They had threats leveled at several locations, particularly Scotland I believe, and hence the cancellation of the rest of them.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
Stipulating that there were probably various people either threatening to respond with violence or joking about it (the latter I know for sure)...
I'm not sure it's ironic.
The "want to legalize rape" thing was a trollish, deliberately absurd argument based on mock outrage against the straw man argument that "if two people are drunk and have sex, and one of them is a woman, she was raped". "Unable to legally consent" is too subtle a concept for the likes of ROK to grapple with, so they oversimplify it to "if two people are drunk and one of them is a woman, she was raped". Then get all righteously indignant about that, because taking the real lesson from the principle is just too much work for their brains I guess? But from there this facetious "rape should be legal" thing. I guess trying to offer an absurd counterpoint to balance their absurd misunderstanding?
I'm a bit frustrated with the media for running with the "pro rape" tag - partly because it's not completely accurate, since that argument was facetious, but mostly because its inaccuracy just fuels the grandiose nonconformity that these guys imagine they are so good at. There's plenty of odious nonsense to condemn the group without that - and you could even use "making a facetious pro-rape argument" as one of your reasons.
But "makes facetious and probably harmful pro-rape argument" is bad, and "Supports that jerk who did that" is also bad, and "meets up with likeminded jerks" is bad. Because the whole ethos of the group is about preying on women as objects, denigrating them and using them and adding violent fantasy to the mix all along.
Target: women. Because they are...women. Because they believe all women are like [laundry list of really, really gross stereotypes]
Objective: shame and use and discard them.
And then the response is like "these guys are incredibly creepy and fantasize about doing all kinds of harmful stuff, this makes us really mad, we should go beat them up".
Target: creepy gross guys. Because they have proven themselves creepy and gross.
Objective: Scare them away.
---
I don't know if that's ironic, unless a motivating principle of the response is "don't ever use violence" which I don't actually think is the case. I think it's "this is gross and creepy and oppressive and harmful and it shouldn't be stood for".
You can make an argument that the response is wrong, of course, and I think maybe any violence would have been, but not necessarily ironic.
Posted by JanitorBlade (Member # 12343) on :
Interesting. Thanks for your thoughts, scifibum. I'll have to think about them.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
quote:Originally posted by JanitorBlade: It's more explicit here.
No it's not. I read that article as well, where does it say they were threatened with violence?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Is it entirely facetious to offer an argument that you know won't ever be accepted, and intend as a rhetorical point for another argument...but at the same time, reams and reams of your other rhetoric make it clear you would be thrilled if that argument *were* accepted?
Put more simply, scifi is right and it's facetious. But considering you only have to scratch an inch deep and twenty miles wide to find a lot of...problematic...thoughts on the intersection between men, women, sexuality, and violence. Well. Sure it's facetious though I don't think it's quite as simple as that either.
Anyway, facetious or not, the argument they are making is that sexual violence against women should be legal. That, ethically, they see no problem with the use of violence against women outside the public eye...or if there is a problem it's really the woman's fault.
That certainly reads like a threat to me.
So you've got 'advocacy for violence met with threats of violence'. Doesn't sound ironic to me.
Posted by narrativium (Member # 3230) on :
I don't see any threats of violence coming from RoK's opposition in either article. I see claims from their idiot leader about not being able to secure the meetings, but the only mention of actual opposition activity is peaceful counter protests.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Dogbreath: It's early in the morning so I haven't done much followup, but I'm starting to suspect I was taken in by click-bait.
Posted by Foust (Member # 3043) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Dogbreath: It's early in the morning so I haven't done much followup, but I'm starting to suspect I was taken in by click-bait.
Can you please at least post the original click-bait article that you read then? As I said, neither article you posted made any mention of threats against the group at all, "explicit" or otherwise.
I'm actually pretty curious why you decided to post that second link and say "it's more explicit here" when in fact neither article had anything explicit, or even suggestive, about threats against the group at all.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Counter violance is good...publicly declare yourself a grand master in ass hat-ery & suffer the threats!
Posted by JanitorBlade (Member # 12343) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dogbreath:
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Dogbreath: It's early in the morning so I haven't done much followup, but I'm starting to suspect I was taken in by click-bait.
Can you please at least post the original click-bait article that you read then? As I said, neither article you posted made any mention of threats against the group at all, "explicit" or otherwise.
I'm actually pretty curious why you decided to post that second link and say "it's more explicit here" when in fact neither article had anything explicit, or even suggestive, about threats against the group at all.
The second article *was* more explicit.
"I can no longer guarantee the safety or privacy of the men who want to attend on February 6, especially since most of the meetups can not be made private in time," he said.
"While I can't stop men who want to continue meeting in private groups, there will be no official Return Of Kings meetups. The listing page has been scrubbed of all locations. I apologise to all the supporters who are let down by my decision."
Whereas once he felt the gatherings were safe and private, now in his opinion they are neither. What else would make them specifically unsafe?
Is that link meant to be an image with a sentence or two beneath it?
Anyway, just to be sure I understand you clearly, part of your objection and criticism about threats of violence was because he said himself they had been received?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Ok, found the article. The only explicit threat on there was from an individual in a tweet. As for the boxing club, they were explicit in that they would not attack anyone, but if any of the men convinced of male superiority wished to prove the question with their bodies, they welcomed it.
All of this aside, for me this extends into the baffling-academic realm of your philosophy of courtesy on contentious political issues, BB. For one thing, do you really believe he didn't expect this sort of response? Noting that the only threats made were by a guy on Twitter in that article, but a huge part of his worldview is that women are running the show, in government, media, and in the culture. He is overtly hostile to women. For the benefit of the doubt let's say he is perceived that way, because it's important we be fair to this shithead.
Anyway, he knows how he is perceived. I personally don't believe he ever intended for these large gatherings, advertised in public on the Internet, to occur as advertised.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
quote:Originally posted by JanitorBlade: The second article *was* more explicit.
"I can no longer guarantee the safety or privacy of the men who want to attend on February 6, especially since most of the meetups can not be made private in time," he said.
"While I can't stop men who want to continue meeting in private groups, there will be no official Return Of Kings meetups. The listing page has been scrubbed of all locations. I apologise to all the supporters who are let down by my decision."
Whereas once he felt the gatherings were safe and private, now in his opinion they are neither. What else would make them specifically unsafe? [/QB]
That is not explicit at all. Once again, there is absolutely no part of that - even the leader's own statement - that mentions them being threatened with violence. At all.
Why would he choose to cancel them? He says so himself - the meetings are no longer *private* (because of the media attention) and, not being private, he can no longer guarantee they will be safe. For the same reason having your home address published online or broadcasting your exact location makes you less safe (and hopefully you don't do this) - not because anyone has threatened you, but because the possibility of someone who may want to do violence against you, which would increase exponentially if you were in the national media. It's also the same reason you lock your house when you're away, even though no one has threatened to break into it. That in no way even *implies* they were threatened with violence, and it sure as shit doesn't *explicitly* say they were.
quote:Here is the original article I saw,
Link.
That's not an article, that's a photo of a headline. From an entertainment website. Have you read that article? I have. It actually at no point mentions any threats of violence against the ROK members. Instead it talks about said boxing team planning to hold a peaceful protest of the event in question. It also contains a random tweet by a man saying rapists, not ROK members specifically mind you, but people who actually have raped a woman, deserve be shot. (and not an "I'm going to go shoot rapists" but "ugh, rapists are just awful, they deserve to be shot") The headline is clickbait to get you to read an article which actually has nothing to do with it. I see those all the time with "Obama launches new plan to take guns from veterans" and so forth.
Here's the thing, you decided to post a thread with the title "Masculinists want to legalize rape, get threatened with violence" without supplying *any* evidence whatsoever that those threats of violence were ever actually made. The leader of the ROK has not even made any statements to the effect of "we were threatened" in any way.
For you to infer the possibility threats were made from the leader cancelling the event is, without any evidence, a stretch but maybe an understandable one. For you to blithely assert that those threats actually happened, even after being confronted about the fact that you have presented no evidence that they actually happened, is baffling.
So I guess to answer your original question: the only thing I find ironic about it is that it never actually happened! Plot twist!
[ February 05, 2016, 08:38 PM: Message edited by: Dogbreath ]
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Ok, found the article. The only explicit threat on there was from an individual in a tweet. As for the boxing club, they were explicit in that they would not attack anyone, but if any of the men convinced of male superiority wished to prove the question with their bodies, they welcomed it.
All of this aside, for me this extends into the baffling-academic realm of your philosophy of courtesy on contentious political issues, BB. For one thing, do you really believe he didn't expect this sort of response? Noting that the only threats made were by a guy on Twitter in that article, but a huge part of his worldview is that women are running the show, in government, media, and in the culture. He is overtly hostile to women. For the benefit of the doubt let's say he is perceived that way, because it's important we be fair to this shithead.
cross posted with you, but that tweet is actually about "rapists", not "Return of the Kings" members. It's only a threat in as much as you think the two are the same thing.
Posted by JanitorBlade (Member # 12343) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dogbreath: That is not explicit at all. Once again, there is absolutely no part of that - even the leader's own statement - that mentions them being threatened with violence. At all.
Why would he choose to cancel them? He says so himself - the meetings are no longer *private* (because of the media attention) and, not being private, he can no longer guarantee they will be safe. For the same reason having your home address published online or broadcasting your exact location makes you less safe (and hopefully you don't do this) - not because anyone has threatened you, but because the possibility of someone who may want to do violence against you, which would increase exponentially if you were in the national media. It's also the same reason you lock your house when you're away, even though no one has threatened to break into it. That in no way even *implies* they were threatened with violence, and it sure as shit doesn't *explicitly* say they were.
quote:Here is the original article I saw,
Link.
That's not an article, that's a photo of a headline. From an entertainment website. Have you read that article? I have. It actually at no point mentions any threats of violence against the ROK members. Instead it talks about said boxing team planning to hold a peaceful protest of the event in question. It also contains a random tweet by a man saying rapists, not ROK members specifically mind you, but people who actually have raped a woman, deserve be shot. (and not an "I'm going to go shoot rapists" but "ugh, rapists are just awful, they deserve to be shot") The headline is clickbait to get you to read an article which actually has nothing to do with it. I see those all the time with "Obama launches new plan to take guns from veterans" and so forth.
Here's the thing, you decided to post a thread with the title "Masculinists want to legalize rape, get threatened with violence" without supplying *any* evidence whatsoever that those threats of violence were ever actually made. The leader of the ROK has not even made any statements to the effect of "we were threatened" in any way.
For you to infer the possibility threats were made from the leader cancelling the event is, without any evidence, a stretch but maybe an understandable one. For you to blithely assert that those threats actually happened, even after being confronted about the fact that you have presented no evidence that they actually happened, is baffling.
So I guess to answer your original question: the only thing I find ironic about it is that it never actually happened! Plot twist!
DB: I will explain what happened. I saw the headline (Whose image I linked) in my Facebook feed, did not read the article at that time (But the seed was planted). I saw other articles in other places like Reddit indicating the same thing. People threatening to beat up pro-rape advocates sounded not only plausible, but probable. I then started seeing articles that the meetings had been cancelled out of concern for safety and privacy.
It was then I posted the article in my post above, not realizing that in that article it was not perfectly clear that threats had actually been made, but in my mind it was now all a cohesive narrative whole. You posted, so I furnished another link that after reading I thought made it more obvious.
You challenged that it doesn't actually say anywhere that violence was threatened. I went back through what I'd read and realized that other than the original headline (From Facebook), that you were right. I then admitted that I had been taken in by click-bait, and produced the original headline. And now, here we are?
Was I hasty in what I posted? Yes. Would I post it again knowing what I know now? No. I'm leaving the thread up because others are discussing. I appreciate being challenged and subsequently finding out I was wrong.
I hope we can let the matter be, unless there is something else you feel is missing.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
quote:Originally posted by JanitorBlade: DB: I will explain what happened. I saw the headline (Whose image I linked) in my Facebook feed, did not read the article at that time (But the seed was planted). I saw other articles in other places like Reddit indicating the same thing. People threatening to beat up pro-rape advocates sounded not only plausible, but probable. I then started seeing articles that the meetings had been cancelled out of concern for safety and privacy.
It was then I posted the article in my post above, not realizing that in that article it was not perfectly clear that threats had actually been made, but in my mind it was now all a cohesive narrative whole. You posted, so I furnished another link that after reading I thought made it more obvious.
You challenged that it doesn't actually say anywhere that violence was threatened. I went back through what I'd read and realized that other than the original headline (From Facebook), that you were right. I then admitted that I had been taken in by click-bait, and produced the original headline. And now, here we are?
Yes, except your statement is false: this is actually the first post in which you've admitted that. (and only obliquely, in an "I already said it once!" way) What you in fact did was say you were "starting to suspect" you were taken in clickbait, and then in your next post you turned around and doubled down on your argument again talking about how "The second article *was* more explicit" when, as you just finally mention now, you already knew it wasn't.
I'll be honest, I'm growing increasingly frustrated and baffled by your actions here. Quite frankly, I knew from the start that your claim of "threats of violence" was a fabrication, because I saw the same clickbait crap on Facebook and Reddit about half a day before you posted, and then actually read the articles and found no evidence thereof. I asked you questions about your source rather than just saying "BlackBlade you're full of crap" because I didn't want to be a dick, and because I was hopeful you would take the hint and actually try to verify your claims and then do a "haha, whoops, I guess I misread that. Sorry folks!" or something without me having to actually confront you on this. Because I know you don't react well to confrontation, and more importantly, because I didn't want to embarrass you.
But no, I had to ask the questions three times here (and once on Sake, which you ignored) and you chose to double down on your position three times in a row (the last time apparently when you already knew it was wrong) until, with my last post, I had to call you out in no uncertain terms to get you to finally admit the truth - which you then did only obliquely.
Falling for clickbait isn't really the issue. They've gotten me too, especially when it's an issue that is likely to fall into my own preconceived notion of how the world works. I wouldn't hold that against you. Same for rushing into the thread without all your ducks in a row. But this? This weird, passive-aggressive reticence to just say "hey, I messed up"? That's how you lose people's trust.
I suppose I could have just said "hey, yeah, it's fine! " and left it at that, and I have before. And I wouldn't be surprised or even disappointed if you just think I'm being a sanctimonious asshole and dismiss what I'm saying here out of hand. Goodness knows I'm no saint or moral authority on the subject. But it is my honest takeaway from your actions here, and I think that that honesty is something that not many people would be willing to give you.
Posted by JanitorBlade (Member # 12343) on :
Dogbreath: I appreciate your continuing this conversation when it's clear there were still things left unsaid. I'm trying to level with you, but it seems to only be making things worse. I will try again.
quote:I then admitted that I had been taken in by click-bait, and produced the original headline. And now, here we are?Yes, except your statement is false: this is actually the first post in which you've admitted that. (and only obliquely, in an "I already said it once!" way)
I can see why the way I phrased this sounds like what you just described. Being forthright, that is a feeling I was experiencing when I wrote my post. But, I then went through and edited all those things I thought were conveying that feeling because it was wrong of me. The wording "And here we are?" Was ultimately intended to convey "Did I describe our journey here accurately?" I accept full responsibility for leaving something in that ambiguous.
quote:What you in fact did was say you were "starting to suspect" you were taken in clickbait, and then in your next post you turned around and doubled down on your argument again talking about how "The second article *was* more explicit" when, as you just finally mention now, you already knew it wasn't.
