[yypark]

The reaction to Eich is best seen through a lens of human group power dynamics, as it isn't logically consistent with some supposed ideals (civil discourse, etc.). Geeks have a harder time understanding this social acceptability aspect, especially within a given group or tribe. For this particular political question, a "no gay marriage" opinion has passed into the socially unacceptable in the Bay Area tech crowd.

I'm not saying it's right or wrong to react or ostracize like this, it's just the way crowds of people tend to work. And when tides shift in one direction, a desire by the winning side to celebrate, express power, and pick on the losing happens.

In 2008 it may have been a serious political question in California and the United States as a whole - and we totally can judge based on popular opinion - the difference is supporters narrow the judgment of social acceptability to Eich's narrower group of Bay Area techies. That's why saying it's "obviously wrong" or "there are no rational arguments" is a cop out - and the same denying civil rights argument can be applied to say abortion (denying women's right to choose! Murdering unborn infants!) or opposing affirmative action (racist against minorities! discrimination!).

The main difference? Public opinion rapidly moved against Prop 8 whereas for gun control or abortion it has been far more steady. [Even though over 20% of San Franciscans voted for Prop 8, the number among the educated tech crowd was likely far lower, and same among California as a whole]. Meanwhile, a movement like neo-Nazism is more universally reviled and not socially acceptable in 2014 US, although it may have been mainstream in 1938 Germany, and speaking out against it would leave you ostracized. This is where the "right side of history" aspect becomes interesting. Everything happens within the context of your time and your tribe, and this morality breaks down after these context changes.

Because the opinion on gay marriage is so universal within the tech crowd of the Bay Area, Eich doesn't really have a way out in this. (Look at the contribution numbers for employees of Google, Facebook, etc.) Meanwhile minority opinions on gun control, abortion, etc. are still socially acceptable but will still trigger suspicion. Ditto on economic issues and the entire anti-libertarian techie backlash, even though libertarianism continues to be weaker than liberalism. For another industry and group, look at Whole Foods' CEO writing an anti-Obamacare Op ed which triggered a backlash - the difference is that Eich said nothin, and most definitely continued to adopt gay-friendly policies at his workplace.

In medieval Europe, the adherence to your group (or broader society) was enforced through excommunication, in communist Russia, through purging and re-education camps, in Hollywood during the Red Scare, via McCarthyism and impossibility of finding a job. In Silicon Valley, is it by Internet campaigns and removal from high-ranking positions? What supposed Eich defenders are saying is - let's try not to be like that, no matter how righteous we believe our opinions to be.

[ralfn]

>2008 it may have been a serious political question in California and the United States as a whole

Mozilla operates in a much larger space though. Holland says hi!

>That's why saying it's "obviously wrong" or "there are no rational arguments" is a cop out - and the same denying civil rights argument can be applied to say abortion (denying women's right to choose! Murdering unborn infants!) or opposing affirmative action

Here's a rational argument why anti-gay people are at war with humanity, and why it is different from your examples:

- abortion concerns the interests of three parties: the mother, the father and the unborn child. The point of society is to streamline and govern the situation when individual interests overlap.

- human rights, the notion that any human being is equal, irregardless of their race, hair color or gender, implies no law should be passed mentioning gender. Hence any anti-gay bill, which can not be defined without mentioning gender, is a political action directly opposing human rights.

- in the constition of my country (Holland) as well as yours, equality of all individuals is considered to overrule majority opinion. This is also established in international law: Violators of human rights commit "crimes against humanity". This is all irregardless of majority opinion of some region.

I keep hearing the word civil debate and opinion. Financing human rights violations is not "having an opinion". It's active treason against humanity. It's partaking in a global civil war, that has been going on for centuries, and is often fought with bombs, guns, sanctions and boycots.

Remember when ..

- the people in the US went to war with each other over equality? (the Civil War)

- the US went to war against the Nazi's over equality? (As a dutch citizen i'm very happy they did)

- we all boycotted a whole nation because of equality? (South-Africa)

- your founding fathers put equality in your constitution, as it being more important than democracy itself?

- most nations in the world got together and established the notion of "human rights" as a notion stronger than the right of nations to self-govern?

Fortunately, democracy often seems to allow for a way to fight this war, without killing, but human rights are not up for civil debate or election. When majorities, dictators, elites or whoever try to violate human rights the common response is "over my dead body". Not "lets agree to disagree". We might often prefer civil debate over full-out-war, but that's out of practicality, not morality.

