Hacker News Reader

> Clicking on the OP will force you to watch an obnoxiously, unskippable loud ad about razors and chest-shaving.

I didn't notice it.

> Sorry, don't think supporting an antigay candidate and a specific antigay law are the same thing.

No, but they are kinda close.

> OKCupid's CEO apologized.

That's definitely the big one. Eich should have done that, and distanced himself from the foolish ideas he held in the past.

That said, I think the call for a Firefox boycott was way over the top, and considering OKCupid's CEO's political support in the past, at least a little hypocritical.

> I don't think he gets the benefit of the doubt of, "Well, he just doesn't want the government to be in the business of regulating marriage." If that were the case, then why hasn't he simply said that, as other political candidates have done?

It's an argument that makes no sense. If he didn't want government to regulate marriage, he wouldn't support a law that regulates marriage (which is what banning gay marriage but allowing straight marriage is: government regulating marriage).

> No, but they are kinda close.

They're kinda close but kinda far as well, supporting an anti-gay candidate may be because

* you have the same views on the subject

* you are not aware of his views (but you can be criticised for lack of due diligence)

* you are aware of his views but support him for other reasons

* you are aware of his views but absolutely don't want the other guy (similar but not identical to 3, you're not supporting a specific candidate so much as supporting anyone other than a candidate)

Of these, only #1 is close to the prop8 situation.

> No, but they are kinda close.

Let's not be dense. They're not even close. It's almost impossible to vet a candidate and figure out his views on each and every position; while with a proposition like prop 8, one just has to read the title to figure out what it's all about.

"If I voted for Mitt Romney because of his tax proposals, does that mean I support...well, his likely use of wanton drone attacks?"

I take it you didn't bother to study Gov. Romney's position versus the President's current wanton use of drones. Much it seems like your lack of looking at the views the candidate supported by OKCupid's CEO has continually stated.

OKCupid's CEO is a hypocrite who did not apologize prior to throwing stones at other. He only "apologized" under pressure.

> If I voted for Mitt Romney because of his tax proposals, does that mean I support...well, his likely use of wanton drone attacks?

If you like someone as a CEO because of their leadership qualities, does it also mean that you support their stance on gay rights, though?

No, but that's one removed from the matter at hand. The concerns were with Eich, not with people who thought Eich would be a good CEO.

But was Eich's stance on Prop 8 relevant to his post as Mozilla's CEO?

It looks like many considered it so didn't it?

I'm sure many people did, but I don't know how reasonable that was, or how much Mozilla, as a company, will promote an anti-gay agenda because its CEO supports these views (if he does, I don't know him and haven't been following this story closely).

So you would vote for the President of the United States when he was not in support of gay marriage, and that's OK, but if the new CEO of Mozilla holds the same stance you will?

Don't think I've seen Obama apologizing for his past stances on gay marriage. What's the difference again?

> Don't think I've seen Obama apologizing for his past stances on gay marriage.

I don't know if he formally apologised, but he talked about his own change of heart and he did things and directed his administration towards gay marriage[0]. And even before his final shift, Obama definitely presented supportive stances towards LGBT groups.

And AFAIK he never went and gave money to actively remove LGBT civil rights.

> What's the difference again?

Er… one changed his mind and stance, the other not?

[0] his case is significantly complicated by his support for gay marriage during his original 1996 Illinois Senate run, moving to indecision in 1998, support for civil unions in 2004 (senate) and 2008 (presidential) before snapping back rapidly to support — as early as 2008 he called for the repeal of DOMA, voted against the federal marriage amendment and publicly opposed Prop 8, giving support to "fully equal rights and benefits to same-sex couples under both state and federal law."

By your standards Mozilla is a bunch of racist bigots

70% of blacks people voted for prop 8

This is why it is illegal to litmus test political beliefs under california employment law.

So, somebody has to pick their poison on this.

Its not an easy issue...

