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

how

With idiots like my dad feeling the need to CCW when my folks visit downtown Knoxville in the evening

better watch out at the Regal Riviera you never know what hoodlums might be "chilling" outside

Chaki's not wrong about bringing kids into a more horrible and violent world, but that's not because of current trends in crime and violence, it's because we're going to be some kind of Mad Max dystopia where western states go to war with each other for drinking water and the eastern seaboard is pounded into rubble by monthly hurricanes and the lucky among us will get to subsist on vat grown algae.

yeah i mean obvs there are levels to this conversation but imo there is more openness to relating to what is one of our fundamental national sins than there has been before

― lag∞n, Saturday, August 29, 2015 10:53 AM (1 hour ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

i'm not interested in a revolution v reform question i just mean, like, i don't think stats changing is going to alter the fundamental paradigm where identity is so closely tied up in criminality and incarceration

other challenges:

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/07/21/us/politics/obama-downsize-prisons-mass-incarceration.html

oops that's not the link i wanted to send ... lemme see if i can find it. .. basically said that even freeing all the nonviolent offenders doesn't really put a dent in our numbers vs. the rest of the world's...at some pt we have to have a real conversation about clemency for violent offenses

here it is http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/12/upshot/how-to-cut-the-prison-population-see-for-yourself.html

Old media this year has proven it can be fearmongering, alienating, and exploitative in the face of very public injustice, even in 2015. It values property over human life and can only view the populace through those terms. How does it affect election funding? How does it affect the corporate retailers that have exploited cities into urban decay?

It's so deep in the national fabric that it is in the language. If you care about the environment you are a "tree hugger". If you care about civil rights you are a "bleeding heart". Every time a national issue comes up that would cost us money the conversation is shifted to "What about the jobs"? Fuck the jobs, they aren't living, breathing people. How come nobody asks politicians why they are so emotional about their bank accounts?

If people really wanted the United States government to get serious about creating jobs they'd OK deficit spending at this time of stubbornly high unemployment and historically low lending rates

meanwhile
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/01/us/murder-rates-rising-sharply-in-many-us-cities.html

jeez gawker is responsible for that too!?

no that was related to my last post itt ... three posts up

i mean unless you think chief keef raised the murder rate in which case you could also blame gawker

http://www.vox.com/2015/9/8/9262883/jezebel-ultraviolet-abortion-ad

Gawker's advertising and editorial departments are separate, meaning Jezebel writers had no say or involvement in the matter. But ad staffers there made it clear that they wouldn't accept this 60-second spot on the Gawker network.

"My management team is not allowing us to accept ads surrounding very specific politically focused topics like abortion," an advertising representative at Gawker wrote in an email to UltraViolet's representatives, which the group then shared with Vox.

When UltraViolet's ad representative pressed on the issue — and the fact that Jezebel writers cover similar issues frequently – the same advertising representative responded, "While Jezebel’s editorial content is very feminist, our advertising management team tends to be more conservative on the advertising we can accept."

http://jezebel.com/here-s-the-abortion-rights-ad-that-vox-thinks-jezebel-d-1728810645

At no point prior to reaching out to a Vox reporter did Ultraviolet or anybody representing Ultraviolet contact Jezebel editorial directly about running the ad, or about ad sales’ rejection of the ad. Ultraviolet did not ask us if we’d be interested in an interview, the story behind the video, or in any other engagement with the campaign until an inquiry from Vox tipped us off that this story was in the works.

As Kliff notes, Jezebel staffers have no say whatsoever over what kind of ads are run on our site, just as ad sales has no say whatsoever over what kind of editorial content runs on the site. That’s how media companies run. Ad sales refusing to imply endorsement of a controversial issue—even in a way that seems to parrot the line held by most editorial staffers—is not our ad sales team kneecapping us or stifling our free speech. It’s them doing their jobs, and allowing us to do ours. No respectable media company would allow editorial decisions to be made by an ad sales team.

lol pretty weak response. then again i sort of doubt anyone reading jezebel needs to see that ad

No respectable media company would allow editorial decisions to be made by an ad sales team.

zing

i trust that editorial would continue to support the independence of the ad sales side if ad sales decided to run pro-life ads but not pro-choice ones

I guess that WTF interview this week pretty much confirmed the veracity of j0rdan's comments thread article about Fred Armisen. So there you go, one more Iraq War thwarted.

