111–120 of 127 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Agreed re: free speech law, but forcing someone to resign for their religious beliefs still seems somewhat dubious.
He was not forced to resign over a religious belief. He was forced to resign because he supported a political campaign for a legislation which had real tangible effects for many peoples lives.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
From the article you just read: > For a cynical person, this would be a great way out: “OK, I am not $x, so it is not my problem, you just claimed that I have no right to an opinion as I never experienced the suffering. Done.” I'm not going to debate you: re-posting your opinion with no supporting arguments means you've obviously made up your mind. I think it's rubbish that someone can't access their life partner in…
I'll answer your first two points one go; So what? If their concept is diminished by someone else's interpretation of marriage, then that's their problem, no one else's. Do christians think jews have no right to worship? Do methodists believe anglicans have no right to worship? Of course not. They all worship the same god, and they all seem to have no problem allowing the other group to have their own definition of w…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
From the article you just read: > For a cynical person, this would be a great way out: “OK, I am not $x, so it is not my problem, you just claimed that I have no right to an opinion as I never experienced the suffering. Done.” I'm not going to debate you: re-posting your opinion with no supporting arguments means you've obviously made up your mind. I think it's rubbish that someone can't access their life partner in…
I'll answer your first two points one go; So what? If their concept is diminished by someone else's interpretation of marriage, then that's their problem, no one else's. Do christians think jews have no right to worship? Do methodists believe anglicans have no right to worship? Of course not. They all worship the same god, and they all seem to have no problem allowing the other group to have their own definition of w…
Democracy.
> I don't think you've properly thought anything through, as evidenced by your childish gambit of "You can't call me a homophobe because I said you can't".
Do you genuinely think I said that, or an equivalent, are you trolling, or are you just so angry you want to lash out at someone, like Heilmann mentioned in the article?
I cannot imagine how anyone would call someone in favour of gay marriage a homophobe simply because they can see the other side of the argument. So no, I don't really feel much need to 'defend myself', anybody attacking me from that point of view would obviously not be thinking rationally.
I think you're so angry you didn't even realise I share your stand on the matter.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How are any ideas being suppressed? Any more than boycotting Coors because of the anti-immigration policies of the Coors family suppresses ideas. Any more than boycotting Disney because of its support for Gay Days suppresses ideas. Any more than disinvestment of South African goods suppressed the idea of apartheid. It comes across like you think every boycott is an attempt at suppressing an idea. If that's what you b…
> How are any ideas being suppressed? By "demonstrating a fear of rational arguments and simply attack those who disagree".
More in general, can't all social or political boycotts, ranging from the boycott against Boycott and absentee landownership, to the Indian boycott of British goods and British colonialism, to the Montgomery Bus Boycott and race discrimination, to the anti-apartheid boycott, to the US boycott of Cuban goods be interpreted as "suppressing" a disliked idea?
If so, then I can understand how someone who uses that definition of "suppress" can object to any social or political boycott. While I do support the right to boycott, as part of the right to free association, so I don't have the same definition.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You don't have an issue with people protesting, but you do have an issue with internet mobs. How then do people protest en mass on the internet and boycott without being labeled an internet mob? Only if all sides reach for each other? If that's the case, then what happens when one side doesn't do enough reaching? When do you place the blame more on one side, instead of apportioning blame equally across all participan…
I think my previous posts already cover what I'm trying to say. I don't really want to engage into a confrontational rhetoric.
I also apologize for my confrontational rhetoric. I don't know any way to question one's choice of vocabulary without sounding confrontational.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> gays are more likely to have been abused (which is true) It is not true. Where the hell are you getting all this nonsense from?
Here's a study on the topic. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11501300
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/warrenthrockmorton/2009/06/05/a...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'll answer your first two points one go; So what? If their concept is diminished by someone else's interpretation of marriage, then that's their problem, no one else's. Do christians think jews have no right to worship? Do methodists believe anglicans have no right to worship? Of course not. They all worship the same god, and they all seem to have no problem allowing the other group to have their own definition of w…
> So why does one persons definition of marriage take precedence over someone else's? Democracy. > I don't think you've properly thought anything through, as evidenced by your childish gambit of "You can't call me a homophobe because I said you can't". Do you genuinely think I said that, or an equivalent, are you trolling, or are you just so angry you want to lash out at someone, like Heilmann mentioned in the articl…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think my previous posts already cover what I'm trying to say. I don't really want to engage into a confrontational rhetoric.
