Does the sexual preference of a tech giant matter?

Does journalism have to uncover every detail of the lives of public figures? Whether they are a tech giant or a popular author, does it make any difference? Do we as consumers of their media really care what they write? I suppose there is a faction that take some form of satisfaction that highly placed individuals are somehow different/inferior in their mind. But if this is true, so what? Does this news create a backlash that results in reduced sales? I doubt it. Not much anyway. I guess it sell papers/magazines, etc. So maybe we as a culture haven't moved along as much as I thought. It looks juvenile, borderline malicious. This isn't the 50's, gays can now legally get married. It's no big deal, right? So why does this crap continue?

http://arstechnica.com/apple/news/2...have-an-ethical-duty-to-out-powerful-gays.ars

 

I don't really think people should be 'outed' against their will, but on the other hand, the more gay people come out in all facets of society, the less of a big deal it will be...or that's the hope anyway.

the more people hide things like this, the more they seem like it's something to hide or be ashamed of. and so far, gay people can't get married across the board in the U.S. and if you were gay and married in one state, another state may not recognize it. if Rick Perry makes it to the White House who knows, maybe it will become illegal to be gay at all.

the whole "states rights" thing is total BS, if it continues with homosexual freedoms, abortion freedoms, marijuana freedoms people will start moving to different states that support their smorgasbord of rights/freedoms and this is a recipe for civil wars and secession, the division of the United States into smaller chunks. what we need is better education so people arn't so damn scared of things that arn't exactly the same as they are. but education costs money and educated people are harder to lead around by their nose. they also arn't so easily frightened by xenophobic hyperbole.

 

Making a huge deal out of something like sexual preference is totally asinine. The media is basically: "We're gonna dig! Look, he likes pastels! Hell, call him a fag and see what happens!" I suppose it's just the new black, the new female. We've broken those barriers already. Put a black guy in charge of Apple or a woman and you'd barely have headlines aside from some boring profile that details where they went to college and their favorite coffee.

The mainstream media in the US are so tabloid'd out that they've got nothing else to cover. That and the fact that someone's sexual preference can be responsible for the rise and fall of the stock prices of a computer electronics giant is a disturbing reflection on how utterly ridiculous the entire wealth machine in the US at 2011. "He's still railing his wife... BUY BUY BUY!" "He's doing a dude?! SELL SELL SELL!" Jesus, color me deeply depressed.

I can't wait for the Your Computer is Gay Memes. Pathetic.

Don't like gays in charge? Eat a dick, America.

...

boink,

Wait, what? People are going to go all civil war over homos, dead babies and marijuana? Talk about hyperbole. Turns out we already have those rifts in the US. Compare the Southwest to the Northeast sometime. That and you forgot the real biggies like gun laws, sprawl prevention, state taxes and the number one issue that polarizes The Only Two Groups in US: helping out those deadbeat poor people with money-sucking charity programs.

 

Color me depressed too.

Paparazzi Principle: 'the public have a right to know', is a banner phrase of journalistic entitlement, usually backed up with generalities, if at all. I think Mr Fisher did a great job of examining Mr Salmon's position and, er, outing its ill-formedness. In fact, thank you, Mr Fisher for supporting the Bad-Logician Community by Exposing the arguments of one of its members.

My ex-wife is a lesbian. I was active in the English gay community during the 80s and 90s and worked to support queer rights. 'Queer' here being defined as exercising own behaviour or gender identity or preference, regardless of where it does or does not fit expectations which may be held by people around you who are not actively involved in the consenting adult relationship with you.

In my neck of the woods, forcible outers were looked on with the same disgust as those Animal Rights extremists who simply break into an environment and release animals into an environment in which they may or may not know how to survive. OK, ok. There Would be frisson "look! Another one of us", but it would be a brief-lived rubbernecking, soon to be replaced with awareness that the person concerned was not guaranteed to be able to handle it, or even to be a 'good representative' - whatever THAT is supposed to be.

Why does this crap continue? Partly, I reckon, because an individual is on a different level of existence from the group. The survival and development of gay rights and groups which support this is subject to different conditions and results than the survival and development of one individual gay person.

I'm reminded of Koestler's "Darkness at noon"
A friend introduced me the notion of concern for a society in which "The individual was a multitude of one million divided by one million." My mind jolted with fear at potential consequences of that mind set.

