There are undoubtedly many people who will no longer purchase Apple products because of this, and I don't know society can fix this with anything but time.
(Thanks to gpvos for the correction of faith->fate. )
Do you agree with all of the life choices made by every innovator throughout the centuries, many of whom were very religious and almost assuredly would've been anti-gay had such a movement existed in their time? It may make sense to deprive these people of money now if you disagree with them, but it doesn't make sense to discharge all the output of their life's work once there's no more threat of them actually receiving direct monetary aid from your purchases, and it doesn't make sense to denigrate the product on its own basis, independent from the behavior or ideals of the original creator. We should recognize good wherever we can find it.
That's one of the greatest shame of UK,it symbolizes bigotery in its purest form.
Prime Ministers Apology: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2009/sep/11/pm-apology-to-a...
Royal Pardon: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/history/world-war-two/10536246/Al...
It was absolutely stupid and unjust (since most upper classes were involved in buggery in school anyways) - but calling it bigoted is like saying 'it was so yellow of them to do'.
"That's one of the greatest shame of UK,it symbolizes bigotery in its purest form."
but I accept I might have read stronger sentiment into that than was intended.
https://www.googlestore.com/Google+Redesign/Brands/Android/A...
Quick, homophobes! Burn your Android phones!
That's a rather inaccurate, cringe worthy and generic statement. If your saying only one person contributed to the field of computers in 2014, that's sad.
We tend to glorify individuals in the eyes of media and forget [1]others who contributed to where we are today in technology.
[1] http://www.computerhope.com/people/ - list of people who have contributed to computers.
Edit: Thanks to oneplusone, I realised that he was speaking about Alan Turing. But why base a field on only one person regardless of sexuality. Why is sexuality the issue in the first place?
Because Alan Turing is the father of computer science. Basically everything that came after depended crucially on his work.
- To name a few great contributors. Yes Alan Turing is considered the father of computer science but with out the knowledge of others before him (and even during his time) we could be living in a different world right now.
Even the late, great Isaac Newton said - [1]"If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of giants."
1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standing_on_the_shoulders_of_g...
In this light, it seems the original comment is correct.
What do you think would have happened if Turing had never been born?
Perhaps we would never have had a single individual who contributed as much, all at once, as Turing did... but the sum total of his contributions WOULD have been made by other people, eventually.
And yet, he was born, and he did contribute, and we remember him for that, and we remember what his peers did to him in response. And we learn a lesson from that.
Why is this controversial?
The only thing which might be controversial (but really shouldn't be) is the observation that people make foolish and illogical claims when they let their passions drive them to hyperbole. For example, claiming that computer science NEEDED Turing. That without Turing, we would not have computer science.
Its simple. Worship him all you want for what he actually did, but please don't fall prey to the belief that "without so-and-so, X would NEVER have been developed". Or "without so-and-so, we would still be doing Y".
Nonsense. Some other person or group of people would have made those contributions.
This has nothing to do with how horribly he was treated. And if you want to highlight the sickness of the world by pointing out the genius of one of the victims of our diseased culture, that's cool, but we can do that without going off into a fantasy land where some individual was uniquely, in all the world, uniquely capable of making the contributions they made.
I think purposely conflating gay rights and feminism is more than a little disingenuous. LGBT movements empower both genders, feminism empowers only one.
I think its very possible to be socially progressive in thought but not be a cheerleader for the modern feminist agenda. These things don't necessarily contradict each other.
So, there are some bad feminists around. [1] When people are absurd, feel free to 'absurd' right back at them (i.e. "Sure, I'm a potential rapist - as much as you are a potential murderer!").
"Dropping sympathy" for the feminist movement as a response a few bad feminists that you've encountered is not really justified, or rational.
> I think purposely conflating gay rights and feminism is more than a little disingenuous. LGBT movements empower both genders, feminism empowers only one.
I'm not following the reasoning here. Both movements are about equality; one focuses on gender, the other on sexual identity/orientation. They are very much two sides of the same coin (the humanEqualityCent).
[1] "Are You a Good Feminist or a Bad Feminist?" - Shane Killian https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=axuz3JlZIbk
When you are made to feel unwanted, excluded, and otherwise not welcome it is natural to go elsewhere in search of inclusiveness. This is a far more common reaction than that of adopting sympathy for those excluding you. No aspect of this should be surprising to a feminist.
