Trolls pop malformed heads above bridge to sling abuse at Tim Cook Apple boss Tim Cook has been bombarded with homophobic abuse after revealing his sexuality to the world on Thursday. Cook spoke out yesterday to say he considered "being gay among the greatest gifts God has given me". Trolls, religious nuts and plain old homophobes from the four corners of the internet immediately took to …
"so you now say you're gay and your point is?"
If you had actually read the original article you would know:
"I don’t consider myself an activist, but I realize how much I’ve benefited from the sacrifice of others," Cook wrote in an open letter published in Bloomberg.
"So if hearing that the CEO of Apple is gay can help someone struggling to come to terms with who he or she is, or bring comfort to anyone who feels alone, or inspire people to insist on their equality, then it’s worth the trade-off with my own privacy."
You obviously didn't read his statement, or you would know exactly what his point was.
Tim Cook has stated that he has benefitted from the hard work and courage of many gay people, which helped him to get to the place in life where he is now, and he thinks he can pay back a little bit by officially stating that the CEO of a huge US company is gay, which might serve as encouragement especially to young gay people who still have to find their way through life.
@Phil.T.Tipp
I half agree - we shouldn't have to have high-profile people discuss their sexuality publicly.
We shouldn't but, unfortunately, we are not yet in a society where that is unnecessary. In such a society, an individual's sexuality should not matter one bit to anyone and should simply not be a factor in they way they are treated or valued or promoted or discussed.
Young homosexual people are still disproportionately represented in suicide statistics and I that is because they are made to feel like they have less worth than other, heterosexual people. The same goes for the entire LGBT community.
When you have an actor or sportsperson or leader or CEO or similar stand up and say: "I am gay", what they are saying is really: "it doesn't matter that I am gay; I was able to accomplish all this anyway because my sexuality is not the measure of my ability or determination or intelligence or goodness or creativity or, most importantly, my worth."
There are people out there in the religious right that believe - and preach - that 'god hates homosexuals' and will punish not only them but any who help them or even tolerate them. Showing someone who has risen to the top of one of the most valuable and important technology companies in the world who also just happens to be gay goes some way to dispel that ridiculous notion.
The same is true of other groups traditionally and to this day considered inferior by some sectors - people of different colours or races (or religions) and even women, who make up fully half the population of the world.
So no, it shouldn't, in an ideal world, be necessary to have people say they are gay, publicly, but unfortunately it is still necessary.
He must be thinking something like "I worked hard, studied some of the classics, went to the debate team, loved, lost, wrote some poetry, admired art. I helped build the pinnacle of technology for the masses, I lead virtually a nation of talented people and the biggest splash I've made to date is about my sexual preference". I say never underestimate the stupidity of a fool with a tool (like Twitter). Carry on.
What i don't understand is why anyone have anything to do with the way anybody live there lives.
Those homophobic must be afraid that Tim Cook or some other gay are going to fuck them. But i don't understand why they would do that.
I mean, gays are everywhere in fashion, design and showbiz and is known for there good taste.
Why in earth would a gay make a move on a fat, ugly, stupid homophobic who can't even get laid with a prostitute without paying double fee?
So let's spread the word. There is no hope for you homphobics to get laid and absolutly not with a gay.
Maybe all those commentards who yesterday were posting "iYawn" and "Why is this news" on Reg's story about this should take note.
Unfortunately, although I agree it shouldn't be newsworthy when someone mentions their sexual orientation, this is the reality: a large part of the world's population are still bigoted homophobes.
Here's one of the most appropriate xkcd's I could find :
Just because all these people have a different opinion doesn't mean we have to sit back and let them spew all this bullsh*t all over the internet...
My guess is that you were too lazy to read the comic. The point is that Free Speech is a two-way street. In fact, to shout the idiots down, sully their reputation, and destroy their business through boycott is the price they pay for the hate and garbage they spew.
So yeah, the reality is that if you open your mouth in a public square, the public square can and will respond. And the response might nott be flowers and chocolate but a destruction of your online persona.
