In the wake of a disillusioned journalist outing GOP rep Aaron Schock claiming hypocritical voting as justification for exposing him, questions are being raised about how right that is.
A excerpt from the journalist's Facebook post:
what if you know a certain GOP congressman, let’s just say from Illinois, is gay… and you know this because one of your friends, a journalist for a reputable network, told you in no uncertain terms that he caught that GOP congressman and his male roommate in the shower… together. now they could have been good friends just trying to conserve water. but there’s more. what if this congressman has also been caught by tmz cameras trolling gay bars. now what if you know that this very same guy, the darling of the gop, has also voted against repeal of don’t ask don’t tell, opposed the repeal of doma, is against gay marriage; and for the federal marriage amendment, which would add language to the us constitution banning gay marriage and would likely strike down every gay rights law and ordinance in the country?
Are we still not allowed to out him?
let me ask another question… doesn’t the media have an OBLIGATION to expose his hypocrisy? if he had done something so hypocritical and he wasn’t gay, wouldn’t we demand journalists do their job? but they can’t… because we won’t let them. you’re not allowed to out ANYONE, we tell them.
Is Itay Hod right? Does the media have an obligation to out public figures whose politics are in direct odds with who they secretly are?
Is Itay Hod right? Does the media have an obligation to out public figures whose politics are in direct odds with who they secretly are?
No, and I question whether or not there is any hypocrisy in this situation. There's nothing hypocritical about being homosexual and not thinking homosexuals should be able to get married. It might take a bit of self loathing though.
I confronted my college room mate who was ultra christiany about the huge amounts of gay porn sites I found in the history of his computer when I was looking for a site I had previously visited.
I guess I didn't out him since it was just the two of us who talked about it.
He was terrified and gave me an otherworldly excuse. I was like "I really dont care, I wont tell anyone".
Then he moved out like a week later without telling me.
Just a while ago I learned he was in jail for child pornography involving his two kids and his father killed himself out of grief.
So hmmm I dont know if its right to out someone. Probably most of the time no, but some of the time maybe. If the person is marrying a friend of the opposite sex and that person is oblivious that they are just a beard maybe.
In the wake of a disillusioned journalist outing GOP rep Aaron Schock claiming hypocritical voting as justification for exposing him, questions are being raised about how right that is.
Does the media have an obligation to out public figures whose politics are in direct odds with who they secretly are?
I mean, this Itay Hod fellow certainly looks bad by this action. It's not like he did an investigative piece on the subject; he posted a bunch of insinuations on a Facebook. It sounds like something that would happen in a middle school.
Saying, "I heard this rumor from someone this one time..." is not news. Innuendo is not news. Insinuations are not news. This is not journalism. It is unprofessional and juvenile.
As to the question, to say the media has an obligation to do so is a slippery slope, because that implies that the media has the right to a presence in someone's personal life.
However, I also don't believe the media has any obligation not to post such information.
I think the key here is the fact that this political figure had a history of voting a certain way regarding legislation specifically targeting gay people. When you have a history of behavior in the political sector based on a particular issue, and when your own behavior is so contrary to your voting stance on an issue, I think then it can be justified to report it.
It's not the same thing as someone outing someone apropos of nothing. One's behavior in the public sphere affects society at large.
Take this in another direction: if a major proponent for the illegalization of marijuana were caught attending a marijuana establishment in Colorado, I think that would be newsworthy.
For this particular incident, I can only echo Highroller in saying that whatever else it is, it's wildly unprofessional.
In general, I'm troubled by the proposition of using outing as a weapon to enforce political conformity. Talk about hypocrisy - what about the hypocrisy of "You should never ever out someone... unless they say or do something I disagree with"?
Strange as it seems, there are openly gay people who are against gay marriage. Not a lot, but a few. I really don't like the implications in this reasoning that what they are must determine what they believe. That an accidental biological feature of a person means they must conform to the opinions of all the other people with the same feature, and if they don't, the rules protecting such people no longer apply to them.
Take this in another direction: if a major proponent for the illegalization of marijuana were caught attending a marijuana establishment in Colorado, I think that would be newsworthy.
Marijuana use does not have the same strong privacy taboos as closeted homosexuality.
I mean, this Itay Hod fellow certainly looks bad by this action. It's not like he did an investigative piece on the subject; he posted a bunch of insinuations on a Facebook. It sounds like something that would happen in a middle school.
Saying, "I heard this rumor from someone this one time..." is not news. Innuendo is not news. Insinuations are not news. This is not journalism. It is unprofessional and juvenile.
From what I can gather, Hod is disillusioned with the state of journalism as a whole to begin with, a juvenile outburst like this isn't unexpected. And as juvenile as it is, this sort of tabloid/rumor-based journalism is increasingly more common and more and more is being treated as legitimate news reporting. We can argue that it shouldn't be, but it really has become good enough for a lot of people.
As to the question, to say the media has an obligation to do so is a slippery slope, because that implies that the media has the right to a presence in someone's personal life.
I agree, though many sectors of the media already act as though they have that right. Public figures are often treated as though their right to privacy can be negated for little more than to satisfy public curiosity, when the media can justify it by linking a public figure's private actions to hypocrisy in how they present themselves and the politics they espouse ... I mean it happens all the time now. But Hod is correct: a public figure's sexuality is often viewed as more untouchable in legitimate news reporting (though obviously not always).
