There is nothing demeaning about gays in the article. Quite the opposite, Cook is competent, strong, decisive, has his personal shit together, rather than being a comically effete stereotype preferred in the mainstream media when depicting gays.
I wish Cook could be more open about it if possible, because indeed he could counter that stereotype.
This is a complete non-issue for us folks here in Silicon Valley. The only people who care are religious conservatives and many of them, including Rush Limpbaugh are Mac users...
In a perfect world we wouldn’t, but an inevitable part of civil rights movements is to point out accomplishments from groups of people previously deemed undesirable or incapable in some way by the majority of society.
In 2009 we commended Sonia Sotomayor for being the first Hispanic and third woman appointed to the Supreme Court Justice. I don’t think the average person would think pointing this out this achievement is a horrible thing and it’s surely an inspiration to many that classify themselves as such.
Unless there is some “outing” or it’s a a falsified statement I see no problem with someone making this general point to point out the success of a person who belongs to a group trying to achieve social acceptance.
Your comment and others like it are what we can hope for in the future. IOW, these rights should seem so natural that the idea of pointing them out would make us scratch our heads as to why it’s being stated in the first place.
In a perfect world we wouldn?t, but it?s an inevitable part of civil rights movements is to point out accomplishments from groups of people previously deemed undesirable or incapable in some way by the majority of society.
In 2009 we commended Sonia Sotomayor for being the first Hispanic and third woman appointed to the Supreme Court Justice. I don?t think the average person would think pointing this out this achievement is a horrible thing and it?s surely an inspiration to many that classify themselves as such.
Unless there is some ?outing? or it?s a a falsified statement I see no problem with someone making this general point to point out the success of a person who belongs to a group trying to achieve social acceptance.
Your comment and others like it are what we can hope for in the future. IOW, it being so basic that the idea of having a darker skin color, being a different sex or having a less common sexual orientation would make us scratch our heads as to why it?s being stated.
It's true. We do live in a country where gays don't always have basic rights, like the right to marry. This is our country. It should be talked about.
Could this headline be any more offensive? "most powerful gay man" C'mon. Completely irrelevant. First time I have ever said shame on AI for the Fox news journalism. "In other news AI reported to be the most homophobic website on the internet".
Well I'm a gay man, and no, I'm not offended by the headline, but yes, it is a silly story... Of course Tim Cook is gay. who cares? and furthermore, did anyone really not know that already?
So if this was addressing a different minority, and said the "most powerful woman," the "most powerful black man," or any other category of people who are less likely to be promoted in society because of prejudice, would you also be feigning outrage?
There is outrage because Appleinsider is an Apple gadget site, this crap isn't about gadgets at all. Frankly it is diving into peoples personal lives for no good reason. It is objectionable in the same way that diving into Steves health issues is objectionable. Of course many don't see the ugliness of that either, to which we can credit to being brought up in leftist households.
Quote:
There is nothing offensive about noting that Cook is gay. Being gay is not taboo nor weak. Being homophobic is weak, because it ignores facts to prefer fear. There is nothing demeaning about gays in the article. Quite the opposite, Cook is competent, strong, decisive, has his personal shit together, rather than being a comically effete stereotype preferred in the mainstream media when depicting gays.
Appleinsider simply isn't the place for this. If one of the secretaries at Apple had a history of attending gang bangs would you want it detailed here? Seriously? For some it might be very interesting but let's face it there are plenty of sites on the net for that.
Quote:
That should attract the anger of the same groups who hate Obama for being a competent, powerful, intellectual, and level headed black man. It absolutely destroys the notion of stereotypes.
Except Obama has none of those qualities. That has nothing to do with hate it is just a reflection of reality. What is sad here is that you use this forum and pathetic thread to try to elevate this man beyond what he is capable of. I'm not sure if you are trying to pull focus away from the issue at hand or what. As to the issue at hand what does gay sex have to do with Apple gadgets? That in a nut shell is the problem with this thread.
Quote:
It is offensive that you would try to censor such a message. Do you prefer gays begin depicted as a class of people who have to hide their identity lest anyone finding out they are "defective" or something? THAT'S offensive.
By definition they are defective, just like anybody else with a birth defect. The great shame here is that any sort of birth defect associated with sex gets classed differently than any other birth defect. There is no justification for that. You can't go around treating people as leapers simple because of an accident of birth.
