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

What disturbed me about the Facebook meeting

medium.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 130 posts

Re: What disturbed me about the Facebook meeting

#81

Post by Chris2048 »

jgroszko wrote: post #61
joshuaheard wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There was no evidence Eich was anti-gay. It was discovered he had donated to Prop 8, the California initiative which restated the status quo, that marriage is between one man and one woman, and which passed by a majority of California voters. For that political donation, he was ostracized and effectively run out of his job in Silicon Valley. San Francisco has always been one of the most liberal cities in the country,…

I can't attest to Eich's personal views, but giving money to maintain a status quo that is discriminatory against gays is anti-gay.

> that is discriminatory

And supporting abortion is supporting murder. And so is eating meat, etc etc.

This is all political Framing & labelling.

If it's on the ballot, its a valid politics, and so should be off the table wrt things like getting people fired.

Re: What disturbed me about the Facebook meeting

#82

Post by elgabogringo »

jgroszko wrote: post #32
pj_mukh wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What views do you find you can't express?

He mentions Brendan Eich who was ousted from Mozilla for his anti-gay views. I have little sympathy for someone who feels marginalized by views they choose to hold and express when I, as a gay man, could be marginalized simply for who I am, something I did NOT choose. While most people may be able to just put their political opinions on the shelf, any time discussion turns towards family or after-work hobbies I have…

I do believe in freedom. you should be able to screw anybody you want. You should be able to have any wedding ceremonies you want, provided all parties are willing participants.

When you want the government to force parties to be involved in those ceremonies against their beliefs? That's when I have a big, big, problem, and that's what is happening.

Re: What disturbed me about the Facebook meeting

#83

Post by pjc50 »

twoodfin wrote: post #27
pjc50 wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This very much matters in the era of Trump. The reason there's no ideological consistency is that the publicly-stated ideology is backformed from the private, unacceptable ideology of maintaining racial and economic inequality. That's why suddenly these people are in favour of "affirmative action" when it benefits themselves; there's no principle at stake other than self-interest.

I think that's massively oversimplifying. Many Republicans really do believe things like: "A nationwide $15 minimum wage would have profoundly negative economic consequences both for small businesses unable to defray the added labor cost, and for the employees they'd otherwise be able to hire." You can disagree with that belief, but it's not rooted in racism and classism.

We'd like to hope that that's an empirical question which economics could answer, but that's not how the discussion tends to go. It also doesn't address the question of how viable life on current minimum wage levels is without external support or high hours, although that depends a lot on local housing costs.

Anyway, none of the parent comment chain mentions minimum wage; we started off talking about social policy and LGBT acceptance/hostility.

Re: What disturbed me about the Facebook meeting

#84

Post by jgroszko »

Chris2048 wrote: post #81
jgroszko wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can't attest to Eich's personal views, but giving money to maintain a status quo that is discriminatory against gays is anti-gay.

> that is discriminatory And supporting abortion is supporting murder. And so is eating meat, etc etc. This is all political Framing & labelling. If it's on the ballot, its a valid politics, and so should be off the table wrt things like getting people fired.

Sure, straight white cis men can say "Oh that's all just political" but for someone who's gay, black, transgender, or female these issues effect nearly every aspect of your life. Every situation is viewed through that lens. Things like casually mentioning something you did with your spouse last weekend might not be "political" to you, but it is to me.

Re: What disturbed me about the Facebook meeting

#85

Post by LyndsySimon »

pigpaws wrote: post #30
010a wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Its hilarious how this comment alone exemplifies exactly what he's talking about when he says that conservative voices are being marginalized in silicon valley. We need to make sure we brand the post with his name so us cushy liberals can be protected from these mean and different viewpoints, right?

yes, but at the same time, Glen Beck represents the more 'religious' aspect of the far-right. That's the whole issue with the right (IMO) is that it was hijacked by the (Hypocritical) religious people, whereas there was almost NO ONE representing the right-center folks who are fiscally conservative, yet socially liberal/acceptable (live and let live). I already know who my state with vote for, which allows me to vote…

> Glen[sic] Beck represents the more 'religious' aspect of the far-right

The article linked is not based on a religious view. In fact, the only mention of religion is a comment intended to ridicule the comments of others at the table from the right who Beck implies are being morally inconsistent.

