6 ms·

It feels qualitatively different to argue that “he and I disagree on firearms but we continue to work together” is the same basic concept. Imagine you’re a gay

It feels qualitatively different to argue that “he and I disagree on firearms but we continue to work together” is the same basic concept. Imagine you’re a gay man, happily married. You work at Mozilla. Don’t you think it would be difficult to go into work, and report to your CEO, knowing that he had donated against gay marriage? That he feels your way of life has no place in America? Mozilla is an outspoken champion of net neutrality, anonymity, free speech, open standards, and several other ideologies that emphasize freedom. How can you clap at an all-hands meeting when your CEO stands in front of the company and talks about the importance of these freedoms, while knowing that he also feels so strongly that your private relationship with your husband is so abhorrent that he thought it was a good use of $1000 to try to ban it? If the liberals “win”, and guns are banned tomorrow, like they are in Australia, are you so committed to your firearm rights that you’ll consider moving to another country, or suicide because life just isn’t worth living? Do you think it’s ludicrous that gay people might consider those options? Firearms are a choice. Being gay is not. Judgement against gay marriage is judgement against who you are. Judgement against firearms is judgement against a hobby. Take the argument back 50 years. Do you think a white boss who donated money against equal rights could/would treat black employees fairly? Imagine that you’re a gay employee at Mozilla. You’ve been gunning for a promotion into upper management, and someone else wins the position. Are you never going to wonder, “Does his skin crawl when we shake hands? Would I have won the position if my Facebook didn’t have pictures of me and my husband on it?” Have you ever wondered if your love of firearms has impacted your professional career?

LyndsySimon 9y ago
> It feels qualitatively different to argue that “he and I disagree on firearms but we continue to work together” is the same basic concept. I get that it feels different to you - but I'm telling you in good faith that it doesn't to me. > Don’t you think it would be difficult to go into work, and report to your CEO, knowing that he had donated against gay marriage? Certainly. I've quit jobs because of similar issues. If someone feels about gay marriage the way I do about guns and the right to self-defense, it sounds entirely reasonable to me for them not to financial support people who actively work against their political interests. > If the liberals “win”, and guns are banned tomorrow, like they are in Australia, are you so committed to your firearm rights that you’ll consider moving to another country, or suicide because life just isn’t worth living? Yes. Five years ago when I was choosing a place to move from rural Arkansas to further my career as a developer, California, Illinois, New York, and several other states were out of the question because of their gun laws. Now that I'm more established, I'm moving back to Arkansas and a large part of that is the political climate here in Virginia. Given the choice between disarmament and emigration, I'd emigrate. Given the choice between disarmament and death, I would fight. It's that serious of an issue to me and to far more people than you'd believe unless you've lived somewhere surrounded by people who share this view. > Firearms are a choice. Being gay is not. Judgement against gay marriage is judgement against who you are. Judgement against firearms is judgement against a hobby. Respectfully, you're completely wrong here. Firearms are not a hobby for me, they're symbolic of my entire cultural perspective. It is no more a choice than religious affiliation. > Have you ever wondered if your love of firearms has impacted your professional career? Of course it has. I'd be making significantly more money right now if I'd moved to San Jose, New York City, or even Portland. --- I'm re-reading my comments above, and hesitating to submit them because I'm concerned that they might easily be seen as justification to lump me in with the GOP. Let me be clear about that - I don't consider myself a Republican, and I don't consider myself a conservative. I'm an extreme libertarian. I have no animosity towards homosexuals, and it doesn't matter to me how someone presents themselves or structure their personal relationships. "It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg." The main point I'm trying to make is that online communities in particular are made up of people with drastically different perspectives on life. Some of those differences are obvious, but some are not. Some of them are expected to be respected while it's socially acceptable to disregard others out of hand. That's not right.
- joshuamorton 9y ago
  > I get that it feels different to you - but I'm telling you in good faith that it doesn't to me. I think there's a very obvious difference: (hopefully) Your views on guns and personal liberty are based on ethics and under the system you believe is ethical, personal liberty and firearms are important. You do not hold a code of ethics because it allows you to use firearms, but you believe you are allowed to use firearms due to the ethical system. (I may be mistaken here, but allow me to overstep and state that I'd find anyone who developed an ethical system to support their use of firearms downright scary). For someone who is gay, there's nothing like that. They find different people attractive. No ethical systems to it. In other words, "I love people of my same sex" is an axiom, "people should be allowed to use firearms" is a conclusion.
  - sheepmullet 9y ago
    > For someone who is gay, there's nothing like that. They find different people attractive. No ethical systems to it. And why is that difference relevant?
    - joshuamorton 9y ago
      >In other words, "I love people of my same sex" is an axiom, "people should be allowed to use firearms" is a conclusion. I feel that I addressed that.
      - sheepmullet 9y ago
        I can't see how you did? Why is a firmly held conviction less important than a physical attribute you are born with?
        joshuamorton 9y ago
        I never said anything about importance. I said they were different, and I believe that they should be treated differently because they are different, not because one is more important than the other.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
jdmichal 9y ago
For many communities, guns are not just a "hobby". They are an integral part of life and culture. The fact that people don't take the time to understand this is a huge issue.

