3 ms·

Well I guess we're stuck in semantics, because "doing something which negatively affects someone else" constitutes an attack IMO. You seem to be of the opinion

by carlio 13y ago

Well I guess we're stuck in semantics, because "doing something which negatively affects someone else" constitutes an attack IMO. You seem to be of the opinion that exercising free speech cannot be an attack, which I call bullshit on. If free speech were not powerful, we wouldn't protect it so fiercely. The right to free speech comes with the responsibility for what you say, and what OK Cupid and Brenden Eich said when exercising their right had repercussions they have to take responsibility for. "I don't like X" has different repercussions depending on the person who says it; OK Cupid advocating boycotts of Firefox is them exercising free speech to a large userbase, free speech which had consequences for Mozilla which surely objectively were negative. Either they are ignorant of the consequences or they chose their words to cause the consequences which they knew would be negative. The latter is an attack.

msbarnett 13y ago
> You seem to be of the opinion that exercising free speech cannot be an attack, which I call bullshit on Quite the opposite, actually. It's just that I have trouble caring about the negative repercussions from OkCupid saying "please visit our site using some other product" vs the negative repercussions for thousands of Californians, among them many mozillans, of Brandon Eich saying "here is $1000 to help make sure these people stay second-class citizens. Here's $1000 to make sure Alice's long-term partner can be denied access to her in the hospital. Here's $1000 to actively hurt other human beings". At the end of the day, OkCupid wasn't out to deny Eich fundamental human rights. It's like complaining about the brightness of a candle held next to the noon-day sun
- carlio 13y ago
  I haven't advocated Eich's views, I personally find them reprehensible. All I wanted to say in my original comment and from then on is that OKCupid deliberately performed actions with a negative impact (ie, an attack) - which countermanded bkor's original point. I found the statement "Nobody attacked Mozilla" to be incorrect - there clearly was a negative backlash.
  - msbarnett 13y ago
    Fair enough.

by carlio 13y ago

msbarnett 13y ago

> You seem to be of the opinion that exercising free speech cannot be an attack, which I call bullshit on Quite the opposite, actually. It's just that I have trouble caring about the negative repercussions from OkCupid saying "please visit our site using some other product" vs the negative repercussions for thousands of Californians, among them many mozillans, of Brandon Eich saying "here is $1000 to help make sure these people stay second-class citizens. Here's $1000 to make sure Alice's long-term partner can be denied access to her in the hospital. Here's $1000 to actively hurt other human beings". At the end of the day, OkCupid wasn't out to deny Eich fundamental human rights. It's like complaining about the brightness of a candle held next to the noon-day sun

carlio 13y ago
I haven't advocated Eich's views, I personally find them reprehensible. All I wanted to say in my original comment and from then on is that OKCupid deliberately performed actions with a negative impact (ie, an attack) - which countermanded bkor's original point. I found the statement "Nobody attacked Mozilla" to be incorrect - there clearly was a negative backlash.
- msbarnett 13y ago
  Fair enough.