Re: What disturbed me about the Facebook meeting

#86

Post by pj_mukh »

Chris2048 wrote: post #73
pj_mukh wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you really see no problem with telling others who they can and can't marry? I can't see myself supporting or working for a CEO that thinks it's okay to donate to Propositions that support this level of imposition on other peoples'lives. I guess the board of Firefox agreed.

Would someone who supported the Iraq war be similarly ostracised? Guam? Israel? Or maybe Palestine? I have pretty strong views on privacy, maybe some tech CEOs that supported prism-like initiatives should also be ousted? This issue is pure liberal, SJW-ist influence, no consistency behaviour exists in the rest of the political spectrum.

Red herring. Has that happened yet? Can we talk about it when it does?

Making the bullying of homosexuals (esp in the workplace) "not cool" is one of the proudest achievements of the "SJW's" you so derisively mention. The message is pretty consistent. Don't punch down.

P.S: "maybe some tech CEOs that supported prism-like initiatives should also be ousted", I would love it if that happens, unfortunately, supporting prism-like initiatives might make them more money. Board's voting against making money doesn't make sense. Maybe if we could create strong a loud dis-incentive against this, the board would react as we expect but then again Glenn Beck doesn't like this kind of corporate shaming.

Re: What disturbed me about the Facebook meeting

#88

Post by Chris2048 »

pj_mukh wrote: post #86
Chris2048 wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Would someone who supported the Iraq war be similarly ostracised? Guam? Israel? Or maybe Palestine? I have pretty strong views on privacy, maybe some tech CEOs that supported prism-like initiatives should also be ousted? This issue is pure liberal, SJW-ist influence, no consistency behaviour exists in the rest of the political spectrum.

Red herring. Has that happened yet? Can we talk about it when it does? Making the bullying of homosexuals (esp in the workplace) "not cool" is one of the proudest achievements of the "SJW's" you so derisively mention. The message is pretty consistent. Don't punch down. P.S: "maybe some tech CEOs that supported prism-like initiatives should also be ousted", I would love it if that happens, unfortunately, supporting pr…

> Making the bullying of homosexuals (esp in the workplace) "not cool"

We're not talking about that. We're talking about losing your job for (being found to) support[ing] prop 8.

> The message is pretty consistent. Don't punch down.

Unless you live in Palestine? No liberal ousting of pro-Israel CEOs.

Of course, the reason might be is that the issue is a complex one, there are many reasons to be pro-Israel other than wishing ill of Palestine/Palestinians. Why is that nuance not exist here? "Support prop 8? Must be homephobe then!".

If it's political, it should not be treated in this way. Any more than I should harass you for your political beliefs. SJWs belief their pet topics are different, special; That they get to behave in a different manner. I disagree.

Re: What disturbed me about the Facebook meeting

#89

Post by Chris2048 »

jgroszko wrote: post #84
Chris2048 wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> that is discriminatory And supporting abortion is supporting murder. And so is eating meat, etc etc. This is all political Framing & labelling. If it's on the ballot, its a valid politics, and so should be off the table wrt things like getting people fired.

Sure, straight white cis men can say "Oh that's all just political" but for someone who's gay, black, transgender, or female these issues effect nearly every aspect of your life. Every situation is viewed through that lens. Things like casually mentioning something you did with your spouse last weekend might not be "political" to you, but it is to me.

> Things like casually mentioning something you did with your spouse last weekend might not be "political" to you

How is it political for you?

If it is political for you, shouldn't you support the idea of being able to express political views without fear of repriosal?

Re: What disturbed me about the Facebook meeting

#90

Post by unprepare »

Chris2048 wrote: post #89
jgroszko wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, straight white cis men can say "Oh that's all just political" but for someone who's gay, black, transgender, or female these issues effect nearly every aspect of your life. Every situation is viewed through that lens. Things like casually mentioning something you did with your spouse last weekend might not be "political" to you, but it is to me.

> Things like casually mentioning something you did with your spouse last weekend might not be "political" to you How is it political for you? If it is political for you, shouldn't you support the idea of being able to express political views without fear of repriosal?

you mean without fear of /government/ reprisal.

There is no freedom from criticism in this country, your fellow citizens are absolutely free to judge you, talk mean about you, and otherwise belittle your views.

If a public official arrests you for talking about your political beliefs, then and only then have your rights been infringed upon.

Post reply on HN