April 3, 2014

"If this is the gay rights movement today – hounding our opponents with a fanaticism more like the religious right than anyone else – then count me out. "

"If we are about intimidating the free speech of others, we are no better than the anti-gay bullies who came before us."

124 comments:

Big Mike said...

Quite a bit worse, actually.

Archilochus said...

hounding of a heretic.

Oso Negro said...

The gay rights movement today can be pretty much summed up as "celebrate my perversion or else you hater".

YoungHegelian said...

You see the photo of Brendan Eich at the link? This guy's a major dweeb!

I say this because I think folks (especially liberal women) love to pile on dweebs, and will avoid confronting positively evil alpha males.

Cases in point --- I don't see anyone baying for the heads of Larry Ellison of Oracle or Eric Schmidt of Google even though their behavior for quite some time now is a dictionary-perfect example of the #waronwomen. I actually think liberal women are under the table quite fond of males who have enough power & money to pump & dump their way through hundreds of hapless females. You don't ever read any sympathy for Mrs Schmidt at home with Eric's millions while he's out there fucking everything that'll stand still, do you?

madAsHell said...

...and when it becomes convenient again??
Yeah....he's the first person to be a fellow traveler.

MayBee said...

I hate this desire to ruin careers and lives that takes hold of the internet some days,

I want it to be legal for SSM couples to marry, but this is no way to go about it.
Mandela was great because he did not advocate for revenge. even after all he'd been through The pro SSM activists should keep that in mind.

gk1 said...

The pendulum will swing back at some point and those advocating witch burning will be diving into a ditch and covering themselves in leaves hoping the lynch mob misses them. Human history is tiresome like that.

heyboom said...

Mozilla is on record stating that they supported openness and that "nobody should be persecuted for their beliefs, no matter what they are".

Unless you give $1000 to the Prop 8 campaign. Because then, by God, you will be persecuted to the fullest extent.

Your beliefs must be approved by the collective.

Gahrie said...

Even a blind squirrel finds a nut sometimes.

Sullivan has found his nut.

Will said...

Ann flew off the handle several months ago when people labelled this behavior "tiresome"

Today's example is especially egregious.

But the gameplan is to make every baker, florist, photographer & church not merely not oppose gay marriage but endorse it. They will all be sued if they don't. And I guess you can now add Fired to the list. Tiresome indeed.

RecChief said...

2 thoughts:

1. Mitchell Baker has no spine. If I ever thought of using a Mozilla product, that thought is gone, based on his mealy mouthed apology, "Mozilla prides itself on being held to a different standard and, this past week, we didn’t live up to it,"

Bullshit, you coward.

2. Where will this guy ever be able to work again? Now that these fascists have gotten him fired once (I don't believe he resigned, not in the face of Baker's statement), they'll do it again. And again, until decent people stand up and won't let this kind of shit happen.

Michael K said...

Sullivan has little to be proud about.

This may cost Mozilla more.

sojerofgod said...

This entire episode is madness. Why did he resign? did the board of directors oust him? I'm no lawyer, but wouldn't that violate the man's civil rights as well as political right of association? When did this become anyone's business anyway. There are far too many people in this country who take it upon themselves to mind everyone else's business these days. I don't think it will end well.

sojerofgod said...

what exactly does Mozilla sell? Sure I've downloaded the browser; ok but not such cool beans that I ditch the big blue E in most cases.
Honestly I think I hate the sanctimony worse that anything.

Anonymous said...

This is why the Left and Democrats in America are always demanding "Transparency" when it comes to political donations.

Because if you're a communist, by god, we'll root you out! We'll find you!

Keep this in mind the next time Garage claims innocence when he's arguing for more transparency in political donations.

chuck said...

"If we are about intimidating the free speech of others, we are no better than the anti-gay bullies who came before us."

Probably worse. I recall that Paul Goodman said somewhere that he found more acceptance among businessmen than among the 60's radicals. That seems likely, businessmen needed to deal with all types and lived in the larger real world.

Jane the Actuary said...

Yet another example in which the Gay Rights movement brooks no dissent. Freedom of conscience? No. "Believe as I do or we'll punish you."

Birches said...

Since his donation is only public because of the IRS leaking the document, does Eich have standing to sue?

Seriously, this whole thing makes me sick. I can't even begin to understand how anyone could possibly feel good about this.

sunsong said...

Sullivan is taking the high road. I admire that. For me, I would have no problem with businesses not serving gays and lesbians as long they prominently post a sign saying so.

Anonymous said...

"Since his donation is only public because of the IRS leaking the document, does Eich have standing to sue?"

It's not a leaked document. It's online. State of California publishes for everyone to see.

Diamondhead said...

Maybe conservatives should stop giving money to organizations that are hostile to them. You don't get an armistice if you don't fight back.

Biff said...

From the Mozilla statement: "While painful, the events of the last week show exactly why we need the web. So all of us can engage freely in the tough conversations we need to make the world better."

