Mozilla CEO resigns because of Prop 8 donation in 2008

[Legbiter]

I know.  The busybodies are really taking over.

I'll bring the popcorn when these "tolerant" do-gooders visciously turn on each other for perceived thoughtcrimes.

[crazy canuck]

It's become much riskier to publicly participate in politics at all if you want to have a life in the public eye.

I am not sure that is such a bad thing.  People should be held accountable for the manner in which they participate in the political process.  The problem is people are not held accountable by a reasonable electorate (and I suppose as this story shows a reasonable public).  Instead what we see more and more is an electorate/public attracted by extreme positions.

[Valmy]

I know.  The busybodies are really taking over.

I'll bring the popcorn when these "tolerant" do-gooders visciously turn on each other for perceived thoughtcrimes.

When?  They do it all the time now.

[Valmy]

It's become much riskier to publicly participate in politics at all if you want to have a life in the public eye.

I am not sure that is such a bad thing.  People should be held accountable for the manner in which they participate in the political process.  The problem is people are not held accountable by a reasonable electorate (and I suppose as this story shows a reasonable public).  Instead what we see more and more is an electorate/public attracted by extreme positions.

People need to be held accountable?  Why do we have a secret ballot if this is such a pressing need?

[crazy canuck]

It's become much riskier to publicly participate in politics at all if you want to have a life in the public eye.

I am not sure that is such a bad thing.  People should be held accountable for the manner in which they participate in the political process.  The problem is people are not held accountable by a reasonable electorate (and I suppose as this story shows a reasonable public).  Instead what we see more and more is an electorate/public attracted by extreme positions.

People need to be held accountable?  Why do we have a secret ballot if this is such a pressing need?

I didnt have voting in mind.  Not sure why you took the conversation in that direction.

[Valmy]

I didnt have voting in mind.  Not sure why you took the conversation in that direction.

Because you said 'people should be held accountable for the manner in which they participate in the political process'.  I thought the very fact that was dangerous and led to this sort of intimidation was the very reason we have a secret ballot in the first place.

[crazy canuck]

I didnt have voting in mind.  Not sure why you took the conversation in that direction.

Because you said 'people should be held accountable for the manner in which they participate in the political process'.  I thought the very fact that was dangerous and led to this sort of intimidation was the very reason we have a secret ballot in the first place.

Yes Valmy.  Now try to read what I said in the context of Otto's post.  You know the one I was reponding to. 

But you provide an exellent example of the problem I was describing of the lack of a reasonable electorate if you read my post as a threat to secret ballots. 

[Valmy]

Yes Valmy.  Now try to read what I said in the context of Otto's post.  You know the one I was reponding to. 

But you provide an exellent example of the problem I was describing of the lack of a reasonable electorate taking extreme positions if you read my post as a threat to secret ballots. 

I did not read it as a threat to secret ballots, I was asking you why we have them in the first place.  They were not always that way, in the US voting was once done publicly often with the candidates present.  Hmmmmm...I wonder why we stopped doing that...could it be because people were being held accountable for the manner in which they participated in the political process?  Further one of Otto's big examples involved participation in a recall election that the participants probably thought was a private matter and not related to their public office.

I am not sure there is a pressing public need for the electorate, no matter how reasonable, to go around policing everybody's opinions and hunting for heretics.  That sort of behavior is unlikely to attract people with moderate opinions anyway.  Elected official's suitableness for office should be evident from their public service record but even if you disagree this sort of thing is hardly reserved only for people running for or holding public offices.

[crazy canuck]

Hopefully Otto will respond to my post to him.  I have no idea what you are on about now.

[garbon]

Is donating money to an effort to prevent a certain group from marrying a foible?

Is everybody who opposed gay marriage six years ago an intolerant asshole who should be opposed until forced to resign?  I could see it if he was some sort of activist who was notorious for this sort of thing but this seems like a misdemeanor that put him beyond the pale.

I don't know. I mean I'm not very hard-line but I think I will always reserve some level of shade for people I know to be opposed to gay marriage (which includes swathes of my family).

That's fair enough I suppose.  I will judge people for all sorts of political beliefs.

But this kind of public shaming for writing a cheque six years ago seems to be beyond the pale.

Note I should add that the check is really the part I dislike. It is one thing to hold distasteful views, another to vote according to them to deny benefits to a group (at no harm to yourself, I might add) but then a step beyond either to spend money in hopes of influencing others to said spiteful views.

[mongers]

[Insert a random comment here]

[crazy canuck]

Is donating money to an effort to prevent a certain group from marrying a foible?

Is everybody who opposed gay marriage six years ago an intolerant asshole who should be opposed until forced to resign?  I could see it if he was some sort of activist who was notorious for this sort of thing but this seems like a misdemeanor that put him beyond the pale.

I don't know. I mean I'm not very hard-line but I think I will always reserve some level of shade for people I know to be opposed to gay marriage (which includes swathes of my family).

That's fair enough I suppose.  I will judge people for all sorts of political beliefs.

But this kind of public shaming for writing a cheque six years ago seems to be beyond the pale.

Note I should add that the check is really the part I dislike. It is one thing to hold distasteful views, another to vote according to them to deny benefits to a group (at no harm to yourself, I might add) but then a step beyond either to spend money in hopes of influencing others to said spiteful views.

Yeah, I dont really understand BB's defence that he merely wrote a check. 

[Sheilbh]

It just seems like a crazy double standard  to just gloss over people whose words and actions genuinely affect gay marriage in a big way (you know, like the POTUS running for reelection) but insist a guy who is only minimally involved in the political process lose his job over something 52% of voters that day agreed with.

Or, for that matter, the leaders of HRC who were, for years, far more focused on raising money for the Democrats and campaigning for a comparatively meaningless hate crimes law than on the politically inconvenient campaign for marriage.

I think boycotts over personnel is a slippery slope we should avoid.

I don't agree with the current puritanism and boycotting joy of a lot of the left and, frankly, it reminds me of nothing so much as the moral majority in their pomp.

Also I think we've won the argument and I think there should be a bit of magnanimity in victory. I don't see any need to grind the opponents of gay marriage into the dust. Someone opposes it, fine, we can have that fight. Do we really want to make them lose their job, or unemployable, or subject to an artificial glass ceiling?

The best defence I've seen of this was in the NYT and it was still pretty awful.

[The Brain]

There are many, many jobs where you should keep from publically speaking out on certain issues if you don't want to hurt your career. This is and always will be so. You may as well be upset with gravity.

[crazy canuck]

I don't agree with the current puritanism and boycotting joy of a lot of the left and, frankly, it reminds me of nothing so much as the moral majority in their pomp.

Current?  Boycots has been a tool of the left for a long time.  If anything my bet would be that boycots were a lot more frequent in the 60s and 70s.

Also I think we've won the argument and I think there should be a bit of magnanimity in victory. I don't see any need to grind the opponents of gay marriage into the dust. Someone opposes it, fine, we can have that fight. Do we really want to make them lose their job, or unemployable, or subject to an artificial glass ceiling?

I am not so sure the argument has been "won".  These are early days and I think the US in particular is a long way from accepting that gay marriage is normative.  The debate has certainly been won here in Canada - to the extent that the most conservative PM in a long time will not touch this issue.  If it ever comes to that in the US then I think you can declare victory in that country.