Hacker News Reader

Comment by jamesaguilar | Hacker News Reader

Um. Yes, I would be upset if your proposed scenario happened (and similar things do happen). But these two scenarios are not quite alike, are they, considering in one case the person is doing something I believe is wrong, and in the other case something I believe is right, or at the very least acceptable.

Getting together to force the dismissal of a person from a position of power based on their views is not automatically bad or good. It is bad or good depending on what the views are. Homophobic views are bad; it is good to get people dismissed from power based on those views. A woman's right to choose is good; getting people dismissed from power based on that view is bad.

View on HN

This opinion is deeply disconcerting to me. I think our society needs to be very cautious in drawing the line between "acceptable" and "unacceptable" views. Plenty of people have views I disagree with, but which I still consider within the realm of "acceptability". If people don't have a right to reasonable private opinions, the political majority can wave around stories like this one as an incentive to prevent minorities from speaking up.

If Eich had actively spoken out hatefully against gay people, I would agree that his resignation would be warranted. But he has done nothing of the sort, and committed in a blog post to equality at Mozilla. I think Mozilla's actions smell like a hasty overreaction which sets a dangerous precedent.

> If people don't have a right to reasonable private opinions

I question the assumption that this opinion: "gay people ought not be allowed to marry" is a reasonable one. I'll accept common, but I don't agree that it's reasonable.

Also, he does still have the right to that opinion. He just doesn't have the right to express it free of consequences.

Also, he didn't hold that opinion privately. He held it publicly (by donating money to support its enforcement via the law).

If people don't have a right to reasonable private opinions

Define reasonable.

The fact that you can't demonstrates why this argument is baseless. "Reasonableness" is decided by social desires, ultimately, and that's exactly what happened in this case.

So what your saying is as long as the angry mob agrees with you then its ok, but if they disagree with you then they are wrong.

If by "angry mob" you mean "the broad moral view of society," yep, that is what I'm saying. If your morality disagrees with society's to a great enough degree, it is right, for the purposes of this discussion, that you be removed from power.

(Caveat: as a moral descriptivist I should point out that I believe there is not really any such thing as "right" or "wrong," just what people like and don't like. But, as shorthand, I use the same words other people use.)

Lets not forget that he supported "the broad moral view of society", as evidenced by a popular vote at the time. I'll agree that the "broad moral view" has switched, and turn about is fair play. Let us punish the new minority.

Ah, but he has a choice to be in that minority. He could work on his empathy, examine his beliefs, and come to the correct conclusion (that two people having equal protection for their sexual preferences will hurt him in no way). All he needed to do to avoid this situation was right wrong beliefs, and publicly acknowledge the same, the same way he previously publicly embraced those beliefs. Those in whose oppression he assisted have no such option, as you cannot, at least according to current science, examine your sexual preferences and change them.

> He could work on his empathy, examine his beliefs, and come to the correct conclusion

Yeah, if he keeps looking and examining what's wrong with him he will eventually see that there really are five lights. I mean, that's all it takes right? We simply choose what to believe as it's convenient to us?

No . . . I was talking about coming to the right belief, not the convenient one. Not sure where you got that from . . .

And I was talking about how convenient it must be to simply choose to believe something different.

As far as "five lights", I suggest viewing "Chain of Command" from Star Trek: The Next Generation, which has a famous scene that riffs off of Orwell's 1984.

Fair enough. To be honest, I was in the majority with Brendan Eich at that time (although not in California), based on sincere beliefs. And I am now in the majority with you and others in being all for marriage equality and viewing it as a civil rights issue. But because of where I am now and where I have been, I feel empathy with those struggling to sort out their feelings or that are still on the other side. Most people who I know who were or are still against gay marriage aren't "homophobic" or hold have any problem with gays, they just don't view marriage as a civil right, like the civil rights of 60's, since marriage has always been a man and woman thing since the institution was invented. And while I may disagree with them, it doesn't matter to me in the larger context, and I still willing to love these people and I don't think they're bigots worthy of my contempt unless they prove to be so beyond this single issue. I respect that this is where I differ from many of you, who, this single issue is enough for you to hate someone or wish for nothing but evil upon them. And I'm not talking about the figures at the forefront of the anti-gay-rights movement, but the every day people I know who may be more conservative than I and besides an occasional vote or even a donation that differs from mine, that is only a small part of who they are.

