1357: "Free Speech"

This forum is for the individual discussion thread that goes with each new comic.

Moderators: Moderators General, Prelates, Magistrates

blowfishhootie
Posts: 486
Joined: Wed Sep 21, 2011 11:13 pm UTC

Re: 1357: "Free Speech"

Postby blowfishhootie » Sun Apr 27, 2014 8:15 am UTC

On the subject of the Donald Sterling-is-a-racist controversy, I was hoping the enlightened among us can shed some light on something. I know that we as potential consumers are now obligated to give our money to Donald Sterling - that just makes perfect sense - but are active players obligated to go play for him? Would black players refusing to play for the Clippers be just as reprehensible and disgusting as basketball fans who opt to support another team, or no team at all? Fucking bigoted scum, those players and fans are.

I feel terrible for poor Sterling, who is just a sweet, innocent racist, but then it's not all bad - his team will have a literal monopoly on morally upstanding and admirable players and fans in the league, because obviously the other 29 teams will by definition be literally full of horrible people who ignored their moral duty by not playing for or supporting the Clippers. Don't those people know Donny has a right to an opinion, and that automatically makes it equally as valid and worthy of accommodation as any other opinion?

EDIT: And of course, I fully expect the Clippers to now release some kind of bullshit statement condemning racism or whatever. But it will be a meaningless gesture - if they were so anti-racist they'd be making sure every one of their games was blacked out (heh) in Russia because black people live there too.

LafinJack
Posts: 5
Joined: Wed Apr 23, 2008 9:17 am UTC

Re: 1357: "Free Speech"

Postby LafinJack » Sun Apr 27, 2014 10:08 am UTC

Hello! Does anyone know which specific quote or person the title/alt text is referring to?

Mikeski
Posts: 1092
Joined: Sun Jan 13, 2008 7:24 am UTC
Location: Minnesota, USA

Re: 1357: "Free Speech"

Postby Mikeski » Sun Apr 27, 2014 2:58 pm UTC

gmalivuk wrote:
jsharpminor wrote:This behavior is no better than theirs.
Yes, that is exactly right. It is no worse to deny a group of people their basic human rights, than it is to dislike them for doing so.

And putting murderers in jail is just as bad as murder.

Give me a fucking break.

Eich had no power to "deny anyone their right to marriage". He's neither a religious nor government leader. Advocating for a thing, or paying money such that others can advocate for a thing, is not the same as doing that thing. If it were, there would be enough billboards purchased to impeach the entire US government. :wink:

However, the boycotters actually cost him his job, so their power was a bit greater than just the power to "dislike" him.

Perhaps adjust your comparison to murder based on that.

And I will grant you a fucking break. And a smoke break afterwards. :mrgreen:

blowfishhootie
Posts: 486
Joined: Wed Sep 21, 2011 11:13 pm UTC

Re: 1357: "Free Speech"

Postby blowfishhootie » Sun Apr 27, 2014 3:04 pm UTC

Mikeski wrote:
gmalivuk wrote:
jsharpminor wrote:This behavior is no better than theirs.
Yes, that is exactly right. It is no worse to deny a group of people their basic human rights, than it is to dislike them for doing so.

And putting murderers in jail is just as bad as murder.

Give me a fucking break.

Eich had no power to "deny anyone their right to marriage".


So Eich giving money to cement gays' status as subhuman is irrelevant because he doesn't actually have the power to force states to not acknowledge those marriages. Or something. Yeah, I know, it's stupid and I can't make sense of it either, but that's what you're here arguing. Anyway, Mozilla supporters, on the other hand, by threatening to give their money to other companies instead of Mozilla, are demonstrating that they DO have the power to force the CEO to resign. That's your argument. More dumbass contradictions and inconsistencies.

It would be morally wrong for anyone to boycott the LA Clippers now even though the owner has outed himself as someone who does not like black people attending his games. Right? Refusing to go on those grounds is unacceptable. You have to believe that. I mean, your arguments are still total nonsense even if you do admit to believing it, don't get me wrong. I'm just wondering if you'll come out and admit that your argument requires you to sympathize with a racist the same way you sympathize with homophobes.

Mikeski
Posts: 1092
Joined: Sun Jan 13, 2008 7:24 am UTC
Location: Minnesota, USA

Re: 1357: "Free Speech"

Postby Mikeski » Sun Apr 27, 2014 3:26 pm UTC

While quite tasty, I don't need you to put words in my mouth. Thanks, though.

What I actually am saying is, "if you are right, you shouldn't damage your own argument by slathering incorrect hyperbole all over it."

speising
Posts: 2347
Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2012 4:54 pm UTC
Location: wien

Re: 1357: "Free Speech"

Postby speising » Sun Apr 27, 2014 3:33 pm UTC

Mikeski wrote:
gmalivuk wrote:
jsharpminor wrote:This behavior is no better than theirs.
Yes, that is exactly right. It is no worse to deny a group of people their basic human rights, than it is to dislike them for doing so.

And putting murderers in jail is just as bad as murder.

Give me a fucking break.

Eich had no power to "deny anyone their right to marriage". He's neither a religious nor government leader. Advocating for a thing, or paying money such that others can advocate for a thing, is not the same as doing that thing. If it were, there would be enough billboards purchased to impeach the entire US government. :wink:

However, the boycotters actually cost him his job, so their power was a bit greater than just the power to "dislike" him.

Perhaps adjust your comparison to murder based on that.

And I will grant you a fucking break. And a smoke break afterwards. :mrgreen:


does that mean, if the boycott would have had no effect, it would have been morally better? are the boycotters wrong, simply because they succeeded?

blowfishhootie
Posts: 486
Joined: Wed Sep 21, 2011 11:13 pm UTC

Re: 1357: "Free Speech"

Postby blowfishhootie » Sun Apr 27, 2014 3:37 pm UTC

Mikeski wrote:While quite tasty, I don't need you to put words in my mouth. Thanks, though.

