8 ms·

This is a very low effort flame bait attempt, and HN is not the place for flamewars.

coldpie 9y ago
I disagree that it's flamebait, but I do think this is all off-topic. But I just can't keep my dumb mouth shut when someone says that enforcing one's private religious views on others via the government is just fine.
- mythrwy 9y ago
  A persons private religious views is no reason for a professional witch hunt. That is well beyond the pale of acceptable, and so is your comment. There's no reason to turn this into a less reasonable version of a McCarthy type inquisition. Once we start up with that nonsense it doesn't lead to a good place. No matter how strongly you feel you are right.
  - coldpie 9y ago
    To which "professional witch hunt" are you referring? Are "private religious views" still private when you are using the government to enforce them on others? Is a CEO who spends considerable sums of his own money to do harm to his own employees for no benefit fit to remain CEO? Are users not allowed to demand good behavior from the companies they support?
    - mythrwy 9y ago
      No. Users are not allowed to dictate private religious views to people who work for companies. That's unreasonable. Boycotting a company because you don't like the political views of one of it's employees on the other hand is just silly. What exactly is your issue with separating personal and professional life? Do you feel you should be professionally attacked or your company boycotted because you (presumably) support gay marriage and some people feel that's wrong? No, of course you shouldn't. You should have a right to vote, support, do whatever in this regard and it shouldn't affect you professionally. Look, I personally support gay marriage. But this kind of behavior on the part of the "crusaders" is outrageous. It really is.
      - coldpie 9y ago
        I think it's legitimately a fascinating discussion point! Thank you for engaging me on it instead of freaking out. While we disagree, I do understand where you're coming from. Again, the issue was not his "private religious views." The issue was when he used his power and influence to enforce those views on other people who did not subscribe to them. The line is crossed when one tries to enforce their personal beliefs on others via the government. It's not about politics--I think there are many things in politics about which reasonable people can disagree--it's specifically about enforcing a religious viewpoint on other people through the government. I don't force my religion on others; I think it's reasonable to demand that others do the same, and to enforce that demand through the means available to me, which may well include a boycott.
        mythrwy 9y ago
        Sure likewise. I mean, no hard feelings but go all the way up the chain to parent. He suggests Brave browser shouldn't get funding (and people shouldn't use it?) because at one point Eich gave a couple thousand bucks to a (failed) campaign to prevent gay marriage from becoming legal. And who cares? The question should be is the browser any good. Do you think people should call his place of employment and claim they aren't going to use the product unless they "fire the pervert"? It's ridiculous. It really is. And I'd be saying exactly the same thing if the relationship were switched.
        coldpie 9y ago
        The Proposition 8 campaign was actually successful in re-prohibiting gay marriage in California for about four years before it was overturned, meaning four years of legal limbo for already-married couples and four continued years of second-class-citizen standing for gay couples looking to get married. It also pushed out some incredibly offensive TV ads, claiming the marriage equality movement wanted to use schools to turn children gay and other nonsense. You can understand how someone affected by that proposition, and the decades-long fight before it, might not be so quick to say "oh, you rascals, let's let bygones be bygones;" even if marriage was legalized in the end. I honestly don't know where I stand on Brave. I hate our current ad-supported world, and it's an interesting alternative to that. On the other hand, I loath Eich and have no interest in supporting him financially after what he has done. Mostly I just stay silent; my feelings aren't strong enough to actually oppose other people using it, but I won't use it myself. Note that I never said anything about Brave one way or the other. My response was simply that Eich's donation was not simply "free speech," it was a sincere and successful effort to enforce his personal religious views on others, and that it's perfectly fine to oppose that behavior.

I disagree that it's flamebait, but I do think this is all off-topic. But I just can't keep my dumb mouth shut when someone says that enforcing one's private religious views on others via the government is just fine.

mythrwy 9y ago
A persons private religious views is no reason for a professional witch hunt. That is well beyond the pale of acceptable, and so is your comment. There's no reason to turn this into a less reasonable version of a McCarthy type inquisition. Once we start up with that nonsense it doesn't lead to a good place. No matter how strongly you feel you are right.
- coldpie 9y ago
  To which "professional witch hunt" are you referring? Are "private religious views" still private when you are using the government to enforce them on others? Is a CEO who spends considerable sums of his own money to do harm to his own employees for no benefit fit to remain CEO? Are users not allowed to demand good behavior from the companies they support?
  - mythrwy 9y ago
    No. Users are not allowed to dictate private religious views to people who work for companies. That's unreasonable. Boycotting a company because you don't like the political views of one of it's employees on the other hand is just silly. What exactly is your issue with separating personal and professional life? Do you feel you should be professionally attacked or your company boycotted because you (presumably) support gay marriage and some people feel that's wrong? No, of course you shouldn't. You should have a right to vote, support, do whatever in this regard and it shouldn't affect you professionally. Look, I personally support gay marriage. But this kind of behavior on the part of the "crusaders" is outrageous. It really is.
    - coldpie 9y ago
      I think it's legitimately a fascinating discussion point! Thank you for engaging me on it instead of freaking out. While we disagree, I do understand where you're coming from. Again, the issue was not his "private religious views." The issue was when he used his power and influence to enforce those views on other people who did not subscribe to them. The line is crossed when one tries to enforce their personal beliefs on others via the government. It's not about politics--I think there are many things in politics about which reasonable people can disagree--it's specifically about enforcing a religious viewpoint on other people through the government. I don't force my religion on others; I think it's reasonable to demand that others do the same, and to enforce that demand through the means available to me, which may well include a boycott.
      - mythrwy 9y ago
        Sure likewise. I mean, no hard feelings but go all the way up the chain to parent. He suggests Brave browser shouldn't get funding (and people shouldn't use it?) because at one point Eich gave a couple thousand bucks to a (failed) campaign to prevent gay marriage from becoming legal. And who cares? The question should be is the browser any good. Do you think people should call his place of employment and claim they aren't going to use the product unless they "fire the pervert"? It's ridiculous. It really is. And I'd be saying exactly the same thing if the relationship were switched.
        coldpie 9y ago
        The Proposition 8 campaign was actually successful in re-prohibiting gay marriage in California for about four years before it was overturned, meaning four years of legal limbo for already-married couples and four continued years of second-class-citizen standing for gay couples looking to get married. It also pushed out some incredibly offensive TV ads, claiming the marriage equality movement wanted to use schools to turn children gay and other nonsense. You can understand how someone affected by that proposition, and the decades-long fight before it, might not be so quick to say "oh, you rascals, let's let bygones be bygones;" even if marriage was legalized in the end. I honestly don't know where I stand on Brave. I hate our current ad-supported world, and it's an interesting alternative to that. On the other hand, I loath Eich and have no interest in supporting him financially after what he has done. Mostly I just stay silent; my feelings aren't strong enough to actually oppose other people using it, but I won't use it myself. Note that I never said anything about Brave one way or the other. My response was simply that Eich's donation was not simply "free speech," it was a sincere and successful effort to enforce his personal religious views on others, and that it's perfectly fine to oppose that behavior.