Tim Cook Speaks Up • Hacker News Board

Re: Tim Cook Speaks Up

#911

Post by JoeAltmaier » Fri, Oct 31, 2014, 2:28 PM UTC

mkr-hn wrote: post #909

wtbob wrote: post #884

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Brendan Eich donated money with the sole goal of denying equal rights to people based on their sexuality. You know, I'm sick and tired of this lie. A homosexual has exactly the same right to marriage as a heterosexual: a gay man is exactly as free to marry any unmarried consenting woman as a normal man and a lesbian is exactly free to marry any unmarried consenting man as a normal woman. The essential confusion reg…

> The essential confusion regards the nature of marriage. It's not about a couple (or group) and their feelings towards one another; it's about the formation of a family and the production of a new generation. I bet you're hard at work trying to deny infertile couples the ability to marry. Even if you were right, which you aren't , tradition is not a compelling argument. We've done away with a lot of stupid tradition…

And how about older couples, past the childbearing age? Should they not be allowed to marry? Should couples be forced to divorce after 50?

This preposterous argument about 'its about producing a new generation' is sophomoric and lazy. It doesn't stand up to a few seconds of reflection. Yet I hear it again and again - its even part of the Mormon official line.

Re: Tim Cook Speaks Up

#912

Post by jackmaney » Fri, Oct 31, 2014, 2:29 PM UTC

wtbob wrote: post #885

jackmaney wrote: post #473

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Eich didn't just "have an unpopular opinion", he actively contributed against civil rights for LGBT people. He is part of a dying breed, and he cannot possibly fade into obscurity quickly enough.

> Eich didn't just "have an unpopular opinion", he actively contributed against civil rights for LGBT people. Nonsense; he did not take any action to remove any of their civil rights. One doesn't have a right to say '2 + 2 = 3' and have the state pretend that it's true.

He stood against marriage equality. If you want to join his side and be on the wrong side of history, then that's your prerogative.

Re: Tim Cook Speaks Up

#913

Post by ForrestN » Fri, Oct 31, 2014, 2:29 PM UTC

tragic wrote: post #871

ForrestN wrote: post #789

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The premise that fundamental rights for minorities is or could be the subject of reasonable political debate is preposterous and disturbing. The cause he donated to was not merely "conservative" and was not decried because it was insufficiently liberal. It was cruel and wrong.

'Preposterous'? Really? It's - what - 6 years since Prop 8 went through; evidently a debate on this matter was not preposterous to Californians then. And it's only 18 years since DOMA, which made this tortuous state-by-state guerrilla war necessary. And it's only 28 years since homosexuality was removed from the DSM. That's just the States - see elsewhere in this thread re India; in Britain we had Section 28 on the b…

I'm not saying I have an opinion on whatever mysterious thing happened behind closed doors at Mozilla; I don't know or care about the specific dynamics of that case.

But the tendency to turn this into a question of political preference, one among a handful of hot-button issues that contemporary Americans can and should have differing views about, is wrong and destructive. This same argument, that a view does not appear preposterous to some part of the public, so it is therefor reasonable, doesn't really hold water. The obvious rejoinder is to look at the past, right? Slavery wasn't preposterous to half of the country, even during the civil war. I'm not saying a ban on gay marriage is anywhere near as awful as slavery, but rather that it's a clear example of something accepted and "debated" at the time, that we now know should never have been debated at all.

I don't care if people believe that somehow he should have stayed as CEO, maybe he should have. But eventually it will be clear that he stood on the wrong side of history, and actively supported a cause that is blatantly wrong.

I guess the thing to realize is that "declaring something within the bounds of reasonable discussion" is already a kind of violence, regardless of the attitudes of the people involved in the discussion. Put another way, I'm trying to say this: your statement, that people in general are prepared to reasonably discuss whether or not I should have basic rights, is a devastating indictment of "people in general."

Re: Tim Cook Speaks Up

#914

Post by dragonwriter » Fri, Oct 31, 2014, 2:37 PM UTC

wtbob wrote: post #884

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…

> Brendan Eich donated money with the sole goal of denying equal rights to people based on their sexuality. You know, I'm sick and tired of this lie. A homosexual has exactly the same right to marriage as a heterosexual: a gay man is exactly as free to marry any unmarried consenting woman as a normal man and a lesbian is exactly free to marry any unmarried consenting man as a normal woman. The essential confusion reg…

> It's not about a couple (or group) and their feelings towards one another; it's about the formation of a family and the production of a new generation.

If you look at the actual legal structure of marriage outside of who is permitted into it, that's very obviously not the case for the civil institution of marriage -- virtually all of the legal effects are directed toward the creation of a legal relationship of mutual support between the partners. Even the pieces that relate to children (e.g., the presumption of paternity) directly serve the purpose of reinforcing the mutual support relationship between the partners.

One could argue that one of the (many) social functions served by this mutual support arrangements which justifies having a prepackaged, publicy-recognized set of obligations, permissions, and legal privileges for mutual support is the creation of a superior environment within which to raise children, but there are other public functions served, and n any case an environment for raising children doesn't require that children be produced by the people raising them.

