this post was submitted on 08 Aug 2023
1676 points (88.0% liked)
Technology
59308 readers
5507 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I agree, it ought to be a hard line.
Question is, though, where's the line? We don't all come with the same exact moral compass, and we're all perfectly capable of rationalizing evil, so you can't just say "be a moral and non-bigoted person" and expect the desired outcome. Plenty of slave owners worldwide were convinced that slavery was not just morally admissible but even admirable.
No matter where that line is, it needs to be well-defined and agreed-upon, or else it's arbitrary, and thus open to abuse and corruption by demagogues.
I think we can agree that those slave owners were wrong, just as we can agree that Eich was and remains wrong about gay marriage.
In my experience, anybody who claims morality is "clear cut" is probably naive, otherwise they're selling a cult. The fact that you think my line is questioning is suspicious without knowing anything about me or anything beyond this thread makes me suspect it's the latter, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt for now.
Yes, it's a philosophical debate. That's why I'm here, on the Internet, asking philosophical questions, to spur debate.
Please, go back and carefully read what I wrote. I've said nothing about whether I find Eich's donation morally acceptable or not, let alone anything beyond that. You seem quick to condemn on nothing more than circumstance. The far-left is just as illiberal, regressive, and unjust as the far-right.
Beware of groupthink. It makes for smooth brains.
I don't like that he supported a campaign against gay marriage. I don't know his reasons for doing so but it's probably not one I'd support.
But my understanding extends no further. I know he made a donation. I don't have the nuance or understanding to extrapolate that into putting him into an entire box
There's something ironic about tarring him with a broad brush based on one attribute
The dude spent $1,000 declaring where he stood on taking someone's rights away and you're like meh I don't wanna jump to judgement here lmao
I'll absolutely disagree with his action in contributing to taking away same sex marriage. I don't see why gay people shouldn't get married.
I don't know his reason for contributing to it. I'll very likely disagree with his reason.
What I'm saying is, does that make him alt-right (whatever that even means)? The only thing you can deduce is that he thinks gay people shouldn't get married
Isn't what I said
All I've said is you can't extrapolate "He disagrees with X there for he must also be Y and Z"
Congrats! You've made a formal fallacy while sounding antagonistically patronizing!