I Stand With Trolls • Hacker News Board

Re: I Stand With Trolls

#151

Post by yew » Thu, Apr 18, 2013, 5:43 AM UTC

eropple wrote: post #150

yew wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And by them you mean? I haven't asserted that you're infringing on anyone in more than a general sense, by the way. Though 'nuh-uh' wouldn't be a particularly convincing response if I had. And I'm not even talking about 'everyone who doesn't hate gays'. Nor am I excluding people who do hate gay people from my criticism. Given that I already believe that you're right and they're wrong (about gay rights , anyway), your…

Yeah, I do think you are misunderstanding me. Your post says, " If you decide that, just this once, it isn't really imposing your beliefs on others ", which is itself an invalid characterization of everything in the thread up to that point. My point is that precisely no-one on the side of the person to whom you were replying is doing that. There is no advocacy of the imposition of belief being performed. There is adv…

I'm afraid I'm not misunderstanding you. Though I'm not trying to change your mind now either. I'll finish by suggesting you look up the technical definition of 'belief'. I haven't been discussing religion or philosophy.

Back to both sides trying to crush each other under the weight of law, I suppose. No surprises there.

Re: I Stand With Trolls

#152

Post by anon4atruestory » Thu, Apr 18, 2013, 5:27 PM UTC

ben0x539 wrote: post #44

sodomizer wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it's a terrible idea to judge other people's political decisions until you've walked a mile in their shoes. If you are a professional, you should be ready to work with anyone, not just the people who agree with you. Your view is not objectively correct. To insist otherwise is fascism.

I think it's not fascism to refuse to work with/for people whose polics are aimed at concretely restricting your civil liberties, in a way that might have affected your day-to-day life for the rest of your life.

You're obviously not a libertarian...

Re: I Stand With Trolls

#153

Post by Jaundiced » Thu, Apr 18, 2013, 5:50 PM UTC

ChuckMcM wrote: post #119

jules wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This reasoning is bending over backwards a little too far. If the goal was to have marriage equality, then supporting a ban on marriage equality is not going to achieve that. Working against the ban would be much more likely to lead to marriage equality, because the supreme court can always decide over the next marriage equality ban that pops up. Secondly, the supreme court does take public support into account in it…

Hmm, ok so definitely not communicating successfully. First, I don't know if Brendan is pro-Gay, anti-Gay or agnostic. My assertion is that with one data point (a contribution to the prop 208 campaign) is, by itself insufficient deduce his actual feelings. My exposition on the strategy of passing it in order to change the country was not in a vacuum. Several people, myself included, who very much support a bias-blind…

Point 1: We understood the argument, we just felt that was a ridiculously problematic Rube Goldberg solution that has serious negative repercussions. I wouldn't want to take strategic direction from somebody who thought it was the best way forward.

Point 2: You directly stated that not wanting to work for bigots is the same as employment discrimination. That's a moronic argument. If you think your most exciting possible opportunity is to go work for a homophobic bigot, then go ahead, nobody is stopping you, but don't piss on people who have more than one opportunity.

too many words got in the way of the point

No. You just have an incredibly naive position... and you're being incredibly rude to those who disagree with utterly insane positions.

It's disgusting that you compare not wanting to work for a woman to not wanting to work for a bigoted asshole.

I can't even begin to fathom what made you think that was a reasonable argument to make. But I assume whatever broken made you think that was okay is also what keeps you from realizing that it was a stupid point...

no need for further replies, at this point we understand that you're an idiotic blowhard who supports bigotry, and insults those who don't.

Re: I Stand With Trolls

#154

Post by summerdown2 » Fri, Apr 19, 2013, 8:48 PM UTC

Reminds me of this talk from LongNow:

http://longnow.org/seminars/02011/jul/25/why-cities-keep-gro...

One difference as to why cities keep going and corporations die:

"Cities tolerate crazy people," West observed, "Companies don't."

Re: I Stand With Trolls

#155

Post by eropple » Sat, Apr 20, 2013, 7:46 AM UTC

yew wrote: post #151

eropple wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, I do think you are misunderstanding me. Your post says, " If you decide that, just this once, it isn't really imposing your beliefs on others ", which is itself an invalid characterization of everything in the thread up to that point. My point is that precisely no-one on the side of the person to whom you were replying is doing that. There is no advocacy of the imposition of belief being performed. There is adv…

I'm afraid I'm not misunderstanding you. Though I'm not trying to change your mind now either. I'll finish by suggesting you look up the technical definition of 'belief'. I haven't been discussing religion or philosophy. Back to both sides trying to crush each other under the weight of law, I suppose. No surprises there.

I am well aware of the definition. I reject the idea that you can be imposing on another's beliefs by doing something that has no impact upon them. And I find that characterization inhuman and stupid.