3 ms·

TLDR (from article): "OkCupid's co-founder and CEO Sam Yagan once donated to an anti-gay candidate. (Yagan is also CEO of Match.com.) Specifically, Yagan donate

TLDR (from article): "OkCupid's co-founder and CEO Sam Yagan once donated to an anti-gay candidate. (Yagan is also CEO of Match.com.) Specifically, Yagan donated $500 to Rep. Chris Cannon (R-Utah) in 2004, reports Uncrunched. During his time as congressman from 1997 to 2009, Cannon voted for a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage, against a ban on sexual-orientation based job discrimination, and for prohibition of gay adoptions." So donating to a campaign for a constitutional ammendment prohibiting gay marriage is the same as donating to a politician with a broad array of other policies? Anti-republicanism aside, how is this even remotely the same thing?

epaga 13y ago
It's remotely the same thing because it's about him supporting politics that many sharply disagree with. It shows the hypocrisy of grabbing pitchforks and torches and pushing out a brilliant mind just because you disagree with his views on marriage which are the same as 51% of all of California. My proposal: put down the pitchforks, pick up the coffee cups and talk and reason instead of pressure and bully.
- matthewmacleod 13y ago
  This is a weak argument. Eich's actions directly attempted to cause harm to a number of people in Mozilla and in the wider community he would have been a visible and important figure in. That's why this was different – a key requirement of Eich's position was to provide a leadership figure for the corporation and also the organisation as a whole, and it's really hard to get behind someone who's actively seeking to strip your rights or those of your friends and family. That's a large group of people to piss off and fail to apologise to.
- akiselev 13y ago
  > It's remotely the same thing because it's about him supporting politics that many sharply disagree with. You're talking about a nation with a blanket two party system, the world's largest economy, and an extreme tendency to involve itself with global affairs. I have an extreme aversion to voting for Republicans just due to the socially conservative views, but when the democratic candidates vocally support total global surveillance there's just no other choice. Supporting a candidate does not mean you support their every vote and as in all things with life, you just have to make compromises.
  - joelrunyon 13y ago
    > Supporting a candidate does not mean you support their every vote and as in all things with life, you just have to make compromises. Funny how this works for candidates that you vote for but not for CEOS of products you use.
    - deleted 13y ago
      [deleted]
    - akiselev 13y ago
      What are you talking about? It worked for the CEO of Mozilla too. Their community just made different compromises.
  - adventured 13y ago
    Having numerous parties does not inherently help with anything. There are plenty of examples of countries, eg in Europe, with lots of parties and very dysfunctional political systems. What matters the most is the culture of a country, not whether it has 2, 4, 6, or 27 political parties. A dysfunctional culture with a dozen parties will still produce a dysfunctional political system.
wisty 13y ago
I was going to disagree, but a Google search for Chris Cannon finds a site calling him a RINO (Republican in Name Only - the term extremists use for moderate Republicans) for his softer immigration stance. He's in fairly safe electorate, so his main challenge is winning pre-selection. Those donations could have helped keep a Tea Party candidate out of Congress. I guess it just goes to show you shouldn't start attacking people over a single headline.
fleitz 13y ago
Yes.
joelrunyon 13y ago
It's the same thing because it's demonstrates the can of worms you open up when you start subjecting everyone to scrutiny of their political views that have nothing to do with they're ability to do the job their entrusted with.

epaga 13y ago

It's remotely the same thing because it's about him supporting politics that many sharply disagree with. It shows the hypocrisy of grabbing pitchforks and torches and pushing out a brilliant mind just because you disagree with his views on marriage which are the same as 51% of all of California. My proposal: put down the pitchforks, pick up the coffee cups and talk and reason instead of pressure and bully.

matthewmacleod 13y ago
This is a weak argument. Eich's actions directly attempted to cause harm to a number of people in Mozilla and in the wider community he would have been a visible and important figure in. That's why this was different – a key requirement of Eich's position was to provide a leadership figure for the corporation and also the organisation as a whole, and it's really hard to get behind someone who's actively seeking to strip your rights or those of your friends and family. That's a large group of people to piss off and fail to apologise to.
akiselev 13y ago
> It's remotely the same thing because it's about him supporting politics that many sharply disagree with. You're talking about a nation with a blanket two party system, the world's largest economy, and an extreme tendency to involve itself with global affairs. I have an extreme aversion to voting for Republicans just due to the socially conservative views, but when the democratic candidates vocally support total global surveillance there's just no other choice. Supporting a candidate does not mean you support their every vote and as in all things with life, you just have to make compromises.
- joelrunyon 13y ago
  > Supporting a candidate does not mean you support their every vote and as in all things with life, you just have to make compromises. Funny how this works for candidates that you vote for but not for CEOS of products you use.
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
  - akiselev 13y ago
    What are you talking about? It worked for the CEO of Mozilla too. Their community just made different compromises.
- adventured 13y ago
  Having numerous parties does not inherently help with anything. There are plenty of examples of countries, eg in Europe, with lots of parties and very dysfunctional political systems. What matters the most is the culture of a country, not whether it has 2, 4, 6, or 27 political parties. A dysfunctional culture with a dozen parties will still produce a dysfunctional political system.

wisty 13y ago

I was going to disagree, but a Google search for Chris Cannon finds a site calling him a RINO (Republican in Name Only - the term extremists use for moderate Republicans) for his softer immigration stance. He's in fairly safe electorate, so his main challenge is winning pre-selection. Those donations could have helped keep a Tea Party candidate out of Congress. I guess it just goes to show you shouldn't start attacking people over a single headline.

fleitz 13y ago

Yes.

joelrunyon 13y ago

It's the same thing because it's demonstrates the can of worms you open up when you start subjecting everyone to scrutiny of their political views that have nothing to do with they're ability to do the job their entrusted with.