Tim Cook Speaks Up(businessweek.com)
businessweek.com
Tim Cook Speaks Up
http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2014-10-30/tim-cook-im-proud-to-be-gay
1,030 comments
Agreed.
I was in a similar boat. My first exposure to the term "lesbian" was a flash cartoon that had a throwaway gag about a butch woman who lived in the sewer and ate children—I remember going home and crying because I strongly suspected that that's what I was, once the other kids explained what the term meant, and I didn't want to end up having to move underground and away from all my friends once I grew up. (This is hilarious in retrospect, but at the time I was really distressed.)
It's really good that young gay people to have so many prominent and positive role models now, and easy access to information on the subject via the internet. Can't imagine my story happening to anyone today.
I was in a similar boat. My first exposure to the term "lesbian" was a flash cartoon that had a throwaway gag about a butch woman who lived in the sewer and ate children—I remember going home and crying because I strongly suspected that that's what I was, once the other kids explained what the term meant, and I didn't want to end up having to move underground and away from all my friends once I grew up. (This is hilarious in retrospect, but at the time I was really distressed.)
It's really good that young gay people to have so many prominent and positive role models now, and easy access to information on the subject via the internet. Can't imagine my story happening to anyone today.
> This is hilarious in retrospect
I know what you mean. Lots of childhood things are silly to look back on. But "hilarious" is just not a word I'd use about a child terrified of her future, even if it was exaggerated.
I know what you mean. Lots of childhood things are silly to look back on. But "hilarious" is just not a word I'd use about a child terrified of her future, even if it was exaggerated.
> It's really good that young gay people to have so many prominent and positive role models now,
Agree! Though as an avid sports fan, I'm disappointed in the sports world for not embracing this topic. With so many professional athletes odds are in favour of many a house hold name being gay, yet there are only a small handful of sports people that are openly gay.
It is inspiring that Tim Cook has done this, and I really hope top athletes look to this and follow suit. Tim Cook will positively influence many, but not as many as say, Michael Jordan or Christiano Ronaldo.
I suppose this is yet another example of our industry being thought leaders.
Agree! Though as an avid sports fan, I'm disappointed in the sports world for not embracing this topic. With so many professional athletes odds are in favour of many a house hold name being gay, yet there are only a small handful of sports people that are openly gay.
It is inspiring that Tim Cook has done this, and I really hope top athletes look to this and follow suit. Tim Cook will positively influence many, but not as many as say, Michael Jordan or Christiano Ronaldo.
I suppose this is yet another example of our industry being thought leaders.
YCP[1] is doing a lot to help reduce barriers in the sports world, and has had a lot of big-name athletes come out in support of them (although not, to my knowledge, actually coming out--yet)
[1] http://youcanplayproject.org/
[1] http://youcanplayproject.org/
[deleted]
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.
>that's sad that we're still at this point
That said, public opinion is changing very rapidly. XKCD 1431 (http://xkcd.com/1431/) offers an interesting visualization and comparison between gay marriage and interracial marriage. According to XKCD's source, interracial marriage didn't reach majority approval until 1995, while gay marriage already reached majority approval in 2011.
Now obviously this rift could be the result of oddly-worded polls, data mis-interpretation or some other factor and it shouldn't be taken as a strict source, but I believe it speaks volumes all the same
That said, public opinion is changing very rapidly. XKCD 1431 (http://xkcd.com/1431/) offers an interesting visualization and comparison between gay marriage and interracial marriage. According to XKCD's source, interracial marriage didn't reach majority approval until 1995, while gay marriage already reached majority approval in 2011.
Now obviously this rift could be the result of oddly-worded polls, data mis-interpretation or some other factor and it shouldn't be taken as a strict source, but I believe it speaks volumes all the same
Isn't that a fascinating graph? What can one make of it? Maybe that although racial prejudice was common throughout the 20th century and is not gone today, there was always a sense of its wrongness that was evident to legislators and judges. In contrast, homophobia is still a very acceptable prejudice to a lot of people.
I think one can also see in this graph the effects of the determined efforts by the American right, over the last few decades, to influence the makeup of the judiciary.
I think one can also see in this graph the effects of the determined efforts by the American right, over the last few decades, to influence the makeup of the judiciary.
Consider that for interracial marriage, the US was lagging international opinion substantially. E.g. in large parts of Europe there either haven't been restrictions on interracial marriage, or they have been very limited and lifted earlier, and in many countries such as the UK, there is a history of interracial marriages going back centuries (e.g. many people married Indians that came to Britain after the establishment of the East India Company). Much further resistance evaporated when European countries had an acute shortage of men following World War I, that was filled by increased immigration from own colonies.
While that may not have had a direct impact, most of the arguments against interracial marriage were thus demonstrably false, by looking to other countries, and a substantial proportion of the population of the US had come from countries where interracial marriage was legal and somewhat accepted when they emigrated.
Further, with interracial marriages, the marriages had the support of a far larger amount of churches, and legalisation happened amidst a general major push for equalisation of rights that had rallied a lot of people.
On the other hand, many of the same countries that have been liberal about interracial marriages maintained laws targeting gay people far longer, and both domestically and internationally there was not nearly the same momentum for gay rights.
Again consider the UK, where it took until 1994 for a serious attempt to reduce the age of consent for male gay sex to the same as for straight sex (from 21 to 16; bizarrely the UK did not have an age of consent for sexual acts between females). It took until 2001 for that to become reality:
The first attempt was defeated; a court challenge to the European Court of Human Right forced the UK government to try again; it was defeated twice more, and then the House of Lords dragged its feet long enough that the government was able to use Parliament Act to push it through with only the support of the House of Commons in late 2000.
As late as then, people seriously used as an argument that we needed to "protect the children".
While that may not have had a direct impact, most of the arguments against interracial marriage were thus demonstrably false, by looking to other countries, and a substantial proportion of the population of the US had come from countries where interracial marriage was legal and somewhat accepted when they emigrated.
Further, with interracial marriages, the marriages had the support of a far larger amount of churches, and legalisation happened amidst a general major push for equalisation of rights that had rallied a lot of people.
On the other hand, many of the same countries that have been liberal about interracial marriages maintained laws targeting gay people far longer, and both domestically and internationally there was not nearly the same momentum for gay rights.
Again consider the UK, where it took until 1994 for a serious attempt to reduce the age of consent for male gay sex to the same as for straight sex (from 21 to 16; bizarrely the UK did not have an age of consent for sexual acts between females). It took until 2001 for that to become reality:
The first attempt was defeated; a court challenge to the European Court of Human Right forced the UK government to try again; it was defeated twice more, and then the House of Lords dragged its feet long enough that the government was able to use Parliament Act to push it through with only the support of the House of Commons in late 2000.
As late as then, people seriously used as an argument that we needed to "protect the children".
Another possible interpretation of this graph is that in the US today, the feeling "I disapprove of X, so X should be illegal" is a much more common approach to politics than it used to be. That's also my explanation for the "put people in jail for letting their kids play unsupervised" stuff that's been going on...
Chances are, of course, that the graph reflects a combination of several factors.
Chances are, of course, that the graph reflects a combination of several factors.
Majority opinion may change but there are still so many holdouts. Which is why I'm glad to see things like this.
I'm Asian and I married a white guy. It's only been seven months. I lost count of the number of people that raised their eyebrows because of my new European last name (less than the people surprised that he also changed his name!) and also lost count of how many people assumed my husband was Asian ~not~ a big white bearded guy. In SF Bay Area of all places. That's like the most common variety of interracial marriages here.
But... the best wrench I threw into the mix? I'm pansexual. If gay marriage has a long way to go still, understanding that I am personally no less attracted to women/others for having married a man is gonna take another 100 years. Even for gay/lesbian folks. It's very weird.
I'm Asian and I married a white guy. It's only been seven months. I lost count of the number of people that raised their eyebrows because of my new European last name (less than the people surprised that he also changed his name!) and also lost count of how many people assumed my husband was Asian ~not~ a big white bearded guy. In SF Bay Area of all places. That's like the most common variety of interracial marriages here.
But... the best wrench I threw into the mix? I'm pansexual. If gay marriage has a long way to go still, understanding that I am personally no less attracted to women/others for having married a man is gonna take another 100 years. Even for gay/lesbian folks. It's very weird.
Well if you acknowledge that the names are considered European/Asian as you say yourself, and you switch up names on purpose, is it that strange that people are surprised that the person doesn't match up their name? At least your kids will have less problems with this as they have both "bloods" running through their veins.
I think the problem is with the concept of names itself, if you're aiming for true etno-neutrality.
I think the problem is with the concept of names itself, if you're aiming for true etno-neutrality.
> At least your kids (...) will have both bloods?
Are you sure you thought this through?
Are you sure you thought this through?
I'm not sure what's wrong with that statement (I'm also not a native speaker). Please let me know how I could have worded it better.
(In my native language, Dutch, it's common to refer to people of mixed race as having "mixed blood". I can find similar statements made in English on Google)
(In my native language, Dutch, it's common to refer to people of mixed race as having "mixed blood". I can find similar statements made in English on Google)
FYI: In the US and many (most?) other native English domains "mixed-blood" (or especially "half-blood"[1]) sounds racist because it's a term that has been co-opted by racist groups who rage against "race mixing".
I suspect language around race will always be racially charged - even for native speakers - so long as there are racists. It's unfortunate, but I'm not sure there is a good solution.
[1] https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=mixed+blood%2C...
I suspect language around race will always be racially charged - even for native speakers - so long as there are racists. It's unfortunate, but I'm not sure there is a good solution.
[1] https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=mixed+blood%2C...
As a native English speaker (not the OP), I'll take a stab at this explanation:
No 2 males could have a biologically conceived child (i.e. you must have a female carry your baby). I may be waaay behind on current reproductive technologies, so please correct me if I am wrong. Therefore, the 'blood' of the child (aka DNA) will be not be a combination of the parents (i.e. the people raising the child).
No 2 males could have a biologically conceived child (i.e. you must have a female carry your baby). I may be waaay behind on current reproductive technologies, so please correct me if I am wrong. Therefore, the 'blood' of the child (aka DNA) will be not be a combination of the parents (i.e. the people raising the child).
If I'm understanding the whole situation right, silencio is female, and your comment doesn't quite apply. rglullis was probably complaining about the political correctness of melvinmt's statement.
Actually, no. I read original silencio's post as from being an Asian man marrying an European man. But it looks like you are right, and I am wrong. Which would make melvin's comment correct, and fuck me I'm confused now.
Time for some basic sex ed: The issue is that there are no eggs to be fertilized with two guys. You can still a woman carry a baby that doesn't share her blood/DNA, via IVF.
Thank you! It took only 4 hours for someone to show up. I was getting worried.
(The fact that OP is more concerned about the PC-ness of using "mixed blood" then understanding basic biology is somewhat alarming, but I will let that pass)
(The fact that OP is more concerned about the PC-ness of using "mixed blood" then understanding basic biology is somewhat alarming, but I will let that pass)
[deleted]
Interesting. Maybe I misunderstand you, but every single Dutch person I know refers to mixed race as 'halfbloed', which means half-blood, which, now that I think of it, sounds rather racist.
As a dutch person, why do you think that sounds racist? It's like bloodlines. One half from one bloodline, one half from another bloodline. It's mostly used to refer to offspring from two differently colored people (not necessarily races), but I don't see the term "halfbloed" as particularly racist?
In English, at best it sounds woefully inaccurate as that isn't really how blood works, but bloodlines are generally the sort of thing either discussed by people who trace royals and believe in the divine rights of kings and stuff like that, or people or are worried about theirs being diluted due to a woeful misunderstanding of how biology works that would be amusing if they didn't tend to be such utter bastards, or those who breed weirdly malformed dogs and then take them to shows, rather than those who are particularly interested in the parentage of someone.
You're absolutely right, it probably does originate from the colonial/medieval days but nowadays it's just an expression, at least in Western Europe.
The biological correctness of it didn't even cross my mind; blue blood, for example, is the term we use when we talk about royal ancestry. It's not like we think that the blood of the royal family is actually blue, however the term does originate from a time where royals were lighter skinned than the working class of peasants, and thus their veins appeared to be more blue than others.
The biological correctness of it didn't even cross my mind; blue blood, for example, is the term we use when we talk about royal ancestry. It's not like we think that the blood of the royal family is actually blue, however the term does originate from a time where royals were lighter skinned than the working class of peasants, and thus their veins appeared to be more blue than others.
One thing is that there is still strong usage of terms like blood-line, half-blood and blue-blood in English within fantasy novels and period dramas, however the reason they are popular in those settings is precisely because they feel so archaic.
You could read "half-blood" as only one half of the blood being of the "good" type. That is, you're only "half" as good as a person which has only the "good" type of blood.
The whole concept of "bloodline" is fundamentally racist.
We're digressing, but yes, halfbloed, gemengd bloed (mixed blood), it's all basically the same.
Just found out that mixed blood means mixed European and Native American ancestry specifically in the US (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mixed-blood).
I don't know if it's racist but it's definitely racial :)
Just found out that mixed blood means mixed European and Native American ancestry specifically in the US (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mixed-blood).
I don't know if it's racist but it's definitely racial :)
And yet, you've got Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince, a pretty modern book. Of course, that's from the UK, which may have the more classical interpretation of half-blood.
Bloodlines sound more like something from royal families and the aristocracy, of which we still have a select few in NL. Baronesses and whatnot. Kinda posh.
Bloodlines sound more like something from royal families and the aristocracy, of which we still have a select few in NL. Baronesses and whatnot. Kinda posh.
I'm pretty sure the 'Half-Blood Prince' thing is supposed to sound racist in-universe, as that's someone of mixed heritage (magic and non-magic) referring to himself self-deprecatingly in a universe where racism against non-magical heritage is very much a real thing and a term like 'mudblood' is considered an extremely offensive racial slur.
Half-Blood is considered to be a huge insult in the books.
[deleted]
After re-reading this a couple of times, it's not 100% clear to me whether you're male or female. That seems to be causing some confusion in some of the followup comments. (Congratulations on your marriage either way.)
[deleted](1)
Kudos on the name thing!
Considering it's from Randal, I guess we can trust this but to the eye, but it seems like the variation is really similar. The only real difference is that the US government doesn't help their cause where for interracial, they did way before majority. I don't know which is better but I don't believe rights should be dictated by popular opinions but by facts.
I think you're making a good point that governments followed rather than led in the case of marriage equality, however it's interesting to reflect on just how recent majority support has been in the gay community itself. Some early proponents such as Andrew Sullivan faced apathy and criticism from gay rights advocacy groups such as Human Rights Campaign in the 1980s and 1990s for even broaching the subject. It's always surprised me how so many of the strongest opponents to recognition of gay marriage were openly gay themselves.
TL;DR marginalized group ideology is strange
TL;DR marginalized group ideology is strange
Gay marriage isn't necessarily a great proxy for general approval (likely neither is inter-racial marriage.) I live in a very liberal city in a country where gay marriage has been legal for a decade and has widespread approval, and still encounter a surprising amount of anti-gay prejudice. At least is surprises me, so maybe I'm kind of stupid.
So while the rapid change of opinion on gay marriage in the US is great, it is still I think a generational shift to get to the point where gay people won't have a greater than 10% chance that any random person they meet won't be deeply prejudiced against them.
So while the rapid change of opinion on gay marriage in the US is great, it is still I think a generational shift to get to the point where gay people won't have a greater than 10% chance that any random person they meet won't be deeply prejudiced against them.
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.
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.
The issue here is that people use it in two ways:
1. As a signal that you embrace your own identity, and are not ashamed of what you are, despite societal prejudice.
2. As a signal that you see yourself as superior.
Most of the time when you hear someone say they are proud to be gay, or black, or otherwise proud to be member of some other minority group, it is 1 they mean. Sometimes it is 2, but it is fairly rare.
Most of the time when you hear someone say they are proud to be white, it means they are white supremacists using it in form 2.
While it is certainly possible for members of majority groups to use it in meaning 1, it is incredibly rare, because it makes little sense: The point of using it in that form is to counteract prejudice. Pretty much the only members of majority groups that consider it necessary to counteract prejudice are racists that are paranoid that they are being pushed aside.
1. As a signal that you embrace your own identity, and are not ashamed of what you are, despite societal prejudice.
2. As a signal that you see yourself as superior.
Most of the time when you hear someone say they are proud to be gay, or black, or otherwise proud to be member of some other minority group, it is 1 they mean. Sometimes it is 2, but it is fairly rare.
Most of the time when you hear someone say they are proud to be white, it means they are white supremacists using it in form 2.
While it is certainly possible for members of majority groups to use it in meaning 1, it is incredibly rare, because it makes little sense: The point of using it in that form is to counteract prejudice. Pretty much the only members of majority groups that consider it necessary to counteract prejudice are racists that are paranoid that they are being pushed aside.
Yeah I wasn't so sure about that either, I agree with you on that.
Pride is the opposite of shame. Its about not being ashamed to be who you are.
Pride is helpful for overcoming the shame society lumps on us for it.
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.
Proud to be White is leagues worse than proud to be American or Christian or Irish.
But contrast this with black pride. E.g., James Brown's excellent "I'm Black and I'm Proud": http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2VRSAVDlpDI
That's hugely different than the white-pride loons.
Why? I think it's down to power and oppression. Black people in US society have been oppressed and marginalized for centuries. Decreasingly so, but it's still a big problem.
For me, black pride and gay pride are pushing for freedom. While the white-pride people are pretty explicitly pushing against freedom.
That's hugely different than the white-pride loons.
Why? I think it's down to power and oppression. Black people in US society have been oppressed and marginalized for centuries. Decreasingly so, but it's still a big problem.
For me, black pride and gay pride are pushing for freedom. While the white-pride people are pretty explicitly pushing against freedom.
It seems fairly obvious that "pride" simply isn't appropriate in either case. It only serves to cloud the issue with entitlement and expectations of privilege based on nothing in particular.
It seems fairly obvious? Your seems-obvious meter went off when you ran it over the screen?
Own your opinions. Cloaking them in false objectivity makes you look ridiculous and removes the opportunity for discussion. You think it's obvious. I don't. I do think it's obvious that you're playing the game on easy [1], though, which is why your seems-obvious meter is poorly calibrated.
[1] http://whatever.scalzi.com/2012/05/15/straight-white-male-th...
Own your opinions. Cloaking them in false objectivity makes you look ridiculous and removes the opportunity for discussion. You think it's obvious. I don't. I do think it's obvious that you're playing the game on easy [1], though, which is why your seems-obvious meter is poorly calibrated.
[1] http://whatever.scalzi.com/2012/05/15/straight-white-male-th...
Ah, yes, stereotyping. It's OK When We Do It, right?
Here's an idea: I'll use whatever words I want, and so will you, and we won't even ask about each others' race or gender. Because it just shouldn't matter.
Here's an idea: I'll use whatever words I want, and so will you, and we won't even ask about each others' race or gender. Because it just shouldn't matter.
It shouldn't matter, but it does. People without experience of marginalization are frequently unsympathetic to those who are. And people who are privileged often act in ways that maintain that privilege, even when they claim their conscious motives are unrelated.
Experience shapes ideas. Ideas are tested through experience. If you refuse to examine the things that shape your experience, some of your ideas will inevitably be poor.
Experience shapes ideas. Ideas are tested through experience. If you refuse to examine the things that shape your experience, some of your ideas will inevitably be poor.
Experience shapes ideas. Ideas are tested through experience. If you refuse to examine the things that shape your experience, some of your ideas will inevitably be poor.
Any racist will, of course, tell me exactly the same thing.
Any racist will, of course, tell me exactly the same thing.
Will they? That's exciting.
How many racists have told you that you should pay deep attention to your life experience and consider how it differs from that of others? Could you name some of them?
I've read a bunch of pro-slavery literature from the civil war era, and also a bunch of modern white supremacist kook literature. I have to say, empathy and consideration for people from different backgrounds was not the major theme you say it was.
But hey, if I can't trust some anonymous goof, who can I trust? So I'm sure you're right.
How many racists have told you that you should pay deep attention to your life experience and consider how it differs from that of others? Could you name some of them?
I've read a bunch of pro-slavery literature from the civil war era, and also a bunch of modern white supremacist kook literature. I have to say, empathy and consideration for people from different backgrounds was not the major theme you say it was.
But hey, if I can't trust some anonymous goof, who can I trust? So I'm sure you're right.
Sure, I'll go along with that. But sexual orientation is far more like skin color than it is like a country, religion, or sports team that you identify with for social purposes.
If there is a genetic (or at least embryonic) influence behind sexual orientation -- and I believe there is -- then why take "pride" in it?
If there is a genetic (or at least embryonic) influence behind sexual orientation -- and I believe there is -- then why take "pride" in it?
Yep.
Now if only we could remind people that there's nothing wrong with having an unpopular opinion.
After all, Brendan Eich has done more for computing than Cook ever will.
Now if only we could remind people that there's nothing wrong with having an unpopular opinion.
After all, Brendan Eich has done more for computing than Cook ever will.
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 was non-criminal, but he was fundamentally supporting something wrong, both morally and legally.
Edit: Eich supported Proposition 8 which was _ruled unconstitutional_ for violating the Equal Protection Clause. Yes, his support was non-criminal, but he was fundamentally supporting something wrong, both morally and legally.
Eich participated in a public system in an approved way at a political level, did so without letting his politics get in the way of his personal or professional life, and made functional programming ubiquitous. There's nothing wrong with what he did given that he didn't let that view (in the abstract) color his personal interactions.
And, let us note, it's all speculation on this point as to what or why he did it, because the man himself hasn't said anything on the matter--mostly because of the gay hate brigade rallied against him.
By contrast, Tim Cook continued contracts with Foxconn with the sole goal of minimizing production costs by using underpaid overworked labor--and if you look at Apple close enough, yeah, there's some nastiness there. He's a solid operations guy (clearly!), but has directly supported policies that have harmed both our industry and workers abroad.
I'm likely going to get downvoted into oblivion (again, and in hilarious underscoring of my point).
And, let us note, it's all speculation on this point as to what or why he did it, because the man himself hasn't said anything on the matter--mostly because of the gay hate brigade rallied against him.
By contrast, Tim Cook continued contracts with Foxconn with the sole goal of minimizing production costs by using underpaid overworked labor--and if you look at Apple close enough, yeah, there's some nastiness there. He's a solid operations guy (clearly!), but has directly supported policies that have harmed both our industry and workers abroad.
I'm likely going to get downvoted into oblivion (again, and in hilarious underscoring of my point).
That's an incredibly muddle-headed sequence of arguments you've just made, for sure. But no, we're not going to hate you for it.
Your inability to respond to any of the points has been noted.
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.
Trolls and willful fools are cured by the same medicine: downvote, ignore, and flag if they broke the site rules.
> Tim Cook continued contracts with Foxconn with the sole goal of minimizing production costs by using underpaid overworked labor
I'm going to upvote you for this.
Just because Tim Cook is gay doesn't make him Mother Teresa. He seems quite happy in promoting brutal Victorian style work-houses because it's "over there". Out of sight, out of mind. He's quite the hypocrite.
He's also no better or worse then the operations guy at Dell, Samsung, Lenovo, etc. who are all churning out products from the same manufacturers and assembly lines in China and South-East Asia. I don't know why people keep promoting the myth that he is some amazing operations guy when everything is outsourced anyway, and recent products have suffered from manufacturing delays and raw material supply issues.
I'm going to upvote you for this.
Just because Tim Cook is gay doesn't make him Mother Teresa. He seems quite happy in promoting brutal Victorian style work-houses because it's "over there". Out of sight, out of mind. He's quite the hypocrite.
He's also no better or worse then the operations guy at Dell, Samsung, Lenovo, etc. who are all churning out products from the same manufacturers and assembly lines in China and South-East Asia. I don't know why people keep promoting the myth that he is some amazing operations guy when everything is outsourced anyway, and recent products have suffered from manufacturing delays and raw material supply issues.
> Just because Tim Cook is gay doesn't make him Mother Teresa. He seems quite happy in promoting brutal Victorian style work-houses because it's "over there". Out of sight, out of mind.
Yes, yes, and yes.
Many of my more naive, young gay friends and acquaintances actually DO seem to think that 'being a powerful gay person', onto itself, makes him worthy of worship.
> He's quite the hypocrite.
Did he actually say that its wrong to promote brutal Victorian style work-houses?
Yes, yes, and yes.
Many of my more naive, young gay friends and acquaintances actually DO seem to think that 'being a powerful gay person', onto itself, makes him worthy of worship.
> He's quite the hypocrite.
Did he actually say that its wrong to promote brutal Victorian style work-houses?
I am also bothered with the way workers are treated. I sickened by the way these companies are polluting the world.
I've never been O.K. with this bottom line crap. It seems
like people really don't care though? As long as they can
have their comfortable life, exciting life, powerful life, and their electronic gadgets, etc., the're not loosing any sleep?
Maybe it's just human nature to turn a blind eye to the real
problems. Yes--Tim Cook coming out is a deal. Personally, I felt he should have came out a long time ago.(He was financially able to years ago?) If you have a deep felt
issue and you are poor, or have no power in society; I understand why you hide, and don't try to make the world a better/fairer place. Tim Cook should have came out years ago. Why--because he was an American, and was wealthy. Being American and having the protection of wealth gives you
a platform to really make a difference. O.K. Tim you are gay. The people around you(Bay Area demographics) never cared. Bring the manufacture of your products back to the
United States, or to countries that don't exploit workers, and decimate environments. I'll get hammered for having
an opinion on Hacker News, or any opinion other than a carefully scripted, beyond polite waste of words.
> Just because Tim Cook is gay doesn't make him Mother Teresa.
It's depressing to see this myth perpetuated that Mother Teresa was a good person.
She was a horrible human being who denied poor and sick people the help and medicated relief they needed just because of her religious beliefs. Of course, she also denied abortion, contraception and all other kinds of medical help that were not in line with her religious beliefs.
She was convinced that suffering brings you closer to god, so she made sure everyone under her care suffered as much as possible.
She was a sick and twisted person and the faster she gets forgotten, the better.
It's depressing to see this myth perpetuated that Mother Teresa was a good person.
She was a horrible human being who denied poor and sick people the help and medicated relief they needed just because of her religious beliefs. Of course, she also denied abortion, contraception and all other kinds of medical help that were not in line with her religious beliefs.
She was convinced that suffering brings you closer to god, so she made sure everyone under her care suffered as much as possible.
She was a sick and twisted person and the faster she gets forgotten, the better.
There was a time in India when people with leprosy were left out to die along the streets and no one would come near them. If you had it, your family and the society would ask you to leave the area. I have heard stories from people of my grand fathers generation of how Mother Teresa and her followers (Sisters of charity), would physically carry the lepers and care for them. They really believed in the cause and had a lot of courage. Many of the sisters contracted leprosy doing this. For this they gained enormous respect from people of all religions in Calcutta.
If you have ever seen a leper in India and their condition, you would not have called her sick and twisted.
If you have ever seen a leper in India and their condition, you would not have called her sick and twisted.
Obligatory Godwin: Hitler probably thought he was doing The Right Thing, too.
Mother Theresa believed that suffering brings you closer to god. Sure, she were courageous and tried their best to help people, but that was probably more inspired by actively seeking suffering (and helping other people suffer) than altruism.
But it's absolutely on par for Catholicism (or guilt-based Christianity in general). Declaring her a saint was perfectly reasonable.
Mother Theresa believed that suffering brings you closer to god. Sure, she were courageous and tried their best to help people, but that was probably more inspired by actively seeking suffering (and helping other people suffer) than altruism.
But it's absolutely on par for Catholicism (or guilt-based Christianity in general). Declaring her a saint was perfectly reasonable.
Wow, what book of lies have you been reading, or writing.. I cannot even begin to tell you how far off you are. And you call her a myth. They say Jobs had a reality distortion field but you take the cake! Good luck with your fantasy world.
Here, educate yourself:
http://old.richarddawkins.net/articles/582913-mother-teresa-...
http://old.richarddawkins.net/articles/582913-mother-teresa-...
Ok, I'm going to 'educate' myself with some random link that you found from some random guy's blog who also has a personal vendetta against all Theists(Military Association of Atheists). I can find a thousand links to show the opposite. Have you done ANY research on her or read or talked to a member of the order she started? Thought not. When casting an opinion, always look at both sides before you talk, not just the one you want to believe. That's how you get to the truth. The real truth. Oh, by the way, thanks for the down vote. Really mature of you.
How many millions of Chinese are still scratching out a living from the dirt -- literally? People living in abject poverty would love to have Western industry set up a factory, or provide the contracts to give work to a factory in the first place, so that they could leave their 14th century villages and way of life.
Just because Tim Cook is gay doesn't make him Mother Teresa.
It's also completely irrelevant to the subject of Brendan Eich's support of bigoted TV ads. Which is why I found the arguments made by the poster above you to be not really interesting, or worth responding to.
It's also completely irrelevant to the subject of Brendan Eich's support of bigoted TV ads. Which is why I found the arguments made by the poster above you to be not really interesting, or worth responding to.
Actually, exploiting the poor is one thing that Tim Cook and Mother Teresa could find common ground on.
This. I used to live in Kolkata (then Calcutta), where she had setup her place, and it was sick to see people being asked to pray to the Christ when they needed food and medicine instead.
Why didnt you/other communities/societies people provide food and medicine without asking to pray first?
Other communities/societies -> they were doing it already. Just no media hype, because they weren't funded by agencies wanting to convert people.
> There's nothing wrong with what [Brendan] did given that he didn't let that view (in the abstract) color his personal interactions.
Strom Thurmond filibustered the Civil Rights Act of 1957 for 24 hours and 18 minutes. After that he continued to serve in the US Senate until 2003.
Yes, his actions were a lawful expression of his power. But I think there is something deeply wrong with using your power, even lawfully, to deny the rights of people who are less powerful than you. Even if you are nice to those same people in personal interactions.
Strom Thurmond filibustered the Civil Rights Act of 1957 for 24 hours and 18 minutes. After that he continued to serve in the US Senate until 2003.
Yes, his actions were a lawful expression of his power. But I think there is something deeply wrong with using your power, even lawfully, to deny the rights of people who are less powerful than you. Even if you are nice to those same people in personal interactions.
> by using underpaid overworked labor
Underpaid in what way? Are there many other jobs those people could be doing which pay them better? They're not paid much by US standards but the alternative is subsistence level farming. Is anyone who puts their production into China (and let's remember that's basically everyone in hardware before we single out Apple) being nasty by offering people a better income than they can get anywhere else?
It's the market rate, something incidentally most people in tech in the West are pretty happy about when it's driving massively above average salaries for programmers and the like.
In terms of overworked - Foxcon workers recently went on strike because the amount of overtime they were being offered had been reduced. If they're overworked it would be very odd behaviour to strike to demand more.
Essentially Foxcon workers get to choose between two things - a shitty life working at Foxcon and a really shitty life not working there. That's unfortunate, but it's not Tim Cook's fault, it's in part the fault of the Chinese government, in part the result of them having been dealt a shitty hand and a consequence of global capitalism which most of us are in some way complicit in.
To place this at the door of Cook is pretty naive.
Underpaid in what way? Are there many other jobs those people could be doing which pay them better? They're not paid much by US standards but the alternative is subsistence level farming. Is anyone who puts their production into China (and let's remember that's basically everyone in hardware before we single out Apple) being nasty by offering people a better income than they can get anywhere else?
It's the market rate, something incidentally most people in tech in the West are pretty happy about when it's driving massively above average salaries for programmers and the like.
In terms of overworked - Foxcon workers recently went on strike because the amount of overtime they were being offered had been reduced. If they're overworked it would be very odd behaviour to strike to demand more.
Essentially Foxcon workers get to choose between two things - a shitty life working at Foxcon and a really shitty life not working there. That's unfortunate, but it's not Tim Cook's fault, it's in part the fault of the Chinese government, in part the result of them having been dealt a shitty hand and a consequence of global capitalism which most of us are in some way complicit in.
To place this at the door of Cook is pretty naive.
The reason this is placed at the door of Cook is because he's very likely one of, if not the most responsible person for those choices at Apple. He played a very large role in operations at Apple. He also sits on the board of Nike, partly because he is very well regarded in supply chains and operations. Are you going to sing Nike's praises as well for worker treatment?
Whether or not those choices are moral is certainly up for debate. Whether or not Time Cook was largely responsible for them is not.
And as for the "market rate" you are talking about a country that does not allow it's currency to float on the exchanges, heavy subsidizes or outright controls much of the industry and denies workers access to information online about working conditions and pay. Playing into a regime that intentionally abuses workers to ramp up their industrial output wouldn't be something I would be particularly proud of and most definitely would not be something I would consider controlled by market forces.
Whether or not those choices are moral is certainly up for debate. Whether or not Time Cook was largely responsible for them is not.
And as for the "market rate" you are talking about a country that does not allow it's currency to float on the exchanges, heavy subsidizes or outright controls much of the industry and denies workers access to information online about working conditions and pay. Playing into a regime that intentionally abuses workers to ramp up their industrial output wouldn't be something I would be particularly proud of and most definitely would not be something I would consider controlled by market forces.
Sorry, I wasn't clear.
Cook is clearly a prime decision maker in where Apple operate but the poor situation for Chinese workers can't reasonably be laid at his door.
The wages are controlled by market forces, even if the market is being manipulated by the Chinese government.
But Cook isn't responsible for Chinese economic or fiscal policy and pulling Apple out if China would hurt the workers who may have shitty jobs but at least have jobs.
As it is Apple face higher scrutiny than most of their competitor in the same situation and as a result actually behave marginally better when it comes to worker treatment.
It's not something to be particularly proud of but the overall plight of Chinese workers, even those at Foxcon, is not a situation for which Cook can realistically be held significantly responsible or categorised as nasty (nasty being the original characterisation I was refuting).
It's the consequence of a capitalist economy which Cook may be a small part of but is neither the creator nor the controller.
Cook is clearly a prime decision maker in where Apple operate but the poor situation for Chinese workers can't reasonably be laid at his door.
The wages are controlled by market forces, even if the market is being manipulated by the Chinese government.
But Cook isn't responsible for Chinese economic or fiscal policy and pulling Apple out if China would hurt the workers who may have shitty jobs but at least have jobs.
As it is Apple face higher scrutiny than most of their competitor in the same situation and as a result actually behave marginally better when it comes to worker treatment.
It's not something to be particularly proud of but the overall plight of Chinese workers, even those at Foxcon, is not a situation for which Cook can realistically be held significantly responsible or categorised as nasty (nasty being the original characterisation I was refuting).
It's the consequence of a capitalist economy which Cook may be a small part of but is neither the creator nor the controller.
>By contrast, Tim Cook continued contracts with Foxconn with the sole goal of minimizing production costs by using underpaid overworked labor
Do you have any proof of this or citations on it? Everything I've seen about Apple regarding its supply chain is that it goes above and beyond the minimum needed to be in compliance, and they seem to genuinely care about the well being of their employees in China.
Do you have any proof of this or citations on it? Everything I've seen about Apple regarding its supply chain is that it goes above and beyond the minimum needed to be in compliance, and they seem to genuinely care about the well being of their employees in China.
> goes above and beyond the minimum needed to be in compliance
Awesome. I need that line added to my CV. Something like: "Conscientious worker, who often goes above and beyond the minimum needed to be in compliance."
Awesome. I need that line added to my CV. Something like: "Conscientious worker, who often goes above and beyond the minimum needed to be in compliance."
> Tim Cook continued contracts with Foxconn
As does Sony, Microsoft, Amazon, Nintendo, and more
As does Sony, Microsoft, Amazon, Nintendo, and more
> it's all speculation on this point as to what or why he did it, because the man himself hasn't said anything on the matter--mostly because of the gay hate brigade rallied against him.
When the controversy broke he was literally asked what his views on SSM were, and he didn't give an answer. That strongly implies he doesn't think SSM should be legal.
When the controversy broke he was literally asked what his views on SSM were, and he didn't give an answer. That strongly implies he doesn't think SSM should be legal.
So you're saying that stifling political discourse by firing people (or forcing them to quit) - as long as you really, really, disagree with them - is acceptable. Got it. For the sake of yourself and your loved ones, I hope you never voice an unpopular opinion.
As others have pointed out, Eich was not fired. His resignation was of his own volition.
It's perfectly legal and acceptable to not use someone's product if you don't agree with their politics. That person does not suffer any loss of rights.
It's perfectly legal and acceptable to not use someone's product if you don't agree with their politics. That person does not suffer any loss of rights.
Please don't respond to me with disrespectful and disruptive snark. Nobody was fired. Nobody went to jail. There was no "stifled discourse". If you'd like to elaborate specifically, then please do.
Ok, forced out. Is that more palatable? He was, for all intents and purposes, fired. For expressing a political opinion. In a country that prides itself on being a democracy. If that isn't stifling political discourse, what exactly is it?
Nobody kicked him out of the country. He was "forced" by the community that thought his views intolerable out of a company that is community driven.
Just the same if he was a racist or a Nazi. Simply unfit for leadership.
Murdering someone or throwing them in a prison because they spoke out against the regime is stifling political discourse. Having to step down as CEO of a company because your unpopular political opinions resulted in a vast number of people boycotting your company's products is just a consequence of the way the free market works.
[deleted]
Eich was not fired or forced to do anything else.
Here's what often gets missed in this debate: Eich's handling of the outrage, demonstrated incompetence at his job. An exec is a leadership position by definition - the entire Mozilla thing showed us that Eich is not fit to lead.
Here's what often gets missed in this debate: Eich's handling of the outrage, demonstrated incompetence at his job. An exec is a leadership position by definition - the entire Mozilla thing showed us that Eich is not fit to lead.
this comment begs the question... what is leadership? It does not seem like Eich did anything that impinges or diminishes his ability to lead. it seems that Eich acted in a way that was consistent with his personal beliefs (donating money to a cause he believes in) and at the same time in the best interests of Mozilla (resigning so public outcry against him did not damage the company). It seems like he has integrity, which in some circles is considered a invaluable quality of leadership.
When evidence of behavior proving a conflict of interest appears (conflict: personal beliefs demonstrably incompatible with stated position of company), the correct action to take is not to downplay that conflict with transparent and inane language.
Brendan Eich was not fired.
supported Proposition 8 which was _ruled unconstitutional_
What does this have to do with anything? Lots of people supported things that later get ruled unconstitutional.
Using "constitutional" as a synonym for "good" is a bad idea.
What does this have to do with anything? Lots of people supported things that later get ruled unconstitutional.
Using "constitutional" as a synonym for "good" is a bad idea.
> 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 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.
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 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.
> 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 traditions, like slavery and dowry.
Even if you were right, which you aren't, gay couples can adopt.
I could go on, but why? Your arguments are tired and baseless.
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 traditions, like slavery and dowry.
Even if you were right, which you aren't, gay couples can adopt.
I could go on, but why? Your arguments are tired and baseless.
Once we get to the point of calling basic human anatomy 'baseless', we've definitely gone off the deep end as a society. This is not about infertility due to medical conditions or age and it's not about tradition - it's about the fact that a man and a woman having sex is the way that human beings are produced. Everything else is an attempt to ignore reality to suit our our personal desires.
How about birth control? Marriage? These are ignoring the very human impulse to procreate constantly and with many people. Are they wrong too?
That procreation argument is silly. Human beings order themselves into societies, and not as some sort of procreation machine. But instead to encourage kindness, cooperation, happiness. We have laws to keep from harming one another, and roofs over our heads to keep us warmer and dryer than we 'naturally' would have been. This is what it means to be human, too.
That procreation argument is silly. Human beings order themselves into societies, and not as some sort of procreation machine. But instead to encourage kindness, cooperation, happiness. We have laws to keep from harming one another, and roofs over our heads to keep us warmer and dryer than we 'naturally' would have been. This is what it means to be human, too.
Yeah, I would argue that yielding to the impulse to 'procreate constantly' outside of marriage would be equally as harmful as following any other sexual desires (homosexuality, polygamy, pedophilia, etc) that doesn't line up with how sex and marriage are meant to work - that is one man marrying one woman and them having sex.
"Meant to work" is very strange here. First monogamy it supposed to be a natural state. Now its an artificial social construction? Then what's so precious about it? Versus the other states that people are, and have been, living in for centuries?
Oh I get it - argue whatever it takes to make male-female marriage sacred and anything else wrong. Ok. I see.
Oh I get it - argue whatever it takes to make male-female marriage sacred and anything else wrong. Ok. I see.
I can see how 'meant to work' would sound strange, especially since we normally talk about sex as something that should be based solely on our individual physical urges - whatever they may be.
I would say that marriage and sex get their value and purpose from God. That he created man and woman to come together in marriage and have sex. That he made sex pleasurable, and good, and that one of the benefits of sex is often that children are produced.
I think we must either get our understanding of sex and marriage from a source outside ourselves (the transcendent God) or we just make things up to suit our individual drives - and the second option opens us up as individuals, and as a society, to a lot of harm.
I understand this is not a popular viewpoint, especially on HN, but I think it's valuable to offer some pushback in a civil way every now and then.
I would say that marriage and sex get their value and purpose from God. That he created man and woman to come together in marriage and have sex. That he made sex pleasurable, and good, and that one of the benefits of sex is often that children are produced.
I think we must either get our understanding of sex and marriage from a source outside ourselves (the transcendent God) or we just make things up to suit our individual drives - and the second option opens us up as individuals, and as a society, to a lot of harm.
I understand this is not a popular viewpoint, especially on HN, but I think it's valuable to offer some pushback in a civil way every now and then.
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.
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.
> 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.
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.
Eich shares the same moral ground with gay marriage supporters. Anyone supporting government-issued marriage licenses with associated privileges and entitlements is hateful and bigoted toward individuals who aren't marriage material for various reasons beyond their control.
I see many people saying the community has spoken and he didn't get fired.
Okay, so has anyone heard of gamergste?
If any of he women developers quit due to all of the harassment online, should we conclude that "the community has spoken"?
the only reason you have this opinion is because you disagree with his politics. You don't agree with the freedom for all, only the freedom for people with your opinions, which is not freedom at all.
you all should be ashamed of yourselfs for harassing this guy online and forcing him to quit, but I can imagine I will get down voted and I will see a bunch of people justifying this vile and evil behavior.
The hypocrisy is why I can't take this community seriously. It's just entertsinment
Okay, so has anyone heard of gamergste?
If any of he women developers quit due to all of the harassment online, should we conclude that "the community has spoken"?
the only reason you have this opinion is because you disagree with his politics. You don't agree with the freedom for all, only the freedom for people with your opinions, which is not freedom at all.
you all should be ashamed of yourselfs for harassing this guy online and forcing him to quit, but I can imagine I will get down voted and I will see a bunch of people justifying this vile and evil behavior.
The hypocrisy is why I can't take this community seriously. It's just entertsinment
Brendan Eich is entitled to his opinion, and a large not for profit is entitled not to want someone with that opinion as a figurehead.
As for who has done more for what — web browsers were going to have a scripting language. Is Javascript so astoundingly good that we can only assume any alternative would have been worse?
As for who has done more for what — web browsers were going to have a scripting language. Is Javascript so astoundingly good that we can only assume any alternative would have been worse?
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 of those you disagree with is a threat to democracy itself and should not ever be allowed to happen. Eich's forced resignation was an offense against everything America allegedly stands for.
Chilling political discourse by threatening the livelihoods of those you disagree with is a threat to democracy itself and should not ever be allowed to happen. Eich's forced resignation was an offense against everything America allegedly stands for.
> But taking away someone's job over a political donation is preposterous and disturbing.
That's a very poor framing of what he did. And you followed it with a lot of unsupported drama.
He didn't just donate to, say, a Republican candidate. He supported a campaign to strip gay people of the right to equal protection before the law. A successful one.
In the US, you can claim that gay people should not be full citizens and have that opinion protected under the first amendment. You can say the same thing about black people too, which is why we let the neo-nazis protest and even give them police protection when they do.
But the legal right to say something is not the right to freedom from social consequence. If he were a white supremacist and wanted to run Mozilla, a company with many non-white employees, would you really be outraged that people would fire him?
I'm hoping not. Free speech is an important right. But other people also get that right, and the right to freedom of association as well. If I were gay, I wouldn't want to work for a guy who believed I wasn't equal before the law. How could I trust him to treat me equally at work? And as a straight person, I wouldn't want to work for somebody like that either, so I'd take my freedom of association and walk right out the door. Why shouldn't Mozilla's board take account of whether or not people want to work for a CEO?
That's a very poor framing of what he did. And you followed it with a lot of unsupported drama.
He didn't just donate to, say, a Republican candidate. He supported a campaign to strip gay people of the right to equal protection before the law. A successful one.
In the US, you can claim that gay people should not be full citizens and have that opinion protected under the first amendment. You can say the same thing about black people too, which is why we let the neo-nazis protest and even give them police protection when they do.
But the legal right to say something is not the right to freedom from social consequence. If he were a white supremacist and wanted to run Mozilla, a company with many non-white employees, would you really be outraged that people would fire him?
I'm hoping not. Free speech is an important right. But other people also get that right, and the right to freedom of association as well. If I were gay, I wouldn't want to work for a guy who believed I wasn't equal before the law. How could I trust him to treat me equally at work? And as a straight person, I wouldn't want to work for somebody like that either, so I'd take my freedom of association and walk right out the door. Why shouldn't Mozilla's board take account of whether or not people want to work for a CEO?
I generally agree with what you say.
> How could I trust him to treat me equally at work?
You could see what he's done whilst at work. Apparently he helped create and enforce policies that protected minority employees.
The reason I'm uncomfortable with it is what happens if we switch the positions: Joe Bloggs makes a private donation to a bill supporting gay marriage. Years later he is appointed CEO of some org but the customers run a campaign to veto him based on his private political donation.
