I don’t know what to do, you guys • Hacker News Board

Re: I don’t know what to do, you guys

#151

Post by DanBC » Fri, Jan 30, 2015, 10:32 AM UTC

lern_too_spel wrote: post #139

stolio wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 resp…

> 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

Eich contributed to the creation of the equal rights policy in Mozilla and worked to enforce that inclusive policy. He made a commitment to uphold those policies. No GLBT person at Mozila had examples of him being discriminatory.

https://brendaneich.com/2014/03/inclusiveness-at-mozilla/

Re: I don’t know what to do, you guys

#152

Post by vacri » Fri, Jan 30, 2015, 10:48 AM UTC

declan wrote: post #108

vacri wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's worth remembering that one advantage right-side politics have is that they are passionate for the status quo. Left-side politics are passionate for change. And it's when people are passionate that they get into disagreement; it's much easier for lefties to disagree about what kind of change they want, than for righties to disagree about how they want things to stay the same...

I could just as easily write: "It's worth remembering that one disadvantage left-side politics have is that they are defending the status quo, and mounting such a defense is trench warfare, not a campaign that captures the hearts and minds of the next generation. By comparison, right-side politics are passionate for change. And it's when people are passionate that they get into disagreement. But because the right is…

government spending (reduce significantly)

Right-wing politics in the US say they want this, but actual right-wing behaviour has been to increase government spending significantly.

In any case, most of items in that paragraph are about rolling back progressive changes, rather than introducing new items. When I say 'status quo', I don't mean 'preserve a snapshot of modern society in January 2015', but returning society to an earlier version, and preventing social flux in order to keep it that way.

Re: I don’t know what to do, you guys

#153

Post by vacri » Fri, Jan 30, 2015, 10:54 AM UTC

deciplex wrote: post #119

angersock wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One of the most annoying places to be right now is to have sympathies with both sides of these issues and to try to discuss things rationally and evenly. Simple example: I've got two good friends, one of them on one side of the GamerGate nonsense, and one on the other. I have to be very careful chatting with them, because while they each separately are very articulate and reasoned in their arguments, I cannot even pr…

My reaction to Gamergate was to continue playing video games and to continue not reading 'Games Journalism' because I already knew it was payola garbage. As for your friends my suggestion would be to discuss other shared interests. It's possible - even common - for both 'sides' of an issue to be way off the mark.

My opinion on the matter is that if someone can say the phrase "ethics in video game journalism" with a straight face, it's time to abandon the conversation...

Re: I don’t know what to do, you guys

#154

Post by vacri » Fri, Jan 30, 2015, 10:58 AM UTC

electronvolt wrote: post #91

javajosh wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I feel ya. I'm a staunch gay rights advocate, even fought prop 8, but I still thought Eich was treated unfairly. A man shouldn't lose his job because of his political views, just like he shouldn't lose it for being, say, transgendered. Needless to say, this is a nuanced position, and some people simply don't have the capacity for nuance, sadly.

Question: if it came out that Eich had donated to, say, the KKK, would you feel the same way? I have mixed feelings over the way he was treated, but your argument actually seems the opposite of nuanced: the blanket claim that someone should never be fired for their political views (particularly, from a public position where their politics could have an effect on the company they represent both on internal culture and…

The problem was that people were using Mozilla as a punching bag for their disillusionment with Eich.

My favourite example was OkCupid, who detected you were using firefox and redirected you to a page telling you to use a different browser. Despite several gay developers saying that their experience at Mozilla wasn't oppressed by Eich.

But the kicker was that after OkCupid got what they wanted (and got a ton of good press), they didn't revert the damage they did to the Mozilla brand. They won, but I visited their site with firefox and chrome, and there was no redirect to a page saying "hey, mozilla is cool, you should use them [again|still]".

They weren't actually interested in reform, just in shouting and winning, and damn who they damage in the process.

Re: I don’t know what to do, you guys

#155

Post by mercer » Fri, Jan 30, 2015, 12:12 PM UTC

palmer_eldritch wrote: post #150

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'…

> if you hold uninformed / ignorant / bigoted opinions, you are automatically an evil person and should be treated accordingly One could argue that such an opinion is in fact short-sighted and bigoted...

