Mozilla's Gay-Marriage Litmus Test Violates Liberal Values • Hacker News Board

Re: Mozilla's Gay-Marriage Litmus Test Violates Liberal Values

#51

Post by briantakita » Fri, Apr 04, 2014, 7:39 PM UTC

Crito wrote: post #35

briantakita wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That was 6 years ago. The majority of Californians supported Prop 8 at that time. Even Barack Obama opposed gay marriage back then. Why aren't we raising the pitchforks against Obama? People change. This is a witch hunt from an action that someone did a long time ago. He didn't even do anything wrong. He just supported a mainstream proposition. He is on the wrong side of history, at that time, sure. But it doesn't de…

You're right, people change. And when people change, they can be forgiven. Frankly all it would have taken to squash this controversy is an apology. I am confident that a quick "People change, I've changed. I understand now that people deserve the same rights and equal protection of the law, regardless of what gender they fancy." would have put this all to rest. An apology is what we would expect from a CEO that was…

He has apologized for causing "pain".

It looks like he does not support gay marriage today. He does support equality.

He holds more conservative viewpoints than most people. He is also a white male in his 50's born in Pittsburgh.

The point is he has his position. It may change. He isn't involved in the LGBT community, so he probably is not exposed to this issue causing pain until now. It wasn't going to affect the policy of equality within Mozilla.

We can treat him with respect & have respectful dialog or we can coerce him to change his mind with public shaming & bullying tactics. I don't think the ends justify the means. Respectful discourse would be more effective and would make all of us better.

---

Downvoting is censorship. The post moves down and becomes hard to read & otherwise deemphasized. It also discourages further dialog by punishing someone who is expressing their opinion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship

Re: Mozilla's Gay-Marriage Litmus Test Violates Liberal Values

#52

Post by lisper » Fri, Apr 04, 2014, 7:42 PM UTC

sliverstorm wrote: post #43

lisper wrote: post #33

Brendan Eich was not fired because he made a political donation. He was fired because the particular political donation he made is evidence that he is a bigot, that he has a broken moral code . There is not, and never has been, any justification for denying gays the right to marry except prejudice and bigotry. Every single non-religious argument against gay marriage has been definitively debunked. Therefore, discrimi…

It's awfully convenient that his discrimination is immoral , while your discrimination is not only moral but a moral imperative , isn't it?

No, it's not convenient, it's simply a fact. The discrimination against Brendan was based on something that he did. Discrimination against gays is based on something that they are. The former is morally justifiable, the latter is not. It really is that simple.

Re: Mozilla's Gay-Marriage Litmus Test Violates Liberal Values

#53

Post by briantakita » Fri, Apr 04, 2014, 7:42 PM UTC

Crito wrote: post #47

briantakita wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://brendaneich.com/2014/03/inclusiveness-at-mozilla/ He put forth a good-faith effort to promote a position of equality within Mozilla.

That post is neither an apology nor a recant. He does not acknowledge that what he did was wrong. It is nothing more than a tone-deaf defense of himself.

He also apologized for causing pain. He also stepped down. And since when is an agenda of equality a bad thing?

He probably doesn't think his support of the proposition was wrong. I don't either. I'm for Gay Marriage. I'm also for rational public discourse that respects different points of view.

---

Thanks for the downvote. I know it's an emotional subject. Maybe you have a good counterpoint to express? Expression via downvotes it hardly a good point. It's immature, to be honest.

Re: Mozilla's Gay-Marriage Litmus Test Violates Liberal Values

#54

Post by sliverstorm » Fri, Apr 04, 2014, 7:43 PM UTC

lisper wrote: post #52

sliverstorm wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's awfully convenient that his discrimination is immoral , while your discrimination is not only moral but a moral imperative , isn't it?

No, it's not convenient, it's simply a fact. The discrimination against Brendan was based on something that he did . Discrimination against gays is based on something that they are . The former is morally justifiable, the latter is not. It really is that simple.

No, you said he is a bigot, and that is why you advocate discriminating against him.

Let me quote you:

Brendan Eich was not fired because he made a political donation [...] he is a bigot

Re: Mozilla's Gay-Marriage Litmus Test Violates Liberal Values

#55

Post by slantyyz » Fri, Apr 04, 2014, 7:47 PM UTC

mikeash wrote: post #17

sliverstorm wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The main thing that needs to be done, is the public needs to learn & adjust its behavior. This is a sociopolitical problem, and I think it needs to be fixed by those means. Either through adjusting norms of socially accepted behavior (i.e. don't crucify someone for what they did 10 years ago) or through strong leadership from political figures/groups.

OK, and how do you do that exactly? Clearly calling people out publicly is not allowed. What's the proper approach for changing the public's behavior?

>> Clearly calling people out publicly is not allowed.

I have a possibly weird/complex take on this whole thing.

I think it was absolutely fine for the public/customers/partners to call out Eich to resign based on his Prop 8 vote.

On the other hand, I have mixed feelings about Mozilla employees calling for his resignation publicly.

Where I live, I think Eich would have a case for workplace harassment against those employees. I don't know what workplace harassment laws are like in the US, but publicly shaming a coworker for something legal they did that you don't morally agree with is usually grounds for some sort of action, regardless of that person's position of power.

