7 ms·

Ah yes, the guy who donated $1000 to Proposition 8. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3793012 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3793012

egeozcan 13y ago
I think this may be relevant for the people who may want to attend. Why the down-vote?
- aaronem 13y ago
  Those who are so foolish as to boycott a programming language, because their politics may not be entirely simpatico with those of its inventor, need no reminding; those not so foolish don't care.
  - egeozcan 13y ago
    I love JavaScript but I care. Also, going as far as calling people fools show that you care more than you may think about what others think.
    - aaronem 13y ago
      You mistake 'foolish' for a value judgment. It is a statement of fact. Participation in this conference offers enormous benefit to any Javascript developer; to consider absenting oneself, because of a political disagreement with a keynote speaker, evinces that poor judgment which is the very soul of foolishness.
      - egeozcan 13y ago
        Isn't it a bit foolish that you decide for everyone that benefits in their career would eclipse their will to defend their freedom?
        aaronem 13y ago
        It is hyperbole verging upon silliness to conflate evaluating a person's actions in order to form an opinion of him, and actually making decisions for that person. It is likewise to conflate "defending freedom", whatever you might mean by that uselessly nebulous phrase, with boycotting an extremely valuable conference, because it is keynoted by someone who may perhaps once have invented a programming language of some slight interest, but who, much more importantly, once donated a trivial sum of money in support of a campaign for a plebiscite whose result was promptly vacated by the Supreme Court. No doubt, for someone to whom this would actually matter, boycotting the conference would seem a principled act providing a lovely warm glow of righteousness. I submit that there are many ways of obtaining said lovely warm glow, most of which do not entail denying oneself the opportunity to study with many high luminaries of one's chosen field. For example, one might donate $1000, or perhaps some greater sum, to some organization advancing the cause of gay marriage, and thus feel free to attend the conference without fear of moral taint.
        egeozcan 13y ago
        The value of the conference differs to each person as much as the value of doing his/her best not to support people who support discrimination. Your values are different. I respect that. I think you should learn to respect other values too.
- bolder88 13y ago
  In what possible way is it relevant? Why would it even be something anyone attending would care about? The conference is about programming, not gayness. Good on him for standing up for what he believes in, and putting his money where his mouth is. If only more did the same.
  - nawitus 13y ago
    >Good on him for standing up for what he believes in, and putting his money where his mouth is. If only more did the same. I don't actually think it's good that people donate money on advancing discriminatory policies, even if they believe in them.
    - bolder88 13y ago
      Is the word "waitress" discriminatory and sexist as well? Should we campaign to get that word redefined so it includes men? People who say yes to the above are the ones sapping all the fun and enjoyment out of the world in the name of their crazy political correctness bullshit. I don't think it's fruitful to get into such an argument here, so lets just agree to disagree.
      - egeozcan 13y ago
        I don't see anyone suggesting to put anyone in jail. It is important for a lot of people to know the stance of person they're supporting (by buying tickets or listening) towards such subjects. There's no harm coming from informing people as long as it is not a call for a witch-hunt.
      - m0a0t0 13y ago
        Gay marriage and the word waitress. One of them is a human rights issue, the other is a word for people with a certain job and, like many other words for people who have a certain job, changes depending on the gender of the person. This is a useful distinction and is really just a matter of words, however denying gay people the right to marry obviously is not.
- yeukhon 13y ago
  Iff I had the downvote button I would downvote. How is that even relevant at all? Do we all have to agree on everything? Is it wrong for someone to support that? If that is relevant, pretty much the same mistake NASA has made: http://www.theguardian.com/science/2013/oct/11/nasa-chinese-scientists-conference-ban http://www.theguardian.com/science/2013/oct/11/nasa-chinese-... Not relevant. In an open source web world, people can have different political opinion, social opinion. If gayes want equality and stop discrimination, then let other people enjoy their own freedom of not agreeing with everything the "norm" seems to agree on. If he's Catholic, do half of the non-Catholic, and anti-Catholic people have to leave this conference? Sentiment is understandable, but don't bring that up in a technical conference. The NSA thing at BlackHat is also controversial. While I disagree with what NSA is doing most of the time, I think we should pay some respect to the speaker while the speaker is speaking on stage. You can protest afterward.
  - egeozcan 13y ago
    Ban on gay marriage is not a political subject. It is a way of discrimination. It's against the human rights. Would it be ok for you if the person you're listening to supports a ban on Chinese having children? What if you were Chinese? Freedom ends when you restrict others. Spreading awareness on such subjects helps individuals decide if the subject is important enough for them to personally show their disapproval. This is totally relevant.
    - yeukhon 13y ago
      Here is my clear stand and let's be realistic here: nothing can escape political system. As a civilization, there is law. And law is created and written by people with political agenda. It is sad but that's the nature. Whether or not you like it, Bill of Rights is a political, legal document created and written by politicians who want to protect the interest of the people. I don't discriminate gays at all. I have my opinion on gays, abortion, education and government reform. We all do, right? What people are doing here is making a difficult call for organizers and attendees. Should they attend this talk they could be called "criminals" since no one should be looking up to someone opposing gay rights. And I think that call is difficult.