...conversations that are so tough that people who disagree with the mob are cast out and destroyed in the blink of an eye.

Anonymous said...

Andrew, gays are just like everyone else, why would you think they would be any better than those who came before? Like other people, they can also be bullies, exhibit hatred, intolerance, fanaticism, pettiness, and the whole range of negative human emotions.

Andrew also missed the memo that the gay rights movement has established the Rainbow Inquisition in order to remain relevant as it wins legal and legislative victories.

To anyone saying equality first, then tolerance: bullshit. If tolerance isn't there to start, it's not going to magically appear once victory is complete. Mandela-like magnanimity is the exception not the norm. Rather, the intolerance just gets more ugly until it reaches a breaking point.

My guess is gays will regret this type of bullying around the time that Muslims supplant them as the left's favorite minority du jour.

YoungHegelian said...

@cyrus83,

My guess is gays will regret this type of bullying

If I was part of 2.5% of the population, I'd realize that picking a fight with a much larger percentage of the population probably wasn't a good idea.

I'm sure that the gays feel that, if & when the shit hits the fan, that their straight liberal allies will be there for them. Because that's what straight liberals are known for --- martial courage & owning guns & what not, right?

Jane said...

GLAAD provided the following statement from President and CEO Sarah Kate Ellis on the news via email:

"Mozilla’s strong statement in favor of equality today reflects where corporate America is: inclusive, safe, and welcoming to all."

Corporate America obviously isn't safe for all.

I'm genuinely afraid for fragile families in this economy -- if my husband were asked at work about marriage in particular he would say what his personal convictions are ... because he's still living under the illusion that he's a free man, and because he genuinely fears God, and he would be fired, and I honestly don't know that we could possibly recover financially. Most Christian families that I know live on one paycheck and buy clothes for their kids secondhand.

I imagine in my mind the hordes of cackling monsters surrounding Aslan at the table when I think about how happy the thought of destroying the livelihoods of conservatives makes GLAAD. They're doing it and getting away with it.

Will uninstalling Firefox even hurt their bottom line? How does Mozilla earn money?

Michael Hess said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
rcommal said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Eric said...

This entire episode is madness. Why did he resign?

He made the mistake of apologizing. That was foolish - if he'd just said "People are entitled to political activity on their own time, and if you can't handle that you should probably work somewhere else" the whole thing would have blown over in a week.

Never give bullies an inch. It gives them power they don't have without your consent. Look at what happened to Larry Summers, and what didn't happen with Chick-fil-a.

rcommal said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Revenant said...

It is a sad state of affairs when Andrew Sullivan is the voice of reason.

n.n said...

This is the beginning, not the end. With the progress of murder/abortion, and now homosexual behavior, there is no legitimate argument to deny normalization of any dysfunctional behavior.

I wonder what's next. And, if there is any disagreement, how will they attempt to rationalize their positions, and placate a democratic population which has already voted and expressed its opposition.

Anyway, progressive biology, or morality, or whatever semantic fantasy, has its consequences. This is indeed interesting times.

Carnifex said...

Who cares!!!! It's almost time for basketball, Baybee!!!11eleventy eleven!

What;s ya'll mascot again? Some kinda' rodent? A beaver? Muskrat? Somethin' like 'dat! Ver' app pro po' nez cest pas? Although it should be a plowmule!!! HAAHH!

Just funnin' guys. Hope the next game has been as good as out previous 4. The UL game, I was so tight I had to turn it off. Didn't find out we won till afterwards.

Good luck, tomorrow...


'CAUSE YOU GON' NEED IT!!!!!

Ps. I'd rather be lucky than good any day of the week. Lucky always wins.

gadfly said...

Sully said that? Pure dead brilliant. Was he wearing his ascot and kilt?

Renee said...

I loved the distinction Pope Francis made... between an individual and the lobby.

"So much is written of the gay lobby. I still have not met one who will give me the identity card with “gay” . They say that they exist. I think that when one meets a person like this, one must distinguish the fact of being a gay person from the fact of doing a lobby, because not all lobbies are good. That’s bad. If a person is gay and seeks the Lord and has good will, who am I to judge him? "

Renee said...

I don't think the average person who is gay is doing the bullying, follow the money. That is where it comes from, and to be honest the loudest people on social media are my atheist friends who utilize the gay marriage issue against Christians.

Sexual orientation should be acknowledged, because sometimes it does affect how we may engage in personal relationships. For heterosexuals, even if we are not married or in a romantic relationship we don't lose our sexuality.

Our sexuality is a part of us, even if you're the Pope!

Being a gay man doesn't make you less masculine, in the same way being a childless woman doesn't make you less feminine.

Marshal said...

Jane the Actuary said...
Yet another example in which the Gay Rights movement brooks no dissent.


Don't kid yourself this is limited to gay activists. The left has been pushing this for two generations. They're only now feeling strong enough to to move into a new strata of society.

The personal is political, By Any Means Necessary.

Marshal said...

sunsong said...
Sullivan is taking the high road. I admire that.


