The Hypocrisy Of Sam Yagan and OkCupid • Hacker News Board

Re: The Hypocrisy Of Sam Yagan and OkCupid

#151

Post by masklinn » Sun, Apr 06, 2014, 7:23 PM UTC

baddox wrote: post #88

masklinn wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> For example, there are people who have nothing against homosexuality but are attached to the symbolic value of 'marriage' as a Christian institution Yes, they were also attached to its symbolic value when they used it to condemn miscegenation. Given atheist, muslims, jews or hindus can get married, and so can blacks, browns, reds, yellows and whites (with one another too, which once upon a time was against "the sym…

It has nothing to do both "separate but equal" if the only difference is the legal term used ("marriage" for heterosexual couple, "civil union" for homosexual couple) and not the rights associated with it. Separate but equal was about physical segregation of minorities, not just about using different legal terms for the same thing. And, by the way, something that a ton of people don't know about the separate but equa…

> It has nothing to do both "separate but equal" if the only difference is the legal term used ("marriage" for heterosexual couple, "civil union" for homosexual couple) and not the rights associated with it.

It's the exact same theory: "different legal regimes but the same rights" and "different physical facilities but the same quality".

Re: The Hypocrisy Of Sam Yagan and OkCupid

#152

Post by nitrogen » Sun, Apr 06, 2014, 7:24 PM UTC

bp123 wrote: post #63

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" th…

And look, he could of[sic] just apologized and he would have been fine. He didn't.

Would his apology have been reported by the media if he did? I don't recall any discussion of asking for clarification from Mozilla or Eich.

Re: The Hypocrisy Of Sam Yagan and OkCupid

#153

Post by bluntly_said » Sun, Apr 06, 2014, 7:25 PM UTC

ufmace wrote: post #113

bluntly_said wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I agree with this point of view, and have always been a bit skeptical of the gay marriage movement because of it. But on the other side, it sounds like Prop 8 is the exact opposite of what we're talking about - a measure to codify the definition of marriage and define it as exclusively heterosexual into the constitution. I can't think of any decent reason to support it.

And personally, I agree with you. I wouldn't support it. It made me think less of Eich. It didn't make we want him to lose a job he was qualified for. I can also still respect the work he does for Mozilla.

I think my point here is that both sides have it wrong. And when we as a society are trying to tackle the issue, hatred and demonizing isn't the right course of action.

Re: The Hypocrisy Of Sam Yagan and OkCupid

#154

Post by aryastark » Sun, Apr 06, 2014, 7:26 PM UTC

Karunamon wrote: post #14

bluntly_said wrote: post #8

I find the entire Eich scandal disheartening. A man lost his job (one he was undoubtedly qualified for) because people find it easier to heap hatred on someone they've never met, than to act with dignity and respect. We have some serious issues in this country, and our inability to compromise or respect a person we don't agree with is frightening. Life is filled with shades of grey, compromise is not "that nice thing…

>because people find it easier to heap hatred on someone they've never met, than to act with dignity and respect. Turn it around. Eich found it easier to treat millions of people he's never met as second class citizens, than to act with dignity and respect. There are two sides to this story, and you seem to be very eager to tell the one and handwave the other for a "why can't we all just get along" platitude.

> Eich found it easier to treat millions of people he's never met as second class citizens

You act as if Prop 8 didn't pass by 52.24% of the voting public, or by 7 million people. But no, Eich was dictator of California, enslaving millions of gays. Or whatever.

Re: The Hypocrisy Of Sam Yagan and OkCupid

#155

Post by r0s » Sun, Apr 06, 2014, 7:26 PM UTC

bluntly_said wrote: post #8

I find the entire Eich scandal disheartening. A man lost his job (one he was undoubtedly qualified for) because people find it easier to heap hatred on someone they've never met, than to act with dignity and respect. We have some serious issues in this country, and our inability to compromise or respect a person we don't agree with is frightening. Life is filled with shades of grey, compromise is not "that nice thing…

> people find it easier to heap hatred on someone they've never met, than to act with dignity and respect.

Please explain how criminalizing gay marriage is somehow different from this claim.

Compromise or abstraction away from the root issue to serve some hazy point about moral uncertainty is dishonest.

Re: The Hypocrisy Of Sam Yagan and OkCupid

#156

Post by kevingadd » Sun, Apr 06, 2014, 7:27 PM UTC

masklinn wrote: post #75

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…

> For example, there are people who have nothing against homosexuality but are attached to the symbolic value of 'marriage' as a Christian institution Yes, they were also attached to its symbolic value when they used it to condemn miscegenation. Given atheist, muslims, jews or hindus can get married, and so can blacks, browns, reds, yellows and whites (with one another too, which once upon a time was against "the sym…

Eich was not 'stonewalling', he was following the guidelines that all Mozilla employees adhere to, which include not bringing personal views into the workplace. Stating his PoV on gay marriage (pro OR con) as a representative of Mozilla would have been wholly inappropriate. The thing you say would have proven his virtue would have in fact made him unsuitable to hold his position.

