When Sued Don't Tweet • Hacker News Board

Re: When Sued Don't Tweet

#111

Post by cookiecaper » Sat, May 03, 2014, 7:07 AM UTC

eurleif wrote: post #109

cookiecaper wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, it's a free speech issue. He expressed a private view to his personal associate with whom he had no professional dealings. He was recorded illegally and all action has been based on a single statement, given without context, and sourced from a legal adversary. You may agree or disagree with his private views about whom he prefers his girlfriend to mingle with, but it's quite drastic to forcibly divest him of his…

>The only thing objectively "wrong" about his opinion is that it is unpopular. Don't confuse disagreement with subjectivity. Racism is objectively harmful, and typically based on factual beliefs that are objectively false. Some people disagree with that, and it's their right to hold that opinion, but they're wrong. The NBA's decision was probably driven largely by a fear of private boycotts. Do you think such boycott…

I think boycotts should be used sparingly and that people should first consider whether the deeds were sufficiently problematic to justify the potential cultural ramifications that arise when we choose to punish someone for having different beliefs or opinions than us, no matter how much we may or may not dislike them. It'd be preferable if we based our boycotts on more significant matters.

However, I think the much larger problem than boycotts from random groups (which are unlikely to be effective long-term) are the steps taken to purge Sterling entirely and divest him of his property.

Re: When Sued Don't Tweet

#112

Post by wpietri » Sun, May 04, 2014, 9:56 PM UTC

cookiecaper wrote: post #110

wpietri wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

* The reason Prop 8 was was a constitutional amendment is that equality before the law is a right enshrined in the California constitution. * Immaterial. * There is a difference between "voted for" and "funded". Further, Eich refused to say whether his opinion had changed. And obviously, you don't get to say what gay people are comfortable about. * Incorrect. Promising to be bigoted only in his off hours is not a pro…

> The reason Prop 8 was was a constitutional amendment is that equality before the law is a right enshrined in the California constitution. OK, again, it's not that "the right to marry" is constitutional. It's just that some judges have decided "marriage" means giving benefits to any two humans who claim they want it. This isn't what marriage is supposed to be, but that's beside the point at the moment. Bans on same-…

The bit about constitutionality is about equal protection under the law. The sole legal purpose and effect of Prop 8 was to strip equal protection from gay people as regards to marriage. That's not a debatable legal point, and the court decisions are quite clear on it. You can try to justify that, but pretending like that's not what went on mainly makes you look willfully ignorant.

I don't have a black-and-white, scorched-earth view of this. I have a lot of compassion for the people who find themselves on the wrong side of a social change. And if people want to be bigoted in the quiet of their own homes, far be it from me to try to change them. But people using the power of the state to be bigoted don't get that pass until they renounce their attempts at active harm. And they also don't automatically get to be the boss of people that they're bigoted against.

Regarding the "society is about to collapse from the liberals" bit: that has been a popular line at least since Lincoln freed the slaves. Wake me when it happens. And also fuck you for suggesting that letting my friends raise their families in peace is somehow akin to drunken self-indulgence.

Re: When Sued Don't Tweet

#113

Post by PhasmaFelis » Mon, May 05, 2014, 9:00 AM UTC

cookiecaper wrote: post #107

PhasmaFelis wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sterling? Is this seriously what we're doing now? A corporation removes a staunch racist from a position with hiring authority, and it's a free speech issue?

Yes, it's a free speech issue. He expressed a private view to his personal associate with whom he had no professional dealings. He was recorded illegally and all action has been based on a single statement, given without context, and sourced from a legal adversary. You may agree or disagree with his private views about whom he prefers his girlfriend to mingle with, but it's quite drastic to forcibly divest him of his…

I'd like to be perfectly clear on this: you believe that there's nothing objectively wrong with racism, it's just unpopular right now?

Re: When Sued Don't Tweet

#114

Post by PhasmaFelis » Mon, May 05, 2014, 9:09 AM UTC

cookiecaper wrote: post #106

wpietri wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Eich's public behavior was absolutely material to his work. You can't work to break apart gay families and undermine gay people's constitutional rights and then expect gay people to be be perfectly comfortable working for you. And Mozilla's board reasonably felt that material to him being the CEO of a company. Well, that or his demonstrated inability to handle a corporate crisis with a big press element.

* Marriage is not a constitutional right for anyone * The rules that say the government is not allowed to define marriage further than "two humans say they want to live together and want us to give them stuff for it" are very new, and Eich was fighting to not have this become the rule. * Gay people should be perfectly comfortable working for people who supported Prop 8 or they're going to have a hard time, as there's…

> Gay people should be perfectly comfortable working for people who supported Prop 8 or they're going to have a hard time, as there's a > 50% chance that a random stranger will have done so.

You're seriously arguing that people should be okay with being oppressed, as long as a lot of people are oppressing them? Like, maybe we should be flattered by all the attention?

Re: When Sued Don't Tweet

#115

Post by cookiecaper » Tue, May 06, 2014, 2:15 AM UTC

PhasmaFelis wrote: post #113

cookiecaper wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, it's a free speech issue. He expressed a private view to his personal associate with whom he had no professional dealings. He was recorded illegally and all action has been based on a single statement, given without context, and sourced from a legal adversary. You may agree or disagree with his private views about whom he prefers his girlfriend to mingle with, but it's quite drastic to forcibly divest him of his…

I'd like to be perfectly clear on this: you believe that there's nothing objectively wrong with racism, it's just unpopular right now?

Racism as a social crime is an abstract concept and there are no objective criteria by which to determine if a thought is "racist" or not.

