A Comment I Posted On “What Would JT Do?”

A reposted comment Scott (a pro-gay atheist who voted against Prop 8) made on JT Eberhard's atheist blog, arguing AGAINST firing Phil Robertson for his anti-gay remarks. The core: constitutional free speech only binds government, but a civil society needs more tolerance than the constitution requires (filled by 'basic human decency'); the right response to a disagreeable idea is counterargument, not punishing or financially ruining the speaker. A norm of punishing opposing views means 'the group with the most money and popularity wins' — and atheists/gays aren't that group yet, so establishing it is neither moral nor self-interested (the mutual-truce / employ-on-merit point). Personal stake: an atheist blogger at a Catholic hospital.

Quality 66 · Strong. A sharp, principled, self-aware argument (it cuts against his own tribe's short-term interest) and an early clear statement of his tolerance ethos that prefigures 'In Favor of Niceness' and the Culture War Thread post. Held in Strong-low by being a brief, topical reposted comment rather than a developed essay.

Claude’s paradigm shift 52 · Moderate. The 'civil society needs more tolerance than the constitution requires; don't establish the punish-dissent norm while you're the weaker group' argument has real freshness, prefiguring his tolerance work. Moderate.

Real-world impact 2 · Minor. A within-discourse argument; no material-world effect. Within-blog influence.