I'm sorry. I'm trying really hard to figure out when boycotts and picketing, which I support as free speech and free association rights, can appropriately be called a "mob." Despite asking people - you and several others - who have used "mob", "witch hunt", "bullying", and similar terms, no one has been willing to clarify that for me. I also apologize for my confrontational rhetoric. I don't know any way to question…
I didn't study sociology so take this with a grain of salt. I think the difference is in motivation and group dynamics.
An angry mob is motivated by fear or anger and doesn't think rationally. It's generally dangerous for both the actors in the group and the target. Also everyone can become part of a mob as it taps into our basic instinct. I think that a mob is formed when a critical mass of anger or fear is formed and resolved once the danger disappears.
This is in contrast with a protest. In a protest you're trying to promote an idea and in that sense you will try to advocate, talk to people and expose your point of view in the hope that they will adopt it. You still have a group of people but who are motivated by solving a specific cause. More noble sentiments are at play like compassion and respect. A good example of that would be advocacy of free speech.
It's entirely possible that you're seeing something different happening here. I felt anger transpiring trough the posts I was reading. My first post was equally a reaction to that and to other similar events that I saw happening in the past.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm sorry. I'm trying really hard to figure out when boycotts and picketing, which I support as free speech and free association rights, can appropriately be called a "mob." Despite asking people - you and several others - who have used "mob", "witch hunt", "bullying", and similar terms, no one has been willing to clarify that for me. I also apologize for my confrontational rhetoric. I don't know any way to question…
Thanks for reaching back to me. I didn't study sociology so take this with a grain of salt. I think the difference is in motivation and group dynamics. An angry mob is motivated by fear or anger and doesn't think rationally. It's generally dangerous for both the actors in the group and the target. Also everyone can become part of a mob as it taps into our basic instinct. I think that a mob is formed when a critical m…
In this instance, I used your clarification and I see a protest. There was an single idea; Eich should not be CEO of Mozilla, for reasons we all know. Some core Mozilla people did talk to others, by posting why they did not want to be associated with a Mozilla with Eich as CEO. Organizations like OKCupid also posted their reasons for calling for a boycott.
In your previous postings you expressed an optimism of how people should resolve issues. Here too you continue, when you mention that "more noble sentiments are at play" in a protest.
My observation is that many protests are not based on compassion and respect. Rather, given that there are both pro-immigration protests and anti-immigration protests, and pro-gun and anti-gun protests, it's rather murky to figure out where the nobility is in each one. A classic example of the tension in the right to assemble is when the Nazis wanted the right to have a protest march in Skokie. I don't want to say there was nobility there, so I don't really want to use "nobility" as a guide to determine if something is actually a protest. If someone says they are protesting, then that's enough for me.
I also observe that there is a wide diversity in most protests. The core organizers often have to struggle to keep focus. The many interviews of participants in the early Occupy movement make that pretty clear. So while the core might be promoting a single idea, other perhaps less considered views also get into the mix. I've seen that a common opposition tactic is to do street interviews with the non-core supporters to show how ignorant/ill-informed/angry those people are, and paint the rest of the protesters with the same brush.
I think you see now why I struggle when I read people use terms like "mob", "bully", or "witch hunt"; I can't see what it's true, and have begun to believe it's mostly a rhetorical tactic to delegitimize opposition viewpoints - in your terms, to justify not reaching out. I do not believe you are using it that way.
Thank you for your followup and patience.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> How are any ideas being suppressed? By "demonstrating a fear of rational arguments and simply attack those who disagree".
My apologies. "What" ideas are being suppressed? More in general, can't all social or political boycotts, ranging from the boycott against Boycott and absentee landownership, to the Indian boycott of British goods and British colonialism, to the Montgomery Bus Boycott and race discrimination, to the anti-apartheid boycott, to the US boycott of Cuban goods be interpreted as "suppressing" a disliked idea? If so, then I…
Many of them are in fact attempts to suppress ideas they dislike. Not all.
For example, if I boycott Cuban goods, I'm boycotting the people currently in control of Cuba for their actions. If I boycott opponents of the embargo I'm attempting to suppress ideas.
I object far less to the former than the latter. But I admit, I don't fully understand this issue, which is why I'm asking questions to people who claim certainty.