Thoughtcrime

**Beskar** · 04-04-2014, 20:07

Originally Posted by rvg

It's appalling and rampant. Especially when it's coming from a "diversity" crowd that appreciates all kinds of diversity except for diversity of opinion.

Exception applies more to 'bigotry' than 'diversity of opinion'.

You can have an opinion as long as it is not an asshat one.

**rvg** · 04-04-2014, 20:19

Originally Posted by Tiaexz

Exception applies more to 'bigotry' than 'diversity of opinion'.

You can have an opinion as long as it is not an asshat one.

Wrong. You can have any opinion you want. No exceptions.

**Beskar** · 04-04-2014, 22:48

Originally Posted by rvg

Wrong. You can have any opinion you want. No exceptions.

We are talking about 'acceptable opinions' in a broad-sense in regards to a specific 'diversity' grouping. Which is different than an opinion full-stop. You attacked one of the far more open-minded groupings which only generally dislike discrimination-bigotry.

Not being a Christian makes your opinion invalid on Christendom to many Christians. Being Black makes your opinion invalid to the KKK. Et al.

**rvg** · 04-04-2014, 23:01

Originally Posted by Tiaexz

We are talking about 'acceptable opinions' in a broad-sense in regards to a specific 'diversity' grouping...

When the aforementioned 'diversity grouping' hijacks the society at large, we begin to see the rise of thought police.
There are no unacceptable opinions in a free society. Period.

**Rhyfelwyr** · 04-04-2014, 23:13

Originally Posted by Tiaexz

We are talking about 'acceptable opinions' in a broad-sense in regards to a specific 'diversity' grouping. Which is different than an opinion full-stop.

Indeed, the original proponents of the Anglosphere vision of free speech, whether they were the English Roundheads or the American Founding Fathers, would be horrified if they saw things like homosexuality being promoted in the public sphere.

This is the problem with free speech - it is always limited by what we see as being within the bounds of moral decency. "Just don't frighten the horses" as some people like to put it. For you, to be against homosexuality is offensive and thus not acceptable in the public sphere. For me, to be for it is offensive, and thus not acceptable in the public sphere.

Nobody has the moral high ground when it comes to limiting free speech - we all do it, and we are right to do so. For example, nobody (I hope) would say that somebody should be able to yell the particulars about his latest sexual encounter in the street - that is without the bounds of what free speech was ever intended for.

**Xiahou** · 04-04-2014, 20:33

Originally Posted by Tiaexz

Exception applies more to 'bigotry' than 'diversity of opinion'.

You can have an opinion as long as it is not an asshat one.

Unless I'm missing something, he never even publicly expressed his opinion. Someone took the time to troll through the entire donors list (which is public information), found his name, and demanded he recant or be purged.

If, as CEO, he made public statements about his personal views on gay marriage, I think you'd be on better footing to make an issue of it. But this is not the case.

**Tellos Athenaios** · 04-04-2014, 21:02

Meh. Storms and teacups.

As I see it, Mr Eich exercised his right to donate to political causes and others exercised their right to boycott Mozilla because they feel strongly about these political causes.

Or for a better write up, see: http://mjg59.dreamwidth.org/30577.html

Turns out that his political beliefs effectively renders him unable to function in the capacity of CEO of an organisation that relies on support from lots of people who fear the consequences of those beliefs.