The issue is clearing out the clutter that collect around APPLE's message. a good CEO will see a question formed by the public, reflect on the best way to answer it, answer it, and move on.
Between the hiring practices reviews the press has made, Apple's involvement in Pride parades, and the press alluding to his sexual orientation, Tim took a couple weeks, formed an answer, and stated it. Typical Apple way. Antennagate. OptionsGate. GreenpeaceGate. FoxconnSuicideGate.
To your straw man argument, if his personal views were being painted on Apple's Policies (like changing their health benefits), and there were questions about how APPLE was fostering a Pro-Life Agenda due to the feelings of their execs, then he would be obligated to speak.
I think you're at risk of confusing 'religious' obligation (which is a whole other angle) with 'personal' obligation.
Personal issues: no obligation to speak.
Corporate issues: obligation for CEO to speak.
Religious: Depends on the religion.
Political Issue: See all of the above;-)
The grey area which then leads to: Human rights issue ('self-evident' truths). Obligated to speak/act.
The problem is human rights is a political issue that religion and corporate ($$$) tend to make 'messy', because politics is about 'us' and 'them' and never about 'we.'
It would be easy to simply tuck personal, religious, and political issues into separate boxes, but we know there are issues where that's not realistic. @TheOtherGeoff, please enlighten more.
BTW, this wouldn't have happened under Steve. Never.
Cook said in his editorial that he doesn't want to be an activist. So long as he sticks to that I don't see any issues. If he starts using Apple to become activist then I could see it turning people off. Because there are plenty of people who own Apple products that don't share the same political viewpoint as Tim Cook.
I was just out getting a hair cut and could hear this being a big deal on the news on the TV there. Apparently 53% of LBGT folks in the US work force are currently working without being able to be open due to work regs or what ever. If Tim can help this ridiculous situation in 2014, perhaps one day this may all seem as absurd to even be discussing as 'should women vote?' Which no doubt got all the same types all riled up back when.
Really?
I'm not so sure women should vote. They have more than enough to occupy them between the kitchen and the bedroom.
Sorry to hear minorities or those not considered 'normal' somehow, pushing agendas to try to change things are annoying for you. If you read some history you might find a lot of good eventually comes from these actions, you know like women nearly being treated equally in a few countries and so on ...
I do know a lot about history, so I wouldn't go there. The issue I have, like I said earlier, is people making a big deal about being gay. It's 2014. Most people, including myself, don't care. Are we going to have breaking news every time someone comes out? Breaking news: the first gay airline pilot, breaking news: the first gay astronaut, etc. That's why it's annoying to me.
I can remember in the late 1960s where women weren't allowed to wear pants suits or slacks in the office.
In that same era, Sammy Davis Jr. Played in the big hotels on the Las Vegas Strip -- but wasn't allowed to stay in them.
I'll add to that. Thurgood Marshall was the chief lawyer for the NAACP back in the 1950s who among other things, argued Brown vs. Board of Education in front of the Supreme Court that we would later join. He was also a close friend of my grandfather. When he used to visit my grandparents in Opelika, AL during this period, he always traveled under an assumed name since he was afraid of getting lynched in Alabama. Seriously. This was the Alabama Tim Cook grew up in. And just because that Alabama was being dragged kicking and screaming into the land of civil rights for blacks in the 1970s doesn't mean that it was anything different for the LGBT community from Alabama of pre-1965.
Great video. And although it may go some way to explain why Tim chose to come out officially on a personal level, it certainly shows why he chose to use his position as the CEO of Apple to do so. This will get a lot of attention and it really doesn't matter what the bigots say. Bigots will be bigots, but there are a lot of people out there for whom this announcement may be very important. We may think being gay matters little in this day and age but as this video shows it matters a lot.
There is nothing political about this. Is very cool and it is very Apple.
If you know anything about gay people you will know that they "can" be the most abusive, ruthless and jealous people when their partner cheats in a relationship. Watch out Samsung. Not saying that Tim is like that. Just don't cross one
Who cares! If he wants to be a politician, many american non-gay confident minorities could use some help too... They just have harder time disguising themselves as white male guys to get access to some of the same opportunities...
Yeah, all those Asian people need some help, I mean, they're only somewhat more successful than the 'dirty white people'. /s
Quote:
Originally Posted by Suddenly Newton
The iPad situation as you attempt to portray it has absolutely nothing to do whatsoever with Tim outing himself and you know it.
