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.

(The Spectator UK)   RIP, diversity of opinion (1770-2014)   (spectator.co.uk) divider line 744
    More: Sad, free speeches, English Defence League, New York Times best-seller, New Statesman, Brandeis University, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, diversity, Leveson Inquiry  
•       •       •

6028 clicks; posted to Politics » on 17 Apr 2014 at 1:21 PM (13 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-04-17 11:39:16 AM
How the Left, here and abroad, is trying to shut down debate

i340.photobucket.com

/more like Spec-tater.
 
2014-04-17 11:39:24 AM
In California, Mozilla's chief executive is forced to resign because he once made a political donation in support of the pre-revisionist definition of marriage.

This country has come to a sad state of affairs when homosexualist advocates are allowed to freely advocate a boycott of a private company.
 
2014-04-17 11:42:28 AM
WAHHHHHHHHH MY BAD IDEAS ARE BEING DRIVEN OUT OF THE MARKET PLACE OF IDEAS WAHHHHHHHHHHHH
 
2014-04-17 11:43:49 AM
Yeah, we've never before collectively decided as a society that some political beliefs are morally reprehensible to work toward.
 
2014-04-17 11:47:46 AM
More conservative whining...must be a day ending in -y
 
2014-04-17 11:49:19 AM
Whining, apparently, is free enough

/and in abundant supply
 
2014-04-17 11:49:27 AM
multiculti

Asshole bigot red flag.
 
2014-04-17 11:51:53 AM
The Spectator: The Anal Beads of Britain's Asshole.
 
2014-04-17 11:53:11 AM
3.bp.blogspot.com

He's like the anti-Seth Rogen.
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2014-04-17 11:54:03 AM
the pre-revisionist definition of marriage.

Right.  It's sad to see chicken farking spread to Europe.
 
2014-04-17 11:55:25 AM

vpb: the pre-revisionist definition of marriage.

Right.  It's sad to see chicken farking spread to Europe.


This is how plagues start.
 
2014-04-17 11:59:12 AM
It seems the author doesn't understand the often repeated "free speech doesn't mean free from consequences". I wonder if he would like his home address published with a target painted over his face and the words "America's Biggest Pedophile" written under it.  If he's all about free speech, then he should be totes OK with that, right?
 
2014-04-17 12:01:27 PM

kxs401: Yeah, we've never before collectively decided as a society that some political beliefs are morally reprehensible to work toward.


When did we collectively decide on that? And let's so some specifics from you on which beliefs are so reprehensible that they need to be shut down.

Care to  defend what Brandeis did? Care to defend this?

'What really bothered me is the whole idea that at a liberal arts college we need to be hearing a diversity of opinion.'

(boldfacing mine)

You're really going to roll over for THAT?

For what it's worth, the ACLU is still doing its bit for freedom of unpopular/damn-fool expression, just last week representing a couple of Lawn Guyland doofuses suspended for bringing a Confederate flag to school. (Apparently the local administrators were upset it wasn't an Italian flag with a Boardy Barn bumper sticker on it.)
 
2014-04-17 12:02:59 PM
Free speech doesn't mean you can say whatever you like with no consequences.  It just means the government can't retaliate against you for speaking your mind in public with a few legal requirements.  No inciting riot or panic or inciting violence against someone.

Other than that, that's all 'free speech' means.
 
2014-04-17 12:04:50 PM

stpauler: It seems the author doesn't understand the often repeated "free speech doesn't mean free from consequences".


By and large these aren't cases of businesses doing as they see fit - these are governments cracking down on a free press, and even supposedly liberal journalists asking governments to crack down on those who disagree with them.
 
2014-04-17 12:06:54 PM

Infernalist: No inciting riot or panic or inciting violence against someone.


Who incited a riot or violence in these cases? Nobody, except perhaps those doing the shouting-down.
 
2014-04-17 12:08:34 PM

Infernalist: Free speech doesn't mean you can say whatever you like with no consequences.  It just means the government can't retaliate against you for speaking your mind in public with a few legal requirements.  No inciting riot or panic or inciting violence against someone.

