Hacker News Reader

Comment by Pacabel | Hacker News Reader

I don't think he necessarily meant that you need to respect the beliefs themselves, especially if you don't agree with them.

Rather, I think it's more about everyone respecting the ability of everyone else to hold their own set of beliefs, even if you disagree with theirs, and even if they may disagree with yours.

In this particular incident we've seen a lot of hypocrisy. We've seen a lot of people calling for "tolerance" and "equality", yet to them that means merely that their viewpoint must be the only one that can be held or expressed. It ends up being a very quaint, twisted interpretation of tolerance and equality.

View on HN

Respecting the right of someone to have a belief does not mean ignoring that belief when deciding if you like them.

1. Eich is absolutely allowed to be against gay marriage.

2. The Mozilla community is absolutely allowed to be against Eich because of his position on gay marriage.

This is not a discrimination case where Eich is being excluded from a job because of beliefs unrelated to his job. This is a case where Eich is being elected to a job where his job is to represent the Mozilla community. But he doesn't obviously represent the community – potentially disqualifying him from the job.

> This is a case where Eich is being elected to a job where his job is to represent the Mozilla community.

Is the Mozilla community asking him to represent their views on marriage?

If he's making the donations as a private citizen, then it strikes me as odd that he's somehow unqualified to talk about software.

Is the next step asking people to step down because they voted for the losing candidate who represented slightly less than 51% of the voting public? (That's a serious questions & a logical next step in an increasingly partisan ideology that thinks in black & white rather than shades of grey).

> Is the Mozilla community asking him to represent their views on marriage?

No, but why does that matter? The community doesn't want anything to do with him because he's a bigot. He's allowed to do what he wants and the community is allowed to shun him if they want.

What does it mean to "respect the ability of everyone to hold their own set of beliefs"? How would I apply this to, e.g. Time Cube guy or the KKK?

If you do not respect people's freedom to hold the most fringe and controversial of opinions, then you are opposed to free speech by nature. You don't have to agree with the opinion being expressed, but with the right to express it.

I'm not sure who the Timecube guy is, but you include the KKK with that & you defend their ability to say what they believe. That's what free speech is.

"I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it." - Voltaire

>I'm not sure who the Timecube guy is

http://www.timecube.com/

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

Okay, stupid idea - maybe, but am I going to tell the internet to take his site down? No.

When did we get afraid to let people make up their own minds on things? For every out-there crazy idea that's the work of a nut-job, there's one out-there crazy idea that just might work.

It was my mis-interpretation of "respect the ability of everyone to hold their own set of beliefs" to mean free speech/thought that led me to mention Time Cube. Of course he should be able to have his site. But I might decide I wouldn't want to work with him, trust his opinion, or have him represent me.

Is anyone saying that Eich shouldn't be able to believe what he wants? Or are people upset that someone campaigning against civil liberties is now representing and leading Mozilla?

What exactly are you asking?

They have their beliefs. You have yours. You presumably want to be able to hold your own beliefs. They presumably want to be able to hold their own beliefs. You may disagree with their beliefs, and you should be free to express this, if you so desire. They may disagree with your beliefs, and they should be able to express this, if they so desire. It's irrelevant who "you" are in this case, and who "they" are.

Even if they choose not to respect your ability to hold your own beliefs, it's probably best if you still respect their ability to hold that belief.

You're referring to free speech? Of course everyone should be able to hold whatever belief they want and say what they like. Other people should be free to judge them too, and discourage them.

Isn't that what this is all about? Eich expressed his beliefs by contributing to a cause that actively harmed many people's personal lives. Now people are upset about that and thinking perhaps he shouldn't lead Mozilla. I don't see any free speech issues here.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com