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

The Hypocrisy Of Sam Yagan and OkCupid

uncrunched.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 311 posts

Re: The Hypocrisy Of Sam Yagan and OkCupid

#161

Post by scarmig »

Aqueous wrote: post #121
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…

So many on the left (including myself) revere the style of politics of Nelson Mandela and yet when it comes time to actually behave like Mandela would in a given situation they completely fail, and conduct the same style of embittered, vengeful politics when they are asked to treat the other side with an attitude of forgiveness and reconciliation. Do you think Mandela systematically purged all those whites who once s…

For forgiveness you need Truth and Reconciliation. There's a reason that committee was set up.

"Forgiving and being reconciled to our enemies or our loved ones are not about pretending that things are other than they are. It is not about patting one another on the back and turning a blind eye to the wrong. True reconciliation exposes the awfulness, the abuse, the hurt, the truth. It could even sometimes make things worse. It is a risky undertaking but in the end it is worthwhile, because in the end only an honest confrontation with reality can bring real healing. Superficial reconciliation can bring only superficial healing."

That's Desmond Tutu, another important figure in the struggle against apartheid.

Do you think Eich has owned up to the hurt and abuse he committed? He's not even apologized. You can't have forgiveness if the person you want to forgive isn't even willing to apologize.

Re: The Hypocrisy Of Sam Yagan and OkCupid

#162

Post by patrickg_zill »

chaired wrote: post #124
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.

You think that we haven't considered the relationship between morality and popular opinion, and that we should give more weight to popular opinion? And that if we did, we'd see it makes a better basis for morality than models that highlight equality and enumerated rights?

Not at all; however I think there is, how shall I say it, "whistling past the graveyard"? "wilful blindness"? when it is expressed as if it is a majority opinion among humans.

It is like the anecdote about the woman living in the cocoon of NYC's Upper East Side, who said after Nixon's landslide win of the presidential election of 1972 "I can’t believe Nixon won. I don’t know anyone who voted for him."

Re: The Hypocrisy Of Sam Yagan and OkCupid

#163

Post by andrewfong »

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…

I think you're misreading the above post. The point is not to say there is a justifiable argument against gay marriage but to say that not all opponents are like Fred Phelps -- i.e., not all opponents are motivated by pure animus as opposed to ignorance, FUD, or just faulty reasoning.

A big part of that ignorance is many (if not most) gay marriage opponents simply don't believe it's an immutable characteristic and don't fully appreciate how damaging it can be to suppress one's sexual orientation (e.g. don't ask, don't tell). And if you don't believe that sexual orientation is an immutable characteristic, then a gay marriage ban isn't discrimination against a minority but simply yet another public morality law in line with bans on drugs, polygamy, or public nudity.

That doesn't make the argument any less wrong, but IMHO, intent matters. Ignorance or stupidity don't deserve the same level of condemnation as outright hate.

Re: The Hypocrisy Of Sam Yagan and OkCupid

#164

Post by bluntly_said »

mkr-hn wrote: post #101
bluntly_said wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Prop 8 was part of a long-running--to this day--national campaign to create and maintain this separation across many jurisdictions with different takes on marriage and civil union. The campaign has employed every negative tactic imaginable. You have to look at it in that context to understand why it's still an issue, even if it seems okay on the level of one state. The trouble is, it's easy to give one class new thin…

But I think this is still wrong. Giving marriage any rights at all is respecting a religious practice in the government.

I think we solve the problem not by forcing those who are religious to accept gays, or by forcing gay people to accept a different word for the same rights. I think we solve it by acknowledging that marriage should never have had rights, and forcing anyone who wants the rights currently afforded to marriage, gay or straight, to get a civil union. Or hell, if you don't like civil union, call it a taxed co-habitation rights application.

Once the government has no interest in marriage, no one can stop a gay person for getting married if they'd like to. Just like no one can force a very religious community or church to recognize that marriage.

Re: The Hypocrisy Of Sam Yagan and OkCupid

#165

Post by dfc »

anonbanker wrote: post #44
dfc wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unfortunately, I doubt it that this makes much of a ripple. "OKCupid blocks firefox to send message to Mozilla" is short and easily tweetable. This follow up requires more explanation.

you can't make a 10-second soundbyte out of it? I sure can. Picture Scumbag Steve, if you will. ENCOURAGES PEOPLE TO BOYCOT MOZILLA FOR ANTI-GAY CEO. DONATES TO ANTI-GAY CAUSES.

