Tim Cook Speaks Up • Hacker News Board

Re: Tim Cook Speaks Up

#601

Post by downandout » Thu, Oct 30, 2014, 6:57 PM UTC

rpearl wrote: post #589

downandout wrote: post #530

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't believe in the cause that Eich donated to. But taking away someone's job over a political donation is preposterous and disturbing. If he had donated to a liberal cause and was forced out because conservative employees had a problem with it, the entire media would have come down on Mozilla like a ton of bricks. Instead his resignation was celebrated. Chilling political discourse by threatening the livelihoods…

The two sides you paint are not at all equal. Political discourse gets thrown out the window when you are working towards the suppression of the rights of a group of people. If conservative politics is directly linked to bigotry I see no reason we should support it. Perhaps the fiscally conservative, small government political groups should work to dissociate their ideas from intolerance. There is no paradox of toler…

This entire response essentially says that you disagree with his position on the issue. I also disagree with his position on the issue.

But here's where we differ. I believe in his right to express his opinion without fear of losing his ability to make a living. You, and the rest of the liberal lynch mob that forced him out, are doing nothing more than suppressing his rights. And thus begins the end of democracy.

Re: Tim Cook Speaks Up

#602

Post by jshevek » Thu, Oct 30, 2014, 6:57 PM UTC

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?

I knew because of all of the gay people who participated in a particular active social scene. It was common knowledge in that gay community, and had been since he took over at apple.

I never really questioned it, because... because it was common knowledge. No one ever mentioned that he wasn't out, so I wrongly assumed he was fully out until I heard about that newscaster who messed up.

I figured (wrongly) that the reason it was never mentioned publicly was because no one thought it was comment-worthy. I naively thought "oh good, look how far we've come".

Re: Tim Cook Speaks Up

#603

Post by theseoafs » Thu, Oct 30, 2014, 6:58 PM UTC

downandout wrote: post #571

thenmar wrote: post #372

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Brendan Eich donated money with the sole goal of denying equal rights to people based on their sexuality. There's nothing wrong with having an unpopular opinion, but I think there is something wrong with that. And I suspect you would too if it were you whose rights were being taken away. Edit: Eich supported Proposition 8 which was _ruled unconstitutional_ for violating the Equal Protection Clause. Yes, his support w…

So you're saying that stifling political discourse by firing people (or forcing them to quit) - as long as you really, really, disagree with them - is acceptable. Got it. For the sake of yourself and your loved ones, I hope you never voice an unpopular opinion.

Brendan Eich was not fired.

Re: Tim Cook Speaks Up

#604

Post by rpearl » Thu, Oct 30, 2014, 6:58 PM UTC

jshevek wrote: post #495

robomartin wrote: post #393

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Several statements he made in this post seemed weirdly manipulative to me, and that was one of them. I mean, its great that he chooses and advocates the view that homosexuality can be a 'gift'. That it can be a positive thing! Props for that! But the phrasing...does he really believe that the imaginary being he worships chose for him to be gay? Like the creator of the universe is really sitting there saying "oh, I'll…

What you might call "understanding the universe", seeing how it works, the mechanisms by which conscious experience happens... a religious person might call that "knowing god" and both of these are reasonable views of the same whole, just taken from opposite sides.

Re: Tim Cook Speaks Up

#605

Post by dwild » Thu, Oct 30, 2014, 6:59 PM UTC

gfodor wrote: post #578

dwild wrote: post #493

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Supporting a cause that limit someone right based on their sexual orientation is hurting people. The fact that 52% support it doesn't change the fact that you limit someone right. Even if 99% people believe that brown hair people shouldn't have the right to take the bus, it wouldn't be less wrong. It's not magically right to limit rights because the majority agree. I never said that what people did to Eich is right,…

Sorry, if you are going to re-define 'hurting people' to mean 'making a modest political donation to a mainstream position that some argue is discriminatory' I don't know what to tell you. This hard line perspective stifles an open society. In this case, money is speech, and regardless of how wrong it is it's not the kind of speech I'd classify as harmful. ("Fire in a crowded theater.")

What's hurt people in this situation is to remove them their right. If you do an action with the goal to remove right from people, even if it's small, even if it's really indirect, if you do it with the goal to remove right from people, then yeah I believe it's wrong.

