You know you're an asshole when...

[Black Dog]

Bonam's view is nothing like PETA. He has stated before that he eats meat and supports animal testing.

He pointing out the hypocrisy in everyone getting upset over this and sitting down to a plate of dead animal to discuss the issue.

I agree, kicking a puppy is horrible but if you're outraged by that yet at the same time but turn a blind eye to the horrors of slaughterhouses and factory farming, then yes, it is hypocritical to be so outraged over this issue.

So the only way to be a cool person on this is to either oppose all forms of animal cruelty equally and Go Vegan! or endorse kicking puppies?

[TimG]

You don't seem to have a good understanding of how free speech works. Guys like Brendan Eich have the right to support and believe in whatever they want and express that. Mozilla customers have the right to express differing opinions and withhold their custom as a result.

Sorry - free speech is not a license to form a lynch mob which is what happened here.

Free speech means someone can speak out when someone expresses an idea that they oppose.

Organizing a campaign design to silence someone is NOT free speech. It is totalitarianism enforced by lynch mobs.

Edited August 29, 2014 by TimG

[Black Dog]

Sorry - free speech is not a license to form a lynch mob which is what happened here.

No: a consumer boycott or backlash is not the same thing as a lynch mob. I'm not sure how this is so confusing for you.

This is a boycott.

This is a lynch mob.

See the difference?

Free speech means someone can speak out when someone expresses an idea that they oppose.

That's not what free speech means.Freedom of speech is about protecting citizens from the state. It does not mean that people have to like what you say or that you can say/do what you want without any repercussions.

Organizing a campaign design to silence someone is NOT free speech.

Give me an example where this has happened.

It is totalitarianism enforced by lynch mobs.

Totalitarianism and mobs are completely opposing ideas. I'm not all that surprised you don't see that, given your lack of understanding of other definitions (including "lynch mobs" and "free speech").

Edited August 29, 2014 by Black Dog

[BC_chick]

So the only way to be a cool person on this is to either oppose all forms of animal cruelty equally and Go Vegan! or endorse kicking puppies?

I'm not endorsing kicking puppies, I'm pointing out the hypocrisy in getting outraged over this issue while blissfully ignoring the billions of animals that are killed for your dinner.

I would love to hear your take as to how it's NOT hypocritical instead of your condescending response.

FTR, I'm not a full vegan, I consume dairy occasionally. Unlike you, however, I acknowledge I'm a hypocrite putting cream in my coffee and getting mad at this CEO for kicking his dog knowing full well that some cow got kicked for me to put cream in my coffee.

[Mighty AC]

So the only way to be a cool person on this is to either oppose all forms of animal cruelty equally and Go Vegan! or endorse kicking puppies?

Recognizing our own hypocrisy doesn't mean you have to do anything about it. I find the fact that humans respond to individual acts of cruelty more strongly than mass tragedies to be interesting and worth acknowledging.

Edited August 29, 2014 by Mighty AC

[Black Dog]

I'm not endorsing kicking puppies, I'm pointing out the hypocrisy in getting outraged over this issue while blissfully ignoring the billions of animals that are killed for your dinner.

I would love to hear your take as to how it's NOT hypocritical instead of your condescending response.

FTR, I'm not a full vegan, I consume dairy occasionally. Unlike you, however, I acknowledge I'm a hypocrite putting cream in my coffee and getting mad at this CEO for kicking his dog knowing full well that some cow got kicked for me to put cream in my coffee.

I never said it wasn't. It's just not a particularly new, interesting or useful observation.

[TimG]

No: a consumer boycott or backlash is not the same thing as a lynch mob.

You want to make a distinction based on irrelevant semantics. The mob psychology that drives both is exactly the same which is why I call "consumer boycotts" which are designed to punish an individual as a "lynch mob". You are simply wrong to ignore the similarities. The comparison is appropriate.

Totalitarianism and mobs are completely opposing ideas.

No they aren't. Totalitarianism is about the state trying to control every aspect of public life. Mobs try to do the same with boycotts designed to control public speech. The analogy is not perfect but I was looking for a word to describe the bullying of internet mobs. Edited August 29, 2014 by TimG

[On Guard for Thee]

You want to make a distinction based on irrelevant semantics. The mob psychology that drives both is exactly the same which is why I call "consumer boycotts" which are designed to punish an individual as a "lynch mob". You are simply wrong to ignore the similarities. The comparison is appropriate.