Free Speech is not protection from your stupidity; it's an invitation to be a moron so we know how to handle you in the future.
Freedom of Speech / Expression does not imply Freedom from Offence: in fact, the two are broadly incompatible. However, it also does not imply Freedom from Consequences.
However, the Internet is 90% privately-owned infrastructure, so those freedoms and rights are not as relevant. You agree to abide by the private owners' rules and regulations when posting on forums and the like, many of which explicitly ban offensive statements and remarks. Because—contrary to popular belief—they're perfectly entitled to do so.
Private entities (including individuals) are entitled to do this for the same reason people are allowed to call the police if some nut-job decides to stand in my front garden and shout obscenities at their family day and night.
The whole "Freedom of Speech" (and "Right to bear arms") stuff is intended to protect us from *bad government*. They're primarily political rights and responsibilities.
> Just because all these people have a different opinion doesn't mean we have to sit back and let them spew all this bullsh*t all over the internet...
Yes. Actually it does. Otherwise it's not free speech.
It's not free speech if it's only the things you personally approve of.
This stupid sh*t is why we had to flee to another continent.
All those who went to great pains to tell us that Tim Cook coming out publicly wasn't news on yesterday's story - http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/10/30/tim_cook_writes_open_letter_gay/ now understand that, while it shouldn't be a news story, it unfortunately is. Just because you don't care doesn't mean there aren't those who do.
"now understand that, while it shouldn't be a news story, it unfortunately is. Just because you don't care doesn't mean there aren't those who do."
Yes Don, but if you want to know all about those sorts of stories you need to read Heat and not the Reg.
That's the beginning of the extinction for the west civilization.Thanks allah we r Muslims
— Dr.mohammed alhakeem
Yeah, 'cos we all know there are no gay muslims right? ROFL. I guess it just goes to show that even if you're smart enough to earn a doctorate, you can still be utterly ignorant.
I personally greet Tim Cooks announcement with absolute ambivalence. His personal sexuality has no relevance to me at all, so while I'm unsuprised that we have trolls on one hand, and supporters on the other, I am disappointed that as a world we haven't progressed to the stage where homosexulaity isn't considered good or bad, but simply irrelevant.
I am disappointed that as a world we haven't progressed to the stage where homosexulaity isn't considered good or bad, but simply irrelevant.
- - -
There are some people saying the same about their sexual preferences which other people find unacceptable even while tolerating homosexuality. I expect they also call people who disapprove of their sexual leanings bigots as well. Most of us would rail at them for what they do as being totally disgusting, perverted, depraved, sickening, against god, and a whole lot else.
What is acceptable is in the eye of the beholder. As is bigotry. Something to always bear in mind when criticising bigots and bigotry.
As much as I couldn't give a flying fuck one way or the other as to Tim Cook's sexuality - who or what he decides to shag in the privacy of his own bedroom is nothing to do with me, as long as it's not children or animals - I thought his statement (other than thanking 'God' for the 'gift') struck the right note. He basically said that he was announcing it now in case it helped those people who weren't clear on their own sexuality be more comfortable with it, or to try to show support for those who were taking stick as a result.
That neatly matches my own opinions on religion - I think it's a crock of horseshite, but I'm not about to decry it as totally worthless if it helps some people in some way to deal with their own pain and loss and suffering (and before anyone points it out, yes, of course I am aware that in a lot of cases, the pain and suffering is often CAUSED by religion - YMMV).
This level of uninformed, uninspired, rampant bigotry in trolling is sadly unsurprising in this day and age of keyboard warrior dickheads spouting off behind a veil of anonymity. Like your mum always said - "If you can't say anything nice..."
I think that with the overwhelming majority of media sources supporting (or not caring about) Tim's leanings, it's only articles like this that give anything like a mainstream voice to the 'haters'.
The fact is, whatever and whoever a person is, whatever they do and however they identify themselves, someone will tweet/post/rant against it somewhere. Tim is no different, except it's to do with a person's sexuality --- something society loves to talk about.
