4 ms·

52% of Californians voted in favor of Prop 8 (to ban same-sex marriage) so you could argue Brendan Eich holds a rather popular opinion.

dragonwriter 12y ago
> 52% of Californians voted in favor of Prop 8 (to ban same-sex marriage) No, they didn't. 52% of those who voted on Prop 8 (about 79% of the ~17M eligible and registered to vote, which were themselves only about 45% of Californians) voted for Prop 8 -- so about 19% of Californians voted for it. > so you could argue Brendan Eich holds a rather popular opinion. Well, no, you couldn't make a good argument that he holds a rather popular opinion based on the results of an election 6 years ago. You could perhaps argue that he holds a view that was popular at the time of the election based on those results. After all, opinions change. [1] [1] see, e.g., http://www.ppic.org/main/publication_show.asp?i=1012 http://www.ppic.org/main/publication_show.asp?i=1012
- notjackma 12y ago
  Semantics. The fact is, of registered voters in California, more people voted against same-sex marriage than for it. Of course, that was 6 years ago... so why should Brendan Eich be ostracised in 2014 for donating money to a campaign which was quite popular back then? At what point did Mozilla's mission for a free and open internet turn into one about social justice and identity politics?
  - vor_ 12y ago
    > Of course, that was 6 years ago... so why should Brendan Eich be ostracised in 2014 for donating money to a campaign which was quite popular back then? It's wrong regardless of when it occurred. > At what point did Mozilla's mission for a free and open internet turn into one about social justice and identity politics? This lame attempt to dismiss equality won't fly.
    - notjackma 12y ago
      > It's wrong regardless of when it occurred. The world is a big place with different cultures and different opinions. You are making a giant assumption that your world-view is the correct one.
      - dragonwriter 12y ago
        > You are making a giant assumption that your world-view is the correct one. OTOH, if you condemn people for judging Eich, you are -- by so doing -- committing the same offense.
    - tibiapejagala 12y ago
      > It's wrong regardless of when it occurred. But it can be more or less wrong in specific circumstances. You seem pretty sure that your opinions and actions will stand the test of time, just like countless people were in the past. So sure that now we are right, and amazed how they could be so wrong. Well, I don't know the future, but see you in 30 years. Let's see what moral fashion will rule those times. Be prepared to be judged.
      - nknighthb 12y ago
        If my opinions and actions don't stand the test of time, and I'm still alive when they don't, I'll repudiate them. Eich had his chance. He declined and ran away instead.
      - mkr-hn 12y ago
        The "they were a product of their times" argument is garbage. I know my use of technology built in unethical conditions will be judged poorly, so I get the most out of tech and try to be pick the best companies to buy from when replacing it. I know my difficulty moving past the gender binary will be judged poorly, so I learn about non-binary genders and people who exist outside gender entirely. I know my past homophobia--even the internalized variety--will be judged poorly. The list could go on for a long time, but the important thing is that I see where I fail and try to fix it. Supporters of discrimination are just as capable as I am of seeing past their failings. They choose not to.
  - awinder 12y ago
    Lots of people get ostracized for supporting and pushing things that were once popular but became massively unpopular, all throughout history. McCarthy advocated and pushed a very, very popular agenda for it's time, but history isn't written in the perspective of it's time, it's written in the perspective of today. It was also never "quite popular", it was essentially a split decision, and has been a very contentious issue for quite a while. It also doesn't take a genius to realize the trajectory of any social rights issue in this country, so I have a hard time feeling any empathy for what happened to Eich. Believe what you want, but if you want to be a popular leader, you've gotta have the intelligence and foresight to realize what kinds of things are bound to get you into trouble one day. And if he realized that and still believed in the cause so much, then there are no real victims, just choices and ramifications.
