Hacker News Reader

Comment by cs1717p | Hacker News Reader

This whole question really stems from a sad and pervasive tendency for 'intelligent' people to overestimate their general expertise, and then apply their value judgements to individuals in their social circle, regardless of its utility or relevance.

Examples of this:

Alan Turing -- father of Computer Science shunned, at the time, because everyone had value judgements regarding his homosexuality (completely irrelevant to Computer Science).

The Mozilla CEO fired for his personal donation in opposition to gay marriage. (Again, completely irrelevant to his relationship with the Mozilla project).

This, of course, continues further, with things such as Hollywood blacklisting (today) Conservatives, and formerly Communists.

The solution is simple:

Within a community, individuals should only be judged based on their contributions and value within that community.

If I am deeply opposed to gay marriage, but a fantastic coder, that should not affect my standing within a community that is entirely code focused.

If I strongly believe in UFO visitations, and disbelieve climate change, but am a great graphic designer, that should not affect my reputation as an artist.

Everyone is not expected to be right, or agreeable, about everything, with everyone else. Aiming for this is pointless.

This inability to separate emotions and passions from cooperating on a shared focus with others, of differing emotions and passions, but equal interest in the shared focus (community) is deeply damaging.

There are enough problems and difficulties getting skilled people together to work on something great -- there is no use at all in reducing that crowd of people further by limiting it to those who share ones views in any number of hot button issues.

Leave politics to your political circles, make your own impressions of people before making personal judgements from reputation, find every reason to work together, not any excuse not to.

View on HN

The Brendan Eich situation is really interesting. I've personally cited it as a gross overreach into his personal life. But it has been really fruitful to play out scenarios with it and explore my own ethics system, perhaps exposing some gaps.

I personally tend to break conservatively in my views, but I would be equally outraged if a liberal were fired for supporting, say, communist revolution. I certainly understand why people who hold certain views would want that person fired, but I have no problem separating that from their work. I wouldn't want them running my country, but Mozilla is fine.

I ultimately arrived at the outcome that in order to be consistent, I don't think it's OK for any _position_ someone takes to be considered for work performance. Actions, sure, but a position must have absolute freedom. So, if my CEO were to consider people who vote for republicans subhuman (not an entirely unlikely scenario today), but otherwise conducted themselves fairly, I'd be OK with it.

So, did Eich take a position, or an action? Are you really allowed to have a position if you aren't allowed to support it?

I'll say action, despite my bias urging me to say position. Was this action taken to support his desire to preserve something, or to deny someone else of something? If you're one of the people impacted by this action, does it matter?

These questions make it easy to see the tough position Mozilla was in. I'm not sure what conclusion I'd have reached in their shoes, despite my from-the-hip decision that he did nothing wrong.

>So, if my CEO were to consider people who vote for republicans subhuman (not an entirely unlikely scenario today), but otherwise conducted themselves fairly, I'd be OK with it.

So, lets pretend you work for Mozilla, you like the mission statement* and seriously believe in it/that your work is helping that cause. You also think it is a relevant part of your branding.

You really wouldn't have a problem with your CEO saying repub voters are subhuman? No clash between "open and accessible to all" and "subhuman"?

You wouldn't be upset at that violation of the creed/mission statement?

You wouldn't think it to be harmful to your companies branding? (And therefore to your company)

You wouldn't think it harmful to the "team spirit"/motivation?

I find that surprising, to be honest. ("Reason to fire" questions aside)

"Our mission is to ensure the Internet is a global public resource, open and accessible to all. An Internet that truly puts people first, where individuals can shape their own experience and are empowered, safe and independent."[1]

[1] https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/mission/

No. It's too difficult to get into disagreements that are essentially arguing over the definitions of terms. You just shouldn't police beliefs, period.

They wouldn't say they consider republicans subhumans anyway, they'd find some existing objectionable term and rationalize the expansion of that to include mainstream republican views.

Okay, not the poster above, but lets get you a more concrete example:

You are the CEO of Bread Inc. You make bread. You sell bread. As the CEO of Bread Inc., you make statements in the public about bread being terrible, that no one should eat it, and how you're only selling it because you like taking money from carb-loving hyper-idiots.

Would you consider removal from your post as justified in that situation?

This model, like nearly all of them, loses many details of reality in order to be satisfying.

Of course that CEO is working counter to his organization's goals. That's the perfect cleanliness of having organizational goals that are not subject to the religion, decade, loneliness, or stomach contents of the person currently interpreting them.

If your "mission" is nearly unusable as a mission, in that probably even the people in your organization can't uniformly agree on its application, the model breaks down. That's what you signed up for with fundamentally subjective pursuits.

So, if the CEO of Freedom, Inc said she hates freedom, that's bad optics and fire-able. If she applies her understanding of freedom in a way I don't agree with, that's a tough shit moment for me. And these are the situations we debate.

Sure. That's why it's a model. It is used to isolate an element of the factual situation for analysis.

In this case, you concede the point that if what a CEO does causes bad optics, that is potentially fireable. To loop this back to the parent comment, this means sustaining an objection to Eich's firing, you would need to conclude that what Eich did was bad optics.

I hope you recognize that this position is contradictory with your previous statement: "You just shouldn't police beliefs, period."

More specifically, I said that in a situation constructed to make the somewhat orthogonal point you're making, it works, and falls apart nearly everywhere else.

You do realize that my argument directly mirrors a real-life occurance... right? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerald_Ratner

My point in making the example isn't to establish a framework for evaluating the Eich situation, but to indicate that it can be evaluated in the first place by showing an example in which a clear judgement can be made. This is contrary to your original emphatic position that "you just shouldn't police beliefs, period"

Defending Eich requires you not believe with enough conviction that his actions harmed the organization sufficiently to warrant removal. That's fine. You can fiddle with the conviction and harm knobs according to your beliefs. It does not, however, preclude anyone else from doing the same and coming to a different conclusion, which your policing argument would do, oddly enough.

If you want to go a different route and instead justify non-firing on completely separate grounds - that censuring political positions is, if consistent and widespread, noxious to society, or perhaps that the ambiguity in applying these standards is too high and might cause a chilling effect, etc - that raises different issues, but not those I was discussing.

A CEO saying "people shouldn't buy our product" ("no one should eat it") isn't just a belief, or just bad optics. That's a CEO doing the exact opposite of their job (selling the product).

It also feels like it crosses the nebulous line between belief and action

1) I don't agree that a CEO's job is "selling the product". That's literally the job of the sales team. But that doesn't really matter.

2) It is obviously the apex of bad optics. My initial point is to demonstrate that the position that "You just shouldn't police beliefs, period" isn't founded in reality. Obviously you should. No one will defend the CEO of Bread Co.

Since we've established at the apex of bad optics that removal is permitted, the rest of the discussion isn't about whether or not removal is an option, it is a discussion of where along the spectrum of bad optics should it be permissible to remove an executive.

This makes the honest question to be explored "When should you police beliefs". At that stage of discussion, the context that we're complaining about removing matters. It doesn't at the level I'm criticizing.

Telling people not to buy your product is clearly an action, if anything a CEO does can be called an action.

