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

[lhn.livejournal.com]

Sterling wasn't even trying to strip anyone of their rights, was he? (At least in the recorded conversation-- I understand that the not unexpected "oh, he was always a giant racist-- for example..." anecdotes have started to emerge, so he may have tried to elsewhere for all I know.) He expressed opinions that we don't tolerate (at least from public figures-- people's mileage and willingness to fight with older relatives may vary) regardless of whether they're acted on.

"Thoughtcrime" isn't quite the right word, since of course he's not being criminally punished. Maybe "thought tort", since he's being financially penalized, expelled from an organization, and (maybe-- as I understand it they're still seeing if this is possible under the rules) deprived of his ownership of certain property?