Hacker News Reader

Comment by hi-im-mi-ih | Hacker News Reader

Remember that a lead dev for Node was attacked not too long ago for discussing the potential downsides of CoC's.

https://twitter.com/rvagg/status/887652116524707841 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15073022

This is the kind of thing Sam is talking about - we should be able to discuss things that are controversial without getting mobbed for it.

View on HN

I agree with you and with the general thrust of Sam's essay. This kind of knee-jerk heretic-branding of anyone who questions the status quo is toxic. But Sam should've used something like the Node dev as an example, rather than the less salient one he provided:

>This is uncomfortable, but it’s possible we have to allow people to say disparaging things about gay people if we want them to be able to say novel things about physics. [1] Of course we can and should say that ideas are mistaken, but we can’t just call the person a heretic. We need to debate the actual idea.

>[1] I am less worried that letting some people on the internet say things like “gay people are evil” is going to convince reasonable people that such a statement is true than I fear losing the opposite—we needed people to be free to say "gay people are ok" to make the progress we've made, even though it was not a generally acceptable thought several decades ago.

Of course Sam doesn't actually think it's acceptable for people to say these things (he's gay himself, but even if he weren't I'm sure he still wouldn't find it acceptable). But this leaves a lot of questions. If you're gay and in a work environment where your boss incessantly makes disparaging comments gay people and homosexuality - even if none of them are directed at you or anyone else there - you could still feel very uncomfortable and hurt. Does this boss really deserve a debate and an exchange of open ideas? If you tell them you disagree and they just continue mocking gay people, what are you supposed to say or do? In a scenario like this, it kind of makes sense to brand this boss as a heretic.

This kind of situation is far away from your example (discussing potential downsides of CoC). There's a spectrum of hurtful speech and ideas, and while most Americans would agree these things should be legal to say, many would also agree that the worst of them should result in ostracization (in a very extreme example: self-identifying as a neo-Nazi). So should we really "allow" people to make disparaging remarks about gay people beyond physically letting them say it? Do we also need to allow them into our social circles and workplaces?

Consider Chick-fil-a’s policy of being closed on Sundays for explicitly religious reasons. Is that oppressive to atheist employees who lose an extra day of the week to work?

> But Sam should've used something like the Node dev as an example, rather than the less salient one he provided

In my opinion, Sam wanted to share this with the least possible likelihood that it would blowback (in a big way) on YC.

He did this by picking examples that would stimulate thought without a large possibility of himself being branded in some way regarding a controversial topic.

If he honestly thinks that writing a blog post about how we should allow people to make hateful comments about gays (and presumably other minorities) and not have it blow back on the companies he helps finance and run then he really isn't thinking clearly. This isn't something I say because I want it to be true, but something I've learned from direct experience.

Last year while hiring people I gave was going to give someone an offer but before I could they dropped out of the process. The reason they cited was that we got funding from Peter Thiel, who helped Trump get elected, and that this person could not work at a company that ultimately helped profit Theil.

There are always consequences to speech. If you advocate for allowing hate speech then people will assume that you won't take hate speech against them seriously.

First off, I like your example, it embodies the core dynamic that people refer to when discussing hate speech vs. free speech.

  Does this boss really deserve a debate and an exchange of open ideas?

YES. Both the employee and the boss in this situation need to sit down and talk about it. Even if the boss is of the rough, conservative demeanor, he can be very receptive! You must simply approach the boss without a chip on your shoulder, and be very respectful. Any man worth his salt will reconsider their position after this. Express yourself fully, express your existing and continuing respect for the boss, and watch as he becomes reasonable. For this is the core tension between the liberals and the conservatives: There is no respect given to each other before both sides begin to engage.

  If you tell them you disagree and they just continue mocking gay people, what are you supposed to say or do?

Well, that depends on the outcome of the discussion you two had. Did you come out of it friends, with a stronger relationship, and mutual understanding? Then the boss probably is just being careless in his use of homophobic slurs, and dare I say the onus is on the gay person to restrain their disdain - and such restraint should be easy, because you respect and are friends with the man uttering slurs. You know that he is your boss, your provider and guide; you know that you can approach him honestly and be safe from retaliation, so why would you feel fear in this situation? You should feel nothing at all if not slight irritation.

Now, suppose you come out of the discussion about homophobic slurs, and the boss was not at all receptive. Perhaps he uttered a slur to you as you left. Then you must leave the company, and rightfully declare him a homophobe when appropriate.

Let's get to the meat of the issue. Do you pre-judge your slur-uttering boss? Do you assume him to be homophobic, and begin attacking his character in all avenues? Do you never attempt discussion, instead tweeting about how he's committing hate crimes?

Or. Do you approach him honestly with your guard down, to admit both your sexual orientation and your devotion to your job, while requesting that he try and restrict his use of the word ft? Do you listen silently while he riffs against political correctness, nodding and acknowledging, until he comes around and apologizes for making you uncomfortable?

You may take the path of the coward, or the path of the hero.

> Now, suppose you come out of the discussion about homophobic slurs, and the boss was not at all receptive. Perhaps he uttered a slur to you as you left. Then you must leave the company, and rightfully declare him a homophobe when appropriate.

This is the exact opposite of the point being made by the blog post, which is why people think it's an awful blog post.

surely some of us remember when Brendan Eich was fired from Mozilla for saying controversial things about marriage

Brendan Eich was pressured to and then did resign for taking action to remove the ability for homosexuals to marry.

He was not fired, and he didn't "say" controversial things about marriage. Again: he took action to remove (the time line was: gay people can marry in California, prop 8 removes that, prop 8 is ruled unconstitutional) rights from people.

interesting... I'll review my history there.

thanks. seriously.

This seems nitpicking. He unwillingly left his job due to pressure. It’s like when a company fired you and you respond with “I quit.”

The important fact is that he was forced to leave based on his political contributions supporting prop 8. Call it fired or resign or whatever you want, that’s the h important part of the story.

More or less important than him taking action to remove legal rights from thousands (hundreds of thousands? millions?) of Californians?

ETA: also the difference between resigned and fired is significant without a large number of Mozilla Corp. Board members being on record as saying they would have fired him if he hadn't.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com