Discussion
  • Read More
    BendSinisterJ.K. Trotter
    5/26/16 2:29pm

    The word “out” appears numerous times in this piece, but never in the context of someone being outed. But maybe I missed it. Or maybe I should be outed. Feel free to go for it, I can use the bucks.

    Reply
    <
    • Read More
      J.K. TrotterBendSinister
      5/26/16 2:41pm

      The Times piece quotes Owen Thomas, the author of the item you’re talking about:

      I did discuss his sexuality, but it was known to a wide circle who felt that it was not fit for discussion beyond that circle. I thought that attitude was retrograde and homophobic, and that informed my reporting. I believe that he was out and not in the closet.

      See also: “Gawker Didn’t ‘Out’ Peter Thiel — Nor Did It Wrong Him in Any Way”

      Reply
      <
    • Read More
      destor23J.K. Trotter
      5/26/16 2:44pm

      I don’t think that’s a great answer. “I believe he was out...” Shouldn’t you... ask him and let him decide?

      Reply
      <
  • Read More
    BrocephalusJ.K. Trotter
    5/26/16 2:22pm

    Are you REALLY still trying to paint yourselves as a victim in this? YOU OUTED SOMEONE AGAINST THEIR WISHES. THAT IS WHY YOU ARE BEING DESTROYED.

    It is fucking unfathomable how far up your own ass your head must be to continue to act like this is due to unfavorable reporting.

    Reply
    <
    • Read More
      lilyblue68Brocephalus
      5/26/16 2:24pm

      They outed an evil, misogynistic and racist piece of shit billionaire who funds anti-gay politicians. I think I’ll go cry a billion tears now

      Reply
      <
    • Read More
      ThrumbolioBrocephalus
      5/26/16 2:25pm

      Well, let’s be real here: I’m sure that Thiel remembered some of the more damaging exposes and harmful stories that Valleywag ran. This ain’t just about “helping friends” or whatever.

      That said, if you slap enough gorillas, one of them is probably going to tag you back one day. If you don’t think you can take the hit, don’t take the swing.

      Reply
      <
  • Read More
    speteJ.K. Trotter
    5/26/16 2:12pm

    Again, maybe if you guys would stop printing the sort of trash that will get you rightfully sued Thiel wouldn’t have anything to bankroll.

    A jury decided Hogan’s suit had merits, not Thiel. He just paid the expenses. You’re lucky you didn’t get sued into oblivion over the Geithner piece where you essentially aided a blackmailer.

    If Denton could salvage something vaguely resembling even the tiniest amount of journalistic ethics from this dumpster fire then maybe a scumbag like Thiel wouldn’t have such an easy time shutting you down. You’re destroying yourselves, jackasses.

    Reply
    <
    • Read More
      MattyWollyspete
      5/26/16 2:29pm

      Given the chance, juries would find many a suit against journalists have merit.

      That’s why the US has the First Amendment, appellate courts, and no sane lawyer would ever take the case on a contingency fee basis - the only way about 99% of plaintiff’s wanting to bring injury litigation pay their lawyers.

      If Gawker is unable to stave off the attacks and goes under, there is no doubt at all other billionaires will take heed and start attacking whatever journalist they dislike. In the end our press will be about as lively as what one would find in Turkey or Russia.

      Reply
      <
    • Read More
      Aqua-ImpuraMattyWolly
      5/26/16 2:37pm

      The First Amendment protects journalists from the Government but if the people deem the journalistic source not up to snuff they can fight to destroy said journalists.

      Reply
      <
  • Read More
    ╰(　´◔　ω　◔ `)╯< Woke and BokeJ.K. Trotter
    5/26/16 2:11pm

    So he’s insane. Are we sure he’s not a frequent reader and commenter on Gawker?

    Reply
    <
    • Read More
      dwarfgoat╰(　´◔　ω　◔ `)╯< Woke and Boke
      5/26/16 2:12pm

      Perhaps he is the Tomatoface troll?

      IT ALL MAKES SO MUCH SENSE NOW!!!!

      Reply
      <
    • Read More
      boaboaboatengtengteng╰(　´◔　ω　◔ `)╯< Woke and Boke
      5/26/16 2:12pm

      Now that you say it, he sounds a lot like Gurvisback.

      Reply
      <
  • Read More
    PrettyLegitJ.K. Trotter
    5/26/16 2:13pm

    Shocking new concept: One can both think Peter Thiel is a gross tool, but also root for his backing of Gawker’s destruction because Gawker is also, metaphorically speaking, a gross tool.

    Reply
    <
    • Read More
      BooBearSmashPrettyLegit
      5/26/16 2:15pm

      I miss old Gawker...

