The Hypocrisy Of Sam Yagan and OkCupid • Hacker News Board

Re: The Hypocrisy Of Sam Yagan and OkCupid

#131

Post by downandout » Sun, Apr 06, 2014, 7:10 PM UTC

I have no issues with gay marriage, and I don't think that individual religious views have any place in the creation of laws that will affect people's everyday lives. However, this idea that someone can't keep their personal political views outside of their workplace is the territory of small-minded idiots. A good CEO can, indeed, support causes in his personal life that don't wind up becoming policy at the company he or she runs.

See this for what it is. The left is trying to make it OK to punish anyone that has ever supported a conservative cause. Everyone should now fear that their political views will endanger their jobs. This is perhaps the most slippery of all slopes, as this marks the beginning of the end of political discourse in the US. If the right made demands like this, they would be skewered in the media. Yet, because our media has an extreme liberal bias, this has, sadly, gained traction. Just say no.

Re: The Hypocrisy Of Sam Yagan and OkCupid

#132

Post by bluntly_said » Sun, Apr 06, 2014, 7:10 PM UTC

scarmig wrote: post #119

bluntly_said wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Again, the "deny them their human rights" argument fails to pass the bullshit test. The had domestic partnerships, they had the full legal rights marriage granted available. Prop 8's entire quibble was over the word marriage, so was the pro-gay rights movement. Both sides are trying to codify belief into law, both are wrong.

So, two points. The first is that you simply have your facts dead wrong. Domestic partnerships did not grant all the benefits of marriage. The federal government did not recognize them, and other states didn't recognize them, and other countries didn't. The only way Californians could fix that inequity was through supporting marriage. Two: if this was such a quibble, why did Prop 8 proponents feel the need to spend t…

Well, the first point about the Partnership not being recognized in other states is fair, but my facts are fine. Even if California let them get married, other states won't recognize it, there's no difference there.

But I agree it should be recognized, and again, it's why I firmly believe both sides are too caught up in arguing over what marriage is.

The real problem is that the government codified religion into law by allowing rights to married people. That's what needed to change. Force all couple to get a civil union, tax that instead. No controversy anymore, everyone wins.

As for point two: I also agree with you here, I feel like prop 8 probably WAS a cover to bash gay rights, and it's why I generally dislike associating with it. That said, I still firmly believe both sides got this one wrong.

----

So I guess at the end of the day, two wrongs don't make a right.

Re: The Hypocrisy Of Sam Yagan and OkCupid

#133

Post by r0s » Sun, Apr 06, 2014, 7:10 PM UTC

The Hypocrisy of Some Blogger

Summary: The co-founder of OKCupid made a donation to a homophobic senator in 2004.

There's a lot wrong with this "scandalous" revelation. Do we have any direct word on Sam Yagan's change of heart to support the oust of Brendan Eich? This blogger does not, from Yagan's actions we have to assume he feels differently now, a decade later.

And so, these toothless allegations of hypocrisy fall apart. This point from the rant:

> This was a PR stunt, and as I show below, nothing but a PR stunt.

The stunt had the intended result, so this statement is either false or in doubt. Or, if the stunt is unrelated to Eich's removal, then it reflects popular sentiment to boost the OKCupid brand; it's familiar bland commercialism and no kind of hypocrisy.

Re: The Hypocrisy Of Sam Yagan and OkCupid

#134

Post by otterley » Sun, Apr 06, 2014, 7:10 PM UTC

anonbanker wrote: post #81

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…

You're downlplaying the fact that he donated to an openly anti-gay, pro-PATRIOT ACT congressperson. If you didn't look at the link provided with the original article, showing how he's historically voted (and still continues to vote), you should probably do so. Cannon's record is pretty clear and unwavering. I would be hard-pressed to think of a way in which donation to a staunch anti-personal-liberty candidate would…

It seems you're more willing to conclude, despite the lack of any evidence other than the donation itself, that Rep. Cannon's anti-gay voting record was the direct motivation for Mr. Yagan's donation than I am. In my view, that's a pretty long logical leap of faith.

I hadn't looked at Rep. Cannon until now, but he represented the State of Utah. As of 2004 there were few states more conservative about the question of gay marriage than Utah was, and I wouldn't be the least bit surprised had his opponent, even a Democrat, taken the same stance on it at the time as Rep. Cannon did.

Also in 2004 nearly every politician, Republican or Democrat, was still strongly in favor of the PATRIOT Act. When enacted just three years earlier it passed the Senate 99-1 and only 15% in the House voted against it.

Re: The Hypocrisy Of Sam Yagan and OkCupid

#135

Post by scarmig » Sun, Apr 06, 2014, 7:11 PM UTC

wwwwwwwwww wrote: post #89

scarmig wrote: post #16

No, it's not "exactly the same." I don't think anyone really benefited from this entire shit show, but stop trying to excuse and water down what Prop 8 supporters did. Giving money to a bad politician is not the same as giving money to support a war of pure bigotry and hatred against gay people. Perhaps you weren't there in 2008, or perhaps you weren't a target. But the Yes on Prop 8 campaign deployed deeply disturbi…

Is it really so hard for you to imagine that not everyone comes from the same background and upbringing? Moreover, is it so hard to believe that not everyone who supported prop8 was a gay-hating bigot who wants to see them all burn in hell or whatever? With every political standpoint, there is a spectrum of supporters who support the cause - for varying reasons and varying intensity. It's very important to keep this…

If you're willing to donate $1000 dollars to a bigoted cause, you're a bigot. It doesn't matter if his religion tells him it's okay; he's still a bigot. It doesn't matter if gays make him feel squicky: he's still a bigot. If my religion told me "black people are children of Ham, therefore you should separate yourself from them" (an argument that was once used), you'd rightly call me a bigot. What's the difference here?

