The Hypocrisy Of Sam Yagan and OkCupid • Hacker News Board

Re: The Hypocrisy Of Sam Yagan and OkCupid

#241

Post by anonbanker » Sun, Apr 06, 2014, 8:46 PM UTC

krainboltgreene wrote: post #172

bambax wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is really not the point at all; we're way way past the debate pro- or against- gay marriage. (Disclaimer: like probably 99% of people on HN, I'm strongly in favor of gay marriage). The point(s) are: - is it acceptable to hunt a man down and force him to step down from a job he's highly qualified for, because he has held in the past political opinions that not only differ from your own, but were then mainstream a…

Jesus, "hunt a man down" and "ruin a man's (otherwise impeccable) professional life"? You have a really low bar for using these phrases and it makes your argument that much more ridiculous (and false). None of these things happened and you miss half the context in which similar but less hyperbolic things happened.

Brendan Eich's professional life was impeccable. he had a stellar resume, and was CTO of a successful company. he could've gone anywhere from there. Now, he's thought of in SV as a bigot, despite all his efforts to reverse that opinion. His impeccable professional reputation is ruined. I see no lowering of the bar when staing this fact. Perhaps you could explain why saying he was ruined professionally is false?

After looking through your comment history, you seem to be posting the same downplaying arguments throughout the thread. And when you're disagreed with, the replies to you are downvoted. very interesting. perhaps you could explain that as well?

Re: The Hypocrisy Of Sam Yagan and OkCupid

#242

Post by anonbanker » Sun, Apr 06, 2014, 8:50 PM UTC

stcredzero wrote: post #205

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…

What is regrettable in all this is that no one seems to consider the possibility that people may have nuanced views about gay marriage. The norm portrayed on television and in so much of the media is that nuanced views are just a cover for being a "bad guy." In a story, black and white morality is so much more palatable for the least common denominator audience. News media now also follows this pattern, as do politic…

I thought HN as a whole was smart enough to not fall for these black and white moral plays. Either they are that gullible overall, or there's some serious astroturfing going on here.

Re: The Hypocrisy Of Sam Yagan and OkCupid

#243

Post by [deleted] » Sun, Apr 06, 2014, 8:50 PM UTC

anonbanker wrote: post #228

dfc wrote: post #219

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Right. And your mother is on OKCupid, and understood the Firefox message that popped up on her browser. Further, your mother uses Firefox and not whatever is included with her computer. Further, your mother is paying attention to tech news. Can we switch Moms? Yours sounds awesome.

[deleted]

Re: The Hypocrisy Of Sam Yagan and OkCupid

#244

Post by pessimizer » Sun, Apr 06, 2014, 8:51 PM UTC

anonbanker wrote: post #139

commanda wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 the…

>if you think I'm exaggerating about how groups of angry citizens almost always lead to senseless violence

If you're saying that groups of angry people always lead to senseless violence, you're wrong, and there's no history book that will back you up. Yours is the typical argument against the concept of anger in defense of of a person who has inspired anger. Completely empty.

To say that a particular reaction isn't justified in a particular case is one thing. To say that to react to anything in anger makes one dangerous and therefore bad is silly and an argument that can be directed at everyone on every side of the argument with equal vacuity.

Was the lynch mob the one that decided not to use or support the use of a particular product, or was the lynch mob the group of people all over the country who combined forces to help defeat an element of gay rights in a single state? Answer: neither. No one was lynched, people weren't prevented from expressing themselves, and people weren't prevented from expressing objections to those expressions through their own personal choices: Eich got to donate money to help keep gays from getting married, and people stopped using Firefox because they didn't want the company that makes their browser to be run by a homophobe.

If you wanted to use Firefox twice as much to show your support for people being able to express any view (or even just the views you like) without personal consequences, you were always free to - Chick-Fil-A, Duck Dynasty, Cracker Barrel, Hobby Lobby, and Paula Deen still do good business.

Re: The Hypocrisy Of Sam Yagan and OkCupid

#245

Post by anonbanker » Sun, Apr 06, 2014, 8:55 PM UTC

camus2 wrote: post #217

adil_h wrote: post #51

surely banning Firefox was pretty stupid given that it's quite a large open source project? This stunt just seems like a cry for attention.

it was what you said it was, just a publicity stunt,nothing more.They couldnt care less about Eich.

if it were a publicity stunt, then they were promoting Opera, IE, and Chrome over Firefox.

Someone should be looking into why they promoted IE and Blink over Gecko.

