Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[WealthyRadish]

I personally disagree with that outlook and would like to see it change, but I respect the right that people have to think that.

Why?

A person's beliefs, ideas, or political affiliations should never be sufficient 'guilt' for a punitive measure, legal or extralegal, which is one of the most fundamental freedoms a person can have.

First line.

[MorleyDev]

They can have that belief, sure, but that doesn't stop us from looking down at them for it. And it leaves us free to boycott them for it, for example.

Freedom of speech is not freedom from consequence, and not freedom from being thought of as a complete git. "The owner of this shop is a git, I won't shop there. I won't eat bread from there even if I'm not the one who bought it." is a perfectly valid stance to take.

The play is the same, this one just took place on a bigger stage.

[Jelle]

A person's beliefs, ideas, or political affiliations should never be sufficient 'guilt' for a punitive measure, legal or extralegal, which is one of the most fundamental freedoms a person can have. To compare this to a lynch mob is hyperbole, but it's in the same category of sensationalist public reaction and anger that's at odds with what a free society is all about (specifically the rights guaranteed in our constitution). I guess we're fortunate that the government is (usually) held to a higher standard than the public. The only reason why each of us don't have to answer to the public for whatever ideas we may have that go radically contrary to what they would find acceptable is that we're not in the spotlight, and this guy doesn't happen to have that luxury. The really funny part is that he doesn't even hold a radical viewpoint... it's not uncommon for people in the United States to regard homosexuality as unnatural, and state support of it undesirable. I personally disagree with that outlook and would like to see it change, but I respect the right that people have to think that.

Yes exactly my thoughts. Thank you for wording it better than I can.

[MorleyDev]

Let me draw up a situation.

I own a bakery. I dislike the political views of the head of the company who sells me flour. Am I aloud to buy from a different bakery? Of course. Am I allowed to refuse to sell bread baked with flour from that bakery? Of course. Am I allowed to tell my customers why I won't sell bread from that flour? Of course.

If enough people dislike that head and agree with me, the company has a PR situation on their hands. They aren't selling flour because people dislike their head. Either the head has to make friends with the people who dislike him, or has to go. Otherwise people won't be buying flour to make bread from them.

How is this situation any different from the bakery situation? Because the scale is bigger? Why does that matter?

Freedom of speech is not freedom from the consequences of speech.

[Graknorke]

Freedom of speech is not freedom from the consequences of speech.

You keep saying that, and I think that you think there's people disagreeing with you. Nobody is.

I, at least, am saying that who a person is has no bearing on their business and so it would be ridiculous to boycott the business because of them.

[MorleyDev]

Freedom of speech is not freedom from the consequences of speech.

You keep saying that, and I think that you think there's people disagreeing with you. Nobody is.

I, at least, am saying that who a person is has no bearing on their business and so it would be ridiculous to boycott the business because of them.

And I'm saying I am fully in my rights to boycott a business based on who a person is. That's the fundamental disagreement, I believe that the boycott of their business or the business they are a key figurehead in is a potential and valid consequence of them exercising their freedom of speech.

Freedom of speech isn't a shield they can hide behind in this situation, because nobody is saying they can't say these things. They're saying people are free to react to them saying these things in a perfectly legal and public manner, namely a boycott. That's what I'm trying to convey with that sentence, because it seems people are implying freedom of speech is freedom of consequence but don't realise that's what they're implying.

Ultimately, I'm saying you can refuse to shop somewhere because you dislike the political views of one of it's heads of staff. And that just because the scale is grander doesn't make this any different a situation.

[Gunner-Chan]

The actual character of a person absolutely has a bearing on their business. Absolutely. It's completely out of touch with reality to say that a persons personality and beliefs don't have an actual impact on what they do or say.

Really I think if this man was a racist instead I don't think anyone would be having this discussion, but somehow taking action against same sex couples isn't considered discrimination yet.

[WealthyRadish]

boycotts

Yep, totally within your rights to boycott someone for whatever reason you like. I would still disagree with that being a good reason to boycott, though.

Absolute worst case scenario is that the CEO's policy and business strategy is having a negative impact on the greater society. So that would be a weapons company encouraging a huge military budget through lobbying, or something. Most companies don't have that kind of impact, so more likely the worst case is limited to internal culture of the company and whatever ways the company can influence its employees through its management methods. That's even if you're saying the CEO is manifesting their beliefs in their work, which is certainly not something you can assume. I don't think there's any evidence of Mozilla, the company, actually engaging in homophobic practices. Some would say the worst would be the company making donations to a political organization, but that actually needs the board of directors to be involved.

As for the freedom to 'look down on people', I don't have a response for that kind an attitude, and am not sure what you want intend to actually change by calling people idiots (to say this guy is an idiot would be ridiculous, as LW pointed out earlier I think).

The actual character of a person absolutely has a bearing on their business. Absolutely. It's completely out of touch with reality to say that a persons personality and beliefs don't have an actual impact on what they do or say.

