Free speech doesn't mean freedom from criticism or shaming.
The key word in your description is "remain" -- Prop 8 wasn't about keeping the status quo, as was the case in a lot of states who passed laws amending their constitution to define marriage as 1m1w
Prop 8 was different to a lot of people because of this distinction. The traditional legal definition of marriage was already ruled unconstitutional in California (per the state's Constitution, not the US one) -- thus, gay people in the state of California for about six months there were allowed to get married.
And Prop 8 was an attempt to *remove* that right. It's a lot harder to remove a right (and a lot more offensive) once its been recognized as being held then it is to preemptively try to keep anyone from getting it. As far as I know, California is the only state which tried to tighten up the marriage definition after a state court ruled the existing definition violated their constitution.
It might seem overly technical and nitpicky, but personally the difference between the two situations really resonates with me. As a customer/regular person, I've held people who supported Prop 8 in contempt, however mildly so, and so understand the people who were upset at Eich's elevation to such an open and progressive organization. That said, I don't actually share their feelings. The world has changed far too much, far faster then I could have imagined, for me to continue holding Prop 8 against anyone in any serious way.
Mini-rant/clarification: I do take issue with statements like, "majority of Californians" -- but I hate it when any side of an argument speaks up about a majority. To be clear, a majority of Californian's didn't side with him. Barely over 7 million out of 13.7 million voters in a state of about 36 million people did. (Heck, a big pet peeve of mine is when practically anyone speaks for The American People. Its almost always a partisan who is speaking to a segment that at least an equal segment probably aggressively opposes what's being said)
An adult can choose to be stupid if they want, and that's their right.
The Creation Museum and similar Creationist institutions are trying to substitute their stupid for scientific knowledge in the schools our children go to.
You can take your kids to church and teach them your religion if you want, but when you start trying to undermine basic scientific education for everyone that's a very different thing.
I'm taking the "racists mush?" question to have been answered with "yes" when you go name a people "muzzies".
The point was, you're claiming Muslim rioting as a counterpoint, but even if its accepted that those riots are a part of this this trend of rioting spoken of-- they don't fit even your pattern, they *aren't* a counterpoint simply because you state it. Naming them to counter the argument is just racist handwaving at best: oh, well the Muslims (er, muzzies) are rioting, so clearly there's no pattern because, they like are muzzies, and muzzies, do that. You know. Cuz. They do. Muzzies. Riot.
There's no link between Muslims and the Ukraine and their riots unless you twist reality severely to try to force a point. The riots in the Ukraine are about (at least-- it very well may be a much more involved story) a segment of the population who has a history of successful revolution when in relation to serious belief of election fraud and corruption; and acts by the current government that are viewed as corrupt and against their interests (namely, aligning Ukraine more closely to Russia instead of the EU). Is that true? Dunno. But there's nothing Muslim about it.
To look at former Soviet satellite states and see their dislike for union with Russia as a sign of Muslim rioting just cuz, needs some serious .
Thailand is a complex situation: they have a mix of pro-government people from varied situations, and anti-democracy forces who think there's something just wrong with their government and simple election counting when the counters have such tremendous control. Its sort of bemusing to hear some of riots which are specifically yelling: democracy bad! But, that is because of a nuanced and complicated situation they're going through, with an extremely wealthy subset seem to have democratic support of the rural masses at the cost of great disapproval in the middle classes of the city. This, of course, is a very broad stroke description of the situation. I'm not sure where to fall on the subject, and I lack seriously enough information to really have a solid idea. But.
The point is, it isn't because muslims happened. Culture happened. People happened. This is nuanced.
No comparison to the "muzzies" sheds any insight on this situation.
The because the real world is complicated, nuanced, and based on history and the context of real people living real lives.
Yes, some "muzzies" had riots, for reasons. That doesn't make every riot and every government going through growing pains because, you know, the muzzies.
Seriously, dude, you said "muzzies".
I should have just stopped there.
Racist much? Maybe not. Islamaphobic much, though?
No, the United States did not say that.
I recall some wingnut in Congress suggested various extreme remedies, but that's not "The United States" saying anything. All it takes to end up in Congress is to convince a narrow majority of a minority of racially and economically similar people who will actually show up to vote, to send you there. These days, by using all kinds of lies, but that's not completely new. Gerrymandering has just made it fairly absurd the kinds of lies you could tell and still end up in Congress. But no one in Congress speaks for the United States. Random anonymous military or intelligence people don't speak for the United States, either.
