The Thought Conditioners

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
See posts with no answers
I think it's a fair question to ask whether it's worth putting up public campaigns targeted against somebody like Eich. To me, it seems like kind of a waste of time, energy and political capital, but then again I don't really have a horse in the race so my opinion only carries so much weight.
 
anitram said:
I think it's a fair question to ask whether it's worth putting up public campaigns targeted against somebody like Eich. To me, it seems like kind of a waste of time, energy and political capital, but then again I don't really have a horse in the race so my opinion only carries so much weight.
Click to expand...


Yeah, I feel the same way. I can understand publicity campaigns against someone like Truett Cathy, who used Chick-fil-a to broadcast anti-SSM messages very vocally. But I imagine that the corporate world is littered with people like Eich, who are against SSM privately, and perhaps donate to causes against it, but don't use their corporate position to broadcast their views to the world. Eich's views were publicly exposed, but I can't imagine that publicly exposing everyone like Eich, and then running publicity campaigns against each and every one of them, would be terribly productive. Maybe I'm wrong, though.
 
anitram said:
I think it's a fair question to ask whether it's worth putting up public campaigns targeted against somebody like Eich. To me, it seems like kind of a waste of time, energy and political capital, but then again I don't really have a horse in the race so my opinion only carries so much weight.
Click to expand...
Was there really that much of a campaign? I know eHarmony posted something on their site encouraging users to use other browsers, but that's about all I know.
 
i had also seen an article on facebook that okcupid had a message pop up for its users logging in via firefox announcing their...displeasure of the guy, i guess you could say. i'm not sure if they outright blocked firefox users from continuing to use the site, but they definitely at least made them aware of what was going on.
 
Diemen said:
I'm going to go slightly against the grain here. I don't agree with Eich's beliefs at all, but is the answer to run anyone out of town who says things we don't like? As far as gay marriage, that war has been waged, and frankly, people like Eich already lost, despite their continued protestations. The tide has turned and their viewpoint is quickly turning into a minority one.

Do we pro-SSM people want to run everyone out of town/office/their job who doesn't agree with us? Is that progress?
Click to expand...


Diemen is on target with what I am trying to say.

"...is the answer to run anyone out of town who says things we don't like?"

Are we so willing to embrace a society that censors minority views?

Also, to correct some misinformation:

He donated the money without making a big to do about it and the donation was
1,000 dollars not 10,000.

From the article:

Mozilla CEO Brendan Eich resigned under pressure after gay rights activists demanded that he step down or recant his support of traditional marriage laws.

Eich donated $1,000 to support Proposition 8, the California ballot initiative that amended the state's constitution to define marriage as between one man and one woman.

"I don't want to talk about my personal beliefs because I kept them out of Mozilla all these 15 years we've been going,” Eich told The Guardian. “I don't believe they're relevant.”
 
PhilsFan said:
Hahahaha this is such bullshit. I am on my phone so I want to ask the reliability of the Washington Examiner. It says "traditional marriage" in the title and "religious beliefs" in the article so I assume it is a fucking rag.
Click to expand...


the Washington Examiner is a free, right wing rag passed out on the DC metro and targeted at minority audiences. it features lots of "articles" by people like Byron York, Mona Charen, Phillis Schafley, Michelle Malkin, etc.

it makes the NRO look intellectual.

as for this bru-ha-ha, i have mixed feelings. i don't think someone should lose their job over a political decision, particularly one that was held 6 years ago and has been overturned.

yet, if this guy came out against interracial marriage, he would have been forced to resign.
 
the iron horse said:
Diemen is on target with what I am trying to say.

"...is the answer to run anyone out of town who says things we don't like?"

Are we so willing to embrace a society that censors minority views?

Also, to correct some misinformation:

He donated the money without making a big to do about it and the donation was
1,000 dollars not 10,000.

From the article:

Mozilla CEO Brendan Eich resigned under pressure after gay rights activists demanded that he step down or recant his support of traditional marriage laws.

