5 ms·

> So Eich was in a 17 percent minority relative to the top companies in Silicon Valley. Let's find all the heretics and burn them! j/k I'm glad that we are be

> So Eich was in a 17 percent minority relative to the top companies in Silicon Valley. Let's find all the heretics and burn them! j/k I'm glad that we are beginning to have a rational discussion about the implications of internet mob justice. I hope it continues. Please refrain from flagging rational points of view that you don't agree with. That's called censorship. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship

sliverstorm 13y ago
No no, it's only censorship if I agree with the message! ;)
kenjackson 13y ago
Unlike most other politicized topics, I don't think there is a rational position on opposing gay marriage in the US. At least none I have heard yet.
- snowwrestler 13y ago
  It's very easy to think that the other side of an issue does not hold a rational position. We use the same brain to hold hold our own opinion, and to evaluate the opinions of others. In situations outside the scientific method there is little way to objectively know which is the "right" or "rational" position.
- 001sky 13y ago
  kenjackson 14 hours ago | link | parent | Anyone with half a brain knew that Obama did not really oppose gay marriage. When he switched views no one was really surprised... At least of those with half a brain.
  - kenjackson 13y ago
    Can you explain what that is supposed to mean?
- danudey 13y ago
  This is an important point that I've been bringing up whenever someone tries to discuss this: what reason is there to prevent someone else from getting gay married? The only reason that I've seen is 'my beliefs say it's not okay, so you're not allowed to do it even if you don't share them'. Which comes across as spite, more than anything. 'I'm going to prevent you from getting married even though it costs me nothing to allow it', and in fact it cost Eich a thousand dollars to try to prevent it. I can't imagine spending a thousand dollars to prevent someone from doing something they wanted to do if it wasn't going to affect me in any tangible way. That's why Eich seemed like an untrustworthy choice for CEO: this doesn't seem like a rational decision for a person to make.
  - vezzy-fnord 13y ago
    a) Opposition to all marriage. b) Insistence on having marriage be concretely defined as "one man and one woman" and potentially introduce similar but differently named unions for non-traditional couples. This actually has some basis, as marriage used to be widely defined as such (even in dictionaries) until the debate of gay marriage led to a shift in terminology. Those are two that I can name of. Note that I personally belong to argument A. Not that it's a vehement opposition, just a personal view on the futility of it.
    - protomyth 13y ago
      I can tell you the position of some of the churches that funded Prop 8[1]. It has very little to do with the rights of others. It is basically the fear of the chain that goes from: suing a wedding photographer and cake designer who did not want to be involved in a wedding that violated their religious beliefs[2]. The attack on Catholic Family Services and other churches providing adoption services. Next, Catholic Nuns and other church organizations being forced to buy healthcare that provides for abortions. With the thought it will lead to a church being sued to allow a marriage that does not meet their doctrine. The churches have learned a great deal from the ACLU given its constant suing of any religious display. They know you fight every inch of the way and don't compromise, since your opponents won't. They are fearful of the state forcing doctrine on them. The 1st amendment is very fragile given what has happened to the 4th, 5th 1) once again, I don't believe in state sponsored marriage of any type beyond basic contractual law between 2+ people meeting certain biological conditions (no possible inbreeding). I also have some problems about lack of consideration for the situation of conjoined twins and current rules given our ability to allow them a healthy life will exceed our ability to separate them in vitro. 2) an artist is a different discussion then a restaurant, motel, hospital, etc.
- paulhodge 13y ago
  Instead of bloviating you could always look up what the arguments in favor were: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_8_(2008)#Proponents http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_8_(2008)... And for any proposed law change, there's always some annoying folks who agree with the overall spirit of the change, but oppose because they disagree with some specific details. Like, maybe the new law doesn't go far enough, or doesn't have the right wording. Or maybe they just object to the process by which it was created or campaigned for.
  - Karunamon 13y ago
    From your link: heterosexual marriage was "an essential institution of society", that leaving the constitution unchanged would "result in public schools teaching our kids that gay marriage is okay", and that gays "do not have the right to redefine marriage for everyone else." Apparently the prop 8 argument is basically a massive appeal to tradition fallacy?
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
  - aaronbrethorst 13y ago
