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

so "horny" was not meant as a humorous adjective following the description of assault, just factual

― da croupier, Thursday, April 16, 2015 1:53 PM (1 minute ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

i don't know what the writer's intent was, it seemed like it was 'factual' based on the dynamic before she passed out—she walked into the room and started masturbating in front of the party, i don't think the idea that she was horny somehow contradicts the notion that she was raped, this is an absurd conversation btw

maybe they did intend it to be funny, but personally the effect i got as a reader was of them writing it as straight as possible & letting the facts of the story do most of the legwork

are you sure you're not making a defense

what kind of effect is the writer going for by calling her "The Horny Mom" two paragraphs after describing her rape? Maybe not 'funny' but 'assholish"? Maybe I'm not familiar enough with Gawker style.

are you sure you're not making a defense

― da croupier, Thursday, April 16, 2015 1:57 PM (20 seconds ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

a defense of what? the existence of the story or how it was written? i'm definitely not making a defense of either

i'm just saying that i don't think it was intended to push a particular conclusion or editorial point of view but to leave a story out there and let the commentators hash it out

"just the facts, horny ma'am"

lol

feels like if they weren't trying to push an agenda or steer the convo in a direction, they'd have referred to her by name or at least as an adjective-less being. instead they deliberately choose to call her by the same term throughout the article even after the details of her assault are discussed. i'm not so sure that's the most impartial way to recount the ugly details of this fucked up story.

idk my guess is it could as easily have been "ugh this dumb story will get a million clicks" *someone aggregates it quickly and lazily*

i mean, there's a critique to be made which is whether these kinds of lurid stories are worth covering at all, but i mean, welcome to 2015

v true, but this might actually be gawker-specific. not sure even a tabloid would go with repeated 'horny mom'

it seemed like it was 'factual' based on the dynamic before she passed out

more factual description might have been 'alcoholic mom'
indications of mental illness/ substance abuse disorder make 'horny' less neutral descriptor, more intentional lolchoice

unfortunately, gawker lolchoice might also be predicated on her physical characteristics (relative youth/ attractiveness) & "georgia"

xpost yeah, I suppose criticizing a Gawker (et al.) article is like criticizing a telemarketer

someone should give credit to gawker staff for trying to unionize and writing openly about it, and i guess that person will be me. good for you guys, hope it becomes a trend in the industry.

xp it is v much scorpion/frog territory, you read some posts and lol, then some more and lol, then you read something w/ fucked up aspects to its tone and/or intent and you're unsettled (and in this latest instance especially that discomfort is legitimate), the scorpion that has the combined faces of, idk, biddle denton ham noles and drew magary, and is like "ummm you knew what i was when you clicked"

more factual description might have been 'alcoholic mom'
indications of mental illness/ substance abuse disorder make 'horny' less neutral descriptor, more intentional lolchoice

unfortunately, gawker lolchoice might also be predicated on her physical characteristics (relative youth/ attractiveness) & "georgia"

― drash, Thursday, 16 April 2015 19:55 (9 minutes ago) Permalink

you're really not understanding what i'm saying at all, i'm sure there are lots of words that could have been better chosen but then if you're not understanding that its stuff like this that bankrolls more thoughtful writing you really don't understand the nature of media

if you're not understanding that its stuff like this that bankrolls more thoughtful writing you really don't understand the nature of media

i get that but
"stuff like this" covers a wide spectrum, within which there may be relevant gradations/ distinctions

not sure if "bankrolls more thoughtful writing" is a defense/ explanation of media in general or gawker in specific

was gonna say something about relevance notwithstanding of critique but then realize getting these reactions is built into gawker's cake (gawker got my click, well done gawker)

not disagreeing with your general point re media in 2015, just posting to say yuck to this article (which, again, is unoriginal response likely expected & intended by gawker). in conclusion, i should stop posting about gawker.

Chances of anyone here trying to defend the horny mom article if a bunch of dudes from gawker weren't beloved Ilx posters approx 0%.

chances jjjusten will read anyone defending the horny mom article before attacking that strawman approx 0%

Eagerly awaiting the day when Gawker publishes something "more thoughful".

Yeah d-40 keep working that angle while you work the "hey man it's a tough clickbait world out there, you do what you gotta do" angle.

Eagerly awaiting the day when Gawker publishes something "more thoughful".

http://gawker.com/search?q=kiese+laymon

Everything about this "horny mom" story sucks but let's not act like every single thing Gawker has ever published is irredeemable and terrible

'working that angle'? lol

well it seems you guys have found a convenient scapegoat for incredible complex systemic problems—if only gawker would understand what ILX users everything, jjjusten, and drash already know, tabloid journalism would shrivel up & disappear—never give up that moral high ground

wow

"moral high ground" about articles like that horny mom story is a good thing

Poor gawker, just a victim of the system.

LEAVE GAWKER ALONE

literally no one has defended the horny mom story what is wrong w u guys

Do you actually read your own posts

more than you do evidently

"after ten years of wondering why everyone was arguing with me despite by my obvious, clear, sound points and logic, i...kept wondering why everyone was arguing with me despite my obvious, clear sound points and logic"

*gawks*

d-40 typing "this is not a defense" in the middle of a paragraph of defensiveness doesn't make it something else

no i'm making a qualitative distinction

I don't think that means what u think it means

i don't care about this stupid post. my point was that i highly doubt it's produced out of institutional malice as much as it is systemic necessity.

i like how i'm being called the gawker chris crocker for suggesting that calling the ppl who run it "sociopaths" might be a little OTT

Good work everyone

yup you said "sociopaths" might be a little OTT and we called you the gawker chris crocker

yay

yup you said "sociopaths" might be a little OTT and we called you the gawker chris crocker

― da croupier, Thursday, April 16, 2015 4:08 PM (2 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

this no less misrepresents this argument than basically any post you've made on this thread in ten years of ilx

omg...you learned it by watching me

http://i.ytimg.com/vi/IlpjRSf4d_k/hqdefault.jpg

I agree with croup on this one, but it is also true that I will die clutching a crucifix, whispering croup posts into Jesus' right cubital fossa.

the only acceptable outcome is max resigning after the embarrassment of the horny mom debacle

the hivemind would also accept the posting of an embarrassing photo, preferably involving shorts and some kind of exotic fruit

someone's gotta pay man its time for some new media frontier justice for the poor beleaguered scapegoat of clickbait culture

a messageboard rallied to the defense of standards in tabloid journalism and you won't believe what happened next

His name is probably jace lol. That's a white person name (those are the bad funny names)

the weird thing about that joke is the only Jace I've ever heard of is Jace Clayton, but that probably just means I'm old

kind of annoying that this thread exists and will join the ranks of "pitchfork is dumb" being bumped in perpetuity every time treeships reads someone not being nice on a blog

i would defend gawker itt but max called me unsophisticated the other day http://gagadaily.com/uploads/default_crossed.gif

http://www.reddit.com/r/Coachella/comments/32j34e/i_am_the_white_kid_saying_niggas_on_livestream_ama/

Drake said "sing this verse for me Coachella" and I wasn't about to disappoint drizzy

http://www.theunderdogcardcollector.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/IMG_20140426_0007-215x300.jpg

I mean it's a reasonable conundrum who wants to disappoint drizzy