I hate to dispel my being disingenuous by pleading sincerity when it's clear to me you *really* don't think the article is as explicit as I do. Call into question my reading comprehension, if you must. I thought the quotes from the leader of ROK all but spelled out threats of violence being made. Right or wrong, that's how I perceived it when I was posting. I am willing to concede that it is not *actually* stated. That you were right.
quote:I'll be honest, I'm growing increasingly frustrated and baffled by your actions here. Quite frankly, I knew from the start that your claim of "threats of violence" was a fabrication, because I saw the same clickbait crap on Facebook and Reddit about half a day before you posted, and then actually read the articles and found no evidence thereof. I asked you questions about your source rather than just saying "BlackBlade you're full of crap" because I didn't want to be a dick, and because I was hopeful you would take the hint and actually try to verify your claims and then do a "haha, whoops, I guess I misread that. Sorry folks!" or something without me having to actually confront you on this. Because I know you don't react well to confrontation, and more importantly, because I didn't want to embarrass you.
Then let me say it now. I didn't carefully look into my sources, I posted too hastily, I responded to your subsequent posts too hastily, when I attempted to make things right I failed to edit so that all elements of aggression in my post were gone.
quote:But no, I had to ask the questions three times here (and once on Sake, which you ignored)
I *honestly* thought by posting here I would be addressing your post on Sake, since this place is the origin of our conversation. It did not occur to me to go back to Sake and redirect you here. And certainly continuing there would have made things confusing here. For that failure in communication I am truly sorry. I don't like giving you cause to feel ignored, and I've done so a few times.
quote:I had to call you out in no uncertain terms to get you to finally admit the truth - which you then did only obliquely.
Consider that I was not seeing the truth you were trying to present to me, until I did. I promise you I was not writing knowing full well you were right but refusing to concede the point(s). I'm not so vain as that.
quote:Falling for clickbait isn't really the issue. They've gotten me too, especially when it's an issue that is likely to fall into my own preconceived notion of how the world works. I wouldn't hold that against you. Same for rushing into the thread without all your ducks in a row. But this? This weird, passive-aggressive reticence to just say "hey, I messed up"? That's how you lose people's trust.
I hope my explanation undercuts you feeling that I was being passive-aggressive. I know you are an honest and forthright person. I put a lot of stock in being honest and direct in communication. One thing though, I don't find conflict disagreeable. Why on Earth would I ever sign up to be a moderator if I did? But I do try very hard not to give or take offense.
To the extent my writings came across as my refusing to admit being wrong and coming across as aggressive, I am sorry.
quote:I suppose I could have just said "hey, yeah, it's fine! [Smile] " and left it at that, and I have before. And I wouldn't be surprised or even disappointed if you just think I'm being a sanctimonious asshole and dismiss what I'm saying here out of hand. Goodness knows I'm no saint or moral authority on the subject. But it is my honest takeaway from your actions here, and I think that that honesty is something that not many people would be willing to give you.
I haven't once thought of you as being sanctimonious, and I seek to be unafraid of being criticized or wrong. It has happened before, it will happen again. I *did* feel confused because it felt like you were determined to be angry at me, when I felt there was no cause for it. Having said that, I think I understand better why you felt frustrated with me, and I'm sorry for it.
I'm sad that you felt that I would likely dismiss what you would say out of hand. Clearly I have not given you cause enough to trust that I care and listen to what you have to say. I'll try to do better in the future.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
DB, it looks a bit like you're trying to make sure BB can't save any face in this discussion, and I'm not sure why that would be your goal. Am I misunderstanding you?
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
quote:Originally posted by scifibum: Am I misunderstanding you?
Yes.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
(Because I realize my lack of response may make it looks like I'm deliberately snubbing BlackBlade's apology here: after his last post, at his request BB and I had a private conversation where we continued and resolved this discussion, much to our mutual satisfaction.)
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I did see someone threaten to follow them with tubas and possible sad trombones to make them look foolish.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
Outrageous!
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
I see how BB got the job.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
BlackBlade: Since you're interested in keeping the thread open, I wanted to follow up on the question Rakeesh asked you earlier, which I'm curious about as well.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems like this has been a constant theme with you. Whenever there's a conflict between an oppressor and victim in any case (and I've seen this with you as wide spread as homophobia, sexism, racism, the riots in Baltimore, parents of gay kids who kick them out of the house...) your first and, it often seems, only concern is policing the response of the victims and/or bystanders against the oppressors. Even in cases where that response is mostly or entirely hypothetical, you seem to hone in on the issue of "isn't it terrible that not everyone is being perfectly courteous and generous and longsuffering towards this horrible person?"
I ask this because that attitude is the same one that's been used by those in power to bully and silence those being oppressed for about as long as there have been oppressors and oppressed. The oppressor is given broad range as far as how they're allowed to control and harm those they oppress: in modern times, telling them who they can and can't marry, or by arresting or even murdering them in disproportionate numbers, or by telling them whether or not they can buy enough food to feed their children. But the oppressed and their advocates must always be perfect gentlemen and ladies when speaking truth to power, indeed lots of people of the same class as the oppressors will chide and correct them whenever they step outside of whatever narrow boundaries defined for them *by* the oppressor class.
Which leads me to ask: why? Why is this so important to you? I mean, you have a group of men who believe in dehumanizing and infantilizing women, in "negging" and manipulating them, treating them as extensions of their desire... men who represent every dark and antisocial and rapine instinct that we as civilized human beings have sought to overcome. Men who, if given their way, would gleefully oppress half of humanity just to satisfy their own insatiable ego. And your takeaway from learning about their rallies is to worry about alleged threats against them?
I'm not trying to pick on you, and I realize this is a fight you've had to fight all by yourself on a lot of occasions, so please don't think I'm not sympathetic. But this is something I don't really understand about you, and I think Rakeesh is fair to question the underlying issue here. Why are issues like this so important to you?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Just to clarify, and because I recognize that this is often a stance you take by yourself against a lot of opposition, BB, my perception is that a substantial part of the reason (at the very least) isn't that it's your only or primary concern, but that your position about being kinder to jerks (an oversimplification I know) isn't one that's getting represented.
Posted by JanitorBlade (Member # 12343) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Just to clarify, and because I recognize that this is often a stance you take by yourself against a lot of opposition, BB, my perception is that a substantial part of the reason (at the very least) isn't that it's your only or primary concern, but that your position about being kinder to jerks (an oversimplification I know) isn't one that's getting represented.
That's definitely a huge part of it. And partially because I've had my foot in my mouth enough times because I thought, "I've got this issue down, and it's clear I should be angry at this person/issue".
There's a third reason that in the past historically it's very rare for an issue to be obvious, and even when it is people often excuse terrible behavior in the cause of doing what's right, but I'm having a devil of a time articulating it, so I'll just leave it be for now.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Hmmmm. I will say that your reasons listed there-prudent skepticism about being right, wariness of overstepping into bad behavior-those are reasons I can certainly understand. But to my recollection, when having these sorts of discussions before, they didn't really feature in your explanations. My perception has been that your stance on Courtesy (to use shorthand) has largely been because you feel it is an obligation all people have and should live up to, and further that it is what is going to be effective anyway. Of course I could be misremembering some or all of that, as that kind of recollection is often really suspect.
But to stick specifically to the reasons you just posted, I don't quite see how they all apply, except perhaps in the abstract cautionary way. I mean, there isn't any real doubt that these RoK dudes and various allies are shitheads, right? Not only are their politics reprehensible, but they do very real damage to the significant issues related to the question 'what is the modern male role in society and in families, and what should the law think about it?'
On a related note, I'd like to ask about threats of violence, both explicit and implicit. To me, the position even if it's facetious that rape should be legal on private property is at least an implicit threat of violence. It's not like ordinary political advocacy because ordinary political advocacy doesn't include 'we should get to do violence to people, not in self-defense' anywhere. Much less as its main objective.
As an example: to me, and to (in my opinion) any civilized American, the fact of rape in our jail and prison system is laid at our feet as Americans and it is a disgrace. The fact of our general indifference to it as a nation is as bad or worse. I think part of the reason this happens is because, to us as a society, rape is generally something men do to women. It's a crime that has a very specific trajectory, from men to women. I think advocacy such as that of RoK plays into that, and helps make it more difficult to have a serious discussion about modernizing our national understanding of rape, who does it, where, and to whom it is done.
Posted by JanitorBlade (Member # 12343) on :
quote:Hmmmm. I will say that your reasons listed there-prudent skepticism about being right, wariness of overstepping into bad behavior-those are reasons I can certainly understand. But to my recollection, when having these sorts of discussions before, they didn't really feature in your explanations.
I've never fully explained how I've arrived at where I am at the present day? That's not so surprising is it?
quote: My perception has been that your stance on Courtesy (to use shorthand) has largely been because you feel it is an obligation all people have and should live up to, and further that it is what is going to be effective anyway.
Also that it's *really difficult* because by nature humans generally react negatively to unfamiliar and confusing beliefs that are different from previously held ones.[/quote]
quote:On a related note, I'd like to ask about threats of violence, both explicit and implicit. To me, the position even if it's facetious that rape should be legal on private property is at least an implicit threat of violence. It's not like ordinary political advocacy because ordinary political advocacy doesn't include 'we should get to do violence to people, not in self-defense' anywhere. Much less as its main objective.
OK. Let's grant the position itself is seeking violence.
quote:As an example: to me, and to (in my opinion) any civilized American, the fact of rape in our jail and prison system is laid at our feet as Americans and it is a disgrace. The fact of our general indifference to it as a nation is as bad or worse. I think part of the reason this happens is because, to us as a society, rape is generally something men do to women. It's a crime that has a very specific trajectory, from men to women. I think advocacy such as that of RoK plays into that, and helps make it more difficult to have a serious discussion about modernizing our national understanding of rape, who does it, where, and to whom it is done.
So you are saying their position worsens an existent problem?
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
quote:Originally posted by JanitorBlade:
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Just to clarify, and because I recognize that this is often a stance you take by yourself against a lot of opposition, BB, my perception is that a substantial part of the reason (at the very least) isn't that it's your only or primary concern, but that your position about being kinder to jerks (an oversimplification I know) isn't one that's getting represented.
That's definitely a huge part of it. And partially because I've had my foot in my mouth enough times because I thought, "I've got this issue down, and it's clear I should be angry at this person/issue".
There's a third reason that in the past historically it's very rare for an issue to be obvious, and even when it is people often excuse terrible behavior in the cause of doing what's right, but I'm having a devil of a time articulating it, so I'll just leave it be for now.
I would say I totally understand and agree with the point of adopting civility and turning the other cheek is totally understandable as a personal philosophy, as well as one you could extol other people to follow. For example, I would personally not make any threats against these RoK members because I don't believe violence is the right answer, and I think almost everyone in this thread would agree with you there. (I'm not sure if SW's "counter-violence is good!" point was sarcasm or not, thus the "almost")
And likewise, if there was someone here advocating for such violence, I would be the first person to debate them and try to convince them that's an unacceptable response. That holds *especially* true if they were, say, advocating for passing a law making free expression of reprehensible ideas illegal. (unless those ideas cross over into actually harming people)
But in this case, and in the cases I mention, it goes beyond that level. Instead it seems like you feel a sense of injustice in the fact that someone may (actually or hypothetically) make threats against people like this, or boycott their products, or protest their leadership in an organization, or even in some cases just criticize a church they belong to that turns a blind eye to their behavior. And that's what I have difficulty with.
In this case in particular, the womens boxing club was actually doing something quite brave and noble by peacefully protesting the RoK rally, because there were a lot of women who were afraid to protest these guys due to their advocation of violence against women and so they stepped into the gap to make the point of "we're not afraid of you." That's exactly the sort of courage (and I definitely think the risk to these women was non-zero), even in the face of violence, that I think is needed to confront evil and effect meaningful change in this world.
And a lot of people responded to that by willfully (or I accept in your case accidentally) misinterpreting their actions and shitting all over them, for daring to stand up to bullies in a way they disapproved of. You see this happen all the time. It happened during the civil rights movement, especially against Malcolm X. It happened on a national level with gay marriage, with the point being "they're trying to force gay marriage on us!" It's this idea that any action on the part of the oppressed to stand up to the oppressor must be scrutinized, and even if it's entirely benign and peaceful it will be warped into being a threat, to justified continued oppression.
So I guess I understand the "don't demonize the people on the wrong side of history" aspect, and I completely agree with and respect that. You won't find any disagreement with me there. But when that extends to "lets carefully tone police any expression of defiance or rage on the part of those being harmed or oppressed by those on the wrong side of history", you lose me.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
quote:(I'm not sure if SW's "counter-violence is good!" point was sarcasm or not, thus the "almost")
It's SO easy to have miscommunications without body language & tone that I only use sarcasm in posts with [sarcasm][sarcasm/] tags.
I'm cool with these fellers being threatened. While I generally do not condone violence in response to discussion, in this case I would shed as many tears if harm befell them as, say...if a big, dumb, dangerous animal happened to have an unfortunate accident...some sorrow at life lost, but also relief that no collateral damage was done.
Posted by JanitorBlade (Member # 12343) on :
quote:But in this case, and in the cases I mention, it goes beyond that level. Instead it seems like you feel a sense of injustice in the fact that someone may (actually or hypothetically) make threats against people like this, or boycott their products, or protest their leadership in an organization, or even in some cases just criticize a church they belong to that turns a blind eye to their behavior. And that's what I have difficulty with.
Depending on the circumstance I will or will not feel a sense of injustice as to how people sanction others with opinions they don't like.
Where we draw the line is probably different, and hence the difficulty understanding why the other draws that line differently, even if we agree the lines should exist.
quote:In this case in particular, the womens boxing club was actually doing something quite brave and noble by peacefully protesting the RoK rally, because there were a lot of women who were afraid to protest these guys due to their advocation of violence against women and so they stepped into the gap to make the point of "we're not afraid of you." That's exactly the sort of courage (and I definitely think the risk to these women was non-zero), even in the face of violence, that I think is needed to confront evil and effect meaningful change in this world.
You may be misunderstanding me. The original headline I read (whose image I linked) I know discusses the boxing club's activities. I only read *that* article after posting. As I presently understand their activities, I have no issues with any of them.
My issue was only with perceived people actively threatening to commit violence against ROK protesters.
I don't have any issue with protests or counter-protests.
I recall reading about a biker gang that escorted bullied kids to school. I'm absolutely fine with others using the implied threat of force as a means of expressing, "We won't let you hurt us."
quote:So I guess I understand the "don't demonize the people on the wrong side of history" aspect, and I completely agree with and respect that. You won't find any disagreement with me there. But when that extends to "lets carefully tone police any expression of defiance or rage on the part of those being harmed or oppressed by those on the wrong side of history", you lose me.
I want all causes including my own to always be on the right side of the law, ethics, and decency.
