3 ms·

That's the type of shaming attitude required for National Enquirer to think their coercion will work. A better reaction is, who cares about nudes shared discre

That's the type of shaming attitude required for National Enquirer to think their coercion will work. A better reaction is, who cares about nudes shared discretely between consenting adults? Leaking them will accomplish nothing.

noir_lord 8y ago
Agreed, I've never photographed my junk but who cares what other people do, taking pictures for a partner that are titillating is far on the mild scale of what powerful people (and normal people) can get up to its irrelevant. I'm not a fan of bezos but in this case his response has been spot on.
lawnchair_larry 8y ago
I don’t think the two are related. I think the Enquirer was banking on him being ashamed of showing his dick pics to the world. If I’m shaming him, it’s for making a dumb decision. Phones get hacked and pics leak, and he should know this. But let’s look at this for what it is. It isn’t Jeff’s position that he doesn’t care if they are leaked, or that leaking them will accomplish nothing. He very much wants them to stay private and he’s doubling down on legal efforts to try and ensure that outcome. It’s just that his ego is larger than his shame, and he’s damn near biologically incapable of rolling over when another powerful man is attacking him, and that’s his best play given the cards on the table. My take is that having his dick pick posted online would be moderately shameful, but losing to Mr. Pecker, particularly in front of his new love interest, especially when the subject matter being used against him is essentially peacocking for said love interest, would be the ultimate shame. Make no mistake - these calm, collected responses are purely strategic, and not at all reflective of the full scope of his true demeanor. It’s the same thing with Thiel taking down Gawker. Whether you think Gawker was in the wrong or not, Thiel wasn’t motivated by charity or righteousness. He simply wanted to bury his enemy and spit on his grave.
- smsm42 8y ago
  > Thiel wasn’t motivated by charity or righteousness. He simply wanted to bury his enemy and spit on his grave. That said, reading about Gawker conduct over the years, if somebody's grave deserved to be spit on, its theirs. They operated for years under the model "we can do anything we want and you don't have enough money to sue us". Until Thiel did.

noir_lord 8y ago

Agreed, I've never photographed my junk but who cares what other people do, taking pictures for a partner that are titillating is far on the mild scale of what powerful people (and normal people) can get up to its irrelevant. I'm not a fan of bezos but in this case his response has been spot on.

lawnchair_larry 8y ago

I don’t think the two are related. I think the Enquirer was banking on him being ashamed of showing his dick pics to the world. If I’m shaming him, it’s for making a dumb decision. Phones get hacked and pics leak, and he should know this. But let’s look at this for what it is. It isn’t Jeff’s position that he doesn’t care if they are leaked, or that leaking them will accomplish nothing. He very much wants them to stay private and he’s doubling down on legal efforts to try and ensure that outcome. It’s just that his ego is larger than his shame, and he’s damn near biologically incapable of rolling over when another powerful man is attacking him, and that’s his best play given the cards on the table. My take is that having his dick pick posted online would be moderately shameful, but losing to Mr. Pecker, particularly in front of his new love interest, especially when the subject matter being used against him is essentially peacocking for said love interest, would be the ultimate shame. Make no mistake - these calm, collected responses are purely strategic, and not at all reflective of the full scope of his true demeanor. It’s the same thing with Thiel taking down Gawker. Whether you think Gawker was in the wrong or not, Thiel wasn’t motivated by charity or righteousness. He simply wanted to bury his enemy and spit on his grave.

smsm42 8y ago
> Thiel wasn’t motivated by charity or righteousness. He simply wanted to bury his enemy and spit on his grave. That said, reading about Gawker conduct over the years, if somebody's grave deserved to be spit on, its theirs. They operated for years under the model "we can do anything we want and you don't have enough money to sue us". Until Thiel did.