There's a difference between having a stance and doing something about it. AFAIK Obama never actively fought gay's rights, he just had a negative opinion of it. Mozilla's CEO took action against homosexuals and donated money to a cause seeking to deny them rights. The difference is the difference between thinking something and acting on it.

But that's just how I view it.

Obama campaigned in california in 2008

2008 was a presidential year

2008 prop 8 was on the ballot

He is on record -- in california -- supporting a definition of marriage

that excluded same-sex couples

While speaking to "special interest groups" who supported prop8

=== That is "action" with intent...it is cut and dry.

> Obama campaigned in california in 2008 True.

> 2008 was a presidential year

True

> 2008 prop 8 was on the ballot

True, and Obama is on record in California in 2008 specifically opposing Prop 8 and all similar attempts (Prop 8 wasn't unique) attempts to write a similar defense of marriage into state and federal (there was an active move to do that, too, then) constitutions.

> === That is "action" with intent...it is cut and dry.

Sure, action against the position Eich was for.

You seem to avoid the obvious issue. He encouraged and sought the approval of blacks and religious groups who overwhelmingly (7/10) voted against prop8 and led to that ballot measure being passed. He used <specific language> about <the subject> to win their favour. So he was not in any way neutral on this issue. It is impossible to argue.

Using that logic, Republicans clearly support gay marriage for seeking the approval of young adults, who overwhelmingly support gay rights.

> So he was not in any way neutral on this issue. It is impossible to argue.

I am not arguing that he was neutral, I am arguing -- as is manifestly and unquestionably the case -- that he was on the opposite side of Eich. He specifically condemned Prop 8 and similar measures.

The fact that that opposition was in spite of the fact that he very publicly stated that he shared some of the moral beliefs that others claimed made support of Prop 8 necessary, if anything, underlines his opposition, rather than mitigates it, as his position was that Prop 8 (and similar measures to enshrine a man-woman definition of marriage in Constitutions) were wrong in the then-current environment even given the moral belief that marriage ought to be between a man and a woman.

It's the "actions not the words that matter", according to those preaching intolerance on this subject today.

> It's the "actions not the words that matter"

Well then your whole case would fall down if you'd ever had one (rather than a gish gallop) since Obama had anti-equality words (retracted since) and pro-equality actions.

The flip-and-the-flop have in common being <both> opportunistic and self serving.

> He used <specific language> about <the subject> to win their favour.

The very specific language he used was:

> I’ve stated my opposition to this. I think [Prop 8 is] unnecessary. I believe marriage is between a man and a woman. I am not in favor of gay marriage. But when you start playing around with constitutions, just to prohibit somebody who cares about another person, it just seems to me that’s not what America’s about. Usually, our constitutions expand liberties, they don’t contract them.

So:

* he was not personally in favour of gay marriage at the time[0]

* but he was most definitely and unambiguously against constitutionally forbidding it (and enshrining his personal beliefs in constitution), and did call then discriminatory

* as opposed to Eich who was most definitely and unambiguously for constitutionally forbidding it

Not only that, but even at the time Obama was

> “open to the possibility” that his views may be “misguided“

> So he was not in any way neutral on this issue. It is impossible to argue.

That's pretty much the only correct thing in your comment.

[0] and has since reversed his position

If you go around "preaching hate"[1] like obama did to blacks to get them to vote for you...you have to accept the fact that based on statistics...blacks are "homophobic" to gay marriage...So you're either a racist or a hypocrite on this...and I don't mean this personally...just the opposite.

This is a correlation/causation fallacy.

But from a cultural perspective, these things do not line up nicely. Do you really believe 7/10 black people are incorrigible bigots? Or is it more likely that they are dis-proportionately orthodox in their view on "word X"? Interestingly, some work Nate Silver did in 2008/2009 on opinions in this area is enlightening. Somthing like 70-80 percent of CA citizens supported the "human rights" element of the argument. But there were something like 10+/-15 percent of people who supported the "other side" because of the parsing of words. Its unlikely, as a result, anyone can conclude much about the personal views and tolerance from votes on these types of laws.