Is he? All I can see is a few words so people won't identify him with the McCarthyites. We'll see if he actually fights the process, I'm skeptical.

Michael said...

Anyone who believes in freedom of speech and is appalled by this kind of evil should delete Firefox today. Now. Mozilla is an open source collective and not a for profit company, but the people who work there will get the message. Maybe.

It is not seemly to have this dogshit on your computer.

Mark said...

I love the lack of argument about the fact this is the same tactics as the religious right uses.

Each side has their bullies, we just don't mention the ones on our side.

Delayna said...

1. Sue people who did you no harm and only wanted to be left alone, check.

2. Get someone fired for supporting a political belief you don't agree with, check.

3. Form a fake "church", wave signs at funerals that say "God hates straights", pending.

Congrats, you've become your own enemies. :golf clap:

Michael said...

Pictures are worth a thousand words. Have a gander at the chairwoman.

Jon Burack said...

Good for Sullivan,

This from the Mozilla statement caught my eye:

"Mozilla believes both in equality and freedom of speech. Equality is necessary for meaningful speech. And you need free speech to fight for equality."

This does explain their stand. Free speech is of no intrinsic importance - it is only an instrument to achieve their approved goals, equality in this case. As to equality being necessary for "meaningful speech," I leave it to those who have greater wisdom than I to explain what "meaningful speech" or why equality is necessary to it. I admit to finding Socratic dialogues quite meaningful, for instance, even though Socrates was opposed to democracy and lived in a society that practices slavery. I guess Socrates will never be CEO of Mozilla.

Monkeyboy said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Monkeyboy said...

In 2006 I was agnostic about gay marraige and willing to go with whatever laws the people could be convinced to pass. I remember talking about how concealed carry laws were passed by going state to state and making reasonable arguments, and saying "if gay marriage is going to last they need to be more NRA abnd less ACT UP."
Too bad they went the opposite, it's going to end badly.

The Drill SGT said...

So Brendan Eich had the same view in 2008 that Obama held into 2012, that SSM was bad, but now that Obama has flipped hard over to hold the same position that Dick Cheney had in 2008 (SSM is good), all the people like Eich are outcasts?


If we end up in a new little ice age, I hope the Left is ok with the burning of all the Cap and Trade supporters in bonfires to keep warm :)

alan markus said...

In my area people running for local office or being considered for board appointments have been haunted by their signatures on "Recall Walker" petitions.

Paco Wové said...

"For me, I would have no problem with businesses not serving gays and lesbians as long they prominently post a sign"

Way to avoid the point, Sunsong. Do you have a problem with people losing their jobs because of their political beliefs?

John said...

As I said in another comment yesterday:

"Fuck those fascist queers"

I have no problems with the non-fascist elements of the LGB community.

I started using Netscape 1.0 back in about 94, switched to Firefox when it came out about 15 years ago and been a happy user ever since.

Tried Chrome and it was OK but I decline to allow Google anymore access to my computer than it already has. (I use www.Privatelee.com for default search)

Last night I looked at what my other options are. Explorer? ugh. Chrome? No way. Opera? I was ready to try it.

I found Comodo Dragon at http://www.comodo.com/home/download/download.php?prod=browser

It looks and works like Chrome but without Google.

Installed it on my desktop last night and was blown away. Fast, nice clean design, imported all my Firefox bookmarks and passwords without a burp.

I will be putting it on my laptop today.

Those of you who use Firefox, I recommend that you do something similar. Get rid of it.

Get rid of it first to show those fascist fucks at Mozzilla your disapproval. Yes, they will know. They know exactly how many machines use Firefox and they get paid everytime someone uses it to access a major site like Wikipedia.

But also get rid of it for technical reasons. It is past its sell by date.

John Henry

Fen said...

Like other people, they can also be bullies, exhibit hatred, intolerance, fanaticism, pettiness, and the whole range of negative human emotions

But they are worse than the norm. Like a victim groups, they are blind to their own hatred. Thats why you find gays are the most intolerant and blacks the most racist. They never check themselves.

AReasonableMan said...

cyrus83 said...
gays are just like everyone else, why would you think they would be any better than those who came before? Like other people, they can also be bullies, exhibit hatred, intolerance, fanaticism, pettiness, and the whole range of negative human emotions.


Gays have been around forever and it was his heterosexual employees who brought down Eich.

Eich's response was ridiculous, he should have forced them to fire him and then sued their asses.

Deirdre Mundy said...

Victories like the one at Mozilla will actually undermine the gay marriage movement.

Currently, the argument is "We're just like you. We want the same rights you have. We just want to work, and join the PTA, and mow our lawns and watch basketball. We're normal Americans and we want to live like it."

Mozilla sends the message "We're normal Americans. Unless you offend us in any way, in which case we will turn on you faster than a pet Chimpanzee."

It's not a new thing, they're just getting worse at hiding it. This strain in the gay culture has always been there. For instance, when I was getting married, my friends who happened to be gay (i.e. sexual identity was a small part of who they were, and other things mattered more to them), were just plain old happy about it.

My friends who identified themselves first as gay and second as anything else? Through a fit, because married women are nothing more than mindless baby making machines.

The 'movement' people are so broken inside that they can ONLY see the world in terms of 'gay' While a normal man attracted to men is busy thinking about work, or what movie to see, or when it's time to plant a garden, the movement types yearn for bloody battles. They're unhinged revolutionaries. And we're about to get a messy lesson in how a tiny group can destroy civil society by creating a climate of fear, distrust, and destruction.

They were lying about the PTA thing. They really idolize the PLA.

jacksonjay said...

In other news, Chick-Fil-A (closed on Sunday AND pro-traditional) surpassed KFC in chicken sales. Heard that on FOX Business.

The cool kids used to ask how SSM could possibly have a negative effect on your marriage. Well, now we know!

pduggie said...

Sullvian can somewhat be credited with starting the gay marriage movement.

So cry me a river if he is now bothered at the lack of restraint gay activists can show.

Matthew Sablan said...

My only surprise is it took Sullivan this long to realize that there are disappointing people in politics, and some of them are on your side.

paminwi said...

What I find most interesting as I was waiting for the good professor to put up a blog post about this subject is that she has NO commentary whatsoever about the rightness or wrongness of these idiots from OKCupid.

Just a quote from Andrew Sullivan and nothing else.

President-Mom-Jeans said...

Take a bow Althouse.

Ugly.

Henry said...

Webkit rules.

Illuninati said...

"If this is the gay rights movement today – hounding our opponents with a fanaticism more like the religious right than anyone else – then count me out."

Apology not accepted. You don't apologize for misbehavior on your own side by trashing people on the other side. I have known many people on the Christian right. They are generally kind decent people middle class people.

"If we are about intimidating the free speech of others, we are no better than the anti-gay bullies who came before us."

Is this supposed to be news? Now that the gays have bullied their way to gay marriage, now they suddenly have second thoughts about their intolerant behavior? Knowing the history of repression by the left it will be surprising if this new concern for tolerance lasts more than a few weeks if that.

Matthew Sablan said...

Though, after this, can we honestly say full disclosure is a good idea, when it comes to political donations?

People will ruin your life for giving to a Bad Cause. In a responsible country, maybe. But, I just don't trust my fellow countrymen at this point to NOT be total dicks with that information.

Scott said...

I think it's rich that my comment on the politics of Proposition 8 - and anti-gay bullying - was deleted by Althouse.

Moose said...

Sometimes Sullivan does it the right button. This is also why I don't post under my real name. The vindictiveness of todays activists is truly repellent.

Mark said...

Matthew Sabian ... You mean like what was done to people who signed the recall in WI?

It was raised by opponents in Tuesday's election.

Funny how gay people punishing monetary political speech is cast down so hard while the WI right using signature political speech gets a pass.

Lyle said...

And all these people likely voted for Obama! Horrible.

tim in vermont said...

I think what they should have done is burned Mozilla installation CDs while screaming for his blood. I wonder what temperatures CDs burn at, we could write a new Farenheight book. Remember when Bush was accused of fomenting book burning by these same people?

Once you guys lose your freedom, good luck getting it back.

I Have Misplaced My Pants said...

My friends who identified themselves first as gay and second as anything else? Through a fit, because married women are nothing more than mindless baby making machines.

Why would you be friends with such people?

David said...

Good for Sullivan. Overcoming this (yet another) conformist push has to start somewhere. But it's going to be hard to overcome. The message has been sent loud and clear that those who do not agree with the gay agenda are in danger of being painted as bigots. It's not a new technique in our current politics, but it's being applied to and by a new population.

Perhaps a different gay leadership can start to pull us out of this muck of accusation after accusation in all facets of our political life. That would be a great achievement for the gay rights movement. Perhaps. It would be nice to think so.

Blue Ox said...

Funny how gay people punishing monetary political speech is cast down so hard while the WI right using signature political speech gets a pass.

What the hell is your point?

Someone running for political office is being held accountable for a political position they have taken. Show me one campaign where that doesn't happen. It's kind of the whole point of the exercise.

How is that in any way analagous to a person being hounded out of a job for private actions which have no bearing whatsoever on job performance?

LarsPorsena said...

Gosh! Does anyone remember that dark period in American history called the McCarthy era? Terrible blacklists and such... These days have the same scent.

Unknown said...

How does a group that is maybe 5% of the population get to set the agenda?

It seems to me that we got here by an appeal to "fairness," and "what difference does it really make to people like me - why should I care?"

What happens when it's pretty obvious that fairness only applies to the few % and not to the 90+, and the 90+ can't have the same rights as the few %?

Sullivan might simply be looking ahead in a self-serving way, trying to protect his original position - but if (and I suspect it's true) "The 'movement' people are so broken inside that they can ONLY see the world in terms of 'gay'" then Sullivan cannot win as long as the 'movement' is ascendant.

LarsPorsena said...

More MaCarthiate than McCarthy.

Blue Ox said...

In my area people running for local office or being considered for board appointments have been haunted by their signatures on "Recall Walker" petitions.

Someone seeking political office is being held to account for past positions they have taken.

The horror!

Matthew Sablan said...

"You mean like what was done to people who signed the recall in WI?"

-- What happened? I don't live in WI, so you'll need to clarify.

Illuninati said...

Moose said...
"Sometimes Sullivan does it the right button. This is also why I don't post under my real name. The vindictiveness of todays activists is truly repellent."

Moose, if you think using a pseudonym on the internet will protect you from the left, you might find this video informative. The left will stop at nothing.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wUkpeQNyZUg

tim in vermont said...

"Funny how gay people punishing monetary political speech is cast down so hard while the WI right using signature political speech gets a pass."

So you honestly can't see the difference between this and pointing out somebody's political positions when they are running for office? I am sure when they signed the petitions that they were swept up in the fever dream that it would help them politically.

Anonymous said...

Belligerent Drunk Stand-up Comic says:

This world, this world... (sips drink) it's really hard to give a fuck, you know? Too many people acting like they give a fuck, and they just fuck it up more, they fuck it up even more. You, in the audience, how many of you just fuck things up for the rest of us, I'm sure there are a few...Not very many hands, I see. Cowards. I'm kidding you, I'm kidding, you cowards. Weasels. (sips drink) You know who you are, don't go turning on me for telling you the truth...

(takes a long drink)

...We're not even people any more, we are just holes, you know? That's all we are now to each other, just holes. Holes to fuck, holes to get fucked. (sips drink) Vaginas, assholes, mouth-holes, maybe an ear-hole for some of you sick bastards. (sips drink) Come on, be honest, it's just me and a bunch of strangers here, there's no reason to be shy, at the end of the night that's what you are hoping for, right? Use of a hole? Some of you, I don't even think you're that picky...

(takes a long drink)

And now that we identify ourselves by our choice of hole we end up just being members of that group that likes that particular hole. 'You like mouth-holes? Well, I like mouth-holes. It's those assholes we have to watch out for...' (sips drink)

Thank you, for a bunch of cowards you've been just swell...

Mark said...

Matthew, here is just one clear example. Student is pulled from appointment two months later, the day before it happened, because of signing recall. Not for another reason but the signature.

"Walker initially named Inglett to the Board of Regents in June, but at the 11th hour withdrew the young man's appointment after finding out Inglett had signed the recall petition as an 18-year-old freshman."

http://www.jsonline.com/news/education/scott-walker-appoints-new-student-regent--one-who-didnt-sign-recall-b9977244z1-219944001.html

There is a lot more small scale advocacy using it, but just for another frame of reference the local Madison-area danewatch.com created a page for my local school board election - including whether they signed.

http://www.danewatch.com/Schools/MiddletonCrossPlains/2014SpringElectionInformationMiddletonCrossPlainsAreaSchoolDistrictSchoolBoardAreaIV

This stuff is rampant on Facebook and blogs locally - but there are groups in nearly every locality publishing who signed [or didn't].

Here's a Janesville area campaign to get rid of teachers who signed the recall:

http://fox6now.com/2012/05/22/fliers-seeking-non-radical-teachers-in-janesville-creating-controversy/

The recall signature and Prop 8 monetary donation are both being used to stifle future speech, if you ask me.

Matthew Sablan said...

"In my area people running for local office or being considered for board appointments have been haunted by their signatures on "Recall Walker" petitions."

-- If those "board appointments," are political appointments, that seems legit. Political consequences for political actions are fine; if someone serves at the whims of a political master, they should not anger that political master.

Greg Hlatky said...

Andrew Sullivan: the Franz von Papen of the gay movement. He'll be lucky to escape the Night of the Long Knives.

Never, never, never concede anything whatsoever to the Left. Ever. They are not interested in accommodation, cooperation and dialogue. They only want your surrender and submission.

Mark said...

"How is that in any way analagous to a person being hounded out of a job for private actions which have no bearing whatsoever on job performance?"

You mean like those teachers in Janesville?

I see two different databases being misused to stifle speech. One has a high profile resignation, but yet they both have been misused to attack private individuals.

tim in vermont said...

I don't see why anybody should have a problem with having the free advertising of their political positions, tho which they proudly and publicly signed their names, given in a political contest, but then I will never understand somebody who imagines that showing up en masse and shutting down the work of officials who actually won elections is somehow a higher form of democracy.

I really think they have gone too far this time. My daughter proudly announced that they had forced a bigot out of the head of Mozilla. Usually I go along with her nutty use of the expensive education I bought her with a shrug, but this time she got a piece of my mind that I hope she will remember when some position she holds is robbed of it subtlety and all holders of such a position are hounded out of any kind of visible position in our society.

Forgive me for holding a view of marriage informed by 30+ years of participation while raising two daughters and comparing it to Titus's world where it means that if a partner comes into some money, you demand half or threaten divorce. That view of marriage is based on the motivation for going into it for the economic benefits alone.

Matthew Sablan said...

"Walker initially named Inglett to the Board of Regents in June, but at the 11th hour withdrew the young man's appointment after finding out Inglett had signed the recall petition as an 18-year-old freshman."

-- Seems fair. Don't piss off your would-be boss/hiring manager. Lesson learned.

Matthew Sablan said...

"Here's a Janesville area campaign to get rid of teachers who signed the recall:"

-- That's not political and a step too far, but informing voters of people who are running for office's record is not wrong.

tim in vermont said...

Cry me a river re having a political appointment withdrawn due to a public signature on a political document to remove the person making the appointment from office.

Interesting defense that he was "Only 18" at the time. I guess this means that you accept that signing the petition was an underdstandable stupidity committed by a young person misled by falling in with a bad lot.

Blue Ox said...

You mean like those teachers in Janesville?

These would be the same teachers who rely on taxpayers for their paychecks? Who openly mocked taxpayers with their fake doctor's notes in order to protest in favor of more from the public trough?

Yep, that's a completely private issue.

Blue Ox said...

From Mark's link:

The flier doesn’t define “radical,” but does direct readers to a website of those who support the recalls.
The flier also directs parents to mail the protection forms to Janesville School Superintendent Karent Schulte, who says if she gets one, she will “throw it in the trash.”


Boy, Superintendent Schulte sure sounds respectful of the people who employ her.

Blue Ox said...

-- That's not political and a step too far, but informing voters of people who are running for office's record is not wrong.

Ordinarily I would agree with you. And I grant that not every teacher who signed the recall took part in the protests. But those actions were taken on their behalf, with the blessing of their union.

Taxpayers have a right to take notice.

I would not support removal of a teacher for simply signing the petition. The people who sent the fliers should not be anonymous. But I do like the idea of reminding teachers that a world exists outside their echo chamber.

Marshal said...

Unknown said...
How does a group that is maybe 5% of the population get to set the agenda?


They're willing to to punish people for their political positions, and since the opposition isn't they face no penalty for doing so.

Paco Wové said...

"Here's a Janesville area campaign to get rid of teachers who signed the recall:"

Those flyers were stupid and creepy, but they apparently didn't seek to "get rid of" the named teachers.

Larry J said...

Slate has an interesting article (strange, I know) on the topic: Purge the Bigots


But that wasn’t enough. A revolt among Mozilla staffers, compounded by pressure from software developers, outrage on Twitter and a boycott movement spearheaded by OkCupid, has driven Eich out. Baker, having accepted Eich’s resignation, offers this apology: “We know why people are hurt and angry, and they are right: it’s because we haven’t stayed true to ourselves.”


Some of my colleagues are celebrating. They call Eich a bigot who got what he deserved. I agree. But let’s not stop here. If we’re serious about enforcing the new standard, thousands of other employees who donated to the same anti-gay ballot measure must be punished.


More than 35,000 people gave money to the campaign for Proposition 8, the 2008 ballot measure that declared, “Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.” You can download the entire list, via the Los Angeles Times, as a compressed spreadsheet. (Click the link that says, “Download CSV.”) Each row lists the donor’s employer. If you organize the data by company, you can add up the total number of donors and dollars that came from people associated with that company.


At the end of the article, he throws in this statement:

If we’re serious about taking down corporate officers who supported Proposition 8, and boycotting employers who promote them, we'd better get cracking on the rest of the list. Otherwise, perhaps we should put down the pitchforks.

Looking at some of the comments, it seems more than a few of the "enlightened", "tolerant" and "diversity celebrating" people are more than happy at the idea of costing thousands of other people their jobs. This is the kind of thing that can provoke a violent backlash (not advocating violence, just predicting it). You'd better be damned careful when you start threatening people's livelihoods. They may just decide to punch back twice as hard, to use a phrase.

Greg Hlatky said...

How does a group that is maybe 5% of the population get to set the agenda?

The Bolsheviks were a tiny group as well but they were well organized and utterly ruthless and that's why they succeeded in "setting the agenda" in Russia for 70 years.

Anonymous said...

I wonder if Sullivan took such a similar stance on a range of issues he wouldn't have an audience left?

Even people not successful at staying a step or two in front of an audience see the totalitarian impulses, logical contradictions and clear dangers to freedom posed by many of the ideas to which he panders to stay relevant.

Reap what you sow.

Titus said...

"How does a group that is maybe 5% of the population get to set the agenda?"

lots of money.

gerry said...

And they all confessed (enemies of the movement).

LET THE BEHEADINGS BEGIN!!!!

Marshal said...

Mark said...
I love the lack of argument about the fact this is the same tactics as the religious right uses.



The lack of argument seems in exact proportion to the lack of truth.

Revenant said...

"Funny how gay people punishing monetary political speech is cast down so hard while the WI right using signature political speech gets a pass."

What the hell is your point?

"Squirrel".

Monkeyboy said...

If it is right and just to go after those who wont let others get married, how much more important and just was Joe McCarthy? He went after people supporting no kidding murders and slavers.
People who support this always think they will be wearing the jackboots and they will be holding the whip. Maybe Ernst Rohm's Ghost will ahve a comment?

Stephen A. Meigs said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Michael said...

Titus is correct. It is quite a lot easier to accumulate wealth when single or coupled up without kids than it is with children on the payroll, especially if there are private schools involved. Until gay marriage the uncoupling of gays was a hell of a lot cheaper. Titus will take note that if he is married his partner can waltz to the courthouse without a dime and walk away a few months later with one half of Titus' hard earned wealth. Plus alimony.

Welcome aboard gay pilgrims

Renee said...

I was following the Johnny Weir divorce, and he is getting financially hit but his unemployed husband.

Wives work, unless the costs of daycare outweigh working. There is nothing traditional or nontraditional about working or not working. I don't know any woman who stays home to support their husband's career?

Weir is a hard worker, his back story about his parents' support is really wonderful.

Anonymous said...

In a democracy, most agendas are set by groups about the same size as the New Hollywood Blacklisters. If you don't believe me, just try getting ethanol subsidies repealed.

Stephen A. Meigs said...

I meant to say "Gail Sullivan's article" rather than "Gail Collin's article". Such a bad mistake I deleted my post.

Anthony said...

Well, FWIW, I've been using Firefox for years and yesterday I dumped it. This comment brought to you by Safari. All because of Homo Nazicus.

mikee said...

Sorry, Sullivan, you helped make the Gay Rights movement what it is today.

You get full credit for it.

sunsong said...

Way to avoid the point, Sunsong. Do you have a problem with people losing their jobs because of their political beliefs?

How 'bout you going first. Please show me some posts of yours supporting gay rights and gay equality. Please show me some posts of yours where you defend gays against job discrimination or housing discrimination or any kind of bullying. Surely you are not the kind of person who would only think of themselves and their side of an issue. Surely you have never supported mistreatment or discrimination of gays and lesbians :-)

Mike said...

Mark @ 5:53 a.m.: Who exactly is the "religious right" and who did they hound out of a job for his personal personal beliefs?

I know you used a term that is common on the Web, but I really don't know to what organized group (akin to GLAAD) you are referring. The last one I recall was the Moral Majoirty circa 1986 or so.

Mike said...

I guess my comment wasn't approved. I don't get comparisons to the "Religious Right" because there is no organization by that name and no prominent organizations that could be accurately described by that term. Specifically, there is no comparable GLAAD on the right and no example I recall of the RR "getting someone fired" from their job for private political activity.

n.n said...

What Sullivan has undoubtedly noticed, and the Democrats will have to address, is that in their fevered pursuit to selectively normalize a dysfunctional behavior, they have created a moral hazard, which they are unprepared to reconcile.

None of their minority constituencies support normalization of homosexual behavior. Blacks, in the majority; Hispanics, in the majority; have voted for tolerance, not normalization. They can attempt to coerce normalization through executive orders, judicial decrees, and simple threats, but they are defying the democratic consensus.

I wonder if the wake-up call began in France, when they rejected normalization of homosexual behavior. Supposedly, the American Left takes its cues from the Europeans.

Anglelyne said...

Paco: Way to avoid the point, Sunsong. Do you have a problem with people losing their jobs because of their political beliefs?

sunsong: How 'bout you going first. Please show me some posts of yours supporting gay rights and gay equality...

Too late, sunsong, you already answered his question. One can infer from your response, weaselly though it is, that you believe that it's OK to deprive people of their livelihoods if they dare to disagree with any of the question-begging assumptions packed into the phrases "gay rights" and "gay equality". IOW, no, you don't have a problem with people losing their jobs because of their political beliefs.

May one assume that you believe this right-of-disapproval via sacking to be a universal one? Because "surely you are not the kind of person who would only think of themselves and their side of an issue".

Anglelyne said...

n.n.: I wonder if the wake-up call began in France, when they rejected normalization of homosexual behavior. Supposedly, the American Left takes its cues from the Europeans.

While "anti-normalization" does appear to go wider and deeper there (and among secular liberals, too, not just religious traditionalists), the French are also getting the middle-finger from their great and good on these issues, same as here, on a slight delay. So this time it looks like the Euro g&g are taking their cues from our governing-class dingbats, not the other way 'round.

sunsong said...

Anglelyne,

You failed to refer us to any of your posts opposing discrimination against gays and lesbians. I am sure I don't have to explain to someone as bright as you are - that what is good for the goose is good for the gander. If you think it is perfectly fine for gays to lose jobs simply because they are gay or for lesbians to lose housing simply because of who they are, or for their families, their children to be treated as second class. If you haven't spoken out against those injustices, why are you concerned about this case?

n.n said...

