> And here we go. Now voting for a presidential candidate who is the actual president of the US is something that one should be, if things were fair, "penalized" for but unfairly is not.

And here you go, suggesting US voters have nothing to do with the policies of those they voted for. It's not like, "Draconian literal-definition-of-genocide-camps" wast no on the guy's agenda.

> NYT just published a big article about DSA (of which many rank members readily admit they're actually communists but avoid the word for tactical reasons).

I'm sorry, but are we doing a thing where we asymmetrically pick hypotheticals in a political party that would be considered "centrist" via their policy positions in any other developed nation in the world outside of Russia? Okay, well then the Republican party is strictly fascist because there are fascists there, that's why they brought a nazi?

Not very fair, is it? But nice try.

> that they are closet conservatives who ignore these for reasons of their bigotry - but because the press does not want to appear non-PC by criticizing non-western countries and thus opening themselves to (baseless, but still effective) accusations of racism, imperialism and colonialism.

Most of the press is reporting these human rights abuses. "Oh how colonial of you," is a hyper-conservative caricature meant to quash discourse.

But what American conservatives refuse to own is the human rights abuses that occur in their own country. That it is legal to traffick and marry children if you fill out a specific religious declaration form for them in many states, for example. Or if you do, they simply deny affiliation while continuing to defend those rights under the first amendment axioms.

> Except for those who disagree with us - you seem to feel free to completely dismiss and devalue their experience, and there's no problem with silencing and excluding them, with being condescending and dismissive over their experience.

Unlike you, sms42, I've actually had an extensive conversation with Eich on this website about this very topic. It's ridiculous for you to accuse me of not hearing him. My conversation here with him is a matter of public record.

> Eich wasn't "forced to defend" his decisions - he never got a chance to defend anything, he was just silenced and hounded out.

He did actually get plenty of chances to talk. He declined to do so. He was not silenced. Quite the contrary, he did an admirable thing shutting up and resigning, and fulfilled his fiduciary duty as the CEO with grace. In this, I tip my hat to him. The CEO has one job before all others: don't be a PR titanic. He recognized he had failed at this job and left with grace.

His subsequent statements on why he supported Prop 8 suggest he hasn't really changed his opinion and he still believes LGBT+ people aren't really people, because his religious views override their rights.

> If you say "I am ready to be civil, but only if nobody ever disagrees with me and rubs me the wrong way", it's useless

Ah yes, that facile and tired metaphor: "Treating you as less than human is just your feels, snowflake. Why you gotta be so angry (about my systematic removal and denial of your rights)."

> It's the conflict is where you can see if you mean it. And if you think a particular political point is too important to be civil - ok, fine, I get it - but then please stop preaching civility at the same time.

Quite the contrary, I'm not saying anyone should be civil. I think they should leave the project. They're clearly not wanted as they are.

> And then don't be surprised when people on the other side find somebody who does the same - e.g. Trump - and elect him the president.

There's a world of difference you will never acknowledge between, "Now you have to answer to your peers for your decision, and it may cost you slightly if you won't at least apologize" and "Now I am going to set the resources of the most powerful nation in human history against you, dehumanizing you and systematically terrorizing you."

The fact that you can't see the magnitudes of difference says one of two things to me. Option 1, You truly believe this, and simply don't (or can't) have any conception of how bad the current administration is for some people. Option 2, you do know and this entire thread about civility is performative. Feel free to answer the implied question, or not. 𐑲 𐑢𐑴𐑯𐑑 𐑳𐑯𐑛𐑻𐑕𐑑𐑩𐑯𐑛 𐑿 𐑨𐑯𐑰𐑥𐑹 𐑞𐑩𐑯 𐑿𐑤 𐑳𐑯𐑛𐑻𐑕𐑑𐑩𐑯𐑛 𐑞𐑦𐑟.