Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by ta0o0o0 3859 days ago
What can I say, that is just not the world I want to live in. A world in which your defeated [1] political opponents must repent, wear sackcloth, and cast ashes in their hair or else be professionally destroyed.

[1] Proposition 8 had been struck down by the time of Eich's appointment to CEO
1 comments
kafkaesq 3859 days ago
It's now about repenting and wearing sackcloth. And it isn't even about Eich.

People had just gotten very, very, VERY tired of the pseudo-tolerant stance he was endorsing [1], and didn't want to feel that they were lending credibility to it, by having him at the head of an organization they were a part of. The message they were trying to send was simply, "we're really tired of this shit, and we want it to stop."

[1] "Love the sinner, hate the sin". Those aren't his words, but that's the gist of the religious-based opposition to gay marriage. You have to understand that at some point, people just get sick of hearing it -- or being a party to it.

link
ta0o0o0 3859 days ago
It was the activists who dragged Eich's donation from years ago into the spotlight, made it an issue, and demanded that he apologize. The "pseudo-tolerant stance" people are/were "sick of hearing" or "being a party to" would never have seen the light of day if the activists just left Eich's personal political beliefs alone. This is precisely a demand for repentance.

Eich's stance was "pseudo-tolerant" because the activists were demanding that he renounce his religious beliefs. At least he had the stones not to say something he didn't believe just to keep his job. So instead he was cast out. Should a Catholic CEO be subjected to the same treatment if they personally oppose abortion? A Republican one for opposing Affirmative Action?

link
kafkaesq 3857 days ago
...the activists were demanding that [Eich] renounce his religious beliefs.

They did no such thing. Why do you think it is helpful to base your arguments on overtly counterfactual assertions, such as these?

link
ta0o0o0 3857 days ago
It's right there in your comment. You said "Love the sinner, hate the sin" was not considered an acceptable viewpoint for him to hold.

But even removing that point from my comment the rest stands. You wrote that people were "sick of hearing" about his views on gay marriage. Well all they had to do to stop hearing about it was to stop asking him about it.

link
kafkaesq 3856 days ago
You said "Love the sinner, hate the sin" was not considered an acceptable viewpoint for him to hold.

No, that's not what I said. Or even close to what I said.

I'd continue with you further on this, but it seems there's been a lot of gratuitous word-bending and insinuation in what you've been saying of late. That's not my style of communicating, and I don't see what I can learn from it -- but if you want to continue to feel the way you feel about the issue, that's fine with me.

link
ta0o0o0 3856 days ago
Yes, that is what you wrote.

  People had just gotten very, very, VERY tired of the 
  pseudo-tolerant stance he was endorsing [1], and didn't 
  want to feel that they were lending credibility to it, 
  by having him at the head of an organization they were a 
  part of.

  [1] "Love the sinner, hate the sin".
Can you please explain how this could possibly mean anything other than "The CEO of Mozilla must not hold the viewpoint 'Love the sinner, hate the sin' because then it is implied that the members of the Mozilla community endorse that view". Because the logical consequence of that position is that Eich must either 1) renounce his view or 2) be removed.
link
kafkaesq 3856 days ago
Post-hoc edit: "now" should have been "not" in the first sentence.
link