Hacker News Reader

What if the person with the opinion also sincerely believed that his position was not bigoted and was not denying anyone happiness?

Well, if a person sincerely believed that black people should not be granted equal rights would you pick him as CEO? I'm pretty sure you won't; gay rights are the same thing.

I really admire the technical work Eich does, and benefit tremendously from it. However, his views on gay rights are disappointing.

if a person sincerely believed that black people should not be granted equal rights

You got the analogy incorrect. What if that person sincerely believed that the policy preserved equal rights?

Recently, he declined to comment on the issue or address whether his beliefs or motives had changed – which, to many people, meant that he stood behind his actions and genuinely believed that same-sex couples should be oppressed.

Hmmm. I think that if someone is potentially headed into the midst of some public controversy, and they decline to comment, that's pretty understandable.

The fact that so much energy has been devoted to this -- that 6 years ago some CEO made a donation to a political group people don't like -- indicates something broken in the prioritization of effort in US political life. Seems like they didn't go after Mr. Eich so much because of the severity of what he did, but rather that they were able to get to him. (Seriously -- Brendan Eich > the Koch Brothers?)

They went after him on the principle of what he did (a principle he probably still stands behind), and would probably go after the Koch brothers if anyone had any leverage on them.

a principle he probably...

When a group starts throwing its power around on the basis of "probably," it's time to start wondering.

What specifically did he do recently?

He was interviewed. To be honest I don't know why he agreed to it as I don't see how he could have thought that steadfastly dodging the issue would improve the situation.

http://www.cnet.com/news/mozilla-ceo-gay-marriage-firestorm-...

I was on the fence as to whether he should be the public head of Mozilla before reading this (I disagree with him on the issue in question, but I suspect many hold beliefs that I don't agree with), but in that interview he just comes across as an arse. If the transcript is faithful to what was said, I'd say the interviewer gave him plenty of chances for reconciliation, and Eich refused to take them.

He was not under any obligation to this "reconciliation." One could also argue that not answering in a situation like this is a principled stand on his right to privately hold a political opinion. In the US, it's legal to hold opinions that are "wrong." It should also be socially acceptable, otherwise we are creating a social climate where rational discussion becomes impossible.

  > What specifically did he do recently?

Refused to apologize, even fake apologize, meaning he hasn't changed his views. He also came across as weirdly combative, trying to justify his homophobia by pointing out that homophobia is still the norm in Malaysia or something along those lines. He wasn't smooth about it at all.

  > Somehow I don't think it's a good idea for democratic processes to label the side that is wrong as "horrible people."

There are degrees of "horrible people", and in my opinion Brendan Eich does fall on that spectrum, though admittedly he's not even close to the worst of the worst, but he makes the cut. That's my two cents though, take it or leave it. I personally feel pretty strongly about gay rights, so there's that.

  > What if the person with the opinion also sincerely believed that his position was not bigoted and was not denying anyone happiness?

I think this is a flawed argument. Bigots almost never seem to believe themselves to be bigots. They think they're saving gay peoples' souls (without ever asking if they want their souls saved) or various things like that. Or they, maybe not overtly, don't really see gay people (or whatever group we're talking about) as real people with feelings.

That's what is so insidious about bigotry, it's not a Lord of the Rings thing where the villain (who conveniently wears black and lives in a scary castle) stands up and says "Muhahaha I'm going to make everyone miserable!". Instead, the villain says "I'm going to help all of you out by forcing you to be just like me, trust me, things will be better this way!".

Bigots almost never seem to believe themselves to be bigots.

Also, the powerful unjust never believe themselves to be unjust.

That's what is so insidious about bigotry, it's not a Lord of the Rings thing where the villain (who conveniently wears black and lives in a scary castle) stands up and says "Muhahaha I'm going to make everyone miserable!". Instead, the villain says "I'm going to help all of you out by forcing you to be just like me, trust me, things will be better this way!".

Seems to me that the same level of insidiousness applies to insisting that everyone else kowtows to your particular opinion. Isn't insisting that Brendan Eich express some particular opinion effectively insisting that, "I'm going to help you out by forcing you to be just like me..."?

Unfortunately Eich's opinion (and monetary contributions) are damaging to others, which is why it's an issue. It's not "I like blue soccer balls and not red ones", it is "those with red soccer balls are immoral and therefore should not be allowed to play soccer". The campaign is not trying to force him to like red soccer balls, it is to accept that he should not be able to prevent those who like red soccer balls (or, as is likely, were genetically predisposed to only like red soccer balls) from playing soccer at all.

