5 ms·

The thing that I'm interested in - is that there's very unlikely that every major person of note hasn't done something to upset at least a few people. Are we p

The thing that I'm interested in - is that there's very unlikely that every major person of note hasn't done something to upset at least a few people. Are we planning on throwing a fit every time somebody, somewhere doesn't agree with us? That seems like an enormous waste of energy that could go to better use & doesn't seem to be a wise way to choose your battles. It's amazing how easily we like to get offended these days.

coldpie 13y ago
> Are we planning on throwing a fit every time somebody, somewhere doesn't agree with us? It's one thing to disagree about optimal economic policy or how prisons should be run. For these issues there are legitimate, differing views with different goals and different ways of reaching those goals. And indeed, it would be silly to throw a fit over such a disagreement. Using your power, whether it's your vote, your money, or your vocal platform, to deny other humans basic rights for no valid reason other than "some old book kinda says it might be wrong if you read it in this particular way" is not that kind of issue. There is a right and a wrong side here, just as there is in human slavery or giving all adults the right to vote. It's entirely reasonable to throw a fit when someone is using their power to deny you, your loved ones, or simply your fellow countrymen their basic right to happiness. It is baffling to me how you can write off fighting back against real and effective attacks on the basic rights, dignity, and even humanity of homosexuals as "getting offended."
- nailer 13y ago
  Currently both religion and homosexuality are 'protected classes'. There is evident conflict between the two. Discriminating against Eich expressing his religious views would be immoral to some people, in the same way discriminating against gays is immoral to some people. Ultimately, we have to decide whether beliefs qualify in a class where all the other items (race, gender, sexual orientation) are considered innate. Until we have that debate nothing will be solved. Edit: because this got downvoted almost immediately, I'd like to clarify: I am not expressing an opinion either way in this matter, but rather highlighting a much larger conflict the matter is part of.
  - ubernostrum 13y ago
    The solution is incredibly simple: believe what you want, marry who you love (so long as there's consent all round), and let others do the same. The entire issue is that this was an attempt to promote a belief likely grounded in religion into a law denying others a basic right. That cannot be permitted.
    - nailer 13y ago
      > The solution is incredibly simple: believe what you want... and let others do the same. There's not much point to freedom of religion if you're not allowed to vote according to those beliefs. > The entire issue is that this was an attempt to promote a belief likely grounded in religion into a law denying others a basic right. That cannot be permitted. There are many restrictions put in place because they are voted for based of peoples beliefs, including their religious ones. Why can this not be permitted? How can we know if a law is religiously motivated? I shouldn't have to say this, but HN quality these days is so poor that I will: I support gay marriage. But people are turning this into a black and white issue. It isn't. And I don't think people should be punished for voting in a way that meets their moral beliefs, even if those moral beliefs are spiritually grounded.
      - ubernostrum 13y ago
        There's not much point to freedom of religion if you're not allowed to vote according to those beliefs. There's not much point to claiming a free society if a religious bloc can vote away everyone else's freedom.
        nailer 13y ago
        What you've said is true, but this is the nature of democracy. A bloc of /any kind/ can vote away everyone else's freedom. You might not support that, which is reasonable, there's a lot of Libertarians in tech and I do understand where they're coming from. http://i.imgur.com/fV2tHeu.jpg http://i.imgur.com/fV2tHeu.jpg illustrates the point quite nicely. However: most people don't understand or agree with this, and believe in democracy and its compromises, including shitty things likes rules that may restrict you based on a majority of opponents.
- sentenza 13y ago
  How about the death penalty? It is a violation of human rights with a clear right and wrong side. Where is the public outrage over death-penalty supporters in the FOSS world?
  - coldpie 13y ago
    > It is a violation of human rights with a clear right and wrong side. I'm not sure that's true. Look at our murder laws for example. We have several different degrees of murder severity, depending on planning and forethought. In some cases murder is even downgraded to voluntary manslaughter where it legally is no longer considered murder. Causing the death of another human is hardly a black and white issue. In short, a reasonable person could argue that removing certain people from the population is the best course of action. You and I may disagree, but this other person does have some rationale to back up his/her argument.
    - sentenza 13y ago
      I chose this particular example because it is a rather uncontroversial human rights issue here in Europe, whereas the Americans are still undecided. Here in Europe it is seen as imperative that the state should never be allowed to intentful kill one of its citizens.
- gcp 13y ago
  Using your power, whether it's your vote, your money, or your vocal platform, to deny other humans basic rights for no valid reason I have to laugh every time someone uses this argument. http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/ http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/ I could quote some choice passages, but you should really read it in full. I'm pretty sure every single last one of you has "voted or supported with your vocal platform" positions or politicians taking positions that are directly contrary to what's in there. We're in a society where even in the most progressive of places we're so far away from this ideal, that whenever someone claims something isn't a political issue because it's "obviously the right thing", I want to throw up.
  - mkr-hn 13y ago
    We don't have to be perfect to advocate for improvement.
bakhy 13y ago
well, for one thing, some people stick to their opinions. and say them, loud and proud. or, on the other hand, they keep them to themselves, fully aware that they might bring bad publicity to their work. Eich does not seem to have decided that one yet. IMO, a CEO should be better at politics. as for upsetting "a few people", everyone has the right to react when upset.

