Hacker News Reader

Comment by skuhn | Hacker News Reader

Yes, he got to voice his opinion on social media. His opinion is gross to me, because the Texas law he is celebrating is (in my opinion) a terrible blow to gender equality, privacy and healthcare access -- which are particularly important things to me.

Based on his statement, my response is that I do not want to conduct any sort of business with his company. That's not a major hardship to me (I didn't like Killing Floor), and it's not a major hardship to them. However, there are more people who feel like I do, and apparently some of them WORK at Tripwire. If I was in their position, I would have quit. Perhaps the company leadership didn't want that to happen?

In short: who here has misbehaved to your mind? I am not legally required to financially support people who wish harm on me, am I? And let's be clear, people are already being harmed by this law -- this is not a mere disagreement on the finer points of jurisprudence.

View on HN

I don't think it's illegal in any way. I do think it's a dangerous and impractical strategy to not do business with anyone with a mainstream political belief different than my own. I can understand with extreme views, but on an issue like this I'd prefer discourse over further polarization.

It doesn't sound like such a bad idea until it's applied to people/businesses with your beliefs.

I feel like where we're at odds is in four places:

1. This is not a mainstream political belief. The law at the root of the current issue in Texas is far beyond the mainstream. The intention at some level is to shift the Overton window of what is mainstream in its favor, but that has not occurred yet.

2. It's not my responsibility to educate this guy to my point of view. I don't know him and I don't work with him. Actually the only thing I know about him is that he doesn't respect the rights of others that I feel are important, so I'm doubly disinclined to make his acquaintance. I would presume that some amount of discourse did occur within Tripwire, but I don't think we know.

3. I'm allowed to vote with my dollars. It doesn't have to be a glorious public crusade, and it may not make the slightest bit of difference. In this case, it certainly won't. But those dollars work for me, and I can choose to deploy them so as not to (tacitly or actively) support people or business who wish to harm myself and people who I identify with. That's what I have chosen to do, and others should make their own choices.

4. In a different scenario, I might indeed feel differently. I don't find that the slippery slope is a solid argument for why I can't take (lawful) action to preserve my values though.

>anyone with a mainstream political belief different than my own

The law as written goes far beyond a mainstream political belief. There is no civil reward for turning in or reporting or suing a child rapist, serial rapist, a pedophile, a child abuser or a cannibal or a serial killer, much less someone that assisted them. None of these are legal activities in any state or country.

But you can report someone helping someone else get an abortion and you get a minimum of $10K? That's a full degree of separation from an abortion and is an indirect 'crime'. Is that 'crime' somehow way worse than all the direct heinous crimes that I listed that we have to allow civil litigation? Abortion is legal in large parts of the world. What about women who get unfairly sued? How do you prove you did not have an abortion? Who's going to pay for the lawyers to defend them? Is there a precedent for this apart from autocratic regimes where people are supposed to watch others?

> The law as written goes far beyond a mainstream political belief. There is no civil reward for turning in or reporting or suing a child rapist, serial rapist, a pedophile, a child abuser or a cannibal or a serial killer, much less someone that assisted them. None of these are legal activities in any state or country.

I'm not defending the law, but it seems it's written like that only because the Texas legislature has been prevented from legislating directly to address what they see as a legitimate issue, unlike in the other areas you listed. The law's structure is a kludge to get around that limitation.

You'd probably see similar kludges if the Supreme Court set similar permissive precedents in the areas you listed or areas of polarized moral sentiment (e.g. gay conversion therapy).

Discourse is pointless if no action is ever taken. The arguments on both sides are centuries old at this point. This law is actively doing harm. The time for talk is over.

> gender equality

Women have the right to terminate the potential life of a child, on the principle that it's their body so their choice.

Men have no opt-out to 18 years of child support even if the child was conceived due to deception, etc. Somehow the 18 years of work, and the effects of that work on their body, do not count under the principle of their body, their choice.

I would say there is already not gender equality on this issue. The principle that is the foundation of abortion rights (in other states than Texas anyway) is not being applied consistently.

Men should have an easy opt-out of a child’s life if they don’t want to have the child, it’s ridiculous that they don’t.

I don’t think you’ll find many pro-choice people that disagree with you on that. But that unfairness doesn’t make it right to force a person to go through 9 months of pregnancy and labor.

I appreciate the consistency of your position, and your support for equal rights.

Two wrongs don't make a right.

What solution do you propose for the situation you cited?

His opinion is gross to me, because the Texas law he is celebrating is (in my opinion) a terrible blow

Yes, in your (and my) opinion. And in his opinion, it's a necessary measure to protect innocent life. That makes him (probably) wrong, not evil.

Based on his statement, my response is that I do not want to conduct any sort of business with his company.

You are free to make those sorts of decisions, but it's an impractical way to go through life and it leads to the increased polarization of society. It's very likely that you have some political, moral, and/or religious views that your employers or customers would find deeply wrong and harmful. Should they cease doing business with you on that basis?

Just to be clear, I didn't say he was evil -- and in my opinion, evil is a pointless concept. People are people, and they do people things. This guy presumably said what he said and thinks what he thinks for a variety of reasons, and I think at a fundamental level the only way to change those reasons is to acknowledge and engage them. But I'm not here to do that with him.

I don't believe that "voting with my wallet" is impractical. Taken to extremes, it does indeed cause polarization but I also think that it can cause real change in the world -- because it's capitalism, you know? Certainly the cost to me depends on how far I take it, but as I said in this case the hardship is minimal.

As a general rule, I don't make my personal views known at work or on social media. This comment thread is maybe the only time I have ever blurred that line. If someone were to find it and disagree so vehemently, then I suppose they are entitled to take the (legal) course of action they deem fit. I stand behind my words.

I’m pro choice, but gender equality? You can’t be serious.

If I get a girl pregnant, what equality is there in choosing to abort? None. I have no say. My only choice is pay support if she keeps it or go to jail.

The above being said, banning abortion doesn’t improve equality over the current situation.

Elective infanticide of females is one of the most important drivers of sex inequality worldwide. That's not opinion, it is an extremely well documented fact. Skuhn appears to view the world through an extraordinarily perverse lens, but I would not hold that against him, nor cease to do business with him over it, nor would it be my first encounter with the archetypal bigot for whom all civility and democracy are suspended the moment they do not get their own way.

Folk like this are precisely how Mozilla ended up replacing Eich with a parasitic CEO who immediately proceeded to destroy the business. Society's strength lies in managing and celebrating differences, not myopic, totalitarian uniformity. Folk like this are far worse for society than any temporary (and likely unenforceable) regulation, in one conservative region of an increasingly backwater nation trapped in what appears to be a permanent state of civil decay.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com