I haven't finished that one but Maron didn't seem to like him, which was amusing.

rly rly loved the harmony korine ep

i trust that editorial would continue to support the independence of the ad sales side if ad sales decided to run pro-life ads but not pro-choice ones

― usic ally (k3vin k.), Saturday, September 12, 2015 4:03 PM (Yesterday) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

yeah I doubt jezebel could handle that.

I know some other left-wing blogs accept right wing ads tho, with the attitude of being happy to take misspent money.

i can remember laughing when fox news bought a full page back cover ad in the nation saying 'we'd like to thank you for making fox news america's most watched and most trusted news network' and then laughing further at all the outraged letters over it in the next issue

i think it's weird that jordan is writing gossipy celeb stuff again and readers are just expected to take it as credible piece from a reputable writer.

Tarnishing the reputable history of gossipy celebrity stories

lol i'm gonna have to see some evidence anyone thinks he has credibility

Ok I should have said "judgemental celeb stories" like the lack of self awareness and audacity involved with an adult man that outed someone publically in 2015 to write a headline like "___ is a Terrible Person" is just really weird and insane to me.

tbf it was probably some other not quite as terrible person at gawker that wrote the headline

or this will blow over in a week like literally everything else that's ever happened on the internet idk

― lil dork (Whiney G. Weingarten), Friday, July 17, 2015 11:54 AM (1 month ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

lol wait do you think you've been proven right?

Ok I should have said "judgemental celeb stories" like the lack of self awareness and audacity involved with an adult man that outed someone publically in 2015 to write a headline like "___ is a Terrible Person" is just really weird and insane to me.

― chaki (kurt schwitterz), Wednesday, September 16, 2015 5:54 PM (4 hours ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

nobody expects woody paige to be good at sports, though

so what's the endgame with the kristin cavallari stuff, are they trying to make her kill herself?

Seemed lonely without a stalker, seemed like an idea to crowdsource one.

i can think of a dozen reasons why its fucked up that vice dude is doing a roundtable with obama, but i must admit "his dick touched another man's dick" isn't one of them

:D :D :D

http://ktjensen.kinja.com/chuck-c-johnson-is-the-easiest-man-in-the-world-to-tro-1736107981?rev=1444683583110

Oh dear.

"I live very comfortably, as evidenced by the fact both my kids take tae kwon do"

this thor dude is clearly too awesome for gawker

that's some a+ trolling, i like the cut of this thor guy's jib

gawker really taking down the big game

like, kudos, you trolled an idiot

sadly CCJ is a bigger deal than you'd think

Also worth noting that K. Thor Jensen isn't a Gawker writer, a point that is important to understanding that whole story.

right

ok

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/15/sports/football/nfl-gifs-video-sharing-twitter.html
this bodes ill across the board for new journalism; when they come for your gifs it's gonna hurt business

Also worth noting that K. Thor Jensen isn't a Gawker writer, a point that is important to understanding that whole story.

Also that Thor has been very good at obviously trolling doofi on the internets for a long time: http://shortandhappy.com/amber/

the gif thing is a nothing-burger and the NFL peaked last year.

:D :D :D

http://ktjensen.kinja.com/chuck-c-johnson-is-the-easiest-man-in-the-world-to-tro-1736107981?rev=1444683583110
― goole, Monday, October 12, 2015 4:30 PM (6 days ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

This is great. K. Thor Jensen also did a pretty amazing Achewood guest strip many years back.

good point that the NFL is over, whew

haha yeah i just stared at that post for a couple minutes