You must have never had the "I'm not touching you" game played to you.
Surely you all are not imaginative enough if you think that the union of the set of behaviors one can form that are within their rights are all desirable behaviors.
I didn't say that all of behaviors seen were desirable, and upon rereading my comment, I have no idea how you got the impression that I was.
I mean, strictly speaking the NSA was well within its legal rights to do what it did. But what was that quote by Jon Stewart, "I think you're misunderstanding the perceived problem here, Mr. President. No one is saying you broke any laws. We're just saying it's a little bit weird that you didn't have to."
Exactly which behaviours seen during that scandal do you think should have been illegal or were borderline illegal? I am getting the feeling that you saw something that I did not.
Bear in mind that I draw a strong distinction between "undesirable" and "should probably be illegal".
Exactly which behaviours seen during that scandal do you think should have been illegal or were borderline illegal?
Not a single one. Now I'm also wondering what you're seeing.
Bear in mind that I draw a strong distinction between "undesirable" and "should probably be illegal".
Great, because that's what the opposition to the witchhunt has consistently been: Not that the majority of the witchhunt activities have been technically illegal, but that the acts themselves are undesirable in a community of differing views.
The precedence set by what happened to Eich because of his bigoted views (again, legal or not) should be sending panic through the progressive communities. But instead it's the opposite, people claiming that hunting this witch is OK because look, he's actually a witch.
And it's usually the same kind of people who will trot out the quote about "First they came for the Jews, ..." who are hypocritically clawing down the door to catch this particular member of the untermensch.
Exactly which behaviours seen during that scandal do you think should have been illegal or were borderline illegal?
I wish you the best of luck with this argumentative approach -- I've been trying it for weeks, and no one on the other side appears to realize that legally or socially preventing what happened with Eich and the Mozilla community would be far, far more destructive to discourse, speech, etc than what happened here. The position itself (that what happened to Eich was somehow wrong, in a sense that can be well-defined) is internally inconsistent.
I should probably stop replying, but again, what specific thing that happened (as a step in the process that led to Eich stepping down as CEO) do you actually want to stop? You can't just wave your hands and say you don't want people to lose their job because of their opinions. The series of steps that happened here each make sense and taking action that would somehow prevent what happened would have to stop one of those steps from occurring. Which step? How would you stop it without banning speech or preventing companies from acting in their own best interest?
How about, nobody fucking makes another guy lose his job for what he votes or backs?
So, if it came out that an executive at some company had donated money to the KKK, they should be somehow forced to keep him on? This position isn't inconsistent, it's incoherent.
So, if it came out that an executive at some company had donated money to the KKK, they should be somehow forced to keep him on?
What if it came out that an executive at some company had donated money to the Republican Party?
But either way, no one is saying Mozilla should have been forced to retain Eich against their will. Rather, Mozilla's Board had decided he was the best guy for the job, despite his thoughtcrime, until enough people and companies started ganging up on them and threatening the viability of the project.
Expressing your speech is one thing, boycotting is one thing (indeed, think of all the people now boycotting Mozilla), but trying to burn down a project a là OkCupid is a whole 'nother bag.
What if it came out that an executive at some company had donated money to the Republican Party?
Then... people would be free to boycott them? The company would be free to decide, like Mozilla did, whether it's worth keeping that executive on?
I agree that the OKCupid thing was a little distasteful, but that's mostly because it was so blatantly a ploy to get themselves some of the press surrounding the situation. I still wouldn't want to enact any policy that would ban them from doing so, however.
Comments
I didn't say that all of behaviors seen were desirable, and upon rereading my comment, I have no idea how you got the impression that I was.
Exactly which behaviours seen during that scandal do you think should have been illegal or were borderline illegal? I am getting the feeling that you saw something that I did not.
Bear in mind that I draw a strong distinction between "undesirable" and "should probably be illegal".
Not a single one. Now I'm also wondering what you're seeing.
Great, because that's what the opposition to the witchhunt has consistently been: Not that the majority of the witchhunt activities have been technically illegal, but that the acts themselves are undesirable in a community of differing views.
The precedence set by what happened to Eich because of his bigoted views (again, legal or not) should be sending panic through the progressive communities. But instead it's the opposite, people claiming that hunting this witch is OK because look, he's actually a witch.
And it's usually the same kind of people who will trot out the quote about "First they came for the Jews, ..." who are hypocritically clawing down the door to catch this particular member of the untermensch.
I wish you the best of luck with this argumentative approach -- I've been trying it for weeks, and no one on the other side appears to realize that legally or socially preventing what happened with Eich and the Mozilla community would be far, far more destructive to discourse, speech, etc than what happened here. The position itself (that what happened to Eich was somehow wrong, in a sense that can be well-defined) is internally inconsistent.
How about, nobody fucking makes another guy lose his job for what he votes or backs?
Does that sound incosistent?
I should probably stop replying, but again, what specific thing that happened (as a step in the process that led to Eich stepping down as CEO) do you actually want to stop? You can't just wave your hands and say you don't want people to lose their job because of their opinions. The series of steps that happened here each make sense and taking action that would somehow prevent what happened would have to stop one of those steps from occurring. Which step? How would you stop it without banning speech or preventing companies from acting in their own best interest?
So, if it came out that an executive at some company had donated money to the KKK, they should be somehow forced to keep him on? This position isn't inconsistent, it's incoherent.
What if it came out that an executive at some company had donated money to the Republican Party?
But either way, no one is saying Mozilla should have been forced to retain Eich against their will. Rather, Mozilla's Board had decided he was the best guy for the job, despite his thoughtcrime, until enough people and companies started ganging up on them and threatening the viability of the project.
Expressing your speech is one thing, boycotting is one thing (indeed, think of all the people now boycotting Mozilla), but trying to burn down a project a là OkCupid is a whole 'nother bag.
Then... people would be free to boycott them? The company would be free to decide, like Mozilla did, whether it's worth keeping that executive on?
I agree that the OKCupid thing was a little distasteful, but that's mostly because it was so blatantly a ploy to get themselves some of the press surrounding the situation. I still wouldn't want to enact any policy that would ban them from doing so, however.
At what point will people understand that someone saying "You should not do this thing" DOES NOT mean "This thing you do should be banned"?