Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Torn and weary (on Brendan Eich and Mozilla)

christianheilmann.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 127 posts

Re: Torn and weary (on Brendan Eich and Mozilla)

#71

Post by Fice »

tomelders wrote: post #67
Fice wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Being in opposition to same-sex marriage does not make one a homophobe (even some gays are against it). If Eich did not express any aversion or hatred towards homosexuals, it is not justified to label him as a homophobe.

Some black people are racist towards black people. They're a minority though, so we don't let it muddy our definition of what racism means because that wouldn't be productive. The same holds true here. Homophobic is as homophobic does.

Did I say anything about homosexuals who are also homophobes? My point is that being against same-sex marriage is not necessarily homophobic.

Re: Torn and weary (on Brendan Eich and Mozilla)

#72

Post by yummyfajitas »

dalke wrote: post #66
yummyfajitas wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are absolutely correct that the private sector campaigns against Eich, Orson Scott Card, or Hollywood Communists were not violations of the constitutional amendment. But one can also appeal to a more general principle of free speech, which is ultimately what many people are doing. Scott Alexander has useful thoughts on this topic: http://slatestarcodex.com/2013/12/29/the-spirit-of-the-first... "A good response to…

That's a false equivalence, if only because Kathy Sierra received death threats. A threat of physical violence isn't an argument at all, and free speech doesn't extend to threats of violence. (Eg, http://www.cga.ct.gov/current/pub/chap_952.htm#sec_53a-62 has it as a Class A misdemeanor.) As your own [1] points out, "Robert Scoble ... temporarily suspended their blogs in a show of support for Sierra." By your appeal t…

Suppose Sierra/Scooby received no threats of violence. Suppose the attacks were merely gross sexual depictions of them, broadcasting their private information, and other constitutionally protected acts. Would the attacks on them be acceptable?

I don't chastise Scoble using his blog to express his opinions. Nor have I called for anyone curtailing the freedom of association.

I'm merely calling out the gay activist movement as being a bunch of anti-intellectual jerks who want to suppress speech they dislike and attack their opponents. Kind of like the non-violent people attacking Kathy Sierra, Scooby, or the Hollywood system that created the blacklist.

Re: Torn and weary (on Brendan Eich and Mozilla)

#73

Post by dalke »

tomelders wrote: post #65
Pacabel wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you might be missing the overarching issue here. It isn't so much about the specifics of gay marriage, or Eich's donation, or him losing his job because of his opinions. The real issue is hypocrisy, contradiction and double-standards. We've seen one group (in this case the pro-gay-marriage crowd) act in a way towards others (Eich and the anti-gay-marriage crowd) that the first group would think is absolutely…

When people talk about equality, what they really mean is that people should not be punished, mistreated or excluded because of something they have no control over such as their gender, or skin color. But you seem to think that equality means people can think and do exactly as they please without consequence. > We've seen one group (in this case the pro-gay-marriage crowd) act in a way towards others Who exaclty? Whi…

"what they really mean .. because of something they have no control over"

That's not fully correct. Equality usually extends to religion, and people have some control over which religion and church they belong to. In the US, veteran status is also a protected class, even though membership in the military is voluntary. Others say that single and married employees should be treated the same, even though people have some say over their marriage status.

I think it's not a good idea to focus on the "no control over" aspect in arguments concerning homosexuality since some believe that homosexuals choose to be that way, and because equality doesn't depend only on intrinsic attributes.

Re: Torn and weary (on Brendan Eich and Mozilla)

#74

Post by tzs »

ghfdaghkj wrote: post #34
CrLf wrote: post #16

This whole story is disgusting. I'm still waiting to understand exactly where does a personal opinion on gay rights interfere with the ability to manage a company that basically develops a web browser. Just another witch hunt.

I wouldn't work for Mozilla if he was the CEO. I doubt they care about that specifically , but a lot of other developers probably feel the same. Good luck hiring any gay people. Employees were in revolt, one went on strike, etc.

