The oppressed have already won? No, I don't think so. I do not see any reality to a claim that the gay community is not actively oppressed. Perhaps you mean the gay community is sufficiently less oppressed that it should stop defending itself. Then how few lives need to be ruined for that qualification to take effect?
I mean that prop 8, the thing Eich supported, was overruled. Anti-gay marriage laws are being overturned across the country.
No, not every injustice has been thwarted. But Eich isn't responsible for every injustice, just the one he participated in. He is not, to my knowledge, actively oppressing anyone today.
I asked someone else this elsewhere in this topic and I'll ask you the same: What is the victory here? What does this change, positively for the cause of equality?
And I ask again, how did Mandela treat his opponents after his cause was won, and why do we not strive for those standards?
I mean that prop 8, the thing Eich supported, was overruled. Anti-gay marriage laws are being overturned across the country.
That's precisely a definition of "sufficiently". The group is still oppressed, so there has been no victory. Your argument is that the group is winning and should therefore stop fighting.
Eich isn't responsible for every injustice, just the one he participated in. He is not, to my knowledge, actively oppressing anyone today.
Eich is a member of the group of oppressors. He had an opportunity (yesterday) to claim his role with that group was a mistake - he refused to state that. Therefore he is actively oppressing the group. If he had believed he had made a mistake and believably made that declaration, there is a very strong probability that the oppressed group would have accepted his admission and he would have kept his privilege. This happens all the time with public figures - even those whose admission of a mistake are questionably believable.
I asked someone else this elsewhere in this topic and I'll ask you the same: What is the victory here? What does this change, positively for the cause of equality?
The victory is the message to all others: if you oppress people, those people will defend themselves and you may suffer a lose of privilege. It is exactly this approach which incentivizes people to question their own beliefs, how and whether those beliefs adversely effect other groups and provides the opportunity for self-growth. If there are never any consequences to oppressing people, no one will ever reassess their oppressive beliefs.
And I ask again, how did Mandela treat his opponents after his cause was won, and why do we not strive for those standards?
Firstly, your comparison is far off mark. Mandela's cause was won - the oppressed were now in a position where they had complete power. That is not the case with an oppressor who recently received the privilege of being appointed CEO and the still-oppressed gay community - in addition, Mandela's situation involved life and death, not privileges. Secondly, I've already stated that sainthood should not be the minimum bar required to avoid being looked down upon. Defense is a perfectly acceptable course of action when you are being attacked. Turning the other cheek should not be the minimally accepted path.
It is certainly a positive victory. This is a wave in the tides of history. If you take away the waves in the guise of "mercy", you end up with no tide. What's sad is that Eich has learned nothing yet. Hopefully he does, or others do.
Mandela did not say "let us show mercy, and extend extra privileges".
The oppressed already did fight back and won. This is putting your enemies on trial afterwards.