4 ms·

> What specifically did he do recently? Refused to apologize, even fake apologize, meaning he hasn't changed his views. He also came across as weirdly combativ

by glesica 13y ago

> What specifically did he do recently? Refused to apologize, even fake apologize, meaning he hasn't changed his views. He also came across as weirdly combative, trying to justify his homophobia by pointing out that homophobia is still the norm in Malaysia or something along those lines. He wasn't smooth about it at all. > Somehow I don't think it's a good idea for democratic processes to label the side that is wrong as "horrible people." There are degrees of "horrible people", and in my opinion Brendan Eich does fall on that spectrum, though admittedly he's not even close to the worst of the worst, but he makes the cut. That's my two cents though, take it or leave it. I personally feel pretty strongly about gay rights, so there's that. > What if the person with the opinion also sincerely believed that his position was not bigoted and was not denying anyone happiness? I think this is a flawed argument. Bigots almost never seem to believe themselves to be bigots. They think they're saving gay peoples' souls (without ever asking if they want their souls saved) or various things like that. Or they, maybe not overtly, don't really see gay people (or whatever group we're talking about) as real people with feelings. That's what is so insidious about bigotry, it's not a Lord of the Rings thing where the villain (who conveniently wears black and lives in a scary castle) stands up and says "Muhahaha I'm going to make everyone miserable!". Instead, the villain says "I'm going to help all of you out by forcing you to be just like me, trust me, things will be better this way!".

stcredzero 13y ago
Bigots almost never seem to believe themselves to be bigots. Also, the powerful unjust never believe themselves to be unjust. That's what is so insidious about bigotry, it's not a Lord of the Rings thing where the villain (who conveniently wears black and lives in a scary castle) stands up and says "Muhahaha I'm going to make everyone miserable!". Instead, the villain says "I'm going to help all of you out by forcing you to be just like me, trust me, things will be better this way!". Seems to me that the same level of insidiousness applies to insisting that everyone else kowtows to your particular opinion. Isn't insisting that Brendan Eich express some particular opinion effectively insisting that, "I'm going to help you out by forcing you to be just like me..."?
- batiudrami 13y ago
  Unfortunately Eich's opinion (and monetary contributions) are damaging to others, which is why it's an issue. It's not "I like blue soccer balls and not red ones", it is "those with red soccer balls are immoral and therefore should not be allowed to play soccer". The campaign is not trying to force him to like red soccer balls, it is to accept that he should not be able to prevent those who like red soccer balls (or, as is likely, were genetically predisposed to only like red soccer balls) from playing soccer at all. Whether or not he should have lost his job/been forced to resign/felt compelled to resign is another question. I don't think anyone would debate that he has been bad for Mozilla in his time with them so far.
  - bluntly_said 13y ago
    Correct me if I'm wrong, but Eich donated to a cause that believes the word "marriage" has religious connotations that make it incompatible with a union between two people of the same sex. That argument in and of itself doesn't cause any harm to anyone. The harm comes when government institutionalizes marriage in a way that gives it greater rights or scope than someone in a civil union would have. In many states, this isn't the case. Personally, I don't particularly care what the word marriage means, I'm not religious in any meaningful way. But arguing that the simple inability to use the word marriage does harm to a person is a pretty weak argument in my mind. Further, your analogy is wrong. From his perspective, imagine you always played soccer with a round ball, and couldn't use your hands. Suddenly a group of people show up with oval spheroid and claim you should be able to use your hands. They then say that not letting them call their sport soccer is unfair and harmful. But ya know, we don't call that sport soccer, because it's different, we call it football. --- As an aside, I think the proper way to handle the marriage debate would have been to remove any and all rights associated with the word, and force all couples to get a civil union. Tax that instead. Churches are welcome to marry people all they desire (on both sides, gay or straight as they please according to their beliefs)
    - batiudrami 13y ago
      I would be upset if I used an analogy on HN and the first reply didn't include some form of 'your analogy is wrong' ;). That's a reasonable argument except that gay civil unions were (are?) illegal in California so it is actively denying rights to people. >As an aside, I think the proper way to handle the marriage debate would have been to remove any and all rights associated with the word, and force all couples to get a civil union. Tax that instead. Churches are welcome to marry people all they desire (on both sides, gay or straight as they please according to their beliefs) That could work. I don't see why churches need to have any bearing over the specific term 'marriage' though. Sure it has a religious basis but so do a huge number of things which have been appropriated for the current time. Let them call it a 'Christian marriage' if they want. I don't know, Australia is much less religious than the US so perhaps I lack some perspective.

by glesica 13y ago

stcredzero 13y ago

Bigots almost never seem to believe themselves to be bigots. Also, the powerful unjust never believe themselves to be unjust. That's what is so insidious about bigotry, it's not a Lord of the Rings thing where the villain (who conveniently wears black and lives in a scary castle) stands up and says "Muhahaha I'm going to make everyone miserable!". Instead, the villain says "I'm going to help all of you out by forcing you to be just like me, trust me, things will be better this way!". Seems to me that the same level of insidiousness applies to insisting that everyone else kowtows to your particular opinion. Isn't insisting that Brendan Eich express some particular opinion effectively insisting that, "I'm going to help you out by forcing you to be just like me..."?

batiudrami 13y ago
Unfortunately Eich's opinion (and monetary contributions) are damaging to others, which is why it's an issue. It's not "I like blue soccer balls and not red ones", it is "those with red soccer balls are immoral and therefore should not be allowed to play soccer". The campaign is not trying to force him to like red soccer balls, it is to accept that he should not be able to prevent those who like red soccer balls (or, as is likely, were genetically predisposed to only like red soccer balls) from playing soccer at all. Whether or not he should have lost his job/been forced to resign/felt compelled to resign is another question. I don't think anyone would debate that he has been bad for Mozilla in his time with them so far.
- bluntly_said 13y ago
  Correct me if I'm wrong, but Eich donated to a cause that believes the word "marriage" has religious connotations that make it incompatible with a union between two people of the same sex. That argument in and of itself doesn't cause any harm to anyone. The harm comes when government institutionalizes marriage in a way that gives it greater rights or scope than someone in a civil union would have. In many states, this isn't the case. Personally, I don't particularly care what the word marriage means, I'm not religious in any meaningful way. But arguing that the simple inability to use the word marriage does harm to a person is a pretty weak argument in my mind. Further, your analogy is wrong. From his perspective, imagine you always played soccer with a round ball, and couldn't use your hands. Suddenly a group of people show up with oval spheroid and claim you should be able to use your hands. They then say that not letting them call their sport soccer is unfair and harmful. But ya know, we don't call that sport soccer, because it's different, we call it football. --- As an aside, I think the proper way to handle the marriage debate would have been to remove any and all rights associated with the word, and force all couples to get a civil union. Tax that instead. Churches are welcome to marry people all they desire (on both sides, gay or straight as they please according to their beliefs)
  - batiudrami 13y ago
    I would be upset if I used an analogy on HN and the first reply didn't include some form of 'your analogy is wrong' ;). That's a reasonable argument except that gay civil unions were (are?) illegal in California so it is actively denying rights to people. >As an aside, I think the proper way to handle the marriage debate would have been to remove any and all rights associated with the word, and force all couples to get a civil union. Tax that instead. Churches are welcome to marry people all they desire (on both sides, gay or straight as they please according to their beliefs) That could work. I don't see why churches need to have any bearing over the specific term 'marriage' though. Sure it has a religious basis but so do a huge number of things which have been appropriated for the current time. Let them call it a 'Christian marriage' if they want. I don't know, Australia is much less religious than the US so perhaps I lack some perspective.