- cookiecaper 12y ago
  >No, they didn't. 52% of those who voted on Prop 8 (about 79% of the ~17M eligible and registered to vote, which were themselves only about 45% of Californians) voted for Prop 8 -- so about 19% of Californians voted for it. So the rest were either not competent to voice their opinion (below voting age), did not have sufficient stake for their opinion to matter or have proved their opinion doesn't count (residents who did not meet local requirements for franchisement or whose franchisement has been revoked, e.g., convicted felons), or simply didn't care enough to go make their opinion heard. I'd say 52% is still a fair number to quote, even if it may not be literally true if you're counting babies and other persons who are legally ineligible from having an opinion. >After all, opinions change. Sure, but not all that much that quickly. The latest polls show 45% of the American population still opposes same-sex marriage. While the opinion has shifted from majority to minority after relentless media campaigning, much like that in the article, there are still a very large number of people that hold it; it's still a "popular opinion".
aaronbrethorst 12y ago
With recent big increases in support for legalization of same-sex marriage, the California public is now 61% in favor, 31% opposed according to a February 2013 Field Poll, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_California#Polling http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_California...
- notjackma 12y ago
  You're quoting a rather meaningless poll given the low sample size: "The latest Field Poll was completed February 5-17, 2013 among 834 registered voters in California." Since we're quoting statistics, here are some from the CDC. Gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men (MSM) represent approximately 2% of the United States population... In 2010, gay and bisexual men accounted for 63% of estimated new HIV infections in the United States and 78% of infections among all newly infected men. http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/risk/gender/msm/facts/ http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/risk/gender/msm/facts/ In 2012, there were almost 9,000 cases of syphilis, and 84 percent of them were among gay and bisexual men http://www.webmd.com/sexual-conditions/news/20140509/syphilis-cases-climbing-among-gay-men-cdc http://www.webmd.com/sexual-conditions/news/20140509/syphili... My friends (who are gay) tell me there is a growing complacency amongst their younger gay friends, that HIV is seen as a long-term chronic condition rather than a killer disease. The results can be seen above. Why does the issue of marriage dominate media headlines but not a peep about health? How much funding has gone into the campaign to legalise gay marriage versus educating people on safer sex?
  - aaronbrethorst 12y ago
    From the poll I cited: The maximum sampling error estimates for results based on the overall sample of 834 registered voters have a sampling error of +/- 3.5 percentage points, while findings from the random subsample of 415 voters have a sampling error of +/- 5.0 percentage points at the 95% confidence level. http://field.com/fieldpollonline/subscribers/Rls2443.pdf http://field.com/fieldpollonline/subscribers/Rls2443.pdf FiveThirtyEight rates Field Poll (at least for political races) as being "A+": http://fivethirtyeight.com/interactives/pollster-ratings/ http://fivethirtyeight.com/interactives/pollster-ratings/ Your references to incidence of HIV and syphilis among gay and bisexual men are something of a non sequitur, and—I think—underscore the value of extending the institution of marriage given that one might reasonably expect that enabling an at-risk population to engage in a social institution commonly associated with monogamy should only serve to decrease rates of transmission. My friends (who are gay) http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Friend_argument http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Friend_argument Also, why would you want your friends to be deprived of a right you enjoy? I regularly see billboards in my neighborhood targeting young gay men to be tested for HIV. I bet that risk of transmission would be further lowered if the stigma associated with being gay was further reduced or entirely eliminated.