As to censorship that is BS in this case. Most of us come to AI to read up on Apple hardware, software and rumors. It isn't the place to discuss anybodies sex life, in that regard AI has failed miserably to excercise editorial control. Frankly this whole thread should be pulled because it pollutes the forum with crap that has nothing to do with Appleinsiders mission.
I don't see a problem with this article, yes indeed, the vast majority of people here will not have any homophobic tendencies so it will not bother them in the slightest but this world as a whole, does have homophobic tendencies and there is nothing wrong with pointing out something positive like this article does.
Now consider this, who is making the bigger fuss, a statement saying that the obvious second in command and first choice for replacement CEO in jobs case is gay, and is doing extremely well in his job and getting justly noticed and paid. Or people clamouring that news should 'curated' in exactly the way that they want to avoid offending them. After all, if him been gay truly meant nothing to you then why would you bother writing about how offended you were by been told, in one neutral sentence out of a dozen?
There is outrage because Appleinsider is an Apple gadget site, this crap isn't about gadgets at all.
This is not an Apple gadget site, this is an Apple site.. Any and all things related to Apple have been discussed and reported on this site, both rumors and facts.. I see no harm done here as nothing slanderous was published... And yes, I'm gay..
So if this was addressing a different minority, and said the "most powerful woman," the "most powerful black man," or any other category of people who are less likely to be promoted in society because of prejudice, would you also be feigning outrage?
There is nothing offensive about noting that Cook is gay. Being gay is not taboo nor weak. Being homophobic is weak, because it ignores facts to prefer fear. There is nothing demeaning about gays in the article. Quite the opposite, Cook is competent, strong, decisive, has his personal shit together, rather than being a comically effete stereotype preferred in the mainstream media when depicting gays.
That should attract the anger of the same groups who hate Obama for being a competent, powerful, intellectual, and level headed black man. It absolutely destroys the notion of stereotypes.
It is offensive that you would try to censor such a message. Do you prefer gays begin depicted as a class of people who have to hide their identity lest anyone finding out they are "defective" or something? THAT'S offensive.
I totally disagree, this is absolutely offensive. Whether Cook is gay or not is totally irrelevant. AI speculating and or discussing whether he is or isn't gay is offensive and absolutely should not be considered journalism in any respect. Either he is qualified for his job (obviously he is) or he is not.
I totally disagree, this is absolutely offensive. Whether Cook is gay or not is totally irrelevant. AI speculating as to whether he is or isn't gay is offensive and absolutely should not be considered journalism in any respect.
This article is at once kind of heartwarming, and totally unnecessary. I really don't care about the sexuality of the Apple executives. It's not a relevant topic. There are plenty of gay executives out there. What are the implications? None.
It's hard enough to find intelligent hard working people to work for you without worrying about sexual orientation.
If sexual orientation was a choice, then I would be worried about hiring him, because someone who would let that be done to them, what else might they do that could harm my company? But to the best of my knowledge the current science has gayness being genetic, so no worries.
There is outrage because Appleinsider is an Apple gadget site, this crap isn't about gadgets at all. Frankly it is diving into peoples personal lives for no good reason. It is objectionable in the same way that diving into Steves health issues is objectionable. Of course many don't see the ugliness of that either, to which we can credit to being brought up in leftist households.
Apple's leadership is of profound interest to anyone interested in the company. Everyone interested in Apple is very interested in who might one day replace Jobs. You seem hung up on one aspect of the profile on Cook, and from your comments this appears to be because you hate gays. That's your problem, not one for AI, Apple, Cook, or gays.
Quote:
Appleinsider simply isn't the place for this. If one of the secretaries at Apple had a history of attending gang bangs would you want it detailed here? Seriously? For some it might be very interesting but let's face it there are plenty of sites on the net for that.
I would certainly hope so, but I don't understand the connection between wild sex at Apple and Cook being profiled as next in line at Apple.
Quote:
Except Obama has none of those qualities. That has nothing to do with hate it is just a reflection of reality. What is sad here is that you use this forum and pathetic thread to try to elevate this man beyond what he is capable of. I'm not sure if you are trying to pull focus away from the issue at hand or what. As to the issue at hand what does gay sex have to do with Apple gadgets? That in a nut shell is the problem with this thread.