See here: https://medium.com/p/7645a4bf8a2

Re: The Hypocrisy Of Sam Yagan and OkCupid

#157

Post by crusso » Sun, Apr 06, 2014, 7:27 PM UTC

masklinn wrote: post #75

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…

> For example, there are people who have nothing against homosexuality but are attached to the symbolic value of 'marriage' as a Christian institution Yes, they were also attached to its symbolic value when they used it to condemn miscegenation. Given atheist, muslims, jews or hindus can get married, and so can blacks, browns, reds, yellows and whites (with one another too, which once upon a time was against "the sym…

>> and would be completely fine with another civil contract with the same rights but a different name.

>Because "separate but equal" had such a good run last time around eh?

Do you take the same hardline stance with others who were opposed to gay marriage a few years ago and advocating civil unions?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=73oZ_pe1MZ8

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N6K9dS9wl7U

Re: The Hypocrisy Of Sam Yagan and OkCupid

#158

Post by kyrra » Sun, Apr 06, 2014, 7:28 PM UTC

downandout wrote: post #131

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 h…

> I don't think that individual religious views have any place in the creation of laws that will affect people's everyday lives.

How can you keep religious views out of law making? The US as we know it today was founded for religious freedom. Also, religion like Christianity is a way of life. How people interpret the Bible will vary between people, as can be seen with the various denominations of Christianity. How people apply those beliefs to their daily interactions will also vary.

What I'm trying to get at is, how can someone remove religion from their thinking and actions when it is core to who they are. Could you remove science and technology from your decision making?

Re: The Hypocrisy Of Sam Yagan and OkCupid

#159

Post by r0s » Sun, Apr 06, 2014, 7:28 PM UTC

patrickg_zill wrote: post #65

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.

I really don't care if there's a mindless consensus against the ethically sound perspective, that proves nothing.

Re: The Hypocrisy Of Sam Yagan and OkCupid

#160

Post by Karunamon » Sun, Apr 06, 2014, 7:28 PM UTC

briantakita wrote: post #102

Karunamon wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Eich said he supported equality. His actions show otherwise. I've said this before here, but I have much less problem with the (small) donation (to a failed cause) than I do his subsequent behavior. His subsequent hypocrisy proves beyond any reasonable doubt that those views are still very personal and very real to him, regardless of what comes out of his mouth. One does not abdicate a CEO position, something of gre…

> His actions show otherwise. Those who know him say he treated everybody equally. He set policy & a supported a system in Mozilla that promoted equality. His heart is in a decent place. We all have moral blind spots. He has his past. We all need to grow in some areas. Painting Eich as some "extremist" is disingenuous. > How well do you think a CEO would do if it came out that they were donators to Stormfront? Prop 8…

He has his past.

If that was truly the case he would have explained this when asked about it. He did not. He quit his job rather than do this.

Prop 8 had 52% of the vote. It is a mainstream opinion.

With ads like this [1] I'm not surprised. His money went to support those, by the way. And you probably meant was.

"ok" to be kneejerk judgmental.

You and everyone else I've asked this question to seem to dance around it. How is this any different than supporting any other kind of anti-equality thing?

* Don't say his views were in the past, they clearly are not, given his post-reveal behavior.

* Don't say this is different unless you can objectively prove a way that this particular right is somehow different from the right of women or blacks to vote.

So which is it? Why is disliking people because they think women are beneath them or think blacks are sub-human any different than this? It's the same xenophobia dressed up in new clothes - that makes it okay now?

it's we need to be more tolerant as a society. We need to treat everybody with respect

And part of which is naming and shaming those that fail this relatively simple task. Being tolerant does not mean accepting intolerance in the same way that being pacifist does not mean accepting war.

He did apologize for hurting people

Which holds about as much water as "sorry you were offended" in my book. The view underpinning the action he (sort of kind of weaselly) apologized for is still there as strong as it ever was. He couldn't even be bothered to give a counter donation.

The problem with online bullying is the target's motive & the truth does not matter

This is where we diverge. I have no problem what-so-ever castigating someone for bad behavior if it's actually proven that they did engage in bad behavior. Mis-aimed outrage is a huge problem with online communities.

However, I see no such mis-aiming here. You've got someone who failed in two big respects - the ability to treat other people with respect in private, and the ability to handle basic CEO duties such as PR and recognizing conflicts of interest.

He was unfit to be CEO and did not deserve that position, with those two things in mind. Maybe that's a value judgement, but that's mine to make.

I want tolerance

Rejecting intolerance is the first step.

However, if I don't like your opinion about something

Again, you're mis-framing Eich's action as if it were a mere opinion or thought that crossed his mind one day, and not something he gave money to support (this in particular: [1]) and gave his job rather than repudiate. That tells me all I need to know about his "personal beliefs" and how he feels about them.

--

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