5 ms·

I don't really understand this comment. He can decide to pose with anyone he wants, and he can make his sexual preference as obvious as he wants, that still doe

I don't really understand this comment. He can decide to pose with anyone he wants, and he can make his sexual preference as obvious as he wants, that still doesn't give Gawker the right to do what they did.

harry8 6y ago
MBS is the ruler of Saudi, I don't believe he was democratically elected. Have a little look at the crimes of many of the people Saudi of have decapitated, with swords, to see the point of the comment above. It's an easy one to miss as most media seem to play it down rather a lot, I don't know why. Because Saudi are our allies? Why are they our allies? I genuinely don't know. There is a conflict between caring about LGBT issues and supporting a dictator who literally chops the heads of homosexuals for being homosexuals. It's unpleasant to consider which is why comments dance around it, like I started to, then didn't.
- dragonwriter 6y ago
  > It's an easy one to miss as most media seem to play it down rather a lot, I don't know why. Because Saudi are our allies? No, the corporate media plays it down because the Saudis are major investors in US firms, including media (both old and new media). It's not about them being allies, it's about them being owners.
  - bigbubba 6y ago
    Is Tim Cook an example of corporate media who's owned by the Saudis?
    - dragonwriter 6y ago
      Tim Cook is an example of an American executive of a company that has financial interests entwined with the Saudis, but, no, he's not an example of a corporation in any industry (media or otherwise), being a natural person.
      - bigbubba 6y ago
        I think he and Apple have more agency here than you're giving them credit for.
        dragonwriter 6y ago
        I'm not denying their agency (or that of other actors, e.g., in the media), I'm pointing out the interest toward which their agency is directed. I'm explaining why a choice is made, not denying it is a choice.
        ketamine__ 6y ago
        A lot of people in tech believe that technology, by itself, will free people and bring democracy. Apple probably believes that its security features will help activists in other countries escape persecution. What they don't seem to understand is that a phone is easily hacked with torture.
  - jariel 6y ago
    It's about them being allies, owners and 'good actors' geo-politically, economically (they play nice with Israel, they play it mostly reserved with Iran, they stick to the USD, don't do problematic deals with Russia/China). The 'national relationship' tends to be more important than 'domestic issues'. And FYI there was tons of reporting on MLB and his involvement in the torture of quasi-American journalist.
    - imglorp 6y ago
      Corporate diplomacy? It's almost like the corporations are the states and the states are minor town councils.
      - jariel 6y ago
        So that seems cynical, but in some cases it's true. Exxon and Apple have more power than Tuvalu. People get upset because of the nature of democracy, civility, Exxon/Apple are private companies etc. etc. Apple doesn't have a seat at the UN but they employ zillions of people and sell a lot of gear, which has 'consequence'. It's just the way it is.
- bigbubba 6y ago
  The Saudis are incredibly rich, and that makes it socially acceptable to ignore their numerous heinous crimes!
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- patrickk 6y ago