What I actually am saying is, "if you are right, you shouldn't damage your own argument by slathering incorrect hyperbole all over it."


You aren't addressing the relevant questions.

Say it with me now, "if Brandon Eich deserves immunity from the consequences of being a homophobe, then Donald Sterling deserves to be immune to the consequences of being a racist. Because I believe it was wrong to boycott Mozilla on the grounds that Eich sees gays as subhuman, then I must also believe it would be wrong to boycott the LA Clippers on the grounds that Sterling sees blacks as subhuman."

Can you say that, or admit that your argument is trash?

Mikeski
Posts: 1092
Joined: Sun Jan 13, 2008 7:24 am UTC
Location: Minnesota, USA

Re: 1357: "Free Speech"

Postby Mikeski » Sun Apr 27, 2014 3:46 pm UTC

I dunno. Have you stopped beating your husband yet?

(Please stop putting words in my mouth.)

User avatar
yanfan388
Posts: 21
Joined: Fri Apr 25, 2014 8:55 pm UTC

Re: 1357: "Free Speech"

Postby yanfan388 » Sun Apr 27, 2014 3:49 pm UTC

addams wrote:
yanfan388 wrote:
addams wrote:
yanfan388 wrote:just curious.

how did this very big thread get to be about Mozilla and homosexuals? i wouldn't get that from the original cartoon, which mentions hosting first and "getting banned from an internet community" last. that sounds like censorship of forum messages ("yelled at" sure works there, too, huh?)

never mind. don't yell at me!

I could try to explain.
That would take 5 more internet pages.

Do you want to discuss Freedom of Speech?
Do you want to discuss The Comic?

That would be Great!

Hey! Come Back! Don't Go!
Hey! You might be Sane!

We could use some of That.
A Forum can never have too much Sane.

i am not sane.

it won't be long before somebody probably says, hey, a T.R.O.L.L.

:(

Well...?
You could pretend to be Sane.
You might like it.

It can't be That hard to Fake.
Most people admit to Faking it.


allright, i'll try to pretend i'm sane for a little while.

i've tried to read through this long thread from the beginning to get some history, but it's pretty predictable. so what do i think?

i think zen koans try to make some of the same points as godel's incompleteness theorem. any sufficiently complicated system, including language, has statements whose truth can't be decided within the system and truths that can't be reached within the system. i also think most of the long debates in these kinds of forums (fora?) are good examples of such failures.

from reading about ten pages of arguments, it seems that most of them are picking at the meaning or use of words, are twisting what another person said or somehow completely misunderstanding it, or are simply abusing another person. society's problems, like treatment of homosexuals, will never be affected in the slightest way by these kinds of arguments. i even doubt that one person here changed how even one other person thinks about the problem.

what i think is that there are two ways of solving such problems in a good way.

1. use science and statistics to show that something is normal. if it's normal and part of all nature, there must be a reason for it. like, if DNA influences gay traits - which i don't know - maybe the DNA sequences have multiple uses. maybe a shift in where you start reading the code produces something else that's very valuable, like increased fertility in straight females.

2. this is much easier. the best way to kill prejudice is just to get to know the people you don't like. i don't remember where i read this story, but there was a teenage boy in the american south who was grown up disliking black people. one day he heard louis armstrong in a club and thought, how can a people who produced such a very great genius not be a very good people? maybe even better than me? so if people want to live better lives themselves, they can try going outside their close circle to watch movies, read, listen to music, make friends, even fall in love (hey, i know that can happen!) that's all it takes to see how stupid racism, homophobia, ethonocentrism, xenophobia really are.

if people don't want to even try that, nothing except a bazooka will change their minds. no online discussion, no boycott, no firings. all those do is maybe force people to lie and pretend, or else to get their own bazooka. :lol:

User avatar
PinkShinyRose
Posts: 834
Joined: Mon Nov 05, 2012 6:54 pm UTC
Location: the Netherlands

Re: 1357: "Free Speech"

Postby PinkShinyRose » Sun Apr 27, 2014 3:52 pm UTC

jpk wrote:
Mozilla’s new CEO, Brendan Eich, is an opponent of equal rights for gay couples. We would therefore prefer that our users not use Mozilla software to access OkCupid.
...
Those who seek to deny love and instead enforce misery, shame, and frustration are our enemies, and we wish them nothing but failure.


I find it hard to read "we wish them nothing but failure" as "we wish them nothing but a different office in the company". I see nothing else in the text (accessed here: http://techcrunch.com/2014/03/31/okcupid-offers-firefox-visitors-links-to-alternate-browsers-to-protest-new-mozilla-ceo/) since OK Cupid also seems a little ashamed of their role in all of this, and is not sharing anything about it now that they've got their way. (or at least, I can't find anything on the site - feel free to correct me if I'm wrong)

I think this discussion would benefit from stating whether moral views of the boycott regard OKCupids role or the participants roles.
jpk wrote:
gmalivuk wrote:
None of us in this thread would advocate, support, or probably even engage in a boycott targeted at a company with some bigoted average employees.


Are you sure you can speak for everyone in the thread? the people I'm arguing with don't seem to have a consistent story on any of the details here. Maybe it's better to speak for yourself.
Either way, though, that's kind of the weird thing. Why does it matter to you what position the guy holds? If you want the guy destroyed for disagreeing with you, why does it matter to you whether you destroy a CEO or a mechanic? I mean, the moral failing is the same in either case. A bigoted homophobic mechanic is just as evil as a bigoted homophobic CEO, isn't she?

viewtopic.php?f=7&t=108674#p3573036
viewtopic.php?f=7&t=108674&start=40#p3573123
viewtopic.php?f=7&t=108674&start=80#p3573296
viewtopic.php?f=7&t=108674&start=80#p3573305
viewtopic.php?f=7&t=108674&start=120#p3573389
viewtopic.php?f=7&t=108674&start=160#p3573460
I didn't look past page 5...
Pfhorrest wrote:I've been really trying to avoid engaging in this thread because ugh I do not have the time for yet another intractable debate online, but I just want to lend my voice to support pretty much everything jpk's been saying.