If Tim is occupied with other stuff besides directing Apple, then as a shareholder I have a right to be concerned.
Quote:
Originally Posted by digitalclips
Sorry to hear minorities or those not considered 'normal' somehow, pushing agendas to try to change things are annoying for you. If you read some history you might find a lot of good eventually comes from these actions, you know like women nearly being treated equally in a few countries and so on ...
I'm sorry, people who don't agree with a gay lifestyle do not look upon gay people as subhumans. Racists looked upon people of color as subhuman, and some men looked upon women as lesser. I really don't know any decent human who is against gay marriage or things of that nature who considers those same people to be inferior.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Benjamin Frost
Really?
I'm not so sure women should vote. .
I know this is sarcastic, but anyone interested should go back and read the opinions of those against it back in the day. Including a lot of women! Heck, the New York Times editorial board was against it.
I do know a lot about history, so I wouldn't go there. The issue I have, like I said earlier, is people making a big deal about being gay. It's 2014. Most people, including myself, don't care. Are we going to have breaking news every time someone comes out? Breaking news: the first gay airline pilot, breaking news: the first gay astronaut, etc. That's why it's annoying to me.
The promotion of collectivist thinking is very annoying to me, and also flies in the face of our country's history of individualism. Everyone is different to one degree or another. So what?
I do know a lot about history, so I wouldn't go there. The issue I have, like I said earlier, is people making a big deal about being gay. It's 2014. Most people, including myself, don't care. Are we going to have breaking news every time someone comes out? Breaking news: the first gay airline pilot, breaking news: the first gay astronaut, etc. That's why it's annoying to me.
I'm sorry this is annoying to you.
Do you not understand the LEAST you have to do? Keep going on with your life.
I'm sorry, people who don't agree with a gay lifestyle do not look upon gay people as subhumans. Racists looked upon people of color as subhuman, and some men looked upon women as lesser. I really don't know any decent human who is against gay marriage or things of that nature who considers those same people to be inferior.
Hey, do you know what makes people feel subhuman?
Being called a faggot in the streets for simply existing. Being denied fundamental human rights. Being ruthlessly assaulted, killed, "made an example of" for not trending in the norm.
That fact that I can't be allowed to feel less than human when others downright attack a way of life I did not choose undermines any sort of point you were trying to make.
Comments
Someone is going to think you were serious here.
The issue is clearing out the clutter that collect around APPLE's message. a good CEO will see a question formed by the public, reflect on the best way to answer it, answer it, and move on.
Between the hiring practices reviews the press has made, Apple's involvement in Pride parades, and the press alluding to his sexual orientation, Tim took a couple weeks, formed an answer, and stated it. Typical Apple way. Antennagate. OptionsGate. GreenpeaceGate. FoxconnSuicideGate.
To your straw man argument, if his personal views were being painted on Apple's Policies (like changing their health benefits), and there were questions about how APPLE was fostering a Pro-Life Agenda due to the feelings of their execs, then he would be obligated to speak.
I think you're at risk of confusing 'religious' obligation (which is a whole other angle) with 'personal' obligation.
Personal issues: no obligation to speak.
Corporate issues: obligation for CEO to speak.
Religious: Depends on the religion.
Political Issue: See all of the above;-)
The grey area which then leads to: Human rights issue ('self-evident' truths). Obligated to speak/act.
The problem is human rights is a political issue that religion and corporate ($$$) tend to make 'messy', because politics is about 'us' and 'them' and never about 'we.'
It would be easy to simply tuck personal, religious, and political issues into separate boxes, but we know there are issues where that's not realistic. @TheOtherGeoff, please enlighten more.
BTW, this wouldn't have happened under Steve. Never.
Hopefully dry English humor ...
Yeah ...
We guys think with our stomachs and our pricks!
At our age that means antacid pills and prostate pills sadly!
Sorry to hear minorities or those not considered 'normal' somehow, pushing agendas to try to change things are annoying for you. If you read some history you might find a lot of good eventually comes from these actions, you know like women nearly being treated equally in a few countries and so on ...
I do know a lot about history, so I wouldn't go there. The issue I have, like I said earlier, is people making a big deal about being gay. It's 2014. Most people, including myself, don't care. Are we going to have breaking news every time someone comes out? Breaking news: the first gay airline pilot, breaking news: the first gay astronaut, etc. That's why it's annoying to me.
