OkCupid urges users to abandon Firefox • Hacker News Board

Re: OkCupid urges users to abandon Firefox

#301

Post by pbhjpbhj » Tue, Apr 01, 2014, 12:51 AM UTC

MichaelGG wrote: post #250

tasty_freeze wrote: post #203

Let's pick a different hot button issue. Say Eich contributed to a pro or anti gun control measure. Hell, as far as I know, he has. How many of you, who are as intensely interested in gun control/rights as people are over gay/anti-gay marriage rights, would be demanding that he step down? And if you say you would, there are hundreds of corporations actually in that position (either for or against) with whom you are p…

Reducing it to a "hot button issue" is invalid. As far as human rights goes, there's no rational way to arrive at same-sex marriages not being allowed, if heterosex marriages are. Whereas in the US, gun ownership is enshrined in the constitution, so even if gun ownership was a major net negative, it'd still be an issue. Just like in some countries, complete bank secrecy is a constitutional issue, so even giving the l…

>there's no rational way to arrive at same-sex marriages not being allowed, if heterosex marriages are //

There are plenty of rational ways to do that. I'm guessing you'd primarily disagree with the axioms on which they're founded.

How about "state recognition of marriage is primarily about supporting the family unit as the nucleus of society - as same-sex union can't create children, long-term partnerships engendering opposite-sex union are to be promoted in order create a general impetus towards stable home environments for child rearing and raising". That seems rational; disregarding verity do you disagree it's rational?

If you argue against this definition then to my mind you come to define a new relationship, let's call it civil-union. In civil-union there seems no logical reason to exclude same-family, or multiple-person unions. I can't see how you can say "the definition of marriage as the union of a man and woman [who're not closely related]" is wrong because it limits marriage to a particular historical/tradition form and then come up with a new definition to foist on people that excludes groups (families, polyamorous, etc.) for arbitrary reasons that don't even have the support of history or tradition [or theology].

>Probably the closest modern issue is [...] //

So are you saying if a CEO of a company believed euthanasia to be wrong you'd stop using that companies products?

Re: OkCupid urges users to abandon Firefox

#302

Post by vacri » Tue, Apr 01, 2014, 12:58 AM UTC

ronaldx wrote: post #285

vacri wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Conversely, hurting Mozilla is not just hurting Eich, but hurting all the other people who work there, including the very people that OKC is defending. So despite Eich's personal politics, Mozilla is a place where healthcare is extended to transexuals, and staffers have come out in support of Mozilla org's friendliness to non-straight sexualities, even though they don't support Eich's personal view. http://subfiction…

As an international viewer, this is difficult to understand. Employment discrimination on the grounds of sexuality is illegal here. By saying that they offer healthcare equally to gay employees[0], Mozilla seem to be doing what would here be considered a minimum. Is that really considered good in the US? To me personally, this comes across as a very weak statement that actually makes me more concerned. It sort of rea…

At the end of your first distress link, one of the distressed employees says: To be clear, @mozilla's culture of openness and inclusion is nothing short of amazing. I just feel that this CEO appt does not match that.

Directly following that is "In a post on his blog, Eich writes, “I am committed to ensuring that Mozilla is, and will remain, a place that includes and supports everyone, regardless of sexual orientation, gender identity, age, race, ethnicity, economic status, or religion”. Whatever his current personal beliefs, he has pledged that Mozilla will be that environment. At this point he is actually doing what the detractors are asking of him: making a positive contribution to counter a previous negative one.

Your second link on distress has At every turn, I have been heartened by the degree of passion and care that have been apparent as colleague after colleague steps forward to express nuanced opinions, and by the commitment to equality and fairness that runs through the group like the stitches in the binding of a book. and And as much as I’d rather not see a boycott of everything Mozilla does (which, it seems, most people still think of as “Firefox”) based on the actions of a single person affiliated with the organization, I am completely psyched to see this many people this angry in defense of civil rights.

These are people annoyed with a CEO, but who are very positive about Mozilla's culture. They are nuanced opinions that aren't the oversimplified "crucify the company because the new CEO made a donation half a decade ago". They take pains to separate the private behaviour of the CEO and the culture of Mozilla.

Those links are saying the same thing my link did: Not particularly happy with the personal beliefs of the CEO, but very happy with the environment at Mozilla. It's the knee-jerk politics that talks of the ascendence of the new CEO being matched up with a new culture at Mozilla where gays are oppressed by jackboots. I've worked in places before where the CEO was not looked on kindly by the staff, yet we still did good things.

