8 ms·

OKCupid CEO Apologizes for Supporting Antigay Candidate

25 points by mkr-hn 13y ago

danso 13y ago
Two important things to know: 1. Clicking on the OP will force you to watch an obnoxiously, unskippable loud ad about razors and chest-shaving. 2. Sorry, don't think supporting an antigay candidate and a specific antigay law are the same thing. If I voted for Obama because I liked his proposals on health-care, does that mean I also support his wanton drone attacks? If I voted for Mitt Romney because of his tax proposals, does that mean I support...well, his likely use of wanton drone attacks? Now, supporting a candidate specifically for that measure...such as healthcare or tax proposals, that'a s different situation. But the kicker is this: OKCupid's CEO apologized. I guess to some, that makes him a total flip-flopping hypocrite. With Eich, we have someone who made a donation 6+ years ago and has never sought to give context to it or explain it or give further reflection to it, which means he either holds those anti-gay marriage views just as strongly today, or believes that apologies, or evolving viewpoints is a sign of weakness. Not really strong signs of confidence in a CEO, quite frankly. (note: I don't think he gets the benefit of the doubt of, "Well, he just doesn't want the government to be in the business of regulating marriage." If that were the case, then why hasn't he simply said that, as other political candidates have done?) To put it another way: I've worked with people who had less-than-favorable views of Asians, mostly because they had never worked/seen one in real-life (such is small town Midwest). That's OK with me. But if, after working with me, befriending me, and such, they still unapologetically held those opinions? Yeah, that's a different ballpark than simply having a disagreeable belief at some point in the past.
- rsynnott 13y ago
  > Sorry, don't think supporting an antigay candidate and a specific antigay law are the same thing A specific anti-gay law that stripped existing rights from people, at that. Yeah, it's very different.
  - danford 13y ago
    Eh.. supporting an anti Jew law is way different than supporting Hitler too, I mean, just because someone doesn't like Jews and they want an extermination law doesn't mean they want Hitler to do it. I can't believe people can't see this blatant logic.
    - mantrax4 13y ago
      You had to Godwin this, didn't you! But I wouldn't hurry to pile on Hitler before I know if he apologized. What if he had apologized? That really changes things.
  - DatBear 13y ago
    Candidates have the power to push for changes in legislation... if this candidate had changed legislation in support of any of his views on gay rights, how would it be any different than what donating to Prop 8 achieved?
- mcv 13y ago
  > Clicking on the OP will force you to watch an obnoxiously, unskippable loud ad about razors and chest-shaving. I didn't notice it. > Sorry, don't think supporting an antigay candidate and a specific antigay law are the same thing. No, but they are kinda close. > OKCupid's CEO apologized. That's definitely the big one. Eich should have done that, and distanced himself from the foolish ideas he held in the past. That said, I think the call for a Firefox boycott was way over the top, and considering OKCupid's CEO's political support in the past, at least a little hypocritical. > I don't think he gets the benefit of the doubt of, "Well, he just doesn't want the government to be in the business of regulating marriage." If that were the case, then why hasn't he simply said that, as other political candidates have done? It's an argument that makes no sense. If he didn't want government to regulate marriage, he wouldn't support a law that regulates marriage (which is what banning gay marriage but allowing straight marriage is: government regulating marriage).
  - masklinn 13y ago
    > No, but they are kinda close. They're kinda close but kinda far as well, supporting an anti-gay candidate may be because * you have the same views on the subject * you are not aware of his views (but you can be criticised for lack of due diligence) * you are aware of his views but support him for other reasons * you are aware of his views but absolutely don't want the other guy (similar but not identical to 3, you're not supporting a specific candidate so much as supporting anyone other than a candidate) Of these, only #1 is close to the prop8 situation.
  - discardorama 13y ago
    > No, but they are kinda close. Let's not be dense. They're not even close. It's almost impossible to vet a candidate and figure out his views on each and every position; while with a proposition like prop 8, one just has to read the title to figure out what it's all about.
- loceng 13y ago
  Find someone who has proposals on health-care you like but not the wanton drone attacks? Or if there are none like that, then start to campaign yourself to get elected? Also, being a friend with a person from a small town who has prejudice against someone is very different than who you elect the President of the USA.
- StavrosK 13y ago
  > If I voted for Mitt Romney because of his tax proposals, does that mean I support...well, his likely use of wanton drone attacks? If you like someone as a CEO because of their leadership qualities, does it also mean that you support their stance on gay rights, though?
  - masklinn 13y ago
    No, but that's one removed from the matter at hand. The concerns were with Eich, not with people who thought Eich would be a good CEO.
    - deleted 13y ago
      [deleted]
    - StavrosK 13y ago
      But was Eich's stance on Prop 8 relevant to his post as Mozilla's CEO?
      - masklinn 13y ago
        It looks like many considered it so didn't it?
        StavrosK 13y ago
        I'm sure many people did, but I don't know how reasonable that was, or how much Mozilla, as a company, will promote an anti-gay agenda because its CEO supports these views (if he does, I don't know him and haven't been following this story closely).
- chris_wot 13y ago
  So you would vote for the President of the United States when he was not in support of gay marriage, and that's OK, but if the new CEO of Mozilla holds the same stance you will? Don't think I've seen Obama apologizing for his past stances on gay marriage. What's the difference again?
  - masklinn 13y ago
    > Don't think I've seen Obama apologizing for his past stances on gay marriage. I don't know if he formally apologised, but he talked about his own change of heart and he did things and directed his administration towards gay marriage[0]. And even before his final shift, Obama definitely presented supportive stances towards LGBT groups. And AFAIK he never went and gave money to actively remove LGBT civil rights. > What's the difference again? Er… one changed his mind and stance, the other not? [0] his case is significantly complicated by his support for gay marriage during his original 1996 Illinois Senate run, moving to indecision in 1998, support for civil unions in 2004 (senate) and 2008 (presidential) before snapping back rapidly to support — as early as 2008 he called for the repeal of DOMA, voted against the federal marriage amendment and publicly opposed Prop 8, giving support to "fully equal rights and benefits to same-sex couples under both state and federal law."
    - 001sky 13y ago
      By your standards Mozilla is a bunch of racist bigots 70% of blacks people voted for prop 8 This is why it is illegal to litmus test political beliefs under california employment law. So, somebody has to pick their poison on this. Its not an easy issue...
