5 ms·

You continue to evade the fact that, yes, you contributed money to a campaign to remove the right of marriage and to dissolve the marriages of thousands of Cali

by BobNNN 11y ago

You continue to evade the fact that, yes, you contributed money to a campaign to remove the right of marriage and to dissolve the marriages of thousands of Californians. You contributed to a campaign that demonized gay people as a threat to children.

BrendanEich 11y ago
A green HN account, whee! Just for others looking on who don't share your animus and weak grasp of the truth: No marriage was dissolved by Prop 8 -- _ex post facto_ law is unconstitutional. Domestic Partnership remained the option for anyone seeking the positive rights enumerated by law. No campaign to which I donated demonized gay people as a threat to children. You perhaps heard an echo (possibly from M. Signorile) of the first version of a revised Slate piece by Mark Joseph Stern: http://www.slate.com/blogs/outward/2014/04/04/brendan_eich_supported_prop_8_which_was_worse_than_you_remember.html http://www.slate.com/blogs/outward/2014/04/04/brendan_eich_s... This piece had to be updated with a correction at the bottom: "Update, April 23, 2014: This post has been updated to clarify that the organization to which Brendan Eich donated money produced only the first of these ads. The other three were produced by other organizations within the same pro-Prop 8 coalition." Of course, many people did not read the update. Some still insist that the original was right, facts be damned. I just watched all of those videos (including the three I did not fund), and none of them demonized gays as a threat to children. Nope -- parental rights to education of their grade-school-age children does not equal demonizing gays as threats. Let's have a stand-up argument about education rights if that's what you meant, not a cheap lie to preempt debate by painting opponents as demonizers. Repeating easily-refuted falsehoods to defame me from green HN accounts simply isn't going to work. But a green HN account is itself continuing "to evade" a straight-up, real-name-to-real-name debate. Do better, or do something else.
- BobNNN 11y ago
  What animus? You contributed to Prop 8 when it was a campaign issue. Nothing in Prop 8 protected the thousands marriages that existed at the time of the vote. The plain language of Prop 8 would have rendered those marriages meaningless. That a court found those marriages undissolvable does not exonerate your side from trying to dissolve them. Domestic Partnerships were not, at the time of Prop 8, identical to marriage. I'm sorry I accused you of donating a campaign that demonized gay people. I was unaware of the clarification. You only donated to a campaign to strip fellow citizens of a legal status. Your allies did the demonizing. Whether you saw or did not see ads demonizing gay people as a threat to children, ads like that certainly were aired. I am hardly evading discussing this. I have no idea what you mean by "HN". My name is Bob Nelson (not terribly helpful in a nation with thousands of Bob Nelsons, but what can I say, I'm a common man).
  - BrendanEich 11y ago
    Domestic partnerships were, per wikipedia (cited above), equivalent to conjugal marriage at state law level, which was the only level at issue. DOMA prevailed at federal level; I'm on record as against it, and it finally got overturned on good grounds. HN is hacker news, this site. Anyway, glad to have a real name. Also thanks for acknowledging that I didn't demonize.
- BobNNN 11y ago
  To be frank, until this little exchange, I thought you were unfairly treated in the storm surrounding your contribution. I thought social media was mostly to blame and that a lot of folks treated you badly, mostly for their own publicity purposes. Were it not for the effect of internet hype, you'd probably still have your job, and the gay people who worked for you would just have to suck it up. Even after exposure to your personal beliefs and the sad little arguments you make against gay people, I still think you were mistreated and that social media is to blame, but I now also know you really are anti-gay. That wouldn't, of course, make you an anomaly in this country, especially in the ranks of CEOs (who skew conservative). It does put into perspective the support you received from some gay people at Mozilla. They had your back more than you had theirs.
  - BrendanEich 11y ago
    I'm not anti-gay, as those Mozille people I worked with who had my back (and I had theirs as manager and leader) know. Your insistence that being against redefining marriage makes me "anti-gay" would make a lot of self-described gay people "anti-gay". I've heard this, of course: they're "self-hating" -- a disgusting, lazy, cheap shot -- also used against folks like Phil Weiss who are Jewish and critical of Israel. You are making an ad-hominem argument. Anathematizing may work inside your circle, but for people not fully on-side already, it blatantly dodges the unavoidable arguments about essential differences. Usually people do it to feel good and display status to peers. If you're serious about wanting to argue (no need; we both have other things to do, I'm sure), then drop the "sad little" non-argument comments labeling me with a slur-term for which you have no evidence other than a circular argument: that I'm against redefining marriage because I'm anti-gay, and I'm anti-gay because I'm against redefining marriage.
    - BrendanEich 11y ago
      One last thing. You wrote: "Were it not for the effect of internet hype, you'd probably still have your job, and the gay people who worked for you would just have to suck it up." Suck what up? That, after Prop 8 was nullified (not enforced, but let's not look closely), and now after _Obergefell_, when I am indeed among the losing dissenters, people I might have worked with longer at Mozilla would have to suck up that I in fact dissent -- and yet without my treating anyone badly? So it's all about thought control, in the end? Disagreeing on redefining marriage looks like a metaphysical argument.