Eich donated $1,000 to support Proposition 8, the California ballot initiative that amended the state's constitution to define marriage as between one man and one woman.

"I don't want to talk about my personal beliefs because I kept them out of Mozilla all these 15 years we've been going,” Eich told The Guardian. “I don't believe they're relevant.”
Click to expand...




did you read what was said? this was a financial decision made about the best financial interests of the company. this happens all the time. you can dislike it, but if the CEO of Wal-Mart gave $1000 to a local chapter of the KKK, would you expect everyone to nod and say, "well, those are just his views, he's got a right to them." he does have a right to those views. he doesn't have the right to be free from the consequences of holding views. if he really believes in second class citizenship for gay people, is he not willing to resign his job over these deeply held, sincere convictions?

i'm sorry that you can no longer kick the gays and not get any blowback, and i'm also sorry that the gays are now incredibly well organized, funded, and politically astute that they can advance their interests as well as any other group in America.

i also don't think that quoting that "article" from the WE really helps your case. i suggest you do some wider reading, that will probably help you understand the situation better.
 
Irvine511 said:
as for this bru-ha-ha, i have mixed feelings. i don't think someone should lose their job over a political decision, particularly one that was held 6 years ago and has been overturned.

yet, if this guy came out against interracial marriage, he would have been forced to resign.
Click to expand...

That's pretty much where I'm at. I don't know that we need an organized campaign to oust everyone who holds odious views, but at the same time, if those views are such that, if made public they would anger a large portion of your shareholders, then hey, maybe you should be more careful what you donate your money and time to. Andrew Sullivan has gone ape shit over it, decrying it as liberal McCarthyism and only digging his heels in further when readers have dissented. I generally like Sullivan and find his viewpoint and willingness to air dissent refreshing, but boy, when he gets a stick in his craw he can be insufferable.
 
the iron horse said:
From the article:

Mozilla CEO Brendan Eich resigned under pressure after gay rights activists demanded that he step down or recant his support of traditional marriage laws.

Eich donated $1,000 to support Proposition 8, the California ballot initiative that amended the state's constitution to define marriage as between one man and one woman.

"I don't want to talk about my personal beliefs because I kept them out of Mozilla all these 15 years we've been going,” Eich told The Guardian. “I don't believe they're relevant.”
Click to expand...

I have lived in CA my whole life, I voted no on Prop 8 in 2008. I do remember the campaign. I didn't like parents bringing their kids to hold up signs at intersections on street corners that said 'Save our families, vote yes on 8".

All that said, I think OKCupid is wrong and Sullivan is right, persecuting this man because he supported 8 is wrong. Is it the donation that was wrong, what if he only had a bumper sticker that said 'vote yes on 8'? It seems it is his support in 2008 that they are upset about. Has he done anything or said anything while acting as CEO against same sex rights? I have not heard anything along those lines.
 
The Hounding Of A Heretic « The Dish

From the link posted:

"Will he now be forced to walk through the streets in shame? Why not the stocks? The whole episode disgusts me – as it should disgust anyone interested in a tolerant and diverse society. If this is the gay rights movement today – hounding our opponents with a fanaticism more like the religious right than anyone else – then count me out. If we are about intimidating the free speech of others, we are no better than the anti-gay bullies who came before us."
 
Fwiw, this topic is being debated and discussed within what might be known as "the gay community," and there's lots of disagreement over whether this is a good thing or a bad thing. The fact remains, though, that there was no organized effort to remove this guy.
 
the following is also a fair point. please try to imagine *any* other minority group subjected to such nasty fear-mongering using the most vulnerable people of all -- children.

you can't do it. please watch the videos.

Just a Reminder: The Campaign for Prop 8 Was Unprecedentedly Cruel

By Mark Joseph Stern

The current flap over Mozilla CEO Brendan Eich’s recent resignation revolves primarily around Eich’s $1,000 contribution in 2008 to California’s Proposition 8 campaign. Eich’s supporters insist that progressive criticism of his donation is tantamount to thought control or even censorship. To them, Eich’s significant financial support of Prop 8 is simply an expression of his political views, which should not be policed by his employers.

