5 ms·

Prop 8 was disgusting, but I would have more reservations about working for a company that fired someone over his political beliefs, than at one that happened t

Prop 8 was disgusting, but I would have more reservations about working for a company that fired someone over his political beliefs, than at one that happened to have a conservative CTO. If I work for a company that takes a cavalier approach to firing, I'm putting my career at risk. But as long as there aren't other character issues, I don't think a conservative CTO is damning. They might not even know; it's not really their job not to hire Republicans. (I can't believe I am, sort of, defending Republicans here.)

lucisferre 14y ago
Actually, you are defending bigots, I'd hate to paint all Republicans with that same brush (despite there being a bit of an apparent pattern).
onemorepassword 14y ago
Maybe it's cultural context, but in my book homophobia has nothing to do with legitimate political beliefs. Being conservative has nothing at all to do with bigotry. Promoting hatred and discrimination towards any group that is part of your (potential) employees and their friends and families would be good reason to fire someone as far as I'm concerned.
- mrgoldenbrown 14y ago
  There's no maybe about it, to me. Cultural context is always going to define what a legitimate political belief is. Unless you believe that there is an objective definition of good and evil that exists outside human culture.
  - pc86 14y ago
    And let's be honest, chances are you believe that you are much more likely to be in favor of Prop 8 than against it.[0] [0] Just to be clear: I'm saying if you have that absolutist view you are much more likely to be fundamentally religious, and an order of magnitude more likely to be opposed to gay marriage.
- michaelochurch 14y ago
  You're right. It was wrong of me to conflate homophobia and conservatism. I found Prop 8 utterly repulsive, but I also dislike the precedent it sets to fire someone over protected political activity (campaign donations).
- simeonf 14y ago
  I can't believe I'm saying this on HN (where I would like to see less political discussion, not more) but having a different cultural and political viewpoint does not make somebody a bigot. The constant assertion that it does is bullying - an attempt to impose your morals on everybody else. Please - if you literally consider the worlds Catholic and Muslim population (to cite two large religious populations nearly uniformly opposed to your position) as possessing beliefs so repellent that you wouldn't work at a company that employed one... then I pity your intolerance for the weird and wacky mosaic that is humanity. I've got plenty of weird and ridiculous beliefs of my own. And sometimes I want to respond to the people I disagree with by identifying them as evil or stupid. Frequently I discover that from their context - the values they were raised with, their own life experiences - their positions are more reasonable than I want to give them credit for. The socialists who grew up immersed in boomer politics, the anarchist who saw his friends beaten up by the cops... The anti-abortion activist who can't believe anyone would kill a baby... and yes the gay friends who can't believe someone doesn't want them to be able to marry the person they love. All people. By all means do your political thing and fight for what you believe in. But hating and smearing anybody who doesn't agree with you doesn't make me sympathetic to your cause.
  - pilgrim689 14y ago
    I'm pretty sure some beliefs actually ruin lives (sexism, racism, homophobia, etc.). Do you just accept all of them as being "weird and wacky"? Shouldn't we draw the line somewhere? Even the great thinkers in ethics like Kant or John Stuart Mills draw the line somewhere, each in their own way... but both utlitarian and kantian ethics would agree that preventing sexuality equality is unethical.
    - AnthonyMouse 14y ago
      >I'm pretty sure some beliefs actually ruin lives Lots of beliefs ruin lives. I can show you conservatives who fervently believe that having high taxes on high income earners would destroy the country, because Henry Ford types would then find it more attractive to take a 40 hour a week management job at an established corporation than to spend 100 hours a week to create a new industry, and the lack of anyone selling affordable transportation would then condemn anyone not born within walking distance of gainful employment opportunities to a life of abject poverty (and so on for each generation's major innovations). There are serious scientists who argue that not imposing a significant carbon tax right now will soon result in irreparable damage to the planet and widespread death, destruction and famine. Then there are people who argue the opposite of these things -- that not imposing serious taxes on the rich will lead to insufferable inequality, that the increase in energy costs that would come from any serious effort to address climate change will be extremely regressive and cause real immediate harm to those living in poverty, etc. Take any issue and you'll find two sides to it. You can believe that your side is right, but the other side believes that their side is right. One of you has to be wrong, but that doesn't mean either of you is evil. Everybody is wrong sometimes. You're sure that it isn't you who is wrong in this specific case because it affects you individually. If you were wrong about this then the result would be to your detriment. But that doesn't prove that you're right -- or that you're wrong. It only proves that you have a stake in the outcome, which (because you're human) makes you want to paint those who disagree with the position you take as the enemy. But they're not evil. They just disagree with you on an issue that personally affects you.
