The Hypocrisy Of Sam Yagan and OkCupid • Hacker News Board

Re: The Hypocrisy Of Sam Yagan and OkCupid

#61

Post by AlexMax » Sun, Apr 06, 2014, 6:25 PM UTC

bluntly_said wrote: post #36

Karunamon wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd say a fundamental portion of respect is not encoding your personal beliefs of other people's personal lives into law . If you want to make the purely numeric argument, Eich's behavior impacted a hell of a lot more people than the backlash did.

The other side of this coin is that marriage has religious significance to many people, and by forcing the definition to change, pro-gay rights groups are also codifying personal belief into law. Both sides fucked it up. The only proper response should have been to remove all legal rights associated with marriage, and force all couples to get a civil union. Tax that instead. Churches are welcome to marry people all t…

Sorry, but I find it incredulous that the only reason that some folks are unwilling to give LGBT folks the right to marry is because of what the state happens to call the practice.

Re: The Hypocrisy Of Sam Yagan and OkCupid

#62

Post by Karunamon » Sun, Apr 06, 2014, 6:26 PM UTC

bluntly_said wrote: post #46

Karunamon wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not qualified to tell the other side of the story. What a cop out. You're, like everyone else who disagrees with this, downplaying Eich's behavior and trying to turn activists into the "real" monsters for speaking out. Why the double standard? Why does one man, Eich, get a pass on speaking out for his personal political beliefs (with cash), but you demonize the the (hundreds? thousands? more?) people who did noth…

You understand you're the definition of a schoolyard bully, right? I've read all my posts, several times. I'm internally consistent, and I almost always favor cautious respect over ignorant bashing. I'm not even defending Eich, again, I don't know him. I'm stating that a social environment where a man loses a job Mozilla thought he was qualified for because of private personal beliefs and internet outrage is not only…

>I'm stating that a social environment where a man loses a job Mozilla thought he was qualified for because of private personal beliefs

Private "personal beliefs" that he reached into his wallet and tried to force into law. This is the one thing that people don't seem to understand. Eich didn't just think gays were second class citizens. This isn't a "thoughtcrime" he's being pilloried for.

It was the action. The donation, coupled with his complete refusal to backtrack, explain, or apologize. Just evade and spin all day long.

I have absolutely no problem stamping Eich with "unrepentant bigot" on his forehead because he's proven beyond any shadow of a doubt that those are his beliefs. It is both unreasonable and inconsistent to give him "the benefit of the doubt" after his behavior when the donations came to light. There is no question anymore.

>actively undemocratic, it's foolish and childish.

I don't think you know what democracy means.

Publicly proclaim your allegiance to Stormfront or a group that holds similar regressive views for women, and tell me your life will remain unaffected.

Re: The Hypocrisy Of Sam Yagan and OkCupid

#63

Post by bp123 » Sun, Apr 06, 2014, 6:27 PM UTC

anonbanker wrote: post #40

So, bottom line: Eich was forced out by an astroturf campaign led by professional boycotters (waving the gay rights flag this time) and sleazy opportunists/publicity addicts like Yagan. If Eich is a homophobe, I would like to replace the rest of the world's homophobes with him. While he may have disagreed in private, his public persona was inclusive and friendly. There are multiple testominies from people that never…

Yes, the world would be a better place if all anti-equality people had donated $1000 to fund constitutional amendments preventing gay marriage. Please.

You can't pretend to be a good citizen for equality while donating $1000 to a cause whose only purpose is anti-equality.

And look, he could of just apologized and he would have been fine. He didn't. That is why I find this backlash backlash to be just "mob justice" the other way. His actions brought the backlash upon himself, and he didn't do any of the common sense things he could have to fix it. He shouldn't be treated like a martyr.

Re: The Hypocrisy Of Sam Yagan and OkCupid

#64

Post by fennecfoxen » Sun, Apr 06, 2014, 6:27 PM UTC

cheez wrote: post #60

otterley wrote: post #55

The difference between these cases is that Mr. Yagan donated to a Congressperson's election fund, while Mr. Eich gave directly to supporters of a cause many find abhorrent. The degree of separation is important: although Rep. Cannon was anti-gay-marriage, we don't know whether that was the motivating factor for Mr. Yagan's donation. It could have been for some other reason: perhaps Mr. Cannon helped him or his compan…

So why is it OK to donate to a politician who is anti-whatever, but a CEO can't be? Seems like a double standard to me.

It's not a double standard. It's just an ex post facto excuse for inconsistent application of standards.

Re: The Hypocrisy Of Sam Yagan and OkCupid

#65

Post by patrickg_zill » Sun, Apr 06, 2014, 6:27 PM UTC

There are 7 billion people in the world. Those posters who make the assumption in their posts, that "of course" everyone agrees with their position that Prop 8 was wrong, might want to reflect that probably less than 500 million, or less than 8%, agree with them.

