Tim Cook opens up about his personal life for the first time

[kch50428]

Talk about intolerance... So because I disagree with you, you cuss me. I'm not allowed to disagree with you? Ok. This is precisely why I have a problem with the gay community. They want everyone to agree with them, but they call anyone that disagrees with them "intolerant" or a "bigot". I'm done in this thread.

It has been my experience that those who most often demand tolerance from others are least likely to grant tolerance to anyone who does not agree with them... Rather ironic.

 

[the_tech_eater]

It has been my experience that those who most often demand tolerance from others are least likely to grant tolerance to anyone who does not agree with them... Rather ironic.

That perfectly sums the pro LGTB community. They haven't figured out that to get tolerance, you have to be tolerant.

 

[Scatabrain]

That perfectly sums the pro LGTB community. They haven't figured out that to get tolerance, you have to be tolerant.

You are right we who care about others will not tolerate intolerance.

The name calling above to you is not necessary.

 

[the_tech_eater]

You are right we will not tolerate intolerance.

Hypocrisy at its finest. When you can't accept an opposing view point, that is intolerance.

 

[Scatabrain]

Trying to make yourself out as a victim here (aside from the abusive language used against you above) is not right. This is a real problem for many at work.

 

[Les74]

I have no problems accepting that other people have different viewpoints. I do have problems when those viewpoints are used to discriminate against others.

Which is, more often than not, the usual.

 

[jmr1015]

That perfectly sums the pro LGTB community. They haven't figured out that to get tolerance, you have to be tolerant.

Many members of the LGTB community have to hide who they are because of the lack of tolerance. It has nothing to do with how tolerant the LGTB community is, and everything to do with how intolerant the religious and homophobic are.

Implying that whose who suffer intolerance, should be tolerant of that intolerance, in order to get tolerance in return... That... I...

 

[BreakingKayfabe]

That perfectly sums the pro LGTB community. They haven't figured out that to get tolerance, you have to be tolerant.

You can easily replace the bolded text with the "religious right." But I won't because I won't generalize the religious right as a whole by the comments of one backer. You can play the victim here all you want. But you shouldn't generalize the whole community as what you described because someONE called you a name. And if you're going to say that it happens all the time wherever you go, then you should choose your words more wisely. I'm still laughing at "gay agenda."

 

[Maladroit23]

But I'm guessing that just the fact that you have an SO has come up in work conversations (I've been working for over 25 years at this point in various types of jobs and it was/is always common knowledge who is single or not even if you know nothing else about the relationship). And by default people will assume the SO is a male since heterosexual relationships are in the majority. So when you are casually talking to co-workers you don't have to be "on-guard" to either 1) make sure you appear single or 2) make sure you use the "correct" (i.e., wrong) pronoun so that people don't suspect you are gay. That type of always having to be "on-guard", even in casual conversation, is very wearying to maintain. That's why Tim Cook publicly stating that he is gay is important. If it helps one additional person not have to be on-guard anymore, that's great.
I don't have the links handy, but there's a great price by one of The Verge writers about what it personally meant to him, as well as another great article from Kara Swisher of ReCode.

My thoughts exactly.

 

[Maladroit23]

Hypocrisy at its finest. When you can't accept an opposing view point, that is intolerance.

Homophobes can view homosexuality anyway they like. But when that viewpoint turns into discrimination, we call it intolerance. We don't put up with intolerance.

Can't believe you thought the old "Hypocrisy at its finest" line was even applicable here.

 

[Just_Me_D]

Homophobes can view homosexuality anyway they like. But when that viewpoint turns into discrimination, we call it intolerance. We don't put up with intolerance.

Can't believe you thought the old "Hypocrisy at its finest" line was even applicable here.

Not everyone who is labeled a "homophobe" fit the description found in the dictionary. I have been labeled a "homophobe", not because I had an extreme or irrational aversion to homosexuality and homosexuals, but simply for not liking my personal opinion of which I was asked to share. The "specific" people who opted to falsely label me a homophobe were intolerant of my opinion. I was NOT judged based on my kind treatment, my politeness or my non-hateful attitude and demeanor toward those I spoke to.

 

[BreakingKayfabe]

The word homophobe, to me, signifies not only what is in that definition that D provided, but also includes blatant hate and being malicious towards homosexuals. I don't think anyone here is a homophobe. I just think that sometimes when people really believe or don't believe in something it's going to inspire passion on their part to defend their position. People in the spotlight are going to start "coming out" more and more and it's going to test us and how we handle each other in discussion.

