posted
For example on the much more important and relevant freedom of speech issue, the SSM debate illustrates quite well the perils of curtailing that right-because you are creating a weapon that could be used against them-and will be, usually.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:This will be a repetition, but I would remark that in the subtext of what you feel is actually being said by someone who references freedom of expression, the thing is, in this case in particular-the SSM argument in the United States-the people now complaining about freedom of speech didn't respect 'the compact'.
Oh? All of them? It's pretty risky painting all opponents of same-sex marriage as advocating, "fire gay employees and CEOS, all of them!" I know that's not the case for many of them. And they would absolutely agree that same-sex marriage advocates should be able to express those views without repercussions. Perhaps you don't know any.
I'll grant that people as a general rule are much better about seeing to their own self-interests, while simultaneously finding it hard to empathize with different people's efforts/needs/requests. I have no doubt there are Christians who are suddenly realizing that it sucks going down a peg or two on the privilege totem pole. But I'm a big fan of what Christ said,
quote:Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt alove thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy.
But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;
That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.
For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? do not even the publicans (tax collectors) the same?
And if ye salute your brethren only, what do ye more than others? do not even the publicans so?
We are not so different, you and I. We share mutual respect for each other. You matter to me.
I also care about people who think my views are abhorrent. I guess that is one thing I've gained by being a Mormon. I've learned how to be in the minority, to be misunderstood, to be lied about, to be looked askance at, laughed at, but also honestly questioned, admired, appreciated. I've also learned that our beliefs are very fringe by many people's standards, so what room do we have to not afford others space?
Why do you see so clearly the intolerance, hate, and coercion that the religious dish out, but don't seem to identify (what to me is clearly analogous behavior) those behaviors in what progressives do? Is it because you think only the conservative religious right engages in those behaviors as an institution? Or that somehow because progressives say they value diversity that it's not likely they are only paying lip service to that virtue? I think it's readily apparent that for all the talk Christians make about being in love with Jesus, we as a group are remarkably bad at doing what he said to do.
Are all progressives somehow immune to that same kind of shortcoming? I don't think they are to be honest. I think many celebrate diversity with one side of their mouth, and scream that an idea has no place in their discourse with the other. But there are incredibly Christlike Christians, and there are progressives who are wonderfully diverse in their views. In Utah I knew several gay people who were very "What the hell Utah, let me get married." A minute later they were saying, "Damn progressives want to destroy the private sector with Obamacare, I hope Utah never implements the exchanges."
quote:Positions within the government, which represents us all, are not the same as public figureheads and leaders of privately held businesses.
You're right, but it was Matt who compared an employee of a company Vs the CEO with a voter Vs the president.
quote:A high minded defense of freedom of expression I can absolutely get behind, and in fact I think it's a really important question that I appreciate you raising in light of the ways in which social media add substantial 'oomph' to social disapproval as faced by Eich. It's an important discussion. But man, I wish* you'd stop asking us to pity the 'victims' of intolerance and regard what is happening to them as some sort of injustice.
I get that. You think the more victimized segment should get more of my sympathy and indignation. I'll freely admit that I don't equitably apportion my outrage exactly as justice demands. I respond to things as they are brought to my attention, often by the news media whose job it is to get me riled up. Often it's things that speak directly to me. I didn't get as up in arms about the Seattle scout troop that had their charter revoked by BSA because they wouldn't dismiss their gay scoutmaster. I mentioned it elsewhere, and said I thought the BSA's policy was stupid when they implemented it, and it's still stupid now. But I imagine I'm speaking to the choir on that.
But it's freaking important to me (having been once a "I salute my friends and hate my enemies" kind of guy) to speak out against things that are wrong, even when my friends can't/won't see it. Even if the victims are people who 99% of the time get away all sorts of chicanery. I don't want to dish out justice to my opponents and mercy to my friends only.
I would hope y'all would do the same for me if I came on Hatrack and said, "I've got no sympathy for that person/position, they deserve whatever they get for believing such awful stuff."
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Oh? All of them? It's pretty risky painting all opponents of same-sex marriage as advocating, "fire gay employees and CEOS, all of them!" I know that's not the case for many of them. And they would absolutely agree that same-sex marriage advocates should be able to express those views without repercussions. Perhaps you don't know any.
Where were all these people just twenty years ago? There's a lot of whitewashing going on here, frankly. If the sort of thinking I'm describing was a minority opinion in recent history, it's so difficult for many homosexuals to come out...why, exactly?