The debate that such posters believe has already been settled, will be going on for a long time.

Re: The Hypocrisy Of Sam Yagan and OkCupid

#66

Post by Karunamon » Sun, Apr 06, 2014, 6:27 PM UTC

bluntly_said wrote: post #58

Karunamon wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>religious significance to many people, and by forcing the definition to change, pro-gay rights groups are also codifying personal belief into law. The establishment clause to the constitution says that religious beliefs do not get to be encoded in law. And considering I have not seen one single anti-equality argument that wasn't either religiously motivated or a gigantic mass of "appeal to tradition" fallacies, I su…

There already was a suitable band-aid, it was called domestic partnerships, and had the full legal rights of marriage in California. Co-opting the word marriage in law, rather than asking for it to be removed was actively choosing to force religions to accept your personal beliefs. That's bullying. -- That said, I generally fall much closer on the scale to you than to the supporters of prop 8, but you have to be able…

Ah yes, "separate but equal". Where have I heard this before...

>actively choosing to force religions to accept your personal beliefs.

Nonsense. Churches do not have a monopoly on the word or the concept of matrimony. If there was any consistency in religious beliefs whatsoever, there would be infinitely more backlash at the Vegas drive through chapels than two people wanting to live their lives together in peace.

Re: The Hypocrisy Of Sam Yagan and OkCupid

#67

Post by scarmig » Sun, Apr 06, 2014, 6:30 PM UTC

cheez wrote: post #60

otterley wrote: post #55

The difference between these cases is that Mr. Yagan donated to a Congressperson's election fund, while Mr. Eich gave directly to supporters of a cause many find abhorrent. The degree of separation is important: although Rep. Cannon was anti-gay-marriage, we don't know whether that was the motivating factor for Mr. Yagan's donation. It could have been for some other reason: perhaps Mr. Cannon helped him or his compan…

So why is it OK to donate to a politician who is anti-whatever, but a CEO can't be? Seems like a double standard to me.

Has the politician spent tens of millions of dollars in a campaign slurring gay people with some of the most hateful and darkest tropes about them, all the while trying to permanently remove their human rights by amending the Constitution?

Re: The Hypocrisy Of Sam Yagan and OkCupid

#68

Post by tiquorsj » Sun, Apr 06, 2014, 6:30 PM UTC

pyduan wrote: post #47

What is regrettable in all this is that no one seems to consider the possibility that people may have nuanced views about gay marriage. According to the mob you're either a saint or a bigot, and thus Eich's value as a human being was supposedly entirely determined by this one opinion he voiced in 2008. I'm staunchly in favor of gay marriage, which I consider to be a no-brainer -- but it seems to me the motivations of…

You will rue the day that a person's ability to lead is judged by how well ago their views align with those they lead. Especially on matters only on the fringe of the primary goal of the workplace and especially in instances whee the workplace actions are aligned. Shared vision is different than group think and mob rule.

Re: The Hypocrisy Of Sam Yagan and OkCupid

#69

Post by otterley » Sun, Apr 06, 2014, 6:30 PM UTC

cheez wrote: post #60

otterley wrote: post #55

The difference between these cases is that Mr. Yagan donated to a Congressperson's election fund, while Mr. Eich gave directly to supporters of a cause many find abhorrent. The degree of separation is important: although Rep. Cannon was anti-gay-marriage, we don't know whether that was the motivating factor for Mr. Yagan's donation. It could have been for some other reason: perhaps Mr. Cannon helped him or his compan…

So why is it OK to donate to a politician who is anti-whatever, but a CEO can't be? Seems like a double standard to me.

I think you missed my point. And besides, it's impossible to vote for or contribute to a politician who doesn't have views that some minority will vigorously object to.

Re: The Hypocrisy Of Sam Yagan and OkCupid

#70

Post by couchand » Sun, Apr 06, 2014, 6:31 PM UTC

pyduan wrote: post #47

What is regrettable in all this is that no one seems to consider the possibility that people may have nuanced views about gay marriage. According to the mob you're either a saint or a bigot, and thus Eich's value as a human being was supposedly entirely determined by this one opinion he voiced in 2008. I'm staunchly in favor of gay marriage, which I consider to be a no-brainer -- but it seems to me the motivations of…

I agree with pretty much everything you said, but I take issue with judging Mr Eich unsuitable. I think as outsiders we are simply unable to reasonably evaluate his fitness as CEO of their organization. Employees and their managers have differences of thought all the time, but that doesn't preclude a mutual respect for each other's work.

From what I understand the employees of Mozilla for the most part had glowing reviews of his work, and ultimately that (and I guess the general performance of the company) should be the true judge of his suitability to the job.

It is despicable to wish to deny equal treatment under the law to any group. But even if in a person's private life they harbor such wishes, it is not the place of the general public to judge the company they work for.