Isn't this precisely why voting is anonymous[1]? While Eich's views are repugnant he should have been judged on what he did in the workplace.
The other point is that US style political campaigning is clearly fucked.
[1] of course voting isn't actually anonymous in the UK. Some people still aren't aware of that.
> How could I trust him to treat me equally at work?
You could see what he's done whilst at work. Apparently he helped create and enforce policies that protected minority employees.
The reason I'm uncomfortable with it is what happens if we switch the positions: Joe Bloggs makes a private donation to a bill supporting gay marriage. Years later he is appointed CEO of some org but the customers run a campaign to veto him based on his private political donation.
Isn't this precisely why voting is anonymous[1]? While Eich's views are repugnant he should have been judged on what he did in the workplace.
The other point is that US style political campaigning is clearly fucked.
[1] of course voting isn't actually anonymous in the UK. Some people still aren't aware of that.
> You could see what he's done whilst at work.
It is the same person. If somebody wears a hooded sheet for evening rallies but a suit in the office, it is not unreasonable for black people to say, "Gosh, maybe I should work elsewhere." White people who are anti-racist might feel similarly. Freedom of association is also a right, and one you seem to be giving less weight. Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequences.
> The reason I'm uncomfortable with it is what happens if we switch the positions: Joe Bloggs makes a private donation to a bill supporting gay marriage.
That is not switching the positions. An equivalent position is, say, supporting a bill to strip Baptists of the right to worship. The sole point of Prop 8 was to remove a constitutionally guaranteed right, equal protection under the law, from gay people. If somebody was trying to strip a civil right from some right-leaning group, I'd say they also should not be running a large company containing those people.
> While Eich's views are repugnant he should have been judged on what he did in the workplace.
That might be another interesting world, but here people are judged on their out-of-work behavior all the time. Especially when that out-of-work behavior indicates something possibly relevant to work performance. Like, e.g., believing that a significant fraction of your employees are literally second-class citizens.
It is the same person. If somebody wears a hooded sheet for evening rallies but a suit in the office, it is not unreasonable for black people to say, "Gosh, maybe I should work elsewhere." White people who are anti-racist might feel similarly. Freedom of association is also a right, and one you seem to be giving less weight. Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequences.
> The reason I'm uncomfortable with it is what happens if we switch the positions: Joe Bloggs makes a private donation to a bill supporting gay marriage.
That is not switching the positions. An equivalent position is, say, supporting a bill to strip Baptists of the right to worship. The sole point of Prop 8 was to remove a constitutionally guaranteed right, equal protection under the law, from gay people. If somebody was trying to strip a civil right from some right-leaning group, I'd say they also should not be running a large company containing those people.
> While Eich's views are repugnant he should have been judged on what he did in the workplace.
That might be another interesting world, but here people are judged on their out-of-work behavior all the time. Especially when that out-of-work behavior indicates something possibly relevant to work performance. Like, e.g., believing that a significant fraction of your employees are literally second-class citizens.
The two sides you paint are not at all equal. Political discourse gets thrown out the window when you are working towards the suppression of the rights of a group of people. If conservative politics is directly linked to bigotry I see no reason we should support it. Perhaps the fiscally conservative, small government political groups should work to dissociate their ideas from intolerance.
There is no paradox of tolerance. It is rational to be intolerant of intolerance, in order to preserve a tolerant society. Karl Popper summarizes: "Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them...We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant"
There is no paradox of tolerance. It is rational to be intolerant of intolerance, in order to preserve a tolerant society. Karl Popper summarizes: "Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them...We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant"
This entire response essentially says that you disagree with his position on the issue. I also disagree with his position on the issue.
But here's where we differ. I believe in his right to express his opinion without fear of losing his ability to make a living. You, and the rest of the liberal lynch mob that forced him out, are doing nothing more than suppressing his rights. And thus begins the end of democracy.
But here's where we differ. I believe in his right to express his opinion without fear of losing his ability to make a living. You, and the rest of the liberal lynch mob that forced him out, are doing nothing more than suppressing his rights. And thus begins the end of democracy.
Please read the other part of my comment, wherein I claim that he does not have a right to suppress rights. The context is extremely important: totally uncritical tolerance is not useful to society, and erodes tolerance. We need to be able to defend society against intolerance in order to maintain tolerance.
You cannot divorce the actual issue he is expressing his opinion on from the fact that he is expressing an opinion. The context matters. You can't consider a different particular instance and expect the same conclusion, because the context changes.
You cannot divorce the actual issue he is expressing his opinion on from the fact that he is expressing an opinion. The context matters. You can't consider a different particular instance and expect the same conclusion, because the context changes.
You cannot divorce the actual issue he is expressing his opinion on from the fact that he is expressing an opinion.
Of course you can. In fact this is one of the fundamental tenets of our entire political system. There are no carved out exceptions suspending constitutional protections for really bad opinions. We have a framework through which people with strong conflicting opinions can air them without fear of certain kinds of retaliation. That broke down here, and it's disgusting and scary.
Of course you can. In fact this is one of the fundamental tenets of our entire political system. There are no carved out exceptions suspending constitutional protections for really bad opinions. We have a framework through which people with strong conflicting opinions can air them without fear of certain kinds of retaliation. That broke down here, and it's disgusting and scary.
It is not at all one of the fundamental tenets of our political system. You have to take social context into consideration when generating social laws. People in oppressed and minority groups need more help because they are starting from a position of less privilege. And this is what we do: Laws like the Civil Rights Act of 1964 exist solely to protect the rights of people who are being oppressed and to restrict the rights of people doing the oppressing. Society acted to defend against intolerance, by being more intolerant of intolerant people.
The basic slippery slope you envision is "if we restrict rights, from what principle do we decide where to stop doing that?" The fault in the argument is that it is totally reasonable to not tolerate intolerance, and again, uncritical tolerance is not what we desire here, but rather tolerance of viewpoints which are not intolerant.
The basic slippery slope you envision is "if we restrict rights, from what principle do we decide where to stop doing that?" The fault in the argument is that it is totally reasonable to not tolerate intolerance, and again, uncritical tolerance is not what we desire here, but rather tolerance of viewpoints which are not intolerant.
There are no carved out exceptions suspending constitutional protections for really bad opinions.
No, but there's a reason why those constitutional protections don't apply here, and it's not because the people writing them couldn't imagine this situation.
No, but there's a reason why those constitutional protections don't apply here, and it's not because the people writing them couldn't imagine this situation.
>>You, and the rest of the liberal lynch mob that forced him out, are doing nothing more than suppressing his rights.
You have to admit, using your rights to take someone else's rights away.... is a dubious position to hold.
You have to admit, using your rights to take someone else's rights away.... is a dubious position to hold.
[deleted]
He has the right to be a racist, homophobe, Nazi or whatever. That doesn't mean he can lead a company.
If Democracy will end because a bunch of bigots ended up with their panties in a knot, then Democracy was never meant to last. Let it end.
The nature of politics is that if we want to accomplish things, we have to work together. When you throw out statements like
> If conservative politics is directly linked to bigotry I see no reason we should support it. Perhaps the fiscally conservative, small government political groups should work to dissociate their ideas from intolerance.
All this does is create animosity with moderates who do not consider themselves linked to bigotry, and it does not advance your position, except among people who already agree with it.
If you don't want the support of these moderates then that is one thing. But that raises the question of why you would engage them, if not to garner their support.
> If conservative politics is directly linked to bigotry I see no reason we should support it. Perhaps the fiscally conservative, small government political groups should work to dissociate their ideas from intolerance.
All this does is create animosity with moderates who do not consider themselves linked to bigotry, and it does not advance your position, except among people who already agree with it.
If you don't want the support of these moderates then that is one thing. But that raises the question of why you would engage them, if not to garner their support.
>>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 prop8 campaign was... http://www.slate.com/blogs/outward/2014/04/04/brendan_eich_s... ....Eich could have donated to prop- 2,147,483,647, to ban interracial marriage. It would be his right, but I hope society would backlash at him the same way as prop-8 donation caused.
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 prop8 campaign was... http://www.slate.com/blogs/outward/2014/04/04/brendan_eich_s... ....Eich could have donated to prop- 2,147,483,647, to ban interracial marriage. It would be his right, but I hope society would backlash at him the same way as prop-8 donation caused.
>>> 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 did not donate to what he donated. However, this campaign was not an inevitable consequence of his actions - it was a voluntary act of his political opponents, in order to send a message to him and his supporters and achieve political goals. It's like if somebody says something you don't like to you and you beat him up, the beating is a consequence of the saying, but it doesn't remove the blame of the beating from you, and you can't just say "he's in hospital because he couldn't deal with consequences of his actions". No, he's in hospital because somebody beat him up. And Eich left because of the campaign against him, despite no proof that his opinions have ever interfered with his professional judgement or that he ever did anything inappropriate. Except for expressing a private opinion.
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 did not donate to what he donated. However, this campaign was not an inevitable consequence of his actions - it was a voluntary act of his political opponents, in order to send a message to him and his supporters and achieve political goals. It's like if somebody says something you don't like to you and you beat him up, the beating is a consequence of the saying, but it doesn't remove the blame of the beating from you, and you can't just say "he's in hospital because he couldn't deal with consequences of his actions". No, he's in hospital because somebody beat him up. And Eich left because of the campaign against him, despite no proof that his opinions have ever interfered with his professional judgement or that he ever did anything inappropriate. Except for expressing a private opinion.
[deleted]
He was forced out, as everyone is well aware. You are advocating for a society where political intimidation is acceptable. There are many examples of such countries around the world. None have worked out well.
Wasn't most of the criticism due to Mozilla having policies that seemed to directly contradict the views his donation implied? I have no problem with the Koch brothers donating to climate change deniers, but I can see why that same action, if performed by, say, the President of Greenpeace, might make their position untenable.
You are advocating for a society where political intimidation is acceptable. There are many examples of such countries around the world. None have worked out well.
All countries have some level of acceptable political intimidation; that you think otherwise just means your views are sufficiently mainstream. Try embracing more fringe ideologies in a public way.
I suggest supporting and donating to Wahhabist movements and seeing how it goes for you.
All countries have some level of acceptable political intimidation; that you think otherwise just means your views are sufficiently mainstream. Try embracing more fringe ideologies in a public way.
I suggest supporting and donating to Wahhabist movements and seeing how it goes for you.
If you donate to organizations that are not linked to terror, exactly nothing would happen to you. If they are linked to terror, it's completely different league.
So you could support an hypothetical local pedo party[1] and be CEO of a company? Sorry, but I don't believe it.
[1] http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Party_for_Neighbourly_Love,_F...
[1] http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Party_for_Neighbourly_Love,_F...
If I understand your position correctly, then if there really was a prop to ban interracial marriage we should all be okay with that? I don't see any difference between a ban on gay marriage and a ban on interracial marriage.
I just want to be sure I understand your calibration settings. If you think a prop on banning interracial marriage should be just as acceptable as what you seem to be saying for prop8, then I'm done discussing this with you.
I just want to be sure I understand your calibration settings. If you think a prop on banning interracial marriage should be just as acceptable as what you seem to be saying for prop8, then I'm done discussing this with you.
Since you linked xkcd: https://xkcd.com/1431/ It's easy to look down on interracial marriage bans from our oh-so-enlightened modern view, but it took a long time to even get there. You have to look at these ideologies in the context that they were formed in. If the graph is correct, then when Eich donated, same-sex marriage didn't have majority support. (Setting aside what California's specific numbers were.) This isn't to say that "might makes right", but that Eich expressed his vision for how society should be, and it's only fair to also consider how the rest of the society felt about it.
In other words, how do you know views you hold today won't be considered the vilest bigotry in 30 years? Is your moral compass so special, that you would have fought for interracial marriage, even if you were born a white in the southern US in the 1800's?
In other words, how do you know views you hold today won't be considered the vilest bigotry in 30 years? Is your moral compass so special, that you would have fought for interracial marriage, even if you were born a white in the southern US in the 1800's?
> how do you know views you hold today won't be considered the vilest bigotry in 30 years
Ah, the classic argument: if we can't have perfect right now, then we obviously can't work toward the good.
Ah, the classic argument: if we can't have perfect right now, then we obviously can't work toward the good.
I have no way to argue against your comment. You're completely right that our moral compass is not static. So I can only say that I hope society overall always moves towards accepting humanity & life in all the shapes and forms it presents itself. I have no way of justifying that belief; it's just something in my core being. It's in the same part of me that has decided kicking puppies and other animal cruelty is not good. Anyone publicly supporting animal cruelty I think should be publicly shamed. I don't know how to justify that either.
Perhaps this takes this whole discussion to another level. Where does humanity's moral compass come from and how do we justify it as something worthy of being followed & upheld?
Perhaps this takes this whole discussion to another level. Where does humanity's moral compass come from and how do we justify it as something worthy of being followed & upheld?
If the graph is correct, then when Eich donated, same-sex marriage didn't have majority support.
It did among the society composed of Mozilla supporters. This idea that society is not people you interact and work with (and in this case, even direct) but the random populace in your general geographic area was wrong before the Internet, and it's completely wrong today.
If he didn't realize that, I'd say his out of touch with the people he was supposed to work with.
Is your moral compass so special, that you would have fought for interracial marriage, even if you were born a white in the southern US in the 1800's?
What's with this topic and strawmen? Nobody demanded he fought for gay rights. Most people don't fight for gay rights, and you don't see them get criticized (in this community). Just not to invest his time and money to fight against it.
Regardless of either his ousting was justified or not (personally, I'm conflicted), most arguments here are terrible.
It did among the society composed of Mozilla supporters. This idea that society is not people you interact and work with (and in this case, even direct) but the random populace in your general geographic area was wrong before the Internet, and it's completely wrong today.
If he didn't realize that, I'd say his out of touch with the people he was supposed to work with.
Is your moral compass so special, that you would have fought for interracial marriage, even if you were born a white in the southern US in the 1800's?
What's with this topic and strawmen? Nobody demanded he fought for gay rights. Most people don't fight for gay rights, and you don't see them get criticized (in this community). Just not to invest his time and money to fight against it.
Regardless of either his ousting was justified or not (personally, I'm conflicted), most arguments here are terrible.
Interesting society argument. For sake of argument I'll just talk about Mozilla employees. Does being a CEO require you to take political actions to support (or at least, not hurt) your employees in their outside lives, over other local political concerns? As a citizen, is that ethical?
People who oppose gay marriage typically believe it would hurt "society" at large -- do you really want to say he should have taken an action (or inaction) he believed would generally hurt everyone in his political jurisdiction (which the vote was in), so that he could help his Mozillian sub-society? (The typical proponent response would be that it doesn't hurt anyone, but that's the crux of where people disagree.) What other areas does this reasoning extend to? Maybe I'm making a straw man here, but how is this sub-society argument different than "The majority of my employees are white people or supporters of white people, so I should vote and campaign to support white people even though I believe it would hurt others"?
For what it's worth, Mozilla reportedly offer healthcare benefits to same-sex couples[0], and I've read several reports that Brendan personally treated gay employees equitably. I recognize the difficulty of reconciling all this, the near-hypocrisy of campaigning to ban legal unions of people you're cordial with at work, but I can't find a way to support the idea that he should be accountable to them for his legal participation in a process that transcends Mozilla. Or if so, why to them instead of his (potential) gay neighbors, or any Mozillians that supported the same cause? Obviously there's no legal way to enforce that either way, so I guess I'm thinking of the ideal way people would self-police.
> Nobody demanded he fought for gay rights.
I didn't mean to imply that. Make it "Can you be sure you wouldn't have opposed interracial marriage with your time and/or money?", since that's the more apt analogy people are using. I'll grant you it may be an unobjective argument, but the point is to reflect on how the popular morality is a moving target.
> Most people don't fight for gay rights, and you don't see them get criticized
Well, I'm loath to even suggest this level of enforcement, but the cognitive dissonance here bothers me a bit. So Eich could have been aware there was a threat of oppression to his employees etc., to "strip them of their rights" (quasi-quote), and done absolutely nothing to help them, because you know, there's TV to watch and frivolities to buy instead, and that's totally OK? Come on -- it's either such a righteous cause/travesty of justice that even inaction is intolerable; or it's just a societal rift that will take a few decades to achieve consensus on, and shouldn't be punished any more than being discovered to be a card-carrying Republican or Democrat. I don't know, am I crazy here? My cynical feeling is that few would support such an extreme position, because secretly we are all at least silent witnesses, if not enablers, to bits of injustice everywhere. It's just that most of us aren't publicly accountable to internet hordes, and/or people buy excuses like "At least I wasn't actively fighting for <cause they believe is evil>!"
[0] https://blog.lizardwrangler.com/2014/03/29/on-mozillas-suppo...
People who oppose gay marriage typically believe it would hurt "society" at large -- do you really want to say he should have taken an action (or inaction) he believed would generally hurt everyone in his political jurisdiction (which the vote was in), so that he could help his Mozillian sub-society? (The typical proponent response would be that it doesn't hurt anyone, but that's the crux of where people disagree.) What other areas does this reasoning extend to? Maybe I'm making a straw man here, but how is this sub-society argument different than "The majority of my employees are white people or supporters of white people, so I should vote and campaign to support white people even though I believe it would hurt others"?
For what it's worth, Mozilla reportedly offer healthcare benefits to same-sex couples[0], and I've read several reports that Brendan personally treated gay employees equitably. I recognize the difficulty of reconciling all this, the near-hypocrisy of campaigning to ban legal unions of people you're cordial with at work, but I can't find a way to support the idea that he should be accountable to them for his legal participation in a process that transcends Mozilla. Or if so, why to them instead of his (potential) gay neighbors, or any Mozillians that supported the same cause? Obviously there's no legal way to enforce that either way, so I guess I'm thinking of the ideal way people would self-police.
> Nobody demanded he fought for gay rights.
I didn't mean to imply that. Make it "Can you be sure you wouldn't have opposed interracial marriage with your time and/or money?", since that's the more apt analogy people are using. I'll grant you it may be an unobjective argument, but the point is to reflect on how the popular morality is a moving target.
> Most people don't fight for gay rights, and you don't see them get criticized
Well, I'm loath to even suggest this level of enforcement, but the cognitive dissonance here bothers me a bit. So Eich could have been aware there was a threat of oppression to his employees etc., to "strip them of their rights" (quasi-quote), and done absolutely nothing to help them, because you know, there's TV to watch and frivolities to buy instead, and that's totally OK? Come on -- it's either such a righteous cause/travesty of justice that even inaction is intolerable; or it's just a societal rift that will take a few decades to achieve consensus on, and shouldn't be punished any more than being discovered to be a card-carrying Republican or Democrat. I don't know, am I crazy here? My cynical feeling is that few would support such an extreme position, because secretly we are all at least silent witnesses, if not enablers, to bits of injustice everywhere. It's just that most of us aren't publicly accountable to internet hordes, and/or people buy excuses like "At least I wasn't actively fighting for <cause they believe is evil>!"
[0] https://blog.lizardwrangler.com/2014/03/29/on-mozillas-suppo...
Interesting society argument. For sake of argument I'll just talk about Mozilla employees. Does being a CEO require you to take political actions to support (or at least, not hurt) your employees in their outside lives, over other local political concerns? As a citizen, is that ethical?
I don't know. All I said was, "society" can't be reduced to people living in a geographical area. The person who made a societal argument wasn't me, it was you.
People who oppose gay marriage typically believe it would hurt "society" at large -- do you really want to say he should have taken an action (or inaction) he believed would generally hurt everyone in his political jurisdiction (which the vote was in), so that he could help his Mozillian sub-society?
I don't know. All I meant was what I said - his vote can't be explained away just by saying "well, it's a product of the society he lived in". Nothing more.
So Eich could have been aware there was a threat of oppression to his employees etc., to "strip them of their rights" (quasi-quote), and done absolutely nothing to help them, because you know, there's TV to watch and frivolities to buy instead, and that's totally OK? Come on -- it's either such a righteous cause/travesty of justice that even inaction is intolerable; or it's just a societal rift that will take a few decades to achieve consensus on, and shouldn't be punished any more than being discovered to be a card-carrying Republican or Democrat.
People here seem to have their mind so formatted in a us-vs-them mentality that they automatically assume everyone who disagrees with a particular argument is a strong supporter of the opposite position. This is not the case.
I never said he should or not be tolerated. I didn't say I agree with what happened.
All I said was that factually, people who are simply inactive on the issue don't get called out, so it's incorrect to assume Eich was being demanded to act in support of gay marriage.
EDIT: Damn my poor English :|
I don't know. All I said was, "society" can't be reduced to people living in a geographical area. The person who made a societal argument wasn't me, it was you.
People who oppose gay marriage typically believe it would hurt "society" at large -- do you really want to say he should have taken an action (or inaction) he believed would generally hurt everyone in his political jurisdiction (which the vote was in), so that he could help his Mozillian sub-society?
I don't know. All I meant was what I said - his vote can't be explained away just by saying "well, it's a product of the society he lived in". Nothing more.
So Eich could have been aware there was a threat of oppression to his employees etc., to "strip them of their rights" (quasi-quote), and done absolutely nothing to help them, because you know, there's TV to watch and frivolities to buy instead, and that's totally OK? Come on -- it's either such a righteous cause/travesty of justice that even inaction is intolerable; or it's just a societal rift that will take a few decades to achieve consensus on, and shouldn't be punished any more than being discovered to be a card-carrying Republican or Democrat.
People here seem to have their mind so formatted in a us-vs-them mentality that they automatically assume everyone who disagrees with a particular argument is a strong supporter of the opposite position. This is not the case.
I never said he should or not be tolerated. I didn't say I agree with what happened.
All I said was that factually, people who are simply inactive on the issue don't get called out, so it's incorrect to assume Eich was being demanded to act in support of gay marriage.
EDIT: Damn my poor English :|
I find this extremely hypocritical. Does this justify obstructing his career and publicly nailing him to the cross ? NO.
If you're a liberal : please explain why Mozillans don't have the right to their own political opinion, right to do whatever they want with their money, ...
If I ever met anyone who expressed this opinion to me, you or anyone else, I'd do the very best I can to remove them from my presence, company, sabotage their career, whatever I can.
And I'll feel as smug about it as you. I'm defending freedom and democracy by doing that.
If you're a liberal : please explain why Mozillans don't have the right to their own political opinion, right to do whatever they want with their money, ...
If I ever met anyone who expressed this opinion to me, you or anyone else, I'd do the very best I can to remove them from my presence, company, sabotage their career, whatever I can.
And I'll feel as smug about it as you. I'm defending freedom and democracy by doing that.
Nobody's denying Eich's legal right to have a political opinion, or to act on it within the bounds of the law.
But note that Eich supported stripping people of one of their constitutional rights. Prop 8's explicit goal was to remove the right of equal protection before the law.
And further, other people were exercising their political rights: freedom of speech and freedom of association. Having a fancy-pants CEO position is not a legal right. People are free to decide not to work with the guy.
And really, if you're defending using the ballot process to strip people of constitutional protections, I'm not so sure you're truly on the side of freedom and democracy. Prop 8 was mob democracy, a classic example of tyranny of the majority.
But note that Eich supported stripping people of one of their constitutional rights. Prop 8's explicit goal was to remove the right of equal protection before the law.
And further, other people were exercising their political rights: freedom of speech and freedom of association. Having a fancy-pants CEO position is not a legal right. People are free to decide not to work with the guy.
And really, if you're defending using the ballot process to strip people of constitutional protections, I'm not so sure you're truly on the side of freedom and democracy. Prop 8 was mob democracy, a classic example of tyranny of the majority.
I specifically said that I'm divided on the issue and I haven't taken position one way or the other, I just disagree with those particular arguments.
If you want to make me into the enemy, go ahead, but you're the Quixote here.
If you want to make me into the enemy, go ahead, but you're the Quixote here.
> You have to look at these ideologies in the context that they were formed in.
No. No, I do not.
No. No, I do not.
>If I understand your position correctly, then if there really was a prop to ban interracial marriage we should all be okay with that?
I would strongly oppose such a measure. But I would certainly respect the rights of others to support the opposing side and vote their conscience, and when the vote was over I would not go scouring donation records to figure out whom I should fire or force out of their jobs.
I would strongly oppose such a measure. But I would certainly respect the rights of others to support the opposing side and vote their conscience, and when the vote was over I would not go scouring donation records to figure out whom I should fire or force out of their jobs.
"I would certainly respect the rights of others to support the opposing side"
No such right exists in this context. A proposition to ban interracial marriage has nothing to do with people's consciences and everything to do with the letter of the law, where marriage is an established legal construct to which access is guaranteed under the 14th amendment. Voting to have rights stripped from other citizens for arbitrary reasons is not a protected freedom and such a proposition is patently unconstitutional on its face. You don't need to be impartial here.
No such right exists in this context. A proposition to ban interracial marriage has nothing to do with people's consciences and everything to do with the letter of the law, where marriage is an established legal construct to which access is guaranteed under the 14th amendment. Voting to have rights stripped from other citizens for arbitrary reasons is not a protected freedom and such a proposition is patently unconstitutional on its face. You don't need to be impartial here.
No such right exists in this context.
Sure they do. Free speech applies even if what you defend is illegal or unconstitutional. Brandenburg v. Ohio made it very explicit.
Besides, while it may seem weird to Americans, constitutions do change. Ours is not yet 40 years old, and already we're speaking about changing it.
Sure they do. Free speech applies even if what you defend is illegal or unconstitutional. Brandenburg v. Ohio made it very explicit.
Besides, while it may seem weird to Americans, constitutions do change. Ours is not yet 40 years old, and already we're speaking about changing it.
Free speech != voting to legislate away the rights of some minority. This is a rampant conflation.
Nobody did that, you're inventing a straw man. The results were published on the website of a well-known newspaper[1] in a format that Google could parse. It was only a matter of time for it to be found out and spread.
> He was forced out, as everyone is well aware.
No, he was not. https://blog.mozilla.org/blog/2014/04/05/faq-on-ceo-resignat...
No, he was not. https://blog.mozilla.org/blog/2014/04/05/faq-on-ceo-resignat...
Brendan was not fired and was not asked by the Board to resign.
Brendan voluntarily submitted his resignation. The Board acted
in response by inviting him to remain at Mozilla in another
C-level position. Brendan declined that offer. The Board
respects his decision.I can't believe that anybody would be so naive to believe that Brendan wasn't forced out.
Every single day, there is an employee going to work in a hostile environment, shunned by co-workers or left to sit in an empty room with no work to perform. Eventually they'll be forced to resign in order to save their own sanity.
Every single day, there is an employee going to work in a hostile environment, shunned by co-workers or left to sit in an empty room with no work to perform. Eventually they'll be forced to resign in order to save their own sanity.
> I can't believe that anybody would be so naive to believe that Brendan wasn't forced out.
I'm using facts to reach the conclusion that Brendan Eich wasn't forced out of his job. Your argument boils down to "Ahh, come on!".
Guess who wins? (SPOILER ALERT: Not you.)
I'm using facts to reach the conclusion that Brendan Eich wasn't forced out of his job. Your argument boils down to "Ahh, come on!".
Guess who wins? (SPOILER ALERT: Not you.)
People keep claiming Mozilla employees weren't hostile to him, and wanted him to stay. You can't have it both ways. Which is it?
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 that should simply have been his role. Becoming the chief brand embassador was never an appropriate choice.
I also don't get how you can equate this with a hypothetical where he is extremely liberal and is being attacked by conservatives. Supporting discriminatory laws is not even on the same plane as being "offensively" open-minded.
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 that should simply have been his role. Becoming the chief brand embassador was never an appropriate choice.
I also don't get how you can equate this with a hypothetical where he is extremely liberal and is being attacked by conservatives. Supporting discriminatory laws is not even on the same plane as being "offensively" open-minded.
"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."
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."
I disagree, because actively supporting limiting the rights of minorities over what amounts to an appeal to religious tradition seems more than a matter of opinion to me.
Also, I understand that you downvoted me above, but going to my other comments in another thread and giving them the same treatment is abusive - especially since I'm a new user. You have single-handedly destroyed my karma balance. So I guess the message is that I'm not welcome here because I support equal rights?
Also, I understand that you downvoted me above, but going to my other comments in another thread and giving them the same treatment is abusive - especially since I'm a new user. You have single-handedly destroyed my karma balance. So I guess the message is that I'm not welcome here because I support equal rights?
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.
Eventually, though, it became clear that Eich had done a very good job of keeping his opinion out of the workplace. That's a difficult thing to do, and I don't think I and others were necessarily wrong, at first, to expect that he wouldn't be able to do it. But I read everything I could find on the case, and I never saw anyone even accusing him of intolerant behavior toward gay Mozillians, either in person or in policy -- and he was one of the drafters of the company's diversity policy.
Given that, I think it was unfortunate that the Board accepted his resignation. (It's particularly sad considering that they had talked him into taking the position in the first place.)
Had the Board told him "No, you can't quit; we're going to get you through this" I think they should then have tried to explain that his record on diversity was excellent, and that he and they both knew that the eyes of the world would be upon him, and that people should give him a chance.
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.
Eventually, though, it became clear that Eich had done a very good job of keeping his opinion out of the workplace. That's a difficult thing to do, and I don't think I and others were necessarily wrong, at first, to expect that he wouldn't be able to do it. But I read everything I could find on the case, and I never saw anyone even accusing him of intolerant behavior toward gay Mozillians, either in person or in policy -- and he was one of the drafters of the company's diversity policy.
Given that, I think it was unfortunate that the Board accepted his resignation. (It's particularly sad considering that they had talked him into taking the position in the first place.)
Had the Board told him "No, you can't quit; we're going to get you through this" I think they should then have tried to explain that his record on diversity was excellent, and that he and they both knew that the eyes of the world would be upon him, and that people should give him a chance.
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.
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 books until recently, and got equal marriage (sort of) last year.
The trouble with declaring something, as an individual in a HN thread, beyond the bounds of reasonable discussion is that it does not actually make it so - the bounds of reasonable discussion are set by what people in general are prepared to reasonably discuss. The obvious takeaway from the Eich affair - the best corporate diversity record in the world will not stop individuals from holding to the beliefs that they do. They will just hold them more quietly.
Finally - Eich being drilled out of the CEO position is not directly a suppression of his free speech or whatever; he is not being sent to jail for his views. The board of a company has the right to ditch a CEO for being 'embarrassing'. The trouble is that this is not somehow a radical blow for gay rights: indeed, closeted gay people not too long ago would find their positions untenable for exactly the same reason if their sexuality was discovered (it was embarrassing, etc).
In order to get to a situation where they could go about their business relatively unmolested, gay people had to fight against, among other things, exactly this sort of kneejerk corporate small-c conservatism. The progress we've made on this issue was not made one non-profit CEO at a time; nor was it through individual gays having great individual 'role models' (sorry Tim), but through prolonged political fights. I have little sympathy for Eich in this matter, but the idea that his being Mozilla CEO was a serious obstacle to gay rights was risible, and remains so.
The trouble with declaring something, as an individual in a HN thread, beyond the bounds of reasonable discussion is that it does not actually make it so - the bounds of reasonable discussion are set by what people in general are prepared to reasonably discuss. The obvious takeaway from the Eich affair - the best corporate diversity record in the world will not stop individuals from holding to the beliefs that they do. They will just hold them more quietly.
Finally - Eich being drilled out of the CEO position is not directly a suppression of his free speech or whatever; he is not being sent to jail for his views. The board of a company has the right to ditch a CEO for being 'embarrassing'. The trouble is that this is not somehow a radical blow for gay rights: indeed, closeted gay people not too long ago would find their positions untenable for exactly the same reason if their sexuality was discovered (it was embarrassing, etc).
In order to get to a situation where they could go about their business relatively unmolested, gay people had to fight against, among other things, exactly this sort of kneejerk corporate small-c conservatism. The progress we've made on this issue was not made one non-profit CEO at a time; nor was it through individual gays having great individual 'role models' (sorry Tim), but through prolonged political fights. I have little sympathy for Eich in this matter, but the idea that his being Mozilla CEO was a serious obstacle to gay rights was risible, and remains so.
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."
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."
> '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 books until recently, and got equal marriage (sort of) last year.
Don't forget gay sex being illegal in the US up until 2003.
Don't forget gay sex being illegal in the US up until 2003.
> The cause he donated to was not merely "conservative" and was not decried because it was insufficiently liberal. It was cruel and wrong.
No, it wasn't. Proposition 8 did not ban civil unions; it did not ban any marriage-like accommodation for same-sex couples (that would have been cruel).
No, it wasn't. Proposition 8 did not ban civil unions; it did not ban any marriage-like accommodation for same-sex couples (that would have been cruel).
We've seen how separate but equal plays out.
>But taking away someone's job over a political donation is preposterous and disturbing.
>Eich's forced resignation was an offense against everything America allegedly stands for.
But what if the cause someone donates for, curtails the rights of someone else? Would you say the same thing if he had donated to a terrorist organisation?
>Eich's forced resignation was an offense against everything America allegedly stands for.
But what if the cause someone donates for, curtails the rights of someone else? Would you say the same thing if he had donated to a terrorist organisation?
Of course he's entitled to his opinion. The public is also entitled to use whatever criteria they wish to choose where they spend their dollars, ad views, or seek employment. A board of directors is also entitled to weigh the effects of its officers public statements and actions on the future health of the company.
Note that I draw a very strong distinction here between officers and typical employees -- typical employees are not allowed to speak for the company unless specifically authorized, whereas a high-profile officer's public conduct is more inextricably tangled with the company itself. Someone might rightly interpret Eich's donation as an indication that Mozilla would be a less-friendly environment for a gay programmer than another company would, because Eich's opinions and policies are directly able to shape the culture therein.
There's no magic here. There are many ways in which executives are subject to substantially greater scrutiny than ordinary employees. This probably sucks for them, but in today's environment, it's part of the job. Changing that - well, that's a longer discussion.
Note that I draw a very strong distinction here between officers and typical employees -- typical employees are not allowed to speak for the company unless specifically authorized, whereas a high-profile officer's public conduct is more inextricably tangled with the company itself. Someone might rightly interpret Eich's donation as an indication that Mozilla would be a less-friendly environment for a gay programmer than another company would, because Eich's opinions and policies are directly able to shape the culture therein.
There's no magic here. There are many ways in which executives are subject to substantially greater scrutiny than ordinary employees. This probably sucks for them, but in today's environment, it's part of the job. Changing that - well, that's a longer discussion.
>Brendan Eich is entitled to his opinion, and a large not for profit is entitled not to want someone with that opinion as a figurehead.
Except Mozilla didn't make that choice. Eich was not fired or asked to resign. Mozilla made it clear they still wanted him. Eich voluntarily stepped down and excused himself from the community after it had shown its shallow, naive definition of tolerance. I don't blame him for not wanting to work in the industry anymore.
Except Mozilla didn't make that choice. Eich was not fired or asked to resign. Mozilla made it clear they still wanted him. Eich voluntarily stepped down and excused himself from the community after it had shown its shallow, naive definition of tolerance. I don't blame him for not wanting to work in the industry anymore.
> its shallow, naive definition of tolerance
But if you believe that, that's a pretty intolerant view you have there.
The question of tolerance of intolerance isn't perhaps as simple as you make out. It's been well discussed without a clear answer: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance
But if you believe that, that's a pretty intolerant view you have there.
The question of tolerance of intolerance isn't perhaps as simple as you make out. It's been well discussed without a clear answer: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance
Brendan Eich is entitled to his opinion, and a large not for profit is entitled not to want someone with that opinion as a figurehead.
Right. It's really quite simple.
All this support of Eich as some kind of a martyr (or a victim of reverse bigotry, in any way comparable to the bigotry Eich promotes through his donations) is grossly misplaced.
Right. It's really quite simple.
All this support of Eich as some kind of a martyr (or a victim of reverse bigotry, in any way comparable to the bigotry Eich promotes through his donations) is grossly misplaced.
Sure there's nothing wrong with having an unpopular opinion but it's wrong to hurt other people based on an opinion (in this case he hurt them by limiting their right).
Donating money to support a campaign on a proposition supported by 52% of voters is not 'hurting people', and saying so is hyperbolic and ridiculous.
The reality is that the gay rights movement did not have the unprecedented swiftness it did by alienating those who feel differently about homosexuality. It traditionally has been a movement predicated on the idea that people who didn't support gay rights could be converted if they could only be reached in the proper context. The effectiveness of this approach speaks for itself.
It's a shame and an embarrassment that people think it's appropriate or rational behavior to do what was done to Eich. If that type of behavior was the common reaction to someone who, privately I might add, had opinions counter to the movement then we would have been set back decades.
The reality is that the gay rights movement did not have the unprecedented swiftness it did by alienating those who feel differently about homosexuality. It traditionally has been a movement predicated on the idea that people who didn't support gay rights could be converted if they could only be reached in the proper context. The effectiveness of this approach speaks for itself.
It's a shame and an embarrassment that people think it's appropriate or rational behavior to do what was done to Eich. If that type of behavior was the common reaction to someone who, privately I might add, had opinions counter to the movement then we would have been set back decades.
Donating money to support a campaign on a proposition supported by 52% of voters is not 'hurting people', and saying so is hyperbolic and ridiculous.
(1) The fact that Prop 8 won in the polls is irrelevant to the question of whether it was hurtful or not. To say (in effect; not quoting you directly) that "if a ballot measure passes, it must be harmless" is kind of like saying that there's nothing wrong with supporting, say, a racist demagog because after all, their rallies were always attended by thronging, jubilant crowds.
(2) What got Eich fired (or pushed into resigning, whatever) was not so much that he donated to a group supporting Prop 8 (by itself), but rather the bigoted TV ads ran by that group (which Eich apparently never distanced himself from). That was really the "clincher" that rallied people against him.
(1) The fact that Prop 8 won in the polls is irrelevant to the question of whether it was hurtful or not. To say (in effect; not quoting you directly) that "if a ballot measure passes, it must be harmless" is kind of like saying that there's nothing wrong with supporting, say, a racist demagog because after all, their rallies were always attended by thronging, jubilant crowds.
(2) What got Eich fired (or pushed into resigning, whatever) was not so much that he donated to a group supporting Prop 8 (by itself), but rather the bigoted TV ads ran by that group (which Eich apparently never distanced himself from). That was really the "clincher" that rallied people against him.
Supporting a cause that limit someone right based on their sexual orientation is hurting people. The fact that 52% support it doesn't change the fact that you limit someone right. Even if 99% people believe that brown hair people shouldn't have the right to take the bus, it wouldn't be less wrong. It's not magically right to limit rights because the majority agree.
I never said that what people did to Eich is right, I currently don't have an opinion on that because I doesn't know enough.
I never said that what people did to Eich is right, I currently don't have an opinion on that because I doesn't know enough.
Sorry, if you are going to re-define 'hurting people' to mean 'making a modest political donation to a mainstream position that some argue is discriminatory' I don't know what to tell you. This hard line perspective stifles an open society. In this case, money is speech, and regardless of how wrong it is it's not the kind of speech I'd classify as harmful. ("Fire in a crowded theater.")
What's hurt people in this situation is to remove them their right. If you do an action with the goal to remove right from people, even if it's small, even if it's really indirect, if you do it with the goal to remove right from people, then yeah I believe it's wrong.
We are all equals, we should have equals rights. Having equals right doesn't hurt anyone but having different rights does.
We are all equals, we should have equals rights. Having equals right doesn't hurt anyone but having different rights does.
You do realize that he didn't actually limit their rights, correct?
He cast a dollar vote in support of a proposition, same way any of us could give campaign donations to a candidate we liked. He participated in the political framework in a widely-accepted way, and the system failed to effect the outcome he seems to have voted for: democracy prevailed, the system worked, nobody was harmed.
You might as well round up every Republican who voted against Obama or Democrat who voted against Bush because they're clearly enemies of liberty. Be careful what you wish for.
He cast a dollar vote in support of a proposition, same way any of us could give campaign donations to a candidate we liked. He participated in the political framework in a widely-accepted way, and the system failed to effect the outcome he seems to have voted for: democracy prevailed, the system worked, nobody was harmed.
You might as well round up every Republican who voted against Obama or Democrat who voted against Bush because they're clearly enemies of liberty. Be careful what you wish for.
Yes.
The issue I have with the whole Brendan Eich situation was he was professing thru his right to free speech a profoundly held religious belief, I disagree with his interpretation of scripture, and conceptually that scripture should determine who can get married - but as gay male (who came out at 15, in 1998) I'd fight to the death for his rights to speak his mind.
I have an extreme distaste of Social Justice Warriors - there are people whom I firmly believe would never stand up to try to stop a gay bashing, but are more than content to stir up a huge ruckus online. Brendan Eich did the internet community a great service in his time - he didnt deserve to be drummed out for his beliefs, a thoughtcrime is not yet a crime, and I'd rather see him judged for his actions in his management roles not for just what he thinks.
The issue I have with the whole Brendan Eich situation was he was professing thru his right to free speech a profoundly held religious belief, I disagree with his interpretation of scripture, and conceptually that scripture should determine who can get married - but as gay male (who came out at 15, in 1998) I'd fight to the death for his rights to speak his mind.
I have an extreme distaste of Social Justice Warriors - there are people whom I firmly believe would never stand up to try to stop a gay bashing, but are more than content to stir up a huge ruckus online. Brendan Eich did the internet community a great service in his time - he didnt deserve to be drummed out for his beliefs, a thoughtcrime is not yet a crime, and I'd rather see him judged for his actions in his management roles not for just what he thinks.
> 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.
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.
> That's not true. For several years, people in California were denied marriage rights because of Prop 8.
No, they weren't denied their marriage rights: under Prop 8, any unmarried lesbian was free to marry any consenting unmarried man, and any unmarried homosexual was free to marry any consenting unmarried woman.
The state did not recognise 'marriages' between men or women, but that's not denying anyone's rights, nor is it harming anyone. Pope Francis is not harmed if the State of California doesn't recognise him as the Vicar of Christ.
No, they weren't denied their marriage rights: under Prop 8, any unmarried lesbian was free to marry any consenting unmarried man, and any unmarried homosexual was free to marry any consenting unmarried woman.
The state did not recognise 'marriages' between men or women, but that's not denying anyone's rights, nor is it harming anyone. Pope Francis is not harmed if the State of California doesn't recognise him as the Vicar of Christ.
>> 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.
>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.
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.
You do realize that no one advocated that Eich be physically "rounded up", right? They were just saying they didn't want to have him as their CEO.
He voted for limiting their rights. He actively acted against people rights. The fact that it wasn't successful doesn't make it right.
Even if the majority of people decide that jews need to be killed, I will still believe it's wrong.
Even if the majority of people decide that jews need to be killed, I will still believe it's wrong.
52% of Californians voted in favor of Prop 8 (to ban same-sex marriage) so you could argue Brendan Eich holds a rather popular opinion.
> 52% of Californians voted in favor of Prop 8 (to ban same-sex marriage)
No, they didn't. 52% of those who voted on Prop 8 (about 79% of the ~17M eligible and registered to vote, which were themselves only about 45% of Californians) voted for Prop 8 -- so about 19% of Californians voted for it.
> so you could argue Brendan Eich holds a rather popular opinion.
Well, no, you couldn't make a good argument that he holds a rather popular opinion based on the results of an election 6 years ago. You could perhaps argue that he holds a view that was popular at the time of the election based on those results. After all, opinions change. [1]
[1] see, e.g., http://www.ppic.org/main/publication_show.asp?i=1012
No, they didn't. 52% of those who voted on Prop 8 (about 79% of the ~17M eligible and registered to vote, which were themselves only about 45% of Californians) voted for Prop 8 -- so about 19% of Californians voted for it.
> so you could argue Brendan Eich holds a rather popular opinion.
Well, no, you couldn't make a good argument that he holds a rather popular opinion based on the results of an election 6 years ago. You could perhaps argue that he holds a view that was popular at the time of the election based on those results. After all, opinions change. [1]
[1] see, e.g., http://www.ppic.org/main/publication_show.asp?i=1012
Semantics. The fact is, of registered voters in California, more people voted against same-sex marriage than for it. 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?
At what point did Mozilla's mission for a free and open internet turn into one about social justice and identity politics?
At what point did Mozilla's mission for a free and open internet turn into one about social justice and identity politics?
Lots of people get ostracized for supporting and pushing things that were once popular but became massively unpopular, all throughout history. McCarthy advocated and pushed a very, very popular agenda for it's time, but history isn't written in the perspective of it's time, it's written in the perspective of today. It was also never "quite popular", it was essentially a split decision, and has been a very contentious issue for quite a while. It also doesn't take a genius to realize the trajectory of any social rights issue in this country, so I have a hard time feeling any empathy for what happened to Eich. Believe what you want, but if you want to be a popular leader, you've gotta have the intelligence and foresight to realize what kinds of things are bound to get you into trouble one day. And if he realized that and still believed in the cause so much, then there are no real victims, just choices and ramifications.
> 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.
> 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.
The world is a big place with different cultures and different opinions.
You are making a giant assumption that your world-view is the correct one.
The world is a big place with different cultures and different opinions.
You are making a giant assumption that your world-view is the correct one.
> You are making a giant assumption that your world-view is the correct one.
OTOH, if you condemn people for judging Eich, you are -- by so doing -- committing the same offense.
OTOH, if you condemn people for judging Eich, you are -- by so doing -- committing the same offense.
> 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 to be judged.
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 to be judged.
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.
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.
If my opinions and actions don't stand the test of time, and I'm still alive when they don't, I'll repudiate them.
Eich had his chance. He declined and ran away instead.
Eich had his chance. He declined and ran away instead.
>No, they didn't. 52% of those who voted on Prop 8 (about 79% of the ~17M eligible and registered to vote, which were themselves only about 45% of Californians) voted for Prop 8 -- so about 19% of Californians voted for it.
