5 ms·

To clarify, you are ok with outing LGBTQ folks as long as there is no discernible repercussions?

by influx 7y ago

ajross 7y ago
I don't think anyone would claim that. To flip the strawman: are you OK with any feasible retaliation for such an outing, no matter the repercussions? It's not inconsistent to think that Gawker was a bad site which did a bad thing for which they should be punished and that suing them into oblivion was a worse thing with worse effects for society.
- coldtea 7y ago
  >are you OK with any feasible retaliation for such an outing, no matter the repercussions? No, but I'm OK with suing them to bankruptcy.
  - ajross 7y ago
    Yeah, sure you are, just keep saying that when The Globalists come for Sinclair or whoever for doing nothing but printing one offensive truth. You don't actually think that, you just fooled yourself because you considered Gawker your enemy. [1] To repeat: what Gawker did was awful. But silencing the whole organization for one sin is not what you want.
djannzjkzxn 7y ago
Personally I’m not “ok” with it, but I don’t think it’s much different than many other things that get reported about public figures. So many stories have been written about folks’ sexuality in gossip rags over the years. The reaction in this particular case was bizarre.
powowow 7y ago
To clarify, you are ok with billionaires having the ability to use the legal system to destroy any organization they personally dislike?
- SmirkingRevenge 7y ago
  Are you saying the court ruling (in the Hulk Hogan vs Gawker case, that Theil financially supported) was unjust, or compromised somehow, because of his involvement?
  - powowow 7y ago
    I can't help but laugh that a guy who calls himself 'Smirking Revenge' is a stan for Peter Thiel's revenge by proxy lawsuit. If you were a fictional character, I'd think the author was being a bit heavy-handed with your aptronym.
- throwaway_tech 7y ago
  I think you unfairly are blaming the "billionaires" here and failing to acknowledge the organization bankrupted themselves by violating the law. They didn't have to violate the law and expose themselves to a lawsuit for damages. Even then, they didn't have to spend themselves into bankruptcy fighting the lawsuit. They could have saved all the legal costs and accepted a judgement. Of course they could have not violated the law and avoided the lawsuit altogether. It seems to make sense the person who was damaged by the organization personally dislikes them, but that has nothing to do with the company going bankrupt, their own behavior is what lead to them going bankrupt.
  - powowow 7y ago
    Cool. Did you know that Peter Thiel, in his own words, decided to "create a shell company to hire former investigative reporters and lawyers to _find_ causes of action against Gawker", and to then give it a starting timeline and budget of "three to five years and $10 million"?
    - throwaway_tech 7y ago
      >"create a shell company to hire former investigative reporters and lawyers to _find_ causes of action against Gawker" Cool. As I said, you can point the finger at the "Billionaire" but at the end of the day Gwaker's is liable for their unlawful behavior resulting in damages, that can't be blamed on Thiel. A Jury found Gwaker liable and awarded Hogan $140M, that bankrupted Gawker, not Thiel. If Gawker didn't willfully publish stolen sex tapes of Hulk Hogan in violation of his rights, then Thiel would have wasted $10M and 3-5 years looking for something that doesn't exist, and they would still be in business.

To clarify, you are ok with outing LGBTQ folks as long as there is no discernible repercussions?

by influx 7y ago

To clarify, you are ok with outing LGBTQ folks as long as there is no discernible repercussions?

I don't think anyone would claim that. To flip the strawman: are you OK with any feasible retaliation for such an outing, no matter the repercussions? It's not inconsistent to think that Gawker was a bad site which did a bad thing for which they should be punished and that suing them into oblivion was a worse thing with worse effects for society.

coldtea 7y ago
>are you OK with any feasible retaliation for such an outing, no matter the repercussions? No, but I'm OK with suing them to bankruptcy.
- ajross 7y ago
  Yeah, sure you are, just keep saying that when The Globalists come for Sinclair or whoever for doing nothing but printing one offensive truth. You don't actually think that, you just fooled yourself because you considered Gawker your enemy. [1] To repeat: what Gawker did was awful. But silencing the whole organization for one sin is not what you want.

djannzjkzxn 7y ago

Personally I’m not “ok” with it, but I don’t think it’s much different than many other things that get reported about public figures. So many stories have been written about folks’ sexuality in gossip rags over the years. The reaction in this particular case was bizarre.

powowow 7y ago

To clarify, you are ok with billionaires having the ability to use the legal system to destroy any organization they personally dislike?

SmirkingRevenge 7y ago
Are you saying the court ruling (in the Hulk Hogan vs Gawker case, that Theil financially supported) was unjust, or compromised somehow, because of his involvement?
- powowow 7y ago
  I can't help but laugh that a guy who calls himself 'Smirking Revenge' is a stan for Peter Thiel's revenge by proxy lawsuit. If you were a fictional character, I'd think the author was being a bit heavy-handed with your aptronym.
throwaway_tech 7y ago
I think you unfairly are blaming the "billionaires" here and failing to acknowledge the organization bankrupted themselves by violating the law. They didn't have to violate the law and expose themselves to a lawsuit for damages. Even then, they didn't have to spend themselves into bankruptcy fighting the lawsuit. They could have saved all the legal costs and accepted a judgement. Of course they could have not violated the law and avoided the lawsuit altogether. It seems to make sense the person who was damaged by the organization personally dislikes them, but that has nothing to do with the company going bankrupt, their own behavior is what lead to them going bankrupt.
- powowow 7y ago
  Cool. Did you know that Peter Thiel, in his own words, decided to "create a shell company to hire former investigative reporters and lawyers to _find_ causes of action against Gawker", and to then give it a starting timeline and budget of "three to five years and $10 million"?
  - throwaway_tech 7y ago
    >"create a shell company to hire former investigative reporters and lawyers to _find_ causes of action against Gawker" Cool. As I said, you can point the finger at the "Billionaire" but at the end of the day Gwaker's is liable for their unlawful behavior resulting in damages, that can't be blamed on Thiel. A Jury found Gwaker liable and awarded Hogan $140M, that bankrupted Gawker, not Thiel. If Gawker didn't willfully publish stolen sex tapes of Hulk Hogan in violation of his rights, then Thiel would have wasted $10M and 3-5 years looking for something that doesn't exist, and they would still be in business.