Torn and weary (on Brendan Eich and Mozilla) • Hacker News Board

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

#101

Post by dalke » Sat, Apr 05, 2014, 6:31 PM UTC

yummyfajitas wrote: post #82

dalke wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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 p…

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? Yes - I'm attempting to figure out what principle is being applied. As a result, I'm trying to find real or hypothetical cases as close to the dividing line of that principle as possible. So again, I ask: are legal attacks (e.g., photoshopping someone's head onto…

I don't see this issue with Eich as CEO anywhere near the dividing line, so I don't see why I should participate in an investigation of where that boundary might be.

Consider your hypothetical about "opponents of sexual promiscuity". It's reminds me of the real-world situation of the American Coalition of Life Activists, who posted pictures, addresses, etc. of doctors who would carry out abortions. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-abortion_violence#Physicia... . "In an en banc rehearing, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals held that the ACLA could be held liable in damages because the website made a threat unprotected by the First Amendment." (Quote from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Coalition_of_Life_Acti... )

Your example of getting multiple people to call the employer and advocate dismissal likely falls under misdemeanor harassment. Here's an example of one such law: http://www.azleg.state.az.us/ars/13/02921.htm .

In general I support the right of private person X to call for others to shun person Y. Don't you? That doesn't mean I can't nor shouldn't shun person X in turn.

The photoshopping example may count as libel or criminal defamation. Without actual details, it's hard to say anything for certain. This is why hypotheticals are lousy.

"I'm asking whether we should accept it when people engage in such actions."

No. The underlying premise is silly. Of course you could/should protest. Write HN comments. Blog about it. Boycott. Picket in front of Mozilla's offices. Do whatever you want (within the bounds of law) if you don't like what others are doing. Why would you have to accept it?

I fully support that people can boycott Mozilla for selecting Eich as CEO.

I fully support that people can boycott Mozilla now that Eich is not CEO, and complain that Eich was forced out by a witch hunt. I just wish they would explain how "witch hunt" is different than "boycott and picketing".

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

#102

Post by tomelders » Sat, Apr 05, 2014, 6:50 PM UTC

Fice wrote: post #89

tomelders wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So what does this sentence mean then? Being in opposition to same-sex marriage does not make one a homophobe (even some gays are against it). What's does the "even some gays are against it" mean?

Even some gays are against same-sex marriage. And that does not mean that they are also homophobes.

Are you saying that being opposed to SSM can't be homophobic because some gays are also opposed to SSM?

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

#103

Post by dalke » Sat, Apr 05, 2014, 6:55 PM UTC

zimbatm wrote: post #97

dalke wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

You don't have an issue with people protesting, but you do have an issue with internet mobs.

How then do people protest en mass on the internet and boycott without being labeled an internet mob? Only if all sides reach for each other?

If that's the case, then what happens when one side doesn't do enough reaching? When do you place the blame more on one side, instead of apportioning blame equally across all participants? Since that's what I think you're doing.

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

#104

Post by yummyfajitas » Sat, Apr 05, 2014, 7:12 PM UTC

dalke wrote: post #101

yummyfajitas wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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? Yes - I'm attempting to figure out what principle is being applied. As a result, I'm trying to find real or hypothetical cases as close to the dividing line of that principle as possible. So again, I ask: are legal attacks (e.g., photoshopping someone's head onto…

I don't see this issue with Eich as CEO anywhere near the dividing line, so I don't see why I should participate in an investigation of where that boundary might be. Consider your hypothetical about "opponents of sexual promiscuity". It's reminds me of the real-world situation of the American Coalition of Life Activists, who posted pictures, addresses, etc. of doctors who would carry out abortions. See http://en.wiki…

I have not at any point disputed that people have the legal right to call for firing Eich, or even to say it would be great if he were killed. I don't know why it's necessary to repeat myself 4 times.