The view that Eich was just expressing his opposition to marriage equality, a common stance at the time, strikes me as naive. Because Prop 8 is now dead, and because its passage was largely overshadowed by President Barack Obama’s election victory, it’s easy to forget the vicious tactics of the pro-Prop 8 campaign. Or, I should say, it’s easy to forget them if you’re not gay—because almost every gay person I know remembers the passage of Prop 8 as the most traumatic and degrading anti-gay event in recent American history.

The tactics used by pro-Prop 8 campaigners were not merely homophobic. They were laser-focused to exploit Californians’ deepest and most irrational fears about gay people, indoctrinating an entire state with cruelly anti-gay propaganda. Early on, Prop 8’s supporters decided to focus their campaign primarily on children, stoking parents’ fears about gay people brainwashing their kids with pro-gay messages or, implicitly, turning their children gay.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JV8-F4jfD1c

Another notorious commercial shows an earnest school administrator fretting that a “new health curriculum” that mentions gay marriage will “mess up” children with reference to “gay attraction.”

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U8j2y9WtTPw

And Prop 8 supporters quickly zeroed in on the terrifying possibility that religious adoption agencies “may be forced to place children in same-sex marriages.”

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A-jc4ujp9Ok

In perhaps the most insulting ad, two gay fathers are quizzed about marriage and reproduction by their daughter; the takeaway, of course, is that this faux-family is twisting the mind and morals of their child with perverse ideas about marriage and love.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=75J3TN9Zzck

This message of belittlement cut across pretty much every pro-Prop 8 ad—ads that ran incessantly in the state for months. The campaign’s strategy was to debase gay families as deviant and unhealthy while insinuating that gay people are engaged in a full-scale campaign to convert children to their cause. This strategy worked. And it worked because wealthy donors like Brendan Eich flooded the campaign with the money it needed to run ads like the ones above. Eich wasn’t just a casual opponent of marriage equality. He was a major contributor to the most vitriolic anti-gay campaign in American history, one that set the standard of homophobic propaganda that continues to this day. When we talk about Eich’s anti-gay stance, we aren’t just talking about abstract beliefs. We’re talking about concrete actions that harmed thousands of gay families and informed innumerable gay Americans that they were sinful, corrupted predators.
Click to expand...


while some people may have supported Prop 8 through non-hateful ignorance, there's little question that the actual people who orchestrated the campaign are very bad people.

Eich supported them. freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from consequence, or the right to be agreed with.

and the people behind Prop 8 do bear some responsibility when things like this happen:

Jury finds mother guilty of murdering 4-year-old son she thought was gay

PORTLAND, Ore. — An Oregon woman has been found guilty of the murder of her 4-year-old son.

Prosecutors said Jessica Dutro believed her son was gay, and that was the motive behind the beatings that led to his death.

Dutro, 25, was convicted Wednesday on one count of murder, five counts of murder by abuse, and one count of second-degree assault in the death of 4-year-old Zachary Dutro.

The jury deliberated for little more than one hour before handing down the unanimous verdict.

According to trial records, Dutro had instructed her boyfriend, Brian Canady, to “work on” her son, sending Canady a Facebook message that she thought Zachary was gay.

“He walks and talks like it. Ugh,” Dutro wrote.

An autopsy conducted by the state medical examiner’s office determined that Zachary died due to complications resulting from blunt force abdominal trauma.

Court records revealed that Canady admitted kicking the boy in the stomach before his death.

The investigation ultimately revealed a history of physical abuse by the Durto and Canady.

Senior Deputy District Attorney Megan Johnson told jurors that Dutro subjected her children to “systematic dehumanization” through brutal beatings — her method of discipline, reported The Oregonian.
When Zachary went to the hospital, doctors examined his siblings, too. His then-7-year-old sister and 3-year-old brother were covered in bruises; doctors found the 3-year-old had five broken ribs. Only Dutro’s infant son was uninjured.

