161–170 of 194 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That is horseshit. When somebody works to take away your civil rights, a desire for tolerance does not require you to politely say, "Oh, gosh, you go on ahead and oppress us then." An open mind isn't an empty mind.
How is a guy who created javascript singlehandedly that powers the web working to take away your freedom :)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Then I guess we are lucky to know exactly what Prop 8 stood for and we also know he donated a substantial amount of money to it. Prop 8 was about specifically banning gay marriage. A blanket ban. It wasn’t about changing the implementation or any such nonsense. Your argument makes no sense in light of that.
Actually, the purpose of Prop 8 was to insert the following into the state constitution: "only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California" It doesn't ban gay marriage. It does explicitly assert that only traditional marriage is legally recognized.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Net Applications numbers are far more accurate than the 3 in the table above.
"Net Applications numbers are far more accurate than the 3 in the table above." This strikes me as curious, as I don't know of any popular websites who would agree with that statement, since their own traffic more closely matches that of the wikipedia numbers. Can you explain why you'd make that claim?
And I say this as someone with my own large tech-focused site (over 2m visitors a month) which sees about a 40-34-17-3 split for Chrome-Firefox-IE-Opera.
There's been some progress, though, as at least we have fewer clueless people citing W3Schools' stats these days.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Net Applications is. It’s right there in the Wikipedia article you are linking to. Net Applications measure unique visits and do country level weighing of data. The article is also quoting Net Application’s desktop numbers. That might explain the difference, at least partly. Overall I would argue that the statement in the article, while accurate, can be misleading. It should probably include mobile usage numbers (tho…
Thanks, I didn't see that on the Wikipedia page. Still, while I know it's not good to say "data" and "gut feel" in the same sentence, I just have a very hard time believing that IE usage is trending upward while Chrome is trending down. It just doesn't add up.
Sidebar: I find IE 11 pretty usable these days -- give it a try if you're open minded. You might be surprised =)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Key word: usually. If there is a reasonable way to reconcile opposition to gay marriage with acceptance of gays, then we ought to give the opponents the benefit of the doubt before ostracizing them. And I'm pretty sure there is such a way.
Essentially, there isn't. There are gays living and loving now, who are being discriminated against now. This effect that the affected are feeling now does not go away by giving anyone a benefit of the doubt. If we need time to sort out how exactly to handle this whole marriage business, it still is inacceptable to just keep discriminating until a consensus has been found. "I accept gays but I still do treat them dif…
It's not discrimination to have a custom specific to celebrating the relationship between a man and a woman, which is what marriage has been in our culture until now. Indeed, even in past cultures in which homosexuality was considered completely normal and wasn't discriminated against at all, such as ancient Rome, marriage was considered a heterosexual custom and gays didn't want to take part in it any more than Christians feel excluded from Bar Mitzvah, for lack of a better comparison.
And if that seems too distant an example, then how about the 1980s? Some of the earliest gay marriage advocates (was it Andrew Sullivan? I'm not sure) were met with criticism in the gay community itself, because some of its members didn't like the idea and considered it contrary to their identity. It is all a matter mindset and I feel like it's a legitimate cultural dilemma - not an issue of equality.
I can empathize with people who are attached to the traditional definition of marriage and its symbolism. I don't think you have to carry any ill-feelings towards gays in order to want preserve it and I think it's the case for a significant proportion of gay marriage opponents.
This point of view seems quite obvious to me and it's unfortunate that almost no gay marriage supporters recognize it, as it causes unnecessary polarization of the debate. It is a disservice to both the LGBT community, who feel more threatened than they should, and to some of the defenders of traditional marriage, who are undeservedly labelled bigots, ostracized, and even - as in the instance of Brendan Eich - disenfranchised for their cultural/religious beliefs.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
As a conservative-ish person in tech, I'm glad I made the decision to hide my politics beginning a few years ago. You people are vicious. I'd love to have an open debate or conversation, but that doesn't seem to be your game. Our culture is in middle of making unprecedented changes to a core social institution that goes back into prehistory. It's going to be a messy process and some people are going to disagree. That…
> Personally, I raise an eyebrow when a six year old boy raised by adoptive lesbians decides he is transexual, and I feel like society may be failing that boy. This is a near perfect instance of xkcd's girls suck at math[1]. Shitty parents are tragically common, and we are failing children who are victims. But when a heterosexual couple destroys a child's life, we don't start talking about taking kids away from heter…
We should call the campaign for gay marriage exactly what it is, a single-issue campaign for gay marriage, and not a campaign for marriage equality.
It is clearly wrong to talk about civil rights and human rights when the campaign clearly excludes minority groups who don't fit into the two person heterosexual/homosexual category.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
As a conservative-ish person in tech, I'm glad I made the decision to hide my politics beginning a few years ago. You people are vicious. I'd love to have an open debate or conversation, but that doesn't seem to be your game. Our culture is in middle of making unprecedented changes to a core social institution that goes back into prehistory. It's going to be a messy process and some people are going to disagree. That…
As a conservativeish person on HN, I have to say that pushing to deny a legal arrangement to gay couples is different than being skeptical about their impact on society. Rant: Also, I'm irritated that this is the "conservative" position. Our culture is doing away with the institution of marriage, and its to the detriment of our children and our families. In the face of that, conservatives should not be in the busines…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Just out of curiousity would you say that voting for Prop 8 would have been equally politically toxic? Since that would eliminate 52% of Californian voters from 2008. I recognize that a donation is different than a vote, but I want to understand the mindset here. Can you really say that a political opinion that was apparently held by over half of the states voters at the time can disqualify someone from leading a com…
Just to nitpick a bit, voter turnout was nowhere near 100% in 2008, so no, we can't say that 52% of Californians were toxic in 2008 (not counting LA obviously). The types of donations that went into the pro Prop 8 campaign helped fuel a marketing effort intended to stir up emotions among the anti-gay crowd. That was pretty toxic. The idea of explicitly enshrining our collective dislike of gay people is also just pret…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Just out of curiousity would you say that voting for Prop 8 would have been equally politically toxic? Since that would eliminate 52% of Californian voters from 2008. I recognize that a donation is different than a vote, but I want to understand the mindset here. Can you really say that a political opinion that was apparently held by over half of the states voters at the time can disqualify someone from leading a com…
You kind of answer your own question here. Putting money behind an issue amplifies both your voice and the cause's well above and beyond the one-person-one-vote voice everyone gets (or is supposed to get). Everyone does not have an equal ability to contribute to political causes, so those with more ability have more power than those who don't. And of course there's the fact that in modern democracy your vote is consi…
As for the rest, are you saying the difference is because its public? So hypothetically, supporting prop8 privately would be different and more acceptable than supporting it publicly? Or its not acceptable but he just wouldn't be getting lynched for it?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What about a relatively small donation to the KKK or a neo-Nazi party? The issue isn't the size of the donation but taking a public stance in support of bigotry.
http://www.cnn.com/2013/06/25/politics/supreme-court-preview... President Barack Obama once believed marriage only was for one man and one woman. Was Obama once a supporter of the KKK? Do you people seriously not realize that gay "marriage" has been concocted into a moral imperative only very recently by the media? And that just a few years ago, not only was opposing it not bigotry , but being in support of it was co…