Tim Cook Speaks Up • Hacker News Board

Re: Tim Cook Speaks Up

#721

Post by argonaut » Thu, Oct 30, 2014, 10:14 PM UTC

srean wrote: post #567

avinassh wrote: post #564

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> In metros you would find gay pubs and bars, open kissing on the streets among gay partners with no one bothered a bit I really doubt this. Kissing in public is highly frowned upon for heterosexuals only and there will be a shitstorm if gay couple found openly kissing. Take this incident, happened in September 2014 in Mumbai/Bombay, two couples were harassed by police just because they hugged publicly[0]. Police har…

> I really doubt this. You have not been frequenting the right places then. Come to Bombay, come to Delhi, its a frequent sight outside the gay bars, more so in Bombay than Delhi. Have to admit that the first time I saw it I was indeed caught by surprise. In some places you might get beaten up (yeah even possibly by the cops), or have acid thrown at your face (this punishment is reserved exclusive for women and appli…

> EDIT: Yep!! some downvotes on all of my comments on this thread.

I downvoted you because mentioning how you've been downvoted is quite possibly one of the most dull things you can say on HN.

Re: Tim Cook Speaks Up

#722

Post by V-2 » Thu, Oct 30, 2014, 10:14 PM UTC

oneeyedpigeon wrote: post #719

V-2 wrote: post #716

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No one ever thought being white was something to be ashamed of. Really? Quite a lot of people think so.

Maybe, but only out of guilt, as a reaction to what has occurred throughout history. Not 'just because' they're white.

This feeling of guilt is still a social construct and a negative auto-stereotype though, because being white by itself doesn't make anyone responsible for - say - slavery, or Holocaust.

After all, these atrocities were not an effect of being white as such, unless we somehow internalize a notion than whites are in some way genetically inclined towards committing genocide etc.

Re: Tim Cook Speaks Up

#723

Post by Bustard » Thu, Oct 30, 2014, 10:16 PM UTC

avinassh wrote: post #475

Excellent news. I am from India where being gay is a crime in this country. Leaders of this country believe that being gay is a disease and it can be 'cured'[0]. According to Indian Penal Code 377[1], if you are gay you can be imprisoned for life. I had a friend and two years ago he committed suicide because he was gay. In India it's not easy to be gay. Parents and societal pressures can make anyones life living hell…

Funny how there's a lot of indians coming out and defending the status quo by saying that in some, unspecified places in India, you don't actually get beat up by police or acid thrown in your face for being gay. Don't you see how ridiculous that sounds?

Re: Tim Cook Speaks Up

#724

Post by melvinmt » Thu, Oct 30, 2014, 10:17 PM UTC

mercer wrote: post #707

melvinmt wrote: post #688

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure what's wrong with that statement (I'm also not a native speaker). Please let me know how I could have worded it better. (In my native language, Dutch, it's common to refer to people of mixed race as having "mixed blood". I can find similar statements made in English on Google)

Interesting. Maybe I misunderstand you, but every single Dutch person I know refers to mixed race as 'halfbloed', which means half-blood, which, now that I think of it, sounds rather racist.

We're digressing, but yes, halfbloed, gemengd bloed (mixed blood), it's all basically the same.

Just found out that mixed blood means mixed European and Native American ancestry specifically in the US (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mixed-blood).

I don't know if it's racist but it's definitely racial :)

Re: Tim Cook Speaks Up

#725

Post by jshevek » Thu, Oct 30, 2014, 10:18 PM UTC

rpearl wrote: post #671

jshevek wrote: post #666

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't understand how your comment relates to mine. Are you saying that if someone wants to "know god", they are likely to conclude that god does, indeed, sit around saying " This one is gonna be gay! and this one will be straight!"?

It does relate... I'm not articulating what's in my head very well. I'll try again, I guess... The experience that you call "you" is the result of a direct, unbroken chain of physical chemical interactions all the way back to the beginning of time. Religious people who think of the nature of things and remain religious call this complex interaction of the physical processes, this fundamental fabric of reality, "God"…

Thanks for explaining. I think your main point is contained in the last sentence, and I recognize that most of my response here addresses tangential aspects, not your main point.

>> Religious people who think of the nature of things and remain religious

It sounds to me like you are trying to say that this is true for all people in that group, and I don't believe this is true. This is one method of rationalizing a belief in God, but not the only.

>> call this complex interaction of the physical processes, this fundamental fabric of reality, "God"

Some non-religious 'believers' may do this, but most 'religious' people do not. Essentially no Christian, Jewish, or Islamic fundamentalists thinks this way.

Obviously many new agers think this way, and there are some offshoots of the main religious who do, but on the whole its a rare viewpoint.

While some religious people believe that God continuously provides the means whereby the universe continues to act, most hold that the universe and God are separate. Its actually sacrilege to some to suggest that God is the processes of the universe.

Check out 'pantheism' on wikipedia, and contrast this with 'theism'.

>> If Mr. Cook gives the name "God"

Well does he?? Since Cook is an educated white male gay business leader in san francisco in 2014, I thought he was not religious. It turns out I was wrong.

