If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Slate)   Liberals wish to remind other Liberals that you are acting like values centered Republicans with this whole Eich thing   (slate.com) divider line 304
    More: Followup, Brendan Eich, Republicans, liberals, workplace discrimination, Michael Sams, community standards  
•       •       •

2028 clicks; posted to Politics » on 07 Apr 2014 at 6:36 PM (23 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



304 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-04-07 05:19:11 PM
"Why won't you tolerate my intolerance?" - moral relativism at it's finest.
 
2014-04-07 05:25:51 PM
That's the argument: Each company has a right-indeed, it has a market-driven obligation-to make hiring and firing decisions based on "values" and "community standards." It's entitled to oust anyone whose conduct, with regard to sexual orientation, is "bad for business" or for employee morale.
The argument should sound familiar. It has been used for decades to justify anti-gay workplace discrimination.


What a crock of shiat. There is a huge difference between a persons sexual orientation, which is not a choice, and a persons prejudice, which is. The fact that the author doesn't recognize that difference until the last paragraph of his piece only illustrates how pathetic his argument is.
 
2014-04-07 05:27:54 PM
How so?
 
2014-04-07 05:31:10 PM
If your corporate leadership is involved in public politics in a way that distracts from your corporate success (Drawing unwanted attention in either direction of an issue), canning them is reasonable.

This is not the same as an employee having a view or being in a certain class of individuals and experiencing discrimination as a result of it.  One is a marketing issue, the other is a personnel issue.
 
2014-04-07 05:33:42 PM
If this is the biggest argument liberals are having right now I'd say we have it pretty good.
 
2014-04-07 05:34:31 PM

Dinki: and a persons prejudice, which is.


I'm going to play devil's advocate here (and get called a bigot in the process).  If someone is brought up by their bigoted parents to feel a certain way towards Blacks, Jews, gays, Hispanics, what have you, it wasn't necessarily their choice to be bigots, it's how their view of the world was shaped.  However, it is certainly their choice, once they become more educated, the change their views or continue to be assholes.
 
2014-04-07 05:38:23 PM

Voiceofreason01: "Why won't you tolerate my intolerance?" - moral relativism at it's finest.


The GOP's 2014/2016 platform.
 
2014-04-07 05:39:09 PM
The who and the what now?
 
2014-04-07 05:52:29 PM
I'm absolutely stunned that a "journalist" whose only book tells the story of how conservatives "won the abortion war" would take a view like this. It's stunningly stunning.
 
2014-04-07 05:53:06 PM
i49.tinypic.com
Now in new Eich flavor!
 
2014-04-07 05:55:02 PM
So long as the people at Zoosk and Pet Meds still hold socially acceptable views, Im okay.
 
2014-04-07 06:07:25 PM
Oy!
assets.diylol.com
 
2014-04-07 06:09:33 PM

cameroncrazy1984: How so?


Non-discrimination is librulz religion?
 
2014-04-07 06:12:57 PM
Was it discriminatory for Sunrise Children's Services to force their chair out after he proposed an employment policy to not discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation? What about deliberately withholding donations from World Vision for proposing a virtually identical policy?
 
2014-04-07 06:13:45 PM

Dinki: What a crock of shiat. There is a huge difference between a persons sexual orientation, which is not a choice, and a persons prejudice, which is. The fact that the author doesn't recognize that difference until the last paragraph of his piece only illustrates how pathetic his argument is.


Whether its a choice is not relevant. Religion is a choice, and we deem that worth tolerating.
 
2014-04-07 06:14:49 PM
Thanks for confusing everyone, Obama.
 
2014-04-07 06:41:26 PM
If he had been fired for his beliefs, I'd defend his right to those beliefs.  But he resigned, so he ceded the issue to his detractors.
 
2014-04-07 06:41:35 PM

Voiceofreason01: "Why won't you tolerate my intolerance?" - moral relativism at it's finest.


Hey it worked for the Confederacy
 
2014-04-07 06:42:49 PM

Dinki: That's the argument: Each company has a right-indeed, it has a market-driven obligation-to make hiring and firing decisions based on "values" and "community standards." It's entitled to oust anyone whose conduct, with regard to sexual orientation, is "bad for business" or for employee morale.
The argument should sound familiar. It has been used for decades to justify anti-gay workplace discrimination.

What a crock of shiat. There is a huge difference between a persons sexual orientation, which is not a choice, and a persons prejudice, which is. The fact that the author doesn't recognize that difference until the last paragraph of his piece only illustrates how pathetic his argument is.


