4 ms·

That does not mean it is acceptable for people to band together and bully anyone who disagrees with them. All it means is that the legal system is not going to

That does not mean it is acceptable for people to band together and bully anyone who disagrees with them. All it means is that the legal system is not going to help us, and that we have to take it upon ourselves to remind people not to behave in this manner.

davidw 13y ago
Something I've been wondering about this confusing issue is: do people think it's never ok to ostracize someone for their views? Say he donated money to the KKK, or ... you make up some really heinous, hideous belief ...? Still ok? And going the other way, to something a bit broader/more mainstream, say he donated to the Republican Party. Ok to ostracize him? To me it seems like people have some kind of dividing line that's not cut and dried, possibly depending on their own beliefs.
- crankyc0der 13y ago
  American? Contribute to one of the world powers via taxes? Throw stones much?
  - davidw 13y ago
    You don't seem to be responding to the central point of my question really, which is an open one. I didn't comment to tell everyone the Right Answer, I was musing about how people work. I see you are fairly new here: something that sets HN apart from other corners of the internet is that generally, we try and be tolerant, and give other people the benefit of the doubt. Snarky one liners are not always looked on very positively. Naturally, there are heated discussions and these ideals don't always hold true, but one of the guiding principles here is to pretend you are talking to someone in person and think about how that would guide your interaction with them.
wcummings 13y ago
Racism and sexism are often considered firable offenses. For many, this feels no different. The fact that its tied to a "religious belief" or is still something that can be voted on makes it no less bigoted. His poor response didn't help: "if you disagree with me you're oppressing the poor Indonesians who don't have a mouthpiece!". What an asshole. The fact is, donating to support prop 8 is bigotry in and of itself. Many have said no one experienced overt discrimination, but all that really means is that he wasn't bigoted to the victims' faces, he quietly donated to a cause with the intent of stripping people he calls his friends of their rights. He apologized for hurting his LGBT friends, but stops short of actually apologizing and then justifies his beliefs with those of a 3rd world country. Free speech has nothing to do with this, this is someone whose actions many people, both inside and outside of the organization, found incompatible with what they saw as Mozilla's values, and who can blame them? Tl;dr opposing gay marriage is widely seen as a despicable and regressive cause that many people do not want to associate with
- betterunix 13y ago
  "Free speech has nothing to do with this, this is someone whose actions many people found incompatible with what they saw as Mozilla's values, both inside and outside of the organization, and who can blame them?" I can blame them. Mozilla makes a web browser. Gay marriage has nothing to do with Mozilla's mission or with the political issues Mozilla has to deal with as part of its mission. I could understand the uproar if Eich had donated to a "ban free software" cause, but that is not what happened. You're right, this is not about free speech. Eich was not punished for what he said, he was punished for what he thought. The donation is irrelevant here, other than the fact that it revealed Eich's beliefs. There would be just as much anger and vitriol if instead of a donation someone revealed that Eich had voted in favor of proposition 8.
  - wcummings 13y ago
    Chick-fil-A also has nothing to do with Gay Marriage [1]. It's not like this is some totally unique event, in the real world these issues are more than a proposition on a ballot and they effect the way people do business, whether you like it or not. As an executive at Mozilla, Eich forced the organization to take a stance on the issue by donating. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chick-fil-A_same-sex_marriage_controversy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chick-fil-A_same-sex_marriage_c...
  - dalke 13y ago
    If you go to mozilla.org right now you'll see "We are Mozilla. Doing good is part of our code." They have decided that they do more than "make a web browser" and deal the political issues around that topic. They want to associate themselves not just with "don't be evil" but actually "doing good." This is an advantage, because people will volunteer time to Mozilla in order to do good. This is a disadvantage when different people have different ideas of what "doing good" means. Which I think is the source of the commotion here.

davidw 13y ago

Something I've been wondering about this confusing issue is: do people think it's never ok to ostracize someone for their views? Say he donated money to the KKK, or ... you make up some really heinous, hideous belief ...? Still ok? And going the other way, to something a bit broader/more mainstream, say he donated to the Republican Party. Ok to ostracize him? To me it seems like people have some kind of dividing line that's not cut and dried, possibly depending on their own beliefs.

crankyc0der 13y ago
American? Contribute to one of the world powers via taxes? Throw stones much?
- davidw 13y ago
  You don't seem to be responding to the central point of my question really, which is an open one. I didn't comment to tell everyone the Right Answer, I was musing about how people work. I see you are fairly new here: something that sets HN apart from other corners of the internet is that generally, we try and be tolerant, and give other people the benefit of the doubt. Snarky one liners are not always looked on very positively. Naturally, there are heated discussions and these ideals don't always hold true, but one of the guiding principles here is to pretend you are talking to someone in person and think about how that would guide your interaction with them.

wcummings 13y ago

Racism and sexism are often considered firable offenses. For many, this feels no different. The fact that its tied to a "religious belief" or is still something that can be voted on makes it no less bigoted. His poor response didn't help: "if you disagree with me you're oppressing the poor Indonesians who don't have a mouthpiece!". What an asshole. The fact is, donating to support prop 8 is bigotry in and of itself. Many have said no one experienced overt discrimination, but all that really means is that he wasn't bigoted to the victims' faces, he quietly donated to a cause with the intent of stripping people he calls his friends of their rights. He apologized for hurting his LGBT friends, but stops short of actually apologizing and then justifies his beliefs with those of a 3rd world country. Free speech has nothing to do with this, this is someone whose actions many people, both inside and outside of the organization, found incompatible with what they saw as Mozilla's values, and who can blame them? Tl;dr opposing gay marriage is widely seen as a despicable and regressive cause that many people do not want to associate with

betterunix 13y ago
"Free speech has nothing to do with this, this is someone whose actions many people found incompatible with what they saw as Mozilla's values, both inside and outside of the organization, and who can blame them?" I can blame them. Mozilla makes a web browser. Gay marriage has nothing to do with Mozilla's mission or with the political issues Mozilla has to deal with as part of its mission. I could understand the uproar if Eich had donated to a "ban free software" cause, but that is not what happened. You're right, this is not about free speech. Eich was not punished for what he said, he was punished for what he thought. The donation is irrelevant here, other than the fact that it revealed Eich's beliefs. There would be just as much anger and vitriol if instead of a donation someone revealed that Eich had voted in favor of proposition 8.
- wcummings 13y ago
  Chick-fil-A also has nothing to do with Gay Marriage [1]. It's not like this is some totally unique event, in the real world these issues are more than a proposition on a ballot and they effect the way people do business, whether you like it or not. As an executive at Mozilla, Eich forced the organization to take a stance on the issue by donating. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chick-fil-A_same-sex_marriage_controversy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chick-fil-A_same-sex_marriage_c...
- dalke 13y ago
  If you go to mozilla.org right now you'll see "We are Mozilla. Doing good is part of our code." They have decided that they do more than "make a web browser" and deal the political issues around that topic. They want to associate themselves not just with "don't be evil" but actually "doing good." This is an advantage, because people will volunteer time to Mozilla in order to do good. This is a disadvantage when different people have different ideas of what "doing good" means. Which I think is the source of the commotion here.