Re: The Hypocrisy Of Sam Yagan and OkCupid

#246

Post by egh » Sun, Apr 06, 2014, 8:57 PM UTC

baddox wrote: post #234

egh wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, among other things. Just read the article. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Crow_laws Are you implying there were a bunch of southern business owners who wanted to provide integrated service, but were unable to because of Jim Crow? That's what it sounds like, and it's so wrong it's astounding.

I'm well aware of Jim Crow laws. They mandated the racial segregation of public facilities, the military, restrooms, etc. What is the mistake you think I'm making about Jim Crow laws? Surely there must have been at least a few business owners that didn't want to spend their resources on separate facilities. Otherwise the state laws which forced segregation wouldn't have been necessary.

Yes - they just didn't serve blacks.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Negro_Motorist_Green_Book

What mistake do I think you are making? You said: "It actually refers to the government's legal authority to mandate that privately owned businesses provide separate nut equal facilities for blacks". No law ever forced private businesses to serve blacks in the south until the civil rights act. They may have been forced to racially segregate, but no law every forced white southern business owners to serve blacks.

Re: The Hypocrisy Of Sam Yagan and OkCupid

#247

Post by baddox » Sun, Apr 06, 2014, 8:59 PM UTC

bane wrote: post #240

bluntly_said wrote: post #206

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And I think the separate but equal problem is a very compelling reason to remove rights from marriage entirely. Codifying religious beliefs into law shouldn't be accepted. Trying to redefine religious beliefs in law stirs up more controversy than it should. Amending the law to force all couples to get the equivalent of a civil unions satisfies both camps. Further, once marriage holds no rights, the government cannot…

I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding of the difference between a secular and a religious "marriage". Religious institutions have always been allowed to marry or not marry as they see fit. Quite a few religions and religious factions have provide same-sex marriages long before it was ever explicitly allowed in law. When most people get a regular 'ol marriage, it's actually two events. Their religious marria…

> Religious institutions have always been allowed to marry or not marry as they see fit.

Correct me if I'm reading this wrong [0], but it seem that a New Jersey court ruled in 2012 that a religious facility could not deny usage to homosexual couple for civil union ceremonies. From my quick Googling, it seems this is a big concern for Christian groups in the US, but I don't know how credible their concern is.

[0] http://www.adfmedia.org/files/OGCMA-BernsteinRuling.pdf

Edit: with a bit more Googling, it seems fairly common for state governments to prohibit discriminating based on sexual orientation for the sale of goods and services, which would (I assume) apply to churches being used for ceremonies. There have also been court cases involving wedding cakes, flowers, and photography.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/judge-orders-colorado-bakery-cater-...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/28/gay-wedding-flowers...

Proposed city law in Kansas: http://www.hutchgov.com/egov/docs/1332537777_170654.pdf

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/12/30/nj-rules-against-ch...

Re: The Hypocrisy Of Sam Yagan and OkCupid

#248

Post by egh » Sun, Apr 06, 2014, 9:00 PM UTC

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…

So - what you are saying is that you support radical, armed struggle in support of marriage equality? Just as Mandela supported radical, armed struggle against apartheid?

Re: The Hypocrisy Of Sam Yagan and OkCupid

#249

Post by pessimizer » Sun, Apr 06, 2014, 9:01 PM UTC

r0s wrote: post #169

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 ... som…

Or maybe it is political, and that's all right, and it's generally your choice to decide who you want to do business with and why, outside of a few federally protected classes (due to historical reasons.)

Re: The Hypocrisy Of Sam Yagan and OkCupid

#250

Post by pessimizer » Sun, Apr 06, 2014, 9:07 PM UTC

baddox wrote: post #247

bane wrote: post #240

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding of the difference between a secular and a religious "marriage". Religious institutions have always been allowed to marry or not marry as they see fit. Quite a few religions and religious factions have provide same-sex marriages long before it was ever explicitly allowed in law. When most people get a regular 'ol marriage, it's actually two events. Their religious marria…

> Religious institutions have always been allowed to marry or not marry as they see fit. Correct me if I'm reading this wrong [0], but it seem that a New Jersey court ruled in 2012 that a religious facility could not deny usage to homosexual couple for civil union ceremonies. From my quick Googling, it seems this is a big concern for Christian groups in the US, but I don't know how credible their concern is. [0] http…

It's become a big issue in Britain - but that's mostly because they have a state church. It's certainly not outside of the realm of possibility, but I've heard of mixed race marriage ceremonies being explicitly denied by churches in the US, and don't ever remember any recourse that the couples had other than the court of public opinion.