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

381–390 of 410 posts

Re: OkCupid urges users to abandon Firefox

#381

Post by kevinpet »

gverri wrote: post #354
victorhooi wrote: post #330

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, no, it doesn't. In many countries/states, civil unions are the norm for gay people, and have been for some time. However, the current debate from gay people seems to be that they want to re-use the "marriage" label, which has traditionally been for between a man and a woman. I'm not saying it's right simply because it's tradition - but trying to argue that it has been anything but between a man and a woman for…

Civil Unions don't grant the same benefits as Marriage does. So it's not the same thing. There's no etymology war, you can keep the word "marriage", just give everyone equal rights to marry and have their marriage recognized everywhere.

Prop 8 was entirely a terminology war. Prop 8 is not magically the entire concept of gay rights. It only addressed the issue of whether California would have same sex marriage or civil unions with identical treatment.

Re: OkCupid urges users to abandon Firefox

#382

Post by s0me0ne »

How is Mozilla responsible for this? This guy wasn't even CEO when he made the donation in 2008 (as far as I know). So to abandon Firefox which is not his creation alone seems foolish. If anything abandoning JavaScript would make more sense since that is what he created, not Mozilla or Firefox.

Re: OkCupid urges users to abandon Firefox

#383

Post by makomk »

kevinpet wrote: post #379
webwright wrote: post #372

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unsolicited feedback: The way you disagree is pretty disrespectful-- I've seen this in a few of your comments. Don't refer to people's arguments as "silly". Civil unions or legal gay marriages are still not possible in about 2/3 of the United States. It's not "historical revisionism" for the definition of a word (in the eyes of the law) to change or evolve. For example, marriage used to be legal with women under 16--…

It's irrelevant what's possible in 2/3 of the US. The California status quo until the court case, which Eich was implicitly trying to restore by supporting prop 8, was civil unions with identical treatment to marriage under state law except the name. That's not Uganda style death penalty as some are equating it to.

Aside from the ethical issues, civil partnerships only had identical treatment to marriage under Californian state law. They weren't treated as marriages under federal law, or by many other countries and US states that recognised gay marriage. Likewise, Prop 8 meant that the marriages of gay couples from outside the state couldn't be recognised in California.

Re: OkCupid urges users to abandon Firefox

#384

Post by isleyaardvark »

jebblue wrote: post #287
zorpner wrote: post #210

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you're accusing him of "not liking" bigots, you're probably correct. Why, specifically, is it okay for Eich to fund the oppression of homosexuals and not okay for people to say that they find that upsetting and therefore would prefer not to use or serve products he's associated with? What level would his bigotry have to ascend to before people were no longer obligated to use these products or, at least, not tell a…

Google says this about bigotry: "big·ot·ry ˈbigətrē/Submit noun 1. bigoted attitudes; intolerance toward those who hold different opinions from oneself." Gays who want to oppress anyone for not thinking like them are also being bigots by that definition. Marriage has been between a man and a woman throughout the history of humans. I think Gays should have legal equality. They can not usurp a word that has had such a…

Black people would be bigots against racists by that definition. Your interpretation of that word is obviously flawed.

Re: OkCupid urges users to abandon Firefox

#385

Post by webwright »

jebblue wrote: post #266
webwright wrote: post #243

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is a racist hateful? My grandmother was a racist and was a really good/kind women who dedicated much of her life to helping others (including people of color). She didn't treat other races hatefully, but she did have warped beliefs about other races- "stemming from ignorance and her religion instead of bigotry or hate" (your words). I didn't compare him to nazis, skinheads, or other violent/hateful racists. You shoul…

Not sure what religion you're referring to, I'm aware you were using the parent's words but you were using them. So what religion do you think influenced your grandmother to be racist?

Christianity. There were plenty of racists back in the day who used the bible to support their views: https://www.google.com/search?q=biblical+support+for+racism

Though you could step beyond my/the parent comment's literal words to get to the gist of the point: While they deserve some sensitivity because they are a product of their religion/upbringing/culture, they don't get a free pass (google "moral relativism" if you want to see a mess of discussions about this).

