Hacker News Reader

Comment by TylerE | Hacker News Reader

This is rapidly turning very ugly, and I can't stand it. Is being "anti-gay" or "pro-war" or even just "republican" the new Communism? The new witchcraft?

View on HN

No. For the same reason that being a white supremacist hasn't really ever been "okay."

Eich was not anti-gay, he was anti-civil rights. Legal marraige and religious marriage are unfortunately poorly named, but two very different things. If Eich doesn't understand that, he's got bigger issues than being dumped by Mozilla.

I have plenty of good friends who do not agree with the idea of homosexual religious marriage and yet support civil rights and the right of homosexuals to be legally married.

That said, cable news, groupthink and information overload have a nasty habit of making us fall back on baser instincts (gay=bad, Christian=bad, war=bad or any other black/white arguments).

Instead we should probably turn to our communities where we are able to have long-form and less-aggressive arguments about fundamental issues. If you perceive the person you're arguing with as a human and a friend, you're less inclined towards unmitigated anger and senseless aggression. But that would require us to put down our computers and walk into town hall and actually speak with humans, so I'm not holding my breath.

Would you boycott any company with a Muslim, or for that matter, fundamentalist Christian, executive because of their doctrinal sexism?

No, but I would boycott a doctor that mutilates girls genitals.

I hope so. We're moving into a phase where there you can grab information about anything, from nearly anywhere, at almost any time. There is little advantage to decision making based on cemented ideals anymore. This new era has exposed the good and bad in all facets of life. It's no longer about republicans, or communists, or this, or that, it's just about life.

I prefer to remain non-partisan and instead look at things as a complete outsider, just as a regular human being without any rooted loyalty in any one system or another.

If a company hires a shitty person, and people start dropping their service like flies, and that company reconsiders, then we're moving in a good direction, and I view my "vote" of not sticking with Dropbox more as a single ballot to living in a more informed and refined society.

I really hope somebody replies and lets me know why I'm wrong rather than just sitting here at -2. Please don't turn HN into Reddit :(

Situational morality is really not morality at all.

And that is what I am trying to move to, because no two situations are exactly alike. Choose the correct weapon for the job.

So, do you own a PC?

If so, how can you possibly justify that?

After all, IBM helped the Nazis, so everything they touched is morally tainted.

(And no, I'm not Godwinning, just pointing out how absurd the line of thinking is when taken to extremes)

Yeah that's fair, but none of the original founding members are still active within IBM, so the intent has essentially been burnt out. They are remnants long forgotten.

Condoleezza Rice however, is still alive and well, and is actively on the Dropbox board. The decision is easy to make, so I made it.

I would honestly prefer people to have a set standard, e.g., Should I drop a nuclear bomb? No. Never. Under any circumstances. Whether I agree with that standard is another matter altogether, but having a solid measuring line is significantly more reassuring than a flip-floppy wet noodle.

I agree that no two situations are alike, but principles by definition should still guide the decision making process.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com