coldpie 13y ago

> Are we planning on throwing a fit every time somebody, somewhere doesn't agree with us? It's one thing to disagree about optimal economic policy or how prisons should be run. For these issues there are legitimate, differing views with different goals and different ways of reaching those goals. And indeed, it would be silly to throw a fit over such a disagreement. Using your power, whether it's your vote, your money, or your vocal platform, to deny other humans basic rights for no valid reason other than "some old book kinda says it might be wrong if you read it in this particular way" is not that kind of issue. There is a right and a wrong side here, just as there is in human slavery or giving all adults the right to vote. It's entirely reasonable to throw a fit when someone is using their power to deny you, your loved ones, or simply your fellow countrymen their basic right to happiness. It is baffling to me how you can write off fighting back against real and effective attacks on the basic rights, dignity, and even humanity of homosexuals as "getting offended."

nailer 13y ago
Currently both religion and homosexuality are 'protected classes'. There is evident conflict between the two. Discriminating against Eich expressing his religious views would be immoral to some people, in the same way discriminating against gays is immoral to some people. Ultimately, we have to decide whether beliefs qualify in a class where all the other items (race, gender, sexual orientation) are considered innate. Until we have that debate nothing will be solved. Edit: because this got downvoted almost immediately, I'd like to clarify: I am not expressing an opinion either way in this matter, but rather highlighting a much larger conflict the matter is part of.
- ubernostrum 13y ago
  The solution is incredibly simple: believe what you want, marry who you love (so long as there's consent all round), and let others do the same. The entire issue is that this was an attempt to promote a belief likely grounded in religion into a law denying others a basic right. That cannot be permitted.
  - nailer 13y ago
    > The solution is incredibly simple: believe what you want... and let others do the same. There's not much point to freedom of religion if you're not allowed to vote according to those beliefs. > The entire issue is that this was an attempt to promote a belief likely grounded in religion into a law denying others a basic right. That cannot be permitted. There are many restrictions put in place because they are voted for based of peoples beliefs, including their religious ones. Why can this not be permitted? How can we know if a law is religiously motivated? I shouldn't have to say this, but HN quality these days is so poor that I will: I support gay marriage. But people are turning this into a black and white issue. It isn't. And I don't think people should be punished for voting in a way that meets their moral beliefs, even if those moral beliefs are spiritually grounded.
    - ubernostrum 13y ago
      There's not much point to freedom of religion if you're not allowed to vote according to those beliefs. There's not much point to claiming a free society if a religious bloc can vote away everyone else's freedom.
      - nailer 13y ago
        What you've said is true, but this is the nature of democracy. A bloc of /any kind/ can vote away everyone else's freedom. You might not support that, which is reasonable, there's a lot of Libertarians in tech and I do understand where they're coming from. http://i.imgur.com/fV2tHeu.jpg http://i.imgur.com/fV2tHeu.jpg illustrates the point quite nicely. However: most people don't understand or agree with this, and believe in democracy and its compromises, including shitty things likes rules that may restrict you based on a majority of opponents.
sentenza 13y ago
How about the death penalty? It is a violation of human rights with a clear right and wrong side. Where is the public outrage over death-penalty supporters in the FOSS world?
- coldpie 13y ago
  > It is a violation of human rights with a clear right and wrong side. I'm not sure that's true. Look at our murder laws for example. We have several different degrees of murder severity, depending on planning and forethought. In some cases murder is even downgraded to voluntary manslaughter where it legally is no longer considered murder. Causing the death of another human is hardly a black and white issue. In short, a reasonable person could argue that removing certain people from the population is the best course of action. You and I may disagree, but this other person does have some rationale to back up his/her argument.
  - sentenza 13y ago
    I chose this particular example because it is a rather uncontroversial human rights issue here in Europe, whereas the Americans are still undecided. Here in Europe it is seen as imperative that the state should never be allowed to intentful kill one of its citizens.
gcp 13y ago
Using your power, whether it's your vote, your money, or your vocal platform, to deny other humans basic rights for no valid reason I have to laugh every time someone uses this argument. http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/ http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/ I could quote some choice passages, but you should really read it in full. I'm pretty sure every single last one of you has "voted or supported with your vocal platform" positions or politicians taking positions that are directly contrary to what's in there. We're in a society where even in the most progressive of places we're so far away from this ideal, that whenever someone claims something isn't a political issue because it's "obviously the right thing", I want to throw up.
- mkr-hn 13y ago
  We don't have to be perfect to advocate for improvement.

bakhy 13y ago

well, for one thing, some people stick to their opinions. and say them, loud and proud. or, on the other hand, they keep them to themselves, fully aware that they might bring bad publicity to their work. Eich does not seem to have decided that one yet. IMO, a CEO should be better at politics. as for upsetting "a few people", everyone has the right to react when upset.