Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Hypocrisy Of Sam Yagan and OkCupid

uncrunched.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

271–280 of 311 posts

Re: The Hypocrisy Of Sam Yagan and OkCupid

#271

Post by Karunamon »

crassus wrote: post #258
Karunamon wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>It creates a hostile environment where your opinion can cost you your job. It would probably already cost you your job to publicly declare (let alone financially support) similar non-equality views of both blacks and women. Why is this so much worse? Oh no, one more particular flavor of bigotry becomes socially unacceptable. However will I cope. >Also, what does firing Eich achieve for the gay rights movement? An ob…

There needs to be a Godwin's corollary for invoking racism about discussion of issues not involving racism at all. If you can't reason about a political issue without comparing your opponents to Hitler or slave owners, then you probably have a terrible opinion.

An equality fight is an equality fight. The closest parallel to this one were the early/mid 1900's ban on interracial marriage - in fact aside from the personal characteristics being argued about, the concerns are identical.

Re: The Hypocrisy Of Sam Yagan and OkCupid

#272

Post by baddox »

bane wrote: post #270
pessimizer wrote: post #250

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's become a big issue in Britain - but that's mostly because they have a state church. It's certainly not outside of the realm of possibility, but I've heard of mixed race marriage ceremonies being explicitly denied by churches in the US, and don't ever remember any recourse that the couples had other than the court of public opinion.

Well they always had a recourse. Get married someplace else. Go to a different church, or if your sect forbids it, get to a different sect, and if your religion forbids it, make your own sect, and if that's too much work, just get a civil marriage. I know it's not quite that simple, people get very hung up on where they spend their Fridays, Saturdays or Sundays, but people usually have options of some sort.

Sure, but one could say the same for "whites only" businesses in the American south. African Americans could just eat, fill up their gas tanks, buy clothes, etc. "someplace else." The Civil Rights Acts makes it clear that the people (or at least the government) does not endorse that form of self-determination.

Re: The Hypocrisy Of Sam Yagan and OkCupid

#273

Post by baddox »

bane wrote: post #269
baddox wrote: post #247

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Religious institutions have always been allowed to marry or not marry as they see fit. Correct me if I'm reading this wrong [0], but it seem that a New Jersey court ruled in 2012 that a religious facility could not deny usage to homosexual couple for civil union ceremonies. From my quick Googling, it seems this is a big concern for Christian groups in the US, but I don't know how credible their concern is. [0] http…

It is a major fear for religious groups that belong to a religion that won't recognize/perform same-sex marriages. But it won't likely happen (or won't be upheld on challenges up to SCOTUS if it does happen at a local level). Religious freedom includes religions that sometimes hold beliefs that may not be popular. For example, most Zoroastrian organizations forbid conversion to Zoroastrianism and won't permit marriag…

Then how do you explain the links I posted in that comment? Do you think those rulings are only in place because the Supreme Court hasn't been involved yet?

I'm not so sure that the Supreme Court would rule that churches can refuse to offer a service due to someone's sexual orientation. They have obviously ruled that private businesses and organizations cannot discriminate based on race (as well as several other attributes).

Re: The Hypocrisy Of Sam Yagan and OkCupid

#274

Post by Natsu »

anonbanker wrote: post #259
Natsu wrote: post #254

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just for the record, you can't downvote replies to your own posts.

Ah. so you would need a sockpuppet account for such a thing. I retract the original question about downvotes.

There's also a karma threashhold for downvoting. You actually need a sockpuppet account with a decent chunk of karma and there are voting ring detectors to put a stop to most shenanigans.

Re: The Hypocrisy Of Sam Yagan and OkCupid

#275

Post by Natsu »

davidgerard wrote: post #265
nitrogen wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And look, he could of [sic] just apologized and he would have been fine. He didn't. Would his apology have been reported by the media if he did? I don't recall any discussion of asking for clarification from Mozilla or Eich.

He was asked repeatedly, over and over, privately and publicly. He consistently demurred, leaving the only thing to go on being his past actions and his lack of repudiation of them in any manner.

He stated repeatedly that he supported Mozilla's inclusiveness. It did not matter, and even now many people don't behave as if they are aware of that.

Re: The Hypocrisy Of Sam Yagan and OkCupid

#276

Post by Snail_Commando »

dang wrote: post #238
anonbanker wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What a fantastic strawman you've constructed! Give me a minute to marvel at it. You do excellent work. Okay, now that the dazzle has worn off, perhaps you could tell me when I said that Anti-gay activists donating money to fund constitutional amendments would be a good thing? because I really don't remember saying that. However, I agree with your second paragraph. You can't be a good citizen for equality while donati…

What a fantastic strawman you've constructed! Give me a minute to marvel at it. You do excellent work. Please don't use aggressive sarcasm on Hacker News. It adds no information and corrodes civility. Consider how much better this comment would be if one deleted everything before "Perhaps". Editing out inflammatory language is the low-hanging fruit of optimizing for signal/noise ratio.

> Editing out inflammatory language is the low-hanging fruit of optimizing for signal/noise ratio.

I'd like to gently suggest that you put that, or something to that effect, in the HN guidelines.

> Be civil. Don't say things you wouldn't say in a face to face conversation.