I rather like this entry that goes into this 'paradox', and the concept in general: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/toleration

Re: I don’t know what to do, you guys

#156

Post by xtrumanx » Fri, Jan 30, 2015, 1:34 PM UTC

smt88 wrote: post #103

xtrumanx wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How about right here at HN? Earlier this week someone commented on using shame as a tool for "positive change". I once wrote a comment on a thread here on HN but after considering past reactions of HN of similar comments, I didn't bother submitting the comment and closed the tab instead. I don't necessarily care about karma but I use it as a way to figure out what kind of stuff the community wants to hears from me. W…

Shame can be (and has been) a tool for positive change. I grew up in the South. Many of my peers never heard racist comments until they were adults, even though many adults in our community were deeply racist. That made my generation far less racist than older ones. So why were the racists so quiet? Because it stopped being socially acceptable to be racist. Those people were ashamed of publicly stating their views. R…

One reason I don't like that idea is that it creates hypocrites. I'd rather get thing like that out in the open since it may even be possible to convince some of those people that their beliefs are wrong but if you shame them into silence, you may not even have the chance to identify them.

Re: I don’t know what to do, you guys

#157

Post by ritvars » Fri, Jan 30, 2015, 1:53 PM UTC

You don't know what to do? Don't be the same as you described - and stand up in these cases!

Re: I don’t know what to do, you guys

#158

Post by PhasmaFelis » Fri, Jan 30, 2015, 1:57 PM UTC

GauntletWizard wrote: post #64

PhasmaFelis wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

...Okay. Maybe you could submit that story and post a comment to it, instead of hijacking this story's comments?

I'm sorry; was the connection not clear enough for you? Politics of the left wing are increasingly about keeping up appearances and out-dogmaing one another, scaring off potential allies and self-praise on spurious grounds. I can't make saidsame rant on facebook, because the people who salivated over the story would tear me to shreds, and I really don't want to deal with that today, or ever.

That's what the original post was about. Your post was about you being such a grinch that you feel the need to register your outrage at what was--at worst--a perfectly harmless, feel-good fluff piece.

Re: I don’t know what to do, you guys

#159

Post by notdonspaulding » Fri, Jan 30, 2015, 2:51 PM UTC

Dylan16807 wrote: post #129

electronvolt wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Question: if it came out that Eich had donated to, say, the KKK, would you feel the same way? I have mixed feelings over the way he was treated, but your argument actually seems the opposite of nuanced: the blanket claim that someone should never be fired for their political views (particularly, from a public position where their politics could have an effect on the company they represent both on internal culture and…

That's a hard question. Not so much because of anything related to politics, but because I get stuck thinking about actual murders committed by the KKK. If instead you asked about something like a US neo-nazi group I would be much more tolerant of people giving money to a terrible group like that in a way completely unrelated to their job. The reason the situation is tricky, I think, is because jobs with a spokespers…

    > because jobs with a spokesperson aspect blend work and personal life.

I wonder how many of the people shouting "freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from consequences" vis-a-vis the separation of work and personal life would have held the same viewpoint in defense of the impeachment of Bill Clinton for his affair with Monica Lewinski.

Re: I don’t know what to do, you guys

#160

Post by Frondo » Fri, Jan 30, 2015, 2:58 PM UTC

yummyfajitas wrote: post #122

gone35 wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Currently [...] teachers [...] occupy a strong position in the social order. So do government dependents ." [Emphasis added] Interesting --maybe I'm misunderstanding your claim. Can you clarify what you mean by "occupy a strong position in the social order", and outline your evidence for such a belief?

Witness how difficult and ineffective policies to ensure accountability for teachers and eliminate the bad ones are. Consider the difficulty in reducing dependency programs (e.g., SS, Medicare) - these are political non-starters due to old people voting. On the cultural front, note how difficult it is even to criticize teachers or government dependents. Consider the media reaction when Romney correctly pointed out th…

Very nearly 100% of the people living within U.S. borders are dependent on the government, whether in the form of tax subsidies or use of government-built services.

I'm sure many people of a certain ideological stripe feel as though they're somehow self-reliant and do not rely on anything any level of government provides, but that does not mesh with reality.

As for shaming people on welfare, I'm again unsure which country you're describing. First, "welfare" (i.e. as a cash grant) hasn't existed in the U.S. in close to 20 years. Second, people who do receive some sort of subsidized food or housing are very nearly universally looked down upon. They're not held in any esteem whatsoever now. Do you think it would be reasonable, or make any kind of policy sense, to shame them further? If so, why?