I think there should be consequences for actions. I am still unclear as to whether or not I think Eich should have been forced to resign, but I do wholeheartedly believe in the power of protests and boycotting. I just want the people protesting and boycotting to do so ways that model behavior we want to see from all people, because I honestly believe that's the way to make the world a better place. No, we can't count on "letters to Exxon" to get them to stop their practices. We have to create legislation for that. But we can fight that fight without calling "anyone who works for Exxon or believes x, y, z" a piece of shit/ignorant/evil, etc. (or any number of more subtle "mean names"). Because that does nothing but polarize "those people."
I think a lot of Mozilla employees did this incredibly well - expressed themselves online in a really elegant, reasonable way (regardless of whether or not they felt Eich should resign).
I wrote this long, rambling response to this thread last week and then thought better of posting it, but I will summarize:
I am someone who does not quite understand the "sheer nonsense" of the "false equivalency" argument. But I do think I am a reasonably intelligent, good hearted person who WANTS to understand it, and truly wants what is best and fair for all people on this earth. I admit whole heartedly that I could simply be wrong/not understand what y'all are saying, but I could counter-argue a lot of points you've made (I've decided not to). I think I have a lot to learn from people like you all who post on this thread (which is the reason I moved the conversation here from FB in the first place).
However, if I am told my understanding is "nonsense" or that I'm simply siding with a "hateful bigot" or that "siding with a CEO over the vulnerable people working for him" is always wrong or proves something about me in and of itself (i.e. that I am ignorant), I am not likely to continue to engage in the conversation. And I think that's a loss for everyone. It's a loss for me because I don't get to learn from you smart people and it's a loss for you because there's just one more person walking around with a (potentially) limited understanding of that issue.
I would argue the same is true for people who feel gay marriage should be banned. Or who feel that interracial marriage should be outlawed, or who feel that Jewish people should be murdered, or any number of other absolutely horrific, offensive viewpoints. Of COURSE we should take action/make policy to curb the potential consequences of those beliefs. I am not against going to war to fight Hitler or protesting for civil rights. But I am against calling people who believe those things "bad names" or insinuating that they are evil/idiots/fill-in-the-blank. I'm much more interested in understanding why they think those things so that I can - maybe, just maybe - help them take a step toward understanding how *I* think.
It gets rough, because there is a line between wanting to model a certain kind of behavior because it's an effective activist tactic in addition to being just nice and humane and emotionally healthy, and the Andrew Sullivan approach of basically being obsequious to power (while shaming activists who don't live up to his weird standards). It's not always easy to see where that line lies.
kdawg - yep, I could be wrong about the word "bigot" and what it implies. But I did look it up (and posted the M-W definition earlier) and it doesn't seem to fit (from my perspective)?
P.S. For whatever reason, my work computer is blocking that crookedtimber link. I'll have to read later.
FL you're totally right, and I'm sorry for making you feel attacked. I used way too many hot button all-caps words, which is something I always do even though I know it's polarizing and unhelpful. I didn't mean those words to be directed at you personally; I just got mad at some of the things being linked to, and some of the things that were said on your FB comment thread, and I let my big mouth do the talking.
I definitely don't think you are nonsense!! You say a lot of meaningful stuff, and while I agree with Kevin that there is a fine line between trying to model good behavior, and being obsequious to power, I do believe in nonviolence and forgiveness and all that.
I was trying to point out the logical problem with drawing an equivalency between discriminating against a class of people, and holding one individual accountable for his actions.
If you could tell me what is still confusing you about that particular issue I would be happy to explain more. To reiterate, what I'm saying is that being intolerant of someone based on their beliefs is not the same thing as discriminating against a whole class of people based on something innate about them (their biological attributes). Bigotry (or Christianity, or atheism, or Marxism) is a set of beliefs. Beliefs can be changed; beliefs are unique to an individual; we can argue against beliefs; we can say that beliefs are wrong or bad for society. Race or sex or sexuality are a set of biological characteristics. They can't be changed; they aren't unique to an individual; they can't be argued against; we can't say they are wrong or bad for society.
To draw an equivalency between intolerance toward a BELIEF and intolerance toward A TYPE OF HUMAN just doesn't work. For it to work, beliefs would have to be innate biological unchangeable characteristics, and they aren't. I refer again to my analogy about how a Bible College is perfectly within its rights to not hire an atheist; whereas it is not within its rights to not hire a black person who meets all the hiring criteria. The atheist in that scenario is not being "discriminated against," but the black person is.
