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

I don’t know what to do, you guys

fredrikdeboer.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 216 posts

Re: I don’t know what to do, you guys

#131

Post by wwweston »

lern_too_spel wrote: post #110
stolio wrote: post #12

I spent about ten years being an "ally" to feminism, to the LGBT community, to minorities, etc. And then my views drifted ever so slightly from the tried and true party lines. One day I said I thought it was wrong that Brandon Eich was forced out of Mozilla, I said I thought it was wrong the way he was treated. Immediately the decade spent arguing for gay rights and marriage equality disappeared and I became a bigot,…

Vis-à-vis Eich (it's Brendan, by the way), you're undoubtably not a bigot but simply incredibly naïve. Imagine an organization appoints as its head somebody who believes very strongly that blacks should sit in the back of the bus. So strongly that she spent her money to amend the constitution to keep them there — successfully. The organization itself does some work that you believe in, but would you volunteer your ti…

If the issue with Eich was supposed to be about whether or not he was inclined to lead an inclusive Mozilla apparently looked to as a standard bearer not only for open/progressive technical values but open/progressive social values... who's more incredible naive?

The person who considers Eich's political donation to Prop 8 as a conclusive indicator he couldn't do that?

Or the person who considers his long history there as a more relevant, legible, and likely conclusive signal about how he would have run the Mozilla he helped build?

(Also, when people are constructing these ostensibly parallel hypotheticals, why does some equivalent of the latter always seem to get left out?)

Re: I don’t know what to do, you guys

#132

Post by Dylan16807 »

solipsism wrote: post #106
Kalium wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I believe javajosh is implying that a number of people failed to grasp the position in question, rather than anything about agreement.

Sure, maybe. It also can be read as a statement that those who disagree simply don't get the nuance. So I politely asked for clarification, which I guess is not tolerated.

>politely

Bless your heart.

Re: I don’t know what to do, you guys

#133

Post by smadge »

yummyfajitas wrote: post #90
stormbrew wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree that it's incorrect to say that right wing politics are specifically about maintaining the status quo, but that does tend to be the effect of their policies, regardless of how much they change the law "lines of code" style, as pointed out by a sibling post. But what right wing politics are about is maintaining the social order. Ensuring that wealth stays with the wealthy, power remains with the powerful, and…

On the contrary, right wing politics seem to be about replacing the current social order. Currently academics, teachers and other govt bureaucrats occupy a strong position in the social order. So do government dependents. This is the status quo. Right wing politics wants to reduce the position of those groups and elevate the position of workers, business leaders and those who embody traditional christian values. That…

> academics, teachers and other govt bureaucrats occupy a strong position in the social order

Those are some of the least paid and least powerful professions in society. Academics just have loud voices that no one listens to.

> Right wing politics wants to reduce the position of those groups and elevate the position of workers

That's why the right wing supports increasing the minimum wage, unions, and regulating industry exploitation of employees. /sarcasm. The left wing has pretty much been pro-workers since the left wing was invented in 1789 France.

Re: I don’t know what to do, you guys

#134

Post by lern_too_spel »

wwweston wrote: post #131
lern_too_spel wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Vis-à-vis Eich (it's Brendan, by the way), you're undoubtably not a bigot but simply incredibly naïve. Imagine an organization appoints as its head somebody who believes very strongly that blacks should sit in the back of the bus. So strongly that she spent her money to amend the constitution to keep them there — successfully. The organization itself does some work that you believe in, but would you volunteer your ti…

If the issue with Eich was supposed to be about whether or not he was inclined to lead an inclusive Mozilla apparently looked to as a standard bearer not only for open/progressive technical values but open/progressive social values... who's more incredible naive? The person who considers Eich's political donation to Prop 8 as a conclusive indicator he couldn't do that? Or the person who considers his long history the…

In other words, you're saying that you and the engineers you know would not be even a little more likely to give your time to another organization instead of the one that appointed the person who amended the Constitution to keep blacks in the back of the bus. Fair enough. It doesn't match what I've seen, which is why I believe that organization would be in trouble. The only way to know for sure is to run a poll of software engineers.

At another point, you confuse inclusiveness towards employees vs. making employees actually want to work there. The latter is the issue. You can have an organization head work towards setting up Sharia law but treat women fairly in his workplace. That won't mean that people who support women's rights will work for him when they have plenty of other options to choose from.

Re: I don’t know what to do, you guys

#135

Post by stolio »

lern_too_spel wrote: post #110
stolio wrote: post #12

I spent about ten years being an "ally" to feminism, to the LGBT community, to minorities, etc. And then my views drifted ever so slightly from the tried and true party lines. One day I said I thought it was wrong that Brandon Eich was forced out of Mozilla, I said I thought it was wrong the way he was treated. Immediately the decade spent arguing for gay rights and marriage equality disappeared and I became a bigot,…

Vis-à-vis Eich (it's Brendan, by the way), you're undoubtably not a bigot but simply incredibly naïve. Imagine an organization appoints as its head somebody who believes very strongly that blacks should sit in the back of the bus. So strongly that she spent her money to amend the constitution to keep them there — successfully. The organization itself does some work that you believe in, but would you volunteer your ti…

If you think I haven't heard this argument multiple times you're very wrong. It's well known in certain circles that this is the _correct_ view of the situation and you're not the first to graciously assume I simply haven't been exposed to it.

On this point we disagree, and my post is about what happens when we disagree, that it's not OK for me to disagree. That it's wrong, fundamentally wrong, so wrong it can only be due to stupidity or bigotry on my part.

Really I just have different views of what it means to be inclusive.

