surely banning Firefox was pretty stupid given that it's quite a large open source project?
This stunt just seems like a cry for attention.
The Hypocrisy Of Sam Yagan and OkCupid
51–60 of 311 posts
Re: The Hypocrisy Of Sam Yagan and OkCupid
#52Finally, someone who understands the true meaning of hypocrisy. Pretense is a large part of hypocrisy. People often misunderstand that by saying someone who does something opposite of their beliefs is a hypocrite. No, it's both that and pretense. And, Sam Yagan seems like the proverbial hypocrite.
Re: The Hypocrisy Of Sam Yagan and OkCupid
#53Earlier quoted context omitted.
And yet elsewhere in this thread you're saying a man who literally made laws negatively affecting gays should be able to keep his job because hey, the economy. There's some serious cognitive dissonance here.
If you'd stop willfully misinterpreting my posts, you'd know that was not what I was saying at all. The whole point there was that certain things are more important than other things at certain times . And I did say five years ago , which you conveniently omitted from your little summary here. I am not a single issue voter.
But you're single issue on Eich. Who wasn't actually making laws against same sex marriage, but instead made open source software that improved the world.
Re: The Hypocrisy Of Sam Yagan and OkCupid
#54Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm not qualified to tell the other side of the story. I don't know why Eich made that contribution. Neither do you. It might have been family pressure, it might have honestly been that he's religious and doesn't believe the word "marriage" can be applied to same sex couple (who had Domestic partnerships available in California, which provide the same legal rights as marriage, so I find the "second class citizen" arg…
I'm not qualified to tell the other side of the story. What a cop out. You're, like everyone else who disagrees with this, downplaying Eich's behavior and trying to turn activists into the "real" monsters for speaking out. Why the double standard? Why does one man, Eich, get a pass on speaking out for his personal political beliefs (with cash), but you demonize the the (hundreds? thousands? more?) people who did noth…
Let me put this another way. If your response to Eich getting promoted was to stop using Firefox, I'd support your actions.
If your response was to publicly shame him for an opinion to the point where he loses his job, you're a fucking bully.
Re: The Hypocrisy Of Sam Yagan and OkCupid
#55The difference between these cases is that Mr. Yagan donated to a Congressperson's election fund, while Mr. Eich gave directly to supporters of a cause many find abhorrent.
The degree of separation is important: although Rep. Cannon was anti-gay-marriage, we don't know whether that was the motivating factor for Mr. Yagan's donation. It could have been for some other reason: perhaps Mr. Cannon helped him or his company in some way, or perhaps Mr. Cannon's opponent's views (relating to things other than gay marriage) were more objectionable to Mr. Yagan than Mr. Cannon's were.
It's also important to note that this donation occurred in 2004, when few politicians openly supported gay marriage, and most publicly said they were against it.
Politicians have views on all sorts of matters, some of which we agree with and some of which we don't, and most of us aren't single-issue voters. A donation to a politician is not strong evidence of the donor's agreement with all of the views of that politician. A donation to an organization that is specifically trying to pass a law, however, is pretty strong evidence of the donor's agreement with the aims of the law.
Re: The Hypocrisy Of Sam Yagan and OkCupid
#56So, 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…
Professional boycotters is too kind a term. I think this is straight up bullying.
Re: The Hypocrisy Of Sam Yagan and OkCupid
#57What is regrettable in all this is that no one seems to consider the possibility that people may have nuanced views about gay marriage. According to the mob you're either a saint or a bigot, and thus Eich's value as a human being was supposedly entirely determined by this one opinion he voiced in 2008. I'm staunchly in favor of gay marriage, which I consider to be a no-brainer -- but it seems to me the motivations of…
Minor point: you speak of Prop 8 opponents, but you're talking about Prop 8 proponents. Remember they were explicitly trying to roll back rights permanently, in the California Constitution, not trying to stop a new law from passing.
Anyhow, something to consider: there were onced nuanced segregationists--there's a funny clip where Jimmy Carter's ex chief of staff said he went from being an extreme segregationist, to a moderate segregationist, to a moderate integrationist.
That viewpoint seems insane now, because with the benefit of hindsight we can't conceive of how an extreme viewpoint can be viewed as moderate if you're living within it. But thems the breaks. If someone's a bigot, they're a bigot, no matter how complicated an ideological edifice they've erected to prove they're not a bigot.
Re: The Hypocrisy Of Sam Yagan and OkCupid
#58Earlier quoted context omitted.
The other side of this coin is that marriage has religious significance to many people, and by forcing the definition to change, pro-gay rights groups are also codifying personal belief into law. Both sides fucked it up. The only proper response should have been to remove all legal rights associated with marriage, and force all couples to get a civil union. Tax that instead. Churches are welcome to marry people all t…
>religious significance to many people, and by forcing the definition to change, pro-gay rights groups are also codifying personal belief into law. The establishment clause to the constitution says that religious beliefs do not get to be encoded in law. And considering I have not seen one single anti-equality argument that wasn't either religiously motivated or a gigantic mass of "appeal to tradition" fallacies, I su…
There already was a suitable band-aid, it was called domestic partnerships, and had the full legal rights of marriage in California.
Co-opting the word marriage in law, rather than asking for it to be removed was actively choosing to force religions to accept your personal beliefs.
That's bullying.
--
That said, I generally fall much closer on the scale to you than to the supporters of prop 8, but you have to be able to recognize and draw a line as to where your rights end. Attacking a personal donation made as part of a democratic process is not something I can condone. Particularly when the end result cost a man his job.
Re: The Hypocrisy Of Sam Yagan and OkCupid
#59Earlier quoted context omitted.
Neither does using Firefox. You can easily disable google search, which is their only source of revenue other than donations.
Yeah, the "boycott" always struck me as misguided. Being annoyed at one particular person in a company doesn't preclude you using their stuff, moreso if that use doesn't imply any kind of support. Lars Ulrich might be the biggest asshole in music, but that doesn't mean he doesn't make great music.
Forgive the nitpick, but I'm not sure Lars makes great Music. Cliff wrote all the early material. All the stuff now is written by Kirk/James, and then the producer has the final say. I'm not sure I can think of a song he's written that I enjoy. Can you?
However, you may be right that Lars is the biggest asshole in music. how many people (other than Prince) sue their fans? how many people flaunt their massive art collections while suing their fans?
Re: The Hypocrisy Of Sam Yagan and OkCupid
#60The difference between these cases is that Mr. Yagan donated to a Congressperson's election fund, while Mr. Eich gave directly to supporters of a cause many find abhorrent. The degree of separation is important: although Rep. Cannon was anti-gay-marriage, we don't know whether that was the motivating factor for Mr. Yagan's donation. It could have been for some other reason: perhaps Mr. Cannon helped him or his compan…
So why is it OK to donate to a politician who is anti-whatever, but a CEO can't be?
Seems like a double standard to me.