Furthermore, I'm saying that people who occupy the positions of highest power in a given society actually can not be "discriminated against" in the same sense as people in lower power position are discriminated against. Discrimination is a power issue, wherein power is directed at those with less power. It doesn't work the other way. The white, straight, rich, male CEO of Mozilla simply can not be "discriminated against." He can be persecuted for his beliefs, and we can argue about whether that's okay, but he's not facing discrimination that is "the same as" the systemic discrimination he's working toward enforcing on gay people as a class.
For an analogy: there is no such thing as "reverse racism." Sure, a black person can hate all white people, and that's them being racist sort of, but "racism" describes something so much grander than one person's solitary individual experience. A white person in contemporary America could never experience "racism," and to claim that any individual experience wherein a black person was mean to you is "reverse racism" is ignoring the historical and systemic attributes of real racism. Like as if when a black guy tells me he doesn't date white girls, I have now suffered the equivalent of systemic, multi-generational racism implemented (by the state; by the school system; by hiring practices; by mass media) at every level of my life. This is just not the case; can never be the case.
We can argue about whether or not this one dude should have lost his job, but as soon as that argument turns on the idea that he has been "discriminated against", i.e. that he has faced systemic power oppression akin to when black people in Birmingham had firehoses and police dogs turned on them, well, I just don't think that is compelling. I think if people want to defend Eich's right to be a homophobe and still keep his powerful job, they need to find other rhetoric to support their arguments. Otherwise, people like me, and many social activists of all stripes, are not going to be able to take this defense seriously.
In short, I think that it is dangerous and wrong to conflate "one person suffering for his beliefs" and "an entire class of people suffering for their biological characteristics."
Is this clearer? I am happy to explain more, or if you have an argument with any of this I am happy to argue more.
And again I apologize for being too heavy-handed. It's always been my least attractive attribute and it makes me a shitty activist.
this is also me being nit-picky about one element of this conversation that really bothers me because I find it critically un-nuanced etc. etc. There are a lot of different things to talk about in this scenario/argument and I realize I am perhaps disproportionately focused on this one type of rhetorical device that I've seen deployed on my various conservative friends' FB threads about this situation and situations similar to this one. I really really want to push against allowing the powerful to appropriate the language and concepts of populist protest movements for their own gain, and that's why I've got such a bug up my butt about this.
Do not stop talking, YT! You are such an incredibly smart lady and I want myself and the world to keep hearing you. Three things real quick:
1. I know you well enough to know that you were not attacking me personally. No need to apologize.
2. Thank you so much for your longer explanation. I'm gonna read it and spend time with it (maybe after the work-day is done).
3. One thing I didn't say in my summary is that I also understand that sometimes you (people in general) just get tired of explaining or discussing something that seems really obvious to them, especially when the audience "just isn't getting it" or seems to have some sort of emotional or cognitive block that won't allow them to hear you. This happens with me and my father (I just don't even want to engage in debates with him because, despite the fact that he is/was a very bright man, his arguments are getting pretty stupid as he ages (I just name-called!) and his attitude in those debates makes them unpleasant). Anyway, I don't mean to imply that that is necessarily the dynamic that's happening between you and me, but I totally understand that and don't think you or anyone should feel obligated to engage in discourse if you're not into it (sounds like you're into it, just saying...).
Killer seggy about the Mozilla thing on Colbert last night with special guest Andrew Sullivan. Watch both the Brendan Eich vids here: http://thecolbertreport.cc.com/videos
Ok, I totally get what you're saying. You're absolutely right that those two things are not the same.
I do still think there's a language problem, though. When people say Eich is "being discriminated against," I don't think they actually MEAN it in the sense of Discrimination with a capital D ("that he has faced systemic power oppression").
Maybe they do? Maybe they should be more careful with the words they use (I think this is certainly true). I *think* what they're saying is: "If it's wrong to force someone to resign because he believes in gay marriage (or x, y, z), it is also wrong to force someone to resign because he doesn't believe in gay marriage (or x, y, z)." So the point is that the two are equivalent insomuch as they are both "wrong."
