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

http://i.imgur.com/T2hnRYQ.jpg

wow

one to send home to mom and dad so they can put it in the scrapbook

This is some serious how do you sleep at night bullshit. Completely indefensible.

I'll get the Gawkerverse's back on some other things people take issue with, but this is shameful bullshit. wtf you guys?

Like this shit reads like one of those Scientology shaming pages and max your defense of outing a gay man is super gross being a white straight dude. Ugh.

Congrats yr a cult!

https://twitter.com/max_read/status/621855300509925376?s=09

Like do you know his wife? Do you know their arrangement?

married c-suite executives of major media companies

I'm gonna go out on a limb and say that him working for Conde Nast moved the needle a little

uh oh ‏@WillMcAvoyACN going ham

Bleak stuff

https://twitter.com/davidadonaldson/status/621918614321393665

"attempted to trade favors to kill the story" isn't substantiated by any solid proof like a text message screenshot of course

Stories don't need an upside. Not everyone has to feel good about the truth. If it's true, you publish.

Just trying to wrap my head around hitting 'send' on that story and feeling good about yourself (or, maybe even worse, feeling somber about your obligation to 'do the right thing' or something)

ha x-post

That Jezebel 15-year-old does seem to think she's doing something punk rock
I'm EXTREMELY suspicious of those who do not want press to have an antagonistic relationship to people in power.
LOL what a sad human being

Fine. Go after people in power when what they're doing fucks with the lives of people who aren't. All I see here is a guy stepping out on his wife.

gawker is a sewer

That Jezebel 15-year-old does seem to think she's doing something punk rock
I'm EXTREMELY suspicious of those who do not want press to have an antagonistic relationship to people in power.
LOL what a sad human being

― Your Ribs are My Ladder, Friday, July 17, 2015 8:00 AM (7 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

she really liked the article about that woman not getting the tattoo

https://twitter.com/hamiltonnolan/status/620999460030693376

Weird timing on that tweet. My impression was that this story came to them yesterday, so HamNo tweeting that on Tuesday isn't tipping his hat to any feelings he might have about it. He's just poking the bear like always.

Wonder how he feels now.

This seems like a logical extension of the ideology no? I get that a lot of people are pushing back where they didn't before for obvious reasons I'm just wondering why someone would assume Hamilton for ex would object to it

i don't see an issue here, at least somebody has the guts to stand up against adulterers. next stop, blasphemers.

To be fair, I kind of miss the days where my issues were related to that Harris obit and unsourced Louis ck shit. This is a whole different deal, and it's way more depressing.

"supreme problematics (D-40)
Posted: July 17, 2015 at 3:34:28 AM
This seems like a logical extension of the ideology no? I get that a lot of people are pushing back where they didn't before for obvious reasons I'm just wondering why someone would assume Hamilton for ex would object to it"

Haha wait, please describe this ideology to me

little worried about gawker's unfettered access to my 77 posts

'employee of web media company has trouble sleeping, loves his cat'

it's all true, they'll have no choice but to publish

i don't see an issue here, at least somebody has the guts to stand up against adulterers. next stop, blasphemers.

― This is for my new ringpiece, so please only serious answers (Noodle Vague), Friday, July 17, 2015 3:35 AM (33 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

No one said they didn't seem an issue but I'm definitely excited everyone is jumping to find someone they can pretend is defending it

Haha wait, please describe this ideology to me

― a strawman stuffed with their collection of 12 cds (jjjusten), Friday, July 17, 2015 3:38 AM (32 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

Idk read max's last eight or whatever posts and any nick Denton interview? It's clear they're pushing the boundaries of what "public figure" means. Idk that is right but it's not surprising

Me, I think the "he's cheating on his wife!" defence is a gross conservative maguffin; would prefer a "there is no shame in hooking up with an gay escort on the dl in 2015, we at gawker hope all the CFOs get all the d they deserve"

if we'd had a press willing to ask the tough questions about rivals' sex lives in 2002 we never would have gone into iraq :(

If it wasn't for the 2004 Republican senatorial candidate in Illinois taking 7 of 9 to a sex club, we wouldn't have the president we have now!

(No seriously, fuck these guys.)

xxp shame is the raison d'être of this kind of exposé so that would be self-defeating unfortunately

Eh, an exec at Condé cheating on his spouse/paying for sex is probably going to be tabloid news, no matter how much we bitch and moan about which site broke the story, because that company is all about selling a version of posh heteronormativity. Vogue and Vanity Fair only like gayness when it's a rich designer doing it, or it's historic and to do with boho aristocrats.

Something similar happened here wherein the wife of a rather prominent Condé Nasty (a publisher herself) was having an affair with a Labour minister, asking him for special work-permit favours for a nanny etc, and it was scandal-sheet fodder for MONTHS.

I think you can decipher key differences between the two stories if you think about it, suzy

Thanks for implying I don't think about things, bro. Now bore off.

actually it's about ethics in outing journalism

^ glib but i'm curious, it seems most here would be much less incensed if it was an anti-gay/homophobic public figure who had been outed. but here the guy's only crime seems to be that he's bought wholesale into the riches afforded by capitalism

what's the spectrum?

kinda feels like an easy one to parse, to me - if a person is actively persecuting lgbtq people, working to pass legislation denying them rights etc, outing them is potentially justifiable, especially since outing them will most likely stop them from being successful in denying other people rights.

otherwise, no.

maybe suzy is right but i somehow doubt this has anything to do with exposing CN for hypocrisy, posh heteronormativity or no. afaict its just a juicy story about a rich guy whose last name is kinda famous & the fact he worked for CN just made it juicier. gawker's always been pugnacious with other media companies and loves to think of itself as david taking down goliaths. but it's reaching to suggest there's a righteous motive or justification here. i was going to say that gawker being instrumental is this dudes blackmail is the most disappointing but thats probably on me for being naive.

The blackmail thing is what pushes this over into repugnant imo as well.

also as far as i'm concerned this is not about outing the guy for being gay, it's about outing him for hiring a male escort. there's a difference, imho, and tbh this is as much about gawker's shitty, salacious attitude about sex work as anything.

yeah that's gross too

there's just so many layers of "wow, you guys are heartless assholes- great use of your time on earth!" about this

You know who never pulls bullshit like this? Jalopnik.

Filed to: SEX 7/16/15 8:26pm

Stop saying he's cheating on his wife. They could be open, poly, or have an arrangement where he's allowed to fuck dudes while on vacation. Who are Jordan and Max, as 2 ivy league white bros, to say what he is doing is wrong? They are now known forever as 2 men into outing fags.

otm

"Ivy League"?

Sorry, that's not the right thing to fixate on.

Haha I guess I used that term wrong though. Ignore that part!