4 ms·

Felix Salmon outed it on the very day of Tim Cook's appointment as the CEO. I'm surprised that a story that was on Techmeme at that time, did not get broader a

Felix Salmon outed it on the very day of Tim Cook's appointment as the CEO. I'm surprised that a story that was on Techmeme at that time, did not get broader attention, until now. http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2011/08/25/dont-ignore-tim-cooks-sexuality/ http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2011/08/25/dont-ignore...

rsynnott 12y ago
It got a reasonable amount of attention, but I think a lot of journalists (correctly, IMO) felt that speculating on someone's sexuality where they hadn't talked about it publicly was a bit inappropriate.
- wozniacki 12y ago
  True. However there is the Nick Denton school of thought. Denton ( of Gawker Media ) routinely shames public personalities for being clandestine about their sexuality. The rationale for doing so is such that if no one calls them out, that the worldviews these public personalities profess never get the perspective, those views deserve. The backdrop of the person's sexuality and the influence it had on the shaping of those views is lost, Denton believes. [1] [1] Gawker Kicks Open the Closet, but Its Disclosure Barely Reverberates http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/28/business/media/gawker-kicks-open-the-closet-but-its-disclosure-barely-reverberates.html?pagewanted=all http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/28/business/media/gawker-kick...
  - rsynnott 12y ago
    My impression was that Denton mostly does that with people who essentially work to oppress gay people (right-wing politicians, Fox journalists, and so on and so forth), and, yeah, I'm fine with that. For people who aren't doing anything particularly wrong, though, especially those in positions where being openly gay is severely against the norm (as with Cook, who is, I believe, the first openly gay Fortune 500 CEO _ever_), it seems inappropriate. Say Cook had been outed back when he was COO; would he have become CEO? I'd like to say yes, but it would have been a brave move for the board.
    - Torgo 12y ago
      Deciding that you can in fact out other people in some circumstances confirms that the enlightened claims of individual ownership of sexual identity are a political fiction. If it's deemed a person is "hypocritical" then you feel free to socially assign a label to that person's sexuality. "Outing" is only possible if society decides someone is "gay," not the person.

rsynnott 12y ago

It got a reasonable amount of attention, but I think a lot of journalists (correctly, IMO) felt that speculating on someone's sexuality where they hadn't talked about it publicly was a bit inappropriate.

wozniacki 12y ago
True. However there is the Nick Denton school of thought. Denton ( of Gawker Media ) routinely shames public personalities for being clandestine about their sexuality. The rationale for doing so is such that if no one calls them out, that the worldviews these public personalities profess never get the perspective, those views deserve. The backdrop of the person's sexuality and the influence it had on the shaping of those views is lost, Denton believes. [1] [1] Gawker Kicks Open the Closet, but Its Disclosure Barely Reverberates http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/28/business/media/gawker-kicks-open-the-closet-but-its-disclosure-barely-reverberates.html?pagewanted=all http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/28/business/media/gawker-kick...
- rsynnott 12y ago
  My impression was that Denton mostly does that with people who essentially work to oppress gay people (right-wing politicians, Fox journalists, and so on and so forth), and, yeah, I'm fine with that. For people who aren't doing anything particularly wrong, though, especially those in positions where being openly gay is severely against the norm (as with Cook, who is, I believe, the first openly gay Fortune 500 CEO _ever_), it seems inappropriate. Say Cook had been outed back when he was COO; would he have become CEO? I'd like to say yes, but it would have been a brave move for the board.
  - Torgo 12y ago
    Deciding that you can in fact out other people in some circumstances confirms that the enlightened claims of individual ownership of sexual identity are a political fiction. If it's deemed a person is "hypocritical" then you feel free to socially assign a label to that person's sexuality. "Outing" is only possible if society decides someone is "gay," not the person.