I think the key here is the fact that this political figure had a history of voting a certain way regarding legislation specifically targeting gay people. When you have a history of behavior in the political sector based on a particular issue, and when your own behavior is so contrary to your voting stance on an issue, I think then it can be justified to report it.
I have to say I concur, though I'm uncomfortable with it as I typically believe that a person's private life is their own so long as they aren't harming anyone or anything.
Take this in another direction: if a major proponent for the illegalization of marijuana were caught attending a marijuana establishment in Colorado, I think that would be newsworthy.
And I think Hod would agree with you. When you base your political platform on a particular issue and your private life runs contrary to that platform, I think that's noteworthy. And yet I don't like the idea of using outing as a weapon, it hits really close to home for me. And I think it also reinforces the notion of being queer being a shameful thing, which is obviously not something the LGBT community needs.
In general, I'm troubled by the proposition of using outing as a weapon to enforce political conformity. Talk about hypocrisy - what about the hypocrisy of "You should never ever out someone... unless they say or do something I disagree with"?
I don't think there'll be a person in this thread more uncomfortable with the use of outing as a weapon (it was done to me and it was horrible), and yet I understand the argument people like Hod are making. If a man is voting in ways that would strip rights away from LGBT people is in fact not heterosexual himself, I understand people seeing the trouble in that and why there'd be a desire to expose it. Make no mistake, Schock's voting in ways to undo what little progress the LGBT community has achieved
Strange as it seems, there are openly gay people who are against gay marriage. Not a lot, but a few. I really don't like the implications in this reasoning that what they are must determine what they believe.
I understand that, too, but there is a certain negative reaction when a member of a minority group takes a political platform that ultimately undermines that group. Republicans who are black, gay and/or women tend to be judged for supporting a party whose platforms are often perceived as not contributing to the social progress of those groups, for instance. So while I agree with what you're saying, there is an expectation that leaders belonging to minority group will act with that group's interests at least partially at heart. Whether or not that expectation is right or realistic is one thing, but that expectation is there. It's why Uncle Tom is still an epithet.
Take this in another direction: if a major proponent for the illegalization of marijuana were caught attending a marijuana establishment in Colorado, I think that would be newsworthy.
Marijuana use does not have the same strong privacy taboos as closeted homosexuality.
Which is why outing is such a contentious thing, but Highroller's comparison is apt. I think voters would demand to know about the pothead's secret activities in light of anti-pot political leanings. But when is the truth just a convenient political weapon?
Meh the more outings for big public figures, the better. It's may screw up their life, but its a small step towards helping so many other lives, by making out "normal" as the public realize just how many there are, even among conservatives. It will hopefully cause previous supporters, who often have a tendency to rationalize in favor of who they are supporting, to think harder about the issue. If the figure is particularly strong, they can turn it around for the LGBT community, if they're not then at least they won't have credibility to push anti-policies anymore. The more this "weapon" is used, the less effective it will become.
Meh the more outings for big public figures, the better. It's may screw up their life, but its a small step towards helping so many other lives, by making out "normal" as the public realize just how many there are, even among conservatives. It will hopefully cause previous supporters, who often have a tendency to rationalize in favor of who they are supporting, to think harder about the issue. If the figure is particularly strong, they can turn it around for the LGBT community, if they're not then at least they won't have credibility to push anti-policies anymore. The more this "weapon" is used, the less effective it will become.
Except in the meantime, you're destroying lives and reinforcing that it's negative to be anything but straight. You're right that the more out public figures, the better, but I don't think it's progressive to force outings on people. It probably does more harm than good.
He's only a hypocrite if gay marriage is purely a class issue and not a matter of justice. In the same way, this would make Warren Buffet a "hypocrite" for supporting tax increases on the rich.
If that's what you're all about ("democracy!"), then white Christians should get their way on everything in the States. Would you really want that?
It's unprofessional for a major news agency to spread unsubstantiated rumors about someone's sexuality. He should be fired.
He's only a hypocrite if gay marriage is purely a class issue and not a matter of justice. In the same way, this would make Warren Buffet a "hypocrite" for supporting tax increases on the rich.
So if he's not technically a hypocrite but instead just a man who (seemingly)undermines the LGBT community to satisfy conservatives and climb the ranks in the Republican party while (allegedly) having a gay old time in the sheets, does that change anything? I think we're getting hung up on Hod's use of 'hypocrisy', Schock's behavior is eliciting negative reactions even if it's not hypocritical. Does that behavior warrant exposing him as a closeted man?
It's unprofessional for a major news agency to spread unsubstantiated rumors about someone's sexuality.
None did. Hod may work for CBS and Logo, but this was off the books on his personal Facebook page. Unbecoming as it may have been for him to do, his employers had nothing to do with it.
He should be fired.
He'll almost certainly be reprimanded, though given his sour views on the state of journalism and the media, I'm not entirely sure Hod will be broken up about that.
Is there a distinction between "outing" someone, and reporting that they've been known to frequent gay bars? I think there is, but I can see how it could be a fine line. The former makes me very uncomfortable, but I don't really have any issue with the latter.
I also take issue with tossing around the word "hypocrisy" so easily. A homosexual can be against gay marriage, it would be unusual sure, but they aren't obligated to support gay marriage just because they're gay any more than a religious person is obligated to be anti-gay marriage and anti-abortion. People are complex and are allowed to hold complex opinions. They're even allowed (shock of all shocks) to support liberals some times and conservatives other times.