So, that's why all this cultural relativism is falling on deaf ears: One can not be a neutral observer, when it comes to human rights.

[yypark]

There are some good points in here that make us question what human rights are and how we treat them.

All human rights are up to majority vote or dictatorship decree at some point. (Who created the UN, or whatever international body you want to use? Who elected the officials who appointed the courts?) And if human rights are truly universal, who gets to decide? Is it you? Or me? Is it Holland? Or the US? China? Iran?

By your definition, the right to own firearms is also a human right as defined by the US constitution. Similarly, in the United States there is a human right to free speech (including offensive speech such as Holocaust denial), but in Germany this is illegal. Would this be a human rights violation by Germany?

Similarly, one can say pro-choice people are at war with humanity, by denying the human right of the unborn child to life (the right to life is in all constititions) - stripping that right via an abortion is essentially murder. How do we reconcile these differences in moral systems?

One can say Muslim nations operate in a much "larger" space as it comes to rights. Hello sharia law!

Maybe some differences are worth going to war over, to settle the score. Is the right to vote or the right to free speech also in this category? Some agree, and have invaded countries on this basis and attempted to set up a democracy. Others disagree, and only apply sanctions. Or less. Usually, countries are not as idealistic, and require their own group to be threatened militarily for this to happen. See the US not partaking in WW2 until attacked by Japan at Pearl Harbor. Or the US invading Iraq to gain advantages of oil and Middle Eastern control. And ignoring human rights violations by Saudi Arabia because it's politically expedient.

If no bill can be passed without mentioning gender, we should remove the US "Violence Against Women" act as being anti-male as well.

Basically the idealistic black and white moral analysis, while noble, fails to explain what happens in the world.

[ralfn]

>By your definition, the right to own firearms is also a human right as defined by the US constitution. Similarly, in the United States there is a human right to free speech

Yes. At the very least, those are rights, that supercede your democracy. Those rights are not 'majority preference decides'. Those rights were decided by 'who is more stubborn and willing to fight an eternal war and not give anybody peace until they get their freedom'.

>Who created the UN, or whatever international body you want to use? Who elected the officials who appointed the courts?

Whoever has the biggest gun:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Realism_(international_relation...

This is not meant to be cynical though; in practice this turns out much nicer than you would expect. It's not a biggest bully on the block kind of anarchy.

Why? Because people who just have a 'prefence' are not part of the calculation. The armchair opinion of civil debate, the talk radio, whatever. It does not matter. If they are not willing to fight/kill/die to get their way, they are not part of the negotiation. And they shouldn't be, because obviously they don't care enough. They are not invested enough. The deaf kid doesn't get to pick the music.

>Basically the idealistic black and white moral analysis, while noble, fails to explain what happens in the world.

Yes. The notion we can settle these core principles with civil debate is ridiculus. Rights are not the result of debate. They are the result of negotiation. We're all actively counting guns, bombs and bullets.

The world may debate about health-care, taxation or pot. Because whatever our position is, we consider it less important than our rights and democracies. Yet there are values we will die for. Values outside of the realm of debate.

In that light, witch hunting whatever forces are actively violating or trying to violate those rights, can be both logical and moral. It's war. The harder the pro-equality people come down, the more likely the anti-equality people are to give up, accept and surrender.

>If no bill can be passed without mentioning gender, we should remove the US "Violence Against Women" act as being anti-male as well.

I'm not aware of any nation without any law referring to gender. But i also never ever heard anybody make a rational case, that the gender of a person is anybody's bussiness. If anything, it's a reminder just how sexist we all are. So many laws referring to genitalia, yet none refer to our eye or hair color.

Here's one for the lurking spin doctors. "Stop being perverts. End genetalia-based laws now!"

[bane]

> Eich doesn't really have a way out in this.

Which is not really correct though. Eich said he was sorry for the harm he caused, by not for the thoughts he had. He could have said "back then I thought one way about the matter, and even supported causes in that way, since then I've been educated that this is harmful and regret how I thought back then. My views have evolved and for anybody who was harmed by my thoughts and actions back then, I'm very sorry and will do my best to make amends."

We all make mistakes, and our thinking changes over the years. Eich is no different. He's as forgivable as we are. But forgiveness requires repentance, which he hasn't done. The current theory about why is that he still holds the same thoughts.