So the rest were either not competent to voice their opinion (below voting age), did not have sufficient stake for their opinion to matter or have proved their opinion doesn't count (residents who did not meet local requirements for franchisement or whose franchisement has been revoked, e.g., convicted felons), or simply didn't care enough to go make their opinion heard. I'd say 52% is still a fair number to quote, even if it may not be literally true if you're counting babies and other persons who are legally ineligible from having an opinion.
>After all, opinions change.
Sure, but not all that much that quickly. The latest polls show 45% of the American population still opposes same-sex marriage. While the opinion has shifted from majority to minority after relentless media campaigning, much like that in the article, there are still a very large number of people that hold it; it's still a "popular opinion".
So the rest were either not competent to voice their opinion (below voting age), did not have sufficient stake for their opinion to matter or have proved their opinion doesn't count (residents who did not meet local requirements for franchisement or whose franchisement has been revoked, e.g., convicted felons), or simply didn't care enough to go make their opinion heard. I'd say 52% is still a fair number to quote, even if it may not be literally true if you're counting babies and other persons who are legally ineligible from having an opinion.
>After all, opinions change.
Sure, but not all that much that quickly. The latest polls show 45% of the American population still opposes same-sex marriage. While the opinion has shifted from majority to minority after relentless media campaigning, much like that in the article, there are still a very large number of people that hold it; it's still a "popular opinion".
With recent big increases in support for
legalization of same-sex marriage, the
California public is now 61% in favor,
31% opposed according to a February 2013
Field Poll,
You're quoting a rather meaningless poll given the low sample size: "The latest Field Poll was completed February 5-17, 2013 among 834 registered voters in California."
Since we're quoting statistics, here are some from the CDC.
Gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men (MSM) represent approximately 2% of the United States population... In 2010, gay and bisexual men accounted for 63% of estimated new HIV infections in the United States and 78% of infections among all newly infected men.
http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/risk/gender/msm/facts/
In 2012, there were almost 9,000 cases of syphilis, and 84 percent of them were among gay and bisexual men
http://www.webmd.com/sexual-conditions/news/20140509/syphili...
My friends (who are gay) tell me there is a growing complacency amongst their younger gay friends, that HIV is seen as a long-term chronic condition rather than a killer disease. The results can be seen above.
Why does the issue of marriage dominate media headlines but not a peep about health? How much funding has gone into the campaign to legalise gay marriage versus educating people on safer sex?
Since we're quoting statistics, here are some from the CDC.
Gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men (MSM) represent approximately 2% of the United States population... In 2010, gay and bisexual men accounted for 63% of estimated new HIV infections in the United States and 78% of infections among all newly infected men.
http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/risk/gender/msm/facts/
In 2012, there were almost 9,000 cases of syphilis, and 84 percent of them were among gay and bisexual men
http://www.webmd.com/sexual-conditions/news/20140509/syphili...
My friends (who are gay) tell me there is a growing complacency amongst their younger gay friends, that HIV is seen as a long-term chronic condition rather than a killer disease. The results can be seen above.
Why does the issue of marriage dominate media headlines but not a peep about health? How much funding has gone into the campaign to legalise gay marriage versus educating people on safer sex?
From the poll I cited:
FiveThirtyEight rates Field Poll (at least for political races) as being "A+": http://fivethirtyeight.com/interactives/pollster-ratings/
Your references to incidence of HIV and syphilis among gay and bisexual men are something of a non sequitur, and—I think—underscore the value of extending the institution of marriage given that one might reasonably expect that enabling an at-risk population to engage in a social institution commonly associated with monogamy should only serve to decrease rates of transmission.
Also, why would you want your friends to be deprived of a right you enjoy?
I regularly see billboards in my neighborhood targeting young gay men to be tested for HIV. I bet that risk of transmission would be further lowered if the stigma associated with being gay was further reduced or entirely eliminated.
The maximum sampling error estimates for results
based on the overall sample of 834 registered
voters have a sampling error of +/- 3.5
percentage points, while findings from the
random subsample of 415 voters have a sampling
error of +/- 5.0 percentage points at the 95%
confidence level.
FiveThirtyEight rates Field Poll (at least for political races) as being "A+": http://fivethirtyeight.com/interactives/pollster-ratings/
Your references to incidence of HIV and syphilis among gay and bisexual men are something of a non sequitur, and—I think—underscore the value of extending the institution of marriage given that one might reasonably expect that enabling an at-risk population to engage in a social institution commonly associated with monogamy should only serve to decrease rates of transmission.
My friends (who are gay)
Also, why would you want your friends to be deprived of a right you enjoy?
I regularly see billboards in my neighborhood targeting young gay men to be tested for HIV. I bet that risk of transmission would be further lowered if the stigma associated with being gay was further reduced or entirely eliminated.
We're going to have to agree to disagree - I think 834 people is too small a sample size to draw any conclusions.
Btw, if the campaign for "marriage equality" were truly about equality, it would also include polygamous heterosexual families in Utah looking for recognition in law, as well as religions where marriage partners can be under 18. Thus the campaign for "marriage equality" has a narrow definition of equality and should be renamed the campaign for "same-sex marriage".
Btw, if the campaign for "marriage equality" were truly about equality, it would also include polygamous heterosexual families in Utah looking for recognition in law, as well as religions where marriage partners can be under 18. Thus the campaign for "marriage equality" has a narrow definition of equality and should be renamed the campaign for "same-sex marriage".
As Daniel Patrick Moynihan once put it, you are entitled to your own opinions, but not your own facts. Spend a few minutes reading about polling methodologies and playing around with a sample size calculator. California's number of registered voters was around 18.25 million in 2012. Put in 19 million if you're feeling generous to your own opinions.
Also, all 50 states allow minors to wed with parental consent. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_marriage_in_United_State...
Also, all 50 states allow minors to wed with parental consent. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_marriage_in_United_State...
Thus the campaign for "marriage equality" has
a narrow definition of equality and should be
renamed the campaign for "same-sex marriage".
So you can get married without having to ask for anyone's permission.
Yet individuals who are 16 or 17 years old, need parental consent, before getting married.
How is this "equal"?
Yet individuals who are 16 or 17 years old, need parental consent, before getting married.
How is this "equal"?
They're minors. There is no equality. No one is debating that minors should be extended the full set of rights accorded to legal adults. The only time in the last 50 years this came up for debate was when 18-20 year olds were being sent off to die in a conflict that they couldn't vote against.
The witch hunt against Brendan was just terrible. He made a minor donation years ago and it's something people blew out of proportion.
Here was his statement about inclusiveness after his donation became an issue https://brendaneich.com/2014/03/inclusiveness-at-mozilla/ To me it looks like he was committed to keeping Mozilla inclusive and would have been a great CEO.
Here was his statement about inclusiveness after his donation became an issue https://brendaneich.com/2014/03/inclusiveness-at-mozilla/ To me it looks like he was committed to keeping Mozilla inclusive and would have been a great CEO.
To most Americans, $1k is not a "minor" amount of money.
Furthermore, the exact amount of money that he donated is fairly irrelevant anyway. The donation, no matter it's magnitude, serves to illustrate what he believes. If I made a $1 donation to the local KKK group, would you make excuses for me because $1 is a trivial amount of money? Of course you would not.
Furthermore, the exact amount of money that he donated is fairly irrelevant anyway. The donation, no matter it's magnitude, serves to illustrate what he believes. If I made a $1 donation to the local KKK group, would you make excuses for me because $1 is a trivial amount of money? Of course you would not.
Comparing donating to an active hate group to a campaign doesn't make sense. The amount is irrelevant, I'll give you that but in my opinion something someone did six years ago isn't going to determine my opinion of something now.
In six years time Brendan could have gone through a lot of experiences that changed his opinion on marriage and based on his statement I would have given him the benefit of the doubt.
In six years time Brendan could have gone through a lot of experiences that changed his opinion on marriage and based on his statement I would have given him the benefit of the doubt.
Feel free to substitute "KKK" with "campaign to ban interracial marriage" in my above comment. Frankly I think the later is even worse anyway; the KKK only wishes they still had enough political influence to pass unconstitutional laws in a state like California.
If Brendan had publicly released a sincere apology I would consider forgiving him. All he did was issue a bunch of "It doesn't matter, you guys are wrong for caring" statements.
If Brendan had publicly released a sincere apology I would consider forgiving him. All he did was issue a bunch of "It doesn't matter, you guys are wrong for caring" statements.
And this is the other important fact, right here, what you just said. Not only is Eich a bigot who supports other bigots with his own money, he very obviously still has those views because he didn't do even the slightest thing necessary to defuse the outrage. He could have said "Yeah, that was a long time ago", thrown a symbolic $1,000 at GLAAD, and it would have literally wall went away overnight.
In the face of that, his repeated assertions that he can somehow keep his personal and professional lives separate (yeah, the human mind does not work that way) ring very hollow, at best.
Here is a person, incredibly talented, well paid for his work, that decides his personal beef with LGBTs takes precedence over his professional life and everyone else at Mozilla.
That, right there, shows a tremendous lack of decision making and prioritization skills. Kiss of death for a C-level position.
I think that if he hadn't resigned, he'd have eventually been asked to leave anyways. You do not, as a company, go out of your way to promote an image of inclusiveness and togetherness, and then hire an unrepentant bigot for a high level position. Mozilla would have lost huge amounts of credibility.
In the face of that, his repeated assertions that he can somehow keep his personal and professional lives separate (yeah, the human mind does not work that way) ring very hollow, at best.
Here is a person, incredibly talented, well paid for his work, that decides his personal beef with LGBTs takes precedence over his professional life and everyone else at Mozilla.
That, right there, shows a tremendous lack of decision making and prioritization skills. Kiss of death for a C-level position.
I think that if he hadn't resigned, he'd have eventually been asked to leave anyways. You do not, as a company, go out of your way to promote an image of inclusiveness and togetherness, and then hire an unrepentant bigot for a high level position. Mozilla would have lost huge amounts of credibility.
He never said he changed his opinion on same sex marriage even when he was directly asked. Given that it could have saved job, i think you can conclude he doesn't support same sex marriage.
Do you have a better definition for a confluence of people that uses irrational FUD to tilt public policy away from certain people having rights?
The commercials sponsored by this group are freely available on YouTube. I suggest you go watch them, and then re-evaluate whether you feel the campaign doesn't qualify as a hate group. Violence is not the only or most important qualification in defining what a "hate group" actually is.
The commercials sponsored by this group are freely available on YouTube. I suggest you go watch them, and then re-evaluate whether you feel the campaign doesn't qualify as a hate group. Violence is not the only or most important qualification in defining what a "hate group" actually is.
Wow. As a non-American I hadn't seen these ads before. They're pretty much the definition of FUD.
And the one with the mother is especially insane. Wouldn't want your kids to be taught facts that are uncomfortable to you, eh? What do you know, if your kids knew homosexuality was a thing they might like it and fall from grace.
And the one with the mother is especially insane. Wouldn't want your kids to be taught facts that are uncomfortable to you, eh? What do you know, if your kids knew homosexuality was a thing they might like it and fall from grace.
Comparing donating to an active hate group to a campaign doesn't make sense.
It does if that campaign ran hate ads on your local TV station. If you think that the issue around Eich is only about his support for a certain ballot issue (by itself), then perhaps you should look a bit more into bigger story behind it -- and what got people so angry.
It does if that campaign ran hate ads on your local TV station. If you think that the issue around Eich is only about his support for a certain ballot issue (by itself), then perhaps you should look a bit more into bigger story behind it -- and what got people so angry.
I'm very, very far away from judging people's work abilities (like being an CEO) based on their skin color, sex, sexual orientation, religion, or ideology.
Why you can't be the same?
Why you can't be the same?
You would not judge a CEO for publicly admitting to being a racist? I do not believe you. I think that you are lying, either to us or to yourself.
Calling something "Ideology" is not a "get out of criticism free" card. You are free to have whatever political beliefs you desire, but we are all free to criticism you for your political beliefs. Our criticism of political beliefs is just as political as the beliefs that we are criticizing; it is fundamentally illogical to put political beliefs above reproach.
Calling something "Ideology" is not a "get out of criticism free" card. You are free to have whatever political beliefs you desire, but we are all free to criticism you for your political beliefs. Our criticism of political beliefs is just as political as the beliefs that we are criticizing; it is fundamentally illogical to put political beliefs above reproach.
Maybe it works for sociopaths?
> Calling something "Ideology" is not a "get out of criticism free" card.
Of course. It is after all entirely different than:
Calling someone "Gay" is not a "get out of criticism free" card.
Or:
Calling someone "Jew" is not a "get out of criticism free" card.
Or:
Calling something "Black" is not a "get out of criticism free" card.
Or:
Calling someone "woman" is not a "get out of criticism free" card.
Or:
Calling someone "Muslim" is not a "get out of criticism free" card.
Right.
Obviously our public sphere is full of criticism of Islam (a.k.a. islamophobia), Black people (a.k.a. racism), women (a.k.a sexism), Jews (a.k.a. antisemitism), Gays (a.k.a. homophobia).
And YES I would take a racist for CEO - if he is more qualified than others - each and every time. Because I truly believe in a society where gender, sex orientation, race, religion, ideology - do NOT matter.
See, this is a paradox. You can't have that, and you just admitted it. Cultural Marxism is full of paradoxes like that. It's impossible to truly have society where gender, sex orientation, race, religion, ideology - do NOT matter. Thank you very much for providing evidence that you see a paradox there as well.
Of course. It is after all entirely different than:
Calling someone "Gay" is not a "get out of criticism free" card.
Or:
Calling someone "Jew" is not a "get out of criticism free" card.
Or:
Calling something "Black" is not a "get out of criticism free" card.
Or:
Calling someone "woman" is not a "get out of criticism free" card.
Or:
Calling someone "Muslim" is not a "get out of criticism free" card.
Right.
Obviously our public sphere is full of criticism of Islam (a.k.a. islamophobia), Black people (a.k.a. racism), women (a.k.a sexism), Jews (a.k.a. antisemitism), Gays (a.k.a. homophobia).
And YES I would take a racist for CEO - if he is more qualified than others - each and every time. Because I truly believe in a society where gender, sex orientation, race, religion, ideology - do NOT matter.
See, this is a paradox. You can't have that, and you just admitted it. Cultural Marxism is full of paradoxes like that. It's impossible to truly have society where gender, sex orientation, race, religion, ideology - do NOT matter. Thank you very much for providing evidence that you see a paradox there as well.
Given that hiring/firing people is a key part of being a CEO, a racist CEO would result in hiring/firing/not promoting talented, capable people based on irrelevant factors. Speaking purely from a business perspective, this will give the company a disadvantage and negatively impact performance.
"Ideology" is too broad of a term the way you are using it: after all, believing that COBOL the ultimate programming language for all use cases could also be labeled an "ideology", one that would make somebody a poor CTO.
Similarly, beliefs that certain groups of people, based on unrelated criterion like gender identity, are inherently inferior to others or deserve lesser treatment, do materially impact the workplace.
Unlike the previous two examples, somebody's personal beliefs about things like religion or their cultural background have nothing to do with job performance.
"Ideology" is too broad of a term the way you are using it: after all, believing that COBOL the ultimate programming language for all use cases could also be labeled an "ideology", one that would make somebody a poor CTO.
Similarly, beliefs that certain groups of people, based on unrelated criterion like gender identity, are inherently inferior to others or deserve lesser treatment, do materially impact the workplace.
Unlike the previous two examples, somebody's personal beliefs about things like religion or their cultural background have nothing to do with job performance.
> Obviously our public sphere is full of criticism of Islam (a.k.a. islamophobia)
Islamophobia, racism, etc., are not criticisms. Criticism is the application of reason and intelligence for the purpose of analysis and improvment. Bigotry is the assumption that "others" are worse simply by their being "other". Nothing you listed is criticism, it is various forms of bigotry. In bigotry there is no desire for dialogue, simply judgement and superiority.
> And YES I would take a racist for CEO - if he is more qualified than others - each and every time. Because I truly believe in a society where gender, sex orientation, race, religion, ideology - do NOT matter.
Those two sentences are incongruent. You cannot claim to champion a society where gender, race, etc., do not matter, and then turn around and state your acceptance of a racist CEO.
Islamophobia, racism, etc., are not criticisms. Criticism is the application of reason and intelligence for the purpose of analysis and improvment. Bigotry is the assumption that "others" are worse simply by their being "other". Nothing you listed is criticism, it is various forms of bigotry. In bigotry there is no desire for dialogue, simply judgement and superiority.
> And YES I would take a racist for CEO - if he is more qualified than others - each and every time. Because I truly believe in a society where gender, sex orientation, race, religion, ideology - do NOT matter.
Those two sentences are incongruent. You cannot claim to champion a society where gender, race, etc., do not matter, and then turn around and state your acceptance of a racist CEO.
Unlike homosexuals, religious groups do actually try to recruit people (especially children), mind you.
Gay parents would likely be fine with their children being heterosexual.
Gay parents would likely be fine with their children being heterosexual.
I have no problem if people want to continue to rehash and re-litigate the Eich affair. But a story about the triumph of a gay man leading one of the world's most powerful companies is not the thread to do it in.
Please post another story about the Eich issue and upvote it, and comment there. Bringing up his donation and the fallout here is just being deliberately provocative and borderline disrespectful. Please don't.
Please post another story about the Eich issue and upvote it, and comment there. Bringing up his donation and the fallout here is just being deliberately provocative and borderline disrespectful. Please don't.
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.
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.
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.
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...
http://img4.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20140906052122/potcoplaye...
Obama changed his mind and became an outspoken proponent of equality.
Agreed.
After I came out, one of the best things was getting an email from an 18-year-old guy who had read my blog saying that he'd never spoken to or read anything from a gay person in technology and it was cool to read something from someone who as a programmer and geek came from the same perspective as him. He then said he'd gotten the courage to tell his parents from that.
Which left me feeling amazing for about a week.
Tim Cook's article will do the same for young gay techies but on a much grander scale. :)
After I came out, one of the best things was getting an email from an 18-year-old guy who had read my blog saying that he'd never spoken to or read anything from a gay person in technology and it was cool to read something from someone who as a programmer and geek came from the same perspective as him. He then said he'd gotten the courage to tell his parents from that.
Which left me feeling amazing for about a week.
Tim Cook's article will do the same for young gay techies but on a much grander scale. :)
why "come out." Why do you feel you need to tell others you're gay? I don't feel like I need to tell everyone I'm straight.
I never understood this. You're gay, so what? What is this thing with some people feeling like they just have to tell others about their personal sexual orientation; especially in the context of business article. This has nothing to do with Apple.
If they wanted to report on Apple's equality they could have left things with the two sentences:
"The company I am so fortunate to lead has long advocated for human rights and equality for all. We’ve taken a strong stand in support of a workplace equality bill before Congress, just as we stood for marriage equality in our home state of California."
and be done with it.
I never understood this. You're gay, so what? What is this thing with some people feeling like they just have to tell others about their personal sexual orientation; especially in the context of business article. This has nothing to do with Apple.
If they wanted to report on Apple's equality they could have left things with the two sentences:
"The company I am so fortunate to lead has long advocated for human rights and equality for all. We’ve taken a strong stand in support of a workplace equality bill before Congress, just as we stood for marriage equality in our home state of California."
and be done with it.
I shall quote one of my other comments from this thread...
"The lies and bigotry aimed at gay people thrived for so long precisely because nobody knew any gay people. That's exactly why coming out was (and still is) necessary. One of the reasons the gay rights movement has been so spectacularly successful over the last 40+ years is because the lives of actual gay people is a living testament to the falseness of the vicious stereotypes spread by homophobic pricks."
"The lies and bigotry aimed at gay people thrived for so long precisely because nobody knew any gay people. That's exactly why coming out was (and still is) necessary. One of the reasons the gay rights movement has been so spectacularly successful over the last 40+ years is because the lives of actual gay people is a living testament to the falseness of the vicious stereotypes spread by homophobic pricks."
> why "come out." Why do you feel you need to tell others you're gay? I don't feel like I need to tell everyone I'm straight.
because it's assumed that you're straight unless told otherwise.
because it's assumed that you're straight unless told otherwise.
Gay people can tell whoever they want that they're gay. What follows is a complete and exhaustive list of things that you can do about it:
Many in the heterosexual community really dislike gay people.
We've gone through an incredible process in a single generations. Truly incredible and blazingly fast. It hasn't been everywhere, but it certainly has been global.
In many ways it seemed to have very high hurdles. Homosexuality and queerness elicits an unexplainably intense anger in some people. It is potently threatening. On the other hand, overcoming homophobia had a relatively small hurdle to get over because there was no intergenerational complexity like racism and xenophobia or deeply rooted structural institutions like sexism. Homosexuals were already everywhere in secret. A homosexual didn't need to overcome to become CEO, he was already a CEO. He just needed to come out.
A part of the precess that I think is happening now nearer the cutting edge is post revolutionary normalization. After the gay parades and overt homosexuality that forced the issue into centre stage what is needed is a homosexuality that can be worn lightly outside of the spheres were it is naturally central (like romantic relationships).
Tim Cook is gay, but he's mostly the CEO of Apple. His gayness is not the central part of his public identity and not being public about it up till now is not being closeted.
It's really a great thing that happened, and is happening. I'm glad to be part of the generation that made it happened, a gift to those who will come after, to those who will not have to suffer.
In many ways it seemed to have very high hurdles. Homosexuality and queerness elicits an unexplainably intense anger in some people. It is potently threatening. On the other hand, overcoming homophobia had a relatively small hurdle to get over because there was no intergenerational complexity like racism and xenophobia or deeply rooted structural institutions like sexism. Homosexuals were already everywhere in secret. A homosexual didn't need to overcome to become CEO, he was already a CEO. He just needed to come out.
A part of the precess that I think is happening now nearer the cutting edge is post revolutionary normalization. After the gay parades and overt homosexuality that forced the issue into centre stage what is needed is a homosexuality that can be worn lightly outside of the spheres were it is naturally central (like romantic relationships).
Tim Cook is gay, but he's mostly the CEO of Apple. His gayness is not the central part of his public identity and not being public about it up till now is not being closeted.
It's really a great thing that happened, and is happening. I'm glad to be part of the generation that made it happened, a gift to those who will come after, to those who will not have to suffer.
"There hasn't been a gay President"
http://www.salon.com/2012/05/14/our_real_first_gay_president...
http://www.salon.com/2012/05/14/our_real_first_gay_president...
I can't believe what I'm reading there about facial hair.
Shrug. There hasn't been a publicly gay President, which is what would in the context the OP is discussing.
If by "President" you mean the equivalent "head of a country's government" role then Iceland elected an openly gay Prime Minister in 2009[0]. But I'm guessing you're all meaning "US President"
[0] - http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7862804.stm
[0] - http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7862804.stm
That's neat! You're right, though, the OP was likely focusing on a US president. Not many US citizens look at other countries' heads of state as a role model to the same degree as our own.
NL doesn't have a president but our PM is openly gay and as far as I know nobody cares.
Homosexuality was still a crime in his day (up to 2003), so I doubt it was well-known if this is true.
What an excellent article, thanks for sharing.
"Despite such evidence, one reason why Americans find it hard to believe Buchanan
could have been gay is that we have a touching belief in progress. Our high
school history textbooks’ overall story line is, “We started out great and have
been getting better ever since,” more or less automatically. Thus we must be
more tolerant now than we were way back in the middle of the 19th century!
Buchanan could not have been gay then, else we would not seem more tolerant now."I applaud this. I am not gay. Conventional family, kids, etc. Oh, yes, I am also an atheist which, today, in the US, is worst than being gay in some circles.
As I am sure a lot of you know, the reality show Survivor features a male homosexual couple this year. Bravo! We watch the show with our kids every week. Yes, they ask questions. The little ones cover their eyes when anybody kisses on TV anyway. Seeing two men kiss on the lips and show affection is, well, weird to them. You just don't see that on mainstream TV these days. We simply tell them that what they are seeing is perfectly normal and that these are two people who love each other just as much as mom and dad do. They say "ok" and still go "ewwwww!" When anyone kisses on the show.
The part of Tim Cook's statement that is disappointing to me is where he says "I consider being gay among the greatest gifts God has given me.". Of course, as an atheist I tend to be particularly sensitive to such statements. If we leave that aside, it is simply a fact that god and religion --world wide-- have been brutal to the gay community. Historically this has ranged from denouncement all the way up to torture and murder. And that stands on it's own, it's a historical fact that has nothing whatsoever to do with the messenger being an atheist.
Anyhow, I am glad he decided to come out as the role model he surely is. Society has far to go. This helps. Every little step helps.
As I am sure a lot of you know, the reality show Survivor features a male homosexual couple this year. Bravo! We watch the show with our kids every week. Yes, they ask questions. The little ones cover their eyes when anybody kisses on TV anyway. Seeing two men kiss on the lips and show affection is, well, weird to them. You just don't see that on mainstream TV these days. We simply tell them that what they are seeing is perfectly normal and that these are two people who love each other just as much as mom and dad do. They say "ok" and still go "ewwwww!" When anyone kisses on the show.
The part of Tim Cook's statement that is disappointing to me is where he says "I consider being gay among the greatest gifts God has given me.". Of course, as an atheist I tend to be particularly sensitive to such statements. If we leave that aside, it is simply a fact that god and religion --world wide-- have been brutal to the gay community. Historically this has ranged from denouncement all the way up to torture and murder. And that stands on it's own, it's a historical fact that has nothing whatsoever to do with the messenger being an atheist.
Anyhow, I am glad he decided to come out as the role model he surely is. Society has far to go. This helps. Every little step helps.
Several statements he made in this post seemed weirdly manipulative to me, and that was one of them.
I mean, its great that he chooses and advocates the view that homosexuality can be a 'gift'. That it can be a positive thing! Props for that!
But the phrasing...does he really believe that the imaginary being he worships chose for him to be gay? Like the creator of the universe is really sitting there saying "oh, I'll make this one straight! and this one bi! and this one gay!"
I mean, its great that he chooses and advocates the view that homosexuality can be a 'gift'. That it can be a positive thing! Props for that!
But the phrasing...does he really believe that the imaginary being he worships chose for him to be gay? Like the creator of the universe is really sitting there saying "oh, I'll make this one straight! and this one bi! and this one gay!"
[deleted](1)
What you might call "understanding the universe", seeing how it works, the mechanisms by which conscious experience happens... a religious person might call that "knowing god" and both of these are reasonable views of the same whole, just taken from opposite sides.
I don't understand how your comment relates to mine.
Are you saying that if someone wants to "know god", they are likely to conclude that god does, indeed, sit around saying "This one is gonna be gay! and this one will be straight!"?
Are you saying that if someone wants to "know god", they are likely to conclude that god does, indeed, sit around saying "This one is gonna be gay! and this one will be straight!"?
It does relate... I'm not articulating what's in my head very well. I'll try again, I guess...
The experience that you call "you" is the result of a direct, unbroken chain of physical chemical interactions all the way back to the beginning of time.
Religious people who think of the nature of things and remain religious call this complex interaction of the physical processes, this fundamental fabric of reality, "God"
If Mr. Cook gives the name "God" to this amazingly complex interaction of physical things that results in conscious experience, then it is rational for him to conclude that this process resulted in him being gay.
There is no big sky entity that points at a person and says "gay" or "straight", but there is a series of implications chained all the way from the beginning of things that directly results his homosexuality. And if you call that "beginning of things" God, then you get the conclusion he vocalizes, but with quite rational thoughts behind it: "I consider being gay among the greatest gifts God has given me."
This stuff gets very vague or very abstract quickly. In general it's probably a good idea to assume that people's beliefs come from reasoned thought, though some probably start from axioms we might find irrational.
The experience that you call "you" is the result of a direct, unbroken chain of physical chemical interactions all the way back to the beginning of time.
Religious people who think of the nature of things and remain religious call this complex interaction of the physical processes, this fundamental fabric of reality, "God"
If Mr. Cook gives the name "God" to this amazingly complex interaction of physical things that results in conscious experience, then it is rational for him to conclude that this process resulted in him being gay.
There is no big sky entity that points at a person and says "gay" or "straight", but there is a series of implications chained all the way from the beginning of things that directly results his homosexuality. And if you call that "beginning of things" God, then you get the conclusion he vocalizes, but with quite rational thoughts behind it: "I consider being gay among the greatest gifts God has given me."
This stuff gets very vague or very abstract quickly. In general it's probably a good idea to assume that people's beliefs come from reasoned thought, though some probably start from axioms we might find irrational.
Thanks for explaining. I think your main point is contained in the last sentence, and I recognize that most of my response here addresses tangential aspects, not your main point.
>> Religious people who think of the nature of things and remain religious
It sounds to me like you are trying to say that this is true for all people in that group, and I don't believe this is true. This is one method of rationalizing a belief in God, but not the only.
>> call this complex interaction of the physical processes, this fundamental fabric of reality, "God"
Some non-religious 'believers' may do this, but most 'religious' people do not. Essentially no Christian, Jewish, or Islamic fundamentalists thinks this way.
Obviously many new agers think this way, and there are some offshoots of the main religious who do, but on the whole its a rare viewpoint.
While some religious people believe that God continuously provides the means whereby the universe continues to act, most hold that the universe and God are separate. Its actually sacrilege to some to suggest that God is the processes of the universe.
Check out 'pantheism' on wikipedia, and contrast this with 'theism'.
>> If Mr. Cook gives the name "God"
Well does he?? Since Cook is an educated white male gay business leader in san francisco in 2014, I thought he was not religious. It turns out I was wrong.
Is Cook pantheist? I seriously don't think so. But then, I was completely wrong about him religious just a few hours ago.
>> with quite rational thoughts behind it: "I consider being gay among the greatest gifts God has given me."
I'm not sure that would be both honest and rational, as the speaker should know that the Christian community will misunderstand their unqualified pantheist use of 'God' as a theist use of 'God'.
>> a good idea to assume that people's beliefs come from reasoned thought, though some probably start from axioms we might find irrational.
I tend to assume that everyone's beliefs are informed by both rational and irrational thought processes. Did say something to imply otherwise? Or did I miss your point?
>> Religious people who think of the nature of things and remain religious
It sounds to me like you are trying to say that this is true for all people in that group, and I don't believe this is true. This is one method of rationalizing a belief in God, but not the only.
>> call this complex interaction of the physical processes, this fundamental fabric of reality, "God"
Some non-religious 'believers' may do this, but most 'religious' people do not. Essentially no Christian, Jewish, or Islamic fundamentalists thinks this way.
Obviously many new agers think this way, and there are some offshoots of the main religious who do, but on the whole its a rare viewpoint.
While some religious people believe that God continuously provides the means whereby the universe continues to act, most hold that the universe and God are separate. Its actually sacrilege to some to suggest that God is the processes of the universe.
Check out 'pantheism' on wikipedia, and contrast this with 'theism'.
>> If Mr. Cook gives the name "God"
Well does he?? Since Cook is an educated white male gay business leader in san francisco in 2014, I thought he was not religious. It turns out I was wrong.
Is Cook pantheist? I seriously don't think so. But then, I was completely wrong about him religious just a few hours ago.
>> with quite rational thoughts behind it: "I consider being gay among the greatest gifts God has given me."
I'm not sure that would be both honest and rational, as the speaker should know that the Christian community will misunderstand their unqualified pantheist use of 'God' as a theist use of 'God'.
>> a good idea to assume that people's beliefs come from reasoned thought, though some probably start from axioms we might find irrational.
I tend to assume that everyone's beliefs are informed by both rational and irrational thought processes. Did say something to imply otherwise? Or did I miss your point?
If one truly considers their god to be the all-knowing and all-powerful creator of the universe, its rules, and everything in it, then it is an inescapable conclusion that the sexuality of every being in the universe is something that It allowed to come to be.
By saying "I consider being gay among the greatest gifts God has given me" he is directly confronting those who discriminate for religious reasons, probably the majority.
I think it is savvy of him to meet it head-on, to prod people to maybe reconsider their reflexive religious beliefs.
I think it is savvy of him to meet it head-on, to prod people to maybe reconsider their reflexive religious beliefs.
It looks like we had similar experiences. I had no model of "gay" that resembled me, and almost everyone around me was aggressively straight. Even considering the idea of being gay made me uncomfortable. So much changed in the last year that I felt safe thinking about it, and it was obvious in retrospect.
Well, there's always Newton. We don't really know his sexual orientation, but it was probably either gay or asexual.
That's a lot like when people wheel out Ada Lovelace as a token example of women in tech. It doesn't help people now who don't see anyone who shows they're allowed to be a part of something.
Newton did make advances towards women as a schoolboy in Lincoln, but never persisted.
> but also the most admirable company,
Really ? Did you have to say that to make your point ? What's so admirable about Apple ? Jobs has been lying constantly about competition, lied about being the first innovators in so many of their products, has pressured other companies to prevent poaching Apple employees to keep salaries as low as he could, and the list does not end there.
Fine, you can love Apple as much as you want, but calling it the "most admirable company" out there is rubber-breaking stretch.
Really ? Did you have to say that to make your point ? What's so admirable about Apple ? Jobs has been lying constantly about competition, lied about being the first innovators in so many of their products, has pressured other companies to prevent poaching Apple employees to keep salaries as low as he could, and the list does not end there.
Fine, you can love Apple as much as you want, but calling it the "most admirable company" out there is rubber-breaking stretch.
I'm not sure Apple is "the most admirable company", or even in the running.
Well, they are! http://fortune.com/worlds-most-admired-companies/
Admired =/= admirable. The latter means deserving of admiration.
If you admire someone, then by definition you consider them admirable. So, lots and lots of people consider them admirable. You may not, but that doesn't mean that other people can't have different opinions. It also doesn't mean they're wrong and you're right or vice versa, since we're all unreliable narrators of the world around us.
Here, I'll translate:
Admirable is a moral judgment. Admired means that "the others" have drank the kool-aid. (Sheeple, etc. etc.)
Admirable is a moral judgment. Admired means that "the others" have drank the kool-aid. (Sheeple, etc. etc.)
Do you consider Nike admirable? Would you eagerly link 'evidence' trying to prove that Nike is one of the most 'admirable' companies out there?
If yes, well... okay then. I don't understand you, and I'll stop here.
If no, then maybe you can see how maybe you've not fairly contextualized the conversation? This list of 'admired' companies does, indeed, completely miss the original posters point.
If yes, well... okay then. I don't understand you, and I'll stop here.
If no, then maybe you can see how maybe you've not fairly contextualized the conversation? This list of 'admired' companies does, indeed, completely miss the original posters point.
Fuck Nike, fuck Apple, and fuck every other soulless corporation.
Yeah, nothing good has ever come from people and groups acting out of self-interest. All societal advances have been due to people acting from their souls.
Yes, I'm just pointing out that those people (like me) may be wrong.
It is telling that the poster who confused admired with admirable linked to a list which placed amazon at #2, and included coca-cola, disney, nike, and the like.
well said. I think this is such a great symbolic moment. It's so hard to come to terms with your 'otherness' when you're young. The biggest step is admitting to yourself that you're different.
> The biggest step is admitting to yourself that you're different.
I'm straight, so I probably don't get it. So I might be wrong. But it feels like that's the wrong way to go about it. I see gays and lesbians regularly in public places and they don't seem too rare to me. Instilling this feeling of being different may only make it harder for people. Your sexual orientation shouldn't make you feel different. No matter whom you're attracted to, there are a lot of people out there who are attracted to the same.
It's an interesting coincidence for Mr Cook to come out alongside the movie adaptation of Alan Turing: The Enigma. When I was an undergrad in the 90s, that book was the only obvious story about an out geek, and it was far more cathartic than comforting.
After that, some happier stories started to appear. Eric Allman and Marshall McKusick dropped by the university queer room incognito. There were some movies, Beautiful Thing and Get Real, where people were gay and nothing much happened. That was a big deal then, but I assumed it would all sound corny 20 years later.
After that, some happier stories started to appear. Eric Allman and Marshall McKusick dropped by the university queer room incognito. There were some movies, Beautiful Thing and Get Real, where people were gay and nothing much happened. That was a big deal then, but I assumed it would all sound corny 20 years later.
are you single? ;-)
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. His parents made his life horrible, as if he had committed some crime and they never accepted him. Everyone around him were mocking. After his suicide also, his parents behave as if it was good riddance for them and they don't miss him at all. And rather they are happy because now they don't have to answer society.
Just today morning I read a news[2] that a software engineer working in Infosys was booked for Sec 377 and put in jail. In June 2014, seven people were booked under Section 377 by the Bangalore Police [3]. So far 200 people have been prosecuted under this law [4].
That's the reason I don't see any famous Indian, those who work in movies or HNI, coming out and accepting they are gay. I really hope people in other countries also encourage actions of Tim Cook so that people have freedom to express their wishes and sexuality.
[0] - http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/07/05/india-health-minist...
[1] - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_377_of_the_Indian_Penal...
[2] - http://www.bangaloremirror.com/bangalore/cover-story/Sec-377...
[3] - http://www.bangaloremirror.com/bangalore/cover-story/Six-mon...
[4] - http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/imgs1.aspx?filename=41070
Just today morning I read a news[2] that a software engineer working in Infosys was booked for Sec 377 and put in jail. In June 2014, seven people were booked under Section 377 by the Bangalore Police [3]. So far 200 people have been prosecuted under this law [4].
That's the reason I don't see any famous Indian, those who work in movies or HNI, coming out and accepting they are gay. I really hope people in other countries also encourage actions of Tim Cook so that people have freedom to express their wishes and sexuality.
[0] - http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/07/05/india-health-minist...
[1] - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_377_of_the_Indian_Penal...
[2] - http://www.bangaloremirror.com/bangalore/cover-story/Sec-377...
[3] - http://www.bangaloremirror.com/bangalore/cover-story/Six-mon...
[4] - http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/imgs1.aspx?filename=41070
While what you say is true, for the benefit of the readers not very familiar with India I would like to add a few things for context. If from the name of the politician linked by the parent comment you come to the conclusion that homosexuality is frowned upon only by muslim politicians, you couldnt be more wrong. India is an incredibly high variance country. In some metros you would find gay pubs and bars, open kissing on the streets among gay partners with no one bothered a bit (if your state is one of the right wing ones then YMMV). Then again there are states (correlated with Hindi and Haryanvi speaking regions) where parents and family would kill their children, subject them to community sanctioned gang-rape because they married or proposed to marry someone considered different. Note that these 'punishments' and 'corrective measures' have popular sanction within the community and the perpetrators often voluntarily surrender after the incident.
It is as if India remains frozen in different centuries in different regions, ranging from the modern to the grotesquely medieval. If you ask your local hindu rightwinger, its of course all the muslim invaders fault that they have to keep continuing these practices. Hinduism of course has done nobody no wrong, just been stabbed in the back (this should sound familiar).
Anal sex (in fact anything apart from missionary position) continues to be a crime according to law but it is not something that gets enforced unless the enforcer has some specific axe to grind. That law certainly does not represent practice. Indian legal system is another weird thing. Most of the laws were set down by the colonizers, not to set a framework for justice but to facilitate control. We as Indians have done little to dispose that baggage, rather it has been actively embraced by those in power to exercise similar control, often with a lot of popular support.
Quite interestingly, a marginalized community would see nothing wrong in cruel treatment of another marginalized community, often happily taking the lead in the harassment. A low caste person in a caste'ist state would see nothing wrong in hounding someone just because he is muslim, or belongs to a caste that is even lower. A gay person in such a state may see nothing wrong in persecuting other minorities.
It is as if India remains frozen in different centuries in different regions, ranging from the modern to the grotesquely medieval. If you ask your local hindu rightwinger, its of course all the muslim invaders fault that they have to keep continuing these practices. Hinduism of course has done nobody no wrong, just been stabbed in the back (this should sound familiar).
Anal sex (in fact anything apart from missionary position) continues to be a crime according to law but it is not something that gets enforced unless the enforcer has some specific axe to grind. That law certainly does not represent practice. Indian legal system is another weird thing. Most of the laws were set down by the colonizers, not to set a framework for justice but to facilitate control. We as Indians have done little to dispose that baggage, rather it has been actively embraced by those in power to exercise similar control, often with a lot of popular support.
Quite interestingly, a marginalized community would see nothing wrong in cruel treatment of another marginalized community, often happily taking the lead in the harassment. A low caste person in a caste'ist state would see nothing wrong in hounding someone just because he is muslim, or belongs to a caste that is even lower. A gay person in such a state may see nothing wrong in persecuting other minorities.
> In metros you would find gay pubs and bars, open kissing on the streets among gay partners with no one bothered a bit
I really doubt this. Kissing in public is highly frowned upon for heterosexuals only and there will be a shitstorm if gay couple found openly kissing. Take this incident, happened in September 2014 in Mumbai/Bombay, two couples were harassed by police just because they hugged publicly[0]. Police harass couples all the time if they found indulging in PDA. Read this BBC news report for instance[1].
Wiki [2] says: "Public display of affection is regarded as unacceptable in India. Kissing and hugging are taboo."
[0] - http://www.mid-day.com/articles/mumbai-couple-harassed-fined...
[1] - http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/7871304.stm
[2] - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_display_of_affection#Ind...
I really doubt this. Kissing in public is highly frowned upon for heterosexuals only and there will be a shitstorm if gay couple found openly kissing. Take this incident, happened in September 2014 in Mumbai/Bombay, two couples were harassed by police just because they hugged publicly[0]. Police harass couples all the time if they found indulging in PDA. Read this BBC news report for instance[1].
Wiki [2] says: "Public display of affection is regarded as unacceptable in India. Kissing and hugging are taboo."
[0] - http://www.mid-day.com/articles/mumbai-couple-harassed-fined...
[1] - http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/7871304.stm
[2] - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_display_of_affection#Ind...
> I really doubt this.
You have not been frequenting the right places then. Come to Bombay, come to Delhi, its a frequent sight outside the gay bars, more so in Bombay than Delhi. Have to admit that the first time I saw it I was indeed caught by surprise.
In some places you might get beaten up (yeah even possibly by the cops), or have acid thrown at your face (this punishment is reserved exclusive for women and applied mainly when they cut across caste or religious boundaries). According to many in the the current ruling political party, such acts of violence are eminently condonable and justified.
As I said, it is very high variance place, I am firmly in my thirties now and yet I never stop learning / experiencing something new about my country as I travel. The key is to cut across those invisible boundaries. Come to the North East its a whole different country, different value system different culture.
Given that you posted about Bangalore current events, I am sure you know of that sri ram sene idiot http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sri_Ram_Sena http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pramod_Muthalik
EDIT: Yep!! some downvotes on all of my comments on this thread. Those took a while to come, I am expecting more. The belief system that I am complaining about does have their champions, and at politically significant levels.
You have not been frequenting the right places then. Come to Bombay, come to Delhi, its a frequent sight outside the gay bars, more so in Bombay than Delhi. Have to admit that the first time I saw it I was indeed caught by surprise.
In some places you might get beaten up (yeah even possibly by the cops), or have acid thrown at your face (this punishment is reserved exclusive for women and applied mainly when they cut across caste or religious boundaries). According to many in the the current ruling political party, such acts of violence are eminently condonable and justified.
As I said, it is very high variance place, I am firmly in my thirties now and yet I never stop learning / experiencing something new about my country as I travel. The key is to cut across those invisible boundaries. Come to the North East its a whole different country, different value system different culture.
Given that you posted about Bangalore current events, I am sure you know of that sri ram sene idiot http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sri_Ram_Sena http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pramod_Muthalik
EDIT: Yep!! some downvotes on all of my comments on this thread. Those took a while to come, I am expecting more. The belief system that I am complaining about does have their champions, and at politically significant levels.
> 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.
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.
[deleted]
... and the mention of downvoting was a small part of an otherwise excellent comment anyway!
"I downvoted you because mentioning how you've been downvoted is quite possibly one of the most dull things you can say on HN."
I downvoted you to agree with this sentiment.
I downvoted you to agree with this sentiment.
India is a complex country. I can confirm that Gay parties are pretty common where I live.
Just the way white people saw native Indians as Savages it is easy for western eyes to perceive India as a very bad land but that is not the case, despite its flaws it is an extremely tolerant society with ability cope with very diverse way of living. Before the savages of west discovered that the idea of gender is not binary and can have multiple hues, that is how ancient Hindu thought described gender [1]. One of our major God is half man half women and entire mythology is replete with all sort of possible genders.
[1] http://swarajyamag.com/featured/hinduism-and-homosexuality/
Just the way white people saw native Indians as Savages it is easy for western eyes to perceive India as a very bad land but that is not the case, despite its flaws it is an extremely tolerant society with ability cope with very diverse way of living. Before the savages of west discovered that the idea of gender is not binary and can have multiple hues, that is how ancient Hindu thought described gender [1]. One of our major God is half man half women and entire mythology is replete with all sort of possible genders.
[1] http://swarajyamag.com/featured/hinduism-and-homosexuality/
> Just the way white people saw native Indians as Savages it is easy for western eyes to perceive India as a very bad land
While I somewhat agree with the gist of your post, you might want to reconsider this broad brush with which you're painting both modern "western eyes", and particular bunches of white people who genocided nearly an entire continent a few centuries ago.
Substitute nazis/jews/"German eyes" if you don't get what I mean (going to assume I'm excused from Godwin's law when the implied atrocity was in fact larger than the Holocaust).
While I somewhat agree with the gist of your post, you might want to reconsider this broad brush with which you're painting both modern "western eyes", and particular bunches of white people who genocided nearly an entire continent a few centuries ago.
Substitute nazis/jews/"German eyes" if you don't get what I mean (going to assume I'm excused from Godwin's law when the implied atrocity was in fact larger than the Holocaust).
The specific generalization was being used to show people how it feels when it is used against them. Personally I dont have a black and white view of the world.
Consider the California textbooks which paint Hinduism as worst savages. There is not even passing mention that the cool things like Yoga and Meditation are Hindu practices on the contrary outright false stories which I believe were put in my missionaries are taught as "Hinduism".
