6 ms·

Utter bullocks. Would we entertain this idea that the tolerant must tolerate intolerance if Prop 8 was about race, rather than gender? Of course not. Nobody

by Crito 13y ago

Utter bullocks. Would we entertain this idea that the tolerant must tolerate intolerance if Prop 8 was about race, rather than gender? Of course not. Nobody pretends that we must not speak ill of racists; certainly nobody pretends that speaking ill of racists makes you just as bad as racists. It is apparent to me that we as a society still have a lot of ground to cover when it comes to the appreciation of the importance of gender and sexuality equality.

briantakita 13y ago
That was 6 years ago. The majority of Californians supported Prop 8 at that time. Even Barack Obama opposed gay marriage back then. Why aren't we raising the pitchforks against Obama? People change. This is a witch hunt from an action that someone did a long time ago. He didn't even do anything wrong. He just supported a mainstream proposition. He is on the wrong side of history, at that time, sure. But it doesn't deserve such a reaction. This mob justice is scary. --- Edit: Censoring me with downvotes only proves how extreme things have become. My reasoning is rational.
- parfe 13y ago
  >People change. What did Eich do which made you think he reconsidered his position that same sex marriages should be annulled and banned?
  - briantakita 13y ago
    https://brendaneich.com/2014/03/inclusiveness-at-mozilla/ https://brendaneich.com/2014/03/inclusiveness-at-mozilla/ He put forth a good-faith effort to promote a position of equality within Mozilla.
    - Crito 13y ago
      That post is neither an apology nor a recant. He does not acknowledge that what he did was wrong. It is nothing more than a tone-deaf defense of himself.
      - briantakita 13y ago
        He also apologized for causing pain. He also stepped down. And since when is an agenda of equality a bad thing? He probably doesn't think his support of the proposition was wrong. I don't either. I'm for Gay Marriage. I'm also for rational public discourse that respects different points of view. --- Thanks for the downvote. I know it's an emotional subject. Maybe you have a good counterpoint to express? Expression via downvotes it hardly a good point. It's immature, to be honest.
        Crito 13y ago
        "I'm sorry for the way you took that." is the classic non-apology. He has done absolutely nothing but defend himself. > "Thanks for the downvote." I didn't downvote you. I cannot downvote you because you cannot downvote responses that you receive on HN. Such a persecution complex you've got going on there...
        briantakita 13y ago
        At this point we are mincing words. He said sorry he caused pain. That is hardly a nonpology. It does not justify the reaction and pain caused to him. He has promoted equality within Mozilla. The sad thing is people also started to protest Mozilla, an organization with LGBT workers. It's free software with an independent agenda. Now it's malaigned as being homophobic. The debate is being dumbed down with namecalling and blowing things out of proportion. It's become black and white with no room for nuance. It's sad and scary. - I'm commenting on the downvotes and flagging as an act of suppressing a rational discussion. Its similar to the shaming and cyber bullying. The whole "you disagree with me, I'll punish you" mentality that this movement has taken is not good for our culture. Surely we are more mature than that. I don't have a complex and its not for you to judge.
        Crito 13y ago
        You think that downvoting is cyberbullying, and leaped to the assumption that I was the one that was doing it to you only because you disagree with me. You plainly do have a persecution complex. The first step to correcting that is admitting it.
    - deleted 13y ago
      [deleted]
- npsimons 13y ago
  What evidence, besides the popular vote (52%? Wow, that's a big majority /sarcasm), that Prop8 was popular? How about factoring in the ton of money the Utah Mormons threw behind Proposition 8?
  - briantakita 13y ago
