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

first they came for the white kids who sang the n-word at a drake show, and i did nothing

Journalists should:

– Balance the public’s need for information against potential harm or discomfort. Pursuit of the news is not a license for arrogance or undue intrusiveness.

– Show compassion for those who may be affected by news coverage. Use heightened sensitivity when dealing with juveniles, victims of sex crimes, and sources or subjects who are inexperienced or unable to give consent. Consider cultural differences in approach and treatment.

– Recognize that legal access to information differs from an ethical justification to publish or broadcast.

– Realize that private people have a greater right to control information about themselves than public figures and others who seek power, influence or attention. Weigh the consequences of publishing or broadcasting personal information.

– Avoid pandering to lurid curiosity, even if others do.

– Balance a suspect’s right to a fair trial with the public’s right to know. Consider the implications of identifying criminal suspects before they face legal charges.

– Consider the long-term implications of the extended reach and permanence of publication. Provide updated and more complete information as appropriate.

comes from here

some private citizen kid said the n-word at a drake concert. gawker shamed him for doing it. making a sarcastic joke about people shaming the police to demonstrate (ineptly) yr argument that some ppl (the police and i guess consequently this kid) should be shamed is trivializing actual tragedies perpetrated by the police by comparing it to a story where no one was hurt.

― Mordy, Wednesday, April 15, 2015 1:54 PM (8 seconds ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

youre making a specific connection to the gawker story that does not exist, the point of the post was to demonstrate that there are very non real stakes in online shaming thatre going willfully unacknowledged by the critics, those critics are obvs the target of the joke, you are plenty smart enough to understand this but are blinded by yr need to constantly claw for high ground, go fuck yrself

lmao american journalism

"very real stakes" obvs

your point was that there are legitimate cases of shaming? who exactly do you think is disagreeing w/ you? do u think ronson's book is about not shaming mass murderers, or serial killers, or rogue police, or nazis, or whatever? do you think anyone might think that it is?

also i think you're a really cool guy, lag00n, but i think your hostility here might be less about me and more about whatever has compelled you defend what was a pretty shitty blog post from an always often cool ilxor who works for a terrible media source

anyway, whatever. that's it for me on this one.

your point was that there are legitimate cases of shaming? who exactly do you think is disagreeing w/ you? do u think ronson's book is about not shaming mass murderers, or serial killers, or rogue police, or nazis, or whatever? do you think anyone might think that it is?

― Mordy, Wednesday, April 15, 2015 2:01 PM (15 seconds ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

yes pretty obviously when people consider the overall culture of shaming they are leaving the legitimate cases out of the equation, you can see that in this thread, if ppl instead looked at it like this phenomenon has produced some petty meanness and ruined a few undeserving peoples lives but has also produced some very real positive results it becomes a lot harder to uses as an object for facile drive by moralizing and complaining abt internet

also i think you're a really cool guy, lag00n, but i think your hostility here might be less about me and more about whatever has compelled you defend what was a pretty shitty blog post from an always often cool ilxor who works for a terrible media source

― Mordy, Wednesday, April 15, 2015 2:02 PM (3 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

or it could be about you accusing me of making jokes about dead black kids who knows?

also you may notice i have not been defending jordans post itt

sh sh sh sh sh shaaaame

ok, i'm sorry i misunderstood where you were coming from w/ your argument + thought the original comment was in bad taste. this is my last comment on this topic until gawker publishes something else gross.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DE0EOIqwiQI

thanks mordy, solid work

ok, i'm sorry i misunderstood where you were coming from w/ your argument + thought the original comment was in bad taste. this is my last comment on this topic until gawker publishes something else gross.

― Mordy, Wednesday, April 15, 2015 2:10 PM (2 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

ok im sorry too

aw

it's a shame about jace

I've never been too good with names,
But I remember Jace's.

Some things need to go away

I've never been too good with names,
But I remember Jace's.

