6 ms·

What world is this? When did everyone lose their minds and decide it was ok for some people to be Homophobes, but not for others? Can I be a racist if I'm a CE

What world is this? When did everyone lose their minds and decide it was ok for some people to be Homophobes, but not for others? Can I be a racist if I'm a CEO? Am I free from criticism for my horrible beliefs just because I run an organisation that people like? Does donating $1000 to a movement that campaigns to take rights away form black people have any reflection on me? Can I be trusted to not let my world view have any effect on my work? Can a cop be a homophobe, or a racist, and still be trusted to do their job without letting their world view interfere with the application of the law? I'm genuinely sickened by the people here on HN clamouring to pardon Eich and blame those with a strong moral compass for the downfall he inflicted on himself.

crankyc0der 13y ago
Wah? Fascism much?
zimbatm 13y ago
These are strong feelings. Don't you think that everyone is entitled to their own opinions ? In any case you can't force somebody to think differently, otherwise it's bullying. I'm pro LGBT and I think this is a loss for the cause. I'm pro LGBT because I don't think that people should get persecuted for being different. I want to promote peace, tolerance and compassion. Bullying someone into stepping down from his role is contrary to that belief. Do you really think that Eich staying in his post would have made a difference to the LGBT cause ?
- MetaCosm 13y ago
  Would you be fine if Eich had donated $1000 to an group trying to stop inter-racial marriage? Inter-racial marriage issues are not some far past thing, "In October 2009, Keith Bardwell, a Louisiana justice of the peace, refused to issue a marriage license to an interracial couple..." In your mind, is being against interracial marriage just an opinion people shouldn't be held to account for... or like me, would you say "of course fire the racist asshole".
  - coolj 13y ago
    > an opinion people shouldn't be held to account for... I believe people should be held publicly accountable for their actions, not their thoughts/opinions, no matter how strongly I may disagree with their ideas. I wouldn't be too worried about a CEO of Mozilla who had at some point contributed $1000 to a group trying to stop interracial- (or gay-, or plural-, or cats-and-dogs-) marriage by itself, if it were the person's own money. There are benign reasons a person may support such views, however misguided they may be, without being motivated by hate. So nothing in that contribution alone to makes me suspect the person would behave unfairly in the workplace towards the group of people supporting such marriage or trying to be married. To bring it back from the thought experiment to the current situation, I'm pretty sure a lot of people worked with Brendan at Mozilla, and I haven't heard of anyone coming forward with complaints of homophobia against him after working with/for him... so yeah.
    - MetaCosm 13y ago
      Then we simply disagree, actively pursuing hateful legislation is something I am not compelled to overlook. This is something he did in public, on the record, with full knowledge. If someone actively pushed for racist laws, I would want them booted as well. So I guess we simply disagree on this issue.
      - coolj 13y ago
        What if it was a donation to Americans United or Planned Parenthood? There are people who earnestly believe that AU hates religions and-or religious people, or that PP hates traditional family structure. What if he donated to a group that was against the Affordable Heathcare Act? What if he donated to a group that was for it? There are many reasons why people may support different causes or groups, and a contribution in and of itself doesn't do anything to show that it is motivated by hate or fear. You need to look at the person's other actions in order to better determine that.
  - tzs 13y ago
    > Would you be fine if Eich had donated $1000 to an group trying to stop inter-racial marriage? If it were 1875, and if by "fine", you mean fine with the donor becoming a CEO rather than fine with them as a person, then I'd be fine with it. Change that to 2014 and I would not be fine with it. These judgements need to be made in context of the times. I find it hard to fault individuals for thinking like and acting in accord with the large majority of their contemporaries, even if I think the majority is not taking the right position.
Pacabel 13y ago
I think you might be missing the overarching issue here. It isn't so much about the specifics of gay marriage, or Eich's donation, or him losing his job because of his opinions. The real issue is hypocrisy, contradiction and double-standards. We've seen one group (in this case the pro-gay-marriage crowd) act in a way towards others (Eich and the anti-gay-marriage crowd) that the first group would think is absolutely abhorrent were they the target, yet they consider perfectly acceptable when they direct it towards others. On one hand, we've seen arguments like, "There is no right to free speech without consequences." and, "he had views that the community was overwhelmingly against" used in this very submission's discussion to justify Eich losing his job merely for expressing an opinion that may be construed as against gay marriage. Yet imagine the uproar if somebody lost his or her job for merely expressing an opinion in favor of gay marriage, and those exact same arguments were used to justify it. It's difficult to take people seriously when they claim to support "equality" and "tolerance", or when they claim to be against "discrimination", yet they act in a way that's completely contradictory to all of those ideals. If one group of people is going to hold another group of people to a certain set of standards, they really should make sure that they're willing to live by that exact same set of standards, too.
- stephenr 13y ago
  Not tolerating intolerance, is not intolerance.
  - jdbernard 13y ago
    I don't like this idea. Any strong disagreement by one side could reasonably be called intolerance by there other. And then where does it end? Tolerating other people, even when they act in a way contradictory to your own moral convictions is the definition of tolerance. What Eich did was not illegal. It was disagreeable to many. But tolerant people would chose instead to strive the more for their position without directly attacking him and his career. That is what the intolerant do. Intolerance says "I disagree with your actions and your thoughts therefore I must prevent you from having any power or influence in our society." Tolerance says, "I disagree with your thoughts and actions, therefore I will work to persuade you otherwise. Failing that I will find a way to coexist with you, despite our disagreements. We will build a society that that respects the differences, and protects the weak from abuse by the strong, regardless of their beliefs."
Fice 13y ago
Being in opposition to same-sex marriage does not make one a homophobe (even some gays are against it). If Eich did not express any aversion or hatred towards homosexuals, it is not justified to label him as a homophobe.
- tomelders 13y ago
  Some black people are racist towards black people. They're a minority though, so we don't let it muddy our definition of what racism means because that wouldn't be productive. The same holds true here. Homophobic is as homophobic does.
  - Fice 13y ago
    Did I say anything about homosexuals who are also homophobes? My point is that being against same-sex marriage is not necessarily homophobic.
    - tomelders 13y ago
      So what does this sentence mean then? Being in opposition to same-sex marriage does not make one a homophobe (even some gays are against it). What's does the "even some gays are against it" mean?
      - Fice 13y ago
        Even some gays are against same-sex marriage. And that does not mean that they are also homophobes.
        tomelders 13y ago
        Are you saying that being opposed to SSM can't be homophobic because some gays are also opposed to SSM?
        Fice 13y ago
lukasm 13y ago
No one said it's ok to be racist or homophobic. The problem is lynching. I can clearly image similar case when someone hasn't done anything, but there is a semi-proof that he/she did. What if internet mob go after his/her family?
- tomelders 13y ago
  What if? What if they don't?

