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

211–220 of 311 posts

Re: The Hypocrisy Of Sam Yagan and OkCupid

#211

Post by bane »

yypark wrote: post #183
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…

The reaction to Eich is best seen through a lens of human group power dynamics, as it isn't logically consistent with some supposed ideals (civil discourse, etc.). Geeks have a harder time understanding this social acceptability aspect, especially within a given group or tribe. For this particular political question, a "no gay marriage" opinion has passed into the socially unacceptable in the Bay Area tech crowd. I'm…

> Eich doesn't really have a way out in this.

Which is not really correct though. Eich said he was sorry for the harm he caused, by not for the thoughts he had. He could have said "back then I thought one way about the matter, and even supported causes in that way, since then I've been educated that this is harmful and regret how I thought back then. My views have evolved and for anybody who was harmed by my thoughts and actions back then, I'm very sorry and will do my best to make amends."

We all make mistakes, and our thinking changes over the years. Eich is no different. He's as forgivable as we are. But forgiveness requires repentance, which he hasn't done. The current theory about why is that he still holds the same thoughts.

Re: The Hypocrisy Of Sam Yagan and OkCupid

#212

Post by aryastark »

scarmig wrote: post #197
aryastark wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm sorry, but Prop 8 passed. By 7 million people. Boycotting Mozilla? Really? You need to talk about boycotting California . Making a scapegoat out of one single person for what an entire state did is fucking insane.

The number you're looking for is 599,602 people, not 7 million people. Note that I've not said anything to support boycotting Mozilla or calling for Eich to get fired. I just don't like people laughing it off as just some good ole fun he was having. Donating money--real money, $1,000--to a campaign of hate is bad, particularly considering the vile rhetoric it used those funds for directly. Bad bad bad. It's also bad…

> The number you're looking for is 599,602 people, not 7 million people.

What are you talking about?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_8_(2008...

7,001,084 votes for yes.

Re: The Hypocrisy Of Sam Yagan and OkCupid

#213

Post by bluntly_said »

hackinthebochs wrote: post #208
Karunamon wrote: post #198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which is a longer and more arduous process to fix. In the mean time, you've got a constitutional issue that must be addressed now . California had a few options here. * Redefine all "marriages" as "civil unions". Makes the religious folks and libertarians happy, but introduces a problem in that you've deleted something that every other state recognizes. How will marriages in other states carry over? How about contrac…

This is a rational argument, and this is the argument people should be having with those who oppose it rather than name calling and mudslinging. But nothing that you say here justifies calling those who oppose this bigots, etc. Either way, the California legislature is probably the wrong place to have this discussion, as a marriage in California wouldn't necessarily be recognized in other states anyways.

This is true, marriage in one state does not have to be recognized in another, or even federally. California amending it's marriage laws does not solve "dependency hell". It does however force your morals on a religious community within the state. Just like prop-8 was trying to force their morals on the gay community in that state.

BOTH sides got this one wrong.

Re: The Hypocrisy Of Sam Yagan and OkCupid

#214

Post by Karunamon »

hackinthebochs wrote: post #208
Karunamon wrote: post #198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which is a longer and more arduous process to fix. In the mean time, you've got a constitutional issue that must be addressed now . California had a few options here. * Redefine all "marriages" as "civil unions". Makes the religious folks and libertarians happy, but introduces a problem in that you've deleted something that every other state recognizes. How will marriages in other states carry over? How about contrac…

This is a rational argument, and this is the argument people should be having with those who oppose it rather than name calling and mudslinging. But nothing that you say here justifies calling those who oppose this bigots, etc. Either way, the California legislature is probably the wrong place to have this discussion, as a marriage in California wouldn't necessarily be recognized in other states anyways.

I think that was part of the goal of redefining marriage legally. Which is pretty damn brilliant once you think about it.

The full faith and credit clause ensures that contracts (which is what a marriage technically is) are valid in all other states in the union. This completely sidesteps any local laws that might be otherwise inferior, and also ensures that the case can be easily escalated (all the way to SCOTUS if necessary) in case of issues.

Re: The Hypocrisy Of Sam Yagan and OkCupid

#215

Post by rz2k »

r0s wrote: post #144
lingben wrote: post #5

The hypocrisy of okcupid was evident even before this little bit of info (Yagan's past political contribution) was shared. As I and others pointed out, okcupid went on using javascript! As for okcupid occupying the moral high ground, I still remember when, right after their purchase by match.com, they removed one of the most interesting posts on their blog. It was about why you should never pay for dating web sites a…

Being a hypocrite about paywalls after the company is re-structured is related to this somehow?

