Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

OkCupid urges users to abandon Firefox

okcupid.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

251–260 of 410 posts

Re: OkCupid urges users to abandon Firefox

#251

Post by intslack »

scarmig wrote: post #237
intslack wrote: post #214

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Opposing gay marriage is a sign of bigotry and hate, by that fact alone. No, it is not. One can actually have empathy with gays and believe that marriage can only be between a man and a woman. I don't agree with those beliefs, but I'm speaking from experience that there are many people who believe that marriage has a very religious connotation. Can you please cite a single interaction in which Brendan has looked dow…

When he donated money to remove a law in order to deny gay people their human rights. You can't just slap "but it's my religionnnnn" on something and call it a day. It's like you haven't bothered to read the rhetoric that right-wing politicians used in the segregated South or apartheid-era South Africa.

I'm not saying you should respect his beliefs. I'm saying you should stop calling him a bigot because you don't know what he actually believes, and don't have any evidence that he's homophobic.

All we know is that he donated $1000 to reaffirm, in law, that marriage can only be between a man and a woman.

Perhaps he believes that the state should remove all recognition of marriage and just recognize civil unions going forward for everyone with the benefits from marriage.

We don't know, because he hasn't talked about his beliefs. And honestly, I don't believe they're that important when Mozilla has reaffirmed their strive for equality.

Re: OkCupid urges users to abandon Firefox

#252

Post by baddox »

webwright wrote: post #113
gojomo wrote: post #78

And if this doesn't work, eventually when you try to message a Catholic, Mormon, Muslim, or other religiously-observant person from a denomination whose leaders publicly disapprove of homosexuality, you'll see a message from OKCupid like: Religion isn't normally the business of a website. But you've expressed an interest in dating someone whose religion denies equal rights to gay people. Sure, this person may seem OK…

Today, it's being anti-gay-rights is acceptable to lots of people. 50 years ago, being a racist was acceptable to lots of people. Would you work for or buy products from a CEO who was an unapologetic racist just because his beliefs were a product of his family/community? A good question to ask: If you think we will evolve to the point where gay rights are a given, what should we do right now ? Should we be respectful…

You seem to imply that societal morals always "improve" (according to some definition) over time. But what if, 50 years from now, being racist is widely acceptable again? Does that suddenly make it "moral"?

Re: OkCupid urges users to abandon Firefox

#253

Post by hkphooey »

waterlesscloud wrote: post #196
hkphooey wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Also what about Brian Sewell, a well-known British art critic, writer and broadcaster? Can a gay person be a homophobe? "Why then do they and lesbians demand the right to marry? Indeed, how many of us have made that demand? One in 20? One in 10? Most of us... have not pleaded for gay marriage. But every minority has within it a core of single-issue politicians and protesters who are never satisfied and always ask for…

My anecdotal experience has been that the older generations of gay men haven't cared a lot about gay marriage as an issue. Civil unions give them what they needed legally, and "marriage" as a concept separate from that didn't mean much to them. I'm completely theorizing as to why, but it's a topic I've discussed with many of them and thought about some on my own. The following impressions apply to older gay men I've…

In Britain today, there is a millionaire gay couple who are suing the Church of England because they want to have a wedding in a church. Is this about symbolism, acceptance or poking a finger in the eye of Christians?

Re: OkCupid urges users to abandon Firefox

#254

Post by honksillet »

oneeyedpigeon wrote: post #220
hkphooey wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well said. This is mostly faux outrage. Brendan is one man, an easy target to scream and shout at. Notice how nobody is protesting outside mosques and embassies where under Islam, the penalty for simply being gay, let alone getting married, is DEATH.

That's a ridiculous generalisation; the status of homosexuality and Islamic law is far more nuanced than that. Not only is there not a single death penalty for being gay across the entire Muslim world, the legal status of homosexuality differs greatly. Of course, that is not to say that many of those countries don't exhibit abhorrent views, but the same goes for many Christian communities too. I would warrant that a…

If you believe what is on wikipedia... http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Islam_and_Homosexuality

As of 1999 in Iran, more than 4,000 lesbians and gays had been executed since the 1979 Islamic revolution. ... As of 2009, homosexual relationships, acts or behavior are illegal in 36 Islamic countries. 10 impose the death penalty.