  > Because Saudi are our allies? Why are they our allies? I genuinely don't know. Assuming you're not trolling, it's because of the petrodollar and the deal Nixon cooked up with the Saudis in 1974[1] to prop up the dollar, after the US got off the gold standard (established between the Western allies as WWII was coming to an end). In the end no one in power in Washington cares about human rights as much as maintaining the balance of power. There was an amazing discussion on the gold standard dollar to petrodollar history recently on HN[2]. Then you can start asking questions on the timing of the Libya intervention, given Gadaffi's plans to trade oil for gold instead of the US dollar, which would upset the balance of power. The more you start digging, the more realpolitik strategies sound like something from a Metal Gear plot. [1] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2016-05-30/the-untold-story-behind-saudi-arabia-s-41-year-u-s-debt-secret https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2016-05-30/the-untol... [2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25407583 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25407583
- ehsankia 6y ago
  That has nothing to do with what I said though? You can write all the articles you want about him taking a public photo with MBS, that's all fair game. That still doesn't make it right to write articles about his sexual preference. This is pure Whataboutism.
  - harry8 6y ago
    He can object to having his private sexuality publicised. That's reasonable. He can refuse to object to others of the same sexuality not so much having it publicised but having their heads cut off with a sword. That's his choice. If he choses both at the same time, everyone will draw the obivous inference about his principles or lack of them. It's not "whataboutism" it is literally the same man being judged against one principle that he applies with strength to himself, using the power he weilds as a senior manager of other people's assets and simultaneously he applies not at all to others who are having a much worse time of it. I call that unprincipled. You can draw your own conclusions. That's completely fine.
    - ehsankia 6y ago
      Either way, the MBS thing happened a decade after the Gawker incident so either way it still isn't relevant to what was being discussed, which is why Gawker made the decision to breach his privacy like that.
      - harry8 6y ago
        This is literally a discussion about an article about the CEO of apple exercising his power as a manager of other peoples' assets to kill a tv show about Gawker who punished him for being homosexual by exposing it when he wanted it kept secret. An action he has just taken. Just now. The "MBS thing" is ongoing. The decapitations continue. Heads are being cut off with swords. Yes it does makes me sick to acknowledge the reality of that. So yes, he continues to apply a principle in the strongest possible fashion to his own benefit while completely ignoring decapitations of others by exercising his power controlling the assets belonging to other people. There's no "decade between" there's no "whataboutism" this is who he is and how he applies principles. I'm sorry if that upsets you. I don't want to believe it either. At some point I feel the need to nod to the reality of how things are rather than how I would like them to be. I don't think the media should publicise the consenting actions of adults taken in private unless they are a public figure and those actions show their publicly stated principles are lies or simply hypocritcal. (As an examle, think the politican who says adulterers should go to jail while having 1 or more adulterous affairs - this is enough for publicising the private act to be justified). I also don't think homosexuals, performing consentual acts among adults in private should be decapitated for doing so. I think that is wrong and evil and to be opposed always. In most parts of the world this is an entirely uncontraversial view most would deny disagreeing with. I find those two stances to be a consistent application of principle. You might well feel the same way yourself.
jariel 6y ago
It's hypocritical, is the point. Apple has to deal with places like Saudi Arabia, but they don't need to legitimize and hob-nob wit them. Also, MBS has been caught doing some notoriously bad things, it's just not a good look.
- ehsankia 6y ago
  What does any of this have to do with Cook's sexual preference? You can write all the articles you want about Cook and MBS and how horrible that all is, but I still don't see how any of that is relevant to what I said above.

