6 ms·

OkCupid's CEO Donated to an Anti-Gay Campaign Once, Too

lsiebert 12y ago
This title is disingenuous. He donated to a candidate, and responded with the following statement in less then 24 hours. "decade ago, I made a contribution to Representative Chris Cannon because he was the ranking Republican on the House subcommittee that oversaw the Internet and Intellectual Property, matters important to my business and our industry. I accept responsibility for not knowing where he stood on gay rights in particular; I unequivocally support marriage equality and I would not make that contribution again today. However, a contribution made to a candidate with views on hundreds of issues has no equivalence to a contribution supporting Prop. 8, a single issue that has no purpose other than to affirmatively prohibit gay marriage, which I believe is a basic civil right."
- briantakita 12y ago
  > 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. The Congressman Cannon took a strong anti-gay stance & supported legislation allowing job discrimination against homosexuals. The title seems accurate. > However, a contribution made to a candidate with views on hundreds of issues Obviously the rights of homosexuals was not that important to Yagan.
  - gobots 12y ago
    Donating to a congressman who took a strong anti-gay stance is hardly the same as "donating to an anti-gay campaign".
    - briantakita 12y ago
      It's pretty similar. Actually, it's worse since the congressman is a lawmaker that can influence other lawmakers with his agenda & draft bills. Yagan is also rewarding the Cannon for his stance on the issues.
      - lsiebert 12y ago
        "Rewarding" instead of "Rewarded" implies that he's continuing to do so. He stated pretty clearly that he wouldn't make the donation again. And donating to support a specific law is definitely worse then supporting a law maker more generally.
        briantakita 12y ago
        Whatever. These witchhunts are distasteful & hypocritical. Bleh! Then again, I've always been a fan of Jesus' saying "let him who is without sin cast the first stone". Oops, I can't say Jesus, or "him", because it's against the new "progressive" order. I fear I will soon have angry atheists & feminists demanding that I step down from my job for uttering a religious phrase. Infringing on the atheists' human right to be free of religion & feminists' human right to be free of the patriarchy & "rape culture". Does this make me look like a bigot? Please, I want to hold on to my "privilege, not right", to have a job. It's like modern "civil rights movements", "progressive movements", blah blah blah, are corrupted to be the new oppressors and promoting new speak. It's really sad :-( MLK & Ghandi would be sad. Feminism has been preaching sexism for a long time. Their tactic of demonizing anybody who dares to disagree with them are well known and advanced. It sucks to be a heterosexual male in America. I can't step outside without getting accused of "promoting rape culture". I hear that will soon become "hate speech" with jail time. I don't want to get married. I don't want to live with a woman in america. I already got screwed with that nonsense. My only choices are to grow a mangina or be gay :-P Anyways, I guess the "Gay rights" movement has a template to follow. So all of you can feel better for judging others who are less "progressive" than you. I wonder if there will be a progressive 1%, because the progressive middle class is getting hollowed out. That's ok I guess. All good things get tired and must end. Franchises & knock offs happen. The quality gets diluted. There will be a new revolution to move us forward. --- Btw, did you know that Jesus was really a feminist who died to save us from the patriarchy? j/k
mdwrigh2 12y ago
Without commenting on the overall debate, I think this nails the issue with the article: > However, a contribution made to a candidate with views on hundreds of issues has no equivalence to a contribution supporting Prop. 8, a single issue that has no purpose other than to affirmatively prohibit gay marriage, which I believe is a basic civil right.
lcasela 12y ago
Yay! More witch hunting. /s
- ballard 12y ago
  I think we need a witch hunting API, that way mob violence can be faster and more efficient so as to preclude any sort of defense.
- higherpurpose 12y ago
  Considering he started the first one, why not?
emocakes 12y ago
lets create a big internet shitstorm and make him resign. sad case about what happened to the Mozilla ex-CEO.
gb_ 12y ago
I find this to be another instance of "That's not quite what happened" when comparing a Mother Jones headline and the article.
gobots 12y ago
article was sensationalistic (not shocking out of motherjones) and erroneous. please don't turn HN into reddit.
- briantakita 12y ago
  The whole Eich scandal was also sensationalistic. That's the problem with being judgmental. Often times the judgmental people are being hypocritical.
  - ballard 12y ago
    In addition, it came off as a politically-manufactured "moral panic" more than anything. [0,1] The gay friends I polled were like "meh." [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_panic https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_panic [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentium_FDIV_bug https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentium_FDIV_bug
Pinatubo 12y ago
So what was the point of OKCupid's boycott of Mozilla again?
- ballard 12y ago
  Headline$.
mattbillenstein 12y ago
Off with his head!!
mkr-hn 12y ago
I'm upvoting this for the quote they added at the bottom. Brendan Eich was completely silent about his donation, so people made up their own minds about his current views. This is fundamentally different since Sam Yagan expanded on why he donated and what his current views are.

