Selective intolerance

[muckefuck]

So for days I've been mulling a rant in response to this open letter chastising those who called for the resignation of Brendan Eich and warning of the dire consequences of this kind of "intolerance". (I don't know about you, but I'm getting pretty sick of being called "intolerant" for not particularly caring that an anti-gay millionaire lost his job for badly handling his first PR crisis as CEO.) Now, thanks to Donald Sterling, I don't have to.

I do wonder if I'm guilty of a false equivalence here, but to the degree the cases aren't comparable, I think they actually favour Sterling. After all, his remarks were private and involved only private affairs (i.e. who his girlfriend should associate with). Eich's donation was public and had the political aim of depriving others of their civil rights (unconstitutionally, as it turns out). David Badash spells it all out pretty clearly I think. Perhaps I'm missing something, though, so I'm hoping one of the signatories comes forward to take and defend a stand on Sterling so I can pick through their justification.

Comments

[muckefuck.livejournal.com]

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.)

Isn't the fact that "extralegal or corrupt means" are prosecutable incentive enough? And, if it's not, isn't that a prescription for more robust prosecution?

[lhn.livejournal.com]

You live in Chicago and ask that? :-) You have to be found out, and someone has to bother to prosecute you, and they have to win. That's a lot harder than googling the campaign finance database, especially if there are people who have something to lose if you're stopped.

If making an unpopular opinion known (or a known opinion becoming retroactively unpopular) risks ruining your livelihood, that's a huge disincentive to make any but popular opinions known. That kind of chills the incentive to participate in any but the most anodyne politics, doesn't it? (There are brave people who'll run those sorts of risks, and become famous heroes or hissings and bywords depending how it works out. But they're the exception.)

If you still want to influence matters, at least doing it secretly (and hence, generally, corruptly) offers the chance you won't be ruined by an unpopular choice.

("More robust prosecution" has filled American prisons to an unprecedented degree. Since crime rates are down, maybe there's some causation there, though I'm skeptical. But offenses haven't gone down to the same degree that inmate numbers have gone up. There are limits to what throwing the book at 'em can do.)