A way I might summarize it is: everything deserves a proportionate response. Rational argument deserves no more than rational argument in response. Of course, although it would be wrong and you shouldn't do it, you are still in a sense free to escalate to appeal to emotion or popularity or such instead if you like, because such appeals deserve no more than likewise in response, and therefore do not deserve an appeal to force, which is what a law against it would amount to.

Applied to these particulars: Eich was speaking (or paying others to speak) in support of Prop 8, and that action deserved at most similar speech against Prop 8 in return. People who disliked Eich's speech enough to raise a big stink and try to get him fired are escalating the situation without warrant, but that action deserves at most a similar action in response, e.g. people who dislike OKCupid's boycott of Firefox could in turn boycott OKCupid and that would be a proportional response. What would not be a proportional response, and where it crosses the line from "you shouldn't do that" to "you must not do that", would be using physical violence or the threat thereof -- including the threat of police action which underlies every law -- to counter OKCupid's boycott of Firefox.

At every level of conflict, peace depends upon the parties involved not escalating the conflict to a more serious level, and the most serious kind of peace -- peace from physical violence -- depends entirely on enough of us agreeing to use physical violence, including that which underlies every law, only to counter other physical violence. That is the first and most sacred kind of peace we need to protect. Within the peace that such agreement affords, there are further levels of peace to be won, including the peace of not socially ruining each other's lives because we disagree with each other, and the peace of not being emotionally abusive assholes to each other because we disagree with each other, struggling gradually toward the total peace where rational arguments are made and accepted and things are left at that level instead of escalating to emotional, social, or physical attacks on each other.

Now you might ask what if the initial speech is a call to violence, which you might frame support for Prop 8 as since it's a law and thus backed ultimately by the threat of violence. Consider this analogy to bring it to a point: two men, Gaye and Ike, offend each other, and after the altercation, Ike rants to all his friends "dear GOD I hope somebody shoots that motherfucker". If word of that gets back to Gaye and friends, are they then justified in somehow ruining Ike's social life in response to that? And most to the point, is Ike then justified in getting his posse to threaten with their guns anyone who would respond to Gaye's social manipulations? In my view, every step of this story is wrong, but they just keep getting progressively more wrong. Praying for violence against someone for somehow offending you is not ok, but it's just an idle (though bad) wish. Actively causing social problems for someone is even worse though, even in response to that. But directly threatening people in response to that is worse still, since bad as it is, the social attack is still just social, and escalating to physical violence is really taking it too far.

What Eich did was bad. What OKCupid did (and Mozilla complied with) was worse. But bringing the force of law in to stop that would have been even worse.

While I agree with your general sentiment that it is often civil to give a no more than proportionate response to an action, you seem to be overlooking a lot of things while specifying it to the specific case at hand.

For one, Eich has payed 1000 USD to induce lawmaking (characterised by you as violence) to destroy social lives of a large number of people. A proportional response against this action would be to pay 1000 USD (compensated for a couple of years inflation) for each gay person in California in order to destroy Eich's social life.

A proportional response to someone paying to limit another persons equal rights would be to pay a similar amount to revoke the actors (now superior) rights. Speech differs from paying something. The point of freedom of speech in a democratic society is that a democratic society cannot function if its people cannot equally express their thoughts. However, money is not something everyone has equal access to, regardless of whether they work equally. I'm not saying everyone should have equal access to money, I'm just saying that if private capital influences political outcomes an aristocracy results. Therefore private money has no place in the political process of a functioning democratic society and should not be afforded protection under the guise of freedom of speech (whether specific countries do or do not constitute democracies are separate debates).

You also mention that you consider the rant to Ike's friends a prayer. However, I consider a prayer to be something directed to a deity, not towards friends. In the context you suggest the "dear god" part seems to be a swear word-like exclamation. Telling your friends to please have someone killed due to an argument is bad, as is telling people to oppress an already discriminated group. Saying: 'please let someone kill Gaye, oh, and here is 1000 bucks to make it happen' is worse, as is paying 1000 dollars to get your oppression codified into law.

Gaye calling to destroy Ike's social life seems justified by Ike's calling to kill Gaye (regardless of the 1000 bucks, although this does depend on Gayes power as an individual). If Ike's exclamation was indeed made to a deity instead of to friends this could have been different, but that depends entirely on the deity and the odds of the deity making the wish come true (regardless of the sacrifice demanded in return).
Pfhorrest wrote:- OKCupid should be allowed to actively campaign for the boycott of Mozilla as a way to punish Eich for his advocacy (because freedom of speech), but they are wrong to do so (because Mozilla employing Eich does not mean they endorse his views, and trying to get someone fired because they advocate a position you disagree with is escalating the conflict unnecessarily).
- Mozilla should be allowed to get rid of Eich because his advocacy spurred a boycott that's embarrassing them (because freedom of association), but they would be wrong to do so (because firing someone otherwise right for the job because other people demand it is generally not ok, and Mozilla can issue a statement explicitly denying their support of Eich's political views while affirming that he is the right man for this technical job if that is their stance and they want it known).

While Mozilla employing Eich does not mean they endorse his views, their appointing him as their CEO does. The issue is not an issue of a "technical job" as you call it. It is with his switch from a mostly technical job (with some representative tasks) to a mostly representative job (with some technical (management) tasks). It is this switch that people seem to be taking issue with, as increasing someones representative tasks increases your outward endorsement of their views.
yanfan388 wrote:just curious.

how did this very big thread get to be about Mozilla and homosexuals? i wouldn't get that from the original cartoon, which mentions hosting first and "getting banned from an internet community" last. that sounds like censorship of forum messages ("yelled at" sure works there, too, huh?)

never mind. don't yell at me!

Really, the thread is not that long if all the posts with the same messages (same content, not necessarily same form) would have been consolidated into single posts.