The action/belief dichotomy is illusory. You're never going to police something inside someone's head, so the reaction will be in respect of an action and what it signals.

Yes, I'd just written that myself as an edit. It's impossible to police beliefs, since we only know other people's beliefs through their actions. We're always policing actions.

What does it mean, then, to say we shouldn't police beliefs? I'd say it means we shouldn't police actions that are only expressions of personal belief.

"Personal" is important when we consider people, like CEOs, who speak for the company. The board has a right to expect the CEO to speak for them, and the shareholders, in turn, to elect a board that speaks for them. A CEO who officially says "bread is terrible, no one should buy it" has failed to perform that job. A CEO who says the same thing unofficially, or before being hired, won't be able to credibly perform the job.

A salesperson would have the same problem. The job demands saying "you should buy bread". Saying the opposite makes it impossible to perform the job, if the people you're dealing with learn about it.

OTOH, if a bakery worker or secretary, for example, says "bread is terrible, no one should buy it, I only work here because I need the money", I would defend their right to express their beliefs. If they were fired I'd consider that unjust.

I think I'm probably 95% on board with this, and I agree with the conclusions and most of the framework, with one exception. A personal belief held by a public representative is still a personal belief. So, the personal nature of the belief alone isn't what exempts it from scrutiny or action. There have to be other factors as well.

There's some productive digging to be done there, but I've got work to get back to! Maybe another time.

> A personal belief held by a public representative is still a personal belief.

I agree with that, but I also think a public comment about a personal belief can interfere with a job that involves speaking on behalf of others. When ones publicly known personal beliefs conflict with the beliefs one expresses while doing ones job, it causes a severe credibility problem, at least.

I'd say the other factor you mentioned is the conflict between "personal" statements and "official" statements. Some people do seem to be able to manage that, in part by avoiding uncompromising statements like "bread is terrible, no one should buy it". In your example, the conflict was so obvious and so provocative that it would be untenable and render the job of CEO impossible.

>If she applies her understanding of freedom in a way I don't agree with, that's a tough shit moment for me.

And if said application of understanding is strongly disagreeable not just for you, but with a significant part of both the customers and the workforce?

That depends. Does profit increase or decrease after the statements?

Honestly it's way simpler than most people make it.

> You really wouldn't have a problem with your CEO saying repub voters are subhuman?

If Brendan Eich has ever described gay people as subhuman, post a link. If he hasn't, this is a terrible and misleading analogy, and a violation of the Principle of Charity.

Marriage is a human right. Denying marriage is denying human rights, thus explicitly labelling that group sub-human.

QED.

>If he hasn't, this is a terrible and misleading analogy, and a violation of the Principle of Charity.

It is using an analogy the parent made in their argument.

Take it up with them if you don't like it.

There's no difference between an "action" and "taking a position". If speech were meaningless, had no effect on peoples' lives–why would anybody care about free speech?

There is clearly a distinction that can be made, and arguably making it has great value.

If speech is either not distinguished, or is indistinguishable from action, then there can be no free speech... or else initiating violence could not be a crime. It could get worse too. You could end up with no free speech and with initiation of violence by elites being legal or effectively legal. These cannot be desirable outcomes! Of course, if you don't value free speech at all, then you might not see a problem with these outcomes.

The distinction is obvious: you don't have to listen to a speaker, but you don't get a choice if they throw a punch your way. The distinction is about freedom on your part.

That said, we're all constrained in what we can say because we cannot stop others from judging us based on our speech, then acting on their judgements.

Imagine a CEO who never once behaves inappropriately at work, but on social media says that they have no problem with what Weinstein did (for example). Now how can subordinates not feel uncomfortable in that CEO's presence? Maybe we should say "tough", but real damage will have been done (to the company's brand, to its culture, and so on). The board of directors surely would have a cause to replace the CEO.

It is a fact of life that the higher one's social position, the more constrained (by the Overton window) one's speech is. But that's not the same as saying that speech is not distinguished from action. If there's an Overton window as to acceptable actions, it surely changes much more slowly than the Overton window for speech -- perhaps that's the real distinction to be made?

It's worth noting that opposing gay marriage is not substantially different than opposing any other sort of human rights. Would you have been fine with Brendan Eich donating in support of an anti-miscegenation law, or funding an effort to revoke women's suffrage? If so, that's at least consistent, and I suppose I can respect that. But too many people acted like gay rights are just a minor thing, not worth getting fussed about, compared to other human rights.

> deeply opposed to gay marriage, but a fantastic coder, that should not affect my standing within a community that is entirely code focused

Do you think someone can really work effectively with their gay married co-contributors in this case?

Being inclusive is great, but you have to recognise that including certain people drives others away from the project.

Can a vegan work with someone with a non restricted diet?

Can an atheist work with a muslim?

In either case, the answer is the same: if the individuals behave professionally, yes.

If the married gay couple are the ones freaking out at work about my hiring someone who posted against gay marriage on his blog two years ago, they are behaving unprofessionally and should be let go.

If it is the anti-gay marriage advocate who is making snide comments about his colleagues at work (or, in the context of a non work environment, in a shared community forum), then it is he who should be excluded.

Your examples aren't analogous. An analogous examples is:

Can a Muslim person work with someone who believes the practice of religion should be outlawed and is working to make that happen?

Can an atheist work with people that believe that they will be, justifiably, tortured for eternity?

Again, not the same thing. As far as the atheist is concerned, that belief is ridiculous. You're conflating belief with action. A better example would be an atheist working with someone trying to impose religious law.

It seems like you're analyzing all of these situations assuming that one side is correct. If you already know everything then obviously you're going to be a benevolent dictator.

There's no obvious delineation between belief and action and a the gist of what I was replying to was along the lines of 'can people work with each other even tho they have strong and significant differences in their beliefs or opinions'.

There's no way to even know a person's beliefs without some action on their part.

Take Brendan Eich – he donated to a group that was engaging in 'speech'. Are you claiming that all 'speech' is action? So how exactly is someone stating that they're a Muslim not an action in the same way? Are you saying it would be fine if Eich believed that gay marriage should remain illegal as long as he never expressed that belief in any way to anyone?

>It seems like you're analyzing all of these situations assuming that one side is correct.

I don't believe I've made any assumptions about who is correct. I simply stated that there is a difference between working with someone who holds a belief, and someone who actively lobbies for that belief to be legislated. I think that's true irrespective of what those beliefs are, and the question of whether or not I agree with some specific belief or not is separate from "holding a belief" being distinct from "lobbying for that belief".

>There's no way to even know a person's beliefs without some action on their part.

Indeed, and this is one of the most vital distinctions between "discrimination" based on belief and aspect. You cannot not express your race or gender, or perhaps you can, but it requires expending significant effort. This is not true for beliefs, you can always not express a belief, even a strongly held one. I do it all the time.

>Are you claiming that all 'speech' is action?

I'm willing to claim that a donation to a lobbying group is an action. Would you disagree?

>So how exactly is someone stating that they're a Muslim not an action in the same way?

Does you being a Muslim convey any kind of information to me about the opinion you hold of me? Does you stating that convey any information to me? On the other hand, does you stating "I hate people with the username joshuamorton" convey any information? I'd say no, no, yes. That's the difference.