pnathan 14y ago
+1. > I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it -- Attributed to Voltaire. IMO, that perspective is one of the keystones of our culture, and not to be thrown away lightly.
- lawnchair_larry 14y ago
  You should understand that does not apply here. That quote doesn't extend to defending intolerance, because it is wholly incompatible with it. This isn't surprising, but context is often lost with that quote. Think about it for a second, how can you advocate that you would defend one's freedom to limit one's freedom?
  - pnathan 14y ago
    Disagree. If someone wants to be intolerant, that needs also to be defended, up to some limit. Otherwise we wind up embedding our morals onto their life.
  - philh 14y ago
    > how can you advocate that you would defend one's freedom to limit one's freedom? You're confusing the quotation with the referent. (Or at least making a similar class of mistake.) I won't defend your freedom to limit my freedom, but I will defend your freedom to say that my freedom should be limited. (Even if doing that makes it more likely that my freedom will in fact be limited.) I'm sure I'll draw a line somewhere, but so far I can't think of anyone whose speech I find sufficiently scary that I want them silenced.
  - AnthonyMouse 14y ago
    You're failing to distinguish between speech and action. If someone wants to argue that we should limit freedom, let them speak. They may be wrong but we can hear them out -- and once their argument is put in the light of day we can deconstruct it and prove why they're wrong, if they are. There is no need to censor idiots; just give them enough rope and they'll hang themselves in front of everyone. Leaving wrong ideas on display is a necessary part of democracy, because it encourages the refutations to be regularly publicized as well. It requires people to understand why an idea is wrong, rather than merely being told that it is and admonished never to speak of it again. If you don't allow people who are wrong to be wrong in public, they will continue to be wrong in private where no one is there to correct them.
lubujackson 14y ago
To some of the sub-comments to this: Not at all (AT ALL) defending Prop 8 here, but where do you draw the line in cutting these people out of your life? Take the issue of abortion, which is easier to see that there are no easy answers. You either believe that abortion is MURDER or stopping abortion curtails PERSONAL LIBERTY for all women. Either way, people are defending a highly moral position and you can argue against their conclusions but you should at least try to respect their personal opinion, especially if they afford you that same respect. I look at the new Lincoln movie and that makes a lot of these points for me. Everyone is entitled to shun bigots and work only with people they agree with, but there is an opportunity to improve things for everyone by sitting down at the same table with people we disagree with rather than vilifying their existence.
- coldpie 14y ago
  There is pretty clearly a line between those two moral choices. The abortion debate is basically a balancing act between two undesirable outcomes. No one likes abortions, but no one (by simple definition) wants unwanted children, either. Choosing either outcome is very much a moral gray area; how do you know you've made the correct decision? I don't think anyone has the right to make that decision for someone else, but I completely understand where the other side is coming from. On the other hand, there is no such balancing act in same sex marriage. It is an entirely positive, beneficial expression of love between two individuals. There is no choosing a lesser evil, it's simply a good thing. Why would any reasonable person choose to prevent a good thing for absolutely no reason at all? I can't understand the other side at all, because they aren't using any sort of logic to arrive at their conclusion. Frankly, very few issues these days are as stark right-and-wrong as same sex marriage is. I think it's entirely reasonable to shun and openly shame homophobes in 2013. Perhaps you have the patience to sit down and try to talk with these lunatics, but I don't have that kind of patience. Just like racists, homophobes deserve nothing but derision, and just like slavers, they deserve to ultimately be nothing more than a chapter in a civil rights history text. I won't have them in my life, and I am missing nothing by their exclusion.
  - jiggy2011 14y ago

lucisferre 14y ago

Actually, you are defending bigots, I'd hate to paint all Republicans with that same brush (despite there being a bit of an apparent pattern).

