6 ms·

I'd like to urge everyone to consider whether it's a good idea to comment on this story. If you voice an opinion in support of Eich, obviously that's going to b

by Camillo 13y ago

I'd like to urge everyone to consider whether it's a good idea to comment on this story. If you voice an opinion in support of Eich, obviously that's going to be a liability in the future. But voicing an opinion against him is also a liability - there is no telling how the zeitgeist might change ten or twenty years from now. I think it's best to voice no opinion at all - and I hope this comment is not misconstrued as support for any particular position.

nine_k 13y ago
What a sad example of meandering with the party line I see here. The desire to have always had the currently approved opinion is bad enough as it is, but the need to have it to comply with political correctness, or face a "liability", is worse.
hkphooey 13y ago
I disagree. People have died for the right to speak their minds so don't live in fear of what may or may not happen. If you have an opinion, voice it. If somebody is going to discriminate against you because of your opinion, then they are the bigot. Don't let political correctness silence you.
nikatwork 13y ago
So your suggestion is - don't ask, don't tell? Sorry but I think it's important to discuss these issues out in the open. If calling out homophobia is a liability, then I'm happy to be guilty as charged.
dinkumthinkum 13y ago
I don't think you meant anything bad by this but this statement makes it seem like you are overly concerned with being political or extremely worried about literally voicing your own view. It's not exactly like "When they came for X I did not care because was not X" but its sort of in the ballpark. Sure, it is a charged issue. But if the zeitgeist changes in twenty years to march further toward theocracy then I think I will be voicing opposition against that. :)
kevingadd 13y ago
That's wrong. Simple as that.
kefka 13y ago
And I would argue that fighting against marriage rights (for LGBT) is our version of Jim Crow laws. History will show that people; all people deserve equal rights and protections under the law. Desegregation took decades, and arguably still isn't completely successful, given laws that disproportionately target black communities. And this isn't about a church refusing to marry someone because of their sexuality. This is about governmental rights and legal rights conferred to married couples. Or on a more dour note: What happens if a homosexual couple moves to a state that bans that practice, and they choose to divorce? That's why this stuff is important.
- drone 13y ago
  If it's important, shouldn't people be able to have a conversation, and fund a conversation? The supreme court has equated financial contribution with speech, and many of us agree with that position. Therefore, we can only see this as an attempt to ostracize and attack anyone who speaks to the opposite side. This action is chilling on speech, which is exactly what the OP was talking about. Just because you don't see it that way, doesn't mean it isn't, and won't be perceived by others that way. I think proposition 8 was the wrong thing, promoted for bad reasons and on the wrong side of where society needs to be, but I also happen to feel that this attempt to quash any possibility of opposing free speech by ensuring to mob anyone who rises to the top having once taken a view we don't agree with as far more dangerous and harmful for our society than prop 8 could ever have been. It enforces positions without the liberty of allowing speech, and without the ability to challenge in court, as bad laws do.
  - asdfologist 13y ago
    Simply "taking a view we don't agree with" isn't the same thing as actively funding an effort to take away the rights of others, including ones who work in the company you're managing.
  - kefka 13y ago
    > The supreme court has equated financial contribution with speech, and many of us agree with that position. I think this is the root issue here. SCOTUS declared by fiat that financial contribution is speech. According to our law, it is now. The people do not see that the same way. Giving lip service is speech, while money is altogether something different. What it is, I do not know. And it seems much more akin to "buying laws", which I think many people find something terribly wrong in our government today.
fletchowns 13y ago
I don't think those are very good reasons to refrain from voicing your opinion. If everyone had that mentality I don't think the world would be a very good place. There's certainly a handful of instances where you should keep your opinion to yourself (such as in the workplace), this is not one of them though. I think it's easy to predict where things are going with this topic: no discrimination and equal rights for all. That has been the steady march of progress for a very long time, and it will continue onward. Of course it doesn't happen without setbacks, but we all know where things will end up eventually, simply because it's the right thing to do.
asdfologist 13y ago
I agree. Posting HackerNews comments in favor of gay rights is going to haunt you 20 years later, because clearly homosexuality is becoming less accepted over time.
badman_ting 13y ago
To paraphrase Bert Cooper, who is really making the comment anyway?
Zigurd 13y ago
How many people here work with Google technologies and yet are quite able to criticize Google for not providing easy tools for end-to-end encryption and/or for taking part in anti-poaching collusion?
jack-r-abbit 13y ago
I have no problems going on record with this: I did not (and continue to not) support Prop 8. I do not support Eich's decision to fund the prop. I do support his right to fund the prop. I do not support a boycott of Mozilla solely because Eich was appointed CEO. My opinion of Firefox remains unchanged and I will continue to use it with the same (low) frequency I have for the past few years.

by Camillo 13y ago

nine_k 13y ago

What a sad example of meandering with the party line I see here. The desire to have always had the currently approved opinion is bad enough as it is, but the need to have it to comply with political correctness, or face a "liability", is worse.

hkphooey 13y ago

I disagree. People have died for the right to speak their minds so don't live in fear of what may or may not happen. If you have an opinion, voice it. If somebody is going to discriminate against you because of your opinion, then they are the bigot. Don't let political correctness silence you.

nikatwork 13y ago

So your suggestion is - don't ask, don't tell? Sorry but I think it's important to discuss these issues out in the open. If calling out homophobia is a liability, then I'm happy to be guilty as charged.

dinkumthinkum 13y ago

I don't think you meant anything bad by this but this statement makes it seem like you are overly concerned with being political or extremely worried about literally voicing your own view. It's not exactly like "When they came for X I did not care because was not X" but its sort of in the ballpark. Sure, it is a charged issue. But if the zeitgeist changes in twenty years to march further toward theocracy then I think I will be voicing opposition against that. :)

kevingadd 13y ago

That's wrong. Simple as that.

kefka 13y ago

And I would argue that fighting against marriage rights (for LGBT) is our version of Jim Crow laws. History will show that people; all people deserve equal rights and protections under the law. Desegregation took decades, and arguably still isn't completely successful, given laws that disproportionately target black communities. And this isn't about a church refusing to marry someone because of their sexuality. This is about governmental rights and legal rights conferred to married couples. Or on a more dour note: What happens if a homosexual couple moves to a state that bans that practice, and they choose to divorce? That's why this stuff is important.

drone 13y ago
If it's important, shouldn't people be able to have a conversation, and fund a conversation? The supreme court has equated financial contribution with speech, and many of us agree with that position. Therefore, we can only see this as an attempt to ostracize and attack anyone who speaks to the opposite side. This action is chilling on speech, which is exactly what the OP was talking about. Just because you don't see it that way, doesn't mean it isn't, and won't be perceived by others that way. I think proposition 8 was the wrong thing, promoted for bad reasons and on the wrong side of where society needs to be, but I also happen to feel that this attempt to quash any possibility of opposing free speech by ensuring to mob anyone who rises to the top having once taken a view we don't agree with as far more dangerous and harmful for our society than prop 8 could ever have been. It enforces positions without the liberty of allowing speech, and without the ability to challenge in court, as bad laws do.
- asdfologist 13y ago
  Simply "taking a view we don't agree with" isn't the same thing as actively funding an effort to take away the rights of others, including ones who work in the company you're managing.
- kefka 13y ago
  > The supreme court has equated financial contribution with speech, and many of us agree with that position. I think this is the root issue here. SCOTUS declared by fiat that financial contribution is speech. According to our law, it is now. The people do not see that the same way. Giving lip service is speech, while money is altogether something different. What it is, I do not know. And it seems much more akin to "buying laws", which I think many people find something terribly wrong in our government today.

fletchowns 13y ago

I don't think those are very good reasons to refrain from voicing your opinion. If everyone had that mentality I don't think the world would be a very good place. There's certainly a handful of instances where you should keep your opinion to yourself (such as in the workplace), this is not one of them though. I think it's easy to predict where things are going with this topic: no discrimination and equal rights for all. That has been the steady march of progress for a very long time, and it will continue onward. Of course it doesn't happen without setbacks, but we all know where things will end up eventually, simply because it's the right thing to do.

asdfologist 13y ago

I agree. Posting HackerNews comments in favor of gay rights is going to haunt you 20 years later, because clearly homosexuality is becoming less accepted over time.

badman_ting 13y ago

To paraphrase Bert Cooper, who is really making the comment anyway?

Zigurd 13y ago

How many people here work with Google technologies and yet are quite able to criticize Google for not providing easy tools for end-to-end encryption and/or for taking part in anti-poaching collusion?

jack-r-abbit 13y ago

I have no problems going on record with this: I did not (and continue to not) support Prop 8. I do not support Eich's decision to fund the prop. I do support his right to fund the prop. I do not support a boycott of Mozilla solely because Eich was appointed CEO. My opinion of Firefox remains unchanged and I will continue to use it with the same (low) frequency I have for the past few years.