6 ms·

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 big

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.
    - pilgrim689 14y ago

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.
  - pilgrim689 14y ago