Here is a section from that book, which does not contain that quote, but touches on the one/many paradox of management. I have not copied it because it is dang long.
http://personal.ashland.edu/~jmoser1/koestler.htm

 

I cant see what the sexual preferences of the CEO of a public listed company has to do with anyone.

I cant imagine why its news worthy, why anyone would care, why its anyone's business.

I wouldnt buy Apple stuff because its overpriced and "trendy" though...

 

ok Plan9 your right, I spose those weren't the best issues to point out. fine. your still more or less on the same page...?

I got an alert that you "tagged" me on this, is that the same as a quote without the actual copying of the text ?

 

So long as its between consenting adults, what does it matter. Horse mollesters, child mollesters and others of their ilk - fair game.
If you wave your willy around in public, I guess it becomes public property in an unwanted sort of way, if you dont, it shouldnt be.
I remember some american politician - christian and anti gay. Ranting ant gay - and then his rent boy sold him out, told about the drugs. The christian politician I think went off to god straightening camp to get over his vile thoughts of soddomy.

 

Speaking of which, as far as I'm concerned ...

The only time the sexual preference of a tech giant would matter ...

Is if Optimus Prime blew me a kiss.

I'll get my coat.

 

And yet when John Prescott was caught out having an affair, the only reaction was mild surprise that he had found anyone who fancied him enough for it. The papers tried to make a deal out of it, but I dont know anyone who was angry with him or more or less likely to vote Labour because of it.

Which proves that grown up people dont care about people's sex lives, its those who try and criticise other people's morals and then get caught out that get stick.

If Apple banned gay dating from the Iphone but allowed straight dating or something like that, you might call the guy a hypocrite.

But as far as I am aware, the sexuality of some extremely rich guy is none of my business and I couldnt care less.

 

its not like homosexuality as an issue is anything new though. look at all the other countries where people aren't only shunned for being gay, but punished! the fact that someone might be gay here might cause a point drop or two doesn't really mean that much compared to the people who are killed for it.

 

Male homosexuality had different age of consent compared to heterosexuality in the UK until the late 90's.

The fact that homosexuals might be allowed the same legal right to form a partnership as a heterosexual is still contested and not certain at all in the US and UK

We arent so far ahead the rest of the "backward" parts of the world over here.

(and yes, having less civil rights is a lot better than being killed still...)

 

Had no idea about the difference in age of consent. Would you know the reason for this? I can't think of one.

 

The rationale was to protect young men from predatory older men... the age of consent for men used to be 21 until about 98 or something. (was and still is 16 for heterosexual sex)

 

Did the same rules apply to lesbians?

 

Nope, the law only specifically covered males. Even when it was repealed when Labour came into power there was a lot of argument for only taking it down to 18, and not making it equal.

I mean, I am sure that a 40 year old man can take advantage of a 16 year old boy.

I think it is equally likely that a 40 year old man can take advantage of a 16 year old girl.

At some point you have to judge that this is not a criminal issue but a social one and that a person is judged an adult. I cant see why that age is any different for a straight or gay man myself.

As for the idea of a 40 year old woman taking advantage of a 16 year old boy... lucky bastard.

 

I am still amazed that this is an issue. I would almost think that the powers that be would be against this. If they start forcefully outing people, and it turns out that most of the rich and powerful are secretly gay, wouldn't that start making more people think they need to start playing for the other team?

 

Matters about as much as the fact that James Whale was homosexual. He still made classics like Frankenstein and The Invisible Man (likely his two best known films to modern audiences), and his preference for the same sex was just part of his personal life.

 

Every day, the media tries to decide for us what we should know. The information they mete out is, for the most part, agenda driven. The "Freedom of the Press" trumps the individual's "Right to Privacy" when it suits the purpose of the media outlet. Does that sound cynical?

Frankly, this guy's sexual proclivities affect me not at all. There is information that does affect me, but I often get tired of sifting through the piles of bullshit to get at it.

 

Sexual preference involves sex, which is tittillating, which attracts readers. It sounds like Mr. Salmon is trying to rationalize participation in tabloid journalism.

 

It's asinine to "out" people, who haven't decided to do it themselves. It's nobodies business, but their own. So my answer is no, it doesn't matter.