent doesn't really matter here. I was illustrating a point about the Supreme Court decision saying that money equals speech. This is a logical consequence of that entire line of thinking, not that it'll make conservatives rethink their support for that stance.

I see... As a "over the pond" person, I am not entirely familiar with the intricate definitions introduced by your courts.
I wanted to put in my argument somewhere and your post was as good as any.

It has not been established that Eich is a Mormon, hence I asked in a previous post. But if he is, then this is nothing more than "I am a good Mormon, what of it?" which again could be seen as Eich being ousted based on his religiosity.

[Fisherking]

I love how people assume it is only the Republicans in bed with the corporate money machines.

Democrats $1.15 Billion while the Republicans received $736 million.

https://www.opensecrets.org/overview/topcontribs.php

Meantime we have a guy who gave one thousand dollars to what is likely the only socially conservative cause he could get behind.

To most people it was a matter of a name. Call it marriage or civil union. He could not have taken it that seriously or he would have given much more or taken some other action.

The objection was a cynical publicity stunt but OMG now the guy is a gay basher, Nazi thug, right wing Christian in need of destruction.

So the non-thinking reactionary mob moves in to vilify the man and anyone believing in real social justice or tolerance find themselves looking at a bunch of hypocrites who only support free speech so long as it agrees with their point of view.

You like your new jackboots, huh.

[Montmorency]

a bunch of hypocrites who only support free speech so long as it agrees with their point of view.

Is this really so difficult? I have pointed out multiple times that no one supports the free speech of those who disagree with them.

[Ironside]

Meantime we have a guy who gave one thousand dollars to what is likely the only socially conservative cause he could get behind.

To most people it was a matter of a name. Call it marriage or civil union. He could not have taken it that seriously or he would have given much more or taken some other action.

He took it seriously enough to stick with it even when it started to become obvious that it would have a significant negative influence on his CEO career, until he eventually resigned over it.

Threats towards human rights (some here are probably disagreing with that human rights are at stake here, but that's another matter), are usually not met with tolerance. Stomp them out before they regain the strength they had when they were legal. That's the normal treatment.

Worth noticing is that he did take flak about it in 2012 when it became publically known. But since he wasn't a CEO, the response was much weaker. So it isn't something new, it's something that got reignited when the stakes got higher.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

I think there is a good research piece in this. You could frame using any number of approaches: historical, rhetorical, socialization, etc.

Basic analogy of the piece -- which I think would hold up if researched -- this would-have-been CEO is being viewed and treated as a heretic.

[Fisherking]

He took it seriously enough to stick with it even when it started to become obvious that it would have a significant negative influence on his CEO career, until he eventually resigned over it.

Threats towards human rights (some here are probably disagreing with that human rights are at stake here, but that's another matter), are usually not met with tolerance. Stomp them out before they regain the strength they had when they were legal. That's the normal treatment.

Worth noticing is that he did take flak about it in 2012 when it became publically known. But since he wasn't a CEO, the response was much weaker. So it isn't something new, it's something that got reignited when the stakes got higher.

Actually he refused to discuss it.

It is also stupid for the winning side to press the issue. Even more so as they did not win by a vote of the people but in the courts.

It was a continuous and divisive issue and this does not win friends or bring a happy meeting of the minds.

It only brings out the resentment and brings all the bad feelings back to the surface.

If a group is asking for acceptance and tolerance you don’t get it by attacking former opponents and dredging the whole matter back to the surface unless you want to fight your battle over again.

Anyone with even half a brain would shut up and move on with life.

Here’s what veteran LGBT activist Andrew Sullivan recently wrote on his blog about the rising tide of fascism in his own movement: “If this is the gay rights movement today — hounding our opponents with fanaticism — then count me out. If we are about intimidating the free speech of others, we are no better than the anti-gay bullies who came before us.”

[Husar]

Here’s what veteran LGBT activist Andrew Sullivan recently wrote on his blog about the rising tide of fascism in his own movement: “If this is the gay rights movement today — hounding our opponents with fanaticism — then count me out. If we are about intimidating the free speech of others, we are no better than the anti-gay bullies who came before us.”

Yeah, I saw this and forgot to post it:

http://thecolbertreport.cc.com/video...ndrew-sullivan

[Ironside]

Yeah, I saw this and forgot to post it:

http://thecolbertreport.cc.com/video...ndrew-sullivan

Now that's how you're a hypocrite while sounding reasonable. Boycots are fine, except when successful... Hearing their opinion and reasons are very nice, when they actually do that instead of trying to avoid to issue.

And yes you're still a bigot, even when it's socially accepted to be one.

Actually he refused to discuss it.

TBH I suspect that it's someone close to him that are the real pusher. Anyway, refusal to speak means that the other party has to draw their own conclusions.

It is also stupid for the winning side to press the issue. Even more so as they did not win by a vote of the people but in the courts.

It was a continuous and divisive issue and this does not win friends or bring a happy meeting of the minds.

It only brings out the resentment and brings all the bad feelings back to the surface.

If a group is asking for acceptance and tolerance you don’t get it by attacking former opponents and dredging the whole matter back to the surface unless you want to fight your battle over again.

Anyone with even half a brain would shut up and move on with life.

In 2012, there was much disappointment over that Eich had supported prop 8. No major calls for boycot on Mozilla, nor against Eich. Eich avoids the issue. 2014 Eich gets chosen as the CEO of Mozilla. Suddenly, as a spokesperson for Mozilla this matters magnitudes more. Is this now the official position of Mozilla? Or at the very least a tolerated position? If that's the case, boycot is in order. etc etc.

The point is that it has been very much lingering, without any stable solutions coming up in the mean time. And then when it suddenly becomes very relevant, of couse there will be a reaction.

Seamus, a better match would be that an old ally suddenly acts as they've switched sides during a conflict. It's more the relation between Mozilla and the gay community with Eich choosing to stand in the middle, than the classical heretic act. Some similarities exist of course (allies really can't switch sides consequence free during a conflict), but an heretical purging it is not. Would require higher demands than an resignation towards Eich. Heretics usually got worse punishments than not being allowed to be a bishop.