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

Gay Firefox developers boycott Mozilla to protest CEO hire

arstechnica.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

191–200 of 214 posts

Re: Gay Firefox developers boycott Mozilla to protest CEO hire

#191

Post by lexcorvus »

mikeash wrote: post #159
lexcorvus wrote: post #136

There's a common wrong argument against this sort of boycott, but its comparably common rebuttal is subtly wrong as well. common wrong argument : This is a violation of Eich's freedom of speech. subtly wrong rebuttal : The First Amendment protects you against government infringement of free speech (including campaign donations, since money is "speech"), but it doesn't protect you against the social consequences of th…

Non-gays are absolutely a protected class. Sexual orientation is what's protected, not a particular orientation. A business that discriminates against straight people is just as liable under the law as a business that discriminates against gay people. (This is not, as I understand it, currently illegal under federal law. Many states outlaw it, though.) The problem is that you see Prop 8 as symmetrical, but it is not.…

Sexual orientation is what's protected

Right—same with race, creed, and gender. That's the theory, at least. How fearful do you expect, say, the Super Bowl–winning Seattle Seahawks are of a lawsuit alleging racial discrimination on the grounds that its defensive squad is biased against non-blacks?

http://fantasyfootballwarehouse.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/...

In practice, the treatment of "underrepresented" minorities vs. "overrepresented" groups is almost completely asymmetric.

Prop 8 is an attempt to remove rights from a group of people.

You can't remove a right that doesn't exist. Even if you're generally sympathetic to gay rights (as I am), the idea that the framers of the California state constitution intended to protect the right of two men (or two women) to marry each other is risible.

The proper analogy would be a hypothetical Prop 88 which seeks to ban straight marriage while allowing gay marriage.

You're assuming that gay marriage and straight marriage are equally valid relationships. This may be true, but the whole point of Prop. 8 was an explicit rejection of this premise. By positing a symmetry between gay and straight marriage, you're simply begging the question.

Re: Gay Firefox developers boycott Mozilla to protest CEO hire

#192

Post by nemothekid »

kevincrane wrote: post #69
nemothekid wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Its scary how people jump to these conclusions once their views are those of the flavor of the month. I'd hate to be unemployable because my views don't confirm to that of the majority. Imagine saying this to guy who attempted to stand up for civil rights in the 1920s. The world makes you believe that this type of thinking is gone when really its just painted a different color.

Wanting gay people to be able to have the same rights as you is hardly a "flavor of the month."

On the time scale western society's majority views, gay rights is definitely flavor of the month.

Re: Gay Firefox developers boycott Mozilla to protest CEO hire

#193

Post by nemothekid »

bsder wrote: post #70
nemothekid wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Its scary how people jump to these conclusions once their views are those of the flavor of the month. I'd hate to be unemployable because my views don't confirm to that of the majority. Imagine saying this to guy who attempted to stand up for civil rights in the 1920s. The world makes you believe that this type of thinking is gone when really its just painted a different color.

Well, if you don't buy the fundamental rights argument, let's try a simple utilitarian argument. The computer industry, especially in Silicon Valley and San Francisco, employs an abnormally high percentage of people who identify as LGBT. The fact that your company will now have trouble recruiting from that group of individuals places your company at a business disadvantage and makes you unfit to lead such a business.

I completely get the issue. I, personally, support the right for LGBT individuals to get married. However its not about buying the argument

What I'm worried about is the social ostracizing of those who hold different political beliefs than you. At some point in time it was completely kosher to say the same thing about Blacks. At some point in time, a company that hired black individuals would have had trouble recruiting workers that would have given them a business advantage.

What worries me is that you could say the same exact argument for not hiring Black workers in the mid 1900s - the exact same you posted, and you seem to be completely cool with that. Theres a point where we are now using the same tools of suppression that were used on minorities of past on the now unfashionable opinions of today. I would have liked to think the human race has learned from that experience.

Re: Gay Firefox developers boycott Mozilla to protest CEO hire

#195

Post by kefka »

drone wrote: post #162
kefka wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The supreme court has equated financial contribution with speech, and many of us agree with that position. I think this is the root issue here. SCOTUS declared by fiat that financial contribution is speech. According to our law, it is now. The people do not see that the same way. Giving lip service is speech, while money is altogether something different. What it is, I do not know. And it seems much more akin to "b…

While there are situations where the exercising of speech in that manner can cause harm (e.g. very large contributions to politicians), I believe that harm is outweighed by the good. No on can outlaw me donating to the EFF, or other charitable organizations, which would most certainly happen when it suits the lawmakers' purposes, given that it is enshrined as speech and protected by the 1st amendment. Just like the f…

I was not up on my case law regarding Buckley v. Valeo, but I do remember now after having looked it up. Unfortunately, I don't have the legal backbone to discuss case law proper. I was trying to discuss more akin to philosopher language.

