See, this comment is why we need to do a better job of keeping stories like this off the front page. There's nothing in the comment you replied to that indicates any cavalierness about "gay rights", and yet, there it is: the nasty comment accusing another HN user of bad faith. Right on cue.
Normally I'd agree that stories with a high political divisiveness content should be kept off the front page.
But this is a story about one of the most prominent people in tech and one of the most prominent companies in tech. In addition, it has ramifications for everyone who wants to run or own a company. So it very much belongs on the front page of HN.
The fact that a lot of the comments will be inflammatory is predictable, if sad, but that's no reason to try to sweep it under the rug. A different approach is needed for stories like this one that are otherwise perfect fits for top-of-HN material.
> There's nothing in the comment you replied to that indicates any cavalierness about "gay rights"
You missed the point. The GP's comment, by dismissing gay right's relevance to mozilla, implicitly treated the matter in a "cavalier" manner.
Let's do a little find/replace to prove the point. Eich donated $1000 to the KKK. The GP notes that lynching niggers has nothing to do with the day to day operations of Mozilla, so what's the big deal. The parent is dismayed by how trivial black person's rights are considered by HN. What's your comment, tptacek?
The gay rights issue is much more complicated than "oppose gay mariage == EVIL".
A huge number of people supported the proposition - a really huge number. Do you think they all were bad people? Do you think this particular, say, 30% of the population of California are bad people who should never run a company?
If you're not isolated in a liberal pocket of a huge city, you know and like and respect some of these people, and you think they can do a fantastic job at many things. And by the way, it seems to have been fine for Eich to be CTO, but end of the world for him to be CEO, explain that.
The truth is both sides are wrong. Marriage is defined between and man and a woman, that's just the meaning of the word applied to people. And it shouldn't mean anything to the law, there should be no tax implications, no child rights implications, nothing. Also, by the way, all religions are just not true.
Of course, thinking these things makes me EVIL to just about everyone. I'm not sad though, just really cynical. Politics is just one irrational side shouting at the other, saying that anyone who doubts their side for a second is evil. Anything logical doesn't matter until it happens to come into fashion. I just avoid it all to the greatest extent possible.
Most people are probably very much in favor of marriage equality, they just draw a different line than you about the role that personal opinions should play in an pluralistic workplace. Let's not conflate the two views here, there's been enough discussion around this to recognize that there are at least nuanced arguments on both sides that defy this binary classification.
Today I learned that some people believe gay rights are so important that they think anyone who disagrees with the preferred, tendentious public-policy perspective on gay rights IS A MONSTER incapable of treating people like human beings and destructive to an organization. Also, pluralism is dead.
Today you learned that how? Are you unaware that there is a large portion of the population that think that gay marriage should not be recognized by the state?
Yeah, I've been afraid to speak on it for quite some time, but I will now: I think that 'homosexual marriage' is a phrase which makes as much sense as the phrase 'green-tasting.'
FWIW, I supported the unsuccessful civil-union law in my state. I think anyone who wants to form a household and get the economic & regulatory benefits hitherto attached to marriage (insurance, hospital visits &c.) should be permitted to, regardless of sexual activity or indeed its absence (why shouldn't a fraternity, or a few friends, be able to form a civil union in order to get those same benefits?). I don't believe I hold any animus against homosexual folks.
But marriage is just not about sexual attraction, and the idea that it is, is rapidly destroying marriage.
The Hacker News community wants to discuss this story much more than the Hacker News mods want to allow it to be discussed. They think they've reasonably allowed the community to discuss it "enough", already, so they're intervening. Not annoying at all, is it?
The Hacker News community is deeply divided about this—I don't mean about Eich, I mean about the impact of political flamewars on HN. What you say is only true of part of the community.
I don't think you and so many others would say the same thing if the issue was inter-racial marriage, today. Is it really so hard for people to get a little bit ahead of the progress curve for a change, instead of digging in and dragging heels behind it? What is it that makes it so hard?
No, but the difficulty with which your personal viewpoint can be adopted is not (nor should not) be the benchmark of his responsibilities as Mozilla's CEO, which is what he is there for.
Really? Is there a rash of this sort of thing going on that I don't know about? Or is it pretty much just Brendan Eich right now, reaping the consequences of expressing bigotry publicly?
Try working in the oil industry in California. When I was a kid, my father was in charge of PR for one of the refineries in the Bay Area. Local activists routinely tried to get him fired since he was the face of oil in that small town, some even going as far as saying so at city council meetings.
An orthodontist even refused to take me on as a patient because of who my father was.
Do you even know that you are playing meaningless word games, of the form, "This statement is a lie" or "atheism is a religion"? You really think that "In order to be tolerant, you have to tolerate intolerance!" is a good argument, and not just self-referential verbal nonsense?
He wasn't saying "I hate gay people." He was saying "the institution of marriage shouldn't include gay people." That isn't cool, fine, but it's NOT the blanket 'hatred' and 'intolerance' everyone here is so adamant about.
Those terms are being tossed around too freely here.
Oh for fucks sake. Whether or not every Christian is pro-life doesn't change what I said, but thanks for the tangent. Every Internet argument can use more pedantic tangents!
I like to think of this issue in the most specific terms possible, rather than the most sweeping and abstract.
If, for just a moment, you can set aside the bluster, it's just one guy named Brendan having a chance to evaluate whether it was really worth it to him to donate $1k to prop 8.
In this case, you cannot speak generally like this. In this case, it really matters exactly what those political views are, not just that they are "political". And that's why there was such an uproar, and why he's stepping down.
People seem to be willfully misunderstanding this. It's not like, "Whoa! Guys! We can persecute people for their ''''political'''' views now? What's up with that?" No, it's more like we're sick of having to liberate all the people that some people find too 'othery', one group at a time. We've seen this before. We know how it goes. We know how it ends, and we're less inclined than ever to play nice with the oppressing side.
And it really does not take a genius, or an orator, to see which side is the oppressing one.
On a scale of 1 to 5, how strong of an argument do you believe you're making right here? That an individual assuming a position of high leadership being pressured to leave that leadership position, is equivalent enough to people withholding civil rights from a minority group, to use the word "oppress" to refer to both, to make a rhetorical point? Do you feel like you're really nailing the issue here?
Also, now I have to take back that line anyway. Maybe it does take the ability to categorize well.