I get that appeals to decency are used as a means to stall righteous causes.
"It's not the right time." "You push too hard." "The people aren't ready." "You are making people uncomfortable."
Our zeal can often sweep us away into seeing all others who don't see as we do as obstacles. I've seen it time and time again. When I was a missionary I would often see new converts who just a few months ago were telling me how ancient and correct their religion was compared to mine, now converted to Christianity and so excited about it that all Taoist and Buddhist must be idiots or moral degenerates to believe in it.
People who supported Proposition 8, now seeing the light and calling all those who still support like measures homophobes, bigots, or worse.
The American revolution was a wonderful thing in my mind, but the Boston Tea Party was disgraceful, the forced exile of loyalists after the war to Canada was disgraceful. Both of those things are still largely today unknown or actively celebrated because the revolution is so sacred in our memories that we let it sanctify just about everything associated with it.
That's what I fear. A cause being so just that we countenance even bad behavior because we call it necessary. When we say, "Well they have a right to be angry so their looting a town is an understandable expression of their rage."
When does that stop?
"These #BlackLivesMatter students are so angry at injustice they have a right force you bodily out of their safe space."
I know I come across to you as trying to control and stifle dissent with tone policing. But in my heart what I want it to stop people from letting their causes become tainted and corrupted by hatred.
I grew up in China, and justified hatred consumed their country for so many years. It resulted in the harming and murdering of millions of people, and irreversibly damaged and destroyed the most ancient culture in history. But it all started out as, "The Imperialists oppressed us for centuries, the Nationalists want to stifle our revolutionary fervor, they must be swept out of the way. The people's anger in this matter must be allowed to express itself."
Maybe that's paranoid, but I think people are often easily whipped into anger, and then into a frenzy. And not so easily kept in a cool collected state of action. Why else were King and Malcolm X so certain that if a single police man was killed, hundreds of them would be killed in response?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Not addressing the entirety of your post, but as to the last paragraph it wasn't a theory in the case of police/African-American violence. Experience rather than an understanding of human nature taught that lesson.
Posted by JanitorBlade (Member # 12343) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Not addressing the entirety of your post, but as to the last paragraph it wasn't a theory in the case of police/African-American violence. Experience rather than an understanding of human nature taught that lesson.
Well of course experience taught them that. The experience is what gives rise to the theory.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
BB, you missed this paragraph:
quote:And a lot of people responded to that by willfully (or I accept in your case accidentally) misinterpreting their actions and shitting all over them, for daring to stand up to bullies in a way they disapproved of. You see this happen all the time. It happened during the civil rights movement, especially against Malcolm X. It happened on a national level with gay marriage, with the point being "they're trying to force gay marriage on us!" It's this idea that any action on the part of the oppressed to stand up to the oppressor must be scrutinized, and even if it's entirely benign and peaceful it will be warped into being a threat, to justified continued oppression.
I'm making a somewhat more subtle point here that I think you're missing: the suspicion/fear of the oppressed actually acting out violently is often entirely independent of whether or not it actually happens. And that *fear* itself is used as a tool of the oppressors to justify maintaining the status quo.
Consider the whole "the gays are trying to force their lifestyle on us!" hysteria. I met people, several people actually, who somehow believed that legalizing gay marriage would pave the way to "gay indoctrination" in schools, and would cause the destruction of traditional marriage. There was widespread talk of a "gay agenda", and many, many people in the US earnestly believed that gay marriage was an attempt to oppress God-fearing straight married people. Heck, Marco Rubio uses that fear in one of his campaign ads - he talks about "millions of people in traditional families live in fear of being labelled as bigots for their beliefs."
How many cases were there of gay people trying to convert or oppress straight people? I confess to not having done the research, but I'm guessing from the lack of news stories about it probably small enough to be statistically negligible. That didn't stop that fear from being widespread, though.
Same for the RoK thing. Did threats of violence actually happen? Not as far as I know. (unless there's been something new since the last time I researched it) Yet a few BS clickbait headlines got a decent number of people convinced that it really did. Why? It's like you said in your explanation, it sounds plausible. The fear of feminist extremists doing violence against men is enough of a cultural fear we share that it seems perfectly plausible to you, or at least didn't ring that "that doesn't sound right..." bell in your head.
And I'm not picking on you or anyone else for believing it (sorry if using this case as an example is uncomfortable, I can generalize it more if you prefer), because God knows I fall for stuff like that too. I'm trying to get at a bigger point here. Let me try and illustrate the inverse using a clickbait I saw last month:
Let's say I posted a thread here titled "Mormon Church Secretly Supports Overthrow of US Government!" This would in fact be an extremely... imaginative interpretation of Ammon Bundy claiming his Bishop gave his blessing to hold his little insurrection. (IIRC, said bishop was later like "noooo, I just said something like 'I understand why you're really upset about this' or whatever", it doesn't matter what exactly since this is a hypothetical lie I would be telling anyway) I'm *pretty* sure your first reaction wouldn't be to take it at face value and start discussing it, but instead would be "um, your source doesn't actually say that at all", and maybe try and figure out how on Earth I came to this bizarre conclusion.
Why? Because the LDS Church doing something like this seems incredulous to you, and you would certainly want substantial evidence it happened before just accepting it as reality. Which is a good thing. Other friends of mine who have somewhat dimmer opinions of the LDS Church (if they know anything at all about it) on the other hand have no problem jumping on articles like that and saying "AHA! Mormons! I knew it!" and posting them all over Facebook.
But a headline about feminists threatening to beat up "masculinists"? You buy that right away. it seems plausible to you. And I submit that plausibility has *nothing* to do with being an accurate representation of reality, because in reality feminists beating up, or even threatening to beat up, misogynistic men is rare enough that I can't remember the last time I saw an article about it outside of maybe the facetious "kill all men" twitter posts. Especially when compared to the threats of violence or actual violence perpetuated by misogynistic men against women.
It seems less "a cause being so just that we countenance even bad behavior because we call it necessary" and more a system in place that has taught you to fear and condemn any sign of that "bad behavior", even when it's mostly non-existent or the responsibility of a radical or largely non-associated group. (like the riots you mentioned)
And it's that fear, which I recognize within myself too with a lot of my gut reactions to incidents like this, is exactly what helps perpetuate these cycles of injustice. I figure in any dynamic like this, you have maybe 1-5% of the oppressor class actually doing the actual oppressing, and the other 95%+ of the shmucks who stand by and let it happen because of that fear.
But French Revolution style massacres like you mention happen only when the oppression goes on long enough that violence becomes the *only* recourse, and then it gets carried away really, really freaking fast. A group succeeding in coming out from oppression when they can do after peaceful discourse and with the aid of a lot of the oppressor class does *not* start committing crimes of revenge against the oppressors once they're in power. How many gay terrorists do you see killing/attacking straight families now that gay marriage is legal? That fear never came to pass, and it sure as hell wasn't because of people lecturing gay people whenever they were discourteous to those who tried to disenfranchise them.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:happen only when the oppression goes on long enough that violence becomes the *only* recourse, and then it gets carried away really, really freaking fast.
There is one more prerequisite: That the instruments of oppression, usually the armed forces, must become ineffective or disaffected. If Louis had had some loyal troops and a ruthless commander, as the Republic did, the mob of Paris would not have dragged him to the guillotine. Grapeshot is the original means of riot control, and still the best.
That raises the question of what happens when the instruments of "oppression" are actually mainly words. Tweets can hurt, but what they cannot do is stop a mob (I mean a real one with sticks and stones, not a metaphorical one with Facebook posts and keyboards) coming down the street.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
KoM, nice to see you! How have you been? I would say it depends on the words and the power of the people using those words. "Don't hire Mexicans." "Don't rent to blacks." "Girls can't do math". All those can certainly lead to oppression when spoken by enough bosses, landlords, and teachers.
I am still, by the way, delighted to be supporting your charity.
Posted by JanitorBlade (Member # 12343) on :
quote:But French Revolution style massacres like you mention happen only when the oppression goes on long enough that violence becomes the *only* recourse, and then it gets carried away really, really freaking fast. A group succeeding in coming out from oppression when they can do after peaceful discourse and with the aid of a lot of the oppressor class does *not* start committing crimes of revenge against the oppressors once they're in power. How many gay terrorists do you see killing/attacking straight families now that gay marriage is legal? That fear never came to pass, and it sure as hell wasn't because of people lecturing gay people whenever they were discourteous to those who tried to disenfranchise them.
So acts of violence are not a serious concern when it comes to gay rights. Alright, I'll agree to that. But you brought up my defense of Brendan Eich when he was forced to resign because of his political contributions. You also take issue with virtually all my attempts to express dismay when IMO people unjustly punish other people.
I can concede that I can't predict the future, so maybe the which hunt for Prop 8 supporters stops with Eich, maybe I'm speaking against an injustice that will never really materialize.
There were actual riots over #BlackLivesMatter. Will there be more? I hope not. I also hope the systemic oppression of African Americans ceases, and will do what I can to speak out against it.
But like Rakeesh says, often times I feel alone in speaking for people to leave their hatred of their opponents behind, I don't really get to talk about police brutality because we all basically agree it's awful. So I shift to the things I feel are unspoken, much to the chagrin of others who think I'm ignoring the deeper truths.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote: …I think America must see that riots do not develop out of thin air. Certain conditions continue to exist in our society which must be condemned as vigorously as we condemn riots. But in the final analysis, a riot is the language of the unheard. And what is it that America has failed to hear? It has failed to hear that the plight of the Negro poor has worsened over the last few years. It has failed to hear that the promises of freedom and justice have not been met. And it has failed to hear that large segments of white society are more concerned about tranquility and the status quo than about justice, equality, and humanity. And so in a real sense our nation’s summers of riots are caused by our nation’s winters of delay. And as long as America postpones justice, we stand in the position of having these recurrences of violence and riots over and over again. Social justice and progress are the absolute guarantors of riot prevention.
Almost 50 years ago. Honestly, I think there may need to be more rioting. Goodness knows we don't pay attention otherwise. When was the last time any of us thought about Freddie Gray?
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: KoM, nice to see you! How have you been? I would say it depends on the words and the power of the people using those words. "Don't hire Mexicans." "Don't rent to blacks." "Girls can't do math". All those can certainly lead to oppression when spoken by enough bosses, landlords, and teachers.
I am still, by the way, delighted to be supporting your charity.
I've been fine, thanks; I've sold out to the dark side and gotten a tech job.
I opine that there is a difference between "Girls cannot do math" and "Girls are not allowed to do math on pain of having acid thrown in their faces". Unpleasant as the first may be, it is not oppression. Which is not to say it shouldn't be a concern, but let us use language correctly. Being told "You don't have the ability to X" allows the simple and non-violent counter of demonstrating that you damn well do. Being threatened with acid does not.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
quote:Originally posted by JanitorBlade: So acts of violence are not a serious concern when it comes to gay rights. Alright, I'll agree to that. But you brought up my defense of Brendan Eich when he was forced to resign because of his political contributions. You also take issue with virtually all my attempts to express dismay when IMO people unjustly punish other people.
I can concede that I can't predict the future, so maybe the which hunt for Prop 8 supporters stops with Eich, maybe I'm speaking against an injustice that will never really materialize.
You and I actually disagree on whether what happened to Eich was a "witch hunt" or not.
The man actively supported disenfranchising and oppressing people for being gay. He moved beyond mere words, as KoM put it, and was actively trying to get the law changed to deny a basic human right to an entire class of people. In response to him being made the head of Mozilla, people (very rightly IMO) expressed their dismay by choosing not to use his company's products, and it caused enough of a stir that he chose to step down. (Again, no indication he was "forced" to resign)
You calling people making the choice not to use Firefox because they don't want to support Mozilla's CEO's bigotry an injustice or a "witch hunt" is what I consider mind blowing. That is, quite frankly, not unjust. That is exactly what good and moral people *do*, they make the choice not to support injustice. Like in your worldview, the only "just" solution to this would be for everyone to pretend to ignore that Eich was a bigot and used his money to harm others, and continue to use Mozilla products anyway. No, that's not how a free society works Eich is free to spend his money and support whatever awful causes he wants, and others are free to *not* support him in return.
quote:There were actual riots over #BlackLivesMatter.
Are you saying that the #BlackLivesMatter movement started riots, BB? Or are you saying there were riots that happened to take place in response to events BLM was protesting? Those are two profoundly different claims, and if it's the first I'd be interested in seeing your source for it.
quote:Will there be more? I hope not. I also hope the systemic oppression of African Americans ceases, and will do what I can to speak out against it.
But like Rakeesh says, often times I feel alone in speaking for people to leave their hatred of their opponents behind, I don't really get to talk about police brutality because we all basically agree it's awful. So I shift to the things I feel are unspoken, much to the chagrin of others who think I'm ignoring the deeper truths.
I think you often, like in the Eich case, misinterpret people expressing disapproval for an unjust cause as hatred of an opponent. I saw little hatred there, but a lot of "hey, maybe we shouldn't support an organization that makes a bigot their CEO."
I also think you're unusually defensive of those who supported prop 8 or were part of NOM as opposed to other forms of bigotry. Like if tomorrow, say news broke that Tim Cook is actually a member of the KKK and had been giving money to support them and their causes, would you be surprised if there were boycotts of Apple products as a result? Would you call it an injustice if he eventually chose to resign under that pressure?
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: I've been fine, thanks; I've sold out to the dark side and gotten a tech job.
I opine that there is a difference between "Girls cannot do math" and "Girls are not allowed to do math on pain of having acid thrown in their faces". Unpleasant as the first may be, it is not oppression. Which is not to say it shouldn't be a concern, but let us use language correctly. Being told "You don't have the ability to X" allows the simple and non-violent counter of demonstrating that you damn well do. Being threatened with acid does not.
I think in all the cases we're talking about, it involves actual oppression or the support thereof. Rape is an act of physical violence, and therefore rape culture and the support thereof is indeed a form of oppression. Denying gay people civil rights by law is an form of oppression. A culture where the police are far more likely to shoot a black person without just cause, prosecutors are far more likely to recommend harsher sentences, and judges are far more likely to convict black people is definitely oppression.
I would argue a society where "girls can not do math" is reinforced from primary school on, up to bullying or belittling of women in math or engineering programs in university and workplace environments can definitely be oppressive, especially for women whose careers depend on their competency in "doing math." It's not a physical oppression (like shooting an unarmed black man in the back is), though, so it makes sense that the response to it isn't nearly as violent as others.
Likewise, if these RoK men were actually going around beating up and raping women instead of saying "gee, wouldn't it be nice if that were legal", you were probably (understandably) see a more violent reaction to their rallies.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
That guy deserves his coming years.
Posted by JanitorBlade (Member # 12343) on :
Dogbreath:
quote:The man actively supported disenfranchising and oppressing people for being gay. He moved beyond mere words, as KoM put it, and was actively trying to get the law changed to deny a basic human right to an entire class of people. In response to him being made the head of Mozilla, people (very rightly IMO) expressed their dismay by choosing not to use his company's products, and it caused enough of a stir that he chose to step down. (Again, no indication he was "forced" to resign)
Mozilla's FAQ notes that Eich stepped down as a result of pressure. He could not remain as CEO and Mozilla survive. He felt forced to resign because absent the public pressure including Mozilla employees he would have stayed on.
quote: You calling people making the choice not to use Firefox because they don't want to support Mozilla's CEO's bigotry an injustice or a "witch hunt" is what I consider mind blowing.