Imagine the furore if he was seen using an Android phone.
As someone that has been employed as an "assumed gay"
(because I had worked somewhere before that had a positive inclusion policy).
The one thing that I never quite got was the "making a song and dance about it" (pun partly intended).
I'm not "Proud to be hetro" it's just what is.
So when a gathering of the otherwise inclined turned into a camp circus (this was 80's/90's) I didn't see it as any better than a rugby team being all overwhelmingly blokey out on a Saturday night.
In work I'm not proud about any part of my private sexuality, because it's the workplace.
> I'm not "Proud to be hetro" it's just what is.
Yes, but that's because you're not part of a minority who until recently were classified as criminal and who (for example) have to think twice before holding hands in the streets.
You don't have to think long and hard about the effect announcing your sexuality would have on family, friends, stockholders and customers.
So why should being part of a minority that until recently was classified as criminal and still encounters plenty of abuse make you "proud"? You don't choose to be gay, or choose to be straight, you just are. Being proud of being gay is like being proud of being left handed or being proud of having blue eyes.
You can be proud to come out even though you know you will encounter some abuse, and maybe some friends/family won't accept it or treat you the same way. But there's a big difference in "proud to be gay" and "proud to be openly gay".
"One in four gay young people experience homophobic bullying online, making them unhappy and less likely to reach their full potential at school"
To put this in perspective this is a lower rate of being subject to bullying and cyber-bullying than average.
http://www.bullyingstatistics.org/content/cyber-bullying-statistics.html
That does not make it any less reprehensible but not evidence of a homophobic culture in the UK.
To put this in perspective this is a lower rate of being subject to bullying and cyber-bullying than average.
The "one in four" is only counting homophobic bullying, so the remainder of the bullied gay young people probably just get it exclusively for other reasons instead (for being poor, rich, tall, short, fat, thin, etc.).
But it does somewhat depend on the definition of "homophobic" bullying used. If being called a "faggot" counts, then given some of the environments young people are likely expose themselves to on the Internet, I'd expect one in four heterosexual young people experience homophobic bullying as well.
"Those plagued by it need help thru love"
means:
yes we love everyone. unless you are gay of course and then we dont love you. our love is conditional. oh and we ignore the other stuff in leviticus because it doesnt suit us. but gays...oh gays are going to hell
what a bunch of assholes. at least iof you have thast opinion just come out and say "i think its disgusting". to which any right minded persons response is "well, its your right to be a homophobe, but that doesnt mean we have to respect it. now fuck off"
"God hates homsexuality. It's a sin. He loves you and wants you to repent of such evil."
ok, so what the fuck has it got to do with you then? surely that contract is between him and god (if you go for all that bullshit)
and lets not even get started on the muslim guy. there are no gay muslims. ok! i believe that as much as i believe all the other bullshit religious types come out with, i.e. not at all.
im happily hetero and fully atheist, but i hate this kind of hiding behind my religion bollox.
"Those plagued by it need help thru love"
What they usually mean by that is "tough love". Like beating the crap out of you, followed by a stint in an iron maiden, culminating in chopping your head off. All for the sake of saving your immortal soul or ensuring you go to heaven #7 with 7.0E1 virgins at your service.
I commented yesterday that this was 1950's news, it seems some of the fine folk on the internet never received the memo.
Taking a pop at someone on the internet is dumb, be they Muslim, Gay, Black, Ginger.
Or Gay Black Ginger Muslims.
So well done trolls, once again you have highlighted your awesomeness.
It reminds me of the old saying.
Never argue with stupid people, they'll drag you down to their level, and then beat you with experience.
The irony of everything is these people declare things like we should exterminate all gays and we'll have a better world etc, except even if they killed all gays, in a few generations we'd have gay people again because being gay is a natural behaviour.
On the other hand if we killed all the homophobes they wouldn't come back since it's a learned behavior rather than a natural one. Not that I advocate killing mind you, just the fact that I wouldn't mind if a few racists / homophobes etc accidently held the gun facing themselves when they decide to shoot.