The topic of the thread is the Mozilla/OKCupid/Prop8 thing because some people insisted it is what the comic was about. I didn't get any cue from the comic to duckduckgo Mozilla, Eich, Prop8 or OKCupid, I only heard about these things (well of Mozilla only in this context) in this thread. I interpreted the comic as a general statement concerning freedom of speech. I still do, even though I now think the event directly leading to the posting of the statement may have been the Mozilla thing.
Nick O wrote:The thread is 23 pages, of course I didn't read more than a few introductory posts and a few of the last posts; I have too much to do. I'm sure you do, too. If you have read the whole thread, then that is probably because you have been following it from the time it started, and it was not as hard to follow in that way.

Really, the point that a CEO represents the company and should therefore act in accordance with the organizations views has been expressed on those first couple of pages (and probably on every page since, because of people who don't read the thread making unnecessarily long).
jpk wrote:Let's bear in mind that Eich founded the company.

This is really only relevant in the speculation on whether the stated goals of the company were only lip-service. Not in the discussion of whether Eich damaged said lip-service/opposed Mozilla's views.

blowfishhootie
Posts: 486
Joined: Wed Sep 21, 2011 11:13 pm UTC

Re: 1357: "Free Speech"

Postby blowfishhootie » Sun Apr 27, 2014 4:00 pm UTC

Mikeski wrote:I dunno. Have you stopped beating your husband yet?

(Please stop putting words in my mouth.)


So you won't answer about Sterling because you know the two possibilities are either you shoot your whole argument down, or you explicitly defend a racist from backlash regarding his racist comments. That's what this is, right, you being unable or unwilling to choose between those possibilities? I can only assume so, because otherwise we would have gotten a simple "yes" or "no" from you instead of two posts denying that accurate summaries of your posts are accurate summaries of your posts. Yes or no - it's not tough.

User avatar
zmic
Posts: 427
Joined: Fri Mar 02, 2012 10:38 pm UTC

Re: 1357: "Free Speech"

Postby zmic » Sun Apr 27, 2014 4:10 pm UTC

blowfishhootie wrote:So Eich giving money to cement gays' status as subhuman is irrelevant


This kind of hyperbole just to prove your point is not going to help anyone. Aren't we going a little overboard here? When I hear "subhuman" I think of concentration camps and gas chambers. It bears remembering that in the very same year 2008 Barack Obama considered it politically expedient to speak out against gay marriage. When you consider that at that time Obama was still widely regarded as the new Messiah, this action alone probably did more harm to the gay cause than Eich's little droplet in the war chest of Prop. 8.

Mikeski
Posts: 1092
Joined: Sun Jan 13, 2008 7:24 am UTC
Location: Minnesota, USA

Re: 1357: "Free Speech"

Postby Mikeski » Sun Apr 27, 2014 4:17 pm UTC

blowfishhootie wrote:
Mikeski wrote:I dunno. Have you stopped beating your husband yet?

(Please stop putting words in my mouth.)

So you won't answer about Sterling because you know the two possibilities are either you shoot your whole argument down, or you explicitly defend a racist from backlash regarding his racist comments. That's what this is, right, you being unable or unwilling to choose between those possibilities? I can only assume so, because otherwise we would have gotten a simple "yes" or "no" from you instead of two posts denying that accurate summaries of your posts are accurate summaries of your posts. Yes or no - it's not tough.

And when I said, twice, "you're not summarizing my views", I guess that's an admission that you're summarizing my views. OK.

Upthread, it was stated that the measure passed with 52% of the vote. If you're in favor of the job-terminating boycott of bigots, you must believe that California should have a 52% unemployment rate, right? I assume the voting public is representative of the public as a whole... if not, I'm happy with you defending 52% unemployment amongst voters, instead. Clearly, actually voting for a measure is worse than merely funding it... (See, it's fun when people misrepresent your opinions.)

User avatar
PinkShinyRose
Posts: 834
Joined: Mon Nov 05, 2012 6:54 pm UTC
Location: the Netherlands

Re: 1357: "Free Speech"

Postby PinkShinyRose » Sun Apr 27, 2014 4:19 pm UTC

zmic wrote:
blowfishhootie wrote:So Eich giving money to cement gays' status as subhuman is irrelevant


This kind of hyperbole just to prove your point is not going to help anyone. Aren't we going a little overboard here? When I hear "subhuman" I think of concentration camps and gas chambers. It bears remembering that in the very same year 2008 Barack Obama considered it politically expedient to speak out against gay marriage. When you consider that at that time Obama was still widely regarded as the new Messiah, this action alone probably did more harm to the gay cause than Eich's little droplet in the war chest of Prop. 8.

You are making this hyperbole. Considering it right to make certain groups sit at the back of the bus is also often based on a perception of inferiority. As is denying civil rights to groups of people.

blowfishhootie
Posts: 486
Joined: Wed Sep 21, 2011 11:13 pm UTC

Re: 1357: "Free Speech"

Postby blowfishhootie » Sun Apr 27, 2014 4:27 pm UTC

zmic wrote:
blowfishhootie wrote:So Eich giving money to cement gays' status as subhuman is irrelevant


This kind of hyperbole just to prove your point is not going to help anyone. Aren't we going a little overboard here? When I hear "subhuman" I think of concentration camps and gas chambers.


It doesn't matter. The oppressor doesn't get to tell the oppressed that they should just buck up and bear it. That gays are not being murdered for being gay (at least not very much) doesn't make it OK. A young gay person throughout history, including today, grows up being told both indirectly and directly that what they feel is wrong. That it makes them an outsider who isn't as good as everyone else. That what they think and feel is not normal and they should be ashamed, and that they should hide who they are. This is the kind of stigma gays in America have to deal with. It's not just that marriage itself is a big deal - though it is a big deal, or at least as big of a deal as it is for non-gays - it's that this is a blatantly irrational and bigoted attitude that has to change, and the attitude on marriage. It's letting gay people know that they are, in fact, people, just like the rest of us. That you apparently think that's not a worthwhile concern is irrelevant.