I find this whole thing troubling because it's an attempt at suppressing ideas. I always found the movement intellectually vacuous (e.g. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7537168). But now they seem to be demonstrating a fear of rational arguments and simply attack those who disagree. I find that a bit scary.

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

#105

Post by zimbatm » Sat, Apr 05, 2014, 7:17 PM UTC

MetaCosm wrote: post #99

zimbatm wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Yes but it's not rational and doesn't help the cause. Everyone has prejudices. If you can't talk about them without fearing some form of angry mob jumping at you then there is no way for people to understand each-other. I don't think there was any way out for him.

And again, as external people who don't know anything about the person we can only have a simplistic view of him. And judging him on this is also a prejudice.

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

#106

Post by dalke » Sat, Apr 05, 2014, 7:44 PM UTC

yummyfajitas wrote: post #104

dalke wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't see this issue with Eich as CEO anywhere near the dividing line, so I don't see why I should participate in an investigation of where that boundary might be. Consider your hypothetical about "opponents of sexual promiscuity". It's reminds me of the real-world situation of the American Coalition of Life Activists, who posted pictures, addresses, etc. of doctors who would carry out abortions. See http://en.wiki…

I have not at any point disputed that people have the legal right to call for firing Eich, or even to say it would be great if he were killed. I don't know why it's necessary to repeat myself 4 times. I find this whole thing troubling because it's an attempt at suppressing ideas. I always found the movement intellectually vacuous (e.g. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7537168 ). But now they seem to be demonstrat…

How are any ideas being suppressed?

Any more than boycotting Coors because of the anti-immigration policies of the Coors family suppresses ideas.

Any more than boycotting Disney because of its support for Gay Days suppresses ideas.

Any more than disinvestment of South African goods suppressed the idea of apartheid.

It comes across like you think every boycott is an attempt at suppressing an idea. If that's what you believe, then know that I stand with the oppressors.

Otherwise, is there any boycott you like which was done for social or political reasons and which didn't somehow "suppress ideas"?

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

#107

Post by ebfe » Sat, Apr 05, 2014, 7:46 PM UTC

tomelders wrote: post #98

ebfe wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Here's a study on the topic.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11501300

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

#108

Post by PavlovsCat » Sat, Apr 05, 2014, 7:53 PM UTC

dalke wrote: post #106

yummyfajitas wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have not at any point disputed that people have the legal right to call for firing Eich, or even to say it would be great if he were killed. I don't know why it's necessary to repeat myself 4 times. I find this whole thing troubling because it's an attempt at suppressing ideas. I always found the movement intellectually vacuous (e.g. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7537168 ). But now they seem to be demonstrat…

How are any ideas being suppressed? Any more than boycotting Coors because of the anti-immigration policies of the Coors family suppresses ideas. Any more than boycotting Disney because of its support for Gay Days suppresses ideas. Any more than disinvestment of South African goods suppressed the idea of apartheid. It comes across like you think every boycott is an attempt at suppressing an idea. If that's what you b…

> How are any ideas being suppressed?

By "demonstrating a fear of rational arguments and simply attack those who disagree".

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

#109

Post by ebfe » Sat, Apr 05, 2014, 7:53 PM UTC

mkr-hn wrote: post #94

ebfe wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Again, if gay people are not more likely to act in a stereotypically gay manner, and you've said that they're not, then there is no reason to believe that gays are more likely than their straight peers to be abused for behaving in ways that are perceived as gay.

This turns out not to be the case, as shown by this study: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11501300

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

#110

Post by zimbatm » Sat, Apr 05, 2014, 8:02 PM UTC

dalke wrote: post #103

zimbatm wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

You don't have an issue with people protesting, but you do have an issue with internet mobs. How then do people protest en mass on the internet and boycott without being labeled an internet mob? Only if all sides reach for each other? If that's the case, then what happens when one side doesn't do enough reaching? When do you place the blame more on one side, instead of apportioning blame equally across all participan…

I think my previous posts already cover what I'm trying to say. I don't really want to engage into a confrontational rhetoric.