Regarding healthcare in the US, I'm not too familiar with it, but different workplaces have different levels and coverage of healthcare, and healthcare is a significant perk of a job. When our Australian company first reached out to make an SF office, our recruiters were initially puzzled at the importance that the locals put on healthcare as part of their remuneration package. Healthcare is another fiery topic though, and best left to a different thread :)

Re: OkCupid urges users to abandon Firefox

#303

Post by jrs99 » Tue, Apr 01, 2014, 1:06 AM UTC

pbhjpbhj wrote: post #268

jrs99 wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

it's EXTREMELY bizarre that they would not have seriously thought of it. Unless they all share the same opinions as Eich and they feel that being against gay marriage is like being against anchovies on your pizza. Then it would never have hit them that this was a serious problem.

Is it right to not employ someone because of their legally held beliefs with regard to sexual behaviour? Is HN [amongst others] calling for all people who disagree with legislation on homosexual relationships being called marriage to forfeit their rights to employment; or perhaps all those that consider homosexual sexual activity to be wrong? That seems like the logical conclusion here. Is this going to be continued…

This is more of an opinion about what is best for Mozilla's image in the public eye, not about anyone's right to have a job.

You can without a doubt hire a murderer as your CEO. It will always be my opinion that you should at least think very hard about doing so before you make the final decision.

If you run for president and you're a satan worshipper, then it would be my opinion that you will lose. If you own a cookie company and want to hire a murderer as a CEO, it would simply be my opinion that you may lose sales. If you don't care about my opinion, or don't care about sales, and go ahead and hire a murderer as CEO, then that's perfectly fine. At the end of the day, it's really up to you.

But if someone out there wants to organize a boycott because the CEO isn't a vegan, that's also fine.

Re: OkCupid urges users to abandon Firefox

#304

Post by hajile » Tue, Apr 01, 2014, 1:06 AM UTC

scarmig wrote: post #204

intslack wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

More likely his (assumed) belief that marriage can only be between a man and a woman stems from ignorance and his religion instead of bigotry or hate. And while that doesn't negate the harm that his donation caused: please stop comparing him to racists. You don't know Brendan, I don't know Brendan, nobody in previous threads comparing him to fucking racists or the Nazis knows Brendan. It's disgusting, please stop. >S…

Opposing gay marriage [1] is a sign of bigotry and hate, by that fact alone. It's akin to excusing white supremacists in the 1950's for segregating blacks and whites and underfunding black schools because their opinions were religiously motivated (and most claimed a religion as one of the reasons--children of Ham, and all that) and because they ignorantly believed blacks were inherently intellectually inferior. Nope,…

Opposing gay marriage isn't always linked to bigotry.

I oppose ALL state-sanctioned unions because I don't believe it's the state's business to say who can and cannot be in an official relationship (hetero, homo, or all the poly/group unions). As long as the people consent, why does the state need to approve?

Considering marriage is a non-binding contract (no fault divorce), the contract isn't worth the paper it's printed on (even prenups are overruled with alarming frequency).

From the state's perspective, what does approving marriage offer? It offers monitoring and control (and a religious position), but almost nothing else. Child guardianship is already a non-marital issue. Last will and testaments along with living wills (if enforced properly) deal with most legal issues pertaining to marriage. Minor modifications to tax law deals with the rest.

If someone wants to be married, they should go to their local church, mosque, synagogue, or whatever. If they want legal protection, have a will and they should sign the proper docs (even married persons should do this). If they want a binding contract, they should contact a lawyer and get one (just as they would with a prenup if they want something semi-binding).

Re: OkCupid urges users to abandon Firefox

#305

Post by Einstalbert » Tue, Apr 01, 2014, 1:15 AM UTC

gojomo wrote: post #78

And if this doesn't work, eventually when you try to message a Catholic, Mormon, Muslim, or other religiously-observant person from a denomination whose leaders publicly disapprove of homosexuality, you'll see a message from OKCupid like: Religion isn't normally the business of a website. But you've expressed an interest in dating someone whose religion denies equal rights to gay people. Sure, this person may seem OK…

OKCupid, for people without those overbearing, quietly judgmental matchmaking aunts, friends of parents, co-workers, etc.