      - deleted 13y ago
        [deleted]
  - toxican 13y ago
    There's a difference between having a stance and doing something about it. AFAIK Obama never actively fought gay's rights, he just had a negative opinion of it. Mozilla's CEO took action against homosexuals and donated money to a cause seeking to deny them rights. The difference is the difference between thinking something and acting on it. But that's just how I view it.
- mantrax4 13y ago
  I think we can safely stop thinking about the morality and legality of our actions, as long as we just apologize regularly. Here we have two people who have both performed actions which are both indirectly anti-gay. But one is let go due to an apology, and the other wasn't due to no apology. Apologizing is like a mark-and-sweep garbage collection approach to our past perceived sins. Accountability (and reference counting) is boring and takes a lot of resources. So we should just apologize. BTW, I apologize for everything. I also sincerely apologize for this post. Forgive me.
  - scrollaway 13y ago
    Nothing is let go due to an apology. It's let go because he was not in any way, shape or form supporting anti-gay laws and his apology is about not having done enough research on the guy. Seriously.
    - mantrax4 13y ago
      Yeah, pleading ignorance was a neat way to word it, I admit. The guy is a sleaze-bag, who chose to attack an open source browser (with an important role for the future of the internet, and the work of thousands) through his business for the benefit of getting positive PR for his business. I wonder if Brendan Eich had this mentality, how he'd spin it. "Oh, I apologize, I thought Prop 8 was about supporting the gays, damn. I didn't do my research!". But he doesn't have this mentality. So he instead chose to abandon the work of his life in order to preserve it, a rather painful action, as his spin-skills and spin-will were insufficient. It basically means that those of us who are willing to... 1) Attack others for their political actions for PR reasons. 2) Engage in the same type of political actions. 3) Lie they were ignorant about it. 4) Say "sorry" without feeling any guilt. ... have a huge edge on those honest people who just say things as they are, without spinning things. Damn, no wonder sociopaths are ruling the world, huh?
      - dragonwriter 13y ago
        > Engage in the same type of political actions. Donating to a candidate that isn't a single-issue candidate, even one opposed to same-sex marriage, is not the "same type of political action", relative to same-sex marriage or gay rights more generally, as donating to a campaign that is solely about enshrining prohibition of same-sex marriage into a state constitution. It might be a similar act if it is motivated by the candidates anti-gay or anti-same-sex-marriage views, but in and of itself it isn't the same type of action.
- _pmf_ 13y ago
  > With Eich, we have someone who made a donation 6+ years ago and has never sought to give context to it or explain it or give further reflection to it, which means he either holds those anti-gay marriage views just as strongly today, or believes that apologies, or evolving viewpoints is a sign of weakness. Not really strong signs of confidence in a CEO, quite frankly. And having a CEO that panders to the public opinion is better ... how?
  - Yoric 13y ago
    Or he believes that this is a private matter and doesn't want to discuss his private opinions in public. Which is a good sign in a CEO for a company whose main concern is protecting privacy (and free speech and education, etc.).
  - edgarallenbro 13y ago
    Isn't that what a CEO is supposed to do? Left hand: Complains that CEOs/politicians don't listen and are out of touch Right hand: Complains that CEOs are pandering ...what?
- protomyth 13y ago
  "If I voted for Mitt Romney because of his tax proposals, does that mean I support...well, his likely use of wanton drone attacks?" I take it you didn't bother to study Gov. Romney's position versus the President's current wanton use of drones. Much it seems like your lack of looking at the views the candidate supported by OKCupid's CEO has continually stated. OKCupid's CEO is a hypocrite who did not apologize prior to throwing stones at other. He only "apologized" under pressure.
- m52go 13y ago
  Wow, that sort of ad is inexcusable.
  - mkr-hn 13y ago
    Video ads are fine, but auto-playing with sound is awful. It's the kind of ad I have a blocker for. I would have found another source if I knew about the ad.
- mathattack 13y ago
  It's tough, because there is a morale issue at stake, but if we all become 1 issue voters, the political system breaks down. We have to support the candidates who on balance do enough for what we believe in. To your point - there's also a difference between supporting an issue, versus a candidate.
- nilkn 13y ago
  OkCupid as an organization sought specifically to harm Eich and Mozilla. I don't really care about any apology unless it is issued directly to him.
Tohhou 13y ago
Anyone who has ever donated to a church is in the same boat. You would be hard pressed to not find someone who hasn't given money to a church in some form, and equally hard pressed to not find a church which is not anti-gay, has not had any anti-gay activity at all in any form. They are all scum. None are fit to have jobs anywhere. It would be better for those who have been leaders of companies, leading them to prosperity, to burn than let them stay - fire them all, everyone. Yes, you too. Not just Christianity but Judaism or Islam which are even more explicitly anti-gay - logically anyone who is a Jew or Muslim should be targeted next by the social justice witch hunt. Edit: Many downvotes! Self righteous hypocrites rejoice! You enable anti-gay hate. You disgust me.
- mcv 13y ago
  > You would be hard pressed to not find someone who hasn't given money to a church in some form, and equally hard pressed to not find a church which is not anti-gay You're not looking very hard. Churches vary a lot, especially once you start looking outside arch-conservative US. There are churches that have gay vicars. Lots of churches have not had any anti-gay activity. The WBC is not exactly average.
  - Tohhou 13y ago
    You really think supporting homosexuals is a common trait in churches anywhere? "Being gay isn't bad if you don't act on it." Oh, yeah, sure. Totally not anti-gay. http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/gay/long.htm http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/gay/long.htm Anyone who thinks this book is golden is anti-gay no matter how they spin their politics.
    - masklinn 13y ago
      Careful with these goalposts, you're destroying the turf.
    - 67726e 13y ago
      That's the fun thing about most religious folks. They pick and choose which parts of <HOLY BOOK> to follow. Not to pick on anyone in particular, but ever heard the term "Cafeteria Christianity"[0]? It seems that following the entirety of a religion would be rather hard unless you quickly dive into the sticky situation of saying which parts are valid and which are not. [0] - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cafeteria_Christianity http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cafeteria_Christianity
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
therogerwilco 13y ago
Ok, so this ceo supports an antigay candidate, and the Mozilla ceo supported one too. Yet this guy gets away with an apology and the other has been forced to resign? Good to see everyone's equal sympathy towards others viewpoints.