It's so sad to see that Western civilization is so badly misunderstood.
Just because we have stopped throwing people in jail for being homosexuals doesn't mean we like this orientation. Most people here are still uncomfortable with the thought of it, they don't want their children to think of it as an option, and those who are Christians mostly believe that the Bible condemns it.
But just because we disapprove of someone doesn't mean we think we're entitled to murder him. So, unlike Ahmadiyya Muslims, for example, Mormons, Christian Scientists, and Seventh-Day Adventists do not live in fear for their lives in countries ruled by Roman Catholics or mainstream Protestants.
While Christians recognize that God must have really spoken to the Jews if the Bible is true, and so they're "People of the Book", historically, Muslims have just looked to them like a violent bunch following a crazy self-appointed prophet. But, unlike the followers of al-Muqanna, they haven't been exterminated.
So the West has values just as the Muslim world has values. It just has tolerance in addition to its values. And being tolerant is not the "beginning of the end" for the West.
well said.
if you want to proclaim that your god is a homophobic, xenophobic biggoted, capricious asshole, and you think that those kind of statement are going to convert people to your religion, we can simply say that , no thanks, we have already far exceeded the hideous and meager expectations (by some hundreds of years) that you hold your self too.
religion is a dying breed with the advent of knowledge, thank fsm.
"So the West has values just as the Muslim world has values. It just has tolerance in addition to its values."
That hasn't always been the case though. Ironically, the Jews have experienced the Western "tolerance" on their own skin many times and not only in the 20th Century...
Muslims are simply going through their aggressive phase now, which Christians have already gone through (or so we like to think and certainly hope).
I am quite sure that with time Muslims will denounce the satanist cults in their midst and will look back at the likes of ISIS like we look at Senior Torquemada & Co today.
" Most people here are still uncomfortable with the thought of it, they don't want their children to think of it as an option, "
Really?
I always wondered how my kids would grow up but never, ever, was worried.
You should not pass your own misguided fears on to your own kids - they'll hate you for trying or just think you're a fool.
If anyone wants to believe in a sky fairy, that's their business. "We" don't think that's really appropriate, or like it, or want our children to seriously consider it as an option, but we're not going to exterminate you for it.
That said, evangelism shouldn't be allowed. If children grow up feeling an overwhelming urge to believe in a sky fairy, they absolutely should be allowed to go forth and find out about sky fairies, pick one they like and believe in them.
But religious types should not be allowed to try to convert others. It's disgusting. It's immoral. It's wrong. I am not saying we should kill, or imprison people for being what they are, but I really don't think it's right for multi-billion-dollar corporations to exist whose sole purpose is to make innocent children believe in a religion.
Values and morality stem from critical thinking and a carefully considered rational approach to social dynamics grounded in logic. Teaching children that it's whatever some charismatic authority figure says it is will corrupt them and bring ruination to our society.
Something must be done!
#Apple CEO #Tim_Cook says he is "proud to be gay" That's the beginning of the extinction for the west civilization. Thanks Allah we r Muslims
— Dr.mohammed alhakeem (@mahir55555) October 30, 2014
Both times my reaction was "What a tool" so the west is doomed because of this? To which I say "Thank God I am not a homophobic pratt but someone who can spell are..."
Oh and didn't I read somewhere that many people who are homophobic are insecure about their own sexuality or is that as stupid as being homophobic / racist / genderist / ageist etc etc....
"Oh and didn't I read somewhere that many people who are homophobic are insecure about their own sexuality or is that as stupid as being homophobic / racist / genderist / ageist etc etc...."
Yes. Yes you did read that somewhere..
And more interesting than that, the straight homophobes have a greater arousal response to watching gay porn than the gay dudes did.
There's a Ted talk out there about that which I would kill to be able to find right now..
