Gawker shutting down

[DavidB.]

The controversy surrounding the "outing" of Peter Thiel is rather sickening. He's a plutocrat who exercises a great deal of power and influence by virtue of his wealth alone. This rent-seeking behavior is corrosive to American democracy. None of this even begins to mention the fact that his viewpoints are odious, repulsive and damaging. Dredging up personal information and using it against him is a virtue, not a vice.

I didn't expect this from you. The only reason people are "outed" by tabloids is because homophobes find it relevant if someone happens to be gay. If this homophobia had not existed, people wouldn't be outed because the public wouldn't care. Therefore, the victims of engaging in such "journalism" are not just the ones who are outed but all gay people, because doing so perpetuates a climate in which a "witch hunt" against gay people is seen as legitimate by some. If you truly support gay people's right to be gay no matter who they are or what they do, you should not condone Gawker's behavior, regardless of your opinion of Thiel.

[DavidB.]

I can't agree with that, not without an exception for politicians voting for politics of LGBT hate and people funding such hateful politicians.

The point is that this exception doesn't really only target these hypocritical politicians, it targets closeted gay people everywhere. By making this exception, you literally make use of homophobia to score political points in an extremely cynical way, because, again, if people wouldn't be homophobic, outing them would make no difference so tabloids and other sewer-tier media wouldn't do it and gay people could choose to tell the public they're gay whenever they feel like doing so. If you're against homophobia, it makes absolutely no sense to use it to "punish" someone when it is really the pervasiveness of homophobia in society that needs to be tackled, not some closeted politician (regardless of how despicable the LGBT policies they advocate are) whose contribution to this pervasiveness of homophobia will always be marginal. So no, I wouldn't be willing to make exceptions for even the extreme cases of, say, Mike Pence or Bezalel Smotrich -- not because they deserve a "free pass" for their views (which should certainly be debated and ridiculed), but because by "outing people" one perpetuates homophobia and becomes very much part of the problem.

It is similar to saying black politician X is not pro-BLM enough, so let's go to racist white people and use racist political points against this politician to punish him. If you're truly anti-racist, you don't do that, because you don't want to make cynical use of an oppressive societal climate you wanted to combat.

[DavidB.]

David, what would you make of cases involving, say, highly revered religious figures, who preach fervently against homosexuality in the most vitriolic ways imaginable with the threat of damnation and the like?  Should people sympathize with them when they're caught in gay prostitution rings or soliciting men on Grindr?  This is obviously a bigger problem in Christian (obviously, conservative) circles and if I recall correctly, you are not a Christian yourself, but I don't think those circumstances are far removed from those of closeted politicians towing their party's line against LGBT people.

The fundamental difference between this and Peter Thiel's case is that Thiel was outed specifically for having arch-libertarian views - views which bear no relevance to his sexuality.  But exposing the sheer hypocrisy of those who pronounce homosexuality to be wrong or immoral and have sizable influence on how society looks upon homosexuality is just that: exposing hypocrisy, not perpetuating the stigma.

I'm not talking about "sympathizing" with closeted people who frequently espouse anti-LGBT views; while I do think these people are to pity (in a world without homophobia, no one would be forced to stay in the closet, and eventually even these people are being oppressed -- they are probably scared as hell people will find out, which is very sad personally even if they say disgusting things), the bigger point is not about them. The bigger point is that if these people are outed, other gay, closeted people will be even more anxious about getting outed, while the fundamental oppressive dynamics in which homophobia remains pervasive do not change. Meanwhile, by outing someone, you do perpetuate the stigma, because everyone who outs someone knows that if not for homophobia, outing someone wouldn't matter. It is exactly because it does matter that it has an impact and that people do it, and that's wrong.

I also don't think there are that many people who have "sizable influence" over public opinion regarding LGBT issues; I wouldn't overestimate the influence of Congressman X or reverend Y (btw, I am, indeed, not a Christian; unfortunately, Jews don't lack people in the homophobia department either) on this.

I believe there are much more effective, much more positive and much less problematic ways to combat homophobia, along the lines of the LGBT movement in the last years.

[DavidB.]

Saw this Gawker comment on this issue, which was pretty great:

You must be logged in to read this quote.