>Are you saying it would be fine if Eich believed that gay marriage should remain illegal as long as he never expressed that belief in any way to anyone?

I mean I absolutely do think that would be alright. I by no means think that people should be forced to express their views, so yes I would have zero problem with Eich choosing not to express his views.

> Do you think someone can really work effectively with their gay married co-contributors in this case?

Yes.. But to be fair, adults are in short supply these days.

this is so true

I know a number of gay and gay-friendly people who disagree or oppose gay marriage laws to various degrees, for a variety of reasons. So, huh, of course yes I think they can!

Important: disagreeing with or opposing a gay marriage law is really not the same as being against inclusivity, diversity, or gays. Some people will have both traits; the problematic (for lack of a less polite word) one is the latter, not the former.

What is the reasoning your gay associates give for not supporting gay marriage rights?

One may be natural law theory (and within that context, you have e.g. the perverted faculty argument, among others). Unfortunately, given the poor state of philosophical literacy, I don't imagine that convincing supporters of gay marriage without the requisite education. And even then, liberal doctrine has become increasingly averse to reason, preferring to elevate private desires to the status of ultimate authority.

In evolutionary biology, there is no notion of correct or incorrect usage of a faculty. In fact, the opposite is the case. Evolution often occurs by modifying and reusing some functionality in a new way or in a new context. It has no specific goals or purposes. Things that survive and reproduce stick around and things that don't die off, no matter the details.

The sexual organs don't have a pre-ordained purpose. The argument falls apart at the very first premise.

If the actual concern is that all of humanity will turn gay and then we will go extinct, well, it's safe to say I'm not too worried about that.

Natural lawyers generally don't appeal to evolutionary biology to ground their moral claims, and would probably universally cry that to try and do so, would be folly. Note...I'm not endorsing NL here, I don't find it very convincing, but...

The parent's point about philosophical literacy is apropos here. Natural law and its underlying metaphysics is very technical and deep. It is definitely not falling apart by pointing out the obvious, that biology varies over time. In some respect, NL has dealt with that "problem" since the time of Aristotle. (For a start: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/essential-accidental/)

> The parent's point about philosophical literacy is apropos here. Natural law and its underlying metaphysics is very technical and deep.

This may be true, but such endeavors must reconcile with modern scientific understanding one way or another, or they can lose validity/usefulness. I haven't seen any convincing efforts to do so.

Note, this would be less of an issue if they didn't make certain specific claims or rely on certain specific premises that the natural sciences directly touch. E.g. the "purpose" of sexual organs.

One relevant idea that has been growing stronger for me is that a philosophical endeavor needs some sort of strong, tangible connection to reality in order to have meaning or usefulness. Without such grounding, it is far too easy to end up with something that seems reasonable on the surface but may actually be nonsensical or illusory.

They of course supported gay rights! However some disagreed with the "marriage" word; some disagreed with the need for a law to allow it, rather than removing any existing law or clause that denied it. Those are the two arguments that stuck with me, there were others (different countries, different takes). It was definitely food for thought.

> However some disagreed with the "marriage" word; some disagreed with the need for a law to allow it, rather than removing any existing law or clause that denied it.

This is a minor technical point that distracts from the main discussion, and doesn't really support the implication from your earlier comment that some gay people are against gay marriage rights. Saying method 2 is better than method 1 is not the same as opposing method 1.

Saying method 2 is better than method 1 is not the same as opposing method 1.

What about outright opposing Method 1 because you don't think the Ends justify the Means? Even if you agree with the Ends? Even if you like Method 2?

I'm my experience, that gets me branded as a monster. I tend to keep my mouth shut.

You, and I, consider it a minor technical point, but they do not. In some cases it is important enough for them to have not married despite over a decade of being together. Again, that should be food for thought.

The implication does not exist unless you want to put it there. I even added a second, longer sentence to emphasize that being against a particular law is not the same as being against gay rights. The fact that you insist the implication is there despite all that is precisely my point.

Some people oppose the very concept of Government regulating interpersonal relationship and want to see "legal marriage" abolsihed out right

No adult should have to seek permission from government to form, codify, or have a relationship "recognized"

At most you should be required to file civil contract declaring a partnership has been formed between 2 or more adults, what the terms of that partnership are from a financial and property stand point, and should include a disillusion process.

That is a radical shift from what we have today, but "Family law" is a complete mess and needs to just be completely abolished and replaced with Voluntary Agreements and Civil Contracts outside the control of government.

> Do you think someone can really work effectively with their gay married co-contributors in this case?

I would expect so, yes.

Firearms are a huge part of my life, as is political advocacy for self-defense rights. I've worked with many people who disagreed with me on that issue to the degree that I expect that many people disagree with gay marriage. For the vast majority of them, it wasn't an issue.

It feels qualitatively different to argue that “he and I disagree on firearms but we continue to work together” is the same basic concept.

Imagine you’re a gay man, happily married. You work at Mozilla.

Don’t you think it would be difficult to go into work, and report to your CEO, knowing that he had donated against gay marriage? That he feels your way of life has no place in America?

Mozilla is an outspoken champion of net neutrality, anonymity, free speech, open standards, and several other ideologies that emphasize freedom. How can you clap at an all-hands meeting when your CEO stands in front of the company and talks about the importance of these freedoms, while knowing that he also feels so strongly that your private relationship with your husband is so abhorrent that he thought it was a good use of $1000 to try to ban it?

If the liberals “win”, and guns are banned tomorrow, like they are in Australia, are you so committed to your firearm rights that you’ll consider moving to another country, or suicide because life just isn’t worth living? Do you think it’s ludicrous that gay people might consider those options?

Firearms are a choice. Being gay is not. Judgement against gay marriage is judgement against who you are. Judgement against firearms is judgement against a hobby.

Take the argument back 50 years. Do you think a white boss who donated money against equal rights could/would treat black employees fairly?

Imagine that you’re a gay employee at Mozilla. You’ve been gunning for a promotion into upper management, and someone else wins the position. Are you never going to wonder, “Does his skin crawl when we shake hands? Would I have won the position if my Facebook didn’t have pictures of me and my husband on it?”

Have you ever wondered if your love of firearms has impacted your professional career?

> It feels qualitatively different to argue that “he and I disagree on firearms but we continue to work together” is the same basic concept.

I get that it feels different to you - but I'm telling you in good faith that it doesn't to me.

> Don’t you think it would be difficult to go into work, and report to your CEO, knowing that he had donated against gay marriage?

Certainly. I've quit jobs because of similar issues. If someone feels about gay marriage the way I do about guns and the right to self-defense, it sounds entirely reasonable to me for them not to financial support people who actively work against their political interests.

> If the liberals “win”, and guns are banned tomorrow, like they are in Australia, are you so committed to your firearm rights that you’ll consider moving to another country, or suicide because life just isn’t worth living?

Yes. Five years ago when I was choosing a place to move from rural Arkansas to further my career as a developer, California, Illinois, New York, and several other states were out of the question because of their gun laws. Now that I'm more established, I'm moving back to Arkansas and a large part of that is the political climate here in Virginia.