You need to be a pretty high level Administration official to speak for the nation about that (I'd take Secretary of State, Defense or Homeland Security; or the DNI when the CIA was operating the drone program,.. or the President, of course). Granted, the Administration has put US citizens on the kill list and is debating doing it again, but not to Snowden. If you can't win your case about the guy without spreading lies or (excessively) paranoid rantings, there's something wrong with your case.
The United States has threatened to prosecute him, not kill him extra-judicially.
I don't think mixing "literally" and "legitimately" in the same sentence make sense, since the latter is entirely a determination of opinion.
You may not agree with Apple's position that every single milimeter and ounce matters, but that position is legitimate. There are consequences to that position, such as not being able to replace the battery yourself -- but its not like Apple is hiding that its laptops don't have user replaceable batteries.
Its a perfectly legitimate design decision and trade off. Maybe for you that means the products aren't for you -- that doesn't make it not *legitimate*, let alone not *literally* so.
You, sir, are daring to bring facts to a gunfight.
What? I've had several hardware failures on Macs over the years, and the *longest* was a five day wait -- the second longest a two day wait, and every other failure was a same day or next day fix.
That five day wait was with a moderately aged (2.5 years: out of warranty) Mac Pro having a motherboard failure and they had run out of replacements in-house, so they sent out for new ones and it took a few days to get there. They got more then just mine in on that shipment, so someone else comes in tomorrow, next week, they will have a one day turnaround. Its worth noting that the mac is still going two+ years later with no other issues after that replacement.
That repair cost me not a dime. There are worst-case scenarios with Apple where you may be sans a machine a few days, a week maybe -- *MAYBE* even two weeks, but that seems to require a level of outdated hardware that you're better served going to an independent repair shop -- but it is *absolutely* untrue that the general, average component failure of a "vendor built" machine, if built by Apple, has you out for two weeks.
It doesn't happen. Apple Stores can do a huge number of component replacements in-house, and they keep a stock of parts to do it.
Yeah, I got charged for another machines fix that was out of warranty, but it took absolutely no special work. There was no effort or drama attached to try to somehow convince them to deign to help me as you suggest. They had the part on hand, and charged me a reasonable fee for the replacement + work, and I picked the box up the next day. This was out of warranty, without AppleCare. It just cost me. Had they been out the part, it might have taken longer to get replaced-- but my experience says looking at a week as the *extreme* and not average is a reasonable expectation.
In short: I have never bought AppleCare, have had a few service needs, and only one wasn't what I'd call fast-- and it was five days (COUNTING a weekend in there, not five "business days" extending to seven or eight) and that was on a device solidly outside of their normal, expected maintenance window -- even under AppleCare.
I don't doubt it might not happen that some Apple user sometimes has a two week wait, but that is the exception and not the rule. I can get to Fry's and hope they have the part (they have
That 80% is based on personal experience, YMMV.
You sure about that? Huawei's status as an employee-owned company that it calls a "collective" is dubious; in theory it is owned by its employees, but its management structure is opaque and it is only rather recently that they even admitted who their board of directors were -- and its totally unclear how much real ability the employees have to accomplish anything.
The CEO of Huawei, the guy who founded it, is hugely secretive and has strong ties to the Communist Party. As do most of the other known bosses. Its politically useful (especially at the time it was founded) for the Party and the Chinese to think of Huawei as a collective, even though there's no real evidence its anything but. Doing so has allowed the state to support Huawei in circumstances it normally wouldn't be inclined to do politically.
Now, I don't buy into the Huawei conspiracy theories, but c'mon.... you're reading too much into "employee-owned".
The thing is, you're wrong.
Very, very little of what Obama wants or has done is even close to what the progressives of the left actually want. Health care reform? He enacted the model proposed by the Republicans and devised by a right wing think-tank to create a market-based approach to near-universal healthcare: if you think the left is happy with Obamacare, you're not paying attention.
Its simply *better*, and so we will stick with it. What the left wanted was a single-payer really universal healthcare, but we compromised and were willing to go along with the ACA as long as we'd get a single-payer *option*. Then that got dropped, but most of the left decided to support the ACA anyways because really, it was better then what we have now.
Obama is a centrist; center-right in most issues, occasionally center-left. There is nothing even remotely radical about anything he's done, there's been no great pull to the left. The left has gone a bit farther left then we were a decade or so ago, but that's been in response to the monumental shift the right has gone.
There's a wholesale assault on reproductive and fundamental voting rights going on from the right these days, which is just stunning in that these are things that *only* the most extreme of the right's base want.
On civil rights, surveillance, foreign policy, environment, business regulation,
Yes, there are some narrow places where the far left and the libertarian wing of the far right actually agree, and its weird when it happens: but those are on very specific and very narrow issues. The problem with that libertarian wing is then they fall flat on their face in when the social conservative bloc of the far right has to be dealt with in primaries, and suddenly small government meets bedroom and private health, and oops.