Other than that, that's all 'free speech' means.


Sure, but as a society, do their have to be "consequences" for merely disagreeing with each other? Is that what we want?
 
2014-04-17 12:08:43 PM

Gulper Eel: Infernalist: No inciting riot or panic or inciting violence against someone.

Who incited a riot or violence in these cases? Nobody, except perhaps those doing the shouting-down.


I neither know, nor care, about whatever cases you're going on about.  I'm merely explaining for the slow-minded sorts just what 'free speech' is and what it entails and what its limitations are.
 
2014-04-17 12:10:11 PM

Infernalist: I neither know, nor care, about whatever cases you're going on about.


You ought to read the article, then.
 
2014-04-17 12:12:17 PM

Nabb1: Infernalist: Free speech doesn't mean you can say whatever you like with no consequences.  It just means the government can't retaliate against you for speaking your mind in public with a few legal requirements.  No inciting riot or panic or inciting violence against someone.

Other than that, that's all 'free speech' means.

Sure, but as a society, do their have to be "consequences" for merely disagreeing with each other? Is that what we want?


I disagree with Pizza Hut's definition of "pizza" so I don't eat there and dissuade others from eating there as well.

How is that different from the Mozilla thing? Because it isn't such a hot-button issue?

(OK, maybe pizza is a bad example around here.)
 
2014-04-17 12:12:49 PM

Nabb1: Infernalist: Free speech doesn't mean you can say whatever you like with no consequences.  It just means the government can't retaliate against you for speaking your mind in public with a few legal requirements.  No inciting riot or panic or inciting violence against someone.

Other than that, that's all 'free speech' means.

Sure, but as a society, do their have to be "consequences" for merely disagreeing with each other? Is that what we want?


There will 'always' be social consequences to publicly airing an unpopular view point.  Expecting otherwise is just plain silly.  That's how the social mindset works.

Complaining about people getting shunned and mocked for offering up viewpoints contrary to the social standard is akin to being 'that' guy who insists that he should be able to wander around naked in public as long as he's not hurting anyone.

In short, I won't begrudge anyone the right to speak whatever they believe, but at the same time, I'm sure as hell not going to be friendly and welcoming to people who make it plain that their viewpoints and intentions are at odds with my own life.  So, no, you can't come to my party.  Not yours.
 
2014-04-17 12:15:27 PM

Gulper Eel: Infernalist: I neither know, nor care, about whatever cases you're going on about.

You ought to read the article, then.


Why?  I don't care.
 
2014-04-17 12:16:20 PM
I don't necessarily think Eich should have been fired or resigned from his position as CEO of Mozilla over his donation to the Prop 8 campaign. But if the board of directors or Eich decided that they shouldn't continue the contract, that's their right as a participant in the free market.
 
2014-04-17 12:16:53 PM
Not one of the examples demonstrates Government stopping free speech.
 
2014-04-17 12:18:17 PM
Once you cut through the levels of derp, there is a valid debate topic here.  Take the Mozilla CEO for instance.  Does his personal views, no matter how reprehensible, disqualify him from a job that has nothing to do with those views?  If so, do his views disqualify him from every job?  Does the right of customers to boycott a product extend to denying someone their livelihood because we disagree with them?  These aren't easy questions to answer which is why we've been dealing with them for 240 years.  Moreover, we on the left sometimes fall into the trap of thinking of bigotry as a zero sum game, that because there's so much bigotry on the right that there's a corresponding lack of bigotry on the left, and that's not necessarily true.  One of the struggles I face as a liberal is distinguishing between the views which I find odious and the people who hold those views whom I call friends and family(red state Oklahoma y'all).
 
2014-04-17 12:20:21 PM

stpauler: It seems the author doesn't understand the often repeated "free speech doesn't mean free from consequences". I wonder if he would like his home address published with a target painted over his face and the words "America's Biggest Pedophile" written under it.  If he's all about free speech, then he should be totes OK with that, right?




/ because the left holds democrats to such stringent standards

// Remembers that Obama and Clinton both opposed ssm until they were for it and nary a discouraging word was uttered.
 
