Clusterfuck Summary Corner

Looool

we said it was kind of shitty for gawker to call a woman a "horny mom" two paragraphs after describing her rape.

i suggested it was just lazily written clickbait copied from another source

huff post article doesn't refer to her as the Horny Mom

But she was a horny mom

he quickly backslid to accusing me of defending the 'horny mom story'

^my summary, soz for no imgs

It's defending the horny mom story to suggest that "horny mom" is an accurate description? Ok

No it's defending the decision to call a woman a "horny mom" two paragraphs after describing her rape

Which iirc was the original complaint, lemme check upthread

aw man, i was hoping we'd just assume there was no sarcasm in d-40's acceptance and move on

iirc the original discussion was whether or not gawker was actually trying to make a rape story into internet lols and the example used was "horny mom," that didn't strike me as "lols" so much as a pretty accurate description of the mom in the story, if not the most tasteful wording. I'm not defending clickbait trash articles, merely suggesting that this article wasn't a product of malicious lulz-quest as much as the usual clickbait aggregation all these places do

if not the most tasteful wording
if not the most tasteful wording
if not the most tasteful wording
if not the most tasteful wording
if not the most tasteful wording
if not the most tasteful wording
if not the most tasteful wording
if not the most tasteful wording
if not the most tasteful wording

She literally was a horny mom how is this a debate

have you ever been raped?

dude seriously. how are those words not intended to belittle and render facetious?

how can you be ignorant that that turn of phrase reeks of blaming the victim and perpetuating stereotypes?

unless you think that her rape was funny or no big deal

have you ever been raped?

― Mistah FAAB (sarahell), Sunday, April 19, 2015 12:44 PM (1 minute ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

Have you read the story? The rape and the horniness are not being linked here, no one is trying to minimize that she was raped.

it shows a distinct lack of sensitivity to the issue of the rape

I agree it was not a very sensitively written story

do you agree that turn of phrase is a dick move?

Did you read the article? The woman sounds deeply fucked up and in need of help. I don't know if the writer had any intended malice but it was still a shitty thing to use as your headline. And Gawker positions itself as putting out a superior product to "the usual clickbait aggregation all these places do."

never thought I'd be tired of hearing the words "horny mom."

It's a story where a women came out and masturbated in front of a party of people that included her kid and the concern is about whether "horny" is the right or wrong adjective to use to describe her. Insensitive, trashy, sure, but it seems like radical point-missing to suggest the word "horny" is the root issue here. The story is a disturbing trainwreck that will go viral with or without it

So you're arguing that it's okay to be a dick about a rape victim because there's a market for pandering asshole journalism?

gtfo this thread everyone tbf

sarahell so obv otm but gtfo thread

It's a story where a women came out and masturbated in front of a party of people that included her kid

See maybe this is just the field I work in but this says "mental illness" to me much more than it does "horny"

You guys are arguing with a position I'm not even taking but im pretty tired of talking about this stupid article

So you're arguing that it's okay to be a dick about a rape victim because there's a market for pandering asshole journalism?

― Mistah FAAB (sarahell), Sunday, April 19, 2015 1:02 PM (7 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

I am quite emphatically not saying that fwiw

This thread has taken a turn away from summarizing a clusterfuck thread to importing a clusterfuck thread. Which is redundant.

What position are you taking then?

it reads awful like that and has done for three days to r more especially in the posts from the last ten mins in this thread also all the other ones can you see where multiple posters who have no issue with you ten months out of the year keep pulling you up on this or do you genuinely believe that we are out there coordinating disagreement with you just for kicks cos man my sundays are worth a lot more to me on that there's only idk three ilxors I would do that for

What position are you taking then?

― Mistah FAAB (sarahell), Sunday, April 19, 2015 1:12 PM (1 minute ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

That the market for pandering journalism is the problem

That viral bullshit is what pays for actual journalism is the problem

So you're arguing that it's okay to be a dick about a rape victim because there's a market for pandering asshole journalism?