That you think it's not so bad It bears remembering that in the very same year 2008 Barack Obama considered it politically expedient to speak out against gay marriage. When you consider that at that time Obama was still widely regarded as the new Messiah, this action alone probably did more harm to the gay cause than Eich's little droplet in the war chest of Prop. 8.


I did not vote for Obama in either election, and I never considered doing so. He's a crook and a coward, just like most of the rest of Washington. His cowardly position on gay equality - and his convenient revelation that he was wrong only once it became clear that the right side of history was going to, predictably, prevail - was only one of many, many reasons Obama is not a good president.

You're presenting this ridiculous, pointless argument to the wrong person. And Obama being an asshole doesn't make Eich not an asshole.
Last edited by blowfishhootie on Sun Apr 27, 2014 4:32 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.

blowfishhootie
Posts: 486
Joined: Wed Sep 21, 2011 11:13 pm UTC

Re: 1357: "Free Speech"

Postby blowfishhootie » Sun Apr 27, 2014 4:31 pm UTC

Mikeski wrote:
blowfishhootie wrote:
Mikeski wrote:I dunno. Have you stopped beating your husband yet?

(Please stop putting words in my mouth.)

So you won't answer about Sterling because you know the two possibilities are either you shoot your whole argument down, or you explicitly defend a racist from backlash regarding his racist comments. That's what this is, right, you being unable or unwilling to choose between those possibilities? I can only assume so, because otherwise we would have gotten a simple "yes" or "no" from you instead of two posts denying that accurate summaries of your posts are accurate summaries of your posts. Yes or no - it's not tough.

And when I said, twice, "you're not summarizing my views", I guess that's an admission that you're summarizing my views. OK.

Upthread, it was stated that the measure passed with 52% of the vote. If you're in favor of the job-terminating boycott of bigots, you must believe that California should have a 52% unemployment rate, right? I assume the voting public is representative of the public as a whole... if not, I'm happy with you defending 52% unemployment amongst voters, instead. Clearly, actually voting for a measure is worse than merely funding it... (See, it's fun when people misrepresent your opinions.)


Your silly arguments have been addressed 2,000 times in this thread. I encourage you to read through it if you'd like to know why they are stupid. A CEO is not the same as every other employee, Mozilla customers and customers of any other company don't necessarily share the same values, blah blah blah. I don't care, because this has been addressed and if you don't know the answer then it is because you don't want to know the answer.

What hasn't been addressed even once yet, despite you being asked three times, is if it is OK, in your opinion, to boycott basketball games of a team owned by a man who does not want black people in his arena.

User avatar
zmic
Posts: 427
Joined: Fri Mar 02, 2012 10:38 pm UTC

Re: 1357: "Free Speech"

Postby zmic » Sun Apr 27, 2014 4:32 pm UTC

PinkShinyRose wrote:
zmic wrote:
blowfishhootie wrote:So Eich giving money to cement gays' status as subhuman is irrelevant


This kind of hyperbole just to prove your point is not going to help anyone. Aren't we going a little overboard here? When I hear "subhuman" I think of concentration camps and gas chambers. It bears remembering that in the very same year 2008 Barack Obama considered it politically expedient to speak out against gay marriage. When you consider that at that time Obama was still widely regarded as the new Messiah, this action alone probably did more harm to the gay cause than Eich's little droplet in the war chest of Prop. 8.

You are making this hyperbole. Considering it right to make certain groups sit at the back of the bus is also often based on a perception of inferiority. As is denying civil rights to groups of people.


25 years ago gay marriage wasn't even an issue. The progress that's been made is just remarkable. You just cannot expect the whole world to come around that quickly.

avocadoowl
Posts: 88
Joined: Fri Apr 18, 2014 1:05 pm UTC

Re: 1357: "Free Speech"

Postby avocadoowl » Sun Apr 27, 2014 4:35 pm UTC

blowfishhootie wrote:
zmic wrote:
blowfishhootie wrote:So Eich giving money to cement gays' status as subhuman is irrelevant


This kind of hyperbole just to prove your point is not going to help anyone. Aren't we going a little overboard here? When I hear "subhuman" I think of concentration camps and gas chambers.


It doesn't matter. The oppressor doesn't get to tell the oppressed that they should just buck up and bear it. That gays are not being murdered for being gay (at least not very much) doesn't make it OK. A young gay person throughout history, including today, grows up being told both indirectly and directly that what they feel is wrong. That it makes them an outsider who isn't as good as everyone else. That what they think and feel is not normal and they should be ashamed, and that they should hide who they are. This is the kind of stigma gays in America have to deal with. It's not just that marriage itself is a big deal - though it is a big deal, or at least as big of a deal as it is for non-gays - it's that this is a blatantly irrational and bigoted attitude that has to change, and the attitude on marriage. It's letting gay people know that they are, in fact, people, just like the rest of us. That you apparently think that's not a worthwhile concern is irrelevant.

That you think it's not so bad It bears remembering that in the very same year 2008 Barack Obama considered it politically expedient to speak out against gay marriage. When you consider that at that time Obama was still widely regarded as the new Messiah, this action alone probably did more harm to the gay cause than Eich's little droplet in the war chest of Prop. 8.


I did not vote for Obama in either election, and I never considered doing so. He's a crook and a coward, just like most of the rest of Washington. His cowardly position on gay equality - and his convenient revelation that he was wrong only once it became clear that the right side of history was going to, predictably, prevail - was only one of many, many reasons Obama is not a good president.

You're presenting this ridiculous, pointless argument to the wrong person. And Obama being an asshole doesn't make Eich not an asshole.


Furthermore, Obama recanted. Eich has refused to do so.

