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

Tim Cook Speaks Up

businessweek.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

501–510 of 1001 posts

Re: Tim Cook Speaks Up

#501

Post by brandonmenc »

anonbanker wrote: post #483
blktiger wrote: post #298

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have a hard time thinking of anyone as Christian if they ignore the basic tenants of what the Bible says. Homosexuality is very clearly spelled out as wrong. So are plenty of other things of course and the Bible doesn't specify homosexual behavior as any more or less wrong than any other sinful act. Christians shouldn't be treating homosexuals any different than anyone else, but that includes letting people know th…

in Leviticus 18:25, Man laying with another Man is an "abomination". right before that, in Leviticus 18:19, "'Do not approach a woman to have sexual relations during the uncleanness of her monthly period." and right before that, in Leviticus 17:15, "'Anyone, whether native-born or foreigner, who eats anything found dead or torn by wild animals must wash their clothes and bathe with water, and they will be ceremoniall…

One can ignore the Old Testament in its entirety and still be a Christian who believes being gay is wrong - it is addressed, albeit briefly, in the New Testament.

Re: Tim Cook Speaks Up

#502

Post by Crito »

dreamweapon wrote: post #464
notjackma wrote: post #396

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Tim Cook continued contracts with Foxconn with the sole goal of minimizing production costs by using underpaid overworked labor I'm going to upvote you for this. Just because Tim Cook is gay doesn't make him Mother Teresa. He seems quite happy in promoting brutal Victorian style work-houses because it's "over there". Out of sight, out of mind. He's quite the hypocrite. He's also no better or worse then the operatio…

Just because Tim Cook is gay doesn't make him Mother Teresa. It's also completely irrelevant to the subject of Brendan Eich's support of bigoted TV ads. Which is why I found the arguments made by the poster above you to be not really interesting, or worth responding to.

Actually, exploiting the poor is one thing that Tim Cook and Mother Teresa could find common ground on.

Re: Tim Cook Speaks Up

#503

Post by yourad_io »

Kalium wrote: post #491
yourad_io wrote: post #468

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> After you've been called a potential rapist several times in an academic or workplace setting just for your gender, you stop sympathizing with the modern feminist movement. So, there are some bad feminists around. [1] When people are absurd, feel free to 'absurd' right back at them (i.e. "Sure, I'm a potential rapist - as much as you are a potential murderer!"). "Dropping sympathy" for the feminist movement as a re…

> "Dropping sympathy" for the feminist movement as a response a few bad feminists that you've encountered is not really justified, or rational. When you are made to feel unwanted, excluded, and otherwise not welcome it is natural to go elsewhere in search of inclusiveness. This is a far more common reaction than that of adopting sympathy for those excluding you. No aspect of this should be surprising to a feminist.

> When you are made to feel unwanted, excluded, and otherwise not welcome it is natural to go elsewhere in search of inclusiveness.

Sure, but the GP wasn't talking about a particular group rejecting them, but rather "stop sympathizing with the entire modern feminist movement". That's an extreme reaction to disliking a subset of the movement's followers.

> This is a far more common reaction than that of adopting sympathy for those excluding you. No aspect of this should be surprising to a feminist.

Nobody's asking for personal sympathy or contribution, but rejecting Feminism due to a few bad Feminists is stupid. Especially if you claim to have been aligned with the Equality argument beforehand. How does that even work?

(attempt to reverse engineer a thought process leading to this)

1) thinking "Hey, men are dicks towards women. That ain't right. We need to equalize things as much as possible!" 2) meets bad feminists, receives abuse 3) thinking "Fuck it - Equality, yes, but not for you; I don't like you. NVM on the whole Feminism issue."

Absurd. You didn't really believe in equality in the first place. Demanding and supporting equality should have nothing to do with your personal likes and dislikes.

Re: Tim Cook Speaks Up

#504

Post by Isamu »

robomartin wrote: post #393
ForrestN wrote: post #235

I am incredibly grateful to Cook for this, not least because of how it will affect young gay people. When I was a child, I felt generally good about myself. I was reasonably smart, well-spoken, curious, and so on, and I wanted to do something important with my life. Some nagging part of me suspected I was gay from very early on, but I resisted it intensely. I wasn't really afraid of being mistreated, although I proba…

I applaud this. I am not gay. Conventional family, kids, etc. Oh, yes, I am also an atheist which, today, in the US, is worst than being gay in some circles. As I am sure a lot of you know, the reality show Survivor features a male homosexual couple this year. Bravo! We watch the show with our kids every week. Yes, they ask questions. The little ones cover their eyes when anybody kisses on TV anyway. Seeing two men k…

By saying "I consider being gay among the greatest gifts God has given me" he is directly confronting those who discriminate for religious reasons, probably the majority.

I think it is savvy of him to meet it head-on, to prod people to maybe reconsider their reflexive religious beliefs.

Re: Tim Cook Speaks Up

#505

Post by aragot »

cookiecaper wrote: post #456
aragot wrote: post #206

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Tim Cook faces 2 years in jail in Singapore if he has activity even in a private room. Three days ago, the Court of Appeal has just judged the law was conform to the constitution, because everyone is guaranteed equal rights no matter their sex, race or religion, and this doesn't include sexuality. The Straits Times: http://www.straitstimes.com/news/singapore/courts-crime/stor... The original judgement: https://s3.ama…

Performing a sexual act is a conscious behavior, wilfully chosen by the participants (except in cases of rape, which is not relevant to this discussion). Law is meant to regulate behaviors. It's valid to make sexual acts illegal. It doesn't violate non-discrimination rights because wilful participation by any person is just as illegal as participation by any other person . Laws that say "this is legal for people with…

You see, I'm upset when someone uses some law to forbid what seems normal to me, but this would be subjective. And I agree with you for the major trait of your discourse: To each country, their customs and laws, provided it was legally decided by the People. So it's quite on purpose that I kept my comment strictly apolitical... however clearly opinionated:

I didn't say the Singaporean law is stupid or retarded. I'm underlining the huge leap.