crankyc0der 13y ago

Wah? Fascism much?

zimbatm 13y ago

These are strong feelings. Don't you think that everyone is entitled to their own opinions ? In any case you can't force somebody to think differently, otherwise it's bullying. I'm pro LGBT and I think this is a loss for the cause. I'm pro LGBT because I don't think that people should get persecuted for being different. I want to promote peace, tolerance and compassion. Bullying someone into stepping down from his role is contrary to that belief. Do you really think that Eich staying in his post would have made a difference to the LGBT cause ?

MetaCosm 13y ago
Would you be fine if Eich had donated $1000 to an group trying to stop inter-racial marriage? Inter-racial marriage issues are not some far past thing, "In October 2009, Keith Bardwell, a Louisiana justice of the peace, refused to issue a marriage license to an interracial couple..." In your mind, is being against interracial marriage just an opinion people shouldn't be held to account for... or like me, would you say "of course fire the racist asshole".
- coolj 13y ago
  > an opinion people shouldn't be held to account for... I believe people should be held publicly accountable for their actions, not their thoughts/opinions, no matter how strongly I may disagree with their ideas. I wouldn't be too worried about a CEO of Mozilla who had at some point contributed $1000 to a group trying to stop interracial- (or gay-, or plural-, or cats-and-dogs-) marriage by itself, if it were the person's own money. There are benign reasons a person may support such views, however misguided they may be, without being motivated by hate. So nothing in that contribution alone to makes me suspect the person would behave unfairly in the workplace towards the group of people supporting such marriage or trying to be married. To bring it back from the thought experiment to the current situation, I'm pretty sure a lot of people worked with Brendan at Mozilla, and I haven't heard of anyone coming forward with complaints of homophobia against him after working with/for him... so yeah.
  - MetaCosm 13y ago
    Then we simply disagree, actively pursuing hateful legislation is something I am not compelled to overlook. This is something he did in public, on the record, with full knowledge. If someone actively pushed for racist laws, I would want them booted as well. So I guess we simply disagree on this issue.
    - coolj 13y ago
      What if it was a donation to Americans United or Planned Parenthood? There are people who earnestly believe that AU hates religions and-or religious people, or that PP hates traditional family structure. What if he donated to a group that was against the Affordable Heathcare Act? What if he donated to a group that was for it? There are many reasons why people may support different causes or groups, and a contribution in and of itself doesn't do anything to show that it is motivated by hate or fear. You need to look at the person's other actions in order to better determine that.
- tzs 13y ago
  > Would you be fine if Eich had donated $1000 to an group trying to stop inter-racial marriage? If it were 1875, and if by "fine", you mean fine with the donor becoming a CEO rather than fine with them as a person, then I'd be fine with it. Change that to 2014 and I would not be fine with it. These judgements need to be made in context of the times. I find it hard to fault individuals for thinking like and acting in accord with the large majority of their contemporaries, even if I think the majority is not taking the right position.