― And let’s say a new Hozier comes along, and Spotify outbids you (Sufjan Grafton), Wednesday, April 15, 2015 12:16 PM (2 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

jaces

the only "jace" i know of is that insane gamer dude who wrecked his mom's prius. who are we talking about?

http://www.reagan.utexas.edu/archives/photographs/large/c47450-20.jpg

i was making a dumb joke known only to myself as such about bolding a post and writing 'jesus' under it.

ohhhhh lmao i didn't ever read j0rd's piece

xp it obviously wasn't his goal. the goal was entertainment at another person's expense, which is obviously shitty. but it's framed disingenuously as this "punching up" anti-racist gesture, which is why people are able to enjoy it without feeling guilty

― Treeship, Wednesday, April 15, 2015 1:35 PM Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

there are a lot of unexamined assumptions here. for one, why should we not feel guilty about things we enjoy? maybe we do feel guilty about them. maybe that's part of the enjoyment. is enjoyment without guilt enjoyment?

is entertainment at another person's expense bad? why is it bad? is this person shamed? do they feel shame now? can they feel shame? do we as a people feel shame or only project shame?

how do we know what the article's goal was? or the author's? did the author author the article or did society author the author? did the author know their goal? do article's need goals? do people? when is the last time i had a goal? how did that work out?

why is it obviously shitty to be entertained at the expense of others? have we forgotten mel brooks' teachings on the difference between comedy and tragedy? how can we be entertained not at the expense of others? do we need to locally source our entertainment from small organic amusement producers with humane certifications?

etc.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/15/opinion/shaming-those-who-skip-out-on-taxes.html

xp the entertainment at someone's expense you're defending here is an inch away from libel. if that kid gets problems from that post he could sue gawker and jordan and have a good chance of winning. this isn't a harmless prank among friends, it's a potential character assassination of a total stranger. in b4 "lol character assassination"; place it right next to a post on how vile racists are, and you'll see what i mean. this is random social violence for laffs.

It's about time ilx sheds its SJW past and enters it's white supremacy phase

clover.

there are a lot of unexamined assumptions here.

how do you know that i haven't examined my assumptions?

for one, why should we not feel guilty about things we enjoy?

people should feel guilty when they hurt someone for an unjustified reason.

is entertainment at another person's expense bad? why is it bad?

yes. entertainment at other people's expense is bad. when the paparazzi tortured britney spears during her breakdown, exacerbating it, that was bad. and private citizens, as noted in mordy's quote, have an even greater right to privacy than celebrities, who in my view also shouldn't be seen as subhuman objects for our entertainment.

how do we know what the article's goal was?

jordan mentioned what his goal was on this thread. he thought it was funny. he justified it by saying that the kid wouldn't be fine because he would be protected by white privilege, which i think is a disingenuous response.

how can we be entertained not at the expense of others? do we need to locally source our entertainment from small organic amusement producers with humane certifications?

this is a really strong point. bullying has never had negative consequences.

Really hope ozmodiar is a sign of other redditors to come

xp the entertainment at someone's expense you're defending here is an inch away from libel. if that kid gets problems from that post he could sue gawker and jordan and have a good chance of winning.

― ozmodiar, Wednesday, April 15, 2015 2:50 PM (53 seconds ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

it absolutely does not resemble libel and wld not make it through the courthouse door, libel is when you say something untrue for the purpose of slander, its notoriously hard to prove cause how do you show what someones motivation was, in this case tho jordan didnt even make any false claims, the kid really did joyfully sing along to the n-word with drake at cochella

lol xp

yeah it's not libel it's just kind of shitty.

don't know what uh oh is talking about. reddit loves doxxing and public shaming, especially of women.

theres a big thing in gamergate/mra where theyre always threatening to sure ppl who are mean to them on twitter for libel lol

oh, i didn't know about that. those guys are hypocrites in that case but what else is new

Treeship you're a fuckin idiot

i'm pretty sure the malice req is for public figures only. also the "southern frat" comment insinuates the kid is a racist. it all depends on how it plays out, but it's far from open and shut against it.

u r wrong

private people don't have to show malice. also, malice can be reckless disregard, which this arguably is. gawker has some shitty lawyers, if they have them at all.

the real goal of jordan's article was to determine who on ilx was a redditor, mission accomplished

can we get a board lawyer in to advise on the libel angle please?

preferably a british one and an american one, to give this thread some conflict

if the internet were in charge of libel standards every media property wld be owned by a mad teen by now

was gonna say i thought US libel laws were super hard to win

in the UK you just have to look sad and own large swathes of real estate

gawker has some shitty lawyers, if they have them at all.

lol

who is this master of the legal domain

get 'm! [fast banjo music starts playing]

ozmodiar you can play the banjo? Cool =)