That "must be..." bit is the antithesis of "liberal". Seems the banner of "liberal" was waved only to get unpopular views tolerated until the "liberals" garnered enough influence to silence their opposition. To go "all-out liberal" would say "representatives of our cause must respect those who think abortion is murder, pot is self-destructive, guns are vital for self-defense, and one's healthcare is not subject to public compulsion; we don't agree, but respect that sensible people can and do hold differing views because of differing axioms. Since the subject at hand is web browsing software, and those subjects have absolutely nothing to do with this, we will not ostracize people because of those common differences of irrelevant opinion."
That's kind of the way I see it. I don't know if there are solid definitions for these terms, so I'm open to corrections if I'm way off here.
inb4 "but that sounds like libertarianism which everyone knows only rich bigoted fedora wearing assholes like!"
edit: This story was correctly flagged off the homepage. There are other places far more appropriate on the internet to learn about political philosophy than HN if you're sincerely interested, and they are not hard to find.
But little do or can the best of us:
That little is achieved through Liberty.
Who, then, dares hold, emancipated thus,
His fellow shall continue bound? Not I,
Who live, love, labour freely, nor discuss
A brother's right to freedom. That is "Why."
Why? Some beliefs are stupid and/or harmful. Why should I respect bad ideas?
Rather, I think it's more about everyone respecting the ability of everyone else to hold their own set of beliefs, even if you disagree with theirs, and even if they may disagree with yours.
In this particular incident we've seen a lot of hypocrisy. We've seen a lot of people calling for "tolerance" and "equality", yet to them that means merely that their viewpoint must be the only one that can be held or expressed. It ends up being a very quaint, twisted interpretation of tolerance and equality.
1. Eich is absolutely allowed to be against gay marriage.
2. The Mozilla community is absolutely allowed to be against Eich because of his position on gay marriage.
This is not a discrimination case where Eich is being excluded from a job because of beliefs unrelated to his job. This is a case where Eich is being elected to a job where his job is to represent the Mozilla community. But he doesn't obviously represent the community – potentially disqualifying him from the job.
Is the Mozilla community asking him to represent their views on marriage?
If he's making the donations as a private citizen, then it strikes me as odd that he's somehow unqualified to talk about software.
Is the next step asking people to step down because they voted for the losing candidate who represented slightly less than 51% of the voting public? (That's a serious questions & a logical next step in an increasingly partisan ideology that thinks in black & white rather than shades of grey).
No, but why does that matter? The community doesn't want anything to do with him because he's a bigot. He's allowed to do what he wants and the community is allowed to shun him if they want.
"I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it." - Voltaire
When did we get afraid to let people make up their own minds on things? For every out-there crazy idea that's the work of a nut-job, there's one out-there crazy idea that just might work.
Is anyone saying that Eich shouldn't be able to believe what he wants? Or are people upset that someone campaigning against civil liberties is now representing and leading Mozilla?
They have their beliefs. You have yours. You presumably want to be able to hold your own beliefs. They presumably want to be able to hold their own beliefs. You may disagree with their beliefs, and you should be free to express this, if you so desire. They may disagree with your beliefs, and they should be able to express this, if they so desire. It's irrelevant who "you" are in this case, and who "they" are.
Even if they choose not to respect your ability to hold your own beliefs, it's probably best if you still respect their ability to hold that belief.
Isn't that what this is all about? Eich expressed his beliefs by contributing to a cause that actively harmed many people's personal lives. Now people are upset about that and thinking perhaps he shouldn't lead Mozilla. I don't see any free speech issues here.
I may be on the wrong side of this issue but I refuse to take part in boycotts because I think they're ineffective and just harmful, unless of course the product itself is harming people in some way.
Boycotts are a form of free speech too, you know. How come you're not so antsy to defend those rights, I wonder?
- Organizing a group of bookstores to stop selling a certain book because you find it offensive for any reason
- Using your privileged position at say, a conference, to get other speakers removed because you dislike them
- as a web service provider, removing a website about a topic you find offensive
None of these have anything to do with the government making a law that infringes on free speech. If they don't violate laws protecting free speech then they certainly piss all over the spirit of it. Or are they only bad when the speech is the "right" kind of speech?
Also as I said elsewhere in the thread, most of the time I find boycotts ineffective, especially when it would only jurt innocent people and when the change it creates is merely cosmetic. You're certainly free to boycott anything you wish, and to ask others to boycott, but you can't expect everyone to agree it's a good idea.
a person's private life and professional life are SEPARATE. You shouldn't punish Mozilla employees for things the person at the helm does IN HIS PRIVATE LIFE
I have no idea what you're saying here. What does respecting stupid ideas even look like?
EDIT: I respect people's right to hold and express stupid ideas. That does not mean I cannot discuss, at length and with vigor, how stupid they are, or encourage others to avoid financially supporting the people who hold those stupid ideas. I, too, have the right to free speech.
Or we can live in a world where we respect everyone's beliefs. We can allow them to join both liberal and conservative causes, because we're not 2 political parties fighting but individual humans all trying to make the world a better place? It's amazing the mentality with politics these days, where people have to risk their life just for standing up for themselves.