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26724
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: 1357: "Free Speech"

Postby gmalivuk » Sun Apr 27, 2014 4:37 pm UTC

zmic wrote:25 years ago gay marriage wasn't even an issue. The progress that's been made is just remarkable. You just cannot expect the whole world to come around that quickly.
And we can't expect it to come around at all if we don't fight for it.
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

User avatar
zmic
Posts: 427
Joined: Fri Mar 02, 2012 10:38 pm UTC

Re: 1357: "Free Speech"

Postby zmic » Sun Apr 27, 2014 4:38 pm UTC

gmalivuk wrote:
zmic wrote:25 years ago gay marriage wasn't even an issue. The progress that's been made is just remarkable. You just cannot expect the whole world to come around that quickly.
And we can't expect it to come around at all if we don't fight for it.


Until now, a relatively meek approach seems to have worked just fine.

User avatar
zmic
Posts: 427
Joined: Fri Mar 02, 2012 10:38 pm UTC

Re: 1357: "Free Speech"

Postby zmic » Sun Apr 27, 2014 4:40 pm UTC

avocadoowl wrote:Furthermore, Obama recanted. Eich has refused to do so.


Are you so sure that would have saved him? I can easily see the headline "Eich apology deemed insufficient by gay right activists".

avocadoowl
Posts: 88
Joined: Fri Apr 18, 2014 1:05 pm UTC

Re: 1357: "Free Speech"

Postby avocadoowl » Sun Apr 27, 2014 4:41 pm UTC

zmic wrote:
gmalivuk wrote:
zmic wrote:25 years ago gay marriage wasn't even an issue. The progress that's been made is just remarkable. You just cannot expect the whole world to come around that quickly.
And we can't expect it to come around at all if we don't fight for it.


Until now, a relatively meek approach seems to have worked just fine.


Um....do you not know history? You should probably read up on the Stonewall riot and the like.

Mikeski
Posts: 1092
Joined: Sun Jan 13, 2008 7:24 am UTC
Location: Minnesota, USA

Re: 1357: "Free Speech"

Postby Mikeski » Sun Apr 27, 2014 4:42 pm UTC

avocadoowl wrote:Furthermore, Obama recanted. Eich has refused to do so.

Obama was kept in the media spotlight, and continually defending bigotry under those conditions can be educational.

Eich, shall we say, wasn't given the same opportunity. He got to slink away into the shadows with several million dollars.

The boycott may have been morally justified, or cathartic, or whatever, but it wasn't the wisest choice in retrospect.

User avatar
zmic
Posts: 427
Joined: Fri Mar 02, 2012 10:38 pm UTC

Re: 1357: "Free Speech"

Postby zmic » Sun Apr 27, 2014 4:48 pm UTC

avocadoowl wrote:
zmic wrote:
gmalivuk wrote:
zmic wrote:25 years ago gay marriage wasn't even an issue. The progress that's been made is just remarkable. You just cannot expect the whole world to come around that quickly.
And we can't expect it to come around at all if we don't fight for it.


Until now, a relatively meek approach seems to have worked just fine.


Um....do you not know history? You should probably read up on the Stonewall riot and the like.


Ok, so you got one riot that was 45 years ago, as a reaction to police brutality. And... ?

DeeperThought
Posts: 16
Joined: Sun Apr 27, 2014 4:41 pm UTC

Re: 1357: "Free Speech"

Postby DeeperThought » Sun Apr 27, 2014 4:52 pm UTC

As someone who grew up in the late 70's and caught the tail end of the hippie generation
I find this particular comic indicative of the slide towards "crypto-fasicism" by the left.
The desire to surpress opposing viewpoints is present in everyone as is the ability to
rationalize censorship or oppression.

Does anyone remember McCarthyism?
The left was constantly on about blacklisting where people in Hollywood couldn't
work because of their membership in the communist party or their communist
sympathies. Well, "Free Speech" has consequences, right? So if you are going to
align yourself with a murderous political philosophy its ok for an industry to deny
you work!

So in the Crypto-Fasict country we're evolving towards the correct view of McCarthyism
and blacklisting is that those people were just being "shown the door".

avocadoowl
Posts: 88
Joined: Fri Apr 18, 2014 1:05 pm UTC

Re: 1357: "Free Speech"

Postby avocadoowl » Sun Apr 27, 2014 5:00 pm UTC

zmic wrote:
avocadoowl wrote:
zmic wrote:
gmalivuk wrote:
zmic wrote:25 years ago gay marriage wasn't even an issue. The progress that's been made is just remarkable. You just cannot expect the whole world to come around that quickly.
And we can't expect it to come around at all if we don't fight for it.


Until now, a relatively meek approach seems to have worked just fine.


Um....do you not know history? You should probably read up on the Stonewall riot and the like.


Ok, so you got one riot that was 45 years ago, as a reaction to police brutality. And... ?


Too many to count protests, marches. Other boycotts. Devastating losses in courts.

blowfishhootie
Posts: 486
Joined: Wed Sep 21, 2011 11:13 pm UTC

Re: 1357: "Free Speech"

Postby blowfishhootie » Sun Apr 27, 2014 5:12 pm UTC

Who cares about riots and other stuff? This is the shortest argument yet:

Rational people: Gays should be able to get married.
Zmic: But gays are so mean now, being nice has worked for them so far.
Rational people: Uh, gays were never able to get married before either.

... that's pretty much the end of that particular line of discussion.

User avatar
zmic
Posts: 427
Joined: Fri Mar 02, 2012 10:38 pm UTC

Re: 1357: "Free Speech"

Postby zmic » Sun Apr 27, 2014 5:24 pm UTC

blowfishhootie wrote:Who cares about riots and other stuff? This is the shortest argument yet:

Rational people: Gays should be able to get married.
Zmic: But gays are so mean now, being nice has worked for them so far.
Rational people: Uh, gays were never able to get married before either.

... that's pretty much the end of that particular line of discussion.


if you had gone to the Supreme Court in 1960 demanding the right for gays to marry, the justices would have fallen out of their chairs with laughter. The whole notion would have been absurd for them. Are you saying those people weren't rational people?