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_textbook_controversy...
Consider the California textbooks which paint Hinduism as worst savages. There is not even passing mention that the cool things like Yoga and Meditation are Hindu practices on the contrary outright false stories which I believe were put in my missionaries are taught as "Hinduism".
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_textbook_controversy...
I am in complete agreement with the views you have expressed about the state of affairs of Indian legal system and the practices and have upvoted your comments. However, when you say that the textbooks paint Hinduism as worst savages, I have to call out that hyperbole. That is a ridiculous exaggeration.
In fact I am in complete agreement with the following characterization, quoted from the wikipedai page you linked to.
I find a treasure trove of interesting things in the Hindu body of thought, yoga is not one of them, sorry. An over sold, over marketed artifact used to catch the gullible. To me striking things about its body of thought are its philosophical roots, the fact that they have been thinking deeply about such questions since antiquity, that not believing in any form of god is in complete harmony.
That said, for people coming from an Abrahamic religion, its a difficult thing to grasp. Hinduism is not 'a religion' if one goes by the notion of a religion in Abarahamic religions. It is worse than trying to map git commands to subversion. Its a very different beast, it is a meta religion (or more accurately a diverse collection of a very large body of thought and introspection, originating from a geographical region and built over time time, that visitors clubbed into a single pool because they werent sure what to make of it). It is more like a religion factory pattern for building your own religion that includes questions you should keep visiting in that process, and a more fundamental one, why at all (and when) should one even consider building one. It lays down thought processes, questions that one should consider and critique when one is forming ones own parameterized religion. People get confused whether they are talking about the polymorphic class or the object instance.
In context of its vast diversity and inclusiveness, Abrahamic religions would feel like that they are the same religion sans minor changes and all the fighting to be much ado about nothing.
In fact I am in complete agreement with the following characterization, quoted from the wikipedai page you linked to.
Dan Golden of the Wall Street Journal described the
effort of the two Hindu foundations, as similar to those
by Jewish, Islamic and Christian foundations. Each group,
claims Dan Golden, vie for changes in texts for elementary
and secondary schools to cast their faiths in a better
light or in sensitive manner before children.
I find a treasure trove of interesting things in the Hindu body of thought, yoga is not one of them, sorry. An over sold, over marketed artifact used to catch the gullible. To me striking things about its body of thought are its philosophical roots, the fact that they have been thinking deeply about such questions since antiquity, that not believing in any form of god is in complete harmony.
That said, for people coming from an Abrahamic religion, its a difficult thing to grasp. Hinduism is not 'a religion' if one goes by the notion of a religion in Abarahamic religions. It is worse than trying to map git commands to subversion. Its a very different beast, it is a meta religion (or more accurately a diverse collection of a very large body of thought and introspection, originating from a geographical region and built over time time, that visitors clubbed into a single pool because they werent sure what to make of it). It is more like a religion factory pattern for building your own religion that includes questions you should keep visiting in that process, and a more fundamental one, why at all (and when) should one even consider building one. It lays down thought processes, questions that one should consider and critique when one is forming ones own parameterized religion. People get confused whether they are talking about the polymorphic class or the object instance.
In context of its vast diversity and inclusiveness, Abrahamic religions would feel like that they are the same religion sans minor changes and all the fighting to be much ado about nothing.
Yes Thanks. The worse part is that the right wing politics in India has never invested much into intellectual efforts to highlight these important aspects of Hinduism. Instead they have resorted to sloganeering.
Only handful of people like Dr. Arun Shourie, Sitaram Goel, Ram Swarup and Rajiv Malhotra now a days seem to have put some efforts.
Only handful of people like Dr. Arun Shourie, Sitaram Goel, Ram Swarup and Rajiv Malhotra now a days seem to have put some efforts.
In agreement again.
I am currently in united states and this is how I will report about US in Indian newspapers.
"United States police is the most brutal police force which is racist and always uses excessive force. Black teenagers are shot for merely being a suspect of stealing candies from store. It is not uncommon for SWAT forces to break into home of innocents and shoot their dogs for no reason what so ever."
The BBC or Mid-Day type publications print whatever someone else is feeding them.
"United States police is the most brutal police force which is racist and always uses excessive force. Black teenagers are shot for merely being a suspect of stealing candies from store. It is not uncommon for SWAT forces to break into home of innocents and shoot their dogs for no reason what so ever."
The BBC or Mid-Day type publications print whatever someone else is feeding them.
[deleted]
When you mentioned Hindus and being stabbed in the back I remembered reading about Thugs
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thuggee
Didn't they go around stabbing and strangling people?
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thuggee
Didn't they go around stabbing and strangling people?
Ummm... not quite sure what you mean here. They were, you know, thugs or highwaymen. Not what I would call historical representative of Hindu political ambitions.
My point was that there have been many bloody wars fought by Hindu rulers motivated primarily / singularly by political ambition. Thus I find this much popularized universally pacifist portrayal of Hinduism a little dishonest. Short of political ambition, the subcontinent was rich in resources enough that there were no compelling reasons for large conquests and colonization of others. Had that not been so, no one knows how that would have played out.
My point was that there have been many bloody wars fought by Hindu rulers motivated primarily / singularly by political ambition. Thus I find this much popularized universally pacifist portrayal of Hinduism a little dishonest. Short of political ambition, the subcontinent was rich in resources enough that there were no compelling reasons for large conquests and colonization of others. Had that not been so, no one knows how that would have played out.
I have read your comments on this thread. Seems like you found a nice way to disguise your Anti-Hindu venting by packaging it as something barely relevant to this thread.
Very nice progress made from the original topic:
Tim Cook says I'm gay -> it's difficult to be Gay in India -> It's not just Indian Muslims who are Anti-Gay, and by the way Indian (or is it Hindu?) society has lot of other faults -> Hindu rulers had fought wars, and some other thing about Hinduism is dishonest
Tim Cook says I'm gay -> it's difficult to be Gay in India -> It's not just Indian Muslims who are Anti-Gay, and by the way Indian (or is it Hindu?) society has lot of other faults -> Hindu rulers had fought wars, and some other thing about Hinduism is dishonest
I just mean you reminded me of it when you said "you know what I mean ..." and I remembered reading about that.
I figured it was a reference to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stab-in-the-back_myth
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_England
And when you say "Semitic" you're probably not aware that the Arabs are actually Semitic too:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semitic_people
And the Muslim religon is very problematic because its founder was a warrior, and the religion texts actually promote the "war for religion" and also that other religions aren't "true."
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad
Finaly, Judaism is problematic too, as their belief is that they are "chosen people" by the God who assisted them in wars against all others.
Welcome to the world we live in.
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_England
And when you say "Semitic" you're probably not aware that the Arabs are actually Semitic too:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semitic_people
And the Muslim religon is very problematic because its founder was a warrior, and the religion texts actually promote the "war for religion" and also that other religions aren't "true."
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad
Finaly, Judaism is problematic too, as their belief is that they are "chosen people" by the God who assisted them in wars against all others.
Welcome to the world we live in.
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
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
> 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 the butterfly effect of a few good decisions that leaders of India chose to abide by during its formative period (and stupid decisions on behalf of the Pakistani statesmen). What scares me is that this threat of a fascist future in India is not as ludicrous as I would like it to be. A few bad decisions, few people not choosing to stand up and India could be a non muslim version of the state of Pakistan now.
Just for clarification, I bear no ill feeling towards Pakistani people, but they did really mess up their country and to me it seems for no good reason.
... 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 the butterfly effect of a few good decisions that leaders of India chose to abide by during its formative period (and stupid decisions on behalf of the Pakistani statesmen). What scares me is that this threat of a fascist future in India is not as ludicrous as I would like it to be. A few bad decisions, few people not choosing to stand up and India could be a non muslim version of the state of Pakistan now.
Just for clarification, I bear no ill feeling towards Pakistani people, but they did really mess up their country and to me it seems for no good reason.
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.
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.
I have to say that you can see similar dynamics in Mandatory Palestine. After the British troops left there was a civil war between the Jews and Arabs. Jews got their own state and the Arab residents there didn't. But the sheer number of people who are now considered Palestinian makes it difficult for any one nation to solve the refugee problem unilaterally. They are pretty much kept stateless by most countries in that area, for generations.
The British also helped establish the Saudi and Hashemite kingdoms etc. The Syrian King Faisal (someone I think was a really progressive guy) was also installed by the British in Iraq. And all of this happened after the fall of the Ottoman empire.
In that part of the world where religion is very strong, it's interesting to see that democracy always leads to a theocratic government (except in Indonesia where it's so far successfully been separated) and thus the constant struggle against violence, threats to usurp power and human rights oppression.
The British also helped establish the Saudi and Hashemite kingdoms etc. The Syrian King Faisal (someone I think was a really progressive guy) was also installed by the British in Iraq. And all of this happened after the fall of the Ottoman empire.
In that part of the world where religion is very strong, it's interesting to see that democracy always leads to a theocratic government (except in Indonesia where it's so far successfully been separated) and thus the constant struggle against violence, threats to usurp power and human rights oppression.
The Palestinians are kept intentionally stateless by most of the nations in the area. It's not just about numbers.
The Arab league policy is that granting Palestinians citizenship or otherwise integrating them in the population would effectively give Israel carte blanche to depopulate Palestine by driving the population into exile, and so it's strongly frowned upon, with the result that Jordan is the only country who have granted citizenship to a large proportion.
The Arab league policy is that granting Palestinians citizenship or otherwise integrating them in the population would effectively give Israel carte blanche to depopulate Palestine by driving the population into exile, and so it's strongly frowned upon, with the result that Jordan is the only country who have granted citizenship to a large proportion.
As far as the British attitude to the formation of the state of Israel goes, we were utterly cynical in our intent there as well. As Sir Ronald Storrs, the British Military Governor of Jerusalem stated in the early 1920's ;
"It will form for England a little loyal Jewish Ulster in a sea of potentially hostile Arabism."
I guess he was right about some of the similarity with Ulster, though perhaps not in the way he intended.
edit - as for democracy leading to theocracy in that part of the world, firstly Indonesia is almost 9,000 km away, and secondly I do not think there has been any recent time where external powers have not been massively fucking about round there, so you cannot really draw any conclusions about this being a feature of the local culture.
"It will form for England a little loyal Jewish Ulster in a sea of potentially hostile Arabism."
I guess he was right about some of the similarity with Ulster, though perhaps not in the way he intended.
edit - as for democracy leading to theocracy in that part of the world, firstly Indonesia is almost 9,000 km away, and secondly I do not think there has been any recent time where external powers have not been massively fucking about round there, so you cannot really draw any conclusions about this being a feature of the local culture.
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
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.
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 <defaced> Nobel laureate for his work in physics".
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.
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.
It seems everyone is out to get Islam today. And I think I know the main reason ... Islam as a religion leads much more often to religious states. One graphic should illustrate this for you:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_religion
And when a state has a lot of people who believe sharia law should be the law of the land, the courts and politicians have to grapple with what are essentially 6th century moral and legal ideas. And not just 6th century in fact, but made by one of the only prophets who commanded an army, and went to war, and wrote things like this:
http://www.islamawakened.com/quran/8/67/
"It is not fitting for a prophet that he should have prisoners of war until he hath thoroughly subdued the land. Ye look for the temporal goods of this world; but Allah looketh to the Hereafter: And Allah is Exalted in might, Wise."
You'd be hard pressed to find Old Testament prophets speaking this way or being described in this way. In fact, the Jews are admonished for "killing their prophets" who basically went around speaking.
So the "differential equation with initial conditions" analogy is very much a big factor.
Judaism formed to have an exclusionary character - it's hard to become a Jew, and so the Jews were always a minority, never ambitious to make the whole world Jews.
Christianity formed with a "peaceful proselytizing" character, for one thing because when it formed the apostles were the ones being persecuted and they didn't have the power to raise an army and convert people by the sword.
Islam on the other hand was formed that way and the political character of Islam is hard to defeat by populations full of sharia law-abiding, devout muslims. Disestablishment of the Church took a long time, but ultimately there is far less in Christianity that says the Church and Government must be one. In fact, statements like this emphasize the separation of Church and State:
http://biblehub.com/mark/12-17.htm
So yeah founding conditions matter, and I think that's why you see so many Islamic states and why there are more Muslims around the world living in democratic countries who truly believe that if their society was transformed from a democracy into an Islamic state, everyone would be better off.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EYAcLudBbhg
Personally I think Islam is not alone. I think various forms of socialism (Communism, Nazism) are also like "mind viruses" or group memes that tend to want to take over the government. If you look at it epidemiologically, certain ideas simply take over the population (the vector of transmission is almost always primarily young men, especially in bad economies or situations, e.g. hitler youth, or hamas, or vietkong, etc.) and states built around these ideas are intolerant and squash dissent. In my opinion, the greatest political danger lies in ideologies whose proponents obtain power.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_religion
And when a state has a lot of people who believe sharia law should be the law of the land, the courts and politicians have to grapple with what are essentially 6th century moral and legal ideas. And not just 6th century in fact, but made by one of the only prophets who commanded an army, and went to war, and wrote things like this:
http://www.islamawakened.com/quran/8/67/
"It is not fitting for a prophet that he should have prisoners of war until he hath thoroughly subdued the land. Ye look for the temporal goods of this world; but Allah looketh to the Hereafter: And Allah is Exalted in might, Wise."
You'd be hard pressed to find Old Testament prophets speaking this way or being described in this way. In fact, the Jews are admonished for "killing their prophets" who basically went around speaking.
So the "differential equation with initial conditions" analogy is very much a big factor.
Judaism formed to have an exclusionary character - it's hard to become a Jew, and so the Jews were always a minority, never ambitious to make the whole world Jews.
Christianity formed with a "peaceful proselytizing" character, for one thing because when it formed the apostles were the ones being persecuted and they didn't have the power to raise an army and convert people by the sword.
Islam on the other hand was formed that way and the political character of Islam is hard to defeat by populations full of sharia law-abiding, devout muslims. Disestablishment of the Church took a long time, but ultimately there is far less in Christianity that says the Church and Government must be one. In fact, statements like this emphasize the separation of Church and State:
http://biblehub.com/mark/12-17.htm
So yeah founding conditions matter, and I think that's why you see so many Islamic states and why there are more Muslims around the world living in democratic countries who truly believe that if their society was transformed from a democracy into an Islamic state, everyone would be better off.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EYAcLudBbhg
Personally I think Islam is not alone. I think various forms of socialism (Communism, Nazism) are also like "mind viruses" or group memes that tend to want to take over the government. If you look at it epidemiologically, certain ideas simply take over the population (the vector of transmission is almost always primarily young men, especially in bad economies or situations, e.g. hitler youth, or hamas, or vietkong, etc.) and states built around these ideas are intolerant and squash dissent. In my opinion, the greatest political danger lies in ideologies whose proponents obtain power.
Minus the racism, it also has similarities to the way some in the US thought about the Vietnam War (would have won if it wasn't for an unsupportive public/government back home).
Great comment.
This is a very gross misrepresentation of India. The article 377 is a British law which is continued like 1000 other laws. One law for example is that each lodging facility should keep its toilets open for public. Which basically means all the 5 star hotels need to keep their toilets open for public use.
India might have archaic and North Korea like laws but it also has a non-functional government and police force which is mostly busy with other trivialities so even though article 377 exists, I am not aware of any people being harassed for being gay by government or authorities. Gay parties are common and have known several gay couples who have lived safely together.
Even though 200 people are prosecuted under this it is less because for they being gay and more because of other reasons. For example it is very common of Indian politicians to put you in jail for any random reason. In most cases, 377 is applied along with rape, domestic violence or divorce cases as the opponent seem fit.
Of course, India is not SF either. I think Indian liberal in their zeal to simply prove themselves "liberal" they are beating up the homosexuality drum needlessly in India. I think this is going to be counter productive and various political factions especially the Islam leaning parties might see an advantage in making life of Gays a bit more difficult.
India might have archaic and North Korea like laws but it also has a non-functional government and police force which is mostly busy with other trivialities so even though article 377 exists, I am not aware of any people being harassed for being gay by government or authorities. Gay parties are common and have known several gay couples who have lived safely together.
Even though 200 people are prosecuted under this it is less because for they being gay and more because of other reasons. For example it is very common of Indian politicians to put you in jail for any random reason. In most cases, 377 is applied along with rape, domestic violence or divorce cases as the opponent seem fit.
Of course, India is not SF either. I think Indian liberal in their zeal to simply prove themselves "liberal" they are beating up the homosexuality drum needlessly in India. I think this is going to be counter productive and various political factions especially the Islam leaning parties might see an advantage in making life of Gays a bit more difficult.
Reading [1], I was absolutely disgusted not only by the facts of the case, but the tone of the reporting.
Articles like these make me sympathize with Bond-style supervillains. :(
Read through the comments of an indian news website. Makes me sad. We should love more. I hope people are better than that. A lot of sexuality based and religion based hate. I hope things improve. I hope people love more.
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/tech/tech-news/Being-gay-...
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/tech/tech-news/Being-gay-...
People in India on an average are intolerant and mean. I have spent some time in the US and I was surprised to find that the average person you run into in the world is a nice person. I dont know why it is so in India. May be its because of the population pressure and a bad selection criteria in society. In some situations mean behaviour is the only way how you get things done.
Crikey, I always assumed the Times Of India had an intelligent readership.
Far from it. People subscribe to it for their daily dose of cleavage in their newspaper supplements that can be passed of as journalism. In other words its mostly a tabloid.
Some 10 years ago it used to be a really nice newspaper though and I mean really good. Their editorials used to be held up as examples of good writing skills. Now you would find typos, grammatical errors, not to mention factual errors.
EDIT @zimpenfish > Murdoch paper, by any chance? Nope, at least not yet. Small mercies I guess.
Some 10 years ago it used to be a really nice newspaper though and I mean really good. Their editorials used to be held up as examples of good writing skills. Now you would find typos, grammatical errors, not to mention factual errors.
EDIT @zimpenfish > Murdoch paper, by any chance? Nope, at least not yet. Small mercies I guess.
> People subscribe to it for their daily dose of cleavage
Murdoch paper, by any chance?
Murdoch paper, by any chance?
Intelligent =/= Tolerant
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 people still believe in child marriage..
I don't understand what makes gay people unacceptable? they are not hurting the society like the criminals do.. they are not disrespecting anyone.. they are simple believing on what they feel is right and who is to decide that being gay is wrong..
I am happy Tim is supporting the gay community because if 100 normal people claim and accept to gay it would have been neglected.. however Apple's CEO supporting the gay community should help a little..
There is one basic rule in life that "Be good, Do good.. Never dis-respect any human or animal"
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 people still believe in child marriage..
I don't understand what makes gay people unacceptable? they are not hurting the society like the criminals do.. they are not disrespecting anyone.. they are simple believing on what they feel is right and who is to decide that being gay is wrong..
I am happy Tim is supporting the gay community because if 100 normal people claim and accept to gay it would have been neglected.. however Apple's CEO supporting the gay community should help a little..
There is one basic rule in life that "Be good, Do good.. Never dis-respect any human or animal"
>>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.
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.
Maybe I'm misunderstanding your point, but the practice that you describe wouldn't result in an imbalance in the ratio of men to women.
Yes. This is a tech interview question at some companies.
Think of this analogy: every person in the world flips a fair coin. Those who flip tail, stop flipping coins. Those who flip head, flip one more time, and so on.
In expectation, the overall number of heads and tails will be the same - if you look at the system from the outside, it's just a bunch of independent flips with fair coins, the decisions of the participants have no effect.
In expectation, the overall number of heads and tails will be the same - if you look at the system from the outside, it's just a bunch of independent flips with fair coins, the decisions of the participants have no effect.
Yes, but you are making a big assumption that it will be a fair coin.
In the real world. There are other factors that contribute to gender imbalance(Infanticide, foeticide, mortality etc). Plus also note that once the gender balance goes out of balance it continues get worse with every iteration.
So this basically works like algorithm which is continually trying to increase the count of M's above F's.
In the real world. There are other factors that contribute to gender imbalance(Infanticide, foeticide, mortality etc). Plus also note that once the gender balance goes out of balance it continues get worse with every iteration.
So this basically works like algorithm which is continually trying to increase the count of M's above F's.
Maybe I'm bad at math, but wouldn't the set of (female, none), (male, female), and (male, male) ultimately lead to more females than males?
No, because the three cases happen with different probabilities:
(F,none): 0.5
(M,F): 0.25
(M,M): 0.25
The expected number of both F and M is 0.75
(F,none): 0.5
(M,F): 0.25
(M,M): 0.25
The expected number of both F and M is 0.75
[deleted]
> 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.
I think you switched "boy" and "girl" there.
I think you switched "boy" and "girl" there.
> girl cant even do anything of her choice
This varies by region and sometimes quite drastically so. In India you do have matriarchal societies, although only in pockets. If a woman walks into a beer shop in Delhi and takes a swig, chances are high that it would attract some unpleasantness. If the same plays out in Kohima or Shillong ... people there couldnt care less. That aside, intrusion into women's freedom follows the same gradient as that of which century the region lives by.
On the rest, couldnt agree more even if I tried.
This varies by region and sometimes quite drastically so. In India you do have matriarchal societies, although only in pockets. If a woman walks into a beer shop in Delhi and takes a swig, chances are high that it would attract some unpleasantness. If the same plays out in Kohima or Shillong ... people there couldnt care less. That aside, intrusion into women's freedom follows the same gradient as that of which century the region lives by.
On the rest, couldnt agree more even if I tried.
Social change at this scale takes a long time. really long spanning life times. There are precedents like women voting rights, segregation etc. It's easy to criticize taking a snapshot. There's no easy and quick solution. Haven't you heard how people that said earth is not the center of universe were mocked and even killed? The society will get there eventually. In India, I guess we won't live long enough to see that.
Being in such a progressive community (i.e. young nerdy people), it's easy to forget that this is an enormous deal for some people. A friend of mine recently came out as transgender and the general response was "oh, cool, good for you". It's hard to fathom what it's like for people who aren't in such a supportive environment.
There are undoubtedly many people who will no longer purchase Apple products because of this, and I don't know society can fix this with anything but time.
There are undoubtedly many people who will no longer purchase Apple products because of this, and I don't know society can fix this with anything but time.
If they won't buy Apple products because the CEO is gay, they probably shouldn't buy any computers at all, seeing as the entire field is built on the work of a gay man.
To be honest, I for one know very little about the important persons in <enter orthogonal branch of science here>, gay or not. We might all know about the terrible fate of Alan Turing, but I don't expect non-cs people to know.
(Thanks to gpvos for the correction of faith->fate. )
(Thanks to gpvos for the correction of faith->fate. )
Why should the work product of an individual be restricted only to people who agree with his choices? If someone doesn't buy Apple products because the CEO is gay, they're saying they don't want to send money to people promoting a homosexual lifestyle, not that they can't respect his work and not that they don't appreciate it.
Do you agree with all of the life choices made by every innovator throughout the centuries, many of whom were very religious and almost assuredly would've been anti-gay had such a movement existed in their time? It may make sense to deprive these people of money now if you disagree with them, but it doesn't make sense to discharge all the output of their life's work once there's no more threat of them actually receiving direct monetary aid from your purchases, and it doesn't make sense to denigrate the product on its own basis, independent from the behavior or ideals of the original creator. We should recognize good wherever we can find it.
Do you agree with all of the life choices made by every innovator throughout the centuries, many of whom were very religious and almost assuredly would've been anti-gay had such a movement existed in their time? It may make sense to deprive these people of money now if you disagree with them, but it doesn't make sense to discharge all the output of their life's work once there's no more threat of them actually receiving direct monetary aid from your purchases, and it doesn't make sense to denigrate the product on its own basis, independent from the behavior or ideals of the original creator. We should recognize good wherever we can find it.
You shouldn't assume that bigots are rational.
Konrad Zuse was not gay.
I think he is talking about Alan Turing.
On one hand, we have a man who worked with the Nazis, and on the other, we have a man persecuted and chemically castrated by the British government for his sexual orientation, who many believe committed suicide as a result.
hmm ,i guess he is talking about Alan Turing who was literaly sentenced to a horrible treatment for being gay.
That's one of the greatest shame of UK,it symbolizes bigotery in its purest form.
That's one of the greatest shame of UK,it symbolizes bigotery in its purest form.
It was one of our (many) great failings and as a nation we have accepted that:
Prime Ministers Apology: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2009/sep/11/pm-apology-to-a...
Royal Pardon: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/history/world-war-two/10536246/Al...
Prime Ministers Apology: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2009/sep/11/pm-apology-to-a...
Royal Pardon: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/history/world-war-two/10536246/Al...
Is it possible to knight someone posthumously? Has this happened?
No. No. In fact, in past times ( of kings and queens), one man was killed in a battle and his brother was given a much higher title because you cannot give the honorable title to a deceased individual.
Not only can you not knight deceased people, but when knights die they lose their title. #QuiteInteresting. #whenwillhnsupporthashtags.
Well, at least there's that.
Compared to which country that has never persecuted anyone for being gay?
This isnt a bigotery contest hey? I was talking from the point of view of someone who has the greatest respect for what Turing has done.I mean that's a shame that everything he has done for his country mattered very little when he was judged for being gay.
Bigotry is a wrong word to use (afaik) in a historical context. It simply means 'what we consider unacceptable by today's social norms'.
It was absolutely stupid and unjust (since most upper classes were involved in buggery in school anyways) - but calling it bigoted is like saying 'it was so yellow of them to do'.
It was absolutely stupid and unjust (since most upper classes were involved in buggery in school anyways) - but calling it bigoted is like saying 'it was so yellow of them to do'.
OK, maybe I mis-read your original comment. It came across as being very anti-UK:
"That's one of the greatest shame of UK,it symbolizes bigotery in its purest form."
but I accept I might have read stronger sentiment into that than was intended.
"That's one of the greatest shame of UK,it symbolizes bigotery in its purest form."
but I accept I might have read stronger sentiment into that than was intended.
[deleted]
I saw a bunch of these Android pride shirts around Toronto Pride a few months back:
https://www.googlestore.com/Google+Redesign/Brands/Android/A...
Quick, homophobes! Burn your Android phones!
https://www.googlestore.com/Google+Redesign/Brands/Android/A...
Quick, homophobes! Burn your Android phones!
I also saw their new "And You" ad on broadcast TV which features a gay couple getting married. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TRmgMe2STL0
If there is a standard distribution of gay men and women in the population, wouldn't that be true of any product? Sure, it could be higher in tech fields however there is a high probability of a gay man or woman building most the products we use.
If you want to take the statistical approach, then you could also say that there exists a nonzero probability that it is not the case :)
>>> seeing as the entire field is built on the work of a gay man.
That's a rather inaccurate, cringe worthy and generic statement. If your saying only one person contributed to the field of computers in 2014, that's sad.
We tend to glorify individuals in the eyes of media and forget [1]others who contributed to where we are today in technology.
[1] http://www.computerhope.com/people/ - list of people who have contributed to computers.
Edit: Thanks to oneplusone, I realised that he was speaking about Alan Turing. But why base a field on only one person regardless of sexuality. Why is sexuality the issue in the first place?
That's a rather inaccurate, cringe worthy and generic statement. If your saying only one person contributed to the field of computers in 2014, that's sad.
We tend to glorify individuals in the eyes of media and forget [1]others who contributed to where we are today in technology.
[1] http://www.computerhope.com/people/ - list of people who have contributed to computers.
Edit: Thanks to oneplusone, I realised that he was speaking about Alan Turing. But why base a field on only one person regardless of sexuality. Why is sexuality the issue in the first place?
But why base a field on only one person>
Because Alan Turing is the father of computer science. Basically everything that came after depended crucially on his work.
Because Alan Turing is the father of computer science. Basically everything that came after depended crucially on his work.
George Boole, Charles Babbage, John von Neumann, Grace Hopper
- To name a few great contributors. Yes Alan Turing is considered the father of computer science but with out the knowledge of others before him (and even during his time) we could be living in a different world right now.
Even the late, great Isaac Newton said - [1]"If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of giants."
1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standing_on_the_shoulders_of_g...
- To name a few great contributors. Yes Alan Turing is considered the father of computer science but with out the knowledge of others before him (and even during his time) we could be living in a different world right now.
Even the late, great Isaac Newton said - [1]"If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of giants."
1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standing_on_the_shoulders_of_g...
To put it a different way: Turing was necessary, but not sufficient. We needed him, and the entire field is built on his work. But his is not the only contribution; indeed, many others needed to also contribute to be sufficient for the field we know today.
In this light, it seems the original comment is correct.
In this light, it seems the original comment is correct.
Turing made great contributions, and had a great mind. But we did not need him, or any other particular individual.
What do you think would have happened if Turing had never been born?
Perhaps we would never have had a single individual who contributed as much, all at once, as Turing did... but the sum total of his contributions WOULD have been made by other people, eventually.
What do you think would have happened if Turing had never been born?
Perhaps we would never have had a single individual who contributed as much, all at once, as Turing did... but the sum total of his contributions WOULD have been made by other people, eventually.
> Turing made great contributions, and had a great mind. But we did not need him, or any other particular individual.
> What do you think would have happened if Turing had never been born?
And yet, he was born, and he did contribute, and we remember him for that, and we remember what his peers did to him in response. And we learn a lesson from that.
Why is this controversial?
And yet, he was born, and he did contribute, and we remember him for that, and we remember what his peers did to him in response. And we learn a lesson from that.
Why is this controversial?
Why is what controversial? Your preceding sentence? It isn't. Why do you think its controversial? And why do you think its related to my sentences?
The only thing which might be controversial (but really shouldn't be) is the observation that people make foolish and illogical claims when they let their passions drive them to hyperbole. For example, claiming that computer science NEEDED Turing. That without Turing, we would not have computer science.
Its simple. Worship him all you want for what he actually did, but please don't fall prey to the belief that "without so-and-so, X would NEVER have been developed". Or "without so-and-so, we would still be doing Y".
Nonsense. Some other person or group of people would have made those contributions.
This has nothing to do with how horribly he was treated. And if you want to highlight the sickness of the world by pointing out the genius of one of the victims of our diseased culture, that's cool, but we can do that without going off into a fantasy land where some individual was uniquely, in all the world, uniquely capable of making the contributions they made.
The only thing which might be controversial (but really shouldn't be) is the observation that people make foolish and illogical claims when they let their passions drive them to hyperbole. For example, claiming that computer science NEEDED Turing. That without Turing, we would not have computer science.
Its simple. Worship him all you want for what he actually did, but please don't fall prey to the belief that "without so-and-so, X would NEVER have been developed". Or "without so-and-so, we would still be doing Y".
Nonsense. Some other person or group of people would have made those contributions.
This has nothing to do with how horribly he was treated. And if you want to highlight the sickness of the world by pointing out the genius of one of the victims of our diseased culture, that's cool, but we can do that without going off into a fantasy land where some individual was uniquely, in all the world, uniquely capable of making the contributions they made.
Well, that statement is generally true, but Turing appeared in a very sensitive moment of history (WWII) and was critical for a very special task (The decryption of the Enigma Machine). Computer science would probably be fine without him, but maybe history would have beeen quite different, so we needed him.
Of course, Turing was one of many. But he was one, and that's enough to make the homophobes run for the hills.
Many seem to think that he wrote that in the letter just to annoy Robert Hooke, who was rather short in height.
Don't overestimate the progressiveness of young men. Look at how terrible so many of the HN comments are whenever there's a submission relating in any way to women.
I feel there is a big difference between gay equality and what a lot of young men feel like is a shrill feminism that seems to be much more about axe grinding, political correctness, censorship, and entitlements than any sort of drive towards a true equality. After you've been called a potential rapist several times in an academic or workplace setting just for your gender, you stop sympathizing with the modern feminist movement.
I think purposely conflating gay rights and feminism is more than a little disingenuous. LGBT movements empower both genders, feminism empowers only one.
I think its very possible to be socially progressive in thought but not be a cheerleader for the modern feminist agenda. These things don't necessarily contradict each other.
I think purposely conflating gay rights and feminism is more than a little disingenuous. LGBT movements empower both genders, feminism empowers only one.
I think its very possible to be socially progressive in thought but not be a cheerleader for the modern feminist agenda. These things don't necessarily contradict each other.
> After you've been called a potential rapist several times in an academic or workplace setting just for your gender, you stop sympathizing with the modern feminist movement.
So, there are some bad feminists around. [1] When people are absurd, feel free to 'absurd' right back at them (i.e. "Sure, I'm a potential rapist - as much as you are a potential murderer!").
"Dropping sympathy" for the feminist movement as a response a few bad feminists that you've encountered is not really justified, or rational.
> I think purposely conflating gay rights and feminism is more than a little disingenuous. LGBT movements empower both genders, feminism empowers only one.
I'm not following the reasoning here. Both movements are about equality; one focuses on gender, the other on sexual identity/orientation. They are very much two sides of the same coin (the humanEqualityCent).
[1] "Are You a Good Feminist or a Bad Feminist?" - Shane Killian https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=axuz3JlZIbk
So, there are some bad feminists around. [1] When people are absurd, feel free to 'absurd' right back at them (i.e. "Sure, I'm a potential rapist - as much as you are a potential murderer!").
"Dropping sympathy" for the feminist movement as a response a few bad feminists that you've encountered is not really justified, or rational.
> I think purposely conflating gay rights and feminism is more than a little disingenuous. LGBT movements empower both genders, feminism empowers only one.
I'm not following the reasoning here. Both movements are about equality; one focuses on gender, the other on sexual identity/orientation. They are very much two sides of the same coin (the humanEqualityCent).
[1] "Are You a Good Feminist or a Bad Feminist?" - Shane Killian https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=axuz3JlZIbk
> "Dropping sympathy" for the feminist movement as a response a few bad feminists that you've encountered is not really justified, or rational.
When you are made to feel unwanted, excluded, and otherwise not welcome it is natural to go elsewhere in search of inclusiveness. This is a far more common reaction than that of adopting sympathy for those excluding you. No aspect of this should be surprising to a feminist.
When you are made to feel unwanted, excluded, and otherwise not welcome it is natural to go elsewhere in search of inclusiveness. This is a far more common reaction than that of adopting sympathy for those excluding you. No aspect of this should be surprising to a feminist.
> When you are made to feel unwanted, excluded, and otherwise not welcome it is natural to go elsewhere in search of inclusiveness.
Sure, but the GP wasn't talking about a particular group rejecting them, but rather "stop sympathizing with the entire modern feminist movement". That's an extreme reaction to disliking a subset of the movement's followers.
> This is a far more common reaction than that of adopting sympathy for those excluding you. No aspect of this should be surprising to a feminist.
Nobody's asking for personal sympathy or contribution, but rejecting Feminism due to a few bad Feminists is stupid. Especially if you claim to have been aligned with the Equality argument beforehand. How does that even work?
(attempt to reverse engineer a thought process leading to this)
1) thinking "Hey, men are dicks towards women. That ain't right. We need to equalize things as much as possible!" 2) meets bad feminists, receives abuse 3) thinking "Fuck it - Equality, yes, but not for you; I don't like you. NVM on the whole Feminism issue."
Absurd. You didn't really believe in equality in the first place. Demanding and supporting equality should have nothing to do with your personal likes and dislikes.
Sure, but the GP wasn't talking about a particular group rejecting them, but rather "stop sympathizing with the entire modern feminist movement". That's an extreme reaction to disliking a subset of the movement's followers.
> This is a far more common reaction than that of adopting sympathy for those excluding you. No aspect of this should be surprising to a feminist.
Nobody's asking for personal sympathy or contribution, but rejecting Feminism due to a few bad Feminists is stupid. Especially if you claim to have been aligned with the Equality argument beforehand. How does that even work?
(attempt to reverse engineer a thought process leading to this)
1) thinking "Hey, men are dicks towards women. That ain't right. We need to equalize things as much as possible!" 2) meets bad feminists, receives abuse 3) thinking "Fuck it - Equality, yes, but not for you; I don't like you. NVM on the whole Feminism issue."
Absurd. You didn't really believe in equality in the first place. Demanding and supporting equality should have nothing to do with your personal likes and dislikes.
When a person's entire exposure to a group consists wholly of a few bad members, they are likely to figure that sample representative. They are not likely to keep re-sampling until they find a desirable sample. It's irrational to expect otherwise.
Why do you expect otherwise? Why do you feel compelled to couple it with insults?
Why do you expect otherwise? Why do you feel compelled to couple it with insults?
> When a person's entire exposure to a group consists wholly of a few bad members, they are likely to figure that sample representative.
But Feminism isn't a group; it is an idea. If some of the followers misbehave, you should still be able to believe and support in the idea.
To me, supporting ideas only when you "like" the (majority of?) people supporting them is akin to supporting free speech but only for the positions that you believe in.
(edit)
> Why do you feel compelled to couple it with insults?
I'm not sure where you're reading that. The "You" at the end was directed at the fictional person that I'm attempting to emulate with the 1/2/3 reasoning, not you.
But Feminism isn't a group; it is an idea. If some of the followers misbehave, you should still be able to believe and support in the idea.
To me, supporting ideas only when you "like" the (majority of?) people supporting them is akin to supporting free speech but only for the positions that you believe in.
(edit)
> Why do you feel compelled to couple it with insults?
I'm not sure where you're reading that. The "You" at the end was directed at the fictional person that I'm attempting to emulate with the 1/2/3 reasoning, not you.
Feminism is an idea. Feminists, or the people who adhere to that idea, are a group. If every single adherent of an idea you encounter is an abhorrent person, most people will stop and consider if they want to associate with those people. Typically the answer is "No".
Most people will also wonder if something about the idea turns people into abhorrent people or if something about the idea is only attractive to abhorrent people. In either case, it is not something to which our notional person is likely to be attracted.
In short - the people who adhere to an idea are seen as commentary on the idea.
Most people will also wonder if something about the idea turns people into abhorrent people or if something about the idea is only attractive to abhorrent people. In either case, it is not something to which our notional person is likely to be attracted.
In short - the people who adhere to an idea are seen as commentary on the idea.
> Feminism is an idea. Feminists, or the people who adhere to that idea, are a group.
I would have thought that everyone who believes in gender equality is implicitly a Feminist..
> If every single adherent of an idea you encounter is an abhorrent person
Are you exaggerating for the sake of argument (perfectly valid), or is it that bad for some people?
I would have thought that everyone who believes in gender equality is implicitly a Feminist..
> If every single adherent of an idea you encounter is an abhorrent person
Are you exaggerating for the sake of argument (perfectly valid), or is it that bad for some people?
[deleted]
> Are you exaggerating for the sake of argument (perfectly valid), or is it that bad for some people?
Both.
Both.
Some people aren't going to understand your statement, because they are locked into ideas like 'feminism' == 'desire for equal rights'.
Too many people who call themselves feminists actually do not believe in equal rights, and present feminism as a justification for bad behaviors.
If this is how you experience feminism, this is going to influence your notion of what the word feminism actually means, in practice.
Too many people who call themselves feminists actually do not believe in equal rights, and present feminism as a justification for bad behaviors.
If this is how you experience feminism, this is going to influence your notion of what the word feminism actually means, in practice.
> Is this not the case?
It should be the case. In practice, it is often not the case. If you doubt this, search 'feminist' on youtube, watch a dozen random videos, and try to identify the issues and beliefs which the speaker sees as intrinsically 'feminist' ones, and ask yourself whether those issues and beliefs are really in support of equality. Its a bit of a mixed bag.
I'm not trying to attack feminism, as I strongly believe in equality and we have a lot of work to do. And obviously there are anti-feminists who have always tried to distort the messages of feminists, and fabricate their own. But these days, those manipulators don't have to try very hard.
I don't see how we can fix this, though. The commercial approach to a similar problem would be absurd in this case: creating centralized certification body regulating which 'feminist goals/speakers/blogs/books/lines-of-argument/etc' are deemed 'truly feminist'.
It should be the case. In practice, it is often not the case. If you doubt this, search 'feminist' on youtube, watch a dozen random videos, and try to identify the issues and beliefs which the speaker sees as intrinsically 'feminist' ones, and ask yourself whether those issues and beliefs are really in support of equality. Its a bit of a mixed bag.
I'm not trying to attack feminism, as I strongly believe in equality and we have a lot of work to do. And obviously there are anti-feminists who have always tried to distort the messages of feminists, and fabricate their own. But these days, those manipulators don't have to try very hard.
I don't see how we can fix this, though. The commercial approach to a similar problem would be absurd in this case: creating centralized certification body regulating which 'feminist goals/speakers/blogs/books/lines-of-argument/etc' are deemed 'truly feminist'.
As near as I can tell, the body feminist is continually attempting that kind of effort. Unfortunately, the result resembles a bar-brawl-cum-religious-congress more than it does an effective certification body.
> 'feminism' == 'desire for equal rights'
Is this not the case?
Is this not the case?
In a world of intellectual purity and abstraction, yes, that is the case.
In the real world, it can be used as a fig leaf to justify a variety of abusive behaviors. For some people, that encompasses the whole of their experiences.
In the real world, it can be used as a fig leaf to justify a variety of abusive behaviors. For some people, that encompasses the whole of their experiences.
> In the real world, it can be used as a fig leaf to justify a variety of abusive behaviors.
We disagree that this actually changes the meaning of Feminism.
Yes, some horrid people need an excuse to dish out abuse and Feminism often becomes that excuse (I'm thinking about everyone who's ever used the potential-rapist argument).
Does this taint Feminists, the group? Maybe a little, yes.
Does this taint Feminism, the idea that genders should be as equal as possible? Well, IMHO, no.
We disagree that this actually changes the meaning of Feminism.
Yes, some horrid people need an excuse to dish out abuse and Feminism often becomes that excuse (I'm thinking about everyone who's ever used the potential-rapist argument).
Does this taint Feminists, the group? Maybe a little, yes.
Does this taint Feminism, the idea that genders should be as equal as possible? Well, IMHO, no.
The Soviet Union wasn't and China isn't really communist or socialist by most sane definitions of those terms, but good luck disassociating yourself from them if you label yourself a communist today.
Feminism was about seeking equal rights and equal opportunities for women. In the West it largely achieved that goal (we're not there yet, but consider where we started). Thanks to tumblr, twitter and the blogosphere echo-chamber, the feminism most people become aware of online is very different from that.
Worse yet, there is no such thing as "the feminist movement" (anymore) by a long shot. It's become a broad term that encompasses everything from egalitarians to misandrists. And any criticism of the later group is always portrayed as a criticism of the former (which is why we end up with this entirely pointless MRA/SJW shitstorm-on-demand situation we have now).
Nobody is forcing egalitarians to call themselves feminists. But clinging to that label and pretending it hasn't changed its meaning is no different from trying to distance your communism from Stalin or your nationalist socialism from the Nazi party.
Feminism was about seeking equal rights and equal opportunities for women. In the West it largely achieved that goal (we're not there yet, but consider where we started). Thanks to tumblr, twitter and the blogosphere echo-chamber, the feminism most people become aware of online is very different from that.
Worse yet, there is no such thing as "the feminist movement" (anymore) by a long shot. It's become a broad term that encompasses everything from egalitarians to misandrists. And any criticism of the later group is always portrayed as a criticism of the former (which is why we end up with this entirely pointless MRA/SJW shitstorm-on-demand situation we have now).
Nobody is forcing egalitarians to call themselves feminists. But clinging to that label and pretending it hasn't changed its meaning is no different from trying to distance your communism from Stalin or your nationalist socialism from the Nazi party.
If an idea consistently creates abusive groups and people, should that not be viewed as a reflection upon the idea?
I accidentally posted my first reply in the wrong place, above.
I prefer that definition, yes. But the important part of my sentence was "locked in". I was referring to people who are incapable of acknowledge that the word feminism is abused, not just by anti-feminists, but also by some self-proclaimed feminists.
If someone really thinks that feminism can only mean 'equal rights', period, end of conversation, talk to the hand - then conversations with people pointing out problems in the feminism movement will suffer from equivocation fallacies.
I prefer that definition, yes. But the important part of my sentence was "locked in". I was referring to people who are incapable of acknowledge that the word feminism is abused, not just by anti-feminists, but also by some self-proclaimed feminists.
If someone really thinks that feminism can only mean 'equal rights', period, end of conversation, talk to the hand - then conversations with people pointing out problems in the feminism movement will suffer from equivocation fallacies.
> I'm not following the reasoning here. Both movements are about equality; one focuses on gender, the other on sexual identity/orientation. They are very much two sides of the same coin (the humanEqualityCent)
I don't follow his reasoning either, as stated, but there is a question of subcultures, subcultural values, specific ideologies within the movement, and most importantly: composition.
There are many ways that these two movements differ. And while both movements attract some unpleasant people who damage the reputation of the movement as a whole, the way this plays out in feminism is a little different from how it plays out with LGBT rights.
So its not surprising to me that some people might (based on their personal experiences) think that one is toxic and the other isn't.
I don't follow his reasoning either, as stated, but there is a question of subcultures, subcultural values, specific ideologies within the movement, and most importantly: composition.
There are many ways that these two movements differ. And while both movements attract some unpleasant people who damage the reputation of the movement as a whole, the way this plays out in feminism is a little different from how it plays out with LGBT rights.
So its not surprising to me that some people might (based on their personal experiences) think that one is toxic and the other isn't.
> LGBT movements empower both genders, feminism empowers only one.
I suppose this is a common misconception, but it is not true. Feminism also frees men from restrictive gender roles. It is feminism that says that men are allowed to cry, to hug one another, to have dreams and hopes and fears.
Giving up some privileges -- privileges which are not right for us to have anyway -- is a small price to pay, I believe, for becoming whole human beings.
I suppose this is a common misconception, but it is not true. Feminism also frees men from restrictive gender roles. It is feminism that says that men are allowed to cry, to hug one another, to have dreams and hopes and fears.
