Thoughtcrime

[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.