Hacker News Reader

Comment by jack-r-abbit | Hacker News Reader

Meh. Prop 8 passed the people's vote with 7,001,084 Californians voting in favor of it and 6,401,482 voting against. Are we to start boycotting every company that employs one of those 7 million people?

I'm glad it was made right in the end and I hope at least some of those 7 million people have changed their opinion... but I don't think we need to keep dwelling on it.

View on HN

1. There is a difference between voting for something and funding it.

2. There is a difference between being employed by a company and being its CEO.

3. These differences are significant.

I strongly disagree with #1.

Money can buy a lot of votes.

You need a bit more to than simple disagreement when the initial statement is that a donation (of $1,000) and a vote are different.

Really? Because one is a private and one is a public act, and you might hope a potential CEO would understand that difference.

Significant, but apparently inarticulable?

Here's a couple of other differences that might be worth reflecting on:

1. What support Eich provided for proposed law vs actions he's likely to support as CEO -- in other words, what you can actually tell about Eich by the fact that he provided financial support for the law, and what you might know about him by considering a larger totality of his actions.

If you want a parallel, consider what Janis Ian has said about Orson Scott Card:

http://www.janisian.com/forum/showthread.php?7952-Orson-Scot...

2. Now vs then. In 2008, the then president of the united states supported prop 8. The current president of the US was on record as not sure about it (and against gay marriage). If we're talking about the height of the profile of a position -- and you seem to be in making a distinction between an employee and CEO -- then I'd say leadership of Mozilla is pretty pale by comparison.

3. While Mozilla is arguably a "values" organization (presumably an important distinction), it's working in a sphere that's pretty orthogonal from identity-minority rights. If you'd argue that doesn't matter, I suppose that's one approach, but if so, I presume that you'd also decide that GLAAD should also be generally boycotted because of their 2011 support of the T-Mobile/AT&T merger and opposition to Net Neutrality principles.

I think we do not share the same opinion about the significance of those differences. But that is ok. I promise not to boycott your company because you have a different belief than me.

Welcome to Hacker News, bastion of intellectual freedom, where large number of people will now argue that you should be deprived of employment because you donated money to certain unpopular political campaigns.

Next steps include: calling for the resignation of anyone who voted Republican in a recent election.

That is a fantastically creative straw man you just beat up there...

Yes, because some people are boycotting a company because their founder voted to take away their civil rights, those people are bad. Nevermind the fact that the person they're criticizing not only voted for, but provided financial support for civil rights to be taken away.

But yeah, this basically means people will call for all Republicans to quit their job...?

It's pretty incredible how good Republicans are at convincing themselves they're the victim. In a country run by the Republican party based on Christian laws. Just lol, must be tough having people criticize you for taking away other people's rights. I feel terrible for you guys. Now those peoples rights you took away? Nah, they deserved it!

You seem to imply voting for a cause is okay, but donating $1000 to promote that cause crosses a line. I find this distinction curious. Where is the line? Is it the first penny donated? The first dollar? Dollar #999 of 1000? Does the relevancy of the donation last forever, or is it subject to time decay?

And maybe the CEO is more special than an ordinary employee, sure, but where do we draw the line on the person's job description? If a person who has donated to an unfavored group in the past is not an appropriate candidate for CEO anywhere anymore: Is he okay to be the CTO? COO? VP of Engineering? An engineering team lead? A project architect with technology leadership only?

And the cause: if donating to Prop 8 is bad, is donating to a politician who supported Prop 8 or legislation to similar effect bad? How about donating to the politician's party?

I don't see any great places to draw a clear line and say "Okay, if I keep this side of <x> about a controversial issue, it will be recognized as legitimate political activity by all people on all sides, and my career will not be subject to boycotts in the future." I mean, sure, it's great that you draw the line somewhere less ridiculous, but not particularly comforting in the big picture of things.

Any just cause could land on the wrong side of popular opinion eventually - indeed, this cause was on the wrong side of popular opinion only a few decades ago. And this really isn't the kind of principle of political interaction that you can cheer on in a content-neutral way: I therefore contend that we shouldn't cheer it on in a content-specific way either.

"You seem to imply voting for a cause is okay, but donating $1000 to promote that cause crosses a line. I find this distinction curious. Where is the line? Is it the first penny donated? The first dollar? Dollar #999 of 1000? Does the relevancy of the donation last forever, or is it subject to time decay?"

I didn't say that at all. You made that up and then ranted about it. I simply said that one is bad, but the other makes it even more bad. Its like anything else, doing one bad thing is bad, doing two bad things is more bad. This is pretty simple and probably doesn't require such a massive twisting of words...