Sure, but the GP wasn't talking about a particular group rejecting them, but rather "stop sympathizing with the entire modern feminist movement". That's an extreme reaction to disliking a subset of the movement's followers.
> This is a far more common reaction than that of adopting sympathy for those excluding you. No aspect of this should be surprising to a feminist.
Nobody's asking for personal sympathy or contribution, but rejecting Feminism due to a few bad Feminists is stupid. Especially if you claim to have been aligned with the Equality argument beforehand. How does that even work?
(attempt to reverse engineer a thought process leading to this)
1) thinking "Hey, men are dicks towards women. That ain't right. We need to equalize things as much as possible!" 2) meets bad feminists, receives abuse 3) thinking "Fuck it - Equality, yes, but not for you; I don't like you. NVM on the whole Feminism issue."
Absurd. You didn't really believe in equality in the first place. Demanding and supporting equality should have nothing to do with your personal likes and dislikes.
Why do you expect otherwise? Why do you feel compelled to couple it with insults?
But Feminism isn't a group; it is an idea. If some of the followers misbehave, you should still be able to believe and support in the idea.
To me, supporting ideas only when you "like" the (majority of?) people supporting them is akin to supporting free speech but only for the positions that you believe in.
(edit)
> Why do you feel compelled to couple it with insults?
I'm not sure where you're reading that. The "You" at the end was directed at the fictional person that I'm attempting to emulate with the 1/2/3 reasoning, not you.
Most people will also wonder if something about the idea turns people into abhorrent people or if something about the idea is only attractive to abhorrent people. In either case, it is not something to which our notional person is likely to be attracted.
In short - the people who adhere to an idea are seen as commentary on the idea.
I would have thought that everyone who believes in gender equality is implicitly a Feminist..
> If every single adherent of an idea you encounter is an abhorrent person
Are you exaggerating for the sake of argument (perfectly valid), or is it that bad for some people?
Both.
Too many people who call themselves feminists actually do not believe in equal rights, and present feminism as a justification for bad behaviors.
If this is how you experience feminism, this is going to influence your notion of what the word feminism actually means, in practice.
It should be the case. In practice, it is often not the case. If you doubt this, search 'feminist' on youtube, watch a dozen random videos, and try to identify the issues and beliefs which the speaker sees as intrinsically 'feminist' ones, and ask yourself whether those issues and beliefs are really in support of equality. Its a bit of a mixed bag.
I'm not trying to attack feminism, as I strongly believe in equality and we have a lot of work to do. And obviously there are anti-feminists who have always tried to distort the messages of feminists, and fabricate their own. But these days, those manipulators don't have to try very hard.
I don't see how we can fix this, though. The commercial approach to a similar problem would be absurd in this case: creating centralized certification body regulating which 'feminist goals/speakers/blogs/books/lines-of-argument/etc' are deemed 'truly feminist'.
Is this not the case?
In the real world, it can be used as a fig leaf to justify a variety of abusive behaviors. For some people, that encompasses the whole of their experiences.
We disagree that this actually changes the meaning of Feminism.
Yes, some horrid people need an excuse to dish out abuse and Feminism often becomes that excuse (I'm thinking about everyone who's ever used the potential-rapist argument).
Does this taint Feminists, the group? Maybe a little, yes.
Does this taint Feminism, the idea that genders should be as equal as possible? Well, IMHO, no.
Feminism was about seeking equal rights and equal opportunities for women. In the West it largely achieved that goal (we're not there yet, but consider where we started). Thanks to tumblr, twitter and the blogosphere echo-chamber, the feminism most people become aware of online is very different from that.
Worse yet, there is no such thing as "the feminist movement" (anymore) by a long shot. It's become a broad term that encompasses everything from egalitarians to misandrists. And any criticism of the later group is always portrayed as a criticism of the former (which is why we end up with this entirely pointless MRA/SJW shitstorm-on-demand situation we have now).
Nobody is forcing egalitarians to call themselves feminists. But clinging to that label and pretending it hasn't changed its meaning is no different from trying to distance your communism from Stalin or your nationalist socialism from the Nazi party.
I prefer that definition, yes. But the important part of my sentence was "locked in". I was referring to people who are incapable of acknowledge that the word feminism is abused, not just by anti-feminists, but also by some self-proclaimed feminists.
If someone really thinks that feminism can only mean 'equal rights', period, end of conversation, talk to the hand - then conversations with people pointing out problems in the feminism movement will suffer from equivocation fallacies.