After having slept on why money in politics bothers me, I think I can better explain why it does.

Normally, a vote from me counts as the same as a vote from any resident in Indiana. And I can extrapolate that to show that my vote is pretty much equal to any citizen in the US. When we add money, it changes that "1 person, 1 vote" to "1 rich person, lots of votes: 1 poor person, 1 vote"

When we distill that down, we are saying that a rich person is much more important than an average income person, or even that homeless indigent voters are worthless. That doesn't sit right with me.

Re: Gay Firefox developers boycott Mozilla to protest CEO hire

#196

Post by mikeash »

lexcorvus wrote: post #191
mikeash wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Non-gays are absolutely a protected class. Sexual orientation is what's protected, not a particular orientation. A business that discriminates against straight people is just as liable under the law as a business that discriminates against gay people. (This is not, as I understand it, currently illegal under federal law. Many states outlaw it, though.) The problem is that you see Prop 8 as symmetrical, but it is not.…

Sexual orientation is what's protected Right—same with race, creed, and gender. That's the theory, at least. How fearful do you expect, say, the Super Bowl–winning Seattle Seahawks are of a lawsuit alleging racial discrimination on the grounds that its defensive squad is biased against non-blacks? http://fantasyfootballwarehouse.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/... In practice, the treatment of "underrepresented" minoriti…

It's not "begging the question", it's simple logic.

If Elsa can marry Joe, but Steve cannot marry Joe, and this is purely because Elsa is a woman and Steve is a man, then you're prohibiting Steve from doing something purely because of his sex. Such discrimination based on a person's sex is wrong.

Really, sexual orientation is a red herring in this debate, but people can't properly break the situation down. Bans on "gay marriage" take rights away from everyone, not just homosexuals; although I may never exercise my right to marry a man, I should still have that right.

Re: Gay Firefox developers boycott Mozilla to protest CEO hire

#197

Post by mikeash »

SamReidHughes wrote: post #190
mikeash wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think there's a big difference that comes down to motivation. Somebody who tries to get a Nazi elected wants, at some level, for me to die. Thus, I cannot trust them to treat me well. Similarly, somebody who tries to get a gay marriage ban passed thinks that consenting adults should be prevented from marrying, and since there are no good rational reasons to do that (it's possible that there are some, but none have…

How about people that donate to fight the existence of polyamorous marriage licenses? Do you want to get them fired? > there are no good rational reasons to do that If you lived in the south bay area like I do, you'd suffer far more oppression from people with houses that oppose any and all kinds of development, than you would from the government not recognizing gay marriage (if you were gay). These people cost me th…

Your distinction between selfless and selfish actors is interesting, because I reach the opposite conclusion. In my opinion, the most dangerous and frightening people by far are those who sacrifice in order to hurt others. Most people are selfish. I can understand them and I can deal with them. If I need something from them, I just have to figure out what they would want that they value more than what I want, and arrange a trade.

I can't understand your last paragraph at all. I'm not sure that free will is even a coherent concept, let alone a real thing, but I also don't see how one can possibly live without assuming it.

Re: Gay Firefox developers boycott Mozilla to protest CEO hire

#198

Post by kibwen »

ben0x539 wrote: post #24
HillRat wrote: post #2

They should be protesting the fact that he's the person responsible for JavaScript. (Hey, don't forget to tip your waitress and try the veal!) More seriously, there's the open question as to whether a career technologist is the right person for the CEO slot, especially since he appears to still be in the trenches when it comes to projects like Rust. Beyond that, this is a cautionary tale for potential CEOs -- within…

I'm not sure Eich is particularly involved with Rust (anymore?) beyond having his name on some recent related press release.

Eich hasn't been involved in Rust for the three years that I've been watching the project. Whether he was involved before that, I don't know, but given the primitive and under-the-radar state of pre-2011 Rust it seems unlikely.

Re: Gay Firefox developers boycott Mozilla to protest CEO hire

#199

Post by Bahamut »

gtremper wrote: post #67
Bahamut wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What the heck does this have to do with JS?

He invented Javascript.

I know that part, but boycotting the language he created over 10 years ago & doesn't actively develop is a stretch is more what I was getting at.

Re: Gay Firefox developers boycott Mozilla to protest CEO hire

#200

Post by malyk »

jacalata wrote: post #146
bsder wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Pluralism does not equal correct. Slavery, women's suffrage, Japanese internment, separate-but-equal ... the list goes on and on.

Did you intend to just put 'giving women the vote' in a list of bad ideas alongside slavery and Japanese internment camps?

I think he meant that pluralism didn't give women the right to vote for a long time.
Post reply on HN