25 points by mkr-hn 13y ago

danso 13y ago

Two important things to know: 1. Clicking on the OP will force you to watch an obnoxiously, unskippable loud ad about razors and chest-shaving. 2. Sorry, don't think supporting an antigay candidate and a specific antigay law are the same thing. If I voted for Obama because I liked his proposals on health-care, does that mean I also support his wanton drone attacks? If I voted for Mitt Romney because of his tax proposals, does that mean I support...well, his likely use of wanton drone attacks? Now, supporting a candidate specifically for that measure...such as healthcare or tax proposals, that'a s different situation. But the kicker is this: OKCupid's CEO apologized. I guess to some, that makes him a total flip-flopping hypocrite. With Eich, we have someone who made a donation 6+ years ago and has never sought to give context to it or explain it or give further reflection to it, which means he either holds those anti-gay marriage views just as strongly today, or believes that apologies, or evolving viewpoints is a sign of weakness. Not really strong signs of confidence in a CEO, quite frankly. (note: I don't think he gets the benefit of the doubt of, "Well, he just doesn't want the government to be in the business of regulating marriage." If that were the case, then why hasn't he simply said that, as other political candidates have done?) To put it another way: I've worked with people who had less-than-favorable views of Asians, mostly because they had never worked/seen one in real-life (such is small town Midwest). That's OK with me. But if, after working with me, befriending me, and such, they still unapologetically held those opinions? Yeah, that's a different ballpark than simply having a disagreeable belief at some point in the past.

