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

91–100 of 127 posts

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

#91

Post by mkr-hn »

ebfe wrote: post #90
mkr-hn wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Generally, any deviation from socially enforced gender roles. There are plenty of kids who were abused for it and didn't turn out gay.

But you believe that most kids who deviate from standard gender roles are gay? If not, there's no reason to believe that gays would be overrepresented in abuse statistics if this deviation was the cause of the abuse.

> But you believe that most kids who deviate from standard gender roles are gay?

Honestly not sure how you could read what I wrote and pick that up. It's the opposite of what I said.

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

#92

Post by ebfe »

mkr-hn wrote: post #91
ebfe wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But you believe that most kids who deviate from standard gender roles are gay? If not, there's no reason to believe that gays would be overrepresented in abuse statistics if this deviation was the cause of the abuse.

> But you believe that most kids who deviate from standard gender roles are gay? Honestly not sure how you could read what I wrote and pick that up. It's the opposite of what I said.

Right. So if gays aren't more likely to deviate from standard gender roles, there's no reason to think that they would be more likely to be abused, if deviation from gender roles is what leads to abuse.

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

#93

Post by [deleted] »

ebfe wrote: post #92
mkr-hn wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But you believe that most kids who deviate from standard gender roles are gay? Honestly not sure how you could read what I wrote and pick that up. It's the opposite of what I said.

Right. So if gays aren't more likely to deviate from standard gender roles, there's no reason to think that they would be more likely to be abused, if deviation from gender roles is what leads to abuse.

[deleted]

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

#94

Post by mkr-hn »

ebfe wrote: post #92
mkr-hn wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But you believe that most kids who deviate from standard gender roles are gay? Honestly not sure how you could read what I wrote and pick that up. It's the opposite of what I said.

Right. So if gays aren't more likely to deviate from standard gender roles, there's no reason to think that they would be more likely to be abused, if deviation from gender roles is what leads to abuse.

Peer abuse is rampant, so it's almost inevitable that any given gay person will have been abused. The abuse that comes from being perceived as gay based on stereotypes tends to be more violent and persistent.

You didn't provide the studies you base your opinion on, so I have no way to know if your claim that the two have been linked is true.

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

#95

Post by MetaCosm »

coolj wrote: post #64
MetaCosm wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> an opinion people shouldn't be held to account for... I believe people should be held publicly accountable for their actions, not their thoughts/opinions, no matter how strongly I may disagree with their ideas. I wouldn't be too worried about a CEO of Mozilla who had at some point contributed $1000 to a group trying to stop interracial- (or gay-, or plural-, or cats-and-dogs-) marriage by itself, if it were the per…

Then we simply disagree, actively pursuing hateful legislation is something I am not compelled to overlook. This is something he did in public, on the record, with full knowledge. If someone actively pushed for racist laws, I would want them booted as well.

So I guess we simply disagree on this issue.

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

#96

Post by MetaCosm »

tzs wrote: post #76
MetaCosm wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

The speed at which the "public" comes to a majority (and overwhelming trajectory) behind an issue is faster and faster due in part due to Eich's technology.

61% of young Republican leaning voters support marriage equality, the issue is over, just waiting out those who haven't yet realized this is no longer a debate, like Eich, to catch up.

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

#97

Post by zimbatm »

dalke wrote: post #77
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?

My observation is that it's hard to talk freely in that kind of environment. Anything that you say is scrutinized and analyzed and becomes "proof" that you're in one camp or another. Internet seem to make the issue worse because you only have textual cues and everything is recorded for a long time. It's also easy to forget that on the other side you have a real person reading your message.

My issue is not that people protest. Society at large evolves and mentality change because some courageous people elevated their voices and raised opinions that at the time weren't popular. When people promote gay rights I believe the inherent goal is acceptance and better understanding of each-other.

I don't see that happening here. I don't see people reaching for each other, in fact each camp gets entrenched because of all the hate. Discussions become irrational. I understand why but it makes me sad.

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

#98

Post by tomelders »

ebfe wrote: post #88
tomelders wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Gay folks are significantly more likely to have been abused as children. Am I going mad? Is the whole tech community homophobic? That is an outright lie. The National Health and Social Life Survey (NHSLS) 1.51% of the population of the US identify as GLBT, whereas other studies put this figure as high as 8%. However, statistics for people abused in childhood are significantly higher that this, with reliable estimat…

Your link contains nothing to refute the fact that gays are more likely to have been abused (which is true), just the idea that abuse is the singular, causal factor of homosexuality (which nobody is suggesting).

> gays are more likely to have been abused (which is true)

It is not true. Where the hell are you getting all this nonsense from?

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

#99

Post by MetaCosm »

zimbatm wrote: post #80
MetaCosm wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

He actively gave money to an issue with a single goal of limiting the rights of others. He then didn't repudiate the views, after being given many chances to do so and encourage to do so by the staff at Mozilla.

I don't think people unfairly ascribed a perspective to him. He is against marriage equality. He got called out for it, and driven out of town.

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

#100

Post by mcphage »

stephenr wrote: post #49
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…

Not tolerating intolerance, is not intolerance.

If you only tolerate those people who are tolerant, then how is that even a virtue?
Post reply on HN