8 ms·

I have commented on this issue before [0]. I've been thinking about this again. After reading this I think he still stands to his opinion, that he personally t

by lawl 13y ago

I have commented on this issue before [0]. I've been thinking about this again. After reading this I think he still stands to his opinion, that he personally thinks gay marriage is wrong. Obviously he's an idiot, but I think even idiots are entitled to their opinion as long as it doesn't interfere with his work at mozilla. I think that is also what he's trying to say with his blog post. I think he made it pretty clear that he does not want this to interfere with his work at mozilla. So as long as he does not discriminate LGBT at work, I think he deserves a shot at it. You can't force him to change his opinion. I think that is more honest than an apology he doesn't mean. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7470134 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7470134

nine_k 13y ago
I personally suppose that seeing someone as an idiot because of difference in opinions is more debilitating than having an arbitrarily wrong opinion. World is not black and white, and has never been.
- untog 13y ago
  I personally suppose that seeing someone as an idiot because of difference in opinions Are there any other reasons?
  - coldtea 13y ago
    Yes, the canonical reason is because he has a reduced mental capacity, something that can (possibly) even be measured in standardized tests. Not because he has a different stance on moral issue X.
- Confusion 13y ago
  Funny you should say that, as you are interpreting the comment you are responding to in a decidedly black-and-white fashion. When someone says someone else 'is an idiot', that usually means: "he's an idiot concerning this issue, which is actually surprising, since he mostly holds sensible and defensible opinions". It's not either black-'someone is an idiot in every aspect' or white-'someone is awesome in every aspect'.
  - nine_k 13y ago
    I'm sorry: I take words by their direct meanings, as long as the resulting sentence makes sense. I understand that various (probably arbitrary) interpretations can be attached to a sentence by assuming metaphorical, implied, contextually altered, ironic, humorous, etc meanings of words. I still prefer to assume as little as possible: pluralitas non est ponenda sine necessitas.
badman_ting 13y ago
I agree, and I think that's all fine. I'm sure Brendan will be a great CEO, and I love the programming language he created (warts and all). But I still think the reaction to rarebit pulling their app was problematic. Brendan can have his personal opinion, and rarebit can decide that they don't want to do business with the company whose CEO has that opinion. The "mixing personal opinions and business" crap is just that, crap. Everyone decides their limits, everyone decides who they are willing to do business with.
GuiA 13y ago
As a CEO, you live, breathe and sleep for the company. While the personal/professional division can be easily made for an employee far down on the org chart who does his job for 8 hours and then goes home, can the same be done for a top level executive, let alone the CEO?
- lawl 13y ago
  What do you expect from an answer from me on this? Obviously I'd say yes....
  - GuiA 13y ago
    I'm just trying to understand exactly where our reasoning diverges.
- coldtea 13y ago
  >As a CEO, you live, breathe and sleep for the company You'd be surprised. That's just a myth we have, to justify crazy salaries. In fact, there have been tons of CEOs with golden parachutes who could not give a flying duck for the company that hired them. Nokia's recent-ish management comes to mind.
- macu 13y ago
  This sort of question, in fact the entire uproar, presumes that Brendan Eich is a hateful bigoted person with an agenda, or at least that he has some kind of dangerous impulse we should worry about. Do you think his stomach turns when he's around gay people? I don't believe it for a moment. If anything he probably just feels afraid that someone's going to attack him and accuse him of bigotry. Homophobia and opposition to gay marriage are in my opinion completely different issues, even if they involve many of the same people. We can't automatically hold someone accountable for both.
  - GuiA 13y ago
    See my other comment in this thread that touches on this point: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7476046 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7476046 I don't think that Brendan's stomach turns when he's around gay people or anything like that. However, I do believe that as the CEO of an entity (especially Mozilla), his beliefs will necessarily influence his actions; and that the particular beliefs highlighted by this action are at odds with Mozilla, thus making him ill-suited for a CEO role.
coldtea 13y ago
>I've been thinking about this again. After reading this I think he still stands to his opinion, that he personally thinks gay marriage is wrong. Obviously he's an idiot Well, nothing obvious about it. It's just a cultural preference. If you were born merely 30 years ago, or in another culture, you'd be laughed for even considering the idea of gay marriage. Make it 100 years ago and you would be considered a madman. The thing is, HE might have been raised in another culture than yours (e.g some conservative environment). And there's nothing objective to tell one belief is better than the other. Allowing gay marriage is surely more permissive, but believing that "more permissive is better" is a value judgement, not some natural law.
- lawl 13y ago
  Don't take it too literal. I was just voicing my disagreement :)
  - coldtea 13y ago
    Yep, I tend to do that!
danudey 13y ago
The problem is that of a fundamental issue in character. This is a man who donated a thousand dollars (a not-insignificant sum) in order to prevent a group of people from sharing the same rights as everyone else. What he's saying is that there is a group of people in society who do not deserve to be treated the same as everyone else. I don't really care if he changes his opinion or not; I have an issue with people who go out of their way to prevent other people from having something when it loses them nothing. If there was any sort of reason why banning gay marriage was economically beneficial or caused tangible harm to any group of people, then it would be 'live and let live', but at some point, he decided to attempt to prevent gay people from getting married for no reason other than what effectively comes down to spite. That's not really someone I trust in a leadership position.
- belovedeagle 13y ago
  I agree that it's a shame that some people think that a certain group of people—those who supported prop 8—in society who do not deserve to be treated the same as everyone else. I don't really care if they change their opinion or not; I too have an issue with people who go out of their way to prevent other people from having something—such as a CEO position, or from believing something—when it costs them nothing. If there was any sort of reason why making opposition to gay marriage a thoughtcrime was economically beneficial or caused no [I suppose you meant] tangible harm to any group of people, then it would be 'live and let live', but at some point, they decided to attempt to prevent prop 8 supporters from holding high-profile jobs for no reason other than what effectively comes down to spite. That's not really someone I trust in my society.
- macu 13y ago
  The debate has been going on for years, with enormous investment of all kinds of resources from every side. Everyone involved has a stake, and the claim that "it loses them nothing" indicates a lack of perspective. I can only speak for myself here. I'm 24, and I grew up with the view that religion was a funny ritual the neighbours carried on, because it gave them something to do. Repeat: I grew up with a limited perspective. I saw marriage only as an expensive party and a legal contract. Now I know this isn't the whole story. The idea of allowing gay marriage is deeply offensive to people only because it is perceived to destroy the integrity of their tradition and cultural heritage. I wouldn't take it too lightly, what gay marriage is asking of those who maintain that heritage, because in their hearts it isn't heritage, it's truth. That's how it seems to me now anyway.
techwatching 13y ago
The issues in my mind are the thought processes that lead him to hold his opinions. Those processes generated a prejudiced world view - one held strongly enough to affect behaviour to extend of spending money to bolster that prejudice. Are those the thought processes you want in control of one of the world's most impactful technology companies?
- Tobu 13y ago
  He's arguing for compartmentalisation[1]. This is how most religious people handle clashes between religious beliefs and the world: some topics are tagged for a religious worldview (whose defining feature is unassailable dogma), other topics aren't. In his case there's probably a jagged line that separates his professional duties to LGBT people in the tech community vs his political act against other LGBT people via Prop 8. People who are at the intersection (rarebit) threaten this world view, and the best he can do is handle them case by case[2] while trying very hard not to draw more general conclusions. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compartmentalization_(psychology) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compartmentalization_(psycholo... [2] https://brendaneich.com/2012/04/community-and-diversity/ https://brendaneich.com/2012/04/community-and-diversity/

by lawl 13y ago

nine_k 13y ago

I personally suppose that seeing someone as an idiot because of difference in opinions is more debilitating than having an arbitrarily wrong opinion. World is not black and white, and has never been.

untog 13y ago
I personally suppose that seeing someone as an idiot because of difference in opinions Are there any other reasons?
- coldtea 13y ago
  Yes, the canonical reason is because he has a reduced mental capacity, something that can (possibly) even be measured in standardized tests. Not because he has a different stance on moral issue X.
Confusion 13y ago
Funny you should say that, as you are interpreting the comment you are responding to in a decidedly black-and-white fashion. When someone says someone else 'is an idiot', that usually means: "he's an idiot concerning this issue, which is actually surprising, since he mostly holds sensible and defensible opinions". It's not either black-'someone is an idiot in every aspect' or white-'someone is awesome in every aspect'.
- nine_k 13y ago
  I'm sorry: I take words by their direct meanings, as long as the resulting sentence makes sense. I understand that various (probably arbitrary) interpretations can be attached to a sentence by assuming metaphorical, implied, contextually altered, ironic, humorous, etc meanings of words. I still prefer to assume as little as possible: pluralitas non est ponenda sine necessitas.

badman_ting 13y ago

I agree, and I think that's all fine. I'm sure Brendan will be a great CEO, and I love the programming language he created (warts and all). But I still think the reaction to rarebit pulling their app was problematic. Brendan can have his personal opinion, and rarebit can decide that they don't want to do business with the company whose CEO has that opinion. The "mixing personal opinions and business" crap is just that, crap. Everyone decides their limits, everyone decides who they are willing to do business with.

GuiA 13y ago

As a CEO, you live, breathe and sleep for the company. While the personal/professional division can be easily made for an employee far down on the org chart who does his job for 8 hours and then goes home, can the same be done for a top level executive, let alone the CEO?

lawl 13y ago
What do you expect from an answer from me on this? Obviously I'd say yes....
- GuiA 13y ago
  I'm just trying to understand exactly where our reasoning diverges.
coldtea 13y ago
>As a CEO, you live, breathe and sleep for the company You'd be surprised. That's just a myth we have, to justify crazy salaries. In fact, there have been tons of CEOs with golden parachutes who could not give a flying duck for the company that hired them. Nokia's recent-ish management comes to mind.
macu 13y ago
This sort of question, in fact the entire uproar, presumes that Brendan Eich is a hateful bigoted person with an agenda, or at least that he has some kind of dangerous impulse we should worry about. Do you think his stomach turns when he's around gay people? I don't believe it for a moment. If anything he probably just feels afraid that someone's going to attack him and accuse him of bigotry. Homophobia and opposition to gay marriage are in my opinion completely different issues, even if they involve many of the same people. We can't automatically hold someone accountable for both.
- GuiA 13y ago
  See my other comment in this thread that touches on this point: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7476046 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7476046 I don't think that Brendan's stomach turns when he's around gay people or anything like that. However, I do believe that as the CEO of an entity (especially Mozilla), his beliefs will necessarily influence his actions; and that the particular beliefs highlighted by this action are at odds with Mozilla, thus making him ill-suited for a CEO role.

coldtea 13y ago

>I've been thinking about this again. After reading this I think he still stands to his opinion, that he personally thinks gay marriage is wrong. Obviously he's an idiot Well, nothing obvious about it. It's just a cultural preference. If you were born merely 30 years ago, or in another culture, you'd be laughed for even considering the idea of gay marriage. Make it 100 years ago and you would be considered a madman. The thing is, HE might have been raised in another culture than yours (e.g some conservative environment). And there's nothing objective to tell one belief is better than the other. Allowing gay marriage is surely more permissive, but believing that "more permissive is better" is a value judgement, not some natural law.

lawl 13y ago
Don't take it too literal. I was just voicing my disagreement :)
- coldtea 13y ago
  Yep, I tend to do that!

danudey 13y ago

The problem is that of a fundamental issue in character. This is a man who donated a thousand dollars (a not-insignificant sum) in order to prevent a group of people from sharing the same rights as everyone else. What he's saying is that there is a group of people in society who do not deserve to be treated the same as everyone else. I don't really care if he changes his opinion or not; I have an issue with people who go out of their way to prevent other people from having something when it loses them nothing. If there was any sort of reason why banning gay marriage was economically beneficial or caused tangible harm to any group of people, then it would be 'live and let live', but at some point, he decided to attempt to prevent gay people from getting married for no reason other than what effectively comes down to spite. That's not really someone I trust in a leadership position.

belovedeagle 13y ago
I agree that it's a shame that some people think that a certain group of people—those who supported prop 8—in society who do not deserve to be treated the same as everyone else. I don't really care if they change their opinion or not; I too have an issue with people who go out of their way to prevent other people from having something—such as a CEO position, or from believing something—when it costs them nothing. If there was any sort of reason why making opposition to gay marriage a thoughtcrime was economically beneficial or caused no [I suppose you meant] tangible harm to any group of people, then it would be 'live and let live', but at some point, they decided to attempt to prevent prop 8 supporters from holding high-profile jobs for no reason other than what effectively comes down to spite. That's not really someone I trust in my society.
macu 13y ago
The debate has been going on for years, with enormous investment of all kinds of resources from every side. Everyone involved has a stake, and the claim that "it loses them nothing" indicates a lack of perspective. I can only speak for myself here. I'm 24, and I grew up with the view that religion was a funny ritual the neighbours carried on, because it gave them something to do. Repeat: I grew up with a limited perspective. I saw marriage only as an expensive party and a legal contract. Now I know this isn't the whole story. The idea of allowing gay marriage is deeply offensive to people only because it is perceived to destroy the integrity of their tradition and cultural heritage. I wouldn't take it too lightly, what gay marriage is asking of those who maintain that heritage, because in their hearts it isn't heritage, it's truth. That's how it seems to me now anyway.

techwatching 13y ago

The issues in my mind are the thought processes that lead him to hold his opinions. Those processes generated a prejudiced world view - one held strongly enough to affect behaviour to extend of spending money to bolster that prejudice. Are those the thought processes you want in control of one of the world's most impactful technology companies?

Tobu 13y ago
He's arguing for compartmentalisation[1]. This is how most religious people handle clashes between religious beliefs and the world: some topics are tagged for a religious worldview (whose defining feature is unassailable dogma), other topics aren't. In his case there's probably a jagged line that separates his professional duties to LGBT people in the tech community vs his political act against other LGBT people via Prop 8. People who are at the intersection (rarebit) threaten this world view, and the best he can do is handle them case by case[2] while trying very hard not to draw more general conclusions. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compartmentalization_(psychology) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compartmentalization_(psycholo... [2] https://brendaneich.com/2012/04/community-and-diversity/ https://brendaneich.com/2012/04/community-and-diversity/