4 ms·

details here on this? big claims!

abeisgreat 8y ago
You can read our exchange on Twitter - https://twitter.com/abeisgreat/status/1009317897112453120 https://twitter.com/abeisgreat/status/1009317897112453120). I want to be clear, I have nothing against his work, technically he does great stuff, especially in the Go community. However, I can't in good faith support a company he's building when I feel confident that he will be reinforcing the structure which harms minorities (of all kinds) in tech. If you consider my analysis of his responses to be unfair, keep in mind that Matt is an active member of The Church of Latter-day Saints. The LDS church does not explicitly ban LGBT members, however it does ban sex outside of marriage and only acknowledges opposite-sex marriages (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_and_The_Church_of_Jesus_Christ_of_Latter-day_Saints https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_and_The_Church_o...).
- mholt 8y ago
  EDIT: You drastically edited your comment; see my addendum at the end. Alright, I only barely remember this, but let's break this down anyway, because this is 1) mostly false, 2) obviously very important to you, and I'm sorry but I don't know who you are so you will have to help me understand where you're coming from, and 3) way more dramatic than it really was. I complained once on Twitter about a particular instance of technical tooling being modified to align with certain societal/political viewpoints, which I found distracting from the purpose of the tool. In this case, it temporarily lowered my productivity (requiring me to click and scroll back through to view previous terminal output, which was not required before). The tweet made no mention of which service was being referenced, nor did it make any reference at all to the type of issue or topic that the tool was vocal about. The point of the tweet had nothing to do with the issue itself, but it was a complaint about a UX issue I had with a technical tool. When asked for more details by another commenter, I replied that I refused to give more information since I didn't want to start an argument: again, the point was not the specific topic of the message. > When I confronted him, he said he didn't think companies should "get political" and claimed he didn't have anything against Pride, At no point did you confront me, @abeisgreat. Instead, you replied to the other commenter assuming to know my heart on the matter and made claims about my opinions and feelings and background that are simply untrue -- claims which I had never made myself, nor could you substantiate except through extrapolation, mincing my words, or taking them out of context. This comment thread here on HN is continuing that trend. That all happened several months ago. Are you really still convinced that your self-assumed attitudes against me are correct? You never even bothered to ask me what I was talking about, or what my feelings on the matter really are. > but was annoyed with it impacting his work - which seems suspicious because he is definitely Mormon and very conservative. I don't know what my work ethic has to do with being "Mormon" (member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints) or "conservative" (yes, I tend to be more conservative). > he will be reinforcing the structure which harms minorities (of all kinds) in tech. You forget too that I am a minority in tech myself. The last thing I have is any feelings of enmity or bias against others who also feel they are on the outside or have non-conforming beliefs or values. After all, that's my whole life. You think being a practicing Latter-day Saint in the wildly-liberal and "progressive" tech community these days is easy? that every other person shares my core beliefs? that everyone appreciates and understands my choice of lifestyle? I am not that much different from you... I don't know why you choose to hold this grudge against me, or why you read so much into so little, but next time, let's talk about it rather than draw conclusions. EDIT: My addendum, in light of significant edits to the original comment. > If you consider my analysis of his responses to be unfair, keep in mind that Matt is an active member of The Church of Latter-day Saints. The LDS church does not explicitly ban LGBT members, however it does ban sex outside of marriage and only acknowledges opposite-sex marriages (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_and_The_Church_o... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_and_The_Church_o...). I'm glad you brought this up. Like you, I'm proud of the way I live, which is as an active member of Jesus Christ's Church. Ask me anything. (Also, check out https://mormonandgay.lds.org/ https://mormonandgay.lds.org/ -- a great resource about these types of issues.)
  - abeisgreat 8y ago
    Hey Matt, I appreciate the response and I'm really sorry if you feel like this is a personal attack and I do apologize for the edit. I only did that to remove as much speculation on my part as I could so that others could make their own judgement. You are right that I made assumptions about your views based on your tweet and your previous tweets, if you can tell me that you strongly support equal LGBT rights and freedoms than I'll concede that I was mistaken. If that's not the case, then I stand by my original point, which is not that you should not be supported, but that people should understand who they're supporting and make their own judgement.
    - mholt 8y ago
      Hi Abe, > if you can tell me that you strongly support equal LGBT rights and freedoms I do. Of course I do. The freedom to choose is one of my most important tenets. I am opposed to taking that freedom away from law-abiding individuals. I may not agree with or condone everyone's choices or lifestyles -- just as they may not agree with mine -- but that is the point of having freedom (and/or moral agency, whatever you want to call it). You are allowed to campaign for what you believe in: you can tell people to stay away from our company because I'm a part of it, but there are people who will disagree with you, too. It's just how it goes. There's always somebody who will disagree, somebody who will not support your own agenda. I spent two years of my life -- 24/7, in a place I had never been before nor been since -- trying to teach people what I believe and to convince them to change their lives. It's hard. Ask any missionary, ask any activist. People sometimes just aren't ready to agree, or aren't in a place to understand such that they CAN feasibly agree. Sorry that you have (had?) to feel a bit divided by what you and I believe. Hopefully the next time you meet a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints you can confidently smile knowing that you have a friend in them.