Twenty years ago it would hardly have ever even come up, 'fire the gay CEO', because she wouldn't be out in the first place. That gay man was in the closet...because of the widespread respect for freedom of expression amongst people who disapproved of homosexuality?
quote:Why do you see so clearly the intolerance, hate, and coercion that the religious dish out, but don't seem to identify (what to me is clearly analogous behavior) those behaviors in what progressives do? Is it because you think only the conservative religious right engages in those behaviors as an institution? Or that somehow because progressives say they value diversity that it's not likely they are only paying lip service to that virtue? I think it's readily apparent that for all the talk Christians make about being in love with Jesus, we as a group are remarkably bad at doing what he said to do.
I do see it. This is the primary reason I value a strong, unyielding defense of freedom of expression-because it's threatened by everyone. I suspect on this issue, though, one of our chief differences is that I can regard it as important to have the discussion about what freedom of expression means in the 21st century without wasting undeserved sympathy for people who are, in fact, complaining now that they're *just starting* to be a bit lower on the totem pole. They don't get my sympathy. They're victims of their own methods-well, to an extent anyway. Not many SSM opponents being lynched after all.
The thing is, and the reason why I don't think the contradiction you see applies to me, is that I'm always glad when the argument is happening on pretty much any contentious issue. Lets off steam and helps us discover new ideas. What I *don't* insist on is that the discourse be verbally peaceful. If you want people to be nicer to opponents of SSM-which in this case actually means refraining from using the same tactics they were subject to in the past-don't sell it as poor, poor conservatives, they don't deserve this. Sure they do, if a home deserves anything. You can love your enemy if you like-asking me to love mine is probably futile. It's not about being nice to former and would-be present oppressors and bigots-it's about keeping the public discourse open to all comers because if you don't, it's dangerous and harmful to everyone.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:So to that person? I will reply to the subtext 'absolutely I respect your right to freedom of speech, and if anyone should try to use force to restrain that right, I will oppose them as best I can.
Just by way of clarification, do you agree with me that boycotts and political pressure from shareholders are ways of using force?
quote:It's not about being nice to former and would-be present oppressors and bigots-it's about keeping the public discourse open to all comers because if you don't, it's dangerous and harmful to everyone.
I agree with this for sure.
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Where were all these people just twenty years ago?
Well I imagine everybody 40 or younger today was either not born yet, or too young to have much of an opinion on the matter right? That's a lot of Americans who are now in the debate.
quote:Where were all these people just twenty years ago? There's a lot of whitewashing going on here, frankly. If the sort of thinking I'm describing was a minority opinion in recent history, it's so difficult for many homosexuals to come out...why, exactly?
I didn't call your opinion a minority opinion. I said it wasn't safe to say that everybody who is concerned with same-sex marriage opponents being sanctioned by society all kept their mouths shut and were happy to let homosexuals face the very consequences they now decry.
quote:I do see it. This is the primary reason I value a strong, unyielding defense of freedom of expression-because it's threatened by everyone. I suspect on this issue, though, one of our chief differences is that I can regard it as important to have the discussion about what freedom of expression means in the 21st century without wasting undeserved sympathy for people who are, in fact, complaining now that they're *just starting* to be a bit lower on the totem pole. They don't get my sympathy. They're victims of their own methods-well, to an extent anyway. Not many SSM opponents being lynched after all.
Lynching is an incredibly low bar for behavior. I think if we are going to hold back sympathy for an individual it should be because we have established that they were willing to silence others, or otherwise harm them in the very ways they are now decrying.
But even then, that doesn't make what is happening to them right. Maybe in movie land poetic justice is fun but in real life when you silently let somebody else be mistreated you sully your own hands.
Posts: 1194 | Registered: Jun 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
There's two equivalences here that I'd like to address.
quote:Originally posted by Destineer: ... So if we think it's wrong for the actual government to control speech, the same reasoning should suggest that it's wrong for private governments to try to control it.
Let's get down the real nuts and bolts of this. On one hand, you have the US government, an entity that has granted itself the ability to imprison without charge, to torture without legal recourse, and to execute by drone or by whatever means a particular barbaric state has deemed legal in its jurisdiction.
On the other hand you have, some employees at Mozilla and some bloggers that were vocal, a "private government" apparently. I'm going to say that the potential abuse of power is much more of an issue with the former than the latter.