No they aren't. Totalitarianism is about the state trying to control every aspect of public life. Mobs try to do the same with boycotts designed to control public speech. The analogy is not perfect but I was looking for a word to describe the bullying of internet mobs.

I notice you dropped the word "lynch" from your description. Perhaps backing down a bit since you've now had a proper description of the two dissimilar things you have tried to equate?

[Black Dog]

You want to make a distinction based on irrelevant semantics.

No, I'm making the distinction based on relevant dead people.

You are simply wrong to ignore the similarities.

The only relevant similarities are that both involve groups of people doing something to a common end. Which also describes a baseball team.

The mob psychology that drives both is exactly the same which is why I call "consumer boycotts" which are designed to suppress the speech of an individual as "lynch mob".[/size]

Huh, it seems when you redefine terms to suit yourself, strip them of historical context and usage, you can make pretty much anything mean anything.

Yours is a simplistic and simple minded definition.

The term lynch mob is obviously a loaded one with real historical and racial connotations. Comparing lawful expressions of consumer opinion and choice to such a thing is ignorant and just plain dumb.

I should also point out there are plenty of terms to describe a mob mentality (like, for example, “mob” ) without resorting to such a loaded term. The fact you’re so comfortable using a term associated with violent, murderous gangs to describe people exercising consumer choice says something about you.

No they aren't. Totalitarianism is about the state trying to control every aspect of public life. Mobs try to do the same with boycotts designed to control public speech.

Totalitarianism describes the total or near total control of the state over aspects of public life. Mob describes a mass of people that are out of the state's control. Completely antithetical concepts.

The analogy is not perfect but I was looking for a word to describe the bullying of internet mobs.

You're not doing too good with the whole "finding words" thing today.

BTW, still waiting for an example of a movement or boycott designed to control public speech.

Edited August 29, 2014 by Black Dog

[Mighty AC]

No they aren't. Totalitarianism is about the state trying to control every aspect of public life. Mobs try to do the same with boycotts designed to control public speech. The analogy is not perfect but I was looking for a word to describe the bullying of internet mobs.

So you don't think people work together to enact change? People must voice their displeasure as individuals?

Edited August 29, 2014 by Mighty AC

[Black Dog]

So you don't think people work together to enact change?

UH, THAT'S WHAT LYNCH MOBS DO!

People must voice their displeasure as individuals?

LYNCH MOBS ARE MADE UP OF INDIVIDUALS!

[Bonam]

I never said it wasn't. It's just not a particularly new, interesting or useful observation.

Ah I see. That's unfortunate considering that this forum is otherwise full only of totally innovative, utterly captivating observations of unprecedented utility to the betterment of mankind. Sorry to interject such a lowly comment among such intellectual giants!

[Bonam]

Bonam's view is nothing like PETA. He has stated before that he eats meat and supports animal testing.

He pointing out the hypocrisy in everyone getting upset over this and sitting down to a plate of dead animal to discuss the issue.

Thanks for getting it!

[Black Dog]

Ah I see. That's unfortunate considering that this forum is otherwise full only of totally innovative, utterly captivating observations of unprecedented utility to the betterment of mankind. Sorry to interject such a lowly comment among such intellectual giants!

Just don't let it happen again.

[TimG]

BTW, still waiting for an example of a movement or boycott designed to control public speech.

Mozilla CEO. The CEO expressed an opinion. The purpose of the boycott was to punish the CEO and intimidate anyone else thinking of expressing similar views. The ultimate goal of the boycott was to ensure that no one expresses public opinions which disagree with the mob.

[Mighty AC]

LYNCH MOBS ARE MADE UP OF INDIVIDUALS!

Yeah, I don't see how a group of people exercising their right to free speech is comparable to a mob silencing one side. Comparisons to lynch mobs and totalitarianism are more than a little hyperbolic. It seems that too many people feel that the idea of free speech should also mean freedom from consequences.

[dre]

Mozilla CEO. The CEO expressed an opinion. The purpose of the boycott was to punish the CEO and intimidate anyone else thinking of expressing similar views. The ultimate goal of the boycott was to ensure that no one expresses public opinions which disagree with the mob.

Welcome to the free market. Consumers can do whatever they want to, including not patronizing businesses for whatever reason they see fit.

Still idiotic to compare the decision to not buy products with lynching... ROFLMAO.