Only a bigot could say that the president who stood up to nothing but months of lock step partisan obstructionism by nearly every individual Republican, and still passed item after item in his promised agenda, is not strong and competent. Even if you are politically opposed to Obama's interests, you can't deny that he has done more, in more difficult environment, that any recent president. Bush had the Democrats fall in line under war hysteria (minor stated accomplishments, easy circumstances), Clinton accomplished little of his stated agenda (minor stated accomplishments, difficult circumstances).
If Obama hadn't accomplished so much, the current Republican majority in the House wouldn't be symbolically voting to undo things they lack the power to actually undo, just to be ineffectual and weak in a pretense of being strong and powerful.
Quote:
By definition they are defective, just like anybody else with a birth defect. The great shame here is that any sort of birth defect associated with sex gets classed differently than any other birth defect. There is no justification for that. You can't go around treating people as leapers simple because of an accident of birth.
Referring to people you have been taught to hate as "defective" is simply ignorant. Nobody with an education considers people who fall outside of religiously defined gender role stereotypes to be "defective." I would say your opinion is defective. And how exactly should one "treat lepers"? With disgust and hate, like the middle ages, or with medical care, like liberal intellectuals would? (And I assume you mean leper, as in someone with leprosy, as opposed to "leapers," somebody who jumps.)
Quote:
As to censorship that is BS in this case. Most of us come to AI to read up on Apple hardware, software and rumors. It isn't the place to discuss anybodies sex life, in that regard AI has failed miserably to excercise editorial control. Frankly this whole thread should be pulled because it pollutes the forum with crap that has nothing to do with Appleinsiders mission.
There is no discussion of Cook's "sex life" in the article. It's pretty commonly known among people who are gay who other gays are. It's only a source of shame and fear among people who cultivate shame and fear in their communities. Humans are naturally interested in other's gender and role identity, which is why there's nothing shameful or scary about Valentine's Day. It's not about "sex life," it's about identity and relationships, very positive things.
I imagine you're rather old, but it's not too late to let go of hate and prejudice and simply accept other people for who they are.
Comments
I am not, and it matters not to me who is and who is not. America should not being hypocritical in all aspects of life.
Cooks can be gay and be CEO of Apple. Please don't bring this kind of silly article to your readers again. It is childish to say the least.
There is nothing demeaning about gays in the article. Quite the opposite, Cook is competent, strong, decisive, has his personal shit together, rather than being a comically effete stereotype preferred in the mainstream media when depicting gays.
I wish Cook could be more open about it if possible, because indeed he could counter that stereotype.
You took gossip and speculation by a tabloid and expanded it into a horrible piece of junk.
Outing someone is NEVER okay and to do so in this manner is beyond disgusting.
It's offensive, trashy, and uncalled for.
AI moved to tabloid quality today and it is officially being deleted from my list of sites that I check several times a day.
Edit: luckily you clarified things a little bit
No worries... I was thinking how to phrase what I wanted to say so I edited it a few times...
...Why should I care if he's gay, again?
In a perfect world we wouldn’t, but an inevitable part of civil rights movements is to point out accomplishments from groups of people previously deemed undesirable or incapable in some way by the majority of society.
In 2009 we commended Sonia Sotomayor for being the first Hispanic and third woman appointed to the Supreme Court Justice. I don’t think the average person would think pointing this out this achievement is a horrible thing and it’s surely an inspiration to many that classify themselves as such.
Unless there is some “outing” or it’s a a falsified statement I see no problem with someone making this general point to point out the success of a person who belongs to a group trying to achieve social acceptance.
Your comment and others like it are what we can hope for in the future. IOW, these rights should seem so natural that the idea of pointing them out would make us scratch our heads as to why it’s being stated in the first place.
In a perfect world we wouldn?t, but it?s an inevitable part of civil rights movements is to point out accomplishments from groups of people previously deemed undesirable or incapable in some way by the majority of society.
In 2009 we commended Sonia Sotomayor for being the first Hispanic and third woman appointed to the Supreme Court Justice. I don?t think the average person would think pointing this out this achievement is a horrible thing and it?s surely an inspiration to many that classify themselves as such.
Unless there is some ?outing? or it?s a a falsified statement I see no problem with someone making this general point to point out the success of a person who belongs to a group trying to achieve social acceptance.
Your comment and others like it are what we can hope for in the future. IOW, it being so basic that the idea of having a darker skin color, being a different sex or having a less common sexual orientation would make us scratch our heads as to why it?s being stated.
