The irony is that this piece is, to use Glenn’s words, “penny-ante, trivial bullshit”.
Again, it’s a 3,000 word polemic rant in response to… a mistaken allegation in a tweet. It’s not speaking truth to power. It’s not shedding light on corruption. It’s just Glenn up on his high horse, spewing the same boring right-wing outragebait that he’s peddled for years.
I’m not being disingenuous, I’m simply giving Taylor Lorenz the benefit of the doubt. I would extend that courtesy to Glenn Greenwald too, had he not exhausted it writing shit like this.
Anyway, here’s the larger point: it’s absolutely ludicrous to claim that Marc Andreeson’s life and reputation would be ruined even if the allegation were true. That’s why this is such trivial bullshit to write about. Glenn is coming to defend a powerful person against an allegation that would have had literally no impact on his life or work.
> I’m simply giving Taylor Lorenz the benefit of the doubt.
I suggest you read how she reacted to being exposed.
> I would extend that courtesy to Glenn Greenwald too, had he not exhausted it writing shit like this.
Again, what "shit" are you referring to? Why are you so angry that he's reporting on this issue?
> Anyway, here’s the larger point: it’s absolutely ludicrous to claim that Marc Andreeson’s life and reputation would be ruined even if the allegation were true. That’s why this is such trivial bullshit to write about.
So you give the perpetrator a free pass because their victim in this case happens to be a high-profile person who might be able to defend themselves against the slander and all its consequences?
