Hacker News Reader

Comment by thenmar | Hacker News Reader

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.

View on HN

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).

> 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.

> 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?

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.

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.

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.

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-...

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.

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.

> 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.

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.

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.

> 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.

> Tim Cook continued contracts with Foxconn

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.

>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.

> 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."

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

> 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.

> 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

> 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.

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.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com