4 ms·

You can wrap it in the flag if you want but the result is the same. He sought to restrict someone else's freedom and dealt with the social consequences of that

You can wrap it in the flag if you want but the result is the same. He sought to restrict someone else's freedom and dealt with the social consequences of that action. He didn't just express an opinion, he sought to force that opinion on others. Your argument that I'm anti democratic is disingenuous at best.

nobody9999 6y ago
>You can wrap it in the flag if you want but the result is the same. He sought to restrict someone else's freedom and dealt with the social consequences of that action. He didn't just express an opinion, he sought to force that opinion on others. Your argument that I'm anti democratic is disingenuous at best. While I agree with the sentiment that all humans should be allowed to love whom and in the way they see fit and vehemently disagree with Eich's personal views, I can't agree with your assessment that he "forced" anyone to do anything. He took part in a political process. That he was on the side that you (and I, for that matter) disagree with, doesn't invalidate his right to do so. His side was (and rightly so, in my view) smacked down. However, I take serious umbrage to your characterization that I'm wrapping anything in the flag, or that claiming that everyone should be allowed to exercise their political franchise (which you appear to reject) is disingenuous. I believe that individuals voting their conscience in free and fair elections is the heart of democracy. Unless I misunderstand your position (which is certainly possible), you appear to claim that other citizens (in this case, Eich) should not have the right to vote their conscience if you (or I, for that matter) disagree with their position. What, exactly, is disingenuous about that?
- Riverheart 6y ago
  "Unless I misunderstand your position (which is certainly possible), you appear to claim that other citizens (in this case, Eich) should not have the right to vote their conscience if you (or I, for that matter) disagree with their position" I think so. I'm not saying he can't vote his conscience but if he votes for a measure to revoke the right to marry from people in his OWN company those people are free to oppose his appointment as CEO as part of their freedom of expression. "I can't agree with your assessment that he "forced" anyone to do anything." You're right. He attempted and failed to do so since the measure didn't pass. It's not inconsistent to democratically vote for something that restricts the freedoms of someone else. Gun laws, abortion, wearing masks, etc. And people are free to associate with me based on my views on the subject.
  - nobody9999 6y ago
    So I wasn't wrapping anything in the flag or being disingenuous then? Thanks for the apology.
  - BrendanEich 6y ago
    Prop 8 passed. Obama had the same position I did in 2008. What's with the ignorance or (I hope not) revisionist history?
    - nobody9999 6y ago
      Fortunately, Proposition 8 was invalidated by Hollingsworth v. Perry[0] (I recommend reading the trial transcripts, they clearly show the ethical bankruptcy of Prop 8). Even better, Obergfell v. Hodges[1] made marriage equality the law in the entire US in 2015. Better late than never. While I strenuously disagree with the position you held (still hold?) around marriage equality and find such a stance to be illiberal and downright nasty, I also believe that your right to hold that position as a private citizen should be tolerated in a free society. What's more, I don't believe that your opinions (and actions related to them) as a private citizen should be reason to hound you out of your professional position, unless you used your position to impose those opinions on the workplace you managed. It's unfortunate that some people hold opinions about freedom of thought and the exercise of the political franchise that are as odious as your opinions about marriage equality. And it's even worse that such people executed on their illiberal, reactionary ideas to force you from your position. A free society must tolerate unpopular and illiberal ideas, or it's not a free society. Which is why I have decried your ouster from Mozilla in this thread. That said, I believe your ideas about marriage equality are illiberal, anti-democratic and just plain nasty. But they are your ideas, and in a free society, you are entitled to them. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perry_v._Schwarzenegger https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perry_v._Schwarzenegger [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obergefell_v._Hodges https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obergefell_v._Hodges
      - BrendanEich 6y ago
        Please read https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21211419 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21211419. There's no point arguing if you can't even accurately state the other side's views (you know, the ones Obama aligned himself with in 2008 in order to get elected). This used to be a required skill in political debating, but it's not taught or practiced much now. It definitely is more work than simply putting bad intentions or premises into your opponent's mouth, grandstanding against the resulting straw-man, and hiving off into disjoint factions that can be divided and conquered more easily. Still, I would never pull that kind of crap on you or any other HN antagonists. We need to work together against common enemies, if we can. Warmongers, crypto-backdoor advocates, surveillance capitalists, banksters, polluters, DRM-everything vendors -- in general, the monied interests and oligarchs who call too many shots today.

