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

611–620 of 1001 posts

Re: Tim Cook Speaks Up

#611

Post by downandout »

thenmar wrote: post #600
downandout wrote: post #571

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Please don't respond to me with disrespectful and disruptive snark. Nobody was fired. Nobody went to jail. There was no "stifled discourse". If you'd like to elaborate specifically, then please do.

Ok, forced out. Is that more palatable? He was, for all intents and purposes, fired. For expressing a political opinion. In a country that prides itself on being a democracy. If that isn't stifling political discourse, what exactly is it?

Re: Tim Cook Speaks Up

#612

Post by rpearl »

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.

Please read the other part of my comment, wherein I claim that he does not have a right to suppress rights. The context is extremely important: totally uncritical tolerance is not useful to society, and erodes tolerance. We need to be able to defend society against intolerance in order to maintain tolerance.

You cannot divorce the actual issue he is expressing his opinion on from the fact that he is expressing an opinion. The context matters. You can't consider a different particular instance and expect the same conclusion, because the context changes.

Re: Tim Cook Speaks Up

#613

Post by byEngineer »

Crito wrote: post #585
byEngineer wrote: post #551

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm very, very far away from judging people's work abilities (like being an CEO) based on their skin color, sex, sexual orientation, religion, or ideology. Why you can't be the same?

You would not judge a CEO for publicly admitting to being a racist? I do not believe you. I think that you are lying, either to us or to yourself. Calling something "Ideology" is not a "get out of criticism free" card. You are free to have whatever political beliefs you desire, but we are all free to criticism you for your political beliefs. Our criticism of political beliefs is just as political as the beliefs that…

> Calling something "Ideology" is not a "get out of criticism free" card.

Of course. It is after all entirely different than:

Calling someone "Gay" is not a "get out of criticism free" card.

Or:

Calling someone "Jew" is not a "get out of criticism free" card.

Or:

Calling something "Black" is not a "get out of criticism free" card.

Or:

Calling someone "woman" is not a "get out of criticism free" card.

Or:

Calling someone "Muslim" is not a "get out of criticism free" card.

Right.

Obviously our public sphere is full of criticism of Islam (a.k.a. islamophobia), Black people (a.k.a. racism), women (a.k.a sexism), Jews (a.k.a. antisemitism), Gays (a.k.a. homophobia).

And YES I would take a racist for CEO - if he is more qualified than others - each and every time. Because I truly believe in a society where gender, sex orientation, race, religion, ideology - do NOT matter.

See, this is a paradox. You can't have that, and you just admitted it. Cultural Marxism is full of paradoxes like that. It's impossible to truly have society where gender, sex orientation, race, religion, ideology - do NOT matter. Thank you very much for providing evidence that you see a paradox there as well.

Re: Tim Cook Speaks Up

#615

Post by theseoafs »

adventured wrote: post #566
Bud wrote: post #459

In case you think this is no big deal, here's the updated list of Fortune 500 CEOs who are openly gay: Tim Cook

What does being openly gay mean exactly? And how do you know there aren't others on the list? About 2% of people self-identify as gay. So 10 people on that 500 list are likely to be gay, give or take. http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014... Is your theory that the remaining nine should issue press releases? How do you know others aren't openly gay with the only people that matter: friends, fam…

You're right: gay people shouldn't feel the need to declare that they're gay. But there's a reason they do, and if you actually read the article that was posted instead of getting upset that someone used the words "openly" and "gay" in the same sentence, you might see why.

Re: Tim Cook Speaks Up

#616

Post by scintill76 »

goatforce5 wrote: post #240
flexie wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Everyone except me, apparently :-)

You subscription to Out magazine must have lapsed. He was their #1 most powerful gay man or woman in American last year: http://www.out.com/out-exclusives/power-50/2013/04/10/power-... I think it was one of those things where everyone knew it, but no one talked about it because it just wasn't that big a deal.

> You subscription to Out magazine must have lapsed.

Heh, I thought this was a joke at first. It's kind of funny that lots of people didn't know, yet he has literally been featured as #1 in Out Magazine. I guess it does still fit, that he hasn't personally, publicly acknowledged it, even if others have acknowledged it publicly.

Re: Tim Cook Speaks Up

#617

Post by notastartup »

scragg wrote: post #275

I am a white male married to a black female with 2 mixed kids living in Texas. While we haven't experienced much bigotry our way, it has happened. The first time I was filled with disbelief and shortly after rage while my wife (then gf) cried. Our lives would be different if we were born a generation ago. Thank you MLK and Tim Cook.

you should think about moving to west coast or a large city.

Re: Tim Cook Speaks Up

#618

Post by smtddr »

downandout wrote: post #608
smtddr wrote: post #592

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. 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.

If I understand your position correctly, then if there really was a prop to ban interracial marriage we should all be okay with that? I don't see any difference between a ban on gay marriage and a ban on interracial marriage.

I just want to be sure I understand your calibration settings. If you think a prop on banning interracial marriage should be just as acceptable as what you seem to be saying for prop8, then I'm done discussing this with you.

Re: Tim Cook Speaks Up

#619

Post by jshevek »

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?

I accidentally posted my first reply in the wrong place, above.

I prefer that definition, yes. But the important part of my sentence was "locked in". I was referring to people who are incapable of acknowledge that the word feminism is abused, not just by anti-feminists, but also by some self-proclaimed feminists.

If someone really thinks that feminism can only mean 'equal rights', period, end of conversation, talk to the hand - then conversations with people pointing out problems in the feminism movement will suffer from equivocation fallacies.

Re: Tim Cook Speaks Up

#620

Post by Curmudgel »

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.

As others have pointed out, Eich was not fired. His resignation was of his own volition.

It's perfectly legal and acceptable to not use someone's product if you don't agree with their politics. That person does not suffer any loss of rights.

Post reply on HN