Untitled topic • Hacker News Board

Re: undefined

#761

Post by tptacek » Mon, Oct 17, 2016, 12:18 AM UTC

BrendanEich wrote: post #758

smsm42 wrote: post #751

Earlier quoted context omitted.

These are tiny details, which are immaterial for the large point - that supporting unpopular point should be ruinous, and mere association with somebody doing this must be a blemish one has to work to remove, or else. Thiel is billionaire and he probably has way over fuck you money. He can do anything he wants. Most of us don't have fuck you money, and that's exactly the point - creating the climate in the industry w…

Honest question: what makes me a large target? I'm not in the "one percent". I have to work to eat. Not whining about it, just saying: I do not have f.u. money. I agree with you on "the potential target would be everybody."

Based only on the limited knowledge I have of the state of Mozilla when you stepped down, I think what happened to you is wrong.

Re: undefined

#762

Post by BrendanEich » Mon, Oct 17, 2016, 12:19 AM UTC

sjellis wrote: post #300

paulv wrote: post #253

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Look at the timeline. Eich donated after Prop 22 was overturned (Prop 22 restricted marriage to same-sex couples). He wasn't trying to keep the status quo, he was trying to change the California constitution to outlaw something that the court had previously deemed legal. The end result of that difference is subtle, yes, but I find the spirit of the difference significant. Which is to say...much worse.

Thank you - I think that is the thing that pro-Eich people consistently ignore. The Prop 8 campaign to retroactively strip people of human rights once those rights were re-affirmed by the state Supreme Court was an act of pure malice and spite. I don't know what Eich's personal reasons for donating were, but it speaks very poorly of his character that he did.

> to retroactively strip

Prop 8 would not and did not "nullify" any marriages licensed by the state in the middle of 2008. See

http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Prop-8-not-retroactive...

Retroactive or ex-post-facto law is unconstitutional. I am a big fan of this principle. It protects all of us.

> it speaks very poorly

Speaking ill of me based on false information does not reflect well on you. Let's back off and perhaps we'll meet on better terms another day. (FYI, I do not support Trump.)

Re: undefined

#763

Post by ben0x539 » Mon, Oct 17, 2016, 12:20 AM UTC

smsm42 wrote: post #710

idlewords wrote: post #429

Peter Thiel is a YCombinator partner, yet YC has steadfastly refused to disavow him. In a Twitter exchange with David Heinemeier Hansson, Paul Graham suggested that to do so would somehow be the equivalent of firing an employee for having a distateful political opinion. YC's silence on a partner's outspoken support of Trump is disgraceful, and sends the most shameful message about our industry.

What is disgraceful is trying to ensure there is only one acceptable point of view, and preclude people from trying to support other points of view under threat of public boycott, being fired, deemed unemployable, etc. This is ultimately what you fight is for - so that nobody would be able to speak in support candidate you don't like or policy you don't like or idea you don't like because if he does, he will be run o…

pinboard is a bookmarking website with a funny twitter, not the gestapo.

people giving other people shit for supporting bad ideas is a fairly important part of the marketplace of ideas.

do you draw any line where support of abhorrent politics is grounds for social shunning?

Re: undefined

#764

Post by morgante » Mon, Oct 17, 2016, 12:22 AM UTC

SomeStupidPoint wrote: post #462

briandear wrote: post #401

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Tax dodger? Like the New York Times? Carried loss isn't a tax dodge. Ironic that Google and other massive tech companies have their Dutch Irish Sandwiches yet overwhelmingly support Clinton. Does anyone think they would support someone that will hurt their business? Of course not. One could infer that Clinton would further enable so-called tax dodging. Google isn't going to risk billions supporting a candidate becaus…

> There's something in it for them. That's untrue. A Trump presidency following the major Snowden leaks would likely be an international death sentence for US tech companies. Other nations might tolerate presidents they feel they can deal with controlling the NSA apparatus in their nation, but almost certainly will take steps to prevent Donald Trump from having the same tools. For an internet company, the split betwe…

That's not even taking into account the major brain drain which could come under a Trump presidency. We have a precedent.

Re: undefined

#765

Post by ubernostrum » Mon, Oct 17, 2016, 12:22 AM UTC

ebfe wrote: post #593

ubernostrum wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So consider Proposition 8. This was a ballot measure whose sole purpose was to enshrine in law the idea that "this group of people over here aren't legally equal to everyone else". Privately believing someone has done something wrong, or belongs to a bad group, is one thing. Trying to enshrine that belief in law and disenfranchise the targeted person or group is quite another thing, and if you honestly are unable to…

Out of curiosity, do you also oppose non-flat taxation, affirmative action, minority-owned business contracting priorities, etc.?

Non-flat taxation are an attempt to make the impact of the law be equal on everyone.

Affirmative action is an attempt to alleviate the impact of prior laws and practices which made people unequal.

I am generally fine with trying to redress previously-enforced inequalities, and suspicious of anyone who isn't (protip: Google "libertarianism, starting right now" for an explanation of why this is important that you're more likely to agree with if a "LOL look how hard I rekt that dude by shoving affirmative action in his face" type sound-bite is the first thing you reach for in this kind of discussion)

Re: undefined

#766

Post by BrendanEich » Mon, Oct 17, 2016, 12:28 AM UTC

paulv wrote: post #253

ubernostrum wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So consider Proposition 8. This was a ballot measure whose sole purpose was to enshrine in law the idea that "this group of people over here aren't legally equal to everyone else". Privately believing someone has done something wrong, or belongs to a bad group, is one thing. Trying to enshrine that belief in law and disenfranchise the targeted person or group is quite another thing, and if you honestly are unable to…

Look at the timeline. Eich donated after Prop 22 was overturned (Prop 22 restricted marriage to same-sex couples). He wasn't trying to keep the status quo, he was trying to change the California constitution to outlaw something that the court had previously deemed legal. The end result of that difference is subtle, yes, but I find the spirit of the difference significant. Which is to say...much worse.

I wrote something too long about your confused post (for example, you must have meant "opposite-sex", not "same-sex"), then set it aside. I'll just note that of course I supported Prop 8 after the California Supreme Court overturned Prop 22 in its May, 2008 "In re Marriage Cases" ruling. Prop 8 was not even on the ballot until June, 2008!

Your argument that my support was pernicious is based on bogus chronology.

As for "status quo", that was exactly the issue, or one of two big issues. Judges do not make law, they are not our dictators, not even in extremis. It's up to the people and the legislature to correct course, based on judicial review and judicial nullification at the limit, but with new law coming from the legislature and the ballot initiative process (in California, anyway).

A lot of us in California supported Mark Leno's work over more than a decade prior to 2008 to enact CA Domestic Partner law, precisely to address injustices, even as Leno, et al. did not attempt to redefine marriage. That we saw judicial overreach and moved against it does not make us opponents of the status quo.

(Speaking of status quo, Prop 22's definition of marriage is still in the California constitution: http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/.const/.article_1 SEC. 7.5.)

If you think courts should rule us, just wait long enough. The "next Trump" may give you the judges you deserve. I sincerely commend rule of law and judicial restraint to your attention, even if you don't agree with me on anything else.