nobody9999 6y ago

>You can wrap it in the flag if you want but the result is the same. He sought to restrict someone else's freedom and dealt with the social consequences of that action. He didn't just express an opinion, he sought to force that opinion on others. Your argument that I'm anti democratic is disingenuous at best. While I agree with the sentiment that all humans should be allowed to love whom and in the way they see fit and vehemently disagree with Eich's personal views, I can't agree with your assessment that he "forced" anyone to do anything. He took part in a political process. That he was on the side that you (and I, for that matter) disagree with, doesn't invalidate his right to do so. His side was (and rightly so, in my view) smacked down. However, I take serious umbrage to your characterization that I'm wrapping anything in the flag, or that claiming that everyone should be allowed to exercise their political franchise (which you appear to reject) is disingenuous. I believe that individuals voting their conscience in free and fair elections is the heart of democracy. Unless I misunderstand your position (which is certainly possible), you appear to claim that other citizens (in this case, Eich) should not have the right to vote their conscience if you (or I, for that matter) disagree with their position. What, exactly, is disingenuous about that?

Riverheart 6y ago
"Unless I misunderstand your position (which is certainly possible), you appear to claim that other citizens (in this case, Eich) should not have the right to vote their conscience if you (or I, for that matter) disagree with their position" I think so. I'm not saying he can't vote his conscience but if he votes for a measure to revoke the right to marry from people in his OWN company those people are free to oppose his appointment as CEO as part of their freedom of expression. "I can't agree with your assessment that he "forced" anyone to do anything." You're right. He attempted and failed to do so since the measure didn't pass. It's not inconsistent to democratically vote for something that restricts the freedoms of someone else. Gun laws, abortion, wearing masks, etc. And people are free to associate with me based on my views on the subject.
- nobody9999 6y ago
  So I wasn't wrapping anything in the flag or being disingenuous then? Thanks for the apology.
- BrendanEich 6y ago
  Prop 8 passed. Obama had the same position I did in 2008. What's with the ignorance or (I hope not) revisionist history?
  - nobody9999 6y ago
    Fortunately, Proposition 8 was invalidated by Hollingsworth v. Perry[0] (I recommend reading the trial transcripts, they clearly show the ethical bankruptcy of Prop 8). Even better, Obergfell v. Hodges[1] made marriage equality the law in the entire US in 2015. Better late than never. While I strenuously disagree with the position you held (still hold?) around marriage equality and find such a stance to be illiberal and downright nasty, I also believe that your right to hold that position as a private citizen should be tolerated in a free society. What's more, I don't believe that your opinions (and actions related to them) as a private citizen should be reason to hound you out of your professional position, unless you used your position to impose those opinions on the workplace you managed. It's unfortunate that some people hold opinions about freedom of thought and the exercise of the political franchise that are as odious as your opinions about marriage equality. And it's even worse that such people executed on their illiberal, reactionary ideas to force you from your position. A free society must tolerate unpopular and illiberal ideas, or it's not a free society. Which is why I have decried your ouster from Mozilla in this thread. That said, I believe your ideas about marriage equality are illiberal, anti-democratic and just plain nasty. But they are your ideas, and in a free society, you are entitled to them. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perry_v._Schwarzenegger https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perry_v._Schwarzenegger [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obergefell_v._Hodges https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obergefell_v._Hodges
    - BrendanEich 6y ago
      Please read https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21211419 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21211419. There's no point arguing if you can't even accurately state the other side's views (you know, the ones Obama aligned himself with in 2008 in order to get elected). This used to be a required skill in political debating, but it's not taught or practiced much now. It definitely is more work than simply putting bad intentions or premises into your opponent's mouth, grandstanding against the resulting straw-man, and hiving off into disjoint factions that can be divided and conquered more easily. Still, I would never pull that kind of crap on you or any other HN antagonists. We need to work together against common enemies, if we can. Warmongers, crypto-backdoor advocates, surveillance capitalists, banksters, polluters, DRM-everything vendors -- in general, the monied interests and oligarchs who call too many shots today.