Probably because I never said that. I said that employees publicly clamoring for a CEOs resignation without using the internal apparatus to voice grievances, is a witch hunt.
I said,
"...Expressing concerns is a very normal productive thing. Calling for somebody's resignation on a social media site is not an appropriate way to express concerns with your company's choice in CEOs, even if your concern is legitimate (In this case I don't think it is). If you can, you speak to the person privately. If you can't you apply upward pressure by speaking to your manager and having them relay your concerns down the chain. You circulate a petition within the office, secure signatures, and then send it up.
But it would be inappropriate to call for somebody's resignation purely on the strength of one political position. Was Mr. Eich failing to do the job? Was he disparaging other employee's beliefs? Was he trying to get employees to take a position on that issue? No, he was doing his job. He was asked to be CEO. They didn't ask him to resign when his donation was made public years ago."
I later specifically said I have no problem with consumers voicing their dissent by refusing to use Firefox. Or even OKCupid's decision to detect what browsers people were using and directing Firefox users to a page that expressed their discontent.
edit: I *do* have a problem with people elevating one political issue as sacrosanct and therefore justifying lots of actions they would never condone were other similar ethical issues at stake. For example, nobody would demand a CEO's resignation because they donated to Planned Parenthood, therefore he/she has aided and abetted the murder of human beings.
[ February 17, 2016, 11:57 AM: Message edited by: JanitorBlade ]
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
quote:I *do* have a problem with people elevating one political issue as sacrosanct and therefore justifying lots of actions they would never condone were other similar ethical issues at stake.
My wife and I were watching 13th & Main (?) a documentary on HBO about an abortion clinic & pro life anti abortion clinic. These pro lifers were willing to do/say ANYTHING to "save babies". They would lie to the girls about who they were & offer a free ultrasound & then lie about their due date so the mother thought she had time to think before getting an abortion when they did not. Horror show.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
BB, people absolutely would demand exactly that. See: basically every story about PP right now.
Posted by JanitorBlade (Member # 12343) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: BB, people absolutely would demand exactly that. See: basically every story about PP right now.
And those people drive me crazy too.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
But I was responding to a post of yours saying that doesn't happen, BB. If you meant 'nobody reasonable would take them seriously', that would be one thing (though plenty of people otherwise regarded as reasonable *do* become positively hysterical on that subject), but you said no one did that.
If that was an incomplete thought, no big deal. If it was, however, it would seem to me that it points to the sort of unconscious partisan blinders others have spoken about.
Posted by JanitorBlade (Member # 12343) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: But I was responding to a post of yours saying that doesn't happen, BB. If you meant 'nobody reasonable would take them seriously', that would be one thing (though plenty of people otherwise regarded as reasonable *do* become positively hysterical on that subject), but you said no one did that.
If that was an incomplete thought, no big deal. If it was, however, it would seem to me that it points to the sort of unconscious partisan blinders others have spoken about.
Rakeesh: I'm not sure what you are saying.
I'm restating the argument I made previously that there are many many political positions one could take that opponents would find monstrous. And insisting that support for Prop 8 is objectively somehow a more serious offense than say supporting PP to me makes no sense.
Or put simply, if you demand a CEO resign for supporting Prop 8, you should have no problem with others demanding your resignation if you support pro-choice institutions, or if you supported the war in Iraq by reelecting Bush. In which case, we should all be demanding each others' jobs be terminated, and boycotting each others' businesses constantly.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
BB, you seem to be saying that all political positions are equally good and benign. This may be the problem. If you really see support for any position as equally okay, it is no wonder that you would be against condemning such support.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
quote:Originally posted by JanitorBlade: Dogbreath: Mozilla's FAQ notes that Eich stepped down as a result of pressure. He could not remain as CEO and Mozilla survive. He felt forced to resign because absent the public pressure including Mozilla employees he would have stayed on.
From the very link you provided: "On April 3, 2014 Brendan Eich voluntarily stepped down as CEO of Mozilla."
and:
"Brendan was not fired and was not asked by the Board to resign. Brendan voluntarily submitted his resignation. The Board acted in response by inviting him to remain at Mozilla in another C-level position. Brendan declined that offer. The Board respects his decision."
Unless you have a source which Eich disagrees with that and says he was "forced" to resign, or even felt forced, then it appears that he indeed stepped down voluntarily. That is indisputable, and it's again very weird you keep insisting - still almost 2 years later - that he was forced to resign absent any evidence to support that claim and a lot of evidence that refutes it. Resigning after feeling you can't do your job effectively, absent any request or threat from your employer, is NOT a firing or forced resignation.
quote:Probably because I never said that. I said that employees publicly clamoring for a CEOs resignation without using the internal apparatus to voice grievances, is a witch hunt.
What evidence do you have they didn't also use the "internal apparatus to voice grievances"? And why is publicly disapproving of your boss a "witch hunt"?
I mean, they're free to speak freely about this dissatisfaction with their boss. That's not a witch hunt (like, say, a congressional committee to root out communists or using doctored Planned Parenthood videos to try and spin a false narrative about an organization to congress), Eich's actions were known and well documented. And Mozilla employees, as far as I'm aware, protested things he actually did. As far as I know, nobody made up allegations about him or accused him of anything he didn't, in fact, do. So where's the "witch hunt" exactly?
Mozilla is also presumably free to fire their employees for speaking bad about their CEO. It took some guts to stand up and say "hey, I don't want my company to be led by a bigot" when it's entirely possible you could just be terminated for it.
You're basically back to the same argument: using absurd standards to police any disagreement with certain political causes. You may as well call black folks sitting at lunch counters in the 50s and 60s a "witch hunt" because they didn't just formally complain to the owner of the restaurant and leave it at that. You can't just accuse anyone using means outside of the most strictly authoritarian and conformist to express discontent or disapproval of injustice of going on a "witch hunt" - that's not what the term means.
quote:I said,
"...Expressing concerns is a very normal productive thing. Calling for somebody's resignation on a social media site is not an appropriate way to express concerns with your company's choice in CEOs, even if your concern is legitimate (In this case I don't think it is). If you can, you speak to the person privately. If you can't you apply upward pressure by speaking to your manager and having them relay your concerns down the chain. You circulate a petition within the office, secure signatures, and then send it up.
But it would be inappropriate to call for somebody's resignation purely on the strength of one political position. Was Mr. Eich failing to do the job? Was he disparaging other employee's beliefs? Was he trying to get employees to take a position on that issue? No, he was doing his job. He was asked to be CEO. They didn't ask him to resign when his donation was made public years ago."
Oh come on, if you were a black person and your company appointed a CEO who was openly a member of the KKK and a committed supporter of Jim Crow laws (in a hypothetical universe where they were still a thing in much of the country), would you really just assume that you would be safe from discrimination? Or would you, if you felt courageous, protest your company appointing someone who had dedicated support towards oppressing, disenfranchising, and harming you?
You calling it merely "one political position" is where you seem to be blind on this issue. It's a human rights issue. Eich supported depriving an entire class of people of their civil rights, both with his time and money. I would absolutely be concerned about someone like him leading a company and question whether he was capable of treating gay people with respect, fairness, and dignity considering his contempt for them. And I would be *very* worried about him leading and being the face of my company, especially if I were a gay person. Again, I wouldn't call that legitimate concern for my own career and job security a "witch hunt."
quote:edit: I *do* have a problem with people elevating one political issue as sacrosanct and therefore justifying lots of actions they would never condone were other similar ethical issues at stake. For example, nobody would demand a CEO's resignation because they donated to Planned Parenthood, therefore he/she has aided and abetted the murder of human beings.
You seem to be baffled by Rakeesh's response to this, so let me quote it again, you said "For example, nobody would demand a CEO's resignation because they donated to Planned Parenthood".
That's ludicrously incorrect. People routinely and vociferously boycott entire companies that support Planned Parenthood. Heck, in your own city there was a mass shooting at a PP clinic, which is a level of protest that goes *way* beyond using social media to call for someone's resignation. Planned Parenthood is one of, if not THE, the most reviled, protested against organization in the U.S.
quote: I'm restating the argument I made previously that there are many many political positions one could take that opponents would find monstrous. And insisting that support for Prop 8 is objectively somehow a more serious offense than say supporting PP to me makes no sense.
I think you're missing the point if you're calling it an "offense." This isn't a trial, we're not talking about people being punished for crimes, so nobody has made that comparison except for you. And no, I don't think supporting the rights of people to speak out against what they perceive to be injustice - whether that's PP or NOM - is somehow inconsistent. And likewise, if people were shooting up NOM headquarters or doctoring videos about NOM to present to a congressional hearing, I would ABSOLUTELY oppose that. As would anyone else here. Why are you assuming otherwise?
quote:Or put simply, if you demand a CEO resign for supporting Prop 8, you should have no problem with others demanding your resignation if you support pro-choice institutions, or if you supported the war in Iraq by reelecting Bush.
I never supported the war in Iraq and I never voted for Bush, but I have no problem with someone online asking me to resign my job for supporting pro-choice institutions. (not that I do financially) My response would be "lol, no thanks" and I would keep my job, but they're certainly free to object to me doing so.
Then again, I've actually been protested before on several occasions by people who I'm sure would have been very happy if I was unemployed, or at least elsewhere employed. In one place they threw rocks (which is not OK IMO), everywhere else they just held signs outside the main gate and yelled stuff. I just put on my big boy pants, smiled and pretended they were paparazzi and ignored them. I don't consider free expression to be tyranny.
quote:In which case, we should all be demanding each others' jobs be terminated, and boycotting each others' businesses constantly.
How on Earth does this follow from your previous statement? Just because I have no moral objection to being boycotted or protested doesn't mean I *should* be protesting or boycotting anyone. You're not making any sense here.
Posted by JanitorBlade (Member # 12343) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: BB, you seem to be saying that all political positions are equally good and benign. This may be the problem. If you really see support for any position as equally okay, it is no wonder that you would be against condemning such support.
That's not what I want to say. I'm only cautioning against elevating a position unduly high.
Dogbreath:
quote:From the very link you provided: "On April 3, 2014 Brendan Eich voluntarily stepped down as CEO of Mozilla."
and:
"Brendan was not fired and was not asked by the Board to resign. Brendan voluntarily submitted his resignation. The Board acted in response by inviting him to remain at Mozilla in another C-level position. Brendan declined that offer. The Board respects his decision."
Unless you have a source which Eich disagrees with that and says he was "forced" to resign, or even felt forced, then it appears that he indeed stepped down voluntarily. That is indisputable, and it's again very weird you keep insisting - still almost 2 years later - that he was forced to resign absent any evidence to support that claim and a lot of evidence that refutes it. Resigning after feeling you can't do your job effectively, absent any request or threat from your employer, is NOT a firing or forced resignation.
It's a very neat and tidy way so that Mozilla can say "We did everything we could to include Eich, but we respect his wishes." Why would Eich accept a CEO position and then resign weeks later? Why not look at his own remarks?
“Our mission is bigger than any one of us, and under the present circumstances, I cannot be an effective leader.”
It seems very unlikely he was saying he was unqualified, lacked relevant experience, or was otherwise physically unable to do the job. So why can't he be an effective leader? Because Mozilla's employees, customers, and others want him to leave.
"What evidence do you have they didn't also use the "internal apparatus to voice grievances"? And why is publicly disapproving of your boss a "witch hunt"?"
I don't, but they certainly didn't say they tried to work this out internally first. When you go public, the onus is typically on you to demonstrate other avenues were tried. When did I say disapproving of one's boss is a witch hunt? I would say looking up people's political donations as a means to find notable people who you could then publicly criticize is witch hunting. Which is essentially what Mozilla said CREDO and others did.
A witch hunt doesn't have to be based entirely off trumped up charges. During the Cultural Revolution, former land owners, vocal opponents of the CCP, and intellectuals were hunted down and punished by civilian courts.
quote:Mozilla is also presumably free to fire their employees for speaking bad about their CEO. It took some guts to stand up and say "hey, I don't want my company to be led by a bigot" when it's entirely possible you could just be terminated for it.
I'm sure it did take guts. It was still wrong. Something being difficult doesn't make it more right in my opinion.
quote: You're basically back to the same argument: using absurd standards to police any disagreement with certain political causes.
I find this incredibly jarring. I'm saying people shouldn't punish other people for believing differently than them. And I'm accused of tone policing. You are advocating for chasing somebody out of a job but that's not action policing, and somehow preferable?
quote:Oh come on, if you were a black person and your company appointed a CEO who was openly a member of the KKK and a committed supporter of Jim Crow laws (in a hypothetical universe where they were still a thing in much of the country), would you really just assume that you would be safe from discrimination?
That's not a fair comparison, and I think you would realize that if you reflected on it. But let's grant your KKK CEO. If that same CEO publicly stated, "I personally feel that the races would flourish better if given their own space, but as CEO of Integration Inc I promise I will represent and uphold the values that Integration Inc has championed and promotes, including integration and inclusion.
So long as his behavior reflected that commitment (And it was an commitment Eich made) I would wait and see.
quote:You calling it merely "one political position" is where you seem to be blind on this issue. It's a human rights issue. Eich supported depriving an entire class of people of their civil rights, both with his time and money.
I seriously doubt Eich would see the issue that way. And (I'm really not interested in defending Prop 8 beyond these brief remarks) many supporters of Prop 8 were not interested in denying people civil rights so much as securing a hallowed place for marriage within the context of state's have self-determination on the issue.
We already (I think) agree that there needed to be a unified federal standard precisely because we can't have California not recognizing Washington State's same-sex marriages. And the ultimate effect of Prop 8 was denying people their civil rights. But just because something results in X, doesn't mean everybody supporting it had X in mind when they voted for it. They may have been thinking about Y and Z and wondering how to accomplish those things.
quote:You seem to be baffled by Rakeesh's response to this, so let me quote it again, you said "For example, nobody would demand a CEO's resignation because they donated to Planned Parenthood".
That's ludicrously incorrect. People routinely and vociferously boycott entire companies that support Planned Parenthood. Heck, in your own city there was a mass shooting at a PP clinic, which is a level of protest that goes *way* beyond using social media to call for someone's resignation. Planned Parenthood is one of, if not THE, the most reviled, protested against organization in the U.S.
Let me rephrase. My point isn't whether PP is or is not protested. It's that I don't see anybody here demanding the firing of a CEO for *any* other issue. Not abortion, not going to war, not wealth disparity, not environmentalism, not anything. I don't think I've ever seen anybody here claim that a CEO should be fired because of a political donation.
Voting for the war in Iraq meant hundreds of thousands of people died, and that's a truck load of civil rights being violated is it not?