    OK, will do: Proponents of the constitutional amendment argued that exclusively heterosexual marriage was "an essential institution of society" Totally baseless assertion. So was the right to vote only belonging to white male landowners at the end of the 18th century. [T]hat leaving the constitution unchanged would "result in public schools teaching our kids that gay marriage is okay" In my 13 years of public schooling I don't remember any of my teachers ever discussing marriage. [And] that gays "do not have the right to redefine marriage for everyone else." If you don't like gay marriage, you don't have to get gay married. You're more than welcome to get married to a member of the opposite sex, like I—ostensibly—will do at some point.
  - bashinator 13y ago
    Let's do look at those arguments you referenced. > Proponents of the constitutional amendment argued that exclusively heterosexual marriage was "an essential institution of society." This is not an argument, it's a statement of opinion. I'd be interested in seeing what facts back it. > that leaving the constitution unchanged would "result in public schools teaching our kids that gay marriage is okay" This is making the presumption that gay marriage is not okay, which again, is an opinion without any backing facts. > and that gays "do not have the right to redefine marriage for everyone else." This is a non-sequitur - gays are not trying to redefine marriage for everyone else. Nothing pertaining to hetero marriage would be changed in the slightest by allowing gays to participate in the institution.
- hippoman 13y ago
  There isn't a rational position on opposing marriage between siblings, yet it's still illegal in the US. Of course there are reasons about damage to children, bullying of children, etc but fundamentally people are just repulsed by the idea so they don't want anyone to do it and it's still illegal. Gay marriage is only one of various types of marriage that are unfairly discriminated against. Fortunately gay marriage might now allow a father and son to marry each other, which may help open the minds of the mob.
lucian1900 13y ago
Finding all the "heretics" sounds good to me. Someone that hateful deserves public shame.
vertex-four 13y ago
The question is, exactly which behaviours would you suggest we not engage in? Should we not use our right of freedom of speech to criticise others? Should we not use our right of freedom of association to choose not to associate with people and organisations which do not support our moral beliefs, and what we see to be our human rights? The only thing I can think of is that Mozilla are to blame for firing him, except that Mozilla has a (limited) freedom to choose their employees. As far as I can tell, even in the UK, where we have rather far-reaching employment discrimination law, companies have the right to fire people for political actions, although not for pure philosophical beliefs[0] or being a member of a political party. I could be wrong there, however. So the question is, exactly who acted in the wrong and exactly how, in a way which does not lead to a slippery slope? [0] http://www.pureemploymentlaw.co.uk/2011/05/19/what-is-a-philosophical-belief/ http://www.pureemploymentlaw.co.uk/2011/05/19/what-is-a-phil...
6cxs2hd6 13y ago
Once upon a time, OKCupid had amazing blog posts with fascinating analyses of their data. The blog posts stopped. Match.com acquired them. And their data-centric roots seemed to have eroded badly. The message they put up -- "If individuals like Mr. Eich had their way, then roughly eight percent of the relationships we’ve worked so hard to bring about would be illegal." [^1] -- was pretty sloppy hyperbole. As if 100% of the 8% were going to get married. As if OKCupid were marriage-oriented like Eharmony. Although a mob has many members, OKCupid is the company that chose to crank this into a higher gear, and volunteer to be Conseja de la Suprema y General Inquisición. [^2] Marriage equality is right. Purges are wrong. Shamers should be ashamed. [1]: http://arstechnica.com/business/2014/04/okcupid-to-firefox-users-dont-use-mozilla-software/ http://arstechnica.com/business/2014/04/okcupid-to-firefox-u... [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_Inquisition#Composition_of_the_tribunals https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_Inquisition#Compositio...
- scintill76 13y ago
  Anyone else want to find out if OKCupid uses any Intel products, and if so, start harassing them over it? Since the data shows Intel employees had pretty strong support for Prop 8. I feel kind of guilty about this, as it feels like fighting fire with fire, but I would hope it would illustrate that this sort of witch hunting and "six degrees of separation" will lead to absolutely stupid results if applied to the utmost degree. P.S. Not to mention they surely use Javascript, another technology tainted by Mr. Eich himself. They harass users of "his" browser, but don't seem to see an issue with their own use of another of his projects.
  - sliverstorm 13y ago
    Even if they don't use any Intel products, I'm positive they use software that was developed on Intel products. My pitchfork is itching for some action.
    - 6cxs2hd6 13y ago
      I'm conflicted. "Two wrongs don't make a right". So yes maybe the Match CEO donated to similar causes in Utah, but do we really want to go down that road? I don't. What I would like to see happen -- not vindictively, but out of a sense of basic fairness and justice -- is a resignation at OKCupid. Also resignations from Mozilla board members, such as the chair, and whoever was on the executive search committee. The resignations would be not due to political beliefs, but for very poor judgement and lack for competence.