I don't follow his reasoning either, as stated, but there is a question of subcultures, subcultural values, specific ideologies within the movement, and most importantly: composition.
There are many ways that these two movements differ. And while both movements attract some unpleasant people who damage the reputation of the movement as a whole, the way this plays out in feminism is a little different from how it plays out with LGBT rights.
So its not surprising to me that some people might (based on their personal experiences) think that one is toxic and the other isn't.
I suppose this is a common misconception, but it is not true. Feminism also frees men from restrictive gender roles. It is feminism that says that men are allowed to cry, to hug one another, to have dreams and hopes and fears.
Giving up some privileges -- privileges which are not right for us to have anyway -- is a small price to pay, I believe, for becoming whole human beings.
She calls herself feminist and is responsible for the women’s' network's equal rights week at my university this year.
On the flip side, anything perceived as anti-gay in business blows up with negative press and talks of boycotts. With Apple's demographic, this will definitely be considered a plus.
I'd prefer specific examples rather than just handwavey nonsense.
Have not see Maleficent, but I have heard nuts claiming Frozen was some kind of pro-gay film. It is resolved by (non-romantic) love between family members. I saw the movie twice in theater with my kid and couldn't find ANY indication of gay-ness. Anna ends up going after a man. The main plot is about self acceptance and embracing who you really are. While that metaphor can easily be applied to being gay (in todays world), I suspect the only people who instinctively made the connection are either gay or terribly anti-gay.
Gotta love Elsa, her and Merida are the best.
I didn't read into it that at all. I don't know which intended meaning Disney had when they adapted the story into a script and animation; but it seems to resonate with different people differently (as is often the case with movies).
I saw it in staunch contrast to the historical Disney "Princess" narrative, where happily-ever-after doesn't mean marriage, remarking how they openly mocked the idea of falling in love with someone and marrying them after a single day.
I'd have to ask him directly, but he could have easily seen the movie from Elsa's perspective, the woman imbued with a gift, or curse. Both perspectives are presented in the movie, if memory serves me, and it entirely depends on the person speaking at the time. The parents thought it was a curse. The trolls saw it differently. Whatever the reality of her situation, she fled, and then accepted who she was, and eventually defeated the parts of her gift that had made it so sad to have.
Perhaps, then, it is both. It was a movie that was a push away from the 'True Love's Kiss' story of Disney olde, as much as it was a story about accepting who you are. And the whole story is bound together by the very real presence of the two sister's familial love for one another.
Close enough. Life is about reproducing, or else we would not be here. +1 for impressionable young girls.
Had a Swedish guy (shop owner) living with another guy and they both had a bunch of kids. Described the other guy and kids as his "family."
See point #5 in this article's list: http://mic.com/articles/79455/7-moments-that-made-frozen-the...
This is quite a stretch. As the father of a young child I have seen Frozen more times than I am proud to admit, and while it could be that the large man in the sauna is the shopkeeper's husband, he could just as easily be the shopkeeper's son, while the smaller woman in the scene is the shopkeeper's wife.
Even if you assume this to canonically be a gay relationship in a Disney movie (and it would, I suppose, be the first), it's a tiny throwaway moment in the life of a minor character which is easy to miss completely. This is hardly "taking a stand" as the grandparent post suggested.
This is the example being used to show Disney is "progressive"? An ambiguous possibly gay family that gets less than 5 seconds screen time?
Saying that this miniscule gesture is hetter than nothing is missing the big point. It's the twenty first century - Disney should have had gay characters and even gay leads by mow.
And for all its progressiveness Frozen still has a scene where mental illness is linked to danger using stigmatising language.
Just a heads up so you don't make the mistake in less forgiving Scandinavian company next time ;-)
Agenda? People only use that term when they're trying to imply something is somehow pushing homosexuality on the weak minded.
Wrong, wrong, wrong.
Most individuals have agendas, and all organizations have (or should have) agendas.
We should all be able to talk honestly about various agendas without having to toe some manipulative lines concerning presumed hidden meanings.
Just because many homophobes, rightwingers, etc constantly harp on the 'homosexual agenda' as if its some scary monster, doesn't mean that LGBT rights organizations don't have agendas.
[ Did you read (critically) the comment I was responding to?
I mostly agree with your statement, except for the implication you may be making that agenda always has this pejorative meaning. It simply doesn't. If you want to understand people, you should not assume that it always does. And we should not police people for choosing to bring the non-pejorative acknowledgement of the fact that groups have purposes and goals.
