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

i just googled "why is texas such a shithole" for no real reason and got

Americans Moving Exclusively to Shitholes - Gawker
gawker.com/5990623/americans-moving-exclusively-to-shitholes
Gawker
Mar 14, 2013 - Try Midland, Texas. Just pack up, move on out to Midland, Texas, get a nice job in a gas field, make friends with the god damn Bush family put a ...

RIP i guess

why doesn't univision sell gawker.com and keep the rest? more trouble than it's worth?

― 𝔠𝔞𝔢𝔨 (caek), Thursday, August 18, 2016 2:56 PM (8 hours ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

it's got a huge judgment against it

― 龜, Thursday, August 18, 2016 3:10 PM (8 hours ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

seriously though, i thought the money univision paid pays off the judgment. aren't they free to sell it? it has >0 value once the judgment is settled. or is the problem that the judgment is going to take years to settle to the certainty required to sell it? or are they not allowed to break up the assets by the terms of this kind of acquisition?

will gawker finally answer whether or not it plagiarized nabisco?

ask a puppy

http://dog.gawker.com/

― 龜, Thursday, August 18, 2016 6:37 PM Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

https://twitter.com/max_read/status/766407466766700545

now the world knows

i know we like to laugh and all, but has anyone ever figured out who tf veronica moser is?

to answer some of the questions upthread, gawker.com is being left with gawker media -- the bankrupt entity -- which means it will be technically owned by the creditors, the primary of which is hogan. i believe if nick et al get the verdict overturned by the state appellate court -- which they believe will happen -- then they will regain ownership of the company and the site. (though i'm pretty sure hogan et al would then attempt to appeal that appeal, so we're talking like potentially a very long time until any of it is truly settled.)

the rest of the sites are being sold to univision. univision has no liabilities from the hogan suit or the other previously open litigation against the company. my understanding is that they're also protected (by law) against litigation stemming from stories published previous to their ownership of the purchased properties.

univision didn't take gawker.com because they didn't want the risk of becoming a target of thiel's. nick told us he talked to a dozen or so potential buyers about obtaining or funding the site (one idea was to basically give the site to the writers with some sort of investor) but that ultimately nobody wanted to potentially incur thiel's wrath, which is to say he won.

wow

that is insane

Hopefully Thiel will give an inspiring Ted talk about how he "disrupted" the first amendment

the first seven bookmarks on Chrome on my personal phone:

lawyers, guns & money
gawker
kotaku
deadspin
gizmodo
eschaton
talking points memo

io9 was there for a while. Good jalopnik stuff would usually get cross linked from gizmodo and good jezebel stuff usually turned up on gawker too.
Anyway, time to read less internet.

― El Tomboto, Thursday, August 18, 2016 7:22 PM (Yesterday) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

tom, do you read ars technica regularly? if you don't, i think you would like it a lot.

"Gawker has seemed like the center of the Internet to me"

Bizarre sentence

everyone knows ilx is the centre of the internet

https://twitter.com/max_read/status/766407466766700545
now the world knows
― woke-ing class zero (s.clover)

just admit that there are only people brilliant enough to think of writing in a dog's voice: me and Virginia Woolf

nabisco has forgotten "Jessie" by Paw, or perhaps either nabisco or Virginia Woolf wrote "Jessie"; if so would like to know which

"only 2 people" don't know how mysterious paste error happened

sad dog
sad dog confused by paste error

Virginia Woolf did write 'Jessie', under the nom de plume Furginia Woof.

fp'd u for unacceptable pun abuse

You know what bugs me to no fucking end? When Jezebel runs a story, like this Amber Heard one, which is a realtively fleshed-out news article:

http://jezebel.com/amber-heard-is-donating-her-7-million-divorce-settleme-1785481708

But then they tack on a number of unrelated celeb gossip tidbits at the end:

Apparently Dancing With The Stars has trained its tractor beam on super-awesome and very talented four-gold-medals-and-a-goddamn-bronze-medal-winning gymnast Simone Biles as a contestant on its upcoming 23rd season. If she accepts this rose(did I get that right?), she would join the ranks of Nastia Liukin, Shawn Johnson and teammate Aly Raisman, who have all competed on the show and done pretty okay.