In the past 25 years I've seen an absolutely huge amount of compromise coming from mainstream America and the Christians especially when it comes to the LGBT community. I don't think it's too much to ask that when Eich was sitting there waiting at the negotiating table that the LGBT community would at least show up and try to find a compromise.

This wasn't a Bible-thumper screaming "you're all going to hell!!!" It was the CEO of a very important Open Source project saying "Let's sit down and talk, I'm willing to put in the time and energy to work this out." But the torches had been lit, the pitchforks sharpened, and the rest is history.

Re: I don’t know what to do, you guys

#136

Post by dang »

xtrumanx wrote: post #99
Udo wrote: post #63

Although a lot of people obviously disagree, I believe this should not be on HN. Both the examples raised in the article and the subject matter itself is bringing out the worst in the members of this community, for no good reason. Blanket statements all around, personal attacks, strawmen galore, just-so anecdotes as moral fables, and for what? The kind of petty political polemics inevitably attracted by the topic do…

Let's face it; the submissions guidelines are a joke due to the first line: > On-Topic: Anything that good hackers would find interesting. No matter the topic, anyone can bring up that line and effectively ends any question that the topic is fit for HN by claiming that they find it interesting.

Can't agree with you there. The guidelines make it clear that "interesting" means intellectually interesting. That excludes many other kinds of interesting, like celebrity gossip (which gratifies social curiosity) and more-heat-than-light politics.

The criteria may not be algorithmic but they're not arbitrary either.

Re: I don’t know what to do, you guys

#137

Post by omegaham »

Xcelerate wrote: post #115
omegaham wrote: post #36

I think one of the biggest problems with these types is that they associate opinions with morality. As in, if you hold uninformed / ignorant / bigoted opinions, you are automatically an evil person and should be treated accordingly. Are some bigoted people evil? Sure. But I think that a lot of people hold various opinions because they just haven't thought about it too hard. They've just gone along with whatever they'…

> Sure. But I think that a lot of people hold various opinions because they just haven't thought about it too hard. They've just gone along with whatever they've been taught from childhood, and they're just kind of parroting their indoctrination. That doesn't make them bad. It's funny you say this because I was discussing the exact same thing with a friend today. There's some views I have where previously I have been…

I think that this is a great point. It's far too common for people to think, "John is completely opposed to my beliefs. He's definitely not stupid, as I know from other conversations with him that he's thoughtful and sincere. Well, that leaves one option - he's a bad person."

Often, this results from taking the bad intentions of certain people who believe such things and applying them to the whole.

"You're for / against X program. There are people who are for / against X program because they have an immoral ulterior motive. Therefore, you have that ulterior motive too!"

This naturally leads to fingerpointing and yelling.

Re: I don’t know what to do, you guys

#138

Post by dang »

Udo wrote: post #63

Although a lot of people obviously disagree, I believe this should not be on HN. Both the examples raised in the article and the subject matter itself is bringing out the worst in the members of this community, for no good reason. Blanket statements all around, personal attacks, strawmen galore, just-so anecdotes as moral fables, and for what? The kind of petty political polemics inevitably attracted by the topic do…

I've glanced through this thread and it doesn't seem nearly as bad as you say. In particular, I didn't see any personal attacks. If there are some, please email hn@ycombinator.com with links.

Re: I don’t know what to do, you guys

#139

Post by lern_too_spel »

stolio wrote: post #135
lern_too_spel wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Vis-à-vis Eich (it's Brendan, by the way), you're undoubtably not a bigot but simply incredibly naïve. Imagine an organization appoints as its head somebody who believes very strongly that blacks should sit in the back of the bus. So strongly that she spent her money to amend the constitution to keep them there — successfully. The organization itself does some work that you believe in, but would you volunteer your ti…

If you think I haven't heard this argument multiple times you're very wrong. It's well known in certain circles that this is the _correct_ view of the situation and you're not the first to graciously assume I simply haven't been exposed to it. On this point we disagree, and my post is about what happens when we disagree, that it's not OK for me to disagree. That it's wrong, fundamentally wrong, so wrong it can only b…

Regarding finding a compromise, I'm sure if Eich donated to equal rights after becoming CEO, nobody would have any qualms working for his organization anymore. Even the pitchforks and the most bloodthirsty protesters would likely have gone. That he didn't even try to correct the issue made it more likely that progressive coders would turn away.

The depth of the thread seems to have reached a HN limit, so I can't respond, but you're now confusing Eich's treatment with whether he should be CEO of Mozilla. Eich in a non-coding role is not worth X coders moving to a competing browser for any X greater than 0. Being inclusive to employees is a separate issue from making employees actually want to work for him. A CEO who has worked to set up Sharia law will have a hard time getting people who support women's rights working for him even if he treats his own women employees fairly.

Re: I don’t know what to do, you guys

#140

Post by [deleted] »

stolio wrote: post #135
lern_too_spel wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Vis-à-vis Eich (it's Brendan, by the way), you're undoubtably not a bigot but simply incredibly naïve. Imagine an organization appoints as its head somebody who believes very strongly that blacks should sit in the back of the bus. So strongly that she spent her money to amend the constitution to keep them there — successfully. The organization itself does some work that you believe in, but would you volunteer your ti…

If you think I haven't heard this argument multiple times you're very wrong. It's well known in certain circles that this is the _correct_ view of the situation and you're not the first to graciously assume I simply haven't been exposed to it. On this point we disagree, and my post is about what happens when we disagree, that it's not OK for me to disagree. That it's wrong, fundamentally wrong, so wrong it can only b…

[deleted]
Post reply on HN