This logic may not make any sense, but that's my understanding of it.
"To draw an equivalency between intolerance toward a BELIEF and intolerance toward A TYPE OF HUMAN just doesn't work."
The Colbert segment shows how even though this "doesn't work," that's how they play it anyways, which was always one of my main points in this thread. Regardless of reason, it's taken as an attack, and feeds their weird victim complex.
Well, what the Colbert segment also illustrates is that it gets played that way because of the efforts of well-funded conservative ideological apparatuses. Which are going to continue to do what they do regardless of how the progressive position is articulated. I don't think it makes sense to worry about giving them ammunition, because they'll invent or manufacture it anyway.
"In reality, what’s transpiring is quintessentially democratic: public discourse leading to voluntary action, all without violence or the suppression of rights.
Some may object to what could be described as the forced democratization of management appointments within private organizations. This assumes a naivety about the accountability of large organizations to the society they operate within and benefit from. You are entitled to run an organization that reflects your values within the bounds of the law. What you are not inherently entitled to is the opportunity to lead an important and visible organization with values and actions that deviate from social norms.
If you want to build an organization that’s capable of changing society, society will change your organization right back. Our society’s norms are gradually changing to reflect the values of social justice. Organizations – public and private – will change in kind, starting with those who choose to lead."
All that said, I still struggle with the idea of advocating for someone's resignation because of his/her private beliefs. I don't know why it's so hard for me. I think there's a big difference between making a private donation to a cause and publicly speaking about/drawing attention to beliefs - but maybe I'm just dead wrong about that. Maybe there's no significant difference. I just feel somehow that it increases peoples' defenses and that this isn't a good thing.
What about Donald Sterling, should he face consequences?
It's true that the conversation gets really partisan and defensive...but that doesn't feel like enough of a justification of the belief that no one should be held accountable for shitty things they say/do/contribute to...I just really feel like this is just a consequence of living together as a society. We are constantly shaping the world we live in by loudly yelling about shit we don't like.
And we aren't talking about some random dude on a street corner; we're talking about THE MOST POWERFUL PEOPLE IN AMERICA. Do we want to advocate for them having to be even less accountable to us plebes than they already are?
truly interested in whether Eich is somehow more sympathetic than Sterling, and if so why.
Currently advertisers are pulling their sponsorships of the Clippers, do you think we should condemn them? Should corporations keep paying money to other corporations whose social politics make them look bad?
This is a weird scenario though because he doesn't hold a fireable/step-downable position, as far as I understand. Not sure what kind of social consequences he could face, but certainly his team losing money due to his statements seems reasonable to me.
What about all the advertisers pulling their ads from Limbaugh's show, and channels deciding to drop his show, due to the consumer-boycott directed at him, is that limiting his free speech?
truly wondering where the lines are felt to be between "voting with dollars," protesting powerful people who represent something we don't want our society to be about, etc., and creepily suppressing/persecuting someone. Maybe you aren't able to clearly articulate where these lines are, which is understandable--I get that you're just feeling creeped out by something that you aren't necessarily able to fully define, and that's fine. Just wondering.
This awful Nazi-sympathizing racist owner of the Reds was banned from managing the team for two years after some Hitler remarks: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marge_Schott
But Sterling isn't a manager. Not sure what kind of penalties the NBA can impose in this case. Hopefully the advertiser/consumer boycott will pressure him to sell the team. Magic Johnson is interested. Maybe Jeff Bezos can buy and move them up to Seattle?
I think I'm slightly more sympathetic to Eich in this case because regardless of his personal politics, he doesn't have a track record of treating his gay employees like shit. Sterling has quite the opposite - a history of treating minorities terribly, both as a slumlord and a team owner.
"you're just feeling creeped out by something that you aren't necessarily able to fully define, and that's fine."
Yeah that.
"I think I'm slightly more sympathetic to Eich in this case because regardless of his personal politics, he doesn't have a track record of treating his gay employees like shit. Sterling has quite the opposite - a history of treating minorities terribly, both as a slumlord and a team owner. "
I feel kind of weird about the Sterling thing right now. Obviously he is a jerk and I disagree with his views and his actions, but is there a specific article in the NBA rules regarding racism? Does anyone believe he is the only racist team owner? What about internalized racism? Should there be a trial to prove that these comments are real? Can anyone who is good at audio impersonations get anyone banned for life from the NBA? What about sexism? Or ageism? Breedism (when people discriminate against pit bulls)? I have a lot of questions...