(And that's accepting for the sake of argument that what Eich did was "speech" when what he really did was contribute money)
In fact, I'm not even sure about the root assumption. While I may not necessarily trust the US government to restrict Nazi speech, I'm not necessarily opposed to the German government doing the same.
quote:Originally posted by Destineer:
quote:So to that person? I will reply to the subtext 'absolutely I respect your right to freedom of speech, and if anyone should try to use force to restrain that right, I will oppose them as best I can.
Just by way of clarification, do you agree with me that boycotts and political pressure from shareholders are ways of using force?
I wouldn't really agree. If you equate boycotts and political pressure with force rather than speech as one would expect, you get weird consequences like Gandhi being one of the most forceful guys around
quote:Gandhi Leads Boycott of 1920 Prince of Wales’ Visit to India
... During the latter part of 1920 Gandhi advocated a triple boycott. He wanted an absolute boycott of the Government and all government institutions, including schools, colleges, and courts.
quote:Gandhi encouraged Indians to boycott British goods and buy Indian goods instead. This helped to revitalise local economies in India and it also hit home at the British by undermining their economy in the country.
posted
When I saw that topic based on the fact that Fred Phelps is dead reached a fourth page, I actually thought "he's still dead right? He had better still be dead."
Posts: 2302 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
John Corvino is not a libertarian. He's a very well-respected left-liberal ethicist.
quote:Let's get down the real nuts and bolts of this. On one hand, you have the US government, an entity that has granted itself the ability to imprison without charge, to torture without legal recourse, and to execute by drone or by whatever means a particular barbaric state has deemed legal in its jurisdiction.
On the other hand you have, some employees at Mozilla and some bloggers that were vocal, a "private government" apparently. I'm going to say that the potential abuse of power is much more of an issue with the former than the latter.
Sure, as a matter of degree the one is much worse than the other. I even said above:
quote:Worse things happen every fraction of a second, of course, but that doesn't make what happened to him (Eich) OK.
quote:In fact, I'm not even sure about the root assumption. While I may not necessarily trust the US government to restrict Nazi speech, I'm not necessarily opposed to the German government doing the same.
What would be the ethically relevant difference between us doing it and them doing it?
quote:I wouldn't really agree. If you equate boycotts and political pressure with force rather than speech as one would expect, you get weird consequences like Gandhi being one of the most forceful guys around
I do think at least some nonviolent resistance should be understood as a form of force. I mean, if fines are a way of forcing you to comply with a law, that means costing you money as a consequence of your actions is a way of forcing you to act a particular way. So boycotts are just as forceful as fines.
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm also not sure why libertarians would want to sign that statement, since they don't accept that private dictatorships are problematic.
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
The difference is in the threat of violence - i.e, I know if I continue to rack up fines and not pay them, men with guns will come to my house and force me to pay them/take me to jail and keep me until someone pays them on my behalf. (or I serve a sentence) Or at least, they'll forcibly take away my car/drivers license/ability to rack up more fines.
With a boycott, there's no threat of violence or forcible coersion. As a private consumer, it's entirely my choice whose products I use/purchase. If I feel a company is acting in an immoral fashion, it's entirely my perogative to boycott them. And interestingly enough, nobody here has raised any objection to, say, the fact I boycott companies that use child labor, or friends of mine boycott companies that support Planned Parenthood. Are we using force to oppress other people's political beliefs? (those who support child labor or abortion) Or are we simply acting in a manner that we believe to be moral? Why is bigotry against gays the one type of political speech that should be immune? Like I askes earlier, what if Eich was a member of the KKK? Or NAMBLA?
That being said, I thing there's a difference between a boycott being moral and being effective. I didn't boycott Mozilla because I didn't think Eich was going to do any harm as CEO. I didn't boycott Ender's Game and I obviously still participate on this forum because I believe the amount of good Card has done with his writing (especially in my own life) has vastly outweighed any damage he's caused, and I think he has some really great things to say in many of his books.
But no, I can't equivocate boycotts with force, not in a way analogous with government policy. They are a completely legitimate way of expressing one's political speech, just as donating to the NOM or the NRA or any other political group is.
Posts: 2222 | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Destineer: I'm also not sure why libertarians would want to sign that statement, since they don't accept that private dictatorships are problematic.
That's a highly inaccurate and unjustified generalization.