Re: OkCupid urges users to abandon Firefox

#255

Post by MrZongle2 »

diydsp wrote: post #20

OK, so are they going to make a shitstorm out of this single issue, or apply principles equally? IOW: Are we (they) going to dig up ALL of the CEOs of all the products they use and find out who else donated money to anti-gay-marriage organizations and boycott all of them? Here's a partial list: http://www.phillymag.com/news/2012/08/01/boycott-chick-fil-a...

Well, if you're going to do it right, there should be Congressional hearings on the matter, where private citizens are asked if they are or ever have been a member or supporter of an organization that is against same-sex marriage.

After all, isn't that where all this is heading?

Re: OkCupid urges users to abandon Firefox

#256

Post by anaphor »

fennecfoxen wrote: post #70
Todd wrote: post #26

Why doesn't OkCupid take a bolder stance and remove all JavaScript from their site? Brendan invented it. I guess that wouldn't be convenient. Better to ask users to inconvenience themselves. This really isn't fair to all of the people who have worked so hard to make Firefox what it is today.

Why doesn't OKCupid take a bolder stance and give a button to all their users when they sign in, asking, "Do you support marriage equality?" If they click "no", it deletes your account. I mean, as long as you've decided this is the sort of thing your business ought to be concerning itself with...

They should just merge with upworthy

Re: OkCupid urges users to abandon Firefox

#257

Post by MichaelGG »

jrs99 wrote: post #240
smokinjoe wrote: post #207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How? I'm actually really curious how it could be done easily.

i didn't mean it would be done easily. I meant that I could easily see it happening. It would definitely be hard. I actually love JavaScript. But I could easily imagine someone who has something against Brendan Eich start their own browser without javascript. And I can imagine it becoming viral, too.

The JVM, the CLR, Flash, NaCL -- all of these already exist with browser implementations yet are having traction issues.

On top of that, it is unlikely Eich controls JS to the same level as FF, so it'd be a mostly pointless gesture. It'd be like finding out John McCarthy was a vile person, and abandoning all LISP-like languages.

Re: OkCupid urges users to abandon Firefox

#258

Post by frozenport »

wwweston wrote: post #180
webwright wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Today, it's being anti-gay-rights is acceptable to lots of people. 50 years ago, being a racist was acceptable to lots of people. Would you work for or buy products from a CEO who was an unapologetic racist just because his beliefs were a product of his family/community? A good question to ask: If you think we will evolve to the point where gay rights are a given, what should we do right now ? Should we be respectful…

> Would you work for or buy products from a CEO who was an unapologetic racist just because his beliefs were a product of his family/community? Do you mean someone like William Shockley, perhaps? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Shockley Also... for your question to be meaningful or relevant to the current discussion, I think you'd have to get more specific about what you mean by "unapologetic racist", and also w…

Note: nobody could tolerate Shockley and his story is not a success story. His sharp, unsympathetic and impractical opinions were mirrored directly in this management style. The style lacked pragmatic approaches to problem solving:

While Shockley had received a Nobel Prize in Physics and was an experienced researcher and teacher, his managing of the group created harsh working conditions.He chose a strategy for circuit design that failed and created an intolerable working atmosphere. The group of PhD graduates hired demanded that Shockley be replaced. When their demands were rebuffed, they realized they had to leave. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traitorous_eight

Re: OkCupid urges users to abandon Firefox

#259

Post by [deleted] »

dotBen wrote: post #206
adamors wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> technical community & the wider world Hah, wider world. For most people, a browser is "the internet". They don't even care that it is made by a company. They certainly don't care about the CEO of this company who gave some money to some thing sometime in the past.

There are plenty of companies I boycot and avoid patronizing based on concerns I have with their owners, executive leadership or company's position on issues important to me. I don't think that is that uncommon, actually.

[deleted]

Re: OkCupid urges users to abandon Firefox

#260

Post by baddox »

dmazin wrote: post #138
sliverstorm wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But if we discriminate against him purely on the basis of his beliefs (and not his actions on the job), we are no better than he. (If his personal beliefs do pollute his work then do as you will, run the guy out of town on a rail if you must)

I disagree. There are actions which should be applied to oppressors and not the oppressed. Publicly embarrassing bigots is necessary to show that such beliefs will not be socially accepted; public embarrassment of minority groups is hatred. Just a disclaimer: I fully support discrimination against bigots such as refusal of service.

And someone else could just say that the people arguing in favor of gay rights are the oppressor, and the argument has gone nowhere.
Post reply on HN