― Mistah FAAB (sarahell), Sunday, April 19, 2015 1:02 PM (7 minutes ago)

And that a thread like "hey gawker dudes" was a pretty lazy way to ignore structural probs while getting to feel like I were making a difference

So you're arguing that it's okay to be a dick about a rape victim because there's a market for pandering asshole journalism?

― Mistah FAAB (sarahell), Sunday, April 19, 2015 1:02 PM (7 minutes ago)

― Mistah FAAB (sarahell), Sunday, April 19, 2015 1:21 PM (36 seconds ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

I said it was "ok"?

How about: being a dick in an article about a rape victim isn't nearly as horrible as the market for pandering asshole journalism that this article is just a small part of?

Not claiming one is worse than the other but one is definitely a symptom of the other

my hot take, or how these clusterfucks tend to get rolling

it is ridiculously easy for people to interpret explaining bad behavior as excusing or justifying it, especially if one's explanation is not accompanied by a sufficiently virulent condemnation to override this default interpretation. socially speaking, when condemnation is taken as the only valid position, anything written in addition to that is taken as a weakening of the condemnation and therefore must be condemned.

it appears that deej is now caught in the trap of endlessly explaining that he wasn't excusing gawker when he was explaining gawker. this will never be countenanced. his explaining will, at this point, be automatically be taken as excusing his original offense, which excusing must be condemned.

deej needs to understand that the only socially acceptable position right now is to condemn himself, and to apologize for what he is certain he did not do, or else shut up, because he's not going to elicit understanding of this distinction, no matter how much or how clearly he explains himself.

I've been there too often to count.

ya but he did

endlessly

i was going to point out that, while i'm certainly capable of debating an ilxor until everyone involved or reading is frustrated and exasperated, i can't imagine believing that EVERYONE doesn't get it. That I've got a valid point, I'm explaining it perfectly well, and the overwhelming majority, not just one or two little stinkers, are completely missing it after a day of posting. If I had that little respect for the hivemind, what would be the point of engaging with it?

but aimless to the contrary.

"It's not insulting, it's simply accurate" is explicitly a defence, aimless. Not an "explanation", as though anybody here needed one.

i was suggesting that the way it was used by the writer was being misinterpreted not that it was inherently defensible but whatever

Aimless otm I think that's why the argument died down the first time when I said the only possible solution was max's resignation

Your interpretation - that it was purely descriptive - is fucking risible and the wording is offensive even if that interpretation of the authors intent is correct, which I highly doubt

"It's not insulting, it's simply accurate" is, on the face of it, a non sequitur, which makes it a very useless defense.

I wasn't arguing for its efficacy as a defence, lol

"It's accurate" was offered as an explicit counterpoint to "it's offensive". That is an excuse. OBVIOUSLY it isn't a good one, as there are a thousand other "accurate" ways to describe this particular rape victim that aren't offensive, even if you accept "horny mom" as accurate, which I and most others don't

Fwiw I still think it's prob accurate

I don't remember the original context of that but I imagine the idea was a shorthand shortcut for "whether it's offensive is subjective and beside the point with respect to the argument I'm making, which is how this article functions w/in a wider structure." They could have used the word horny, or they didn't have to--sounds more like a particular use of "voice", though, rather than an attempt to provoke

because voice is strictly neutral and has only a subjective role in persuading, repelling, asserting, criticizing etc

if deej thinks I was otm, then maybe he'll go ahead and drop it -- or else partially rehabilitate himself by explicitly commending all the parts of the majority critique he agrees with, while remaining silent on his disagreements and no longer attempting to elicit understanding of, or agreement with, his disputed points.

Haha

sounds more like a particular use of "voice", though, rather than an attempt to provoke

12 PARTICULAR USES OF VOICE WITH SURPRISING RESULTS!

Aimless that post was so vainly cynical I thought a pink Floyd song was gonna break out