Whether or not he should have lost his job/been forced to resign/felt compelled to resign is another question. I don't think anyone would debate that he has been bad for Mozilla in his time with them so far.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but Eich donated to a cause that believes the word "marriage" has religious connotations that make it incompatible with a union between two people of the same sex.

That argument in and of itself doesn't cause any harm to anyone.

The harm comes when government institutionalizes marriage in a way that gives it greater rights or scope than someone in a civil union would have. In many states, this isn't the case.

Personally, I don't particularly care what the word marriage means, I'm not religious in any meaningful way. But arguing that the simple inability to use the word marriage does harm to a person is a pretty weak argument in my mind.

Further, your analogy is wrong. From his perspective, imagine you always played soccer with a round ball, and couldn't use your hands. Suddenly a group of people show up with oval spheroid and claim you should be able to use your hands. They then say that not letting them call their sport soccer is unfair and harmful. But ya know, we don't call that sport soccer, because it's different, we call it football.

---

As an aside, I think the proper way to handle the marriage debate would have been to remove any and all rights associated with the word, and force all couples to get a civil union. Tax that instead. Churches are welcome to marry people all they desire (on both sides, gay or straight as they please according to their beliefs)

I would be upset if I used an analogy on HN and the first reply didn't include some form of 'your analogy is wrong' ;).

That's a reasonable argument except that gay civil unions were (are?) illegal in California so it is actively denying rights to people.

>As an aside, I think the proper way to handle the marriage debate would have been to remove any and all rights associated with the word, and force all couples to get a civil union. Tax that instead. Churches are welcome to marry people all they desire (on both sides, gay or straight as they please according to their beliefs)

That could work. I don't see why churches need to have any bearing over the specific term 'marriage' though. Sure it has a religious basis but so do a huge number of things which have been appropriated for the current time. Let them call it a 'Christian marriage' if they want. I don't know, Australia is much less religious than the US so perhaps I lack some perspective.

I think once the legal implications are removed, churches would lose their control over the word by default. It doesn't have meaning outside of the church at that point, and the government "shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" So if gay people wanted to get married, no one could stop them.

--

Side note, California had (and still does, as far as I'm aware) domestic partnerships. From the wiki page one it:

It affords the couple "the same rights, protections, and benefits, and... the same responsibilities, obligations, and duties under law..." as married spouses

What if the person with the opinion also sincerely believed that his position was not bigoted and was not denying anyone happiness?

Supporters of slavery used the Bible to justify their beliefs. They did not believe it was about bigotry. They thought slavery was in fact providing economic opportunity to slaves, and they believed their own livelihood depended upon it. Supporters of slavery thought about it in economic and religious terms. If the CEO of my workplace believes in slavery but truly doesn't believe it is immoral, do I not have the right to speak out?

If you believe in slavery or nazism, that's fine. You're allowed to believe in those things. But we are allowed to express that you are wrong for holding those beliefs, and we can choose whether or not we support bigoted viewpoints by purchasing your products. Using one's right to free speech to oppose bigoted speech is not impeding anybody's rights.

But does "opposing speech" have to include getting someone fired for something they did 6 years ago? Opposing speech in an open democratic society shouldn't have the effect of oppressing the speech of others -- even if such actions are technically legal. Otherwise, it becomes the "open democratic society for the people whose opinions I like."

Using one's right to free speech to oppose bigoted speech is not impeding anybody's rights.

This is technically true, but the way such an idea was applied in this case lacks something of the spirit of free speech in a truly tolerant and open society.

Well, he didn't say he regrets his actions from 6 years ago. It's kind of like adultery. If I cheated on you 6 years ago but never apologized for it or expressed regret for it, should you feel comfortable with me today? What if I wasn't clear about whether I believe adultery is okay? What if I wasn't clear about whether I am still committing adultery?

The beliefs he holds are still current, as far as anyone can tell. If they aren't, I'm sure he would have said so.

This is technically true, but the way such an idea was applied in this case lacks something of the spirit of free speech in a truly tolerant and open society.

Yeah, some gay rights activists were a bit over the top and maybe should try a bit harder to understand the other side. But it is an emotional issue. If I feel that somebody is trying to use the might of the government to take away my rights, it's going to be difficult to sympathize with and understand why they would do that.