Mozilla Moving Forward • Hacker News Board

Re: Mozilla Moving Forward

#211

Post by mpyne » Mon, Apr 14, 2014, 9:37 PM UTC

leoc wrote: post #89

nostromo wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And where do you draw the line? Are you going to defend people that oppose Women's Suffrage too? What about slavery supporters? These were just political opinions once too. But today you'll find that they get you fired as CEO. And for good reason: blacks and women (and gays) are your customers and employees and business partners.

How about Stalin apologists? Should they be tolerated in high-ranking technical or creative jobs?

You mean like that "Izzy" Stone guy who passed away recently?

Re: Mozilla Moving Forward

#212

Post by baddox » Mon, Apr 14, 2014, 9:38 PM UTC

dragonwriter wrote: post #144

baddox wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I could argue that anyone who supports any special legal recognition of "marriage" is directly pushing for the codification of discrimination. Many people make the argument that if a man and woman who are romantically involved can get a government marriage license and reap certain benefits, then gays should be able to as well. That obviously makes sense. But why can't two roommates in a plu(a)tonic friendship receive…

> I could argue that anyone who supports any special legal recognition of "marriage" is directly pushing for the codification of discrimination. There is a sense in which that is true -- every legal status is, by definition, discrimination in the law. But then, there is nothing wrong with discrimination, per se , what is wrong is discrimination on bases which do not serve a legitimate public purpose. Which, of course…

> But then, there is nothing wrong with discrimination, per se, what is wrong is discrimination on bases which do not serve a legitimate public purpose.

That's true, but that means it's not sufficient to denounce anti-gay marriage proponents simply because they favor discrimination.

> the word you are looking for is probably "platonic"

Yes, definitely. I actually looked it up to make sure I would spell it correctly, then still proceeded to spell it incorrectly.

Re: Mozilla Moving Forward

#213

Post by ubernostrum » Mon, Apr 14, 2014, 9:40 PM UTC

rfrey wrote: post #205

bradleyjg wrote: post #198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you draw the wrong lesson from McCarthyism. If McCarthy had only gone after people that were actually trying to violently overthrow the US government and/or working for Stalin, history would look at him a lot differently. There were Soviet spies and they did a fair bit of damage. However, the people on his list were not in fact spies or communists and there was no good reason for him to believe they were.

So the only thing wrong with McCarthyism was accuracy?

Historically, one of the conservative/anti-communist gripes with McCarthy was that he left the public believing that any and all accusations of espionage within the government were baseless political smears, making it far more difficult to expose and prosecute the actual espionage going on at the time.

Re: Mozilla Moving Forward

#214

Post by baddox » Mon, Apr 14, 2014, 9:40 PM UTC

dragonwriter wrote: post #144

baddox wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I could argue that anyone who supports any special legal recognition of "marriage" is directly pushing for the codification of discrimination. Many people make the argument that if a man and woman who are romantically involved can get a government marriage license and reap certain benefits, then gays should be able to as well. That obviously makes sense. But why can't two roommates in a plu(a)tonic friendship receive…

> I could argue that anyone who supports any special legal recognition of "marriage" is directly pushing for the codification of discrimination. There is a sense in which that is true -- every legal status is, by definition, discrimination in the law. But then, there is nothing wrong with discrimination, per se , what is wrong is discrimination on bases which do not serve a legitimate public purpose. Which, of course…

> So, platonic roomates can get married.

Valid point. But I could use other examples which generally are not allowed, like close blood relatives or groups of 3 or more people.

Re: Mozilla Moving Forward

#215

Post by dragonwriter » Mon, Apr 14, 2014, 9:41 PM UTC

baddox wrote: post #212

dragonwriter wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I could argue that anyone who supports any special legal recognition of "marriage" is directly pushing for the codification of discrimination. There is a sense in which that is true -- every legal status is, by definition, discrimination in the law. But then, there is nothing wrong with discrimination, per se , what is wrong is discrimination on bases which do not serve a legitimate public purpose. Which, of course…

> But then, there is nothing wrong with discrimination, per se, what is wrong is discrimination on bases which do not serve a legitimate public purpose. That's true, but that means it's not sufficient to denounce anti-gay marriage proponents simply because they favor discrimination. > the word you are looking for is probably "platonic" Yes, definitely. I actually looked it up to make sure I would spell it correctly,…

> That's true, but that means it's not sufficient to denounce anti-gay marriage proponents simply because they favor discrimination.

In policy debates "discrimination" alone is often used (often on both sides of the debate) as shorthand for "discrimination not justified by a sufficient public purpose". This is fairly widely understood, but its easy to get tripped up over.