Ben Jealous's comment was: "There is an inverse relationship between the number of people impacted by an act of racism and the national reaction to it "
He admitted to the NBA that it was him on the tapes.
He's in violation of the NBA owners constitution for damaging the league and there's a procedure for removing owners (he can be removed with a 3/4ths vote from the Board of Governors). The NBA posted their constitution online for the first time ever today for public viewing.
It's not like he owned his own independent business. He's a franchisee.
If a McDonalds franchisee said that he didn't want black people at his restaurant and that became public he wouldn't own a McDonalds for much longer.
Today is a really big day in the history of the NBA.
It sets a VERY STRONG precedent that in this industry money does not absolve awfulness. Also, today was a big day because this situation shifted a lot of power in the NBA away from owners and to the players. If the punishment doled out by the commissioner today was anything less than it was the players were planning on boycotting games and not just the Clippers but all players and all the games and its the playoffs. The commissioner was made aware of this and responded. Very few issues would unite the players so universally. It's a good day. The NBA has always been the leader in integration out of all the sports. First black coach, first black general manager, first black owner, first openly gay player. This certainly doesn't *solve* things systematically but that doesn't in a day and its a good result for this specific situation.
I agree that it's a good thing, but I also agree with Ben Jealous in that wish that society could spend as much time talking about racist/sexist/heterosexist institutions as we do talking about racist/sexist/heterosexist individuals.
Right now Chris Hayes is interviewing Bill Maher about this issue. I don't understand why!
“Defending a position by citing free speech is sort of the ultimate concession; you’re saying that the most compelling thing you can say for your position is that it’s not literally illegal to express.” — xkcd: Free Speech
Comments
I think a lot of Mozilla employees did this incredibly well - expressed themselves online in a really elegant, reasonable way (regardless of whether or not they felt Eich should resign).
I am someone who does not quite understand the "sheer nonsense" of the "false equivalency" argument. But I do think I am a reasonably intelligent, good hearted person who WANTS to understand it, and truly wants what is best and fair for all people on this earth. I admit whole heartedly that I could simply be wrong/not understand what y'all are saying, but I could counter-argue a lot of points you've made (I've decided not to). I think I have a lot to learn from people like you all who post on this thread (which is the reason I moved the conversation here from FB in the first place).
However, if I am told my understanding is "nonsense" or that I'm simply siding with a "hateful bigot" or that "siding with a CEO over the vulnerable people working for him" is always wrong or proves something about me in and of itself (i.e. that I am ignorant), I am not likely to continue to engage in the conversation. And I think that's a loss for everyone. It's a loss for me because I don't get to learn from you smart people and it's a loss for you because there's just one more person walking around with a (potentially) limited understanding of that issue.
I would argue the same is true for people who feel gay marriage should be banned. Or who feel that interracial marriage should be outlawed, or who feel that Jewish people should be murdered, or any number of other absolutely horrific, offensive viewpoints. Of COURSE we should take action/make policy to curb the potential consequences of those beliefs. I am not against going to war to fight Hitler or protesting for civil rights. But I am against calling people who believe those things "bad names" or insinuating that they are evil/idiots/fill-in-the-blank. I'm much more interested in understanding why they think those things so that I can - maybe, just maybe - help them take a step toward understanding how *I* think.
My vibe is that "bigotry" is sometimes the appropriate word; regardless of whether some people will find it polarizing. Something cousin Henry wrote on this topic: http://crookedtimber.org/2014/03/05/principled-bigotry-is-still-you-know-bigotry/
P.S. For whatever reason, my work computer is blocking that crookedtimber link. I'll have to read later.
I definitely don't think you are nonsense!! You say a lot of meaningful stuff, and while I agree with Kevin that there is a fine line between trying to model good behavior, and being obsequious to power, I do believe in nonviolence and forgiveness and all that.
I was trying to point out the logical problem with drawing an equivalency between discriminating against a class of people, and holding one individual accountable for his actions.