What is generally perceived to be just evolves over time and you cannot expect everybody to evolve at the same speed. Therefore, a little bit of understanding, patience and forgiveness is called for. You know, maybe you are not morally perfect yourself.

Mikeski
Posts: 1092
Joined: Sun Jan 13, 2008 7:24 am UTC
Location: Minnesota, USA

Re: 1357: "Free Speech"

Postby Mikeski » Sun Apr 27, 2014 5:29 pm UTC

And I suppose I shouldn't leave hootie hanging on his false-equivalency question, even though I can't give it the "yes" or "no" answer he wants.

Much like my view of the Eich boycott (you can do so, but it's dumb), my view of a Clippers boycott would be the same. But stronger.

Yes, you can do it, and it's probably cathartic, but it's dumb. Boycotting a disproportionately-black business that's patronized by a disproportionately-black clientele, just because there's one loud white bigot among them, is, in a word, backasswards.

Let him twist in the wind. If he doubles down on bigotry, it'll be a media-circus win for the good guys. If he recants, +1 soul in the "saved" column, and crisis averted without economic harm to the black community.

If you boycott him out... same thing as Eich, but worse. He's off in the shadows with a golden parachute of some sort (I assume). There's no more media attention for a good cause. And the financial loss is borne, largely, by the very people you thought you were helping. (As opposed to Eich, whose loss is borne by a more-random selection of the population, bigotry-and-victims-thereof-wise (the employees and shareholders of Mozilla)).

(And I use "disproportionately" is the mathematical sense only; there's a higher percentage than the US population as a whole. Lest someone think that's a bigoted word, somehow.)

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26724
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: 1357: "Free Speech"

Postby gmalivuk » Sun Apr 27, 2014 5:33 pm UTC

Which Black people will a Clippers boycott financially hurt, exactly, other than its millionaire players if they stay with the team? The benefit of sending the message that we will not tolerate that kind of racism outweighs, at least in my mind, financial setbacks to a few professional athletes.
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

User avatar
addams
Posts: 10186
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2010 4:44 am UTC
Location: Oregon Coast: 97444

Re: 1357: "Free Speech"

Postby addams » Sun Apr 27, 2014 5:33 pm UTC

zmic wrote:
blowfishhootie wrote:Who cares about riots and other stuff? This is the shortest argument yet:

Rational people: Gays should be able to get married.
Zmic: But gays are so mean now, being nice has worked for them so far.
Rational people: Uh, gays were never able to get married before either.

... that's pretty much the end of that particular line of discussion.


if you had gone to the Supreme Court in 1960 demanding the right for gays to marry, the justices would have fallen out of their chairs with laughter. The whole notion would have been absurd for them. Are you saying those people weren't rational people?

What is generally perceived to be just evolves over time and you cannot expect everybody to evolve at the same speed. Therefore, a little bit of understanding, patience and forgiveness is called for. You know, maybe you are not morally perfect yourself.

Your last line makes a lot of sense, to me.

No matter how you get around The Barn and Find that fucking Needle in the Wheat Field;
You Found It! Yey!
Life is, just, an exchange of electrons; It is up to us to give it meaning.

We are all in The Gutter.
Some of us see The Gutter.
Some of us see The Stars.
by mr. Oscar Wilde.

Those that want to Know; Know.
Those that do not Know; Don't tell them.
They do terrible things to people that Tell Them.

Mikeski
Posts: 1092
Joined: Sun Jan 13, 2008 7:24 am UTC
Location: Minnesota, USA

Re: 1357: "Free Speech"

Postby Mikeski » Sun Apr 27, 2014 5:52 pm UTC

gmalivuk wrote:Which Black people will a Clippers boycott financially hurt, exactly, other than its millionaire players if they stay with the team?

Economic activity is a net positive. Economic activity amongst a community is thus a net positive for that community. Obviously, I have no specific person in mind; the players are under contract and won't be affected... this year, at least.

I assume, with nothing to back it up, that there are related businesses and people that would be affected. Sports bars in Clippers country, employees of the team other than the stars on the floor, restaurants and hotels and other businesses near the stadium, whatever. (If the boycott has no economic impact, I don't know why it would have any more effect than the media circus sans boycott.)

The benefit of sending the message that we will not tolerate that kind of racism outweighs, at least in my mind, financial setbacks to a few professional athletes.

But that message lasts for a day or two in the media, and then is gone. Leaving him in place lets us teach that lesson for a long time.

(And again, contracts. The professional athletes aren't the ones soaking the damage, unless they do so voluntarily.)

I find your opinion about as valid as mine on this point; I just think a twelve-round decision is slightly better than a first-round knockout, in this case.

DeeperThought
Posts: 16
Joined: Sun Apr 27, 2014 4:41 pm UTC

Re: 1357: "Free Speech"

Postby DeeperThought » Sun Apr 27, 2014 5:54 pm UTC

"I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it."
- Voltaire (not really)

Has morphed to "I do not agree with what you have to say, there's the door."

Again, a sad commentary on what progressives beliefs have become.

User avatar
Weeks
Hey Baby, wanna make a fortnight?
Posts: 2023
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2008 12:41 am UTC
Location: Ciudad de Panamá, Panamá

Re: 1357: "Free Speech"

Postby Weeks » Sun Apr 27, 2014 6:05 pm UTC

That was really deep, thank you.
TaintedDeity wrote:Tainted Deity
suffer-cait wrote:One day I'm gun a go visit weeks and discover they're just a computer in a trashcan at an ice cream shop.
Dthen wrote:FUCK CHRISTMAS FUCK EVERYTHING FUCK YOU TOO FUCK OFF

User avatar
addams
Posts: 10186
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2010 4:44 am UTC
Location: Oregon Coast: 97444

Re: 1357: "Free Speech"

Postby addams » Sun Apr 27, 2014 6:12 pm UTC

DeeperThought wrote:"I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it."
- Voltaire (not really)

Has morphed to "I do not agree with what you have to say, there's the door."