We are all equals, we should have equals rights. Having equals right doesn't hurt anyone but having different rights does.

Re: Tim Cook Speaks Up

#606

Post by CamperBob2 » Thu, Oct 30, 2014, 6:59 PM UTC

dwild wrote: post #292

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…

At first I didn't like the news. Tim Cook is gay, so what? I though 5 seconds about it and then I realized how actually we still need this... we still need to remind people that there's nothing wrong with being gay. That's sad that we are still at this point.

While I agree it's a positive thing for him to talk about, I don't care much for the way he's phrasing it. What does it mean to be "proud" of something you are? Isn't that what we criticize white supremacists and other bigots for?

Take pride in the things you do, the things you create. My only reaction to someone who takes pride in his or her race, gender, religion, or sexual orientation is quizzical indifference.

Re: Tim Cook Speaks Up

#607

Post by Shivetya » Thu, Oct 30, 2014, 7:00 PM UTC

broodbucket wrote: post #4

Being in such a progressive community (i.e. young nerdy people), it's easy to forget that this is an enormous deal for some people. A friend of mine recently came out as transgender and the general response was "oh, cool, good for you". It's hard to fathom what it's like for people who aren't in such a supportive environment. There are undoubtedly many people who will no longer purchase Apple products because of this…

Far too many need to believe that people won't buy the products because of his sexuality to bolster their own feelings of superiority than would actually not buy the products. Looking the anti-religious zealotry within this thread is evident of that, far too many just believe the worst in others because they are themselves too bigoted/closeminded to think otherwise.

Re: Tim Cook Speaks Up

#608

Post by downandout » Thu, Oct 30, 2014, 7:01 PM UTC

smtddr wrote: post #592

downandout wrote: post #530

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't believe in the cause that Eich donated to. But taking away someone's job over a political donation is preposterous and disturbing. If he had donated to a liberal cause and was forced out because conservative employees had a problem with it, the entire media would have come down on Mozilla like a ton of bricks. Instead his resignation was celebrated. Chilling political discourse by threatening the livelihoods…

>>I don't believe in the cause that Eich donated to. But taking away someone's job over a political donation is preposterous and disturbing. Let's keep in mind nobody legally kicked him out. He left because he couldn't deal with the consequences of his actions. The law protects your free speech, but does not protect you from the consequences of it. http://xkcd.com/1357/ Also, let's not forget how nasty the whole prop…

He was forced out, as everyone is well aware. You are advocating for a society where political intimidation is acceptable. There are many examples of such countries around the world. None have worked out well.

Re: Tim Cook Speaks Up

#609

Post by smtddr » Thu, Oct 30, 2014, 7:02 PM UTC

downandout wrote: post #601

rpearl wrote: post #589

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The two sides you paint are not at all equal. Political discourse gets thrown out the window when you are working towards the suppression of the rights of a group of people. If conservative politics is directly linked to bigotry I see no reason we should support it. Perhaps the fiscally conservative, small government political groups should work to dissociate their ideas from intolerance. There is no paradox of toler…

This entire response essentially says that you disagree with his position on the issue. I also disagree with his position on the issue. But here's where we differ. I believe in his right to express his opinion without fear of losing his ability to make a living. You, and the rest of the liberal lynch mob that forced him out, are doing nothing more than suppressing his rights. And thus begins the end of democracy.

>>You, and the rest of the liberal lynch mob that forced him out, are doing nothing more than suppressing his rights.

You have to admit, using your rights to take someone else's rights away.... is a dubious position to hold.

Re: Tim Cook Speaks Up

#610

Post by courtf » Thu, Oct 30, 2014, 7:02 PM UTC

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…

I think your logic is good, but your application is lacking. Same-sex "sexual activity" is not what has been outlawed in Singapore. There is no law that fits the description you have outlined and it is essentially a straw-man argument.

The law that exists states explicitly that anal and oral sex, only between members of the same sex, is illegal. Both of these acts have been specifically made legal for a heterosexual pair.

The only difference between these two scenarios? The gender of one participant. A woman may receive anal sex from a man, but a man may not. Discrimination based on gender.