Done in 2
 
2014-04-07 06:44:06 PM
www.gilliganondata.com
 
2014-04-07 06:44:23 PM
Brian Buetler had the best summary on this yet:

What all of this reveals is that the animating issue for conservatives isn't abstract principle, but the privileges they are losing, or sense that their tribesmen are losing. This also explains why the reaction on the right has been so whiny and hyperbolic. Eich's supporters think it's appropriate for there to be repercussions for engaging in speech they don't like, but not for engaging in speech they do like. And, very suddenly, speech they like is becoming culturally disfavored.

"Check your privilege" is a popular argument by assertion on liberal social media, and it's typically a conversation ender, which is why I try to avoid using it. But anyone who's white hot with rage over Eich's quasi-firing really needs to check their privilege.

Nobody seriously disputes that Mozilla's board would've been acting appropriately if they'd fired a CEO for donating to a white supremacist group, because the white supremacist worldview is no longer a privileged one. Opposing gay marriage used to be privileged, but very quickly, and particularly in Silicon Valley, it no longer is. It's that abrupt change in status that makes this episode so jarring to people who still oppose same-sex marriage or who align politically with same-sex marriage foes. People are finding that the views they hold, and which were recently dominant, are suddenly no longer dominant, and in many parts of the country anathema.
 
2014-04-07 06:45:22 PM
Yeah this response works here too.

Well, that certainly was a Slate article.
 
2014-04-07 06:47:17 PM
My only real issue with this situation is the off chance that conservative fever dreams come true and people start being fired for the next liberal cause de jour, like driving a car to work instead of biking becomes a resignation-worthy event. It'll just be exhausting if I have to start vetting every person and entity I come across to see if at some point in time they donated money to a cause I disagree with. We need to draw the line a little further I think, like actively leading a rally or something.
 
2014-04-07 06:48:08 PM
Hand-wringing concern troll from Slate is butthurt because someone exercises their right to donate to a campaign doesn't mean they're exempt from other people using boycotts who disagree with them.
 
2014-04-07 06:49:11 PM

Barry Lyndon's Annuity Cheque: It'll just be exhausting if I have to start vetting every person and entity I come across to see if at some point in time they donated money to a cause I disagree with.


Do you really think that's the issue here? Do you think he'd have been fired for donating money to organizations which fight for tax cuts? Or ending Obamacare? Or opposing immigration reform?

Of course not. The issue here isn't one of a mere political disagreement, but a fundamental violation of civil rights. You can agree or disagree with that, but its just not the case that most people, even hardcore liberals, have any desire to see people fired for standard political disagreements.
 
2014-04-07 06:50:56 PM

DamnYankees: Brian Buetler had the best summary on this yet:

What all of this reveals is that the animating issue for conservatives isn't abstract principle, but the privileges they are losing, or sense that their tribesmen are losing. This also explains why the reaction on the right has been so whiny and hyperbolic. Eich's supporters think it's appropriate for there to be repercussions for engaging in speech they don't like, but not for engaging in speech they do like. And, very suddenly, speech they like is becoming culturally disfavored.

"Check your privilege" is a popular argument by assertion on liberal social media, and it's typically a conversation ender, which is why I try to avoid using it. But anyone who's white hot with rage over Eich's quasi-firing really needs to check their privilege.

Nobody seriously disputes that Mozilla's board would've been acting appropriately if they'd fired a CEO for donating to a white supremacist group, because the white supremacist worldview is no longer a privileged one. Opposing gay marriage used to be privileged, but very quickly, and particularly in Silicon Valley, it no longer is. It's that abrupt change in status that makes this episode so jarring to people who still oppose same-sex marriage or who align politically with same-sex marriage foes. People are finding that the views they hold, and which were recently dominant, are suddenly no longer dominant, and in many parts of the country anathema.


Your argument would be valid had he made the donation recently. However, he made the donation like six or seven years ago, around the same time that Obama himself said he favored traditional marriage between a man and a woman.
 
2014-04-07 06:51:08 PM

SavageWombat: If he had been fired for his beliefs, I'd defend his right to those beliefs.  But he resigned, so he ceded the issue to his detractors.


I think a lot of people are exercising some willful ignorance in regards to his "resignation". Granted, I wasn't in the room, but it's a pretty safe bet to assume it was a case of "hey bill...you were thinkig of resigning, right? RIGHT???"

That said, though, he wasn't "fired" or "resigned" because of his beliefs. It happened because of his actions-financially supporting a discriminatory policy initiative.

He resigned, true. But had he been fired I wouldn't have a problem with that either...based on his actions
 
2014-04-07 06:51:50 PM

TerminalEchoes: Your argument would be valid had he made the donation recently. However, he made the donation like six or seven years ago, around the same time that Obama himself said he favored traditional marriage between a man and a woman.