If you could tell me what is still confusing you about that particular issue I would be happy to explain more. To reiterate, what I'm saying is that being intolerant of someone based on their beliefs is not the same thing as discriminating against a whole class of people based on something innate about them (their biological attributes). Bigotry (or Christianity, or atheism, or Marxism) is a set of beliefs. Beliefs can be changed; beliefs are unique to an individual; we can argue against beliefs; we can say that beliefs are wrong or bad for society. Race or sex or sexuality are a set of biological characteristics. They can't be changed; they aren't unique to an individual; they can't be argued against; we can't say they are wrong or bad for society.
To draw an equivalency between intolerance toward a BELIEF and intolerance toward A TYPE OF HUMAN just doesn't work. For it to work, beliefs would have to be innate biological unchangeable characteristics, and they aren't. I refer again to my analogy about how a Bible College is perfectly within its rights to not hire an atheist; whereas it is not within its rights to not hire a black person who meets all the hiring criteria. The atheist in that scenario is not being "discriminated against," but the black person is.
Furthermore, I'm saying that people who occupy the positions of highest power in a given society actually can not be "discriminated against" in the same sense as people in lower power position are discriminated against. Discrimination is a power issue, wherein power is directed at those with less power. It doesn't work the other way. The white, straight, rich, male CEO of Mozilla simply can not be "discriminated against." He can be persecuted for his beliefs, and we can argue about whether that's okay, but he's not facing discrimination that is "the same as" the systemic discrimination he's working toward enforcing on gay people as a class.
For an analogy: there is no such thing as "reverse racism." Sure, a black person can hate all white people, and that's them being racist sort of, but "racism" describes something so much grander than one person's solitary individual experience. A white person in contemporary America could never experience "racism," and to claim that any individual experience wherein a black person was mean to you is "reverse racism" is ignoring the historical and systemic attributes of real racism. Like as if when a black guy tells me he doesn't date white girls, I have now suffered the equivalent of systemic, multi-generational racism implemented (by the state; by the school system; by hiring practices; by mass media) at every level of my life. This is just not the case; can never be the case.
We can argue about whether or not this one dude should have lost his job, but as soon as that argument turns on the idea that he has been "discriminated against", i.e. that he has faced systemic power oppression akin to when black people in Birmingham had firehoses and police dogs turned on them, well, I just don't think that is compelling. I think if people want to defend Eich's right to be a homophobe and still keep his powerful job, they need to find other rhetoric to support their arguments. Otherwise, people like me, and many social activists of all stripes, are not going to be able to take this defense seriously.
In short, I think that it is dangerous and wrong to conflate "one person suffering for his beliefs" and "an entire class of people suffering for their biological characteristics."
Is this clearer? I am happy to explain more, or if you have an argument with any of this I am happy to argue more.
And again I apologize for being too heavy-handed. It's always been my least attractive attribute and it makes me a shitty activist.
1. I know you well enough to know that you were not attacking me personally. No need to apologize.
2. Thank you so much for your longer explanation. I'm gonna read it and spend time with it (maybe after the work-day is done).
3. One thing I didn't say in my summary is that I also understand that sometimes you (people in general) just get tired of explaining or discussing something that seems really obvious to them, especially when the audience "just isn't getting it" or seems to have some sort of emotional or cognitive block that won't allow them to hear you. This happens with me and my father (I just don't even want to engage in debates with him because, despite the fact that he is/was a very bright man, his arguments are getting pretty stupid as he ages (I just name-called!) and his attitude in those debates makes them unpleasant). Anyway, I don't mean to imply that that is necessarily the dynamic that's happening between you and me, but I totally understand that and don't think you or anyone should feel obligated to engage in discourse if you're not into it (sounds like you're into it, just saying...).
I do still think there's a language problem, though. When people say Eich is "being discriminated against," I don't think they actually MEAN it in the sense of Discrimination with a capital D ("that he has faced systemic power oppression").
Maybe they do? Maybe they should be more careful with the words they use (I think this is certainly true). I *think* what they're saying is: "If it's wrong to force someone to resign because he believes in gay marriage (or x, y, z), it is also wrong to force someone to resign because he doesn't believe in gay marriage (or x, y, z)." So the point is that the two are equivalent insomuch as they are both "wrong."
This logic may not make any sense, but that's my understanding of it.
The Colbert segment shows how even though this "doesn't work," that's how they play it anyways, which was always one of my main points in this thread. Regardless of reason, it's taken as an attack, and feeds their weird victim complex.
would impeaching this mayor be equally upsetting to the Eich defenders, do you think? I'm interested to know/find out.
