You called me a mean name. You banned me. You don’t like me. You don’t love me.
It’s striking how often the bitter complaints of unwarrantedly rich fucks like Peter Thiel are little more than the plaintive whines of a neglected toddler…a toddler with gobs of money and lawyers who want to appease him with vindictiveness.
It's striking how "unkind commentary about plutocrats" keeps appearing in the bill of indictment pic.twitter.com/OhnY51HRT3
— Tom Scocca (@tomscocca) August 17, 2016
Peter Thiel, I don’t love you, I don’t like you, and my vocabulary is too feeble to come up with the mean name you deserve. You’re a petty, nasty, poisonous little man, lacking in the strength and confidence to cope with dissent in any way other than by flailing about with lawsuits. May your every drink, no matter how costly, taste of gall, and your fine meals be flavored with wormwood; may your silk sheets have the texture of slime. I hope you live a long life of fruitless floundering for love, and some distant day die alone, attended only by a calculating battery of lawyers.
I’ll second all of that. I really, really need to try and untangle my paypal account, and figure out all the hoops I have to jump through, but Thiel’s thorough ugliness keeps holding me back from that. I wish there was a good alternative.
But Gawker and Denton are so odious as well. We’re watching a fight between a jerkwad privileged with money and a jerkwad privileged with prestige. Can’t they both lose?
You forgot one:
May a thousand camels urinate in your breakfast cereals.
very thorough and without resorting to vulgar words and so deserving and all
uncle frogy
vocabulary is too feeble to come up with the mean name you deserve. You’re a petty, nasty, poisonous little man
You could have called him a “capitalist vampire bloated on ego and the wasted blood of youth” and it would have been true.
I would have gone with regressive arsehat who seems to think that poisonous medieval politics didn’t involve actual poison.
gmacs wrote:
Oh, yes. It’s very important we maintain balance, so that we treat the crimes and misdeeds of a rumourmonger the same as we treat the crimes and misdeeds of an oligarch despite the implicit false equivalency that sets up.
Ugh.
I’ve always treated Gawker as an online imitation of Stewart’s Daily Show. Where the satire articles are second place to the pieces of stupid-dogshit-bluster on which they report.
While not a favorite site, by any means, it was amusing to gawk at all the bullshit being spouted as opinions demanding to be heard.
Kind of like occasionally eating distasteful food to keep ones pallet cleansed, to avoid over-saturation of sweets that taste yummy.
@7
I’m not saying that they are necessarily equivalent. But in the Hulk Hogan court case, Denton made some shitty arguments that knowledge of the Hulkster’s penis length was in the public interest. He doesn’t seem to know the difference between invasion of privacy and journalism.
So yes, neither of them positively contributes to society (unless you consider bringing down Denton to be a positive), so I would like to see them both figuratively crash and burn.
If you want an example of how shitty Hogan and Thiel are on this, consider that they’re basically deadset on completely bankrupting the former Gawker editor at the time (A.J. Daulerio). As of his last deposition, guy had $1500 in a bank account, no job or income, an apartment that he’s only paid up through September, and some used furniture – and they’re going after all of it, because unlike Denton and Gawker Daulerio doesn’t have the money to hire an attorney to declare bankruptcy, so he’s the softest target.