Really I think if this man was a racist instead I don't think anyone would be having this discussion, but somehow taking action against same sex couples isn't considered discrimination yet.

Key issue here is the use of the phrase 'their business'. They're a manager, whose scope is generally limited to the internal day to day functioning of the company, and whose only obligation is to the shareholders. Again, I don't think there's any evidence of Mozilla engaging in homophobic practices. There are cases where the CEO takes on being the face of a company as a marketing strategy, like Apple and Steve Jobs, but that's still just marketing.

[MorleyDev]

As for the freedom to 'look down on people', I don't have a response for that kind an attitude, and am not sure what you want intend to actually change by calling people idiots (to say this guy is an idiot would be ridiculous, as LW pointed out earlier I think).

Maybe this comes down to my having a very detached view of people. I don't see how it's difficult to think a person is a genius in one area and an idiot in another, a saint in one area and a force for the worse in another, so what I call them is fully within and limited to the context of the discussion.

I love my grandfather, but still look down on him for his old fashioned racist and homophobic views. I respect him for the way he actively fought abuses of authority whilst in the police force and refused to allow any of his colleagues to step over the line when interviewing suspects, and I absolutely disrespect him for his view that my sister shouldn't date a black man just because the man is black. These things are all possible to feel about one man.

Here, the man did some good work for the early internet. He also donated money to a cause many believe to be a pretty horrible one. Surely it's possible to respect the former, whilst still condemning the latter? And surely the former doesn't absolve him of the latter any more than the latter erases the former?

[WealthyRadish]

Alright, that's a much more reasonable view then. Thanks for the clarification, I agree (maybe not with the word choice of looking down on).

[Graknorke]

And I'm saying I am fully in my rights to boycott a business based on who a person is. That's the fundamental disagreement, I believe that the boycott of their business or the business they are a key figurehead in is a potential and valid consequence of them exercising their freedom of speech.

Christ, I'm not saying you're not and it isn't. I'm saying that it isn't a reasonable course of action to do so.

Really I think if this man was a racist instead I don't think anyone would be having this discussion, but somehow taking action against same sex couples isn't considered discrimination yet.

Nope, sorry. I know for a fact that plenty of the people I interact with both on a personal and impersonal level are racists and even on a personal level isn't an issue unless they act on it.
And are you really trying to say that the general community of Bay12, a largely liberal community on the internet, is against gay marriage?

[Criptfeind]

So, I don't really have a opinion on this matter. But in browsing the thread one thing I've seen come up time and time again (and even on the post above this one) is people talking about how this  guy is getting hammered just for his opinion. That's not true. Donating money to a cause is a action. This guy took a anti-gay action.

If you argument is that so long as people are not taking actions they shouldn't be hurt for their opinions as far as I can tell you should support what happened to this guy.

[MorleyDev]

Nope, sorry. I know for a fact that plenty of the people I interact with both on a personal and impersonal level are racists and even on a personal level isn't an issue unless they act on it.

Except surely this man has acted on it. Like, that's what caused the whole problem to begin with: He acted by donating to the whole Proposition 8 clause. I guess we're gonna have to disagree that this isn't reasonable. I'd say it is given that he...well, acted on those beliefs. $1000 worth of acting.

It's funny, I was largely detached at the start. I didn't really care, just found it an interesting indication of which position on the "cycle of social change" we were. But the more I thought about it, the more I came to conclude this was a reasonable reaction all-in-all from people. The people threatening violence were being unreasonable, not denying that, but the boycott? Yeah, more I thought about that the more reasonable a response it seemed from those who disagreed with the man's actions.

[Graknorke]

Nope, sorry. I know for a fact that plenty of the people I interact with both on a personal and impersonal level are racists and even on a personal level isn't an issue unless they act on it in a capacity that affects how I interact with them.

Except surely this man has acted on it. Like, that's what caused the whole problem to begin with: He acted by donating to the whole Proposition 8 clause.]

Is that any better?
Really this has been repeated so many times I'm having difficulty believing that you're just missing it.

That donation had nothing to do with his capacity as CEO of Mozilla. It's before he was the CEO, even. So wanting to have Eich stop being the CEO as a response is not something that can be justified with anything other than wanting to personally ruin something for the guy.

[MorleyDev]

Except surely all a boycott says is "We are uncomfortable supporting this man's life by using or supporting products which directly and significantly benefit him through our usage, so we are no longer using or supporting the use of those products".

Now, the end result of enough people being that uncomfortable may be a destruction of his life. But it's not a targeted strike ala shooting the man, it's just deciding not to enable the support structure. A Batman Begins "I won't kill you, but I don't have to save you either" type solution.

If I had a friend who was actively acting against non-whites and gays, I sure as hell would stop interacting with them. Because even if it doesn't directly impact my life, I disagree morally on such a level I wouldn't be ethically comfortable interacting with them. They may have benefits to being their friend, but that inherent discomfort succeeds in outweighing those benefits.