Yes, because some people are boycotting a company because their founder voted to take away their civil rights, those people are bad. Nevermind the fact that the person they're criticizing not only voted for, but provided financial support for civil rights to be taken away.
But yeah, this basically means people will call for all Republicans to quit their job...?
It's pretty incredible how good Republicans are at convincing themselves they're the victim. In a country run by the Republican party based on Christian laws. Just lol, must be tough having people criticize you for taking away other people's rights. I feel terrible for you guys. Now those peoples rights you took away? Nah, they deserved it!
And maybe the CEO is more special than an ordinary employee, sure, but where do we draw the line on the person's job description? If a person who has donated to an unfavored group in the past is not an appropriate candidate for CEO anywhere anymore: Is he okay to be the CTO? COO? VP of Engineering? An engineering team lead? A project architect with technology leadership only?
And the cause: if donating to Prop 8 is bad, is donating to a politician who supported Prop 8 or legislation to similar effect bad? How about donating to the politician's party?
I don't see any great places to draw a clear line and say "Okay, if I keep this side of <x> about a controversial issue, it will be recognized as legitimate political activity by all people on all sides, and my career will not be subject to boycotts in the future." I mean, sure, it's great that you draw the line somewhere less ridiculous, but not particularly comforting in the big picture of things.
Any just cause could land on the wrong side of popular opinion eventually - indeed, this cause was on the wrong side of popular opinion only a few decades ago. And this really isn't the kind of principle of political interaction that you can cheer on in a content-neutral way: I therefore contend that we shouldn't cheer it on in a content-specific way either.
I didn't say that at all. You made that up and then ranted about it. I simply said that one is bad, but the other makes it even more bad. Its like anything else, doing one bad thing is bad, doing two bad things is more bad. This is pretty simple and probably doesn't require such a massive twisting of words...
Given the absence of that as a reason, though, I'm even less certain where you think the line should be, and what makes the straw man so straw-y. Also, plenty of other people here have talked about why his being a CEO is special and what-not, so all readers should please substitute the opinion of speakers up-thread and down-thread for those of ryguytilidie.
Finally: as far as "victimhood" contests go, perhaps eventually we will look back on these days as we look back on the likes of the Reformation, when Protestants went to war with Catholics (over matters of no less import to the thinkers of the day), and pretty much both sides were pretty atrocious all around. Raid the monasteries for their gold? Sure, why not, they're a bunch of Papists! Spanish Inquisition? Don't mind if I do! Execution! Civil war! Fact: until last year, 2013, it was still illegal for someone married to a Roman Catholic to hold the throne of England.
The reason that we today are better than those backwards folks and haven't descended into outright civil war over this issue, like many nations did in the Reformation, is that we have some level of pluralism in our society. I would go so far as to hold that this is more important than correctly deciding today the issue of slavery, of civil rights, of women voting, of gay rights, or any other movement of that sort: because it is the principle which gives society the freedom to raise the questions which these rights movements addressed. As such I am distressed that it is so glibly dismissed in favor of a totalitarian approach and calls for boycotts of people who have been accused of doing nothing but supporting the wrong cause.
It's the public support that's really got people frosted. That's what makes it part of the public persona that you can't just leave at the door when you come to work.
Provided your power over others is limited, it's tolerable. But when people's careers are in your hands, a public history of open, gender-based discrimination really undermines the level of trust and goodwill that leadership positions require.
The USA is based on Christian laws?
What?
No doubt there's a faction that is working on that goal, but that has never been the case in this country thus far.
Also, it's not like the Democrats (the party of the KKK) are much better in that regard.
> The USA is based on Christian laws?
Forget that. The USA is run by the Republican party??!? I guess the Senate and Presidency mean nothing, then. Likewise the situation just a couple years ago when those accursed Republicans were so busy passing Obamacare...
Yep, good summation sir.
Oh wait I just tried to rationalize with a guy who compared the Democratic party to the KKK. Nevermind, good luck with being nuts.
Do not twist my words. If having a basic knowledge of U.S. history is being nuts, then so be it.