QUINTESSENTIALLY DEMOCRATIC
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/blogs/taibblog/sarah-palins-impressively-incoherent-duck-dynasty-comments-20131219
"In reality, what’s transpiring is quintessentially democratic: public discourse leading to voluntary action, all without violence or the suppression of rights.
Some may object to what could be described as the forced democratization of management appointments within private organizations. This assumes a naivety about the accountability of large organizations to the society they operate within and benefit from. You are entitled to run an organization that reflects your values within the bounds of the law. What you are not inherently entitled to is the opportunity to lead an important and visible organization with values and actions that deviate from social norms.
If you want to build an organization that’s capable of changing society, society will change your organization right back. Our society’s norms are gradually changing to reflect the values of social justice. Organizations – public and private – will change in kind, starting with those who choose to lead."
All that said, I still struggle with the idea of advocating for someone's resignation because of his/her private beliefs. I don't know why it's so hard for me. I think there's a big difference between making a private donation to a cause and publicly speaking about/drawing attention to beliefs - but maybe I'm just dead wrong about that. Maybe there's no significant difference. I just feel somehow that it increases peoples' defenses and that this isn't a good thing.
It's true that the conversation gets really partisan and defensive...but that doesn't feel like enough of a justification of the belief that no one should be held accountable for shitty things they say/do/contribute to...I just really feel like this is just a consequence of living together as a society. We are constantly shaping the world we live in by loudly yelling about shit we don't like.
And we aren't talking about some random dude on a street corner; we're talking about THE MOST POWERFUL PEOPLE IN AMERICA. Do we want to advocate for them having to be even less accountable to us plebes than they already are?
i dunno
Currently advertisers are pulling their sponsorships of the Clippers, do you think we should condemn them? Should corporations keep paying money to other corporations whose social politics make them look bad?
This is a weird scenario though because he doesn't hold a fireable/step-downable position, as far as I understand. Not sure what kind of social consequences he could face, but certainly his team losing money due to his statements seems reasonable to me.
What about all the advertisers pulling their ads from Limbaugh's show, and channels deciding to drop his show, due to the consumer-boycott directed at him, is that limiting his free speech?
truly wondering where the lines are felt to be between "voting with dollars," protesting powerful people who represent something we don't want our society to be about, etc., and creepily suppressing/persecuting someone. Maybe you aren't able to clearly articulate where these lines are, which is understandable--I get that you're just feeling creeped out by something that you aren't necessarily able to fully define, and that's fine. Just wondering.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marge_Schott
But Sterling isn't a manager. Not sure what kind of penalties the NBA can impose in this case. Hopefully the advertiser/consumer boycott will pressure him to sell the team. Magic Johnson is interested. Maybe Jeff Bezos can buy and move them up to Seattle?
Yeah that.
"I think I'm slightly more sympathetic to Eich in this case because regardless of his personal politics, he doesn't have a track record of treating his gay employees like shit. Sterling has quite the opposite - a history of treating minorities terribly, both as a slumlord and a team owner. "
Also that.
Feels like we're really at a turning point here.
I have a lot of questions...
He's in violation of the NBA owners constitution for damaging the league and there's a procedure for removing owners (he can be removed with a 3/4ths vote from the Board of Governors). The NBA posted their constitution online for the first time ever today for public viewing.
It's not like he owned his own independent business.
He's a franchisee.
If a McDonalds franchisee said that he didn't want black people at his restaurant and that became public he wouldn't own a McDonalds for much longer.
It sets a VERY STRONG precedent that in this industry money does not absolve awfulness.
Also, today was a big day because this situation shifted a lot of power in the NBA away from owners and to the players.
If the punishment doled out by the commissioner today was anything less than it was the players were planning on boycotting games and not just the Clippers but all players and all the games and its the playoffs. The commissioner was made aware of this and responded. Very few issues would unite the players so universally. It's a good day. The NBA has always been the leader in integration out of all the sports. First black coach, first black general manager, first black owner, first openly gay player. This certainly doesn't *solve* things systematically but that doesn't in a day and its a good result for this specific situation.
Right now Chris Hayes is interviewing Bill Maher about this issue. I don't understand why!
— xkcd: Free Speech