That being said, if he's out in public at a gay bar then I think it's fair game to question him about it. Though I agree that facebook is an extremely poor choice of method.
Hod's goal specifically in this case appears to be exposing both the secret behavior of a political figure he considers to be wrong as well as a double standard he perceives in the media. It seems more like Hod is angrier about the latter than he is the former and the situation with Schock is just the straw that broke the camel's back.
But in many outings of this nature, the intent is to disgrace the public figure and question them, with them either changing their political platform or losing their supporters to the point where they have little influence anymore so their political platform is moot. It's unclear if that was the goal here, it easily could have been.
Is there a distinction between "outing" someone, and reporting that they've been known to frequent gay bars?
Functionally? No, there isn't much difference between directly outing someone and piling on innuendo and implying the same thing. Public opinion, which is the metric we'd look to here, would be affected the same way regardless.
I also take issue with tossing around the word "hypocrisy" so easily. A homosexual can be against gay marriage, it would be unusual sure, but they aren't obligated to support gay marriage just because they're gay any more than a religious person is obligated to be anti-gay marriage and anti-abortion. People are complex and are allowed to hold complex opinions. They're even allowed (shock of all shocks) to support liberals some times and conservatives other times.
Clearly Hod was frustrated when he posted and misspoke when he claimed Schock was a hypocrite. But even if Schock's political platform versus his behavior in his private life isn't hypocritical, surely you can understand why many would find it problematic and why many would call for his exposure.
What if it was say Hillary Clinton coming into 2016.
While she has never been as "spiritually hypocritical" as the said republican. A lot what she has done has been built upon her relationship with her husband.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Don't you see that the whole aim of Moderators is to narrow the range of thought? In the end we shall make infractions literally impossible, because there will be no words in which to express it. Every concept that can ever be needed, will be expressed by exactly one word, with its meaning rigidly defined and all its subsidiary meanings rubbed out and forgotten.
What if it was say Hillary Clinton coming into 2016.
While she has never been as "spiritually hypocritical" as the said republican. A lot what she has done has been built upon her relationship with her husband.
I don't think I follow you. Are you spinning a hypothetical wherein Hilary Clinton was in fact a closeted lesbian and whether outing her in that case would be justified? I don't think the context is at all the same, as to my knowledge Hilary does not have a strong track record of anti-gay leanings, which is really the source of why people feel outing Schock is justified.
Never. Is it wrong to keep secrets? I didn't think so. People have a right to their privacy and it disgusts me that people don't respect that.
Except, of course, when a person's actions in private harm others (and even not, in some cases, such as with Rob Ford where his actions by and large only harmed himself and his reputation and yet his private life was laid bare with little in the way of argument that he should be allowed to keep his indiscretions private). I think that's a bit of a stretch in this case, but I think to an extent contextual information like this about public figures is beneficial for constituents. I don't think the public has a right to that information per se (particularly not when the means are underhanded as I feel they are in this case), but having that context has its own benefits. I feel that anything that can help voters make a better informed decision is a positive thing, ultimately, but only insofar as the information has bearing on the leader and his/her performance.
Hod's goal specifically in this case appears to be exposing both the secret behavior of a political figure he considers to be wrong as well as a double standard he perceives in the media. It seems more like Hod is angrier about the latter than he is the former and the situation with Schock is just the straw that broke the camel's back.
I struggled with writing my first reply until I decided to just ask a simple question. I hadn't considered your first point and I was afraid to talk about the second one because from the information given, I couldn't be sure if the goal of the journalist was to disgrace him so he would lose support.
He could have written something about the double standard he perceives in the industry without being as specific as he was (would anyone have linked the congressman to his report if he had not mentioned the congressman was from Illinois?). Going after Schock doesn't seem necessary to addressing that. You could argue that a real example makes the issue seem "more real," but is that worth the implications of outing him?
But in many outings of this nature, the intent is to disgrace the public figure and question them, with them either changing their political platform or losing their supporters to the point where they have little influence anymore so their political platform is moot. It's unclear if that was the goal here, it easily could have been.
So then the question becomes, is it ethical to out someone in order to tarnish or ruin their political career? I could be using faulty logic here, so I'd appreciate it if someone corrected me: isn't that persecuting an individual because they are gay? As has been established in this thread, as a gay man he is not required to have an agenda that is for the betterment of homosexual rights. So why does being gay make his political position worse? A straight man's vote against homosexual rights means the same thing as a homosexual man's vote against them.
The fact we need to point out he is gay in an attempt to remove him from political power is saddening. We shouldn't vote him out because he's gay, we should vote him out because of his track record of voting against gay rights, regardless of his sexual orientation.
He could have written something about the double standard he perceives in the industry without being as specific as he was (would anyone have linked the congressman to his report if he had not mentioned the congressman was from Illinois?).
Schock's been the target of rumors about his sexuality well before this, and I've read elsewhere that he hasn't been particularly secretive about his gay exploits. I think Hod's tirade could have been linked to Schock even without the hints, I don't believe there are many other congressmen weathering orientation rumors to this degree.
Going after Schock doesn't seem necessary to addressing that. You could argue that a real example makes the issue seem "more real," but is that worth the implications of outing him?