As far as PR nightmare backlashes go your example is a walk in the park. I thought it went without saying that the sound bite needed to be accurate but I guess not. The donation was made to a politician, not to an issue group. These two are not equivalent. The inaccuracy makes it very easy for OKC to dismiss your response and no semi-decent journalist is going to discuss your inaccurate claim. Your response also suffers from the fact that it does not name OKC or Yagan by name and you are relying on the individual having previous knowledge of the issue.

Re: The Hypocrisy Of Sam Yagan and OkCupid

#166

Post by stormbrew »

Ygg2 wrote: post #117
stormbrew wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That would still be much more than Eich ever gave.

From what I've read, they were preparing some statement, but they apparently never did because B. Eich quit and left Mozilla under pressure. Right now who knows, maybe he was intending an apology, but if I were him this ordeal would have left me really bitter at what was the supposed cause.

It's not as if he hasn't had 2 years to get ahead of this and express some kind of understanding of why it offended people. Instead, in his public comments since, he has focused on the fact that Mozilla's name was on the donation roll (an issue the first time around when people didn't understand what was going on, perhaps, but less so this time) and apparently that people in a conservative country think he's just fine and dandy.

There were definitely statements he could have made, personally, in the intervening time that would almost certainly have defused this quite a bit. He did interviews during those two years that focused on this issue several times. I doubt he even had to go so far as to completely recant on it, so much as just express some understanding of how his donation can be seen to have hurt real people, many of whom he now worked with and had to lead.

Re: The Hypocrisy Of Sam Yagan and OkCupid

#167

Post by anonbanker »

otterley wrote: post #134
anonbanker wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Perhaps you could come up with a logical reason why someone would vote for a staunch "pro-family-rights", "pro-bible", "pro-USAPATRIOT Act", anti-gay-marriage conservative if they didn't agree with him.

Perhaps you could also come up with a logical reason why incumbents that supported the USAPATRIOT Act are still being elected by people that don't necessarily support that stance. I'm having difficulty with that one myself.

Re: The Hypocrisy Of Sam Yagan and OkCupid

#168

Post by crusso »

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.

You're demonstrating the exact problem the person to whom you were responding was discussing.

You can take a "damn them all and defeat them at all costs" stance if you want to. There's always something that "the other side" did at some point that you can avoid looking past or working with.

Grind that axe forever, I guess... but as the previous poster said, that level of intransigence is disheartening.

Re: The Hypocrisy Of Sam Yagan and OkCupid

#169

Post by r0s »

Ryel wrote: post #38

I doubt this means very much, or is worth anything but FWIW... I had arranged for myself and 2 friends to go have lunch with 2 people from OkCupid specifically about whether or not we would be a good fit into the company and what they would be able to offer. I'm only looking for an entry-level front-end dev position so my time isnt nearly as valuable, but out of the other 2 friends one is an ex-Googler, the other fro…

What an arbitrary career choice.

If you'd avoid a job due to politics, you'd probably leave a job due to politics. Maybe you think you're rising above public opinion concerns to polish some kind of sycophantic business mindset, but you're acting just as emotionally as the board of Mozilla.

More so, because they have consumer pressure concerns.

Maybe your canceled lunch will appear as sober apolitical moves to ... someone. In my opinion you just flushed your credibility down the toilet.

Re: The Hypocrisy Of Sam Yagan and OkCupid

#170

Post by Aqueous »

scarmig wrote: post #161
Aqueous wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So many on the left (including myself) revere the style of politics of Nelson Mandela and yet when it comes time to actually behave like Mandela would in a given situation they completely fail, and conduct the same style of embittered, vengeful politics when they are asked to treat the other side with an attitude of forgiveness and reconciliation. Do you think Mandela systematically purged all those whites who once s…

For forgiveness you need Truth and Reconciliation. There's a reason that committee was set up. "Forgiving and being reconciled to our enemies or our loved ones are not about pretending that things are other than they are. It is not about patting one another on the back and turning a blind eye to the wrong. True reconciliation exposes the awfulness, the abuse, the hurt, the truth. It could even sometimes make things w…

Truth and Reconciliation was about truth, and not punishment. It did not demand that former supporters renounce their heresy or be punished, just that a historical accounting was made, the facts were laid down.

Brendan Eich said the following in a blog post(https://brendaneich.com/2014/03/inclusiveness-at-mozilla/) after making a statement that he fully intended to continue the LGBT-inclusive policies at Mozilla:

"I know some will be skeptical about this, and that words alone will not change anything. I can only ask for your support to have the time to “show, not tell”; and in the meantime express my sorrow at having caused pain."

Post reply on HN