4 ms·

Why do we always have to blame the people who want to make things better? Why can’t we blame Eich for it based on his political activism trying to hurt his empl

Why do we always have to blame the people who want to make things better? Why can’t we blame Eich for it based on his political activism trying to hurt his employees and users? Or the church for teaching Eich that their sexual hangups are more important than being good to people?

card_zero 2y ago
"Did you know, the Catholic church is to blame for Firefox getting ready to sell user data?" The theory has a certain chaotic pizzazz but I'm not sure I could convince anyone.
- wat10000 2y ago
  And yet there’s just as much connection to them as to the people who pushed to get Eich removed.
amazingamazing 2y ago
No one can pass silly purity tests. There are people who unironically believe that if you believe in money you are a bad person and are oppressing them. Just like it would be silly for someone to blame you for being on this website founded by someone who has some questionable views, if you go looking. Or, for using this very much American website, an America that's becoming increasingly hostile. Is your participation here an implicit agreement with the current administration? Perhaps not before, but now that you've read this comment one could argue your continued participation makes you complicit. You show me someone's views and associations and I can make them a devil.
- wat10000 2y ago
  Thinking that you should treat people well regardless of which genitals they prefer is not a “silly purity test,” it’s basic decency, at least in this millennium.
  - amazingamazing 2y ago
    [flagged]
    - wat10000 2y ago
      Trying to get laws passed and posting pseudonymous comments on a web site are not equivalent activities.
      - amazingamazing 2y ago
        [flagged]
        wat10000 2y ago
        And the moment I contribute to DOGE is the moment you'll have a point here.
        amazingamazing 2y ago
        You are helping enrich someone who is sympathetic towards it. It's funny how you are immediately trying to disassociate yourself from the simple fact that you -> hacker news -> pg -> musk. There are people who don't use Twitter for the simple reason that Musk owns it. You can do the same with HN, no?
        wat10000 2y ago
        So first of all, no I'm not. And second of all, "helping enrich someone who is sympathetic towards it" and "helping to get a law passed" are not the same thing.
        amazingamazing 2y ago
        > And second of all, "helping enrich someone who is sympathetic towards it" and "helping to get a law passed" are not the same thing. I have never made this claim. And yes, Hacker News is literally a marketing site for Y Combinator, of which pg has a stake. In any case I've already ascertained your level of conviction so we can let it go. At least redditors had enough to leave reddit over simple API changes.
- ForHackernews 2y ago
  Honestly, one man's "silly purity test" is another's non-negotiable moral principle. Would you work for someone who publicly endorsed racism, cannibalism, slavery, <insert your personal red-line here>? IMHO the issue is the collapse of any broadly-shared moral and ethical framework. I don't know how you resolve that, except perhaps by trying to peacefully partition society.
  - gessha 2y ago
    I’ve heard this before and I keep hearing it. Maybe I don’t understand it fully but I just can’t see how what we have now is different from the days of old. Do you have any material about the collapse of the shared moral and ethical framework?
    - wat10000 2y ago
      It's definitely true for certain things. To consider a relevant example, it wasn't too long ago that homosexuality was broadly considered to be immoral. Now there's strong disagreement over this. Of course, for this particular example this is actually a good thing. It would be even better if there was broad agreement that homosexuality wasn't immoral, but having a substantial number of people on that side is better than having almost none. I think the other comment misattributes the problem. The problem isn't the loss of the old broadly shared morality, the problem is that we haven't yet managed to coalesce around a new and better one.
      - amazingamazing 2y ago
        [flagged]
        wat10000 2y ago
        "Leaking"? My bias against homophobes and for treating people the same regardless of sexual preference is being loudly advertised, it's not "leaking." Yeah, no shit that plenty of countries have horrible views here. Why are you acting like you think I'm unaware of this?
ysofunny 2y ago
not always, just when their attempts to improve things backfire out of incompetence or like they say "the road to hell is paved with good intentions"
- wat10000 2y ago
  And, again, why does this not get applied to people like Eich?
grandempire 2y ago
> on his political activism Are you referring to the private one time donation of a thousand dollars as activism? The bill also won the popular election. So it wasn’t a fringe view. Meanwhile work chats in big tech in 2014 were open season for literal political organizing and activism.
- wat10000 2y ago
