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

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 =)

this thread was highly amusing today, thx to all the players involved. so many twists, so many turns.

gawker managed to not get sued when they accused the wrong guy of a school massacre so I doubt they're fretting about 'Jace'. They even put up a piece of shit apology under some kind of Aw man everything just got so fucked up about this school shooting thing headline so at least they were sorry. kinda.

jace did 9/11 :(

lmbo that anyone would assume a website notorious for its gossip coverage doesn't know its way around defamation laws

denton shellin' out scrill for legal fees like don draper writes checks to ex-wives

i wish someone who wasn't a media-entrenched white dude had written ronson's book

but you know...

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

agree with treeship that “white privilege” (hence “punching up”) angle re kid (from gawker, big media company) is disingenuous. speaking of critique drift. arguendo the article is humorous, not inappropriate, nbd, but imo that particular justification doesn’t work.

don’t have v strong feelings about this, but agree with certain distinctions treeship has been making:

it’s a random kid, not a public figure

who at the end of the day (imo) did nothing really wrong— arguably did not even commit a faux pas. singing along at a concert is distinct from tweeting. tweeting is an intentional act directed at a public audience, which one knows (or should) is open to criticism/ (mis)interpretation. anonymously & unselfconsciously singing along at a loud packed concert (one of hundreds in the audience, losing one’s individuality in the moment), completely unaware one would or could be the *object* of the spectacle, is not such an act.

the bit that made me most uncomfortable is the comparison to racist frat members: in current environment, with current news, doesn’t feel so much like innocuous joeks. arguendo there’s an interesting legitimate point to the jokey article (about white kid cluelessness, micro aggressions, whatever); but that comparison (aimed at a specific identifiable kid) should’ve been omitted or much more qualified

this is a thread i know i should not participate in and yet i feel compelled to note: gawker did not "accuse the wrong guy of a school massacre," it reported on the person the police had (as it turned out, wrongly) identified as the perpetrator, properly sourcing the claim to the police.

i know we all kind of got into it on ilx about this when it happened and many people felt like gawker should be held responsible nonetheless--i dont think this is a completely dismissable argument but regardless i think the distinction is pretty important.

to the extent this is a discussion that ilx wants to have it seems like itd make more sense to have it around justine sacco, who was 1) named and explicitly shamed in the gawker post about her, 2) the subject of a wide media outrage campaign, and 3) had actual material (career) harm come to her through the episode

all these things are obviously obvious (according to Treeship)

This thread seems to be operating on the premise that Gawker is not the clickbait shitpile for 12 year olds that I thought it was.

yeah it's obviously a sewer but getting outraged by it or, i dunno, daily mail online, seems unnecessary at this point.

there's a valid point here.

we need to discuss whatever ppl are hung up with regarding some article about a dude singing the n-word in the context of e.g.

* Naked Flakka Freak Who Calls Himself God Fights Cop, Fucks Tree: Police
* Horny Mom Threw Teen Daughter a Naked Twister Sex Party, AA Sponsor Says
* Lord Nelson, Former Football Star, Professor, Cop, Horse, Dead at 42
* The IRS’s Secretive Undercover Unit Lives In This Building
* Kim K, "Pornographic Symbol," Censored in Photo by Ultra-Orthodox Site
* Sad Man Sits in Field
* Peggy Noonan Talks Blobs
* Watch Robert Pattinson and FKA Twigs Bond Over a Mutual Love of Dance
* Since You Were Wondering, Judge Judy Is Having Amazing Sex
* Aaron Hernandez Found Guilty Of Murder
* The Doomed Visionary Who Made Feminist Games 19 Years Before Gamergate
* Cops: Kidnappee Escaped Kidnapper Because He Couldn't Drive Stick
* Blackwater Guards Sentenced to Decades in Prison for Shooting Civilians
* Twin Toddlers Drown After Mom, Attacked by Bee, Loses Grip on Stroller
* What Is the Best Clinton Conspiracy Theory?
* Chris Hansen Wants You to Pay for Him to Keep Hitting on Sex Offenders
* Now Is the Time to Invest in War-Torn Somalia

(amazing headlines lately btw, good work all!)

Gawker ad manager or whoever probably was yelling "I need three race-baiting Coachella bits with pictures in my inbox in the next 20 mins".

Chris Hansen Wants You