Skip to main content

View Diary: Brendan Eich and Tolerance (162 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Ummm... OK (0+ / 0-)

    "not knowing where he stood on gay rights" but knowing where he stands on personal financial interests? But he's SO interested in gay rights when it comes to other CEOs? Yeah, sure. Right.

    •  Have you known... (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Tonedevil, anon004, vacantlook

      ...every position on every conceivable issue of every candidate for whom you ever voted or contributed?

      As someone once said, "Yeah, sure. Right."

      And you seem to have neglected:

      ...and I would not make that contribution again today.
      I suggest that if Brendan Eich had made that same statement, that would have been the end of it, and he'd still be CEO.
      •  I've known where they stood on (0+ / 0-)

        issues that were THAT important yes. Heh.

        •  And the beauty of it is... (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Tonedevil, anon004

 get to decide what's "THAT" important to you and when (as I said earlier), just as Messrs Yagan, Obama and Eich do.

          And others get to decide whether or not to support those whose opinions agree with their own, even if they differ from ones held in the past.

          Which again brings us to my final point above about both Yagan and Eich, and which you've again neglected.  

          •  Nope (0+ / 0-)

            you seemed to imply that Yagan was innocent of knowing where that candidate stood on an issue that is, of such  importance to him, that he would hound another CEO out of a job over it. I find that very hard to believe. Thus, my charge of hypocrisy.

            •  I didn't "imply" it... (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Tonedevil, anon004

              ...he said it.

              Neither of us can know what was in Yagan's mind, what was important to him or what he was aware of at the time.

              This, however, at this time...

              I unequivocally support marriage equality and I would not make that contribution again today.
     definitive, and good enough for me.

              As - and I add with emphasis - it would have been had it come from Eich.

              •  heh (0+ / 0-)

                Well I've got a bridge for sale. A for Eich he IS entitled to his opinions without repercussions. I thought. Maybe he doesn't feel he should recant just because he was caught in a hypocritical campaign against a private citizen. Doesn't matter now, the double standard is already solidified. And again that is my point. Why is TIDAy the magic day? What wasn't 2008? 2007? Who gets to be the arbiter of designating morality day? What are the criteria? See where I get a religious fundamentalist vibe?

                •  It's always difficult for me... (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Mister T

         resist a rebuttal - and I think we've already covered the ground referenced above, anyway - but I'll say this has been an engaging debate, and I hope you've enjoyed it as much as I have.

                •  One, Eich's opinions did not have reprecussions, (4+ / 0-)

                  his activities did.  And those activities involved using the political system to take away the rights of someone else.  Hardly just having an opinion.

                  Why is today the magic day?  Because today (or, rather a couple of weeks ago), this guy was the new CEO of Mozilla.  His activities regarding Prop 8 were publicized, and both the employees and the customers of Mozilla had a problem with it.  He couldn't change what he'd done in 2008, but he sure could say he'd changed his mind about the worthiness of it.  Your comment basically says that no one can ever learn something and change their mind because of it.  

                  And yes, morality is ever-changing and complex, just like everything else.  Oh, and by the way, that's the opposite of fundamentalism.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site