Posts: 2222 | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
i think they would accept that private dictatorships are problematic, but are convinced that such a scenario would not arise in any localized or microfederalized scenario given perfectly free markets (it would but whatever)
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
More or less. More charitably put, Libertarians generally seem to believe that private dictatorships, inasmuch as they exist/might exist in the future, do so because of the federal government propping up large "too big to fail" corporations rather than letting them fail, as all oversized corporations inevitably will. The logic behind this is that as soon as a corporation is large enough to seriously start imposing their will on people through monopolies and other unfair trade practices, they'll either collapse under their own weight and/or consumers (who are apparently far better educated and proactive than consumers now, for whatever reason) will actively avoid them.
How practical those ideas are is not something I’m going to debate, though the fact that I’m not a libertarian should indicate I obviously disagree with them. But to state that libertarians either support, or at least don't view as problematic, the idea of private dictatorships is just absurd. Depending on whom you ask, libertarian philosophy doesn’t differentiate between “private” and “public” government. By which I mean, they reject the legitimacy and authority (and in some cases, the concept of authority) of the government and see it as just being the largest, most tyrannical private dictatorship around.
Posts: 2222 | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote: When I saw that topic based on the fact that Fred Phelps is dead reached a fourth page, I actually thought "he's still dead right? He had better still be dead."
He always struck me as a damaged heartless shambling Zombie before he died. Would not be surprised if that hadn't changed after death.
Posts: 1941 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dogbreath, thanks, I think your objections are basically right. What I said was at best an unfair simplification of what they think.
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Destineer: Sure, as a matter of degree the one is much worse than the other. I even said above:
quote:Worse things happen every fraction of a second, of course, but that doesn't make what happened to him (Eich) OK.
Maybe I was being unclear, as I said above, we're really talking about "potential abuse of power." I don't think that either has really abused power (recently anyway) when it comes to speech about same-sex marriage.
quote:
quote:In fact, I'm not even sure about the root assumption. While I may not necessarily trust the US government to restrict Nazi speech, I'm not necessarily opposed to the German government doing the same.
What would be the ethically relevant difference between us doing it and them doing it?
The short answer is that the US actually blew up a Muslim preacher in another country that spoke out against the US. Germany hasn't done anything similar, not recently anyway.
The longer answer is that German restrictions were enacted in the wake of WWII as a part of an Allied effort called denazification. It was correctly judged that the ideology was so widespread and so dangerous that the harm caused by the infringement of free speech in outlawing it was outweighed by the harm that would have been caused by allowing it to continue unrestricted. Plus, Germany was in no shape after WWII to abuse its powers in this area beyond its borders.
Both these considerations aren't in effect at the moment for the US.
quote:I do think at least some non-violent resistance should be understood as a form of force.
Then I think you've devalued the meaning of "force" to such a degree that the general objection to force being used against free speech no longer applies.
Dogbreath covers it well. Boycotts are just part of the accepted public discourse about consumer behaviour. Companies attempt to convince us that they are more green than others, more organic, less approving of sweatshops, more accepting of diversity, etc. Boycotters attempt to convince us that companies are not in fact more green, are not diverse, pollute too much, etc. Are they both now using "force" against free speech? Bah.
In the public discourse, the boycott against Mozilla's Eich is countered by NOM's boycott of Mozilla ( http://www.nomblog.com/39041/ ) for removing Eich and I'm ok with that just like I'm ok with NOM's boycott of Starbucks and General Mills which are still in effect according to their website.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by AchillesHeel: When I saw that topic based on the fact that Fred Phelps is dead reached a fourth page, I actually thought "he's still dead right? He had better still be dead."
Actually, the man climbed out of his coffin exactly three days after he died, resurrected and looking as good as new.
The unfortunate implications of this are still being discussed.
Posts: 572 | Registered: Jun 2013
| IP: Logged |
posted
My thoughts are that it is an interesting juxtaposition. There are a lot of parallels. In both cases it is employees protesting a political/social opinion of the employer. My guess is that the Clipper protest won't create a change in the team's leadership like the Mozilla protest did.
But mostly I was just curious about other people's reaction.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
For me it would be equivalent if Sterling had donated to say an effort to eliminate admissions to college based on race in Michigan, and that was why Clippers players were protesting as in the manner they are.
I don't have fully formed opinions on this instance.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
So you think it might actually *less* appropriate for employees to protest political action vs the discovery of a privately held opinion?
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
I haven't said anything about more or less appropriate. I don't think the actions of Eich and Sterling are functionally identical.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm curious to hear some elaboration once your thoughts have settled. You seemed to have had a pretty firm and early opinion on the employees that spoke out against Eich.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
If you're looking for what a more conservative take on the issue would be here is what I thought was a decent blog post.