sliverstorm 13y ago

No no, it's only censorship if I agree with the message! ;)

kenjackson 13y ago

Unlike most other politicized topics, I don't think there is a rational position on opposing gay marriage in the US. At least none I have heard yet.

snowwrestler 13y ago
It's very easy to think that the other side of an issue does not hold a rational position. We use the same brain to hold hold our own opinion, and to evaluate the opinions of others. In situations outside the scientific method there is little way to objectively know which is the "right" or "rational" position.
001sky 13y ago
kenjackson 14 hours ago | link | parent | Anyone with half a brain knew that Obama did not really oppose gay marriage. When he switched views no one was really surprised... At least of those with half a brain.
- kenjackson 13y ago
  Can you explain what that is supposed to mean?
danudey 13y ago
This is an important point that I've been bringing up whenever someone tries to discuss this: what reason is there to prevent someone else from getting gay married? The only reason that I've seen is 'my beliefs say it's not okay, so you're not allowed to do it even if you don't share them'. Which comes across as spite, more than anything. 'I'm going to prevent you from getting married even though it costs me nothing to allow it', and in fact it cost Eich a thousand dollars to try to prevent it. I can't imagine spending a thousand dollars to prevent someone from doing something they wanted to do if it wasn't going to affect me in any tangible way. That's why Eich seemed like an untrustworthy choice for CEO: this doesn't seem like a rational decision for a person to make.
- vezzy-fnord 13y ago
  a) Opposition to all marriage. b) Insistence on having marriage be concretely defined as "one man and one woman" and potentially introduce similar but differently named unions for non-traditional couples. This actually has some basis, as marriage used to be widely defined as such (even in dictionaries) until the debate of gay marriage led to a shift in terminology. Those are two that I can name of. Note that I personally belong to argument A. Not that it's a vehement opposition, just a personal view on the futility of it.
  - protomyth 13y ago
    I can tell you the position of some of the churches that funded Prop 8[1]. It has very little to do with the rights of others. It is basically the fear of the chain that goes from: suing a wedding photographer and cake designer who did not want to be involved in a wedding that violated their religious beliefs[2]. The attack on Catholic Family Services and other churches providing adoption services. Next, Catholic Nuns and other church organizations being forced to buy healthcare that provides for abortions. With the thought it will lead to a church being sued to allow a marriage that does not meet their doctrine. The churches have learned a great deal from the ACLU given its constant suing of any religious display. They know you fight every inch of the way and don't compromise, since your opponents won't. They are fearful of the state forcing doctrine on them. The 1st amendment is very fragile given what has happened to the 4th, 5th 1) once again, I don't believe in state sponsored marriage of any type beyond basic contractual law between 2+ people meeting certain biological conditions (no possible inbreeding). I also have some problems about lack of consideration for the situation of conjoined twins and current rules given our ability to allow them a healthy life will exceed our ability to separate them in vitro. 2) an artist is a different discussion then a restaurant, motel, hospital, etc.
paulhodge 13y ago
Instead of bloviating you could always look up what the arguments in favor were: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_8_(2008)#Proponents http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_8_(2008)... And for any proposed law change, there's always some annoying folks who agree with the overall spirit of the change, but oppose because they disagree with some specific details. Like, maybe the new law doesn't go far enough, or doesn't have the right wording. Or maybe they just object to the process by which it was created or campaigned for.
- Karunamon 13y ago
  From your link: heterosexual marriage was "an essential institution of society", that leaving the constitution unchanged would "result in public schools teaching our kids that gay marriage is okay", and that gays "do not have the right to redefine marriage for everyone else." Apparently the prop 8 argument is basically a massive appeal to tradition fallacy?
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
- aaronbrethorst 13y ago
  OK, will do: Proponents of the constitutional amendment argued that exclusively heterosexual marriage was "an essential institution of society" Totally baseless assertion. So was the right to vote only belonging to white male landowners at the end of the 18th century. [T]hat leaving the constitution unchanged would "result in public schools teaching our kids that gay marriage is okay" In my 13 years of public schooling I don't remember any of my teachers ever discussing marriage. [And] that gays "do not have the right to redefine marriage for everyone else." If you don't like gay marriage, you don't have to get gay married. You're more than welcome to get married to a member of the opposite sex, like I—ostensibly—will do at some point.
- bashinator 13y ago
  Let's do look at those arguments you referenced. > Proponents of the constitutional amendment argued that exclusively heterosexual marriage was "an essential institution of society." This is not an argument, it's a statement of opinion. I'd be interested in seeing what facts back it. > that leaving the constitution unchanged would "result in public schools teaching our kids that gay marriage is okay" This is making the presumption that gay marriage is not okay, which again, is an opinion without any backing facts. > and that gays "do not have the right to redefine marriage for everyone else." This is a non-sequitur - gays are not trying to redefine marriage for everyone else. Nothing pertaining to hetero marriage would be changed in the slightest by allowing gays to participate in the institution.
hippoman 13y ago
There isn't a rational position on opposing marriage between siblings, yet it's still illegal in the US. Of course there are reasons about damage to children, bullying of children, etc but fundamentally people are just repulsed by the idea so they don't want anyone to do it and it's still illegal. Gay marriage is only one of various types of marriage that are unfairly discriminated against. Fortunately gay marriage might now allow a father and son to marry each other, which may help open the minds of the mob.

