hey gawker dudes. what the fuck is wrong with you?

except if he is really a famous actor he shd be shamed more in accord with his level of fame

I think medium shaming is appropriate if you kinda look like a famous actor

and there is a spectrum of shame around medium that is a function of how famous the actor you kinda look like is

My object all in blame
I shall achieve through shame —
To let the punishment fit the fame —
The punishment fit the fame;
And make each prisoner pent
Unwillingly represent
A source of innocent merriment!
Of innocent merriment!

the appropriate amount of shame in this case is is a deniable amount like be shaming him def but then be like "what"

lol

xxxxxps to sloth: there's all kinds of reasonable and angry complaints to be made about what modern SERIOUS PRINT MEDIA feeds us of course... the quid/agg nyt thread covers class warfare concerns, all major outlets do backflips to maintain status quo at the expense of what seems to me to be necessary revolutionary change in domestic judiciary / policing / political policy (to say nothing of foreign policy; the economist in particular often feels like it's being written from the mid-seventies), terrible hacks survive on the teat of house style for decades and terrorize whole swaths of artistic or progressive endeavor. i dunno if any individual newspaper/magazine is utterly killing the game right now but the good ones employ good writers and researchers and media makers with clever minds and are informative and often fun to read and introduce new ideas and impact the culture positively enough that the good definitively outweighs the bad. my issue with much short-form internet tabloid journalism (and, to a lesser degree, criticism) is that it doesn't necessarily meet that standard.
But hey, that's obviously not the governing core mission when your business model requires x-to-the-nth-power unique hits to keep the lights on and anyway who am i to shit on what puts food on another man's table? so, as i'm no longer the target demographic anyway, i am more currently of the opinion that it's foolish to ask a cow to oink and that mutual apathy to one another's concerns until they overlap for work or ilx seems fairest game all around. as my grandfather used to say, nobody wanna hear your goddamn point when they got their own point to make.

i had a roommate named Jace who was just as awful as a Jace inevitably must be, so i laughed at that part

Drake has a hit single where he describes one of his white friends saying the N-word, and then shrugs "I hope noone heard that." he has another hit single where he refers to his white producer by the N-word.

this is all just stealth marketing for ronson

agreed. don't believe me? just watch.

have we adequately shamed jordan yet, or does gawker need to cover it

"it's more like: gawker -- and any good publication"

Ah once again the thorny difficulty of using and/or correctly rears its ugly head.

I gave up on not saying the title of jay and kanye's ni**as in paris when I was in Quebec because I figured I was less weirdly racist than half the province anyway

I have yet to voice that word in the U.S. though

congratulations

thanks treeshy

just remembering taking a turn djing at a friends wedding, guy approaches "do you have" whispering "n-words" winces "in paris"

its tuff for a wite

it was all worth it tho he was super stoked when it came on

Ya I bet, he stokes to one song and one song only

http://www.buzzfeed.com/jacquishine/its-a-shame re ronson

― 𝔠𝔞𝔢𝔨 (caek), Tuesday, April 14, 2015 6:09 PM (1 hour ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

good read on why ronsons personal anxiety is maybe not the best compass to guide him through the shame wars

― lag∞n, Tuesday, 14 April 2015 23:12 (Yesterday)

Public shaming is Buzzfeed's bread & butter. Maybe not the best compass to guide their coverage of a book critical of public shaming, including examples that they instigated like Justine Sacco. They should at least acknowledge that they have a dog in this fight, especially when this looks to be the third article in a row they've posted criticizing Ronson.

Fine for them to answer Ronson's criticisms directly, and she makes some good points - but they should really be upfront about why they're worked up over this book.

buzzfeeds not big in the public shaming biz, they have a no hater policy after all, but more specifically they just publish anything is their main approach, anyway regardless its totally not their bread and butter at all, i know buzzfeed has become sort of short hand for everything thats bad about the internet but they actually do have specific behaviors and practices which can be observed, and besides there not really any money in public shaming anyway its primarily practiced by unpaid amateurs on twitter

buzzfeeds bread and butter is lists about things only 90s kids will understand fwiw

people don't feel enough shame, in general

idk why this is so hard to understand

yes. this is not their bread and butter?

the world is full of bad people and they should feel bad about it

ppl feel so much shame it just becomes sort of a baseline, or to put it differently feeling shame is not enough to provoke more virtuous behavior

I haven't read the book, but her description of Ronson's take on the donglegate thing seems really misleading based on the extract that was published in the Guardian

and Ronson comes dangerously close to saying that she deserved what she got.

