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

Mozilla Moving Forward

blog.mozilla.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

251–259 of 259 posts

Re: Mozilla Moving Forward

#251

Post by ubernostrum »

overcyn wrote: post #239
ubernostrum wrote: post #238

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And why can't they both be wrong? The general argument I've seen has been that Proposition 8 was "just an opinion" or "just freedom of speech", while the people speaking out against Brendan were "a lynch mob", on a "witch hunt", an example of "lefty liberal intolerance", etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. So the people making the argument typically need to have a position where Brendan supporting Prop 8 was not bad, but Brenda…

> The general argument I've seen has been that Proposition 8 was "just an opinion" or "just freedom of speech" > need to have a position where Brendan supporting Prop 8 was not bad The second statement _absolutely_ does not follow from the first. You can consider Prop 8 immoral and wrong, and still want it protected by freedom of speech. And calling the internet's behavior "a lynch mob" or a "witch hunt" is not inter…

The second statement _absolutely_ does not follow from the first.

You very obviously have not been following any of the backlash to the backlash. Read any of the "witch hunt" articles to see plenty of people whose position is that Brendan did nothing wrong, but the people who condemned him did.

Re: Mozilla Moving Forward

#252

Post by bradleyjg »

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?

No I wouldn't say that. Other problems included: too broad a definition of communist, guilt by association, the demand for loyalty oaths, and an unwillingness to take into account ideological changes over time.

However, I strongly disagree with the notion that there was no problem at all with people working for the State Department, the Army, or even in major media outlets, who actively supported, and were working towards, the violent overthrow of the US government in favor of a dictatorship of the proletariat.

If we look at the Eich situation, there were few concerns about accuracy, no guilt by association, and Eich had ample opportunity to disclaim his prior views/actions but declined to do so. So we are left with only the core question of whether or not there is something wrong with keeping avowed communists or bigots out of public positions.

Re: Mozilla Moving Forward

#253

Post by quasque »

Mikeb85 wrote: post #130
quasque wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

I'm saying that if you're named Mohammed people will make certain assumptions about your beliefs your whole life, and will treat you differently.

Well, some people may do that.

Re: Mozilla Moving Forward

#254

Post by arrrg »

bzbarsky wrote: post #248
arrrg wrote: post #246

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Of course that’s not ok, but it also doesn’t define the issue to me. That just makes no sense at all.

It doesn't _define_ the issue, but it's also inseparable from the issue in this case. If you want to understand why what happened happened, you have to understand this aspect of things.

But I would disagree that that drive the issue in any way.

Re: Mozilla Moving Forward

#255

Post by smsm42 »

bunderbunder wrote: post #249
smsm42 wrote: post #237

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Whatever you understand under "civil union", prop 8 was not about it. It was specifically about "marriage". All the rest was already covered by California law. You can say it looks like "separate but equal" and benefits and other equality measures in domestic partnerships are not enough and only full recognition of same-sex unions as "marriage" is true equality. That's fine. But that doesn't make those who supported…

> in fact, domestic partnerships by that time in California were done deal and had the same status with regard to all law and benefits as marriage. They couldn't have. The federal government does not recognize civil unions, and many of the benefits of marriage come in through federal law. Even with that corner of DOMA being repealed, a state can still effectively cut people off from the vast majority of marriage bene…

I wasn't talking about federal benefits, I was talking about California specifically and the state law in California.

What I am not getting here is how California could control federal benefits? Could you specify which vast majority of benefits prop 8 would cut off? It certainly does not include insurance, taxes, pension, unemployment & disability benefits, survivor benefits, etc. as I see that those are covered by California domestic partnership law. As for federal ones, doesn't federal government controls those? Obama issuing regulation to equate benefits of domestic partnerships to those of marriages certainly suggests it is under federal control - otherwise why would the President do it?

Re: Mozilla Moving Forward

#256

Post by bzbarsky »

arrrg wrote: post #254
bzbarsky wrote: post #248

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It doesn't _define_ the issue, but it's also inseparable from the issue in this case. If you want to understand why what happened happened, you have to understand this aspect of things.

But I would disagree that that drive the issue in any way.

Maybe we disagree on what "the issue" is...

Re: Mozilla Moving Forward

#257

Post by acjohnson55 »

sdegutis wrote: post #243
Crito wrote: post #230

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Despite your cynical fatalism, the fact that the public's perception of the issues has been shifting rapidly in recent years suggests that people can change their minds. Just because you have no experience with changing your opinion on something does not mean that nobody else can or does. Consider how absurd you would sound if you were suggesting that the zeitgeist on racial or gender equality was an unchangeable con…

On the contrary, I have changed my mind on virtually every issue that I can think of. Several times. But it was never because of random debates on the internet.

That sounds like more of a knock on your own open-mindedness than anything. I'm pretty sure I've probably changed my mind completely on something based directly on interaction via the web. But even if I haven't, I'm absolutely positive that Internet discourse moves my internal needle incrementally on a wide variety issues on a regular basis.

Re: Mozilla Moving Forward

#258

Post by outside1234 »

MetaCosm wrote: post #234
outside1234 wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm going to draw the line at conflating people's personal opinions with their professional ones. I totally disagree with Brendan's position on gay rights, but I completely support his right to have his own personal opinions. If we don't separate these issues, we are only enabling other corporations to fire leaders because they _DO_ personally support gay rights. That's not acceptable - but we can't have it both ways…

Bullshit, of course we can (and do) have it both ways. Look at interracial marriage. If you are actively trying to ban interracial marriage, we CAN AND WILL run your ass out on a rail so you can't be CEO. If on the other-hand -- you think two people of different races getting married is fine, yey for you. This just -- insanely dumb -- fox news style -- belief that every issue has two EQUAL and VALID sides is nonsense…

Well, here's a gay activist explaining the very same position, so clearly there is:

http://thecolbertreport.cc.com/full-episodes/vk9n20/april-9-...

Re: Mozilla Moving Forward

#259

Post by ndesaulniers »

hackuser wrote: post #159
bzbarsky wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> * Why do they appear to have difficulty finding a long-term CEO? I can't speak for the board here, but lack of stock options and the like probably has something to do with it. I expect that it's also difficult to find a CEO that is willing to operate in the sort of environment described in http://blog.finette.com/on-mozilla (see the quote from John Lilly in there). This extends to broader culture fit issues: findin…

I recently saw John Lilly's presentation to WordCamp ~2009. Truly amazing and inspiring how you guys operate. I understand many people seek big financial returns and others might have difficulty with the culture, but for anyone in the non-profit world or with the mission-oriented motivation, it's hard to imagine a better opportunity to change the world. If I had the skills I would leap at it.

There's more ways to contribute than just writing code. ;)
Post reply on HN