rsynnott 13y ago
> Sorry, don't think supporting an antigay candidate and a specific antigay law are the same thing A specific anti-gay law that stripped existing rights from people, at that. Yeah, it's very different.
- danford 13y ago
  Eh.. supporting an anti Jew law is way different than supporting Hitler too, I mean, just because someone doesn't like Jews and they want an extermination law doesn't mean they want Hitler to do it. I can't believe people can't see this blatant logic.
  - mantrax4 13y ago
    You had to Godwin this, didn't you! But I wouldn't hurry to pile on Hitler before I know if he apologized. What if he had apologized? That really changes things.
- DatBear 13y ago
  Candidates have the power to push for changes in legislation... if this candidate had changed legislation in support of any of his views on gay rights, how would it be any different than what donating to Prop 8 achieved?
mcv 13y ago
> Clicking on the OP will force you to watch an obnoxiously, unskippable loud ad about razors and chest-shaving. I didn't notice it. > Sorry, don't think supporting an antigay candidate and a specific antigay law are the same thing. No, but they are kinda close. > OKCupid's CEO apologized. That's definitely the big one. Eich should have done that, and distanced himself from the foolish ideas he held in the past. That said, I think the call for a Firefox boycott was way over the top, and considering OKCupid's CEO's political support in the past, at least a little hypocritical. > I don't think he gets the benefit of the doubt of, "Well, he just doesn't want the government to be in the business of regulating marriage." If that were the case, then why hasn't he simply said that, as other political candidates have done? It's an argument that makes no sense. If he didn't want government to regulate marriage, he wouldn't support a law that regulates marriage (which is what banning gay marriage but allowing straight marriage is: government regulating marriage).
- masklinn 13y ago
  > No, but they are kinda close. They're kinda close but kinda far as well, supporting an anti-gay candidate may be because * you have the same views on the subject * you are not aware of his views (but you can be criticised for lack of due diligence) * you are aware of his views but support him for other reasons * you are aware of his views but absolutely don't want the other guy (similar but not identical to 3, you're not supporting a specific candidate so much as supporting anyone other than a candidate) Of these, only #1 is close to the prop8 situation.
- discardorama 13y ago
  > No, but they are kinda close. Let's not be dense. They're not even close. It's almost impossible to vet a candidate and figure out his views on each and every position; while with a proposition like prop 8, one just has to read the title to figure out what it's all about.
loceng 13y ago
Find someone who has proposals on health-care you like but not the wanton drone attacks? Or if there are none like that, then start to campaign yourself to get elected? Also, being a friend with a person from a small town who has prejudice against someone is very different than who you elect the President of the USA.
StavrosK 13y ago
> If I voted for Mitt Romney because of his tax proposals, does that mean I support...well, his likely use of wanton drone attacks? If you like someone as a CEO because of their leadership qualities, does it also mean that you support their stance on gay rights, though?
- masklinn 13y ago
  No, but that's one removed from the matter at hand. The concerns were with Eich, not with people who thought Eich would be a good CEO.
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
  - StavrosK 13y ago
    But was Eich's stance on Prop 8 relevant to his post as Mozilla's CEO?
    - masklinn 13y ago
      It looks like many considered it so didn't it?
      - StavrosK 13y ago
        I'm sure many people did, but I don't know how reasonable that was, or how much Mozilla, as a company, will promote an anti-gay agenda because its CEO supports these views (if he does, I don't know him and haven't been following this story closely).
chris_wot 13y ago
So you would vote for the President of the United States when he was not in support of gay marriage, and that's OK, but if the new CEO of Mozilla holds the same stance you will? Don't think I've seen Obama apologizing for his past stances on gay marriage. What's the difference again?
- masklinn 13y ago
  > Don't think I've seen Obama apologizing for his past stances on gay marriage. I don't know if he formally apologised, but he talked about his own change of heart and he did things and directed his administration towards gay marriage[0]. And even before his final shift, Obama definitely presented supportive stances towards LGBT groups. And AFAIK he never went and gave money to actively remove LGBT civil rights. > What's the difference again? Er… one changed his mind and stance, the other not? [0] his case is significantly complicated by his support for gay marriage during his original 1996 Illinois Senate run, moving to indecision in 1998, support for civil unions in 2004 (senate) and 2008 (presidential) before snapping back rapidly to support — as early as 2008 he called for the repeal of DOMA, voted against the federal marriage amendment and publicly opposed Prop 8, giving support to "fully equal rights and benefits to same-sex couples under both state and federal law."
