A Closeted North Dakota Republican Had His Grindr Messages Leaked After He Voted Against an Anti-Discrimination Bill

[Bronzeage]

Wait, I'm still trying to figure out why people are saying he was "in the closet" and this stuff was "private". Didn't he put out his PHOTO on a GAY HOOKUP SITE?

No one said he was good at it. A lot of ads on those sites specify "discrete", "downlow," or "closeted." In these cases, it's just dumb to post a face pic.

 

[Alcoholic Actuary]

This is actually one of the more interesting topics in politics. Would we prefer an individual with nothing in common with our beliefs who would work on behalf of our beliefs, or would we rather hire complete strangers but ones willing to bend to our will.

If someone was willing to subvert the 2nd amendment (whatever that means) and vote for stricter gun control regulations, would we be offended by the fact that that person is an avid hunter and NRA member?

I would probably be offended if I found out that I voted for such an individual after the fact. But if his voting record was commensurate with my views, I might forgive the transgression.

It seems there is more to this than just the personal affiliation I feel toward my congress-person. However, the congress-person's integrity is still questionable which I might take exception to.

aa

 

[bilby]

Wait, I'm still trying to figure out why people are saying he was "in the closet" and this stuff was "private". Didn't he put out his PHOTO on a GAY HOOKUP SITE?

No one said he was good at it. A lot of ads on those sites specify "discrete", "downlow," or "closeted." In these cases, it's just dumb to post a face pic.

There is an important difference between telling people on a gay hookup site that you are gay, and someone else pointing that fact out to reporters for malicious reasons, or a newspaper publishing the information to a far wider audience than the people who hang out on gay hookup sites.

Just because someone is incompetent in their attempt at discretion, that does not imply that it is OK to blow the whistle on their incompetence, or to deliberately publish their personal information to a wider audience.

 

[zorq]

No one said he was good at it. A lot of ads on those sites specify "discrete", "downlow," or "closeted." In these cases, it's just dumb to post a face pic.

There is an important difference between telling people on a gay hookup site that you are gay, and someone else pointing that fact out to reporters for malicious reasons, or a newspaper publishing the information to a far wider audience than the people who hang out on gay hookup sites.

Just because someone is incompetent in their attempt at discretion, that does not imply that it is OK to blow the whistle on their incompetence, or to deliberately publish their personal information to a wider audience.

I don't think I can see this your way.

It's either a secret or it isn't.

If I tell my friend a secret and swear him to secrecy that seems different to me than posting my information on the internet for any anonymous person to peruse and just expect them to not spread the secret to anyone else because I used a winking emoticon and the word "discreet."

If Barak Obama goes on live National TV and says. "Don't tell anyone else not watching this broadcast, but I recently acquired a prescription for Viagra from my doctor." Is it still a secret?

 

[laughing dog]

Anyone who posts sensitive private information anywhere either wants it made public or is a fool.

 

[bilby]

There is an important difference between telling people on a gay hookup site that you are gay, and someone else pointing that fact out to reporters for malicious reasons, or a newspaper publishing the information to a far wider audience than the people who hang out on gay hookup sites.

Just because someone is incompetent in their attempt at discretion, that does not imply that it is OK to blow the whistle on their incompetence, or to deliberately publish their personal information to a wider audience.

I don't think I can see this your way.

It's either a secret or it isn't.

If I tell my friend a secret and swear him to secrecy that seems different to me than posting my information on the internet for any anonymous person to peruse and just expect them to not spread the secret to anyone else because I used a winking emoticon and the word "discreet."

If Barak Obama goes on live National TV and says. "Don't tell anyone else not watching this broadcast, but I recently acquired a prescription for Viagra from my doctor." Is it still a secret?

No it's not; But if Barak Obama joins an erectile disfunction forum online, and posts to that forum "Don't tell anyone who is not a forum member, but I recently acquired a prescription for Viagra from my doctor.", then it is still a secret.

Not a competently concealed secret, but a secret nonetheless.

 

[bilby]

Anyone who posts sensitive private information anywhere either wants it made public or is a fool.

If being a fool always led to harm, we would all be dead.

Being a fool is not illegal, unethical, uncommon, or (except by fools) unexpected of anyone.

If an old lady gives her life savings to a scammer, she too is a fool. But the scammer is not any less reprehensible because his mark acts foolishly.

 

[zorq]

I don't think I can see this your way.

It's either a secret or it isn't.