Given the choice between disarmament and emigration, I'd emigrate. Given the choice between disarmament and death, I would fight. It's that serious of an issue to me and to far more people than you'd believe unless you've lived somewhere surrounded by people who share this view.

> Firearms are a choice. Being gay is not. Judgement against gay marriage is judgement against who you are. Judgement against firearms is judgement against a hobby.

Respectfully, you're completely wrong here. Firearms are not a hobby for me, they're symbolic of my entire cultural perspective. It is no more a choice than religious affiliation.

> Have you ever wondered if your love of firearms has impacted your professional career?

Of course it has. I'd be making significantly more money right now if I'd moved to San Jose, New York City, or even Portland.

---

I'm re-reading my comments above, and hesitating to submit them because I'm concerned that they might easily be seen as justification to lump me in with the GOP. Let me be clear about that - I don't consider myself a Republican, and I don't consider myself a conservative. I'm an extreme libertarian. I have no animosity towards homosexuals, and it doesn't matter to me how someone presents themselves or structure their personal relationships. "It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg."

The main point I'm trying to make is that online communities in particular are made up of people with drastically different perspectives on life. Some of those differences are obvious, but some are not. Some of them are expected to be respected while it's socially acceptable to disregard others out of hand. That's not right.

> I get that it feels different to you - but I'm telling you in good faith that it doesn't to me.

I think there's a very obvious difference:

(hopefully) Your views on guns and personal liberty are based on ethics and under the system you believe is ethical, personal liberty and firearms are important. You do not hold a code of ethics because it allows you to use firearms, but you believe you are allowed to use firearms due to the ethical system. (I may be mistaken here, but allow me to overstep and state that I'd find anyone who developed an ethical system to support their use of firearms downright scary).

For someone who is gay, there's nothing like that. They find different people attractive. No ethical systems to it.

In other words, "I love people of my same sex" is an axiom, "people should be allowed to use firearms" is a conclusion.

> For someone who is gay, there's nothing like that. They find different people attractive. No ethical systems to it.

And why is that difference relevant?

>In other words, "I love people of my same sex" is an axiom, "people should be allowed to use firearms" is a conclusion.

I feel that I addressed that.

I can't see how you did?

Why is a firmly held conviction less important than a physical attribute you are born with?

I never said anything about importance. I said they were different, and I believe that they should be treated differently because they are different, not because one is more important than the other.

It isn't. Anti-discrimination law includes religion in the set of protected classes.

Although I wish ranged weapons were not prevalent in my city so I can run away from a assailants, and although if it were up to me, I would make it illegal to carry guns outside the home / firing ranges / etc. because then we wouldn't have gun homicides the size of the Paris attacks every 6 days in the USA, even so...

I respect that we live in a country where people have different political beliefs and we should engage with them. And I respect that a large part of the country feels strongly about owning guns. And I also understand that the Constitution has the second amendment -- and even though the first explanatory clause is invariably ignored by gun activists ("A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state") I leave it up to the Courts to make this decision. Incidentally, after McDonald vs Chicago it's likely that ALL cities including New York may eventually be forced by the federal government to allow open carry and concealed carry on the street!

That is why I upvoted this comment to counteract knee jerk downvotes.

To everyone who thinks Brendan Eich's support for Prop 8 is "different" than supporting a ban on guns, you have to ask yourself if you have a huge double standard.

>> and even though the first explanatory clause is invariably ignored by gun activists

It is not ignored, it is misrepresented and misunderstood by anti-gun activists, but I am not about to go into all the details of that here...

> Incidentally, after McDonald vs Chicago it's likely that ALL cities including New York may eventually be forced by the federal government to allow open carry and concealed carry on the street!

People with Licenses are not a concern, and should not concern anyone. Gun Violence against others is committed by criminals. Most "Gun Violence" committed by Legal Gun Owners is suicide which I believe should be legal anyway and not considered "Violence"

> I would make it illegal to carry guns outside the home / firing ranges / etc. because then we wouldn't have gun homicides the size of the Paris attacks every 6 days in the USA, even so.

Once you account for other sources and caused of Gun Violence (i.e the War on Drugs, and other government actions) the "threat" from legal gun owners is a statistical abnormality

If you want to reduce gun violence focus less on the tool (i.e the gun) and more on the causes of violence in general. Put that effort in toe Drug Abuse reform, decriminalization of Drugs, better mental health systems, reduction in poverty, inner city out reach and educational programs, about 1,000 other things that would be more effective at ending a lot of violence including gun violence than attempting to ban guns from law abiding people

> People with Licenses are not a concern, and should not concern anyone. Gun Violence against others is committed by criminals.

Of course they concern people including myself! Just because someone has a license doesn't mean they won't do something stupid. That includes a license to drive cars. There are lots of restrictions such as speed limits, traffic lights and so on. And everyone is a "law abiding citizen" until their very first homicide.

>Once you account for other sources and caused of Gun Violence (i.e the War on Drugs, and other government actions) the "threat" from legal gun owners is a statistical abnormality

I am well aware that half of all gun violence is suicide, and I specifically exclude it from my estimates when I say that the USA has gun HOMICIDES the size of the Paris attacks every 6 days.

Just to be clear - mass shootings account for a tiny percentage of those, and the issue is not with assault weapons. It is with GUNS. More guns means more chances for regular people to get into spontaneous gun violence over altercations in a bar or on the street. Nevermind gangs and so on.

Yes I am NOT talking suicides.

My point, however, is that just as we are discussing things now, you should discuss about gay marriage and other things. And not just knee jerk fire someone when they don't bring their political views to work.

>>>And everyone is a "law abiding citizen" until their very first homicide.

Really? Everyone is law abiding until they commit a murder...

>I specifically exclude it from my estimates when I say that the USA has gun HOMICIDES the size of the Paris attacks every 6 days.

It is completely absurd to compare a nationwide static about violence where many many many many individual events unconnected to each other occur to one organized event.

> Nevermind gangs and so on.

This is the core problem with your aurgument, France does not have the same Gang problem we have in the US, France does not have the same Aggressive Policing as we do in the US.

You can not simply "never-mind" the gangs, as the gangs are what account for the statistical differences between the US and France, if you remove Gang Related Homicides you get a comparable level of Violent crime between France and the US

>>>My point, however, is that just as we are discussing things now, you should discuss about gay marriage and other things. And not just knee jerk fire someone when they don't bring their political views to work.

I agree with this, Free Speech is under attack, not by government but by people that believe they have the right to not be offended, not be confronted with opposing views, to live their life in a echo chamber bubble where only people that agree with them exists.

When a Tweet or facebook post that some one finds "offensive" results in a national boycott to get an individual fired we as a society have lost all connection with the concept of Free Speech

>>>>And everyone is a "law abiding citizen" until their very first homicide. >Really? Everyone is law abiding until they commit a murder...

Fine, if you want to be that pedantic before you address what I say, I meant "everyone WHO MAKES THEIR FIRST HOMICIDE is not a killer until their first homicide". So the phrase "law abiding citizens" doesn't mean you have "nothing to worry about".

>It is completely absurd to compare a nationwide static about violence where many many many many individual events unconnected to each other occur to one organized event.

