I’m all for gay rights and advocate for same sex marriage. But if he doesn’t then he’s now boxed in with the skinhead kill-all-the-immigrants crowd? Where’s the nuance?
That said, I don’t really trust Brave the product. It’s pushing its privacy agenda a little too hard for me to trust it.
You’re upset the bigot gets classified as a bigot? Do you also care for the flavor of your shit sundae? No. Bigotry is a hard line that does shape modern politics
Question is, though, where’s the line? We don’t all come with the same exact moral compass, and we’re all perfectly capable of rationalizing evil, so you can’t just say “be a moral and non-bigoted person” and expect the desired outcome. Plenty of slave owners worldwide were convinced that slavery was not just morally admissible but even admirable.
No matter where that line is, it needs to be well-defined and agreed-upon, or else it’s arbitrary, and thus open to abuse and corruption by demagogues.
Well before donating $1000 to fight gay marriage. This isn’t a deep philosophical debate. You’re trying to muddy a pretty clear cut immorality for suspect reasons
In my experience, anybody who claims morality is “clear cut” is probably naive, otherwise they’re selling a cult. The fact that you think my line is questioning is suspicious without knowing anything about me or anything beyond this thread makes me suspect it’s the latter, but I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt for now.
Yes, it’s a philosophical debate. That’s why I’m here, on the Internet, asking philosophical questions, to spur debate.
Yeah I’m not interested in debating where you want to draw the line if you think it’s somewhere after donating to fight equal rights. There is a debate to be had but you’re too far gone if you can’t even start there
Please, go back and carefully read what I wrote. I’ve said nothing about whether I find Eich’s donation morally acceptable or not, let alone anything beyond that. You seem quick to condemn on nothing more than circumstance. The far-left is just as illiberal, regressive, and unjust as the far-right.
You really might want to do the same. Someone donates to fight equal rights and you’re now trying to imply condeming them is just as bad as the alt right. You are unwell
I don’t like that he supported a campaign against gay marriage. I don’t know his reasons for doing so but it’s probably not one I’d support.
But my understanding extends no further. I know he made a donation. I don’t have the nuance or understanding to extrapolate that into putting him into an entire box
There’s something ironic about tarring him with a broad brush based on one attribute
I’ll absolutely disagree with his action in contributing to taking away same sex marriage. I don’t see why gay people shouldn’t get married.
I don’t know his reason for contributing to it. I’ll very likely disagree with his reason.
What I’m saying is, does that make him alt-right (whatever that even means)? The only thing you can deduce is that he thinks gay people shouldn’t get married
Honestly how is that different from what you’re saying on a topic you’re simultaneously admitting you’re uniformed about? You can afford as much leniency to hate as you want it doesn’t make you open minded or nuanced
This is the first I’ve heard of that proposition so I have no idea. Nor do I know the guy’s feelings on it other than he felt motivated to donate to it
I’m all for gay rights and advocate for same sex marriage. But if he doesn’t then he’s now boxed in with the skinhead kill-all-the-immigrants crowd? Where’s the nuance?
The nuance is that straight white people get away with this shit. Sleep with dogs wake up with fleas. Also you just did a “im all for gay rights…, but…” Lmao.
If someone is using their money and influence to actively trample on my human rights, then yes, I reserve the right to call them out for being a cunt.
Aw diddums, but what if I hurt the homophobes wittle feelings 🥺??? I don’t give a fuck about his precious little fee fees. I care about the rights of people.
And no, calling out a bigot for being bigoted is not the issue with politics. The issue with politics is the bigoted shitheads who view themselves as deserving more rights than the “undesirables” in society.
And this is what’s wrong with politics now
I’m all for gay rights and advocate for same sex marriage. But if he doesn’t then he’s now boxed in with the skinhead kill-all-the-immigrants crowd? Where’s the nuance?
That said, I don’t really trust Brave the product. It’s pushing its privacy agenda a little too hard for me to trust it.
Just use Firefox if you want privacy
You’re upset the bigot gets classified as a bigot? Do you also care for the flavor of your shit sundae? No. Bigotry is a hard line that does shape modern politics
I agree, it ought to be a hard line.
