Inclusiveness at Mozilla • Hacker News Board

Re: Inclusiveness at Mozilla

#191

Post by [deleted] » Sat, Mar 29, 2014, 4:30 AM UTC

gregors wrote: post #127

danudey wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Brendan went out of his way to donate a thousand dollars to prevent a group of people from sharing the same right as everyone else. Allowing it would have harmed no one. Not him, not them, not anyone. There are no negative downsides, other than a subset of religious individuals who wish to impose their strictures onto all of society feeling less in control of their lives. I have a hard time accepting, as a leader, so…

You mean American society don't you? Most societies in the world aren't governed by America. Let's not pretend for a single second America leads the way in progressive and social change.

[deleted]

Re: Inclusiveness at Mozilla

#192

Post by erikpukinskis » Sat, Mar 29, 2014, 5:01 AM UTC

macu wrote: post #30

thirsteh wrote: post #15

He is sorry like the NSA is sorry you found out what they've been doing. Brendan Eich doesn't just dislike gays getting married. He hates the concept so much he officially donated to prevent it from being possible. I'm sorry, but I don't sympathize with the argument that he's "entitled to his opinions," because it's more than that. Nevermind that he's now CEO of Mozilla. (I personally don't care if gays can get marri…

I haven't seen a single grain of evidence in support of the claim that Brendan Eich hates gay people. He said it himself, "the donation does not in itself constitute evidence of animosity." And I can stand behind him on that. I'm gay and I also find the cultural crusade for gay marriage objectionable. I more go along with the views of the Against Equality group. But since it appears that gay marriage is going to happ…

> I'm gay and I also find the cultural crusade for gay marriage objectionable

That baffles me. Do you not have any friends with non-citizen partners? Do you live in a really rural place or something? Are you mostly friends with straight people? I'm trying to understand how you haven't come across couples like that. Those partners can't currently come to the U.S. and work, unlike their straight counterparts. And depending on where they are from, in many cases, there is no country in the world both partners can live and work.

That seems righteously messed up to me. And maybe you think we should be able to sponsor immigrants without getting married (as I do) but that law isn't on the table and same-sex marriage is. Given that, I don't know why you would prefer same-sex marriage to be illegal.

Re: Inclusiveness at Mozilla

#193

Post by cookiecaper » Sun, Mar 30, 2014, 3:13 AM UTC

danudey wrote: post #96

pavpanchekha wrote: post #59

Wait, wait, hold on. Folks, this man isn't a politician, he isn't a social crusader, he isn't using his position as a platform. At worst, he's rich. He hasn't taken the throne, or even government office; he's the CEO of a private corporation that makes web browsers of all things. Now, sure, he might be against gay marriage. And you might disagree, and have a variety of principles to back your position. But why do we…

Brendan went out of his way to donate a thousand dollars to prevent a group of people from sharing the same right as everyone else. Allowing it would have harmed no one. Not him, not them, not anyone. There are no negative downsides, other than a subset of religious individuals who wish to impose their strictures onto all of society feeling less in control of their lives. I have a hard time accepting, as a leader, so…

Some people obviously do not agree that "allowing it would have harmed no one".

Re: Inclusiveness at Mozilla

#194

Post by cookiecaper » Sun, Mar 30, 2014, 6:25 AM UTC

iSnow wrote: post #186

foolinaround wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am not the OP, but you have a point, they are not completely orthogonal. For instance, I do know many people who oppose gay marriage but are not homophobic.

I doubt this. Opposing gay marriage makes you homophobic in my view like voting for Apartheid makes you a racist. There is no "I have nothing against them but they should not have equal rights". If you opt not to support equal rights for any given group of people you believe their way of life is not as valid as yours.

The difference being that "a way of life" refers to behavior, and race refers to an unchangeable physical characteristic that is constantly visible and constantly present. Even if we claim that homosexuality is an unchangeable inborn physical characteristic (which is highly dubious), there's not necessarily a mandate to allow (or, in the case of marriage, reward) the behaviors that those biological impulses promote. The case that we must allow a behavior simply because of a biological compulsion is a fallacious appeal to nature.

A person with sexual attraction to the same sex can restrain his behavior and not engage in sexual activity, despite his attraction. A person with a skin color cannot restrain his skin color, and cannot ever not "act on" his skin color, no matter what choices he makes. Homosexuality is not externally visible, but race is. It is not automatically shown at all times despite the behavior, wishes, or intention of the person, but race is. Someone who makes judgments based on willful sexual behaviors is fundamentally different from someone who makes judgments based on involuntarily hereditary attributes.

This is the difference that must be realized when we talk about racism as it compares to "homophobia". Homosexual behavior, and homosexual marriage, is a thing people choose to do, whatever biological or psychological forces may or may not be at work in the promotion of that behavior. This is completely different from visibly possessing certain levels of skin pigmentation.

"Homophobes" are not the same as racists. Whatever your opinion is, you must acknowledge that "homophobes" oppose a sexual behavior, whereas racists oppose the existence of a class of persons, no matter what choices they've made. Whether you think homosexuality is OK or not, there is a clear difference here.

Please acknowledge the failure of your analogy.

Re: Inclusiveness at Mozilla

#195

Post by cookiecaper » Sun, Mar 30, 2014, 6:32 AM UTC

quesera wrote: post #17

I think this is 95% satisfactory. It's unreasonable to demand that someone change their mind about something (and would you believe it if he claimed he had?), but it's imperative to be sure that his personal opinion will not bleed into his executive function. He knows he's outnumbered, and on the wrong side of history. But he recognizes that he can't change himself on demand. It's the best we can hope for in an hones…

He's on the right side of history. Our society no longer recognizes excess or decadence as problematic, which should indicate that we're in the midst of a decadent downfall. Today's social progressives will be disproved and social renormalization will occur out of necessity for survival, as it has the many times this cycle has been repeated throughout human history.

Just doing my part to counteract the HN echo chamber, and demonstrate that there are technically capable, intelligent persons on the other side of this debate, for the benefit of the technically capable, intelligent persons that may be shamed out of their accurate opinion by the bullying of the pro-gay lobby.

Re: Inclusiveness at Mozilla

#196

Post by azinman2 » Wed, Apr 02, 2014, 5:15 AM UTC

thescribe wrote: post #176

azinman2 wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are wrong. There's personal beliefs and then there's giving financial support to crush someone else's. That puts things on a different scale. Abortion in the examples would probably be the closest, but the most 'understandable' part of that is at least it involves termination of life, which is by itself controversial. Prop 8 was about materially preventing families from officially forming. That puts it in a diffe…

You know what we call someone who has personal beliefs but doesn't act on them? Hypocritical.

Pretty sure that's not the definition.