If I tell my friend a secret and swear him to secrecy that seems different to me than posting my information on the internet for any anonymous person to peruse and just expect them to not spread the secret to anyone else because I used a winking emoticon and the word "discreet."

If Barak Obama goes on live National TV and says. "Don't tell anyone else not watching this broadcast, but I recently acquired a prescription for Viagra from my doctor." Is it still a secret?

No it's not; But if Barak Obama joins an erectile disfunction forum online, and posts to that forum "Don't tell anyone who is not a forum member, but I recently acquired a prescription for Viagra from my doctor.", then it is still a secret.

Not a competently concealed secret, but a secret nonetheless.

It feels like you are splitting hairs here. Anyone can watch national TV, anyone can join an erectile dysfunction message board and anyone can make a profile on grinder and peruse the other profiles.

If Obama was on Cable TV when he made his confession, would it be better? Maybe TLC? Latenight on Telemundo? Public access? AM Radio? CB Radio? Closed auditorium? Town hall meeting? Group Parent-teacher conference?

Recorded and burned onto an old AOL CD from the 90's and left in a box by the cash register of Best Buy?


Where is the magic line that distinguishes private from public?

 

[bilby]

No it's not; But if Barak Obama joins an erectile disfunction forum online, and posts to that forum "Don't tell anyone who is not a forum member, but I recently acquired a prescription for Viagra from my doctor.", then it is still a secret.

Not a competently concealed secret, but a secret nonetheless.

It feels like you are splitting hairs here. Anyone can watch national TV, anyone can join an erectile dysfunction message board and anyone can make a profile on grinder and peruse the other profiles.

Where is the magic line that distinguishes private from public?

There isn't one.

Why do people insist that continua need to be categorised into defined classes with hard boundaries? It is not how reality is organised, so organising one's thoughts in that way is sub-optimal.

You said "It's either a secret or it isn't"; but then you went on to give the example: "If I tell my friend a secret and swear him to secrecy that seems different...", so clearly you recognise that the boundary allows a secret to remain secret after one person has been informed.

Once you recognise that, you admit a spectrum of secrecy. And expecting a definite, hard, non-arbitrary boundary line that all can agree on becomes foolish at best.

 

[Axulus]

When a certain class of people is being persecuted by those in power, I hardly see it as wrong for them to try to turn some of the persecution back at the ones doing it.

In a democracy, the voters are the ones that put them in power. Shouldn't the persecution go against all the voters who voted for him?

 

[crispy]

There's really a gay Congressman named Randy Boehning?

I destroyed a keyboard laughing at his name.

I just don't get the joke

"Randy" = slang for horny, sexually aroused
"Boning" = slang for the act of sticking an erect penis ("boner") into something

Oh my

 

[Metaphor]

What does it mean to have a secret, and why is it unacceptable for people to spread the truth? If the revelation of this secret is that some people who did vote for him wouldn't have, or some people who didn't vote for him would have, then it's valuable that the secret comes out.

Eating meat is not against the law, but imagine a politician elected from an inner-city, left-leaning seat, whose win is partly attributable to a widespread (but false belief) that the politician is a vegan. If he were not, in fact, a vegan, it is right and good that this information is known to the electorate.

But should it really matter? If he's willing to vote for oppressive taxes on meat products and government subsidies for vegetables, then why would what he does in his private life be relevant? If he represents the will of the voters while in public office, then who cares what he does outside of the office?

Public elections are a popularity contest. You may value oppressive taxes on meats and government subsidies on vegetables, others may value that the person they are electing is a vegan in his personal life and want him to lead by example. Others still may distrust secret (or open) vegans.

I mean, if someone is capable of turning down KFC, what else are they capable of?!

 

[Metaphor]

Anyone who posts sensitive private information anywhere either wants it made public or is a fool.

If being a fool always led to harm, we would all be dead.

Being a fool is not illegal, unethical, uncommon, or (except by fools) unexpected of anyone.

If an old lady gives her life savings to a scammer, she too is a fool. But the scammer is not any less reprehensible because his mark acts foolishly.

An interesting foil, don't you think? Scammers are reprehensible because they lie to the people they are scamming. The lying is central to the scam. Yet publishing the truth is also, apparently, reprehensible.

 

[Axulus]

If being a fool always led to harm, we would all be dead.

Being a fool is not illegal, unethical, uncommon, or (except by fools) unexpected of anyone.

If an old lady gives her life savings to a scammer, she too is a fool. But the scammer is not any less reprehensible because his mark acts foolishly.

