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

too late now, he's dead

https://ceasefiremagazine.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/death-of-the-author.jpg

xpost

how ironic.

Etan Cohen was the other credited screenwriter and who wrote on everything from eps of B&B to KotH to shit like Madagascar 2 or Men in Black 3 or Get Hard.

this part of idiocracy is pretty close to coming true, imo

http://i0.wp.com/transitionvoice.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/IdiocracyFoxNews.jpg

i am unsarcastically glad that ilx's statute of limitations has expired on condescending links to death of the author

this is good gawker http://gawker.com/we-went-to-see-business-insiders-american-hq-in-new-yor-1761330663

sadly you are right.

http://gawker.com/coffee-connoisseurship-silly-1761947228

http://www.theguardian.com/media/2016/feb/29/gawker-employees-first-union-contract-writers-guild

That's pretty good pay for linking to other sites' content.

$90k plus bennies, you cunt

― J0rdan S., Monday, February 29, 2016 12:55 PM (24 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

yeah gimme a few years on that one

do you have to be in nyc to get that editor job?

not necessarily. the editor of deadspin is remote. there have been other remote editors. for a lot of jobs (gawker or otherwise) it def helps to be in nyc tho.

https://twitter.com/Mobute/status/706921802073767936

http://img2.timeinc.net/people/i/2016/news/160321/hulk-hogan-320.jpg

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Cc-RPJwUkAEemGZ.jpg

guilty lol

'hulk hogan trial' sounds weird to me. hulk hogan is not on trial.

During the defense opening, Gawker lawyer Michael Berry attacked Hogan’s suit as a naked grab for “lots and lots of money,” and contended that company founder Nick Denton had acted with the purest of motives.

Berry noted that Denton’s mom was a Hungarian Jew “who survived the Nazis” before escaping the Soviet occupation and fleeing to England at age 18.

“Mr. Denton grew up with parents who’ve seen first-hand what happens when speech is suppressed,” Berry said.

“He wants the public to have the simple, unvarnished truth … the unvarnished truth about public figures.”

the unvarnished truth about the sex lives of men who look like they've been varnished

guys don't pour your molten salt into your fishtank; they are worst enemies

http://sploid.gizmodo.com/molten-salt-is-a-fish-tanks-worst-enemy-1763377848

i love stupid videos like that

reminds me of a new science teacher i had in seventh grade who loved blowing shit up

Say what you will about the case but why is everyone taking the sarcastic "four years old" comment at face value it's so stupid

Stupid on so many levels it transcends stupid. It'd be like defendants in a Klan right to march case showing up in hoods and tossing around racist epithets, just to make themselves even more unlikable.

thanks for altering me to gawker's above 4yo sex tape publishing policy. i didn't realize they still had new ways to gross me out.

okay I think gawker is gross too but come the fuck on, that's sarcasm

and so was yours

sorry, got morning dumbs

Man, you know a bad place for sarcasm? A courtroom.

I once served on a jury for a sex offender civil commitment trial. As part of his treatment, the guy had to write a narrative describing his actions in his own words. At one point in the narrative, he referred to his victims as "those little shits". In context, a reasonable person could tell that he was using it as a term of endearment, but the state's attorney seized on it: "He dehumanizes children by referring to them as FECAL MATTER!" I saw other jurors' heads nod when she said that.

Using sarcasm in a courtroom may be bad strategy but comparing his use of sarcasm to...klansman using racial slurs?? Is completely willful misreading and dumb

Just because he's dumb on one level doesn't give people a pass to assume the worst ! As a reader of the news you are obligated to do the work of picking up on fuckkng context clues

it's about ethics in journalism reading

Not comparing it to Klan, just brought it up as a counterproductive approach to a defense.

It's not a perfect analogy, but it's better than assuming that not having a "pass" is enough to prevent people from assuming the worst and rolling with it.

Best part of the "four" comment is imagining how hard Gawker's legal team must gone in on Daulerio's asshole in its aftermath. Dude must barely be able to walk at present.

uhhhhh

Lol

http://babysimpson.co.uk/gallery/frames/6/2f32/239.jpg

Gawker's legal dream team

from the NYT on Tuesday, straining as ever to preserve decorum

Later, when he found out that his shock-radio friend, known as Bubba the Love Sponge, had been responsible for filming the encounter,

initially I laughed and then realized well yeah who else is Hulk Hogan going to hang out with

it's about ethics in journalism reading

― Mordy, Thursday, March 10, 2016 10:30 AM (Yesterday) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

what does this even mean? its about finding lots of people dumb for not getting context clues

context clues? what kind of context, what kind of clues? like, this is a deposition, don't joke about sex crimes involving 4 year olds?

im talking about people that didn't realize he was joking, who took it at face value that he literally was ok with child porn

im not defending the guy, just annoyed at the level of reading comprehension

i know how you feel

good one!!

I don't think people think he was serious. Joking about that is still gross, and reflects the site's self-congratulatory aren't we scandalous? amorality

When you are embroiled in a legal case that hinges explicitly on what salacious stuff you can or cannot publish, and the legal line between the two of them is so fine as to be practically invisible, it's such a terrible idea to joke about anything, really. Unless you're not serious about winning. What moron thinks a deposition is the right place to make a "joke" about sex tapes featuring children? Talk about "privilege." You're under oath, you're on the record - you don't fuck around. So, sure, context clues, etc., it was "obviously" a joke. But it does beg the question: where is the line and what line is the site unwilling to cross? You know, basically what the moron was asked. Because exactly, precisely, legally where that line is drawn is directly relevant to their defense. What a dummy.

Sad!