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

"Then Miley sticks her hand in Maxwell’s pants, which is blurred out in the TMZ video for the appearance of standards."

Thankfully the appearance of standards is not a gawker concern.

miley cyrus is not a citizen

― J0rdan S., Thursday, July 2, 2015 11:54 PM (Yesterday) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

I'd love to hear more on this - sounds like the kind of thing Sun/Daily Mail showbiz reporters say. Do you believe there is there any difference between what you're doing with a post like this and what they do?

Cell block and locked - I never clock it y'all
'Cause time and time again time
They got me servin' to those and to them
I'm not a citizen
But ever when I catch a C-O
Sleepin' on the job - my plan is on go-ahead
On the strength, I'ma tell you the deal
I got nothin' to lose
'Cause I'm goin' for the steel

I'd love to hear more on this - sounds like the kind of thing Sun/Daily Mail showbiz reporters say. Do you believe there is there any difference between what you're doing with a post like this and what they do?

― Your Ribs are My Ladder, Friday, July 3, 2015 5:17 AM (7 hours ago) Bookmark

i don't know that much about british tabloids but i think gawker's celeb coverage is better than those on several diff levels, yes

for real

I'm proud to count Miley as an American citizen.

That specific story didn't seem so bad though. It made me want to give Miley Cyrus a high five.

did you guys talk about the jezebel writer not getting a tattoo

that was stupid. tattoo artists are allowed to deny you. many tattoo artists do not tattoo on necks. that shit was infuriating.

She has a 22 year old nanny

fave recent gawker moment

http://i.imgur.com/k1w7fqn.png

A few weeks ago, I was refused a tattoo. At a tattoo parlor. By a tattoo artist. At 1 p.m. on a Sunday, prior to consuming any Bloody Marys.

*keeps reading*

I'd love to hear more on this - sounds like the kind of thing Sun/Daily Mail showbiz reporters say. Do you believe there is there any difference between what you're doing with a post like this and what they do?

― Your Ribs are My Ladder, Friday, July 3, 2015 5:17 AM (7 hours ago) Bookmark

i don't know that much about british tabloids but i think gawker's celeb coverage is better than those on several diff levels, yes

― J0rdan S., Friday, July 3, 2015 5:30 PM (3 days ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

I guess I meant more in the idea that British tabloids don't believe celebrities are citizens, or don't deserve the same level of respect or privacy because they're in the public eye, i.e. they've 'chosen' that life, so everything's fair game. I was just curious about the 'she's not a citizen' thing you said.

that tattoo artist posted on a blog somewhere about his perspective, how tattoo artists have rights of refusal, lots of them have a code where they won't do work in "job killer" places (face, neck, hands etc) unless the person is already heavily done up etc. it was kind of interesting.

then it was picked up by antifeminists and other people who hate "outrage culture" or just hate jezebel generally. another day on the internet more or less.

xp i don't really have more to say on the subject other than "i don't think celebrities have the same expectation of privacy as average citizens," it's pretty self-explanatory i think

then shut up

legally speaking a "public figure" can expect a different standard of treatment than a "private individual" but it's not always clear where the line is drawn. judges often tend to see "public figures" largely as people involved in political life (esp. elected officials) since there's a public interest in folks being allowed to criticize them and know what they are up to.

using this legal framework as an excuse to post articles with paparazzi photographs of celebrities on vacation etc. cannot really be justified except in terms of the bottom line. the paparazzi do some pretty awful things and sites that utilize them are obviously complicit in that. so, in fact, are all the people who click on their articles. but that isn't an excuse for gawker et al.

not entirely self explanatory: do you mean to say "i don't think celebrities have the same expectation of privacy as average citizens" (i.e. they don't expect it to be so) or "i don't think celebrities have the same expectation of privacy as average citizens" (i.e., in my opinion, being a public figure means they don't have the right to expect the same level of privacy as a plebe) or "i don't think celebrities have the same expectation of privacy as average citizens" (i.e. everyone is in on the game, everyone is culpable, we're all normal horrible people)

"they" in that first option being "celebrities", natch

legally speaking...

i'm pretty sure gossip/tabloids are legal

xpost

If you didn't believe some combination of all three of those options, would you ever take a job writing for Gawker?

then it was picked up by antifeminists and other people who hate "outrage culture" or just hate jezebel generally. another day on the internet more or less.

― goole, Monday, July 6, 2015 12:02 PM (1 hour ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

in fairness it was a pretty egregious example of outrage culture

tattoo artists shd refuse to tattoo anyone imo

after all there are two kinds of people in this world: tattoo artists that refuse to tattoo anyone and those that don't

tattoo artists that refuse to tattoo anyone are like those pro-life "pregnancy counseling" centers where your "advice about abortion options" is "don't get an abortion"

i swear--by my life and my love of it--that i will never tattoo the neck of another man, nor ask another man to tattoo mine

arise then sir knight
for i dub thee
No Tattoo of Bridgeport

THR: Gawker has been accused of invading people's privacy on many occasions, from George Clooney complaining about "Gawker Stalker" to the Hulk Hogan sex tape.

