Live data from Hacker News

Mozilla's Gay-Marriage Litmus Test Violates Liberal Values

theatlantic.com

91–94 of 94 posts

Re: Mozilla's Gay-Marriage Litmus Test Violates Liberal Values

#91
post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"I'm sorry for the way you took that." is the classic non-apology. He has done absolutely nothing but defend himself. > "Thanks for the downvote." I didn't downvote you. I cannot downvote you because you cannot downvote responses that you receive on HN. Such a persecution complex you've got going on there...

At this point we are mincing words. He said sorry he caused pain. That is hardly a nonpology. It does not justify the reaction and pain caused to him. He has promoted equality within Mozilla. The sad thing is people also started to protest Mozilla, an organization with LGBT workers. It's free software with an independent agenda. Now it's malaigned as being homophobic. The debate is being dumbed down with namecalling…

You think that downvoting is cyberbullying, and leaped to the assumption that I was the one that was doing it to you only because you disagree with me.

You plainly do have a persecution complex. The first step to correcting that is admitting it.

Re: Mozilla's Gay-Marriage Litmus Test Violates Liberal Values

#92
post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"I'm sorry for the way you took that." is the classic non-apology. He has done absolutely nothing but defend himself. > "Thanks for the downvote." I didn't downvote you. I cannot downvote you because you cannot downvote responses that you receive on HN. Such a persecution complex you've got going on there...

At this point we are mincing words. He said sorry he caused pain. That is hardly a nonpology. It does not justify the reaction and pain caused to him. He has promoted equality within Mozilla. The sad thing is people also started to protest Mozilla, an organization with LGBT workers. It's free software with an independent agenda. Now it's malaigned as being homophobic. The debate is being dumbed down with namecalling…

[deleted]

Re: Mozilla's Gay-Marriage Litmus Test Violates Liberal Values

#93
post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At this point we are mincing words. He said sorry he caused pain. That is hardly a nonpology. It does not justify the reaction and pain caused to him. He has promoted equality within Mozilla. The sad thing is people also started to protest Mozilla, an organization with LGBT workers. It's free software with an independent agenda. Now it's malaigned as being homophobic. The debate is being dumbed down with namecalling…

You think that downvoting is cyberbullying, and leaped to the assumption that I was the one that was doing it to you only because you disagree with me. You plainly do have a persecution complex. The first step to correcting that is admitting it.

I never said you were downvoting me. Your assumption is false. Re: your so called "persecution complex" diagnosis, read my points above and below...

I never once attacked you & I don't think I attacked anyone else. If you disagree, please let me know. I always want to improve. :-)

The only truth I can find in your statement is that I'm contrarian at times, have a high resolution of perception, & I'm suspicious of group coercion. Especially when members of the group say people are wrong, or diseased, to think differently; and they have "persecution complexes" when calling out something ridiculous like being punished for voicing an opinion in a respectful & rational way.

I don't know if you realize that you are labeling me as being diseased for the way I think. Homosexuals were once labeled as diseased. How is that different? Sadly, many people are "different" are incorrectly labeled as diseased; and subsequently mistreated. I believe labeling someone as diseased is bad behavior and should be discouraged.

These power dynamics are algorithms of intolerance & injustice. They are the "dark side". It doesn't matter if it's on a small or large scale. I believe humans should resist such urges and should become more enlightened.

There's been studies done about human behavior & power dynamics. Perfectly "normal" people behaving badly in certain contexts. I hope we have more studies.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanford_prison_experiment

The tactic of public shaming and (to a lesser extend) downvoting rational, respectful, & well articulated points is borderline (& in the spirit of) persecution.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution

No, it's not killing people, but it's group coercion & punishment for holding an opinion. I believe that is wrong and something that we need to address in this age of transparency (no privacy) if we are to successfully evolve. Otherwise, we all need to start thinking the same. That would really suck for people like me.

The threshold of persecution should be revisited. It's about cause & effect. Saying something bad about another is not in itself persecution. However, if that statement causes one to be fired, psychological harm, unhealthy behavioral modification, etc., then I believe it is persecution.

> The first step to correcting that is admitting it.

Maoist China also "corrected" people's "divergent & diseased" thinking. The first step that the "diseased" Chinese person had to take was admitting their "disease".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reeducation

So no, I'm not going to admit to some "disease" that you made up in your head because I disagree with your position & can articulate why. That's like me saying you are a "psychopath" because you are lacking empathy in this situation. It's all rubbish. I choose not to play that game.

If you can have rational counterpoints, then let's discuss. Please refrain from name calling. It's disrespectful & childish. I see you participating on other threads with me, so you should have a good understand of what I am about.

Re: Mozilla's Gay-Marriage Litmus Test Violates Liberal Values

#94
post #67
post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think it's fair to say "privately held belief." He supported a campaign to change public laws. What society can we have when there are no reasonable limits on how people can judge and prosecute you for your attempts to change public law?

He supported a campaign that was supported by over half the voters in CA. By definition, if over half the people supported the position, it's "reasonable".

Oh, certainly... What does that have to do with my comment?

In my comment, I say nothing about whether or not the campaign was reasonable. I don't think that's a good argument to make. I did say that it's reasonable to judge someone based on their (reasonable or not) attempt to change public law.

Post reply on HN