The Employee-Employer relationship is fundamentally different then the relationship between Card and I: there is an imbalance of power in that relationship and that invalidates the comparison.
Here, I am the customer: there are any number of possible places where my money can go and no one has any claim on it. If I do not buy something it is not a penalty, therefore the act of not buying something is not a punishment. He has no claim on my money, and so its lack is not a penalty. It is not something he would otherwise have had or that he would have had through some obligation or which has been taken away from him -- those are what make something a penalty.
The act of buying something is entirely within my sole discretion and is entirely my unqualified right to determine, for any reason.
That said: it is not merely his public opinions that are at issue. I do not boycott people who disagree with me. I could, and it would be entirely within my right, and entirely moral for me to do so, but I don't so its moot. Card is not being boycotted for his opinions (by me) -- he is being boycotted because he is a political activist, and therefore the money I give him supports and funds activism that I find reprehensible.
Yes, if someone wants to not shop at a store because it has gay people in it, they are entirely free to do so. Doing so does not punish the store.
If someone wants to spend their money only in stores run by Christians, that's entirely fine and moral. If someone wants to spend their money only in stores which have a good reputation for being 'green', that's entirely fine and moral. If someone does not want to buy a product because they believe the company is harming the environment or its suppliers are being abused, that's entirely fine and moral. The inverse of these are all also true, and just as fine -- though rarely do people want to buy something because the company is hurting the environment, more likely the inverse is that people don't care... which is ALSO entirely fine. Importantly, in none of those cases are they punishing anyone.
Card's political agenda is hurting people, his political activism is hurting people. Thus, I will not patronize him -- or Chick-fil-A, for that matter -- because it is my unqualified right to support those businesses and people I want to. My money is power, and empowering people who are actively championing against basic human dignity is something I choose not to do.
I... there is so much wrong here.
I'll say only: I am not castigating anyone for any beliefs. I am calling out someone who is a *political activist* who is attempting to impose his beliefs upon the nation and refusing to financially support him because of that activism.
I reject your definition of private.
Once one becomes an activist and puts their name, their reputation, their money behind a cause that is no longer a private matter. It is at that point entirely justified to consider those matters of public policy that they are so strongly advocating when deciding if you want to give them your business or not.
Card has done that, and in doing so has forfeited any claim to this being a private opinion or belief that he holds.
There's a lot of false equivalencies you have going on there that I'm not gonna address because the above is sufficient, but--
First, It is not "punishment".
Card has no expectation or right to my money; and no one is advocating that his opinion be criminalized or penalized in any way. He has a right to whatever money he has earned through his work. If I choose to give -- or not as the case may be -- him money, that's me exercising my rights. That does not punish him.
Second, Card does not merely "not support" gay marriage: he does not merely have an opinion. He is an activist and major player in the political arena to deny gay people the right to marry. He is an influential member of a Church which poured huge amounts of money into Prop 8 in California, he sits on the board of the National Organization for Marriage. He is not merely a man with an opinion, he is an active political force on this issue.
Third, his stance is not merely that he is against gay marriage or for "protecting traditional marriage" -- go read his writings. He has argued that adult, consensual homosexuality has no place in society and should be criminalized. He since said that he merely wanted to keep existing laws "on the books" passively and that he wouldn't argue to reinstate them, but that doesn't really jive with what he said.
Every dollar I give him, small as my individual dollars are, is a dollar towards a person who is an active force against something I believe is an issue of fundamental rights and fair society. It's not that I'm threatened, its that it is counterproductive. To donate money to the Human Rights Campaign and turn around and patronize establishments like Chick-fil-A or this movie simply does not make sense.
I don't hate him, there's no exclamation marks involved in my thinking, and anyone who does go see this movie or buy his books I don't view as a bigot or supportive of bigotry. Some may be ignorant of what's behind it, some may prioritize their life and money differently, but for those of us who do KNOW who he is and what he has said, supports, and actively tries to do in society, our choice to not support him is valid.
It is not "punishment", he has neither right nor claim to our patronage. It is political, though.
Bear in mind, that's just one of many. Card has written many, many, many times on this subject -- even arguing that homosexual acts should be criminalized, that an adult willfully engaging in sex he doesn't find acceptable with other consenting adults should go to *jail* and be deemed an unacceptable part of society.
Not all hate speech is going to say 'faggot' and 'burn in hell' and stuff like that: those extreme positions are also supported and maintained by more intellectual and softly spoken declarations of the inhumanity of the minority and supporting that it has no right to be seen as a peer because its difference is too different to allow.