An interesting foil, don't you think? Scammers are reprehensible because they lie to the people they are scamming. The lying is central to the scam. Yet publishing the truth is also, apparently, reprehensible.

What about blackmail - do you consider it merely a threat to publish the truth?

 

[Metaphor]

An interesting foil, don't you think? Scammers are reprehensible because they lie to the people they are scamming. The lying is central to the scam. Yet publishing the truth is also, apparently, reprehensible.

What about blackmail - do you consider it merely a threat to publish the truth?

Whether blackmail ought to be a crime depends on what the blackmail is about.

If you know someone has committed a criminal act and there's no good reason for you to not inform police, and the only reason you don't inform police is so that you can use it as blackmail against the criminal, you are also a criminal. You are perverting the course of justice for personal gain.

If you know someone has committed some non-criminal act that they don't want leaked, and you obtained this information in a context where you did not deceive anyone, then blackmailing the person is merely a threat to spread the truth. Whether it would be worse for the blackmailed person to have the public know what they've done than it would be to pay off the blackmailer is a choice the blackmailed person has to make.

But that doesn't mean the blackmailer has made the right (morally right) choice either. It depends.

 

[bilby]

If being a fool always led to harm, we would all be dead.

Being a fool is not illegal, unethical, uncommon, or (except by fools) unexpected of anyone.

If an old lady gives her life savings to a scammer, she too is a fool. But the scammer is not any less reprehensible because his mark acts foolishly.

An interesting foil, don't you think? Scammers are reprehensible because they lie to the people they are scamming. The lying is central to the scam. Yet publishing the truth is also, apparently, reprehensible.

Well that just goes to show that black and white thinking is sub-optimal. Telling people something that causes harm without causing a balancing greater or equal benefit is reprehensible, whether that thing is true or not.

Often, honesty is the best policy.

But not always.

Sometimes telling the truth causes more harm than saying nothing; and in those cases, saying nothing is the ethical thing to do.

 

[Metaphor]

An interesting foil, don't you think? Scammers are reprehensible because they lie to the people they are scamming. The lying is central to the scam. Yet publishing the truth is also, apparently, reprehensible.

Well that just goes to show that black and white thinking is sub-optimal. Telling people something that causes harm without causing a balancing greater or equal benefit is reprehensible, whether that thing is true or not.

Often, honesty is the best policy.

But not always.

Sometimes telling the truth causes more harm than saying nothing; and in those cases, saying nothing is the ethical thing to do.

In this particular case, the politician was harmed by having the truth about him made known. But, he was harmed temporarily, and going forward he will be the better off for it.

(I was accidentally outed to a family member, and I was mortified, and at the time if I could have chosen for it not to happen, I would have. But I'm better off for it now, I think).

But how are you making the calculation of the offsetting gain? Do you believe it to be nothing? Do you think the public do not benefit from knowing more about their elected representative, and from being disabused of falsehoods?

 

[bilby]

Well that just goes to show that black and white thinking is sub-optimal. Telling people something that causes harm without causing a balancing greater or equal benefit is reprehensible, whether that thing is true or not.

Often, honesty is the best policy.

But not always.

Sometimes telling the truth causes more harm than saying nothing; and in those cases, saying nothing is the ethical thing to do.

In this particular case, the politician was harmed by having the truth about him made known. But, he was harmed temporarily, and going forward he will be the better off for it.

(I was accidentally outed to a family member, and I was mortified, and at the time if I could have chosen for it not to happen, I would have. But I'm better off for it now, I think).

But how are you making the calculation of the offsetting gain? Do you believe it to be nothing? Do you think the public do not benefit from knowing more about their elected representative, and from being disabused of falsehoods?

I don't think that people's sex lives are the business of anyone other than the people themselves, and their sexual partners.

I do think that this applies to politicians, just as it does to anyone else.

I recognise that this is a minority position wrt politicians. But I don't see that it is any more important that the public know who a politician sleeps with than it is important that they know who a street sweeper or a truck driver sleeps with.

 

[Will Wiley]

Personally I think all gay Republicans should , for a time, be able to hide the fact they are gay. Otherwise there will be no gay Republicans. It's the trojan horse approach.
I'd also like to see some "secret muslims" in the GOP too.

 

[Will Wiley]

I would probably be offended if I found out that I voted for such an individual after the fact. But if his voting record was commensurate with my views, I might forgive the transgression.

Why be offended if the politician is representing your view? I would be over the moon and full of respect for such a person, who whilst seeing the world differently to me was able to put his personal views aside and do what "the people" wanted.