How sick it is

Matthew Garret illustrates just how bad it gets in a discussion about Mozilla and Leadership:

“A CEO who’s donated money to strip rights[4] from a set of humans will not be trusted by many who believe that all humans should have those rights. It’s not just limited to individuals directly affected by his actions – if someone’s shown that they’re willing to strip rights from another minority for political or religious reasons, what’s to stop them attempting to do the same to you? Even if you personally feel safe, do you trust someone who’s willing to do that to your friends? In a community that’s made up of many who are either LGBT or identify themselves as allies, that loss of trust is inevitably going to cause community discomfort.”

There is the a priori assumption that a belief in traditional marriage strips the rights of a “set of humans.” That assumption leads to the idea that it is one’s opinions that creates trust in a community, not one’s behavior. Then there is the elevation of ‘community comfort’ as superior to an individual’s views. Behind all of this is that it is not behavior that is at issue but rather feelings and emotions.

Basically, what Garrett is saying is that you can only trust someone who believes the same as you and that anyone who disagrees with you is untrustworthy and can be accused of causing social discord as a means to ostracize them (or worse). This is much the same idea as in the SCOTUS minority position by Breyer in regards to campaign finance (re Volokh Conspiracy). It is that freedom and liberty in speech only exist so as to serve the community, not to protect the individual. How that ‘serve the community’ is defined is the question and Garrett is providing an answer for how he thinks it should be defined.

worried, yet?

Comments are closed.