  How much do you think someone has to support “a decent fraction of my employees and users should be legally considered lesser” before it counts?
  - grandempire 2y ago
    It’s a ridiculous purity test that many of your coworkers probably fail and you are unaware of, especially minorities. I would invite you to look at the demographic breakdown of support for this bill. People around the world have very different views on social issues - tech workers just know they aren’t supposed to voice them publicly in the US, or that the law can be more open than their personal views. And this isn’t just 2012, check in on blind. Tolerance is a good policy on this topic, but compromise doesn’t work if you are then going to sniff out private mental states of your coworkers.
    - wat10000 2y ago
      I'm not talking about private mental states. I'm talking about concrete activities attempting to formally change how the state treats certain people. And yeah, you're not supposed to voice them. That's not some sort of gotcha, that's common sense. If you think some of your coworkers are lesser, then you'd better keep that shit under your hat, or leave. You cannot expect to make those views public and then stick around like everything's still fine.
      - grandempire 2y ago
        > You cannot expect to make those views public Once again, Brendan Eich did not publicly advocate - journalists searched through small donations. > If you think some of your coworkers are lesser, Im sure all of my coworkers hold religious, ethnic, cultural, and gender biases of many kinds. Because they are people. I hope we can minimize these and treat each other with care and respect, and I would not tolerate mistreatment.
s_dev 2y ago
I see you're one of those people where 'compromise' is a dirty word. The key is tolerance. Eich's views while distasteful and probably wrong could be tolerated.
- wat10000 2y ago
  And why is it always on us to be tolerant, never people like Eich?
  - hollerith 2y ago
    Eich was being the more tolerant party: he wasn't trying to get anyone at Mozilla fired for their political beliefs (or their sexual preferences).
    - wat10000 2y ago
      Right, he was just trying to enshrine lesser status in state law. He wanted a bunch of people at Mozilla to be officially lesser in the eyes of the state. But that’s ok, he didn’t try to fire them!
  - s_dev 2y ago
    Eich faced those consequences that you would have wanted -- so he wasn't tolerated -- and was forced to step down. Now we're faced with a Web were all Browsers come from large companies and people are wondering why his successors aren't up to the job. The world is made entirely of trade-offs. Your like that boss who doesn't get the Quality/Speed/Price triangle and says I want it all.
    - wat10000 2y ago
      I’m talking about these comments. Why is blame put on the people who wanted Eich out, but not on Eich?
- immibis 2y ago
  They can be tolerated if the alternative is worse. Having a good browser captained by a homophobe can be better than not having the browser. That doesn't mean the homophobia is good. At the time, no one thought that getting rid of the homophobe would mean there wouldn't be a browser at all. We (the world) got rid of the homophobe, because homophobes are rightfully quite bad, and we didn't think that would stop there from also being a browser.
myrmidon 2y ago
> Why do we always have to blame the people who want to make things better? Because they are not necessarily making things better, they are making things worse (and "good intentions" are no excuse here). In my view, discriminating against someone professionally (and publicly dragging their convictions through the mud) because of privately held political/religious opinions is not acceptable behavior, full stop. I would have some understanding if Eich had been nasty with coworkers, or if his convictions had affected his work. But there were no accusations of this. Lets just flip the thing a bit to make my point clearer: If Eich had been discovered to be (secretly) a stout, godless atheist (sponsoring anti-religious campaigns)-- do you think the same kind of smear campaign/discrimination/career-killing would have been adequate?
- wat10000 2y ago
  And why don't we blame Eich for making things worse with his "good intentions"? Why don't we consider trying to pass laws that hurt your coworkers to qualify as "being nasty with coworkers"?
  - amazingamazing 2y ago
    Eich's view was totally private and pulled up by reporters. The USA is a democracy, it's completely unnecessary to cancel Eich. Just advocate for the opposing view if that's your wish.
    - wat10000 2y ago
      His name was on a published list of donors. It's not like reporters went digging through his trash. Making a donation where there's a legal requirement to publish your contribution is not "totally private." Why is it OK for Eich to try to prevent certain people from getting married, but it's not OK for Eich's employees to try to prevent him from having a certain job? Please explain using small words so I can understand the difference.
      - whatshisface 2y ago

card_zero 2y ago

"Did you know, the Catholic church is to blame for Firefox getting ready to sell user data?" The theory has a certain chaotic pizzazz but I'm not sure I could convince anyone.