I'm sorry. Since you were claiming that the "all republicans should be fired" line was such a straw man, I thought you were also offering a reason that the common Republican partisan should be exempted.

Given the absence of that as a reason, though, I'm even less certain where you think the line should be, and what makes the straw man so straw-y. Also, plenty of other people here have talked about why his being a CEO is special and what-not, so all readers should please substitute the opinion of speakers up-thread and down-thread for those of ryguytilidie.

Finally: as far as "victimhood" contests go, perhaps eventually we will look back on these days as we look back on the likes of the Reformation, when Protestants went to war with Catholics (over matters of no less import to the thinkers of the day), and pretty much both sides were pretty atrocious all around. Raid the monasteries for their gold? Sure, why not, they're a bunch of Papists! Spanish Inquisition? Don't mind if I do! Execution! Civil war! Fact: until last year, 2013, it was still illegal for someone married to a Roman Catholic to hold the throne of England.

The reason that we today are better than those backwards folks and haven't descended into outright civil war over this issue, like many nations did in the Reformation, is that we have some level of pluralism in our society. I would go so far as to hold that this is more important than correctly deciding today the issue of slavery, of civil rights, of women voting, of gay rights, or any other movement of that sort: because it is the principle which gives society the freedom to raise the questions which these rights movements addressed. As such I am distressed that it is so glibly dismissed in favor of a totalitarian approach and calls for boycotts of people who have been accused of doing nothing but supporting the wrong cause.

"I'm sorry. Since you were claiming that the "all republicans should be fired" line was such a straw man, I thought you were also offering a reason that the common Republican partisan should be exempted."

You simply posited, and I didn't believe you were actually serious, that Republicans would soon be locked up for their beliefs. I don't believe this needed to be seriously addressed because it is an utterly moronic point. Good luck with the rest of the crap you made up.

"As such I am distressed that it is so glibly dismissed in favor of a totalitarian approach and calls for boycotts of people who have been accused of doing nothing but supporting the wrong cause."

Glad you got to use totalitarian without knowing what it means. Congrats.

Votes are private. Donations are public. That's a material difference.

It's the public support that's really got people frosted. That's what makes it part of the public persona that you can't just leave at the door when you come to work.

Provided your power over others is limited, it's tolerable. But when people's careers are in your hands, a public history of open, gender-based discrimination really undermines the level of trust and goodwill that leadership positions require.

Leadership positions... like, say, someone who's the CTO / Senior VP of Engineering? Like Brendan Eich was for the past eight years?

Yes, but exponentially moreso when he becomes the public face of the company and (to some degree) the arbiter of its corporate culture.

In a country run by the Republican party based on Christian laws.

The USA is based on Christian laws?

What?

No doubt there's a faction that is working on that goal, but that has never been the case in this country thus far.

Also, it's not like the Democrats (the party of the KKK) are much better in that regard.

Do you think Prop 8 is anything but a Christian law?

Oh wait I just tried to rationalize with a guy who compared the Democratic party to the KKK. Nevermind, good luck with being nuts.

I did not compare the Democratic Party to the KKK, I was saying that it was the Democratic Party that primarily supported the KKK during most of its first two incantations.

Do not twist my words. If having a basic knowledge of U.S. history is being nuts, then so be it.

I find it hard to believe you don't know that the parties of the 1860's and the parties of today aren't quite the same, but here's a primer:

http://www.livescience.com/34241-democratic-republican-parti...

    So, sometime between the 1860s and 1936, the (Democratic)
    party of small government became the party of big
    government, and the (Republican) party of big government
    became rhetorically committed to curbing federal power.

Add on the Republican Party's Southern Strategy of the 60's and 70's, and it's pretty clear which of the two parties a KKK member would choose today. If the Southern Strategy isn't familiar, I'll let Ronald Reagan's Campaign Manager sum it up:

    You start out in 1954 by saying, “Nigger, nigger, nigger.”
    By 1968 you can’t say “nigger”—that hurts you, backfires.
    So you say stuff like, uh, forced busing, states’ rights,
    and all that stuff, and you’re getting so abstract. Now,
    you’re talking about cutting taxes, and all these things
    you’re talking about are totally economic things and a
    byproduct of them is, blacks get hurt worse than whites.…
    “We want to cut this,” is much more abstract than even the
    busing thing, uh, and a hell of a lot more abstract than
    “Nigger, nigger.”

http://www.thenation.com/article/170841/exclusive-lee-atwate...