lucian1900 13y ago

Finding all the "heretics" sounds good to me. Someone that hateful deserves public shame.

vertex-four 13y ago

The question is, exactly which behaviours would you suggest we not engage in? Should we not use our right of freedom of speech to criticise others? Should we not use our right of freedom of association to choose not to associate with people and organisations which do not support our moral beliefs, and what we see to be our human rights? The only thing I can think of is that Mozilla are to blame for firing him, except that Mozilla has a (limited) freedom to choose their employees. As far as I can tell, even in the UK, where we have rather far-reaching employment discrimination law, companies have the right to fire people for political actions, although not for pure philosophical beliefs[0] or being a member of a political party. I could be wrong there, however. So the question is, exactly who acted in the wrong and exactly how, in a way which does not lead to a slippery slope? [0] http://www.pureemploymentlaw.co.uk/2011/05/19/what-is-a-philosophical-belief/ http://www.pureemploymentlaw.co.uk/2011/05/19/what-is-a-phil...

6cxs2hd6 13y ago

Once upon a time, OKCupid had amazing blog posts with fascinating analyses of their data. The blog posts stopped. Match.com acquired them. And their data-centric roots seemed to have eroded badly. The message they put up -- "If individuals like Mr. Eich had their way, then roughly eight percent of the relationships we’ve worked so hard to bring about would be illegal." [^1] -- was pretty sloppy hyperbole. As if 100% of the 8% were going to get married. As if OKCupid were marriage-oriented like Eharmony. Although a mob has many members, OKCupid is the company that chose to crank this into a higher gear, and volunteer to be Conseja de la Suprema y General Inquisición. [^2] Marriage equality is right. Purges are wrong. Shamers should be ashamed. [1]: http://arstechnica.com/business/2014/04/okcupid-to-firefox-users-dont-use-mozilla-software/ http://arstechnica.com/business/2014/04/okcupid-to-firefox-u... [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_Inquisition#Composition_of_the_tribunals https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_Inquisition#Compositio...

scintill76 13y ago
Anyone else want to find out if OKCupid uses any Intel products, and if so, start harassing them over it? Since the data shows Intel employees had pretty strong support for Prop 8. I feel kind of guilty about this, as it feels like fighting fire with fire, but I would hope it would illustrate that this sort of witch hunting and "six degrees of separation" will lead to absolutely stupid results if applied to the utmost degree. P.S. Not to mention they surely use Javascript, another technology tainted by Mr. Eich himself. They harass users of "his" browser, but don't seem to see an issue with their own use of another of his projects.
- sliverstorm 13y ago
  Even if they don't use any Intel products, I'm positive they use software that was developed on Intel products. My pitchfork is itching for some action.
  - 6cxs2hd6 13y ago
    I'm conflicted. "Two wrongs don't make a right". So yes maybe the Match CEO donated to similar causes in Utah, but do we really want to go down that road? I don't. What I would like to see happen -- not vindictively, but out of a sense of basic fairness and justice -- is a resignation at OKCupid. Also resignations from Mozilla board members, such as the chair, and whoever was on the executive search committee. The resignations would be not due to political beliefs, but for very poor judgement and lack for competence.