Again, a sad commentary on what progressives beliefs have become.

I like your name.

Uumm. Voltaire.
oh, Thank you.
Do I want to do that?

Defend other people's right to speak?
Well...We don't live in Voltaire's world.

oops. I forgot what Voltaire's world was like.
I was fussing about how Horrible people are and how Technology has Loosed a New Evil into The World.
A very wise woman put me in my place.

She said, "There is Nothing New Under The Sun."
Those were fighting words.

We argued most of the Afternoon.
She wore me down.

She won. Same Shit; Different Day.
The Human Heart remains unchanged.

What do you have to say?
You. In the Back.

What do you have to say?
You. Who will listen to you?

Some times it is not important to speak.
It is important to listen.

What are they saying?
Translators are important people.

What do you hear us saying?
xkcd Free Speech Thread is the Voice of the Modern American Progressive?

That's interesting.
What have we become?
Life is, just, an exchange of electrons; It is up to us to give it meaning.

We are all in The Gutter.
Some of us see The Gutter.
Some of us see The Stars.
by mr. Oscar Wilde.

Those that want to Know; Know.
Those that do not Know; Don't tell them.
They do terrible things to people that Tell Them.

blowfishhootie
Posts: 486
Joined: Wed Sep 21, 2011 11:13 pm UTC

Re: 1357: "Free Speech"

Postby blowfishhootie » Sun Apr 27, 2014 6:23 pm UTC

Mikeski wrote:
gmalivuk wrote:Which Black people will a Clippers boycott financially hurt, exactly, other than its millionaire players if they stay with the team?

Economic activity is a net positive. Economic activity amongst a community is thus a net positive for that community. Obviously, I have no specific person in mind; the players are under contract and won't be affected... this year, at least.

I assume, with nothing to back it up, that there are related businesses and people that would be affected. Sports bars in Clippers country, employees of the team other than the stars on the floor, restaurants and hotels and other businesses near the stadium, whatever. (If the boycott has no economic impact, I don't know why it would have any more effect than the media circus sans boycott.)


That's a pretty compelling argument for why Sterling is a huge dick for putting all these people at risk of the ramifications of him being a racist asshole, and for why he should reduce that risk by removing himself from the equation.

As for why people always have to buy things all the time from everyone anywhere ever, it's not so compelling an argument.

The benefit of sending the message that we will not tolerate that kind of racism outweighs, at least in my mind, financial setbacks to a few professional athletes.

But that message lasts for a day or two in the media, and then is gone. Leaving him in place lets us teach that lesson for a long time.


So we should have kept slavery in place for the potential teaching opportunities it presented? Or maybe just the Jim Crow laws?
Last edited by blowfishhootie on Sun Apr 27, 2014 6:27 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
PinkShinyRose
Posts: 834
Joined: Mon Nov 05, 2012 6:54 pm UTC
Location: the Netherlands

Re: 1357: "Free Speech"

Postby PinkShinyRose » Sun Apr 27, 2014 6:25 pm UTC

The Clippers boycott has more potential to financially harm the specific bigot as he is apparently the owner of the business being boycotted.
zmic wrote:if you had gone to the Supreme Court in 1960 demanding the right for gays to marry, the justices would have fallen out of their chairs with laughter. The whole notion would have been absurd for them. Are you saying those people weren't rational people?

Probably not, they were human after all. As for the rational decision: it really doesn't matter either way, in the end there is no real rational incentive for anything. If we keep things more worldly marriage is just tax benefits and financial obligations and there would be no reason to bestow those onto one pair of people but not onto another. The whole marriage thing is an unreasonable emotional concept.
DeeperThought wrote:"I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it."
- Voltaire (not really)

Has morphed to "I do not agree with what you have to say, there's the door."

Again, a sad commentary on what progressives beliefs have become.

Well, you cannot very well assume that progressive tendencies would stay the same for centuries, that would make them highly conservative.

charonme
Posts: 141
Joined: Sun May 18, 2008 11:18 am UTC

Re: 1357: "Free Speech"

Postby charonme » Sun Apr 27, 2014 6:29 pm UTC

A search for "kyratzes" did not turn up any results, but I didn't read the whole thread, so I'm sorry if this was already mentioned here:

this guy is probably inviting strangers into his house and committing himself to listen to any bullshit they spew at him

Mikeski
Posts: 1092
Joined: Sun Jan 13, 2008 7:24 am UTC
Location: Minnesota, USA

Re: 1357: "Free Speech"

Postby Mikeski » Sun Apr 27, 2014 6:32 pm UTC

blowfishhootie wrote:So we should have kept slavery in place for the potential teaching opportunities it presented? Or maybe just the Jim Crow laws?

Yes, because talking shit about black people is exactly the same thing as keeping them as slaves.

To quote gmal, give me a fucking break.

To quote me, dial down the hyperbole, already.

blowfishhootie wrote:I'm going to go out on a limb and guess you're white.

Thank you for admitting to your odious anti-white bigotry, though! :mrgreen:

blowfishhootie
Posts: 486
Joined: Wed Sep 21, 2011 11:13 pm UTC

Re: 1357: "Free Speech"

Postby blowfishhootie » Sun Apr 27, 2014 6:38 pm UTC

Mikeski wrote:
blowfishhootie wrote:So we should have kept slavery in place for the potential teaching opportunities it presented? Or maybe just the Jim Crow laws?

Yes, because talking shit about black people is exactly the same thing as keeping them as slaves.


It's exactly the same in that you are telling people who are victims of racism that they should just deal with it. You even argue that it's for their own good - it's so we can teach people not to be racist! You're so benevolent.

blowfishhootie wrote:I'm going to go out on a limb and guess you're white.

Thank you for admitting to your odious anti-white bigotry, though! :mrgreen:


I removed it from my post because it was out of line. What it should say is, "it's clear you're naive and clueless when it comes to issues of racism in America, regardless of the color of your skin."


Return to “Individual XKCD Comic Threads”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 87 guests