Thoughtcrime

[HoreTore]

And your making my point. It wasn't the donation, it was the "thought" that was the "crime" (thoughtcrime?).

Someone else can have donated money that hindered the same-sex marriage cause and still be fit to be CEO- because, opposing same-sex marriage wasn't his intent... it was more of a side-effect? However, if you donated money in opposition to same-sex marriage for that reason, then it's unforgivable. Never mind that the end result was no different. And never mind the fact that no one has ever accused Eich of behaving towards anyone in an "anti-gay" manner. It is indeed the thought that counts.

So as long as someone hasn't taken any action, I should be happy shopping at the store of someone who considers me to be a second-class citizen...?

[Xiahou]

So as long as someone hasn't taken any action, I should be happy shopping at the store of someone who considers me to be a second-class citizen...?

How do you judge that if he treats you with the same level of respect of everyone who comes to the store? He even grants benefits to same-sex partners of his employees. Not exactly the second-class citizen treatment....

[HoreTore]

How do you judge that if he treats you with the same level of respect of everyone who comes to the store? He even grants benefits to same-sex partners of his employees. Not exactly the second-class citizen treatment....

When someone pushes for laws which will create second-class citizens, I'd say it's very possible to judge that.

Especially when he states his opinion that gays are second-class citizens when asked about it.

[Xiahou]

See post 172.

[HoreTore]

See post 172.

Yes?

The other guy isn't of the opinion that gays should be treated as second-class citizens. Eich is. Hence the uproar.

So, I ask again: should you be happy to shop at the store of someone who believes you should be treated as a second-class citizen?

[Xiahou]

So, I ask again: should you be happy to shop at the store of someone who believes you should be treated as a second-class citizen?

To which I say again: How can you say that if he never treated anyone as a second-class citizen?

[HoreTore]

To which I say again: How can you say that if he never treated anyone as a second-class citizen?

Uh.... By saying so...?

[Xiahou]

Uh.... By saying so...?

He said homosexuals should be treated as second-class citizens? When?

People who've worked with him, including the chairman, said he was never anything but respectful and courteous towards everyone. He's said he supports the company extending benefits to same sex couples.

[HoreTore]

He said homosexuals should be treated as second-class citizens? When?

When he supported a group promoting that view...? And when he later said his opinion was the same?

[Xiahou]

When he supported a group promoting that view...? And when he later said his opinion was the same?

Let's see the quotes. Because, I don't really remember him ever saying anything about second class citizenship.

[HoreTore]

Let's see the quotes. Because, I don't really remember him ever saying anything about second class citizenship.

He doesn't want to talk about his stance, which translates to no change in opinion.

[Ironside]

To which I say again: How can you say that if he never treated anyone as a second-class citizen?

What would have more influence in total? A law change, or one fairly important induvidual in one company? We know exactly what Eich supported and still supports. That he personally won't act without legal support matters much less if he's activly working (well paying soneone else to work for it) to change the law.

[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.

[Lemur]

Boycots are fine, except when successful...

More like, "Boycotts of institutions are fine, boycotts of individuals are nasty." I don't think Sully's position is so very out-there.

But going back to the Orwell-meets-Nazi-jackboots line of thought, if this is a new mind-control thoughtcrime witch hunt McCarthyism, shouldn't we be seeing a lot more of this?

Nobody seems to care, since it doesn't fit into their narratives, but this really does seem to be a particular situation, not easily replicated in life or business at large. There are always people calling for boycotts of various companies for this-that-or-the-other, but this situation seems to have been an outlier.

[Beskar]

I remember that boycott on Call of Duty and within the first day, half the people who signed the petition were playing it.

[Ironside]

More like, "Boycotts of institutions are fine, boycotts of individuals are nasty." I don't think Sully's position is so very out-there.

The problem is that the question is "Can you boycot a company when they chose an induvidual that has done things that are deemed problematic to be their representative?" You can't differ between the company and the person at that position.

I mean how do you differ between:
The company has chosen to say that they're ok with those ideas by selecting that guy as their CEO, so let's boycott the company. (Fair play)
That new CEO got nasty opnions, so let's punish him, by boycotting the company he leads. (Foul play)

There's no significant hunt after Eich after he risigned, so that would indicate mostly fair play.

But going back to the Orwell-meets-Nazi-jackboots line of thought, if this is a new mind-control thoughtcrime witch hunt McCarthyism, shouldn't we be seeing a lot more of this?

Nobody seems to care, since it doesn't fit into their narratives, but this really does seem to be a particular situation, not easily replicated in life or business at large. There are always people calling for boycotts of various companies for this-that-or-the-other, but this situation seems to have been an outlier.

Pretty much. This thread has been close to the Ukraine thread on people ignoring facts on the ground to make it fit their narrative better.