I can understand why someone like Cook would want to announce this. But I also think it would have been fine if he was just out and about in the public where there are cameras and he was just holding hands with his boyfriend without having ever announced anything. The one thing that those two cases would have in common is that it would inspire discussion like the one we are all having here. They're screwed either way and will be victims to scrutiny.

 

[Maladroit23]

View attachment 70599

Not everyone who is labeled a "homophobe" fit the description found in the dictionary. I have been labeled a "homophobe", not because I had an extreme or irrational aversion to homosexuality and homosexuals, but simply for not liking my personal opinion of which I was asked to share. The "specific" people who opted to falsely label me a homophobe were intolerant of my opinion. I was NOT judged based on my kind treatment, my politeness or my non-hateful attitude and demeanor toward those I spoke to.

"Homophobes can view homosexuality anyway they like. But when that viewpoint turns into discrimination, we call it intolerance. We don't put up with intolerance.

Can't believe you thought the old "Hypocrisy at its finest" line was even applicable here."

I didn't call you a homophobe.

 

[Just_Me_D]

"Homophobes can view homosexuality anyway they like. But when that viewpoint turns into discrimination, we call it intolerance. We don't put up with intolerance.

Can't believe you thought the old "Hypocrisy at its finest" line was even applicable here."

I didn't call you a homophobe.

Oh, I know you didn't, and I didn't infer that you did. I read your comment in regard to homophobes and opted to respond to it. That's all.

 

[Scatabrain]

Doesn't this statement seem absurd today? "Votes of Women can accomplish no more then votes of Men. Why waste time, energy and money without result?"

Hopefully it isn't 90 years before the sentiments expressed in this thread are also considered absurd by most everyone.
I am sure that some people argued they weren't being allowed to exercise their religious beliefs that women should not vote and that somehow they were the victims.

Other reasons women should not be allowed to vote:

BECAUSE 90% of the women either do not want it, or do not care.

BECAUSE it means competition of women with men instead of co-operation.

BECAUSE 80% of the women eligible to vote are married and can only double or annul their husband's votes.

BECAUSE it can be of no benefit commensurate with the additional expense involved.

BECAUSE in some States more voting women than voting men will place the Government under petticoat rule.

BECAUSE it is unwise to risk the good we already have for the evil which may occur.

Source:
'Vote No on Women's Suffrage': Bizarre Reasons For Not Letting Women Vote - The Atlantic

 

[Maladroit23]

Doesn't this statement seem absurd today? "Votes of Women can accomplish no more then votes of Men. Why waste time, energy and money without result?"

Hopefully it isn't 90 years before the sentiments expressed in this thread are also considered absurd by most everyone.
I am sure that some people argued they weren't being allowed to exercise their religious beliefs that women should not vote and that somehow they were the victims.

Other reasons women should not be allowed to vote:

BECAUSE 90% of the women either do not want it, or do not care.

BECAUSE it means competition of women with men instead of co-operation.

BECAUSE 80% of the women eligible to vote are married and can only double or annul their husband's votes.

BECAUSE it can be of no benefit commensurate with the additional expense involved.

BECAUSE in some States more voting women than voting men will place the Government under petticoat rule.

BECAUSE it is unwise to risk the good we already have for the evil which may occur.

Source:
'Vote No on Women's Suffrage': Bizarre Reasons For Not Letting Women Vote - The Atlantic

View attachment 70640

View attachment 70639

Progress is a slow, grudging process that comes too late for so many people.

 

[palandri]

Lisa Ling from CNN did an episode tonight on, "The faces of America's gay rodeo" Gay Rodeo - CNN.com and she did a good job with it showing what they have to go through.

A woman tells a close friend about her feelings and her friend tells her that it's the devil tempting her.

A man get surrounded by three Nevada squad cars, a cop pulls his gun and tells him that there will be no queers on this property.

These are the type of things that Tim Cook had to face.

 

[tigerinexile]

I'm usually the sort who says do what you like, but don't shove it in my face.

That being said, it's useful to gay and lesbian youths to know that there are plenty of people out there in all walks of life who are out and doing just fine. And so that's likely what informed Cook's decision to come out publicly. (Although most people who follow the tech industry already knew he likely was gay.)

So I think he did a good thing.