Oh, I can hardly claim any real moral superiority. I was a Christian fundamentalist as recently as 2006. Apparently zealots for one team often end up being zealots on the other side when they change their mind.

I do not hate Brendan Eich. I do think he purchased what he is receiving, though.

I would hardly call 52% for vs 47% against, a "broad moral view".

I think we're up to 59% pro as of now, with broad demographic trends pointing toward further shrinkage of the anti-group above and beyond the natural attrition that comes from it no longer being comfortable to express bigoted views.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_opinion_of_same-sex_marr...

This is an issue where public opinion is changing quickly, as it often does when oppression becomes recognized as oppression. I'd recommend taking the limit of the function as yr->2020.

Considering this whole discussion is over a law that the majority of California voters supported, the argument against Eich is even weaker, even though I disagree with his stance.

The majority of Californians probably don't support the law- it passed a referendum. Moreover, the critical partnerships for Mozilla are with people who heavily oppose it.

Even so, he's not exactly in the extremist minority that many here are implying.

He's saying the opposite of that. A position that discriminates against minorities is not symmetric with one that does not. Personal convictions that discriminate against minorities are noxious. It's OK to condemn those kind of views.

Of course this produces the paradox of being intolerant of intolerance. Like most paradoxes it's not a problem in practice.

"But these two scenarios are not quite alike, are they, considering in one case the person is doing something I believe is wrong [...]"

Double standards for tactics is the subject of this rather long article by someone more articulate about it than I am:

http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/02/23/in-favor-of-niceness-co...

You say that the two situations are not alike, because you believe is wrong, and the other is right.

...

So I suppose we should all judge everyone's actions based on what you believe? Since, obviously everyone has their opinions, but those who have opinions other than yours are wrong.

That is not a fair or reasonable way to interpret what I said. The personal pronouns I used are obvious stand-ins for large swathes of society whose view agree with mine.

Ah, right. So we should just go with what most people believe. Mob rule. Of course.

You might find it surprising that a number of people on the other side of this issue would agree with you. They know they're right, so everyone should just agree with them.

That's not exactly a scalable approach to social issues.

Thanks you for writing that comment! I'm mostly on the side that disagrees with you, but you've expressed your position beautifully and I can only wish that everyone expressed their positions in the same way. In particular, this seems to be the central point of the whole discussion:

> Getting together to force the dismissal of a person from a position of power based on their views is not automatically bad or good. It is bad or good depending on what the views are.

It's just so delightfully free from rationalization! Where other left-leaning folks pretend to use some abstract rules that apply to both sides equally, and make up bogus "fundamental differences" between positions that outrage the left and positions that outrage the right, you say outright that you're going to use your moral judgment on a case-by-case basis. That might be right or wrong, but at least we can have a sensible discussion about it.

So, even though I believe that forcing Eich to step down was wrong, I urge everyone to upvote the parent :-)

The whole category of moral non-cognitivist beliefs is a really freeing way to look at the world. A lot of things make sense that just don't under other frameworks. I'm a true novice in this area, but that's how I see it.

Yeah, I agree it feels liberating. Though I prefer the broader label of "non-realist", because "non-cognitivist" seems too restrictive.

For example, if you think mankind might someday create an AI that would satisfy the preferences of humans, then you need these preferences to be expressible mathematically, as some kind of utility function. If you're a non-realist, you're okay with that, as long as the utility function is specific to humans (i.e. the utility functions of human-built AI and alien-built AI don't have to be the same). But if you're also a non-cognitivist, then you're in a difficult spot, because obviously one can make true and false statements about a mathematical function. Does that make sense?

(Disclaimer - I'm a Google engineer as well, and also pretty active on lesswrong.com which has covered these issues in much detail.)

Thanks for pointing me in a direction to make my terminology more accurate. (Sincere.)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com