Posts: 362 | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MattP: I'm curious to hear some elaboration once your thoughts have settled. You seemed to have had a pretty firm and early opinion on the employees that spoke out against Eich.
I sure did, and I sure hope to benefit from carefully considering the matter this time. Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
Eich petition v Clippers protest Compare and contrast.
I have to agree with BlackBlade in that the actions aren't identical. Sterling's bigotry seems to be a strictly private matter, whereas Eich actually donated money to a cause that was seeking to disenfranchise gay people. In both cases I say the employee reaction is more or less justified.
Posts: 2222 | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by stilesbn: If you're looking for what a more conservative take on the issue would be here is what I thought was a decent blog post.
I read that and it seems to boil down to the old "love the sinner, hate the sin" argument. In other words, they don't dislike people for being gay, they just don't want them doing gay stuff.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Sterling's bigotry seems to be a strictly private matter, whereas Eich actually donated money to a cause that was seeking to disenfranchise gay people.
This is my initial take as well. I could see principled support or opposition to both, but it's hard for me to see opposing the anti-Eich protests while supporting the anti-Sterling protests.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Sterling's bigotry seems to be a strictly private matter, whereas Eich actually donated money to a cause that was seeking to disenfranchise gay people.
This is my initial take as well. I could see principled support or opposition to both, but it's hard for me to see opposing the anti-Eich protests while supporting the anti-Sterling protests.
I think if one feels that anti-SSM activism is correct it may be easier to justify the latter. In other words, it could be internally consistent to condemn punishing a correct moral belief (whether or not it's tied to any political action), while feeling okay about punishing an immoral belief.
*There's a pretty short hop from this to simply not being able to tolerate people who have different moral convictions, of course.
Posts: 4287 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sure. But then the "intolerance is always wrong and people should not be punished for their beliefs full stop" arguments don't work.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
It seems to me that anyone who does this the actions of Eich and the words of Sterling are equivalent hasn't put much thought into the issue. Eich gave direct financial support to efforts to prevent homosexuals from marrying. He did this when most other people felt that way too, but (unless something new has come up) he hasn't had an 'evolution' on his opinions regarding SSM to the extent he stated a regret for that support. If he has, I've missed it because I haven't followed as closely as I should.
Sterling on the other hand appears to be a spoken racist, but nothing of tangible support seems to have come out. That said, it's...well, personally I think it's unlikely that someone who doesn't want his (black, Latina) girlfriend to associate him or his team with black people...well, such a man is certainly capable of financial support for racist causes too. But none have come out yet.
All of that said; there *are* some similarities at play here. Should Sterling be fired, it will be for very similar reasons Eich was forced to resign: disapproval of the owners of his 'company' for him due to public statements he made.
Perversely to me at least, though Eich's 'offense' was greater (in terms of prejudice), there is even greater cause to remove Sterling, so much of the financial success of the team due to publicity.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:I think if one feels that anti-SSM activism is correct it may be easier to justify the latter.
Well sure. I meant for a person who objects privately to both opinions. If I think Eich is wrong and I think that Sterling is wrong, I couldn't condemn the Eich protestors while supporting the Sterling protestors.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Sure. But then the "intolerance is always wrong and people should not be punished for their beliefs full stop" arguments don't work.
Personally, I would wholeheartedly agree with and endorse the idea that people ought not be punished for their beliefs. Beliefs being something existing between one's ears. Speech I would agree people ought not to be punished for either, with qualifications for the problem of people not being required to patronize a business with beliefs they don't like and such.
Actuons in expression of beliefs? Such as financial support for discrimination? That I would qualify even further, for fewer definitions of 'punishment' which seems to be used interchangeably with 'consequences' depending on who feels the pinch. It's 'punishment' when Eich is forced to resign, but a 'consequences' of homosexual behavior barring marriage. Of course as said this does work both ways. Supporters of SSM should be expected to be wary of oppressive majority attitudes, and some are, but many aren't.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
That they are ashamed to be associated with Sterling and wish to distance themselves from the brand insofar as the brand is associated with him. Any more than that has to be guessed at as they are likely contractually prevented from actually making statements in opposition to Sterling, the team, or the league.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Several other players in the league have said as much and I assume the players on his team feel similarly. At the very least they are saying "I don't want to work for you."