    It doesn't even have to be the majority to be a mainstream point of view. I wonder, at what point does someone become a "bad person"? When they agree with the 50%? 30%? 10%? 5%? --- I have haters. Yay! Nothing brings out the haters like the truth ;-) So I'm going to limit my exposure by using the wonderful edit feature. --- I agree that oppressive points of view is bad, no matter how overwhelming the majority. Obviously, a 100% majority won't judge themselves as bad people for taking a position. History is a different judge. It is also bad to demonize a minority point of view, no matter how small the minority. We should respect people who take a "bad" position. > It's irrelevant how many people agree with it. 100% can agree with something that is still oppressive. With a rational discourse, we become more intelligent and can progress further as a civilization. By shaming & other negative actions toward the "bad" people, we become oppressive.
    - vidarh 13y ago
      It's irrelevant how many people agree with it. 100% can agree with something that is still oppressive.
- Crito 13y ago
  You're right, people change. And when people change, they can be forgiven. Frankly all it would have taken to squash this controversy is an apology. I am confident that a quick "People change, I've changed. I understand now that people deserve the same rights and equal protection of the law, regardless of what gender they fancy." would have put this all to rest. An apology is what we would expect from a CEO that was found to have been racist in the past. It is not unreasonable to expect it now. If he hasn't actually changed, therefore making an honest apology possible, then your "People change." is rather irrelevant, isn't it? Edit: And downvotes are not censoring. Everyone can see and read your post even when you are downvoted, so quit your bellyaching.
  - briantakita 13y ago
    He has apologized for causing "pain". It looks like he does not support gay marriage today. He does support equality. He holds more conservative viewpoints than most people. He is also a white male in his 50's born in Pittsburgh. The point is he has his position. It may change. He isn't involved in the LGBT community, so he probably is not exposed to this issue causing pain until now. It wasn't going to affect the policy of equality within Mozilla. We can treat him with respect & have respectful dialog or we can coerce him to change his mind with public shaming & bullying tactics. I don't think the ends justify the means. Respectful discourse would be more effective and would make all of us better. --- Downvoting is censorship. The post moves down and becomes hard to read & otherwise deemphasized. It also discourages further dialog by punishing someone who is expressing their opinion. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship
    - vidarh 13y ago
      > It looks like he does not support gay marriage today. He does support equality. Which is it? The two (not supporting gay marriage, and supporting equality) are mutually incompatible. > It wasn't going to affect the policy of equality within Mozilla. Do you understand why a lot of people have concerns that this might not be true, whether openly, or indirectly through decisions he might have made? Or have concerns that his views may send a signal to a lot of people that he would not welcome them the way he would welcome other potential hires?
obtorto 13y ago
Please see my comment here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7533691 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7533691 tl;dr: if this is a matter of equality, marriage itself (as a publicly recognized institution with associated privileges) is discriminatory and needs to be disestablished. If not, then it is completely legitimate to debate whether and on what basis those privileges should be granted. In either case, the idea that it is morally abhorrent to oppose gay marriage is groundless.
wyclif 13y ago
Your "gay is the new black" argument is invalid. You have never seen–and won’t see–“heterosexual only” and “gay only” water fountains, diners, buses, schools, in light of 75 years of oppressive Jim Crow laws. You have not–and won’t–see homosexuals snatched away from their families at birth for the purpose of division and dehumanization. Homosexual men/women have never endured a slave trade for generations and witnessed their ancestors dying by the numbers during a “Middle Passage” and being sold for raw goods. Homosexuals have never been–or will be considered–non-citizens by laws of the United States that rob them of inalienable rights. Homosexuals will never face a societal norm that allows–and even promotes–them to be beaten because they are seen as property and treated like cattle. All of this is why I've always considered the "gay = racial minority" argument weak sauce.