It's not absurd at all if the other country (France) doesn't have gun homicides the rest of the time! And it's doubly not absurd when the President tweets this:

http://variety.com/2015/biz/news/donald-trump-paris-terror-a...

>I agree with this

So we mostly agree, but you chose to comment on the stuff we disagree on to pick a fight? :)

>So the phrase "law abiding citizens" doesn't mean you have "nothing to worry about".

If you look at the criminal history and actions of most murders, homicide is not their very very very first crime. There is normally a pattern of behavior often time resulting in them losing their legal right to own a gun well before their first homicide

This of course does not apply to "crimes of passion" but Gun Control will do very little to prevent those murders it will just not be gun that is used to kill the person

>>but you chose to comment on the stuff we disagree on to pick a fight? :)

I am not picking the fight, nor did I bring gun control into it. I will however defend my right to defend myself using what ever tool I choose to including a gun. I will defend this right to self protection in all venues and at all times.

You've raised some excellent points with regards to firearms, though I had never considered them in this context as comparable to other minority groups, you have changed my mind.

One thing though, having recently been in the Portland area I can tell you firearm rights are not as badly abused as the general Portland stereotype would suggest. Portland itself has a few silly gun laws, but Oregon as a whole has a decent CCW law which overrides those of the city. It's a surprisingly gun friendly place to be.

For many communities, guns are not just a "hobby". They are an integral part of life and culture. The fact that people don't take the time to understand this is a huge issue.

LyndsySimon: the tolerant and inclusive company you are describing cannot accept intolerant behaviors:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance

Part of being a professional is working with people you disagree with. If he can't manage that, then yes he should be let go, but that wasn't the logic at work in this case.

I can understand working with people you disagree with; I do that all the time. But there's a difference with disagreeing with someone, and that other person believing you don't deserve the same rights as other people.

Even if he can manage to separate out his professional life from his personal life, that sort of belief poisons the well for people that have to work with him.

So then, in your opinion, what jobs should be open to people who oppose gay marriage? There is a limited number of lighthouses that haven't been automated.

What jobs should be open to racists? What jobs should be open to pedophiles? The current social construct is built on at least trying for equality of opportunity; there's nothing to be gained bending over backwards to accommodate people who believe other humans to be some how lesser.

The alternate question is: How far are people able to ignore personal beliefs before they refuse to work with/under someone? If you asked a gay person, there are a fair amount of people who would refuse to work with someone that opposes gay marriage. If you asked a black person, I imagine the majority would walk away from a job if it turned out one of the highest level employees was a Grand Dragon of the KKK.

When those views become part of the public sphere they're put under scrutiny. Each person has their own individual limit for what they're willing to put up with, and a community in turn has a collective limit. There are some companies that might be more friendly, but I would imagine if you held an opinion like that in say, Seattle you might have a bit of trouble if it was well-popularized.

I know this is a popular way to phrase it, but opponents of gay marriage are not saying gays shouldn't have the same rights as other people. Not being allowed to marry a person of the same sex is a universal law, it doesn't just apply to gay people. It does only affect them though, but that is not the same,especially when people are using this argument (as you do) to insinuate that people opposing gay marriage think gay people are lesser beings or something like that.

>It does only affect them though, but that is not the same,especially when people are using this argument (as you do) to insinuate that people opposing gay marriage think gay people are lesser beings or something like that.

Actually to the best of my knowledge, it is the same, at least under US law. De facto discrimination is still considered discrimination.

You're drawing a distinction without difference. You can phrase basically any rule that discriminates against a subgroup as a rule on the larger group that only affects the subgroup. For example, I don't think anyone would say, "It isn't discrimination against women to forbid all people from doing something without a Y chromosome." The fact that the phrasing doesn't say "women" doesn't make it not discrimination, because it specifically targets attributes of women.

If you want to be inclusive, you have to be inviting towards other opinions, too, only that's the same difficulty as including the opposite site. Sure everyone has the right to their opinion, but whoever brings it to the workplace or other professional environment has to stand for it.

This is difficult to discuss in the work place, because this makes it topical.

Yes, people with opposing personal views have worked together for the entirety of human civilization, if that was not possible we would have no civilization.

When people with opposing personal views stop working together is when the problems occur. Echo Chambers and Mono Cultures lead to extremism in most instances. This is true no matter what your political or personal world view is.

Peaceful Collaboration in one area of life even with people that in other areas of life you disagree is essential to a functional society.

So because the guy might have problems with his co-workers all his co-workers should definitely have problems with him? Shouldn't he be judged on his actions towards his co-workers not by your stereotype of a anti-gay marriage supporter?

Yes, you can be opposed to gay marriage and still work effectively. Accepting that idea is consistent with the principle of epistemic humility.

Could you not flip the argument, and ask "Do you think a gay-married person could really work effectively with somebody who 's made a donation..." and thereby flip who we fault for the alleged incompatibility? I think both ways of framing it are equally preposterous.

The lexical structure may be symmetrical, but the meaning isn't.

If gays wanted to prevent people who are anti-gay from marrying, then you might have an argument.

That's a false analogy because it presumes that marriage between gays is even possible. Those with the strongest arguments against gay marriage hold that:

- marriage is a natural institution that the state recognizes (the state, technically, does not marry people)

- marriage is ultimately rooted in the intrinsic capacity (though not necessarily the successful exercise e.g. impotence does not render marriage invalid) for sexual reproduction and the complementarity of the sexes

Therefore, they hold that there simply is no such thing as gay marriage, and you cannot deny what does not exist.

Marriage is an abstraction invented by humans. This is why the details vary from culture to culture.

Humans didn't invent gravity. This is why it is the same in the US as it is in Asia, as well as everywhere else in the universe.

Thus, gay marriage can easily exist. People simply have to believe that it is a useful abstraction.

> The Mozilla CEO fired for his personal donation in opposition to gay marriage. (Again, completely irrelevant to his relationship with the Mozilla project).

He was fired as CEO, not as CTO or any other technical position. The CEO is meant to represent the organisation. Denying rights to individuals goes against Mozilla's ethos and detracts from its campaign goals. Put simply, if the CEO isn't supported by their org then they are an ineffective CEO.

>> goes against Mozilla's ethos and detracts from its campaign goals.

Mozilla violates its ethos and detracts from is stated goals all the time. From DRM Embedded in the browser, to Cliq Spyware, to the latest Adware forced installed on all users.

The idea that Mozilla is a virtuous organization fighting for the rights of the disenfranchised is long dead

> The CEO is meant to represent the organisation. Denying rights to individuals goes against Mozilla's ethos and detracts from its campaign goals.

This implies Mozilla is intrinsically a political organization, because that’s an explicit stance on a political topic. I can buy your argument here about a CEO’s personal views being incompatible with their position, but it means we need to accept that the reason for that incompatibility is the organization must have political opinions.

Does Mozilla describe itself as a political organization anywhere? I can’t immediately find a statement of its principles/values.

> This implies Mozilla is intrinsically a political organization ... Does Mozilla describe itself as a political organization anywhere? I can’t immediately find a statement of its principles/values.

Basically yes. Look at the "Mozilla Manifesto" ( https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/about/manifesto/ ), some of which are quite political:

> 2. The Internet is a global public resource that must remain open and accessible.