And that's the debate.
So then the question becomes, is it ethical to out someone in order to tarnish or ruin their political career?
It's definitely a means to an end, and potentially a very effective one. My idealistic side says absolutely not, it's not ethical. My pragmatic side sees the effectiveness in it. Ultimately, I side with idealism here but I understand those who are willing to utilize unethical means to remove anti-LGBT politicians from power.
I could be using faulty logic here, so I'd appreciate it if someone corrected me: isn't that persecuting an individual because they are gay?
I think in this case, Schock is being targeted for his politics and his orientation is just the ammunition so it's not quite persecution as we generally expect it. It's definitely using the social stigma towards his sexuality against him, however, which makes me uneasy.
As has been established in this thread, as a gay man he is not required to have an agenda that is for the betterment of homosexual rights. So why does being gay make his political position worse? A straight man's vote against homosexual rights means the same thing as a homosexual man's vote against them.
As I mentioned earlier, the difference is in expectations. There is a certain level of expectation from minority groups that leaders who belong to that minority group will generally act with them in mind. Or at least not act against them. To take a political platform that actively undermines the progress your minority group has attained rings as a betrayal in a way that those outside the group taking the same platform does not.
It may not be fair or 100% realistic, but it is what it is. A gay man's anti-gay vote counts just the same as a straight man's, but it stings far more. There's also a fear that it legitimizes anti-gay policies when a gay politician endorses them.
The fact we need to point out he is gay in an attempt to remove him from political power is saddening. We shouldn't vote him out because he's gay, we should vote him out because of his track record of voting against gay rights, regardless of his sexual orientation.
I don't think I follow you. Are you spinning a hypothetical wherein Hilary Clinton was in fact a closeted lesbian and whether outing her in that case would be justified? I don't think the context is at all the same, as to my knowledge Hilary does not have a strong track record of anti-gay leanings, which is really the source of why people feel outing Schock is justified.
I get that the dramatic irony feels appealing; it certainly makes for a good story. But in the rational analysis, does it really matter that the positions in question are anti-gay? Would it be any more justified if Schock was, say, a segregationist instead? In both cases his position can be said to be harming people in approximately the same way.
Now extend the hypothetical further. What if a right-leaning journalist decided that our closet-lesbian version of Clinton was going to do harm by, I dunno, breaking the healthcare system or tanking the economy or something?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
I get that the dramatic irony feels appealing; it certainly makes for a good story. But in the rational analysis, does it really matter that the positions in question are anti-gay?
Yes, in context it matters that the gay congressman is supporting anti-gay legislation. Perhaps it matters much less in the rational analysis, but for the reasons people are reacting, it matters.
It burns that one of our own is actively working to undermine our progress to further his own career while at the same time keeping his own sexual exploits a secret to protect himself from anti-gay sentiments that he is in part fueling with his political platform. It may not be rational, and I think reading Hod's tirade it's far more irrational than not, but it matters that he's gay and voting for anti-gay positions because it stings like betrayal.
Now extend the hypothetical further. What if a right-leaning journalist decided that our closet-lesbian version of Clinton was going to do harm by, I dunno, breaking the healthcare system or tanking the economy or something?
There isn't the same connection there, not even emotionally. Now if Hilary was going to do harm by backing legislation that would somehow adversely affect women, I think her own womanhood would become a talking point in the same way as Schock's orientation.
As I mentioned earlier, the difference is in expectations. There is a certain level of expectation from minority groups that leaders who belong to that minority group will generally act with them in mind. Or at least not act against them. To take a political platform that actively undermines the progress your minority group has attained rings as a betrayal in a way that those outside the group taking the same platform does not.
I'm not sure how to word this with seeming offensive, but I'll try. It's possible that because I don't have the feeling of betrayal and because the issue at large doesn't have the same implications for me, it's easier for me to bang the drum of idealism in this case.
Quote from {mikeyG} »
It may not be fair or 100% realistic, but it is what it is. A gay man's anti-gay vote counts just the same as a straight man's, but it stings far more. There's also a fear that it legitimizes anti-gay policies when a gay politician endorses them.
What can happen vs. idealism is hard for me to reconcile sometimes. While his standing as a gay man doesn't legitimize anti-gay policy, it's possible it could be package by proponents of anti-gay legislation and sold to portions of the public successfully.
I don't think our conversation can go much further than lamenting over the disappointment we feel at the reality of the situation vs. how we wish things were. It is useful to get a different perspective other than the one I get atop my high-horse though, thank you.
Now extend the hypothetical further. What if a right-leaning journalist decided that our closet-lesbian version of Clinton was going to do harm by, I dunno, breaking the healthcare system or tanking the economy or something?
There isn't the same connection there, not even emotionally.
I think BS's point is that the connection is only emotional. From a rational standpoint, there's no reason a politician should reach a different conclusion about an issue simply because they identify personally with that issue.
There is some set of mental processes that will lead a sane, rational person to conclude "I do not support gay marriage." Call that conclusion "X." Now, you and I might disagree with that person's conclusion and reasoning, but the point is that some kind of reasoning took place in that person's mind that got them to X. Logically, there is no reason why a straight person can apply that reasoning to arrive at X, but a gay person cannot.