But Eich was fired, and nobody here seems to care one bit. I frankly can only seem to chalk it up to, he supported a position that is presently very unpopular so he deserves to be punished for it.
quote:I think you're missing the point if you're calling it an "offense." This isn't a trial, we're not talking about people being punished for crimes
If you have determined that a person doing one thing deserves an active response from you, then yes you are putting them on trial within your court of opinion.
quote:And likewise, if people were shooting up NOM headquarters or doctoring videos about NOM to present to a congressional hearing, I would ABSOLUTELY oppose that. As would anyone else here. Why are you assuming otherwise?
I have no doubt that were any group of people using violence to accomplish their agenda, we would all agree it is deplorable.
quote:I never supported the war in Iraq and I never voted for Bush, but I have no problem with someone online asking me to resign my job for supporting pro-choice institutions. (not that I do financially) My response would be "lol, no thanks" and I would keep my job, but they're certainly free to object to me doing so.
But how would you feel if groups of people all organized to get you fired. What if your IP addresses were tracked and websites greeted you with, "We detect this IP belongs to Dogbreath who supports odious position X, we'd really prefer he stay away from our websites." Lots of other employees were fielding hundreds and thousands of phone calls from angry customers and writers who think it's terrible your employer retains you. Nobody has asked you to leave, in reality it would be illegal for them to, but you sense that everybody (including the company you helped create) would be so much happier if you resigned. You wouldn't in the very least feel like you had an obligation to quit?
quote:Then again, I've actually been protested before on several occasions by people who I'm sure would have been very happy if I was unemployed, or at least elsewhere employed. In one place they threw rocks (which is not OK IMO), everywhere else they just held signs outside the main gate and yelled stuff. I just put on my big boy pants, smiled and pretended they were paparazzi and ignored them. I don't consider free expression to be tyranny.
So sorry you had to endure that. Look, I didn't call what happened to Eich, Tyranny (At least I don't think I did). I didn't say it should be illegal. I didn't say everybody should think like I do.
quote:How on Earth does this follow from your previous statement? Just because I have no moral objection to being boycotted or protested doesn't mean I *should* be protesting or boycotting anyone.
Maybe you should take a position on whether Eich should have been pressured to resign over his donation to Prop 8. I've said no. Are you saying yes?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by JanitorBlade:
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: BB, you seem to be saying that all political positions are equally good and benign. This may be the problem. If you really see support for any position as equally okay, it is no wonder that you would be against condemning such support.
That's not what I want to say. I'm only cautioning against elevating a position unduly high.
I don't know what you mean by that.
quote:
quote: You're basically back to the same argument: using absurd standards to police any disagreement with certain political causes.
I find this incredibly jarring. I'm saying people shouldn't punish other people for believing differently than them. And I'm accused of tone policing. You are advocating for chasing somebody out of a job but that's not action policing, and somehow preferable?
Here is an example I mean by acting as if all positions are equal. "Believing differently" makes it seem like a simple matter of choice. He prefers red to blue. He believed something wrong and damaging to people and acted to put those beliefs into action that hurt people.
quote:
quote:You calling it merely "one political position" is where you seem to be blind on this issue. It's a human rights issue. Eich supported depriving an entire class of people of their civil rights, both with his time and money.
I seriously doubt Eich would see the issue that way.
And he would be wrong not to see it that way.
quote: And (I'm really not interested in defending Prop 8 beyond these brief remarks) many supporters of Prop 8 were not interested in denying people civil rights so much as securing a hallowed place for marriage within the context of state's have self-determination on the issue.
And I'm sure that many folks thought Jim Crow was just about securing a hallowed place for white people. So?
quote: But Eich was fired, and nobody here seems to care one bit. I frankly can only seem to chalk it up to, he supported a position that is presently very unpopular so he deserves to be punished for it.
Here is is again. "Presently very unpopular". Geez, BB. Like the winds will change and his position would have been right? Eich's position is wrong and harmful and, thank God, it is presently unpopular.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
quote:Originally posted by JanitorBlade: But Eich was fired
This is false. You know this is false. It's been shown to you, repeatedly, from both Mozilla and Eich's statements this is false. Why do you keep claiming something that isn't true?
Again, and I quote from your own source ""Brendan was not fired and was not asked by the Board to resign. Brendan voluntarily submitted his resignation."
You are making a claim that *directly* contradicts the Mozilla board of directors statement as well as Brendan Eich's own statement. You are calling them liars. You have provided no evidence he was, in fact, fired.
Firing is not resigning voluntarily. And you know this. It is difficult to continue discussing this issue with you in good faith when you are reaching near Lambertian levels of reality-denial.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Here is is again. "Presently very unpopular". Geez, BB. Like the winds will change and his position would have been right? Eich's position is wrong and harmful and, thank God, it is presently unpopular.
This is what I find so confounding about this position too, really. Denying people basic civil rights isn't "unpopular", it's wrong. It's immoral. The sort of nihilistic moral system necessary to view *all* morality as relative with right and wrong merely being facets of "popularity" is terrifying.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
Sorry for interjecting, but I feel like I should state the obvious: the reason that BB seems sympathetic to SSM opponents is because they are, largely, his people: family members, church members. They believe(d) they were on the morally correct side because of deeply inculcated religious beliefs and highly immersive cultural influences that make it difficult to question or change those beliefs. BB understands the difficulty of standing up against that kind of influence, and it makes him sympathetic to [at least some] people who felt like opposing SSM was the right thing to do.
Me too. It's a hard* thing to ask of Mormons to go against their prophets. I don't think Mormons' support for Prop 8 or opposition to SSM was necessarily born out of anything approaching malice.
I think it's pretty understandable why he prefers conciliation and forgiveness to what happened to Eich, even though he is himself pro-SSM. Admittedly, he's overstated what happened to Eich, but I don't think there's anything particularly offensive or baffling about his general feelings on the matter.
*but correct, in this case
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
n.b. "The sort of nihilistic moral system necessary to view *all* morality as relative with right and wrong merely being facets of "popularity" is terrifying." Yeah...that's not really a fair restatement.
Posted by JanitorBlade (Member # 12343) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dogbreath:
quote:Originally posted by JanitorBlade: But Eich was fired
This is false. You know this is false. It's been shown to you, repeatedly, from both Mozilla and Eich's statements this is false. Why do you keep claiming something that isn't true?
Again, and I quote from your own source ""Brendan was not fired and was not asked by the Board to resign. Brendan voluntarily submitted his resignation."
You are making a claim that *directly* contradicts the Mozilla board of directors statement as well as Brendan Eich's own statement. You are calling them liars. You have provided no evidence he was, in fact, fired.
Firing is not resigning voluntarily. And you know this. It is difficult to continue discussing this issue with you in good faith when you are reaching near Lambertian levels of reality-denial.
I shouldn't have said he was fired. I let that get away from me, and missed it in edits.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
quote:Originally posted by scifibum: n.b. "The sort of nihilistic moral system necessary to view *all* morality as relative with right and wrong merely being facets of "popularity" is terrifying." Yeah...that's not really a fair restatement.
It's not a restatement, in that it's not the moral system I believe BlackBlade adheres to at all. It is, if anything, a condemnation of a system of morality that always aligns with what is "in vogue", which is in itself (IMO) amoral. It's something I imagine BB and I actually agree on more than not.
I think that is quite distinct from having one's opinion changed after a popular movement confronts people's current beliefs. Like, I don't think the majority of people who changed their minds after the civil rights movement or the gay rights movement were doing so because of this. I imagine for most of them, rather, the popularity of the movement provided more opportunities for them to be confronted about their beliefs and change them, which is a change of heart rather than going with the flow. So I'm saying BB's suggestion that people find Eich's actions immoral simply because they are *unpopular* is in itself an unfairly harsh assessment of the morality of most of the people involved.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
BB: OK. In response to the rest of your post then:
quote:Originally posted by JanitorBlade: I don't, but they certainly didn't say they tried to work this out internally first. When you go public, the onus is typically on you to demonstrate other avenues were tried. When did I say disapproving of one's boss is a witch hunt? I would say looking up people's political donations as a means to find notable people who you could then publicly criticize is witch hunting. Which is essentially what Mozilla said CREDO and others did.
A witch hunt doesn't have to be based entirely off trumped up charges. During the Cultural Revolution, former land owners, vocal opponents of the CCP, and intellectuals were hunted down and punished by civilian courts.
See, this is where I think you are seeing what happened very differently. You see what happened as people *punishing* Eich for his actions.
That doesn't hold water with me. There are plenty of instances of people trying to punish others for their beliefs, like say that horrid "getting racists fired" tumblr, which you and I both equally condemn as vindictive and harmful. Eich worked for Mozilla for many years and was never punished for his beliefs.
What happened is people said they didn't want Eich representing Mozilla, and employees were (IMO legitimately) concerned about someone of his beliefs being a fair CEO. That has nothing to do with punishing the man for his beliefs, it has everything to do with saying those beliefs are unacceptable and that Eich was a terrible person to make the head and public face of the company. That isn't punishment, no more than being fired for incompetence is a punishment rather than an evaluation of "you don't meet up to expectations." (And in this case, some of those expectations are not having a boss who is openly bigoted)
quote:I find this incredibly jarring. I'm saying people shouldn't punish other people for believing differently than them. And I'm accused of tone policing. You are advocating for chasing somebody out of a job but that's not action policing, and somehow preferable?
Where have I advocated for it?
And that being said, as I explained above, there's all the world of difference between "chasing someone out of a job" and "being concerned about a bigoted CEO." One is a vindictive punishment, the other is an entirely valid concern both from a point of view of a a fair workplace and company image.
But have I advocated for it? No.
For that matter I didn't advocate for threatening KoM members, or rioting for that matter. Me saying "BlackBlade, I don't think you see this issue correctly" is not me saying "BlackBlade, I am advocating for exactly the extreme (mis)conception you have of what you are denouncing." That's a false dichotomy.
quote:That's not a fair comparison
What's unfair about it?
quote:, and I think you would realize that if you reflected on it. But let's grant your KKK CEO. If that same CEO publicly stated, "I personally feel that the races would flourish better if given their own space, but as CEO of Integration Inc I promise I will represent and uphold the values that Integration Inc has championed and promotes, including integration and inclusion.
So long as his behavior reflected that commitment (And it was an commitment Eich made) I would wait and see.
*shrugs* We're both in the safe and fortunate position of that not being the case. I choose not to police and demonize those who, when put in that position, use "inappropriate" means to peacefully protest it. You do.
quote:I seriously doubt Eich would see the issue that way. And (I'm really not interested in defending Prop 8 beyond these brief remarks) many supporters of Prop 8 were not interested in denying people civil rights so much as securing a hallowed place for marriage within the context of state's have self-determination on the issue.
As Kate said, very few bigots have oppression or hatred as their main objective. More often then not, as I've discussed at length in this thread, fear of those who are being oppressed is the main motivator. In this case, fear of what would happen to America if gay marriage was legalized.
It doesn't make it any less harmful or damaging or wrong.
quote:Let me rephrase. My point isn't whether PP is or is not protested. It's that I don't see anybody here demanding the firing of a CEO for *any* other issue.
It's been 2 years so I may be mistaken, but nobody here called for Eich's firing either.
As far as boycotting, though, I actively boycott a number of companies (including Old Navy, Nike, Wal*Mart, Apple Computers...) for various reasons and I've discussed those reasons here. I've never boycotted any company or called for anyone's resignation based on political donations.
quote:I have no doubt that were any group of people using violence to accomplish their agenda, we would all agree it is deplorable.
Ah, I thought you were comparing people's reaction to Eich's protest to people's condemnation of the PP videos and shooting, which are (IMO) Apples and Oranges. But I, and I don't think anyone else here, have ever condemned anyone for protesting or boycotting organizations or people who donate to Planned Parenthood.
quote:]But how would you feel if groups of people all organized to get you fired. What if your IP addresses were tracked and websites greeted you with, "We detect this IP belongs to Dogbreath who supports odious position X, we'd really prefer he stay away from our websites." Lots of other employees were fielding hundreds and thousands of phone calls from angry customers and writers who think it's terrible your employer retains you. Nobody has asked you to leave, in reality it would be illegal for them to, but you sense that everybody (including the company you helped create) would be so much happier if you resigned. You wouldn't in the very least feel like you had an obligation to quit?
Depends on what that position was. If I somehow climbed my way up to the position of CEO of a company and people protested something odious I had done/believe in, I would either:
A) Just completely ignore them. Haters gonna hate, right? B) Fire employees who joined in for insubordination, if it got out of hand or, C) Realize those beliefs, for better or worse, mean I would be a failure as a CEO and would damage the company, perhaps destroy it. In that case, I would resign and seek employment elsewhere.
Eich apparently chose C. Which is admirable. I've left jobs before where I didn't fit in, and honestly I chose not to pursue a career in the military and left active duty because of what I saw as fundamental philosophical and moral conflicts with most of my superiors - I didn't have any actual conflicts, but I saw some arising as I advanced in rank and would have more and more disagreements with things, so I left before it happened. I don't hold the military to blame for that. (though I wish I could have changed it more than I did)
quote:Maybe you should take a position on whether Eich should have been pressured to resign over his donation to Prop 8. I've said no. Are you saying yes? [/QB]
As I said in the other thread, I didn't participate in the Firefox boycott and did not call for his resignation. I don't personally believe in boycotting anyone for their beliefs or, to an extent, organizations they support. The only things I boycott really involve child labor and slavery, really. I've thought about expanding that, but to be honest I'm not the most educated person in that regard and need to work better on being a conscious consumer.
What I'm not comfortable with is drawing that line of "should" into condemning others for protesting immoral beliefs.
Posted by JanitorBlade (Member # 12343) on :
kmbboots:
quote:Here is is again. "Presently very unpopular". Geez, BB. Like the winds will change and his position would have been right? Eich's position is wrong and harmful and, thank God, it is presently unpopular.
His position has never been right, but it is certainly more understandable within the context of the times he's living in, particularly with his generation.
Dogbreath:
quote:This is what I find so confounding about this position too, really. Denying people basic civil rights isn't "unpopular", it's wrong. It's immoral. The sort of nihilistic moral system necessary to view *all* morality as relative with right and wrong merely being facets of "popularity" is terrifying.
Since you know I don't believe popularity makes something right, let's just dispense with that discussion now. What I seem unable to convey to you is related to this comment below,
quote:I think that is quite distinct from having one's opinion changed after a popular movement confronts people's current beliefs. Like, I don't think the majority of people who changed their minds after the civil rights movement or the gay rights movement were doing so because of this. I imagine for most of them, rather, the popularity of the movement provided more opportunities for them to be confronted about their beliefs and change them, which is a change of heart rather than going with the flow. So I'm saying BB's suggestion that people find Eich's actions immoral simply because they are *unpopular* is in itself an unfairly harsh assessment of the morality of most of the people involved.
Go back to my discussions about new converts to Christianity. And how quick they were to see Buddhism and Taoism as idiotic and that adherents were stupid or willfully evil.
If we go back in time 5-15 years before Prop 8, we would see a dramatic change in popular opinion regarding gay marriage. This *doesn't* change rightness and wrongness. What it does demonstrate though is that only a short time ago, the vast majority of people in this country were on the wrong side of the issue (IMHO). Now as the years go by we are in the midst of a great awakening on this issue. Many of these people now clamoring for Eich's resignation were surely the same people who might have called a homosexual a 'fag' or voted to ban gay marriage had the issue come up earlier.