Governor Swartzeneger actually vetoed CA legislation because he felt it was in conflict with the Constitution of CA. {etc}. So this stuff can go on and on, from both sides.

In September 2005, the California legislature passed a bill, A.B. 849, eliminating the gender requirements for marriage now found in Family Code section 300. Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger vetoed the bill. In his veto message,[14] Schwarzenegger argued that passing a law that would implicitly repeal Section 308.5 required the assent of the electorate (and separately made note of pending court challenges).

There is also a nate silver piece illustrating that Obama's campaign did increase the size of the Prop 8 support in CA. Although while the black support was critical to securing the majority, its not clear Obama's marginal increase in black voter turn-out was 100% of the pivotal votes. But surely this still makes him more culpable on the issue than Eich.

NOt withsatnding that any of this matters, anyways. The laws exist as they do today so this is all an absurd discussion. And better reason to use discretion and tolerance in looking back on these matters rather than preaching intolerance and black and white moral clarity and etc.

________________

[1] And by this I means explicitly supporting "exclusionary" definitions of marriage.

> So you would vote for the President of the United States when he was not in support of gay marriage, and that's OK, but if the new CEO of Mozilla holds the same stance you will?

Even when Obama was "not in support of gay marriage", he condemned Prop. 8 and similar moves to enshrine prohibition of same-sex marriage in Constitutions -- whereas Brendan Eich donated money to the Prop. 8 campaign.

> So you would vote for the President of the United States when he was not in support of gay marriage, and that's OK, but if the new CEO of Mozilla holds the same stance you will?

I've seen Obama, at a minimum, change his mind very publicly, has never once advocate any change in law or policy hostile to same-sex marriage, and has used the power of his office to direct that the government first stop defending existing statutes hostile to same sex marriage, and then take other substantive steps in support of it.

Meanwhile, Eich said that his donation doesn't prove that is a bigot, but hasn't done anything to indicate that his hostile position has changed.

> What's the difference again?

The fact that their positions in 2008 weren't the same to start with, and that one of them has very publicly moved to a very much more pro same-sex marriage position since then.

IOW, there's pretty much nothing similar at all.

OkCupid as an organization sought specifically to harm Eich and Mozilla. I don't really care about any apology unless it is issued directly to him.

> With Eich, we have someone who made a donation 6+ years ago and has never sought to give context to it or explain it or give further reflection to it, which means he either holds those anti-gay marriage views just as strongly today, or believes that apologies, or evolving viewpoints is a sign of weakness. Not really strong signs of confidence in a CEO, quite frankly.

And having a CEO that panders to the public opinion is better ... how?

Or he believes that this is a private matter and doesn't want to discuss his private opinions in public. Which is a good sign in a CEO for a company whose main concern is protecting privacy (and free speech and education, etc.).

Isn't that what a CEO is supposed to do?

Left hand: Complains that CEOs/politicians don't listen and are out of touch Right hand: Complains that CEOs are pandering

...what?

> Sorry, don't think supporting an antigay candidate and a specific antigay law are the same thing

A specific anti-gay law that stripped existing rights from people, at that. Yeah, it's very different.

Eh.. supporting an anti Jew law is way different than supporting Hitler too, I mean, just because someone doesn't like Jews and they want an extermination law doesn't mean they want Hitler to do it. I can't believe people can't see this blatant logic.

You had to Godwin this, didn't you!

But I wouldn't hurry to pile on Hitler before I know if he apologized. What if he had apologized? That really changes things.

Candidates have the power to push for changes in legislation... if this candidate had changed legislation in support of any of his views on gay rights, how would it be any different than what donating to Prop 8 achieved?

Find someone who has proposals on health-care you like but not the wanton drone attacks? Or if there are none like that, then start to campaign yourself to get elected? Also, being a friend with a person from a small town who has prejudice against someone is very different than who you elect the President of the USA.