Almost everyone who believes in a position strongly likes to think: "the other person only disagrees because they don't fully understand or empathize. If they were educated about the issue they would come around." This thought makes us feel better because it convinces us that everyone is really "on our team" deep down inside, they just haven't realized yet. But this idea isn't always true, and this is where the emotional sting comes from. A gay person opposing gay marriage creates cognitive dissonance and shatters our notion that someone who connects with the issue deeply can disagree. Tell someone who supports low taxes that Warren Buffet thinks his tax rate should be higher; their first reaction is usually emotional and they will try to frame him as a "traitor" in some way. Tell a catholic about a devout priest who converted to atheism; tell a Mac lover about an Apple employee who only uses PCs. The reaction is emotional because the problem is emotional.
What can happen vs. idealism is hard for me to reconcile sometimes. While his standing as a gay man doesn't legitimize anti-gay policy, it's possible it could be package by proponents of anti-gay legislation and sold to portions of the public successfully.
Which portions, though? I'm not sure which groups that aren't already sold on suppressing homosexuality would be convinced by a proponent being outed.
It may not be that this incident itself has enough weight to convert a person who isn't fully sold on suppressing gay rights, but if it contributed to even a handful of conversions, it's a step in the wrong direction and one more battle education has to fight. It should be considered detrimental even if it was only used to reinforce the opinions of those already sold on supporting anti-gay legislation.
In the United States, it's still very much an uphill battle. Only in seventeen states of the fifty is gay marriage legal, the other thirty-three having bans (source). Any stone given to the side that promotes bigotry, even a crude stone, is a detriment to advocates of equality. They aren't brushed off as easily as they would be in a culture or system that values equality and human rights more. No matter how asinine of an idea it is that a gay politician being opposed to gay rights might stir up anti-gay sentiment in the public, that's the reality of American politics.
A part of me feels for the Congressman, but more for the man that he was engaged in a sexual act with. That man will be hunted if at all possible to "confirm" these allegations, and basically will make his life miserable if this gets really main stream. I consider a person's sexual life to off radar with the clear exception of rape, incest, pedophilia, and ect. I consider "marital infidelity" as well as hiring a prostitute in legal areas in the age of consent to be off limits as a personal matter, first. A husband or wife should not get a phone call from a journalist telling them about infidelity, I find that too high school.
These rumors and the like are as ancient as time itself, people have always tried to insinuate so and so was gay or so and so was corrupt. Sometimes, true, sometimes well not. The Congressman's life will weather this conflict, and you do indeed have gays that are not kosher with gay marriage. Yea, they exist, get over it. Doesn't make them hypocrites.
The best way is to find the people who are not convinced and convince them that gay marriage is okay, as well as conservatives that buy into the separation of church and state and privacy to move their vote from no to "get the government out of my bedroom."
But people are surprised by this? We're still finding Sumerian writings telling other scribes' notes to other scribes telling them that they're not smoothing the clay right, or how much of a whore some Roman woman was scrawled on a wall.
It's crass, but it's going to happen again and again and again. Hopefully the outer is punished for a while on this issue, especially since he may have made another man's life more complex than just his target's. That's just beyond trying to score political points, that's doubly perverse.
If you're that angry about him, then write a biography and interview people who are on record for having relations with the Congressman.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Ambition must be made to counteract ambition.
Individualities may form communities, but it is institutions alone that can create a nation.
Nothing succeeds like the appearance of success.
Here is my principle: Taxes shall be levied according to ability to pay. That is the only American principle.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
A excerpt from the journalist's Facebook post:
Is Itay Hod right? Does the media have an obligation to out public figures whose politics are in direct odds with who they secretly are?
Archatmos
Excellion
Fracture: Israfiel (WBR), Wujal (URG), Valedon (GUB), Amduat (BGW), Paladris (RWU)
Collision (Set Two of the Fracture Block)
Quest for the Forsaken (Set Two of the Excellion Block)
Katingal: Plane of Chains
Thankfully, being gay isn't a crime anymore (though the stigma...)
If they can swallow their integrity and vote against their own interests...well isn't that just politics?
Thanks to Xenphire @ Inkfox for the amazing new sig
“Thus strangely are our souls constructed, and by slight ligaments
are we bound to prosperity and ruin.”
― Mary Shelley, Frankenstein
I guess I didn't out him since it was just the two of us who talked about it.
He was terrified and gave me an otherworldly excuse. I was like "I really dont care, I wont tell anyone".
Then he moved out like a week later without telling me.
Just a while ago I learned he was in jail for child pornography involving his two kids and his father killed himself out of grief.
So hmmm I dont know if its right to out someone. Probably most of the time no, but some of the time maybe. If the person is marrying a friend of the opposite sex and that person is oblivious that they are just a beard maybe.
I mean, this Itay Hod fellow certainly looks bad by this action. It's not like he did an investigative piece on the subject; he posted a bunch of insinuations on a Facebook. It sounds like something that would happen in a middle school.
Saying, "I heard this rumor from someone this one time..." is not news. Innuendo is not news. Insinuations are not news. This is not journalism. It is unprofessional and juvenile.
As to the question, to say the media has an obligation to do so is a slippery slope, because that implies that the media has the right to a presence in someone's personal life.
However, I also don't believe the media has any obligation not to post such information.