Prop 8 was incredibly hateful as a campaign: in case you weren't there, view some of these ads they ran [1]. It's seriously nausea inducing. He funded these ads, to deny gay people fundamental human rights. He never apologized for funding these ads, either.

[1] http://www.slate.com/blogs/outward/2014/04/04/brendan_eich_s...

Re: The Hypocrisy Of Sam Yagan and OkCupid

#136

Post by hibikir » Sun, Apr 06, 2014, 7:14 PM UTC

On this situations, I end up wondering what's the right level of intolerance to intolerance. How much hate can one pour on someone that is being a bit bigot before you end up being just the same, but with a mirror?

Then one starts to question if being intolerant with the people that are intolerant of those that are intolerant is any better, and whether we are working in a system that allocates the call stack in the heap or in a defined stack, because too much thinking in this direction would cause a stack overflow in the JVM.

Re: The Hypocrisy Of Sam Yagan and OkCupid

#137

Post by fredgrott » Sun, Apr 06, 2014, 7:14 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…

Problem is a Marriage license is not defined by a religion in power as a government.

Marriage license should be religion netrual when you get down to it..all should be allowed to marry as many people at once as they want irregardless of creed, sexual orientation, gender, etc.

Re: The Hypocrisy Of Sam Yagan and OkCupid

#138

Post by ct12 » Sun, Apr 06, 2014, 7:15 PM UTC

Karunamon wrote: post #62

bluntly_said wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 do…

Hey this is my first post. The word "bigot" seems to be used a lot in these post. I was curious to find out what was the exact definition of the word and found this on m-w.com: "a person who strongly and unfairly dislikes other people, ideas, etc...one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance" I have a hard time believing that a guy who worked for a company as diverse as Mozilla with almost no signs of mistreating his gay or lesbian employees could be given such a strong label, again, someone who "strongly and unfairly dislikes" gays.

As someone new to this post, your comments seem to be more aligned with this definition then Eich's. For someone who seeks equality, your post seem full of "hatred and intolerance."

Re: The Hypocrisy Of Sam Yagan and OkCupid

#139

Post by anonbanker » Sun, Apr 06, 2014, 7:15 PM UTC

commanda wrote: post #128

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…

It really irks me when people conflate calling for someone to step down from a CEO role with "lynching", "blood", or "militant". As you know, actual LGBTQ people are actually lynched, and our blood is actually shed. Your metaphors are, frankly, offensive. (disclosure: I am also a member of the LGBTQ community.)

right. ignore the validity of my comments. just take offense to the words.

Whilst living in Montana, I have been harrassed multiple times for my sexuality. I have been beaten to unconsciousness by people I didn't even see approaching me, left with a sign saying "HOMO" on my body. I have had a rope around my neck, and three men lift my drugged body to a tree so I could die. Thankfully, a less bigoted person scared them off with a shotgun and got me medical attention. It's why I left the states and moved to Canada.

I know the words I'm using. I feel entitled to use them, as I'm fully calibrated to their meanings.

Now, perhaps you haven't learned that a "Political Lynch Mob" is a thing. And that angry mobs are often out for blood, literally AND figuratively. Perhaps you haven't seen any political lynch mobs in the past, and never seen them literally go for blood. Allow me to inform you that they do happen. I invite you to crack open a history book. Perhaps start with the Boston Tea Party, which, while not a literal lynch mob, did in fact irreparably burn a politician with hot tar, and then cover him in feathers as a sort of public mockery. because of Taxes on Tea. If you think that is somehow more justified than a group of people that (I completely believe) would beat Eich in the street if a group of them found him alone, for donating money to a cause they found abhorrent, I don't know what to say to you.

if you think I'm exaggerating about how groups of angry citizens almost always lead to senseless violence, you should probably crack open that history book again.

Re: The Hypocrisy Of Sam Yagan and OkCupid

#140

Post by dang » Sun, Apr 06, 2014, 7:18 PM UTC

Karunamon wrote: post #33

bluntly_said wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not qualified to tell the other side of the story. I don't know why Eich made that contribution. Neither do you. It might have been family pressure, it might have honestly been that he's religious and doesn't believe the word "marriage" can be applied to same sex couple (who had Domestic partnerships available in California, which provide the same legal rights as marriage, so I find the "second class citizen" arg…

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 should be ashamed of yourself.

I appreciate the intensity of the issue, but personal attacks are not allowed on Hacker News.

Edit: thanks to seertaak below for pointing out that this was trivial compared to what Karunamon was responding to.

I get that it gives the wrong impression to admonish one person while ignoring something much worse. On the other hand, we (and certainly I) can't read all the comments, so there's inevitably some randomness here. I can't promise to get everything right, but I do promise to listen to correcting feedback.