What I don't get is why anyone, even more so a CEO of a big company needs to go and make a big publicity things about their sexuality or anything else. It's their personal thing, and fair enough. But why go out of the way to feed the trolls? People don't go on stage and proclaim they are heavily into porn, or donkeys, or intimate relations with Dyson's, so why do people actively proclaim to the world things like this. It's none of the worlds business frankly and people are just what they are and be damned what anyone else thinks.
Only thing I can think of is Apples about the come up with a anti troll device or something soon and this is some marketing trick.
You have to shine a light on cockroaches so they realise they should scurry away.
By standing up and being counted, Tim Cook is contradicting a certain kind of narative that goes on in anti-gay circles. No, gay people aren't 'deviants' on the fringes of society. Being gay doesn't magically make you a pedo. In more enlightened societies, you can be successful and gay.
The fuckwits that reach for their torch and pitchfork as soon as someone says a trigger word (for the smalltown straight/white/male) show how far we still have to go before we can even pretend to call ourselves a civilised society (context: I'm a straight/white/male Brit),
How very telling that you lump homosexuality together with bestiality and other fetishes most people would be ashamed to admit.
As for why a CEO of a big company needs to go public, is it too intellectually taxing for you to actually read a single sentence of what he wrote?
"So if hearing that the CEO of Apple is gay can help someone struggling to come to terms with who he or she is, or bring comfort to anyone who feels alone, or inspire people to insist on their equality, then it’s worth the trade-off with my own privacy."
God hates homosexuallity it's a sin and you're going to burn in hell for eternity... but he still loves you.
It almost sounds like one of those abusive relationships where the man beats the woman for no reason then claims "I'm doing this because I love you" as his excuse... Yes I just compared God to a wife beater.
Homophobic trolls are not the only fruit.
In the Christian story, God takes the punishment for sin (death) on himself through Jesus' crucifixion so we can live forever. I'm not sure where that leaves the wife-beater analogy.
Its nice that Cook can appreciate being an oppressed minority. Now, perhaps he could use some of Apple's billions to improve the lives of some miserable Foxconn employees. Perhaps he could open his own factory to make the things he designs and sells. Then he could do something significant in terms of looking after at least the Poor who make the things which have made him so very, very wealthy.
I can understand Cook not wanting to support America's war-based foreign policy, but perhaps he could calculate how much tax Apple would have paid had US profits not been siphoned off abroad and donated an equal amount to charities who provide healthcare to those who would otherwise die early because they can't afford it.
Word of support for the oppressed are cheap. Of all the oppressed to support, those who are oppressed in terms of picking up their dead partners' assets due to their sexual deviancy (yes, that is the correct term) seems like a very "First World Problem" to try to solve. I'd have gone with the poor, the widows and the orphans, as representing a larger problem which needs to be dealt with.
Not everyone who believes that there is a God also believes that every word of the Bible is literally true. Just as there are parts of the Bible that imply that the stars are shining spots on a solid dome over a flat Earth, there are parts of the Bible that say that homosexual relations are wrong.
One can throw both of those out, and still believe that there is a God, and that some truth about Him is reflected in portions of the Bible, like the Sermon on the Mount, as well as in some portions of the scriptures of other world religions.
Instead of expecting ancient writings to provide a comprehensive guide to all issues of right and wrong, one can rely on reason plus the principles of love and forgiveness, of honesty and respect for others, that are reflected in what is good, rather than what is bigoted, in the world's religions.
Brian Allan 1, I see plenty. I see men and women holding each other's hands and even kissing one another in public. Also, when men and women get married they also generally wear rings to signify this (and implicitly state to the world that they are heterosexual even when their partner is not around, as gay marriage is not yet commonplace in many parts of the world).
I have done all of the above and am happy about it. I also feel that gay people should be able to do so just as happily, without being punished or abused for it. You may not think that you advertise your heterosexuality, but you most likely do on a regular basis just in little things you do or say, whereas someone who is gay and would rather not open themselves up to opprobium has to constantly make sure they don't reveal any "gay traits" so as not to be prejudged by their friends, employer or co-workers.
