User Tag List

First 45678 Last

Results 51 to 60 of 108

  1. #51
    @.~*virinaĉo*~.@ Totenkindly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    FREE
    Enneagram
    594 sx/sp
    Socionics
    LII Ne
    Posts
    42,333

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by skylights View Post
    Maybe we can trade out marriage for government-sponsored apple pie companies. I'd be okay with that.


    "LET THEM EAT PIE!"
    "Hey Capa -- We're only stardust." ~ "Sunshine"

    “Pleasure to me is wonder—the unexplored, the unexpected, the thing that is hidden and the changeless thing that lurks behind superficial mutability. To trace the remote in the immediate; the eternal in the ephemeral; the past in the present; the infinite in the finite; these are to me the springs of delight and beauty.” ~ H.P. Lovecraft

  2. #52
    Tempbanned
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Enneagram
    8w9
    Posts
    14,031

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nicodemus View Post
    Indeed: Past and future.
    That response is a bit needlessly provocative.

  3. #53
    Senior Member Nicodemus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    9,129

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DiscoBiscuit View Post
    That response is a bit needlessly provocative.
    Only if you consider yourself part of the past. Your choice.

  4. #54
    Tempbanned
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Enneagram
    8w9
    Posts
    14,031

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nicodemus View Post
    Only if you consider yourself part of the past. Your choice.
    I'm still alive so I don't.

  5. #55
    Tempbanned
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Enneagram
    8w9
    Posts
    14,031

    Default

    From the Volokh Conspiracy at the Washington Post:

    A Strange New Respect for Markets

    An excerpt...

    The recent controversy over Brendan Eich, the Mozilla CEO who resigned under pressure after it was learned that he donated to Prop 8 six years ago, put gay-rights groups in a bind. They didn’t want to be seen as endorsing the proposition that people should be fired from their jobs because of their beliefs–even anti-gay beliefs. They knew that would be very bad politics in a nation where most states still don’t protect people from being fired simply for being gay, and where 33 states still don’t recognize gay marriages. No major gay-rights organization joined the Internet-based campaign to have Eich dismissed; none called for his resignation; and none advocated any kind of boycott. But at the same time, they wanted to tap the anger that many people still feel over the campaign to pass Prop 8, which exploited stereotypes of gays as trying to recruit children into homosexuality. And it wouldn’t hurt if the Mozilla controversy was a lesson to others who might be tempted to make similar anti-gay-marriage donations.

    Enter the invisible hand of the market, which dispassionately weighs plusses and minuses, dispensing an amoral justice all its own. Thus writes Lambda Legal’s Leslie Gabel-Brett:

    Eich expressed his views, which included the belief that same-sex couples should be denied equality and dignity; some customers, employees and others expressed their views that such a position was harmful, offensive and would motivate them to take their business or talents elsewhere; and the corporate board apparently decided this was bad for business. This is marketplace forces at work, influenced by the marketplace of ideas.
    A similar sentiment was expressed by the Human Rights Campaign’s Deena Fidas, who wrote that Mozilla now had “authentic leadership” because “market forces” just “took over.” All over the Internet, we’ve seen the same deference to the wisdom of the marketplace. It was just business being business, folks. Nothing to see here.

    These reactions are probably descriptively true. Eich’s resignation—or sacking—in the face of public controversy was probably good for Mozilla’s long-term reputation in an industry that prides itself on support for causes favored by progressives, and whose customers and stakeholders in particular expect respect for gay people and their relationships.