It's up to the reader really to forge an opinion. Let's not forget that Singapore is a very developed country, has major exchanges with our other countries of the western world, include trade, research, patents, high-educated migrants both ways and we have influence both ways. And yet, they don't guarantee some citizenship rights (aka: immediate arrestation and 2 years jail time) on the basis of what you would do in a private room between two consenting adults. Up to the reader to make an opinion.

Re: Tim Cook Speaks Up

#507

Post by Crito »

wldcordeiro wrote: post #434
angersock wrote: post #363

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yep. Now if only we could remind people that there's nothing wrong with having an unpopular opinion. After all, Brendan Eich has done more for computing than Cook ever will.

The witch hunt against Brendan was just terrible. He made a minor donation years ago and it's something people blew out of proportion. Here was his statement about inclusiveness after his donation became an issue https://brendaneich.com/2014/03/inclusiveness-at-mozilla/ To me it looks like he was committed to keeping Mozilla inclusive and would have been a great CEO.

To most Americans, $1k is not a "minor" amount of money.

Furthermore, the exact amount of money that he donated is fairly irrelevant anyway. The donation, no matter it's magnitude, serves to illustrate what he believes. If I made a $1 donation to the local KKK group, would you make excuses for me because $1 is a trivial amount of money? Of course you would not.

Re: Tim Cook Speaks Up

#508

Post by jshevek »

yourad_io wrote: post #468
drzaiusapelord wrote: post #413

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I feel there is a big difference between gay equality and what a lot of young men feel like is a shrill feminism that seems to be much more about axe grinding, political correctness, censorship, and entitlements than any sort of drive towards a true equality. After you've been called a potential rapist several times in an academic or workplace setting just for your gender, you stop sympathizing with the modern femini…

> After you've been called a potential rapist several times in an academic or workplace setting just for your gender, you stop sympathizing with the modern feminist movement. So, there are some bad feminists around. [1] When people are absurd, feel free to 'absurd' right back at them (i.e. "Sure, I'm a potential rapist - as much as you are a potential murderer!"). "Dropping sympathy" for the feminist movement as a re…

> I'm not following the reasoning here. Both movements are about equality; one focuses on gender, the other on sexual identity/orientation. They are very much two sides of the same coin (the humanEqualityCent)

I don't follow his reasoning either, as stated, but there is a question of subcultures, subcultural values, specific ideologies within the movement, and most importantly: composition.

There are many ways that these two movements differ. And while both movements attract some unpleasant people who damage the reputation of the movement as a whole, the way this plays out in feminism is a little different from how it plays out with LGBT rights.

So its not surprising to me that some people might (based on their personal experiences) think that one is toxic and the other isn't.

Re: Tim Cook Speaks Up

#509

Post by rglullis »

melvinmt wrote: post #485
silencio wrote: post #421

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Majority opinion may change but there are still so many holdouts. Which is why I'm glad to see things like this. I'm Asian and I married a white guy. It's only been seven months. I lost count of the number of people that raised their eyebrows because of my new European last name (less than the people surprised that he also changed his name!) and also lost count of how many people assumed my husband was Asian ~not~ a…

Well if you acknowledge that the names are considered European/Asian as you say yourself, and you switch up names on purpose, is it that strange that people are surprised that the person doesn't match up their name? At least your kids will have less problems with this as they have both "bloods" running through their veins. I think the problem is with the concept of names itself, if you're aiming for true etno-neutral…

> At least your kids (...) will have both bloods?

Are you sure you thought this through?

Re: Tim Cook Speaks Up

#510

Post by mturmon »

aragot wrote: post #191
emodendroket wrote: post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If your job was to blather on air day after day for however many hours you'd probably say a couple dumb things too. Everyone has "known" Tim Cook was gay forever so it's not a hard mistake to make.

How did everyone know? Or even, guess? I assume there are a few factors which generally correlate with being gay, such as never being seen dating a girl or trying to stick with gay fashions?

It's weird.

There once was a time where, if you were gay, or were close to people who were, you'd pick up hints about others who were gay. These hints would come from others who were gay, or gay-friendly. And they would be passed along like that.

As you moved closer to circles of power, you'd know more and more powerful people who were gay. But there was a code: you didn't bring it up publicly, or with outsiders. (Unless you wanted to be cruel.)

With this knowledge came power. You could read people and situations, understand hints and special relationships. It's a kind of x-ray vision.

But, if you were not gay, and were not close to people who were, you would be completely unaware. You might assume you didn't know anyone who was gay!

Such people were surprised when Rock Hudson (who everyone knew) was outed as gay just before he died of AIDS in 1985. They were surprised when other public figures were outed the same way, even (seriously!) "obvious" cases like Liberace.

We are now somewhere between that world (which was complex and had fascinating intrigues) and a different world (which is more open and fairer).

Source: before I met my wife, I didn't know anyone who was gay. But in fact, I was just ignorant that I already did.

Post reply on HN