Re: Mozilla's Gay-Marriage Litmus Test Violates Liberal Values

#56

Post by plorg » Fri, Apr 04, 2014, 7:51 PM UTC

mikeash wrote: post #6

Here's one thing I've been unable to understand throughout this whole controversy: What are we supposed to do about it? As far as I can tell, this was a completely grassroots thing with no organization, no central control, nothing. It just spontaneously happened . Now, I don't know how important this whole thing is. To me, it looks like an awful lot of fuss over a very little thing. But let's say that it is, in fact,…

Assuming for whatever reason that these things need concrete proposals and takeaways, and that criticism and analysis are not sufficient, maybe the idea is to suggest individual corrections in the readers' responses to things like this. Perhaps to not use the politics of an employee to judge a company unless, maybe, they were outspoken about those politics.

The point seems to be that pronouncing judgment for political expression only ends up making everybody more frustrated with the people with whom they disagree.

As someone who moves in circles heavily dominated by conservative evangelicals, I've been thinking about the parallels between this story and that of World Vision, the evangelical aid and development organization. They recently announced an intention to begin hiring married gay and lesbian people, if the marriages of those people were ordained by their congregations. This was described as a 'neutral' position in that they receive (or at least used to receive) support from quite a variety of churches including Episcopal, UCC, and ELCA congregations which support and conduct gay marriages where legal. But WV received a severe blowback from conservative church leaders and members, many who began withdrawing funding and child sponsorships over the desire to include married gay and lesbian people in their organization. Since the majority of their supporters come from more conservative churches, they decided after only two days to reverse course, lest they would no longer be able to support their core mission: to provide clothes, food, and shelter to those who need it around the world. This in turn disappointed and enraged liberals who had only cautiously supported the decision in the first place.

My point is that enforcing litmus tests, as described in the article, tends to divide people who have otherwise mutual goals to make the world a better place.

Re: Mozilla's Gay-Marriage Litmus Test Violates Liberal Values

#57

Post by briantakita » Fri, Apr 04, 2014, 7:59 PM UTC

npsimons wrote: post #34

briantakita wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That was 6 years ago. The majority of Californians supported Prop 8 at that time. Even Barack Obama opposed gay marriage back then. Why aren't we raising the pitchforks against Obama? People change. This is a witch hunt from an action that someone did a long time ago. He didn't even do anything wrong. He just supported a mainstream proposition. He is on the wrong side of history, at that time, sure. But it doesn't de…

What evidence, besides the popular vote (52%? Wow, that's a big majority /sarcasm), that Prop8 was popular? How about factoring in the ton of money the Utah Mormons threw behind Proposition 8?

It doesn't even have to be the majority to be a mainstream point of view.

I wonder, at what point does someone become a "bad person"?

When they agree with the 50%? 30%? 10%? 5%?

---

I have haters. Yay!

Nothing brings out the haters like the truth ;-)

So I'm going to limit my exposure by using the wonderful edit feature.

---

I agree that oppressive points of view is bad, no matter how overwhelming the majority.

Obviously, a 100% majority won't judge themselves as bad people for taking a position. History is a different judge.

It is also bad to demonize a minority point of view, no matter how small the minority. We should respect people who take a "bad" position.

> It's irrelevant how many people agree with it. 100% can agree with something that is still oppressive.

With a rational discourse, we become more intelligent and can progress further as a civilization. By shaming & other negative actions toward the "bad" people, we become oppressive.

Re: Mozilla's Gay-Marriage Litmus Test Violates Liberal Values

#58

Post by fiter » Fri, Apr 04, 2014, 8:07 PM UTC

crusso wrote: post #30

nailer wrote: post #7

"Does anyone doubt that had a business fired a CEO six years ago for making a political donation against Prop 8, liberals silent during this controversy (or supportive of the resignation) would've argued that contributions have nothing to do with a CEO's ability to do his job?" I also suspect many of the outspoken opponents against devout Christian viewpoints (or exercising those viewpoints - various people have insi…

As a supporter of gay marriage, and somebody who believes spirituality isn't real, this still strikes me as picking on someone Same here. To think that you can't even participate in the political process now without the thought police coming in years later to hold you accountable. And some people wonder why various forms of political groups work so hard to keep their donor lists secret? You can't have an open society…

I don't think it's fair to say "privately held belief." He supported a campaign to change public laws. What society can we have when there are no reasonable limits on how people can judge and prosecute you for your attempts to change public law?

Re: Mozilla's Gay-Marriage Litmus Test Violates Liberal Values

#59

Post by GFK_of_xmaspast » Fri, Apr 04, 2014, 8:08 PM UTC

sliverstorm wrote: post #23

ZanyProgrammer wrote: post #3

Conservatarian disagrees with progressives and concern trolls. News at 11.

He's a self-proclaimed progressive, if I read that article right.

He can proclaim himself to be whatever he likes, but money speaks and a thousand bucks to prop 8 is a pretty regressive act.

Re: Mozilla's Gay-Marriage Litmus Test Violates Liberal Values

#60

Post by mkr-hn » Fri, Apr 04, 2014, 8:09 PM UTC

crazygringo wrote: post #4

You know, the flagging here on HN is starting to get annoying. 30 min ago this was on the front page, now it's at position #91: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7533055 Probably because there are 22 comments for 26 points, which is triggering something (or people are flagging it). Everyone clearly wants to talk about this -- it's getting really annoying that it has to keep jumping threads because of whatever HN's…

Close to 1000 people saw my own article on the subject in the 5 minutes it survived the front page. Enough people to carry on a discussion if they were inclined to do so. I'm not too bothered by it.