"I did not compare the Democratic Party to the KKK, I was saying that it was the Democratic Party that primarily supported the KKK during most of its first two incantations."

wtf. You said nothing remotely close to that...Reread if you'd like:

"Also, it's not like the Democrats (the party of the KKK)"

Yeah, thats just like saying that they primarily supported the KKK...

"Do not twist my words. If having a basic knowledge of U.S. history is being nuts, then so be it."

...just wow. lol man. Maybe try actually having basic knowledge of us history?

>> In a country run by the Republican party based on Christian laws.

> The USA is based on Christian laws?

Forget that. The USA is run by the Republican party??!? I guess the Senate and Presidency mean nothing, then. Likewise the situation just a couple years ago when those accursed Republicans were so busy passing Obamacare...

"when those accursed Republicans were so busy trying to repeal Obamacare and having literally no other ideas at all...."

Yep, good summation sir.

Deprived of an employment is a bit silly. Representing a company as its CEO is different than being a regular employee.

How about representing a company as its CTO? Like he was for the past eight years?

> Next steps include: calling for the resignation of anyone who voted Republican in a recent election.

I'm actually surprised this isn't a thing...

It is. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7470443

Wow.

If I boycotted and didn't use anything that was made by people I didn't agree with I'd have to live in a hole in the ground...

I think it's perfectly reasonable for developers to "keep dwelling" on someone telling them they should have less rights because of who they've chosen to love.

I doubt that vehement hatred of 7 million people's views will sway them to the cause either. It's just a bit hard to convince people to respect your beliefs while dancing atop their own--narrow-minded or otherwise.

Why shouldn't we?

If you aren't willing to take the social consequences of your actions, perhaps you should not take those actions, hmmmm?

Why shouldn't you? I dunno: some basic concept of pluralism?

Pluralism does not equal correct.

Slavery, women's suffrage, Japanese internment, separate-but-equal ... the list goes on and on.

Did you intend to just put 'giving women the vote' in a list of bad ideas alongside slavery and Japanese internment camps?

I think he meant that pluralism didn't give women the right to vote for a long time.

makes more sense, thanks.

The majority was on the wrong side of all of those issues for a long time, no?

Of course it doesn't equal correct. That's the whole point of pluralism! There are some people out there who are on the wrong side of every issue, and maybe it would be nice if we could interact with them anyway instead of declaring their existence anathema, and punishing anyone who associates with their ideological impurities by boycotting them at every conceivable juncture. (Which was what was suggested, no?)

Its scary how people jump to these conclusions once their views are those of the flavor of the month. I'd hate to be unemployable because my views don't confirm to that of the majority.

Imagine saying this to guy who attempted to stand up for civil rights in the 1920s. The world makes you believe that this type of thinking is gone when really its just painted a different color.

Wanting gay people to be able to have the same rights as you is hardly a "flavor of the month."

On the time scale western society's majority views, gay rights is definitely flavor of the month.

Well, if you don't buy the fundamental rights argument, let's try a simple utilitarian argument.

The computer industry, especially in Silicon Valley and San Francisco, employs an abnormally high percentage of people who identify as LGBT. The fact that your company will now have trouble recruiting from that group of individuals places your company at a business disadvantage and makes you unfit to lead such a business.

I completely get the issue. I, personally, support the right for LGBT individuals to get married. However its not about buying the argument

What I'm worried about is the social ostracizing of those who hold different political beliefs than you. At some point in time it was completely kosher to say the same thing about Blacks. At some point in time, a company that hired black individuals would have had trouble recruiting workers that would have given them a business advantage.

What worries me is that you could say the same exact argument for not hiring Black workers in the mid 1900s - the exact same you posted, and you seem to be completely cool with that. Theres a point where we are now using the same tools of suppression that were used on minorities of past on the now unfashionable opinions of today. I would have liked to think the human race has learned from that experience.

> What worries me is that you could say the same exact argument for not hiring Black workers in the mid 1900s - the exact same you posted, and you seem to be completely cool with that.

The problem is that your analogy doesn't go far enough.

The analogous situation would be: a company in the 1920's known for hiring an above average number of minorities suddenly appoints as CEO someone who donated to the KKK.

This is what is upsetting people.

Frankly, it wasn't "made right", nor is it "the end" and we damned sure need to keep "dwelling on it".

Prop 8 was ruled unconstitutional and same sex marriages have resumed in California. Is that not right? Is that not the end of it?

Not really. It is easy to sweep things under the rug when you're not one of those affected legally, financially, emotionally. I know of people who decided to leave their careers, their homes, and move to another country so that they could be with someone they love. Those decisions changed their lives and it isn't something that just goes away.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com