Hacker News Reader

Comment by methodover | Hacker News Reader

1. No one's saying that companies ought to only advocate for gay rights and leave behind every other issue.

2. I am tolerant towards everyone. It's actually not that difficult.

3. You seem to be a little confused on what gay rights are. Here's a summary: Gay people want to be treated fairly. We want our partner/spouse to be treated equally. We want our children to be treated equally. We want to not be fired for being gay. We don't want to be called names for being gay. We don't want people to hate us for being gay. These things are not special considerations. These things are basic rights.

4. The right thing to do is to be in favor of gay rights.

View on HN

1. No but you will have to prioritize which is exactly what is happening right now. That's a problem.

2. I agree so why question the Parents motives?

3. Not confused at all. Those are not gay rights they are human rights. You can replace the word gay with more or less anything and you will have the same. (Try read headed, try white, try black, try Swedish, try freckled, try fat). If you are a human you should have those rights no matter what you are and what you look like and what you believe.

4. The right thing to do is to be in favor of human rights. I see no reason why I should prioritize one thing over another. That's the very discrimination you seem to be advocating against.

“Those are not gay rights they are human rights”

You are misusing the English language. When a minority is targeted with animus and their rights are systematically violated, we tend to label the campaign to fight back against those things: Gay rights/Pride, Women’s rights/Feminism, African American’s rights, etc. This is done as a matter of pragmatism.

There’s no priortization of one group’s rights over another. Are you trying to say that when a minority is called out as being supported, that it makes you, who is not a member of that minority, feel left out? If not, then what is it? Be specific.

Unless you are telling me that Gays have rights other people don't have then no I am not misusing the language. I am simply saying that there is no difference between gay rights and human rights. It's a human right to marry no matter your sexual orientation.

Yes there is a prioritization of one groups rights over another and if you don't see that you need to look more careful.

Do you think it's easy being fat, Ugly, Short, Stupid, Too skinny?

You are proving my point.

Supporting one group but not another i.e. putting resources into fighting for the acceptance of one group but not another is the very difintion of prioritization.

How many more fat people do you think there are than LGBTQ+

The right thing to do is accept them all, not focus on one group instead of another. Treat them as humans give them the same rights, treat them with equal respect, because they are human not because they are gay or straight or black or white or asian or fat etc.

It's about what I feel it's about what it is by definition when a workplace prioritizes the hardship of one group and not another. It goes deep into the corporate culture when it comes to hiring and decisions of who gets which position in the company etc.

Thats exactly the opposite of what humanism is. It doesn't divide it includes it doesn't prioritize it simply treat everyone the same and that is not done by making on groups hardships more important than others. At least not in any form of humanism I am prepared to support.

> I am simply saying that there is no difference between gay rights and human rights. It's a human right to marry no matter your sexual orientation.

Sure. But the term "X rights" is emphasizing that X are being denied those human rights.

The problem with saying you're in favor of "human rights" is that everyone will agree with you, even the ones causing the problems. They don't realize you're telling them to stop that discrimination, that that type of discrimination counts.

That's why this language exists.

And it's not a bad thing to prioritize groups that are being treated worse. Because when you try to prioritize no one, you often end up using the majority as the barometer of whether things are fine. The fact that some people have it a lot worse gets forgotten, and the problems go unfixed.

In many of those companies where X are celebrated the most they aren't an issue. That's the irony of it all.

You don't need to focus on gay rights in Google, FB, etc they are non issues there and thus it becomes a political statement were open doors are kicked in because it's popular NOT because it's important in those companies to focus on "gay rights".

So it's not really a solution to anything but rather just a way to do virtue signalling in companies.

> In many of those companies where X are celebrated the most they aren't an issue. That's the irony of it all.

It's not ironic. It's causal. Discrimination against minorities is less of an issue in companies where minorities are explicitly and openly accepted. There's a causal relationship there.

> You don't need to focus on gay rights in Google, FB, etc they are non issues there

They might be for now, but the world outside is less accepting. So long as the world outside has a problem with minorities, companies need to be steadfast about ensuring that the animus outside doesn't survive inside. Think of it like a vaccine.

> So it's not really a solution to anything but rather just a way to do virtue signalling in companies.

Uhh, virtue signaling is still a great reason to be supportive of minorities?

We aren't talking about just accepting them we are talking about making it specific issues to fight for. So no it's not causal, it's exactly the opposite correlational.

Since when was being a gay a problem any of the SF/SV based companies we are talking about?

