5 ms·

Interesting considering his previous actions. "In 1992, to challenge Stanford's rules on political incorrectness, Rabois stood outside the dorm room of an inst

by pduan 14y ago

Interesting considering his previous actions. "In 1992, to challenge Stanford's rules on political incorrectness, Rabois stood outside the dorm room of an instructor and made remarks criticized by many as homophobic." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keith_Rabois http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keith_Rabois

homosaur 14y ago
Seems like that action would suggest the rule was what he had an issue with, not any particular illumination on his sexual orientation. In fact, he probably wisely decided to go after a group he could claim to be a part of rather than spouting sexist or racist stuff, right?
corin_ 14y ago
Seems an odd anecdote to exist there without any citation at all. Assuming it's true, he was clearly doing it to make a point, and therefore maybe he picked a subject that would make the point (i.e. it had to be something that wasn't politically correct) but wouldn't tarnish his reputation - if he had stood there making racist remarks then people might consider him a racist, whereas a gay person making homophobic remarks he could, if called on it later, say "of course that's not a reason to judge me, I'm gay myself!". (Alternatively, it's not too uncommon for people to be homophobic either because they don't understand their sexuality, or because they understand it but want to hide it from other people.)
- jorgeortiz85 14y ago
  http://news.stanford.edu/pr/92/920212Arc2432.html http://news.stanford.edu/pr/92/920212Arc2432.html
- joshstrange 14y ago
  > Alternatively, it's not too uncommon for people to be homophobic either because they don't understand their sexuality, or because they understand it but want to hide it from other people. That is exactly what I thought after reading the articles on this, his response, and the Standford news article.
  - corin_ 14y ago
    Reading the release linked by jorgeortiz85 I think my first suggestion seems more likely - he wrote a letter confirming what he had shouted saying "The intention was for the speech to be outrageous enough to provoke a thought of..."

by pduan 14y ago

homosaur 14y ago

Seems like that action would suggest the rule was what he had an issue with, not any particular illumination on his sexual orientation. In fact, he probably wisely decided to go after a group he could claim to be a part of rather than spouting sexist or racist stuff, right?

corin_ 14y ago

Seems an odd anecdote to exist there without any citation at all. Assuming it's true, he was clearly doing it to make a point, and therefore maybe he picked a subject that would make the point (i.e. it had to be something that wasn't politically correct) but wouldn't tarnish his reputation - if he had stood there making racist remarks then people might consider him a racist, whereas a gay person making homophobic remarks he could, if called on it later, say "of course that's not a reason to judge me, I'm gay myself!". (Alternatively, it's not too uncommon for people to be homophobic either because they don't understand their sexuality, or because they understand it but want to hide it from other people.)

jorgeortiz85 14y ago
http://news.stanford.edu/pr/92/920212Arc2432.html http://news.stanford.edu/pr/92/920212Arc2432.html
joshstrange 14y ago
> Alternatively, it's not too uncommon for people to be homophobic either because they don't understand their sexuality, or because they understand it but want to hide it from other people. That is exactly what I thought after reading the articles on this, his response, and the Standford news article.
- corin_ 14y ago
  Reading the release linked by jorgeortiz85 I think my first suggestion seems more likely - he wrote a letter confirming what he had shouted saying "The intention was for the speech to be outrageous enough to provoke a thought of..."