dragonwriter 12y ago

> 52% of Californians voted in favor of Prop 8 (to ban same-sex marriage) No, they didn't. 52% of those who voted on Prop 8 (about 79% of the ~17M eligible and registered to vote, which were themselves only about 45% of Californians) voted for Prop 8 -- so about 19% of Californians voted for it. > so you could argue Brendan Eich holds a rather popular opinion. Well, no, you couldn't make a good argument that he holds a rather popular opinion based on the results of an election 6 years ago. You could perhaps argue that he holds a view that was popular at the time of the election based on those results. After all, opinions change. [1] [1] see, e.g., http://www.ppic.org/main/publication_show.asp?i=1012 http://www.ppic.org/main/publication_show.asp?i=1012

notjackma 12y ago
Semantics. The fact is, of registered voters in California, more people voted against same-sex marriage than for it. Of course, that was 6 years ago... so why should Brendan Eich be ostracised in 2014 for donating money to a campaign which was quite popular back then? At what point did Mozilla's mission for a free and open internet turn into one about social justice and identity politics?
- vor_ 12y ago
  > Of course, that was 6 years ago... so why should Brendan Eich be ostracised in 2014 for donating money to a campaign which was quite popular back then? It's wrong regardless of when it occurred. > At what point did Mozilla's mission for a free and open internet turn into one about social justice and identity politics? This lame attempt to dismiss equality won't fly.
  - notjackma 12y ago
    > It's wrong regardless of when it occurred. The world is a big place with different cultures and different opinions. You are making a giant assumption that your world-view is the correct one.
    - dragonwriter 12y ago
      > You are making a giant assumption that your world-view is the correct one. OTOH, if you condemn people for judging Eich, you are -- by so doing -- committing the same offense.
  - tibiapejagala 12y ago
    > It's wrong regardless of when it occurred. But it can be more or less wrong in specific circumstances. You seem pretty sure that your opinions and actions will stand the test of time, just like countless people were in the past. So sure that now we are right, and amazed how they could be so wrong. Well, I don't know the future, but see you in 30 years. Let's see what moral fashion will rule those times. Be prepared to be judged.
    - nknighthb 12y ago
      If my opinions and actions don't stand the test of time, and I'm still alive when they don't, I'll repudiate them. Eich had his chance. He declined and ran away instead.
    - mkr-hn 12y ago
      The "they were a product of their times" argument is garbage. I know my use of technology built in unethical conditions will be judged poorly, so I get the most out of tech and try to be pick the best companies to buy from when replacing it. I know my difficulty moving past the gender binary will be judged poorly, so I learn about non-binary genders and people who exist outside gender entirely. I know my past homophobia--even the internalized variety--will be judged poorly. The list could go on for a long time, but the important thing is that I see where I fail and try to fix it. Supporters of discrimination are just as capable as I am of seeing past their failings. They choose not to.
- awinder 12y ago
  Lots of people get ostracized for supporting and pushing things that were once popular but became massively unpopular, all throughout history. McCarthy advocated and pushed a very, very popular agenda for it's time, but history isn't written in the perspective of it's time, it's written in the perspective of today. It was also never "quite popular", it was essentially a split decision, and has been a very contentious issue for quite a while. It also doesn't take a genius to realize the trajectory of any social rights issue in this country, so I have a hard time feeling any empathy for what happened to Eich. Believe what you want, but if you want to be a popular leader, you've gotta have the intelligence and foresight to realize what kinds of things are bound to get you into trouble one day. And if he realized that and still believed in the cause so much, then there are no real victims, just choices and ramifications.
cookiecaper 12y ago
>No, they didn't. 52% of those who voted on Prop 8 (about 79% of the ~17M eligible and registered to vote, which were themselves only about 45% of Californians) voted for Prop 8 -- so about 19% of Californians voted for it. So the rest were either not competent to voice their opinion (below voting age), did not have sufficient stake for their opinion to matter or have proved their opinion doesn't count (residents who did not meet local requirements for franchisement or whose franchisement has been revoked, e.g., convicted felons), or simply didn't care enough to go make their opinion heard. I'd say 52% is still a fair number to quote, even if it may not be literally true if you're counting babies and other persons who are legally ineligible from having an opinion. >After all, opinions change. Sure, but not all that much that quickly. The latest polls show 45% of the American population still opposes same-sex marriage. While the opinion has shifted from majority to minority after relentless media campaigning, much like that in the article, there are still a very large number of people that hold it; it's still a "popular opinion".

aaronbrethorst 12y ago

With recent big increases in support for legalization of same-sex marriage, the California public is now 61% in favor, 31% opposed according to a February 2013 Field Poll, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_California#Polling http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_California...

notjackma 12y ago
You're quoting a rather meaningless poll given the low sample size: "The latest Field Poll was completed February 5-17, 2013 among 834 registered voters in California." Since we're quoting statistics, here are some from the CDC. Gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men (MSM) represent approximately 2% of the United States population... In 2010, gay and bisexual men accounted for 63% of estimated new HIV infections in the United States and 78% of infections among all newly infected men. http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/risk/gender/msm/facts/ http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/risk/gender/msm/facts/ In 2012, there were almost 9,000 cases of syphilis, and 84 percent of them were among gay and bisexual men http://www.webmd.com/sexual-conditions/news/20140509/syphilis-cases-climbing-among-gay-men-cdc http://www.webmd.com/sexual-conditions/news/20140509/syphili... My friends (who are gay) tell me there is a growing complacency amongst their younger gay friends, that HIV is seen as a long-term chronic condition rather than a killer disease. The results can be seen above. Why does the issue of marriage dominate media headlines but not a peep about health? How much funding has gone into the campaign to legalise gay marriage versus educating people on safer sex?
- aaronbrethorst 12y ago
  From the poll I cited: The maximum sampling error estimates for results based on the overall sample of 834 registered voters have a sampling error of +/- 3.5 percentage points, while findings from the random subsample of 415 voters have a sampling error of +/- 5.0 percentage points at the 95% confidence level. http://field.com/fieldpollonline/subscribers/Rls2443.pdf http://field.com/fieldpollonline/subscribers/Rls2443.pdf FiveThirtyEight rates Field Poll (at least for political races) as being "A+": http://fivethirtyeight.com/interactives/pollster-ratings/ http://fivethirtyeight.com/interactives/pollster-ratings/ Your references to incidence of HIV and syphilis among gay and bisexual men are something of a non sequitur, and—I think—underscore the value of extending the institution of marriage given that one might reasonably expect that enabling an at-risk population to engage in a social institution commonly associated with monogamy should only serve to decrease rates of transmission. My friends (who are gay) http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Friend_argument http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Friend_argument Also, why would you want your friends to be deprived of a right you enjoy? I regularly see billboards in my neighborhood targeting young gay men to be tested for HIV. I bet that risk of transmission would be further lowered if the stigma associated with being gay was further reduced or entirely eliminated.