Dutro’s family members are now caring for her surviving three children.

Last month, Canady pleaded guilty to first-degree manslaughter and second-degree assault for his involvement the child’s death.

Dutro’s sentencing was set for April 18. Canady has not yet been sentenced
Click to expand...
 
I have to admit I didn't know much about this prop 8 thing, asides from the general anti gay thing.. but man, this is pretty damn low.


:crack: And that mother? Yipes. That's fucking insane.
 
"Well, and he gave it when President Obama was still against gay marriage. So, I don't think it's very fair," Carrie Sheffield of Forbes said
Click to expand...



Ehh,, how the heck is that fair? :scratch:


And sure, there's people who take things too far in ANY group of people. Gays, straights, religious people, racist people, any group of people has their whackos. That doesn't mean you can generalize one specific group without taking notion of th rest...
 
I thought this was interesting:

http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/...php=true&_type=blogs&hpw&rref=technology&_r=0

Mozilla is not a typical corporate environment. As CEO, part of his job is to "lead community." How does he do that as a divisive figure? Divisiveness impacts employee morale and therefore their engagement. A CEO is the face of an organization, and yes, having divisive beliefs can have an impact.

Also totally agree that it's not even necessarily having the views he does ... it's the contributions to Prop 8, which was damaging, as already pointed out in the thread. So there's no "thought policing" going on here. Actions speak louder than your thoughts, and he acted.

Also, it sounds like there was a lot of internal rumblings about how the brou-ha-ha was mishandled, and that would not be a "scandalous" reason for an ousting.
 
some good points from a larger post:

This is not a minor disagreement. It’s a profound one. One side wants to continue engaging the debate. The other wants one side to shut up. I think you also see this difference in the responses to Jon Chait’s new piece on race in the age of Obama. Progressives see the scale of the historically-loaded injustice that African-Americans face every day and cavil at any attempts to minimize or qualify the iniquity of those on the right who still deploy its rhetorical codes. Liberals still insist on some fairness, on not jumping to conclusions about an entire party’s or a single person’s racism, on seeing that human beings are not so simple as to be reduced to such ideas as “hate”, on maintaining some kind of civil discourse which right and left can engage in, which eschews too-easy charges of bigotry.

One seeks to get to a place where a conversation ends. The other seeks never to end the conversation, and, in fact, gets a little queasy when any topic is ruled out of bounds in a free society.

Maybe if we can appreciate both traditions, we can see the underlying forces behind this debate more clearly. My own instincts on the gay rights question have always been classically liberal/small-c conservative/libertarian. I think hate is an eternal part of the human condition, and that ridding oneself of it is a personal, moral duty not a collective, political imperative. I never want to live in a society in which homophobes feel obliged to shut up. I believe their freedom is indivisible from ours. Their hate only says something about them, not me. I oppose hate crime laws for those reasons. And my attachment to open debate means constantly allowing even the foulest sentiments to be expressed – the better to confront them, expose them and also truly persuade people of the wrongness of their views – rather than pressuring them into submission or silence. Others have a different vision: that such bigotry needs extra punishment by the state (hence hate-crime laws), that bigots need to be constantly shamed, and that because of the profound evil of such thoughts, social pressure should be brought to bear to silence them. More to the point, past sins have to be recanted and repented before such bigots are allowed back into the conversation.

This is a very old fault-line in civil rights movements, and it’s amazing that the gay rights movement has been able to keep these divisions at bay as we fight for basic equality. That may now begin to change, if only because an entire generation has now grown up having deeply internalized their self-worth, and are thereby rightly all the more affronted by those still resistant to it. I understand that entirely, and am glad for this shift in consciousness – especially since I spent much of my adult life trying to bring it about. It’s wonderful for me to read young gay writers insist on their non-negotiable and full equality in terms of marriage – if only because I tried to make that case decades ago to a great deal of bewilderment and dismissal from many. This is indeed great news, as Frank Bruni noted. And, when couched in positive, constructive terms, it has won more converts among more straight people than most of us ever dreamed of.