egeozcan 13y ago

I think this may be relevant for the people who may want to attend. Why the down-vote?

aaronem 13y ago
Those who are so foolish as to boycott a programming language, because their politics may not be entirely simpatico with those of its inventor, need no reminding; those not so foolish don't care.
- egeozcan 13y ago
  I love JavaScript but I care. Also, going as far as calling people fools show that you care more than you may think about what others think.
  - aaronem 13y ago
    You mistake 'foolish' for a value judgment. It is a statement of fact. Participation in this conference offers enormous benefit to any Javascript developer; to consider absenting oneself, because of a political disagreement with a keynote speaker, evinces that poor judgment which is the very soul of foolishness.
    - egeozcan 13y ago
      Isn't it a bit foolish that you decide for everyone that benefits in their career would eclipse their will to defend their freedom?
      - aaronem 13y ago
        It is hyperbole verging upon silliness to conflate evaluating a person's actions in order to form an opinion of him, and actually making decisions for that person. It is likewise to conflate "defending freedom", whatever you might mean by that uselessly nebulous phrase, with boycotting an extremely valuable conference, because it is keynoted by someone who may perhaps once have invented a programming language of some slight interest, but who, much more importantly, once donated a trivial sum of money in support of a campaign for a plebiscite whose result was promptly vacated by the Supreme Court. No doubt, for someone to whom this would actually matter, boycotting the conference would seem a principled act providing a lovely warm glow of righteousness. I submit that there are many ways of obtaining said lovely warm glow, most of which do not entail denying oneself the opportunity to study with many high luminaries of one's chosen field. For example, one might donate $1000, or perhaps some greater sum, to some organization advancing the cause of gay marriage, and thus feel free to attend the conference without fear of moral taint.
        egeozcan 13y ago
        The value of the conference differs to each person as much as the value of doing his/her best not to support people who support discrimination. Your values are different. I respect that. I think you should learn to respect other values too.
bolder88 13y ago
In what possible way is it relevant? Why would it even be something anyone attending would care about? The conference is about programming, not gayness. Good on him for standing up for what he believes in, and putting his money where his mouth is. If only more did the same.
- nawitus 13y ago
  >Good on him for standing up for what he believes in, and putting his money where his mouth is. If only more did the same. I don't actually think it's good that people donate money on advancing discriminatory policies, even if they believe in them.
  - bolder88 13y ago
    Is the word "waitress" discriminatory and sexist as well? Should we campaign to get that word redefined so it includes men? People who say yes to the above are the ones sapping all the fun and enjoyment out of the world in the name of their crazy political correctness bullshit. I don't think it's fruitful to get into such an argument here, so lets just agree to disagree.
    - egeozcan 13y ago
      I don't see anyone suggesting to put anyone in jail. It is important for a lot of people to know the stance of person they're supporting (by buying tickets or listening) towards such subjects. There's no harm coming from informing people as long as it is not a call for a witch-hunt.
    - m0a0t0 13y ago
      Gay marriage and the word waitress. One of them is a human rights issue, the other is a word for people with a certain job and, like many other words for people who have a certain job, changes depending on the gender of the person. This is a useful distinction and is really just a matter of words, however denying gay people the right to marry obviously is not.
yeukhon 13y ago
Iff I had the downvote button I would downvote. How is that even relevant at all? Do we all have to agree on everything? Is it wrong for someone to support that? If that is relevant, pretty much the same mistake NASA has made: http://www.theguardian.com/science/2013/oct/11/nasa-chinese-scientists-conference-ban http://www.theguardian.com/science/2013/oct/11/nasa-chinese-... Not relevant. In an open source web world, people can have different political opinion, social opinion. If gayes want equality and stop discrimination, then let other people enjoy their own freedom of not agreeing with everything the "norm" seems to agree on. If he's Catholic, do half of the non-Catholic, and anti-Catholic people have to leave this conference? Sentiment is understandable, but don't bring that up in a technical conference. The NSA thing at BlackHat is also controversial. While I disagree with what NSA is doing most of the time, I think we should pay some respect to the speaker while the speaker is speaking on stage. You can protest afterward.
- egeozcan 13y ago
  Ban on gay marriage is not a political subject. It is a way of discrimination. It's against the human rights. Would it be ok for you if the person you're listening to supports a ban on Chinese having children? What if you were Chinese? Freedom ends when you restrict others. Spreading awareness on such subjects helps individuals decide if the subject is important enough for them to personally show their disapproval. This is totally relevant.
  - yeukhon 13y ago
    Here is my clear stand and let's be realistic here: nothing can escape political system. As a civilization, there is law. And law is created and written by people with political agenda. It is sad but that's the nature. Whether or not you like it, Bill of Rights is a political, legal document created and written by politicians who want to protect the interest of the people. I don't discriminate gays at all. I have my opinion on gays, abortion, education and government reform. We all do, right? What people are doing here is making a difficult call for organizers and attendees. Should they attend this talk they could be called "criminals" since no one should be looking up to someone opposing gay rights. And I think that call is difficult.