LyndsySimon 9y ago

> It feels qualitatively different to argue that “he and I disagree on firearms but we continue to work together” is the same basic concept. I get that it feels different to you - but I'm telling you in good faith that it doesn't to me. > Don’t you think it would be difficult to go into work, and report to your CEO, knowing that he had donated against gay marriage? Certainly. I've quit jobs because of similar issues. If someone feels about gay marriage the way I do about guns and the right to self-defense, it sounds entirely reasonable to me for them not to financial support people who actively work against their political interests. > If the liberals “win”, and guns are banned tomorrow, like they are in Australia, are you so committed to your firearm rights that you’ll consider moving to another country, or suicide because life just isn’t worth living? Yes. Five years ago when I was choosing a place to move from rural Arkansas to further my career as a developer, California, Illinois, New York, and several other states were out of the question because of their gun laws. Now that I'm more established, I'm moving back to Arkansas and a large part of that is the political climate here in Virginia. Given the choice between disarmament and emigration, I'd emigrate. Given the choice between disarmament and death, I would fight. It's that serious of an issue to me and to far more people than you'd believe unless you've lived somewhere surrounded by people who share this view. > Firearms are a choice. Being gay is not. Judgement against gay marriage is judgement against who you are. Judgement against firearms is judgement against a hobby. Respectfully, you're completely wrong here. Firearms are not a hobby for me, they're symbolic of my entire cultural perspective. It is no more a choice than religious affiliation. > Have you ever wondered if your love of firearms has impacted your professional career? Of course it has. I'd be making significantly more money right now if I'd moved to San Jose, New York City, or even Portland. --- I'm re-reading my comments above, and hesitating to submit them because I'm concerned that they might easily be seen as justification to lump me in with the GOP. Let me be clear about that - I don't consider myself a Republican, and I don't consider myself a conservative. I'm an extreme libertarian. I have no animosity towards homosexuals, and it doesn't matter to me how someone presents themselves or structure their personal relationships. "It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg." The main point I'm trying to make is that online communities in particular are made up of people with drastically different perspectives on life. Some of those differences are obvious, but some are not. Some of them are expected to be respected while it's socially acceptable to disregard others out of hand. That's not right.

joshuamorton 9y ago
> I get that it feels different to you - but I'm telling you in good faith that it doesn't to me. I think there's a very obvious difference: (hopefully) Your views on guns and personal liberty are based on ethics and under the system you believe is ethical, personal liberty and firearms are important. You do not hold a code of ethics because it allows you to use firearms, but you believe you are allowed to use firearms due to the ethical system. (I may be mistaken here, but allow me to overstep and state that I'd find anyone who developed an ethical system to support their use of firearms downright scary). For someone who is gay, there's nothing like that. They find different people attractive. No ethical systems to it. In other words, "I love people of my same sex" is an axiom, "people should be allowed to use firearms" is a conclusion.
- sheepmullet 9y ago
  > For someone who is gay, there's nothing like that. They find different people attractive. No ethical systems to it. And why is that difference relevant?
  - joshuamorton 9y ago
    >In other words, "I love people of my same sex" is an axiom, "people should be allowed to use firearms" is a conclusion. I feel that I addressed that.
    - sheepmullet 9y ago
      I can't see how you did? Why is a firmly held conviction less important than a physical attribute you are born with?
      - joshuamorton 9y ago
        I never said anything about importance. I said they were different, and I believe that they should be treated differently because they are different, not because one is more important than the other.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

jdmichal 9y ago

For many communities, guns are not just a "hobby". They are an integral part of life and culture. The fact that people don't take the time to understand this is a huge issue.