And he recently reaffirmed that belief. Had he announced he was wrong and changed his mind I highly doubt he'd have been fired.
 
2014-04-07 06:52:42 PM

Voiceofreason01: "Why won't you tolerate my intolerance?" - moral relativism at it's finest.


When you have no good arguments to defend your position, false equivalence is always there when you're in trouble and have nothing else.  Sort of like the State Farm of logical arguments.
 
2014-04-07 06:53:39 PM

TerminalEchoes: DamnYankees: Brian Buetler had the best summary on this yet:

What all of this reveals is that the animating issue for conservatives isn't abstract principle, but the privileges they are losing, or sense that their tribesmen are losing. This also explains why the reaction on the right has been so whiny and hyperbolic. Eich's supporters think it's appropriate for there to be repercussions for engaging in speech they don't like, but not for engaging in speech they do like. And, very suddenly, speech they like is becoming culturally disfavored.

"Check your privilege" is a popular argument by assertion on liberal social media, and it's typically a conversation ender, which is why I try to avoid using it. But anyone who's white hot with rage over Eich's quasi-firing really needs to check their privilege.

Nobody seriously disputes that Mozilla's board would've been acting appropriately if they'd fired a CEO for donating to a white supremacist group, because the white supremacist worldview is no longer a privileged one. Opposing gay marriage used to be privileged, but very quickly, and particularly in Silicon Valley, it no longer is. It's that abrupt change in status that makes this episode so jarring to people who still oppose same-sex marriage or who align politically with same-sex marriage foes. People are finding that the views they hold, and which were recently dominant, are suddenly no longer dominant, and in many parts of the country anathema.

Your argument would be valid had he made the donation recently. However, he made the donation like six or seven years ago, around the same time that Obama himself said he favored traditional marriage between a man and a woman.


25.media.tumblr.com
 
2014-04-07 06:55:47 PM
The Market spoke...
 
2014-04-07 06:56:47 PM

Emposter: Voiceofreason01: "Why won't you tolerate my intolerance?" - moral relativism at it's finest.

When you have no good arguments to defend your position, false equivalence is always there when you're in trouble and have nothing else.  Sort of like the State Farm of logical arguments.


Hey man, thats uncalled for

State Farm is a fine organization who does excellent marketing. Hell, they invented the teleporter. Should we take a shiat on people like that? I think not
 
2014-04-07 06:58:02 PM

DamnYankees: Nobody seriously disputes that Mozilla's board would've been acting appropriately if they'd fired a CEO for donating to a white supremacist group, because the white supremacist worldview is no longer a privileged one.


I'm glad someone brought this up, as it instantly neutralizes the argument for thinking people. But just keep in mind there is a growing thread of republicanism that enshrines segregation as a fundamental right and wants to dismantle the Civil Rights Act.
 
2014-04-07 06:59:55 PM

DamnYankees: Brian Buetler had the best summary on this yet:

What all of this reveals is that the animating issue for conservatives isn't abstract principle, but the privileges they are losing, or sense that their tribesmen are losing. This also explains why the reaction on the right has been so whiny and hyperbolic. Eich's supporters think it's appropriate for there to be repercussions for engaging in speech they don't like, but not for engaging in speech they do like. And, very suddenly, speech they like is becoming culturally disfavored.

"Check your privilege" is a popular argument by assertion on liberal social media, and it's typically a conversation ender, which is why I try to avoid using it. But anyone who's white hot with rage over Eich's quasi-firing really needs to check their privilege.

Nobody seriously disputes that Mozilla's board would've been acting appropriately if they'd fired a CEO for donating to a white supremacist group, because the white supremacist worldview is no longer a privileged one. Opposing gay marriage used to be privileged, but very quickly, and particularly in Silicon Valley, it no longer is. It's that abrupt change in status that makes this episode so jarring to people who still oppose same-sex marriage or who align politically with same-sex marriage foes. People are finding that the views they hold, and which were recently dominant, are suddenly no longer dominant, and in many parts of the country anathema.


That's a pretty good sense of the Silicon Valley attitude I've seen. SV's been mostly socially libertarian, despite many people who are quite comfortable with gays in their work and personal life, there was a culture that permitted casual anti-gay phrases and such.  It wasn't actively, *overtly* anti-gay ... you'd have a hard time finding someone who was actually anti-gay. But there was always the subtext of "gay" being a negative.

Now? Not so much ... I've seen the casual anti-gay stuff almost completely disappear in the last couple of years.