2014-04-17 12:21:51 PM

Gulper Eel: stpauler: It seems the author doesn't understand the often repeated "free speech doesn't mean free from consequences".

By and large these aren't cases of businesses doing as they see fit - these are governments cracking down on a free press, and even supposedly liberal journalists asking governments to crack down on those who disagree with them.


Let's see:
In Galway, at the National University of Ireland, a speaker who attempts to argue against the BDS (Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions) programme against Israel is shouted down with cries of 'farking Zionist, farking pricks... Get the fark off our campus.'
Sounds like two people got their free speech. And no government involvement

In California, Mozilla's chief executive is forced to resign because he once made a political donation in support of the pre-revisionist definition of marriage.
Yeah, don't see the government here either.


At Westminster, the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee declares that the BBC should seek 'special clearance' before it interviews climate sceptics, such as fringe wacko extremists like former Chancellor Nigel Lawson.

The BBC is owned and run by....the government itself. Moreover, they were found to be giving climate skeptics favorable coverage. The BBC has come under fire from the chairman of an influential committee of MPs for favouring climate change sceptics in its coverage - and, according to documents seen by the Guardian, replied by saying that putting forward opinions not backed by science is part of its role.


In Massachusetts, Brandeis University withdraws its offer of an honorary degree to a black feminist atheist human rights campaigner from Somalia.
And still not the government. And OH NOES! They withdrew an honorary degree? Yet she can still speak her mind?


In London, a multitude of liberal journalists and artists responsible for everything from Monty Python to Downton Abbey sign an open letter in favour of the first state restraints on the British press in three and a quarter centuries.
No cite given. No farks given either since the article doesn't elaborate.


And in Canberra the government is planning to repeal Section 18C - whoa, don't worry, not all of it, just three or four adjectives; or maybe only two, or whatever it's down to by now, after what Gay Alcorn in the Age described as the ongoing debate about 'where to strike the balance between free speech in a democracy and protection against racial abuse in a multicultural society'.

So, the Australian government is considering opening up more free speech (and letting racists be racists) and this is now an RIP for diversity of opinion?


And you, sir, can now learn that free speech just makes others more about how stupid you are. Thanks!
 
2014-04-17 12:23:23 PM

Mentat: Once you cut through the levels of derp, there is a valid debate topic here.  Take the Mozilla CEO for instance.  Does his personal views, no matter how reprehensible, disqualify him from a job that has nothing to do with those views?  If so, do his views disqualify him from every job?  Does the right of customers to boycott a product extend to denying someone their livelihood because we disagree with them?  These aren't easy questions to answer which is why we've been dealing with them for 240 years.  Moreover, we on the left sometimes fall into the trap of thinking of bigotry as a zero sum game, that because there's so much bigotry on the right that there's a corresponding lack of bigotry on the left, and that's not necessarily true.  One of the struggles I face as a liberal is distinguishing between the views which I find odious and the people who hold those views whom I call friends and family(red state Oklahoma y'all).


That's very reasonable and even-tempered.

I'm going to have to ask you to leave this thread.
 
2014-04-17 12:28:54 PM

Mentat: Once you cut through the levels of derp, there is a valid debate topic here.  Take the Mozilla CEO for instance.  Does his personal views, no matter how reprehensible, disqualify him from a job that has nothing to do with those views?  If so, do his views disqualify him from every job?  Does the right of customers to boycott a product extend to denying someone their livelihood because we disagree with them?  These aren't easy questions to answer which is why we've been dealing with them for 240 years.  Moreover, we on the left sometimes fall into the trap of thinking of bigotry as a zero sum game, that because there's so much bigotry on the right that there's a corresponding lack of bigotry on the left, and that's not necessarily true.  One of the struggles I face as a liberal is distinguishing between the views which I find odious and the people who hold those views whom I call friends and family(red state Oklahoma y'all).


In the case of Mozilla, my question would be what was the corporate policy towards LGBT employees, did they offer benefits to domestic partners, etc. If there is no indication whatsoever that his personal views were carrying over into Mozilla corporate policy, who cares what he things?
 