This is what is absurd about it. Gays are not minorities in SF/SV companies, conservatives on the other hand are. And no I am not a conservative.

Virtue signaling is nothing but that. It's dishonest. It helps no one and alienates everyone who doesn't agree. The exact opposite of what it's preaching.

> We aren't talking about just accepting them we are talking about making it specific issues to fight for.

Huh? I think you're missing some key words in this sentence. You're trying to say that it's inappropriate for a company to "fight for" gay acceptance? Is that it? That could have many different meanings, depending on who you ask. Why don't you show me a specific thing a SV company has done that you find objectionable?

> Since when was being a gay a problem any of the SF/SV based companies we are talking about?

Already addressed this issue. Current existence of anti-gay animus IS NOT a prerequisite for inoculating a company against anti-gay animus.

It's like I'm saying "Let's make sure the kitchen has a fire extinguisher" and you're saying "But the kitchen isn't on fire yet."

Anti-gay animus exists outside of the workplace; it is a threat, even in the SF bay area. (Heck, I was called a faggot on MUNI the other day for holding hands with my partner.) It's important to keep it outside the workplace. This is a point you've neglected.

> Gays are not minorities in SF/SV companies

??? Gay people are not in the majority, what are you talking about?

> Virtue signaling is nothing but that. It's dishonest. It helps no one and alienates everyone who doesn't agree

Virtue signaling is ... dishonest? What? If a company advertises that they're cool with gay people, and they are actually cool with gay people, that is not dishonest.

As far as alienating people who disagree, GREAT! That's the whole point! Those people who have a problem with gay people should find somewhere else to work.

A company can do what it wants but when it decides to fight for one cause then it's ignoring others by definition or it won't be in business for long. You claimed you can fight for more things at once I am saying you can't fight for all things and thus you will be ignoring some by favoring others.

In this case, it's especially absurd as those companies that are most vocal about supporting ex "gay rights" didn't have the problem to begin with.

And no it's not addressed and you are setting up a strawman.

No, it's like saying. Let's make sure the kitchen has a fire extinguisher only for gay people. That's what you are saying and that illustrates exactly the problem here.

What about the fat? the ugly? The introvert? the short, the stutters etc. That's why fire extinguishers are for EVERYONE not just one type of person.

You don't have to advertise that you are cool with gay people to be cool with gay people that's the point.

You don't have to celebrate gay, white, black, Hispanic, straight, man, woman to be cool with any of them.

And that' brings us back to the beginning. You don't have gay rights, you have human rights. Unless you don't subscribe to being a human which would be odd then you don't have rights I don't have. You don't have your own fire-extinguisher in the kitchen. But the reality is that today that's exactly what's happening and that's sad because life is complicated for everyone, not just gay people or minorities.

Here is a real problem.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/28/technology/inside-faceboo...

You’re wrong about minority rights. They ought to be specifically labeled and supported under that label.

You’re wrong about the benefits a company and its workers enjoy from specifically protecting itself against allowing in the animus that exists outside the workplace. Being an inclusive workplace which goes out of its way to accommodate minorities carries a small price — but pays excellent dividends. Doing this in no way would alienate any prospective employee — except a person like yourself, which seems 100% okay to me.

What things ought to be is a moral question so far you haven't given me a single reason to support that idea.

I repeat. I am for human rights I don't discriminate and I don't favor people. I treat everyone the same. That's a perfectly ethical position and I am no more villain than someone a saint regardless of whether i choose to prioritize one group of minorities over another.

It pays dividends to those who are favored by the rights yes. It's still discriminatory towards a bunch of other minorities.

> As far as alienating people who disagree, GREAT! That's the whole point! Those people who have a problem with gay people should find somewhere else to work.

This is glorious! Thanks for great illustration of problems with politics at work / US* politics in general. You are winning, but at the cost of alienating opposition. You will never convince anyone outside of your social "tribe", and therefore you are just sewing conflict.

And THAT is the biggest problem in politics today.

* of course this tribalism is natural to humans, therefore everywhere. But few "democratic" countries are as polarized as USA.

> Unless you are telling me that Gays have rights other people don't have then no I am not misusing the language. I am simply saying that there is no difference between gay rights and human rights. It's a human right to marry no matter your sexual orientation.

You’re in favor of gay rights. I don’t get why you’re so opposed to using the phrase gay rights. If you think gay people are equal, and gay relationships should be treated the same as straight ones, then you’re in favor of gay rights.

This is not complicated.

I have already explained why I have a problem with it. Gay s don't have rights because they are gays they have rights because they are humans. So yes it's not that complicated.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com