Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
User Journal

smitty_one_each's Journal: Steyn on Eich 83

Journal by smitty_one_each

Mozilla's chairwoman Mitchell Baker issued the usual tortured justification:

"Mozilla believes both in equality and freedom of speech. Equality is necessary for meaningful speech," Baker said. "And you need free speech to fight for equality. Figuring out how to stand for both at the same time can be hard."

I heard a lot of this stuff during my free-speech battles in Canada. The country's chief censor, the late Jennifer Lynch, QC, was willing to concede that free speech was certainly a right, but it was merely one in a whole range of competing rights - such as "equality" and "diversity" - that needed to be "balanced". What the "balancing" boils down to is that you get fired if you are an apostate from the new progressive groupthink. Underneath the agonized prose, Mitchell Baker is a bare-knuckled thug.

And thus the sins of the past are recycled with new labels. Bravo.

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Steyn on Eich

Comments Filter:
  • As I understand he stepped down from the top spot at a foundation. They were concerned that his anti-equality stance was not consistent with their stance as a foundation, and he left. How is it that someone who leaves like this is a martyr and a victim of leftist injustice, while someone who blows the whistle on labor abuses and subsequently gets canned with no opportunity for repercussions is just a response from the market?

    Besides, it's not like he'll have any trouble finding another well paying job.
    • Diversity: it doesn't quite mean what you think it might mean, no?
      • You can play that card if you want.

        What if this guy was opposed to interracial marriage rather than same sex marriage? Interracial marriage was banned in many states not that long ago. Many people turned to the bible and various other sources to justify their opposition to interracial marriage. If he had contributed money to a group that was trying to outlaw interracial marriage somewhere, should he be protected under "diversity"?
        • What if this guy was opposed to interracial marriage rather than same sex marriage?

          Counterfactual.

          • Cop out!

            Are we trying to play the religious "freedom" card? Is civil rights law racist in your mind??

            • No, he's playing the counterfactual card. In other words, he wants you to prove your irrational anti-religioius bias, instead of just repeating the standard postmodern talking points that you have been inoculated with [patheos.com].

              • by PopeRatzo (965947)

                Well, people did use "religious freedom" arguments to fight emancipation, civil rights, miscegenation, universal suffrage and women's rights, so it's not like we don't have plentiful evidence that religion is used as the protective shield of the bigot.

                It doesn't mean that the religious are bigots, just that bigots tend to get religion when all other arguments fail. Because there really is nothing "counter-factual" that can be used to dispute, "God tole me so!"

                I'm not surprised that Mark Steyn got this wron

              • Religious exception to secular law, which the US is supposed to be under, is bogus. *What goes in church stays church*.(something like that) We don't want the church to define legal marriage. I am not demanding the church perform same sex marriages. That would be your business. The law is not. The push back is entirely rational, and more is needed.

                • I am not demanding the church perform same sex marriages.

                  Oh, that's coming, if the inability of AZ photographers to have any say in their customers is an indicator.

                  • Oh, that's coming, if the inability of AZ photographers to have any say in their customers is an indicator.

                    When this happens, and a church is forced to perform a gay wedding against it's will...

                    It'll be time for open, armed, revolt.
                • Except that's not what the First Amendment says.

                  Free Exercise Clause.

                  • Well damn! Let's restart the blood sacrifice of prepubescent virgins then! Maybe we can prevent the super volcano from going off.

                    If you want to do business with non members of your church, you will respect their rights.

                    • I'm not so sure I want to do business with non-Catholics anymore. They clearly don't want to do business with me, by your standards, because you don't respect our rights either.

                    • Just keep the church doors open and let people come in of their own volition, instead of trying to annex the government.

                      And right, I don't respect any "right" to act out bigotry against anybody. Nobody's breaking down the doors of the church. There you can play out your fantasies (almost) any way you want. You just can't use humans anymore, like in the old days. On the outside things work a bit differently.

                    • Just keep the church doors open and let people come in of their own volition

                      Well, you see, that's a huge part of the problem. Nancy Pelosi is a prime example.

                      And right, I don't respect any "right" to act out bigotry against anybody. Nobody's breaking down the doors of the church

                      Yet. [patheos.com] It's only a matter of time before your "it will never happen" becomes "I'm sorry, it's necessary to tear down your church to build a new Department of Homeland Security armory".

            • Only if you're willing to do a study of the number of God-fearing Republicans that pushed through the Civil Rights Act [nationalreview.com].
              Civil Rights law is by no means racist; Affirmative Action is blatantly, overtly racist, as is all DNA-based decision-making. Which I think you know.
              • Yeah yeah, I mentioned Eisenhower and what I think of the democrats a few journals back, so nothing new there.

                If you want to see where Affirmative Action is truly, blatantly, overtly racist, look to the prison population, where both factions play the same role and have the same goal. Oh, but we don't want to go there..

                • You'll have to provide a link connecting Affirmative Action to the penal system. I kind of think they're two relatively distinct topics, but I don't trust you not engage in some trollish attempt to conflate issues.
                  • They are directly linked. "Affirmative Action" is the second drug you have to take to counteract the side effects of the first one. Take the racism out of the "justice" system, and maybe affirmative action can wither and die. Well, of course you have to remove the racism out of the employer's heart, which is noticeable every time he flinches when he sees a (insert minority here) man show up at the door. You cannot deny the existence of water.

          • What if this guy was opposed to interracial marriage rather than same sex marriage?

            Counterfactual.

            That is a really sad dodge of the matter here. You are trying to say that he should be praised for his diversity of opinion. Why do you praise some opinions more than others? I'm not saying that he does oppose interracial marriage, I'm just looking at a previous social issue involving marriage. Plenty of people felt that opposition to interracial marriage was supported by the bible.

    • by mwlewis (794711)

      Yep, it's a private organization, and they certainly have the right to decide whom to employ. I disagree with his previous political donation, but I also disagree with the people who think he's a terrible person who shouldn't be running Mozilla.

      I guess now leftists can stop pretending that black balling communists was a bad thing for anything but themselves. Hopefully, we can use this tragedy to resurrect that policy and then something good will have come from this after all.

The time spent on any item of the agenda [of a finance committee] will be in inverse proportion to the sum involved. -- C.N. Parkinson

Working...