by BobNNN 11y ago

BrendanEich 11y ago

A green HN account, whee! Just for others looking on who don't share your animus and weak grasp of the truth: No marriage was dissolved by Prop 8 -- _ex post facto_ law is unconstitutional. Domestic Partnership remained the option for anyone seeking the positive rights enumerated by law. No campaign to which I donated demonized gay people as a threat to children. You perhaps heard an echo (possibly from M. Signorile) of the first version of a revised Slate piece by Mark Joseph Stern: http://www.slate.com/blogs/outward/2014/04/04/brendan_eich_supported_prop_8_which_was_worse_than_you_remember.html http://www.slate.com/blogs/outward/2014/04/04/brendan_eich_s... This piece had to be updated with a correction at the bottom: "Update, April 23, 2014: This post has been updated to clarify that the organization to which Brendan Eich donated money produced only the first of these ads. The other three were produced by other organizations within the same pro-Prop 8 coalition." Of course, many people did not read the update. Some still insist that the original was right, facts be damned. I just watched all of those videos (including the three I did not fund), and none of them demonized gays as a threat to children. Nope -- parental rights to education of their grade-school-age children does not equal demonizing gays as threats. Let's have a stand-up argument about education rights if that's what you meant, not a cheap lie to preempt debate by painting opponents as demonizers. Repeating easily-refuted falsehoods to defame me from green HN accounts simply isn't going to work. But a green HN account is itself continuing "to evade" a straight-up, real-name-to-real-name debate. Do better, or do something else.

BobNNN 11y ago
What animus? You contributed to Prop 8 when it was a campaign issue. Nothing in Prop 8 protected the thousands marriages that existed at the time of the vote. The plain language of Prop 8 would have rendered those marriages meaningless. That a court found those marriages undissolvable does not exonerate your side from trying to dissolve them. Domestic Partnerships were not, at the time of Prop 8, identical to marriage. I'm sorry I accused you of donating a campaign that demonized gay people. I was unaware of the clarification. You only donated to a campaign to strip fellow citizens of a legal status. Your allies did the demonizing. Whether you saw or did not see ads demonizing gay people as a threat to children, ads like that certainly were aired. I am hardly evading discussing this. I have no idea what you mean by "HN". My name is Bob Nelson (not terribly helpful in a nation with thousands of Bob Nelsons, but what can I say, I'm a common man).
- BrendanEich 11y ago
  Domestic partnerships were, per wikipedia (cited above), equivalent to conjugal marriage at state law level, which was the only level at issue. DOMA prevailed at federal level; I'm on record as against it, and it finally got overturned on good grounds. HN is hacker news, this site. Anyway, glad to have a real name. Also thanks for acknowledging that I didn't demonize.
BobNNN 11y ago
To be frank, until this little exchange, I thought you were unfairly treated in the storm surrounding your contribution. I thought social media was mostly to blame and that a lot of folks treated you badly, mostly for their own publicity purposes. Were it not for the effect of internet hype, you'd probably still have your job, and the gay people who worked for you would just have to suck it up. Even after exposure to your personal beliefs and the sad little arguments you make against gay people, I still think you were mistreated and that social media is to blame, but I now also know you really are anti-gay. That wouldn't, of course, make you an anomaly in this country, especially in the ranks of CEOs (who skew conservative). It does put into perspective the support you received from some gay people at Mozilla. They had your back more than you had theirs.
- BrendanEich 11y ago
  I'm not anti-gay, as those Mozille people I worked with who had my back (and I had theirs as manager and leader) know. Your insistence that being against redefining marriage makes me "anti-gay" would make a lot of self-described gay people "anti-gay". I've heard this, of course: they're "self-hating" -- a disgusting, lazy, cheap shot -- also used against folks like Phil Weiss who are Jewish and critical of Israel. You are making an ad-hominem argument. Anathematizing may work inside your circle, but for people not fully on-side already, it blatantly dodges the unavoidable arguments about essential differences. Usually people do it to feel good and display status to peers. If you're serious about wanting to argue (no need; we both have other things to do, I'm sure), then drop the "sad little" non-argument comments labeling me with a slur-term for which you have no evidence other than a circular argument: that I'm against redefining marriage because I'm anti-gay, and I'm anti-gay because I'm against redefining marriage.
  - BrendanEich 11y ago
    One last thing. You wrote: "Were it not for the effect of internet hype, you'd probably still have your job, and the gay people who worked for you would just have to suck it up." Suck what up? That, after Prop 8 was nullified (not enforced, but let's not look closely), and now after _Obergefell_, when I am indeed among the losing dissenters, people I might have worked with longer at Mozilla would have to suck up that I in fact dissent -- and yet without my treating anyone badly? So it's all about thought control, in the end? Disagreeing on redefining marriage looks like a metaphysical argument.