But they are quick to rage against a person who still agrees with their old position on gay marriage. They aren't just as militant about any other moral issue of major import.
That sort of eager to punish, and inconsistency in zeal feels like hypocrisy to me. Does nothing about it bother you?
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
quote:Originally posted by JanitorBlade: That sort of eager to punish, and inconsistency in zeal feels like hypocrisy to me. Does nothing about it bother you?
You ignored (or probably missed) my last post on this matter, but I think you're seeing "punishment" and vindictiveness as motivation where it doesn't exist. Saying "I don't want a bigot for a CEO" is not the same as saying "I want this guy, who happens to be my CEO, to be punished for his beliefs." Protests, in general, are usually not punitive. Me protesting Donald Trump's (hypothetical) presidency is not because I want to "punish" him by withholding the presidency from him - I don't care about punishing him. I just think he would do a terrible job.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I think that maybe some of the disconnect people are trying to remark on, BB, is a perceived split in benefit-of-the-doubt-giving. You remark on hypocrisy on the one hand, and while I disagree there is a case to be made; on the other hand you are pretty invested for finding not just understandable but laudable reasons for why someone might support and act in favor of a bigoted belief.
Posted by GaalDornick (Member # 8880) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dogbreath:
As far as boycotting, though, I actively boycott a number of companies (including Old Navy, Nike, Wal*Mart, Apple Computers...) for various reasons and I've discussed those reasons here. I've never boycotted any company or called for anyone's resignation based on political donations.
OT, but why Old Navy? I've never heard of anything with them, and Google just tells me about an issue with a shirt they made. I'm assuming the rest are for their labor issues?
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
quote:Originally posted by GaalDornick:
quote:Originally posted by Dogbreath:
As far as boycotting, though, I actively boycott a number of companies (including Old Navy, Nike, Wal*Mart, Apple Computers...) for various reasons and I've discussed those reasons here. I've never boycotted any company or called for anyone's resignation based on political donations.
OT, but why Old Navy? I've never heard of anything with them, and Google just tells me about an issue with a shirt they made. I'm assuming the rest are for their labor issues?
As I said, my list is hardly comprehensive or complete. There are probably companies I'm not actively boycotting that I should be, though usually before I buy anything now I do a quick search on the company's human rights records.
To help ameliorate this, I've bought almost all of my clothing (except socks, underwear, and undershirts which I buy from companies like SmartWool) second hand for the past 12 years.
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: I think that maybe some of the disconnect people are trying to remark on, BB, is a perceived split in benefit-of-the-doubt-giving. You remark on hypocrisy on the one hand, and while I disagree there is a case to be made; on the other hand you are pretty invested for finding not just understandable but laudable reasons for why someone might support and act in favor of a bigoted belief.
*nods*
Whereas I think my argument, and Kate's, doesn't depend on assuming nefarious reasons on the part of bigots. I think it's entirely plausible Eich thought he was doing the right thing in putting his religious beliefs above his concern for human rights in supporting NOM... as the absolute extreme of that argument that sometimes gets brought up: I'm sure plenty of Nazi concentration camp guards thought they were doing the right thing in ridding Europe of Jews.
Ultimately it doesn't matter if your bigotry is gleeful* hatred of gay people or a sort of resigned, regretful decision to allow your conscience to be subsumed by the demands of your religion. The end result - the choice to treat gays as second class citizens, undeserving of the same treatment - is the same, and is just as wrong and damaging. That's not a judgement on the motivations of the person (which only God knows), it's a judgement of the end results of their actions: injustice.
And so you'll see me saying things like "his employees were justified in questioning his abilities to lead Mozilla" and "it's understandable to not want a bigot as the face of your organization" - I'm making no judgements of Eich's own motivations for his bigotry.
Whereas BB is judging those who protested Eich's bigotry, and that judgement of his absolutely depends on him assuming hypocrisy on the part of the protesters. It also depends on the assumption that they are doing so out of a motivation to punish rather than to protest or prevent injustice.
And that tendency, that tendency to assume nothing but the best intentions motivations by the oppressor, while simultaneously assuming hypocrisy and vindictiveness on the part of the oppressed and those who advocate for them, is absolutely unfair bias in favor of the oppressor.
It's the same mentality that leads people to ask "what was she wearing?" after a woman was raped, or say things like "maybe she shouldn't have led him on" or "she probably just regretted it the next morning" and assuming the woman raped is lying, confused, or asked for it while assuming nothing but the best intentions on the part of the rapist. It happens in almost any situation where you have a power imbalance you can think of, and it always plays out the same way.
*As in, approximately as ridiculously mustache-twirling villianesque as an anti-SSM person would be portrayed on the TV show "Glee."
Posted by JanitorBlade (Member # 12343) on :
quote:Whereas BB is judging those who protested Eich's bigotry, and that judgement of his absolutely depends on him assuming hypocrisy on the part of the protesters. It also depends on the assumption that they are doing so out of a motivation to punish rather than to protest or prevent injustice.
Tell me one thing anybody did to try to reach out to Eich or reform his thinking. Give me one example of a time where Eich punished an employee for being gay or supporting SSM.
Tell me one other modern day executive/CEO who was pushed to resign from their jobs because they voted a certain way.
quote:It's the same mentality that leads people to ask "what was she wearing?" after a woman was raped, or say things like "maybe she shouldn't have led him on" or "she probably just regretted it the next morning" and assuming the woman raped is lying, confused, or asked for it while assuming nothing but the best intentions on the part of the rapist. It happens in almost any situation where you have a power imbalance you can think of, and it always plays out the same way.
I'd really rather not continue this conversation if we continue to compare my position to Nazi death camp guards and rapists. In fact it's probably that same mentality that compels people including you and me to only see how right we are.
If the people who chased out Eich are like Cultural Revolutionists, and Eich is like a Nazi death camp guard it's pretty easy to finish crafting an unalterable opinion of them.
I think there was a better way to engage with Eich, it appears you do not. I think Eich should have been permitted to retain his job and demonstrate he was serious about his pledge to promote Mozilla's corporate culture and values including celebrating a diverse workforce.
I don't believe that SSM being a civil rights issue makes it any more a moral issue than abortion, or going to war. I think it's very important, and I'll always support equality in civil rights for all people.
I would be appalled if an openly gay CEO had been pressed to resign from the company they founded because consumers, employees, and other companies were all angry they'd voted to establish SSM.
If the flip side feels wrong to me, then that strongly drives me to speak against Eich's departure.
But it feels like neither of us is making progress on helping the other see, appreciate, or understand the other's position. So perhaps we should just let the matter rest.
I think I understand that you feel I am being unduly harsh on those who spoke out against Eich, while covering a multitude of his sins in saying his vote for Prop 8 is morally defensible. I think I understand that you feel Prop 8 was an important enough issue that people were justified in not wanting to work for a person who strongly supported a ballot measure restricting SSM and allowing the state to determine what marriage means. I understand you think that when there is a power imbalance the more important party is the aggrieved and victimized, and you feel in this instance it's not Eich. I think I understand you believe I am unduly focused on the temperament, words, and actions of the marginalized when they act out against mistreatment.
Am I wrong about any of that?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by JanitorBlade: I would be appalled if an openly gay CEO had been pressed to resign from the company they founded because consumers, employees, and other companies were all angry they'd voted to establish SSM.
If the flip side feels wrong to me, then that strongly drives me to speak against Eich's departure.
This, again, is where you make it seem like bad behavior and good behavior are the same and should be treated the same.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
The problem is this, Kate: you aren't arguing that objectively bad behavior should be treated differently than objectively good behavior, but that behavior you believe is bad should be treated different than behavior you believe is good.
Is it bad behavior to believe that same-sex marriage should remain illegal, strongly enough that you will give money to see that prevented? Who gets to decide that? And if it is, what bad behavior is justified in response?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Tom, that would be a valid criticism if I were arguing with someone who thought that Prop 8 was a good thing. I didn't think I was, but I could be mistaken.
And the belief isn't the behavior, the action inspired by the belief is the bad behavior.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
By the way, I don't have any problem with Manny Pacquiao getting fired, either.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:And the belief isn't the behavior, the action inspired by the belief is the bad behavior.
But the action in Eich's case was literally giving money to a political campaign. Are we asserting that making a donation to a cause we don't agree with now constitutes bad behavior?
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
quote:Originally posted by JanitorBlade: I'd really rather not continue this conversation if we continue to compare my position to Nazi death camp guards and rapists.
It is, as I stated, not a comparison, but an extreme example of the "intention makes everything ok" argument. I'm using a very famous example of that to try and show it's absurdity, I am very obviously not comparing your position to Nazi prison guards.
quote:I think there was a better way to engage with Eich, it appears you do not.
That is not only not true, but that requires you ignoring substantial parts of my previous posts to believe.
quote:I think Eich should have been permitted to retain his job and demonstrate he was serious about his pledge to promote Mozilla's corporate culture and values including celebrating a diverse workforce.
*sigh* I am close to tearing my hair out in frustration here BlackBlade.
Eich *was* permitted to retain his job. How in the world, after two years of this, do you not understand that? We've been over this over and over and over, and you keep reverting back to this. He chose to resign. Nobody fired him. Nobody on the board asked him to resign.
That is indisputable. That is not opinion, this is fact. You know it's a fact. You've acknowledged it's a fact. And yet you keep coming back to it. It is not true.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:And the belief isn't the behavior, the action inspired by the belief is the bad behavior.
But the action in Eich's case was literally giving money to a political campaign. Are we asserting that making a donation to a cause we don't agree with now constitutes bad behavior?
Depends on the cause. Why should donating money be different than other kinds of support for a cause, like carrying banners or attending a rally or occupying whatever?
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
To expand on my last post BlackBlade, the reason its so profoundly frustrating and disheartening that you keep deliberately portraying Eich's resignation as a firing when it wasn't, is that you are using it to completely warp what actually happened there and then say "this is what you're advocating for Dogbreath!" when it is so absurdly NOT. And you've repeatedly made claims, and then refused to substantiate those claims or address my refutation thereof, that I or anyone else here was calling for Eich being fired.
If you want to know my opinion, for example, on conducting a witch hunt to get people with unpopular opinions fired, I refer you to this thread. (Hint: it's something I have a dim view of)
You can't seem to grasp the difference between both employees and other companies voicing opposition and concerns to Mozilla appointing a bigot as their CEO, and that CEO subsequently resigning, and a vindictive campaign designed to get someone fired for having the wrong beliefs.
You keep going back to the "he should have been able to keep his job" line when we both know he *was* able to keep his job. By which you mean the man should not have felt pressured to quit.
But the only way for that pressure not to have existed is for people to have deliberately ignored his bigotry and *not* protested it. I know you'll say that's not quite what you're saying, but how else could those conditions not exist? Essentially, one way or the other, you are absolutely calling for curtailing and policing any expression of disagreement with bigotry because it might make the bigot in question uncomfortable. (Or at least, uncomfortable enough to personally decide he was no longer suited to lead an organization of people who disagreed with and distrusted him)
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
not to get too embroiled in this mess or anything but i think there is some sort of unintentional mental hangup you are dealing with, blackblade, where you have accepted on some surface level that eich was not fired, but your brain isn't processing that understanding to the rest of the equations. your attitude towards the whole discussion remains sort of solidly predicated on the idea that eich was terminated from his job for his views.
there's also a pretty significant issue you are sort of dealing with about some sort of fairweatherness involving bigoted acts. You said "Give me one example of a time where Eich punished an employee for being gay or supporting SSM" - ignoring completely that it is problematic to assume we can actually even know if they've ever done this, since you can pretty much always dress it up as something else for H.R., you might as well say "give me one example of a time where Scalia punished a student for being black!"
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Kate, is carrying a banner bad behavior? You seem to be suggesting that any means of showing support for a cause you disapprove of is bad behavior and thus justifies an uncivil response.
Posted by JanitorBlade (Member # 12343) on :
Dogbreath:
quote:*sigh* I am close to tearing my hair out in frustration here BlackBlade.
Eich *was* permitted to retain his job. How in the world, after two years of this, do you not understand that? We've been over this over and over and over, and you keep reverting back to this. He chose to resign. Nobody fired him. Nobody on the board asked him to resign.
That is indisputable. That is not opinion, this is fact. You know it's a fact. You've acknowledged it's a fact. And yet you keep coming back to it. It is not true.
Dude. I don't know what to say to you anymore. I say people pressed him to resign, people such as customers, employees, and other companies, when they should have left him alone to actually do his job and then see if he couldn't. This comes across to you as me saying he was fired.
You can say all you want that he was not technically fired, but the fact remains he was forced out. Unless you want to give me a compelling reason for why he would take on a job as CEO and then just quit weeks later.
quote:To expand on my last post BlackBlade, the reason its so profoundly frustrating and disheartening that you keep deliberately portraying Eich's resignation as a firing when it wasn't, is that you are using it to completely warp what actually happened there and then say "this is what you're advocating for Dogbreath!" when it is so absurdly NOT. And you've repeatedly made claims, and then refused to substantiate those claims or address my refutation thereof, that I or anyone else here was calling for Eich being fired.
I have said he was fired, which I said was not true. But you keep giving me the impression that Eich's departure is completely unconnected to anybody else's actions other than his own.
If we could go back in time and make the customers, employees, and other companies like OKCupid disappear. Eich would probably be CEO right now, do you disagree with that? If you don't, please stop fighting me on Eich leaving because of external forces.
He wasn't fired, I get that. I'm sorry for not using precise language on that issue. But he *was* forced to leave IMHO, not by the board. OK, nobody here wanted him to be fired. But I'm not hearing anybody else saying he shouldn't have been fired, and you asked me to revisit this issue, which is why we are talking about this
quote:By which you mean the man should not have felt pressured to quit.
Yes, this is what I am saying.
quote:But the only way for that pressure not to have existed is for people to have deliberately ignored his bigotry and *not* protested it.
Or, you know, to say, "Hey I'm concerned this guy isn't going to be inclusive." Then when he says, "I'll be inclusive." To actually see how that goes, not presuppose you know he'll fail. Or since Eich had been at Mozilla for years before becoming CEO, show that there's a history of his being unfair to others because of their sexual orientation.
quote:Essentially, one way or the other, you are absolutely calling for curtailing and policing any expression of disagreement with bigotry because it might make the bigot in question uncomfortable.
No, I'm not. The position I'm advocating is designed to keep us *all* from becoming possible victims of having unpopular opinions or for voting a certain way. I have no problem with people having opinions that make others comfortable. I make people uncomfortable with my positions on this board constantly.
quote:You can't seem to grasp the difference between both employees and other companies voicing opposition and concerns to Mozilla appointing a bigot as their CEO, and that CEO subsequently resigning, and a vindictive campaign designed to get someone fired for having the wrong beliefs.
You can't seem to see why they are similar.
Let's stop talking about it for now. If I'm making you angry, it can only get in the way of meaningful discourse. I'm happy to let you have the last word. But I think I'm mostly done talking about this.
