-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
CNBC panelist (potentially) outs Apple CEO Tim Cook as gay
- Thread starter Squire
- Start date
- Status
Angry Grimace
Two cannibals are eating a clown. One turns to the other and says "does something taste funny to you?"
Is the fact that no one cares that's gay and he doesn't have to define himself as "GAY CEO!" really a bad thing?
Gawker didn't "out" him; otherwise, they would have been slapped with a hefty lawsuit.
Apparently it's not a secret.
BocoDragon
or, How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Realize This Assgrab is Delicious
I did not know he was "in" the closet.
I thought he was out, and no one gives a shit, as it should be.
I thought he was out, and no one gives a shit, as it should be.
You don't say.
When a man falls off a boat you scream "man overboard", what do you say when a woman falls over?
Full steam ahead!
Mysterious
Banned
What is Iwata and Dimon. This is important
Lots of people are missing this, I think.
It's great that you guys don't care, but this story isn't about you. It's about Tim Cook. If someone has been hiding their sexuality for a long time it's not up to anyone but them to reveal that to people.
My brother came out to his family on his own terms and when he knew he was ready. I can't imagine how he would have felt had someone taken that opportunity from him.
I didn't know Tim Cook was gay, personally.
Because it doesn't matter when discussing his business accomplishments?
Nope, not in the slightest.
I didn't know. Maybe you missed it, but "potentially" is in the title for a reason.
hodayathink
Member
He's in that Anderson Cooper area from a few years ago where he's never said it, but many people have reported it and he's never denied it. So yes, it's common knowledge but it's never actually been confirmed.
He kind of talked about it recently when giving a speech about discrimination.
I mean, it's not irrelevant.
Said no one ever!
Aquamarine
Member
Irrelevant to Mr. Cook's qualifications or performance as CEO of one of the largest corporations in the world.
AKA the reasons why people care about Mr. Cook in the first place.
#AppleCustomerProblems
Calamari41
41 > 38
This was all over the news as a major bullet point when he took over for Jobs.
smokeandmirrors
Banned
Yeah. I mean I can't imagine that there are many gay CEO's, let alone a gay CEO that's the head of one of the most valuable companies in the world.
thesoapster
Member
Thought it was known...guess CNBC is a bit slow..........way slow.
Well, it's not irrelevant to any of that either -- someone's race, sexuality, gender and the challenges that a minority might face do color someone's experience and role as a CEO. Oprah being black and her socioeconomic background are relevant to her experience as a personality and a producer.
That too.
PhantomHound
Banned
Tim Cook is a gay man and it is well known. However, he is also a very private man in his life, and really doesn't talk about his personal life at all in interviews.
Frustrated_me
Member
I had no idea, wow. I mean it makes zero difference but it's weird I never heard this before.
Grizzlyjin
Supersonic, idiotic, disconnecting, not respecting, who would really ever wanna go and top that
Okay this right here killed me. #Dead
As posted up thread, that's not the case here. Tim Cook has been very open recently (as the CEO of one the largest corporations in the world can be) about his sexuality and the discrimination he's faced because of it.
PhantomHound
Banned
Have you seen iOS7? The OS colors are fabulous!
sixteen-bit
Member
This is actually news to me. I didn't know he was openly gay.
JaseMath
Member
Shareholders.
Stumpokapow
listen to the mad man
I don't think this was a malicious outing, and I think it speaks to the fact that while Tim Cook is not "out", it is reasonably public knowledge that he is a gay man (I searched GAF and there's a post in the thread where Steve Jobs had resigned as CEO when he got sicker, and it was expressed as sort of out/public knowledge at that juncture, in 2011)--if someone had asked me to guess whether Tim Cook was out, I'd have guessed yes. It's still not clear from the reaction or discussion of this story that he's not out. Obviously hindsight being 20/20, given the touchiness of the decision to come out or to discuss one's private life at all, blurting it out was probably not the best move, but it doesn't seem to me to have been out of malice. Also, the discussion was in-context (a discussion about gay CEOs).