It's true. We do live in a country where gays don't always have basic rights, like the right to marry. This is our country. It should be talked about.
Could this headline be any more offensive? "most powerful gay man" C'mon. Completely irrelevant. First time I have ever said shame on AI for the Fox news journalism. "In other news AI reported to be the most homophobic website on the internet".
Well I'm a gay man, and no, I'm not offended by the headline, but yes, it is a silly story... Of course Tim Cook is gay. who cares? and furthermore, did anyone really not know that already?
..
So if this was addressing a different minority, and said the "most powerful woman," the "most powerful black man," or any other category of people who are less likely to be promoted in society because of prejudice, would you also be feigning outrage?
There is outrage because Appleinsider is an Apple gadget site, this crap isn't about gadgets at all. Frankly it is diving into peoples personal lives for no good reason. It is objectionable in the same way that diving into Steves health issues is objectionable. Of course many don't see the ugliness of that either, to which we can credit to being brought up in leftist households.
There is nothing offensive about noting that Cook is gay. Being gay is not taboo nor weak. Being homophobic is weak, because it ignores facts to prefer fear. There is nothing demeaning about gays in the article. Quite the opposite, Cook is competent, strong, decisive, has his personal shit together, rather than being a comically effete stereotype preferred in the mainstream media when depicting gays.
Appleinsider simply isn't the place for this. If one of the secretaries at Apple had a history of attending gang bangs would you want it detailed here? Seriously? For some it might be very interesting but let's face it there are plenty of sites on the net for that.
That should attract the anger of the same groups who hate Obama for being a competent, powerful, intellectual, and level headed black man. It absolutely destroys the notion of stereotypes.
Except Obama has none of those qualities. That has nothing to do with hate it is just a reflection of reality. What is sad here is that you use this forum and pathetic thread to try to elevate this man beyond what he is capable of. I'm not sure if you are trying to pull focus away from the issue at hand or what. As to the issue at hand what does gay sex have to do with Apple gadgets? That in a nut shell is the problem with this thread.
It is offensive that you would try to censor such a message. Do you prefer gays begin depicted as a class of people who have to hide their identity lest anyone finding out they are "defective" or something? THAT'S offensive.
By definition they are defective, just like anybody else with a birth defect. The great shame here is that any sort of birth defect associated with sex gets classed differently than any other birth defect. There is no justification for that. You can't go around treating people as leapers simple because of an accident of birth.
As to censorship that is BS in this case. Most of us come to AI to read up on Apple hardware, software and rumors. It isn't the place to discuss anybodies sex life, in that regard AI has failed miserably to excercise editorial control. Frankly this whole thread should be pulled because it pollutes the forum with crap that has nothing to do with Appleinsiders mission.
Now consider this, who is making the bigger fuss, a statement saying that the obvious second in command and first choice for replacement CEO in jobs case is gay, and is doing extremely well in his job and getting justly noticed and paid. Or people clamouring that news should 'curated' in exactly the way that they want to avoid offending them. After all, if him been gay truly meant nothing to you then why would you bother writing about how offended you were by been told, in one neutral sentence out of a dozen?
Why would AI even allow a story like this??????? Poor Judgement on someones behalf!
There is outrage because Appleinsider is an Apple gadget site, this crap isn't about gadgets at all.
This is not an Apple gadget site, this is an Apple site.. Any and all things related to Apple have been discussed and reported on this site, both rumors and facts.. I see no harm done here as nothing slanderous was published... And yes, I'm gay..
So if this was addressing a different minority, and said the "most powerful woman," the "most powerful black man," or any other category of people who are less likely to be promoted in society because of prejudice, would you also be feigning outrage?
There is nothing offensive about noting that Cook is gay. Being gay is not taboo nor weak. Being homophobic is weak, because it ignores facts to prefer fear. There is nothing demeaning about gays in the article. Quite the opposite, Cook is competent, strong, decisive, has his personal shit together, rather than being a comically effete stereotype preferred in the mainstream media when depicting gays.
That should attract the anger of the same groups who hate Obama for being a competent, powerful, intellectual, and level headed black man. It absolutely destroys the notion of stereotypes.
It is offensive that you would try to censor such a message. Do you prefer gays begin depicted as a class of people who have to hide their identity lest anyone finding out they are "defective" or something? THAT'S offensive.