What was Alan Turing really like?
http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-27701207
On a lighter note ...
I can remember in the late 1960s where women weren't allowed to wear pants suits or slacks in the office.
In that same era, Sammy Davis Jr. Played in the big hotels on the Las Vegas Strip -- but wasn't allowed to stay in them.
I'll add to that. Thurgood Marshall was the chief lawyer for the NAACP back in the 1950s who among other things, argued Brown vs. Board of Education in front of the Supreme Court that we would later join. He was also a close friend of my grandfather. When he used to visit my grandparents in Opelika, AL during this period, he always traveled under an assumed name since he was afraid of getting lynched in Alabama. Seriously. This was the Alabama Tim Cook grew up in. And just because that Alabama was being dragged kicking and screaming into the land of civil rights for blacks in the 1970s doesn't mean that it was anything different for the LGBT community from Alabama of pre-1965.
Apple : It Gets Better.
Great video. And although it may go some way to explain why Tim chose to come out officially on a personal level, it certainly shows why he chose to use his position as the CEO of Apple to do so. This will get a lot of attention and it really doesn't matter what the bigots say. Bigots will be bigots, but there are a lot of people out there for whom this announcement may be very important. We may think being gay matters little in this day and age but as this video shows it matters a lot.
There is nothing political about this. Is very cool and it is very Apple.
Tim Cook gay.
Deal with it.
If you know anything about gay people you will know that they "can" be the most abusive, ruthless and jealous people when their partner cheats in a relationship. Watch out Samsung. Not saying that Tim is like that. Just don't cross one
Who cares! If he wants to be a politician, many american non-gay confident minorities could use some help too... They just have harder time disguising themselves as white male guys to get access to some of the same opportunities...
Yeah, all those Asian people need some help, I mean, they're only somewhat more successful than the 'dirty white people'. /s
The iPad situation as you attempt to portray it has absolutely nothing to do whatsoever with Tim outing himself and you know it.
If Tim is occupied with other stuff besides directing Apple, then as a shareholder I have a right to be concerned.
Sorry to hear minorities or those not considered 'normal' somehow, pushing agendas to try to change things are annoying for you. If you read some history you might find a lot of good eventually comes from these actions, you know like women nearly being treated equally in a few countries and so on ...
I'm sorry, people who don't agree with a gay lifestyle do not look upon gay people as subhumans. Racists looked upon people of color as subhuman, and some men looked upon women as lesser. I really don't know any decent human who is against gay marriage or things of that nature who considers those same people to be inferior.
Really?
I'm not so sure women should vote. .
I know this is sarcastic, but anyone interested should go back and read the opinions of those against it back in the day. Including a lot of women! Heck, the New York Times editorial board was against it.
The promotion of collectivist thinking is very annoying to me, and also flies in the face of our country's history of individualism. Everyone is different to one degree or another. So what?
I understand completely why Cook wrote this article, and it's great, but are there really still people who ignored this?
I thought we had the same discussion like a few months ago, and that was ancient history then already.
I do know a lot about history, so I wouldn't go there. The issue I have, like I said earlier, is people making a big deal about being gay. It's 2014. Most people, including myself, don't care. Are we going to have breaking news every time someone comes out? Breaking news: the first gay airline pilot, breaking news: the first gay astronaut, etc. That's why it's annoying to me.
I'm sorry this is annoying to you.
Do you not understand the LEAST you have to do? Keep going on with your life.
And it must be great to have that privilege.
I'm sorry, people who don't agree with a gay lifestyle do not look upon gay people as subhumans. Racists looked upon people of color as subhuman, and some men looked upon women as lesser. I really don't know any decent human who is against gay marriage or things of that nature who considers those same people to be inferior.
Hey, do you know what makes people feel subhuman?
Being called a faggot in the streets for simply existing. Being denied fundamental human rights. Being ruthlessly assaulted, killed, "made an example of" for not trending in the norm.
That fact that I can't be allowed to feel less than human when others downright attack a way of life I did not choose undermines any sort of point you were trying to make.
I'm sorry this is annoying to you.
Do you not understand the LEAST you have to do? Keep going on with your life.
And it must be great to have that privilege.
I was writing my reply, but saw you changed what you wrote. I won't reply to what you deleted.
I will continue to keep going on with my life. Everyone, include gays, has that privilege.
It's not required but it helps when there are so few role models who aren't just .. ordinary.