> 4. Individuals’ security and privacy on the Internet are fundamental and must not be treated as optional.

> 9. Commercial involvement in the development of the Internet brings many benefits; a balance between commercial profit and public benefit is critical.

All organizations are political.

That presumes that gay marriage is a right.

No, it presumes marriage is a right. Or rather it presumes that this isn't an area where the government should assert its control over people's personal lives.

I think an issue is that by including some people you are by necessity working to make other groups unwelcome: the choice to be apolitical is a political choice.

No, the only people you are making unwelcome are either:

1) those who don't know the time and place for their non community relevant outbursts ('meat is murder', 'homosexuality is a sin' are both irrelevant to 99% of tech or other industry community/work discussions) -- leave that for your vegan blog, or your church group.

2) those who are unable to behave courteously in the presence of someone they know holds differing views in some area they are passionate about. Just because I have read Jennys vegan blog, and know and disagree with her 'meat is murder' sentiment doesn't mean I can't work effectively with her.

People need to be able to separate their general leanings and passions from their commitments to a job or other community.

Being a minority is not a general leaning or a passion. Knowing your superior wants you dead(white supremacists) or psychologically tortured(conversion therapy) or inherently doesn't believe in your competence(sexism, racism, what have you) is not something one just shrugs off.

Choosing to to be apolitical is a political stance. It would be nice if we could magically divorce people's work from their stance, but their stance will affect how they treat their peers and juniors- this is how patterns of oppression become systems. If a person has beliefs that women are inherently less capable of work, they will be unlikely to volunteer women for promotions or even see their women coworkers as having performed the work done. If a person has beliefs that black people are more violent or thuggish, they are unlikely to view that black coworker asserting that a technology requirement is utterly stupid in the same light as a white coworker asserting the same.

I should emphasize these are not conscious, malicious behaviors. We are taught things about our peers and these teachings change our views on the context of the work of our peers. People rarely consciously, maliciously try to prevent the advancement of a disenfranchised group. Instead, their beliefs of that group prevent them from seeing that a member of the group deserves advancement.

People do not differentiate from the contexts of their pervasive views on how they view every other person around them. They do not cease being sexist because their workplace claims to be apolitical. It merely means they no longer have repercussions within their workplace for their beliefs, regardless of the countless absolutely unprovable ways these beliefs bleed into work.

For each of the questions you have listed, there is opposite viewpoints of some (questionable) legitimacy:

White supremacists would argue that it is multiculturalists who seek the abolition of the white race through introduction of millions of high birth rate other demographics into white countries.

Pro-conversion therapy anti gay people would argue they are saving the individuals from mental problems, social difficulties, and other negative side effects of what they believe is a consciously modifiable behaviour.

"Racists" and "sexists" would argue that being aware of mean average behavioural differences in different demographics is not a negative thing.

However invalid these arguments may, or may not, be, it is not our job to attempt to generalise our expertise and judge anyone who holds a differing view.

Simple statistics says that there is at least one or two major issues which you are extremely passionate about, but simply mistaken. Same for me, same for anyone else.

That does not matter. As long as my opinions do not measurably affect my behaviour within a specific community, then it is not relevant. People should be judged by their individual actions within a given 'organism'/community/company/etc, not their viewpoints on tangentially related subjects shared with others in other communities.

Your logic is exactly what led to the exclusion of gays, blacks, communists, non christians, and other groups, in the 1950s and before.

You risk going so far in the other direction that you become exactly what you opposed.

All of your given examples are false equivalencies, as they assume that the desire to control the disenfranchised groups is the same as the real harm done to the disenfranchised group as a result of being controlled.

A person can change beliefs about how you should treat gay people. A gay person cannot change their homosexuality to accommodate anti-gay people, and trying actively harms them.

" As long as my opinions do not measurably affect my behaviour within a specific community, then it is not relevant."

I am arguing that, in fact, opinions supporting the disenfranchisement of minorities affects the behavior of a specific community. Please see my previous example that someone who believes black people are inherently violent is more likely to view a black coworker asserting that a technical spec is stupid differently than a white coworker doing the same. Also see my previous example that a person who believes women are less capable in code is more likely to overlook achievements of their women coworkers.

I don't understand what you mean by my logic excluded other groups, and then you lumped in inherent traits (race, sexuality) with beliefs about how governments should form (communism). Race, sexuality, and gender are not leanings or passions. They are things that people cannot change about themselves, things that they cannot avoid the brunt of any oppressive belief or behavior regarding.

> A person can change beliefs about how you should treat gay people. A gay person cannot change their homosexuality to accommodate anti-gay people, and trying actively harms them.

I think your claim here has a high likelihood of inviting a very unproductive (and potentially offensive) debate. I'm going to try to counter it in a different way while explicitly acknowledging this fact.

I think your focus in this claim is on the wrong subject. I don't think the parent's argument relies on your claim about the capability of changing beliefs versus sexual orientation being false. From my perspective, people have the right to personal beliefs which can be considered repulsive. People do not have the right to engage in violent opposition or oppression. I think that, if an individual is not actively campaigning for violence against another group, their personal beliefs about that group should be an inalienable right, no matter how ugly or wrong we think they are. If they are making people uncomfortable in the office, this becomes an issue of professional conduct, not one of personal beliefs. Frankly, I would consider virtually all political discussion one way or the other to be inappropriate in an office setting, and an unfortunate practice which only persists because generally only the opinions politically expedient for the organization are actually expressed.

If we step back from the problem of gay marriage and abstract this to opposing beliefs, it becomes very difficult to allow some beliefs and disallow others while retaining fairness and real diversity of opinion. We can stop people from engaging in violence against others or from using the office to discriminate against others. But we cannot cultivate an environment that filters out all the Wrong opinions while allowing all the Right opinions.

As long as my opinions do not measurably affect my behaviour within a specific community, then it is not relevant.

The point is that people's opinions always affect their behaviour (very often unconsciously).

So what?

Judge people on their behavior and results at work, not away from it.

> Knowing your superior wants you dead(white supremacists) or psychologically tortured(conversion therapy) or inherently doesn't believe in your competence(sexism, racism, what have you) is not something one just shrugs off.

Those examples indicate a violent agenda or an inability to separate private views from the workplace. That’s not the scenario the parent is talking about. The parent is talking about a situation in which someone has nonviolent, extremely opposite views from your own, and does not soapbox these sentiments in the workplace.

I submit that this isn’t a qualitative difference, it’s a categorical one, and that your examples aren’t comparable to “merely” politically controversial or unsettling opinions.

Please read the rest of my post regarding how sentiments supporting the disenfranchisement of minorities does affect the workplace even if one does not soapbox it. While I agree that minor differences such a diet and similar should not affect the workplace, I believe the op is too broad in their approach and net implications they may not desire which I am pointing out. Unfortunately I believe that based on their response they also do not mind what I’ve pointed out.

> psychologically tortured

Many (most?) religious believers believe that non-believers, or people of different faiths, will be justifiably tortured for eternity (or maybe just a really long time).

This is not equivalent to the actual torture that goes into conversion therapy.