It's tough, because there is a morale issue at stake, but if we all become 1 issue voters, the political system breaks down. We have to support the candidates who on balance do enough for what we believe in.

To your point - there's also a difference between supporting an issue, versus a candidate.

Wow, that sort of ad is inexcusable.

Video ads are fine, but auto-playing with sound is awful. It's the kind of ad I have a blocker for. I would have found another source if I knew about the ad.

I think we can safely stop thinking about the morality and legality of our actions, as long as we just apologize regularly.

Here we have two people who have both performed actions which are both indirectly anti-gay. But one is let go due to an apology, and the other wasn't due to no apology.

Apologizing is like a mark-and-sweep garbage collection approach to our past perceived sins.

Accountability (and reference counting) is boring and takes a lot of resources.

So we should just apologize.

BTW, I apologize for everything.

I also sincerely apologize for this post. Forgive me.

Nothing is let go due to an apology. It's let go because he was not in any way, shape or form supporting anti-gay laws and his apology is about not having done enough research on the guy.

Seriously.

Yeah, pleading ignorance was a neat way to word it, I admit.

The guy is a sleaze-bag, who chose to attack an open source browser (with an important role for the future of the internet, and the work of thousands) through his business for the benefit of getting positive PR for his business.

I wonder if Brendan Eich had this mentality, how he'd spin it. "Oh, I apologize, I thought Prop 8 was about supporting the gays, damn. I didn't do my research!".

But he doesn't have this mentality. So he instead chose to abandon the work of his life in order to preserve it, a rather painful action, as his spin-skills and spin-will were insufficient.

It basically means that those of us who are willing to...

1) Attack others for their political actions for PR reasons.

2) Engage in the same type of political actions.

3) Lie they were ignorant about it.

4) Say "sorry" without feeling any guilt.

... have a huge edge on those honest people who just say things as they are, without spinning things.

Damn, no wonder sociopaths are ruling the world, huh?

> Engage in the same type of political actions.

Donating to a candidate that isn't a single-issue candidate, even one opposed to same-sex marriage, is not the "same type of political action", relative to same-sex marriage or gay rights more generally, as donating to a campaign that is solely about enshrining prohibition of same-sex marriage into a state constitution.

It might be a similar act if it is motivated by the candidates anti-gay or anti-same-sex-marriage views, but in and of itself it isn't the same type of action.

>"...Cannon 'has a special kind of hate for gays' and opposed employment protections, adoptions by same-sex couples, abortion, and voting rights while backing the state's constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage."

How is supporting someone with views like that, who would then be in a position to change legislation (or not) to support his views better than supporting Prop 8?

Also, if it's not let go due to an apology, why are you giving a reason for letting it go that was straight from the guy's apology?

Seriously.

Supporting Prop 8 is not "indirectly anti-gay". It is directly anti-gay. Prop 8 has only 1 purpose: to deny gay couples the protection of marriage. On the other hand, with a candidate, one could in all honesty support a particular position (or set of positions), while being unaware of the candidate's stance on some other positions.

I was waiting for Eich to respond to the firestorm with some clarification or a public statement; he did neither other than resigning. That, to me, speaks volumes: he'd rather give up his CEO position than his anti-gay position. So it is best that he resigned and left.

> That, to me, speaks volumes: he'd rather give up his CEO position than his anti-gay position.

That's a pretty big assumption. You don't know that at all, and you also have no idea what sort of pressure he might have faced from Mozilla's board.

"Prop 8 has only 1 purpose: to deny gay couples the protection of marriage."

I'm sure that a certain % of individuals who voted for it also supported the institution of civil unions - that would entitle gays to same rights as married couple. But these people care about the name/institution of 'marriage' maintaining its original (m+w) definition.

Therefore I personally would not rush to call support of prop 8 'anti-gay'.