  - 001sky 13y ago
    By your standards Mozilla is a bunch of racist bigots 70% of blacks people voted for prop 8 This is why it is illegal to litmus test political beliefs under california employment law. So, somebody has to pick their poison on this. Its not an easy issue...
    - deleted 13y ago
      [deleted]
- toxican 13y ago
  There's a difference between having a stance and doing something about it. AFAIK Obama never actively fought gay's rights, he just had a negative opinion of it. Mozilla's CEO took action against homosexuals and donated money to a cause seeking to deny them rights. The difference is the difference between thinking something and acting on it. But that's just how I view it.
mantrax4 13y ago
I think we can safely stop thinking about the morality and legality of our actions, as long as we just apologize regularly. Here we have two people who have both performed actions which are both indirectly anti-gay. But one is let go due to an apology, and the other wasn't due to no apology. Apologizing is like a mark-and-sweep garbage collection approach to our past perceived sins. Accountability (and reference counting) is boring and takes a lot of resources. So we should just apologize. BTW, I apologize for everything. I also sincerely apologize for this post. Forgive me.
- scrollaway 13y ago
  Nothing is let go due to an apology. It's let go because he was not in any way, shape or form supporting anti-gay laws and his apology is about not having done enough research on the guy. Seriously.
  - mantrax4 13y ago
    Yeah, pleading ignorance was a neat way to word it, I admit. The guy is a sleaze-bag, who chose to attack an open source browser (with an important role for the future of the internet, and the work of thousands) through his business for the benefit of getting positive PR for his business. I wonder if Brendan Eich had this mentality, how he'd spin it. "Oh, I apologize, I thought Prop 8 was about supporting the gays, damn. I didn't do my research!". But he doesn't have this mentality. So he instead chose to abandon the work of his life in order to preserve it, a rather painful action, as his spin-skills and spin-will were insufficient. It basically means that those of us who are willing to... 1) Attack others for their political actions for PR reasons. 2) Engage in the same type of political actions. 3) Lie they were ignorant about it. 4) Say "sorry" without feeling any guilt. ... have a huge edge on those honest people who just say things as they are, without spinning things. Damn, no wonder sociopaths are ruling the world, huh?
    - dragonwriter 13y ago
      > Engage in the same type of political actions. Donating to a candidate that isn't a single-issue candidate, even one opposed to same-sex marriage, is not the "same type of political action", relative to same-sex marriage or gay rights more generally, as donating to a campaign that is solely about enshrining prohibition of same-sex marriage into a state constitution. It might be a similar act if it is motivated by the candidates anti-gay or anti-same-sex-marriage views, but in and of itself it isn't the same type of action.
_pmf_ 13y ago
> With Eich, we have someone who made a donation 6+ years ago and has never sought to give context to it or explain it or give further reflection to it, which means he either holds those anti-gay marriage views just as strongly today, or believes that apologies, or evolving viewpoints is a sign of weakness. Not really strong signs of confidence in a CEO, quite frankly. And having a CEO that panders to the public opinion is better ... how?
- Yoric 13y ago
  Or he believes that this is a private matter and doesn't want to discuss his private opinions in public. Which is a good sign in a CEO for a company whose main concern is protecting privacy (and free speech and education, etc.).
- edgarallenbro 13y ago
  Isn't that what a CEO is supposed to do? Left hand: Complains that CEOs/politicians don't listen and are out of touch Right hand: Complains that CEOs are pandering ...what?
protomyth 13y ago
"If I voted for Mitt Romney because of his tax proposals, does that mean I support...well, his likely use of wanton drone attacks?" I take it you didn't bother to study Gov. Romney's position versus the President's current wanton use of drones. Much it seems like your lack of looking at the views the candidate supported by OKCupid's CEO has continually stated. OKCupid's CEO is a hypocrite who did not apologize prior to throwing stones at other. He only "apologized" under pressure.
m52go 13y ago
Wow, that sort of ad is inexcusable.
- mkr-hn 13y ago
  Video ads are fine, but auto-playing with sound is awful. It's the kind of ad I have a blocker for. I would have found another source if I knew about the ad.
mathattack 13y ago
It's tough, because there is a morale issue at stake, but if we all become 1 issue voters, the political system breaks down. We have to support the candidates who on balance do enough for what we believe in. To your point - there's also a difference between supporting an issue, versus a candidate.
nilkn 13y ago
OkCupid as an organization sought specifically to harm Eich and Mozilla. I don't really care about any apology unless it is issued directly to him.