I think the key here is the fact that this political figure had a history of voting a certain way regarding legislation specifically targeting gay people. When you have a history of behavior in the political sector based on a particular issue, and when your own behavior is so contrary to your voting stance on an issue, I think then it can be justified to report it.
It's not the same thing as someone outing someone apropos of nothing. One's behavior in the public sphere affects society at large.
Take this in another direction: if a major proponent for the illegalization of marijuana were caught attending a marijuana establishment in Colorado, I think that would be newsworthy.
In general, I'm troubled by the proposition of using outing as a weapon to enforce political conformity. Talk about hypocrisy - what about the hypocrisy of "You should never ever out someone... unless they say or do something I disagree with"?
Strange as it seems, there are openly gay people who are against gay marriage. Not a lot, but a few. I really don't like the implications in this reasoning that what they are must determine what they believe. That an accidental biological feature of a person means they must conform to the opinions of all the other people with the same feature, and if they don't, the rules protecting such people no longer apply to them.
Marijuana use does not have the same strong privacy taboos as closeted homosexuality.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
From what I can gather, Hod is disillusioned with the state of journalism as a whole to begin with, a juvenile outburst like this isn't unexpected. And as juvenile as it is, this sort of tabloid/rumor-based journalism is increasingly more common and more and more is being treated as legitimate news reporting. We can argue that it shouldn't be, but it really has become good enough for a lot of people.
I agree, though many sectors of the media already act as though they have that right. Public figures are often treated as though their right to privacy can be negated for little more than to satisfy public curiosity, when the media can justify it by linking a public figure's private actions to hypocrisy in how they present themselves and the politics they espouse ... I mean it happens all the time now. But Hod is correct: a public figure's sexuality is often viewed as more untouchable in legitimate news reporting (though obviously not always).
I have to say I concur, though I'm uncomfortable with it as I typically believe that a person's private life is their own so long as they aren't harming anyone or anything.
And I think Hod would agree with you. When you base your political platform on a particular issue and your private life runs contrary to that platform, I think that's noteworthy. And yet I don't like the idea of using outing as a weapon, it hits really close to home for me. And I think it also reinforces the notion of being queer being a shameful thing, which is obviously not something the LGBT community needs.
I don't think there'll be a person in this thread more uncomfortable with the use of outing as a weapon (it was done to me and it was horrible), and yet I understand the argument people like Hod are making. If a man is voting in ways that would strip rights away from LGBT people is in fact not heterosexual himself, I understand people seeing the trouble in that and why there'd be a desire to expose it. Make no mistake, Schock's voting in ways to undo what little progress the LGBT community has achieved
I understand that, too, but there is a certain negative reaction when a member of a minority group takes a political platform that ultimately undermines that group. Republicans who are black, gay and/or women tend to be judged for supporting a party whose platforms are often perceived as not contributing to the social progress of those groups, for instance. So while I agree with what you're saying, there is an expectation that leaders belonging to minority group will act with that group's interests at least partially at heart. Whether or not that expectation is right or realistic is one thing, but that expectation is there. It's why Uncle Tom is still an epithet.
Which is why outing is such a contentious thing, but Highroller's comparison is apt. I think voters would demand to know about the pothead's secret activities in light of anti-pot political leanings. But when is the truth just a convenient political weapon?
Archatmos
Excellion
Fracture: Israfiel (WBR), Wujal (URG), Valedon (GUB), Amduat (BGW), Paladris (RWU)
Collision (Set Two of the Fracture Block)
Quest for the Forsaken (Set Two of the Excellion Block)
Katingal: Plane of Chains
Except in the meantime, you're destroying lives and reinforcing that it's negative to be anything but straight. You're right that the more out public figures, the better, but I don't think it's progressive to force outings on people. It probably does more harm than good.
There are better ways to achieve the same ends.
Archatmos
Excellion
Fracture: Israfiel (WBR), Wujal (URG), Valedon (GUB), Amduat (BGW), Paladris (RWU)
Collision (Set Two of the Fracture Block)
Quest for the Forsaken (Set Two of the Excellion Block)
Katingal: Plane of Chains
If that's what you're all about ("democracy!"), then white Christians should get their way on everything in the States. Would you really want that?
It's unprofessional for a major news agency to spread unsubstantiated rumors about someone's sexuality. He should be fired.
So if he's not technically a hypocrite but instead just a man who (seemingly)undermines the LGBT community to satisfy conservatives and climb the ranks in the Republican party while (allegedly) having a gay old time in the sheets, does that change anything? I think we're getting hung up on Hod's use of 'hypocrisy', Schock's behavior is eliciting negative reactions even if it's not hypocritical. Does that behavior warrant exposing him as a closeted man?
None did. Hod may work for CBS and Logo, but this was off the books on his personal Facebook page. Unbecoming as it may have been for him to do, his employers had nothing to do with it.
He'll almost certainly be reprimanded, though given his sour views on the state of journalism and the media, I'm not entirely sure Hod will be broken up about that.
Archatmos
Excellion
Fracture: Israfiel (WBR), Wujal (URG), Valedon (GUB), Amduat (BGW), Paladris (RWU)
Collision (Set Two of the Fracture Block)
Quest for the Forsaken (Set Two of the Excellion Block)
Katingal: Plane of Chains
I also take issue with tossing around the word "hypocrisy" so easily. A homosexual can be against gay marriage, it would be unusual sure, but they aren't obligated to support gay marriage just because they're gay any more than a religious person is obligated to be anti-gay marriage and anti-abortion. People are complex and are allowed to hold complex opinions. They're even allowed (shock of all shocks) to support liberals some times and conservatives other times.