The interwebs and its availability offer a freedom of expression unlike any other medium today - one of the caveats being that its also available to idiots. In which case, the best response is none at all. My only surprise is that people are still surprised by the dull-witted on-line behaviour of such folk.
I thought it did seem all a little overboard.
Coming out (even though it was already obvious he was gay?) Sure.
Statement hoping that his coming out helps others out? Fair enough.
The news coverage? I don't know if this is really news. But the US so-called news shows already advertise Apple tat any time they are asked to (not just as filler, but bumping aside REAL news to do so), even for non-existant products like the watch. So, whatever, at that point letting the CEO make personal statements is little different.
Counting "being gay among the greatest gifts God has given me"? Umm, seems over the top. I've heard (straight) men saying they are God's gift to women, but not that being straight is a gift given unto themselves. It seems a bit odd to claim your sexual orientation is a gift given to you either way.
A homophobic Russian politician also called for Cook to be banned from entering the country. Vitaly Milonov asked: “What could he bring us? The Ebola virus, Aids, gonorrhoea? They all have unseemly ties over there. Ban him for life."
Every time I think I have seen the pinnacle of humanity's stupidity, someone like this stupid fuck opens his/her mouth, and lowers the bar even further.
Comrade Milonov, to call you a moron degrades the term moron.
At least he only believes homosexuals should be banned - a generous concession, I feel, given the way some others speak.
One of the key problems here is the way these people believe that homosexuality is a choice and I believe it is telling when they are found out to be totally not gay at all.
If it's a choice, then those pastors and politicians and activists aren't really homosexual - it's just a problem or due to the influence of Satan or society or whatever. Good, god-fearing parents can be reassured that their gay children are also not really gay and it can be fixed by adding more Jesus; pray the gay away.
That some of the most vocal anti-gay activists - be they priests or pastors or politicians or public figures - are themselves homosexual and terrified of their own natures is no surprise. They have grown up believing that homosexuality is wrong - a sin - and when they find that they have those same urges and desires, they go on the offensive. In part it is no doubt to throw people off their trail, like those who feign disgust at others when they have broken wind, but it is also because they desperately want to believe that they are not homosexual.
It's got to be society's fault, you see. It's all those left-wing gays pushing their left-wing gay agenda, trying to turn other people into left-wing gays (especially your children). Or is it the influence of Satan, who is operating gleefully in this world due to society's tolerance of those same left-wing gays.
Yes, that's it. But them? No, not gay. Not at all.
That guy Milonov is an opportunist sensing where the wind is blowing from and trying to take advantage of it because he failed trying to carve a niche for himself in another way.
He apparently started his political career as a liberal (woah there!). That did not work well, so he then converted to Orthodoxy, reclassified himself as an ultra-right wing religious nutcase and, hey, there's no stopping him ever since! Except, the anti-gay propaganda law is his only achievement to date, so he is understandably protective of it.
The degree of opportunistic bigotry he is prepared to stoop for is so amazing that a couple of years ago the fed up St Petersburg Communists(!) sent a public petition to the city's Head of Committee for Culture (after Milonov's opposition to Madonna doing a show there) requesting to invite Milonov to perform himself instead of Madonna, with a set-list of patriotic hymns and sexual education ballads. :-)
Anyone who spews hatred in the name of their religion is not a Christian, despite what religion they may claim. Otherwise I'd feel obligated to apologize for their ignorant ways on behalf of the real Christian community.
Anon because admitting to Christianity in a discussion of gay rights more often than not results in flames, regardless of the rest of what is said.
@AC
The unfortunate thing is, as I said above, that there are those who have been so indoctrinated to believe that homosexuality is a sin that they refuse to accept it when they see it in their friends or their children or even - especially - in themselves.
Many non-religious people hate and fear homosexuals to be certain, but the belief that homosexuality is a sin comes from religion. (The word 'sin' gives it away!)
This is why you see some strongly Christian, loudly anti-gay activists be found as themselves being gay. They protest the loudest because they are scared of that nature inside themselves. They believe it to be a sin so must believe it to be a choice - something that can be 'cured'.