It'd probably be nice for the panelist to send a brief follow-up message to Tim Cook saying sorry if the discussion impacted his life or his family, and re-affirming that the panelist respects the dignity of gay men and women to choose the circumstances under which (if at all) they choose to confirm or express that portion of their identity publicly.
It'd probably be nice for the panelist to send a brief follow-up message to Tim Cook saying sorry if the discussion impacted his life or his family, and re-affirming that the panelist respects the dignity of gay men and women to choose the circumstances under which (if at all) they choose to confirm or express that portion of their identity publicly.
chronos4590
Member
Hmm.... Anyone know where he hangs out to pass the time?
You could try searching gay rich sugar daddies online see if he pops up
Edit: LOL OMG such a website actually exist XD
It appears a lot of us thought he already made this known way back, but that he hadn't ever spoken of it again since. I mean, how did we know otherwise? But maybe I'm wrong about that, maybe he never made it known and someone just guessed?
I dunno.
Shareholders are concerned about obtaining rare earth minerals without horrible PR repercussions, the constant delay of high quality flexible screens and sitting on an obscene warchest, not their CEO's sexuality.
If its a situation where they're in a problematic situation (like the Grindr thread a few weeks back), you have to intentionally do it. Other times, people might assume they're totally open about it on accident because they know.
The only reason it even matters is the external social stigma attached to it by some, and as time goes on, its simply going to be less and less of an issue.
I don't think that's what he was doing.
It might matter to some gay kid in school who still feels like the world is against him.
That would be pretty cool actually.
More likely that Apple's marketing doesn't want to pull strongly either way.
Well duh of course. Sorry I was just thinking out loud as peoples sexuality is something that's irrelevant to me.
Stumpokapow
listen to the mad man
I think reasonable leeway applies here. We accept that public figures, even if they shield their private life, are going to be discussed. In the context of a conversation about gay CEOs (either barriers gays and lesbians face to higher achievement in business, the political dimensions of how large companies intersect with the issue, or how personal experience growing up as part of a marginalized group shape someone's business philosophy), it would be relevant to discuss an example.
In addition, Apple specifically has come under fire recently by an activist libertarian shareholder who wanted Apple to give up commitments to sustainability and environmental friendliness, and Cook openly confronted the shareholder by saying, basically, "I don't care if you don't think our politics are relevant to our business. We think they are, and if you don't like that, sell your stock." so I think we can safely operate under the assumption that to the extent that Cook-era Apple participates in public political issues, whether that's equality for LBGT employees, Project (Red), or the offshore revenue tax holiday, or immigration reform, we can discuss the extent to which Apple's board, executives, and employees contribute to how the company's corporate culture interacts with those issues. Like, I don't think it's fair to say that a CEO is apolitical, apublic, not subject to any kind of external discussion.
Certainly outing someone against their will is an aggressive and hurtful move. Progressive organizations have also outed high-profile figures under the argument that outing contributes per se to greater understanding of gays and lesbians, and particularly used outing as a weapon against anti-gay politicians. Both of those are political moves, obviously, and can be critiqued. I used to be a little more in favour of this but I've come to conclude that the personal harm outweighs the social good and that subjecting dignity to a utility principle is definitely not ideal.
But I don't think it should be impossible to have a conversation about someone without clearing each dimension of their identity for the context of the conversation. Were it the case that we were discussing, say, David Geffen, who is openly gay and actively personally involved in LBGT politics--or Ellen Degeneres or Marc Jacobs or whomever else you want to point to in the business world who is out and gay, I don't think anyone would view it as distasteful to talk about them as an LBGT person, because they are all out out. There's no harm committed. Of course it always feels weird for a public figure to be talked about in the third person, but for those groups of people, this is part of the way they put themselves out there as a public figure.
The issue here should center around whether or not, in Tim Cook's case, harm or loss of dignity occurred as a result of this panelist incorrectly concluding that Cook was out if he wasn't, not out of the abstract principle that no gay person no matter how out can be discussed as gay.
- Status