3 ms·

Thiel may not be a saint, but it's hard to have any sympathy for Gawker after the Hulk Hogan scandal and their myriad other nefarious behaviors...

eropple 9y ago
The idea that it's about "sympathy", rather than "what makes a good and just society", is misguided. Billionaires being able to destroy the media, acquire its corpse, and stuff it in the memory hole is not a recipe for a good and just society.
- sheepmullet 9y ago
  > Billionaires being able to destroy the media We should all have the power to fight back against a corrupt privacy invading media. Unfortunately, at the moment it seems only billionaires can fight back.
  - eropple 9y ago
    Those poor, poor benighted billionaires. But after perusing your comment history, why does it seem so very likely that you'd have a different tune if it wasn't a kleptocratic oligarch under consideration?
    - sheepmullet 9y ago
      > Those poor, poor benighted billionaires. Why do you think it is ok to dehumanize the wealthy? They are entitled to the same basic human dignity and respect as everyone else. > But after perusing your comment history, why does it seem so very likely that you'd have a different tune if it wasn't a kleptocratic oligarch under consideration? Why are you so quick to categorize and attack people?
      - deleted 9y ago
        [deleted]
- s73ver_ 9y ago
  Neither is a website being able to publish private sex tapes of private citizens, or out the sexual orientation of a private citizen.
  - eropple 9y ago
    What you described is shitty. What I described is fundamentally destructive to society. The privacy of Hulk Hogan's racist ramblings and the privacy of Hulk Hogan's dick and the privacy of where billionaires like to stick their dicks matter less than billionaires deciding to destroy the press because they don't like the coverage. Sorry, Hulk and billionaires, but life is hard.
emodendroket 9y ago
Who cares? The problem isn't "sympathy;" it's the precedent being set. Ernesto Miranda was not necessarily a "sympathetic" person either and yet his case was important in establishing legal rights of people accused of a crime.
unclebucknasty 9y ago
>Thiel may not be a saint, but it's hard to have any sympathy for Gawker... But, neither has anything to do with the other when assessing their actions. That is, we can have disdain for both Gawker and Thiel. This constant binary relativism is a recipe for descent into madness: Deciding everything by the logic underlying "Trump is deplorable, but I will support him because Hillary is worse" (or vice-versa) is not going to end well. Yet, it seems that this "two-party politics way of thinking" is spilling over into all aspects of society.

eropple 9y ago

The idea that it's about "sympathy", rather than "what makes a good and just society", is misguided. Billionaires being able to destroy the media, acquire its corpse, and stuff it in the memory hole is not a recipe for a good and just society.

sheepmullet 9y ago
> Billionaires being able to destroy the media We should all have the power to fight back against a corrupt privacy invading media. Unfortunately, at the moment it seems only billionaires can fight back.
- eropple 9y ago
  Those poor, poor benighted billionaires. But after perusing your comment history, why does it seem so very likely that you'd have a different tune if it wasn't a kleptocratic oligarch under consideration?
  - sheepmullet 9y ago
    > Those poor, poor benighted billionaires. Why do you think it is ok to dehumanize the wealthy? They are entitled to the same basic human dignity and respect as everyone else. > But after perusing your comment history, why does it seem so very likely that you'd have a different tune if it wasn't a kleptocratic oligarch under consideration? Why are you so quick to categorize and attack people?
    - deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]
s73ver_ 9y ago
Neither is a website being able to publish private sex tapes of private citizens, or out the sexual orientation of a private citizen.
- eropple 9y ago
  What you described is shitty. What I described is fundamentally destructive to society. The privacy of Hulk Hogan's racist ramblings and the privacy of Hulk Hogan's dick and the privacy of where billionaires like to stick their dicks matter less than billionaires deciding to destroy the press because they don't like the coverage. Sorry, Hulk and billionaires, but life is hard.

emodendroket 9y ago

Who cares? The problem isn't "sympathy;" it's the precedent being set. Ernesto Miranda was not necessarily a "sympathetic" person either and yet his case was important in establishing legal rights of people accused of a crime.

unclebucknasty 9y ago

>Thiel may not be a saint, but it's hard to have any sympathy for Gawker... But, neither has anything to do with the other when assessing their actions. That is, we can have disdain for both Gawker and Thiel. This constant binary relativism is a recipe for descent into madness: Deciding everything by the logic underlying "Trump is deplorable, but I will support him because Hillary is worse" (or vice-versa) is not going to end well. Yet, it seems that this "two-party politics way of thinking" is spilling over into all aspects of society.