What I find most intriguing about this is the how a law that was enforced only 50 years ago has so quickly become abhorrent to the majority of the population. It's an interesting thought experiment to consider which laws we routinely use today to punish people will become morally unacceptable in the next 50 years. Copyright and patent laws, and laws used against Snowden's whistle blowing are some obvious ones that ar…
It's also an interesting thought experiment to consider whether beliefs we deeply and routinely hold today will become as morally unacceptable as the belief that homosexuality is wrong, unnatural and ought to be punished.
For example, what if it becomes wrong to believe in meritocracy? If in fifty years, everyone from scientists to politicians to the media blasts the message that it's wrong and hurtful to heap prestige, financial rewards, etc. on brilliant hackers and successful entrepreneurs?
Presumably many HN'ers strongly believe in meritocracy and point out historical examples of stagnation in non-meritocratic societies, mathematical/economic arguments why meritocracy is good, etc.
What if anyone who sincerely believes in meritocracy, and makes these kinds of logical and data-backed arguments in favor of meritocracy, is met the same way that today anyone is met who argues against the liberalization of our treatment of homosexuality?
Please, treat people who honestly believe that homosexuality is wrong the way you would want believers in meritocracy to be treated in the hypothetical world I've laid out. First, because you want a civilized precedent for dealing with distasteful beliefs, to reduce the downside if your own beliefs will one day be regarded as distasteful. Second, it simply makes the pro-gay argument look weak if the best way you can deal with opponents is call them names like "bigot," or threaten to blacklist them and destroy their livelihood.
Another fun thought experiment: s/bigot/heretic/