Well, sure, if you already know you're right then you can just safely ignore everything that's wrong.

Obviously I was writing from the POV where it's not obvious what's correct (and indeed I personally don't think either belief is obvious).

If any of the religions that believe in hell is true, then the actual torture of conversion therapy is literally nothing in the face of divine damnation.

>> It would be nice if we could magically divorce people's work from their stance, but their stance will affect how they treat their peers and juniors-

This isn't necessarily true. People have for years been able to divorce personal or politic beliefs from their work and not let them impact their professional life.

> If a person has beliefs that women are inherently less capable of work, they will be unlikely to volunteer women for promotions

Is that an evidence based statement or supposition?

Might they be more likely to volunteer the women in their team for promotions?

If you like someone but think they are a bit useless I've found you tend to help them significantly more and try and raise them up.

One thing I have noticed in several tech companies is that what is or isn't the time or place for a non community relevant outburst is determined to a surprising degree by the contents of the outburtst. A VP of Engineering making anti-Trump comments (in a context without other relevance to the business or matter at hand) at a company all-hands is deemed relevant. A person of similar rank making pro-Trump comments would have been treated very differently.

People are very bad at separating the personal from the professional. Indeed, many people seem to think it's their right to use the one to advance the other.

I felt alienated by that VP's comments. Not because of their contents, but because he felt so free to abuse his position.

Off topic, but could you explain where that vegan hate is coming from? I‘ve met lots of vegans, and none of them have ever said anything like your quote, and none of them have ever told me that I should stop eating meat.

Plenty of gay people oppose too marriage too. The most powerful gay couple Dolce and Gabbana for instance.

I respectfully disagree. I think this idea is one of the subtle evils at the root of this damned politicizing of everything.

I believe it can come from a good place, but it's at its heart a deliberate agitation step designed to create this friction. That's seen as a good thing, for now, until the prevailing societal winds decide to blow another direction, then we'll all realize it was a bad idea to force neutral parties into the fray.

I think it's perfectly fine to expect a gay man and someone who has antiquated ideas about gay men to be professionals, and equally fine to terminate either one if they can't be.

Do executives get to have private views? It’s unfortunate, but the media seems to love using personal actions by executives as representative of the company they work for. So in Eich’s case I think Mozilla had a legitimate concern that his personal views would be perceived as the company’s stance.

The Mozilla CEO fired for his personal donation in opposition to gay marriage. (Again, completely irrelevant to his relationship with the Mozilla project).

Probably quite relevant to his position as CEO of an organisation that employs (and would like to hire) LGBT people.

No more relevant than a CEO of a company that hires people of all diets being a passionate vegan who believes eating meat is immoral.

As long as his personal views don't impact his professional behaviour, the two are not connected.

Brendan Eich took active steps to deny fundamental rights to gay / queer people.

By which you mean he made a campaign donation.

You might believe he did that. Brendan Eich likely doesn’t believe that, or he doesn’t believe those specific rights are fundamental, or he has a different interpretation of those rights.

When you frame his behavior the way you just did, you immediately position your perspective as right and the other perspective as wrong, but the parent’s point is that this isn’t relevant either way. His behavior was not expressed in the workplace, and he was not pushing a violent agenda. He doesn’t need to be correct in all of his personal views, he just needs to be capable of working with people of differing lifestyles, and he needs to segregate his own beliefs from the workplace.

Radical vegan want to deny the fundamental right of eating meat.

> Within a community, individuals should only be judged based on their contributions and value within that community.

I would add that for contributions outside of the community, they should be judged if they relate to that community.

For instance, if a a security expert, goes out to conferences telling people to use MFA, but privately tells people not to use it because it is "too complicated" that person would rightly be judged by the community. (Note: I mean they regularly make that reccomendation privately, not a one-off because they don't want to tell their grandparent to use MFA).

> The Mozilla CEO fired for his personal donation in opposition to gay marriage. (Again, completely irrelevant to his relationship with the Mozilla project).

This is complicated for roles like CEO, they don't have a specific _technical_ role. Their role is the define the vision and direction of the company. I believe that part of the CEO job to define the values and mores for the organization, if this is wrong, let me know as that is kind of fundamental to my point.

In that case, wouldn't it be right that that a CEO is fired for their values? Their values and what they want is the reason a CEO was hired at an organization. If the CEO's personal values do not match the values for the organization, it's a bad fit and they should part ways.

I find it funny how you go from

>This whole question really stems from a sad and pervasive tendency for 'intelligent' people to overestimate their general expertise

>Within a community, individuals should only be judged based on their contributions and value within that community.

and then justify that with

>Everyone is not expected to be right, or agreeable, about everything, with everyone else. Aiming for this is pointless.

I'm not sure you agree with yourself.

I'm not sure what your point is. Can you clarify what you're trying to get at here?

I think basically he is saying there is a bit of a dichotomy in stating that communities overestimate their abilities to apply value judgements and then at the same time state that they should only judge people based on their contributions and value to that community.

As much as you might like, you can't really separate some specific technical ideal of "value" or "contribution" from a person's actions on the whole. People are people, and communities are collections of people with human interactions and interpersonal relationships.

I'll also add that the false equivalence between excluding Allan Turning because he was gay vs. excluding people who express homophobic attitudes because they want to exclude people who are gay is just another way of stating "in order to embrace tolerance we must be tolerant of intolerance". Can we all finally accept that for the fallacy that it is?

Within a given group value is reasonably correlated to expertise.

As much as I wouldn't give any time to sociologists valuing Alan Turings genius within mathematics, computer science, etc., I'd have equally little time for mathematicians judging his sexuality.

The issue is statistically you aren't a fantastic coder. At least not so much so that any organization can't find an equavalent person who isn't on the wrong side of history.

The paradox comes from the fact most people (and it seems even more than most in this industry) believe themselves "special" or "above average" when in reality that can't be the case. You don't get to (or at least shouldn't) "buy out" of the social contract just for being spectacular (and again, odds are very poor as to whether you actually have anything unique to add).

This can result in tragedy, as in the case of Turning, or justice, as in the case of the laundry list of sexual predators falling from grace currently. Pretending everyone you disagree with is just "politics" ignores the fact that no man is an island and everything is connected. Once you realize you aren't special; the world/society doesn't owe you shit life will get a lot easier.

I would modify your statement slightly:

>>If I am deeply opposed <<a particular cause or ideology>> [but don't let it affect with how I interact with people in my role], but a fantastic coder, that should not affect my standing within a community that is entirely code focused.

> This, of course, continues further, with things such as Hollywood blacklisting (today) Conservatives

Hollywood does not blacklist "conservatives". Hollywood (finally) blacklists people who have outright abused their positions, sometimes for decades, to rape women.

If we are talking about an individual contributor, who only contributes code, who doesn‘t talk to press or customers, then I agree, their political beliefs shouldn‘t get them fired.

But if someone represents an organisation, whether internally or externally, their political beliefs are relevant; their actions are reflected as actions of the company.

Humans don‘t differentiate between personal and official life as much as you think they should, so unfortunately companies and organisations can‘t ignore what their representatives do in their spare time.

