Hacker News Reader

Comment by CaptainZapp | Hacker News Reader

Andrew Sullivan (who can hardly be accused of being a gay basher) put it quite succinctly and very eloquent:

http://dish.andrewsullivan.com/2014/04/03/the-hounding-of-br...

I have to agree.

It's pretty well established at this point that those who scream the loudest about how important "tolerance" is often prove to be among the most intolerant in practice.

The same is holding true for those who are against "discrimination". They'll often have absolutely no qualms about using one form of discrimination in their quest to bring retribution to somebody else who may have engaged in something they consider to be discriminatory behavior.

Could you please provide facts and citations that support your claim that "those who scream the loudest... are the most intolerant in practice"?

Well, this whole incident involving Eich is a pretty good example.

If the only thing that is not tolerated is intolerance, intolerance will cease to exist.

How exactly do you figure that? The act of not tolerating intolerance is itself intolerance. It will always be around, if we take your approach. The only way to full tolerance is to be tolerant of intolerance.

Are people still blowing this whistle?

Tolerance for people is not the same as tolerance for speech, or tolerance for actions. You are not a victim if people disapprove of your bigotry - your speech may be protected, but you are not protected from the consequences of your speech (and that includes the opinions of others).

People will find any reason to view themselves as victims when something they do or a person they agree with is criticised. That people are crying about "discrimination", because someone who actively worked to oppress people was rightly criticised for those actions, quite frankly astounds me.

Besides which, people aren't just criticising him for seeking to strip one the basic and fundamental liberties a modern society gives its citizens, purely on the basis of who they are (which he is entitled to do). They're criticising Mozilla, a company which strives towards the principles of openness and inclusiveness, for picking someone to represent them who doesn't represent the values of the organisation.

So you show your inclusiveness by ousting those whose conscience conflicts with your political views?

Inclusiveness means not discriminating against people based on who they are. It's the very simple idea that white people, black people, gay people and straight people are all people - they are entitled the same rights and the same protections.

Inclusiveness doesn't mean that you have to tolerate a person's actions. Damn right I'm going to criticise someone whose actions hurt people - they're not entitled to have me agree with their "conscience", nor are they entitled to my support for their actions.

Do you understand how discrimination against a person and condemnation of things that a person does are separate concepts?

This is a bollocks piece of writing that makes no argument or substantive point bend saying "I'm disgusted by this." Please don't promote it.

The idea that Eich has been "scalped" is ludicrous. He received a bunch of public pressure because of his controversial (for the community and post) views, he failed to deal with it, and he resigned.

Sullivan and yourself seem to imply that no public figure should be subject to pressure because of unpopular personal views, which is obviously not achievable or desirable.

This is really something when you consider Sullivan's previous writing about Prop 8. Just one example I quickly googled: [1]

[1] http://www.theatlantic.com/daily-dish/archive/2008/10/the-mo...

I read the Sullivan piece but Sullivan (and you too, presumably) seem to think this is a First Amendment issue. I'm not understanding where his right to speak, or to act, have been limited in any way. Please explain.

Are you and Sullivan thinking that the First Amendment gives you the right to free speech and, additionally, also guarantees no response? Or maybe it guarantees that the response must be along the lines of, "oh well ... you have your opinion and I have mine ... now we'll just go on with each of us having our separate views." Does the First Amendment prevent me from having a particular response, even if the response is what you personally would consider viscous and outsized.

Again, please explain how this is a First Amendment issue?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com