Though I'd prefer you didn't go all socratic here. It's clear there's a direction you're heading and it's pretty clear what the direction is.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
MattP: I sensed a bit of a rebuke in your statement that I was quick to jump to a conclusion in Mozilla but not here, so I decided rather than just post my thoughts as they exist, I'd see how you come at it because I respect you.
I wasn't consciously trying to apply the socratic method on you, or reach a point that way. I'm still mulling.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
It wasn't a rebuke. I was noting it because it was notable. The fact that there was a pause before coming to judgement in this case was interesting all by itself.
quote:I wasn't consciously trying to apply the socratic method on you, or reach a point that way. I'm still mulling.
OK. I'm sorry for jumping to that conclusion.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
MattP: I don't think I can support the player's chosen means of publicly protesting the owner.
1: I *hate* the manner in which the comments were leaked. Mr. Sterling's girlfriend was clearly trying to bait him into saying these sorts of remarks specifically so that she could then leak those remarks and get him hammered by the public. And I have no confidence she did it for moral reasons. I think embracing the means by which these comments were leaked while trying to simultaneously decry racism muddles the message. Just for consistency's sake, that's also why I have issues with the Boston Tea Party.
2: Like in the case of Mozilla, the employees should express their disgust at the comments through the leadership chain, as well as through their union representative. They should also find out what (if anything) is already being done by the organization. They can also refuse to play, and in fact this plan was already being considered. If they want to distance themselves from the man, don't take his money. Or if you must play because you need to collect your paycheck, express your opposition to the remarks by seeking to openly express approval of racial inclusion.
But I didn't really enjoy writing this post because I do think the two situations are very different.
Rakeesh:
quote:Sterling on the other hand appears to be a spoken racist, but nothing of tangible support seems to have come out.
This is not correct. Mr. Sterling has openly kept minority groups out of housing he owns because he is a racist. From what I have read he has also made many comments over the years that players and coaches all recognized as racist. They just ignored it until now. It may have very well turned out that Eich *would* have discriminated against gay employees in concrete ways. If he had, it's a new conversation.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
After the dog pile that happened to BlackBlade I can understand why he would be hesitant to make any remarks this time around.
Posts: 362 | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah, that was before I had read more about him. Pretty clear he's more than just a verbal racist.
As for 'voicing complaints in the leadership chain'...why would they be expected to have any confidence in the leadership chain with him at the top, exactly?
Where is it written, morally or professionally, that the only proper venues for expressing disapproval are 'don't take his money' or 'enact a formal public debate' or 'operate strictly within the chain of command', anyway? It's a publicized position relying on publicity and celebrity as well as athletic skill.
It seems to me that the steps you identify as the proper ones are appropriate for employers and people who have earned your respect. For less toxic statements and behaviors than this. But they responded to his noxious speech with speech of their own. It seems to me that, once again, this tone policing (I have to agree with Samprimary's characterization here) is just a means of insisting that one must be *nicer* and *more* polite than someone who is not...or else risk being chastised by someone somewhere because they're not acting in the proper format, in the proper way.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:As for 'voicing complaints in the leadership chain'...why would they be expected to have any confidence in the leadership chain with him at the top, exactly?
Well for one, look at what happened. The commissioner of the organization acted in a timely and appropriate manner yes?
quote:Where is it written, morally or professionally, that the only proper venues for expressing disapproval are 'don't take his money' or 'enact a formal public debate' or 'operate strictly within the chain of command', anyway? It's a publicized position relying on publicity and celebrity as well as athletic skill.
That's kind of a strange question. It's not written explicitly anywhere. There's no book, essay, etc that everybody references for these sorts of moral positions.
quote:But they responded to his noxious speech with speech of their own.
You mean they responded to his very specific private comments with a strong but ambiguous public expression?
quote:is just a means of insisting that one must be *nicer* and *more* polite than someone who is not.
You're not wrong. I believe if you don't carefully consider how you express an opinion you do your cause and opinion a disservice. If we go back to my Boston Tea Party statement. Were I to say, "Destroying the property of British merchants/store owners, and depriving sailors of their income (based on the successful delivery of cargo) is not the correct way to protest terrible abuses committed by the British government.", would your response be I'm tone policing again?
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:The commissioner of the organization acted in a timely and appropriate manner yes?
Given that he was known to be racist prior to this, you don't think the difference in publicity was the deciding factor here? To my eye the league was responding to public outrage, the loss of sponsors, etc. and not to his specific behavior.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
