Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by mjn 4464 days ago
> They are pretty mutually exclusive.

I don't disagree per se, but do you apply this generally, disqualifying people with any expressed anti-egalitarian politics from leading a pro-egalitarian organization such as Mozilla? Would you apply a "no Randians" or "no libertarians" litmus test as much as a "no Christian fundamentalists" or "no social conservatives" test? In my opinion, the economic and social equality angles are of fairly equal relevance to Mozilla's stated goals.
1 comments
KuraFire 4464 days ago
I agree that it can quickly become murky with certain things. As I said though, actions matter. Being a libertarian is a very different thing from donating $1000 to an anti-equal rights campaign.

If economic and social equality angles are of fairly equal relevance, then Eich shouldn't be CEO, because him being CEO puts the economic angle as significantly more important than the social equality one.

link
mjn 4464 days ago
> Being a libertarian is a very different thing from donating $1000 to an anti-equal rights campaign.

If you mean that people should be able to think whatever thoughts they want without me conducting paparazzi-style investigations to find out what they think, sure: I'm not advocating a campaign to find everyone who owns a copy of F.A. Hayek's Road to Serfdom and ostracize them (in fact, I own one!). But how about donating $1000 to Rand Paul's campaign? I would consider that equally odious, and yet it is (unfortunately) not that uncommon in the tech community, even among fairly high-profile people with board positions. In my opinion, the right of people with congenital heart diseases to receive medical treatment is of a similar level of importance as the right of gay people to have their marriages recognized by the state—if anything, actually somewhat more urgent in its importance—but a certain sort of "yuppie liberalism", which I think exists more or less only in Silicon Valley, takes the opposite view.

link
KuraFire 4464 days ago
Like I said in my original comment: there is a crucial difference between thinking harmful things, and acting on them.

Actions matter. Thoughts that you keep to yourself? I don't care. Go nuts with that.

(also I'm not a fan of the libertarianism in tech/SV, but that's a whole different discussion)

link
jswinghammer 4464 days ago
I think the piece you are missing is that someone could reasonably apply the same logic you are to your politics. If I feel that taxation is theft or that bombing Pakistan with drones is grossly immoral I could ostracize anyone who holds those beliefs under this logic. Maybe even target supporters of those arranging such activities like say anyone who gave money to Obama. You can either deal with opinions you don't like or you can freak out try to target those who hold them. It's your life.
link
slantyyz 4464 days ago
>> Actions matter. Thoughts that you keep to yourself? I don't care. Go nuts with that.

If only life were so simple.

Bigots who keep their thoughts to themselves (and there are plenty of them in C-level positions) often get away with discriminatory actions with weasely excuses like "they're not a fit for that position" and "they're not quite ready for that position".

link
foolinaround 4464 days ago
> Being a libertarian is a very different thing from donating $1000 to an anti-equal rights campaign.

Why?

Are we talking about degrees here? About the skin in the game? -- If so, I agree.

If it is about free speech, I disagree.

For example, what if he had given $10? Same amount of vitriol, or a little less?

link