7 ms·

Meh. Prop 8 passed the people's vote with 7,001,084 Californians voting in favor of it and 6,401,482 voting against. Are we to start boycotting every company th

Meh. Prop 8 passed the people's vote with 7,001,084 Californians voting in favor of it and 6,401,482 voting against. Are we to start boycotting every company that employs one of those 7 million people? I'm glad it was made right in the end and I hope at least some of those 7 million people have changed their opinion... but I don't think we need to keep dwelling on it.

Fomite 13y ago
I think it's perfectly reasonable for developers to "keep dwelling" on someone telling them they should have less rights because of who they've chosen to love.
katowulf 13y ago
I doubt that vehement hatred of 7 million people's views will sway them to the cause either. It's just a bit hard to convince people to respect your beliefs while dancing atop their own--narrow-minded or otherwise.
redbad 13y ago
1. There is a difference between voting for something and funding it. 2. There is a difference between being employed by a company and being its CEO. 3. These differences are significant.
- javert 13y ago
  I strongly disagree with #1.
  - eknkc 13y ago
    Money can buy a lot of votes.
  - danielharan 13y ago
    You need a bit more to than simple disagreement when the initial statement is that a donation (of $1,000) and a vote are different.
  - zorpner 13y ago
    Really? Because one is a private and one is a public act, and you might hope a potential CEO would understand that difference.
- wwweston 13y ago
  Significant, but apparently inarticulable? Here's a couple of other differences that might be worth reflecting on: 1. What support Eich provided for proposed law vs actions he's likely to support as CEO -- in other words, what you can actually tell about Eich by the fact that he provided financial support for the law, and what you might know about him by considering a larger totality of his actions. If you want a parallel, consider what Janis Ian has said about Orson Scott Card: http://www.janisian.com/forum/showthread.php?7952-Orson-Scott-Card-and-me http://www.janisian.com/forum/showthread.php?7952-Orson-Scot... 2. Now vs then. In 2008, the then president of the united states supported prop 8. The current president of the US was on record as not sure about it (and against gay marriage). If we're talking about the height of the profile of a position -- and you seem to be in making a distinction between an employee and CEO -- then I'd say leadership of Mozilla is pretty pale by comparison. 3. While Mozilla is arguably a "values" organization (presumably an important distinction), it's working in a sphere that's pretty orthogonal from identity-minority rights. If you'd argue that doesn't matter, I suppose that's one approach, but if so, I presume that you'd also decide that GLAAD should also be generally boycotted because of their 2011 support of the T-Mobile/AT&T merger and opposition to Net Neutrality principles.
- jack-r-abbit 13y ago
  I think we do not share the same opinion about the significance of those differences. But that is ok. I promise not to boycott your company because you have a different belief than me.
famousactress 13y ago
Frankly, it wasn't "made right", nor is it "the end" and we damned sure need to keep "dwelling on it".
- jack-r-abbit 13y ago
  Prop 8 was ruled unconstitutional and same sex marriages have resumed in California. Is that not right? Is that not the end of it?
  - smirksirlot 13y ago
    Not really. It is easy to sweep things under the rug when you're not one of those affected legally, financially, emotionally. I know of people who decided to leave their careers, their homes, and move to another country so that they could be with someone they love. Those decisions changed their lives and it isn't something that just goes away.
bsder 13y ago
Why shouldn't we? If you aren't willing to take the social consequences of your actions, perhaps you should not take those actions, hmmmm?
- fennecfoxen 13y ago
  Why shouldn't you? I dunno: some basic concept of pluralism?
  - bsder 13y ago
    Pluralism does not equal correct. Slavery, women's suffrage, Japanese internment, separate-but-equal ... the list goes on and on.
    - jacalata 13y ago
      Did you intend to just put 'giving women the vote' in a list of bad ideas alongside slavery and Japanese internment camps?
      - malyk 13y ago
        I think he meant that pluralism didn't give women the right to vote for a long time.
        jacalata 13y ago
        makes more sense, thanks.
      - bsder 13y ago
        The majority was on the wrong side of all of those issues for a long time, no?
    - fennecfoxen 13y ago
      Of course it doesn't equal correct. That's the whole point of pluralism! There are some people out there who are on the wrong side of every issue, and maybe it would be nice if we could interact with them anyway instead of declaring their existence anathema, and punishing anyone who associates with their ideological impurities by boycotting them at every conceivable juncture. (Which was what was suggested, no?)
fennecfoxen 13y ago
Welcome to Hacker News, bastion of intellectual freedom, where large number of people will now argue that you should be deprived of employment because you donated money to certain unpopular political campaigns. Next steps include: calling for the resignation of anyone who voted Republican in a recent election.
- ryguytilidie 13y ago
  That is a fantastically creative straw man you just beat up there... Yes, because some people are boycotting a company because their founder voted to take away their civil rights, those people are bad. Nevermind the fact that the person they're criticizing not only voted for, but provided financial support for civil rights to be taken away. But yeah, this basically means people will call for all Republicans to quit their job...? It's pretty incredible how good Republicans are at convincing themselves they're the victim. In a country run by the Republican party based on Christian laws. Just lol, must be tough having people criticize you for taking away other people's rights. I feel terrible for you guys. Now those peoples rights you took away? Nah, they deserved it!
  - fennecfoxen 13y ago
    You seem to imply voting for a cause is okay, but donating $1000 to promote that cause crosses a line. I find this distinction curious. Where is the line? Is it the first penny donated? The first dollar? Dollar #999 of 1000? Does the relevancy of the donation last forever, or is it subject to time decay? And maybe the CEO is more special than an ordinary employee, sure, but where do we draw the line on the person's job description? If a person who has donated to an unfavored group in the past is not an appropriate candidate for CEO anywhere anymore: Is he okay to be the CTO? COO? VP of Engineering? An engineering team lead? A project architect with technology leadership only? And the cause: if donating to Prop 8 is bad, is donating to a politician who supported Prop 8 or legislation to similar effect bad? How about donating to the politician's party? I don't see any great places to draw a clear line and say "Okay, if I keep this side of <x> about a controversial issue, it will be recognized as legitimate political activity by all people on all sides, and my career will not be subject to boycotts in the future." I mean, sure, it's great that you draw the line somewhere less ridiculous, but not particularly comforting in the big picture of things. Any just cause could land on the wrong side of popular opinion eventually - indeed, this cause was on the wrong side of popular opinion only a few decades ago. And this really isn't the kind of principle of political interaction that you can cheer on in a content-neutral way: I therefore contend that we shouldn't cheer it on in a content-specific way either.