> When disagreeing, please reply to the argument instead of calling names. E.g. "That is an idiotic thing to say; 1 + 1 is 2, not 3" can be shortened to "1 + 1 is 2, not 3."

> Please avoid introducing classic flamewar topics unless you have something genuinely new to say about them.

By my assessment, your observation adds information that is not currently covered. "...calling names..." is a facet of the inflammatory language that hacker news could do without. But blatant name calling is a relatively small (and obvious) portion of the noise generating language that actually occurs. The other more insidious forms of inflammatory language are either less obvious or more likely to be rationalized.

I feel like some hacker news commenters* are more likely to add inflammatory language if they feel like the rest of their* comment(s) is/are otherwise high signal.

It's kind of like dipping into a savings account to break (the spirit of) the guidelines. They* rationalize the [sarcasm, incredulity, overt disdain, indignant rage, mockery, etc.] because they* feel entitled to the luxury and misjudge the consequences of it.

* Weasel words: I know I've done this. But I suspect I'm not the only one.

Re: The Hypocrisy Of Sam Yagan and OkCupid

#277

Post by hdishn »

anonbanker wrote: post #139
commanda wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It really irks me when people conflate calling for someone to step down from a CEO role with "lynching", "blood", or "militant". As you know, actual LGBTQ people are actually lynched, and our blood is actually shed. Your metaphors are, frankly, offensive. (disclosure: I am also a member of the LGBTQ community.)

right. ignore the validity of my comments. just take offense to the words. Whilst living in Montana, I have been harrassed multiple times for my sexuality. I have been beaten to unconsciousness by people I didn't even see approaching me, left with a sign saying "HOMO" on my body. I have had a rope around my neck, and three men lift my drugged body to a tree so I could die. Thankfully, a less bigoted person scared the…

Uhh, you do realize your story would make world news (not just national) if it were true, correct? Can you prove your story? Otherwise, I highly suspect that you're lying to propagate further stereotypes about Republican states and their relations with gays. If so, shame on you.

Re: The Hypocrisy Of Sam Yagan and OkCupid

#278

Post by hdishn »

anonbanker wrote: post #40

So, bottom line: Eich was forced out by an astroturf campaign led by professional boycotters (waving the gay rights flag this time) and sleazy opportunists/publicity addicts like Yagan. If Eich is a homophobe, I would like to replace the rest of the world's homophobes with him. While he may have disagreed in private, his public persona was inclusive and friendly. There are multiple testominies from people that never…

"Meanwhile, in Montana/Utah, if the CEO learns you're gay, you're likely to be found dead in the middle of the night."

This is so irresponsible that I'm just floored by your blatant propaganda. How many gays have died in those states because their CEO learned of their homosexuality? Shame on you for pushing stereotypes. It's disgusting that you would stoop so low.

Re: The Hypocrisy Of Sam Yagan and OkCupid

#279

Post by dang »

Snail_Commando wrote: post #276
dang wrote: post #238

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What a fantastic strawman you've constructed! Give me a minute to marvel at it. You do excellent work. Please don't use aggressive sarcasm on Hacker News. It adds no information and corrodes civility. Consider how much better this comment would be if one deleted everything before "Perhaps". Editing out inflammatory language is the low-hanging fruit of optimizing for signal/noise ratio.

> Editing out inflammatory language is the low-hanging fruit of optimizing for signal/noise ratio. I'd like to gently suggest that you put that, or something to that effect, in the HN guidelines. > Be civil. Don't say things you wouldn't say in a face to face conversation. > When disagreeing, please reply to the argument instead of calling names. E.g. "That is an idiotic thing to say; 1 + 1 is 2, not 3" can be shorte…

Gentle suggestion gently received. We're definitely going to do something like this. It'll to take time for the pieces to fall into place, though. It's trivial to edit the guidelines; what's not trivial is to think until you see the next good thing to do.

You and me both, by the way; it took me a long time to realize that the sarcasm I used to put into my comments (mainly because I wanted them not to be bland) was amplifying the wrong things. And I still have to consciously catch myself.

Re: The Hypocrisy Of Sam Yagan and OkCupid

#280

Post by SimHacker »

Karunamon wrote: post #231
ct12 wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hey this is my first post. The word "bigot" seems to be used a lot in these post. I was curious to find out what was the exact definition of the word and found this on m-w.com: "a person who strongly and unfairly dislikes other people, ideas, etc...one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance" I have a hard time believing that a guy who worked for a compan…

Welcome to HN. Do you have a better term for someone who contributes their own hard-earned money to a hate group?

And remember that "a hate group" is actually "more than one hate groups" because Pat Buchanan and Ron Paul definitely qualify as haters and bigots.

If you have the stomach, google yourself up some Pat Buchanan quotes -- it's really vile and disgusting stuff, and he absolutely and without question qualifies as an archetypal "bigot".

In fact, the Guardian article that recently outed him as contributing money to Pat Buchanan and Ron Paul happened between the short time that he announced in an interview he was NOT going to resign, and between when he DID resign, so it may have been a factor, the straw (or rather the bay of straw) that broke the camel's back.

http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/apr/02/controvers...

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/apr/04/brendan...

Post reply on HN