wat10000 2y ago
And yet there’s just as much connection to them as to the people who pushed to get Eich removed.

amazingamazing 2y ago

No one can pass silly purity tests. There are people who unironically believe that if you believe in money you are a bad person and are oppressing them. Just like it would be silly for someone to blame you for being on this website founded by someone who has some questionable views, if you go looking. Or, for using this very much American website, an America that's becoming increasingly hostile. Is your participation here an implicit agreement with the current administration? Perhaps not before, but now that you've read this comment one could argue your continued participation makes you complicit. You show me someone's views and associations and I can make them a devil.

wat10000 2y ago
Thinking that you should treat people well regardless of which genitals they prefer is not a “silly purity test,” it’s basic decency, at least in this millennium.
- amazingamazing 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - wat10000 2y ago
    Trying to get laws passed and posting pseudonymous comments on a web site are not equivalent activities.
    - amazingamazing 2y ago
      [flagged]
      - wat10000 2y ago
        And the moment I contribute to DOGE is the moment you'll have a point here.
        amazingamazing 2y ago
        You are helping enrich someone who is sympathetic towards it. It's funny how you are immediately trying to disassociate yourself from the simple fact that you -> hacker news -> pg -> musk. There are people who don't use Twitter for the simple reason that Musk owns it. You can do the same with HN, no?
        wat10000 2y ago
        So first of all, no I'm not. And second of all, "helping enrich someone who is sympathetic towards it" and "helping to get a law passed" are not the same thing.
        amazingamazing 2y ago
        > And second of all, "helping enrich someone who is sympathetic towards it" and "helping to get a law passed" are not the same thing. I have never made this claim. And yes, Hacker News is literally a marketing site for Y Combinator, of which pg has a stake. In any case I've already ascertained your level of conviction so we can let it go. At least redditors had enough to leave reddit over simple API changes.
ForHackernews 2y ago
Honestly, one man's "silly purity test" is another's non-negotiable moral principle. Would you work for someone who publicly endorsed racism, cannibalism, slavery, <insert your personal red-line here>? IMHO the issue is the collapse of any broadly-shared moral and ethical framework. I don't know how you resolve that, except perhaps by trying to peacefully partition society.
- gessha 2y ago
  I’ve heard this before and I keep hearing it. Maybe I don’t understand it fully but I just can’t see how what we have now is different from the days of old. Do you have any material about the collapse of the shared moral and ethical framework?
  - wat10000 2y ago
    It's definitely true for certain things. To consider a relevant example, it wasn't too long ago that homosexuality was broadly considered to be immoral. Now there's strong disagreement over this. Of course, for this particular example this is actually a good thing. It would be even better if there was broad agreement that homosexuality wasn't immoral, but having a substantial number of people on that side is better than having almost none. I think the other comment misattributes the problem. The problem isn't the loss of the old broadly shared morality, the problem is that we haven't yet managed to coalesce around a new and better one.
    - amazingamazing 2y ago
      [flagged]
      - wat10000 2y ago
        "Leaking"? My bias against homophobes and for treating people the same regardless of sexual preference is being loudly advertised, it's not "leaking." Yeah, no shit that plenty of countries have horrible views here. Why are you acting like you think I'm unaware of this?

ysofunny 2y ago

not always, just when their attempts to improve things backfire out of incompetence or like they say "the road to hell is paved with good intentions"

wat10000 2y ago
And, again, why does this not get applied to people like Eich?

grandempire 2y ago

> on his political activism Are you referring to the private one time donation of a thousand dollars as activism? The bill also won the popular election. So it wasn’t a fringe view. Meanwhile work chats in big tech in 2014 were open season for literal political organizing and activism.

