Comment by sturgill | Hacker News Reader

Comment by sturgill | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

And when did Brendan Eich make public comments? When he privately donated to a cause?

You can be dismissed from leading a company today by privately supporting conservative causes. And there’s very little threat of a liberal CEO being dismissed independent of his private/public statements.

I have no desire to speak to any particular political subject in this forum; but it’s incredibly disingenuous to pretend this only happens to people who take public conservative positions.

Though even the charitable reading of your statement suggests that you believe that conservatives should stay in the closest. Which is a fascinating turn to say the least...

And, as a religious conservative guy in tech I’ll add my point of view: it’s okay to talk politics at work as long as you agree with everyone else. Those of us with dissenting world paradigms spend most of the day quietly wishing these conversations would end. Because there isn’t debate to be had at work; dissenting views are not welcome.

On this one point, without taking a position on the rest of your comment: everyone making political donations in CA knows (or should know) that donations over $200 go in the public record. If you want it to be private, keep it under $200. Eich's donation was much larger and he knew that it would be in the public record. It cannot be fairly characterized as a "private donation".

I am speaking specifically about Peter Thiel. You and I probably agree about Brendan Eich.

I also agree that tech companies can be a difficult place for constructive political debate (or even agree-to-disagree conversations), and I do not think this is a good thing.

>I also agree that tech companies can be a difficult place for constructive political debate (or even agree-to-disagree conversations), and I do not think this is a good thing.

I think it is because there are already places for constructive political debate. You can go there to do that. In the workplace, be civil, and if people are telling you they don't like you to do X and Y be reasonable and willing to compromise / apologize if you need to.

Right, but Mozilla can't attract/keep great LGBTQ employees if the CEO believes that it is okay to actively oppress LGBTQ employees. By extension, this also extends to heterosexual employees who have LGBTQ friends and family members, or to any potential employees who believe in LGBTQ equality.

( And before anyone thinks that 'oppress' is too strong a word, the inability to marry caused tax and inheritance implications for LGBTQ individuals in California, some of which were unrecoverable. To this point, consider that people who died during Prop 8 will never get justice; will never get equal representation. )

I am sorry you feel like your views are unwelcome/oppressed, but religious groups in the United States have a very long and extremely well-documented history of doing real, lasting, absolutely life-altering harm to LGBTQ individuals. This harm caused to LGBTQ Americans isn't the same as feeling like your views are unwelcome at your place of work, and I hope you can at least see the difference.

Brendan Eich may sincerely hold his religious beliefs, but he didn't stop at simply believing: he gave money to further an utterly poisonous cause that brought real, and in some case unrecoverable, harm to tens of thousands of Californians.

The same argument works in reverse though. Clearly conservatives feel discriminated against at Google, and with good reason to do so - look at all the screenshots in Damore's legal complaint. Many comments from managers flat out stating that Trump supporters should be fired, or even anyone speaking out against such punishments should also be fired.

So why does Pichai still have a job?

We know the reason - because CEO-firing moral outrage only works in one direction in California.

Those screenshots don't prove that anyone discriminated against Damore. Those screenshots only prove that people were angered by his memo.

In any case, conservatives at large are currently working on law that will allow people to discriminate at will against people if they feel like it infringes on their religious liberty. ( In fact, just such a law has already been passed in Indiana. Signed by Mike Pence. )

So while conservatives now complain bitterly about discrimination, they're the one's busily enshrining it in laws at various levels.

Imagine if a religious liberty bill passes. In fact, I can't wait. Then I can fire all my conservative employees en masse for offending my liberal Christian religious views.

Does that help you see why this madness must end? Why no one wants it?

Oppress is still too strong.

There is an a implications to everything. Have an opinion on healthcare, and someone might die according to you preferred version of it.

He participated within the political system, he did not "[believe] that it is okay to actively oppress LGBTQ employees", except, in your interpretation, by participating in the political system. This extends to "any potential employees who believe in LGBTQ equality" in the same way it extends to anyone with any political opinion; I could mirror the exact same sentiment wrt pro-choice - "believes it is ok to actively murder" etc.

Few if any CEOs employ any fetuses, so there is little chance that they could create a hostile work (which they are legally required not to do) for any employees by opposing fetal rights. The same can not be said for a CEO who opposes LGBTQ rights.

So if it becomes law you are automatically fine with it?

Law follows morality, not the other way around.

If abortion is murder, the crime of possibly creating a hostile workplace pales in comparison.

<< Oppress is still too strong.

He funded nakedly oppressive political activity. Passing a law to deny consenting adults the right to marry solely on the basis of their sexual orientation is oppression by itself. That Prop 8 had significant financial and legal consequences for tens of thousands of Californians is the proof that the act was overtly oppressive.

[1] http://www.dictionary.com/browse/oppress

The real reason conservatives have so much trouble in liberal places is their outright refusal to acknowledge their political and social behavior is profoundly harmful to segments of society.

The solution is so, so, so easy: a conservative person should simply find somewhere else to live if they are unhappy in any geographic regions where a lot of liberals are busy using their constitutionally guaranteed right to freedom of expression to build the kind of society they want.

> a conservative person should simply find somewhere else to live if they are unhappy in any geographic regions...

Somewhere they can create a Christian cake shop in peace, you mean?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com