5 ms·

It's a really, really weak argument to claim that "tolerance of intolerance", so to speak, somehow increases diversity. The simple facts here are: 1. Mozilla

It's a really, really weak argument to claim that "tolerance of intolerance", so to speak, somehow increases diversity. The simple facts here are: 1. Mozilla has appointed as a CEO someone who not only doesn't support same-sex marriage, but who has actively contributed to the campaign against it. 2. The CEO is the public face of Mozilla, and to some extent sets the agenda. 3. There are quite a number of developers and others in the community, some of whom work at Mozilla, who are either in or will consider a same-sex marriage at some point in the future. 4. These people are disappointed (reasonably so) that a person who is campaigning against their civil rights has been appointed to a relatively important and visible position. 5. These people, and other organisations and people within the community who support them, are making a clear public statement that this appointment is a problem for them. That's the extent of it, and it's perfectly reasonable. I agree that there's no reason to hate or take this argument to extremes, but it's completely reasonable and fair to take a polite but firm public stance against this appointment.

yummyfajitas 13y ago
Lets change the facts a bit: Mozilla has appointed as a CEO someone who not only doesn't support personal freedom, but who has actively contributed to the communist campaign against it...There are quite a number of developers and others, some of whom work at Mozilla, who are either currently or will consider in the future exercising freedoms that would be forbidden under communism... Perfectly reasonable to campaign against this guy and those like him? Perhaps the Silicon Valley Reporter could publish a black list of communists and their supporters? (I don't actually have a strong opinion on this issue. I used to think it obvious, but I realized my views were confused and inconsistent: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6819575 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6819575 )
- ubernostrum 13y ago
  Any person who seeks to enshrine in law the inequality of a subset of persons before the law should be condemned. Bring proof that a communist conspiracy attempted to do that, I'll happily condemn them for you. Or were you hoping that would be a problem for me?
  - yummyfajitas 13y ago
    Any person who seeks to enshrine in law the inequality of a subset of persons before the law... Like people who are risk loving and prefer to take their chances rather than buy health insurance? People who enjoy mobility more than home ownership? People who enjoy sex with animals more than sex with people? All regulations enshrine in law the inequality of a subset of persons - specifically, the subset of people who would (absent the law) engage in the prohibited action. If you want to argue that gays are a special subset who (unlike all the other subsets) deserve not to have regulations go against their preferences, do it. But the abstract principle you are appealing to probably proves far more than you want it to.
    - ubernostrum 13y ago
      Criminal laws punish violators equally; criminal prohibitions are not an inequality. By the way, I know concern trolling is your schtick, but it just doesn't work out so well.
      - deleted 13y ago
        [deleted]
    - icebraining 13y ago
      If you want to argue that gays are a special subset who (unlike all the other subsets) deserve not to have regulations go against their preferences, do it. It's the other way around. It's gay marriage opponents who argue that heterosexuals couples are a special subset and deserve more rights than other couples.
      - yummyfajitas 13y ago
        Gay marriage opponents believe that the government can regulate and subsidize marriage just like anything else (e.g., wages, consumption of herbs, ownership of a home). I understand this view even if I don't share it - government can regulate anything, and whether gay marriage should be legal or illegal is just the result of a cost/benefit analysis. It's the gay marriage proponents arguing that unlike medical devices or food preparation techniques, gay marriage is somehow beyond the purview of government to regulate. I'm asking about the principles underlying this strange exclusion.
- pekk 13y ago
  Please, there is no "Gay McCarthy"
tomcorrigan 13y ago
> 1. Mozilla has appointed as a CEO someone who not only doesn't support same-sex marriage, but who has actively contributed to the campaign against it Why is "active" support relevant. Surely it is his views that make so many uneasy. > 2. The CEO is the public face of Mozilla, and to some extent sets the agenda. This is true, but of what relevance? Mozilla is not an organisation with an agenda about marriage or LGBTQ rights. > 3. There are quite a number of developers and others in the community, some of whom work at Mozilla, who are either in or will consider a same-sex marriage at some point in the future. I expect there are also some Mormons and Muslims who may wish to practice polygamy, perhaps even some Jews who feel obliged to enter in to a levirate marriage despite already being married. I suspect that any alternative CEO would probably support monogamous marriages only. Presumably the board must enquire as to any candidate's opinion on this matter and woe betide any CEO anywhere who doesn't support polygamy. They too could be in for this kind of treatment. > 4. These people are disappointed (reasonably so) that a person who is campaigning against their civil rights has been appointed to a relatively important and visible position. Brendan Eich is not and never has campaigned against their civil rights. Furthermore, before this appointment Brendan Eich already held a "relatively important and visible position." Brendan Eich simply donated money towards a campaign that he supported for reasons we do not know. He was joined in his view by a MAJORITY of voters at that time.
- masklinn 13y ago
  > Mozilla is not an organisation with an agenda about marriage or LGBTQ rights. They disagree with you: https://blog.mozilla.org/blog/2014/03/29/mozilla-supports-lgbt-equality/ https://blog.mozilla.org/blog/2014/03/29/mozilla-supports-lg... > Brendan Eich is not and never has campaigned against their civil rights. Brendan Eich has given $1000 to remove access to marriage from same-sex couples. Marriage being a civil right (Loving v. Virginia) and money being speech (Buckley v. Valeo), yes he has campaigned against their civil rights. > before this appointment Brendan Eich already held a "relatively important and visible position." He was CTO, he didn't get to decide of Mozilla's overall. > He was joined in his view by a MAJORITY of voters at that time. And he was just as wrong[0] as they were, why does the majority being idiotic make things any different? [0] since it was a majority voting for something which was later found unconstitutional

yummyfajitas 13y ago

Lets change the facts a bit: Mozilla has appointed as a CEO someone who not only doesn't support personal freedom, but who has actively contributed to the communist campaign against it...There are quite a number of developers and others, some of whom work at Mozilla, who are either currently or will consider in the future exercising freedoms that would be forbidden under communism... Perfectly reasonable to campaign against this guy and those like him? Perhaps the Silicon Valley Reporter could publish a black list of communists and their supporters? (I don't actually have a strong opinion on this issue. I used to think it obvious, but I realized my views were confused and inconsistent: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6819575 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6819575 )

ubernostrum 13y ago
Any person who seeks to enshrine in law the inequality of a subset of persons before the law should be condemned. Bring proof that a communist conspiracy attempted to do that, I'll happily condemn them for you. Or were you hoping that would be a problem for me?
- yummyfajitas 13y ago
  Any person who seeks to enshrine in law the inequality of a subset of persons before the law... Like people who are risk loving and prefer to take their chances rather than buy health insurance? People who enjoy mobility more than home ownership? People who enjoy sex with animals more than sex with people? All regulations enshrine in law the inequality of a subset of persons - specifically, the subset of people who would (absent the law) engage in the prohibited action. If you want to argue that gays are a special subset who (unlike all the other subsets) deserve not to have regulations go against their preferences, do it. But the abstract principle you are appealing to probably proves far more than you want it to.
  - ubernostrum 13y ago
    Criminal laws punish violators equally; criminal prohibitions are not an inequality. By the way, I know concern trolling is your schtick, but it just doesn't work out so well.
    - deleted 13y ago
      [deleted]
  - icebraining 13y ago
    If you want to argue that gays are a special subset who (unlike all the other subsets) deserve not to have regulations go against their preferences, do it. It's the other way around. It's gay marriage opponents who argue that heterosexuals couples are a special subset and deserve more rights than other couples.
    - yummyfajitas 13y ago
      Gay marriage opponents believe that the government can regulate and subsidize marriage just like anything else (e.g., wages, consumption of herbs, ownership of a home). I understand this view even if I don't share it - government can regulate anything, and whether gay marriage should be legal or illegal is just the result of a cost/benefit analysis. It's the gay marriage proponents arguing that unlike medical devices or food preparation techniques, gay marriage is somehow beyond the purview of government to regulate. I'm asking about the principles underlying this strange exclusion.
pekk 13y ago
Please, there is no "Gay McCarthy"

tomcorrigan 13y ago

> 1. Mozilla has appointed as a CEO someone who not only doesn't support same-sex marriage, but who has actively contributed to the campaign against it Why is "active" support relevant. Surely it is his views that make so many uneasy. > 2. The CEO is the public face of Mozilla, and to some extent sets the agenda. This is true, but of what relevance? Mozilla is not an organisation with an agenda about marriage or LGBTQ rights. > 3. There are quite a number of developers and others in the community, some of whom work at Mozilla, who are either in or will consider a same-sex marriage at some point in the future. I expect there are also some Mormons and Muslims who may wish to practice polygamy, perhaps even some Jews who feel obliged to enter in to a levirate marriage despite already being married. I suspect that any alternative CEO would probably support monogamous marriages only. Presumably the board must enquire as to any candidate's opinion on this matter and woe betide any CEO anywhere who doesn't support polygamy. They too could be in for this kind of treatment. > 4. These people are disappointed (reasonably so) that a person who is campaigning against their civil rights has been appointed to a relatively important and visible position. Brendan Eich is not and never has campaigned against their civil rights. Furthermore, before this appointment Brendan Eich already held a "relatively important and visible position." Brendan Eich simply donated money towards a campaign that he supported for reasons we do not know. He was joined in his view by a MAJORITY of voters at that time.

masklinn 13y ago
> Mozilla is not an organisation with an agenda about marriage or LGBTQ rights. They disagree with you: https://blog.mozilla.org/blog/2014/03/29/mozilla-supports-lgbt-equality/ https://blog.mozilla.org/blog/2014/03/29/mozilla-supports-lg... > Brendan Eich is not and never has campaigned against their civil rights. Brendan Eich has given $1000 to remove access to marriage from same-sex couples. Marriage being a civil right (Loving v. Virginia) and money being speech (Buckley v. Valeo), yes he has campaigned against their civil rights. > before this appointment Brendan Eich already held a "relatively important and visible position." He was CTO, he didn't get to decide of Mozilla's overall. > He was joined in his view by a MAJORITY of voters at that time. And he was just as wrong[0] as they were, why does the majority being idiotic make things any different? [0] since it was a majority voting for something which was later found unconstitutional