2014-04-17 12:30:24 PM

SauronWasFramed: stpauler: It seems the author doesn't understand the often repeated "free speech doesn't mean free from consequences". I wonder if he would like his home address published with a target painted over his face and the words "America's Biggest Pedophile" written under it.  If he's all about free speech, then he should be totes OK with that, right?

/ because the left holds democrats to such stringent standards

// Remembers that Obama and Clinton both opposed ssm until they were for it and nary a discouraging word was uttered.


Aw, poor baby...the left is clearly keep you and all freedom-loving Americans down.

Seriously, dude, that was some weak-ass "b-b-b-b-but" shiat
 
2014-04-17 12:33:18 PM

Diogenes: [3.bp.blogspot.com image 240x243]

He's like the anti-Seth Rogen.


It's like Seth Rogen and Ron Perlman had a really ugly baby.
 
2014-04-17 12:34:19 PM

Nabb1: Mentat: Once you cut through the levels of derp, there is a valid debate topic here.  Take the Mozilla CEO for instance.  Does his personal views, no matter how reprehensible, disqualify him from a job that has nothing to do with those views?  If so, do his views disqualify him from every job?  Does the right of customers to boycott a product extend to denying someone their livelihood because we disagree with them?  These aren't easy questions to answer which is why we've been dealing with them for 240 years.  Moreover, we on the left sometimes fall into the trap of thinking of bigotry as a zero sum game, that because there's so much bigotry on the right that there's a corresponding lack of bigotry on the left, and that's not necessarily true.  One of the struggles I face as a liberal is distinguishing between the views which I find odious and the people who hold those views whom I call friends and family(red state Oklahoma y'all).

In the case of Mozilla, my question would be what was the corporate policy towards LGBT employees, did they offer benefits to domestic partners, etc. If there is no indication whatsoever that his personal views were carrying over into Mozilla corporate policy, who cares what he things?


I believe I saw quotes from Eich post-hiring as CEO where he stated that he would uphold and enforce Mozilla's anti-discrimination policy. That doesn't mean he would actually uphold and enforce it though.
 
2014-04-17 12:35:01 PM

Nabb1: Mentat: Once you cut through the levels of derp, there is a valid debate topic here.  Take the Mozilla CEO for instance.  Does his personal views, no matter how reprehensible, disqualify him from a job that has nothing to do with those views?  If so, do his views disqualify him from every job?  Does the right of customers to boycott a product extend to denying someone their livelihood because we disagree with them?  These aren't easy questions to answer which is why we've been dealing with them for 240 years.  Moreover, we on the left sometimes fall into the trap of thinking of bigotry as a zero sum game, that because there's so much bigotry on the right that there's a corresponding lack of bigotry on the left, and that's not necessarily true.  One of the struggles I face as a liberal is distinguishing between the views which I find odious and the people who hold those views whom I call friends and family(red state Oklahoma y'all).

In the case of Mozilla, my question would be what was the corporate policy towards LGBT employees, did they offer benefits to domestic partners, etc. If there is no indication whatsoever that his personal views were carrying over into Mozilla corporate policy, who cares what he thinks?


Clearly, a lot of people.

Since money is now considered 'free speech'(thanks, SC!), it's perfectly acceptable to enact legal consequences against him for his 'free speech' expression.

To my way of thinking, a boycott against Mozilla because he donated money to Prop 8 is the same as boycotting a diner because the cook is constantly using racial slurs.
 
2014-04-17 12:38:46 PM

Nabb1: In the case of Mozilla, my question would be what was the corporate policy towards LGBT employees, did they offer benefits to domestic partners, etc. If there is no indication whatsoever that his personal views were carrying over into Mozilla corporate policy, who cares what he things?


I don't care what he thinks - and he only gave a relatively small amount to his cause - it's not like he's the new Fred Phelps.  And he had every right to say and do as he did, and there has been no government action or retaliation.  I did not join in any boycott but people had the right to boycott, and his corporation had the right to strongly suggest his resignation in an effort to minimize the damage.  I don't agree with all the conservatives who ran to chik-fil-a to support the anti-marriage equality CEO, but they certainly had that right, as did those who boycotted.