Samprimary:
quote:not to get too embroiled in this mess or anything but i think there is some sort of unintentional mental hangup you are dealing with, blackblade, where you have accepted on some surface level that eich was not fired, but your brain isn't processing that understanding to the rest of the equations. your attitude towards the whole discussion remains sort of solidly predicated on the idea that eich was terminated from his job for his views.
there's also a pretty significant issue you are sort of dealing with about some sort of fairweatherness involving bigoted acts. You said "Give me one example of a time where Eich punished an employee for being gay or supporting SSM" - ignoring completely that it is problematic to assume we can actually even know if they've ever done this, since you can pretty much always dress it up as something else for H.R., you might as well say "give me one example of a time where Scalia punished a student for being black!"
I get he was not fired, but he was still made to leave. It's definitely hard to demonstrate Eich acted unfairly towards people of SS orientation. For the reasons you stated. But in my mind the onus is on the person trying to get a person to leave to demonstrate a compelling case that it's deserved. If we leave it at, "Eich donated to Prop 8, and that's enough." It's not for me. Were that our standard, millions of people should be fired.
[ February 19, 2016, 03:38 PM: Message edited by: JanitorBlade ]
Posted by JanitorBlade (Member # 12343) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: By the way, I don't have any problem with Manny Pacquiao getting fired, either.
I don't think he was fired. I believe Nike withdrew their sponsorship. I don't have a problem with that either.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Kate, is carrying a banner bad behavior? You seem to be suggesting that any means of showing support for a cause you disapprove of is bad behavior and thus justifies an uncivil response.
Depends on what is on the banner. Supporting a cause I "disapprove of" is only bad behavior when I am in the right. Do I need to make the argument against Prop 8 here?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by JanitorBlade:
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: By the way, I don't have any problem with Manny Pacquiao getting fired, either.
I don't think he was fired. I believe Nike withdrew their sponsorship. I don't have a problem with that either.
Why not? Pacquiao was just voicing an opinion that doesn't happen to be popular at the moment. As far as I know, he hasn't even taken any action other than expressing his opinion.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Supporting a cause I "disapprove of" is only bad behavior when I am in the right.
I think you are perhaps confusing "bad, and deserving of uncivil response" with "suboptimal."
Posted by GaalDornick (Member # 8880) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots:
quote:Originally posted by JanitorBlade:
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: By the way, I don't have any problem with Manny Pacquiao getting fired, either.
I don't think he was fired. I believe Nike withdrew their sponsorship. I don't have a problem with that either.
Why not? Pacquiao was just voicing an opinion that doesn't happen to be popular at the moment. As far as I know, he hasn't even taken any action other than expressing his opinion.
Pacquiao's "job" for Nike is basically just representing them. His statements directly affects his job performance. The same can't necessarily be said for Eich.
Posted by JanitorBlade (Member # 12343) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots:
quote:Originally posted by JanitorBlade:
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: By the way, I don't have any problem with Manny Pacquiao getting fired, either.
I don't think he was fired. I believe Nike withdrew their sponsorship. I don't have a problem with that either.
Why not? Pacquiao was just voicing an opinion that doesn't happen to be popular at the moment. As far as I know, he hasn't even taken any action other than expressing his opinion.
I'm not sure why you are requiring me to describe the difference between not paying for somebody to market your goods anymore, and trying to force somebody to resign or be fired from their job.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
A big part of being CEO is being the "face" of a company. I don't think that anyone would have pressured the HR person or the 3rd secretary to the left or the accountant to resign.
Not paying someone to so something that you used to pay them to do is not all that different from firing them, is it?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by JanitorBlade: I get he was not fired, but he was still made to leave. It's definitely hard to demonstrate Eich acted unfairly towards people of SS orientation. For the reasons you stated. But in my mind the onus is on the person trying to get a person to leave to demonstrate a compelling case that it's deserved. If we leave it at, "Eich donated to Prop 8, and that's enough." It's not for me. Were that our standard, millions of people should be fired.
what it ultimately comes down to is what an employee of the company might reasonably do, such as "feel uncomfortable enough with the personal beliefs of the CEO that they will elect of their own free will not to associate with the company as soon as they are able"
and what Eich did was poisonous to the company in a way they all knew was not really gonna work in that industry. Employees gay or non were gonna be draining out through free association. Eich opted to leave of his own volition rather than try to ride it out. All circumstances are ones that are hard to say was actually wrong.
Posted by JanitorBlade (Member # 12343) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: A big part of being CEO is being the "face" of a company. I don't think that anyone would have pressured the HR person or the 3rd secretary to the left or the accountant to resign.
Not paying someone to so something that you used to pay them to do is not all that different from firing them, is it?
Seems incredibly different to me just as not buying a cheeseburger from Mcdonalds is way different from firing Phil who works at Mcdonalds.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Didn't a bunch of people do the Mozilla equivalent of saying they weren't going to buy cheeseburgers at McDonald's because they were not comfortable with Phil?
I think, too, that you are underestimating Eich's power. He is not some guy making fries for minimum wage.
Posted by JanitorBlade (Member # 12343) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Didn't a bunch of people do the Mozilla equivalent of saying they weren't going to buy cheeseburgers at McDonald's because they were not comfortable with Phil?
I think, too, that you are underestimating Eich's power. He is not some guy making fries for minimum wage.
I don't think I ever said people shouldn't choose to stop buying a product if they don't like what a company is doing.
Posted by GaalDornick (Member # 8880) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: A big part of being CEO is being the "face" of a company. I don't think that anyone would have pressured the HR person or the 3rd secretary to the left or the accountant to resign.
Not paying someone to so something that you used to pay them to do is not all that different from firing them, is it?
Not necessarily. I don't know who the CEO of Nike is, but I know Lebron James and Michael Jordan represent them. I'm pretty sure I'm in the majority in that regard.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
quote:Originally posted by JanitorBlade: It's a very neat and tidy way so that Mozilla can say "We dd everything we could to include Eich, but we respect his wishes." Why would Eich accept a CEO position and then resign weeks later? Why not look at his own remarks?
“Our mission is bigger than any one of us, and under the present circumstances, I cannot be an effective leader.”
It seems very unlikely he was saying he was unqualified, lacked relevant experience, or was otherwise physically unable to do the job. So why can't he be an effective leader? Because Mozilla's employees, customers, and others want him to leave.
Perhaps he believes that to be an effective CEO you need to have the trust and support of your employees and realized that he wouldn't have that trust and it would be very, very hard to gain it. Or perhaps he knew that everyone was going to be scrutinizing his decisions to see if he really was unbiased and he didn't want to work under that kind of scrutiny.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
quote:Originally posted by JanitorBlade: Dude. I don't know what to say to you anymore. I say people pressed him to resign, people such as customers, employees, and other companies, when they should have left him alone to actually do his job and then see if he couldn't. This comes across to you as me saying he was fired.
Nope. You said he should have been permitted to keep his job. He was.
quote:You can say all you want that he was not technically fired, but the fact remains he was forced out.
No he wasn't. He left of his own volition. That is, by definition, not being forced.
quote:Unless you want to give me a compelling reason for why he would take on a job as CEO and then just quit weeks later.
I take his own statement at face value:
"I have decided to resign as CEO effective today, and leave Mozilla. Our mission is bigger than any one of us, and under the present circumstances, I cannot be an effective leader."
He felt, given the circumstances, he would not be an effective leader. He at no point said "I have been forced to resign", and neither did Mozilla. Both he and Mozilla said he left of his own free will.
Once again, this "he was forced out" stuff is entirely conjecture on your part.
quote:I have said he was fired, which I said was not true. But you keep giving me the impression that Eich's departure is completely unconnected to anybody else's actions other than his own.
That is untrue. I never once even came close to implying that, much less saying that.
quote:If we could go back in time and make the customers, employees, and other companies like OKCupid disappear. Eich would probably be CEO right now, do you disagree with that?
Yes, absolutely. He's been pretty involved with getting Brave launched over the past year. (and for good reason: if it holds up to its promise, it may be a very important step in standardizing secure web browsers. This is incredibly important in the advent of malvertising exploit kits (like Angler) that use HTTP redirects from compromised ads as an attack vector) He may have delayed that somewhat, but I doubt he would still be acting as CEO of Mozilla given his passion for his current project.
But I'm not sure why alternative history is important to you in this context?
quote:If you don't, please stop fighting me on Eich leaving because of external forces.
I am not fighting you on that.
You have repeatedly said either Eich was fired, or Eich was forced out. I am telling you that you are wrong. I have never once said his decision to leave wasn't influenced by external "forces" or pressure from those protesting him, I am merely asserting it was his decision. By which I mean, he was not forced, and was not fired.
quote: But I'm not hearing anybody else saying he shouldn't have been fired
Nobody else is saying he shouldn't have been fired because he wasn't fired. How could they be saying something that didn't happen shouldn't have happened? That doesn't make any sense.
quote:
quote:By which you mean the man should not have felt pressured to quit.
Yes, this is what I am saying.
The only way you remove that pressure is by silencing the people who applied that pressure in the first place.
quote:No, I'm not. The position I'm advocating is designed to keep us *all* from becoming possible victims of having unpopular opinions or for voting a certain way. I have no problem with people having opinions that make others comfortable. I make people uncomfortable with my positions on this board constantly.
Becoming a victim of having an unpopular opinion? Again, being a bigot is just an unpopular opinion to you?
You're saying people shouldn't have made Eich uncomfortable by expressing their dislike of his beliefs and their dismay at the fact he was made CEO. You believe that those opinions somehow "forced" him to quit. (despite him and Mozilla saying he was not forced) You wish people had not expressed those opinions but instead given him the benefit of the doubt (why should he deserve that, but everyone who protested him must be a hypocrite?) after he was made CEO. And yet you also think people should be allowed to express those opinions and protest as well. That's a contradiction. Where do you draw the line, exactly?
quote:
quote:You can't seem to grasp the difference between both employees and other companies voicing opposition and concerns to Mozilla appointing a bigot as their CEO, and that CEO subsequently resigning, and a vindictive campaign designed to get someone fired for having the wrong beliefs.
You can't seem to see why they are similar.
OK, I'll bite. How are they similar?
quote:If we leave it at, "Eich donated to Prop 8, and that's enough." It's not for me. Were that our standard, millions of people should be fired.
Why? Eich wasn't fired. Why should anyone else be if that was our standard?
[ February 20, 2016, 05:10 AM: Message edited by: Dogbreath ]
Posted by JanitorBlade (Member # 12343) on :
Dogbreath: I hope you won't mind that I'm condensing our conversation down to what I perceive to be the fundamentals.
Eich's objective was to be CEO of Mozilla.
Other people's objectives was for Eich to not be CEO of Mozilla.
The ways for Eich to not be CEO are for him to be fired, to resign, or die. We'll ignore death.
The other people were demanding Eich be fired or made to resign. Yes?
Eich states that he wants to stay and will do his best to be inclusive.
The other people continue demanding Eich be fired or resign. No change in the tide of pressure. Yes?
Eich resigns.
Eich either resigned because of the pressure on him to leave (Forced to leave), or he resigned for some other reasons. It sounds like you agree Eich left because he was influenced by pressure, but that that isn't the whole story? Yes? Is it even the primary consideration in your mind?
quote:You have repeatedly said either Eich was fired, or Eich was forced out. I am telling you that you are wrong. I have never once said his decision to leave wasn't influenced by external "forces" or pressure from those protesting him, I am merely asserting it was his decision. By which I mean, he was not forced, and was not fired.
You can say over and over that Eich's decision was his to make, but that's like saying Sophie had a real choice between her two children, and nobody made her choose one over the other.
Had Eich stayed, the PR nightmare would have increased, Firefox would lose market share, something he created very likely would have died. If he resigned he had to leave a company he created, and couldn't help it survive and thrive against Chrome and IE.
He had two crappy options. Two choices he was *forced* to choose from. It certainly wasn't a choice he *wanted* to make.
If we can't get past this idea that you think he wasn't forced out, and I do, there's not much point continuing because fundamentally that informs the rest of the discussion.
[ February 20, 2016, 12:18 PM: Message edited by: JanitorBlade ]
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
It's not as though Eich were strolling down the sidewalk, minding his own business, when bam! these two choices were thrust on him out of a clear blue sky. For that particular fork in the road to come up (and while i would not say he was forced out, I would agree that it was close, and I regard statements by him and Mozilla to the contrary as spin), *first* Eich had to not only hold a bigoted belief against homosexuals, he took real-world action to see that it was sustained.
Does that make it acceptable for people to apply pressure to get him to resign? Well, there's a fair argument about that, sure. But supporters of human rights for gays didn't somehow burrow into his mind and discover what he thought, they observed his tangible actions in the real world and then responded to that.
As to the question of giving Eich the benefit of the doubt...well. While that would be a very high-minded thing to do for a supporter of SSM, you appear to be claiming that it was somehow the moral thing for them to do-with the implication included whether you intend it or not that to not give him the benefit of the doubt is immoral.
My question for you is why? It Eich was willing to say, "I should have the right to determine which consenting adults *you* marry, based on whether I think it's gross or will destroy American families or God doesn't like it or whatever bullshit excuse I offer based on the fact that I don't consciously feel like a bigot on this issue therefore I must not be...anyway, I will spend money to discriminate against homosexuals in this way. But you should trust me that I won't discriminate against homosexuals in *other* ways."
Granted a healthy chunk of that hypothetical quote was me expressing my exhaustion and contempt with the oft-repeated claim "I'm not a bigot just because I think homosexuals shouldn't marry other homosexuals." But the other part of that, to a supporter of SSM much less an actual homosexual person who might want to marry the man or woman they love, why exactly should they take at face value the claim of someone who doesn't deny bigoted behavior on one hugely important aspect of life, and then insists their beliefs won't carry over into other elements?
Is it possible for someone to believe homosexuality is a sin or is gross or destroys families or whatever, yet also in the workplace to be fairminded and not prejudiced against homosexuals? Actually I do think that is possible, yes. Possible. But BB, why is the onus on the very people he is bigoted against and actually *acting* against in the world, and their supporters, to give him the benefit of the doubt on this question?
That's a serious question. I know, from years of hearing these discussions just as everyone else does, that many-most, even-opponents of SSM have a whole host of reasons as to why that belief isn't bigoted and that they aren't actually prejudiced against homosexuals. I also know that many, or even most opponents actually believe this themselves. They're not lying really, because they actually believe they aren't bigoted.