> good luck hiring any gay people

His donation has been well known for years, and Mozilla has had no apparent problem hiring or keeping gay developers even through he held an executive position and had massive influence there. Given that, and the fact that there have been gay Mozilla employees who supported his appointment to CEO, it seems unlikely that Mozilla would no longer be able to attract gay people.

Re: Torn and weary (on Brendan Eich and Mozilla)

#75

Post by dalke »

yummyfajitas wrote: post #72
dalke wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's a false equivalence, if only because Kathy Sierra received death threats. A threat of physical violence isn't an argument at all, and free speech doesn't extend to threats of violence. (Eg, http://www.cga.ct.gov/current/pub/chap_952.htm#sec_53a-62 has it as a Class A misdemeanor.) As your own [1] points out, "Robert Scoble ... temporarily suspended their blogs in a show of support for Sierra." By your appeal t…

Suppose Sierra/Scooby received no threats of violence. Suppose the attacks were merely gross sexual depictions of them, broadcasting their private information, and other constitutionally protected acts. Would the attacks on them be acceptable? I don't chastise Scoble using his blog to express his opinions. Nor have I called for anyone curtailing the freedom of association. I'm merely calling out the gay activist move…

"Suppose Sierra/Scooby received no threats of violence."

And suppose unicorns had wings. You made a comparison and said they were equivalent. I showed they aren't equivalent. Now you want to compare a real-world event to a fictional alternative? Balderdash. And you're complaining about things being 'anti-intellectual'?

How is this action against Eich as CEO anything different than a call for boycott, a boycott, and picketing?

BTW, the Hollywood blacklist was effective because of state and national government involvement since the '20s. The blacklist only started after the House Un-American Activities Committee conviction of the "Hollywood Ten" on contempt of Congress charges for refusing to answer some questions by committee members.

If you're going to make that comparison, where's the heavy hand of government in this boycott against Eich as CEO?

For the record, I support that 12,000 Southern Baptists can call for and carry out a boycott of Disney-owned companies because they don't like that Disney has "Gay Days". I don't support the boycott, and I disagree with the premises which underlie it, but I support their right to free speech and assembly.

Just like I support the rights of free speech and assembly of those opposed to Eich as CEO to call for and carry out a boycott of Mozilla products.

P.S. I checked my memory regarding Sierra. It was specifically those threats of violence which "forced her to cancel a public appearance and suspend her blog". As she wrote, "I have cancelled all speaking engagements. I am afraid to leave my yard, I will never feel the same. I will never be the same." So your fictional world where she received no threats of violence would have been a very different world, and one we can't reasonably probe through hypotheticals.

Re: Torn and weary (on Brendan Eich and Mozilla)

#76

Post by tzs »

MetaCosm wrote: post #48
zimbatm wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

These are strong feelings. Don't you think that everyone is entitled to their own opinions ? In any case you can't force somebody to think differently, otherwise it's bullying. I'm pro LGBT and I think this is a loss for the cause. I'm pro LGBT because I don't think that people should get persecuted for being different. I want to promote peace, tolerance and compassion. Bullying someone into stepping down from his ro…

Would you be fine if Eich had donated $1000 to an group trying to stop inter-racial marriage? Inter-racial marriage issues are not some far past thing, "In October 2009, Keith Bardwell, a Louisiana justice of the peace, refused to issue a marriage license to an interracial couple..." In your mind, is being against interracial marriage just an opinion people shouldn't be held to account for... or like me, would you sa…

> Would you be fine if Eich had donated $1000 to an group trying to stop inter-racial marriage?

If it were 1875, and if by "fine", you mean fine with the donor becoming a CEO rather than fine with them as a person, then I'd be fine with it. Change that to 2014 and I would not be fine with it.

These judgements need to be made in context of the times. I find it hard to fault individuals for thinking like and acting in accord with the large majority of their contemporaries, even if I think the majority is not taking the right position.

Re: Torn and weary (on Brendan Eich and Mozilla)

#77

Post by dalke »

zimbatm wrote: post #22

Internet mobs is a horrible phenomenon. Internet was supposed to enable sharing of culture and better the understanding of each other. Instead we get these groups of people who spit bile at a target and just make things worse overall. How ironic that one of the people who helped create this system now gets pushed aside. The thing is that it works. I read some hate-inducing title and start to get worked up. My judgeme…

Do you support that people can boycott and picket? If so, what makes this "internet mob" different from an "internet boycott and picket? If not, why do think real-world rights of speech and association don't translate to the internet?