I prefer to judge individual actions based on their consequences and/or likely consequences, without forfeiting my right to formulate an opinion due to a popular media outlet applying an abstract negative label. In the context of news media, calling something "racist" is more about trying to forcibly project a view onto the audience than anything else.

Re: When Sued Don't Tweet

#116

Post by cookiecaper » Tue, May 06, 2014, 2:19 AM UTC

PhasmaFelis wrote: post #114

cookiecaper wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

* Marriage is not a constitutional right for anyone * The rules that say the government is not allowed to define marriage further than "two humans say they want to live together and want us to give them stuff for it" are very new, and Eich was fighting to not have this become the rule. * Gay people should be perfectly comfortable working for people who supported Prop 8 or they're going to have a hard time, as there's…

> Gay people should be perfectly comfortable working for people who supported Prop 8 or they're going to have a hard time, as there's a > 50% chance that a random stranger will have done so. You're seriously arguing that people should be okay with being oppressed, as long as a lot of people are oppressing them? Like, maybe we should be flattered by all the attention?

I'm not arguing that people should be OK with "being oppressed". People are free to engage in responsible social and political action to effect the changes they want. One can disagree civilly and continue his/her social activism. I'm arguing that people should accept not everyone agrees with them, and not try to get those people fired/destroyed for their disagreement.

Re: When Sued Don't Tweet

#117

Post by cookiecaper » Tue, May 06, 2014, 2:29 AM UTC

wpietri wrote: post #112

cookiecaper wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The reason Prop 8 was was a constitutional amendment is that equality before the law is a right enshrined in the California constitution. OK, again, it's not that "the right to marry" is constitutional. It's just that some judges have decided "marriage" means giving benefits to any two humans who claim they want it. This isn't what marriage is supposed to be, but that's beside the point at the moment. Bans on same-…

The bit about constitutionality is about equal protection under the law. The sole legal purpose and effect of Prop 8 was to strip equal protection from gay people as regards to marriage. That's not a debatable legal point, and the court decisions are quite clear on it. You can try to justify that, but pretending like that's not what went on mainly makes you look willfully ignorant. I don't have a black-and-white, sco…

It is a debatable point. Some judges agree with the interpretation that you're pretending is universal, and some don't. This is why this is a controversial political issue. If gay marriage were self-evidently legal, all of these court cases would not have happened. To many, the crux of the issue that the government chose to provide rewards and recognition for those willing to engage in a certain behavior, and now there are people trying to say that they should be included because they're doing something superficially similar. Whatever you believe about homosexuality or gay marriage, permanent cohabitation with same-sex individuals is not the same as permanent cohabitation with opposite-sex individuals. Maybe you think it doesn't make a difference, but a lot of people do, and only want to use state powers to encourage the latter behavior.

The issue here is that you see this as a matter of bigotry. As long as your view of the opposition is that narrow, a constructive dialogue is impossible. I understand it may be difficult to overcome that impulse with activists constantly trying to shame people into exactly that submissive position that doesn't allow them to consider the arguments of any opposition figure without automatically self-incriminating, but I hope that people can learn not to fall for that shaming.

True, there are always people anticipating major social collapse. It just so happens that occasionally, those people are right. The fact that some of them have been wrong in the past doesn't mean the suggestion is automatically invalid.

Your belligerent, empty retort only further illustrates the validity of my arguments. The attitude of "Fuck you, and the half of society that agrees with you" doesn't really make for social cohesion or stability.

Re: When Sued Don't Tweet

#118

Post by wpietri » Tue, May 06, 2014, 1:53 PM UTC

cookiecaper wrote: post #117

wpietri wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The bit about constitutionality is about equal protection under the law. The sole legal purpose and effect of Prop 8 was to strip equal protection from gay people as regards to marriage. That's not a debatable legal point, and the court decisions are quite clear on it. You can try to justify that, but pretending like that's not what went on mainly makes you look willfully ignorant. I don't have a black-and-white, sco…

It is a debatable point. Some judges agree with the interpretation that you're pretending is universal, and some don't. This is why this is a controversial political issue. If gay marriage were self-evidently legal, all of these court cases would not have happened. To many, the crux of the issue that the government chose to provide rewards and recognition for those willing to engage in a certain behavior, and now the…

It's not legally debatable in California, because those are the judgments that led up to Prop 8. It's settled law. And it was before Prop 8 aimed to change the constitution to strip equal protection from gay people. Which is why those paying for Prop 8 are literally guilty of trying to break up existing families.

You might believe permanent cohabitation between gay people is different, just like most people who were opposed to interracial marriage. But, in both cases, it's not materially different with respect to civil marriage. Not with regards to equal protection, because no anti-gay bigot has been able to demonstrate in court a rational basis for making that distinction. And not in my experience, where what I see is just like what I see when I visit my straight friends. Happy couples and struggling couples; childless couples and couples with happy, laughing children. Children who deserve society's protection, just like any others.

Regarding the last bit, you can't claim half of society on that. An ever-declining portion of society is anxious, concerned, confused, or misled on gay marriage. I have lots of compassion for them. There are also some people who believe it's against what their god(s) want, but correctly recognized that using the power of the state to impose their religious views on others is wrong. Them, I appreciate.

There are also some bigots -- a much smaller number than the other groups -- who say hateful and false things, as you have. They, and you, can go fuck yourselves. We survived the much greater social upheavals of reducing anti-black bias; we'll certainly make it through accommodating the smaller number of homosexuals. You and your friends can go on to be the Jesse Helmses and the Don Sterlings of your day, muttering into your bran flakes about how it's all going to fall part any day now while your grandchildren politely ignore you and get on with their lives. Enjoy it.