(Communism used to have that status, not without justification. But it faded long before the USSR fell, and how many people who think Eich got what he deserved think the same of the Hollywood Ten?)
Given American history, public racial bigotry certainly fits comfortably. If Sterling had intentionally gone on the air to say those things, we can grant that the team or the ticket buyers would reasonably demand that he go away, and reasonably follow that up with a strike or boycott respectively if he didn't.1
On the other hand, not every race-based policy disagrement is created equal. Conflicting opinions on affirmative action, for example, doesn't strike me as justification to call for socioeconomic oblivion in either direction. Ditto reparations for slavery.
Same thing here. Yes, there are expressions of anti-gay bigotry that properly fall beyond that pale. But no, I don't think that holding what's still a mainstream opinion about how marriage should be defined (and/or a strong opinion that such matters should be determined legislatively rather than by the courts) are among them.
I also believe that political action should get an extra degree of social tolerance precisely because it's the arena in which disputes ought to be resolved. (Basically, there should be social incentives for fighting fairly and openly, rather than by extralegal or corrupt means.)
Organized or not, petitions for his removal and Firefox boycotts are the only reason I ever heard of Eich. And I don't believe they should have happened.
(Note: the participants absolutely had every right to engage in both. I believe it was a bad, illiberal choice, not that they shouldn't have been able to make it.)
1Racism in a private conversation is an interesting question. The piece doesn't say how TMZ got the audio, or where it came from. If it was captured from something that's would have reasonably been thought private-- a phone call, a conversation someplace not obviously observed-- I'm a lot more leery about taking action over it. Reexamining his previous public behavior, sure, and oftentimes that leads to "oh, everybody knew" coming from all corners. But my baseline is that public life is all about the ability of people to get along despite holding opinions they'd hate each other's guts over. That's one of the reasons I hate the steady erosion of privacy. But that at least pertains less to Eich.
(The issue isn't absent: one of the facts of our brave new world is the erosion of the class of information that's public-but-obscure. Minor long-ago arrests and youthful embarrassments are causing all sorts of problems that they didn't formerly. The reasons for keeping ballots secret would arguably apply to campaign contributions as well, if there weren't questions of corruption that demand some public scrutiny of the latter.)
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
momijizukamori
no subject
Date: 2014-04-28 09:56 pm (UTC)(Communism used to have that status, not without justification. But it faded long before the USSR fell, and how many people who think Eich got what he deserved think the same of the Hollywood Ten?)
Given American history, public racial bigotry certainly fits comfortably. If Sterling had intentionally gone on the air to say those things, we can grant that the team or the ticket buyers would reasonably demand that he go away, and reasonably follow that up with a strike or boycott respectively if he didn't.1
On the other hand, not every race-based policy disagrement is created equal. Conflicting opinions on affirmative action, for example, doesn't strike me as justification to call for socioeconomic oblivion in either direction. Ditto reparations for slavery.
Same thing here. Yes, there are expressions of anti-gay bigotry that properly fall beyond that pale. But no, I don't think that holding what's still a mainstream opinion about how marriage should be defined (and/or a strong opinion that such matters should be determined legislatively rather than by the courts) are among them.
I also believe that political action should get an extra degree of social tolerance precisely because it's the arena in which disputes ought to be resolved. (Basically, there should be social incentives for fighting fairly and openly, rather than by extralegal or corrupt means.)
Organized or not, petitions for his removal and Firefox boycotts are the only reason I ever heard of Eich. And I don't believe they should have happened.
(Note: the participants absolutely had every right to engage in both. I believe it was a bad, illiberal choice, not that they shouldn't have been able to make it.)
1Racism in a private conversation is an interesting question. The piece doesn't say how TMZ got the audio, or where it came from. If it was captured from something that's would have reasonably been thought private-- a phone call, a conversation someplace not obviously observed-- I'm a lot more leery about taking action over it. Reexamining his previous public behavior, sure, and oftentimes that leads to "oh, everybody knew" coming from all corners. But my baseline is that public life is all about the ability of people to get along despite holding opinions they'd hate each other's guts over. That's one of the reasons I hate the steady erosion of privacy. But that at least pertains less to Eich.
(The issue isn't absent: one of the facts of our brave new world is the erosion of the class of information that's public-but-obscure. Minor long-ago arrests and youthful embarrassments are causing all sorts of problems that they didn't formerly. The reasons for keeping ballots secret would arguably apply to campaign contributions as well, if there weren't questions of corruption that demand some public scrutiny of the latter.)