onemorepassword 14y ago

Maybe it's cultural context, but in my book homophobia has nothing to do with legitimate political beliefs. Being conservative has nothing at all to do with bigotry. Promoting hatred and discrimination towards any group that is part of your (potential) employees and their friends and families would be good reason to fire someone as far as I'm concerned.

mrgoldenbrown 14y ago
There's no maybe about it, to me. Cultural context is always going to define what a legitimate political belief is. Unless you believe that there is an objective definition of good and evil that exists outside human culture.
- pc86 14y ago
  And let's be honest, chances are you believe that you are much more likely to be in favor of Prop 8 than against it.[0] [0] Just to be clear: I'm saying if you have that absolutist view you are much more likely to be fundamentally religious, and an order of magnitude more likely to be opposed to gay marriage.
michaelochurch 14y ago
You're right. It was wrong of me to conflate homophobia and conservatism. I found Prop 8 utterly repulsive, but I also dislike the precedent it sets to fire someone over protected political activity (campaign donations).
simeonf 14y ago
I can't believe I'm saying this on HN (where I would like to see less political discussion, not more) but having a different cultural and political viewpoint does not make somebody a bigot. The constant assertion that it does is bullying - an attempt to impose your morals on everybody else. Please - if you literally consider the worlds Catholic and Muslim population (to cite two large religious populations nearly uniformly opposed to your position) as possessing beliefs so repellent that you wouldn't work at a company that employed one... then I pity your intolerance for the weird and wacky mosaic that is humanity. I've got plenty of weird and ridiculous beliefs of my own. And sometimes I want to respond to the people I disagree with by identifying them as evil or stupid. Frequently I discover that from their context - the values they were raised with, their own life experiences - their positions are more reasonable than I want to give them credit for. The socialists who grew up immersed in boomer politics, the anarchist who saw his friends beaten up by the cops... The anti-abortion activist who can't believe anyone would kill a baby... and yes the gay friends who can't believe someone doesn't want them to be able to marry the person they love. All people. By all means do your political thing and fight for what you believe in. But hating and smearing anybody who doesn't agree with you doesn't make me sympathetic to your cause.
- pilgrim689 14y ago
  I'm pretty sure some beliefs actually ruin lives (sexism, racism, homophobia, etc.). Do you just accept all of them as being "weird and wacky"? Shouldn't we draw the line somewhere? Even the great thinkers in ethics like Kant or John Stuart Mills draw the line somewhere, each in their own way... but both utlitarian and kantian ethics would agree that preventing sexuality equality is unethical.
  - AnthonyMouse 14y ago
    >I'm pretty sure some beliefs actually ruin lives Lots of beliefs ruin lives. I can show you conservatives who fervently believe that having high taxes on high income earners would destroy the country, because Henry Ford types would then find it more attractive to take a 40 hour a week management job at an established corporation than to spend 100 hours a week to create a new industry, and the lack of anyone selling affordable transportation would then condemn anyone not born within walking distance of gainful employment opportunities to a life of abject poverty (and so on for each generation's major innovations). There are serious scientists who argue that not imposing a significant carbon tax right now will soon result in irreparable damage to the planet and widespread death, destruction and famine. Then there are people who argue the opposite of these things -- that not imposing serious taxes on the rich will lead to insufferable inequality, that the increase in energy costs that would come from any serious effort to address climate change will be extremely regressive and cause real immediate harm to those living in poverty, etc. Take any issue and you'll find two sides to it. You can believe that your side is right, but the other side believes that their side is right. One of you has to be wrong, but that doesn't mean either of you is evil. Everybody is wrong sometimes. You're sure that it isn't you who is wrong in this specific case because it affects you individually. If you were wrong about this then the result would be to your detriment. But that doesn't prove that you're right -- or that you're wrong. It only proves that you have a stake in the outcome, which (because you're human) makes you want to paint those who disagree with the position you take as the enemy. But they're not evil. They just disagree with you on an issue that personally affects you.

