8 ms·

It really hurts to know that a person is being ostracized for having political views. I think the pro-gay crowd has gone too far when they try to push an indivi

It really hurts to know that a person is being ostracized for having political views. I think the pro-gay crowd has gone too far when they try to push an individual to support "their" stance, or punish them if they don't. We should be living in world of balance with supporters on both sides, not one in which there is fear for expressing or having expressed belief.

argumentum 13y ago
Would you not agree that the "pro-gay" crowd has the right to express their beliefs about who should be in charge of a product they use? I don't know much about this situation, or Mr. Eich, however, as far as I can tell, that's free speech too.
- aimhb 13y ago
  And they do. They aren't being silenced.
  - Lerc 13y ago
    And neither is Eich. Freedom of expression does not indemnify people from how people react to your expression.
nollidge 13y ago
> It really hurts to know that a person is being ostracized for having political views. Are you also Super Concerned about LGBT folks being ostracized by oppressive policies? This isn't some abstract fucking debate to them. > We should be living in world of balance Fuck that. We should be living in a world of justice.
breadbox 13y ago
You can see it as punishing an individual. But for others, it's more an issue of not supporting someone who is trying to make their lives miserable.
MichaelGG 13y ago
>We should be living in world of balance with supporters on both sides, No, we should not. We should live in a world with correct ideas, full stop. Some ideas are stupid, like racism, creationism, or flat-earth models, and don't deserve "balance". What you call "pro-gay" is actually a human rights issue. Certainly everyone would be all over him if he was promoting racism, right? Or donating to groups to track down and execute people that have committed apostasy? Certainly Stormfront shouldn't be ostracized for having "political views". Where do you draw the line? Is disliking gay people to the extent of wanting to deny them rights less important than Mozilla's goals? Edit: I don't mean to imply that people shouldn't be able to hold incorrect (untrue) beliefs - free speech and thought should be strongly defended. But beliefs are obviously invalid and it should be fair to judge and dismiss people stating untrue things. We don't leap to someone's defense when they say the Earth is flat, why should we defend "two sides" for human rights depending on sexual preference?
- vezzy-fnord 13y ago
  Is disliking gay people to the extent of wanting to deny them rights less important than Mozilla's goals? I'm curious as to how you came to the conclusion that Eich is an overt homophobe. His intentions are still unclear.
  - beedogs 13y ago
    He donated money to prevent gay marriage. It's not really much of a stretch to conclude he's a homophobe. His intentions are pretty transparently obvious.
    - deleted 13y ago
      [deleted]
      - deleted 13y ago
        [deleted]
    - joelrunyon 13y ago
momerath 13y ago
I agree with you in the short term, and disagree in the ideal/long-term. I think we can replace this pachinko machine of representative democracy, not with some one or two dimensional direct-democracy, but with the kind of thing that cypherpunks have been thinking about for decades. But in the short-term, the current zeitgeist, which I _rejoice_ in, as an ex-mormon 'queer' person (so queer I can't categorize myself), I am stricken by the thought that Mozilla may be suffocated by people I would like to hold hands with.
uvTwitch 13y ago
It is great that people are being ostracized for having primitive, hateful beliefs, and society is making it known that demented opinions such as this will not be tolerated, and that a carrier of such beliefs taints everything they are associated with.
ubernostrum 13y ago
If the "pro-gay crowd" were pushing to deny Brendan's basic human rights on the basis of who he is, you might have a case. Brendan supported Proposition 8, which had but one purpose: to deny to a certain group of people a right which is recognized in the US as fundamental. If you're unable to see the difference between disliking someone else's marriage, and campaigning to have their marriage annulled by law, perhaps you should examine that more closely.

argumentum 13y ago

Would you not agree that the "pro-gay" crowd has the right to express their beliefs about who should be in charge of a product they use? I don't know much about this situation, or Mr. Eich, however, as far as I can tell, that's free speech too.

aimhb 13y ago
And they do. They aren't being silenced.
- Lerc 13y ago
  And neither is Eich. Freedom of expression does not indemnify people from how people react to your expression.

nollidge 13y ago

> It really hurts to know that a person is being ostracized for having political views. Are you also Super Concerned about LGBT folks being ostracized by oppressive policies? This isn't some abstract fucking debate to them. > We should be living in world of balance Fuck that. We should be living in a world of justice.

breadbox 13y ago

You can see it as punishing an individual. But for others, it's more an issue of not supporting someone who is trying to make their lives miserable.

MichaelGG 13y ago

>We should be living in world of balance with supporters on both sides, No, we should not. We should live in a world with correct ideas, full stop. Some ideas are stupid, like racism, creationism, or flat-earth models, and don't deserve "balance". What you call "pro-gay" is actually a human rights issue. Certainly everyone would be all over him if he was promoting racism, right? Or donating to groups to track down and execute people that have committed apostasy? Certainly Stormfront shouldn't be ostracized for having "political views". Where do you draw the line? Is disliking gay people to the extent of wanting to deny them rights less important than Mozilla's goals? Edit: I don't mean to imply that people shouldn't be able to hold incorrect (untrue) beliefs - free speech and thought should be strongly defended. But beliefs are obviously invalid and it should be fair to judge and dismiss people stating untrue things. We don't leap to someone's defense when they say the Earth is flat, why should we defend "two sides" for human rights depending on sexual preference?

vezzy-fnord 13y ago
Is disliking gay people to the extent of wanting to deny them rights less important than Mozilla's goals? I'm curious as to how you came to the conclusion that Eich is an overt homophobe. His intentions are still unclear.
- beedogs 13y ago
  He donated money to prevent gay marriage. It's not really much of a stretch to conclude he's a homophobe. His intentions are pretty transparently obvious.
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
    - deleted 13y ago
      [deleted]
  - joelrunyon 13y ago

momerath 13y ago

I agree with you in the short term, and disagree in the ideal/long-term. I think we can replace this pachinko machine of representative democracy, not with some one or two dimensional direct-democracy, but with the kind of thing that cypherpunks have been thinking about for decades. But in the short-term, the current zeitgeist, which I _rejoice_ in, as an ex-mormon 'queer' person (so queer I can't categorize myself), I am stricken by the thought that Mozilla may be suffocated by people I would like to hold hands with.

uvTwitch 13y ago

It is great that people are being ostracized for having primitive, hateful beliefs, and society is making it known that demented opinions such as this will not be tolerated, and that a carrier of such beliefs taints everything they are associated with.

ubernostrum 13y ago

If the "pro-gay crowd" were pushing to deny Brendan's basic human rights on the basis of who he is, you might have a case. Brendan supported Proposition 8, which had but one purpose: to deny to a certain group of people a right which is recognized in the US as fundamental. If you're unable to see the difference between disliking someone else's marriage, and campaigning to have their marriage annulled by law, perhaps you should examine that more closely.