Giving up some privileges -- privileges which are not right for us to have anyway -- is a small price to pay, I believe, for becoming whole human beings.
This is not true in my experience. I don't make an effort to follow any gender roles. When I, ten years ago was 15, I showed up for exit ceremony in drag for laughs. And people around me are cool with it. Except one person who has said that I was "not a man". And called me "ett hen," an expression which roughly translates as "genderless abomination".
She calls herself feminist and is responsible for the women’s' network's equal rights week at my university this year.
She calls herself feminist and is responsible for the women’s' network's equal rights week at my university this year.
Even at my fraternity at school, a kid sent a very long heartfelt message that he was dropping because he was gay. Which was followed by a a series of messages from everyone else saying either "we know, we support you unconditionally" or cracking the occasional good-spirited but crass joke. He later served as an officer and was a member until graduation. While at a liberal college, it's easy to forget the challenges people of different orientations face in many places throughout the country.
There seems to have been a cultural shift in the United States as of lately. Just a few years back most companies was afraid of "choosing" side, and kept things pretty neutral. But look at recent Disney movies and Coca-Cola commercials. They all give the impression that from a marketing perspective it's better to take a stand.
I don't have any data to back it up, but I guess it's just companies following the trend on public opinion? They didn't before because the majority was against it, they do now because the majority is for it. Not sure if that means taking a stand, though.
It's because the 'for' crowd is enthusiastic, so advertisers want to channel a little of their enthusiasm to promote a product. The 'against' crowd is largely apathetic and doesn't associate with 'anti' particularly strongly compared to the 'pro' crowd.
On the flip side, anything perceived as anti-gay in business blows up with negative press and talks of boycotts. With Apple's demographic, this will definitely be considered a plus.
On the flip side, anything perceived as anti-gay in business blows up with negative press and talks of boycotts. With Apple's demographic, this will definitely be considered a plus.
They probably analysed it from a business perspective and thought it makes sense. Fine for me as long it's for the right cause.
Where the homesexual agenda in Disney movies?
I'd prefer specific examples rather than just handwavey nonsense.
I'd prefer specific examples rather than just handwavey nonsense.
The last two Disney movies I watched (Frozen and Maleficent) both were resolved not by romantic love of a man and woman, but with the the love between two women. I am NOT saying Ana and Elsa were lesbians, but that Disney seems to be moving away from the prince/princess formula - that the ultimate feat of existence is getting married to someone of the opposite gender. If this is a "homosexual agenda" or not, I say good riddance. That crap is life poison to impressionable young girls.
> that the ultimate feat of existence is getting married to someone of the opposite gender.
Close enough. Life is about reproducing, or else we would not be here. +1 for impressionable young girls.
Close enough. Life is about reproducing, or else we would not be here. +1 for impressionable young girls.
>> The last two Disney movies I watched (Frozen and Maleficent) both were resolved not by romantic love of a man and woman, but with the the love between two women.
Have not see Maleficent, but I have heard nuts claiming Frozen was some kind of pro-gay film. It is resolved by (non-romantic) love between family members. I saw the movie twice in theater with my kid and couldn't find ANY indication of gay-ness. Anna ends up going after a man. The main plot is about self acceptance and embracing who you really are. While that metaphor can easily be applied to being gay (in todays world), I suspect the only people who instinctively made the connection are either gay or terribly anti-gay.
Gotta love Elsa, her and Merida are the best.
Have not see Maleficent, but I have heard nuts claiming Frozen was some kind of pro-gay film. It is resolved by (non-romantic) love between family members. I saw the movie twice in theater with my kid and couldn't find ANY indication of gay-ness. Anna ends up going after a man. The main plot is about self acceptance and embracing who you really are. While that metaphor can easily be applied to being gay (in todays world), I suspect the only people who instinctively made the connection are either gay or terribly anti-gay.
Gotta love Elsa, her and Merida are the best.
I haven't seen Maleficent either; but, that was exactly the impression I came out of the movie. That said, I have a gay friend and he said it was a movie about homosexuality and coming out of the closet and accepting yourself.
I didn't read into it that at all. I don't know which intended meaning Disney had when they adapted the story into a script and animation; but it seems to resonate with different people differently (as is often the case with movies).
I saw it in staunch contrast to the historical Disney "Princess" narrative, where happily-ever-after doesn't mean marriage, remarking how they openly mocked the idea of falling in love with someone and marrying them after a single day.
I'd have to ask him directly, but he could have easily seen the movie from Elsa's perspective, the woman imbued with a gift, or curse. Both perspectives are presented in the movie, if memory serves me, and it entirely depends on the person speaking at the time. The parents thought it was a curse. The trolls saw it differently. Whatever the reality of her situation, she fled, and then accepted who she was, and eventually defeated the parts of her gift that had made it so sad to have.
Perhaps, then, it is both. It was a movie that was a push away from the 'True Love's Kiss' story of Disney olde, as much as it was a story about accepting who you are. And the whole story is bound together by the very real presence of the two sister's familial love for one another.
I didn't read into it that at all. I don't know which intended meaning Disney had when they adapted the story into a script and animation; but it seems to resonate with different people differently (as is often the case with movies).
I saw it in staunch contrast to the historical Disney "Princess" narrative, where happily-ever-after doesn't mean marriage, remarking how they openly mocked the idea of falling in love with someone and marrying them after a single day.
I'd have to ask him directly, but he could have easily seen the movie from Elsa's perspective, the woman imbued with a gift, or curse. Both perspectives are presented in the movie, if memory serves me, and it entirely depends on the person speaking at the time. The parents thought it was a curse. The trolls saw it differently. Whatever the reality of her situation, she fled, and then accepted who she was, and eventually defeated the parts of her gift that had made it so sad to have.
Perhaps, then, it is both. It was a movie that was a push away from the 'True Love's Kiss' story of Disney olde, as much as it was a story about accepting who you are. And the whole story is bound together by the very real presence of the two sister's familial love for one another.
[deleted]
Sure - frozen has fantastic messages for girls. But a 1 second glimpse of a family and the love between two sisters is very far from Disney making a statement on homosexuality.
IMO it's going a bit far with the interpretation, but Elsa in the movie Frozen has been fairly widely speculated as being an allegory on coming out.
It's funny because Frozen was a massive hit in Japan by all accounts. There it had nothing to do with coming out. Instead women really loved the women power and could relate to having to conform to a certain image etc. So perhaps that's the greatness of Frozen. Each culture makes it their own.
> homesexual agenda
Agenda? People only use that term when they're trying to imply something is somehow pushing homosexuality on the weak minded.
Agenda? People only use that term when they're trying to imply something is somehow pushing homosexuality on the weak minded.
>> Agenda? People only use that term when they're trying to imply something is somehow pushing homosexuality on the weak minded.
Wrong, wrong, wrong.
Most individuals have agendas, and all organizations have (or should have) agendas.
We should all be able to talk honestly about various agendas without having to toe some manipulative lines concerning presumed hidden meanings.
Just because many homophobes, rightwingers, etc constantly harp on the 'homosexual agenda' as if its some scary monster, doesn't mean that LGBT rights organizations don't have agendas.
Wrong, wrong, wrong.
Most individuals have agendas, and all organizations have (or should have) agendas.
We should all be able to talk honestly about various agendas without having to toe some manipulative lines concerning presumed hidden meanings.
Just because many homophobes, rightwingers, etc constantly harp on the 'homosexual agenda' as if its some scary monster, doesn't mean that LGBT rights organizations don't have agendas.
You're being pedantic, the term "(The) Homosexual Agenda" as distinct from any other use of the word agenda is what I was talking about. There are organisations representing homosexuals that have agendas, but that isn't the same thing.
Aren't you? Whether it's good or not, aren't you pushing homosexuality on everyone, saying, "It's not OK to disapprove of our lifestyle"?
People don't call civil rights or women's rights "agendas," they call them "movements." Agenda is pejorative, pertaining to "underlying intentions"; whereas movement directly refers to the act of changing, and in other fields such as music indicates a progression or forward dynamic. Portraying gay people in media could have an advertising "agenda" (e.g. they have an intention of selling things by appearing gay friendly or progressive with respect to modern culture rather than an intention of advancing gay rights), but are still progressive in that media portrayals of gay people actually is a change, or forward progression, for a minority group.
Edit: Woah, my mistake! I thought you were responding to my statement above. My apologies. What is the etiquette on HN for this? Is it editing out my comment, which, given my misunderstanding of the context, is irrelevant to your statement?
[ Did you read (critically) the comment I was responding to?
I mostly agree with your statement, except for the implication you may be making that agenda always has this pejorative meaning. It simply doesn't. If you want to understand people, you should not assume that it always does. And we should not police people for choosing to bring the non-pejorative acknowledgement of the fact that groups have purposes and goals.
If LGBT groups did not have agendas, they would not be worth supporting. ]
[ Did you read (critically) the comment I was responding to?
I mostly agree with your statement, except for the implication you may be making that agenda always has this pejorative meaning. It simply doesn't. If you want to understand people, you should not assume that it always does. And we should not police people for choosing to bring the non-pejorative acknowledgement of the fact that groups have purposes and goals.
If LGBT groups did not have agendas, they would not be worth supporting. ]
Hey, no problem. My issue is one of language itself. As someone who takes the english language very seriously, I don't ignore when someone makes the choice to use a particular word. Between our two comments, we have used the following set of words to roughly address the same concept (advancement of LGBT rights): [agenda, movement, purpose, goal]. Of these, only "agenda" has a secondary definition referring to underlying intentions or motives (even consider the word motive - "a reason for doing something, especially one that is hidden").
Writing is an act of art, and reading is an act of interpretation. These secondary definitions come into play when determining what someone means. Agenda is not purely pejorative, and it's true LGBT groups have agendas - they have plans of things to be done - they have motives - reasons for doing something. However, these attributes of LGBT groups could also be described with words that do not have any negative aspects, such as goals, plans, purposes, etc.
>If you want to understand people...
I assume people understand the words they use and intend to use them. If people use words without precision, how can they expect to be understood?
As for etiquette... no idea ha. Made the same mistake myself.
Writing is an act of art, and reading is an act of interpretation. These secondary definitions come into play when determining what someone means. Agenda is not purely pejorative, and it's true LGBT groups have agendas - they have plans of things to be done - they have motives - reasons for doing something. However, these attributes of LGBT groups could also be described with words that do not have any negative aspects, such as goals, plans, purposes, etc.
>If you want to understand people...
I assume people understand the words they use and intend to use them. If people use words without precision, how can they expect to be understood?
As for etiquette... no idea ha. Made the same mistake myself.
The context of someone saying "homosexual agenda" is generally "they're trying to convert our children!" paranoia, not just general disapproval.
You list two contexts.
a) "they're trying to convert our children!" paranoia
b) general disapproval.
There are at least two more:
c) dispassionate acknowledgement
d) outright support
I absolutely, strongly support the LGBT community's agenda of making gay marriage legal, everywhere.
Just because one hateful group of people uses a phrase in one particular way, doesn't mean we need to give them ownership of it, nor assume that everyone using the same term feels the same way they do.
a) "they're trying to convert our children!" paranoia
b) general disapproval.
There are at least two more:
c) dispassionate acknowledgement
d) outright support
I absolutely, strongly support the LGBT community's agenda of making gay marriage legal, everywhere.
Just because one hateful group of people uses a phrase in one particular way, doesn't mean we need to give them ownership of it, nor assume that everyone using the same term feels the same way they do.
No... They simply acknowledge that the roughly 4% of the population that identify with the LGBT community exists. It's a pretty far push from acknowledging existence to "pushing homosexuality on everyone." I'll leave as an exercise to the reader to identify the mental gymnastics required to come up with the phrase: "pushing homosexuality on everyone"
Whew! Got quite the downvotes.
If one were to say, "I support legal equality for LGBT couples compared to straight couples", as well as "I question the health of LGBT acceptance in society", would you find their opinion repugnant?
If so, then you're pushing LGBT on everyone.
For the record, I truly support legal equality, and don't see how accepting LGBT in society is harmful. But the above example is a reflection of many more people than the echo chamber at HN would like to acknowledge.
If one were to say, "I support legal equality for LGBT couples compared to straight couples", as well as "I question the health of LGBT acceptance in society", would you find their opinion repugnant?
If so, then you're pushing LGBT on everyone.
For the record, I truly support legal equality, and don't see how accepting LGBT in society is harmful. But the above example is a reflection of many more people than the echo chamber at HN would like to acknowledge.
Still some mental gymnastics going on here.
1. What I find repugnant doesn't push anything on anyone.
2. My comment had nothing to do with what you or I do, it had to do with the above comment about Disney and Coke showing LGBT people in shows and ads.
By this logic, your logic, they have been "pushing" straight, black, hispanic, white, Christian, Jewish, youth, and elderly on us for years. Having the individual (or couple) on the show/ad does not in and of itself "push" anything. That's absurd.
1. What I find repugnant doesn't push anything on anyone.
2. My comment had nothing to do with what you or I do, it had to do with the above comment about Disney and Coke showing LGBT people in shows and ads.
By this logic, your logic, they have been "pushing" straight, black, hispanic, white, Christian, Jewish, youth, and elderly on us for years. Having the individual (or couple) on the show/ad does not in and of itself "push" anything. That's absurd.
there are those who are trying to require religious organizations to perform same-sex weddings. I think that qualifies as "pushing"...
So many have done it willingly, in advance of any pressure, that religion isn't a credible defense.
edit: I just realized I got dragged way off topic by a troll. Whoops.
edit: I just realized I got dragged way off topic by a troll. Whoops.
For what it's worth, I'm not trolling. I'm making principled arguments, some of which you disagree with. I appreciate your taking the time to make principled arguments in response, even if you've since deleted them.
The original comment I responded to was someone claiming there's no "pushing" going on. As you clearly demonstrated, you're willing to "pressure" religious groups -- there's nothing wrong with that, but more people should be honest about it. From my perspective, the appropriate types of pressure are internal pressure (ie, members changing the group's ideas) or competitive pressure (other organizations that already are on the opposite side), not tax pressure.
The original comment I responded to was someone claiming there's no "pushing" going on. As you clearly demonstrated, you're willing to "pressure" religious groups -- there's nothing wrong with that, but more people should be honest about it. From my perspective, the appropriate types of pressure are internal pressure (ie, members changing the group's ideas) or competitive pressure (other organizations that already are on the opposite side), not tax pressure.
there's a great deal of diversity in religion.
The fact that some religious groups have taken a particular stand doesn't make it "not pushy" to force other groups to follow.
EDIT: for example, a lot of religions don't have a problem with pork, but some do. It would be pushy to require a kosher or halal deli to serve pork. Likewise, there are some who want to require, say, Southern Baptist churches to perform same-sex weddings; that's pushy.
The fact that some religious groups have taken a particular stand doesn't make it "not pushy" to force other groups to follow.
EDIT: for example, a lot of religions don't have a problem with pork, but some do. It would be pushy to require a kosher or halal deli to serve pork. Likewise, there are some who want to require, say, Southern Baptist churches to perform same-sex weddings; that's pushy.
[deleted](1)
I'm not sure who "they" is talking about in this thread, so I might be a little off here, but it definitely goes beyond acknowledging existence. People have acknowledged homosexuality for thousands of years (that's why there is a word for it). What the LGBT community wants is acceptance that it is a acceptable form of sexual expression.
I definitely feel like there is some amount of "pushing homosexuality on everyone" that has been going on the past five or ten years. It's no longer socially acceptable to think that homosexuality is wrong or an unhealthy sexual expression. Even donating to an anti-homosexuality lobby can get you pressured to resign [1]. Depending on the state you live in, you may have to accept gay marriage, even if it violates what you feel like marriage is. I don't know if sex-ed in schools is teaching it yet, but if not, I assume it is just a matter of time. If homosexuality is an unhealthy expression of sexuality, you won't want your kids exposed to that, but, no choice.
For people who agree that LGBT is acceptable, this probably feels like progress. For people who view LGBT as unhealthy sexual expression, the net effect feels a lot like "pushing homosexuality" on us.
[1] Brendan Eich, former Mozilla CEO
I definitely feel like there is some amount of "pushing homosexuality on everyone" that has been going on the past five or ten years. It's no longer socially acceptable to think that homosexuality is wrong or an unhealthy sexual expression. Even donating to an anti-homosexuality lobby can get you pressured to resign [1]. Depending on the state you live in, you may have to accept gay marriage, even if it violates what you feel like marriage is. I don't know if sex-ed in schools is teaching it yet, but if not, I assume it is just a matter of time. If homosexuality is an unhealthy expression of sexuality, you won't want your kids exposed to that, but, no choice.
For people who agree that LGBT is acceptable, this probably feels like progress. For people who view LGBT as unhealthy sexual expression, the net effect feels a lot like "pushing homosexuality" on us.
[1] Brendan Eich, former Mozilla CEO
I don't like what happened to Eich and I am not trying to change anyone's mind about homosexuality being wrong/unhealthy, but here's a few responses.
"that's why there is a word for it" Well that particular word actually is far younger than thousands of years: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/homosexuality/
Kinda makes you wonder a little bit our current distinctions and their actual relevance to the human condition.
"you may have to accept gay marriage, even if it violates what you feel like marriage is" What you feel like marriage is has nothing to do with what it actually is, which is a very well-defined legal construct outlined by the state. Your feelings are valid in a different context perhaps, but when it comes to the legal definition it's not a compelling part of the argument. In that context, a great many arguments have been heard in court and gay marriage bans have been roundly rejected, many in a bipartisan decision.
"If homosexuality is an unhealthy expression of sexuality, you won't want your kids exposed to that" Kids are going to be exposed. Gay people exist, and kids will and do meet them. Some 2-6% of the kids in that sex ed class are going to be gay themselves. Not saying parents shouldn't have a voice in this, just pointing out that prohibition is dangerous. You can't hide the word gay from children, and denied knowledge often only serves to generate greater curiosity. I would hope some clinical information about how to be healthy and gay isn't asking too much of these fragile creatures, but perhaps heterosexuality is really hanging from a thread? Somehow I doubt that.
"that's why there is a word for it" Well that particular word actually is far younger than thousands of years: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/homosexuality/
Kinda makes you wonder a little bit our current distinctions and their actual relevance to the human condition.
"you may have to accept gay marriage, even if it violates what you feel like marriage is" What you feel like marriage is has nothing to do with what it actually is, which is a very well-defined legal construct outlined by the state. Your feelings are valid in a different context perhaps, but when it comes to the legal definition it's not a compelling part of the argument. In that context, a great many arguments have been heard in court and gay marriage bans have been roundly rejected, many in a bipartisan decision.
"If homosexuality is an unhealthy expression of sexuality, you won't want your kids exposed to that" Kids are going to be exposed. Gay people exist, and kids will and do meet them. Some 2-6% of the kids in that sex ed class are going to be gay themselves. Not saying parents shouldn't have a voice in this, just pointing out that prohibition is dangerous. You can't hide the word gay from children, and denied knowledge often only serves to generate greater curiosity. I would hope some clinical information about how to be healthy and gay isn't asking too much of these fragile creatures, but perhaps heterosexuality is really hanging from a thread? Somehow I doubt that.
> For people who view LGBT as unhealthy sexual expression, the net effect feels a lot like "pushing homosexuality" on us.
I suppose it does. But if one of your children should happen to be gay, you've left no question, from what you've written, that you won't hesitate to push heterosexuality on them.
We care more about them finding a path to self-acceptance than we do about your prejudice.
I suppose it does. But if one of your children should happen to be gay, you've left no question, from what you've written, that you won't hesitate to push heterosexuality on them.
We care more about them finding a path to self-acceptance than we do about your prejudice.
> But if one of your children should happen to be gay, you've left no question, from what you've written, that you won't hesitate to push heterosexuality on them.
I doubt anyone can do anything to change a paraphilia; pushing normative sexuality on someone is unlikely to be productive.
But I don't think self-acceptance is a good goal either. There are many unhealthy things in each of us; we shouldn't accept them, but rather should fight against them. I'm naturally lazy; I like to eat a lot; I'm selfish; I talk over others—I have to struggle against each of those deficiencies.
I doubt anyone can do anything to change a paraphilia; pushing normative sexuality on someone is unlikely to be productive.
But I don't think self-acceptance is a good goal either. There are many unhealthy things in each of us; we shouldn't accept them, but rather should fight against them. I'm naturally lazy; I like to eat a lot; I'm selfish; I talk over others—I have to struggle against each of those deficiencies.
Consensual sex between adults is not harmful just because they happen to be the same sex.
If you don't like gay marriage, don't have one.
It's not that easy though. 'Marriage' has stopped meaning 'a lifelong union for the goal of producing and raising children, breakable only under certain very constrained circumstances, and therefore upon which spouses, children and society may rely as a foundation' and has started meaning 'legal recognition of the fact that two people currently enjoy one another's company and wanted to have a big party.'
Due to this change in society, it is difficult and becoming more so to marry in the older sense. The more people who adopt the latter meaning, the fewer will retain the older. And even those who think they do are inevitably influenced by the rest.
I don't care much more about two homosexuals claiming to have married one another than I do about someone claiming to be a prophet or the reincarnation of Galileo; what worries me is the continued removal of any meaning from marriage.
Due to this change in society, it is difficult and becoming more so to marry in the older sense. The more people who adopt the latter meaning, the fewer will retain the older. And even those who think they do are inevitably influenced by the rest.
I don't care much more about two homosexuals claiming to have married one another than I do about someone claiming to be a prophet or the reincarnation of Galileo; what worries me is the continued removal of any meaning from marriage.
Marriage becoming more like "legal recognition of the fact that two people currently enjoy one another's company and wanted to have a big party.", is nothing whatsoever to do with gay marriage. That social aspect has been picking up steam for centuries. You might as well blame 1960's Hollywood or even Henry VIII, for that one.
Also, the lifelong nuclear family is something that only really appeared after the wars. Pre-war there was no antibiotics and the rates of female death were so high that single parent families were much more common than they are today. If your worries about developments in marriage are that it will reduce the stability for the upbringing of children, I would like you to consider which eras you are choosing for comparison, as we are now living in an era that supports longer childhoods than seemingly at any other point in history.
edit - for the complaint that it is difficult to find more traditional people as spouses, may I point out that there are a number of other people who seem to be making that complaint. Presumably you could find their parental address, so that you can appear in person to make a formal request to their father to begin courting. Oh, and remember to bring some cattle.
Also, the lifelong nuclear family is something that only really appeared after the wars. Pre-war there was no antibiotics and the rates of female death were so high that single parent families were much more common than they are today. If your worries about developments in marriage are that it will reduce the stability for the upbringing of children, I would like you to consider which eras you are choosing for comparison, as we are now living in an era that supports longer childhoods than seemingly at any other point in history.
edit - for the complaint that it is difficult to find more traditional people as spouses, may I point out that there are a number of other people who seem to be making that complaint. Presumably you could find their parental address, so that you can appear in person to make a formal request to their father to begin courting. Oh, and remember to bring some cattle.
The "they" I was referring to is up a couple posts form mine. Namely: Disney and Coke.
What "lifestyle" is that, pray tell?
No. Next question, please--and try to make the next one far less stupid.
Voicing your disapproval causes real, actual, harm.
Frozen.
Had a Swedish guy (shop owner) living with another guy and they both had a bunch of kids. Described the other guy and kids as his "family."
See point #5 in this article's list: http://mic.com/articles/79455/7-moments-that-made-frozen-the...
Had a Swedish guy (shop owner) living with another guy and they both had a bunch of kids. Described the other guy and kids as his "family."
See point #5 in this article's list: http://mic.com/articles/79455/7-moments-that-made-frozen-the...
> Had a Swedish guy (shop owner) living with another guy and they both had a bunch of kids. Described the other guy and kids as his "family."
This is quite a stretch. As the father of a young child I have seen Frozen more times than I am proud to admit, and while it could be that the large man in the sauna is the shopkeeper's husband, he could just as easily be the shopkeeper's son, while the smaller woman in the scene is the shopkeeper's wife.
Even if you assume this to canonically be a gay relationship in a Disney movie (and it would, I suppose, be the first), it's a tiny throwaway moment in the life of a minor character which is easy to miss completely. This is hardly "taking a stand" as the grandparent post suggested.
This is quite a stretch. As the father of a young child I have seen Frozen more times than I am proud to admit, and while it could be that the large man in the sauna is the shopkeeper's husband, he could just as easily be the shopkeeper's son, while the smaller woman in the scene is the shopkeeper's wife.
Even if you assume this to canonically be a gay relationship in a Disney movie (and it would, I suppose, be the first), it's a tiny throwaway moment in the life of a minor character which is easy to miss completely. This is hardly "taking a stand" as the grandparent post suggested.
A minor throwaway moment in the life of a minor character is a huge improvement over the status quo of complete absence just a handful of years ago. There were gay characters in media, but most of them were walking stereotypes.
I've also had the dubious pleasure of watching that movie dozens of times with my daughter, it looks a lot like that character is just his son?
I haven't seen it.
The shopkeeper ahs a few lines and is on screen for a few minutes. The family is onscreen for perhaps one or two seconds. Certainly less than 5 seconds. There is absolutely no mention of the nature of the family in the film.
This is the example being used to show Disney is "progressive"? An ambiguous possibly gay family that gets less than 5 seconds screen time?
Saying that this miniscule gesture is hetter than nothing is missing the big point. It's the twenty first century - Disney should have had gay characters and even gay leads by mow.
And for all its progressiveness Frozen still has a scene where mental illness is linked to danger using stigmatising language.
This is the example being used to show Disney is "progressive"? An ambiguous possibly gay family that gets less than 5 seconds screen time?
Saying that this miniscule gesture is hetter than nothing is missing the big point. It's the twenty first century - Disney should have had gay characters and even gay leads by mow.
And for all its progressiveness Frozen still has a scene where mental illness is linked to danger using stigmatising language.
Unrelated clarification but, judging by the lutefisk, the shop owner is actually Norwegian and not Swedish.
Just a heads up so you don't make the mistake in less forgiving Scandinavian company next time ;-)
Just a heads up so you don't make the mistake in less forgiving Scandinavian company next time ;-)
What’s the differences between lutfish in Norway and Sweden? I’ve eaten it in southern Sweden with it presented to me as traditionally Swedish.
The main difference is that Swedes spell it Lutfisk and Norwegians Lutefisk. Lutfish is just as traditional and (un)popular in both Norway and Sweden, and as far as I can tell the base recipe is basically the same in both countries. The only difference between the regions are the condiments and side dishes it is served with.
I think Norwegians make it from cod, while Swedes (and we Finns) use ling.
I don't really watch Disney movies, but I do know that the Frozen soundtrack is the only Disney music I've ever heard playing in a London gay bar.
[deleted]
Yeah, what's the deal with your use of the loaded dog whistle term "agenda"? Listen to Fox News much?
And with your presumption that the answer you're likely to get on HN might be "handwavey nonsense"?
Or are you implying that Fantasia's Sorcerer and Micky Mouse are gay just because they wave their hands around to conjure up colorful butterflies, broomsticks, comets, waves and storm clouds?
And with your presumption that the answer you're likely to get on HN might be "handwavey nonsense"?
Or are you implying that Fantasia's Sorcerer and Micky Mouse are gay just because they wave their hands around to conjure up colorful butterflies, broomsticks, comets, waves and storm clouds?
I got the impression that DanBC's question was genuine, and meant the opposite of what you accuse him of implying.
People have been accusing Disney of "pushing the gay agenda" (negatively) for years -- but those same people have not been able to point to concrete examples of people with same-sex attraction, they've only been able to point to BS like Mickey Mouse having a high voice. Now in this thread people are suggesting Disney is "taking a stand" (positive phrasing of the same issue) -- but they still seem to be lacking concrete examples. It seems inappropriate to credit Disney for "taking a stand" (or to criticize them for "pushing an agenda") without being able to point to an unambiguous, romantically-involved same-sex couple.
I suspect DanBC is like me -- I'd like to see an unambiguous example before categorizing Disney as "taking a stand".
People have been accusing Disney of "pushing the gay agenda" (negatively) for years -- but those same people have not been able to point to concrete examples of people with same-sex attraction, they've only been able to point to BS like Mickey Mouse having a high voice. Now in this thread people are suggesting Disney is "taking a stand" (positive phrasing of the same issue) -- but they still seem to be lacking concrete examples. It seems inappropriate to credit Disney for "taking a stand" (or to criticize them for "pushing an agenda") without being able to point to an unambiguous, romantically-involved same-sex couple.
I suspect DanBC is like me -- I'd like to see an unambiguous example before categorizing Disney as "taking a stand".
Disney have been taking a stand for years now. There have been Christian boycotts of Disney for well over a decade, mainly because of their support for same-sex couples.
http://edition.cnn.com/US/9706/18/baptists.disney/
http://www.bpnews.net/11130
http://edition.cnn.com/US/9706/18/baptists.disney/
http://www.bpnews.net/11130
Not a recent cultural shift, but one that has been steadily making headway over a very long time. A recent tipping point, perhaps.
There is also the recent Android commercial as well!
>There are undoubtedly many people who will no longer purchase Apple products because of this
I disagree. First, I think it was widely assumed that he was gay, and if it wasn't, he was accidentally outed during a live TV broadcast a few months ago by a CNBC reporter [1]. Second, the people that think this way probably already avoid Apple products, as both Tim Cook and Apple have been vocal on gay rights for quite some time. Finally, the one thing that these kinds of people hate more than those that disagree with their worldview is being personally inconvenienced. If they're already invested in the Apple ecosystem and are used to the iOS UX, they're going to keep paying Tim Cook for a new device every year.
[1] http://video.cnbc.com/gallery/?video=3000288253 - about one minute in
I disagree. First, I think it was widely assumed that he was gay, and if it wasn't, he was accidentally outed during a live TV broadcast a few months ago by a CNBC reporter [1]. Second, the people that think this way probably already avoid Apple products, as both Tim Cook and Apple have been vocal on gay rights for quite some time. Finally, the one thing that these kinds of people hate more than those that disagree with their worldview is being personally inconvenienced. If they're already invested in the Apple ecosystem and are used to the iOS UX, they're going to keep paying Tim Cook for a new device every year.
[1] http://video.cnbc.com/gallery/?video=3000288253 - about one minute in
> I think it was widely assumed that he was gay
By who, Apple fanboys? Your average person probably doesn't even know who is Apple's current CEO let alone that he's gay.
By who, Apple fanboys? Your average person probably doesn't even know who is Apple's current CEO let alone that he's gay.
There were at least a couple of places where it was mentioned earlier this year (and it was kind of "known" in the past too).
Two links from April 2014: Out Magazine - http://www.out.com/out-exclusives/power-50/2014/04/15/what-d...
HuffPo (about the same) - http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/27/out-power-50-most-p...
Two links from April 2014: Out Magazine - http://www.out.com/out-exclusives/power-50/2014/04/15/what-d...
HuffPo (about the same) - http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/27/out-power-50-most-p...
You'd have to be a weirdly obsessive anti-gay to spend your spare time perusing Out magazine or lists of most influential homosexuals, though I suppose such people do exist and you'd also have to be pretty weirdly obsessive to refrain from purchasing from a corporation on account of the sexual orientation of a member of its management team.
I'm gay, politically aware, and posting on HN on a MacBook and had no idea, though frankly I also don't browse LGBT power lists.
I'm gay, politically aware, and posting on HN on a MacBook and had no idea, though frankly I also don't browse LGBT power lists.
I don't think so. I'm not the poster you were replying to, I don't care if he's gay, and I don't go read such lists either. The CNBC 'outing' came up either on my facebook trends or on HN, that's the only two ways I get news these days.
Tech media mainly.
Not just tech media - anyone who follows GLBT politics and rights assumed it too.
I had no idea whatsoever. I've never seen this clip before and that was totally an accidental outed.
I actually can think of one co-worker who might have some difficulty with this news today...
I actually can think of one co-worker who might have some difficulty with this news today...
I think the issue was that although Tim Cook was not secretive about being gay, he had never publicly spoken about it. The CNBC guy got a lot of flak, but as many mentioned, there are several other places where Cook was identified as a gay man before that clip, so the backlash was a little unfair. It can be awkward to differentiate between public knowledge and "open secrets" when someone hasn't officially come out.
Wow. That doesn't sound like an accident - you don't say someone "is fairly open about being gay" unless you're damn sure they are. What an unpleasant person.
Maybe he listened to NPR two weeks earlier and heard Melissa Block say on the air that Tim Cook was openly gay.
http://www.npr.org/2014/06/13/321778926/letters-the-world-cu...
http://www.npr.org/2014/06/13/321778926/letters-the-world-cu...
Outed is not the same as out.
If you heard the regular personality on NPR's "Here And Now" say that someone was openly gay, you would assume he was out.
That's where I learned it. I didn't know for a few weeks later that it was supposed to be a secret we didn't say.
That's where I learned it. I didn't know for a few weeks later that it was supposed to be a secret we didn't say.
I would wonder why I'd never heard it right from the only person qualified to say, find that he hadn't said it, and doubt the credibility of the person who reported it as true. But I also know what it's like to be afraid of being outed to people you're not out to, so maybe it's different if you don't have that fear.
I'd typically interpret "openly" as implying "out", though.
If your job was to blather on air day after day for however many hours you'd probably say a couple dumb things too. Everyone has "known" Tim Cook was gay forever so it's not a hard mistake to make.
How did everyone know? Or even, guess? I assume there are a few factors which generally correlate with being gay, such as never being seen dating a girl or trying to stick with gay fashions?
It's weird.
There once was a time where, if you were gay, or were close to people who were, you'd pick up hints about others who were gay. These hints would come from others who were gay, or gay-friendly. And they would be passed along like that.
As you moved closer to circles of power, you'd know more and more powerful people who were gay. But there was a code: you didn't bring it up publicly, or with outsiders. (Unless you wanted to be cruel.)
With this knowledge came power. You could read people and situations, understand hints and special relationships. It's a kind of x-ray vision.
But, if you were not gay, and were not close to people who were, you would be completely unaware. You might assume you didn't know anyone who was gay!
Such people were surprised when Rock Hudson (who everyone knew) was outed as gay just before he died of AIDS in 1985. They were surprised when other public figures were outed the same way, even (seriously!) "obvious" cases like Liberace.
We are now somewhere between that world (which was complex and had fascinating intrigues) and a different world (which is more open and fairer).
Source: before I met my wife, I didn't know anyone who was gay. But in fact, I was just ignorant that I already did.
There once was a time where, if you were gay, or were close to people who were, you'd pick up hints about others who were gay. These hints would come from others who were gay, or gay-friendly. And they would be passed along like that.
As you moved closer to circles of power, you'd know more and more powerful people who were gay. But there was a code: you didn't bring it up publicly, or with outsiders. (Unless you wanted to be cruel.)
With this knowledge came power. You could read people and situations, understand hints and special relationships. It's a kind of x-ray vision.
But, if you were not gay, and were not close to people who were, you would be completely unaware. You might assume you didn't know anyone who was gay!
Such people were surprised when Rock Hudson (who everyone knew) was outed as gay just before he died of AIDS in 1985. They were surprised when other public figures were outed the same way, even (seriously!) "obvious" cases like Liberace.
We are now somewhere between that world (which was complex and had fascinating intrigues) and a different world (which is more open and fairer).
Source: before I met my wife, I didn't know anyone who was gay. But in fact, I was just ignorant that I already did.
I knew because NPR told me. I knew he was gay before I knew it was supposed to be a secret, so if I were on that panel I would have said pretty much the same thing.
Hey, how awesome of you to drag stereotypes into this …
If you had read the article it should become quite clear to you why quite a few people knew and some people even wrote about it.
Since in general journalists will avoid to publish the sexual orientation of someone unless that person made public statements about it, most journalists just didn’t write about it. (I think that’s exactly the right guideline to follow. It is awesome when people come out to help others who are struggling, but this is still a personal decision and I don’t think journalists should make that decision for people. There should never be an obligation to come out.)
If you had read the article it should become quite clear to you why quite a few people knew and some people even wrote about it.
Since in general journalists will avoid to publish the sexual orientation of someone unless that person made public statements about it, most journalists just didn’t write about it. (I think that’s exactly the right guideline to follow. It is awesome when people come out to help others who are struggling, but this is still a personal decision and I don’t think journalists should make that decision for people. There should never be an obligation to come out.)
> Hey, how awesome of you to drag stereotypes into this ...
Is it criticism? Because if it is, it's misplaced. I did read the article. I am myself gay. According to the other answers, it seems it was known "in the scene". Do you mean everyone who's gay should either be in the scene or stop asking questions?
> it should become quite clear to you why quite a few people knew
It didn't become clear to me. Does that mean I don't get social clues? Does that mean I'm not fluent in English? Does that mean I miss a brain cell? People are different, we don't all understand things, so even if it seems unbelievable to you, please still answer the question.
Is it criticism? Because if it is, it's misplaced. I did read the article. I am myself gay. According to the other answers, it seems it was known "in the scene". Do you mean everyone who's gay should either be in the scene or stop asking questions?
> it should become quite clear to you why quite a few people knew
It didn't become clear to me. Does that mean I don't get social clues? Does that mean I'm not fluent in English? Does that mean I miss a brain cell? People are different, we don't all understand things, so even if it seems unbelievable to you, please still answer the question.
I knew because of all of the gay people who participated in a particular active social scene. It was common knowledge in that gay community, and had been since he took over at apple.
I never really questioned it, because... because it was common knowledge. No one ever mentioned that he wasn't out, so I wrongly assumed he was fully out until I heard about that newscaster who messed up.
I figured (wrongly) that the reason it was never mentioned publicly was because no one thought it was comment-worthy. I naively thought "oh good, look how far we've come".
I never really questioned it, because... because it was common knowledge. No one ever mentioned that he wasn't out, so I wrongly assumed he was fully out until I heard about that newscaster who messed up.
I figured (wrongly) that the reason it was never mentioned publicly was because no one thought it was comment-worthy. I naively thought "oh good, look how far we've come".
Well it was all over the media; I'm assuming through reports of people close to him?
That's a mistake but it should be a career limiting mistake nonetheless.
To me this is like saying if you've ever written a bug into production software it should be career-limiting.
A more apt comparison would be to accidentally reveal a hidden feature of your application to the public.
It's apt because it's a small mistake with potentially bad consequences that is just an inevitable result of the work.
Disclosures of that nature are not at the same order as writing bugs into production software.
Except a bug in production software can disclose that same thing, except on a much more massive scale than a human? Almost any mistake a human can make can be translated into software and expanded by many magnitudes with a software bug.
[deleted]
True - writing bugs into production software can be far, far worse. For example, leaking patient health information from a medical database.
I disagree, which is why I chose that analogy.
It is interesting to read this. Not that I have any evidence, but I was under the impression that Apple was already more attractive to the gay community than the other companies...I would not be surprise if this will increase this section of their target market.
Apple, Google, and Microsoft all rank very high as inclusive companies, along with many of the big tech companies. When it comes to buying phones and other gadgets, from my circle of friends, the gay community is pretty much aligned with the general population in terms of the mix of choices. While we're happy to see a CEO be openly gay, it's not going to change our buying habits.
I guess I could be wrong, but I know I certainly won't to exchange my Xperia Z3 for an iPhone just because Cook came out.
I guess I could be wrong, but I know I certainly won't to exchange my Xperia Z3 for an iPhone just because Cook came out.
If some people don't want to buy Apple products because of this, that would be a foolish choice. What may be worse than that would be some people trying to color everything Apple makes with this background and attempting to denigrate the products with "jokes" that aren't.
Where are you getting "There are undoubtedly many people who will no longer purchase Apple products because of this, and I don't know society can fix this with anything but time." from ?
Very uplifting viewpoint.
Far too many need to believe that people won't buy the products because of his sexuality to bolster their own feelings of superiority than would actually not buy the products. Looking the anti-religious zealotry within this thread is evident of that, far too many just believe the worst in others because they are themselves too bigoted/closeminded to think otherwise.
This made me well up inside. Being from a country that considers homosexuality to be illegal (India) and having a close friend who left that country as well as his religion (Islam) solely due to being gay, I applaud this man's spirit.
It is not only the government that must accept equality of different ways, but so must society. Religion, culture and political climates are no reason to deny fundamental human freedoms - the right to have consensual sex with the people of your choice being one of them. Amazing that the one thing that we hold up as a pinnacle of political theory - democracy - is the one that keeps many minorities from exercising their rights. I am sure, for example, that a referendum on Article 377 would fail in most small Indian towns. Someone correct me if I am wrong.
I hope that prominent Indians take this up as well (there are at least a couple of Bollywood directors who are rumoured to be gay as well as at least one business tycoon) and come out of the closet.
Certainly Article 377 is bad and so was the Supreme Court judgement ("[only] 200 people" being the nadir, see http://www.outlookindia.com/article/The-Unbearable-Wrongness...), but given that people still have issues with religious, caste, same-gotra, etc marriage, might not India have to tackle those first?
Tim Cook faces 2 years in jail in Singapore if he has activity even in a private room.
Three days ago, the Court of Appeal has just judged the law was conform to the constitution, because everyone is guaranteed equal rights no matter their sex, race or religion, and this doesn't include sexuality.
The Straits Times: http://www.straitstimes.com/news/singapore/courts-crime/stor...
The original judgement: https://s3.amazonaws.com/s3.documentcloud.org/documents/1348...
Three days ago, the Court of Appeal has just judged the law was conform to the constitution, because everyone is guaranteed equal rights no matter their sex, race or religion, and this doesn't include sexuality.
The Straits Times: http://www.straitstimes.com/news/singapore/courts-crime/stor...
The original judgement: https://s3.amazonaws.com/s3.documentcloud.org/documents/1348...
Performing a sexual act is a conscious behavior, wilfully chosen by the participants (except in cases of rape, which is not relevant to this discussion). Law is meant to regulate behaviors. It's valid to make sexual acts illegal. It doesn't violate non-discrimination rights because wilful participation by any person is just as illegal as participation by any other person. Laws that say "this is legal for people with this involuntary attribute but illegal for people with a different involuntary attribute" are discriminatory. If they say "sexual activity with a person of the same sex is illegal", it's equally illegal for everyone, regardless of that person's unchangeable, involuntarily physical attributes. Saying some people can do something (like "only white people can engage in sexual activity with a person of the same sex") while others can't is discriminatory. Making something illegal for everyone is not. It's just normal lawmaking.
We may disagree with Singapore and think that most sexual acts shouldn't be illegal. But how can we go around saying law can't regulate behavior? This is one of my big problems with the gay "rights" lobby of today -- they're trying to make it illegal to legislate basically anything. If you disagree with the law, change the law, don't codify sweeping generalizations that set a precedent of "I was born this way and I can't control it" as an excuse for any illegal behavior.
Only the most basic principles are protected by things like the American Bill of Rights, and the specific behavior must be tested by the courts to see if it conforms to the principles enshrined as fundamental rights.
We may disagree with Singapore and think that most sexual acts shouldn't be illegal. But how can we go around saying law can't regulate behavior? This is one of my big problems with the gay "rights" lobby of today -- they're trying to make it illegal to legislate basically anything. If you disagree with the law, change the law, don't codify sweeping generalizations that set a precedent of "I was born this way and I can't control it" as an excuse for any illegal behavior.
Only the most basic principles are protected by things like the American Bill of Rights, and the specific behavior must be tested by the courts to see if it conforms to the principles enshrined as fundamental rights.
I think your logic is good, but your application is lacking. Same-sex "sexual activity" is not what has been outlawed in Singapore. There is no law that fits the description you have outlined and it is essentially a straw-man argument.
The law that exists states explicitly that anal and oral sex, only between members of the same sex, is illegal. Both of these acts have been specifically made legal for a heterosexual pair.
The only difference between these two scenarios? The gender of one participant. A woman may receive anal sex from a man, but a man may not. Discrimination based on gender.
The law that exists states explicitly that anal and oral sex, only between members of the same sex, is illegal. Both of these acts have been specifically made legal for a heterosexual pair.
The only difference between these two scenarios? The gender of one participant. A woman may receive anal sex from a man, but a man may not. Discrimination based on gender.
> Same sex sexual activity is not what has been outlawed in Singapore
Besides that I generally approve your comment, let's quote the section that was judged by the Court of Appeal 3 days ago as conform to the constitution:
""" Article 377A
Any male person who, in public or in private, commits, or abets the commission of, or procures or attempts to procure the commission by any male person of, any act of gross indecency with another male person, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 2 years.
"""
Besides that I generally approve your comment, let's quote the section that was judged by the Court of Appeal 3 days ago as conform to the constitution:
""" Article 377A
Any male person who, in public or in private, commits, or abets the commission of, or procures or attempts to procure the commission by any male person of, any act of gross indecency with another male person, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 2 years.
"""
Only the most basic principles are protected by things like the American Bill of Rights
"No troops quartered in your house", "you get a jury trial if it involves more than $X", and "powers not taken by the feds are granted to the states" don't seem like 'basic principles' to me. They seem a bit more complex and somewhat arbitrary.
"No troops quartered in your house", "you get a jury trial if it involves more than $X", and "powers not taken by the feds are granted to the states" don't seem like 'basic principles' to me. They seem a bit more complex and somewhat arbitrary.
You see, I'm upset when someone uses some law to forbid what seems normal to me, but this would be subjective. And I agree with you for the major trait of your discourse: To each country, their customs and laws, provided it was legally decided by the People. So it's quite on purpose that I kept my comment strictly apolitical... however clearly opinionated:
I didn't say the Singaporean law is stupid or retarded. I'm underlining the huge leap.
It's up to the reader really to forge an opinion. Let's not forget that Singapore is a very developed country, has major exchanges with our other countries of the western world, include trade, research, patents, high-educated migrants both ways and we have influence both ways. And yet, they don't guarantee some citizenship rights (aka: immediate arrestation and 2 years jail time) on the basis of what you would do in a private room between two consenting adults. Up to the reader to make an opinion.