Re: Torn and weary (on Brendan Eich and Mozilla)

#78

Post by dalke »

betterunix wrote: post #51
wcummings wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Racism and sexism are often considered firable offenses. For many, this feels no different. The fact that its tied to a "religious belief" or is still something that can be voted on makes it no less bigoted. His poor response didn't help: "if you disagree with me you're oppressing the poor Indonesians who don't have a mouthpiece!". What an asshole. The fact is, donating to support prop 8 is bigotry in and of itself.…

"Free speech has nothing to do with this, this is someone whose actions many people found incompatible with what they saw as Mozilla's values, both inside and outside of the organization, and who can blame them?" I can blame them. Mozilla makes a web browser. Gay marriage has nothing to do with Mozilla's mission or with the political issues Mozilla has to deal with as part of its mission. I could understand the uproa…

If you go to mozilla.org right now you'll see "We are Mozilla. Doing good is part of our code."

They have decided that they do more than "make a web browser" and deal the political issues around that topic. They want to associate themselves not just with "don't be evil" but actually "doing good."

This is an advantage, because people will volunteer time to Mozilla in order to do good. This is a disadvantage when different people have different ideas of what "doing good" means. Which I think is the source of the commotion here.

Re: Torn and weary (on Brendan Eich and Mozilla)

#79

Post by olavk »

nailer wrote: post #15
brianchu wrote: post #11

Just so people are clear here, America has never had a right to free speech in the sense that a lot of people seem to be thinking. America has only ever had a legal right to free speech (and even then with many exceptions [1]); only government is bound by this. People tend to forget that the Constitution (and First Amendment) only applies to government. I haven't made up my mind whether Mozilla should have fired Bren…

Agreed re: free speech law, but forcing someone to resign for their religious beliefs still seems somewhat dubious.

He was not forced to resign over a religious belief. He was forced to resign because he supported a political campaign for a legislation which had real tangible effects for many peoples lives.

Re: Torn and weary (on Brendan Eich and Mozilla)

#80

Post by zimbatm »

MetaCosm wrote: post #48
zimbatm wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

These are strong feelings. Don't you think that everyone is entitled to their own opinions ? In any case you can't force somebody to think differently, otherwise it's bullying. I'm pro LGBT and I think this is a loss for the cause. I'm pro LGBT because I don't think that people should get persecuted for being different. I want to promote peace, tolerance and compassion. Bullying someone into stepping down from his ro…

Would you be fine if Eich had donated $1000 to an group trying to stop inter-racial marriage? Inter-racial marriage issues are not some far past thing, "In October 2009, Keith Bardwell, a Louisiana justice of the peace, refused to issue a marriage license to an interracial couple..." In your mind, is being against interracial marriage just an opinion people shouldn't be held to account for... or like me, would you sa…

I don't really believe in marriage as an institution but think it's great as an expression of love. It's a way to say to your friends and family that you're in love and it's going to stay that way. In that sense I don't see why it should be a privilege to heterosexual white people.

But I'm not going to judge someone based on a single thing. Who am I to say that Eich is homophobic based on a single variable ? I don't know that person. The only person qualified to say something are the ones working with him, all the rest is noise and disrespectful.

It's tragic in some way. The LGBT movement is trying to raise awareness by fighting against prejudice. Because you're gay/lesbian/... people will expect you to behave in certain ways. And it hurts because you're denied of just being a human and yourself. And now Eich has been judged with prejudice. I don't this it's fair. People place him into the anti-gay camp and so by definition he becomes all the wrongs that this group represents and nothing rational comes out of this.

Also who are we to take justice into our own hands ? This feels very wrong to me. Going back to the dark ages, just declare someone anti-gay and make him burn. I understand that it's not possible to be impartial on every subject but isn't it possible to elevate ourselves above that ?

Post reply on HN