While it would be foolish to categorize companies as adhering to a messianic mission or being pragmatic and responsible to shareholders, since no company is entirely one or the other, it does affect the credibility as to how ideological such a stand actually was, or whether it was a strategic decision with projected benefits.

There are many types of relationship sites. There are those that focus on marriage or on casual sex, and ones that take your religious background into strong consideration. And, that's even before you get into the ones that focus on specific religions, ethnicities, or other demographics.

It's not immoral to have a business strategy, and an ideological stance doesn't have to hurt to meaningful, but given what it sounds like from the reporting, it's doubtful whether they have the moral authority to insist on the CEO of another company being fired for having been on the wrong side of an issue that has already lost. I seems like it was a business strategy that has no effect on the issue of gay marriage, and a decision that was made without concern about Mozilla or the guy who was fired because it isn't relevant to their business.

Re: The Hypocrisy Of Sam Yagan and OkCupid

#216

Post by AlexMax »

bluntly_said wrote: post #83
Karunamon wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

And my response to the separate but equal argument is literally sitting in my comment above, and part of my argument, remove rights from the word marriage. There is ONLY civil unions. There is no separation. You yourself claimed that appropriating the word marriage was a band-aid, and yet you ignore that a band-aid was in place, and a much more rational argument would have been to remove rights associated with marria…

> Come back when you can intelligently make an argument that is internally consistent. I have to agree with the others commenting on your posts, you have some serious cognitive dissonance.

Could it be that you've managed to ferret out hypocrisy in their mental model in just a few short minutes?

Or are you (and others) just straw-manning their position to be "Discrimination is bad no matter what!" so you can tear it down easily? I hope you yourself don't subscribe to that mental model, because it's not only overly-reductive, but like you said, it actually just plain doesn't work - neither in favor of the status quo or for changing it.

Re: The Hypocrisy Of Sam Yagan and OkCupid

#218

Post by bluntly_said »

hackinthebochs wrote: post #192
Karunamon wrote: post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because the government definition is tied to various contracts and benefits.

But those contracts and benefits can be had without the word. Was Prop 8 attempting to permanently remove the ability to gain those benefits?

Those contracts and benefits were already present and available under a domestic partnership. Prop-8 merely wanted marriage to remain between a man and a women (in the legal sense, in all reality, some scummy shit came out around that prop)

My issue with Karunamon's argument in most of his comments, is that he dismisses that idea, and instead attempts to force his own morals into a legal construct. Namely, that all people should be able to be married, regardless of religious connotations involved.

Then he defends forcing that legal construct into law by claiming it's only to gain the rights of marriage, ignoring that they were already available. He is now participating on the same level that prop 8 was: Forcing religious constructs into law, because he agrees with them.

Now, solving the separate but equal nonsense is a good discussion to have but his points there about co-opting marriage to do it seem hollow, It doesn't solve the problem, it doesn't solve dependency hell.

It just co-opts a word to mean what he believes it should.

Re: The Hypocrisy Of Sam Yagan and OkCupid

#219

Post by dfc »

anonbanker wrote: post #194
dfc wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 suff…

So you take the Scumbag Steve hat, and photoshop it on Sam Yagan's head, then place the text I mentioned. I invite you to look into image-based memes, as it seems you're confused on their execution. sound bytes are almost intentionally inaccurate. if you could take such a complex issue and fit it into twenty words or less, you're probably losing a lot, or it wasn't a substantial issue. As far as PR nightmare backlash…

I don't know what Yagan looks like and my mom has no concept of image based memes. That being said my mother can understand:

  OKCupid blocks firefox over anti-gay Mozilla CEO
That sound bite works, and it works across a lot of demos.

Re: The Hypocrisy Of Sam Yagan and OkCupid

#220

Post by bane »

Xdes wrote: post #105
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…

>I see the behavior of people like Eich as a personal affront to me and people close to me. Yet you aren't going to get fired for having expressed those views five years ago. How would you feel if your boss decided to fire you over your personal beliefs, overlooking your professional merits? Do you really want McCarthyism again?

> Yet you aren't going to get fired for having expressed those views five years ago.

There was a time, during my own lifetime where it is was perfectly acceptable to openly discuss weather whites and blacks should be allowed to get married or not. Social change can occur quickly, like a wildfire, the recent history of a change is not all that important -- the fire has already happened.

Post reply on HN