Re:The Yale Problem Begins in High School
by ta0o0o0 on Saturday November 28, 2015 @05:10PM
(#10642666)
Yes, that is what you wrote.
People had just gotten very, very, VERY tired of the
pseudo-tolerant stance he was endorsing [1], and didn't
want to feel that they were lending credibility to it,
by having him at the head of an organization they were a
part of.
[1] "Love the sinner, hate the sin".
Re:The Yale Problem Begins in High School
by kafkaesq on Saturday November 28, 2015 @05:42PM
(#10642821)
Nobody protested Eich for privately "holding" a particular point of view. Their concern was around his donating money (and implicitly, legitimacy) to groups they felt were engaged in various harmful activities (running TV ads with derogatory rhetoric, for example).
The two phenomena are very different. You understand this - yes?
Re:The Yale Problem Begins in High School
by ta0o0o0 on Saturday November 28, 2015 @07:55PM
(#10643259)
Fine, but that's not what you wrote above.
And so then we're back to demanding that a defeated political opponent repent. "Here is our political issue, you advocated against it, you lost, so now you must beg our forgiveness or lose your job which is completely unrelated to the issue."
Like I said, that's not the world I want to live in. If others like it they are welcome to it, but then they shouldn't start complaining if abortion-rights advocates are fired from their jobs in the American South.
No, that's not what I said. Or even close to what I said.
I'd continue with you further on this, but it seems there's been a lot of gratuitous word-bending and insinuation in what you've been saying of late. That's not my style of communicating, and I don't see what I can learn from it -- but if you want to continue to feel the way you feel about the issue, that's fine with me.