upvote
Maybe they meant to link to the element where it says the guy invented Javascript. That would have been more appropriate.
reply
"having political views" is not an escape hatch for denying the humanity of other people.
reply
Opposing gay marriage is not denying the humanity of gay people. I'm not even opposed to gay marriage, but hyperbolic language like yours only hurts discussions, it never ever helps.
reply
There was a famous court case where the gay widow had no legal rights over their dying partners medical care, that is a pronounced human right that a heterosexual couple has over a gay couple that has been defined and why the opposition actually hurts people in ways many have not considered.
reply
Remember that the compromise was "let gay people have those same rights, just don't call it marriage" and that was rejected. The opportunity to have that "pronounced human right" was always there but no, they wanted the culture war W of redefining marriage instead.
reply
> Opposing gay marriage is not denying the humanity of gay people

How so?

reply
In a previous generation, the deserving target of eyerolls and groans was people who both-sidesed an issue. In part because it was shallow, and part because it was just a weaponized way of talking where you get to be political under superficial the guise of neutrality. Asking an audience to believe it is just not respecting the intelligence of your audience.

I think the version of that for our generation is the person who says "Gosh let's not talk politics" about obviously political things when doing so is clearly just to shield preferred targets from criticism. Of course it's not always that, and you can never prove it in any particular instance, which is why it's such convenient phrasing. But it gets eye-rolls for a reason.

reply
I wouldn’t find “let’s not talk about politics” eye-rolling and neither would my social circle (first generation Asian families). In fact if someone kept bringing up politics in an overly emotional or pushy way, they probably wouldn’t be invited back.
reply
[dead]
reply
Someone who derides someone else who donates to causes they find disgusting is also a political view. You're just talking about two people with political views.
reply
disagreeing with someone is a political view, debasing them for it is ideological
reply
If you're not willing to stand behind a view, and take all the well-deserved flak for holding it, you should shut up. Brendan Eich said "I hate gay people a couple thousand dollars much". That's a fucked up belief to hold, and if he didn't want it held against him, it was completely free to not donate thousands of dollars.
reply
[flagged]
reply
> Calling a named individual an "absolute scumbag" in this context is fine grounds as any for a lawsuit.

Based on your misunderstandings of US defamation laws, and the fact that you jumped to stabbing over shooting, it sounds like you've been steeping too much in eurotrash defamation rules. Here in America, truth and opinion are both perfect defenses against defamation lawsuits. My comment consisted only of true facts (the man donated to support prop 8), and the opinions that follow from those facts (the man is a scumbag). You can only sue someone for lying about you, and for public figures like a CEO, you need to prove they were lying on purpose.

reply
I will help the creation of and donate to an anti-maga bill that bans magas from existing eg jailing them if they express maga views. Its called having political views. I hope you won't complaint.
reply
It would obviously amaze me if I am called a scumbag for simply having political views, the same way how unbelievable it is that people get called scumbags for simply wanting to ban gay marriage.
reply
They are an absolute scumbag. It's really simple: in matters where doing the right thing is doing nothing, it means that you went out of your way to be evil. There's not even a self-interest vs. public benefit argument to be made in defense of prop 8: No one gained anything from banning gay marriage. No, the sole reason to vote for prop 8 was "I want to make people I find weird's lives worse". And that's scumbag behavior.

If your political views are "lets abuse a minority because I find them weird", those aren't merely political views.

reply
Yeah — but JavaScript... :D
reply
Having the opinion that there should be restaurants, stores, and bathrooms only for white people was an acceptable, mainstream political view during my father's lifetime. Expressing that opinion now would make you a social pariah. If you donated money in support of that cause today you'd probably be fair game for being openly called an "absolute scumbag" almost universally.

How that analogy compares to being against same-sex marriage is going to vary from person to person, but times change, as does what is considered just political views vs a civil rights issue.

reply
> Having the opinion that there should be restaurants, stores, and bathrooms only for white people was an acceptable, mainstream political view during my father's lifetime.

Only in the US, South Africa and Rhodesia.

Same sex marriage did not exist anywhere in the world until very recently, and still does not exist in most of the world.

reply
The majority of the voters was on his side. 52.24% voted yes and there was a 79.42% voter turn out. A huge number of Californians agreed with him at the time. This is quite a bit different than segregation today since acceptance of gay marriage was quite a bit lower and it was a newer issue than segregation.
reply
Racial integration was wildly unpopular in the south when it became a hot political issue of the day, yet that fact doesn't make the opposition to it any more palatable to modern sensibilities. The only point I was trying to make was that you can't hand-wave away something you don't want to pick a side on by saying it's just a political view when a large portion of the society you exist in see it as a civil rights issue.

Well, I guess that too has its caveats. Hilary Clinton and Barack Obama were both vocally against same-sex marriage during run up to the 2008 election, I believe roughly the same time that the Prop 8 fight was happening. They didn't switch sides until public opinion started swaying in favor of it and I've never seen anyone hold their feet to the fire or call them "absolute scumbags" over it. Well, no one that wasn't already calling them that at least.

reply
It always surprises me that people can't take a step back and understand that objecting to today's progress is like objecting to women voting, or interracial marriage. You're just signing up to be mad your whole life and to be seen as a historical curiosity.
reply
Eugenics was also considered "today's progress" at some point, and the people who opposed it were mostly coming from a religious perspective.

I am not opposed to any of the things your examples of progress, just felt the need to mention that your argument is begging the question.

reply
[flagged]
reply
[dead]
reply
[flagged]
reply