Fomite 13y ago

I think it's perfectly reasonable for developers to "keep dwelling" on someone telling them they should have less rights because of who they've chosen to love.

katowulf 13y ago

I doubt that vehement hatred of 7 million people's views will sway them to the cause either. It's just a bit hard to convince people to respect your beliefs while dancing atop their own--narrow-minded or otherwise.

redbad 13y ago

1. There is a difference between voting for something and funding it. 2. There is a difference between being employed by a company and being its CEO. 3. These differences are significant.

javert 13y ago
I strongly disagree with #1.
- eknkc 13y ago
  Money can buy a lot of votes.
- danielharan 13y ago
  You need a bit more to than simple disagreement when the initial statement is that a donation (of $1,000) and a vote are different.
- zorpner 13y ago
  Really? Because one is a private and one is a public act, and you might hope a potential CEO would understand that difference.
wwweston 13y ago
Significant, but apparently inarticulable? Here's a couple of other differences that might be worth reflecting on: 1. What support Eich provided for proposed law vs actions he's likely to support as CEO -- in other words, what you can actually tell about Eich by the fact that he provided financial support for the law, and what you might know about him by considering a larger totality of his actions. If you want a parallel, consider what Janis Ian has said about Orson Scott Card: http://www.janisian.com/forum/showthread.php?7952-Orson-Scott-Card-and-me http://www.janisian.com/forum/showthread.php?7952-Orson-Scot... 2. Now vs then. In 2008, the then president of the united states supported prop 8. The current president of the US was on record as not sure about it (and against gay marriage). If we're talking about the height of the profile of a position -- and you seem to be in making a distinction between an employee and CEO -- then I'd say leadership of Mozilla is pretty pale by comparison. 3. While Mozilla is arguably a "values" organization (presumably an important distinction), it's working in a sphere that's pretty orthogonal from identity-minority rights. If you'd argue that doesn't matter, I suppose that's one approach, but if so, I presume that you'd also decide that GLAAD should also be generally boycotted because of their 2011 support of the T-Mobile/AT&T merger and opposition to Net Neutrality principles.
jack-r-abbit 13y ago
I think we do not share the same opinion about the significance of those differences. But that is ok. I promise not to boycott your company because you have a different belief than me.

