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

I like how you keep doing drive by runs of stupidity on this thread

The point being made about the article isn't that no one else covered it, you complete simpleton, it's that that writer (and by proxy, gawker) buried the rape while going with the lurid horny mom lol naked twister angle. But you are cool with that because hey clickbait it's the system what you going to do. It's a bullshit position, and you know it. Stop fucking faking it to score points in an argument that you already lost.

If gawker is not the system at least in the framing of your whole goddamn argument, the thing is nonsensical.

How many hierarchies do you need to break shit down into to avoid blaming the people that might offer you work?

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

Yes that's definitely it -- I'm "stupid" that's why when you guys repeat the same remedial moralizing bullshit from fuck-the-media-maaan 101 I keep pointing out that ur incapable of comprehending a world beyond your own fat uncomprehending faces

Gawker is a part of a wider media system u simplistic half wit dipshit

And jjjusten I don't know if u realized this but 1. For the millionth time no one is defending the article but 2. There's virtually a zero percent chance that gawker "buried" the rape as opposed to just lazily copying the story from its real source, huffington post, which for some mysterious fucking reason which definitely doesn't have to do with u being on the same message board as gawker employees, you have failed to indict in your moron's quest to be ilx's most righteous hero against whatever random fucking clickbait scandal that your precious moral high ground makes it ok that u clicked on the fucking story in the first place

how is this different from criticizing any other instance of sexism? do these critiques always need to be rigidly contextualized?

for some mysterious fucking reason which definitely doesn't have to do with u being on the same message board as gawker employees

maybe this is a good reason to criticize gawker on ilx. critiquing the huffington post on here has a 0% chance of making any impact, while criticizing gawker here has a 0.01% chance.

In fact reading this now it looks like gawker actually reported the rape which huffpo did not

But let's not let that get in the way

I have an idea...what if instead of clickbait they just ... didn't post clickbait?

gonna add that one to the idea box, see how it travels ... don't know why anyone hasn't thought of that ... must be immoral sociopathy, only possible answer

it's weird to accuse people of being moralizing while decrying the lack of fairness in discussing gawker but not huffpo, etc, esp with gawker writers in the room. its obv you dont have a problem with moralizing.

no obviously moralizing is ok sometimes and not ok when you have zero perspective on how the world operates IE the original restart of this argument which was jjjusten suggesting that twitter shaming has nothing to do with women being harassed on twitter

the part we all decided to not talk about bc it was harder for him to defend than it was for him to suggest lazy clickbait was actually malicious burying of rape in favor of lols

so really, everyone's wasting their time nitpicking the words of ilxors (or their co-workers) from a self-perceived moral high ground - your problem is not that people are doing that, as you're doing it as well. the only difference is you think we're stupid, and vica versa.

just trying to clear some of the distracting clutter out of this debate.

you are the distracting clutter in this debate

are you really asking me if i believe that taking moral stands is always wrong, or just sometimes wrong? this is a dumb fucking line of argument but i know how you love derailing these things

i don't think i asked you a question

nice semantic backflip! definitely getting to the core of this issue

when i say i think jjjusten is moralizing i mean that i think his motive has nothing to do w/ solving the problems he's claiming to attack but rather appearing righteous

i'm disagreeing for different reasons: bc i have a quixotic yet visceral revulsion towards that kind of disingenuous white knight bs masquerading as upstanding moral purity

but also u want that gawker job u can taste it right its sigourney ur rick moranis

okay that last post would make a great harvey danger lyric...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CGeb5nPDgCM

psshhh are you serious, as this thread proves i have way terrible internet 'face' which max values so highly, never mind that jordan covers most of the bases i'd be chasing, i'm nowhere near getting a gig at gawker

i thought you've written for them

nice are we going to talk about my career now? just going to flag post you now & pass out, eat shit

dude, i'm sorry. you were just describing the reasons you wouldn't get to write for gawker - didn't think it would offend to say i thought you already had.

no one's offended im just not talking about my livelihood while you troll me itt

again, i'm sorry (and i think you're offended if you're calling me a troll and telling me to eat shit). i didn't bring up your livelihood in relation to gawker - you were already discussing it.

i mean, just for full disclosure, i've written for two gawker blogs

you are the distracting clutter in this debate

― deej loaf (D-40), Sunday, April 19, 2015 3:09 AM Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

nah the whole 'debate' is distracting clutter that stands between us and the unwavering, uncomprehending, immobile fact of our own aloneness and mortality

full disclosure ned is nick denton and you've all been punk'd

i have never seen them in the same place

fwiw if people have corrections, complaints, questions etc. i read and reply to almost every email i get from readers. it's a pretty small shop, im generally accessible, and 99 percent of the time a direct private email is a quicker and less fraught way to get my attention and be heard

Thx Max - truth is, I didn't start this thread with the intention of dragging any of you into it, which is why I changed the title to something less personal once someone suggested it. I don't blame any of you for staying the hell out of it for obvious reasons.

oh hey, max is here. can you get me out of the greys?

do you guys have an opening for an ombudsman?

a nombudsman maybe

hornybodsman

Thx Max - truth is, I didn't start this thread with the intention of dragging any of you into it

― a strawman stuffed with their collection of 12 cds (jjjusten), Sunday, April 19, 2015 8:35 AM (2 hours ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

Lol

again, i'm sorry (and i think you're offended if you're calling me a troll and telling me to eat shit). i didn't bring up your livelihood in relation to gawker - you were already discussing it.

― da croupier, Sunday, April 19, 2015 2:44 AM (8 hours ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

Your method of conversing w me up to and including this post is totally trolling and v weird it's like you're trying to string along a semantic debate as long as possible

gosh it rly is

my first post in this thread was a response to this again I'm not sure what 'lols' gawker is being accused of propagating in that article that aren't an inherent part of the story where i tried to explain why people could be offended by calling someone a "horny mom" after saying they may have been assaulted. the thread then devolved to the familiar "everybody arguing with d-40 about how he's not making sense/trolling/missing the point, and vica versa" - or rather i joined in on the devolving in process, as it had already reached the place where people were calling each other names.

and while i could give myself the same "they're disingenuous/stupid, i'm on a quixotic quest to call out bullshit" vanity everyone does (and d-40 copped to), when it gets to a name-calling place clearly the participants aren't just discussing the issue but trying to give each other verbal noogies. so yeah, if you want to call that "trolling" you're not wrong. though, again, pretending "didn't you write for them" is a low blow in response to "i'm nowhere near getting a gig at gawker" is obviously dubious.

I didn't think that was a low blow I was just literally drawing a line about us discussing my resume, in part bc I don't think it bears any relevence to the argument (I wrote one piece for them 3 years ago) and in part because I simply would rather not talk about my job on ilx which I think is a very reasonable request !

nice are we going to talk about my career now? just going to flag post you now & pass out, eat shit

this reads more like the recipient of a low blow than "a reasonable request"

how about "a very straightforward and understandable request"

Are we done yet

oh i'm sure there will be a sequel

the budget on these things are very cheap and the stars clearly have nothing better on their slate

Speaking of work I should just get you to line edit my writing

only if i can charge you for the time spent debating my line edits