But liberalism, for me, is not a means to a progressive end. It is an end in itself.

It seeks to guard against groupthink and social pressure as dangerous threats to freedom of thought and of the individual. It aims to protect the rights of bigots as well as the targets of their bigotry. At any one point, that can seem grotesquely unfair. And it is. It is and was deeply unfair that, in order to enjoy some simple basic rights, we gays have had to explain ourselves to the world, listen to our very lives being debated as if we were not in the room, have our lives and loves traduced and distorted and picked over by people who treat us as pawns in a political game or an intellectual exercise. But, you know what? We had no choice if we were to move forward. And, boy, have we moved forward through this difficult process.

I’m not taking this position because – to count some of the milder terms thrown in my direction in the last few days – I have internalized homophobia, I want to leverage others’ suffering for web traffic, I have never done anything to advance gay equality, I am a hypocrite/privileged white male/barebacker/Uncle Tom, and on and on. I’m taking this position because it is my honestly thought-out view. It’s laid out in Virtually Normal, which is emphatically not a progressive book. And it’s because I am also convinced that a liberal approach to politics will lead to – and has led to – more actual justice and a deeper changing of minds.

We have not won the debate this past decade or so because we have constantly exposed others’ hatred, or racked up the number of people we can condemn as homophobes. We have won because we have made the positive and reasoned case for our equal dignity and rights. We have won because we have engaged, not ostracized. And we have won more definitively because of it. How much better to have allowed this free debate to continue and to have actually genuinely changed people’s hearts and minds than to have tried to impose a settlement on the unwilling and unpersuaded, and then demanded they shut up. And this is what I would try to say to my progressive gay friends: if you really want the full justice you rightly believe in, stop trying to close down a debate which we are winning and in which we still have many people to persuade. Of course there’s bigotry and ignorance out there. But calling everyone who disagrees with you a bigot rules out a chance to persuade them, drives them further into a defensive crouch, and prevents us winning the argument in the long run.

If the liberal approach had so demonstratively failed, it would be one thing. But, in this case, it has demonstratively succeeded – perhaps more than any recent social movement. We shouldn’t forget how we got here. Or believe that somehow suddenly different tactics cannot still take this debate in a different direction. They can; and if we are not careful, they will.

The Dish
Click to expand...
 
Since he's calmed down from the first few days and taken a more measured look at it, I've appreciated Sullivan's take on this a lot more. Not much to disagree with, really.
 
From the text Irvine511 posted:

"How much better to have allowed this free debate to continue and to have actually genuinely changed people’s hearts and minds than to have tried to impose a settlement on the unwilling and unpersuaded, and then demanded they shut up. And this is what I would try to say to my progressive gay friends: if you really want the full justice you rightly believe in, stop trying to close down a debate which we are winning and in which we still have many people to persuade. Of course there’s bigotry and ignorance out there. But calling everyone who disagrees with you a bigot rules out a chance to persuade them, drives them further into a defensive crouch, and prevents us winning the argument in the long run."


I agree.

This attempt to shut down dissenting voices or punish ones who disagree is what is scary to me. It should scare all of us on either side of this issue.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

MrsSpringsteen
Gilead States Of America
Replies
16
Views
896
MrsSpringsteen
MrsSpringsteen
cobl04
Kiss the Future documentary
Replies
11
Views
3K
MrsSpringsteen
MrsSpringsteen
MrsSpringsteen
Billie Eilish Thought U2 Was From Scranton
Replies
1
Views
730
lazarus
lazarus
N
  • Locked
NBA 2022-23 Thread
46 47 48
Replies
1K
Views
45K
U2inUtah
U2inUtah
Irvine511
The Harper's Letter and Cancel Culture
2
Replies
34
Views
2K
Vlad n U 2
Vlad n U 2

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom