Your first point is predicated on a false equivalence. The very real problems Democrats have are not in the same league as the very real problems Republicans have. That Republicans and their supporters have chosen to manufacture outrage based on lies and hysteria does not put them on the same plane as being outraged at the loss of reproductive rights for women and the deaths already caused from that, the attacks on voting rights, the trans and drag show boogeyman that is going to lead to deaths if it hasn’t already, and etc and etc and etc.
Your second point is arguing against what exactly? People are talking about things they don’t like about the CEO of a company. Some of those people are going to choose not to support that company as is their right. WTF business is it of yours aside from your freedom to make a different decision? That CEO doesn’t need your help, and doesn’t give a shit about you. Why would you be here finger wagging at people about it? If the claims were false that would be one thing, but even you don’t seem to be claiming they are.
Let the truth out and let people make up their own minds. If centrism is your thing (and it seems it is) I can’t imagine a more neutral position than that.
When did I say anything about the Democrats? I agree with you that the Democrats are a conservative party, and the Republicans are a fascist party. I don’t think we were saying anything at all about the Democrats or the Republicans, and I don’t think it’s controversial that favoring gay marriage is a left-wing position and opposing it is a right-wing position.
Your second point is arguing against what exactly? People are talking about things they don’t like about the CEO of a company. Some of those people are going to choose not to support that company as is their right. WTF business is it of yours aside from your freedom to make a different decision?
Let the truth out and let people make up their own minds.
100% agreed. Do you feel the same way about “Firefox Money: Investigating the bizarre finances of Mozilla”?
If centrism is your thing (and it seems it is)
Incorrect. I used to be registered with the US Green Party before they shit the bed, if that gives you any idea.
Do you feel the same way about “Firefox Money: Investigating the bizarre finances of Mozilla”?
Absolutely. It’s why I’m not in related threads telling people who are bothered by it that they shouldn’t be.
I don’t think we were saying anything at all about the Democrats or the Republicans, and I don’t think it’s controversial that favoring gay marriage is a left-wing position and opposing it is a right-wing position.
My issue is here:
(i.e. “But MY side is the RIGHT one, so it’s different”) is exactly why the right wing thinks Trump shouldn’t go to prison and it’s okay when they cheat in elections.
Even if for some reason you want to limit the scope to a generic “Left” and “Right” even after invoking Trump, you’re still creating a false equivalence.
As you acknowledge, we can point to the factual basis for the concerns the Left has about the actions of the Right. The right has misinformation, disinformation, and willful ignorance as the basis for their outrage. “Both sides” thinking they are right doesn’t boil down to the same thing when one side actually is demonstrably wrong.
Do you feel the same way about “Firefox Money: Investigating the bizarre finances of Mozilla”?
Absolutely. It’s why I’m not in related threads telling people who are bothered by it that they shouldn’t be.
Right, that makes sense to me. As long as you’re consistent about it, that makes sense to me.
As you acknowledge, we can point to the factual basis for the concerns the Left has about the actions of the Right. The right has misinformation, disinformation, and willful ignorance as the basis for their outrage. “Both sides” thinking they are right doesn’t boil down to the same thing when one side actually is demonstrably wrong.
So what I’m saying is that supporting gay marriage is not a judgement of fact; it’s a moral judgement. It’s a moral judgement I 100% agree with, but I don’t think it’s for you or anyone to say “You can’t support this browser unless all the executives are on board with this moral judgement.” We could compare it to a Christian person saying you can’t support this browser unless all the executives are on board for Christian values.
If it was some strictly factual judgement then I’d agree with you. Someone who supported January 6th, I think shouldn’t hold any kind of a position anywhere, because that was factually a crime. Someone who supports state surveillance because they “support law enforcement,” I think shouldn’t hold any kind of a position of leadership for browser development. But, a browser whose corporate entity’s CEO isn’t a Christian, I don’t think should exclude someone from is a Christian from using that browser, regardless of how deep and abiding that Christian person’s belief that Christian morality is the right morality. I think it’s fine if they evangelize Christian values, but not find if they say no one can get their support unless they have the right morality. Similarly I think it’s fine if you evangelize pro-gay-marriage values, but not fine if you say no one can get your support unless they have pro-gay-marriage morality.
Doesn’t that make sense? Again, I agree with your morality, I just also think people who don’t share that morality should be able to say so, and support whatever they do think, without other people feeling they need to be punished for it.
Your first point is predicated on a false equivalence. The very real problems Democrats have are not in the same league as the very real problems Republicans have. That Republicans and their supporters have chosen to manufacture outrage based on lies and hysteria does not put them on the same plane as being outraged at the loss of reproductive rights for women and the deaths already caused from that, the attacks on voting rights, the trans and drag show boogeyman that is going to lead to deaths if it hasn’t already, and etc and etc and etc.
Your second point is arguing against what exactly? People are talking about things they don’t like about the CEO of a company. Some of those people are going to choose not to support that company as is their right. WTF business is it of yours aside from your freedom to make a different decision? That CEO doesn’t need your help, and doesn’t give a shit about you. Why would you be here finger wagging at people about it? If the claims were false that would be one thing, but even you don’t seem to be claiming they are.
Let the truth out and let people make up their own minds. If centrism is your thing (and it seems it is) I can’t imagine a more neutral position than that.
When did I say anything about the Democrats? I agree with you that the Democrats are a conservative party, and the Republicans are a fascist party. I don’t think we were saying anything at all about the Democrats or the Republicans, and I don’t think it’s controversial that favoring gay marriage is a left-wing position and opposing it is a right-wing position.
100% agreed. Do you feel the same way about “Firefox Money: Investigating the bizarre finances of Mozilla”?
Incorrect. I used to be registered with the US Green Party before they shit the bed, if that gives you any idea.
Absolutely. It’s why I’m not in related threads telling people who are bothered by it that they shouldn’t be.
My issue is here:
Even if for some reason you want to limit the scope to a generic “Left” and “Right” even after invoking Trump, you’re still creating a false equivalence.
As you acknowledge, we can point to the factual basis for the concerns the Left has about the actions of the Right. The right has misinformation, disinformation, and willful ignorance as the basis for their outrage. “Both sides” thinking they are right doesn’t boil down to the same thing when one side actually is demonstrably wrong.
Right, that makes sense to me. As long as you’re consistent about it, that makes sense to me.
So what I’m saying is that supporting gay marriage is not a judgement of fact; it’s a moral judgement. It’s a moral judgement I 100% agree with, but I don’t think it’s for you or anyone to say “You can’t support this browser unless all the executives are on board with this moral judgement.” We could compare it to a Christian person saying you can’t support this browser unless all the executives are on board for Christian values.
If it was some strictly factual judgement then I’d agree with you. Someone who supported January 6th, I think shouldn’t hold any kind of a position anywhere, because that was factually a crime. Someone who supports state surveillance because they “support law enforcement,” I think shouldn’t hold any kind of a position of leadership for browser development. But, a browser whose corporate entity’s CEO isn’t a Christian, I don’t think should exclude someone from is a Christian from using that browser, regardless of how deep and abiding that Christian person’s belief that Christian morality is the right morality. I think it’s fine if they evangelize Christian values, but not find if they say no one can get their support unless they have the right morality. Similarly I think it’s fine if you evangelize pro-gay-marriage values, but not fine if you say no one can get your support unless they have pro-gay-marriage morality.
Doesn’t that make sense? Again, I agree with your morality, I just also think people who don’t share that morality should be able to say so, and support whatever they do think, without other people feeling they need to be punished for it.