by Crito 13y ago

briantakita 13y ago

That was 6 years ago. The majority of Californians supported Prop 8 at that time. Even Barack Obama opposed gay marriage back then. Why aren't we raising the pitchforks against Obama? People change. This is a witch hunt from an action that someone did a long time ago. He didn't even do anything wrong. He just supported a mainstream proposition. He is on the wrong side of history, at that time, sure. But it doesn't deserve such a reaction. This mob justice is scary. --- Edit: Censoring me with downvotes only proves how extreme things have become. My reasoning is rational.

parfe 13y ago
>People change. What did Eich do which made you think he reconsidered his position that same sex marriages should be annulled and banned?
- briantakita 13y ago
  https://brendaneich.com/2014/03/inclusiveness-at-mozilla/ https://brendaneich.com/2014/03/inclusiveness-at-mozilla/ He put forth a good-faith effort to promote a position of equality within Mozilla.
  - Crito 13y ago
    That post is neither an apology nor a recant. He does not acknowledge that what he did was wrong. It is nothing more than a tone-deaf defense of himself.
    - briantakita 13y ago
      He also apologized for causing pain. He also stepped down. And since when is an agenda of equality a bad thing? He probably doesn't think his support of the proposition was wrong. I don't either. I'm for Gay Marriage. I'm also for rational public discourse that respects different points of view. --- Thanks for the downvote. I know it's an emotional subject. Maybe you have a good counterpoint to express? Expression via downvotes it hardly a good point. It's immature, to be honest.
      - Crito 13y ago
        "I'm sorry for the way you took that." is the classic non-apology. He has done absolutely nothing but defend himself. > "Thanks for the downvote." I didn't downvote you. I cannot downvote you because you cannot downvote responses that you receive on HN. Such a persecution complex you've got going on there...
        briantakita 13y ago
        At this point we are mincing words. He said sorry he caused pain. That is hardly a nonpology. It does not justify the reaction and pain caused to him. He has promoted equality within Mozilla. The sad thing is people also started to protest Mozilla, an organization with LGBT workers. It's free software with an independent agenda. Now it's malaigned as being homophobic. The debate is being dumbed down with namecalling and blowing things out of proportion. It's become black and white with no room for nuance. It's sad and scary. - I'm commenting on the downvotes and flagging as an act of suppressing a rational discussion. Its similar to the shaming and cyber bullying. The whole "you disagree with me, I'll punish you" mentality that this movement has taken is not good for our culture. Surely we are more mature than that. I don't have a complex and its not for you to judge.
        Crito 13y ago
        You think that downvoting is cyberbullying, and leaped to the assumption that I was the one that was doing it to you only because you disagree with me. You plainly do have a persecution complex. The first step to correcting that is admitting it.
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
npsimons 13y ago
What evidence, besides the popular vote (52%? Wow, that's a big majority /sarcasm), that Prop8 was popular? How about factoring in the ton of money the Utah Mormons threw behind Proposition 8?
- briantakita 13y ago
  It doesn't even have to be the majority to be a mainstream point of view. I wonder, at what point does someone become a "bad person"? When they agree with the 50%? 30%? 10%? 5%? --- I have haters. Yay! Nothing brings out the haters like the truth ;-) So I'm going to limit my exposure by using the wonderful edit feature. --- I agree that oppressive points of view is bad, no matter how overwhelming the majority. Obviously, a 100% majority won't judge themselves as bad people for taking a position. History is a different judge. It is also bad to demonize a minority point of view, no matter how small the minority. We should respect people who take a "bad" position. > It's irrelevant how many people agree with it. 100% can agree with something that is still oppressive. With a rational discourse, we become more intelligent and can progress further as a civilization. By shaming & other negative actions toward the "bad" people, we become oppressive.
  - vidarh 13y ago
    It's irrelevant how many people agree with it. 100% can agree with something that is still oppressive.
Crito 13y ago
You're right, people change. And when people change, they can be forgiven. Frankly all it would have taken to squash this controversy is an apology. I am confident that a quick "People change, I've changed. I understand now that people deserve the same rights and equal protection of the law, regardless of what gender they fancy." would have put this all to rest. An apology is what we would expect from a CEO that was found to have been racist in the past. It is not unreasonable to expect it now. If he hasn't actually changed, therefore making an honest apology possible, then your "People change." is rather irrelevant, isn't it? Edit: And downvotes are not censoring. Everyone can see and read your post even when you are downvoted, so quit your bellyaching.
- briantakita 13y ago
  He has apologized for causing "pain". It looks like he does not support gay marriage today. He does support equality. He holds more conservative viewpoints than most people. He is also a white male in his 50's born in Pittsburgh. The point is he has his position. It may change. He isn't involved in the LGBT community, so he probably is not exposed to this issue causing pain until now. It wasn't going to affect the policy of equality within Mozilla. We can treat him with respect & have respectful dialog or we can coerce him to change his mind with public shaming & bullying tactics. I don't think the ends justify the means. Respectful discourse would be more effective and would make all of us better. --- Downvoting is censorship. The post moves down and becomes hard to read & otherwise deemphasized. It also discourages further dialog by punishing someone who is expressing their opinion. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship
  - vidarh 13y ago
    > It looks like he does not support gay marriage today. He does support equality. Which is it? The two (not supporting gay marriage, and supporting equality) are mutually incompatible. > It wasn't going to affect the policy of equality within Mozilla. Do you understand why a lot of people have concerns that this might not be true, whether openly, or indirectly through decisions he might have made? Or have concerns that his views may send a signal to a lot of people that he would not welcome them the way he would welcome other potential hires?

obtorto 13y ago

Please see my comment here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7533691 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7533691 tl;dr: if this is a matter of equality, marriage itself (as a publicly recognized institution with associated privileges) is discriminatory and needs to be disestablished. If not, then it is completely legitimate to debate whether and on what basis those privileges should be granted. In either case, the idea that it is morally abhorrent to oppose gay marriage is groundless.

wyclif 13y ago

Your "gay is the new black" argument is invalid. You have never seen–and won’t see–“heterosexual only” and “gay only” water fountains, diners, buses, schools, in light of 75 years of oppressive Jim Crow laws. You have not–and won’t–see homosexuals snatched away from their families at birth for the purpose of division and dehumanization. Homosexual men/women have never endured a slave trade for generations and witnessed their ancestors dying by the numbers during a “Middle Passage” and being sold for raw goods. Homosexuals have never been–or will be considered–non-citizens by laws of the United States that rob them of inalienable rights. Homosexuals will never face a societal norm that allows–and even promotes–them to be beaten because they are seen as property and treated like cattle. All of this is why I've always considered the "gay = racial minority" argument weak sauce.