Re: Mozilla Moving Forward

#216

Post by mpyne » Mon, Apr 14, 2014, 9:42 PM UTC

bradleyjg wrote: post #198

mpyne wrote: post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well it's kind of obvious how it'd different from lynching, I hope. I'm not so sure how it's different from McCarthyism though. "The Company is infested with homophobes. I have here in my hands a list of names that were made known to the Board as being contributors to and members of anti-gay organizations and who nevertheless are still working and shaping policy in the Company..." McCarthy's "speech" wasn't illegal e…

I think you draw the wrong lesson from McCarthyism. If McCarthy had only gone after people that were actually trying to violently overthrow the US government and/or working for Stalin, history would look at him a lot differently. There were Soviet spies and they did a fair bit of damage. However, the people on his list were not in fact spies or communists and there was no good reason for him to believe they were.

> However, the people on his list were not in fact spies or communists and there was no good reason for him to believe they were.

The "list" he was holding wasn't a list at all. It was completely fake, made up for his own political grandstanding purposes.

Oh, sure, they eventually did come up with a real list after the witch-hunt got started but make no mistake that our problem with McCarthy was the witch-hunt itself, and the hysteria it generated. Oh sure, we all agree on "better dead than Red" but that wasn't what the HUAC ended up turning into.

Re: Mozilla Moving Forward

#217

Post by sdegutis » Mon, Apr 14, 2014, 9:50 PM UTC

quasque wrote: post #105

Mikeb85 wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why not? Religious people get ridiculed all the time, people drink and eat pork around Muslims, and yet somehow they fit in fine. And being a member of a religion isn't always a choice, being that usually you're born into it and your name identifies you as such.

By implication, are you saying that being homophobic is not a choice?

Oh look. Another debate about religion and politics on the internet. Because the last one didn't change everyone's minds, but this time will be different. Better join in.

You're right and we're wrong!!

(Am I doing it right?)

Re: Mozilla Moving Forward

#218

Post by adrianlmm » Mon, Apr 14, 2014, 9:58 PM UTC

#uninstallfirefox

Re: Mozilla Moving Forward

#219

Post by sdegutis » Mon, Apr 14, 2014, 10:12 PM UTC

Crito wrote: post #115

Mikeb85 wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why not? Religious people get ridiculed all the time, people drink and eat pork around Muslims, and yet somehow they fit in fine. And being a member of a religion isn't always a choice, being that usually you're born into it and your name identifies you as such.

If people are trying to strip religious people of their rights, as Eich tried to do ( and successfully did , for a time), then it would be unreasonable to ask religious people to respect the idea that religious people should not have rights. Ridiculing is fine. Freedom of speech ensures religious people the right to practice their religion; it ensures non-religious people the right to ridicule and mock religion. It e…

Using the phrase "oppressed minority" to effect pathos is pretty weak. I can probably name dozens of "oppressed minorities" that you would certainly condemn.

Re: Mozilla Moving Forward

#220

Post by wonderzombie » Mon, Apr 14, 2014, 10:13 PM UTC

mpyne wrote: post #203

wonderzombie wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

they are entitled not to lose their jobs or be beaten etc over them These things are not at all the same. And in this case, we're talking about a CEO, the public face of a company, not an otherwise private citizen. For, those that believe otherwise, I'd say that their opinoon means that people who talked against slavery in 1840 and were fired, ostracized from their community or beaten up were also living in a "free s…

> And in this case, we're talking about a CEO, the public face of a company, not an otherwise private citizen. This is true, and similar to what got people like Adria Richards fired in other scenarios where they've lost the ability to be able to professionally represent their company through their speech alone. > Anyway, you're essentially arguing that free speech means freedom from consequences, and it just doesn't.…

Thank you for your thoughtful comment.

I agree that the consequences should be modulated. I've said elsewhere that death threats are unacceptable, but this is an unsolved problem in society at large. It's not unique to Eich's situation.

Other than that, the consequences are rather mild for someone with as deep a resume as Eich's. I'm sure we'll hear about it if he's been blackballed from the entire industry, or someone sabotages a new company of his, or what have you. I suppose it could happen but I think it unlikely.

Likewise, aside from behavior that I'm sure we both agree ought never happen, it's hard for me to find fault with people exercising their own right to criticism & browser choice. It's certainly not the moral equivalent of a mob threatening his physical well-being, and a (forced) resignation isn't morally equivalent to being thrust into the wilderness with nothing but the clothes in your back.

You're saying we should ostensibly set the standard higher the bare minimum of legality, and that's fair. I just don't see this situation as being a dangerous precedent in this context. If you not in so many words argue that a bunch of your citizens are subhuman, a backlash is inevitable, particularly when it's based on so flimsy a premise. The case for responsible speech goes both ways.

The "insult your boss" example was just a trivial example of how freedom of speech still entails a responsibility for the consequences-- it is not an absolute and inviolate for a variety of good reasons, though a great many commenters here wish it were.