Question is, though, where’s the line? We don’t all come with the same exact moral compass, and we’re all perfectly capable of rationalizing evil, so you can’t just say “be a moral and non-bigoted person” and expect the desired outcome. Plenty of slave owners worldwide were convinced that slavery was not just morally admissible but even admirable.
No matter where that line is, it needs to be well-defined and agreed-upon, or else it’s arbitrary, and thus open to abuse and corruption by demagogues.
I think we can agree that those slave owners were wrong, just as we can agree that Eich was and remains wrong about gay marriage.
Yes, we absolutely can agree. That’s why I made the parallel!
What I can’t agree with is throwing him into the “alt-right” bucket without more information.
Well before donating $1000 to fight gay marriage. This isn’t a deep philosophical debate. You’re trying to muddy a pretty clear cut immorality for suspect reasons
In my experience, anybody who claims morality is “clear cut” is probably naive, otherwise they’re selling a cult. The fact that you think my line is questioning is suspicious without knowing anything about me or anything beyond this thread makes me suspect it’s the latter, but I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt for now.
Yes, it’s a philosophical debate. That’s why I’m here, on the Internet, asking philosophical questions, to spur debate.
Yeah I’m not interested in debating where you want to draw the line if you think it’s somewhere after donating to fight equal rights. There is a debate to be had but you’re too far gone if you can’t even start there
Please, go back and carefully read what I wrote. I’ve said nothing about whether I find Eich’s donation morally acceptable or not, let alone anything beyond that. You seem quick to condemn on nothing more than circumstance. The far-left is just as illiberal, regressive, and unjust as the far-right.
Beware of groupthink. It makes for smooth brains.
You really might want to do the same. Someone donates to fight equal rights and you’re now trying to imply condeming them is just as bad as the alt right. You are unwell
I don’t like that he supported a campaign against gay marriage. I don’t know his reasons for doing so but it’s probably not one I’d support.
But my understanding extends no further. I know he made a donation. I don’t have the nuance or understanding to extrapolate that into putting him into an entire box
There’s something ironic about tarring him with a broad brush based on one attribute
The dude spent $1,000 declaring where he stood on taking someone’s rights away and you’re like meh I don’t wanna jump to judgement here lmao
I’ll absolutely disagree with his action in contributing to taking away same sex marriage. I don’t see why gay people shouldn’t get married.
I don’t know his reason for contributing to it. I’ll very likely disagree with his reason.
What I’m saying is, does that make him alt-right (whatever that even means)? The only thing you can deduce is that he thinks gay people shouldn’t get married
Honestly how is that different from what you’re saying on a topic you’re simultaneously admitting you’re uniformed about? You can afford as much leniency to hate as you want it doesn’t make you open minded or nuanced
Isn’t what I said
All I’ve said is you can’t extrapolate “He disagrees with X there for he must also be Y and Z”
Yes because X is in set Y and has an extremely high correlation to Z. Kinda like how we call things that look and quack like a duck a duck
Congrats! You’ve made a formal fallacy while sounding antagonistically patronizing!
Where was the nuance in Proposition 8?
This is the first I’ve heard of that proposition so I have no idea. Nor do I know the guy’s feelings on it other than he felt motivated to donate to it
If you’re not familiar with Prop 8 then you can’t understand why people judge its supporters, like Eich, as harshly as we do.
The nuance is that straight white people get away with this shit. Sleep with dogs wake up with fleas. Also you just did a “im all for gay rights…, but…” Lmao.
I did realise I had the classic =/
If someone is using their money and influence to actively trample on my human rights, then yes, I reserve the right to call them out for being a cunt.
Aw diddums, but what if I hurt the homophobes wittle feelings 🥺??? I don’t give a fuck about his precious little fee fees. I care about the rights of people.
And no, calling out a bigot for being bigoted is not the issue with politics. The issue with politics is the bigoted shitheads who view themselves as deserving more rights than the “undesirables” in society.
So you’re telling me I should throw my money and data at a guy that doesn’t believe in my human rights?