Denton: Just once in a while, I think it's worthwhile to take stock and recognize that the supposed invasion of privacy has incredibly positive effects on society. It has. … Ten years ago, people maintained very different private and professional personas. Now that line has been obliterated. An employer would be a complete fool to let an image like college partying influence their hiring decisions. Because so many of those photographs have been published (in social media), it's been normalized in a way. Take attitudes towards gay sex and gay relationships. Yes, in part that's been driven by the outing of celebrities like Anderson Cooper, something I'm proud to say we played a part in, but more of it is just in the self-outing of people's friends through party photographs, through the random indiscretion on Facebook that makes it actually increasingly difficult for people to maintain secrets.

What does this even mean? Nick Denton seems like the most depressing dude ever; what a sad, grim legacy to leave

Sounds like a lobbyist trying his damnedest to be a crusader for a cause that's slowly eroding his basic humanity from the inside out.

not saying gawker is the most moral institution but whats the condition that causes ppl to think its the worst shit ever and write sad poems abt it lmao

It's called glawkoma

we need to spread awareness of this bad disease

I was trying for a haiku but I needed every syllable.

An employer would be a complete fool to let an image like college partying influence their hiring decisions.

You know the culture that gets countless girls raped on campus year after year? An employer would be an IDIOT to let that influence their hiring decision!

is he saying that image is ubiquitous or harmless?

I hate the idea of people not having secrets or being able to control their public image. It seems un-American: this is the country where people are supposed to be able to reinvent themselves.

If you've done something heinous then it's ok to be exposed obviously. "Outing" people against their will seems awful though.

xpost Yeah, it's kinda gross how unconcerned many people are about privacy these days, but I don't know how much of that is cause for legitimate concern and how much of it is 'lol ur an old'.

But, yes, outing private citizens or unheinous aspects of public citizens' lives that they strive to keep private is pretty unambiguously shitty, no matter how mealy mouthed you get in your attempts to reframe it.

its like a professional wrestler can't even tape a radio guy slamming his wife anymore

http://i.imgur.com/9MdzihP.jpg

cant believe ppl itt r defending this guy

its like a professional wrestler can't even tape a radio guy slamming his wife anymore

― lil dork (Whiney G. Weingarten), Friday, July 10, 2015 10:10 AM (40 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

this isn't what happened. gawker should sue you.

this url had to be on purpose
http://defamer.gawker.com/jason-biggs-fucked-a-pie-and-then-got-this-sweet-ass-ho-1716586452

yes and i also made sure the post stopped at 69,000 pageviews

"in part that's been driven by the outing of celebrities like Anderson Cooper, something I'm proud to say we played a part in"

cant believe ppl itt r defending this guy

not about defending hogan

not knowing either irl, kinda like denton & don’t like hogan & think hogan is dick for not settling

but denton’s way of framing issue strikes me as bs; e.g.:

Denton calls the Hogan trial “nothing less than a clash of cultures”. In one corner is a self-proclaimed all-American hero known for the discussion of his “mancode” on shock-jock radio. In the other, a gay Brit whose Hungarian mother survived the Nazis, who lives with his husband in downtown Manhattan and makes no secret of his penchant for recreational drugs. Denton discusses at length how publication of the sex tapes is important in making a stand against celebrities controlling their own image, but fails to mention the fact that the Hogan story, tape now removed, has so far been clicked on 5.3m times.

“clash of cultures” here just = ad hominem. what if hogan was political refugee lesbian who rescues stray dogs
i just feel there’s some irony/hypocrisy in denouncing celebrities’ desire/right to “control their own image” when so much of denton’s rhetorical defense is based precisely on respective celebrity images

i’m a hardcore first amendment supporter; but also hold “privacy” (citizens’ ability to freely engage in private not public sphere) as essential value— don’t think that’s contradictory, in my mind it’s complementary. don’t think either are inconsistent with thinking a) hogan is a dick & b) propagating his private sex tape without his consent is NOT noble act of speaking to truth to power, but sleazy exploitation of unlikable person’s private possession

i’d have less of a problem if gawker just described contents of sex tape. i’m not in favor of chilling celebrity/ public figure gossip. but just broadcasting tape to the world, without consent, with impunity? that does creep me out

& in my mind law is/ should not be ad hominem

this is a case in which i’m genuinely ambivalent; wd like to root for denton but
(not convinced he’s in the right)

"cant believe ppl itt r defending this guy"

ya denton is shit

Denton discusses at length how publication of the sex tapes is important in making a stand against celebrities controlling their own image

okay lol.

you all realize i posted "cant believe ppl itt r defending this guy" right after a montage of hogan doing 9/11