It's ironic that this is lost on people who argue the most loudly for inclusiveness.

What CamperBob2 said was probably inflammatory but probably also right. If you're against same-sex marriage you're probably on the wrong side of history.

> If you're against same-sex marriage you're probably on the wrong side of history.

The problem I have with this is that it condemns the vast majority of society, throughout the vast majority of history. Understanding someone's views while stripping the context of society's views at the time is foolish. In 2015, being religious (e.g.) isn't a good excuse for opposing gay marriage in 2008 (when a majority of society was in opposition to gay mariage, btw). Hypothetically, in 2025, maybe support for Israel's actions vis-a-vis Palestine will be widely considered the new apartheid. Similarly, what if in 10 years, we decide that a robust social welfare system in the US is a moral imperative (there are many who already feel that the way poverty is treated in this country is a huge moral failing)?

Does that mean all of my friends in 2015 who donate to and participate in organizations and rallies in support of Israel should be forever blacklisted from public positions? Should all the people you know who in 2015 are opposed to robust welfare/basic income and the accompanying tax increases be forbidden forever from rising to certain positions of authority in entirely-unrelated fields?

_BUT_ (and I'm largely paraphrasing) when asked about this issue and same-sex marriage, Eich pretty much sidestepped the question and refused to answer it, citing how he has never discriminating against anyone. And to a lot of people that wasn't good enough of a response coming from a CEO of a company that prides itself on its diversity, especially when they also have gay employees.

Anyways my actual point about this originally was that Eich's situation doesn't really parallel the situation Sacco went through. For one, Eich's situation was pretty enclosed to the tech world, whereas Sacco was a worldwide trending topic that brought her a lot of unwanted attention. I also doubt Eich got called a whore, bitch, slut, etc much. And to say Eich was "bullied" in the way Sacco was bullied is laughable (Not saying you said it, although I think one of the ancestor posts mentioned it).

I actually thought this was the least controversial part of my comment. This isn't just my anecdotal opinion, it's pretty well supported by polls if I'm not mistaken. Do you mind if I ask on what basis you think the opposite is true?

> when asked about this issue and same-sex marriage, Eich pretty much sidestepped the question and refused to answer it, citing how he has never discriminating against anyone. And to a lot of people that wasn't good enough of a response coming from a CEO of a company that prides itself on its diversity, especially when they also have gay employees.

This is a more compelling point actually. On the other hand, it's easy for me to imagine that he just (like me) failed to comprehend the level of lunacy he was facing and figured the best way to handle a manufactured controversy was to not give it more attention than necessary. On top of that, I feel like I'd also be much more morally inclined to emphasize that political views are irrelevant, rather than pander by saying "oh I've completely changed forever" and implicitly approving of the intolerance implied by political litmus tests (regardless of your location on the political spectrum).

> I also doubt Eich got called a whore, bitch, slut, etc much. And to say Eich was "bullied" in the way Sacco was bullied is laughable

As you said, it wasn't me who compared them. That being said, I don't think using the term "bullied" for either person is particularly unwarranted though.

Living in a democracy I'm uneasy when I see large-scale mobs form to punish and intimidate people for participating in our political process in "the wrong way." Take note that I've been a long-time supporter of same-sex marriage, but seeing Eich get forced out by the group I always supported because they were so innocent and powerless made me reconsider some things.

Go ahead try and see how far people get. Not very.

I'll put up with an F'ed up president/prime minister with whom I disagree to the utmost, but I'm not going to move out of the country. I'd do what any civilized person would do and avail myself the tools at hand, vote, in the case of president/PM/Chancellor. But I'm not going to get in a tizzy over it.

I think there's a point you come to in life where you realize that no matter how righteous you think your personal cause is, it's your framework which makes it so. Live in another era, in greek times or babylonian times, their idea of what was right and wrong were different due to their frameworks. People who believe that when they are old and frail should go out to pasture to be consumed by nature are no less right than the person who believes in life prolonging drugs, euthanasia or hospice care.

I'm also not saying we're insignificant beings and nothing really matters in the face of the universe. Just that with few exceptions, like murder, etc. we can't say 'this is the righteous way', the enlightened way.

When I work for someone, when I buy something, there is no further symbolism -it's unconditional. I make a transaction for service or product. You pay me, I work for you do do x. I pay you and I get service or product x in return. I don't expect any conditions like, oh, you must say sweet things to your partner, don't think nasty thoughts in your dreams, else this breaks some implicit agreement, etc.

https://blog.mozilla.org/press/2014/03/mozilla-statement-on-... https://brendaneich.com/2014/03/inclusiveness-at-mozilla/

By saying that they're "next to the KKK", you're marking your opposition as not only immoral, but beyond reprieve. If you're willing to simplify the moral landscape to a single line onto which you've placed yourself squarely at the "good" end, you're taking a gravely irresponsible logical shortcut.

EDIT: I foolishly used 'retribution' in place of 'reprieve', thus making my above comment confusing and nonsensical.

Can you elaborate on that? Several prominent racists of the KKK era, including people like Robert Byrd and George Wallace, ultimately renounced their earlier views. Eich is free to do the same whenever he wants. He has not, as far as I'm aware.