I think it was Prop 8. Having the anti-gay label be attached officially to California made it impossible to ignore. So the Silicon Valley culture changed very rapidly from being passively gay-hostile to actively gay-friendly.
 
2014-04-07 07:00:25 PM

HotWingConspiracy: DamnYankees: Nobody seriously disputes that Mozilla's board would've been acting appropriately if they'd fired a CEO for donating to a white supremacist group, because the white supremacist worldview is no longer a privileged one.

I'm glad someone brought this up, as it instantly neutralizes the argument for thinking people. But just keep in mind there is a growing thread of republicanism that enshrines segregation as a fundamental right and wants to dismantle the Civil Rights Act.


I suppose you can provide some evidence for that?
 
2014-04-07 07:01:43 PM

DamnYankees: Brian Buetler had the best summary on this yet:

What all of this reveals is that the animating issue for conservatives isn't abstract principle, but the privileges they are losing, or sense that their tribesmen are losing. This also explains why the reaction on the right has been so whiny and hyperbolic. Eich's supporters think it's appropriate for there to be repercussions for engaging in speech they don't like, but not for engaging in speech they do like. And, very suddenly, speech they like is becoming culturally disfavored.

"Check your privilege" is a popular argument by assertion on liberal social media, and it's typically a conversation ender, which is why I try to avoid using it. But anyone who's white hot with rage over Eich's quasi-firing really needs to check their privilege.

Nobody seriously disputes that Mozilla's board would've been acting appropriately if they'd fired a CEO for donating to a white supremacist group, because the white supremacist worldview is no longer a privileged one. Opposing gay marriage used to be privileged, but very quickly, and particularly in Silicon Valley, it no longer is. It's that abrupt change in status that makes this episode so jarring to people who still oppose same-sex marriage or who align politically with same-sex marriage foes. People are finding that the views they hold, and which were recently dominant, are suddenly no longer dominant, and in many parts of the country anathema.


My friend just added an addendum to address the Libertarians who are upset over this: Libertarians are all hot to have the Free Market regulate behaviors they know the Free Market doesn't give a shiat about. But now that the Free Market cared about this guy, they're upset.

A Libertarian friend of a friend on facebook who agreed with the Pauls that the Free Market should have been relied upon to fix what the CRA fixed had the gall to say about Eich, "the Free Market isn't flawless - it's not Utopian."

Libertarians should be at peace with this - the system worked. Instead, they're too busy being terrified that maybe the Free Market cares about this shiat after all.
 
2014-04-07 07:02:08 PM

bobothemagnificent: HotWingConspiracy: DamnYankees: Nobody seriously disputes that Mozilla's board would've been acting appropriately if they'd fired a CEO for donating to a white supremacist group, because the white supremacist worldview is no longer a privileged one.

I'm glad someone brought this up, as it instantly neutralizes the argument for thinking people. But just keep in mind there is a growing thread of republicanism that enshrines segregation as a fundamental right and wants to dismantle the Civil Rights Act.

I suppose you can provide some evidence for that?


media.salon.com

I'll send you my father's newsletter.

 
2014-04-07 07:03:21 PM
it was farking bullshiat when andrew sullivan said it and it's farking bullshiat every "liberal" activists are "successful" in any way shape or form
 
2014-04-07 07:07:44 PM

HotWingConspiracy: bobothemagnificent: HotWingConspiracy: DamnYankees: Nobody seriously disputes that Mozilla's board would've been acting appropriately if they'd fired a CEO for donating to a white supremacist group, because the white supremacist worldview is no longer a privileged one.

I'm glad someone brought this up, as it instantly neutralizes the argument for thinking people. But just keep in mind there is a growing thread of republicanism that enshrines segregation as a fundamental right and wants to dismantle the Civil Rights Act.

I suppose you can provide some evidence for that?

[media.salon.com image 850x906]I'll send you my father's newsletter.


www.iswest.com
 
2014-04-07 07:07:44 PM
We could all be more civil ...
 
2014-04-07 07:08:46 PM

DamnYankees: Do you really think that's the issue here? Do you think he'd have been fired for donating money to organizations which fight for tax cuts? Or ending Obamacare? Or opposing immigration reform?

Of course not. The issue here isn't one of a mere political disagreement, but a fundamental violation of civil rights. You can agree or disagree with that, but its just not the case that most people, even hardcore liberals, have any desire to see people fired for standard political disagreements.


By that logic though, anyone who donates to the RNC or any other variety of conservative election organization is financing intolerance, since "traditional marriage" is pretty much a core tenet of the party. Hell, any Mormon who tithes to their church is now on that blacklist, since they bankrolled the original campaign. That's a lot of people immediately going on the list without any active dickery on their part, just a donation. Losing your job is a pretty severe consequence, so I'd just like to see some severe bigotry before bringing down that public opinion hammer.
 