      Reply
      <
    • Read More
      a seahorsePrettyLegit
      5/26/16 2:17pm

      If you don't like it, why not just leave it for the rest of us to enjoy?

      Reply
      <
  • Read More
    a seahorseJ.K. Trotter
    5/26/16 2:15pm

    He is a bad man and he should feel bad

    Reply
    <
    • Read More
      the_skylera seahorse
      5/26/16 2:24pm

      Have you read the book? I love the end of this review on Amazon.

      As an interesting aside, one of the authors is now a billionaire (co-founder of Paypal and investor for Facebook). He’s also a libertarian. If you find libertarianism lacking in fundamental ways, you’ll notice those things lacking in this book. Like libertarian philosophy, the book is deeply and richly analytical, yet too often simultaneously misses the boat completely.

      Reply
      <
    • Read More
      Grey by birth, fabulous by choicea seahorse
      5/26/16 2:27pm

      He also said this: Since 1920, the vast increase in welfare beneficiaries and the extension of the franchise to women — two constituencies that are notoriously tough for libertarians — have rendered the notion of “capitalist democracy” into an oxymoron.

      Reply
      <
  • Read More
    ThrumbolioJ.K. Trotter
    5/26/16 2:22pm

    Gawker may be trying to move past its toxic reputation, but some folks have long memories, and big pockets.

    Even now, I don’t know that a good portion of Gawker staff realizes how harmful the earlier years were. There’s trying to be the second coming of Woodward/Bernstein, and then there’s being a gleeful cock because you don’t like that one dude/industry and the money he/it makes. The former gets you respect and credibility, the latter gets you...well...a reputation as a gleeful, destructive cock.

    Reply
    <
    • Read More
      MWarnerMThrumbolio
      5/26/16 2:24pm

      “Move past”? 90% of Gawker articles are clickbait rumor-fests peppered with dick jokes. There is almost nothing separating these guys from Perez Hilton or TMZ. If anything he coverage here has become even more sleazy as time has gone on.

      Reply
      <
    • Read More
      ThrumbolioMWarnerM
      5/26/16 2:26pm

      I was referring to the post-Conde Nast era. The snark is there, sure, but I think they realized that they dodged a hell of a bullet.

      Reply
      <
  • Read More
    Mrs. BeetonJ.K. Trotter
    5/26/16 2:49pm

    I genuinely had no idea that so many regular readers and commenters hated Gawker so much. I mean, I watch Teen Mom, but I don’t tweet at Jenelle telling her I hope she goes to jail.

    Reply
    <
    • Read More
      KomradKickassMrs. Beeton
      5/26/16 2:55pm

      Gawker gets quite a bit of traffic from the other Gawker Media owned blogs (particularly on big posts like this), those readers tend to have a negative view of the Gawker blog, and feel that it drags their more focused news down.

      Reply
      <
    • Read More
      KetheMrs. Beeton
      5/26/16 3:24pm

      Yeah, kinda weird. I hate Breitbart, but I can’t imagine having enough free time or self-hatred that I would spend all day, every day commenting on multiple threads how much I hated having the option to read it. I mean, not when I could do anything else with my time.

      Don’t get me wrong, Gawker and its various sub-properties have pulled some seriously shady shit, but if it gets to where I can’t support it, I’ll leave. And if it’s about a topic that doesn’t interest me, then I won’t read it. If it’s an article that pisses me off, I’ll say so. But yeah. It’s kind of amazing how many people are here just to glory in the fact that they hate being here.

      Reply
      <
  • Read More
    Fabian KnockwurstJ.K. Trotter
    5/26/16 2:13pm

    So the rampant internet rumors that Thiel will end up buying gawker at a price he devalued it to via legalistic sneakiness are merely rampant internet rumors? (gawker likely being sold)

    Reply
    <
    • Read More
      keefkaFabian Knockwurst
      5/26/16 2:20pm

      Who hasn’t fantasized about buying a business they hate solely to turn it into a parking lot? I personally peg it as true.

      Reply
      <
    • Read More
      NoOnesPostFabian Knockwurst
      5/26/16 2:27pm

      Why would the owners sell to him though?

      Reply
      <
  • Read More
    Kamai - Looming and InevitableJ.K. Trotter
    5/26/16 2:13pm

    Truly this is a fight with no heroes.

    Reply
    <
    • Read More
      MisterKamai - Looming and Inevitable
      5/26/16 2:38pm

      Only if you don’t care about a free and open press.

      Reply
      <
    • Read More
      Kamai - Looming and InevitableMister
      5/26/16 2:45pm

      How does my caring about a free and open press make Gawker into heroes? That’s like calling school shooters heroic defenders of the 2nd amendment, or Kim Davis a warrior for religious freedom.

      Reply
      <