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

821–830 of 1001 posts

Re: Tim Cook Speaks Up

#821

Post by greendestiny »

ScottBurson wrote: post #730
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 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. Eventu…

I tend to think most people look on something like that as an opportunity to score a win for what they believe in rather than genuine concern at his actions as CEO. Some of the decision to let him resign must have come from the lack a successful strategy to respond to it though.

Re: Tim Cook Speaks Up

#822

Post by [deleted] »

smsm42 wrote: post #798
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 left because he couldn't deal with the consequences of his actions. This is incredibly misleading way of putting it. He left because he had no other choice, and an organized personal destruction campaign against him was what did not leave him this choice. Of course, you can claim this campaign was result of his actions, and it is true, that this campaign was triggered by his actions and wouldn't happen if he d…

[deleted]

Re: Tim Cook Speaks Up

#823

Post by judk »

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.

Being proud of who you are and the eay you live is different from being proud of an arbitrary superficial difference between you and others.

Proud to be White is leagues worse than proud to be American or Christian or Irish.

Re: Tim Cook Speaks Up

#824

Post by MartinCron »

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…

Straight people don't go around declaring their sexuality, nor ever feel the need to.

Have you ever seen wedding photos? Never heard a man refer to his wife or a woman to her husband? People can, and should, disclose their orientation all the time.

Re: Tim Cook Speaks Up

#825

Post by vacri »

anonbanker wrote: post #469
arrrg wrote: post #433

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is it really so hard to believe that he might just be religious? Jesus Christ, atheists are the worst (as can be seen here in this thread). And I say that as an atheist …

Am I the only one that always finds it funny when athiests (myself included) use the name of a religious deity when making an exclamation? That being said, it is really difficult for most people to get past the cognitive dissonance that comes from being mass-denied "salvation" by the followers of a religion (Islam, Christianity, Hinduism) for being a homosexual, and yet, still believing in the invisible man in the sk…

It's funny on the surface, but really a lot of it is just another form of profanity: something you say when exasperated or surprised. I have an agnostic friend, not religious in the least, who is always saying 'good lord!'. He's not actually invoking jesus in any way, it's just a saying that sound good to him. Dara O'Briain says in one of his stand-up events that "catholicism is the stickiest religion in the world. In Ireland, even the atheists are catholic". He's really talking about the cultural crossovers from the observance of catholicism, not actual belief in the religion itself.

For the record, I am a strong atheist, and I think people should be able to speak about ideas freely, including ideas I disagree strongly with, but I'm not willing to actually die for someone else's right to speak a bunch of nonsense about a man in the sky and how many raisins you get for following him. :)

Re: Tim Cook Speaks Up

#826

Post by wicker »

acangiano wrote: post #642
Fastidious wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One of the things my father told me when I was very young was, you should not be proud of things you cannot control (birthplace, sex, race, etc.). He also told me that God (or gods) do not exist. I have not found a reason to discard those two.

Some people take issue with the word 'pride', because you can't really say 'I'm proud to be straight'. When Tim Cook says, 'I'm proud to be gay' however, what he's really saying is, 'Contrary to what society expects, I am not ashamed of being gay, because there isn't anything shameful about it.'

I completely agree with this interpretation. I'm gay and I don't find it something to be proud of -- same as how I don't find my brown hair or blue eyes things to be particularly 'proud' of. Unfortunately, saying "I'm not ashamed to be gay" may be more accurate but it also feels like I'm agreeing to frame the conversation in terms of whether being gay is something to feel ashamed about. I don't even want that idea tied to it so, in the absence of other options, I'll err on the side of gay pride.

I didn't think it would matter to read this from Tim Cook but it turns out I feel very encouraged by his words. When he says "engineer" among his attributes, well, I'm also an engineer and it gives me a sense of possibility.

Re: Tim Cook Speaks Up

#827

Post by function_seven »

trhway wrote: post #684
function_seven wrote: post #425

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> democracy prevailed, the system worked, nobody was harmed. That's not true. For several years, people in California were denied marriage rights because of Prop 8. It was judicially overturned, not democratically so. He actually did limit their rights.

>> democracy prevailed, the system worked, nobody was harmed. >That's not true. that's not true. It is exactly the difference between democracy and ochlocracy - both are the rule by majority - that in democracy some minority rights are protected from even the majority rule, and such a judicial overturn is exactly a part of the democracy that ochlocracy lacks.

There's nothing inherent in the definition of democracy that requires protection of minority rights. It is true that many forms of democratic government include checks on majority power, but democracy per se doesn't automatically incorporate those protections.

Thankfully we have constitutions and a judiciary that define and enforce these protections.

That being said—even if I'm wrong on this point—it's the third clause that I took exception with, that "nobody was harmed."

EDIT: I think maybe I'm being pedantic here. While a democracy doesn't automatically include these protections, you're certainly right that ochlocracy excludes them.

Re: Tim Cook Speaks Up

#828

Post by snogglethorpe »

zorbo wrote: post #741
argonaut wrote: post #721

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Downvotes on all your comments is rather rare, and usually an indication of downvote brigading. Nothing wrong with pointing it out, IMHO.

... and the mention of downvoting was a small part of an otherwise excellent comment anyway!

Re: Tim Cook Speaks Up

#829

Post by coldtea »

matthewmacleod wrote: post #110
coldtea wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We'll first have to pass from the stage were announcement like this are not that courageous (sure might annoy some BS far right minority who nobody cares about), and are actually the in vogue thing to say for kudos and hi-fives. Which I think is were we are now. The people who really had the guts, "came out" when it really mattered and made a difference, back in the seventies and eighties.

That's a pretty offensive accusation. Like Cook points out, the US is still country in which gay people are subject to life-altering discrimination all the time. Most other countries are even worse. I suspect you're overestimating how accepted homosexuality is outside of your bubble.

>Like Cook points out, the US is still country in which gay people are subject to life-altering discrimination all the time.

And also a country where if you get that you can be settled for life with suing them for their houses and cars.

The thing is, this "life-altering discrimination" is not unique to gays in the US. You can get it by being different in all kinds of way. Seems like a lot more crackpots than usual (that what you'd get in Denmark or Belgium) operate in the society. I mean, bombs in abortion clinics? Seriously?

>I suspect you're overestimating how accepted homosexuality is outside of your bubble.

Maybe, but my point was Cook's an even more protected bubble. Hyper-rich, CEO of the biggest (or close) company on earth, Valley-based, ...

Re: Tim Cook Speaks Up

#830

Post by kamaal »

vayarajesh wrote: post #648
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…

India is far from been mature and accept for what we actually are.. in India you will mostly see people who are pretentious and care more about society thinks about them than what they actually feel.. Same is the case for a treatment for "women".. in india they are treated unequally.. the boy child gets all the care, education, preferences and most of all "FREEDOM" and girl cant even do anything of her choice.. india…

>>girl cant even do anything of her choice..

In India we have messed up things so badly we have scared away a lot of people from having girl kids. I'm not talking about female infanticide and foeticide(This kind of things do happen, even now). But, These days those couples who have the morality of not committing such inhumane acts don't even bother to have a second kid if the first kid is a girl. While I see couples who have boy as a first kid generally go in for a second kid.

This is creating a massive irreparable gender imbalance in the society. Only this time, no one is breaking any law or committing any unethical or immoral activity. They are merely exercising their freedom to not bear children.

For a country where people have so much hate towards same gender marriages, every parent aspiring to have only boys is sort of straight hypocritical.

Post reply on HN