2014-04-07 07:10:49 PM

bobothemagnificent: HotWingConspiracy: DamnYankees: Nobody seriously disputes that Mozilla's board would've been acting appropriately if they'd fired a CEO for donating to a white supremacist group, because the white supremacist worldview is no longer a privileged one.

I'm glad someone brought this up, as it instantly neutralizes the argument for thinking people. But just keep in mind there is a growing thread of republicanism that enshrines segregation as a fundamental right and wants to dismantle the Civil Rights Act.

I suppose you can provide some evidence for that?


I agree with bobthemagnificant here. The trend isn't 'growing'. It's a constant.
 
2014-04-07 07:11:16 PM

HawgWild: We could all be more civil ...


So vote republican.
 
2014-04-07 07:12:19 PM

Barry Lyndon's Annuity Cheque: By that logic though, anyone who donates to the RNC or any other variety of conservative election organization is financing intolerance, since "traditional marriage" is pretty much a core tenet of the party. Hell, any Mormon who tithes to their church is now on that blacklist, since they bankrolled the original campaign. That's a lot of people immediately going on the list without any active dickery on their part, just a donation. Losing your job is a pretty severe consequence, so I'd just like to see some severe bigotry before bringing down that public opinion hammer.


Sure. And any company is perfectly permitted to say we won't have a Republican as our CEO, since it doesn't align with our values. What's wrong with that? I mean, you and I might think its dumb, but I fail to see why I should get very hot and bothered over it.
 
2014-04-07 07:13:03 PM
Second attempt to click-mine this stupid story today.
Story is over - news is old.
Repeats are boring.
 
2014-04-07 07:16:18 PM

Barry Lyndon's Annuity Cheque: DamnYankees: Do you really think that's the issue here? Do you think he'd have been fired for donating money to organizations which fight for tax cuts? Or ending Obamacare? Or opposing immigration reform?

Of course not. The issue here isn't one of a mere political disagreement, but a fundamental violation of civil rights. You can agree or disagree with that, but its just not the case that most people, even hardcore liberals, have any desire to see people fired for standard political disagreements.

By that logic though, anyone who donates to the RNC or any other variety of conservative election organization is financing intolerance, since "traditional marriage" is pretty much a core tenet of the party. Hell, any Mormon who tithes to their church is now on that blacklist, since they bankrolled the original campaign. That's a lot of people immediately going on the list without any active dickery on their part, just a donation. Losing your job is a pretty severe consequence, so I'd just like to see some severe bigotry before bringing down that public opinion hammer.


I think the main thing is that this isn't really about the public opinion hammer. Mozilla is in the unique position of basically asking a bunch of talented people to work for them for free. If those people voice complaints, which they and many employees and shareholders did, then that is a huge detriment to the CEO's ability to do his job.

It would be an entirely different proposition if this guy was the CEO of some private firm that had zero interaction with the public at large.
 
2014-04-07 07:20:03 PM

DamnYankees: Sure. And any company is perfectly permitted to say we won't have a Republican as our CEO, since it doesn't align with our values. What's wrong with that? I mean, you and I might think its dumb, but I fail to see why I should get very hot and bothered over it.


Mostly because it would escalate the already asinine level of political distance and anger in the country. Republicans firing Democrats because Obama is socialism. Democrats firing Republicans because they stand for spite, intolerance, and spite. Democrats firing other Democrats because they ate at Chick-fil-a one time. I just don't like the implications of the whole thing, because once people start shining that Eye of Sauron around trying to find people to publicly shame, they're going to get a taste for it, and I don't think it ends with gay marriage.
 
2014-04-07 07:21:21 PM

Barry Lyndon's Annuity Cheque: Mostly because it would escalate the already asinine level of political distance and anger in the country.


I agree that doing so is substantively stupid, but again, so what? Lots of company's do things I think are substantively stupid.
 
2014-04-07 07:32:37 PM

Pocket Ninja: I'm absolutely stunned that a "journalist" whose only book tells the story of how conservatives "won the abortion war" would take a view like this. It's stunningly stunning.


It's almost like they aren't journalists at all, but agents of a Neoconservative agenda!
 
2014-04-07 07:37:17 PM
Typical guilt-ridden liberals who are too concerned with everybody liking them to actually stand for their convictions and take the shunning of bigots to its fullest.

You either believe in full equality for all American citizens, or you don't. This pansy washy washy "won't somebody think of the bigots" from the left is just cowardly bullshiat.
 
Displayed 50 of 304 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report