famousactress 13y ago

Frankly, it wasn't "made right", nor is it "the end" and we damned sure need to keep "dwelling on it".

jack-r-abbit 13y ago
Prop 8 was ruled unconstitutional and same sex marriages have resumed in California. Is that not right? Is that not the end of it?
- smirksirlot 13y ago
  Not really. It is easy to sweep things under the rug when you're not one of those affected legally, financially, emotionally. I know of people who decided to leave their careers, their homes, and move to another country so that they could be with someone they love. Those decisions changed their lives and it isn't something that just goes away.

bsder 13y ago

Why shouldn't we? If you aren't willing to take the social consequences of your actions, perhaps you should not take those actions, hmmmm?

fennecfoxen 13y ago
Why shouldn't you? I dunno: some basic concept of pluralism?
- bsder 13y ago
  Pluralism does not equal correct. Slavery, women's suffrage, Japanese internment, separate-but-equal ... the list goes on and on.
  - jacalata 13y ago
    Did you intend to just put 'giving women the vote' in a list of bad ideas alongside slavery and Japanese internment camps?
    - malyk 13y ago
      I think he meant that pluralism didn't give women the right to vote for a long time.
      - jacalata 13y ago
        makes more sense, thanks.
    - bsder 13y ago
      The majority was on the wrong side of all of those issues for a long time, no?
  - fennecfoxen 13y ago
    Of course it doesn't equal correct. That's the whole point of pluralism! There are some people out there who are on the wrong side of every issue, and maybe it would be nice if we could interact with them anyway instead of declaring their existence anathema, and punishing anyone who associates with their ideological impurities by boycotting them at every conceivable juncture. (Which was what was suggested, no?)

fennecfoxen 13y ago

Welcome to Hacker News, bastion of intellectual freedom, where large number of people will now argue that you should be deprived of employment because you donated money to certain unpopular political campaigns. Next steps include: calling for the resignation of anyone who voted Republican in a recent election.

ryguytilidie 13y ago
That is a fantastically creative straw man you just beat up there... Yes, because some people are boycotting a company because their founder voted to take away their civil rights, those people are bad. Nevermind the fact that the person they're criticizing not only voted for, but provided financial support for civil rights to be taken away. But yeah, this basically means people will call for all Republicans to quit their job...? It's pretty incredible how good Republicans are at convincing themselves they're the victim. In a country run by the Republican party based on Christian laws. Just lol, must be tough having people criticize you for taking away other people's rights. I feel terrible for you guys. Now those peoples rights you took away? Nah, they deserved it!
- fennecfoxen 13y ago
  You seem to imply voting for a cause is okay, but donating $1000 to promote that cause crosses a line. I find this distinction curious. Where is the line? Is it the first penny donated? The first dollar? Dollar #999 of 1000? Does the relevancy of the donation last forever, or is it subject to time decay? And maybe the CEO is more special than an ordinary employee, sure, but where do we draw the line on the person's job description? If a person who has donated to an unfavored group in the past is not an appropriate candidate for CEO anywhere anymore: Is he okay to be the CTO? COO? VP of Engineering? An engineering team lead? A project architect with technology leadership only? And the cause: if donating to Prop 8 is bad, is donating to a politician who supported Prop 8 or legislation to similar effect bad? How about donating to the politician's party? I don't see any great places to draw a clear line and say "Okay, if I keep this side of <x> about a controversial issue, it will be recognized as legitimate political activity by all people on all sides, and my career will not be subject to boycotts in the future." I mean, sure, it's great that you draw the line somewhere less ridiculous, but not particularly comforting in the big picture of things. Any just cause could land on the wrong side of popular opinion eventually - indeed, this cause was on the wrong side of popular opinion only a few decades ago. And this really isn't the kind of principle of political interaction that you can cheer on in a content-neutral way: I therefore contend that we shouldn't cheer it on in a content-specific way either.