I didn't say the Singaporean law is stupid or retarded. I'm underlining the huge leap.
It's up to the reader really to forge an opinion. Let's not forget that Singapore is a very developed country, has major exchanges with our other countries of the western world, include trade, research, patents, high-educated migrants both ways and we have influence both ways. And yet, they don't guarantee some citizenship rights (aka: immediate arrestation and 2 years jail time) on the basis of what you would do in a private room between two consenting adults. Up to the reader to make an opinion.
I think the proponents of same sex marriage would respond that what they are trying to do is not prevent the government from regulating behavior (which, as you say, is the essence of lawmaking), but prevent the government from treating persons in same sex relationships differently from persons in opposite sex relationships. The key question is whether the government can discriminate based on sexual orientation.
In the U.S., the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment prohibits a state from denying any person "the equal protection of the laws." This would appear to forbid discrimination based on any characteristic at all. Of course, governments make distinctions based on people's characteristics all the time. These range from the mundane (persons with poor vision can be required to wear corrective lenses while driving) to the highly consequential (American citizens of Japanese ancestry can be interred during a war against Japan).
The history of the Equal Protection Clause, then, is a long and messy process of sorting out what kinds of discrimination are permissible and what aren't. And there has been a lot of movement, especially during last few decades. Consider that during the lifetime of George Takei, the EPC was interpreted to permit the internment of his family (Korematsu v. United States, 1944) and giving him the right (in California) to marry his husband of the same sex (Hollingsworth v. Perry, 2013).
The current standard is that that you can discriminate on a basis other than certain "suspect" classifications if the discrimination is reasonably related to a legitimate government interest.
In the recent Windsor case, the Supreme Court concluded that the federal Defense of Marriage Act failed to meet even that minimal standard. Many lower courts have invalidated state same sex marriage bans on the same basis.
You can argue that it is the place of the legislature to decide what classifications it can use in lawmaking, but that raises two problems. First, the clause is part of the Constitution and it must impose some limit on the power of state legislatures, and there needs to be a process for interpreting what that limit is. Second, history has shown that the political process doesn't always protect unpopular minorities (though there are also good arguments that courts are not that much better).
In the U.S., the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment prohibits a state from denying any person "the equal protection of the laws." This would appear to forbid discrimination based on any characteristic at all. Of course, governments make distinctions based on people's characteristics all the time. These range from the mundane (persons with poor vision can be required to wear corrective lenses while driving) to the highly consequential (American citizens of Japanese ancestry can be interred during a war against Japan).
The history of the Equal Protection Clause, then, is a long and messy process of sorting out what kinds of discrimination are permissible and what aren't. And there has been a lot of movement, especially during last few decades. Consider that during the lifetime of George Takei, the EPC was interpreted to permit the internment of his family (Korematsu v. United States, 1944) and giving him the right (in California) to marry his husband of the same sex (Hollingsworth v. Perry, 2013).
The current standard is that that you can discriminate on a basis other than certain "suspect" classifications if the discrimination is reasonably related to a legitimate government interest.
In the recent Windsor case, the Supreme Court concluded that the federal Defense of Marriage Act failed to meet even that minimal standard. Many lower courts have invalidated state same sex marriage bans on the same basis.
You can argue that it is the place of the legislature to decide what classifications it can use in lawmaking, but that raises two problems. First, the clause is part of the Constitution and it must impose some limit on the power of state legislatures, and there needs to be a process for interpreting what that limit is. Second, history has shown that the political process doesn't always protect unpopular minorities (though there are also good arguments that courts are not that much better).
I wonder how carefully crafted this line was:
... I consider being gay among the greatest gifts God has given me.
I guess it depends on how you look at it. He's a "son of the South" and a self-described religious man, so this makes sense.
But this also makes sense from a PR perspective because according to American political polls being an atheist is "worse" than being black, gay, a women, etc. It's apparently largely unforgivable to be godless.
So, some may be surprised to learn he's gay, but then take some solace in the fact that he still praises the same god they do. In a way this is the perfect way to assuage the exact audience this revelation might offend because, you know, God loves all his children.
This really won't be a big deal. Some extreme groups will make some noise, but that's about it. I was in the Marine Corps when they repealed Don't Ask, Don't Tell. Everyone thought it'd be a big deal. They repealed it...nobody cared.
But this also makes sense from a PR perspective because according to American political polls being an atheist is "worse" than being black, gay, a women, etc. It's apparently largely unforgivable to be godless.
So, some may be surprised to learn he's gay, but then take some solace in the fact that he still praises the same god they do. In a way this is the perfect way to assuage the exact audience this revelation might offend because, you know, God loves all his children.
This really won't be a big deal. Some extreme groups will make some noise, but that's about it. I was in the Marine Corps when they repealed Don't Ask, Don't Tell. Everyone thought it'd be a big deal. They repealed it...nobody cared.
I've never come across a poll that asks, "Which of these do you consider worst: being gay, black, female, or atheist?" but I doubt the answer to a question like that would be useful anyway.
I'm a little amused by you guys trying to work out all the "PR" angles Cook could be trying to exploit by mentioning his faith without even considering that it's is a genuinely important part of who he is.
I'm a little amused by you guys trying to work out all the "PR" angles Cook could be trying to exploit by mentioning his faith without even considering that it's is a genuinely important part of who he is.
Per your first paragraph, they usually frame it as, "Would you vote for a candidate with the following background:" as a way to gauge personal feelings on a matter.
A Gallup one recently: http://www.gallup.com/poll/155285/atheists-muslims-bias-pres...
A Gallup one recently: http://www.gallup.com/poll/155285/atheists-muslims-bias-pres...
Those, I've seen. But saying you wouldn't vote for a presidential candidate who is atheist is a lot different than saying that it's "unforgivable" to be atheist, or that atheists are worse than blacks, gays, and women.
Maybe I'm just being pedantic but I don't think a poll about how people would vote for the president is a good indicator of how people feel about atheists in comparison to other groups of people. I don't even think the latter is quantifiable.
Maybe I'm just being pedantic but I don't think a poll about how people would vote for the president is a good indicator of how people feel about atheists in comparison to other groups of people. I don't even think the latter is quantifiable.
> Maybe I'm just being pedantic but I don't think a poll about how people would vote for the president is a good indicator of how people feel about atheists in comparison to other groups of people. I don't even think the latter is quantifiable.
People have tried in comparison to other religions:
http://www.pewforum.org/2014/07/16/how-americans-feel-about-...
And:
http://www.people-press.org/2014/06/12/section-3-political-p...
People have tried in comparison to other religions:
http://www.pewforum.org/2014/07/16/how-americans-feel-about-...
And:
http://www.people-press.org/2014/06/12/section-3-political-p...
Not particularly. Religious people frame things in religious terms.
I'm an atheist and a gay man. I think being gay is a good thing in my life. That is to say, if there were a pill I could take that would turn me straight, I wouldn't take it.
Despite harassment and discrimination (which still happens, even in happy tolerant cities like London—most recent incident, 3 weeks ago, someone shouting "queers!" out of the window while I was walking down the street late at night holding hands with a guy), the point is that in spite of huge amounts of cultural and religious programming to the opposite, a lot of gay people have found themselves embracing their sexuality and considering it not just a not-bad thing but an actively good thing in their life.
That's what Cook is getting at: that sentiment can be expressed in secular terms (like I just have) or in religious terms.
I'm an atheist and a gay man. I think being gay is a good thing in my life. That is to say, if there were a pill I could take that would turn me straight, I wouldn't take it.
Despite harassment and discrimination (which still happens, even in happy tolerant cities like London—most recent incident, 3 weeks ago, someone shouting "queers!" out of the window while I was walking down the street late at night holding hands with a guy), the point is that in spite of huge amounts of cultural and religious programming to the opposite, a lot of gay people have found themselves embracing their sexuality and considering it not just a not-bad thing but an actively good thing in their life.
That's what Cook is getting at: that sentiment can be expressed in secular terms (like I just have) or in religious terms.
An odd thing to slip in? He is, as far as I've gathered, a deeply religious gay man. If his point is to imply those things are not at odds, then I don't think this sentence's inclusion is odd at all.
Gay people aren't stereotypes who fit into one mold. I used to live next to a gay couple who were the among most conservative people I've ever met. I think that's the exact point of the sentence, to say "we're not all the same; it's just one thing about me" without sounding like an angsty teenager.
That said, it wasn't exactly a secret that Tim Cook is gay. Though it was always handled as more of a "this is something that can inform your understanding of him as a business leader" as opposed to "omg it's a scandal! He's gay and running the biggest company in the world!" His sexuality is probably a bigger deal among Alabama boosters than the tech community though.
That said, it wasn't exactly a secret that Tim Cook is gay. Though it was always handled as more of a "this is something that can inform your understanding of him as a business leader" as opposed to "omg it's a scandal! He's gay and running the biggest company in the world!" His sexuality is probably a bigger deal among Alabama boosters than the tech community though.
Er, why? Because it conflicts with other people's opinions of what God values? Hate to say this, but religious people say things of the general form "I consider X among the greatest gifts God has given me" (or something with similar meaning) where X conflicts with the view of God's priorities held by some other religious people all the time.
That jarred me too.
I recently spoke to some gay religious people and it struck me as very odd. I'm biased, of course. I tend to think religion gets far more forgiveness than it deserves in a huge number of contexts. It was interesting though, in a bunch of ways.
When I hear a statement like this it makes me think of Africans converting to Mormonism or Jews joining European far right movements. I realize that there are perspectives through which this is not contradictory. Mormonism had views of Africans that only lagged behind mainstream opinions by a decade or two. The far right parties are more interested in Islam or African migration these days…
Still, I can't help it. It give me the heebie jeebies.
I recently spoke to some gay religious people and it struck me as very odd. I'm biased, of course. I tend to think religion gets far more forgiveness than it deserves in a huge number of contexts. It was interesting though, in a bunch of ways.
When I hear a statement like this it makes me think of Africans converting to Mormonism or Jews joining European far right movements. I realize that there are perspectives through which this is not contradictory. Mormonism had views of Africans that only lagged behind mainstream opinions by a decade or two. The far right parties are more interested in Islam or African migration these days…
Still, I can't help it. It give me the heebie jeebies.
I recently read an article in English talking about homophobia being widespread in Russia "despite the Russians having lived through the progressive social experiment of communism".
Calling it a "progressive social experiment" gives it far more forgiveness than it deserves in my opinion...
From which I conclude that it's easy to forgive when we basically like the idea/movement/etc., and easy to see undeserved forgiveness when we basically dislike it.
Calling it a "progressive social experiment" gives it far more forgiveness than it deserves in my opinion...
From which I conclude that it's easy to forgive when we basically like the idea/movement/etc., and easy to see undeserved forgiveness when we basically dislike it.
I agree.
I think there's a related point though where socialism or any political ideology never really got near religion: becoming part of people's identity. People without a shred of personal beliefs nearer to Catholic cannon than to Protestantism or secular perspectives will continue thinking of themselves as Catholic.
If you are Catholic it's easier to forgive Catholicism than it is to forgive The Church. Nationalist creed (I am French or American) is the only thing that comes close.
I think there's also a taboo about criticizing people's religious identity and by extension their religion that was learned many wars. Stalinism is publicly criticized in a ways that Christianity or Islam would never be.
But regarding this comment, it's the personal level that gets me. Homosexuals place in 2014 was achieved despite objection and obstruction of the overwhelming majority of our religious institutions and text. They are now partially and begrudgingly coming around to where the public already is. They are being patted on the back for any lukewarm embrace of homosexuals. Gays taking them back is offensive to me. It's like a wife embracing an abusive husband that almost killed her when he gets out on parol.
I think there's a related point though where socialism or any political ideology never really got near religion: becoming part of people's identity. People without a shred of personal beliefs nearer to Catholic cannon than to Protestantism or secular perspectives will continue thinking of themselves as Catholic.
If you are Catholic it's easier to forgive Catholicism than it is to forgive The Church. Nationalist creed (I am French or American) is the only thing that comes close.
I think there's also a taboo about criticizing people's religious identity and by extension their religion that was learned many wars. Stalinism is publicly criticized in a ways that Christianity or Islam would never be.
But regarding this comment, it's the personal level that gets me. Homosexuals place in 2014 was achieved despite objection and obstruction of the overwhelming majority of our religious institutions and text. They are now partially and begrudgingly coming around to where the public already is. They are being patted on the back for any lukewarm embrace of homosexuals. Gays taking them back is offensive to me. It's like a wife embracing an abusive husband that almost killed her when he gets out on parol.
I would agree with you but only when you look at religion from a broad perspective. If you actually speak to people who are religious you will quickly find that there are a lot of things they don't believe or follow in their religion. Eventually religions catch up, although that takes too long (similar to how laws often take too long to catch up to what most people do and think should be legal).
I think the key is that the 'fundamental' people you often hear about that think 'homosexuality is an abomination' are a small minority. The people who are fine with it usually aren't seen on the news because their opinion isn't inflammatory.
I think the key is that the 'fundamental' people you often hear about that think 'homosexuality is an abomination' are a small minority. The people who are fine with it usually aren't seen on the news because their opinion isn't inflammatory.
Tim Cook is a Christian. This is a message to the Church.
I have a hard time thinking of anyone as Christian if they ignore the basic tenants of what the Bible says. Homosexuality is very clearly spelled out as wrong. So are plenty of other things of course and the Bible doesn't specify homosexual behavior as any more or less wrong than any other sinful act. Christians shouldn't be treating homosexuals any different than anyone else, but that includes letting people know that God views that behavior as sin.
Millions of Christians don't take the Bible as the literal word of God. Several Christian churches have no problem with blessing the marriage of gay couples.
A Christian is just someone who believes in Jesus Christ as a messiah. You are referring to something much more specific.
A Christian is just someone who believes in Jesus Christ as a messiah. You are referring to something much more specific.
A christian is someone that believes in the teachings of Jesus Christ, namely salvation and sanctification. We come to salvation by believing Jesus Christ is God and his teachings are absolute, and that he is the Word of God, the Bible. We come to sanctification by striving daily to know God more, which happens through the indwelling Holy Spirit we receive during salvation and happens by reading and applying the Word of God in our soul, and then outwardly through our body.
Being homosexual or lusting after a women in your mind are equally damning, but rejecting these thoughts and actions and leaving them at the Cross is the message of the Bible.
Being homosexual or lusting after a women in your mind are equally damning, but rejecting these thoughts and actions and leaving them at the Cross is the message of the Bible.
Lots, possibly most Christians, consider the bible to be a heavily edited political work containing aspects of revelation. Some Christians explicitly deny the bible as a historical work and even go as far as to refuse to base their beliefs on the idea that Jesus had to exist, Jefferson being a notable example. For my money, I am in agreement with him that Paul's stuff shouldn't be trusted as far as you could throw it, but then I am not a Christian.
All the words attributed to Jesus about the sinfulness of homosexuality:
""
Do you mean millions of Christians don't take the Bible as the word of god? Because "If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death" (Leviticus 20:13) doesn't seem to leave the place for a non-literal interpretation which would not condemn gay sex (without some serious mind bending).
Yes, erase the word "literal" from my comment and I still stand by it.
Drawing pictures of things god has made and especially using them religiously is spelled out very clearly as wrong, repeatedly and at length, but the Christians often represent themselves with drawings of a fish and keep drawing pictures of Jesus simply everywhere:
"You shall not make for yourself an image in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below."
However you can rape the wives of your defeated enemies after battle, which the vast majority of Christians would find horrifying:
"When you go to war against your enemies and the LORD your God delivers them into your hands and you take captives,
if you notice among the captives a beautiful woman and are attracted to her, you may take her as your wife.
Bring her into your home and have her shave her head, trim her nails
and put aside the clothes she was wearing when captured. After she has lived in your house and mourned her father and mother for a full month, then you may go to her and be her husband and she shall be your wife.
If you are not pleased with her, let her go wherever she wishes. You must not sell her or treat her as a slave, since you have dishonored her."
There's a lot of basic tenets of the bible that Christians ignore. Wearing mixed fibers, eating shellfish, donkeys and oxen co-working in agriculture.
If you go by basic tenets of the bible, most Christians don't seem to even know what they all are, let alone follow them.
"You shall not make for yourself an image in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below."
However you can rape the wives of your defeated enemies after battle, which the vast majority of Christians would find horrifying:
"When you go to war against your enemies and the LORD your God delivers them into your hands and you take captives,
if you notice among the captives a beautiful woman and are attracted to her, you may take her as your wife.
Bring her into your home and have her shave her head, trim her nails
and put aside the clothes she was wearing when captured. After she has lived in your house and mourned her father and mother for a full month, then you may go to her and be her husband and she shall be your wife.
If you are not pleased with her, let her go wherever she wishes. You must not sell her or treat her as a slave, since you have dishonored her."
There's a lot of basic tenets of the bible that Christians ignore. Wearing mixed fibers, eating shellfish, donkeys and oxen co-working in agriculture.
If you go by basic tenets of the bible, most Christians don't seem to even know what they all are, let alone follow them.
Let me add a refrain to your hyperbole by saying that I too am shocked that Christians do not practice Old Testament Jewish customs.
The Calvinists during the reformation were not chipping faces off statues just for shits and giggles. Old testament teachings such as practicing iconoclasm, have been a regular feature of many Christian denominations. And fire and brimstone preachers still regularly preach Deuteronomy and Leviticus from pulpits in Christian churches. The idea that Christianity can disown the old testament is frankly ridiculous, apart from in those sects where they no longer preach from it.
> I have a hard time thinking of anyone as Christian if they ignore the basic tenants of what the Bible says.
You can be an adulterer and a Christian. You can commit any sin imaginable and still consider yourself a Christian. Homosexuality is no different.
You can be an adulterer and a Christian. You can commit any sin imaginable and still consider yourself a Christian. Homosexuality is no different.
There is a difference though between commiting a sin then admitting you were wrong and actively promoting a lifestyle that espouses sin. I'd have the same problem with an adulterer who didn't think that their adultery was wrong. In one case, someone messed up - in the other someone is actually ignoring the bible entirely.
The Quakers are clearly a Christian denomination, but here in the UK at least, they have been holding same-sex marriages since before it was legal and are one of the groups who forced the law change. Partly as it caused the legal theories against it that were based on respecting religious belief to become hopelessly muddled. It became very hard to argue that the law was upholding Christian rights on the definition of marriage while not recognising marriages being held by Quakers.
I wouldn't say they were ignoring it entirely. Rather, perhaps they were choosing to ignore the parts that they consider outdated and ludicrous (such as the calls to marry in-laws, or stone people for things), and instead consider their "Christian"-ness to be derived from a more forgiving perspective of a certain rabbi who advised people to love their neighbor.
You can believe the christianity idea of "God" but not in the bible as its "word" at the same time. In fact, you can believe in anything at all and still talk about "God". An it would be still valid.
in Leviticus 18:25, Man laying with another Man is an "abomination".
right before that, in Leviticus 18:19, "'Do not approach a woman to have sexual relations during the uncleanness of her monthly period."
and right before that, in Leviticus 17:15, "'Anyone, whether native-born or foreigner, who eats anything found dead or torn by wild animals must wash their clothes and bathe with water, and they will be ceremonially unclean till evening; then they will be clean."
and my Favorite, Leviticus 19:19 (one page after homosexuality): 'Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material."
That Cotton-Polyester blend you're wearing? You might as well be having gay sex, as far as The LORD is concerned. All of the above are hellworthy trespasses.
so with the above in mind, everyone is ignoring the basic tenants of what the bible says. Therefore, using your logic, you must have a hard time viewing just about anyone as Christian.
right before that, in Leviticus 18:19, "'Do not approach a woman to have sexual relations during the uncleanness of her monthly period."
and right before that, in Leviticus 17:15, "'Anyone, whether native-born or foreigner, who eats anything found dead or torn by wild animals must wash their clothes and bathe with water, and they will be ceremonially unclean till evening; then they will be clean."
and my Favorite, Leviticus 19:19 (one page after homosexuality): 'Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material."
That Cotton-Polyester blend you're wearing? You might as well be having gay sex, as far as The LORD is concerned. All of the above are hellworthy trespasses.
so with the above in mind, everyone is ignoring the basic tenants of what the bible says. Therefore, using your logic, you must have a hard time viewing just about anyone as Christian.
One can ignore the Old Testament in its entirety and still be a Christian who believes being gay is wrong - it is addressed, albeit briefly, in the New Testament.
Yeah, but they were straight people who god deliberately turned gay for committing the sin of idolatry, so being gay wasn't the sin but the punishment for having a great art collection.
"For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened.
Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like a mortal human being and birds and animals and reptiles.
Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another.
They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.
Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones.
In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error."
"For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened.
Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like a mortal human being and birds and animals and reptiles.
Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another.
They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.
Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones.
In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error."
That is but one passage. Others in the New Testament do in fact include "lechery with men" in the same category as murder.
Alongside lechery with men and a few variations of murder, they also include all other types of lechery, along with lying, adultery and impiety.
Though this category in Corinthians is about who will not inherit the kingdom of god, and then in Timothy it is describing who the law is written for, so in either case it is not distinguishing categories of sins, but merely listing them.
Elsewhere in Paul, homosexuality is equated with the greedy, the sexually immoral, thieves, drunks, slanderers, idolators and swindlers, but makes no mention of murderers.
edit - the passage in Corinthians is also interesting as it is in the context of a wider passage banning recourse to civil law in secular courts between believers.
Though this category in Corinthians is about who will not inherit the kingdom of god, and then in Timothy it is describing who the law is written for, so in either case it is not distinguishing categories of sins, but merely listing them.
Elsewhere in Paul, homosexuality is equated with the greedy, the sexually immoral, thieves, drunks, slanderers, idolators and swindlers, but makes no mention of murderers.
edit - the passage in Corinthians is also interesting as it is in the context of a wider passage banning recourse to civil law in secular courts between believers.
>That Cotton-Polyester blend you're wearing? You might as well be having gay sex, as far as The LORD is concerned.
That's a pretty intense bastardization of biblical theology. It's fun to snicker and say things like that but your logical gymnastics are quite embarrassing to those who understand the correlation between Christ, the Old Testament, and covenant theology.
That's a pretty intense bastardization of biblical theology. It's fun to snicker and say things like that but your logical gymnastics are quite embarrassing to those who understand the correlation between Christ, the Old Testament, and covenant theology.
I invite everyone to read Leviticus and not laugh at the things that are hell-worthy. They shouldn't take my, your, or any other logical gymnastics as their opinion; reading the book is sufficient to determine how insane these trespasses really are.
But speaking to the correleation between Jesus and the Old Testament, everyone should also read Isaiah 52:13 through 54. This is the savior foretold in the old testament, and where matthew/john/paul/ringo draw most of their confirmation of Jesus' credentials. Does this sound like the Jesus we all know?
But speaking to the correleation between Jesus and the Old Testament, everyone should also read Isaiah 52:13 through 54. This is the savior foretold in the old testament, and where matthew/john/paul/ringo draw most of their confirmation of Jesus' credentials. Does this sound like the Jesus we all know?
Point is, the bible states some crazy absurd things that Christians have to ignore because they are confusing at best and disgusting at worst.
You can't explain these passages. No one can:
http://www.evilbible.com/Evil%20Bible%20Quotes.htm
It's funny that there's no moral imperative for christians to stone people who have touched women on their periods, yet there is some sort of moral imperative to let gay people know they are sinning.
Also, how does Red Lobster do so well in the south, let alone pork products...
Also, how does Red Lobster do so well in the south, let alone pork products...
"I have hard time thinking of anyone as an IOS engineer if they ignore the basics tenants of what Apple documentation states. XYZ is very clearly spelled out as unsafe."
To be fair as an iOS engineer, I'd appreciate it if more people read the HIG, and considered why things like UIAlertViews are discouraged. :)
And there are members of the Church who experience same-sex attraction but strive for a life of chastity, who have a powerful message for those who long to "move beyond the confines of the homosexual label to a more complete identity in Christ."
See, for example, Tina's, Jonah's and Blake's testimonies:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cA4gpJUpvpc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PbAqzGsjl30
Those videos are featured by the Courage apostolate:
http://couragerc.org/courage/#testimonies
This comment is not intended to be inflammatory; my intention is simply to share an alternate perspective.
See, for example, Tina's, Jonah's and Blake's testimonies:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cA4gpJUpvpc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PbAqzGsjl30
Those videos are featured by the Courage apostolate:
http://couragerc.org/courage/#testimonies
This comment is not intended to be inflammatory; my intention is simply to share an alternate perspective.
And there are members of the Church who experience heterosexual attraction but strive for a life of chastity, who have a powerful message for those who long to "move beyond the confines of all labels to a more complete identity in Christ."
And fair play to them if it is what they believe.
It doesn't work for everyone though, as is eminently obvious if you look to scandals over the years across all religious groups who swear selected members to chastity.
And fair play to them if it is what they believe.
It doesn't work for everyone though, as is eminently obvious if you look to scandals over the years across all religious groups who swear selected members to chastity.
And is Southern as well - From Alabama. Big church influence down there.
Indeed there is. Did not know Tim was from Alabama though, represent!
He went to Auburn
Well, that would explain why Apple's been headed down the tubes since he took over.
Indeed, the mark of a well thought out and carefully crafted message that's not just personal, but also about necessary PR.
If that's what it takes to get people on-board this generation, I don't mind. But I hope lines like that can be omitted one day. Doesn't it just look incredibly silly?
If that's what it takes to get people on-board this generation, I don't mind. But I hope lines like that can be omitted one day. Doesn't it just look incredibly silly?
>Indeed, the mark of a well thought out and carefully crafted message that's not just personal, but also about necessary PR.
If that's what it takes to get people on-board this generation, I don't mind. But I hope lines like that can be omitted one day. Doesn't it just look incredibly silly?
Maybe he didn't want to omit it. Maybe it's not PR, but instead his actual feelings. Maybe he is religious. So, it's all cool and all that he's gay (which it is), but he mentions God and now you're all "Why can't he just keep that to himself?"
That seems a little hypocritical to me.
Maybe he didn't want to omit it. Maybe it's not PR, but instead his actual feelings. Maybe he is religious. So, it's all cool and all that he's gay (which it is), but he mentions God and now you're all "Why can't he just keep that to himself?"
That seems a little hypocritical to me.
He's saying he hopes one day it's not a culturally jarring thing to say "I'm gay and I'm religious." That should just be normal and accepted.
Or maybe that one day it will no longer be necessary to follow "I'm gay" or "the earth revolves around the sun" with "...but don't worry, there exists an interpretation of your ancient books according to which I would still be compliant with the commands of your God!"
He's a religious man. It wasn't "slipped in". Read the following sentences. Brilliant.
The fact that various kinds of people will consider it an odd thing to say is probably just the reason why Cook went out of his way to say it.
I admit I am enjoying watching people try to wrap their heads around the idea that a gay techie ceo could be religious.
The world has a wide range of people, and they don't fit into neat little boxes.
The world has a wide range of people, and they don't fit into neat little boxes.
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 …
Jesus Christ, atheists are the worst (as can be seen here in this thread). And I say that as an atheist …
I hate to "me too" this comment, but I agree. I don't even tell people I'm an atheist anymore so as not to be associated.
Someone in the thread actually claimed this:
> I am also an atheist which, today, in the US, is worst than being gay in some circles.
They're not even remotely close in terms of persecution. And I use that word lightly when referring to the modern atheist.
Someone in the thread actually claimed this:
> I am also an atheist which, today, in the US, is worst than being gay in some circles.
They're not even remotely close in terms of persecution. And I use that word lightly when referring to the modern 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 sky that supposedly dictated these edicts.
Disclosure: I'm LGBTQ, athiest, and will defend to the death the right for anyone to believe in things I do not.
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 sky that supposedly dictated these edicts.
Disclosure: I'm LGBTQ, athiest, and will defend to the death the right for anyone to believe in things I do not.
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. :)
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. :)
First they came for the Raisin God believers, and I said nothing, because I do not believe in the Raisin God....
I think we know the rest of it. suffice it to say that I react violently to a censorship of belief, even if I do not share them. I'm a little saddened to think that I might be in a minority.
I think we know the rest of it. suffice it to say that I react violently to a censorship of belief, even if I do not share them. I'm a little saddened to think that I might be in a minority.
In America you can come out as gay but perhaps not yet as atheist.
[deleted](1)
it might be because he won't reproduce?
To me it came across as purely figurative. IMHO the usual phrases like "thank God it's not raining" are pretty much detached from the religious context.
Is it different in US?
Is it different in US?
"Thank God it's not raining" is completely different from saying "... the greatest gifts God has given me."
The first is just a frivolous small talk type comment. Non-religious people would say this. It's part of the common US vocabulary. The second is much more serious, and the speaker is actually thanking God for how he is. A non-religious person would never say it.
Religious people do this type of thing all the time in the US. Just look at 1 example- sports. The amount of American pro-athletes who are religious is astounding. Many athletes will seriously thank God after doing something well in a sporting event.
I'm very very anti-theist and I still have a lot of Christians on my Facebook, and some of them are constantly thanking God or praising Jesus for some good thing that happened in their life.
The amount of cars that have religious stickers on them is incredible. Crosses, the Jesus fish, some Biblical reference, a Christian brand, etc- you see them constantly. Maybe it's not like that in the Bay Area, but that is an exception. I live in Germany now and I've counted a total of TWO cars in 2 years that had any kind of Religious sticker.
So, yeah, Christianity is everywhere in the US. I pray for the day that this is not true.
The first is just a frivolous small talk type comment. Non-religious people would say this. It's part of the common US vocabulary. The second is much more serious, and the speaker is actually thanking God for how he is. A non-religious person would never say it.
Religious people do this type of thing all the time in the US. Just look at 1 example- sports. The amount of American pro-athletes who are religious is astounding. Many athletes will seriously thank God after doing something well in a sporting event.
I'm very very anti-theist and I still have a lot of Christians on my Facebook, and some of them are constantly thanking God or praising Jesus for some good thing that happened in their life.
The amount of cars that have religious stickers on them is incredible. Crosses, the Jesus fish, some Biblical reference, a Christian brand, etc- you see them constantly. Maybe it's not like that in the Bay Area, but that is an exception. I live in Germany now and I've counted a total of TWO cars in 2 years that had any kind of Religious sticker.
So, yeah, Christianity is everywhere in the US. I pray for the day that this is not true.
> The amount of American pro-athletes who are religious is astounding. Many athletes will seriously thank God after doing something well in a sporting event....I live in Germany now and I've counted a total of TWO cars in 2 years that had any kind of Religious sticker.
FWIW you will see plenty of religious displays in European soccer. Look at the biggest sporting event in Europe this past week: El Clasico between Real Madrid and Barcelona. Watch when Neymar scores a goal and kneels down on the ground and points up at the sky and says thank you (or something like that). Unfortunately Messi didn't score, but he would have done something similar though less dramatic. Granted these guys aren't Europeans, but they're not North Americans either. And other European footballers do similar things.
FWIW you will see plenty of religious displays in European soccer. Look at the biggest sporting event in Europe this past week: El Clasico between Real Madrid and Barcelona. Watch when Neymar scores a goal and kneels down on the ground and points up at the sky and says thank you (or something like that). Unfortunately Messi didn't score, but he would have done something similar though less dramatic. Granted these guys aren't Europeans, but they're not North Americans either. And other European footballers do similar things.
> I pray for the day that this is not true.
To whom? lol
To whom? lol
Why does it hurt your feelings so much? If I had this kind of prejudice and contempt in my heart for an entire group of people, I'd keep it to myself. It's kind of embarrassing to air it publicly like that.
My problem is when your religion encroaches on my life or on others. Their backwards out-dated religious views influence policy in education, health care, and civil rights. Not to mention the countless acts of religious violence and hate that take place daily all across the world. That is why I am adamantly anti-theist and not afraid to admit it.
the jesus fish is always the one i get a small smirk when i see.
quick google: http://www.albatrus.org/english/religions/pagan/origin_fish_...
quick google: http://www.albatrus.org/english/religions/pagan/origin_fish_...
I am entertained by the relation between the last two quotes in the article.
> The amount of American pro-athletes who are religious is astounding. Many athletes will seriously thank God after doing something well in a sporting event.
This is just a very clever thought pattern to confirm the American mythos of the self-made man and avoid giving credit to teammates, coaches, etc. "God made me great" is a way to take credit for yourself while maintaining the appearance of humility (no one can really call you out on it, either, because it's just your religion). Politicians use it all the time too.
This is just a very clever thought pattern to confirm the American mythos of the self-made man and avoid giving credit to teammates, coaches, etc. "God made me great" is a way to take credit for yourself while maintaining the appearance of humility (no one can really call you out on it, either, because it's just your religion). Politicians use it all the time too.
Is it necessary to dismiss belief as somehow self-serving? A bragging athlete is arrogant; a humble one is secretly scheming to take credit. How do you win in that world-view?
If they were truly humble, they'd be thanking their teammates, not a man in the sky. It's offensive to thank god for your touchdown instead of the offensive line. The hand of god didn't descend from the heavens to open that hole you ran through.
Why are they required to be humble? These are people who are largely at the pinnacle of human ability. I think a little bragging is in order.
I don't think athletes, or anyone else, who express religious feelings are necessarily doing what you say, but I've upvoted you because I agree that some of them are.
I agree wholly. Not all of them are doing this, but some of them certainly are.
[deleted]
Strangely enough I'd see pictures of him at some gay pride thing and it never even occurred to me he might be gay. I think, more accurately, it didn't trigger anything in my brain that thought it mattered either way. Obviously this is the way it should be!
It seems like Tim Cook isn't under any pressure to publicly announce this, so it seems he's doing it as a way of leveraging his position to help others who are experiencing adversity. Some will say this is a stunt for Apple, and no doubt it does draw attention to Apple in a way, but I think you'd have to be pretty cynical to say that this is anything more nefarious than an admirable gesture.
It seems like Tim Cook isn't under any pressure to publicly announce this, so it seems he's doing it as a way of leveraging his position to help others who are experiencing adversity. Some will say this is a stunt for Apple, and no doubt it does draw attention to Apple in a way, but I think you'd have to be pretty cynical to say that this is anything more nefarious than an admirable gesture.
Felix Salmon outed it on the very day of Tim Cook's appointment as the CEO.
I'm surprised that a story that was on Techmeme at that time, did not get broader attention, until now.
http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2011/08/25/dont-ignore...
I'm surprised that a story that was on Techmeme at that time, did not get broader attention, until now.
http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2011/08/25/dont-ignore...
It got a reasonable amount of attention, but I think a lot of journalists (correctly, IMO) felt that speculating on someone's sexuality where they hadn't talked about it publicly was a bit inappropriate.
True.
However there is the Nick Denton school of thought.
Denton ( of Gawker Media ) routinely shames public personalities for being clandestine about their sexuality.
The rationale for doing so is such that if no one calls them out, that the worldviews these public personalities profess never get the perspective, those views deserve. The backdrop of the person's sexuality and the influence it had on the shaping of those views is lost, Denton believes. [1]
[1] Gawker Kicks Open the Closet, but Its Disclosure Barely Reverberates
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/28/business/media/gawker-kick...
However there is the Nick Denton school of thought.
Denton ( of Gawker Media ) routinely shames public personalities for being clandestine about their sexuality.
The rationale for doing so is such that if no one calls them out, that the worldviews these public personalities profess never get the perspective, those views deserve. The backdrop of the person's sexuality and the influence it had on the shaping of those views is lost, Denton believes. [1]
[1] Gawker Kicks Open the Closet, but Its Disclosure Barely Reverberates
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/28/business/media/gawker-kick...
My impression was that Denton mostly does that with people who essentially work to oppress gay people (right-wing politicians, Fox journalists, and so on and so forth), and, yeah, I'm fine with that.
For people who aren't doing anything particularly wrong, though, especially those in positions where being openly gay is severely against the norm (as with Cook, who is, I believe, the first openly gay Fortune 500 CEO _ever_), it seems inappropriate. Say Cook had been outed back when he was COO; would he have become CEO? I'd like to say yes, but it would have been a brave move for the board.
For people who aren't doing anything particularly wrong, though, especially those in positions where being openly gay is severely against the norm (as with Cook, who is, I believe, the first openly gay Fortune 500 CEO _ever_), it seems inappropriate. Say Cook had been outed back when he was COO; would he have become CEO? I'd like to say yes, but it would have been a brave move for the board.
Deciding that you can in fact out other people in some circumstances confirms that the enlightened claims of individual ownership of sexual identity are a political fiction. If it's deemed a person is "hypocritical" then you feel free to socially assign a label to that person's sexuality. "Outing" is only possible if society decides someone is "gay," not the person.
>>> it didn't trigger anything in my brain that thought it mattered either way
This. It doesn't matter at all. Its great that people are embracing their sexuality, but there was no need to come out to the press about it. It doesn't change the way I see Apple as a company or even Tim Cook. He is still the same person before and after this article.
This. It doesn't matter at all. Its great that people are embracing their sexuality, but there was no need to come out to the press about it. It doesn't change the way I see Apple as a company or even Tim Cook. He is still the same person before and after this article.
>> there was no need to come out to the press about it
Sure there was. Here's Cook on why it was worth caming out to the press about it:
"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."
Sure there was. Here's Cook on why it was worth caming out to the press about it:
"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."
It doesn't matter... depending on what social circles you're part of, and/or where you live. That's a crucial distinction.
I think it's very understandable to underestimate the degree of suffering involved, and how much this can be improved over time through publicly voiced support, especially when it comes from influential figures.
Many of us make this mistake in regards to women or ethnic minorities too. And those of us who are good looking do it to those who are less pretty, and those who us who have always been popular do this to the unpopular.
The best kind of empathy, I believe, concerns not just your feelings toward others, but also the context that these others are in.
I think it's very understandable to underestimate the degree of suffering involved, and how much this can be improved over time through publicly voiced support, especially when it comes from influential figures.
Many of us make this mistake in regards to women or ethnic minorities too. And those of us who are good looking do it to those who are less pretty, and those who us who have always been popular do this to the unpopular.
The best kind of empathy, I believe, concerns not just your feelings toward others, but also the context that these others are in.
It doesn't matter to you but it's mattered to others on HN and will likewise to others around the world. He explains why quite clearly in the article.
Yeah at first I though it was another stunt for Apple because seriously how is his sexual orientation is important? Then I though how actually we still need public figure like him, that there's still way too much people who doesn't want to accept other sexual orientations.
Let's hope that this will help many more people understands that there's nothing abnormal with having another sexual orientation.
Let's hope that this will help many more people understands that there's nothing abnormal with having another sexual orientation.
In case you think this is no big deal, here's the updated list of Fortune 500 CEOs who are openly gay:
Tim Cook
Tim Cook
Thank you for putting that in context. "No big deal" was my first thought too, but that's only because of the context in which I live. In his context it still is a big deal.
It's a big deal because you made a list?
Because the list evidences that Tim Cook is the ONLY openly gay CEO of a Fortune 500 company (and he happens to be at the head of #5).
and I am still trying to figure the importance of this fact. We are not under a quota are? Or is that yet? Really, whats with the identity politics?
The only reason to put forward such effort to make it important is because the practice of identity politics is too moot any opposition by branding it all within the identity of the being criticized. Hence someone cannot complain about a policy of the current President because the only reason they do so is racism. Hence if you do not support the position of someone who happens to be gay well you are now a homophobe.
Lists solve nothing and reveal little.
The only reason to put forward such effort to make it important is because the practice of identity politics is too moot any opposition by branding it all within the identity of the being criticized. Hence someone cannot complain about a policy of the current President because the only reason they do so is racism. Hence if you do not support the position of someone who happens to be gay well you are now a homophobe.
Lists solve nothing and reveal little.
[deleted]
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, family, loved ones; as opposed to feeling the need to broadcast it to the media.
Straight people don't go around declaring their sexuality, nor ever feel the need to. Gay people shouldn't feel the need to either. That is a critical hallmark of equality.
Do I have to email the press to declare that I'm openly gay and running a Fortune 500 company?
Should I declare that I'm openly straight and running a Fortune 500 company?
It's an absurd premise, and it presumes that we all need to be declaring our sexuality. That another person has a right to know my sexual orientation. It's not only false but disgusting.
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, family, loved ones; as opposed to feeling the need to broadcast it to the media.
Straight people don't go around declaring their sexuality, nor ever feel the need to. Gay people shouldn't feel the need to either. That is a critical hallmark of equality.
Do I have to email the press to declare that I'm openly gay and running a Fortune 500 company?
Should I declare that I'm openly straight and running a Fortune 500 company?
It's an absurd premise, and it presumes that we all need to be declaring our sexuality. That another person has a right to know my sexual orientation. It's not only false but disgusting.
About 50% of people self-identify as female. Why are there only 26 female CEOs in the 500?
Women are 97 percent of preschool and kindergarten teachers, 80 percent of social workers, 82 percent of librarians and 92 percent of dietitians and nutritionists and registered nurses.
Is that a problem too?
Is that a problem too?
The usual answer is "yes", but am I correct in assuming you think it's "no"?
I don't know. I don't think so ~ what's the rationale? How do you know that perfect equality presents as perfectly equal percentages of any given profession?
I wonder what the ratio of male/female food servers is? If they are roughly equal, would you say we have true equality among food servers or is something else going on?
I wonder what the ratio of male/female food servers is? If they are roughly equal, would you say we have true equality among food servers or is something else going on?
Exactly. Stepping back a bit, in nature there are all sorts of variation and swings in numbers from one characteristic to another.
Nobody wants women to be pushed out by force or denied opportunity to reach their deserved position. But is that really happening whenever we see more of one gender in a particular role than another? I don't think so.
I remember in highschool (20 years ago), only 2 girls were in my electronics class. Those 2 girls were not given any special treatment, or picked on, or anything. It was simply how the cards fell for that class due to most girls in the school NOT being interested in electronics.
I suppose we could've started a campaign designed to attract more "women in electronics". Okay, but they were never unwelcome in the first place. They simply didn't enrol in that course.
Nobody wants women to be pushed out by force or denied opportunity to reach their deserved position. But is that really happening whenever we see more of one gender in a particular role than another? I don't think so.
I remember in highschool (20 years ago), only 2 girls were in my electronics class. Those 2 girls were not given any special treatment, or picked on, or anything. It was simply how the cards fell for that class due to most girls in the school NOT being interested in electronics.
I suppose we could've started a campaign designed to attract more "women in electronics". Okay, but they were never unwelcome in the first place. They simply didn't enrol in that course.
> It was simply how the cards fell for that class due to most girls in the school NOT being interested in electronics.
It seems likely that the fact that so few girls expressed an interest in electronics is a result of differences in the way society treats men and women. Whether or not this is inherently a bad thing is something I think can be reasonably debated (and at great length), but ultimately I think it is.
It seems likely that the fact that so few girls expressed an interest in electronics is a result of differences in the way society treats men and women. Whether or not this is inherently a bad thing is something I think can be reasonably debated (and at great length), but ultimately I think it is.
> How do you know that perfect equality presents as perfectly equal percentages of any given profession?
It almost certainly does not present as "perfectly equal percentages", but such radically unequal percentages are at least suspicious, especially because the professions you listed pay unusually poorly compared to jobs of similar skill and education levels.
It almost certainly does not present as "perfectly equal percentages", but such radically unequal percentages are at least suspicious, especially because the professions you listed pay unusually poorly compared to jobs of similar skill and education levels.
> Women are 97 percent of preschool and kindergarten teachers
In my country this ratio is slightly better: 88-12
And it is widely seen as a serious problem.
In my country this ratio is slightly better: 88-12
And it is widely seen as a serious problem.
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.
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.
You're right: gay people shouldn't feel the need to declare that they're gay. But there's a reason they do, and if you actually read the article that was posted instead of getting upset that someone used the words "openly" and "gay" in the same sentence, you might see why.
"Straight people don't go around declaring their sexuality, nor ever feel the need to"
Straight people don't declare their sexuality because everyone is assumed to be straight until proven otherwise.
Straight people don't declare their sexuality because everyone is assumed to be straight until proven otherwise.
"White people don't have a month dedicated to their history. Black people shouldn't either. That is a critical hallmark of equality."
While everyone already knew, the act of public announcement is one of great meaning and catharsis. Coming out is an important event for a gay person, and for a prominent person such as Tim Cook, for our society as well. As an ally, congratulations for having the courage to be who you are.
Everyone except me, apparently :-)
You subscription to Out magazine must have lapsed. He was their #1 most powerful gay man or woman in American last year:
http://www.out.com/out-exclusives/power-50/2013/04/10/power-...
I think it was one of those things where everyone knew it, but no one talked about it because it just wasn't that big a deal.
http://www.out.com/out-exclusives/power-50/2013/04/10/power-...
I think it was one of those things where everyone knew it, but no one talked about it because it just wasn't that big a deal.
As a man who is straighter than most measuring rulers, you'll forgive me if I missed that issue. :-) Myself, I had heard murmuring, but I never cared enough to confirm. Just kind of "meh, ya gotta figure there's at least one Fortune 500 CEO who's gay. Now to the issue at hand: how's my AAPL stock doing?"
Now, I'm not saying that isn't an important announcement. I have to admit that even Mr. Straighter-than-Straight over here found his eyes kind of welling up while reading Tim's words. Powerful stuff, and a great example for those coming of age while dealing with who they are. But as a person whose portfolio is weighted way too heavily in AAPL, and an owner of lots of stuff with apples on them, I no more care about who Tim Cook shares his bed with than I do about what sports team he favors. That's his own business, and doesn't affect me in the slightest.
In summary, not everyone knew it if only because some of us don't care enough one way or the other to find out.