[Wilber]

Seriously, never heard of electric shock collars?

Not even mentioning the suffering endured by food animals, who are no different in any fundamental way than dogs, except that in Western countries humans choose to use dogs for amusement and companionship rather than food.

As in the purebred thread, we're back to hypocritical ideas by pet owners.

The only acceptable use of shock collars is for invisible fences, which are for the dog's own safety. Once they have learned those boundaries, there is no further need for the collar. This is no different from the way we learn when we are young. We do something that hurts us, eventually we learn not to do it any more.

You look at animals as though it was a matter of humans or animals, when in the case of animals like dogs and horses, life has been a partnership between human and animal for thousands of years. We are made to be together, not separate. No 100 pound girl can force a 1000 pound horse to jump a 5 ft log fence with a ditch in front, if it doesn't want to.

Apparently it wasn't this guy's dog. He was looking after it for a friend. Ex friend now I guess.

On Edit: Thought I would add the caption to that photo.

Ditch obstacle

Rosie Thomas and Barry's Best at the Jubilee Leap during the cross country phase of Burghley Horse Trials 2009.

Edited August 29, 2014 by Wilber

[Mighty AC]

Mozilla CEO. The CEO expressed an opinion. The purpose of the boycott was to punish the CEO and intimidate anyone else thinking of expressing similar views. The ultimate goal of the boycott was to ensure that no one expresses public opinions which disagree with the mob.

Why do you feel free speech by the heads of companies like Mozilla, Barilla or Chick-fil-A be exempt from consequences? Some people vowed to not buy pasta or chicken sandwiches some showed their support by buying more. That's how free speech and the market should work.

[TimG]

Welcome to the free market. Consumers can do whatever they want to, including not patronizing businesses for whatever reason they see fit.

It is not about consumers making choices: it is about bigoted zealots organizing a lynch mob to suppress speech they don't like. If there was no effort to organize a lynch mob then I would be fine with consumers "making choices".

[BC_chick]

I never said it wasn't. It's just not a particularly new, interesting or useful observation.

If standing on a soap box expressing faux outrage over an issue which you admit is completely hypocritical, then by all means, carry on.

[Black Dog]

Mozilla CEO. The CEO expressed an opinion. The purpose of the boycott was to punish the CEO and intimidate anyone else thinking of expressing similar views. The ultimate goal of the boycott was to ensure that no one expresses public opinions which disagree with the mob.

Interesting claims: do you have a cite for these nefarious goals? Because my understanding is the goal was to simply make people aware of what he'd done and to stop using the products untiol

I've already pointed out that at no point was Eich's right to express an opinion infringed upon.

It is not about consumers making choices: it is about bigoted zealots organizing a lynch mob to suppress speech they don't like. If there was no effort to organize a lynch mob then I would be fine with consumers "making choices".

God this gets dumber and dumber.

Say the CEO of a prominent corporation stands before a group of shareholders and states his affection for Adolph Hitler and his unwavering belief in the degeneracy and inferiority of the Jewish race and his belief in the rightness of the Holocaust. According to you, the board couldn't do anything and any effort to galvanize or organize consumers to stop buying this company's products would be worse that the beliefs expressed. In short, for you, a guy like that would be completely untouchable unless consumers decided spontaneously and of their own accord to stop buying their products (but again only if there was no attempt to organize such an action).

This is flat out nuts..

[dre]

It is not about consumers making choices: it is about bigoted zealots organizing a lynch mob to suppress speech they don't like. If there was no effort to organize a lynch mob then I would be fine with consumers "making choices".

Consumers are free to organize any way they see fit. Comparing organizing a boycott - which is a group of people deciding not to purchase goods - with violent extrajudicial punishment, is so incredibly stupid it boggles the mind.

[Black Dog]

If standing on a soap box expressing faux outrage over an issue which you admit is completely hypocritical, then by all means, carry on.

Don't mind if I do (it's real outrage BTW). That is if I can be heard over the grating, shrill sound of people making useless mouth noises about minor hypocrisies, the likes of which every human carries, while fancying themselves great speakers of important truths.

[BubberMiley]

It is not about consumers making choices: it is about bigoted zealots organizing a lynch mob to suppress speech they don't like. If there was no effort to organize a lynch mob then I would be fine with consumers "making choices".

Not to mention the people like you encouraging "lynch mobs" against those people organizing boycotts, trying to drum up a mob to supress their ability to express themselves.