I have really tried to keep this blog from becoming another source for lamentations about the cultural shifts of the last few years, though I have touched upon it here and there. There are plenty of blogs that do a fine job chronicling these matters, but this is particularly disturbing:
The CEO of Mozilla/Firefox was pressured (i.e., “forced,” as it happens in today’s Foucauldian utopia) to step down. What was his horrendous crime? He donated $1,000 to Proposition 8 in California a few years back. So this is what “tolerance” looks like:
Mozilla believes both in equality and freedom of speech. Equality is necessary for meaningful speech. And you need free speech to fight for equality. [from the Mozilla blog’s statement on the departure]
Uh huh, sure. Once you conform to our conception of “equality,” then you are worthy to be heard. Brilliant. I love it when liberals give the game away.
Slate also published an editorial last year for the legalization of polygamy. I really do appreciate their clarity of thought.
“Christian” in the title includes evangelical Protestants, Catholics, and Orthodox, and I could include Orthodox Jews and pretty much every Muslim. There are even a number of libertarian skeptics who hate feminism more than I do.
Ryan T. Anderson has some good thoughts on the situation:
For some who favor the redefinition of marriage, tolerance appears to have been a useful rhetorical device along the way to eliminating dissent.
Eich, on the other hand, seems to have been quite tolerant. As Mozilla Executive Chairwoman Mitchell Baker, commenting on the development, said of Eich’s 15 years at Mozilla:
I never saw any kind of behavior or attitude from him that was not in line with Mozilla’s values of inclusiveness.”
The outrageous treatment of Eich is the result of one private, personal campaign contribution to support marriage as a male-female union, a view affirmed at the time by President Barack Obama, then-Sen. Hillary Clinton, and countless other prominent officials. After all, Prop 8 passed with the support of 7 million California voters.
So was President Obama a bigot back when he supported marriage as the union of a man and woman? And is characterizing political disagreement on this issue—no matter how thoughtfully expressed—as hate speech really the way to find common ground and peaceful co-existence?
Sure, the employees of Mozilla—which makes Firefox, the popular Internet browser— have the right to protest a CEO they dislike, for whatever reason. But are they treating their fellow citizens with whom they disagree civilly? Must every political disagreement be a capital case regarding the right to stand in civil society?
When Obama “evolved” on the issue just over a year ago, he insisted that the debate about marriage was legitimate. He said there are people of goodwill on both sides.
Supporters of marriage as we’ve always understood it (a male-female union) “are not coming at it from a mean-spirited perspective,” Obama explained. “They’re coming at it because they care about families.”
And “a bunch of ‘em are friends of mine,” the president added. “… you know, people who I deeply respect.”
You can read the rest: “Eich is Out. So is Tolerance.”
Matt Walsh has his characteristically straightforward and energetic response.