If LGBT groups did not have agendas, they would not be worth supporting. ]
Writing is an act of art, and reading is an act of interpretation. These secondary definitions come into play when determining what someone means. Agenda is not purely pejorative, and it's true LGBT groups have agendas - they have plans of things to be done - they have motives - reasons for doing something. However, these attributes of LGBT groups could also be described with words that do not have any negative aspects, such as goals, plans, purposes, etc.
>If you want to understand people...
I assume people understand the words they use and intend to use them. If people use words without precision, how can they expect to be understood?
As for etiquette... no idea ha. Made the same mistake myself.
a) "they're trying to convert our children!" paranoia
b) general disapproval.
There are at least two more:
c) dispassionate acknowledgement
d) outright support
I absolutely, strongly support the LGBT community's agenda of making gay marriage legal, everywhere.
Just because one hateful group of people uses a phrase in one particular way, doesn't mean we need to give them ownership of it, nor assume that everyone using the same term feels the same way they do.
If one were to say, "I support legal equality for LGBT couples compared to straight couples", as well as "I question the health of LGBT acceptance in society", would you find their opinion repugnant?
If so, then you're pushing LGBT on everyone.
For the record, I truly support legal equality, and don't see how accepting LGBT in society is harmful. But the above example is a reflection of many more people than the echo chamber at HN would like to acknowledge.
1. What I find repugnant doesn't push anything on anyone.
2. My comment had nothing to do with what you or I do, it had to do with the above comment about Disney and Coke showing LGBT people in shows and ads.
By this logic, your logic, they have been "pushing" straight, black, hispanic, white, Christian, Jewish, youth, and elderly on us for years. Having the individual (or couple) on the show/ad does not in and of itself "push" anything. That's absurd.
edit: I just realized I got dragged way off topic by a troll. Whoops.
The original comment I responded to was someone claiming there's no "pushing" going on. As you clearly demonstrated, you're willing to "pressure" religious groups -- there's nothing wrong with that, but more people should be honest about it. From my perspective, the appropriate types of pressure are internal pressure (ie, members changing the group's ideas) or competitive pressure (other organizations that already are on the opposite side), not tax pressure.
The fact that some religious groups have taken a particular stand doesn't make it "not pushy" to force other groups to follow.
EDIT: for example, a lot of religions don't have a problem with pork, but some do. It would be pushy to require a kosher or halal deli to serve pork. Likewise, there are some who want to require, say, Southern Baptist churches to perform same-sex weddings; that's pushy.
Deleted comment
... in your understanding of the Bible. Not every Christian group agrees with the way you understand it.
Also keep in mind that many Christian groups rely on more than just the Bible for authority (both Catholics and the Orthodox hold a very high view of tradition, compared to the Protestant view of tradition as dangerous.)
There are also religious groups that aren't Christian which also have objections to performing same-sex weddings.
Anyway, thank you for so beautifully illustrating my point.
Deleted comment
They believe they have defenses for their interpretations, and that's all that should matter from a religious liberty perspective. Neither you nor I nor the government qualify as the final arbiter of "true Christianity" or "correct Bible interpretation" (or "true Islam" or "true Mormonism" or any of the other religions which might object to same-sex marriage.) It's not my place, or yours, or the government's, to force our understanding of what the Bible says onto groups that think the Bible (or the Pope or the Synod) says otherwise.
If members of the community wish to perform acts which are against a particular church's beliefs, they don't need to perform those acts in that church (and if you want bacon, you don't need to shop at a kosher deli.) There are plenty of alternatives -- like you said, other churches that will happily perform those ceremonies for them, or even the courthouse.
EDIT: just so there's no misunderstanding: I support your right to have whatever relationship you want to have with whatever consenting adult(s) you want to have it with. But none of us have the right to tell anybody else that they have to participate in the celebration of any relationship. (If a church wants to turn away Brittney Spears because her understanding of marriage offends them, that's also their right.)
Deleted comment
I don't have a problem with pressure. I have a problem with people saying that nobody is pushing when some people actually are. Thank you for being honest about trying to pressure and compel religious groups to change. (I, too, often pressure my own religion for change -- though I prefer compelling arguments to financial threats.)
