Mozilla CEO Brendan Eich Steps Down

[Vegosiux]

Semantics where you sit, right?

Speaking from a pure "Getting from point A to point B" perspective, yes, semantics. Any seat on the same bus is going to get you to point B. But thing is, it's not about where you sit on the bus, is it?

 

[CloudAtlas]

hey man i'm on your side. i was just saying what he might have been saying. also as a note. i'm not white. I'm Iranian. though i guess you could call that if want.

My apologies, I took what you said the wrong way then. Still, please be aware that your argument is dangerously close to a standard racist rationale of e.g. why white US folks can't just abolish slavery. Since it is a rather convenient argument, I would imagine it was used in places other than the West in a similar fahsion, but admittedly I do no know.

 

[Vegosiux]

As I said to my boyfriend on the topic - woe is the bigot, for wicked is the victim, huh.

Speaking historically, there's a lot of truth in that, actually. The oppressed becoming the new oppressors isn't unheard of.

But that's on an entirely different scale. There's an entirely different problem present there, and that is that, as seem to be common lately, any kind of dissenting voice is immediately declared enemy, regardless of what it's actually saying. Either you fall in line or you're a horrible person. If you think this was a tad overblown, you're a horrible person because you obviously hate gays. If you think that this was short-sighted, you're a horrible person because you obviously hate gays. If you think anything other than "This was 100% great and awesome", then you're a horrible person because you obviously hate gays.

That's the kind of rhetoric people adopted here.

 

[Kopikatsu]

Before any debate occurs, I feel it's important that everyone understands Proposition 8, and I don't believe the majority here to have such an understanding. So let's take a look at it.

Proposition 8 was a Californian (U.S.A.) ballot proposition seeking to make an amendment to the state constitution that would outlaw same sex marriage by legally defining marriage to be between that of a man and a woman (also as recognized by law) exclusively. As a result, it would greatly impact same sex couples, their power of estate over one another (in such cases as medical and financial decisions when in a coma, or last will and testament for example) and their right to custody of their children, or that of future children. The proposition was passed in 2008 by a wide margin, before later being found to be unconstitutional by the Supreme Court and was thus rendered void.

Before you accuse others of not understanding what Prop 8 was, maybe you should make sure that you understand it first.

First, civil unions were already in place before Prop 8 (Specifically, civil unions were granted the same rights as marriage in 2005; Prop 8 was voted on in 2008). So no, nobody's rights were being affected by Prop 8. It was only to get civil unions to be called 'marriages'. It was purely an issue of semantics.

Second, it was voted in by 52%. 2% is not a 'wide margin' by any measure.

Semantics? I'd think being recognized as equal human beings would not be an issue of semantics for those affected. For example, if African American and White American couples were given the right to a civil union, but denied that of marriage. Remember when segregation was a thing? Sadly, it still exists. But maybe Black Americans should just be glad they get to sit anywhere on the bus. Semantics where you sit, right?

More than three quarters of counties voted in the proposition. It was very nearly universal across the entire state.

It. Is. Semantics.

A civil union has the same benefits as marriage. Anyone who opposes gay marriage is not a homophobe by virtue of not wanting gay marriage. I genuinely cannot believe that people claim their rights were torn away by Prop 8 when they never had those 'rights' to begin with. It is ridiculous. Completely and utterly so.

Even more ridiculous is that this man lost his job at a company he founded, because he was in the majority in supporting Prop 8. A position which, although he should have no need to, he publicly apologized for.

 

[Kopikatsu]

Again, I wish to remind those among us that believe Eich was discriminated against - the victims participated in a legal boycott of a company, nothing more. They have every right to shop where they please. Why should they choose to support the company of a man that seeks to oppress them or their loved ones?

Remember: this man supported a proposition that was unconstitutional. I cannot stress that enough. Where the public did nothing more than choose to shop elsewhere, to not support a bigot, Eich actually contributed to an unconstitutional oppression of human rights.

Would you allow me to avoid a store if I found the owner rude? The smell bad? The products too expensive? Then why not the right to avoid the product of a man that would pass an inhumane law that restricts the rights of my loved ones and friends? Where is your perspective?

You're calling a word oppressive. I want you to really think deeply about this. What is the difference between 'civil union' and 'marriage'? They are difference terms for different scenarios. To call that oppressive is to spit in the face of everyone who has ever genuinely suffered from oppression. Have homosexuals been oppressed? Surely. But to call Proposition 8 oppressive is ridiculousness, and it didn't restrict anyone's rights because prior to that, homosexuals never had the right to be 'married' in the first place. If you actually went and read the Supreme Court's decision on the matter, they refused to state whether or not homosexuals have a constitutional right to be married. Specifically so. That was a matter they didn't want to rule on for fear of public backlash one way or another. That you're saying proposition 8 was an unconstitutional violation of human rights just serves to show that you have absolutely zero perspective. None. Perhaps even less than zero.

Boycotting Mozilla over the actions of one man, who later apologized for those actions, only ends up hurting the company's employees. Who are innocent of the entire affair to begin with.

Then I assume you are happy for me to tell others you would find nothing wrong with telling a Black American to sit at the back of the bus. "Semantics," I would inform them, according to you. "You've not the right to sit where you choose. You can ride the bus, so it's the same thing. Just sit at the back."

You cannot be logically consistent and have a problem with that. You must either admit the difference matters, or admit that telling Black Americans to sit at the back is perfectly ok.

It is logically consistent. If you force blacks to sit at the back of the bus, you are inherently forbidding them from sitting in the front of the bus, while whites are not prohibited from moving to the back of the bus if they so chose. Although the practice was called 'separate but equal', it was anything but equal.

There is no difference between civil union and marriage aside from what it says on the piece of paper from the government. If a heterosexual couple wanted to say they were in a civil union, they're free to. If a homosexual couple wanted to say that they were married, they're free to.

Because this is purely a matter of semantics. It is wordplay only. Restricting people from certain benefits or areas is beyond the realm of semantics.

 

[Kopikatsu]

You've talked yourself into a circle and lost the debate; you argue it is semantics to want the same marriage as heterosexual people, but not semantics for Black Americans to want to sit on the same bus. If the bus is going to the same place, or if there is two buses, one for blacks and one for whites, it doesn't matter if you cannot get on one, only the other.

Gay people cannot wed, only have a union.
Black people cannot use the white bus, only the black one.
Both do the same thing.
Semantics.

Shall we gather up some Black Americans so you can inform of this semantic?

I'm sure they'd enjoy to hear how you're comparing actual instances of oppression to wordplay. It's hilariously offensive.

Restricting people from an entire line of buses is just that. You are restricting them from a service, which is at the very least an inconvenience. What is the difference between a civil union and a marriage in terms of benefits? Go ahead, I can wait.

 

[Vegosiux]

No, no, no. You said it yourself! It's semantics. Gay people can't get married. They can have a union.

What's the difference? No really, I'm not sure how it's defined in legislation with you, seeing as I'm not American. What's the difference between the two, what does one have that the other doesn't?