pnathan 14y ago

+1. > I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it -- Attributed to Voltaire. IMO, that perspective is one of the keystones of our culture, and not to be thrown away lightly.

lawnchair_larry 14y ago
You should understand that does not apply here. That quote doesn't extend to defending intolerance, because it is wholly incompatible with it. This isn't surprising, but context is often lost with that quote. Think about it for a second, how can you advocate that you would defend one's freedom to limit one's freedom?
- pnathan 14y ago
  Disagree. If someone wants to be intolerant, that needs also to be defended, up to some limit. Otherwise we wind up embedding our morals onto their life.
- philh 14y ago
  > how can you advocate that you would defend one's freedom to limit one's freedom? You're confusing the quotation with the referent. (Or at least making a similar class of mistake.) I won't defend your freedom to limit my freedom, but I will defend your freedom to say that my freedom should be limited. (Even if doing that makes it more likely that my freedom will in fact be limited.) I'm sure I'll draw a line somewhere, but so far I can't think of anyone whose speech I find sufficiently scary that I want them silenced.
- AnthonyMouse 14y ago
  You're failing to distinguish between speech and action. If someone wants to argue that we should limit freedom, let them speak. They may be wrong but we can hear them out -- and once their argument is put in the light of day we can deconstruct it and prove why they're wrong, if they are. There is no need to censor idiots; just give them enough rope and they'll hang themselves in front of everyone. Leaving wrong ideas on display is a necessary part of democracy, because it encourages the refutations to be regularly publicized as well. It requires people to understand why an idea is wrong, rather than merely being told that it is and admonished never to speak of it again. If you don't allow people who are wrong to be wrong in public, they will continue to be wrong in private where no one is there to correct them.

lubujackson 14y ago

To some of the sub-comments to this: Not at all (AT ALL) defending Prop 8 here, but where do you draw the line in cutting these people out of your life? Take the issue of abortion, which is easier to see that there are no easy answers. You either believe that abortion is MURDER or stopping abortion curtails PERSONAL LIBERTY for all women. Either way, people are defending a highly moral position and you can argue against their conclusions but you should at least try to respect their personal opinion, especially if they afford you that same respect. I look at the new Lincoln movie and that makes a lot of these points for me. Everyone is entitled to shun bigots and work only with people they agree with, but there is an opportunity to improve things for everyone by sitting down at the same table with people we disagree with rather than vilifying their existence.

coldpie 14y ago
There is pretty clearly a line between those two moral choices. The abortion debate is basically a balancing act between two undesirable outcomes. No one likes abortions, but no one (by simple definition) wants unwanted children, either. Choosing either outcome is very much a moral gray area; how do you know you've made the correct decision? I don't think anyone has the right to make that decision for someone else, but I completely understand where the other side is coming from. On the other hand, there is no such balancing act in same sex marriage. It is an entirely positive, beneficial expression of love between two individuals. There is no choosing a lesser evil, it's simply a good thing. Why would any reasonable person choose to prevent a good thing for absolutely no reason at all? I can't understand the other side at all, because they aren't using any sort of logic to arrive at their conclusion. Frankly, very few issues these days are as stark right-and-wrong as same sex marriage is. I think it's entirely reasonable to shun and openly shame homophobes in 2013. Perhaps you have the patience to sit down and try to talk with these lunatics, but I don't have that kind of patience. Just like racists, homophobes deserve nothing but derision, and just like slavers, they deserve to ultimately be nothing more than a chapter in a civil rights history text. I won't have them in my life, and I am missing nothing by their exclusion.
- jiggy2011 14y ago