Tim Cook Speaks Up • Hacker News Board

Re: Tim Cook Speaks Up

#631

Post by dwild » Thu, Oct 30, 2014, 7:19 PM UTC

CamperBob2 wrote: post #606

dwild wrote: post #292

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Yeah I wasn't so sure about that either, I agree with you on that.

Re: Tim Cook Speaks Up

#632

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

rpearl wrote: post #612

downandout wrote: post #601

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 op…

You cannot divorce the actual issue he is expressing his opinion on from the fact that he is expressing an opinion.

Of course you can. In fact this is one of the fundamental tenets of our entire political system. There are no carved out exceptions suspending constitutional protections for really bad opinions. We have a framework through which people with strong conflicting opinions can air them without fear of certain kinds of retaliation. That broke down here, and it's disgusting and scary.

Re: Tim Cook Speaks Up

#633

Post by 10098 » Thu, Oct 30, 2014, 7:31 PM UTC

tomasien wrote: post #506

Warning: for the sake of your faith in HN and in humanity, do not read this thread, especially not from the bottom up. I did - big mistake, day ruined.

But that's the most fun part of such threads :)

Re: Tim Cook Speaks Up

#634

Post by scintill76 » Thu, Oct 30, 2014, 7:32 PM UTC

smtddr wrote: post #618

downandout wrote: post #608

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Since you linked xkcd: https://xkcd.com/1431/ It's easy to look down on interracial marriage bans from our oh-so-enlightened modern view, but it took a long time to even get there. You have to look at these ideologies in the context that they were formed in. If the graph is correct, then when Eich donated, same-sex marriage didn't have majority support. (Setting aside what California's specific numbers were.) This isn't to say that "might makes right", but that Eich expressed his vision for how society should be, and it's only fair to also consider how the rest of the society felt about it.

In other words, how do you know views you hold today won't be considered the vilest bigotry in 30 years? Is your moral compass so special, that you would have fought for interracial marriage, even if you were born a white in the southern US in the 1800's?

Re: Tim Cook Speaks Up

#635

Post by gtremper » Thu, Oct 30, 2014, 7:33 PM UTC

CamperBob2 wrote: post #606

dwild wrote: post #292

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Pride is the opposite of shame. Its about not being ashamed to be who you are.

Re: Tim Cook Speaks Up

#636

Post by Tyrannosaurs » Thu, Oct 30, 2014, 7:34 PM UTC

hiou wrote: post #537

Tyrannosaurs wrote: post #446

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> by using underpaid overworked labor Underpaid in what way? Are there many other jobs those people could be doing which pay them better? They're not paid much by US standards but the alternative is subsistence level farming. Is anyone who puts their production into China (and let's remember that's basically everyone in hardware before we single out Apple) being nasty by offering people a better income than they can…

The reason this is placed at the door of Cook is because he's very likely one of, if not the most responsible person for those choices at Apple. He played a very large role in operations at Apple. He also sits on the board of Nike, partly because he is very well regarded in supply chains and operations. Are you going to sing Nike's praises as well for worker treatment? Whether or not those choices are moral is certai…

Sorry, I wasn't clear.

Cook is clearly a prime decision maker in where Apple operate but the poor situation for Chinese workers can't reasonably be laid at his door.

The wages are controlled by market forces, even if the market is being manipulated by the Chinese government.

But Cook isn't responsible for Chinese economic or fiscal policy and pulling Apple out if China would hurt the workers who may have shitty jobs but at least have jobs.

As it is Apple face higher scrutiny than most of their competitor in the same situation and as a result actually behave marginally better when it comes to worker treatment.

It's not something to be particularly proud of but the overall plight of Chinese workers, even those at Foxcon, is not a situation for which Cook can realistically be held significantly responsible or categorised as nasty (nasty being the original characterisation I was refuting).

It's the consequence of a capitalist economy which Cook may be a small part of but is neither the creator nor the controller.

Re: Tim Cook Speaks Up

#637

Post by jimmytucson » Thu, Oct 30, 2014, 7:34 PM UTC

mikeyouse wrote: post #535

jimmytucson wrote: post #516

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've never come across a poll that asks, "Which of these do you consider worst: being gay, black, female, or atheist?" but I doubt the answer to a question like that would be useful anyway. I'm a little amused by you guys trying to work out all the "PR" angles Cook could be trying to exploit by mentioning his faith without even considering that it's is a genuinely important part of who he is.

Per your first paragraph, they usually frame it as, "Would you vote for a candidate with the following background:" as a way to gauge personal feelings on a matter. A Gallup one recently: http://www.gallup.com/poll/155285/atheists-muslims-bias-pres...

