5 ms·

If someone were going around telling me that they don’t think my husband and I should be married isn’t hate, then I’m not sure hate as a word has a lot of meani

If someone were going around telling me that they don’t think my husband and I should be married isn’t hate, then I’m not sure hate as a word has a lot of meaning left. This is a bit off topic from the article, but to say why I think that: in the US a great deal of rights are conferred to married couples. Being able to have a child through surrogacy and have both of us presumed parents, being able to visit my husband in the hospital, getting to be on his health insurance. If anyone wishes that we don’t have access to those things but claims to not hate me, I think they are carefully choosing to ignore the ramifications of their opinion. All that said, as it was said elsewhere, Eich wasn’t fired, he resigned because of the backlash. The public has just as much a right to protest and boycott as someone does to spout off hate.

sph 5y ago
> If someone were going around telling me that they don’t think my husband and I should be married isn’t hate, then I’m not sure hate as a word has a lot of meaning left. While I personally am all for same-sex marriage, I think the problem is that hate has too many meanings these days. Any disagreement on hot topics is often construed as hate. The world isn't all hate or love, black and white, with or against us. What you're asking for is conformity. While Eich could have spared his personal controversial thoughts as a tech CEO, like everybody else he is free to think whatever he wants. Voting against someone else's ideals in a democratic process isn't hate; it's called a trick question when only one answer is valid and acceptable.
- DonHopkins 5y ago
  There's certainly a lot of hate for Mozilla based on the specious argument that actively trying to deny other people the right to marry the person they love isn't hate. That's a pretty lazy and entitled argument to make when you're not on the receiving end of Brendan Eich's irrational homophobia and attempted sabotaging of your own marriage. The word "hate" having too many meanings isn't a problem. People trying to deny other people's humanity and human right to marry the person they love is a problem, whatever word you choose to label it with.
  - sph 5y ago
    While I agree on the principle of same-sex marriage and people should be able to do and love whoever they want, > People trying to deny other people's humanity why was Proposition 8, the proposal to ban same-sex marriage, a referendum, if by your standards one choice is good and the other is denying other people's humanity? What is the point of democracy and referendums if one possible answer is deemed incorrect and inhumane a priori? That said, I think we're straying too far off topic, and I usually am one that hates when any discussion about Mozilla or Brave touches on Eich's controversy. So I will stop now.
    - DonHopkins 5y ago
      For the same reason legalizing slavery should not be up to a referendum, and "states rights" don't include the right to deny other people's humanity by legalizing owning another human being as property. If you will recall, the United States fought a bloody war about that, and the traitors on the pro-slavery side lost. And I'll remind you that the US Supreme Court already strongly affirmed that human rights are not up for a vote, when it legalized same sex marriage. https://whyy.org/articles/supreme-court-affirms-my-human-rights-are-not-up-for-a-vote/ https://whyy.org/articles/supreme-court-affirms-my-human-rig... >Supreme Court affirms my human rights are not up for a vote >Human rights should never be subjected to a popular vote. The will of the people does not matter in the slightest. The Supreme Court did not give LGBT citizens anything today. Countries merely recognize the rights that already exist, and protect them. >“…the right to marry is a fundamental right inherent in the liberty of the person, and under the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment couples of the same-sex may not be deprived of that right and that liberty. The Court now holds that same-sex couples may exercise the fundamental right to marry. No longer may this liberty be denied to them.” -Justice Anthony Kennedy >Human rights do not stem from the will of the majority in any nation. Ayn Rand (even a broken clock is right twice a day) said, “…individual rights are not subject to a public vote; a majority has no right to vote away the rights of a minority; the political function of rights is precisely to protect minorities from oppression by majorities.” If this is true, the inverse is also true; a majority has no right to permit or grant the rights of a minority. You yourself just admitted that "I usually am one that hates when any discussion about Mozilla or Brave touches on Eich's controversy", after complaining that hate has too many definitions. With such a low bar for hatred, which you admit to yourself, how can you at the same time deny that Brendan's dehumanizing homophobic anti-human-rights beliefs aren't hateful? Your hatred of discussions about Brendan's beliefs doesn't ruin people's lives or deny their humanity. But Brendan's hateful beliefs about same sex marriage do ruin people's lives and deny their humanity. So why don't you just stop hating those discussions, and learn to tolerate free speech? And why doesn't Brendan Eich simply stop hating gays, and tolerate same sex marriages, which the Supreme Court has affirmed is a "fundamental right inherent in the liberty of the person"? Isn't it ironic that so many of the same people who attempt to raise the goalposts so high by redefining "hate" to not include denying another person's basic human rights as hatred, also claim to hate Mozilla so much? Why is Brendan Eich voluntarily deciding to cancel himself by resigning from Mozilla of his own free will so much more of an atrocity to some bigots than Brendan denying other human beings against their will the simple universal human right to marry the person they love?
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
taylorius 5y ago
To be clear, I'm not arguing the rights and wrongs of gay marriage, just that it can be a cop-out to always label an opposing view as "hate".
- DonHopkins 5y ago
  It's not just an opposing view of somebody's favorite color or brand, it's a fundamental disagreement about human rights, and the Supreme Court has already ruled that human rights shouldn't be decided by the popular vote, that same sex marriage is a "fundamental right inherent in the liberty of a person", and that Brendan Eich is incorrect in his beliefs that same sex marriage should be against the law, and is on the wrong side of history, law, and the US Constitution. >“…the right to marry is a fundamental right inherent in the liberty of the person, and under the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment couples of the same-sex may not be deprived of that right and that liberty. The Court now holds that same-sex couples may exercise the fundamental right to marry. No longer may this liberty be denied to them.” -Justice Anthony Kennedy And the same people who are so offended at calling Brendan's dehumanization of same sex couples "hate" are usually the same ones also claiming to "hate" Mozilla and "hate" discussions about Brendan Eich's support for Proposition 8, so they've already set the bar extremely low for the definition of "hate", and they don't have a leg to stand on trying to move the goalposts by redefining "hate" in the next sentence.