That being said, if he's out in public at a gay bar then I think it's fair game to question him about it. Though I agree that facebook is an extremely poor choice of method.
Hod's goal specifically in this case appears to be exposing both the secret behavior of a political figure he considers to be wrong as well as a double standard he perceives in the media. It seems more like Hod is angrier about the latter than he is the former and the situation with Schock is just the straw that broke the camel's back.
But in many outings of this nature, the intent is to disgrace the public figure and question them, with them either changing their political platform or losing their supporters to the point where they have little influence anymore so their political platform is moot. It's unclear if that was the goal here, it easily could have been.
Functionally? No, there isn't much difference between directly outing someone and piling on innuendo and implying the same thing. Public opinion, which is the metric we'd look to here, would be affected the same way regardless.
Clearly Hod was frustrated when he posted and misspoke when he claimed Schock was a hypocrite. But even if Schock's political platform versus his behavior in his private life isn't hypocritical, surely you can understand why many would find it problematic and why many would call for his exposure.
Archatmos
Excellion
Fracture: Israfiel (WBR), Wujal (URG), Valedon (GUB), Amduat (BGW), Paladris (RWU)
Collision (Set Two of the Fracture Block)
Quest for the Forsaken (Set Two of the Excellion Block)
Katingal: Plane of Chains
While she has never been as "spiritually hypocritical" as the said republican. A lot what she has done has been built upon her relationship with her husband.
But I also propose even distribution of number of cards in each rarity: Large set: 60 c, 60 u, 60 r, 60 m.
Probabilities of particular cards: Common 7/60, Uncommon 1/12, Rare 1/20, Mythic 1/60.
I don't think I follow you. Are you spinning a hypothetical wherein Hilary Clinton was in fact a closeted lesbian and whether outing her in that case would be justified? I don't think the context is at all the same, as to my knowledge Hilary does not have a strong track record of anti-gay leanings, which is really the source of why people feel outing Schock is justified.
Except, of course, when a person's actions in private harm others (and even not, in some cases, such as with Rob Ford where his actions by and large only harmed himself and his reputation and yet his private life was laid bare with little in the way of argument that he should be allowed to keep his indiscretions private). I think that's a bit of a stretch in this case, but I think to an extent contextual information like this about public figures is beneficial for constituents. I don't think the public has a right to that information per se (particularly not when the means are underhanded as I feel they are in this case), but having that context has its own benefits. I feel that anything that can help voters make a better informed decision is a positive thing, ultimately, but only insofar as the information has bearing on the leader and his/her performance.
Archatmos
Excellion
Fracture: Israfiel (WBR), Wujal (URG), Valedon (GUB), Amduat (BGW), Paladris (RWU)
Collision (Set Two of the Fracture Block)
Quest for the Forsaken (Set Two of the Excellion Block)
Katingal: Plane of Chains
I struggled with writing my first reply until I decided to just ask a simple question. I hadn't considered your first point and I was afraid to talk about the second one because from the information given, I couldn't be sure if the goal of the journalist was to disgrace him so he would lose support.
He could have written something about the double standard he perceives in the industry without being as specific as he was (would anyone have linked the congressman to his report if he had not mentioned the congressman was from Illinois?). Going after Schock doesn't seem necessary to addressing that. You could argue that a real example makes the issue seem "more real," but is that worth the implications of outing him?
So then the question becomes, is it ethical to out someone in order to tarnish or ruin their political career? I could be using faulty logic here, so I'd appreciate it if someone corrected me: isn't that persecuting an individual because they are gay? As has been established in this thread, as a gay man he is not required to have an agenda that is for the betterment of homosexual rights. So why does being gay make his political position worse? A straight man's vote against homosexual rights means the same thing as a homosexual man's vote against them.
The fact we need to point out he is gay in an attempt to remove him from political power is saddening. We shouldn't vote him out because he's gay, we should vote him out because of his track record of voting against gay rights, regardless of his sexual orientation.
Schock's been the target of rumors about his sexuality well before this, and I've read elsewhere that he hasn't been particularly secretive about his gay exploits. I think Hod's tirade could have been linked to Schock even without the hints, I don't believe there are many other congressmen weathering orientation rumors to this degree.
And that's the debate.
It's definitely a means to an end, and potentially a very effective one. My idealistic side says absolutely not, it's not ethical. My pragmatic side sees the effectiveness in it. Ultimately, I side with idealism here but I understand those who are willing to utilize unethical means to remove anti-LGBT politicians from power.
I think in this case, Schock is being targeted for his politics and his orientation is just the ammunition so it's not quite persecution as we generally expect it. It's definitely using the social stigma towards his sexuality against him, however, which makes me uneasy.
As I mentioned earlier, the difference is in expectations. There is a certain level of expectation from minority groups that leaders who belong to that minority group will generally act with them in mind. Or at least not act against them. To take a political platform that actively undermines the progress your minority group has attained rings as a betrayal in a way that those outside the group taking the same platform does not.
It may not be fair or 100% realistic, but it is what it is. A gay man's anti-gay vote counts just the same as a straight man's, but it stings far more. There's also a fear that it legitimizes anti-gay policies when a gay politician endorses them.