I totally disagree, this is absolutely offensive. Whether Cook is gay or not is totally irrelevant. AI speculating and or discussing whether he is or isn't gay is offensive and absolutely should not be considered journalism in any respect. Either he is qualified for his job (obviously he is) or he is not.
I totally disagree, this is absolutely offensive. Whether Cook is gay or not is totally irrelevant. AI speculating as to whether he is or isn't gay is offensive and absolutely should not be considered journalism in any respect.
Irrelevant, Yes.
Offensive, No.
In case you've wondered when you've stepped over the line...
... you just have.
Whether true or not, this was totally uncalled for.
Grow up guys, they don't even tolerate this shit at flyover country junior high schools anymore.
I couldn't agree more.
Where are the ''most powerful openly straight cock of the walk'' headlines?
It's none of my business or anyone else's business who an executive's private life is or is not. Grow up is right.
If sexual orientation was a choice, then I would be worried about hiring him, because someone who would let that be done to them, what else might they do that could harm my company? But to the best of my knowledge the current science has gayness being genetic, so no worries.
There is outrage because Appleinsider is an Apple gadget site, this crap isn't about gadgets at all. Frankly it is diving into peoples personal lives for no good reason. It is objectionable in the same way that diving into Steves health issues is objectionable. Of course many don't see the ugliness of that either, to which we can credit to being brought up in leftist households.
Apple's leadership is of profound interest to anyone interested in the company. Everyone interested in Apple is very interested in who might one day replace Jobs. You seem hung up on one aspect of the profile on Cook, and from your comments this appears to be because you hate gays. That's your problem, not one for AI, Apple, Cook, or gays.
Appleinsider simply isn't the place for this. If one of the secretaries at Apple had a history of attending gang bangs would you want it detailed here? Seriously? For some it might be very interesting but let's face it there are plenty of sites on the net for that.
I would certainly hope so, but I don't understand the connection between wild sex at Apple and Cook being profiled as next in line at Apple.
Except Obama has none of those qualities. That has nothing to do with hate it is just a reflection of reality. What is sad here is that you use this forum and pathetic thread to try to elevate this man beyond what he is capable of. I'm not sure if you are trying to pull focus away from the issue at hand or what. As to the issue at hand what does gay sex have to do with Apple gadgets? That in a nut shell is the problem with this thread.
Only a bigot could say that the president who stood up to nothing but months of lock step partisan obstructionism by nearly every individual Republican, and still passed item after item in his promised agenda, is not strong and competent. Even if you are politically opposed to Obama's interests, you can't deny that he has done more, in more difficult environment, that any recent president. Bush had the Democrats fall in line under war hysteria (minor stated accomplishments, easy circumstances), Clinton accomplished little of his stated agenda (minor stated accomplishments, difficult circumstances).
If Obama hadn't accomplished so much, the current Republican majority in the House wouldn't be symbolically voting to undo things they lack the power to actually undo, just to be ineffectual and weak in a pretense of being strong and powerful.
By definition they are defective, just like anybody else with a birth defect. The great shame here is that any sort of birth defect associated with sex gets classed differently than any other birth defect. There is no justification for that. You can't go around treating people as leapers simple because of an accident of birth.
Referring to people you have been taught to hate as "defective" is simply ignorant. Nobody with an education considers people who fall outside of religiously defined gender role stereotypes to be "defective." I would say your opinion is defective. And how exactly should one "treat lepers"? With disgust and hate, like the middle ages, or with medical care, like liberal intellectuals would? (And I assume you mean leper, as in someone with leprosy, as opposed to "leapers," somebody who jumps.)
As to censorship that is BS in this case. Most of us come to AI to read up on Apple hardware, software and rumors. It isn't the place to discuss anybodies sex life, in that regard AI has failed miserably to excercise editorial control. Frankly this whole thread should be pulled because it pollutes the forum with crap that has nothing to do with Appleinsiders mission.
There is no discussion of Cook's "sex life" in the article. It's pretty commonly known among people who are gay who other gays are. It's only a source of shame and fear among people who cultivate shame and fear in their communities. Humans are naturally interested in other's gender and role identity, which is why there's nothing shameful or scary about Valentine's Day. It's not about "sex life," it's about identity and relationships, very positive things.
I imagine you're rather old, but it's not too late to let go of hate and prejudice and simply accept other people for who they are.