sph 5y ago

> If someone were going around telling me that they don’t think my husband and I should be married isn’t hate, then I’m not sure hate as a word has a lot of meaning left. While I personally am all for same-sex marriage, I think the problem is that hate has too many meanings these days. Any disagreement on hot topics is often construed as hate. The world isn't all hate or love, black and white, with or against us. What you're asking for is conformity. While Eich could have spared his personal controversial thoughts as a tech CEO, like everybody else he is free to think whatever he wants. Voting against someone else's ideals in a democratic process isn't hate; it's called a trick question when only one answer is valid and acceptable.

DonHopkins 5y ago
There's certainly a lot of hate for Mozilla based on the specious argument that actively trying to deny other people the right to marry the person they love isn't hate. That's a pretty lazy and entitled argument to make when you're not on the receiving end of Brendan Eich's irrational homophobia and attempted sabotaging of your own marriage. The word "hate" having too many meanings isn't a problem. People trying to deny other people's humanity and human right to marry the person they love is a problem, whatever word you choose to label it with.
- sph 5y ago
  While I agree on the principle of same-sex marriage and people should be able to do and love whoever they want, > People trying to deny other people's humanity why was Proposition 8, the proposal to ban same-sex marriage, a referendum, if by your standards one choice is good and the other is denying other people's humanity? What is the point of democracy and referendums if one possible answer is deemed incorrect and inhumane a priori? That said, I think we're straying too far off topic, and I usually am one that hates when any discussion about Mozilla or Brave touches on Eich's controversy. So I will stop now.
  - DonHopkins 5y ago
    For the same reason legalizing slavery should not be up to a referendum, and "states rights" don't include the right to deny other people's humanity by legalizing owning another human being as property. If you will recall, the United States fought a bloody war about that, and the traitors on the pro-slavery side lost. And I'll remind you that the US Supreme Court already strongly affirmed that human rights are not up for a vote, when it legalized same sex marriage. https://whyy.org/articles/supreme-court-affirms-my-human-rights-are-not-up-for-a-vote/ https://whyy.org/articles/supreme-court-affirms-my-human-rig... >Supreme Court affirms my human rights are not up for a vote >Human rights should never be subjected to a popular vote. The will of the people does not matter in the slightest. The Supreme Court did not give LGBT citizens anything today. Countries merely recognize the rights that already exist, and protect them. >“…the right to marry is a fundamental right inherent in the liberty of the person, and under the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment couples of the same-sex may not be deprived of that right and that liberty. The Court now holds that same-sex couples may exercise the fundamental right to marry. No longer may this liberty be denied to them.” -Justice Anthony Kennedy >Human rights do not stem from the will of the majority in any nation. Ayn Rand (even a broken clock is right twice a day) said, “…individual rights are not subject to a public vote; a majority has no right to vote away the rights of a minority; the political function of rights is precisely to protect minorities from oppression by majorities.” If this is true, the inverse is also true; a majority has no right to permit or grant the rights of a minority. You yourself just admitted that "I usually am one that hates when any discussion about Mozilla or Brave touches on Eich's controversy", after complaining that hate has too many definitions. With such a low bar for hatred, which you admit to yourself, how can you at the same time deny that Brendan's dehumanizing homophobic anti-human-rights beliefs aren't hateful? Your hatred of discussions about Brendan's beliefs doesn't ruin people's lives or deny their humanity. But Brendan's hateful beliefs about same sex marriage do ruin people's lives and deny their humanity. So why don't you just stop hating those discussions, and learn to tolerate free speech? And why doesn't Brendan Eich simply stop hating gays, and tolerate same sex marriages, which the Supreme Court has affirmed is a "fundamental right inherent in the liberty of the person"? Isn't it ironic that so many of the same people who attempt to raise the goalposts so high by redefining "hate" to not include denying another person's basic human rights as hatred, also claim to hate Mozilla so much? Why is Brendan Eich voluntarily deciding to cancel himself by resigning from Mozilla of his own free will so much more of an atrocity to some bigots than Brendan denying other human beings against their will the simple universal human right to marry the person they love?

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

taylorius 5y ago

To be clear, I'm not arguing the rights and wrongs of gay marriage, just that it can be a cop-out to always label an opposing view as "hate".

DonHopkins 5y ago
It's not just an opposing view of somebody's favorite color or brand, it's a fundamental disagreement about human rights, and the Supreme Court has already ruled that human rights shouldn't be decided by the popular vote, that same sex marriage is a "fundamental right inherent in the liberty of a person", and that Brendan Eich is incorrect in his beliefs that same sex marriage should be against the law, and is on the wrong side of history, law, and the US Constitution. >“…the right to marry is a fundamental right inherent in the liberty of the person, and under the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment couples of the same-sex may not be deprived of that right and that liberty. The Court now holds that same-sex couples may exercise the fundamental right to marry. No longer may this liberty be denied to them.” -Justice Anthony Kennedy And the same people who are so offended at calling Brendan's dehumanization of same sex couples "hate" are usually the same ones also claiming to "hate" Mozilla and "hate" discussions about Brendan Eich's support for Proposition 8, so they've already set the bar extremely low for the definition of "hate", and they don't have a leg to stand on trying to move the goalposts by redefining "hate" in the next sentence.