wat10000 2y ago
How much do you think someone has to support “a decent fraction of my employees and users should be legally considered lesser” before it counts?
- grandempire 2y ago
  It’s a ridiculous purity test that many of your coworkers probably fail and you are unaware of, especially minorities. I would invite you to look at the demographic breakdown of support for this bill. People around the world have very different views on social issues - tech workers just know they aren’t supposed to voice them publicly in the US, or that the law can be more open than their personal views. And this isn’t just 2012, check in on blind. Tolerance is a good policy on this topic, but compromise doesn’t work if you are then going to sniff out private mental states of your coworkers.
  - wat10000 2y ago
    I'm not talking about private mental states. I'm talking about concrete activities attempting to formally change how the state treats certain people. And yeah, you're not supposed to voice them. That's not some sort of gotcha, that's common sense. If you think some of your coworkers are lesser, then you'd better keep that shit under your hat, or leave. You cannot expect to make those views public and then stick around like everything's still fine.
    - grandempire 2y ago
      > You cannot expect to make those views public Once again, Brendan Eich did not publicly advocate - journalists searched through small donations. > If you think some of your coworkers are lesser, Im sure all of my coworkers hold religious, ethnic, cultural, and gender biases of many kinds. Because they are people. I hope we can minimize these and treat each other with care and respect, and I would not tolerate mistreatment.

s_dev 2y ago

I see you're one of those people where 'compromise' is a dirty word. The key is tolerance. Eich's views while distasteful and probably wrong could be tolerated.

wat10000 2y ago
And why is it always on us to be tolerant, never people like Eich?
- hollerith 2y ago
  Eich was being the more tolerant party: he wasn't trying to get anyone at Mozilla fired for their political beliefs (or their sexual preferences).
  - wat10000 2y ago
    Right, he was just trying to enshrine lesser status in state law. He wanted a bunch of people at Mozilla to be officially lesser in the eyes of the state. But that’s ok, he didn’t try to fire them!
- s_dev 2y ago
  Eich faced those consequences that you would have wanted -- so he wasn't tolerated -- and was forced to step down. Now we're faced with a Web were all Browsers come from large companies and people are wondering why his successors aren't up to the job. The world is made entirely of trade-offs. Your like that boss who doesn't get the Quality/Speed/Price triangle and says I want it all.
  - wat10000 2y ago
    I’m talking about these comments. Why is blame put on the people who wanted Eich out, but not on Eich?
immibis 2y ago
They can be tolerated if the alternative is worse. Having a good browser captained by a homophobe can be better than not having the browser. That doesn't mean the homophobia is good. At the time, no one thought that getting rid of the homophobe would mean there wouldn't be a browser at all. We (the world) got rid of the homophobe, because homophobes are rightfully quite bad, and we didn't think that would stop there from also being a browser.

myrmidon 2y ago

> Why do we always have to blame the people who want to make things better? Because they are not necessarily making things better, they are making things worse (and "good intentions" are no excuse here). In my view, discriminating against someone professionally (and publicly dragging their convictions through the mud) because of privately held political/religious opinions is not acceptable behavior, full stop. I would have some understanding if Eich had been nasty with coworkers, or if his convictions had affected his work. But there were no accusations of this. Lets just flip the thing a bit to make my point clearer: If Eich had been discovered to be (secretly) a stout, godless atheist (sponsoring anti-religious campaigns)-- do you think the same kind of smear campaign/discrimination/career-killing would have been adequate?

wat10000 2y ago
And why don't we blame Eich for making things worse with his "good intentions"? Why don't we consider trying to pass laws that hurt your coworkers to qualify as "being nasty with coworkers"?
- amazingamazing 2y ago
  Eich's view was totally private and pulled up by reporters. The USA is a democracy, it's completely unnecessary to cancel Eich. Just advocate for the opposing view if that's your wish.
  - wat10000 2y ago
    His name was on a published list of donors. It's not like reporters went digging through his trash. Making a donation where there's a legal requirement to publish your contribution is not "totally private." Why is it OK for Eich to try to prevent certain people from getting married, but it's not OK for Eich's employees to try to prevent him from having a certain job? Please explain using small words so I can understand the difference.
    - whatshisface 2y ago