I don't disagree.
Archatmos
Excellion
Fracture: Israfiel (WBR), Wujal (URG), Valedon (GUB), Amduat (BGW), Paladris (RWU)
Collision (Set Two of the Fracture Block)
Quest for the Forsaken (Set Two of the Excellion Block)
Katingal: Plane of Chains
Now extend the hypothetical further. What if a right-leaning journalist decided that our closet-lesbian version of Clinton was going to do harm by, I dunno, breaking the healthcare system or tanking the economy or something?
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Yes, in context it matters that the gay congressman is supporting anti-gay legislation. Perhaps it matters much less in the rational analysis, but for the reasons people are reacting, it matters.
It burns that one of our own is actively working to undermine our progress to further his own career while at the same time keeping his own sexual exploits a secret to protect himself from anti-gay sentiments that he is in part fueling with his political platform. It may not be rational, and I think reading Hod's tirade it's far more irrational than not, but it matters that he's gay and voting for anti-gay positions because it stings like betrayal.
There isn't the same connection there, not even emotionally. Now if Hilary was going to do harm by backing legislation that would somehow adversely affect women, I think her own womanhood would become a talking point in the same way as Schock's orientation.
Archatmos
Excellion
Fracture: Israfiel (WBR), Wujal (URG), Valedon (GUB), Amduat (BGW), Paladris (RWU)
Collision (Set Two of the Fracture Block)
Quest for the Forsaken (Set Two of the Excellion Block)
Katingal: Plane of Chains
I'm not sure how to word this with seeming offensive, but I'll try. It's possible that because I don't have the feeling of betrayal and because the issue at large doesn't have the same implications for me, it's easier for me to bang the drum of idealism in this case.
What can happen vs. idealism is hard for me to reconcile sometimes. While his standing as a gay man doesn't legitimize anti-gay policy, it's possible it could be package by proponents of anti-gay legislation and sold to portions of the public successfully.
I don't think our conversation can go much further than lamenting over the disappointment we feel at the reality of the situation vs. how we wish things were. It is useful to get a different perspective other than the one I get atop my high-horse though, thank you.
I think BS's point is that the connection is only emotional. From a rational standpoint, there's no reason a politician should reach a different conclusion about an issue simply because they identify personally with that issue.
There is some set of mental processes that will lead a sane, rational person to conclude "I do not support gay marriage." Call that conclusion "X." Now, you and I might disagree with that person's conclusion and reasoning, but the point is that some kind of reasoning took place in that person's mind that got them to X. Logically, there is no reason why a straight person can apply that reasoning to arrive at X, but a gay person cannot.
Almost everyone who believes in a position strongly likes to think: "the other person only disagrees because they don't fully understand or empathize. If they were educated about the issue they would come around." This thought makes us feel better because it convinces us that everyone is really "on our team" deep down inside, they just haven't realized yet. But this idea isn't always true, and this is where the emotional sting comes from. A gay person opposing gay marriage creates cognitive dissonance and shatters our notion that someone who connects with the issue deeply can disagree. Tell someone who supports low taxes that Warren Buffet thinks his tax rate should be higher; their first reaction is usually emotional and they will try to frame him as a "traitor" in some way. Tell a catholic about a devout priest who converted to atheism; tell a Mac lover about an Apple employee who only uses PCs. The reaction is emotional because the problem is emotional.
It may not be that this incident itself has enough weight to convert a person who isn't fully sold on suppressing gay rights, but if it contributed to even a handful of conversions, it's a step in the wrong direction and one more battle education has to fight. It should be considered detrimental even if it was only used to reinforce the opinions of those already sold on supporting anti-gay legislation.
In the United States, it's still very much an uphill battle. Only in seventeen states of the fifty is gay marriage legal, the other thirty-three having bans (source). Any stone given to the side that promotes bigotry, even a crude stone, is a detriment to advocates of equality. They aren't brushed off as easily as they would be in a culture or system that values equality and human rights more. No matter how asinine of an idea it is that a gay politician being opposed to gay rights might stir up anti-gay sentiment in the public, that's the reality of American politics.
These rumors and the like are as ancient as time itself, people have always tried to insinuate so and so was gay or so and so was corrupt. Sometimes, true, sometimes well not. The Congressman's life will weather this conflict, and you do indeed have gays that are not kosher with gay marriage. Yea, they exist, get over it. Doesn't make them hypocrites.
The best way is to find the people who are not convinced and convince them that gay marriage is okay, as well as conservatives that buy into the separation of church and state and privacy to move their vote from no to "get the government out of my bedroom."
But people are surprised by this? We're still finding Sumerian writings telling other scribes' notes to other scribes telling them that they're not smoothing the clay right, or how much of a whore some Roman woman was scrawled on a wall.
It's crass, but it's going to happen again and again and again. Hopefully the outer is punished for a while on this issue, especially since he may have made another man's life more complex than just his target's. That's just beyond trying to score political points, that's doubly perverse.
If you're that angry about him, then write a biography and interview people who are on record for having relations with the Congressman.
Ambition must be made to counteract ambition.
Individualities may form communities, but it is institutions alone that can create a nation.
Nothing succeeds like the appearance of success.
Here is my principle: Taxes shall be levied according to ability to pay. That is the only American principle.