    But it is hard to imagine similar matter-of-fact reactions if a company’s customer base and other stakeholders demanded, and secured, the resignation of a pro-same-sex marriage CEO. Imagine a public campaign, which has in fact been championed by the National Organization for Marriage, to “Dump Starbucks” because of its stand in favor of gay marriage. But instead of the flop the anti-Starbucks campaign has been, suppose that the Board decided to fire CEO Howard Schultz as a way to appease opponents. Would Lambda Legal observe that this was simply “marketplace forces at work, influenced by the marketplace of ideas”? Would the Human Rights Campaign laud the new “authentic leadership” produced when “market forces took over”? We know the answers. There was no neo-Hayekian outburst when marketplace forces went to work in support of Chick-Fil-A, which refused to recant its corporate donations to anti-gay causes. There was no celebration of Adam Smith when Phil Robertson was promptly restored to his place in A&E’s Duck Dynasty despite his remarks lumping together “homosexuals, drunks, and terrorists.”

    Neither the marketplace of ideas nor the marketplace for goods and services is entirely value-free. Markets reflect preferences, which themselves may be driven by invidious prejudices (as in the case of demands that gays be fired from their jobs: see Kameny, Frank) or by other deeply illiberal impulses (like the desire to punish, rather than to critique, the speech of dissenters). We can endorse these prejudices and impulses or we can criticize them, but it’s less than fully candid to imply that we don’t care either way or that the results are just neutral business decisions. By our example and by our advocacy (or silence), we help create the inputs the market lives by.

    Nobody is obliged by liberal principles to buy the products of companies whose employment or other policies, or leadership, they object to. People are free to boycott. There’s no constitutional right to be a CEO. But organizing boycotts and applying pressure to get people fired ought to require extraordinary justification in a diverse and pluralistic country. For example, in my political cabinet, I have red files labeled “Hitler” and “Jim Crow” that I pull out when I meet actual fascists and Bull Connors, not someone who made a comparatively modest $1000 contribution to a $40 million campaign that, however nasty in execution, was an attempt to restore an understanding of marriage that prevailed in all 50 states and almost every country four years prior.

    We’re not at the point where we’re entitled to say that those who don’t support gay marriage are just as odious as the racists of the Old South. There’s nothing quite like our racial history. A spirit of live-and-let-live tolerance, the spirit that made the gay-rights revolution possible, means being more cautious before turning disagreements, even over very important questions about which we feel strongly, into a replay of black-and-white historical struggles. It means being willing to entertain the 1% possibility that we might be wrong. It means not treating people the way they treated us, but the way they should have treated us.

  6. #56
    i love skylights's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    MBTI
    INFP
    Enneagram
    6w7 so/sx
    Socionics
    EII Ne
    Posts
    7,835

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DiscoBiscuit View Post
    From the Volokh Conspiracy at the Washington Post:

    A Strange New Respect for Markets

    An excerpt...
    The logic in the bulk of the article would be good if it were not for the foundational definitions involved. The reason liberals can have this seeming double standard in regards to market functioning (celebrating/supporting it now when typically they are against it) and why it is not hypocrisy is because in this situation the market is actually bringing "justice" to the underdog in the situation - not Mozilla, whose morality play in this situation is questionable, but to those gay people who have been denied equal treatment and have not acted unfairly in an attempt to gain it. Most liberals are indeed not in favor of the free market, but this is a social situation and not an economic situation. That a conservative economic function is facilitating a liberal social function is really just an accident - it was nothing liberals intentionally planned. It's a bit like when the other team accidentally scores a point for you. Of course you're going to celebrate.

    However, the argument at the end, that gay marriage opposition can't be "that bad" because racism took place at a less tolerant point in history, is not logical, nor is the idea that we should apply tolerance to intolerance.

  7. #57
    Tempbanned
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Enneagram
    8w9
    Posts
    14,031

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by skylights View Post
    The logic in the bulk of the article would be good if it were not for the foundational definitions involved. The reason liberals can have this seeming double standard in regards to market functioning (celebrating/supporting it now when typically they are against it) and why it is not hypocrisy is because in this situation the market is actually bringing "justice" to the underdog in the situation - not Mozilla, whose morality play in this situation is questionable, but to those gay people who have been denied equal treatment and have not acted unfairly in an attempt to gain it. Most liberals are indeed not in favor of the free market, but this is a social situation and not an economic situation. That a conservative economic function is facilitating a liberal social function is really just an accident - it was nothing liberals intentionally planned. It's a bit like when the other team accidentally scores a point for you. Of course you're going to celebrate.
    All contributors to the Volokh Conspiracy at the Washington Post are Law Professors.