Now, I'm not saying that isn't an important announcement. I have to admit that even Mr. Straighter-than-Straight over here found his eyes kind of welling up while reading Tim's words. Powerful stuff, and a great example for those coming of age while dealing with who they are. But as a person whose portfolio is weighted way too heavily in AAPL, and an owner of lots of stuff with apples on them, I no more care about who Tim Cook shares his bed with than I do about what sports team he favors. That's his own business, and doesn't affect me in the slightest.
In summary, not everyone knew it if only because some of us don't care enough one way or the other to find out.
I went and checked the stock price after I read the headline about Cook coming out, but before I read his statement. I'm a bad person.
"His truest loyalty, beyond even Apple, may be to the Auburn Tigers football team, whose memorabilia is said to stud his home and office."
...says Gawker. So now you know that too.
"His truest loyalty, beyond even Apple, may be to the Auburn Tigers football team, whose memorabilia is said to stud his home and office."
...says Gawker. So now you know that too.
Because it isn't a big deal! I'm glad we're coming around to the reaction to a major public figure coming out is "meh."
Injustice won't be over the day little black boys and girls and little white boys play together. It will be over the day anyone even thinks anything of it. Unfortunately, we have both overt and covert (even accidental) discrimination still to deal with.
But our grandparents faced firehouses and dogs, while we face op-eds and Twitter feeds. For the first time in history we have the communications technology to bind humanity together into a single global people.
Someday there will be a gay president. Someday there will be a black female president. I hope that by the time that day comes, it will be little noted nor long remembered.
Injustice won't be over the day little black boys and girls and little white boys play together. It will be over the day anyone even thinks anything of it. Unfortunately, we have both overt and covert (even accidental) discrimination still to deal with.
But our grandparents faced firehouses and dogs, while we face op-eds and Twitter feeds. For the first time in history we have the communications technology to bind humanity together into a single global people.
Someday there will be a gay president. Someday there will be a black female president. I hope that by the time that day comes, it will be little noted nor long remembered.
> Because it isn't a big deal!
Agreed.
But I think his message is aimed at younger people. "I'm a mellow kinda guy who is respected in the world of business. And i'm gay." You don't have to fit the stereotype of being flamboyant , out, loud and proud to be gay.
You and I know that. Any functioning adult in a largish city knows that. Maybe some kids in isolated communities without personal role models (family, family friends, teachers, etc., who are gay and run-of-the-mill kinda people) don't know that.
Edit: The top comment says it better than I can: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8532962
Agreed.
But I think his message is aimed at younger people. "I'm a mellow kinda guy who is respected in the world of business. And i'm gay." You don't have to fit the stereotype of being flamboyant , out, loud and proud to be gay.
You and I know that. Any functioning adult in a largish city knows that. Maybe some kids in isolated communities without personal role models (family, family friends, teachers, etc., who are gay and run-of-the-mill kinda people) don't know that.
Edit: The top comment says it better than I can: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8532962
> You subscription to Out magazine must have lapsed.
Heh, I thought this was a joke at first. It's kind of funny that lots of people didn't know, yet he has literally been featured as #1 in Out Magazine. I guess it does still fit, that he hasn't personally, publicly acknowledged it, even if others have acknowledged it publicly.
Heh, I thought this was a joke at first. It's kind of funny that lots of people didn't know, yet he has literally been featured as #1 in Out Magazine. I guess it does still fit, that he hasn't personally, publicly acknowledged it, even if others have acknowledged it publicly.
OK, thanks for posting this, because I thought I was going crazy for a second. My thought was, "Yeah what? Of course he is gay. Everyone knows that? He might be the first gay CEO of a trillion-dollar valuated company!"
At least I know I'm not crazy now and that it was in magazines and such at least a year ago.
At least I know I'm not crazy now and that it was in magazines and such at least a year ago.
And me!
Me three. Mostly because I just don't give a fuck about people's personal lives. Even celebrities. I see people in commercials that everybody seems to know and I have no clue.
I guess I live under a rock. Good thing I get HN under here.
I guess I live under a rock. Good thing I get HN under here.
Yea, I can tell I am getting old by how few people I recognize on the covers of the magazines in the grocery store checkout line.
(I think that is a not-so-funny version of a joke a comedian told, but I can't for the life of me remember which one...)
(I think that is a not-so-funny version of a joke a comedian told, but I can't for the life of me remember which one...)
Me too!
[deleted]
I am a white male married to a black female with 2 mixed kids living in Texas. While we haven't experienced much bigotry our way, it has happened. The first time I was filled with disbelief and shortly after rage while my wife (then gf) cried.
Our lives would be different if we were born a generation ago. Thank you MLK and Tim Cook.
Our lives would be different if we were born a generation ago. Thank you MLK and Tim Cook.
you should think about moving to west coast or a large city.
Have you experienced that only from older people? We can only hope that this kind of bigotry go away with new generations.
Older. Negative experiences with younger people were just ignorant and probably did not intend harm. Some older folks will say things with pure hate and complete disregard to our feelings. I understand when Cook mentions the empathy you gain when being a part of a minority. I get anxious when walking into a restaurant that I am unfamiliar with. I think to myself... are we are going to be welcome here, is someone going to say something, what should I do if that happens etc. I've never had these feelings the first 25 years of my life.
On the other hand, there were occasions complete strangers (usually older) have said very nice things to us in public. These positive experiences greatly out number the negative.
On the other hand, there were occasions complete strangers (usually older) have said very nice things to us in public. These positive experiences greatly out number the negative.
We still have hope then, thanks!
reddit and similar sites are basically overflowing with teenage/20-something white male racists, so I'm guessing no...
Wow. I feel so sorry for you that you live in a supposedly civilized country and you have to live with that.
What a shame.
What a shame.
> Wow. I feel so sorry for you that you live in a supposedly civilized country
You might have missed the part where he said he lives in Texas.
You might have missed the part where he said he lives in Texas.
As if England is much better? Ask Theirry Henry how he feels about bananas being thrown at him in Western Europe.
Oh I saw it. That's exactly what I'm talking about.
The United States constantly labels itself the best country in the world, the pinnacle of democracy and freedom, etc. when unfortunately the reality for millions of people is not so good.
The United States constantly labels itself the best country in the world, the pinnacle of democracy and freedom, etc. when unfortunately the reality for millions of people is not so good.
Right, because there are no rednecks in the rest of the world, just an atmosphere of openness and a complete lack of xenophobia.
The reality is, tribalism and convenient categorization is everywhere, and the United States is not immune. Just because there might be a legal system in place to address discrimination in its various forms does not mean you won't run into close-minded, hateful individuals as you walk down the street. As Bruce Hornsby sang years ago, "Because the law don't change another's mind When all it sees at the hiring time Is the line on the color bar"
The reality is, tribalism and convenient categorization is everywhere, and the United States is not immune. Just because there might be a legal system in place to address discrimination in its various forms does not mean you won't run into close-minded, hateful individuals as you walk down the street. As Bruce Hornsby sang years ago, "Because the law don't change another's mind When all it sees at the hiring time Is the line on the color bar"
Great point. Just ask a Romani (Gypsy) if they think other citizens in the Czech Republic discriminate against them.
Romas =/= Gypsies ,they are 2 VERY different people.
> Right, because there are no rednecks in the rest of the world, just an atmosphere of openness and a complete lack of xenophobia.
Of course not. This is not black-or-white, all-or-nothing. There are shades in between.
When a country makes discrimination illegal, it forces people to stop doing it and slowly over time their minds will change, because otherwise they'll run afoul of the law. These days discriminating against a gay person in Canada is akin to discriminating against someone because they're female - it's unheard of, and you'd be quickly silenced and given a stern talking to, if not disciplined (if it was in the workplace)
If the US would hurry up and make discrimination of gay people illegal, the mind-set of people would slowly change. Maybe it would take a generation (or even two), but it's better to start that process now than x years from now.
Of course not. This is not black-or-white, all-or-nothing. There are shades in between.
When a country makes discrimination illegal, it forces people to stop doing it and slowly over time their minds will change, because otherwise they'll run afoul of the law. These days discriminating against a gay person in Canada is akin to discriminating against someone because they're female - it's unheard of, and you'd be quickly silenced and given a stern talking to, if not disciplined (if it was in the workplace)
If the US would hurry up and make discrimination of gay people illegal, the mind-set of people would slowly change. Maybe it would take a generation (or even two), but it's better to start that process now than x years from now.
Name one city in Texas that is more dangerous for blacks than Detroit, Philadelphia, Oakland, or Chicago. You seem extremely ignorant about Texas.
[deleted]
I found this one very striking:
"Still, there are laws on the books in a majority of states that allow employers to fire people based solely on their sexual orientation."
Could anyone provide details? I wonder whether it is an explicit "Being gay is grounds for firing" or rather just plain lack of protection from firing for being gay?
Could anyone provide details? I wonder whether it is an explicit "Being gay is grounds for firing" or rather just plain lack of protection from firing for being gay?
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Employment_discrimination_law...
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Employment_discrimination_law...
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Employment_discrimination_law...
Thanks. It seems it is the latter. In some states the list of things forbidden to discriminate on misses sexual orientation. The wording used in the article was closer to the former.
> In some states the list of things forbidden to discriminate on misses sexual orientation.
It doesn't miss it, that would imply an unintentional oversight. There might have been a time when it was just not something people thought of including (although the fact that homosexuality was often explicitly criminalized also suggests that was not the case), but by now there is no state where there has not been an effort to get such protections on the books, so it is, in every case where it is not explicitly protected, a deliberate exclusion.
It doesn't miss it, that would imply an unintentional oversight. There might have been a time when it was just not something people thought of including (although the fact that homosexuality was often explicitly criminalized also suggests that was not the case), but by now there is no state where there has not been an effort to get such protections on the books, so it is, in every case where it is not explicitly protected, a deliberate exclusion.
I'm no expert, but I suspect this is just referring to work "at will" states, where you can be fired without being given a reason. Thus, it could actually be for anything: Your orientation, your work performance, that ugly shirt you wore yesterday. Doesn't matter.
Close, but no.
Sexual orientation isn't a protected class under Federal law. (See: http://www.eeoc.gov/laws/types/ )
State Human Rights Law in some states expands to incorporate other protected classes, including sexual orientation and transgendered status.
Sexual orientation isn't a protected class under Federal law. (See: http://www.eeoc.gov/laws/types/ )
State Human Rights Law in some states expands to incorporate other protected classes, including sexual orientation and transgendered status.
The issue is that there are specific protections for things like age, race and religion, but not sexual orientation. I consider orientation, like race, to be something that you are born with that deserves the same protections.
In an "at will" arrangement, you will never be fired for "protected" traits. With "at will" employment, you can be fired for no reason at all, so no reason will ever be given that could possibly trigger legal liability.
It makes all those "protections" completely toothless.
In order to win a case, you would need to provide extensive documentation, probably collected via clandestine recordings, that would be able to convince a jury by preponderance of the evidence that you were fired for a protected reason, and not simply because the company no longer wanted to pay you for your work.
Besides that, one of the selling points of "at will" was that making it easier to fire people would make it easier to hire people. Anecdotally, I have not found this to be the case. Companies simply find it easier to discriminate based on things like race, gender, perceived sexual orientation, weight, religion (or lack thereof), disabilities, appearance, or age, because it is easier for them to deny that those are the factors that they consider in hiring and firing.
As Apple execs engaged in collusion with other companies to weaken workers as a class via an anti-poaching cartel, Tim Cook is hardly able to take a non-hypocritical position about sexuality discrimination in the workplace. When all workers are weakened, the ones that are most often discriminated against often suffer the most, because they are the marginal hires in more places.
It makes all those "protections" completely toothless.
In order to win a case, you would need to provide extensive documentation, probably collected via clandestine recordings, that would be able to convince a jury by preponderance of the evidence that you were fired for a protected reason, and not simply because the company no longer wanted to pay you for your work.
Besides that, one of the selling points of "at will" was that making it easier to fire people would make it easier to hire people. Anecdotally, I have not found this to be the case. Companies simply find it easier to discriminate based on things like race, gender, perceived sexual orientation, weight, religion (or lack thereof), disabilities, appearance, or age, because it is easier for them to deny that those are the factors that they consider in hiring and firing.
As Apple execs engaged in collusion with other companies to weaken workers as a class via an anti-poaching cartel, Tim Cook is hardly able to take a non-hypocritical position about sexuality discrimination in the workplace. When all workers are weakened, the ones that are most often discriminated against often suffer the most, because they are the marginal hires in more places.
Even if it's not, everyone should be free to do and be who they are - it should only influence one's employment if it actually affects said employment, like (for example) alcoholism or explosive flatulism (fire hazard)
Of course, there's a huge difference between orientation and behaviour. One can't help how one's born, but one can help how one behaves.
There's no good reason for an employer to require me to be celibate and single for life.
There are certainly contexts where this is a valuable sentiment, but separating sexual orientation from sexual behavior at such a gross level (ie, all not engaging in same-sex behavior at all) is simply crude and unnecessary. To each their own, but your statement seems to imply that gays should struggle against what is ultimately a harmless and very human attraction.
In most states, employment law is structured such that the absence of explicit protection means that it is a valid grounds for firing. The laws on the books that create this structure, combined with the absence of an explicit protection for sexual orientation, constitute laws on the books that allow employers to fire people based solely on their sexual orientation.
The shocking news here is that Tim Cook is religious.
Indeed. Oh, he's gay, we all knew that. Wait, the CEO of Apple is a Christian? That I did not know. Judging by the comment thread here, it seems to be new to a lot of people. It's not a big deal, but it did surprise me. It's easy to assume that a gay man living in the Bay Area is going to be an atheist.
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.
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.
I agree. We should be a lot more shocked that an individual that understands the internet and how information spreads still clings to the fairy tales told to him by his parents.
This is no different than believing in Santa Claus and we're all distracted by what kind of sex he likes to have. I've never heard of a war started by gay people. Being religious is being complicit in that religion's wrongdoings.
Also I'd say it's strange that a gay person is religious. Any person holding a non-mainstream position ends up having to do a lot of thinking and reading before accepting oneself for what they are. In that process they usually become a lot more rational. Didn't work for Tim, though. Weird.
This is no different than believing in Santa Claus and we're all distracted by what kind of sex he likes to have. I've never heard of a war started by gay people. Being religious is being complicit in that religion's wrongdoings.
Also I'd say it's strange that a gay person is religious. Any person holding a non-mainstream position ends up having to do a lot of thinking and reading before accepting oneself for what they are. In that process they usually become a lot more rational. Didn't work for Tim, though. Weird.
>I’m proud to be gay, and I consider being gay among the greatest gifts God has given me.
Americans are so weird.
Americans are so weird.
Yeah, I know, the US is literally the only place on earth where many people are still religious. South America and Africa and India and countries with Muslim majorities are totally not religious. Just those weird Americans.
[deleted]
What's weird? I don't get it (i am not american, clearly)
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.
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.
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").
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").
Did he tell you what "existence" is? Because I can't find the answer to the second thing until I know what that is.
It's very practical and convenient to just decide that material existence is the ultimate objective reality and I don't blame anyone for taking that route - but for a lot of people it's much more complicated than that (and fun to think about!) - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Existence
It's very practical and convenient to just decide that material existence is the ultimate objective reality and I don't blame anyone for taking that route - but for a lot of people it's much more complicated than that (and fun to think about!) - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Existence
>Labeling things you don't understand or make you uncomfortable as "weird".
Interesting given the article we're all commenting on!
Interesting given the article we're all commenting on!
I wish we lived in a society where people weren't pressured into "publically acknowledge" their sexual orientation just because it's different than the norm. You don't see heterosexual CEOs publically acknowledging they are banging their wife, why should it be different for other sexual orientations? Just let everyone be.
I think that's a very real future, and speaking out in this way only helps to make that a reality sooner.
I sorta agree, but I think the core paragraph explains his motivations better:
[I]f 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.
Announcing that you're straight is never going to be controversial, but we're currently in a cultural stage where announcing things like this continues to normalize the reality of diverse types of sexuality and, ironically, over time that should make it less of a big or negative deal to some people.
[I]f 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.
Announcing that you're straight is never going to be controversial, but we're currently in a cultural stage where announcing things like this continues to normalize the reality of diverse types of sexuality and, ironically, over time that should make it less of a big or negative deal to some people.
We would all like for that to be the case. Unfortunately, as long as members of the GLBT community have to worry about being physically attacked, even in "safe" places like San Francisco and other progressive cities, it's important for people who are in a position to be able to speak out safely to do so.
We're in a transition period, and rapidly heading towards your ideal. We're getting there, and this is a necessary step. Be happy it's happening :)
[deleted]
> banging their wife
...or husbands, but that's the least of your problems.
...or husbands, but that's the least of your problems.
What? I hear about straight male CEO's relationships all the freaking time, probably more than I hear anything else about them.
Here's just one example: http://articles.latimes.com/2013/apr/16/business/la-fi-0416-...
Do you really need a list?
This is important because gay people have not been allowed representation or public acknowledgement. Until this month there were 0 openly gay CEOs but hundreds of openly straight CEOs in the public eye.
Well done Tim Cook, and my personal thanks.
Here's just one example: http://articles.latimes.com/2013/apr/16/business/la-fi-0416-...
Do you really need a list?
This is important because gay people have not been allowed representation or public acknowledgement. Until this month there were 0 openly gay CEOs but hundreds of openly straight CEOs in the public eye.
Well done Tim Cook, and my personal thanks.
I think the Sean Parker wedding was notable because of its extravagance and the somewhat douchey behavior he showed in its staging and execution.
But, I agre otherwise with your point.
But, I agre otherwise with your point.
[deleted]
It's important for mere visibility and representation of MOGAI people in general. Everyone is generally assumed to be heterosexual by default, so people who are het don't need to make public announcements about it.
> I wish we lived in a society where people weren't pressured into "publically acknowledge" their sexual orientation
As someone who has come out, I'd like to note that I was never "pressured" into publicly acknowledging my sexuality. In fact, the general message from the wider culture was "please STFU and don't talk about it".
No, I looked at history, saw that coming out was an important and useful thing I could do to contribute to the movement aimed at getting equal rights for gay people and that formed part of a pretty rational decision to do so.
The lies and bigotry aimed at gay people thrived for so long precisely because nobody knew any gay people. That's exactly why coming out was (and still is) necessary. One of the reasons the gay rights movement has been so spectacularly successful over the last 40+ years is because the lives of actual gay people is a living testament to the falseness of the vicious stereotypes spread by homophobic pricks.
You don't see straight people coming out because they don't need to. Gay people came out because the alternative is persecution, mixed with a whole lot of personal misery.
As someone who has come out, I'd like to note that I was never "pressured" into publicly acknowledging my sexuality. In fact, the general message from the wider culture was "please STFU and don't talk about it".
No, I looked at history, saw that coming out was an important and useful thing I could do to contribute to the movement aimed at getting equal rights for gay people and that formed part of a pretty rational decision to do so.
The lies and bigotry aimed at gay people thrived for so long precisely because nobody knew any gay people. That's exactly why coming out was (and still is) necessary. One of the reasons the gay rights movement has been so spectacularly successful over the last 40+ years is because the lives of actual gay people is a living testament to the falseness of the vicious stereotypes spread by homophobic pricks.
You don't see straight people coming out because they don't need to. Gay people came out because the alternative is persecution, mixed with a whole lot of personal misery.
Warning: for the sake of your faith in HN and in humanity, do not read this thread, especially not from the bottom up. I did - big mistake, day ruined.
I was going to close the tab until I saw your comment. So much entertainment below. Don't miss it!
OMG please miss it
Or at the very least, for the love of $deity, turn show_dead off.
But that's the most fun part of such threads :)
I am hetero, and I always asked myself: why all that fuzz about people being gay or anything else. I don't need to be proud to be gay or hetero or whatever, I just don't get it.. I have gay friends and never had anything against people with other sexuality, but I truly hate the Gay Pride in our country. I think it is pathetic to be proud of your sexual orientation and feeling a need to show that off.
This will definitely cost me some points, I know, not being gay and not promoting them is just dreadful.
This will definitely cost me some points, I know, not being gay and not promoting them is just dreadful.
You don't need to be proud of being straight because being straight is the default - and society doesn't give you any shit for being straight.
Pride - in race, in sexuality, in gender, in whatever else - comes from ostracism and marginalization. You band together, develop a group identity, form communities, etc, because the world treats you poorly. Gay Pride is a development out of necessity, not just for parade floats.
This goes beyond sexuality - there is a massive "geek" community out there that gathers for conventions, concerts, and whatever else you can think of. Much of this community formed as a result of ostracism, both real and perceived.
Ditto race. Blacks, Asians, and Latinos band together - both formally in organizations, or informally in communities - to combat the racism its members experience, and support its victims.
When you find any description of people marginalized, odds are you will find communities and organizations that have formed around it. Pride is a natural response - a collective "there is nothing wrong with being us!" is a natural response to a society that tells you that what you are is wrong.
Now, to address your context of your comment - you're incredibly lucky if you don't "get" gay pride. I think most marginalized people would like to live like you - never having to belong to a collective to defend your being, or having society treat you like an individual instead of a constant outsider. To be in a position where this marginalization is invisible to you is a fortunate circumstance indeed.
So it's particularly annoying to those of us who are still marginalized in society - in whatever ways - that you've turned this around to play the victim. You live an enviable life, where you don't need to band together with other marginalized people out of desperation or necessity, yet you have the gall to turn it around as if you're being punished for it.
Pride - in race, in sexuality, in gender, in whatever else - comes from ostracism and marginalization. You band together, develop a group identity, form communities, etc, because the world treats you poorly. Gay Pride is a development out of necessity, not just for parade floats.
This goes beyond sexuality - there is a massive "geek" community out there that gathers for conventions, concerts, and whatever else you can think of. Much of this community formed as a result of ostracism, both real and perceived.
Ditto race. Blacks, Asians, and Latinos band together - both formally in organizations, or informally in communities - to combat the racism its members experience, and support its victims.
When you find any description of people marginalized, odds are you will find communities and organizations that have formed around it. Pride is a natural response - a collective "there is nothing wrong with being us!" is a natural response to a society that tells you that what you are is wrong.
Now, to address your context of your comment - you're incredibly lucky if you don't "get" gay pride. I think most marginalized people would like to live like you - never having to belong to a collective to defend your being, or having society treat you like an individual instead of a constant outsider. To be in a position where this marginalization is invisible to you is a fortunate circumstance indeed.
So it's particularly annoying to those of us who are still marginalized in society - in whatever ways - that you've turned this around to play the victim. You live an enviable life, where you don't need to band together with other marginalized people out of desperation or necessity, yet you have the gall to turn it around as if you're being punished for it.
I'm Proud Catholic. Now let's see how many down votes I will get. Probably voted by the same people who apparently don't care about your sex orientation. Or religion...
Most gays hate Catholic Church. Do they believe in freedoms that they demand then?
Most gays hate Catholic Church. Do they believe in freedoms that they demand then?
I know this is bait, but I'll bite.
> I truly hate the Gay Pride in our country. I think it is pathetic to be proud of your sexual orientation and feeling a need to show that off.
The notion of "Gay Pride" exists to specifically counter the widespread notion that being gay is something to be ashamed of. Countering shame with pride is way more effective than countering it with "meh, it's not relevant to my identity".
There are other, more subtle aspects of identity politics at play too, but I expect those would sail way over your head.
> I truly hate the Gay Pride in our country. I think it is pathetic to be proud of your sexual orientation and feeling a need to show that off.
The notion of "Gay Pride" exists to specifically counter the widespread notion that being gay is something to be ashamed of. Countering shame with pride is way more effective than countering it with "meh, it's not relevant to my identity".
There are other, more subtle aspects of identity politics at play too, but I expect those would sail way over your head.
There must be more intelligent ways to gain acceptance for being gay than a gay pride, sorry but it's so lame, ever seen the pictures? The gay friends I have are nothing like that, most of them are very intelligent, sensible, and nothing like those idiot on those parades.
Many gay people have marched in pride parades. Many of whom are likely smarter than you.
To run with the logic you present here, since Tim Cook has been a part of a pride parade, are you suggesting him an idiot and you yourself smarter?
To run with the logic you present here, since Tim Cook has been a part of a pride parade, are you suggesting him an idiot and you yourself smarter?
So you don't get it and you think its lame. Why concern yourself with a group of people who couldn't seriously care less about you. They're having a much better time than you are, stewing in the corner.
"I think it is pathetic to be proud of your sexual orientation and feeling a need to show that off."
What makes you think that?
What makes you think that?
Phobes find gay folks threatening, and react in all kinds of strange ways.
Coming out takes balls. Someday, it won't make the news. I think we are only one generation away from equality in America. In other parts of the world, it could take a long time.
Coming out takes balls. Someday, it won't make the news. I think we are only one generation away from equality in America. In other parts of the world, it could take a long time.
The "skin of a rhinoceros" - I liked that the most, as it reflects the development one makes when being part of a minority, no matter if it is sexual, financial ethnical or political nature.
I hope he brings back the old Apple logo: http://cdn3.pcadvisor.co.uk/cmsdata/features/3343143/Apple_l...
I'd like a world where announcements like this are considered utterly mundane.
Or where such announcements aren't even necessary...
In that world, funnily enough, there wouldn't be such announcements.
On this level both extremes are similar :)
On this level both extremes are similar :)
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.
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. 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, ...
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, ...
How is that offensive? Clearly homosexuality is much closer to being mainstream as 20-30 or 50 years ago. TV Shows and movies and music trends all make it much more acceptable in the mainstream. All he is saying is that it was much more difficult for people back then to come out, much more than today. That being said, there is clearly some distance to go until it becomes egalitarian. That's how I interpreted the comment. Some people could also use that 'coming out' nowadays to gain some type of social sympathy to their advantage, which was not the case 50 years ago where they would have been ostracized or even killed...
> TV Shows and movies and music trends all make it much more acceptable in the mainstream.
What you see in mainstream media is the mainstream-approved version, but it's nowhere close to representative. Queer As Folk had more diversity in representation in a few seasons than the decade of culture that followed it.
What you see in mainstream media is the mainstream-approved version, but it's nowhere close to representative. Queer As Folk had more diversity in representation in a few seasons than the decade of culture that followed it.
Why do you think he chose to come out now?
Perhaps because everyone who cares/matters already knew, there isn't really a point in denying or hiding it anymore.
A month or two ago some journalist accidentally said it on air if I remember correctly.
A month or two ago some journalist accidentally said it on air if I remember correctly.
Yes, it was a rather dramatic moment on CNBC, with a columnist discussing the fact that no CEO of a major company was willing to be mentioned as gay:
http://www.mediaite.com/tv/cnbc-panel-goes-awkwardly-silent-...
http://www.mediaite.com/tv/cnbc-panel-goes-awkwardly-silent-...
Yep on CNBC i believe( I hate that channel,it's just ridiculous). What was stupid is that one journalist said T.Cook was gay,others insisted he wasnt.Like "noooooooooooo he's not!" multiple times.
That sums up the whole NBC network for me.
Frankly,nobody cared about Jobs sexual life,and he did a good job at shielding his family from the media frenzy.
That sums up the whole NBC network for me.
Frankly,nobody cared about Jobs sexual life,and he did a good job at shielding his family from the media frenzy.
I'm pretty sure the reporter said that Tim Cook was open about being guy, which led to everyone reminding him that he isn't, in fact, open about it.
> Frankly, nobody cared about Jobs sexual life
Uh, yeah they did. The Lisa Brennan-Jobs paternity thing was a serious black eye for Steve.
https://www.google.com/search?q=steve+jobs+paternity
Uh, yeah they did. The Lisa Brennan-Jobs paternity thing was a serious black eye for Steve.
https://www.google.com/search?q=steve+jobs+paternity
Steal attention from Microsoft Band? :-)
And make the "Apple" brand away from PRISM, NSA and others not to mention that they want to keep the "cool" and "open" words attached to the "Apple" brand as well.
Of course with all due respect to Tim Cook which opened for the first time and will probably inspire other people.
But to me everything is connected.
EDIT: For those who downvoted please explain what's wrong in this comment.
Of course with all due respect to Tim Cook which opened for the first time and will probably inspire other people.
But to me everything is connected.
EDIT: For those who downvoted please explain what's wrong in this comment.
We should start our own club, I feel your pain ... ;-)
honestly I could care less. I really just don't care who is gay or not. I really don't give one whit to those who think its some special event when they do.
your personal life, keep it personal, its no one's business and it certainly is not something to exploit for personal gain or to guilt another with
your personal life, keep it personal, its no one's business and it certainly is not something to exploit for personal gain or to guilt another with
You either didn't read the article or simply failed to understand from the article why he did it. He's not trying to exploit anything for himself or his company but instead of the betterment of minorities.
Someone isn't out until they out themselves. Until then, it's gossip and speculation from second-hand (or worse) sources.
I'm glad the culture around him reached the point where he felt comfortable and safe being out. Hopefully this will be a kick in the pants to the culture around me. It's hard to date when most people are in the closet.
I'm glad the culture around him reached the point where he felt comfortable and safe being out. Hopefully this will be a kick in the pants to the culture around me. It's hard to date when most people are in the closet.
Well played, this surely can help because even many of the homophobic idiots recognize in Tim Cook a role model, and can start questioning their ideas about diversity.
that's a hell of a freudian typo there champ, the question is: are you going to leave it in for posterity?
Sadly, that's not how cognitive dissonance works. When people receive new information that conflicts with their existing beliefs they very rarely update their beliefs. Instead, they tend to either question the credibility of the new information or downplay its significance.
Well I hope that there is at least a small percentage that can recognize in their homophobic believes a huge limit and improve. What is otherwise the thing to do for somebody as regarded as Tim Cook, to remain very private about their sexuality?
I guess Tim Cook and Brendan Eich don't see eye to eye on some issues.
I don't share Eich's views, but he's 58 - the cultural concepts that made it difficult for Tim Cook to be public about his sexuality may be the same thing that makes Eich against gay marriage.
Edit: I can't comment due to rate limits, but a poster below hasn't read what I wrote above and is suggesting I am saying the men grew up in different times. I am suggesting the exact opposite: they grew up in the SAME period/culture.
Edit: I can't comment due to rate limits, but a poster below hasn't read what I wrote above and is suggesting I am saying the men grew up in different times. I am suggesting the exact opposite: they grew up in the SAME period/culture.
Tim Cook is 53. Are you suggesting there's some sort of swell change that occurred in 5 years?
No, the opposite - I assume most people know Tim Cook is around the age most CEOs are. Both men grew up in a time where homosexuality was considered to be immoral. Growing up in such an environment ingrains those beliefs, hence gay people coming out in their 50s and other men in their 50s who are surrounded by people that accept gay relationships still not being comfortable with that.
Off topic, it kind of bothers me that I got mischaracterised and couldn't reply for such a long time due to the silly HN rate limit.
Off topic, it kind of bothers me that I got mischaracterised and couldn't reply for such a long time due to the silly HN rate limit.
Tim Cook is 53 and gay. Eich is 58 and straight. Very different backgrounds.
Eich is also 53, the same age as Cook. Both were born in 1961 Where do you get you mistaken certitude from? And why would 5 years age difference matter even if it were true?
Being opposed to gay marriage does not imply being against homosexuals. But they presumably don't see eye to eye on the subject of gay marriage.
> 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?
How is that even possible? How is enforcing legal restrictions against a minority class of people not inherently discriminatory?
> How is enforcing legal restrictions against a minority class of people not inherently discriminatory?
That's begging the question: you're assuming that failure to recognise a homosexual relationship is a legal restriction, which really doesn't make sense. I can declare myself King of England, no-one in America will recognise me as such, but that doesn't impose any legal restriction on me.
There's the side issue of all the other things which 'marriage' acts as a legal shorthand for, but that is a side issue.
You're also assuming that discrimination is an inherently bad thing; it is, of course, not. Discriminating between a green and a red light is a pretty useful survival skill whilst driving, for example. Discriminating between reproductive and non-reproductive relationships is also useful; there's a difference.
My own personal view is that marriage is a religious matter, and that the State should no longer recognise it at all. If two men want to say that they're married, that's their right, just as it is mine to declare myself Grand Vizier of the Martian Republic—and no-one should be compelled by violence (which is what the law ultimately is) to heed either them or me.
That's begging the question: you're assuming that failure to recognise a homosexual relationship is a legal restriction, which really doesn't make sense. I can declare myself King of England, no-one in America will recognise me as such, but that doesn't impose any legal restriction on me.
There's the side issue of all the other things which 'marriage' acts as a legal shorthand for, but that is a side issue.
You're also assuming that discrimination is an inherently bad thing; it is, of course, not. Discriminating between a green and a red light is a pretty useful survival skill whilst driving, for example. Discriminating between reproductive and non-reproductive relationships is also useful; there's a difference.
My own personal view is that marriage is a religious matter, and that the State should no longer recognise it at all. If two men want to say that they're married, that's their right, just as it is mine to declare myself Grand Vizier of the Martian Republic—and no-one should be compelled by violence (which is what the law ultimately is) to heed either them or me.
That's a cool view, but not how it works. The 'side issue' you dismiss is really the center of it: the government denies full participation to a class of people based on a questionable moral stance. Anything less that recognition is a 'back of the bus' argument: if the bus goes to the same place, why do you care if you have to sit in the back?
Sorry, I have to write a second reply because it really makes me think: what would a possible moral stance against gay marriage even be? I can't imagine a reasonable moral argument against gay marriage? Unless you think homosexuals being together is immoral, but then marriage would be irrelevant (if that was somebody's opinion, they would probably fight on a lower level, like putting gays into jail or whatever, not prevent them from marrying)?
I'm not really well versed in the typical pro and contra arguments, so this made me curious.
I'm not really well versed in the typical pro and contra arguments, so this made me curious.
The State has no business being involved in morality, so outlawing homosexual activity is outside the State's remit.
The moral argument against homosexual pseudomarriage is that it represents a fundamental misunderstanding about marriage. Marriage is not about a couple's (or a group's) feelings about one another. It's not a way that society shows approval. It is, rather, the formation of the most basic unit _of_ society (I'd argue that the individual is not really a unit of society), and is the means by which children are produced and brought up.
(And yes, there's plenty of heterosexual pseudomarriage too)
But, given that these are all moral arguments, my preference is for the State to absent itself entirely rather for it to take a side and do further damage to an almost destroyed institution.
The moral argument against homosexual pseudomarriage is that it represents a fundamental misunderstanding about marriage. Marriage is not about a couple's (or a group's) feelings about one another. It's not a way that society shows approval. It is, rather, the formation of the most basic unit _of_ society (I'd argue that the individual is not really a unit of society), and is the means by which children are produced and brought up.
(And yes, there's plenty of heterosexual pseudomarriage too)
But, given that these are all moral arguments, my preference is for the State to absent itself entirely rather for it to take a side and do further damage to an almost destroyed institution.
Its about building a family, which is more than one person. To call its purpose child-raising is silly; folks stay married after the kids are gone. A family can be a grandmother and a grandkid; a Mom and a child and a grandchild; three kids raising one another after the folks die in an accident; two Moms and three adopted kids (like my cousins are). Its arrogant and small-minded to reject any family that doesn't look like yours, and worse yet to try to legislate other families out of existence.
In fact, if marriage is 'almost destroyed' as you posit, then we need more, new styles of family if kids are to have a chance to grow up fed and clothed and loved enough.
In fact, if marriage is 'almost destroyed' as you posit, then we need more, new styles of family if kids are to have a chance to grow up fed and clothed and loved enough.
Well married homosexuals get the right to adopt children (I assume). I don't think it's just a moral stance. Maybe some people really are convinced that having two dads is bad for children psychologically. They would probably be wrong, but it's not a question of morals (unless you dismiss the protection of children's wellbeing as a goal). I am not sure if science has really shown it's not bad for children. I personally don't think so, but I can't blame other people for thinking so.
How does adoption in general work? For example it can happen through "natural causes" that a child has only one dad and no mother. It seems likely that having two dads would be better than just one. But if somebody wants to adopt, they might have to be "better than average"? Like would a single dad have a good chance of adopting? Or does some office consider the likelihood of a child's wellbeing in a family - so presumably they would try to find two parents, not just one, which is discriminatory against singles? And then if the "adoption office" (or whoever is responsible) has the choice between a heterosexual and a homosexual couple, things become difficult?
How does adoption in general work? For example it can happen through "natural causes" that a child has only one dad and no mother. It seems likely that having two dads would be better than just one. But if somebody wants to adopt, they might have to be "better than average"? Like would a single dad have a good chance of adopting? Or does some office consider the likelihood of a child's wellbeing in a family - so presumably they would try to find two parents, not just one, which is discriminatory against singles? And then if the "adoption office" (or whoever is responsible) has the choice between a heterosexual and a homosexual couple, things become difficult?
Science has shown it's not bad for children: http://www.apa.org/pi/lgbt/resources/parenting.aspx?item=11
People who continue to make this argument are ignoring a very well-established conclusion in the social science research.
People who continue to make this argument are ignoring a very well-established conclusion in the social science research.
All that is government meddling in someone else's affairs in the most egregious way possible. Its not as far as taking kids from single parents etc. because they don't fit someone's model of a perfect family, but nearly there.
My cousin has 4 kids, and is married to the love of her life Lisa. Their kids are certifiably the kindest, most considerate kids I know. There's been no psychological damage, at least not at their hands. Ignorant outsiders may say mean things but to blame that on these excellent parents would be twisted logic.
Anywho, the decision about adoption is so far down the road from marriage as to be a red herring.
My cousin has 4 kids, and is married to the love of her life Lisa. Their kids are certifiably the kindest, most considerate kids I know. There's been no psychological damage, at least not at their hands. Ignorant outsiders may say mean things but to blame that on these excellent parents would be twisted logic.
Anywho, the decision about adoption is so far down the road from marriage as to be a red herring.
Sure, that is what I said in another comment: if you argue homosexual couples are somehow unfit to raise children, you would also have to question other people's fitness.
But I think you are wrong about adoption. I think it's one of the main concerns opponents of gay marriage have. What other rights would people be concerned about? The other one I can think of is the right to bring your spouse into your country.
Are people going to the barricades because they don't want gays to be able to visit their partners in hospital? I rather doubt it. Adoption is one of the big issues.
But I think you are wrong about adoption. I think it's one of the main concerns opponents of gay marriage have. What other rights would people be concerned about? The other one I can think of is the right to bring your spouse into your country.
Are people going to the barricades because they don't want gays to be able to visit their partners in hospital? I rather doubt it. Adoption is one of the big issues.
Adoption rules are covered under different laws. Why not attack those rules, instead of marriage? It seems indirect. As you suggest, why not arrest, or execute, or lobotomize as well? Unmarried people can adopt - so what's the connection then?
I think, because the argument is thrown up semi-randomly - See! They might adopt! That would be awful! Just another red herring, saying anything at all that might convince a voter to strike down the right to marry.
I think, because the argument is thrown up semi-randomly - See! They might adopt! That would be awful! Just another red herring, saying anything at all that might convince a voter to strike down the right to marry.
> That's begging the question: you're assuming that failure to recognise a homosexual relationship is a legal restriction
When it is a product of specific exclusionary provisions of the law, in the application of legal recognition of a relationship defined in law, then it is a legal restriction.
> I can declare myself King of England, no-one in America will recognise me as such, but that doesn't impose any legal restriction on me.
The rules governing the manner of succession to the British crown and the people who are eligibile to that succession most certainly are legal restrictions, and they most certainly are legal restrictions on most of the people in the world (even if it is a restriction where most of the restricted people don't care.)
> There's the side issue of all the other things which 'marriage' acts as a legal shorthand for, but that is a side issue.
Er, no, its not. Marriage is a legal status. The legal effects of the status are central to the issue, not a side issue.
> Discriminating between reproductive and non-reproductive relationships is also useful
Perhaps, but (a) why should we believe that in the general case, and (b) given the legal effects of marriage, why is marriage specifically an appropriate and valuable venue for such discrimination? About the only legal effect of marriage that is specifically directed to reproduction is the legal presumption of parenthood in which a spouse is presumptively (either rebuttably or conclusively, depending on jurisdiction) assigned parental responsibility for any children produced by the other partner. Arguably, the value of that is largely in providing an assurance that dual parental legal responsibility will be assigned in the absence of any effort to establish (in rebuttable presumption jurisdictions) or independently of (in conclusive presumption jurisdictions) the facts of biological parentage, which is as valid in a same-sex partnership as in an opposite-sex partnership.
When it is a product of specific exclusionary provisions of the law, in the application of legal recognition of a relationship defined in law, then it is a legal restriction.
> I can declare myself King of England, no-one in America will recognise me as such, but that doesn't impose any legal restriction on me.
The rules governing the manner of succession to the British crown and the people who are eligibile to that succession most certainly are legal restrictions, and they most certainly are legal restrictions on most of the people in the world (even if it is a restriction where most of the restricted people don't care.)
> There's the side issue of all the other things which 'marriage' acts as a legal shorthand for, but that is a side issue.
Er, no, its not. Marriage is a legal status. The legal effects of the status are central to the issue, not a side issue.
> Discriminating between reproductive and non-reproductive relationships is also useful
Perhaps, but (a) why should we believe that in the general case, and (b) given the legal effects of marriage, why is marriage specifically an appropriate and valuable venue for such discrimination? About the only legal effect of marriage that is specifically directed to reproduction is the legal presumption of parenthood in which a spouse is presumptively (either rebuttably or conclusively, depending on jurisdiction) assigned parental responsibility for any children produced by the other partner. Arguably, the value of that is largely in providing an assurance that dual parental legal responsibility will be assigned in the absence of any effort to establish (in rebuttable presumption jurisdictions) or independently of (in conclusive presumption jurisdictions) the facts of biological parentage, which is as valid in a same-sex partnership as in an opposite-sex partnership.
I actually agree with your proposal to get the state out of recognizing marriage (from what I suspect is a diametrically opposed political position). But you need to acknowledge that this would mean massive changes in many, many aspects of government policy. In the United States, state recognition of marriage is built into our tax structure, immigration policy, all aspects of social security, the regulation of trusts and estates, health care...the list is pretty much endless. Unless and until we change all of those policies, the failure to recognize same-sex marriages is discriminatory.
I am not saying that I am of that opinion, but it seems valid to me to be of the opinion that marriage should be for the protection of families with the potential to have children (for example). It's just an opinion - isn't that what democracies are for?
Marriage comes with specific rights and obligations (like, presumably most controversial, adoption and "importing" spouses into the country). Somehow society makes rules for who gets those rights and obligations. Would you say for example everybody should have the right to import people into the country? For example why don't I get the right to bestow citizenship onto people whom I really like - do I need to fuck them to prove I love them? Isn't that discriminatory? Or why stop at gay marriage - what about polyarmory?
I am not against polyarmory, but suppose I have 100 lovers all over the world and I want them all to become US citizens? Why can't I just marry them all?
Maybe it would be fair if every citizen would get the license to bring n people into the country, no matter if married or not?
Again, I am not against gay marriage, I just want to demonstrate that there can be aspects that can be argued about.
I don't know enough about adoption to comment. Can everybody adopt children? Or do you have to prove you are a healthy couple, or wealthy enough, or whatever? Personally I think once you argue homosexuals are not fit to adopt, you would have to consider all other sorts of criterions as well (for example surely many heterosexual couples are not fit to have children, or less so than some homosexual couples). Adoption is complex, though.
Marriage comes with specific rights and obligations (like, presumably most controversial, adoption and "importing" spouses into the country). Somehow society makes rules for who gets those rights and obligations. Would you say for example everybody should have the right to import people into the country? For example why don't I get the right to bestow citizenship onto people whom I really like - do I need to fuck them to prove I love them? Isn't that discriminatory? Or why stop at gay marriage - what about polyarmory?
I am not against polyarmory, but suppose I have 100 lovers all over the world and I want them all to become US citizens? Why can't I just marry them all?
Maybe it would be fair if every citizen would get the license to bring n people into the country, no matter if married or not?
Again, I am not against gay marriage, I just want to demonstrate that there can be aspects that can be argued about.
I don't know enough about adoption to comment. Can everybody adopt children? Or do you have to prove you are a healthy couple, or wealthy enough, or whatever? Personally I think once you argue homosexuals are not fit to adopt, you would have to consider all other sorts of criterions as well (for example surely many heterosexual couples are not fit to have children, or less so than some homosexual couples). Adoption is complex, though.
Gay couples do have the possibility of having children, though. Some good friends of mine (lesbian couple + a close gay friend of theirs) have twins together, with the guy donating sperm to one of the women. They have entered a "holy wow" to raise the kids together as three parents, as if they were all biologically involved.
So this in itself is not an argument; while I acknowledge that this is something that can be argued about, a lot of the arguing on this subject is extremely bigoted and misinformed. As is illustrated by this trio's harsh encounters with a number of government agencies that stick their heads into this arrangement and meet them with an incredibly hostile skepticism.
So this in itself is not an argument; while I acknowledge that this is something that can be argued about, a lot of the arguing on this subject is extremely bigoted and misinformed. As is illustrated by this trio's harsh encounters with a number of government agencies that stick their heads into this arrangement and meet them with an incredibly hostile skepticism.
I suspect people worry more about the "two dads" scenario than the "two mothers" scenario. Afaik the large majority of kids of gay couples are kids living with two mothers, one of them their biological one.
I wonder how many kids live with two dads, one of them their biological one? I would expect the circumstances leading to that situation to be very rare.
Anyway I don't want to argue in favor of the anti-marriage crowd, just point out that some arguments can at least be related to, even if they are misguided. Unfortunately we can not shut misguided people out of politics (or so it seems).
I wonder how many kids live with two dads, one of them their biological one? I would expect the circumstances leading to that situation to be very rare.
Anyway I don't want to argue in favor of the anti-marriage crowd, just point out that some arguments can at least be related to, even if they are misguided. Unfortunately we can not shut misguided people out of politics (or so it seems).