Is Cook pantheist? I seriously don't think so. But then, I was completely wrong about him religious just a few hours ago.

>> with quite rational thoughts behind it: "I consider being gay among the greatest gifts God has given me."

I'm not sure that would be both honest and rational, as the speaker should know that the Christian community will misunderstand their unqualified pantheist use of 'God' as a theist use of 'God'.

>> a good idea to assume that people's beliefs come from reasoned thought, though some probably start from axioms we might find irrational.

I tend to assume that everyone's beliefs are informed by both rational and irrational thought processes. Did say something to imply otherwise? Or did I miss your point?

Re: Tim Cook Speaks Up

#726

Post by mercer » Thu, Oct 30, 2014, 10:19 PM UTC

computerjunkie wrote: post #260

colinramsay wrote: post #18

Strangely enough I'd see pictures of him at some gay pride thing and it never even occurred to me he might be gay. I think, more accurately, it didn't trigger anything in my brain that thought it mattered either way. Obviously this is the way it should be! It seems like Tim Cook isn't under any pressure to publicly announce this, so it seems he's doing it as a way of leveraging his position to help others who are exp…

>>> it didn't trigger anything in my brain that thought it mattered either way This. It doesn't matter at all. Its great that people are embracing their sexuality, but there was no need to come out to the press about it. It doesn't change the way I see Apple as a company or even Tim Cook. He is still the same person before and after this article.

It doesn't matter... depending on what social circles you're part of, and/or where you live. That's a crucial distinction.

I think it's very understandable to underestimate the degree of suffering involved, and how much this can be improved over time through publicly voiced support, especially when it comes from influential figures.

Many of us make this mistake in regards to women or ethnic minorities too. And those of us who are good looking do it to those who are less pretty, and those who us who have always been popular do this to the unpopular.

The best kind of empathy, I believe, concerns not just your feelings toward others, but also the context that these others are in.

Re: Tim Cook Speaks Up

#727

Post by refurb » Thu, Oct 30, 2014, 10:19 PM UTC

jshevek wrote: post #659

mikeash wrote: post #264

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Indeed. Oh, he's gay, we all knew that. Wait, the CEO of Apple is a Christian? That I did not know. Judging by the comment thread here, it seems to be new to a lot of people. It's not a big deal, but it did surprise me. It's easy to assume that a gay man living in the Bay Area is going to be an atheist.

He is gay, white, male, lives in the bay area, is a brilliant CEO of a tech company... Yes, a lot of reasons to think he would most likely be completely non-religious, if not atheist. I didn't know he grew up in the south, though.

Stop putting people in convenient boxes!

Re: Tim Cook Speaks Up

#728

Post by narrowrail » Thu, Oct 30, 2014, 10:19 PM UTC

melvinmt wrote: post #688

rglullis wrote: post #509

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> At least your kids (...) will have both bloods? Are you sure you thought this through?

I'm not sure what's wrong with that statement (I'm also not a native speaker). Please let me know how I could have worded it better. (In my native language, Dutch, it's common to refer to people of mixed race as having "mixed blood". I can find similar statements made in English on Google)

As a native English speaker (not the OP), I'll take a stab at this explanation:

No 2 males could have a biologically conceived child (i.e. you must have a female carry your baby). I may be waaay behind on current reproductive technologies, so please correct me if I am wrong. Therefore, the 'blood' of the child (aka DNA) will be not be a combination of the parents (i.e. the people raising the child).

Re: Tim Cook Speaks Up

#729

Post by drewcrawford » Thu, Oct 30, 2014, 10:22 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…

The nature of politics is that if we want to accomplish things, we have to work together. When you throw out statements like

> 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.

All this does is create animosity with moderates who do not consider themselves linked to bigotry, and it does not advance your position, except among people who already agree with it.

If you don't want the support of these moderates then that is one thing. But that raises the question of why you would engage them, if not to garner their support.

Re: Tim Cook Speaks Up

#730

Post by ScottBurson » Thu, Oct 30, 2014, 10:24 PM UTC

downandout wrote: post #530

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?

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 agree with anyone who says this was an easy call. I think there are very good arguments on both sides.

The good argument on the side of opposing his CEO-ship was the concern that he would use his position to influence company policy and culture in a way that he couldn't do as CTO. Like most people, I don't know Eich nor have I ever worked at Mozilla, so this initially sounded like a very valid concern.

Eventually, though, it became clear that Eich had done a very good job of keeping his opinion out of the workplace. That's a difficult thing to do, and I don't think I and others were necessarily wrong, at first, to expect that he wouldn't be able to do it. But I read everything I could find on the case, and I never saw anyone even accusing him of intolerant behavior toward gay Mozillians, either in person or in policy -- and he was one of the drafters of the company's diversity policy.

Given that, I think it was unfortunate that the Board accepted his resignation. (It's particularly sad considering that they had talked him into taking the position in the first place.)

Had the Board told him "No, you can't quit; we're going to get you through this" I think they should then have tried to explain that his record on diversity was excellent, and that he and they both knew that the eyes of the world would be upon him, and that people should give him a chance.