I'm sure you don't think you're a terrible person. But I reiterate: stay away from people who've been victimized in this manner. You lack the judgment.
-
-
Replying to @webdevMason
And I'm genuinely sorry that I said something that upset you so much you would call a complete stranger a sick fuck because of a single tweet
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @mathewi
There's something genuinely fucked up about the lens you've chosen to apply to this situation, specifically your singular, exclusive concern with a figure who is, at best, peripheral to a real & serious case. It all comes second to getting the target. I hope this keeps you up.
1 reply 0 retweets 6 likes -
Replying to @webdevMason @mathewi
By the way, you and the others covering this had every opportunity to point out that this case was indeed legitimate, and that it's awful that even someone as rich as Terry Bollea had to rely on a random Peter Thiel vendetta in order to not get priced out of the court system.
1 reply 0 retweets 6 likes -
Replying to @webdevMason @mathewi
But it wasn't enough to point out that Peter Thiel was lashing out with his money over a grudge; you also wanted a sympathetic victim. So you threw Bollea and his *very* legitimate case under the bus, just to make Thiel look that much worse. Yes. You're a sick fuck.
1 reply 0 retweets 5 likes -
Replying to @webdevMason @mathewi
I fully believe that if it served your political flavor and personal interests, you'd do this again to another victim. But you know what? Prove me wrong.
1 reply 0 retweets 4 likes -
Replying to @webdevMason
I see there's no way to keep from being made into a straw man for your arguments. The reality is that you don't know anything about my personal interests or political beliefs, or what I know or don't know about victims of this kind of case. You just want a punching bag
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @mathewi @webdevMason
“As of 2019, 41 states and the District of Columbia have specific laws outlawing distribution of revenge porn.” They did something very wrong, Matt. It wasn’t a “nuisance suit”. Please do the right thing and retract.https://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-charges/revenge-porn-laws-by-state.html …
1 reply 0 retweets 4 likes -
Replying to @balajis @webdevMason
I'm not commenting on the merits of the suit, only on Thiel's vendetta against Gawker and desire to drive them out of business because of a personal slight. And I'm not retracting anything. Thanks
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Referring to the case as a "nuisance lawsuit" is absolutely commentary on the merits of the suit. I've been *very* clear about why this an unfair characterization, and the harm that it does to victims of similar sexual violations. Retract or don't — it's your character, not mine.
2 replies 0 retweets 4 likes
I don't know why you think I'd want you for a "punching bag," but believe me, I'd have been very happy to never have seen a take as inane and unethical as yours cross my feed in the first place.
-
-
Replying to @webdevMason @balajis
I'm really alarmed at how many people who work for journalism watchdog groups are making excuses for the profession as a whole, let alone ignore what made a jury rule the way they did.
Not saying Gawker deserved it 100% but let's be real - they dug their own grave there.1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @analyticascent @balajis
If it had been near-precisely the same content under near-precisely the same circumstances, but with J-Law as the victim and Breitbart as the publisher, the usual suspects would be clamoring for the book to be thrown & there'd have been little or no interest in the funding issue.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes - Show replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.