harry8 6y ago

MBS is the ruler of Saudi, I don't believe he was democratically elected. Have a little look at the crimes of many of the people Saudi of have decapitated, with swords, to see the point of the comment above. It's an easy one to miss as most media seem to play it down rather a lot, I don't know why. Because Saudi are our allies? Why are they our allies? I genuinely don't know. There is a conflict between caring about LGBT issues and supporting a dictator who literally chops the heads of homosexuals for being homosexuals. It's unpleasant to consider which is why comments dance around it, like I started to, then didn't.

dragonwriter 6y ago
> It's an easy one to miss as most media seem to play it down rather a lot, I don't know why. Because Saudi are our allies? No, the corporate media plays it down because the Saudis are major investors in US firms, including media (both old and new media). It's not about them being allies, it's about them being owners.
- bigbubba 6y ago
  Is Tim Cook an example of corporate media who's owned by the Saudis?
  - dragonwriter 6y ago
    Tim Cook is an example of an American executive of a company that has financial interests entwined with the Saudis, but, no, he's not an example of a corporation in any industry (media or otherwise), being a natural person.
    - bigbubba 6y ago
      I think he and Apple have more agency here than you're giving them credit for.
      - dragonwriter 6y ago
        I'm not denying their agency (or that of other actors, e.g., in the media), I'm pointing out the interest toward which their agency is directed. I'm explaining why a choice is made, not denying it is a choice.
      - ketamine__ 6y ago
        A lot of people in tech believe that technology, by itself, will free people and bring democracy. Apple probably believes that its security features will help activists in other countries escape persecution. What they don't seem to understand is that a phone is easily hacked with torture.
- jariel 6y ago
  It's about them being allies, owners and 'good actors' geo-politically, economically (they play nice with Israel, they play it mostly reserved with Iran, they stick to the USD, don't do problematic deals with Russia/China). The 'national relationship' tends to be more important than 'domestic issues'. And FYI there was tons of reporting on MLB and his involvement in the torture of quasi-American journalist.
  - imglorp 6y ago
    Corporate diplomacy? It's almost like the corporations are the states and the states are minor town councils.
    - jariel 6y ago
      So that seems cynical, but in some cases it's true. Exxon and Apple have more power than Tuvalu. People get upset because of the nature of democracy, civility, Exxon/Apple are private companies etc. etc. Apple doesn't have a seat at the UN but they employ zillions of people and sell a lot of gear, which has 'consequence'. It's just the way it is.
bigbubba 6y ago
The Saudis are incredibly rich, and that makes it socially acceptable to ignore their numerous heinous crimes!
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
patrickk 6y ago
> Because Saudi are our allies? Why are they our allies? I genuinely don't know. Assuming you're not trolling, it's because of the petrodollar and the deal Nixon cooked up with the Saudis in 1974[1] to prop up the dollar, after the US got off the gold standard (established between the Western allies as WWII was coming to an end). In the end no one in power in Washington cares about human rights as much as maintaining the balance of power. There was an amazing discussion on the gold standard dollar to petrodollar history recently on HN[2]. Then you can start asking questions on the timing of the Libya intervention, given Gadaffi's plans to trade oil for gold instead of the US dollar, which would upset the balance of power. The more you start digging, the more realpolitik strategies sound like something from a Metal Gear plot. [1] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2016-05-30/the-untold-story-behind-saudi-arabia-s-41-year-u-s-debt-secret https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2016-05-30/the-untol... [2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25407583 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25407583
ehsankia 6y ago
That has nothing to do with what I said though? You can write all the articles you want about him taking a public photo with MBS, that's all fair game. That still doesn't make it right to write articles about his sexual preference. This is pure Whataboutism.
- harry8 6y ago
  He can object to having his private sexuality publicised. That's reasonable. He can refuse to object to others of the same sexuality not so much having it publicised but having their heads cut off with a sword. That's his choice. If he choses both at the same time, everyone will draw the obivous inference about his principles or lack of them. It's not "whataboutism" it is literally the same man being judged against one principle that he applies with strength to himself, using the power he weilds as a senior manager of other people's assets and simultaneously he applies not at all to others who are having a much worse time of it. I call that unprincipled. You can draw your own conclusions. That's completely fine.
  - ehsankia 6y ago
    Either way, the MBS thing happened a decade after the Gawker incident so either way it still isn't relevant to what was being discussed, which is why Gawker made the decision to breach his privacy like that.
    - harry8 6y ago
      This is literally a discussion about an article about the CEO of apple exercising his power as a manager of other peoples' assets to kill a tv show about Gawker who punished him for being homosexual by exposing it when he wanted it kept secret. An action he has just taken. Just now. The "MBS thing" is ongoing. The decapitations continue. Heads are being cut off with swords. Yes it does makes me sick to acknowledge the reality of that. So yes, he continues to apply a principle in the strongest possible fashion to his own benefit while completely ignoring decapitations of others by exercising his power controlling the assets belonging to other people. There's no "decade between" there's no "whataboutism" this is who he is and how he applies principles. I'm sorry if that upsets you. I don't want to believe it either. At some point I feel the need to nod to the reality of how things are rather than how I would like them to be. I don't think the media should publicise the consenting actions of adults taken in private unless they are a public figure and those actions show their publicly stated principles are lies or simply hypocritcal. (As an examle, think the politican who says adulterers should go to jail while having 1 or more adulterous affairs - this is enough for publicising the private act to be justified). I also don't think homosexuals, performing consentual acts among adults in private should be decapitated for doing so. I think that is wrong and evil and to be opposed always. In most parts of the world this is an entirely uncontraversial view most would deny disagreeing with. I find those two stances to be a consistent application of principle. You might well feel the same way yourself.

jariel 6y ago

It's hypocritical, is the point. Apple has to deal with places like Saudi Arabia, but they don't need to legitimize and hob-nob wit them. Also, MBS has been caught doing some notoriously bad things, it's just not a good look.

ehsankia 6y ago
What does any of this have to do with Cook's sexual preference? You can write all the articles you want about Cook and MBS and how horrible that all is, but I still don't see how any of that is relevant to what I said above.