'comes dangerously close to saying' is such a weaselly construction

I wonder if any gotcha video will be coming out of the Ponderosa Stomp?

xposts
Buzzfeed blew up the Justine Sacco story, which Ronson's book covers. His publisher's also using it in the promo for the book. Of course they're pissed off with Ronson's take on it. Come on.

the real scandal here is that caity weaver hasn't had an article published since late february tbh

wtf is going on gawker caity is a treasure

i mean the process of twitter shaming may be a misnomer, a lot of the time the shamed seem to be getting exposed to points of view they were previously unfamiliar with which is good, if ppl just want to look at that and only see the shaming aspect i guess thats their prerogative but its pretty convenient for not relating to the substance of the conversations

was just thinking abt how its so lame when good writers get promoted to editor and stop writing what a horrible system, free caity and max! xp

The Buzzfeed piece is pretty weak. To take just one example, "the comparison is telling (and not only because it defines women’s social roles as primarily sexual and men’s as economic)". Yes, this perception is exactly what Ronson's female interviewee was talking about in the previous page that wasn't in the screenshot. To take another, she criticises the "virtual lynching" line from an interviewee as if Ronson endorses the choice of word and needed to butt in to prove that he doesn't, even though his style is show don't tell. And a third - she leaves out Lindsey Stone entirely because Stone's case doesn't fit her argument that the book is only about privileged people under fire from the left. A Huffington Post piece made similar points about Ronson's lack of interest in the sociopolitical dynamic without using as many sneaky distortions.

from reading a few reviews (if they are correct) and the table of contents, ronson goes to bat for jonah lehrer and mike daisey, but is skeptical of adria richards

yeah idk man

i'm interested in taking a look at the book myself, shame is def an 'interesting phenomenon'

bizarro very otm

yeah mike daisey's career has reeeeally suffered

mike daisey is truly shameless, prob some sort of sociopath

the weirdest shit was listening to him explain the concept of _artistic truth_ repeatedly instead of just saying that his monologue was not exactly what he saw

like dude you can say you're expressing artistic truth and still admit your act isn't 100% your own experiences. it's not like the vagina monologues is all first-person truth, either.

my artistic truth is that the factory guards were meancing me with guns even tho almost no one in china has guns and the guards werent menacing me why dont u see

what mike daisey did was really not okay. i mean jonah lehrer obv is a waste of ink so i'm glad he's wasting less but making up boomer-icon quotes to burnish your corporate self-help books is more inexplicable-lols than a terrible violation imo. the daisey stuff was pornography and imagining him laboring over his details while the glow of righteousness suffused his soul is nauseating. xps yeah.

remember the assembly-line laborer brushing his ruined claw-hand over the flickering surface of the ipad he'd never seen before and saying "it's a kind of magic"

lmao

he was looking for queen uploads on youtube

lol I forgot the gun part, that was amazing

he's still aggrieved about it too. seems like a narcissist. tweet from last week:

‏@mdaisey
It's too bad TAL didn't go the Rolling Stone route and have an outsider tell the story--I can tell you it would have landed differently.

Speaking of RS, he's really the version of the Rolling Stone reporter who was looking for the perfect campus rape story and then ended up screwing up all kinds of things

and again I haven't read the new one yet - but Ronson's M.O. is almost always to get close to despicable & possibly sociopathic people and tell the story through their eyes. I don't know that it necessarily constitutes a defence of their actions when he does that. I guess alarm bells don't go off when I see he spoke to Daisey and Lehrer after reading his stories on David Icke, Alex Jones, David Shayler, etc.

tbh I doubt many people cared in the North American market because those are either British or fringe figures

like no one really cares about Alex Jones other than conspiracy theorists and people who enjoy their antics, but a bunch of NPR-listening ppl and the general news-reading public know about Daisey and Lehrer

his earlier books about cranks and paranoids are called "kooks" and "them".

this book is called "you have been publicly shamed" not "you are a fucking liar"

yeah this is def a departure for him