The post by cs1717p seems somewhat reasonable on the surface but causes a massive visceral backlash in my gut as I read it. So, while I haven't given it enough thought to figure out why, I vehemently disagree.

I disagree about the Mozilla CEO comment specifically. If something is antithetical to you and other community members, regardless of the original "purpose" of a community, so be it.

I feel you. Once again I'm finding HN's culture very reminiscent of the "techbro" epidemic that we are only pretending to be against.

Can people here just not imagine what it would be like to be gay and also be working for someone making political donations to anti-gay groups? Would you not think that would feel fucking awful???

How do you think it felt for Eich to be virtually lynched and forced out of his job? Can you not imagine that?

Easily imagined. But he's the CEO; the spokesperson for the company. Its an entirely different bar.

And he didn't get lynched; he just lost a job. Like so many gay people when they are outed. My sympathy for the guy is nearly zero.

Eich wasn't “virtually lynched”. Serious questions about his credibility in adhering to values some people expected of Mozilla were raised, creating a PR issue for Mozilla which he was evidently incapable of managing. Mm

This is in no way similar to a lynching, and one must be extraordinarily sheltered to find them similar.

> Eich wasn't “virtually lynched”.

He certainly was. I was there and I remember it very well. Twitter and the media went nuts, demanding he be fired.

> Serious questions about his credibility in adhering to values some people expected of Mozilla were raised

And Mozilla employees stood up for him, saying that he always treated all employees equally with respect and fairness.

> creating a PR issue for Mozilla which he was evidently incapable of managing. Mm

How would you suggest he should have "managed" it? Mm.

> This is in no way similar to a lynching, and one must be extraordinarily sheltered to find them similar.

It exactly is, and there's no need for you to turn to personal attacks against me.

> Twitter and the media went nuts, demanding he be fired.

Demanding someone be fired by the people with the authority to do so because you perceive that they are unsuitable for a particular role isn't lynching. It may be, in some cases, unjustified by he facts, but what makes a lynching a lynching has nothing to do with whether the accusations made are unjustified.

> It exactly is

I don't think you understand what a lynching is, because none of what you have described resembles one in any meaningful way.

> It may be, in some cases, unjustified by he facts, but what makes a lynching a lynching has nothing to do with whether the accusations made are unjustified.

I agree with this statement. A lynching is a lynching regardless of why it is done.

> I don't think you understand what a lynching is, because none of what you have described resembles one in any meaningful way.

I don't think you understand what a lynching is, otherwise you would recognize that a mob of people reacting emotionally to harm another person is exactly that. e.g. Webster, 1913: "To inflict punishment upon without the forms of law." That is literally what happened.

lynching means you usually die... please choose a better word.

> The post by cs1717p seems somewhat reasonable on the surface but causes a massive visceral backlash in my gut as I read it. So, while I haven't given it enough thought to figure out why, I vehemently disagree.

I just wish you could hear yourself. Were you writing in a different context, I'd think you were writing satire. It's the same reasoning that actual bigots used against people of different races: they had no rational reason to discriminate against them, but they had learned a massive, visceral backlash reaction, and rather than challenge themselves to overcome it, they just went with it and acted on it. Rationalizing away the cognitive dissonance, racism lived on. So, we got Jim Crow, etc.

I agree wholeheartedly. Code has no gender or race.

I am so tired of people bringing up the Brendan Eich thing as if it was unfair. Let's be clear; he wanted to deny civil rights to LGBT folks. That's not ok for a CEO of a large organization. It's not like he was ousted for wanting to abolish the estate tax.

He monetarily donated to support a position that half of America supported. One simply can't expect demand that level of moral purity in a free society.

Not only that, but a position that was ratified in a referendum by Californians.

What rights? I'm serious. It's not a mantra. It's a very radical claim, to say the least, that gay marriage is a right. I have yet to see an argument for its recognition as bona fide marriage.

So you're saying the solution is simple, everyone just needs to change their behavior?

> So you're saying the solution is simple, everyone just needs to change their behavior?

I think his argument is: Everybody should do their work that is the purpose of the community. This is why they are member of the community.

> The Mozilla CEO fired for his personal donation in opposition to gay marriage.

He wasn't fired, he stepped down.

> This inability to separate emotions and passions from cooperating on a shared focus with others, of differing emotions and passions, but equal interest in the shared focus (community) is deeply damaging.

However, I see people's personalities informing how they behave in their occupation all day, every day. The notion you can subconsciously remove all of your biases before undertaking a project is, surely, inherently flawed?

We also deal with associations - the body of your work will be judged based on its context. Its context comes from who you are, what you believe, and your values (both work and personal based). Of course an artists' work will be looked at differently if they're a UFO believer or not. Of course people will question whether someone championing an inclusive organisation can really not support gay marriage. Of course people will look at the works of Roman Polanski through a different lens because of allegations. It's not enforced "political correctness" it's default behaviour of humans to make these links, correct or not.

Personally, I'm tired of the "leave politics to your political circles" response - politics has an impact on your worldview and thus influences your work.

I'm not claiming everyone should hold the same views, but the expectation that people with diametrically opposed outlooks on the world should "just get along" for the sake of a project seems absurd to me. It's why most companies have values, and is pretty much the only non-BS use of "company culture".

So I’m assuming you’re comfortable with Hollywood blacklisting communist screenwriters?

>...but the expectation that people with diametrically opposed outlooks on the world should "just get along" for the sake of a project seems absurd to me. It's why most companies have values, and is pretty much the only non-BS use of "company culture".

Replace 'outlooks' with 'skin color' and you can see why some people think that people should, in fact, "just get along".

My point wasn't that they shouldn't work together, but that just expecting that person, in your example, a closet racist, would lay that at the door when working with someone of another skin colour on a project seems fantastical.

There will always be friction between people based on their views - expecting everyone in a project to only be giving one part of themselves (only the bit relevant to the project) is ridiculous. I guess a roundabout way of saying you need to take people as the wholes that they are, not just cherry pick the parts you like and expect the rest to have no impact.

It goes without saying that this is a false equivalency, and yet here I am.

There is no way someone's skin color, in isolation, can impact me. If I know someone's views though, that means that they must have already taken some action that expressed those views.

>There is no way someone's skin color, in isolation, can impact me.

That is empirically false, and one's skin color is never in isolation so its irrelevant. Everyone is subject to unconscious implicit bias (not just racial). http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-40124781

I'm well aware of implicit bias, and making a totally orthogonal statement.

I'm specifically talking about how another person's skin color would affect me, not how I might change my behavior of them based on their skin color. Their skin color does not affect me. Their skin color might affect how I treat them, and my skin color might affect how they treat me, but their skin color does not affect me.

You don't seem to understand:

"I'm specifically talking about how another person's view would affect me, not how I might change my behavior of them based on their view. Their view does not affect me. Their view might affect how I treat them, and my view might affect how they treat me, but their view does not affect me."

It's no different.

For me to know your view, you must have expressed it in some manner. That implies an action on your part. For me to know your gender or race, you simply need to exist, and must actively work to hide either.

Expressing their view took action, and their actions can affect me.

What if you find out about their view from someone else? i.e. their "actions" do not happen in your presence, but in their private life.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com