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

541–550 of 1001 posts

Re: Tim Cook Speaks Up

#541

Post by yourad_io »

jshevek wrote: post #518
Kalium wrote: post #491

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "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.

Some people aren't going to understand your statement, because they are locked into ideas like 'feminism' == 'desire for equal rights'. Too many people who call themselves feminists actually do not believe in equal rights, and present feminism as a justification for bad behaviors. If this is how you experience feminism, this is going to influence your notion of what the word feminism actually means, in practice.

> 'feminism' == 'desire for equal rights'

Is this not the case?

Re: Tim Cook Speaks Up

#542

Post by DanBC »

worklogin wrote: post #257
Kudos wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> homesexual agenda Agenda? People only use that term when they're trying to imply something is somehow pushing homosexuality on the weak minded.

Aren't you? Whether it's good or not, aren't you pushing homosexuality on everyone, saying, "It's not OK to disapprove of our lifestyle"?

Voicing your disapproval causes real, actual, harm.

Re: Tim Cook Speaks Up

#543

Post by seunosewa »

jshevek wrote: post #531
[deleted] wrote: post #517

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[deleted]

>> If he truly does believe in God, then, knowing for sure that he is gay, he has to believe that God made him gay. No, not at all. This is only one very narrow view of how a deity may function, or the kind of relationship a diety may have with the universe, or the humans within it.

What are the other views of how a diety may function?

If God didn't make him gay, who did? (from a believer's POV)

Re: Tim Cook Speaks Up

#544

Post by [deleted] »

silencio wrote: post #421
jzymbaluk wrote: post #383

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>that's sad that we're still at this point That said, public opinion is changing very rapidly. XKCD 1431 ( http://xkcd.com/1431/ ) offers an interesting visualization and comparison between gay marriage and interracial marriage. According to XKCD's source, interracial marriage didn't reach majority approval until 1995, while gay marriage already reached majority approval in 2011. Now obviously this rift could be the…

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…

[deleted]

Re: Tim Cook Speaks Up

#545

Post by Kalium »

yourad_io wrote: post #541
jshevek wrote: post #518

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Some people aren't going to understand your statement, because they are locked into ideas like 'feminism' == 'desire for equal rights'. Too many people who call themselves feminists actually do not believe in equal rights, and present feminism as a justification for bad behaviors. If this is how you experience feminism, this is going to influence your notion of what the word feminism actually means, in practice.

> 'feminism' == 'desire for equal rights' Is this not the case?

In a world of intellectual purity and abstraction, yes, that is the case.

In the real world, it can be used as a fig leaf to justify a variety of abusive behaviors. For some people, that encompasses the whole of their experiences.

Re: Tim Cook Speaks Up

#546

Post by Arnor »

prewett wrote: post #381
Arnor wrote: post #276

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No... They simply acknowledge that the roughly 4% of the population that identify with the LGBT community exists. It's a pretty far push from acknowledging existence to "pushing homosexuality on everyone." I'll leave as an exercise to the reader to identify the mental gymnastics required to come up with the phrase: "pushing homosexuality on everyone"

I'm not sure who "they" is talking about in this thread, so I might be a little off here, but it definitely goes beyond acknowledging existence. People have acknowledged homosexuality for thousands of years (that's why there is a word for it). What the LGBT community wants is acceptance that it is a acceptable form of sexual expression. I definitely feel like there is some amount of "pushing homosexuality on everyone…

The "they" I was referring to is up a couple posts form mine. Namely: Disney and Coke.

Re: Tim Cook Speaks Up

#547

Post by city41 »

fleitz wrote: post #407
Tloewald wrote: post #378

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Brendan Eich is entitled to his opinion, and a large not for profit is entitled not to want someone with that opinion as a figurehead. As for who has done more for what — web browsers were going to have a scripting language. Is Javascript so astoundingly good that we can only assume any alternative would have been worse?

No kidding, if not for Eich we might have a scripting language with integers.

I think the blame should land more on Netscape as a whole than Eich. He did remarkably well considering the circumstances.

Re: Tim Cook Speaks Up

#548

Post by Kalium »

seunosewa wrote: post #543
jshevek wrote: post #531

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> If he truly does believe in God, then, knowing for sure that he is gay, he has to believe that God made him gay. No, not at all. This is only one very narrow view of how a deity may function, or the kind of relationship a diety may have with the universe, or the humans within it.

What are the other views of how a diety may function? If God didn't make him gay, who did? (from a believer's POV)

Others believe that while a deity may have the ability to shape to such a degree, said deity also chooses not to. Others believe that said deity is not that powerful.

In both cases, the matter is then left to personal and/or environmental factors.

Re: Tim Cook Speaks Up

#549

Post by yourad_io »

Kalium wrote: post #540
yourad_io wrote: post #529

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> When a person's entire exposure to a group consists wholly of a few bad members, they are likely to figure that sample representative. But Feminism isn't a group; it is an idea. If some of the followers misbehave, you should still be able to believe and support in the idea. To me, supporting ideas only when you "like" the (majority of?) people supporting them is akin to supporting free speech but only for the posit…

Feminism is an idea. Feminists, or the people who adhere to that idea, are a group. If every single adherent of an idea you encounter is an abhorrent person, most people will stop and consider if they want to associate with those people. Typically the answer is "No". Most people will also wonder if something about the idea turns people into abhorrent people or if something about the idea is only attractive to abhorre…

> Feminism is an idea. Feminists, or the people who adhere to that idea, are a group.

I would have thought that everyone who believes in gender equality is implicitly a Feminist..

> If every single adherent of an idea you encounter is an abhorrent person

Are you exaggerating for the sake of argument (perfectly valid), or is it that bad for some people?

Re: Tim Cook Speaks Up

#550

Post by dreamweapon »

angersock wrote: post #386
dwild wrote: post #379

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure there's nothing wrong with having an unpopular opinion but it's wrong to hurt other people based on an opinion (in this case he hurt them by limiting their right).

You do realize that he didn't actually limit their rights, correct? He cast a dollar vote in support of a proposition, same way any of us could give campaign donations to a candidate we liked. He participated in the political framework in a widely-accepted way , and the system failed to effect the outcome he seems to have voted for: democracy prevailed, the system worked, nobody was harmed. You might as well round up…

You do realize that no one advocated that Eich be physically "rounded up", right? They were just saying they didn't want to have him as their CEO.
Post reply on HN