Anglelyne:

Yet, the government, and the "intellectual" class, did back down. They may still have memories of revolution dancing in their heads. Not to mention there is a renewed and growing dissatisfaction with proliferation of left-wing ideology generally. They made their compromises, but it seems that their tolerance has its limits. Perhaps less than Americans.

In any case, Sullivan's capitulation offers evidence of an unpublicized but similar reaction in America. His faction's history does not offer evidence of tolerance or moderation. This means that the public consensus does not match the perception forced by the loudest voices.

This is both good and bad. They have created a moral hazard and need to reconcile it. Unfortunately, their selective principles are wholly inadequate to offer a proper response. They only care to create and exploit leverage, but not the progressive discrepancies left in their wake.

sydney said...

This is what happens when you call those who disagree with you "bigots." Anyone who hurled that insult at people who disagreed with the pro-gay marriage stance shares the responsibility for this development.

Paco Wové said...

"Surely you have never supported mistreatment or discrimination of gays and lesbians"

Nope, never have. And I don't support people losing their jobs over irrelevant political disagreements either. Sounds an awful lot like that "Hollywood blacklist" and "McCarthyism" stuff we used to be taught was so awful.

John Cunningham said...

I quit using Firefox a year ago due to its being crash-prone. Pale Moon at www.palemoon.org is a Mozilla offspring browser. I downloaded it, seems to be pretty quick.

LarsPorsena said...

Blogger Paco Wové said...

"Surely you have never supported mistreatment or discrimination of gays and lesbians"

Nope, never have. And I don't support people losing their jobs over irrelevant political disagreements either. Sounds an awful lot like that "Hollywood blacklist" and "McCarthyism" stuff we used to be taught was so awful.

4/4/14, 4:24 PM

___________________________________


"Have you now or ever been...?" In the words of the evil old HUAC.

R. Chatt said...

It's not just the gay rights movement responsible -- it's the vast leftwing alliance where any divergent opinion is viewed as morally wrong. This includes other opinions such as advocating for gun rights, questioning global warming, criticizing Islamic supremacism

sunsong said...


Nope, never have. And I don't support people losing their jobs over irrelevant political disagreements either


Good for you. I have never advocated for firing people over their political views.

el polacko said...

wasn't it sullivan who spearheaded the effort to have alec baldwin canned from his msnbc job ? eich, for comparison's sake, supported denying a class of citizens equal treatment under the law while baldwin just used a nasty epithet...so why the heck was sully ranting about baldwin but is now, just as vociferously, defending eich ?

Anglelyne said...

sunsong: You failed to refer us to any of your posts opposing discrimination against gays and lesbians.

My dear sunsong, how is this relevant to the question posed to you by Paco? Is your belief about whether it is right that someone should lose his job because of his political views contigent upon whether Anglelyne's moral and political views align with your own?

All right, let's posit that Anglelyne is the greatest bigot in the world, hates all gays with the hatred of a thousand burning suns, doesn't believe that they should have legal protections in housing or employment, and kicks them when they pass her on the sidewalk. Now, do you or do you not believe that it is right to deprive a man of his livelihood because of his political views?

It's a simple question, sunsong. The answer has nothing to do with other people's alleged hypocrisies, bigotries, or inconsistencies. What do you believe about this question? Apparently this is all merely an exercise in "who, whom" and tu quoque to you, not an issue for an adult with moral integrity. I can give a robust "no" to Paco's question without knowing or caring what you think about it.

I am sure I don't have to explain to someone as bright as you are - that what is good for the goose is good for the gander.

Indeed. (Though I'd say "sauce" rather than "good".) So if it's OK to sack someone for being against gay marriage, it's OK to sack them for being in favor of it? Do I have that right?

heyboom said...

@John Henry

Took your advice and installed Comodo Dragon. I really like what I see so far. Thanks for the heads up.

Anglelyne said...

el polacko: eich, for comparison's sake, supported denying a class of citizens equal treatment under the law while baldwin just used a nasty epithet...so why the heck was sully ranting about baldwin but is now, just as vociferously, defending eich ?

Why is that a valid comparison? Despite the best efforts of political bullies to frame the objection to gay marriage as "meanies who want to deny rights and equal protection to a class of citizens", there are still millions of people in this country who recognize that reasonable adults can disagree about whether denying marriage to gays actually does constitute "denying a class of citizens equal treatment under the law". (As a matter of fact, just yesterday just about nobody thought that the inability of homosexuals to marry each other was "denying a class of citizens equal treatment". Including, no doubt, many of the blank-brained apparatchiks baying for Eich's blood today.) Apparently Sullivan is one of them. Surprisingly.

What's so odd about respecting differences of opinion while deploring bad manners?

damikesc said...

So, to check...was the Hollywood blacklist still a stain on our past?

How is that different than this?

Anglelyne said...

n.n. Yet, the [French] government, and the "intellectual" class, did back down.

They did? On what?

n.n said...

Anglelyne:

They backed off from legal recognition of homosexual marriage. Perhaps if they distinguished between natural and personal prerogatives, but that was not tolerable by homosexual advocates and activists.