This title is disingenuous. He donated to a candidate, and responded with the following statement in less then 24 hours. "decade ago, I made a contribution to Representative Chris Cannon because he was the ranking Republican on the House subcommittee that oversaw the Internet and Intellectual Property, matters important to my business and our industry. I accept responsibility for not knowing where he stood on gay rights in particular; I unequivocally support marriage equality and I would not make that contribution again today. However, a contribution made to a candidate with views on hundreds of issues has no equivalence to a contribution supporting Prop. 8, a single issue that has no purpose other than to affirmatively prohibit gay marriage, which I believe is a basic civil right."

briantakita 12y ago
> 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. The Congressman Cannon took a strong anti-gay stance & supported legislation allowing job discrimination against homosexuals. The title seems accurate. > However, a contribution made to a candidate with views on hundreds of issues Obviously the rights of homosexuals was not that important to Yagan.
- gobots 12y ago
  Donating to a congressman who took a strong anti-gay stance is hardly the same as "donating to an anti-gay campaign".
  - briantakita 12y ago
    It's pretty similar. Actually, it's worse since the congressman is a lawmaker that can influence other lawmakers with his agenda & draft bills. Yagan is also rewarding the Cannon for his stance on the issues.
    - lsiebert 12y ago
      "Rewarding" instead of "Rewarded" implies that he's continuing to do so. He stated pretty clearly that he wouldn't make the donation again. And donating to support a specific law is definitely worse then supporting a law maker more generally.
      - briantakita 12y ago
        Whatever. These witchhunts are distasteful & hypocritical. Bleh! Then again, I've always been a fan of Jesus' saying "let him who is without sin cast the first stone". Oops, I can't say Jesus, or "him", because it's against the new "progressive" order. I fear I will soon have angry atheists & feminists demanding that I step down from my job for uttering a religious phrase. Infringing on the atheists' human right to be free of religion & feminists' human right to be free of the patriarchy & "rape culture". Does this make me look like a bigot? Please, I want to hold on to my "privilege, not right", to have a job. It's like modern "civil rights movements", "progressive movements", blah blah blah, are corrupted to be the new oppressors and promoting new speak. It's really sad :-( MLK & Ghandi would be sad. Feminism has been preaching sexism for a long time. Their tactic of demonizing anybody who dares to disagree with them are well known and advanced. It sucks to be a heterosexual male in America. I can't step outside without getting accused of "promoting rape culture". I hear that will soon become "hate speech" with jail time. I don't want to get married. I don't want to live with a woman in america. I already got screwed with that nonsense. My only choices are to grow a mangina or be gay :-P Anyways, I guess the "Gay rights" movement has a template to follow. So all of you can feel better for judging others who are less "progressive" than you. I wonder if there will be a progressive 1%, because the progressive middle class is getting hollowed out. That's ok I guess. All good things get tired and must end. Franchises & knock offs happen. The quality gets diluted. There will be a new revolution to move us forward. --- Btw, did you know that Jesus was really a feminist who died to save us from the patriarchy? j/k

mdwrigh2 12y ago

Without commenting on the overall debate, I think this nails the issue with the article: > However, a contribution made to a candidate with views on hundreds of issues has no equivalence to a contribution supporting Prop. 8, a single issue that has no purpose other than to affirmatively prohibit gay marriage, which I believe is a basic civil right.

lcasela 12y ago

Yay! More witch hunting. /s

ballard 12y ago
I think we need a witch hunting API, that way mob violence can be faster and more efficient so as to preclude any sort of defense.
higherpurpose 12y ago
Considering he started the first one, why not?

emocakes 12y ago

lets create a big internet shitstorm and make him resign. sad case about what happened to the Mozilla ex-CEO.

gb_ 12y ago

I find this to be another instance of "That's not quite what happened" when comparing a Mother Jones headline and the article.

gobots 12y ago

article was sensationalistic (not shocking out of motherjones) and erroneous. please don't turn HN into reddit.

briantakita 12y ago
The whole Eich scandal was also sensationalistic. That's the problem with being judgmental. Often times the judgmental people are being hypocritical.
- ballard 12y ago
  In addition, it came off as a politically-manufactured "moral panic" more than anything. [0,1] The gay friends I polled were like "meh." [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_panic https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_panic [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentium_FDIV_bug https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentium_FDIV_bug

Pinatubo 12y ago

So what was the point of OKCupid's boycott of Mozilla again?

ballard 12y ago
Headline$.

mattbillenstein 12y ago

Off with his head!!

mkr-hn 12y ago

I'm upvoting this for the quote they added at the bottom. Brendan Eich was completely silent about his donation, so people made up their own minds about his current views. This is fundamentally different since Sam Yagan expanded on why he donated and what his current views are.