Re: OkCupid urges users to abandon Firefox

#386

Post by scarmig »

victorhooi wrote: post #336
scarmig wrote: post #237

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Really, denied them their human rights? I think you might be overblowing the horn just slightly there. Sigh. Nobody is being oppressed. In most progressive countries, civil unions are available, which confer exactly the same benefits and rights as a traditional marriage. In fact, in many countries, you don't even need to do that - simply having a de-facto relationship will be enough. So basically, it's about a word -…

Not overblowing at all. Marriage is a human right. Since you're in such an affected high dudgeon over apartheid [1], here's a question for you: was the ban on interracial marriage something anti-apartheid activists blew off as just a jolly good time that's not at all oppressive, or did they consider it part and parcel of an oppressive system?

[1] An aside: Do you know anything at all about apartheid? Did you actually protest against it? Do you you know about the deep links between the LGBT-rights movement and anti-apartheid movement, which was a factor that led to South Africa's being the only constitution in Africa, and one of the first in the world, to give formal equal rights to the LGBT community and subsequently legalize gay marriage?

Re: OkCupid urges users to abandon Firefox

#387

Post by Borogove »

waterlesscloud wrote: post #325
Borogove wrote: post #317

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is no requirement that legal marriage between a man and a woman involve child-raising. There is no requirement that legal marriage between a man and a woman involve love or sex. If Albert, Barbara, and Charles go to San Francisco City Hall in 2008, and Albert says "I want to marry Charles", he's told no. If he says "I want to marry Barbara", he's told yes. The state knows nothing about their sex life or feeling…

Lack of sexual interaction (consummation) can in fact play a role in having a marriage recognized, or annulled. It's been a factor in "green card" marriages, for example. For another example, inability of consummate a marriage is grounds for annulment in some states. http://www.colorado-family-law.com/termination-marriage/annu...

Annulment for non-consummation is initiated by a spouse, not by the state.

I've been married twice in CA and on neither occasion was I asked about my sex life or child-raising plans.

Re: OkCupid urges users to abandon Firefox

#388

Post by Borogove »

vacri wrote: post #326
Borogove wrote: post #314

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Our most brilliant scientists have recently discovered that the word "love" has multiple overlapping definitions. Strange but true.

What about "we’ve devoted the last ten years to bringing people—all people—together"? How do you hand-wave away that comment of OKC's in a manner that still allows them to be divisive?

You got me. OkCupid's hypocrisy in this matter is clearly the most divisive issue in our society today. You should devote your website's front page to calling them out on it.

Re: OkCupid urges users to abandon Firefox

#389

Post by Borogove »

kevinpet wrote: post #381
gverri wrote: post #354

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Civil Unions don't grant the same benefits as Marriage does. So it's not the same thing. There's no etymology war, you can keep the word "marriage", just give everyone equal rights to marry and have their marriage recognized everywhere.

Prop 8 was entirely a terminology war. Prop 8 is not magically the entire concept of gay rights. It only addressed the issue of whether California would have same sex marriage or civil unions with identical treatment.

Federal law doesn't recognize civil unions. Separate but equal is never equal.

Re: OkCupid urges users to abandon Firefox

#390

Post by Borogove »

MichaelDickens wrote: post #310
zorpner wrote: post #210

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you're accusing him of "not liking" bigots, you're probably correct. Why, specifically, is it okay for Eich to fund the oppression of homosexuals and not okay for people to say that they find that upsetting and therefore would prefer not to use or serve products he's associated with? What level would his bigotry have to ascend to before people were no longer obligated to use these products or, at least, not tell a…

Nobody's obligated to use Firefox. The problems arise when a business like OKCupid starts publicly dissuading its users from using Firefox.

What problem is created by OkCupid dissuading users from Firefox, exactly?
Post reply on HN