Thanks for being willing to reply here, lhn, and hopefully we'll be able to meet your conditions. (Anyone who flings a brickbat will have me to answer to.)
I have a problem with the assumption that there is "a red line". Any reasonably intelligent observer accepts that there is a range of unacceptability and, hence, a range of appropriate responses. Not every bigoted and illiberal opinion merits pariahship, but that still leaves a wide array of options.
The Eich case demonstrated this. Eich's donation became public two years ago, but it didn't lead to calls for his resignation. Some of that may be due to a turn in the tide of history: we've reached the tipping point on this issues, and those of us who were most deeply personally affected are feeling our oats. But more of it, I think, is on account of his role: a CTO is not a CEO, not in what they represent or how they are perceived.
Even so, the outcry was muted at first. Only a minority were calling for his resignation, and some of them later acknowledged that they would've been content with a public apology. As Gillespie (and others--including, as I mentioned to you earlier, Mark Surman) have pointed out, Eich could've kept his job if he'd only been a little less stubborn. Neither the demands nor the outcome seem excessive to me, which is why I'm struggling to understand why this is the straw the broke the camel's back (for a particular subset of camels, at least).
As you point out, selective prosecution is troubling even when the target is deserving. But so is selective defence. People get dismissed for their opinions all the time. Many of these people are very prominent. Some of them are CEOs. The opinions often relate to homosexuality. So why did this case involving this opinion generate the kind of condemnation it did? None of the answers I can find to that question are very generous to the participants.
no subject
I have a problem with the assumption that there is "a red line". Any reasonably intelligent observer accepts that there is a range of unacceptability and, hence, a range of appropriate responses. Not every bigoted and illiberal opinion merits pariahship, but that still leaves a wide array of options.
The Eich case demonstrated this. Eich's donation became public two years ago, but it didn't lead to calls for his resignation. Some of that may be due to a turn in the tide of history: we've reached the tipping point on this issues, and those of us who were most deeply personally affected are feeling our oats. But more of it, I think, is on account of his role: a CTO is not a CEO, not in what they represent or how they are perceived.
Even so, the outcry was muted at first. Only a minority were calling for his resignation, and some of them later acknowledged that they would've been content with a public apology. As Gillespie (and others--including, as I mentioned to you earlier, Mark Surman) have pointed out, Eich could've kept his job if he'd only been a little less stubborn. Neither the demands nor the outcome seem excessive to me, which is why I'm struggling to understand why this is the straw the broke the camel's back (for a particular subset of camels, at least).
As you point out, selective prosecution is troubling even when the target is deserving. But so is selective defence. People get dismissed for their opinions all the time. Many of these people are very prominent. Some of them are CEOs. The opinions often relate to homosexuality. So why did this case involving this opinion generate the kind of condemnation it did? None of the answers I can find to that question are very generous to the participants.