Pacabel 13y ago

I think you might be missing the overarching issue here. It isn't so much about the specifics of gay marriage, or Eich's donation, or him losing his job because of his opinions. The real issue is hypocrisy, contradiction and double-standards. We've seen one group (in this case the pro-gay-marriage crowd) act in a way towards others (Eich and the anti-gay-marriage crowd) that the first group would think is absolutely abhorrent were they the target, yet they consider perfectly acceptable when they direct it towards others. On one hand, we've seen arguments like, "There is no right to free speech without consequences." and, "he had views that the community was overwhelmingly against" used in this very submission's discussion to justify Eich losing his job merely for expressing an opinion that may be construed as against gay marriage. Yet imagine the uproar if somebody lost his or her job for merely expressing an opinion in favor of gay marriage, and those exact same arguments were used to justify it. It's difficult to take people seriously when they claim to support "equality" and "tolerance", or when they claim to be against "discrimination", yet they act in a way that's completely contradictory to all of those ideals. If one group of people is going to hold another group of people to a certain set of standards, they really should make sure that they're willing to live by that exact same set of standards, too.

stephenr 13y ago
Not tolerating intolerance, is not intolerance.
- jdbernard 13y ago
  I don't like this idea. Any strong disagreement by one side could reasonably be called intolerance by there other. And then where does it end? Tolerating other people, even when they act in a way contradictory to your own moral convictions is the definition of tolerance. What Eich did was not illegal. It was disagreeable to many. But tolerant people would chose instead to strive the more for their position without directly attacking him and his career. That is what the intolerant do. Intolerance says "I disagree with your actions and your thoughts therefore I must prevent you from having any power or influence in our society." Tolerance says, "I disagree with your thoughts and actions, therefore I will work to persuade you otherwise. Failing that I will find a way to coexist with you, despite our disagreements. We will build a society that that respects the differences, and protects the weak from abuse by the strong, regardless of their beliefs."

Fice 13y ago

Being in opposition to same-sex marriage does not make one a homophobe (even some gays are against it). If Eich did not express any aversion or hatred towards homosexuals, it is not justified to label him as a homophobe.

tomelders 13y ago
Some black people are racist towards black people. They're a minority though, so we don't let it muddy our definition of what racism means because that wouldn't be productive. The same holds true here. Homophobic is as homophobic does.
- Fice 13y ago
  Did I say anything about homosexuals who are also homophobes? My point is that being against same-sex marriage is not necessarily homophobic.
  - tomelders 13y ago
    So what does this sentence mean then? Being in opposition to same-sex marriage does not make one a homophobe (even some gays are against it). What's does the "even some gays are against it" mean?
    - Fice 13y ago
      Even some gays are against same-sex marriage. And that does not mean that they are also homophobes.
      - tomelders 13y ago
        Are you saying that being opposed to SSM can't be homophobic because some gays are also opposed to SSM?
        Fice 13y ago

lukasm 13y ago

No one said it's ok to be racist or homophobic. The problem is lynching. I can clearly image similar case when someone hasn't done anything, but there is a semi-proof that he/she did. What if internet mob go after his/her family?

tomelders 13y ago
What if? What if they don't?