Their own sexuality challenges their faith because if homosexuality really is a sin then why would their God make them homosexual? The answer they cling to is that they are not really homosexual because it is just a choice - they faith they have built their lives around is still absolute and they can be cured and everything will be alright again; they'll pray the gay away.
While I agree and accept that this is not necessarily a mainstream thing, it is still a big enough problem. What they hate is THEMSELVES and they redirect that outwards. they are ashamed of what they are because of what they believe and so they must believe - for their own sake - that being gay is a choice and one they can fix in themselves.
It's that - frankly selfish - need that sees vilify other people and pour their own guilt and insecurity and self-loathing out onto other people.
We had a priest here in Australia who lost his diocese because he refused to stop giving communion to homosexuals. There are many, many good ones out there, but they aren't the loudest voices, unfortunately.
I must admit to being totally lost here. I thought it was already common knowledge and as the article mentions he hasn't hidden it so why the sudden barrage of hate? I would very much like if everyone had the same thought as me when I read / heard he was gay - so what?
Is it any different from reading a newspaper that deliberately posts stories, most times made up based on loose fact with the intention of inflaming their readership or for example websites that accumulate news stories such as Drudge Report who will play with wording so that people with inflammatory titles totally different from the actual story title and it's content merely to make people go to them and have them troll the comment sections of stories.
The only reason we see internet trolls and we don't see them that much in print is because the Internet has given the world a medium that makes it quick, easy and extremely convenient for people to post their statements, regardless of how hurtful, how biased or how untrue.
Before the internet was readily available it was far easier to cut out the negative or hurtful letters to the editor that were sent merely to antagonize people. Sure someone read it but it was censored and there was that firewall, instead the 'Troll' was the person in the bar or at work that was loudmouthed, abusive and hateful and antagonized and bullied people.
You have to treat Internet Trolls in the same way as you would in a person to troll situation! IGNORE THEM. They soon get tired when you don't react to them.
Banning them won't work. Every single person has made a statement that could be deemed trolling over the years and the internet would soon be an unused and inaccessible medium if people were not allowed to use it because they had made a statement that upset someone.
Re. Internet trolls, I don't remember what movie this was from, but: "Everyone's entitled to be an asshole. You abuse the privilege."
Re. Tim being gay: Here's to you for having the courage to come out to the unwashed troglodytes that make up most of our society. I hate Apple devices, but this actually made me slightly more likely to buy one.
And for the record, I am hetero, but have never understood why people are homophobic. Me thinks it is denial.
Realizing that Silicon Valley tech corporations are loosey goosey affairs re traditional professional organization culture, comparing similar features of both may help to explain the issue and the friction. Back in the day, in academia, business and government, everyone was expected to be at their place of work to perform the job they had come, or were hired, to do and not to use their positions, high or low, to expound on or use it as a platform for expression of their personal (non-work related) preferences, opinions and actions - particularly when it came to religion, politics or sexual relations. No, it wasn't always observed, but the reason for the rule was simple. Those topics invariably elicit strong opinions pro and con, that often are backed as much by emotion as reason and such individual differences are not easily resolved by debate or persuasion. Their discussion frequently turns to debate and then to argument which interferes with subsequent personal interactions that are critical to the most efficient operation of the group in whatever tasks or goals they seek to accomplish as a cooperating group - i. e., there are enough rough spots in organizing varied personalities to perform common difficult tasks without members needlessly aggravating each other. The WWW isn't an institution or organization with missions and goals, so there's no applicability here, but Apple is (and a publicly owned one at that), and by traditional standards it was of no benefit to the corporation, and probably detrimental, for the CEO to indulge himself by using his position to expound on personal things that have no apparent relevance to the organization or its functioning. If there were tensions within the company, along the lines of prejudice regarding sexual preference that needed to be aired and policies firmly stated, that's another kettle of fish, but there is no indication of that to date.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2025
