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

121–127 of 127 posts

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

#121

Post by coolj »

MetaCosm wrote: post #95
coolj wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

What if it was a donation to Americans United or Planned Parenthood? There are people who earnestly believe that AU hates religions and-or religious people, or that PP hates traditional family structure. What if he donated to a group that was against the Affordable Heathcare Act? What if he donated to a group that was for it? There are many reasons why people may support different causes or groups, and a contribution in and of itself doesn't do anything to show that it is motivated by hate or fear. You need to look at the person's other actions in order to better determine that.

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

#122

Post by olavk »

nailer wrote: post #111
olavk wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

He supported that campaign based upon his religious beliefs.

OK I don't know anything about why he supported the campaign, and AFAIK he haven't spoken publicly about it at all. But even if it was because of religious beliefs, he is not being forced to resign because of his personal religious beliefs. He is being forced to resign because he supported a political campaign which had real repercussions for real people. That is a pretty big difference.

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

#123

Post by mkr-hn »

ebfe wrote: post #109
mkr-hn wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

We're talking about different kinds of abuse.

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

#124

Post by Fice »

tomelders wrote: post #102
Fice wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

That remark (which I put in brackets because it was not integral to my main argument) was meant to hint that even within LGBT community there are different positions on SSM.

A position against SSM does not imply homophobia because it is not necessarily based on hatred or aversion towards homosexuals. For instance, there is no justification in calling Eich a homophobe.

What bothers me is a tendency of LGBT activists to put a homophobe label on everyone with an opinion they do not like. That is a witch hunt.

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

#125

Post by dalke »

yummyfajitas wrote: post #120
dalke wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My apologies. "What" ideas are being suppressed? More in general, can't all social or political boycotts, ranging from the boycott against Boycott and absentee landownership, to the Indian boycott of British goods and British colonialism, to the Montgomery Bus Boycott and race discrimination, to the anti-apartheid boycott, to the US boycott of Cuban goods be interpreted as "suppressing" a disliked idea? If so, then I…

More in general, can't all social or political boycotts,... Many of them are in fact attempts to suppress ideas they dislike. Not all. For example, if I boycott Cuban goods, I'm boycotting the people currently in control of Cuba for their actions. If I boycott opponents of the embargo I'm attempting to suppress ideas. I object far less to the former than the latter. But I admit, I don't fully understand this issue, w…

I confess that I have a hard time understanding the Cuban boycott action/idea distinction. The US boycott of Cuba is nominally to suppress Communism in the Western hemisphere. That sounds to me like suppressing an idea.

You can say that it's actually boycotting them for specific actions, and not for the general expression of ideas. That seems like a weak distinction - "faith without works is dead". Ideas, without the ability to act on those ideas, have no power or influence. They are dead.

Your counter-example, where you "boycott opponents of the embargo", is hard for me to understand without an example. An opponent of the embargo might buy and import a Cuban cigar, in order to protest the embargo. That's an action. Under your action/idea distinction, it's therefore okay for me to boycott that person's action, no?

Going back to Eich, Eich did a specific action - donate money to a political cause. That action is the prime, and really only, stated reason for opposition to Eich as CEO.

Under your action/idea distinction, don't you find that perfectly acceptable? OKCupid isn't suppressing an idea, only boycotting someone for a specific action.

I asked if there was a social or political boycott which you agree with. I'm trying to get a sense of if your objection is to boycotts in principle. You mentioned the Cuban embargo, but I can't tell if you support it, and you haven't said why you support it - that is, which actions/ideas you are against.

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

#126

Post by hdishn »

dalke wrote: post #125
yummyfajitas wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

More in general, can't all social or political boycotts,... Many of them are in fact attempts to suppress ideas they dislike. Not all. For example, if I boycott Cuban goods, I'm boycotting the people currently in control of Cuba for their actions. If I boycott opponents of the embargo I'm attempting to suppress ideas. I object far less to the former than the latter. But I admit, I don't fully understand this issue, w…

I confess that I have a hard time understanding the Cuban boycott action/idea distinction. The US boycott of Cuba is nominally to suppress Communism in the Western hemisphere. That sounds to me like suppressing an idea. You can say that it's actually boycotting them for specific actions, and not for the general expression of ideas. That seems like a weak distinction - "faith without works is dead". Ideas, without the…

Cuba stole American companies (imagine America taking BMW's factories in South Carolina). It's like 7-11 refusing service for someone who robbed them the night before. How many other nations have done something similar with US companies? Do you know what deterrence means?

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

#127

Post by stephenr »

jdbernard wrote: post #55
stephenr wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not tolerating intolerance, is not intolerance.

I don't like this idea. Any strong disagreement by one side could reasonably be called intolerance by there other. And then where does it end? Tolerating other people, even when they act in a way contradictory to your own moral convictions is the definition of tolerance. What Eich did was not illegal. It was disagreeable to many. But tolerant people would chose instead to strive the more for their position without di…

It isn't about acting in a certain way.

No one expects Eich to get married - he wanted to prevent other people from getting married because they are gay.

His personal actions were not illegal, but the movement he supported (banning same sex marriage) was deemed to be unconstitutional.

Post reply on HN