Re: OkCupid urges users to abandon Firefox

#306

Post by gdilla » Tue, Apr 01, 2014, 1:16 AM UTC

intslack wrote: post #214

scarmig wrote: post #204

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Opposing gay marriage [1] is a sign of bigotry and hate, by that fact alone. It's akin to excusing white supremacists in the 1950's for segregating blacks and whites and underfunding black schools because their opinions were religiously motivated (and most claimed a religion as one of the reasons--children of Ham, and all that) and because they ignorantly believed blacks were inherently intellectually inferior. Nope,…

>Opposing gay marriage is a sign of bigotry and hate, by that fact alone. No, it is not. One can actually have empathy with gays and believe that marriage can only be between a man and a woman. I don't agree with those beliefs, but I'm speaking from experience that there are many people who believe that marriage has a very religious connotation. Can you please cite a single interaction in which Brendan has looked dow…

Maybe marriage certainly is between a man and a women within THEIR RELIGIOUS point of view. And that's fine. Their church can be as exclusionary as they want to be. But the US government shouldn't be exclusionary. Marriage in the US affords civil rights and distinctions (inheritance, consent, taxes) that should simply be equal for all citizens. Your religion and their obsolete views of things makes no difference. Who cares if your church or temple won't do a gay ceremony.

Re: OkCupid urges users to abandon Firefox

#307

Post by jrs99 » Tue, Apr 01, 2014, 1:17 AM UTC

MichaelGG wrote: post #257

jrs99 wrote: post #240

Earlier quoted context omitted.

i didn't mean it would be done easily. I meant that I could easily see it happening. It would definitely be hard. I actually love JavaScript. But I could easily imagine someone who has something against Brendan Eich start their own browser without javascript. And I can imagine it becoming viral, too.

The JVM, the CLR, Flash, NaCL -- all of these already exist with browser implementations yet are having traction issues. On top of that, it is unlikely Eich controls JS to the same level as FF, so it'd be a mostly pointless gesture. It'd be like finding out John McCarthy was a vile person, and abandoning all LISP-like languages.

it's a little stronger than that, in my opinion.

I think it would be like finding out if the CEO of Microsoft didn't want blacks to be able to get married. Would you expect blacks to continue using Windows?

Imagine you were gay. Would you want to use Firefox and JavaScript? I'm a big fan of JS. I'm straight and it's somewhat distasteful to me now. If I were gay, I think that feeling would be very strong.

Re: OkCupid urges users to abandon Firefox

#308

Post by [deleted] » Tue, Apr 01, 2014, 1:18 AM UTC

frozenport wrote: post #247

sentenza wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wait. The guy is also the inventor of Javascript. Shouldn't everybody be boycotting that? I mean it has a lot more to do with him than Firefox does. After all, he's the CEO of Mozilla Corporation (not the Foundation), which is only indirectly connected to Firefox, but he _invented_ Javascript! What am I missing here?

Have you ever tried to program in JavaScript? It doesn't have classes but the syntax looks similar: this is actually a pointer to that . null == false // false !null // true He should be exiled for inventing JS. </joke?

[deleted]

Re: OkCupid urges users to abandon Firefox

#309

Post by gdilla » Tue, Apr 01, 2014, 1:19 AM UTC

intslack wrote: post #271

zorpner wrote: post #248

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fortunately for us, we have the opportunity to form our opinion of him by the actions he takes rather than the words he uses.

Again: Believing that marriage can only be between a man and a woman, because marriage has a religious connotation to them, is not bigotry. It's a stupid fucking belief, and it leads to seperate but equal bullshit, but it's not homophobic on its own.

Except all marriages are civil marriages - and the government has to treat all equally. that is all. Your church, temple, or mosque can be as exclusionary and ignorant as they want to be. that's fine, and protected free speech. But the government shouldn't give rights to some and not all (inheritance, consent, tax breaks etc).

Re: OkCupid urges users to abandon Firefox

#310

Post by MichaelDickens » Tue, Apr 01, 2014, 1:22 AM UTC

zorpner wrote: post #210

sliverstorm wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So it's ok only when done to the people you don't like.

If you're accusing him of "not liking" bigots, you're probably correct. Why, specifically, is it okay for Eich to fund the oppression of homosexuals and not okay for people to say that they find that upsetting and therefore would prefer not to use or serve products he's associated with? What level would his bigotry have to ascend to before people were no longer obligated to use these products or, at least, not tell a…

Nobody's obligated to use Firefox. The problems arise when a business like OKCupid starts publicly dissuading its users from using Firefox.