[twoodfin]

What about folks who think substantial U.S. carbon emission restrictions aren't a smart or effective policy and politically donate to that effect? There are likely a lot of people here who believe passionately that such inaction will lead to an uninhabitable planet. Serious, life-and-death stuff. Worth trying to get someone fired from their tech job?

[mikeash]

I think there's a big difference that comes down to motivation. Somebody who tries to get a Nazi elected wants, at some level, for me to die. Thus, I cannot trust them to treat me well.

Similarly, somebody who tries to get a gay marriage ban passed thinks that consenting adults should be prevented from marrying, and since there are no good rational reasons to do that (it's possible that there are some, but none have ever been presented to me, and there has been opportunity) then it indicates not only a prejudice against homosexuals, but a willingness to interfere in their lives. Again, they can't be trusted to treat homosexuals well in other contexts where they might have power.

Somebody who fights against carbon emission restrictions isn't doing it because they want the planet to die. Instead, they have examined the information and come to a different conclusion. You might say it's the wrong conclusion, and I'd completely agree with that, but that is ultimately a failure of brainpower rather than of motivations. They presumably have good reasons for why they act that way, which means they can be reasoned with. That makes it much more feasible to deal with them, and ultimately makes them much less harmful.

[SamReidHughes]

How about people that donate to fight the existence of polyamorous marriage licenses? Do you want to get them fired?

> there are no good rational reasons to do that

If you lived in the south bay area like I do, you'd suffer far more oppression from people with houses that oppose any and all kinds of development, than you would from the government not recognizing gay marriage (if you were gay). These people cost me thousands of dollars per year, and they make poorer people even worse off, driving them out of high-rent communities into far more dangerous areas and making them spend time and energy commuting. If some home-owner from west of El Camino that donated to the "Residents First" candidate's campaign in the Mountain View city elections became the CEO of Mozilla, how should I feel then? His cause is based in purely wicked selfishness, not some arbitrary nonsensical moral axioms or reasoning that you might call irrational.

At least Eich donated against Prop. 8 because he thought it was the right thing to do. He didn't gain any personal benefit from that donation -- it was at quite direct harm to himself (to the tune of $1000). That donation is actually a positive sign of moral character, relative to most people's bland non-contributing apathy. He just has bad moral axioms or couldn't think about this matter rationally.

> Again, they can't be trusted to treat homosexuals well in other contexts where they might have power.

I don't think you have an accurate model of how the average pious Christian that lives in California would behave (assuming that's the root cause of Eich's choices). You've come to false conclusions about what donating to anti-gay-marriage causes implies about one's personal attitude towards gay people. I'm sure there's some form of hypothetical marriage license that you wouldn't be in favor of, but that doesn't mean you're bigoted against those people. The state doesn't approve of anything but nuclear family marriage and its same-sex facsimile. I don't think that you'd be evil or couldn't be reasoned with if you believed that the state should encourage this social structure, it's just that your moral axioms or your views on what marriage is for are (probably) different than mine.

Actually, I'm just trying to be persuasive. The real reason you're wrong is that your opinion is built on your delusion that you and other people have free will, specifically, that of Eich having it. Going from the free will to no-free-will perspective, your attitude towards Eich maps to an attitude towards the universe being imperfect. So it happens to be imperfect in a way visible at the top of Mozilla. Big whoop.

[mikeash]

Your distinction between selfless and selfish actors is interesting, because I reach the opposite conclusion. In my opinion, the most dangerous and frightening people by far are those who sacrifice in order to hurt others. Most people are selfish. I can understand them and I can deal with them. If I need something from them, I just have to figure out what they would want that they value more than what I want, and arrange a trade.

I can't understand your last paragraph at all. I'm not sure that free will is even a coherent concept, let alone a real thing, but I also don't see how one can possibly live without assuming it.