Hacker News Reader

Comment by dkhenry | Hacker News Reader

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.

View on HN

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.

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.

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.

> 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.

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.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com