You can read our exchange on Twitter - https://twitter.com/abeisgreat/status/1009317897112453120 https://twitter.com/abeisgreat/status/1009317897112453120). I want to be clear, I have nothing against his work, technically he does great stuff, especially in the Go community. However, I can't in good faith support a company he's building when I feel confident that he will be reinforcing the structure which harms minorities (of all kinds) in tech. If you consider my analysis of his responses to be unfair, keep in mind that Matt is an active member of The Church of Latter-day Saints. The LDS church does not explicitly ban LGBT members, however it does ban sex outside of marriage and only acknowledges opposite-sex marriages (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_and_The_Church_of_Jesus_Christ_of_Latter-day_Saints https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_and_The_Church_o...).

mholt 8y ago
EDIT: You drastically edited your comment; see my addendum at the end. Alright, I only barely remember this, but let's break this down anyway, because this is 1) mostly false, 2) obviously very important to you, and I'm sorry but I don't know who you are so you will have to help me understand where you're coming from, and 3) way more dramatic than it really was. I complained once on Twitter about a particular instance of technical tooling being modified to align with certain societal/political viewpoints, which I found distracting from the purpose of the tool. In this case, it temporarily lowered my productivity (requiring me to click and scroll back through to view previous terminal output, which was not required before). The tweet made no mention of which service was being referenced, nor did it make any reference at all to the type of issue or topic that the tool was vocal about. The point of the tweet had nothing to do with the issue itself, but it was a complaint about a UX issue I had with a technical tool. When asked for more details by another commenter, I replied that I refused to give more information since I didn't want to start an argument: again, the point was not the specific topic of the message. > When I confronted him, he said he didn't think companies should "get political" and claimed he didn't have anything against Pride, At no point did you confront me, @abeisgreat. Instead, you replied to the other commenter assuming to know my heart on the matter and made claims about my opinions and feelings and background that are simply untrue -- claims which I had never made myself, nor could you substantiate except through extrapolation, mincing my words, or taking them out of context. This comment thread here on HN is continuing that trend. That all happened several months ago. Are you really still convinced that your self-assumed attitudes against me are correct? You never even bothered to ask me what I was talking about, or what my feelings on the matter really are. > but was annoyed with it impacting his work - which seems suspicious because he is definitely Mormon and very conservative. I don't know what my work ethic has to do with being "Mormon" (member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints) or "conservative" (yes, I tend to be more conservative). > he will be reinforcing the structure which harms minorities (of all kinds) in tech. You forget too that I am a minority in tech myself. The last thing I have is any feelings of enmity or bias against others who also feel they are on the outside or have non-conforming beliefs or values. After all, that's my whole life. You think being a practicing Latter-day Saint in the wildly-liberal and "progressive" tech community these days is easy? that every other person shares my core beliefs? that everyone appreciates and understands my choice of lifestyle? I am not that much different from you... I don't know why you choose to hold this grudge against me, or why you read so much into so little, but next time, let's talk about it rather than draw conclusions. EDIT: My addendum, in light of significant edits to the original comment. > If you consider my analysis of his responses to be unfair, keep in mind that Matt is an active member of The Church of Latter-day Saints. The LDS church does not explicitly ban LGBT members, however it does ban sex outside of marriage and only acknowledges opposite-sex marriages (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_and_The_Church_o... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_and_The_Church_o...). I'm glad you brought this up. Like you, I'm proud of the way I live, which is as an active member of Jesus Christ's Church. Ask me anything. (Also, check out https://mormonandgay.lds.org/ https://mormonandgay.lds.org/ -- a great resource about these types of issues.)
- abeisgreat 8y ago
  Hey Matt, I appreciate the response and I'm really sorry if you feel like this is a personal attack and I do apologize for the edit. I only did that to remove as much speculation on my part as I could so that others could make their own judgement. You are right that I made assumptions about your views based on your tweet and your previous tweets, if you can tell me that you strongly support equal LGBT rights and freedoms than I'll concede that I was mistaken. If that's not the case, then I stand by my original point, which is not that you should not be supported, but that people should understand who they're supporting and make their own judgement.
  - mholt 8y ago
    Hi Abe, > if you can tell me that you strongly support equal LGBT rights and freedoms I do. Of course I do. The freedom to choose is one of my most important tenets. I am opposed to taking that freedom away from law-abiding individuals. I may not agree with or condone everyone's choices or lifestyles -- just as they may not agree with mine -- but that is the point of having freedom (and/or moral agency, whatever you want to call it). You are allowed to campaign for what you believe in: you can tell people to stay away from our company because I'm a part of it, but there are people who will disagree with you, too. It's just how it goes. There's always somebody who will disagree, somebody who will not support your own agenda. I spent two years of my life -- 24/7, in a place I had never been before nor been since -- trying to teach people what I believe and to convince them to change their lives. It's hard. Ask any missionary, ask any activist. People sometimes just aren't ready to agree, or aren't in a place to understand such that they CAN feasibly agree. Sorry that you have (had?) to feel a bit divided by what you and I believe. Hopefully the next time you meet a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints you can confidently smile knowing that you have a friend in them.