Deleted comment
We don't allow for-profit, tax-paying corporations to discriminate. Why, then, do we think the appropriate response to a religious organization being discriminatory is to treat them as a for-profit organization? It seems to me that tax law isn't the right tool to be wielding; it's very philosophically inconsistent.
More than that, it seems to me that the government's responsibility should be to allow for maximum diversity of opinion and practice. The government has a compelling interest in stopping systematic violence (whether motivated by race, gender, sexuality, or any other factor.) The government has a compelling interest in stopping systematic economic discrimination. But I don't see a compelling interest in eliminating all forms of discrimination everywhere. I think it's a Good Thing (TM) that religious organizations can decide who is and isn't a part of them. Even if that means some religious organizations are racist, sexist, homophobic, etc. they should have that right within their own doors. (Some religious groups have even more extreme requirements for marriage. Because Mormons believe in eternal marriage, they won't "seal" a divorced or widowed woman who has already been "sealed" before. It's discriminatory, but well within their rights as an organization.)
I definitely feel like there is some amount of "pushing homosexuality on everyone" that has been going on the past five or ten years. It's no longer socially acceptable to think that homosexuality is wrong or an unhealthy sexual expression. Even donating to an anti-homosexuality lobby can get you pressured to resign [1]. Depending on the state you live in, you may have to accept gay marriage, even if it violates what you feel like marriage is. I don't know if sex-ed in schools is teaching it yet, but if not, I assume it is just a matter of time. If homosexuality is an unhealthy expression of sexuality, you won't want your kids exposed to that, but, no choice.
For people who agree that LGBT is acceptable, this probably feels like progress. For people who view LGBT as unhealthy sexual expression, the net effect feels a lot like "pushing homosexuality" on us.
[1] Brendan Eich, former Mozilla CEO
"that's why there is a word for it" Well that particular word actually is far younger than thousands of years: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/homosexuality/
Kinda makes you wonder a little bit our current distinctions and their actual relevance to the human condition.
"you may have to accept gay marriage, even if it violates what you feel like marriage is" What you feel like marriage is has nothing to do with what it actually is, which is a very well-defined legal construct outlined by the state. Your feelings are valid in a different context perhaps, but when it comes to the legal definition it's not a compelling part of the argument. In that context, a great many arguments have been heard in court and gay marriage bans have been roundly rejected, many in a bipartisan decision.
"If homosexuality is an unhealthy expression of sexuality, you won't want your kids exposed to that" Kids are going to be exposed. Gay people exist, and kids will and do meet them. Some 2-6% of the kids in that sex ed class are going to be gay themselves. Not saying parents shouldn't have a voice in this, just pointing out that prohibition is dangerous. You can't hide the word gay from children, and denied knowledge often only serves to generate greater curiosity. I would hope some clinical information about how to be healthy and gay isn't asking too much of these fragile creatures, but perhaps heterosexuality is really hanging from a thread? Somehow I doubt that.
I suppose it does. But if one of your children should happen to be gay, you've left no question, from what you've written, that you won't hesitate to push heterosexuality on them.
We care more about them finding a path to self-acceptance than we do about your prejudice.
I doubt anyone can do anything to change a paraphilia; pushing normative sexuality on someone is unlikely to be productive.
But I don't think self-acceptance is a good goal either. There are many unhealthy things in each of us; we shouldn't accept them, but rather should fight against them. I'm naturally lazy; I like to eat a lot; I'm selfish; I talk over others—I have to struggle against each of those deficiencies.
Due to this change in society, it is difficult and becoming more so to marry in the older sense. The more people who adopt the latter meaning, the fewer will retain the older. And even those who think they do are inevitably influenced by the rest.
I don't care much more about two homosexuals claiming to have married one another than I do about someone claiming to be a prophet or the reincarnation of Galileo; what worries me is the continued removal of any meaning from marriage.
Also, the lifelong nuclear family is something that only really appeared after the wars. Pre-war there was no antibiotics and the rates of female death were so high that single parent families were much more common than they are today. If your worries about developments in marriage are that it will reduce the stability for the upbringing of children, I would like you to consider which eras you are choosing for comparison, as we are now living in an era that supports longer childhoods than seemingly at any other point in history.
edit - for the complaint that it is difficult to find more traditional people as spouses, may I point out that there are a number of other people who seem to be making that complaint. Presumably you could find their parental address, so that you can appear in person to make a formal request to their father to begin courting. Oh, and remember to bring some cattle.
And with your presumption that the answer you're likely to get on HN might be "handwavey nonsense"?