If you have a high-profile job, it's probably a good idea to steer clear of hot-button issues.  You have the right to get involved, of course, but you'll have to face the consequences.
 
2014-04-17 12:42:24 PM

Lionel Mandrake: Nabb1: In the case of Mozilla, my question would be what was the corporate policy towards LGBT employees, did they offer benefits to domestic partners, etc. If there is no indication whatsoever that his personal views were carrying over into Mozilla corporate policy, who cares what he things?

I don't care what he thinks - and he only gave a relatively small amount to his cause - it's not like he's the new Fred Phelps.  And he had every right to say and do as he did, and there has been no government action or retaliation.  I did not join in any boycott but people had the right to boycott, and his corporation had the right to strongly suggest his resignation in an effort to minimize the damage.  I don't agree with all the conservatives who ran to chik-fil-a to support the anti-marriage equality CEO, but they certainly had that right, as did those who boycotted.

If you have a high-profile job, it's probably a good idea to steer clear of hot-button issues.  You have the right to get involved, of course, but you'll have to face the consequences.


How many people do you know personally that have made a thousand dollar donation to a political campaign?
 
2014-04-17 12:43:36 PM
a bloo blah blooo

why won't liberal collectivist communist fascists stop being mean to us :(
 
2014-04-17 12:51:18 PM

Serious Black: Lionel Mandrake: Nabb1: In the case of Mozilla, my question would be what was the corporate policy towards LGBT employees, did they offer benefits to domestic partners, etc. If there is no indication whatsoever that his personal views were carrying over into Mozilla corporate policy, who cares what he things?

I don't care what he thinks - and he only gave a relatively small amount to his cause - it's not like he's the new Fred Phelps.  And he had every right to say and do as he did, and there has been no government action or retaliation.  I did not join in any boycott but people had the right to boycott, and his corporation had the right to strongly suggest his resignation in an effort to minimize the damage.  I don't agree with all the conservatives who ran to chik-fil-a to support the anti-marriage equality CEO, but they certainly had that right, as did those who boycotted.

If you have a high-profile job, it's probably a good idea to steer clear of hot-button issues.  You have the right to get involved, of course, but you'll have to face the consequences.

How many people do you know personally that have made a thousand dollar donation to a political campaign?


I have friends who are politically-minded and could well afford it, but I haven't actually asked them to whom and how much they donate.  Seems a bit crass
 
2014-04-17 12:57:37 PM
Like a virulent disease, Baathist political methodology and ideology has reached the West, and it has, hydra-like, been grafted onto socialist ideologies like liberation theology.  Baathist techniques involve swarming, supressive thuggery and brute intellectual and physical silencing of dissenting opinion.  If the rule of law were not so completely and effectively ensconced in U.S. legal systems, the thuggery, dogma, and ideological suppression of this gross, sick political movement would move forward in the West.  It is a very good thing that the system of checks and balances are in place to stop this type of political machine.  Be aware of it:  It is real.  And, man, it is one dirty, sucky political movement.  No  wonder it finds a home grafted onto collectivism and excessive socialist posturing.

Personally, I'd really like to see da Mooslins adopt a friendliness to "beer."  "Beer" is a great and beautiful substance, and can sweep away the bad craziness of hysterical intellectual and political obsessiveness.  Alcohol!  The cause of and the answer to all of life's problems.
 
2014-04-17 01:00:45 PM

Lionel Mandrake: Serious Black: Lionel Mandrake: Nabb1: In the case of Mozilla, my question would be what was the corporate policy towards LGBT employees, did they offer benefits to domestic partners, etc. If there is no indication whatsoever that his personal views were carrying over into Mozilla corporate policy, who cares what he things?

I don't care what he thinks - and he only gave a relatively small amount to his cause - it's not like he's the new Fred Phelps.  And he had every right to say and do as he did, and there has been no government action or retaliation.  I did not join in any boycott but people had the right to boycott, and his corporation had the right to strongly suggest his resignation in an effort to minimize the damage.  I don't agree with all the conservatives who ran to chik-fil-a to support the anti-marriage equality CEO, but they certainly had that right, as did those who boycotted.