It is inherently discriminatory. But people will go out of their way to rationalize their position, whatever it takes. If one is convinced that gay marriage is bad and that discrimination against gay people is also bad, one will come up with some way to explain how the two are not in conflict.
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...
It became a common right-libertarian view about the same time as the heterosexual-only marriage policy throughout the US came under serious threat.
Its also kind of interesting as a libertarian view, since marriage is essentially just a convenient prepackaged contractual relationship regarding property rights in the broad sense, and recognizing and enforcing contracts and their impact on property rights is one of the few things that libertarians generally agree is a proper role of government.
Its also kind of interesting as a libertarian view, since marriage is essentially just a convenient prepackaged contractual relationship regarding property rights in the broad sense, and recognizing and enforcing contracts and their impact on property rights is one of the few things that libertarians generally agree is a proper role of government.
> It became a common right-libertarian view about the same time as the heterosexual-only marriage policy throughout the US came under serious threat.
What were the right-libertarian views on marriage in the US prior to that? I'd be surprised if there were libertarians with radically different views.
> Its also kind of interesting as a libertarian view, since marriage is essentially just a convenient prepackaged contractual relationship regarding property rights in the broad sense, and recognizing and enforcing contracts and their impact on property rights is one of the few things that libertarians generally agree is a proper role of government.
I think the general view is that those contracts should not require a "stamp of approval" from the government and should instead be done privately and be enforced like any other contracts. Of course, in practice, a lot of laws would have to be rewritten to get rid of marital status.
What were the right-libertarian views on marriage in the US prior to that? I'd be surprised if there were libertarians with radically different views.
> Its also kind of interesting as a libertarian view, since marriage is essentially just a convenient prepackaged contractual relationship regarding property rights in the broad sense, and recognizing and enforcing contracts and their impact on property rights is one of the few things that libertarians generally agree is a proper role of government.
I think the general view is that those contracts should not require a "stamp of approval" from the government and should instead be done privately and be enforced like any other contracts. Of course, in practice, a lot of laws would have to be rewritten to get rid of marital status.
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...)
[deleted]
> When I arrive in my office each morning, I’m greeted by framed photos of Dr. King and Robert F. Kennedy.
Personally, I was struck as much or more by this statement. This certainly does not follow the standard political & business script that we are force feed in the USA. I look forward to hearing more from Cook speaking to social issues.
Personally, I was struck as much or more by this statement. This certainly does not follow the standard political & business script that we are force feed in the USA. I look forward to hearing more from Cook speaking to social issues.
This was pretty well known ever since Tim Cook took reins as CEO. I think Felix Salmon "outed" him at the time, although I don't think Tim Cook ever hid it, or was ashamed in any respect. He, however, never addressed it publicly until now.
It's great that he has gone on record to officially address this. I'm curious though if there will be any repercussions from much less tolerant countries around the world. Hopefully not, and hopefully this opens up a new era of acceptance, although some countries that outlaw homosexuality might do stupid things. Thank goodness they are small and insignificant for the most part, although the reaction from countries like China and Indonesia worry me.
It's great that he has gone on record to officially address this. I'm curious though if there will be any repercussions from much less tolerant countries around the world. Hopefully not, and hopefully this opens up a new era of acceptance, although some countries that outlaw homosexuality might do stupid things. Thank goodness they are small and insignificant for the most part, although the reaction from countries like China and Indonesia worry me.
What struck me about this piece is how effectively and with such clarity it was crafted: I could hear Tim saying every single one of these words in my head. To make the written word as convincing and powerful as the well-crafted spoken word is truly genius.
This thread is growing faster than I can read it. Yeah, Tim Cook coming out as gay is a positive thing, but it's not particularly novel or revolutionary.
If I were a young closeted gay person and someone said, "Apple's CEO, Tim Cook, just came out as gay," I wouldn't jump for joy for the future of gay people in technology. I'd instead make damn sure I didn't carry any Apple products in public for fear of some stranger connecting the dots and bullying me. But, hell, I grew up in a very oppressive town. (I also don't own any Apple products.)
What matters more is that Tim Cook is not the only one to speak up about this. I'd like to hear more CEOs come out without fear.
If I were a young closeted gay person and someone said, "Apple's CEO, Tim Cook, just came out as gay," I wouldn't jump for joy for the future of gay people in technology. I'd instead make damn sure I didn't carry any Apple products in public for fear of some stranger connecting the dots and bullying me. But, hell, I grew up in a very oppressive town. (I also don't own any Apple products.)
What matters more is that Tim Cook is not the only one to speak up about this. I'd like to hear more CEOs come out without fear.
> I'd instead make damn sure I didn't carry any Apple products in public for fear of some stranger connecting the dots and bullying me.
This makes little sense in a world where every second device you see is an iDevice.
This makes little sense in a world where every second device you see is an iDevice.
The key word in my sentence that I believe you overlooked is fear. Fear is often irrational.
I can guarantee, however, that there's some bully somewhere using the fact that some poor kid owns an iPod as today's premise for insinuating that his victim is [insert homophobic slur here]. More than likely, this is happening in my home town. (Fuck that place.)
I can guarantee, however, that there's some bully somewhere using the fact that some poor kid owns an iPod as today's premise for insinuating that his victim is [insert homophobic slur here]. More than likely, this is happening in my home town. (Fuck that place.)
[deleted]
Good for him. At first my reaction was "meh", but I think this is a net win for gays and Apple. Homophobes probably weren't buying many Apple products to begin with, and potential/reasonable homophobes now see another successful leader who just so happens to be gay. The message to those people is pretty clear: better not mistreat people because of their sexual preference; not only will you look like an ass, but you run the risk of pissing off the person who might be signing your paycheck one day. Not to mention designing some cool piece of tech that you brag about owning.
Props for speaking up like this. My sister is gay and I know what she's been going through. I still hold out hope that mankind will see the day where things like that won't matter any more.
Apple will go to great lengths to steal Microsoft's thunder.
I jest. This is a momentous announcement. But, I look forward to the day when being a gay CEO (politician, sports figure, etc.) is not newsworthy.
I jest. This is a momentous announcement. But, I look forward to the day when being a gay CEO (politician, sports figure, etc.) is not newsworthy.
No, this is because there is a midterm election in a few days.
It has nothing to do with Microsoft or Apple. It is identity politics pure and simple.
It has nothing to do with Microsoft or Apple. It is identity politics pure and simple.
Ridiculous. "I wasn't going to vote, but now that Tim Cook came out as gay, I think I just might!" - said no one ever.
Big up to Tim Cook for making this move. So many people struggle with issues of identity and live with or in fear of discrimination. Equal rights and justice for all.
[deleted]
Is this submission supposed to remain on the front page of HN? I was confident the mods would have killed it very early on.
It's heart warming to see the world become a better place. I'm glad Tim did this; While it is a small article, it will be remembered and it will change some people's live. Just as others have done before him, and will after him, it will lead us to a more accepting culture that we need to continue to striving to be.
I'm happy for not being gay.
Of course, this is not politically correct (because only gays are allowed to make such a statement).
Did you note anything?
Of course, this is not politically correct (because only gays are allowed to make such a statement).
Did you note anything?
Congrats to Tim! I've been waiting for this for a while. I've wondered though if he will have any problems traveling to foreign countries now. I don't know how much he travels, but, Russia has some bad anti-gay propaganda laws so there's at least one semi-important country to avoid.
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.
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.
This is good, well done Tim Cook. A good event for gay people everywhere, like any other prominent figure coming out publicly.
"It’s also given me the skin of a rhinoceros"
And doubly well done for rejecting the skincare regime stereotypically associated with his sexual orientation.
"It’s also given me the skin of a rhinoceros"
And doubly well done for rejecting the skincare regime stereotypically associated with his sexual orientation.
Good for him. Must be a relief.
I mostly agree with the sentiment that this is hardly news-worthy. But I am sure it does a lot to the self confidence of this minority group (particularly children, as Cook pointed out), and that can only be a good thing.
"I consider being gay among the greatest gifts God has given me."
I'm 100% behind this, it's a great article with a great motive but this struck me as a curious note. What do you think he's getting at?
I'm 100% behind this, it's a great article with a great motive but this struck me as a curious note. What do you think he's getting at?
one of the many things i appreciate the most about this essay is his sense of responsibility. its easy to see the leader of a large organization as an extraordinarily powerful individual, but he notes the seeming smallness of this announcement. he doesn't aim to change the world, but simply do his part. the last paragraph is so poignant because we all witness injustices and often act as bystanders. this is not a new phenomenon, but its important to remember to look at ourselves first and what we're each doing in our everyday lives
"(...) and I consider being gay among the greatest gifts God has given me". I can only imagine the reactions if the same was said by a heterosexual person, about heterosexual orientation... :)
You mean like the bits about the "great gift" of holy matrimony and God's intention "man and wife" to be joined "as one flesh" that crop up at basically every single Christian wedding?
So are you're saying that expressing the Christian view that God intends for men and women to only have sexual relationships within [a heterosexual] marriage, that such marriage should be the basis under which children are raised, that marriage should be a singular unending union, expressing such things won't cause one to be vilified, on HN say?
The evidence seems to be against you.
The evidence seems to be against you.
I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest there probably isn't one person posting on HN that has ever interrupted a wedding to complain that all the man and wife stuff is a bit heterosexist.
Surprisingly, HN - atheists included - is both capable of celebrating people's happiness when they express views on the amazing "god-given" nature of their romantic relationships, like Tim Cook did, and disapproving of people making statements to the effect that other people's romantic relationships are wrong, like Tim Cook didn't.
Equating the two is a desperately poor excuse for an argument.
Surprisingly, HN - atheists included - is both capable of celebrating people's happiness when they express views on the amazing "god-given" nature of their romantic relationships, like Tim Cook did, and disapproving of people making statements to the effect that other people's romantic relationships are wrong, like Tim Cook didn't.
Equating the two is a desperately poor excuse for an argument.
That's the entire point being made here though - being straight isn't a particularly large challenge in today's society. What Tim is saying here, is that much of his empathy, and ability to appreciate minorities, and the oppressed, derives directly from being a member of a heretofore marginalized group. And, his ability to appreciate the importance of diversity, and to truly understand Dr. King and his message, is a result of that, "gift from god."
I understand that point. The impact of something such as this on your shaping is incommensurable; I can only imagine how much being part of a minority (particularly, one which is prejudiced, mocked and even attacked) shaped his way of understanding and appreciating difference.
However, I can't agree with putting it in "that" way ("among the greatest gifts God has given me"). Even taking into account how much such a thing will shape a person, it seems exaggerated (to me). It sounds like he is who (and where) he is because of his sexual orientation. He was, however, born in a developed (and rich country); he had food, parents and housing; he also education (and a good one, in great schools) and the privilege of working at IBM and Apple.
However, I can't agree with putting it in "that" way ("among the greatest gifts God has given me"). Even taking into account how much such a thing will shape a person, it seems exaggerated (to me). It sounds like he is who (and where) he is because of his sexual orientation. He was, however, born in a developed (and rich country); he had food, parents and housing; he also education (and a good one, in great schools) and the privilege of working at IBM and Apple.
I was responding to your comment about why this statement would have been controversial if it had been "being heterosexual among the greatest gifts God has given me", and explaining why taking pride in being in the Majority/Dominant group (I am proud to be White, I am proud to be Straight, I am Proud to be a Man) is so different than taking pride in being a member of a marginalized group.
Clearly there were a lot of things that put Tim Cook in the position that he is, far, far, far more important than his orientation; I.E. the fact that he is on earth, that he is human, born after 2000 BC, etc... are all more significant, but now we're going down a different rabbit hole than your original comment.
Clearly there were a lot of things that put Tim Cook in the position that he is, far, far, far more important than his orientation; I.E. the fact that he is on earth, that he is human, born after 2000 BC, etc... are all more significant, but now we're going down a different rabbit hole than your original comment.
Yeah, if you changed the statement to refer to something with entirely different context and history, it sure would be different.
Excellent news. For someone who has often been described as very private and opaque, I feel like I understand him a lot better now. Not to mention the positive social impact this will probably have.
[deleted]
Still, there are laws on the books in a majority of states that allow employers to fire people based solely on their sexual orientation.
That includes Alabama where Tim Cook was born and attended university.
That includes Alabama where Tim Cook was born and attended university.
This is great. Well done!
I don't think it is an original observation but Steve Jobs chose a very capable and worthy successor. Tim Cook gets more impressive each time you hear anything about him.
Way to go, Tim! It's a shame that he had to 'come out', but I hope that being the CEO of one of the world's biggest companies will help the LGBT cause.
It's a shame that this is so exceptional.
Kudos to Tim!
[deleted]
What kind of chair is he sitting on in the first image?
It's a Freedom Chair by Humanscale
"I consider being gay among the greatest gifts God has given me."
I don't like that statement.
Replace gay with one of white, male or straight and see how it sounds.
I don't like that statement.
Replace gay with one of white, male or straight and see how it sounds.
Never expected that! but still lot of respect for him.. it takes lot of guts to speak up being the CEO of the worlds biggest company!..
I'm prepared to get negative points for this, but who really cares if he is gay or straight?
There are a lot of people that care, in both directions. One day in humanity's future, sexual orientation will be a non-issue. However, this day and age, there is still a fight to be fought.
I don't care that he's gay, and it's nice that people can be who they are and not be persecuted for it. However, other countries do far worse than vent their frustrations about the morality and social pioneering of it all on messageboards. You're not wrong for asking who really cares in the least bit. It's actually kind of nice that you don't care. Not from an apathetic standpoint, but that it's so little of a deal to you that you remain wholly unaffected.
As weird as this may sound, I wish more people were like you.
I don't care that he's gay, and it's nice that people can be who they are and not be persecuted for it. However, other countries do far worse than vent their frustrations about the morality and social pioneering of it all on messageboards. You're not wrong for asking who really cares in the least bit. It's actually kind of nice that you don't care. Not from an apathetic standpoint, but that it's so little of a deal to you that you remain wholly unaffected.
As weird as this may sound, I wish more people were like you.
Wasn't this public knowledge?
It is so extremely sad that society is so evil that this makes a big news.
Good on him, nice work Tim.
Had he come out earlier, would he still have become CEO?
Greatness is not a slave to sexual orientation.
[deleted]
This shouldn't be even news. Some guy says he's gay? Big whoop, it's 2014 guys.
2014: still can't get married, can be fired for what I am, can't donate blood, still deal with homophobic comments online and in person, still don't see any non-stereotypical gay characters outside written fiction.
What's so special about 2014?
What's so special about 2014?
Who cares, make an iImplant for the Apple fans
This is going to sound callous, but my reaction is: big deal.
And this should be everybody's reaction, IMO. I'll explain momentarily.
Being gay isn't easy if you aren't in a supportive environment. Hell, being gay will get you killed in some cultures and countries. In some places you'll merely be shunned and disowned by your family and friends. As a straight guy, I know this. How?
Because for the last 20 years or so, I've heard this again and again. The LGBT movement is nothing if not vocal and persistent, even to the point of being heavy-handed. I'm not saying I'm unsympathetic, I'm just saying that if there's a target demographic for "awareness", I haven't classified to be in that group for years.
So when Tim Cook officially announces his sexuality, I'm well aware that this isn't something as casually mentioned as being left-handed, having AB- blood type or a peanut allergy, preferring cats over dogs, or liking the color yellow. I'm also aware that for LGBT folks who haven't come out, seeing a successful person do so can be encouraging and inspiring.
Now regarding my "big deal" reaction...
While civilization will never be without bigots of one form or another, if we as a society are ever going to get past racial/gender/sexual issues, then disclosures like Cook's need to be unremarkable. Comparing America's reaction to Billy Crystal simply playing a gay man on "Soap" in the 80s to today, it seems like we've come a long way in a relatively short time compared to other social movements.
By the same token, an incident earlier this year demonstrated that the tech industry is probably the one of most gay-friendly business sectors to be in. Ironically, Brendan Eich was attacked, ostracized and shunned for his beliefs because they weren't gay-friendly. As an outsider, it does not appear that being a gay CEO in the California high-tech industry is as much of a burden as, say, a restaurant owner in Istanbul.
Finally, Tim Cook is worth upwards of $400 million. Like all wealthy individuals, he is generally insulated from contact with the rest of us simply because of his lifestyle: he doesn't take the bus, doesn't live in an apartment or typical suburban neighborhood, and certainly doesn't work in a cubicle. He likely won't encounter hate unless he tries to personally negotiate the opening of an Apple store in Moscow or Tehran. He's not a monster because he's rich (as far as I know he might be a really nice guy), but he's hardly an "everyman". For what it's worth, I had a similar reaction when many people were showering Mark Zuckerberg with praise for learning Chinese: hell, if I was that rich, I'd have time (and money) to learn Chinese from the best tutors.
In short, anyone announcing that they're gay should garner a "so what?" reaction because as a society we should be moving towards a person's actions being more important than their appearance, beliefs, or sexual orientation. And a multimillionaire making such an announcement today should elicit yawns because he is not representative of a typical person.
Edit: Not surprised by the downvote without explanation. Congratulations, sir or ma'am: you're part of the problem.
And this should be everybody's reaction, IMO. I'll explain momentarily.
Being gay isn't easy if you aren't in a supportive environment. Hell, being gay will get you killed in some cultures and countries. In some places you'll merely be shunned and disowned by your family and friends. As a straight guy, I know this. How?
Because for the last 20 years or so, I've heard this again and again. The LGBT movement is nothing if not vocal and persistent, even to the point of being heavy-handed. I'm not saying I'm unsympathetic, I'm just saying that if there's a target demographic for "awareness", I haven't classified to be in that group for years.
So when Tim Cook officially announces his sexuality, I'm well aware that this isn't something as casually mentioned as being left-handed, having AB- blood type or a peanut allergy, preferring cats over dogs, or liking the color yellow. I'm also aware that for LGBT folks who haven't come out, seeing a successful person do so can be encouraging and inspiring.
Now regarding my "big deal" reaction...
While civilization will never be without bigots of one form or another, if we as a society are ever going to get past racial/gender/sexual issues, then disclosures like Cook's need to be unremarkable. Comparing America's reaction to Billy Crystal simply playing a gay man on "Soap" in the 80s to today, it seems like we've come a long way in a relatively short time compared to other social movements.
By the same token, an incident earlier this year demonstrated that the tech industry is probably the one of most gay-friendly business sectors to be in. Ironically, Brendan Eich was attacked, ostracized and shunned for his beliefs because they weren't gay-friendly. As an outsider, it does not appear that being a gay CEO in the California high-tech industry is as much of a burden as, say, a restaurant owner in Istanbul.
Finally, Tim Cook is worth upwards of $400 million. Like all wealthy individuals, he is generally insulated from contact with the rest of us simply because of his lifestyle: he doesn't take the bus, doesn't live in an apartment or typical suburban neighborhood, and certainly doesn't work in a cubicle. He likely won't encounter hate unless he tries to personally negotiate the opening of an Apple store in Moscow or Tehran. He's not a monster because he's rich (as far as I know he might be a really nice guy), but he's hardly an "everyman". For what it's worth, I had a similar reaction when many people were showering Mark Zuckerberg with praise for learning Chinese: hell, if I was that rich, I'd have time (and money) to learn Chinese from the best tutors.
In short, anyone announcing that they're gay should garner a "so what?" reaction because as a society we should be moving towards a person's actions being more important than their appearance, beliefs, or sexual orientation. And a multimillionaire making such an announcement today should elicit yawns because he is not representative of a typical person.
Edit: Not surprised by the downvote without explanation. Congratulations, sir or ma'am: you're part of the problem.
Go Tim!
Did Steve Jobs know about it?
[deleted]
That's weird ... I though he had come out. I remember reading in Nytimes and Reuters why it was a big deal that Apple will have openly gay CEO a couple of years ago.
Anyway good for him.
Anyway good for him.
I had a boss who was gay. Actually lot of gay people in that company. It was actually the best company I had ever worked for.
[deleted]
Strange, all this debate about homosexuality. I wonder what the conversation would be like if the truth was known about it...
Epigenetics is the science of how our genes express themselves. They can be altered by many factors. Environmental, even certain strains of bacteria.
So being gay is actually not the intent of genetics, but an error in the expression on the sexual orientation gene. This will become very public and irrifutable in the next decade.
There will literally be a pill that will turn a gay person straight. Where will the debate lead then? It doesn't really matter. Within two generations, there will no longer be gay individuals (from erring epigenetics) in first world countries.
There is a second means of being gay. Neurol pathways are formed which redirect certain thoughts and impulses in a different way. These are strictly experience based anomalies, usually caused by trama or desperation/rationalization. These comprise only a very minor number of the homosexual population.
Does this change your opinion on anything?
Epigenetics is the science of how our genes express themselves. They can be altered by many factors. Environmental, even certain strains of bacteria.
So being gay is actually not the intent of genetics, but an error in the expression on the sexual orientation gene. This will become very public and irrifutable in the next decade.
There will literally be a pill that will turn a gay person straight. Where will the debate lead then? It doesn't really matter. Within two generations, there will no longer be gay individuals (from erring epigenetics) in first world countries.
There is a second means of being gay. Neurol pathways are formed which redirect certain thoughts and impulses in a different way. These are strictly experience based anomalies, usually caused by trama or desperation/rationalization. These comprise only a very minor number of the homosexual population.
Does this change your opinion on anything?
super_mario(4)
uh..
Thesaurus(2)
linguafranca(10)
[deleted](3)
Practically everybody knew that Tim Cook is gay, that's why they said that Apple users are faggot and only faggot use Apple products.
Well, people called it gayphone before Cook became CEO.
Who cares about Tim Cook's personal life and preferences? Answer: no one should care.
Tim Cook is a exceedingly boring man talking about the most boring/banal/useless topic there is: sex preferences. Get out of my face identity pols!
Tim Cook is a exceedingly boring man talking about the most boring/banal/useless topic there is: sex preferences. Get out of my face identity pols!
I'm not sure why this is on Hacker News? I didn't think this was the place for these types of articles. Perhaps I'm wrong in that assumption, but I'm unsure how HN differs from Reddit if this is the case.
$AAPL down 1% pre-market :)
That would value a CEO's sexuality at 6 billion dollars. I sincerely hope that has nothing to do with this news.
The Federal Reserve voted yesterday to end quantitative easing (QE3). i.e. They will no longer be buying up instruments to prop up the economy.
http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2014/10/29/end-of-qe3-means-f...
http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2014/10/29/end-of-qe3-means-f...
Thank you for restoring my faith in humanity. MSFT, FB, IBM, SAP, HP all seem to be down.
Well, shareholders may fear that some conservative consumers will want to boycott Apple because of that announce. Not completely illogical.
Or they think that other shareholders will think that and lead to a drop in the share value.
Or they think that other shareholders will think that and lead to a drop in the share value.
Apple, among other tech companies, has been championing gay rights pretty publicly for a few years now. Also they've had quite a stance on renewable energy and rebuffed investors that were climate-change deniers.
I think the type of people that would boycott Apple over this, have already boycotted apple over the other things.
I think the type of people that would boycott Apple over this, have already boycotted apple over the other things.
I appreciate the market's crude honesty in evaluating the business impact of events, and I understand why a drop would happen. However, I hope that people aren't evaluating the business impact of this information at 6B, and that it is only a sad coincidence.
Me too.
Asked his prediction on what the stock market would do, J.P. Morgan responded: "It will fluctuate".
<sarcasm>Because as we all know, financial markets are so good at valuing something correctly.</sarcasm> Cough, CDOs, cough.
While this is already known, this does show us the world is not black and white. Tricky the whole thing.
Mozilla as a company fights for privacy and creates a lot of free software for the general good. But people couldn't stand it's CEO being anti-gay. Now we have the most dangerous (imo) company of all time whose CEO is gay.
Ah, good times.
Mozilla as a company fights for privacy and creates a lot of free software for the general good. But people couldn't stand it's CEO being anti-gay. Now we have the most dangerous (imo) company of all time whose CEO is gay.
Ah, good times.
Actually the problem is even worse because Brendan never expressed that he is anti-gay, he just sent a donation to activists "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California." [1]
And to me this does not represent that he is anti-gay.
1- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brendan_Eich
1- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brendan_Eich
That seems like a difference without a distinction - if he believes that only marriage between a man and a woman should be valid or recognized in California, then by extension he believes that a marriage between two men, or two women, should not be valid in california.
Which is advocating for not providing that right to same-sex indviduals. Which is anti-gay.
If the ballot measure said, "Only votes cast by a white person are valid or recognized in California", and someone donated money to support that measure - it would be reasonable to expect that they don't believe that non-white individuals should have the right to vote.
Which is advocating for not providing that right to same-sex indviduals. Which is anti-gay.
If the ballot measure said, "Only votes cast by a white person are valid or recognized in California", and someone donated money to support that measure - it would be reasonable to expect that they don't believe that non-white individuals should have the right to vote.
Dude, he expressed his opinion about the gay marriage like Tim Cook did about his beliefs in God and society. What's the difference ? It's just opinions! And people have to respect both!
Also anti means that you are against something, and Brendan never expressed that he was against gays or even hated gays. He was just against gay marriage.
Suddenly being "gay" is cool and being "hetero" is not cool ?
Suddenly being "gay" is cool and being "hetero" is not cool ?
You have to respect people's /right/ to an opinion, but you don't have to respect the opinions themselves.
Tim Cook expressing his beliefs does not deprive me of access to my rights as an individual. People are certainly free to not believe in gay marriage, but when they start donating money to groups dedicated to preventing gay people from getting married, that crosses a line.
Put another way - Tim Cook believes in God, which is fine, that's his prerogative. However, if he started donating money to anti-atheist groups, now he's actively working to disrespect the opinions of those who are atheists.
Note that this passage:
> Brendan never expressed that he was against gays or even hated gays. He was just against gay marriage.
Is basically identical to what many many people said about miscegenation/mixed-race marriage:
> (Brendan/whoever) never expressed that he/they were against blacks or even hated blacks. He was just against mixed-race marriages.
But in retrospect, it's really hard to look at that statement and not see it as an expression of bigotry. If you're "okay with gays" and "not okay with gay marriage", it really means that you're not okay with gays.
> Suddenly being "gay" is cool and being "hetero" is not cool ?
Seems weird to say that being gay is cool when we're arguing about people donating money to stop gay people from having the same rights as hetero people.
Put another way - Tim Cook believes in God, which is fine, that's his prerogative. However, if he started donating money to anti-atheist groups, now he's actively working to disrespect the opinions of those who are atheists.
Note that this passage:
> Brendan never expressed that he was against gays or even hated gays. He was just against gay marriage.
Is basically identical to what many many people said about miscegenation/mixed-race marriage:
> (Brendan/whoever) never expressed that he/they were against blacks or even hated blacks. He was just against mixed-race marriages.
But in retrospect, it's really hard to look at that statement and not see it as an expression of bigotry. If you're "okay with gays" and "not okay with gay marriage", it really means that you're not okay with gays.
> Suddenly being "gay" is cool and being "hetero" is not cool ?
Seems weird to say that being gay is cool when we're arguing about people donating money to stop gay people from having the same rights as hetero people.
> If you're "okay with gays" and "not okay with gay marriage", it really means that you're not okay with gays.
That's not true. You're stretching a line between two distant things in hopes of having a nice neat world of bigots on one side, and everyone else on the other. "You're either with us, or you're with the bigots".
That's an unreasonable ultimatum that I don't subscribe to.
I might be "okay with gays" but I might be "not okay with the annual mardi gras." It's a festival that closes down the streets and has stupid giant penises and vaginas on floats to represent the "gay community"? If I were gay I would distance myself from that crap.
In your world, I'm a bigot because I HATE that overly-camp, sledge-hammer decorative approach with men in g-strings running around in heels and pink fluffy decorations everywhere and don't forget the awful gay dance music. That's what it is to be gay? I don't think so. The mardi gras (at least the one where I live) needs to die. But I can't say that because I'll be "anti-gay". I'm not anti-gay, I just hate the annual celebration of the "gay community" by erecting giant penises on floats and broadcasting it all on live TV.
Do you see the problem? Just because you see gay marriage as something only a bigot would oppose, doesn't mean you have the right to drag everyone else into that binary mindset.
That's not true. You're stretching a line between two distant things in hopes of having a nice neat world of bigots on one side, and everyone else on the other. "You're either with us, or you're with the bigots".
That's an unreasonable ultimatum that I don't subscribe to.
I might be "okay with gays" but I might be "not okay with the annual mardi gras." It's a festival that closes down the streets and has stupid giant penises and vaginas on floats to represent the "gay community"? If I were gay I would distance myself from that crap.
In your world, I'm a bigot because I HATE that overly-camp, sledge-hammer decorative approach with men in g-strings running around in heels and pink fluffy decorations everywhere and don't forget the awful gay dance music. That's what it is to be gay? I don't think so. The mardi gras (at least the one where I live) needs to die. But I can't say that because I'll be "anti-gay". I'm not anti-gay, I just hate the annual celebration of the "gay community" by erecting giant penises on floats and broadcasting it all on live TV.
Do you see the problem? Just because you see gay marriage as something only a bigot would oppose, doesn't mean you have the right to drag everyone else into that binary mindset.
> That's not true. You're stretching a line between two distant things in hopes of having a nice neat world of bigots on one side, and everyone else on the other. "You're either with us, or you're with the bigots".
I'm not, I assure you. Especially when your subsequent example is:
> In your world, I'm a bigot because I HATE that overly-camp, sledge-hammer decorative approach with men in g-strings running around in heels and pink fluffy decorations everywhere and don't forget the awful gay dance music. That's what it is to be gay? I don't think so. The mardi gras (at least the one where I live) needs to die. But I can't say that because I'll be "anti-gay". I'm not anti-gay, I just hate the annual celebration of the "gay community" by erecting giant penises on floats and broadcasting it all on live TV.
You're entitled to that belief. It doesn't (necessarily) make you a bigot. Lots of people hate annoying parades - I myself found myself trapped a few months back trying to get across 5th avenue while the gay pride parade was going on and was incredibly annoyed.
So there we go - we share a common ground of annoyance towards loud, over-the-top parades.
But I presume that if another group had a similar parade, you'd be equally annoyed - that it's not the fact that it's gay people having the parade, it's the fact the parade is loud, decadent, over the top, with awful dance music (and giant penises on floats).
That's what makes it different than the example I gave. Your example (annoying, over the top parades with penis floats) is more akin to people who are against marriage entirely - they don't want anyone to get married, gay, straight, black, white, whoever. That's a position I can respect, even if I don't agree with it, because it's at least equally applied.
Gay marriage, though, is a situation where you have one group of people having a bigger, broader set of rights than the other group of people. That's a bigoted view of the world - for some reason these people over here can get married, but these other people over here can't.
If we were to apply it to your example, if you were only annoyed at the mardi gras because there were gay people involved - if straight people, puerto ricans, professional basketball players, whoever, threw the exact same parade and you were fine with it, then you'd be bigoted.
I'm all about a level playing field. Either everyone gets to get married, or no one does. Either everyone gets to have a loud, annoying parade with giant penis floats, or no one should.
Your example just doesn't apply here. I'm not dividing the world into neat examples of bigots and not, because people can have a broad range of emotions about a wide variety of things. And certainly, you can dislike aspects of gay culture without being bigoted as long as you'd dislike those aspects if they were present in other cultures. But when you single out one specific group as having diminished rights compared to the others, that's some level of bigotry for sure.
I'm not, I assure you. Especially when your subsequent example is:
> In your world, I'm a bigot because I HATE that overly-camp, sledge-hammer decorative approach with men in g-strings running around in heels and pink fluffy decorations everywhere and don't forget the awful gay dance music. That's what it is to be gay? I don't think so. The mardi gras (at least the one where I live) needs to die. But I can't say that because I'll be "anti-gay". I'm not anti-gay, I just hate the annual celebration of the "gay community" by erecting giant penises on floats and broadcasting it all on live TV.
You're entitled to that belief. It doesn't (necessarily) make you a bigot. Lots of people hate annoying parades - I myself found myself trapped a few months back trying to get across 5th avenue while the gay pride parade was going on and was incredibly annoyed.
So there we go - we share a common ground of annoyance towards loud, over-the-top parades.
But I presume that if another group had a similar parade, you'd be equally annoyed - that it's not the fact that it's gay people having the parade, it's the fact the parade is loud, decadent, over the top, with awful dance music (and giant penises on floats).
That's what makes it different than the example I gave. Your example (annoying, over the top parades with penis floats) is more akin to people who are against marriage entirely - they don't want anyone to get married, gay, straight, black, white, whoever. That's a position I can respect, even if I don't agree with it, because it's at least equally applied.
Gay marriage, though, is a situation where you have one group of people having a bigger, broader set of rights than the other group of people. That's a bigoted view of the world - for some reason these people over here can get married, but these other people over here can't.
If we were to apply it to your example, if you were only annoyed at the mardi gras because there were gay people involved - if straight people, puerto ricans, professional basketball players, whoever, threw the exact same parade and you were fine with it, then you'd be bigoted.
I'm all about a level playing field. Either everyone gets to get married, or no one does. Either everyone gets to have a loud, annoying parade with giant penis floats, or no one should.
Your example just doesn't apply here. I'm not dividing the world into neat examples of bigots and not, because people can have a broad range of emotions about a wide variety of things. And certainly, you can dislike aspects of gay culture without being bigoted as long as you'd dislike those aspects if they were present in other cultures. But when you single out one specific group as having diminished rights compared to the others, that's some level of bigotry for sure.
"people who are against marriage entirely - they don't want anyone to get married...That's a position I can respect"
If my position on gay marriage sits firmly atop my less than enthusiastic position of marriage in general, the burden of convincing any participant in the debate that my position is not fuelled by hate towards gays is not on me.
In other words, if you go into the debate primed with the objective of weeding out homophobic views by aligning anyone against gay marriage with homophobia, you've de-railed the debate before it's begun.
Many people don't care either way and are sick of the gay marriage debate taking up so much attention. It's not a pressing matter for the world in my opinion, and I don't sign petitions when hassled at the train station about it. I also don't sign petitions against gay marriage either, but I will enter a debate here online about it.
Some believe that "marriage" in and of itself doesn't need to be extended beyond heterosexual couples. When asked why, an increasing reason might be this collective foot-stomping campaign insisting that anything reserved for heterosexual couples must also be extended to gay couples or else there is some moral corruption happening. I don't believe there's a corruption of morality in reserving "marriage" to heterosexual couples. A substantial part of that position comes from my view on marriage in general - its origins, its contractual formula, its roots in the church, even the cost of marriage and the industry around marriage... It's not something built for 'expandability'... But anyway, thanks for replying, I'm sure the debate will continue.
If my position on gay marriage sits firmly atop my less than enthusiastic position of marriage in general, the burden of convincing any participant in the debate that my position is not fuelled by hate towards gays is not on me.
In other words, if you go into the debate primed with the objective of weeding out homophobic views by aligning anyone against gay marriage with homophobia, you've de-railed the debate before it's begun.
Many people don't care either way and are sick of the gay marriage debate taking up so much attention. It's not a pressing matter for the world in my opinion, and I don't sign petitions when hassled at the train station about it. I also don't sign petitions against gay marriage either, but I will enter a debate here online about it.
Some believe that "marriage" in and of itself doesn't need to be extended beyond heterosexual couples. When asked why, an increasing reason might be this collective foot-stomping campaign insisting that anything reserved for heterosexual couples must also be extended to gay couples or else there is some moral corruption happening. I don't believe there's a corruption of morality in reserving "marriage" to heterosexual couples. A substantial part of that position comes from my view on marriage in general - its origins, its contractual formula, its roots in the church, even the cost of marriage and the industry around marriage... It's not something built for 'expandability'... But anyway, thanks for replying, I'm sure the debate will continue.
How is gay marriage analogous to Mardi Gras in this context? Marriage provides certain federal and state benefits. By denying it some people, you are denying a certain class of people those benefits. If you cancelled or banned Mardi Gras, you would be denying the benefits of Mardi Gras to everyone equally. The only way your argument makes sense to me is if you banned Mardi Gras only for gay people. If you ban it all together, you aren't denying any particular group their rights.
Depending on what country you're in, the federal and state benefits can be there for couples whether married or not.
This is the tricky thing about this debate. I don't equate such benefits with marriage. That's a detail for the country and state. I prefer to argue for equivalent or largely similar benefits for gay couples. That in my mind would be the more appropriate way to achieve equality.
The analogy I outlined was about having an opposing opinion on something that is "owned" by the gay community, such as mardi gras, and expressing that opinion without being labelled a bigot. That's all I was doing there. Society's current obsession with political correctness prevents opposing expression of views from attracting accusations of deeper animosity.
I find the racism debates equally stifling. I could list a lot of admirable qualities about Chinese people and their culture. But can I list things I don't like without being called racist? These days you end up accused of being the "I'm not racist but..." guy if you happen to mention anything that isn't tightly wrapped in political correctness, or bundled in skilful parody and comedic wit - which is out of reach for most of us. So we end up just sounding racist if we say we don't like X, Y or Z about this or that country or this or that community.
This is the tricky thing about this debate. I don't equate such benefits with marriage. That's a detail for the country and state. I prefer to argue for equivalent or largely similar benefits for gay couples. That in my mind would be the more appropriate way to achieve equality.
The analogy I outlined was about having an opposing opinion on something that is "owned" by the gay community, such as mardi gras, and expressing that opinion without being labelled a bigot. That's all I was doing there. Society's current obsession with political correctness prevents opposing expression of views from attracting accusations of deeper animosity.
I find the racism debates equally stifling. I could list a lot of admirable qualities about Chinese people and their culture. But can I list things I don't like without being called racist? These days you end up accused of being the "I'm not racist but..." guy if you happen to mention anything that isn't tightly wrapped in political correctness, or bundled in skilful parody and comedic wit - which is out of reach for most of us. So we end up just sounding racist if we say we don't like X, Y or Z about this or that country or this or that community.
[deleted]
The most dangerous company of all time?
People of the bazaar fear those of the cathedral, because they can count the people entering the walled gardens, and many of them never emerge to trade in the agora ever again.
Apple has a big garden.
Apple has a big garden.
The walls are painted to make it the enclosed space feel open. Soon we will want to be enclosed once our conditioning takes hold :)
Yes, dangerous because of it's reach. I am not very excited to live in a walled garden. A massive one as that.
I simply don't get why he has to mix this article along with Apple's view of "The company I am so fortunate to lead has long advocated for human rights and equality for all. We’ve taken a strong stand in support of a workplace equality bill before Congress, just as we stood for marriage equality in our home state of California."
And in general, I think it's inappropriate to mix personal views with business matters. No body fucking cares if your gay or what color you are. If they do, then they are not people I would want to associate to begin with. What we do care about, are your products the company produces, support, what you're doing to fix bugs, etc...
Stop bringing personal BS to the business tables. Cook is way out of line for using his position at Apple (iPhone6 in the background) as a stage to push some personal gay message about himself.
And in general, I think it's inappropriate to mix personal views with business matters. No body fucking cares if your gay or what color you are. If they do, then they are not people I would want to associate to begin with. What we do care about, are your products the company produces, support, what you're doing to fix bugs, etc...
Stop bringing personal BS to the business tables. Cook is way out of line for using his position at Apple (iPhone6 in the background) as a stage to push some personal gay message about himself.
Why does it matter? Because of intolerance.
The tech community needs a good hard look in the mirror. Most of us are white, straight and male.
The tech community needs a good hard look in the mirror. Most of us are white, straight and male.
I work in a tech company and most of our men are gay, seriously. Take a look around man, it might come as a surprise for you but gays are everywhere, IT included. By the way since when is this news(for hacker news)? Did anyone here not know he's gay(honest question)?
On top of what Art said, it's simply smart business for him to come out as gay in this manner. Look at all the talk it's generating for him and the company he works for.
And it has positive social consequences to boot.
And it has positive social consequences to boot.
Is it OK to be proud to be a gay man?
Is it OK to be proud to be a gay white man?
If you answer one question with yes and one with no, there might be a problem.
Is it OK to be proud to be a gay white man?
If you answer one question with yes and one with no, there might be a problem.
(Assuming you're talking about in the Western world)
Do you not see a difference between being gay and being white? Really? Is it not obvious that one group has been historically repressed, attacked, discriminated against, etc. by its 'counter group', whilst the other has been the oppressor? These are about the most simplistic facts in social history, so I find it very difficult to believe you unaware of them; it seems more likely that you're choosing to ignore them in order to push some bizarre agenda. Just be honest and state the point you're actually trying to make.
Do you not see a difference between being gay and being white? Really? Is it not obvious that one group has been historically repressed, attacked, discriminated against, etc. by its 'counter group', whilst the other has been the oppressor? These are about the most simplistic facts in social history, so I find it very difficult to believe you unaware of them; it seems more likely that you're choosing to ignore them in order to push some bizarre agenda. Just be honest and state the point you're actually trying to make.
I actually think he makes a reasonable point, if you read his last sentence carefully.
Realistically, it doesn't make much sense to be "proud" of being gay, just like it doesn't make sense to be "proud" of being white.
It makes sense to be proud for staying strong in the face of discrimination and hate speech, but being gay itself is not worthy of any pride.
Realistically, it doesn't make much sense to be "proud" of being gay, just like it doesn't make sense to be "proud" of being white.
It makes sense to be proud for staying strong in the face of discrimination and hate speech, but being gay itself is not worthy of any pride.
In this context, when someone says they are "proud to be gay", I think they are strongly inferring the "staying strong in the face of discrimination" aspect since, unfortunately, that's pretty much a given. Also, historically, people have thought being gay is something to be 'ashamed' of, and I think this use of 'proud' is in contrast to that - cf. gay pride marches. No one ever thought being white was something to be ashamed of.
No one ever thought being white was something to be ashamed of.
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 dry counter point to the idea that white people never feel shame about their skin color aside from guilt.
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
This feeling of guilt is still a social construct and a negative auto-stereotype though, because being white by itself doesn't make anyone responsible for - say - slavery, or Holocaust.
After all, these atrocities were not an effect of being white as such, unless we somehow internalize a notion than whites are in some way genetically inclined towards committing genocide etc.
After all, these atrocities were not an effect of being white as such, unless we somehow internalize a notion than whites are in some way genetically inclined towards committing genocide etc.
> It makes sense to be proud for staying strong in the face of discrimination and hate speech, but being gay itself is not worthy of any pride.
Exactly. If you are an aging gay man who has experienced repression and discrimination and lived your life to the fullest in spite of these challenges, you can be proud.
If you are a rich white man in Silicon Valley who happens to be gay, well ... hooray for you, I guess.
Exactly. If you are an aging gay man who has experienced repression and discrimination and lived your life to the fullest in spite of these challenges, you can be proud.
If you are a rich white man in Silicon Valley who happens to be gay, well ... hooray for you, I guess.
Shorter _pmf_: Check your gay privilege.
One has to wonder how - in this world filled with anonymity enabling services like Tor or even Pastebin - it is still possible to hide a secret, out in the open.
This is old news. Felix Salmon spelled it out in no uncertain terms when Mr.Cook was first named CEO, in 2011. [1]
The best place to hide something - not that Mr.Cook himself wanted his sexuality hidden; he merely did not want it to grab all the attention, away from Apple - is still in plain sight.[2]
This also begs the question, if enough vested interests or powerful people want something not to be talked about, is the fact still worthy of its truth value?
This applies to the trivial case at hand - of Mr. Cook's sexuality - as it does to the countless secrets of great gravity that were largely ignored - concerning at least a dozen nations not including the U.S. - that Wikileaks exposed.
[1] Don’t ignore Tim Cook’s sexuality
http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2011/08/25/dont-ignore...
[2] The Purloined Letter
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Purloined_Letter#Plot_summa...
This is old news. Felix Salmon spelled it out in no uncertain terms when Mr.Cook was first named CEO, in 2011. [1]
The best place to hide something - not that Mr.Cook himself wanted his sexuality hidden; he merely did not want it to grab all the attention, away from Apple - is still in plain sight.[2]
This also begs the question, if enough vested interests or powerful people want something not to be talked about, is the fact still worthy of its truth value?
This applies to the trivial case at hand - of Mr. Cook's sexuality - as it does to the countless secrets of great gravity that were largely ignored - concerning at least a dozen nations not including the U.S. - that Wikileaks exposed.
[1] Don’t ignore Tim Cook’s sexuality
http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2011/08/25/dont-ignore...
[2] The Purloined Letter
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Purloined_Letter#Plot_summa...
Huh!
What reason would you have to find even this observation disagreeable?
What reason would you have to find even this observation disagreeable?
Probably because you bring Wikileaks to an unrelated Apple article. There is a time and a place for discussing the failings of the world's governments. A thread discussing a CEO who is able to come out of the closet is not that time or place.
It's curious how some people downvote but won't comment.
It's almost as if they'd rather hide their prejudices, than have their prejudices be brought to light.
It's almost as if they'd rather hide their prejudices, than have their prejudices be brought to light.
When I was a child, I felt generally good about myself. I was reasonably smart, well-spoken, curious, and so on, and I wanted to do something important with my life. Some nagging part of me suspected I was gay from very early on, but I resisted it intensely. I wasn't really afraid of being mistreated, although I probably should have been. People were already calling me names so I wasn't worried about that. More important for me was my sense that being gay meant being marginal.
There hasn't been a gay President, and at least when I was a child there weren't many gay people visible to me at all. The image of gay people presented to me were not powerful, focused on frivolous things, and consumed by attitude and lifestyle. If I wanted to do something important, I couldn't possibly be gay. It just didn't fit.
Knowing that the CEO of not only the most powerful company, but also the most admirable company, is gay would have helped me enormously. I always wanted apple products even before I could afford them, and this would have meant a clearly visible path forward. I can't imagine how happy this must be making some confused young people, given how happy it's making me right now.