Well, fair enough. There are certainly degrees of this sort of thing, and not everyone who opposes SSM is Fred Phelps. Not even most of them, or very many. But the fact remains that, by giving money to a cause bigoted against homosexuals it can fairly be stated that Eich was a bigot towards homosexuals. That's harsh, especially since people can be bigoted in one area but very nice in others, but it's still true. So why, why, why is it reasonable to expect the very people he was bigoted against, and their supporters, to trust him? I'm not asking about trust in other issues. Support for Prop 8 doesn't mean he would steal, or be ineffective in terms of corporate strategy. But why is it fair to suggest they trust that he will treat homosexuals fairly in the workplace? He doesn't just not wish to support them elsewhere, he actively campaigned against them in their private lives.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
eich left the company because the industry he worked in is one in which there is still high enough demand for the labor of its workers that they have relatively high capacity to move between jobs at will within the industry, so much so that you can't get away with being a leader who takes political positions that alienate them and would cause a powerful exodus.
it's not like being the head of a box retail store or a pizza chain, where you're mostly able to be much more of a quite robustly bigoted garbagelord because you can work with economically exploitable demographics of desperate humans.
i suppose you could fix the "problem" of eich having to leave because he has destroyed the employee's rank-and-file faith in him ... by getting tech worker labor to be more in line with other industries in terms of keeping them sort of stuck through economic vulnerability. so moving that to a more gilded age model would work great. or i suppose you could deregulate industry more and allow real serious Salaryman-esque noncompetitiveness clauses that keep you Ke$ha'd to your current master.
or you could just accept that there is no not-insanely-problematic method for "correcting" that eich's problem was a problem of free association and that he left because his own bigotry made him unsuited to the post.
is this at all a thing that makes sense?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
like there is no way to correct the 'wrong' of what eich did without doing insanely weird shit like telling gay people "you can't just leave your job just because you found out that your boss wants you to be a second-class person. oh and your friends can't either"
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
To be fair BB isn't say can't. But he does appear to be saying 'shouldn't have' until such time as Eich had led the company through a probationary period so to speak with regards to his treatment of homosexuals in the workplace. That's my understanding anyway, I could be misreading.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
I'm pretty sure that BB is just saying that people shouldn't have called for his ouster, but not proposing any actual mechanism by which their choice to do so would be at all constrained, other than awareness that some people disagree with them.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
quote:Originally posted by scifibum: I'm pretty sure that BB is just saying that people shouldn't have called for his ouster, but not proposing any actual mechanism by which their choice to do so would be at all constrained, other than awareness that some people disagree with them.
Hmm. No, I don't think so.
Let's take that hypothesis: that he thinks it would be acceptable for gay people and their supporters to quit Mozilla so long as they do so *quietly*. Well then, you would still see a massive brain drain following Eich's appointment as well as a plummet in the company's performance, and someone would put 2-and-2 together and think "huh, Mozilla appointed a new CEO who literally thinks gay people are undeserving of the same basic human rights as everyone else, and they suddenly lost a whole bunch of people immediately after" and once again there would be pressure placed on Eich to resign. And BB has made it abundantly clear that he thinks that that pressure itself counts as forcing someone out of a job, and therefore this would be still be wrong and immoral.
The only way you could avoid that pressure from occurring is for said Mozilla employees not only to not say anything, but to also not leave the company, and continue working for a boss who has dedicated his time and money to making sure they are deprived of a basic human right. (But of course they should take his word that he will be completely impartial in his treatment of them)
Or in other words, by calling for the silence and marginalization of an oppressed minority so that one of the oppressors doesn't feel pressured to quit his job.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
I really don't think there's any proposal on the table that would be quite that oppressive. I completely agree with you that there's no way to shut down or silence people that wouldn't be oppressive. But I haven't seen BlackBlade propose a way to do so, either. He's just stating an opinion.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
what's more fascinating about the eich thing in general is that if eich was performing otherwise identical support of discrimination against blacks instead of discrimination against gays, practically nobody on the "eich was unfairly ousted by intolerant people" bandwagon would apply any of these arguments in support of him, they would just say "of course he needed to go"
it's purely a function of that a number of cultural forces have ensured that gays are more 'legitimate' targets for marginalization and so you can get away with a hell of a lot more bigotry against them. Give us a couple more decades, though, and it will be looked back at as ruefully and straightforwardly as we look back at anti-miscegenation views today.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
quote:Originally posted by scifibum: I really don't think there's any proposal on the table that would be quite that oppressive. I completely agree with you that there's no way to shut down or silence people that wouldn't be oppressive. But I haven't seen BlackBlade propose a way to do so, either. He's just stating an opinion.
I know he is. I pretty firmly believe the reason he holds that opinion is because he hasn't considered the ramifications of it.
If his opinion was merely "man, it sure sucks Brendan Eich was pressured to quit his job" well then, that's perfectly fine. It's actually very important to me not to criticize people for empathizing or feeling sorry for *anyone*, no matter who they are. But then he extended that to "Brendan Eich shouldn't have been pressured to quit his job" and also called the people who applied that pressure hypocrites.
And that's where the problem lies - he's maligning and demonizing gays and their allies for, essentially, making use of their rights to free expression and free association to say they don't want to work for a bigot. (I'm leaving the boycotters out of this because BB had earlier conceded his problem was specifically with Mozilla's employees, not with people choosing not to use Mozilla products)
And so that's why I'm inferring contrapositive "shoulds" to his "shouldn't have":
Often, when he brings forth this "philosophy of courtesy" as Rakeesh called it, he offers tantalizing glimpses of an imagined "good" solution where oppressors (and if "oppressors" is too stylized a term I apologize. It's my generalization of "who BB is defending this week" whether it's bigots, sexists, etc.) are treated with complete courtesy and deference and are never exposed to the "injustice" of being pressured to change or face any consequence for their actions, but those they actively oppress are still somehow not being censored and marginalized.
So I (and others) have, perhaps in vain, tried to convince him that that "good" solution doesn't exist. I've done it both by playing out the logical conclusions of his opinion, and also by asking him questions about some of the contradictions in his proposed solutions. I think (and I could be wrong, but I believe this is a fair and rational extrapolation of his arguments) the reason he continues to champion this cause is because, in his mind, it's noble and just in a quixotic sort of way. I'm trying to dispel that notion.
And here's the main thrust of all this:
Regardless of noble intentions, the reality of tone policing of the oppressed is that we cast them as the villain for expressing their desire to not be oppressed, and thereby silence and re-victimize them, because it's a means of allowing the oppressor class to dictate the terms of what is and isn't acceptable expression. And those terms are *never* consistent.
You'll notice with BlackBlade's arguments, the line of "hither shalt thou come but no further" for what expression is acceptable is *always*, conveniently, just a little bit behind where whatever group he is criticizing stands. For the "masculinists" earlier, it was them feeling like they maybe were no longer safe holding a rally (despite any evidence of threat being made), but a protest is perfectly acceptable. Heck, on Sakeriver BB had even talked about going and taking pictures of these guys! But for those protesting Eich, wait, hold on a second, protest is no longer acceptable expression. Now one has to use the "internal apparatus to voice grievances" (whatever the fudgemonkey that means) in order to considered acceptable expression. And I showed in my last post how, logically, even doing that and then quietly quitting could still be unacceptable by his standards because his standard is "no pressure should have been placed on Eich to quit." ...
The truth is we already have hard lines that have been drawn and codified into law. The state can't fine, imprison, or otherwise punish someone for free expression, no matter how vile or bigoted. You can't murder, assault, or threaten (including stalking) someone for their free expression. Within reason, you can't prevent someone from expressing themselves freely in a public space. (For exceptions see yelling fire in a theater, or harassing someone or threatening them, some obscenity laws (for broadcast TV), etc.) You can't prevent them from printing those opinions, or I suppose in this day and age, from broadcasting them or expressing them on your website. (if you can find someone willing to broadcast or host you) You can't prevent people from making donations to political organizations or supporting political causes, or from freely assembling to talk about those causes. You can't prevent anyone from following their religious beliefs, or from freely expressing those beliefs. (again, some exceptions like snake handling in church or denying medicine to children obviously apply) When you try to push those line, past those already codified in law to things like "you can't protest your boss being a bigot" - or at least saying that those who *do* such things are hypocritical or immoral - you are advocating curtailing the free expression of the oppressed for the benefit of the oppressor.
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: what's more fascinating about the eich thing in general is that if eich was performing otherwise identical support of discrimination against blacks instead of discrimination against gays, practically nobody on the "eich was unfairly ousted by intolerant people" bandwagon would apply any of these arguments in support of him, they would just say "of course he needed to go"
it's purely a function of that a number of cultural forces have ensured that gays are more 'legitimate' targets for marginalization and so you can get away with a hell of a lot more bigotry against them. Give us a couple more decades, though, and it will be looked back at as ruefully and straightforwardly as we look back at anti-miscegenation views today.
Yeah. That's why I continued to ask BlackBlade about what his opinion would be if it was a racist rather than homophobic boss, and the best he could muster is "that's not a fair comparison" and refused to explain why when asked.
The only reason it wouldn't be a fair comparison is if you believe discrimination against gays is somehow less reprehensible than discrimination against blacks. And for that to be the case, one must believe gays are less deserving of civil rights than blacks. (or in this case, I think, sympathize a lot more with homophobes than racists because one might belong to a religion with a lot of blatantly homophobic members and leaders...)
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Well, I can think of one significant difference. Generally people opposed to SSM, or who simply disapprove of homosexual behavior, believe one or both things: one, homosexuality is a choice; two, it's their business what sexual, romantic, and family choices are made by two consenting adults. (They may not believe the first, but they by definition believe the second). Nearly universally they believe the second thing for some variant of 'God says so.'
With racism it's a bit different. People cannot choose their race, it's predetermined. And so although it's taken millenia and still isn't done yet, a key foundation for why it's ok to be a racist is gone: it's not something fair to condemn someone for because it wasn't any choice of theirs. That and agonizingly slow progress showing that hey race is a shitty indicator for morality and industriousness, also still going.
But if you believe homosexuality itself is a choice, or if not it's an urge that should and can be resisted, well then that foundation is back. It's a choice they're making, it's wrong according to God, so it's kosher to condemn them.
Of course the truth is that even if it is a choice, it's none of their business, and even if it was it would be far from clear they were worthy defenders of the institution of marriage anyway. And while it's useful to understand why the Eichs of the world think the way they do (for one thing it means we can understand that Eich isn't Phelps, not to damn with faint praise), there comes a point when it stops mattering as much if their intentions are good.
BB, if your current boss decided tomorrow, "BB, I'm going to need you to divorce your wife at once. I'm also going to work to make it illegal for you ever to have married her. I'm going to do this using resources which you in part help me accumulate. But don't worry, I will continue to treat you with fairness and dignity in the workplace, so please don't think about leaving yet. Or if you do, don't tell anyone why as that would be unreasonable pressure."
To me this scenario seems pretty similar to the one being discussed with some convenient word switches. If this happened to you, I doubt you would behave as you insist homosexuals and their supporters should have behaved.
Or if you did I would be angry, for you, for letting yourself be humiliated like that.
Posted by JanitorBlade (Member # 12343) on :
I'm sorry, I'm leaving this conversation for a couple of reasons. Primarily because I am being completely ineffectual at changing anybody's mind. And because all I'm doing is restating my ideas and then seeing many of them misunderstood and given back at me without any familiarity to what I originally felt when I sent them out. And with conclusions I increasingly find baffling and infuriating.
You may see it as me refusing to change my mind, but I have spent hours mulling over what you all have been saying, trying to find if my own pride is again in the way of me being more right. And if I could with integrity claim these ideas being said by others as my own. I can't honestly.
I wouldn't countenance a CEO being asked to vacate his job in the same way Eich was were all circumstances identical save they donated to pro-SSM causes. And not because I happen to agree with that particular cause. I wouldn't make it illegal, nor would I say demanding somebody resign is always wrong.
I'm also getting angry, which typically means I'll be even less persuasive if I continue. I believe in social activism, having engaged in it myself. I believe businesses, and governments should be required to never consider sexual orientation as grounds for lesser treatment. Where they do, they should be made to face consequences that will result in their correcting their behavior.
But I also believe that people as a rule suck at trying to lovingly correct others' beliefs/behavior, and are especially gifted at contending with or punishing it (Especially when wronged). Good at trying to create uniformity, bad at accepting/celebrating diversity.
I don't count myself an exception to that rule.
I believe, Dogbreath, Rakeesh, Samprimary, et al are motivated by good in defending those who called for Eich's resignation. I know they believe my position would silence minority opinions. I don't think it would.
I'm not interested in defending any one group other than the one I feel is voiceless in a conversation. I do that because I am motivated by personal experience that have lead me to believe that too often if we really comprehended things from other perspectives we would not so often be so filled with consternation at another person's words/actions.
[ February 22, 2016, 09:54 AM: Message edited by: JanitorBlade ]
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
it's not really so much that i think your position would 'silence minority opinions' — it's more or less that your opinion can't be made to have an effect that prevents why eich had to leave.
use me as a particular example. I work in that general field. if i found out if the ceo of the company i work at was donating to anti-gay organizations, i'm done. i would be gone if that person remained the ceo for long. you could not get me to continue willingly working for that organization.
that's my right. that's a sight bit of free association going on there. you can't compel me to stay through any means that isn't bafflingly autocratic to the extent of being something nearly nobody would propose.
none of my friends who are queer would.
none of my friends who are friends of my queer friends would.
we'd all start inexorably dropping that place like a bad habit. we have an economically privileged position that allows us to do so since we can hop between tech companies and startups at will so we aren't really subject to the general economic vassaldom that keeps most american workers in thrall to their current itinerant cycle of usually part-time work.
to solve the eich problem you have to convince us not to leave. otherwise, well, we are, and eich is destroying the company in degrees by staying at his post.
it's really not happening.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
I strongly suspect, BlackBlade, that your fundamental hang up here is that you haven't been able to get past this notion that what happened with Brendan Eich was punishment or vindictiveness.
Try Rakeesh's mental experiment just for a minute. Try and imagine a world where people quit their jobs, not to punish their boss, but because they don't want to work for someone who is actively trying to hurt them and their family by stripping them of a basic human right. Imagine just for a second that a gay person leaving Mozilla in protest isn't doing so vindictively to "punish someone for a unpopular belief."
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by JanitorBlade:
I wouldn't countenance a CEO being asked to vacate his job in the same way Eich was were all circumstances identical save they donated to pro-SSM causes. And not because I happen to agree with that particular cause. I wouldn't make it illegal, nor would I say demanding somebody resign is always wrong.
I wouldn't countenance correcting my child for kissing his little sister so I shouldn't correct my child for hitting his little sister.
Why would we treat good behavior and "sub-optimal" behavior the same?
[ February 22, 2016, 01:27 PM: Message edited by: kmbboots ]
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
quote:Originally posted by JanitorBlade: When does that stop?
"These #BlackLivesMatter students are so angry at injustice they have a right force you bodily out of their safe space."
quote:"These have been extraordinary times in our university’s history, and I am in complete agreement with the board that the termination of Dr. Click is in the best interest of our university," Foley said. "Her actions in October and November are those that directly violate the core values of our university."
I'm guessing the only reason it took this long to happen is because tenured professors are pretty difficult to fire compared to other employees, so it's a more involved process.
She's also been charged with misdemeanor assault, and may see further criminal/civil action. I definitely wouldn't call it a "right" so much as "a thing that, if you do it, will get you fired and possibly jailed."
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
" and left it at that, and I have before. And I wouldn't be surprised or even disappointed if you just think I'm being a sanctimonious asshole and dismiss what I'm saying here out of hand. Goodness knows I'm no saint or moral authority on the subject. But it is my honest takeaway from your actions here, and I think that that honesty is something that not many people would be willing to give you.