If you have a high-profile job, it's probably a good idea to steer clear of hot-button issues.  You have the right to get involved, of course, but you'll have to face the consequences.

How many people do you know personally that have made a thousand dollar donation to a political campaign?

I have friends who are politically-minded and could well afford it, but I haven't actually asked them to whom and how much they donate.  Seems a bit crass


Sure, I wouldn't ask that question of many people. Even so, the only people I know personally who could even afford a thousand dollar donation without busting their savings are myself, my parents, and possibly a couple of my coworkers. We're all on the higher end of the income spectrum. There are a lot of people who, even if they wanted to, would find it basically impossible to make a $5 donation to a campaign because they need to feed themselves first. That's my point, that having $1,000 to give to a political campaign is not really small potatoes.
 
2014-04-17 01:01:36 PM

Lionel Mandrake: Nabb1: In the case of Mozilla, my question would be what was the corporate policy towards LGBT employees, did they offer benefits to domestic partners, etc. If there is no indication whatsoever that his personal views were carrying over into Mozilla corporate policy, who cares what he things?

I don't care what he thinks - and he only gave a relatively small amount to his cause - it's not like he's the new Fred Phelps.  And he had every right to say and do as he did, and there has been no government action or retaliation.  I did not join in any boycott but people had the right to boycott, and his corporation had the right to strongly suggest his resignation in an effort to minimize the damage.  I don't agree with all the conservatives who ran to chik-fil-a to support the anti-marriage equality CEO, but they certainly had that right, as did those who boycotted.

If you have a high-profile job, it's probably a good idea to steer clear of hot-button issues.  You have the right to get involved, of course, but you'll have to face the consequences.


Didn't President Obama himself once say he held the view that he believe in "traditional marriage" as a Christian, but was fine with civil unions for same sex partners? People can be persuaded to change their views on what the law should be, notwithstanding their moral or religious reservations. Many people may subscribe to the personal view that same sex marriages are not "marriage" in the traditional sense but decide the law should recognize them.
 
2014-04-17 01:03:07 PM
This is just like the Nazi's.
 
2014-04-17 01:13:41 PM

Mentat: Once you cut through the levels of derp, there is a valid debate topic here.  Take the Mozilla CEO for instance.  Does his personal views, no matter how reprehensible, disqualify him from a job that has nothing to do with those views?  If so, do his views disqualify him from every job?  Does the right of customers to boycott a product extend to denying someone their livelihood because we disagree with them?  These aren't easy questions to answer which is why we've been dealing with them for 240 years.  Moreover, we on the left sometimes fall into the trap of thinking of bigotry as a zero sum game, that because there's so much bigotry on the right that there's a corresponding lack of bigotry on the left, and that's not necessarily true.  One of the struggles I face as a liberal is distinguishing between the views which I find odious and the people who hold those views whom I call friends and family(red state Oklahoma y'all).


I think the Eich thing was stupid from the word go. There are plenty of CEOs I think are assholes, but they shouldn't be fired for it. However, on the grand scale, the public has the right to take their money and do business with whomever they see fit, and the job of the CEO is to make his company the most profitable company he can, if that means resigning his post, then that's the decision he should have made. I don't blame Mozilla, I blame the public who made a mountain out of a molehill, but they were well within their rights to do so.
 
2014-04-17 01:24:31 PM

vpb: the pre-revisionist definition of marriage.

Right.  It's sad to see chicken farking spread to Europe.


Maybe they are trying to give revisionist a good name? :)

/yeah I know :(
 
2014-04-17 01:27:08 PM
Libertarians: "The free market will prevent people from discriminating! People just won't shop at places whose proprietors discriminate!"

*PREMISE ACTUALLY WORKS FOR ONCE*

"ZOMG HOW DARE YOU USE SUCH TERRIBLE FORCE THIS IS THE WORST THING EVER."


