Hacker News Reader

Comment by rinon | Hacker News Reader

This is very sad and unfortunate. Brendan was basically forced out of his own job because of a political view he supported. No matter whether you agree or disagree with someone's views, a discussion should be reasonable and fair, not a lynching in the court of popular opinion. We should respect others views, and their freedom to support any political position, if we wish those same freedoms for ourselves.

View on HN

I've seen people in this thread using words like "lynching" and "concentration camp" to describe what happened to Brendan. I understand people are angry about events, but please try to remember that for people in minorities, these words have meanings that are not at all similar to "don't get to be CEO of a software company."

Lynching: http://www.americanlynching.com/images/28482.jpg

Concentration camp: http://www.history.com/images/media/slideshow/holocaust-conc...

(Probably-unnecessary warning: these are graphic images of violence by humans against humans.)

The concentration camp stuff is just stupidly reductionist South Park references. It would be great if the comments would just be downloaded into oblivion, but apparently we're not rising to the occasion.

I was using a broader definition of lynching to mean any punishment meted out by popular opinion rather than proper processes. I certainly was not using the term literally, and I am fully aware of the horrible historical background of lynching. I certainly did not mean to trivialize this history.

Thanks for responding. I do try to assume that people are not intentionally being trivializing when using words with racist origins. I just think it's especially important to be aware of it in a discussion where people are weighing the speech/actions of privileged people versus their effects on oppressed groups.

I can't find your definition of lynching anywhere...?

Good grief. You do far more harm to your position by invoking a practice part of a century-long campaign of terror against a racial minority.

Free speech doesn't mean freedom from criticism. It means the opposite, actually. And we as a society have decided some views are socially unacceptable. Anti-homosexual bigotry has been added to the list, along with pro-slavery or violence against women. Those are topics which are really just not up for debate anymore— we are in theory an egalitarian society, where plurality takes precedence over someone's right to (e.g.) express negative views, esp about minorities.

I think you're confusing the respect we should have for a persons right to a view, with respect for the actual view itself. The former I have, the latter I do not.

The right to marriage is far more than a political issue, it's a fundamental human rights issue.

It was a political issue in 2008, it was a ballot initiative. You grandiose view of the issue doesn't change the fact that he is being punished for his political expression.

Excuse me, it is an issue today, and has to do with basic civil rights.

The issue was his contribution in 2008, which is what led to him stepping down.

The issue is his continued belief that gay people should not enjoy the same civil rights as straight people.

The only reason you suspect that is because of his contribution in 2008.

@visualR: No. To publicly take a position and then not change it is to keep that position, for one thing. Furthermore, he has made it clear that he has not changed it over the last week with his blog post and interview.

Would you rather he compromise his integrity to "change" his opinion on something based on pressure? I personally respect people who do not pretend to change their views, regardless of whether I agree with them. I also respect people who, after careful consideration, do truly change their mind, but I cannot require this of anyone but myself.

@Rinon: His views amount to bigotry, so not changing them merely amounts to unrepentant bigotry. Did you have great respect for those who fought on for Jim Crow laws, or who today use voter intimidation to express their lack of compromise? I would rather his views changed, because they are harmful and indicate a deep prejudice, or that he suffer the consequences of publicly taking a position against awarding a group civil rights.

Is it impossible for an issue to be both political and human rights related? Did the political nature of the civil rights movement of the 1960s somehow make it less of a human rights issue?

It is. But we're definitely not comparing apples to apples

Consider what would happen to a CEO who held the political view that profits should be minimized.

Tarsnap?

Does this view conflict with the job description? If this is so, then this makes the person ill-suited for the job, just like innumerable other workers who don't have the best qualifications for their jobs. Does this mean the view is wrong? Not necessarily, but that is an entirely different question. Does this mean that we should publicly deride this person for their view and boycott the company who hired them? No. This is the job of the board of directors, who answer to the shareholders of the company, and their responsibility. Certainly anyone outside can offer advice, but only as an outsider, who has no right or reason to blackmail and threaten the company.

I'm sorry, are you suggesting that we do not in fact have the right to choose which companies to support based on our opinions of them and their employees, and to tell others of our choices? That seems a rather more slippery slope than anything else here.

That is not a political view. That is acting directly in opposition to a CEO's fiduciary duty.

"Fiduciary Duty" exists pretty much only in name. I can't even find a story of someone being fired for violating it.

Exactly. I read the book "Nickled and Dimed" when it came out. In the book, she describes a job application test which asks if employers and employees interests are aligned. She noted to herself this seemed a pretty political question.

I applied for a job at a retail store and was asked the same question prior to getting the job. I thought of the first words of the constitution of that American union which was founded in 1905, the IWW - "The working class and the employing class have nothing in common".

So nowadays, not only managers, but employees who think workers are entitled to keep the wealth they create, are verboten. Of course thinking profits can get kicked up to the lazy idle class loafer heirs as dividend checks is all well enough.

Some anti-homosexual screwball is finally pushed out, and finally everyone gets up in arms about how unfair it is that people are pushed out of their jobs. What a laugh.

Whatever God Eich worships who tells him to scorn men who love men, the idle class heir VC limited partner is the God of HN. Doing anything (traction!) to gain his favor and a piece of his surplus value stolen capital is HN's religion.

What if he were a black woman and the political group she donated to was one that sought to prevent white men from becoming engineers? They can still do engineering, of course, but they can't have the state title and benefits that go along with it. Would you feel the same way?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com