Hacker News Reader

Comment by the_gipsy | Hacker News Reader

> Igor Sikorsky... fled in 1917 because the Soviets threatened to shoot him.

> The US has been working itself up to this for about 20 years now, since the “war on terror” started, and the oligarch weaponization of “woke” politics to keep the left from raising their taxes post Occupy Wall Street. Now it’s a war of terror, and the enemy, as they say, is us.

The "Woke Left" is coming to shoot us! Any day now!

> Conservative family-oriented religious people like Sikorsky and Seversky [...] being the backbone of every functioning civilization for all of human history.

Honestly, nobody is getting "cancelled", harassed, or whatever, for manifesting these adjectives. It's ALWAYS something beyond.

View on HN

What was "beyond" in what Brendan Eich did?

Quick check on wikipedia reveals that he proposed / funded a campaign to ban homosexuals from marrying.

Sounds pretty "conservative family-oriented religious" to me.

Well if you move the goalpost to "taking away equal-rights from homosexuals"... what else should we include? Racism, misogyny..? Do you really wonder why someone would get attacked for being homophobic, or are we just playing hide and seek here?

Yet another example of "That’s Not Happening and It’s Good That It Is". [1]

[1]: https://americanmind.org/salvo/thats-not-happening-and-its-g...

Interesting. I understand that "what is not happening" is homophobia, but that "it is good that it is happening"?

No, I'm saying that you are claimed that cancelling "conservative family-oriented religious" people (who very often oppose gay marriage, at least in the US) doesn't really happen ("It's ALWAYS something beyond").

However, after being pointed to an example of that, you actually support it. (by implying that people "taking away equal-rights from homosexuals" should be cancelled).

The article I linked to explores this phenomenon in more detail.

Also, homophobia is a charged word. Heteronormativity [1] is probably more descriptive.

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heteronormativity

You are proving my point to the dot: beyond "conservative family-oriented religious" really lies "proposing to make homosexual marriage illegal".

And also my second point: "Homophobia is not happening", it's just being conservative. But also, "homophobia is happening! and it's a good thing!"

I don't know about heteronormative/homophobic. But wanting to make gay marriage illegal sure sounds very much like hating those people specifically. It hurts noone if they marry, but they hurt a lot if they can't. I think "homophobic" is the correct nomenclature in this case, and "heteronormative" is more about your personal or your group's preference and manifestation.

> beyond "conservative family-oriented religious" really lies "proposing to make homosexual marriage illegal".

Right, it often does. But yet again, that means that people do get cancelled because of voicing and supporting socially conservative beliefs.

> it's just being conservative

Heteronormative is an important part of social conservatism in the US. If you think that's not the case, I'd be curious to know what do you think a person who is "just" socially conservative believes in.

If you want a very specific thing, which is to ban gay marriage, then you can't demand to put it under some broad term or be called some softer term as distraction. Otherwise you're just self-censoring because there is no point in arguing semantics.

If merely your own preference were "heterosexuality, family-oriented and religious" without interfering in other's lives, then of course "homophobic" would not apply and nobody would call you that.

> what do you think a person who is "just" socially conservative believes in.

"Conservative" can mean many things, I admit that especially in the US it can mean opposing homosexual marriage. But the article was speaking in global terms ("every functioning civilization for all of human history"), and in that context it can mean many even more many different things.

All in all I find this game of "secretly being homophobic" pathetic, and that you would quote "That’s Not Happening and It’s Good That It Is" is extremely ironic. Just be straight with it and say that you hate gays, or that certain people are lesser people or whatever you think. You're gonna get in trouble anyway. Or is it worth the trouble to hate people? Good luck.

> All in all I find this game of "secretly being homophobic" pathetic, and that you would quote "That’s Not Happening and It’s Good That It Is" is extremely ironic. Just be straight with it and say that you hate gays, or that certain people are lesser people or whatever you think. You're gonna get in trouble anyway. Or is it worth the trouble to hate people? Good luck.

This last paragraph is just a boring personal attack/implicit threat, and obviously not OK. You are not going to have a lot of luck convincing people who disagree with you like that. And you may get yourself in trouble on HN. [1]

[1]: From https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html:

> Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive.

> When disagreeing, please reply to the argument instead of calling names. "That is idiotic; 1 + 1 is 2, not 3" can be shortened to "1 + 1 is 2, not 3."

> Please don't fulminate. Please don't sneer, including at the rest of the community.

If 3/4 of the voting population agrees, then yes? That's explicitly what the US constitution allows.

Probably not in this generation but there's a theoretical possibility in some future generation, and it also applies the other way, polygamy, incest, etc., can also theoretically be made legal.

It's unlikely for a huge chunk of the population to intentionally lower their own status, but it's not a 0% chance.

It would be more difficult to do in Canada or some other countries, but also not totally impossible.

That's what voting and majorities and supermajorities means.

He was campaigning against equal rights for homosexuals, not polygamy, incest, "etc.".

In some countries a wide degree of relationships are today being legally accepted as "family", such as brothers or friends living in a household. The important thing is that this does not affect anybody wanting to live in a traditional family.

If democracy was purely about what the majority votes, and not also protecting the minorities to some degree, we should not call it civilization then. Reducing it it to a "legal majority rule" does not make e.g. slavery legitimate or morally acceptable.

The final arbiter of what counts as 'legitimate' in the US is what's spelled out in the Consitutition, assuming the government and military are willing to enforce what's written.

There are some extreme scenarios where that would no longer apply, but passing readers will get the point without needing to read every possible corner case.

> proposed

he contributed $3000 to a political campaign against gay marriage, 6 years prior to losing his job for that reason

Reply on news.ycombinator.com