 

Mentat: Once you cut through the levels of derp, there is a valid debate topic here. Take the Mozilla CEO for instance. Does his personal views, no matter how reprehensible, disqualify him from a job that has nothing to do with those views? If so, do his views disqualify him from every job? Does the right of customers to boycott a product extend to denying someone their livelihood because we disagree with them?


When you donate to a campaign, it is no longer a personal or private view, is it? You are *actively spending money* to try and convince others to see things 'your way'. THAT IS LITERALLY WHAT ADVERTISING ON THESE ISSUES IS.
 
2014-04-17 01:28:08 PM

Nabb1: Didn't President Obama himself once say he held the view that he believe in "traditional marriage" as a Christian, but was fine with civil unions for same sex partners? People can be persuaded to change their views on what the law should be, notwithstanding their moral or religious reservations. Many people may subscribe to the personal view that same sex marriages are not "marriage" in the traditional sense but decide the law should recognize them.


I don't disagree.  I don't think the guy should have been forced to resign, and I realize that the pressure to do so is often unfairly and unevenly applied.  The President would have to be impeached and convicted to lose his job - a much higher standard than the business world.  I did not boycott Mozilla and I thought to do so was silly, but, nevertheless, weighing in (one way or the other) on controversial issues as a public figure carries with it certain risks.  The guy miscalculated, and lost his job.  It's neither a great injustice nor a great victory for the vast majority, however one feels about gay marriage.
 
2014-04-17 01:31:39 PM

Mentat: Once you cut through the levels of derp, there is a valid debate topic here.  Take the Mozilla CEO for instance.  Does his personal views, no matter how reprehensible, disqualify him from a job that has nothing to do with those views?  If so, do his views disqualify him from every job?  Does the right of customers to boycott a product extend to denying someone their livelihood because we disagree with them?  These aren't easy questions to answer which is why we've been dealing with them for 240 years.  Moreover, we on the left sometimes fall into the trap of thinking of bigotry as a zero sum game, that because there's so much bigotry on the right that there's a corresponding lack of bigotry on the left, and that's not necessarily true.  One of the struggles I face as a liberal is distinguishing between the views which I find odious and the people who hold those views whom I call friends and family(red state Oklahoma y'all).


I'm still confused about him resigning.  He didn't even try to do any damage control.  It was just a few whiny bloggers and one dating site that was freaking out.

There had to be something else going on.
 
2014-04-17 01:31:40 PM

Lionel Mandrake: Nabb1: Didn't President Obama himself once say he held the view that he believe in "traditional marriage" as a Christian, but was fine with civil unions for same sex partners? People can be persuaded to change their views on what the law should be, notwithstanding their moral or religious reservations. Many people may subscribe to the personal view that same sex marriages are not "marriage" in the traditional sense but decide the law should recognize them.

I don't disagree.  I don't think the guy should have been forced to resign, and I realize that the pressure to do so is often unfairly and unevenly applied.  The President would have to be impeached and convicted to lose his job - a much higher standard than the business world.  I did not boycott Mozilla and I thought to do so was silly, but, nevertheless, weighing in (one way or the other) on controversial issues as a public figure carries with it certain risks.  The guy miscalculated, and lost his job.  It's neither a great injustice nor a great victory for the vast majority, however one feels about gay marriage.


Sure, I mean, but he's an easy target - big CEO, go home and cry himself to sleep in big piles of money, and all that - but breaking it down to the essential elements, there was a hue and cry for a guy to lose his job over expressing a personal political belief in public, one that seemingly had no affect on his job whatsoever. He'll be fine, I am sure, but I just don't know if that's something we want to see on a regular basis.
 
2014-04-17 01:31:53 PM
It's really simple, people. Either you want a ban on abortions or you want every pregnant woman to get one. There's no middle ground like understanding that banning something won't actually stop it and might actually contribute to its prevalence.
 
2014-04-17 01:33:42 PM
And they had to resort to cheap posters surreptitiously plastered to buildings in the middle of the night to let us know.
 
2014-04-17 01:33:45 PM
Free speech also doesn't mean that all possible views should be entitled to equal regard.
 
Displayed 50 of 744 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report