    A little about the author:
    Dale Carpenter is the Earl R. Larson Professor of Civil Rights & Civil Liberties Law at University of Minnesota Law School. He teaches and writes in the areas of constitutional law, the freedoms of speech, association, and religion, and sexual orientation and the law. He is the author of Flagrant Conduct: The Story of Lawrence v. Texas (Norton 2002).
    However, the argument at the end, that gay marriage opposition can't be "that bad" because racism took place at a less tolerant point in history, is not logical, nor is the idea that we should apply tolerance to intolerance.
    That is not what the author is saying at all.

    I'll requote the important bits.

    Please respond to:
    But organizing boycotts and applying pressure to get people fired ought to require extraordinary justification in a diverse and pluralistic country. For example, in my political cabinet, I have red files labeled “Hitler” and “Jim Crow” that I pull out when I meet actual fascists and Bull Connors, not someone who made a comparatively modest $1000 contribution to a $40 million campaign that, however nasty in execution, was an attempt to restore an understanding of marriage that prevailed in all 50 states and almost every country four years prior.

    We’re not at the point where we’re entitled to say that those who don’t support gay marriage are just as odious as the racists of the Old South. There’s nothing quite like our racial history. A spirit of live-and-let-live tolerance, the spirit that made the gay-rights revolution possible, means being more cautious before turning disagreements, even over very important questions about which we feel strongly, into a replay of black-and-white historical struggles. It means being willing to entertain the 1% possibility that we might be wrong. It means not treating people the way they treated us, but the way they should have treated us.

  8. #58
    Tempbanned
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Enneagram
    8w9
    Posts
    14,031

    Default

    One more thing, there is no consensus view on the "foundational definitions" @skylights refers to.

    We live in a pluralistic country where the right to espouse non majority opinions is constitutionally protected.

    I fail to see what justifies a social media witch hunt resulting in a titan of the tech industry being forced out of the company he founded.

  9. #59
    i love skylights's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    MBTI
    INFP
    Enneagram
    6w7 so/sx
    Socionics
    EII Ne
    Posts
    7,835

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DiscoBiscuit View Post
    One more thing, there is no consensus view on the "foundational definitions" @skylights refers to.

    We live in a pluralistic country where the right to espouse non majority opinions is constitutionally protected.

    I fail to see what justifies a social media witch hunt resulting in a titan of the tech industry being forced out of the company he founded.
    On cell, I'll respond to the text later, but I equally fail to see why everyone has their panties in a bundle about a corporate figurehead getting fired for being unlikeable.

  10. #60
    Tempbanned
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Enneagram
    8w9
    Posts
    14,031

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by skylights View Post
    On cell, I'll respond to the text later, but I equally fail to see why everyone has their panties in a bundle about a corporate figurehead getting fired for being unlikeable.
    I like people that have differing opinions on gun control. (not all of them necessarily, but agreeing with me on deeply held beliefs is not a litmus test for whether or not I can like someone)

Similar Threads

  1. Type and the Use of Emoticons
    By MerkW in forum The Bonfire
    Replies: 47
    Last Post: 07-09-2010, 12:59 PM
  2. [INFP] INFPs and the Lack of Initiative
    By nolla in forum The NF Idyllic (ENFP, INFP, ENFJ, INFJ)
    Replies: 40
    Last Post: 09-02-2008, 01:38 PM
  3. Replies: 23
    Last Post: 07-30-2008, 08:38 PM
  4. "Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix" review...
    By The Ü™ in forum Arts & Entertainment
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 07-22-2007, 03:34 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO