4 ms·

It's ridiculous that people can't join causes because of their political beliefs. So the community is saying we don't want people standing up for free software

It's ridiculous that people can't join causes because of their political beliefs. So the community is saying we don't want people standing up for free software if they are also against gay marriage. Should we go all-out liberal and say representatives of our cause must be pro-abortion, pro-pot, pro-gun control, pro-socialized healthcare? Hell, the conservatives can do the same thing too! We'll make sure there's only 2 political parties you can vote for and if you like some ideas from one and some from the other, too bad! All your opinions must be grouped together, and the whole world should be divided into 2 opposite ends. Or we can live in a world where we respect everyone's beliefs. We can allow them to join both liberal and conservative causes, because we're not 2 political parties fighting but individual humans all trying to make the world a better place? It's amazing the mentality with politics these days, where people have to risk their life just for standing up for themselves.

nollidge 13y ago
> Or we can live in a world where we respect everyone's beliefs. Why? Some beliefs are stupid and/or harmful. Why should I respect bad ideas?
- artacus 13y ago
  Tolerance is the virtue of the man without convictions. Gilbert K. Chesterton
  - dang 13y ago
    Chesterton was talented, but he was glib. Tolerance is one of the most difficult virtues and we need a lot more of it on Hacker News.
- Pacabel 13y ago
  I don't think he necessarily meant that you need to respect the beliefs themselves, especially if you don't agree with them. Rather, I think it's more about everyone respecting the ability of everyone else to hold their own set of beliefs, even if you disagree with theirs, and even if they may disagree with yours. In this particular incident we've seen a lot of hypocrisy. We've seen a lot of people calling for "tolerance" and "equality", yet to them that means merely that their viewpoint must be the only one that can be held or expressed. It ends up being a very quaint, twisted interpretation of tolerance and equality.
  - MichaelGG 13y ago
    What does it mean to "respect the ability of everyone to hold their own set of beliefs"? How would I apply this to, e.g. Time Cube guy or the KKK?
    - vezzy-fnord 13y ago
      If you do not respect people's freedom to hold the most fringe and controversial of opinions, then you are opposed to free speech by nature. You don't have to agree with the opinion being expressed, but with the right to express it.
    - joelrunyon 13y ago
      I'm not sure who the Timecube guy is, but you include the KKK with that & you defend their ability to say what they believe. That's what free speech is. "I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it." - Voltaire
      - jaredsohn 13y ago
        >I'm not sure who the Timecube guy is http://www.timecube.com/ http://www.timecube.com/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_Cube http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_Cube
        joelrunyon 13y ago
        Okay, stupid idea - maybe, but am I going to tell the internet to take his site down? No. When did we get afraid to let people make up their own minds on things? For every out-there crazy idea that's the work of a nut-job, there's one out-there crazy idea that just might work.
        MichaelGG 13y ago
        It was my mis-interpretation of "respect the ability of everyone to hold their own set of beliefs" to mean free speech/thought that led me to mention Time Cube. Of course he should be able to have his site. But I might decide I wouldn't want to work with him, trust his opinion, or have him represent me. Is anyone saying that Eich shouldn't be able to believe what he wants? Or are people upset that someone campaigning against civil liberties is now representing and leading Mozilla?
- joshlegs 13y ago
  because respecting someone's beliefs == respecting that person. you can think the the beliefs are stupid, but you can still respect them.
  - MichaelGG 13y ago
    What does it mean to respect a belief, or have it equal to respecting the person? Some people would have others hung for dating outside their race - what does it entail exactly to "respect that person"? Like, admit they are human and should be allowed to hold their own beliefs? Because you can do that while holding someone in complete contempt.
    - anaphor 13y ago
      It means that you attack their beliefs, not the person themself. Or you publicize their views and say that you disagree with them. In this case there are some people doing just that, which is fine. However IMO trying to launch a boycott against Firefox is silly and poorly thought out. You are only increasing the chance that people will be harrassed (disrespected) for their browser choice, and pushing people towards non-free software like Chrome and MSIE.
  - anaphor 13y ago
    Finally someone who gets it. Free speech isn't about some abstract right that you can only technically exercise. Everyone also has the right to associate with whoever they chose. But launching public campaigns designed to restrict the speech of someone is not okay in my view, it's like a form of harrassment I think. Launching campaigns to _discredit their ideas_ however, is better I think. Also just launching a campaign to publicize their views is fine, as long as they're backed up with evidence (which they are in this case). I may be on the wrong side of this issue but I refuse to take part in boycotts because I think they're ineffective and just harmful, unless of course the product itself is harming people in some way.
    - nollidge 13y ago
      No, neither of you get it. All you have is the right to speech free from governmental impedance; you do not have any sort of right to speech free from civil consequences. Boycotts are a form of free speech too, you know. How come you're not so antsy to defend those rights, I wonder?
ctdonath 13y ago
Should we go all-out liberal and say representatives of our cause must be... That "must be..." bit is the antithesis of "liberal". Seems the banner of "liberal" was waved only to get unpopular views tolerated until the "liberals" garnered enough influence to silence their opposition. To go "all-out liberal" would say "representatives of our cause must respect those who think abortion is murder, pot is self-destructive, guns are vital for self-defense, and one's healthcare is not subject to public compulsion; we don't agree, but respect that sensible people can and do hold differing views because of differing axioms. Since the subject at hand is web browsing software, and those subjects have absolutely nothing to do with this, we will not ostracize people because of those common differences of irrelevant opinion."
- throwaway5752 13y ago
  No, that is pluralism. Liberalism actually means something. They are not mutually exclusive. edit: This story was correctly flagged off the homepage. There are other places far more appropriate on the internet to learn about political philosophy than HN if you're sincerely interested, and they are not hard to find.
  - scintill76 13y ago
    What does liberalism mean then? Honest question.
    - ubernostrum 13y ago
      Robert Browning said it well ("Why I Am a Liberal"): But little do or can the best of us: That little is achieved through Liberty. Who, then, dares hold, emancipated thus, His fellow shall continue bound? Not I, Who live, love, labour freely, nor discuss A brother's right to freedom. That is "Why."
- scintill76 13y ago
  I have heard this named as a difference between liberals and progressives. Progressives want to reform away everything they think is wrong, in the name of societal progress. Liberals, while not being conservative (opposed to change), care more for liberty and equality, respecting even views they don't like. That's kind of the way I see it. I don't know if there are solid definitions for these terms, so I'm open to corrections if I'm way off here.
ossreality 13y ago
>where people have to risk their life just for standing up for themselves. Hm. I want to stand up for my equality. Brendan wants to stand up for his right to treat me as less equal. Yep, sound equally comparable.

nollidge 13y ago

> Or we can live in a world where we respect everyone's beliefs. Why? Some beliefs are stupid and/or harmful. Why should I respect bad ideas?

artacus 13y ago
Tolerance is the virtue of the man without convictions. Gilbert K. Chesterton
- dang 13y ago
  Chesterton was talented, but he was glib. Tolerance is one of the most difficult virtues and we need a lot more of it on Hacker News.
Pacabel 13y ago
I don't think he necessarily meant that you need to respect the beliefs themselves, especially if you don't agree with them. Rather, I think it's more about everyone respecting the ability of everyone else to hold their own set of beliefs, even if you disagree with theirs, and even if they may disagree with yours. In this particular incident we've seen a lot of hypocrisy. We've seen a lot of people calling for "tolerance" and "equality", yet to them that means merely that their viewpoint must be the only one that can be held or expressed. It ends up being a very quaint, twisted interpretation of tolerance and equality.
- MichaelGG 13y ago
  What does it mean to "respect the ability of everyone to hold their own set of beliefs"? How would I apply this to, e.g. Time Cube guy or the KKK?
  - vezzy-fnord 13y ago
    If you do not respect people's freedom to hold the most fringe and controversial of opinions, then you are opposed to free speech by nature. You don't have to agree with the opinion being expressed, but with the right to express it.
  - joelrunyon 13y ago
    I'm not sure who the Timecube guy is, but you include the KKK with that & you defend their ability to say what they believe. That's what free speech is. "I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it." - Voltaire
    - jaredsohn 13y ago
      >I'm not sure who the Timecube guy is http://www.timecube.com/ http://www.timecube.com/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_Cube http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_Cube
      - joelrunyon 13y ago
        Okay, stupid idea - maybe, but am I going to tell the internet to take his site down? No. When did we get afraid to let people make up their own minds on things? For every out-there crazy idea that's the work of a nut-job, there's one out-there crazy idea that just might work.
        MichaelGG 13y ago
        It was my mis-interpretation of "respect the ability of everyone to hold their own set of beliefs" to mean free speech/thought that led me to mention Time Cube. Of course he should be able to have his site. But I might decide I wouldn't want to work with him, trust his opinion, or have him represent me. Is anyone saying that Eich shouldn't be able to believe what he wants? Or are people upset that someone campaigning against civil liberties is now representing and leading Mozilla?
joshlegs 13y ago
because respecting someone's beliefs == respecting that person. you can think the the beliefs are stupid, but you can still respect them.
- MichaelGG 13y ago
  What does it mean to respect a belief, or have it equal to respecting the person? Some people would have others hung for dating outside their race - what does it entail exactly to "respect that person"? Like, admit they are human and should be allowed to hold their own beliefs? Because you can do that while holding someone in complete contempt.
  - anaphor 13y ago
    It means that you attack their beliefs, not the person themself. Or you publicize their views and say that you disagree with them. In this case there are some people doing just that, which is fine. However IMO trying to launch a boycott against Firefox is silly and poorly thought out. You are only increasing the chance that people will be harrassed (disrespected) for their browser choice, and pushing people towards non-free software like Chrome and MSIE.
- anaphor 13y ago
  Finally someone who gets it. Free speech isn't about some abstract right that you can only technically exercise. Everyone also has the right to associate with whoever they chose. But launching public campaigns designed to restrict the speech of someone is not okay in my view, it's like a form of harrassment I think. Launching campaigns to _discredit their ideas_ however, is better I think. Also just launching a campaign to publicize their views is fine, as long as they're backed up with evidence (which they are in this case). I may be on the wrong side of this issue but I refuse to take part in boycotts because I think they're ineffective and just harmful, unless of course the product itself is harming people in some way.
  - nollidge 13y ago
    No, neither of you get it. All you have is the right to speech free from governmental impedance; you do not have any sort of right to speech free from civil consequences. Boycotts are a form of free speech too, you know. How come you're not so antsy to defend those rights, I wonder?

ctdonath 13y ago

Should we go all-out liberal and say representatives of our cause must be... That "must be..." bit is the antithesis of "liberal". Seems the banner of "liberal" was waved only to get unpopular views tolerated until the "liberals" garnered enough influence to silence their opposition. To go "all-out liberal" would say "representatives of our cause must respect those who think abortion is murder, pot is self-destructive, guns are vital for self-defense, and one's healthcare is not subject to public compulsion; we don't agree, but respect that sensible people can and do hold differing views because of differing axioms. Since the subject at hand is web browsing software, and those subjects have absolutely nothing to do with this, we will not ostracize people because of those common differences of irrelevant opinion."

throwaway5752 13y ago
No, that is pluralism. Liberalism actually means something. They are not mutually exclusive. edit: This story was correctly flagged off the homepage. There are other places far more appropriate on the internet to learn about political philosophy than HN if you're sincerely interested, and they are not hard to find.
- scintill76 13y ago
  What does liberalism mean then? Honest question.
  - ubernostrum 13y ago
    Robert Browning said it well ("Why I Am a Liberal"): But little do or can the best of us: That little is achieved through Liberty. Who, then, dares hold, emancipated thus, His fellow shall continue bound? Not I, Who live, love, labour freely, nor discuss A brother's right to freedom. That is "Why."
scintill76 13y ago
I have heard this named as a difference between liberals and progressives. Progressives want to reform away everything they think is wrong, in the name of societal progress. Liberals, while not being conservative (opposed to change), care more for liberty and equality, respecting even views they don't like. That's kind of the way I see it. I don't know if there are solid definitions for these terms, so I'm open to corrections if I'm way off here.

ossreality 13y ago

>where people have to risk their life just for standing up for themselves. Hm. I want to stand up for my equality. Brendan wants to stand up for his right to treat me as less equal. Yep, sound equally comparable.