Those, I've seen. But saying you wouldn't vote for a presidential candidate who is atheist is a lot different than saying that it's "unforgivable" to be atheist, or that atheists are worse than blacks, gays, and women.

Maybe I'm just being pedantic but I don't think a poll about how people would vote for the president is a good indicator of how people feel about atheists in comparison to other groups of people. I don't even think the latter is quantifiable.

Re: Tim Cook Speaks Up

#638

Post by agildehaus » Thu, Oct 30, 2014, 7:36 PM UTC

downandout wrote: post #611

thenmar wrote: post #600

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Nobody kicked him out of the country. He was "forced" by the community that thought his views intolerable out of a company that is community driven.

Re: Tim Cook Speaks Up

#639

Post by mattzito » Thu, Oct 30, 2014, 7:38 PM UTC

exodust wrote: post #532

mattzito wrote: post #392

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Tim Cook expressing his beliefs does not deprive me of access to my rights as an individual. People are certainly free to not believe in gay marriage, but when they start donating money to groups dedicated to preventing gay people from getting married, that crosses a line. Put another way - Tim Cook believes in God, which is fine, that's his prerogative. However, if he started donating money to anti-atheist groups, n…

> If you're "okay with gays" and "not okay with gay marriage", it really means that you're not okay with gays. That's not true. You're stretching a line between two distant things in hopes of having a nice neat world of bigots on one side, and everyone else on the other. "You're either with us, or you're with the bigots". That's an unreasonable ultimatum that I don't subscribe to. I might be "okay with gays" but I mi…

> That's not true. You're stretching a line between two distant things in hopes of having a nice neat world of bigots on one side, and everyone else on the other. "You're either with us, or you're with the bigots".

I'm not, I assure you. Especially when your subsequent example is:

> In your world, I'm a bigot because I HATE that overly-camp, sledge-hammer decorative approach with men in g-strings running around in heels and pink fluffy decorations everywhere and don't forget the awful gay dance music. That's what it is to be gay? I don't think so. The mardi gras (at least the one where I live) needs to die. But I can't say that because I'll be "anti-gay". I'm not anti-gay, I just hate the annual celebration of the "gay community" by erecting giant penises on floats and broadcasting it all on live TV.

You're entitled to that belief. It doesn't (necessarily) make you a bigot. Lots of people hate annoying parades - I myself found myself trapped a few months back trying to get across 5th avenue while the gay pride parade was going on and was incredibly annoyed.

So there we go - we share a common ground of annoyance towards loud, over-the-top parades.

But I presume that if another group had a similar parade, you'd be equally annoyed - that it's not the fact that it's gay people having the parade, it's the fact the parade is loud, decadent, over the top, with awful dance music (and giant penises on floats).

That's what makes it different than the example I gave. Your example (annoying, over the top parades with penis floats) is more akin to people who are against marriage entirely - they don't want anyone to get married, gay, straight, black, white, whoever. That's a position I can respect, even if I don't agree with it, because it's at least equally applied.

Gay marriage, though, is a situation where you have one group of people having a bigger, broader set of rights than the other group of people. That's a bigoted view of the world - for some reason these people over here can get married, but these other people over here can't.

If we were to apply it to your example, if you were only annoyed at the mardi gras because there were gay people involved - if straight people, puerto ricans, professional basketball players, whoever, threw the exact same parade and you were fine with it, then you'd be bigoted.

I'm all about a level playing field. Either everyone gets to get married, or no one does. Either everyone gets to have a loud, annoying parade with giant penis floats, or no one should.

Your example just doesn't apply here. I'm not dividing the world into neat examples of bigots and not, because people can have a broad range of emotions about a wide variety of things. And certainly, you can dislike aspects of gay culture without being bigoted as long as you'd dislike those aspects if they were present in other cultures. But when you single out one specific group as having diminished rights compared to the others, that's some level of bigotry for sure.

Re: Tim Cook Speaks Up

#640

Post by alexbecker » Thu, Oct 30, 2014, 7:39 PM UTC

mwfunk wrote: post #624

alexbecker wrote: post #472

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Admired =/= admirable. The latter means deserving of admiration.

If you admire someone, then by definition you consider them admirable. So, lots and lots of people consider them admirable. You may not, but that doesn't mean that other people can't have different opinions. It also doesn't mean they're wrong and you're right or vice versa, since we're all unreliable narrators of the world around us.

Yes, I'm just pointing out that those people (like me) may be wrong.