Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Tim Cook Speaks Up

businessweek.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

281–290 of 1001 posts

Re: Tim Cook Speaks Up

#281

Post by tommorris »

Mahn wrote: post #8

I wish we lived in a society where people weren't pressured into "publically acknowledge" their sexual orientation just because it's different than the norm. You don't see heterosexual CEOs publically acknowledging they are banging their wife, why should it be different for other sexual orientations? Just let everyone be.

> I wish we lived in a society where people weren't pressured into "publically acknowledge" their sexual orientation

As someone who has come out, I'd like to note that I was never "pressured" into publicly acknowledging my sexuality. In fact, the general message from the wider culture was "please STFU and don't talk about it".

No, I looked at history, saw that coming out was an important and useful thing I could do to contribute to the movement aimed at getting equal rights for gay people and that formed part of a pretty rational decision to do so.

The lies and bigotry aimed at gay people thrived for so long precisely because nobody knew any gay people. That's exactly why coming out was (and still is) necessary. One of the reasons the gay rights movement has been so spectacularly successful over the last 40+ years is because the lives of actual gay people is a living testament to the falseness of the vicious stereotypes spread by homophobic pricks.

You don't see straight people coming out because they don't need to. Gay people came out because the alternative is persecution, mixed with a whole lot of personal misery.

Re: Tim Cook Speaks Up

#282

Post by facepalm »

JoeAltmaier wrote: post #278
wtbob wrote: post #267

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> How is enforcing legal restrictions against a minority class of people not inherently discriminatory? That's begging the question: you're assuming that failure to recognise a homosexual relationship is a legal restriction, which really doesn't make sense. I can declare myself King of England, no-one in America will recognise me as such, but that doesn't impose any legal restriction on me. There's the side issue of…

That's a cool view, but not how it works. The 'side issue' you dismiss is really the center of it: the government denies full participation to a class of people based on a questionable moral stance. Anything less that recognition is a 'back of the bus' argument: if the bus goes to the same place, why do you care if you have to sit in the back?

Well married homosexuals get the right to adopt children (I assume). I don't think it's just a moral stance. Maybe some people really are convinced that having two dads is bad for children psychologically. They would probably be wrong, but it's not a question of morals (unless you dismiss the protection of children's wellbeing as a goal). I am not sure if science has really shown it's not bad for children. I personally don't think so, but I can't blame other people for thinking so.

How does adoption in general work? For example it can happen through "natural causes" that a child has only one dad and no mother. It seems likely that having two dads would be better than just one. But if somebody wants to adopt, they might have to be "better than average"? Like would a single dad have a good chance of adopting? Or does some office consider the likelihood of a child's wellbeing in a family - so presumably they would try to find two parents, not just one, which is discriminatory against singles? And then if the "adoption office" (or whoever is responsible) has the choice between a heterosexual and a homosexual couple, things become difficult?

Re: Tim Cook Speaks Up

#283

Post by leoc »

Jedd wrote: post #20

I wonder how carefully crafted this line was: ... I consider being gay among the greatest gifts God has given me. It seems a particularly odd thing to slip in, on so many levels.

The fact that various kinds of people will consider it an odd thing to say is probably just the reason why Cook went out of his way to say it.

Re: Tim Cook Speaks Up

#285

Post by antirez »

DrJokepu wrote: post #244
antirez wrote: post #214

Well played, this surely can help because even many of the homophobic idiots recognize in Tim Cook a role model, and can start questioning their ideas about diversity.

Sadly, that's not how cognitive dissonance works. When people receive new information that conflicts with their existing beliefs they very rarely update their beliefs. Instead, they tend to either question the credibility of the new information or downplay its significance.

Well I hope that there is at least a small percentage that can recognize in their homophobic believes a huge limit and improve. What is otherwise the thing to do for somebody as regarded as Tim Cook, to remain very private about their sexuality?

Re: Tim Cook Speaks Up

#286

Post by tommorris »

antirez wrote: post #279
throwawayaway wrote: post #243

Earlier quoted context omitted.

that's a hell of a freudian typo there champ, the question is: are you going to leave it in for posterity?

Sorry what typo? I'm not a native english speaker and I want to fix it. EDIT: Thanks for correcting me, sorry. Just to put things in the right context, for me homophobia is unacceptable, so I would never misspelled his surname for a joke or alike.

"Tim Cock".

Re: Tim Cook Speaks Up

#287

Post by steve-benjamins »

computerjunkie wrote: post #260
colinramsay wrote: post #18

Strangely enough I'd see pictures of him at some gay pride thing and it never even occurred to me he might be gay. I think, more accurately, it didn't trigger anything in my brain that thought it mattered either way. Obviously this is the way it should be! It seems like Tim Cook isn't under any pressure to publicly announce this, so it seems he's doing it as a way of leveraging his position to help others who are exp…

>>> it didn't trigger anything in my brain that thought it mattered either way This. It doesn't matter at all. Its great that people are embracing their sexuality, but there was no need to come out to the press about it. It doesn't change the way I see Apple as a company or even Tim Cook. He is still the same person before and after this article.

>> there was no need to come out to the press about it

Sure there was. Here's Cook on why it was worth caming out to the press about it:

"So if hearing that the CEO of Apple is gay can help someone struggling to come to terms with who he or she is, or bring comfort to anyone who feels alone, or inspire people to insist on their equality, then it’s worth the trade-off with my own privacy."

Re: Tim Cook Speaks Up

#289

Post by majani »

aragot wrote: post #191
emodendroket wrote: post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If your job was to blather on air day after day for however many hours you'd probably say a couple dumb things too. Everyone has "known" Tim Cook was gay forever so it's not a hard mistake to make.

How did everyone know? Or even, guess? I assume there are a few factors which generally correlate with being gay, such as never being seen dating a girl or trying to stick with gay fashions?

Gawker makes sure to mention it every time they cover him. I trusted Gawker on that one since Nick Denton is gay as well

Re: Tim Cook Speaks Up

#290

Post by mkr-hn »

Someone isn't out until they out themselves. Until then, it's gossip and speculation from second-hand (or worse) sources.

I'm glad the culture around him reached the point where he felt comfortable and safe being out. Hopefully this will be a kick in the pants to the culture around me. It's hard to date when most people are in the closet.

Post reply on HN