Tohhou 13y ago

Anyone who has ever donated to a church is in the same boat. You would be hard pressed to not find someone who hasn't given money to a church in some form, and equally hard pressed to not find a church which is not anti-gay, has not had any anti-gay activity at all in any form. They are all scum. None are fit to have jobs anywhere. It would be better for those who have been leaders of companies, leading them to prosperity, to burn than let them stay - fire them all, everyone. Yes, you too. Not just Christianity but Judaism or Islam which are even more explicitly anti-gay - logically anyone who is a Jew or Muslim should be targeted next by the social justice witch hunt. Edit: Many downvotes! Self righteous hypocrites rejoice! You enable anti-gay hate. You disgust me.

mcv 13y ago
> You would be hard pressed to not find someone who hasn't given money to a church in some form, and equally hard pressed to not find a church which is not anti-gay You're not looking very hard. Churches vary a lot, especially once you start looking outside arch-conservative US. There are churches that have gay vicars. Lots of churches have not had any anti-gay activity. The WBC is not exactly average.
- Tohhou 13y ago
  You really think supporting homosexuals is a common trait in churches anywhere? "Being gay isn't bad if you don't act on it." Oh, yeah, sure. Totally not anti-gay. http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/gay/long.htm http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/gay/long.htm Anyone who thinks this book is golden is anti-gay no matter how they spin their politics.
  - masklinn 13y ago
    Careful with these goalposts, you're destroying the turf.
  - 67726e 13y ago
    That's the fun thing about most religious folks. They pick and choose which parts of <HOLY BOOK> to follow. Not to pick on anyone in particular, but ever heard the term "Cafeteria Christianity"[0]? It seems that following the entirety of a religion would be rather hard unless you quickly dive into the sticky situation of saying which parts are valid and which are not. [0] - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cafeteria_Christianity http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cafeteria_Christianity

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

therogerwilco 13y ago

Ok, so this ceo supports an antigay candidate, and the Mozilla ceo supported one too. Yet this guy gets away with an apology and the other has been forced to resign? Good to see everyone's equal sympathy towards others viewpoints.