Hacker News Reader

Comment by xnull2guest | Hacker News Reader

What are Tim Cook's credentials here? Did he say anything that hasn't been said by others? Is his take novel or particularly developed?

This is an incredibly complex issue. As a left-leaning person who wants to see discrimination eradicated, but as a person who also wants to see it eradicated without it being the purview of some constellation of legal obligations, I recognize deep rooted conflicts.

Take for example the ACLU's (IMO correct) defense of Neo Nazi groups to march in solidarity. This is the type of freedom that our country is based on. It's not something I personally affirm, but I have to defend the right on principle.

Tom Cook talks up one side of the issue. His credentials have nothing to do with the topic. If we were in a critical thinking class we would recognize this as a cut and clear case of an appeal from authority.

Can we get something more substantive?

View on HN

For one, this issue seems to be one which he is personally taking on himself. Part of it seems to be his identity as a gay man. He also takes pains to frame the issue with regards to a faith which is deeply personal to him.

I don't know that he is necessarily trying to use this as a rhetorical cudgel, to beat the conclusion into the minds of those who support discriminatory legislation. This letter/editorial seems to be framed as Tim, with the support of Apple, raising a rallying flag or even just joining in the rally of businesses who are against this legislation.

It is not Tim Cook who is using this as rhetorical cudgel.

It is the Washington Post's rhetoric and the WP's readership, and by proxy HN, that are subjects of that rhetoric.

Wat?

Tim Cook wrote it. He's a gay man.

But apparently it's not Tim Cook who is using this as a 'rhetorical cudgel' (whatever that is). It's WaPo.

I don't know what to make of this. One interpretation is that WaPo have enlisted Tim Cook as some kind of patsy or useful idiot. The same Tim Cook who is CEO of one of the world's largest and most profitable corporations.

As Dr Evil would say, 'Riiiiiiight....'

I suspect Tim Cook is stating his actual opinion on this one; as a gay man, who doesn't want laws passed in his own country that would allow businesses to withhold service solely because he's a gay man. Seems sensible to me.

Who said Tom Cook was enlisted? That's not a very charitable interpretation...

Here's the interpretation. Tom Cook has ideas. They aren't particularly interesting ones (they aren't 'idiotic', rather they seem mundane). Tom Cook made statements including his ideas. He is nobody's patsy.

WP made an appeal from authority in its article about Tom Cook. It implied that his ideas were interesting somehow because he is an authority figure. But on their own - no the ideas are not anything new.

Did they? It's in their 'opinions' section; it's an op-ed. The headline is "Tim Cook: Pro-discrimination ‘religious freedom’ laws are dangerous".

I honestly don't know how a newspaper can make it more clear that something is the opinion of an individual person.

If this is an appeal from authority, then so is every op-ed written by every powerful or popular person ever.

The opinions of powerful people are indeed appeals from authority by the media that (selectively) publish them.

So I would agree with this, sans the universal (there are powerful people who are experts in an area of law as a counterexample).

How could a media outlet make it more clear something is an opinion? They could put it in the title and in the body of the article as a start. They could add content to contextualize the opinion and remind the reader that the opinion maker holds no authority on the matter. They could link to opinion holders with opposing views but equal status. There are a myriad of ways they could do this - some of them very minimal ("Tom Cook opinion: Pro-discrimination 'religious freedom' laws are dangerous").

If you don't want Tim Cook to say the words, just read them aloud to yourself and pretend they are your words. Then analyze their substance based on the content, rather than who says them. The counter to an appeal to authority is not to ask for a different authority. (It is to become an authority yourself.)

That's not what's going on here.

The Washington Post is making an appeal from authority based on the headline alone. The WP readership is going to understand that as "Person I look up to says something I might agree with". No one can pretend that away.

Then, the argument itself isn't anything particularly deep - and of course it isn't. Cook doesn't have the credentials to add anything meaningful to the discussion.

Why does the argument have to be 'new' or 'deep'. Many of the best arguments are extremely old (perhaps timeless would be a better way of saying it), and are also very simple in their logic.

Essentially: Because it isn't news if it isn't 'new'.

Some of us actually were born yesterday, you know.

Tim Cook is the CEO of one of the world's largest and most influential companies.

This alone makes him absolutely qualified to comment.

Merely being a citizen makes someone qualified to comment.

Being the CEO of one of the world's largest and most influential companies has nothing to do with having correct, interesting or developed legal background or politics.

The Washington Post is using his status as CEO as an appeal from authority - to imply his politics are somehow interesting or informed or correct.

...on his industry...

Business leaders have every right to comment on issues that affect their employees for whose health and safety they are legally responsible for.

Yes they do.

It doesn't mean that their comments are interesting. The headline is an implication that Cook's ideas on the issue are interesting. They aren't - they are mundane. But Cook is looked up to. So it is an appeal to authority - it is his authority that gives his ideas weight; not his ideas that give themselves authority.

You keep saying this over and over... that they are not 'new', or that they are 'mundane'. I don't see a whole lot of explanation from you as to how they are wrong.

Edit: as for your 'appeal to authority' idea, it's an opinion piece, and clearly marked as such by WaPo. By your standard, every opinion piece ever written by anyone powerful or popular is an appeal to authority.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9288099

You live in a fantasy land if you think his comments aren't interesting.

Most ordinary people are very interested in what Apple's position on issues given how popular and progressive they are. Politicans would be even more interested given that (a) most states would love to be the next home of a manufacturing/data center, (b) Tim Cook is widely respected and is in a position to influence other CEOs.

Whether YOU think his comments are interesting or not is irrelevant.

> You live in a fantasy land if you think his comments aren't interesting.

Ad hominem.

> Most ordinary people are very interested in what Apple's position on issues given how popular and progressive they are.

Tautology and appeal to the masses.

> Politicans would be even more interested given that (a) most states would love to be the next home of a manufacturing/data center, (b) Tim Cook is widely respected and is in a position to influence other CEOs.

Right, that's the point I've been making. The interest in Tom Cook's opinion isn't derived from how good an idea it is - the interest is from his power status. We agree here.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com