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

921–930 of 1001 posts

Re: Tim Cook Speaks Up

#921

Post by jackmaney »

hnal943 wrote: post #915
jackmaney wrote: post #665

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

ROFL. Gee, what will I use to fuel my car and what will I eat for dinner tonight? Oh, I know! I have some political speeches left in the freezer...

http://img4.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20140906052122/potcoplaye...

Re: Tim Cook Speaks Up

#922

Post by dreamweapon »

Karunamon wrote: post #796
dreamweapon wrote: post #448

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oh, I'm "able." I just don't find them particularly interesting, or worth responding to in detail.

Then next time, kindly just don't post.

I'd kindly prefer that people not litter HN with puerile, psychologically baiting lines of argumentation from out in left field (c.f. "the gay hate brigade", up above) in the first place.

Re: Tim Cook Speaks Up

#923

Post by hnal943 »

fuligo wrote: post #669
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…

His resignation was not celebrated here as I recall. Many found it regrettable (and rightly so in my opinion) that he was nominated for the position in the first place, considering what a symbolic figure the CEO of a foundation is. But it was always recognized the culprit in this case was the board of directors who put him in this position, only to retract their support later. Eich is a brilliant technologist, and th…

"Supporting discriminatory laws is not even on the same plane as being "offensively" open-minded."

That's an obviously unfair polemic. It could be flipped around thusly (and would be just as invalid):

"Seeking to destroy the institution of marriage that has been consistently defined for centuries is not even on the same plane as being 'offensively' traditional."

Re: Tim Cook Speaks Up

#924

Post by acqq »

hnal943 wrote: post #917
acqq wrote: post #874

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The Old Testament tells the story from the point of view of Jewish tribes, and they don't complain that other people are anti-Semitic, and it's appropriate as the most fighting happens between different Semitic people (and they know it since they actually tell so in their genealogies, you know that "boring" "who begat whom" parts). The main difference to Jewish writers is if these other people (or frequently even the Jewish tribes) believe in Him who must not be named (you know, the arch-enemy of that Harry Potter guy (1)) or not. Read it. When Jewish tribes win in the Old Testament, they joyfully perform different acts of genocide (2), which was OK since Ya... um, the Lord wanted exactly that.

Not so surprising that that Muhammed guy (peace be upon him! (0)) got inspired for his wars. Apparently he was illiterate, but it seems that somebody read him big parts of OT. Muslims believe it was an angel named Gabriel (3), not to be confused with Moroni (4) that appeared in the US. And when we're there, Americans should understand Muhammedans and vice versa, as the US president was directly instructed by God too (5) so much for the Separation of church and state (6).

-----

(0) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad

(1) http://www.hebrew4christians.com/Names_of_G-d/Adonai/adonai....

(2) http://www.bricktestament.com/judges/

(3) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad%27s_first_revelation

(4) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angel_Moroni

(5) http://www.theguardian.com/world/2005/oct/07/iraq.usa

(6) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_church_and_state

Re: Tim Cook Speaks Up

#925

Post by V-2 »

wuliwong wrote: post #900
oneeyedpigeon wrote: post #719

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

It is not only out of guilt. In sports or music, many people are ashamed of being white. In the U.S. it is nearly a foregone conclusion that you will not be a good musician or athlete if you are white. White kids who desire to pursue those things definitely can feel shame which has no feeling of guilt attached to it. I'm not trying to make some grand statement about racism or the effects, just giving a pretty cut and…

I think the notion that "no one ever thought being white was something to be ashamed of [for reason other than guilt]" does not stem from observaton or experience as much as it is an ideological construct - ie. it is needed to fit nicely into a preassumed political theory

Re: Tim Cook Speaks Up

#926

Post by mkr-hn »

tibiapejagala wrote: post #744
vor_ wrote: post #489

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Of course, that was 6 years ago... so why should Brendan Eich be ostracised in 2014 for donating money to a campaign which was quite popular back then? It's wrong regardless of when it occurred. > At what point did Mozilla's mission for a free and open internet turn into one about social justice and identity politics? This lame attempt to dismiss equality won't fly.

> It's wrong regardless of when it occurred. But it can be more or less wrong in specific circumstances. You seem pretty sure that your opinions and actions will stand the test of time, just like countless people were in the past. So sure that now we are right, and amazed how they could be so wrong. Well, I don't know the future, but see you in 30 years. Let's see what moral fashion will rule those times. Be prepared…

The "they were a product of their times" argument is garbage.

I know my use of technology built in unethical conditions will be judged poorly, so I get the most out of tech and try to be pick the best companies to buy from when replacing it.

I know my difficulty moving past the gender binary will be judged poorly, so I learn about non-binary genders and people who exist outside gender entirely.

I know my past homophobia--even the internalized variety--will be judged poorly.

The list could go on for a long time, but the important thing is that I see where I fail and try to fix it. Supporters of discrimination are just as capable as I am of seeing past their failings. They choose not to.

Re: Tim Cook Speaks Up

#927

Post by dharmach »

srean wrote: post #920
dharmach wrote: post #902

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 de…

Blaming only leaders for the intolerance of Islam is far fetched. And Hindu's killing minorities cannot be equated to what happens in Pakistan, if not only what happens but at what scale happens mattered.

Re: Tim Cook Speaks Up

#928

Post by _navaneethan »

This is the point I admire him irrespective of his sexuality:

So if hearing that the CEO of Apple is gay can help someone struggling to come to terms with who he or she is, or bring comfort to anyone who feels alone, or inspire people to insist on their equality, then it’s worth the trade-off with my own privacy.

Re: Tim Cook Speaks Up

#929

Post by chm »

hox wrote: post #751
netcan wrote: post #195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If we get into this sort of semantic aerobics, we are just talking about words. The context of the statement is a message to the general public, in America. The language he used has a particular meaning in the context.

I'm not trying to get into semantics. I attend Catholic mass every Sunday and identify as part of the Catholic community, but that doesn't mean I let centuries old teachings dictate my own personal beliefs. That is the difference between church and faith. If I were to make the same statement Tim made, I would be making it from my viewpoint, not that of you or anyone else.

Why don't you identify yourself simply as a "religious person" and consider yourself part of the worldwide community of religious persons? I don't understand how you can not agree with a particular faith's concept of "God" while still considering yourself belonging to said faith.

Again, my objection is one of incomprehension. How can one reject the teachings of a religion while still identifying with said group?

Re: Tim Cook Speaks Up

#930

Post by lotsofmangos »

srean wrote: post #835
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.

> 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…

May I interject here with a heartfelt apology from at least some of the British. Partition was wholly cynical affair following the theory of divide and conquer, most of the negative effects of which were completely intentional and are going to echo for generations.

We wanted the situation to be fucked both in and between Pakistan and India as we are following from the Roman theories on empire that fostering group enmity makes it easier to impose control, the great game we are still playing today, like spoiled children furious that we lost our toys, despite the fact that these days the stakes are intolerable even if you win.

It used to be that murderous lunatics drunk on power could foster tribal warfare for relatively little long term risk to stuff other than screwing up their own empire if they miscalculated and generally pissing off a lot of people, these days you might end up with vast deserts of radioactive glass. And I suspect we may create a couple of them yet, if things carry on the current trajectory.

Post reply on HN