Re: Tim Cook Speaks Up

#915

Post by hnal943 » Fri, Oct 31, 2014, 2:39 PM UTC

jackmaney wrote: post #665

hnal943 wrote: post #628

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He held the same position that Obama did at the time.

And yet, Obama didn't take action against the civil rights of LGBT people, did he? Do you hear that sound? That's the point whooshing majestically over your head.

A politician taking a public stand against an issue is at least as much an action as donating to a cause that would fund those politicians.

Re: Tim Cook Speaks Up

#916

Post by jjones3 » Fri, Oct 31, 2014, 2:40 PM UTC

sysk wrote: post #742

king_jester wrote: post #249

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Being opposed to gay marriage does not imply being against homosexuals. How is that even possible? How is enforcing legal restrictions against a minority class of people not inherently discriminatory?

A common libertarian view is that marriage (gay and heterosexual) should not be the domain of government. http://reason.com/archives/2014/08/19/libertarians-gay-marri...

Not just libertarians. Some radical queers oppose gay marriage too, seeing it as destructive to our community (more info: http://www.organizingupgrade.com/index.php/modules-menu/beyo...)

Re: Tim Cook Speaks Up

#917

Post by hnal943 » Fri, Oct 31, 2014, 2:43 PM UTC

acqq wrote: post #874

judk wrote: post #819

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wow, that puts the anti Semitic and anti communist roots of Nazism way back in 1919. Such a long slow buildup, and nothing stopped it.

The build-up of hatred directed to Jews lasted for 2000 years, since Christian religion was formed and had seen Jewish religion as the original competition. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antisemitism_and_the_New_Testam... Some inconvenient examples: Between 1290 and 1753 it was illegal for Jews to exist in England. Then until 1846 they had to wear special clothes. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Jews_in_En…

You think that Antisemitism started with Christianity? Read the Old Testament.

Re: Tim Cook Speaks Up

#918

Post by mikeash » Fri, Oct 31, 2014, 2:44 PM UTC

refurb wrote: post #727

jshevek wrote: post #659

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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!

But it's so convenient!

Re: Tim Cook Speaks Up

#919

Post by acangiano » Fri, Oct 31, 2014, 2:45 PM UTC

wicker wrote: post #826

acangiano wrote: post #642

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 ti…

Role models are hugely important. I never found Joan Rivers particularly funny, but I noticed on Twitter how her passing truly upset many female comedians. It turns out that funny or not, she was a pioneer as a female comedian and in turn managed to inspire a whole new generation of female comedians who felt, as you aptly put it, a sense of possibility.

That's why if we want to be successful in diversifying the world of programming we need Tim Cook to come out, we need successful women and minorities to be vocal about their passion and work in our field (much more so than the usual narrative of "tech discriminating against X").

Re: Tim Cook Speaks Up

#920

Post by srean » Fri, Oct 31, 2014, 2:47 PM UTC

dharmach wrote: post #902

srean wrote: post #835

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Such a long slow buildup, and nothing stopped it. ... and that is exactly what scares the shit out of me. This is why I consider history a mandatory reading, more so a critical reading of history, with an eye for the tell tale signs. Playing with elements of hate and is playing with fire. You might recall that India and Pakistan were the same country once. Geopolitically they look different now, but I blame that on…

Muslims in Pakistan regularly kill minorities and is that due to butterfly effect? And still you are more worried about fascism in India!

> and is that due to butterfly effect ?

Yes very much so. The initial condition and the differential equation were not that different for the two countries. The trajectory however turned out to be drastically different. The statesmen in charge during its formative period did not take steps which would have otherwise made such a scenario less likely. Small changes in courses of their actions early in its history, a decision here and there had major influence on how the country would shape up. They were not thinking ahead.

It was a mistake to put religion in the center of politics. It was a mistake to cultivate this identity of the wronged population. Likewise for the now popular narrative of competing to be the better muslim, the roots of that narrative go farr back in time. Although Zia is the popular choice to ascribe the blame to, it had started way before. Bhutto (the father and the golden liberal boy) was for example very much in the business of deciding who is a true Muslim and who is not, deciding that Ahmadias are to be persecuted for not being pure enough Muslims, passing parliamentary laws to that effect. Check out why does Abdus Salam's grave in pakistan says

   "...became the first  Nobel laureate for his work in physics".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdus_Salam#mediaviewer/File:Gr...

If Indian politicians play the same game, the consequences would be no different. We would get a non-muslim pakistan.

> And still you are more worried about fascism in India!

Yes and for a reason, because history does rhyme.

> Muslims in Pakistan regularly kill minorities

Perhaps you have a very cherry picked view of Indian history... since when has Hindu's in India not killed minorities. It seems to be a mandatory right of passage to take charge of national politics.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_riots_in_India

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_massacres_in_India

For those who are not very familiar with India, if you look closely you will see that some regions are regular and repeat offenders in post independence India whereas others are not affected.