> Not all discrimination is bad
That's like saying "not all murder is bad" or "not all rape is bad". It's a negative action that we should discourage to progress as a society.
Here's the definition of discrimination.
"the unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people or things"
synonyms: prejudice, bias, bigotry, intolerance, narrow-mindedness, unfairness, inequity, favoritism, one-sidedness, partisanship
---
> Tolerance does not mean accepting intolerance. Intolerance should be named, shamed, and driven out of our society as an ugly and corrupting influence.
Tolerance means respect for all people. It benefits us as a community as well. Positivity or Negativity spreads. Precedents are set by behavior.
I'm against labeling people, because it encourages them to fulfill that label.
I subscribe to Labeling Theory because I have observed this in myself: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labeling_theory
'labeling theory postulates that it is possible to prevent social deviance via a limited social shaming reaction in "labelers" and replacing moral indignation with tolerance. Emphasis is placed on the rehabilitation of offenders through an alteration of their label(s)'
> You keep bringing up this word, "demonize", "disrespect" and so on. Why do you think that morally judging Eich's actions is either of these things?
The line is crossed when you judge Eich as a "bigot". You can criticize his support of Prop 8. But when you attack him, you are assaulting his character & giving him the identity of a bigot. It does not help him. It does not help you. It does not change his mind. Tolerance does change minds. Removing fear changes minds.
The perpetrator/victim role dynamic that we ascribe to others goes beyond this Eich scandal. It's a pattern & certain aspects of the so called "rights" movement have created such a story.
Gay rights & Women rights are emotional subjects. Speaking as a heterosexual male, I'm aware of the power a woman has to get her way. If she were to accuse me of violence, even if it's not true & even if there is no other evidence, I'm going to jail. There is no due process. There are also a number of other rights that the male does not have in these situations.
Public perception is conditioned to side with the "victims" against the "perpetrators". In this example, people are going to side with the woman, independent of evidence in this situation. This also includes harsh & unthoughtful anger toward those who are viewed as perpetrators & even those who speak out against the group. There is a air of self-righteousness to this anger, which makes people even less understanding.
That is the dark side of moral righteousness. The target of the crowd are often the victims of brutality, motivated by self-righteousness.
---
> Freedom of speech != Freedom from criticism. it's expressly illegal in this country to have civil rights unequally applied. Case law recognizes marriage as one of those rights, so even if we remove all ethics from this discussion, it's still illegal.
I agree with both points. Prop 8 was overturned for good reason. I'm mainly disturbed by the mob mentality & how quickly someone is labeled as a "bigot" (a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices). That is a serious accusation & label to put on someone.
---
I suspect that there is a personality divide on people's opinions. I'm relativistic. I appreciate how morals change with society. Our society is also diverse. One aspect of society enforcing their morality on another aspect of society creates conflict. This is part of culture & ideas. Sometimes, there's a battle.
I'm proposing that we settle this through reflective, mature, & deflamatory discourse. The same facts will come out. The same conclusions would be drawn. There would be less shame, stress, & other resentment. I suspect you would have gotten a more satisfactory answer from Eich.
---
> Your theory has no more support than mine.
Exactly. We don't know what happened. He is silent on the issue. There's no evidence of him being a "bigot". He supported prop 8. It would be interesting to know why. Silence is a common response to group criticism.
> the people who support apartheid didn't appreciate the group coercion to change their stance either
Those people were in power used coercion to silence their critics & perpetuate apartheid. The whole system of apartheid was based on disrespect of the individual & labeling races as "inferior".
The only avenue against this system was resistance & to gain the support of other nations. Nelson Mandela did not demonize his opponents. He had respect for his opponents. He won because his vision respects autonomy, inclusiveness, respect, & intelligence.
---
Thank you for the thorough & deep discussion :-)