EDIT:

From Rabois' letter to the Stanford Daily regarding the incident:

> I don't necessarily hate homosexuals, but do believe in Jack Kemp's suggestion that they may not be the best teachers of young children in public schools and recognize that the spread of AIDS has a direct casual link back to their activity. I hate Democrats, not homosexuals; they're the ones that have hurt the country.

Well-sourced article on this:

http://gawker.com/the-free-speech-peter-thiel-will-defend-fa...

Also, I just learned, Rabois left square over allegations of sexual harassment.

https://techcrunch.com/2013/01/25/rabois-left-square-over-se...

Wonder why the so-called PC-police haven't taken his job yet... </s>

So strange since Thiel is gay and Rabois is rumoured to be the same as well...

Thiel persecuted the publication (Gawker) that outed him to an incredibly disproportionate degree, hatching an elaborate scheme to destroy them. As a gay person who absolutely loves being gay, it is my opinion that Thiel is... not exactly unconflicted about his identity. I don't know anything about Rabois.

Rabois's aforementioned sexual harassment case involved a relationship with another man at Square. And yet see homophobic comments above from Stanford days.

At the same time, not every gay person wants to be publically out. I'm perfectly fine with any publication that forces that upon someone dying in a fire.

I'm not prepared to disagree with you, but it's at least a complex question, right? Maybe there is a real social benefit to rich, powerful people being "out." Maybe there is something bad about who you are attracted to being a secret that you have the right to keep hidden if you want? Not all queer people are even capable of hiding it, right, so maybe Thiel being "in" is a sort of privilege that isn't fair in the first place? I don't like the idea of forcing someone "out" but his status as a powerful public figure complicates all this in my mind.

No. It doesn't matter how "rich" or "powerful" you are, that does NOT give anyone else the right to decide if you're out or not. Thiel being who he is doesn't complicate things in the slightest.

So even if, say, Thiel being out saved four teenagers from committing suicide, that has no bearing on his right to hide himself?

Do you disagree generally with US law that public figures do not have the same rights to privacy as other people?

I reject your premise entirely. And I reject any notion of the idea that anyone else, aside from the person in question, gets to make the decision on whether they're out or not. That is my final say in the matter.

That's not really much of an argument, and I can't imagine why. As a society we decide what information is hidden and what isn't all the time. Some cultures make women cover their faces even. And, that doesn't address the fact that some queer people cannot pass as straight.

Because this isn't something to be debated. A person has the sole right to decide whether they are out or not. No one else. End of story.

Projection is often the source of hate.

Thanks for this simple but eloquent comment. You've reminded me of this truth.

Money is a great thing to help you put aside your differences...

Yeah weird, since the natural habitat of such men is Vatican City. You'd think they would have joined by now.