Or are you implying that Fantasia's Sorcerer and Micky Mouse are gay just because they wave their hands around to conjure up colorful butterflies, broomsticks, comets, waves and storm clouds?
People have been accusing Disney of "pushing the gay agenda" (negatively) for years -- but those same people have not been able to point to concrete examples of people with same-sex attraction, they've only been able to point to BS like Mickey Mouse having a high voice. Now in this thread people are suggesting Disney is "taking a stand" (positive phrasing of the same issue) -- but they still seem to be lacking concrete examples. It seems inappropriate to credit Disney for "taking a stand" (or to criticize them for "pushing an agenda") without being able to point to an unambiguous, romantically-involved same-sex couple.
I suspect DanBC is like me -- I'd like to see an unambiguous example before categorizing Disney as "taking a stand".
I disagree. First, I think it was widely assumed that he was gay, and if it wasn't, he was accidentally outed during a live TV broadcast a few months ago by a CNBC reporter [1]. Second, the people that think this way probably already avoid Apple products, as both Tim Cook and Apple have been vocal on gay rights for quite some time. Finally, the one thing that these kinds of people hate more than those that disagree with their worldview is being personally inconvenienced. If they're already invested in the Apple ecosystem and are used to the iOS UX, they're going to keep paying Tim Cook for a new device every year.
[1] http://video.cnbc.com/gallery/?video=3000288253 - about one minute in
By who, Apple fanboys? Your average person probably doesn't even know who is Apple's current CEO let alone that he's gay.
Two links from April 2014: Out Magazine - http://www.out.com/out-exclusives/power-50/2014/04/15/what-d...
HuffPo (about the same) - http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/27/out-power-50-most-p...
I'm gay, politically aware, and posting on HN on a MacBook and had no idea, though frankly I also don't browse LGBT power lists.
I actually can think of one co-worker who might have some difficulty with this news today...
http://www.npr.org/2014/06/13/321778926/letters-the-world-cu...
That's where I learned it. I didn't know for a few weeks later that it was supposed to be a secret we didn't say.
There once was a time where, if you were gay, or were close to people who were, you'd pick up hints about others who were gay. These hints would come from others who were gay, or gay-friendly. And they would be passed along like that.
As you moved closer to circles of power, you'd know more and more powerful people who were gay. But there was a code: you didn't bring it up publicly, or with outsiders. (Unless you wanted to be cruel.)
With this knowledge came power. You could read people and situations, understand hints and special relationships. It's a kind of x-ray vision.
But, if you were not gay, and were not close to people who were, you would be completely unaware. You might assume you didn't know anyone who was gay!
Such people were surprised when Rock Hudson (who everyone knew) was outed as gay just before he died of AIDS in 1985. They were surprised when other public figures were outed the same way, even (seriously!) "obvious" cases like Liberace.
We are now somewhere between that world (which was complex and had fascinating intrigues) and a different world (which is more open and fairer).
Source: before I met my wife, I didn't know anyone who was gay. But in fact, I was just ignorant that I already did.
If you had read the article it should become quite clear to you why quite a few people knew and some people even wrote about it.
Since in general journalists will avoid to publish the sexual orientation of someone unless that person made public statements about it, most journalists just didn’t write about it. (I think that’s exactly the right guideline to follow. It is awesome when people come out to help others who are struggling, but this is still a personal decision and I don’t think journalists should make that decision for people. There should never be an obligation to come out.)
Is it criticism? Because if it is, it's misplaced. I did read the article. I am myself gay. According to the other answers, it seems it was known "in the scene". Do you mean everyone who's gay should either be in the scene or stop asking questions?
> it should become quite clear to you why quite a few people knew
It didn't become clear to me. Does that mean I don't get social clues? Does that mean I'm not fluent in English? Does that mean I miss a brain cell? People are different, we don't all understand things, so even if it seems unbelievable to you, please still answer the question.
I never really questioned it, because... because it was common knowledge. No one ever mentioned that he wasn't out, so I wrongly assumed he was fully out until I heard about that newscaster who messed up.
I figured (wrongly) that the reason it was never mentioned publicly was because no one thought it was comment-worthy. I naively thought "oh good, look how far we've come".
I guess I could be wrong, but I know I certainly won't to exchange my Xperia Z3 for an iPhone just because Cook came out.
Time does appear to be healing cultural wounds, even if not quickly enough.