Biles is still committed to appear in the Kellogg’s Tour of Gymnastics which sounds like the So You Think You Can Dance tour but much more impressive, so she’s not quite sure if she’ll be able to feign a fox trot with Derek Hough, or whatever.

“I would,” she told Yahoo! of the generous offer, “but I can’t dance.”

That didn’t stop Mischa Barton!

Yay, Aunt Kylie. [Us Weekly]
Put your Lil’ Smokie away, Biebz. [Celebuzz]
Kendall Jenner got a restraining order against her stalker. Good. [Entertainment Tonight]
Kim Kardashian wore a bathing suit. [Us Weekly]

And then the Kardashian rumors or whatever take up space in the comments, where I'm going to look for discussion of the main subject matter of the post. It's really weird to me.

iirc jezebel stopped doing a lot of single-topic celebrity gossip things and just does round-up posts, which does lend to that unfortunate scenario

fp'd u for unacceptable pun abuse

― The Chinese is NOW doing a munchy box! (bizarro gazzara), Friday, August 19, 2016 7:15 AM (2 hours ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

I employ puns to abuse u
Puns exist solely to be abused

i know we like to laugh and all, but has anyone ever figured out who tf veronica moser is?

― jaymc, Friday, August 19, 2016 12:18 AM (10 hours ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

I did, only because I was and am an admirer of his posts. I'll keep it to myself though.

gawker dudes . . . makin' copies

https://twitter.com/RobSchneider/status/766661455244566529

if nothing else, being the motivation for a rob schneider/glenn greenwald twitter interaction is something

kind of agree wit this

'@ggreenwald

Gawker is like @RyanLochte

It's hard to separate the Medals from the vandalism and public urinating.

God bless our free unencumbered press

kind of agree wit this

'@ggreenwald

Gawker is like @RyanLochte

It's hard to separate the Medals from the vandalism and public urinating.

― a (waterface), Friday, August 19, 2016 9:03 AM (6 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

Yeah, hard for some to separate The Glenn Greenwald of the last 10 years from the lawyer who defended murderous neo-nazis pro bono.

tom, do you read ars technica regularly? if you don't, i think you would like it a lot.

I read ars technica daily, it looks kind of terrible on a phone though. Also, it is insufficient.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CqPD9a4W8AQAKqE.jpg

Gawker, and its seven sister sites, had been so successful that we were even looking beyond the blog and into the future with a project Nick had dubbed Kinja. Practically, Kinja was just the proprietary publishing software and commenting system that had been introduced on the blogs in early 2013. But Nick had Facebook-size aspirations for it. In the future, it would be a public platform, designed to give anyone the ability to publish useful information — gossip, news, context — in an infinitely modular format: a stand-alone piece of writing that might also be a comment on another stand-alone post or embedded in a third. Over emails, Nick imagined “at least a decade” of building Kinja — at the end of which, if done right, “we’ll be the ones doing the acquiring.”

"I am the one who gawks"

http://i.ytimg.com/vi/wMEq1mGpP5A/0.jpg

RIP, the Kinja died before it could become good-ass

http://nymag.com/selectall/2016/08/did-i-kill-gawker.html

anyway a good read from our guy on the inside

Only nine words of Jessie are in the voice of the dog; everything after the intro is the dude yarling at Jessie to leave him alone.

Wait, ten words.

commented at max, but is it just me, or do people keep confusing the article on the conde naste dude who was looking for a paid hookup when he was traveling and the really softball "peter thiel, a smart, successful man, is gay" article? i've seen at least a few mentions of how "cruel" the thiel thing was and none of them make any sense unless they're misremembering what article they read

admittedly i haven't been following this *that* closely but i didn't know the context/tone of the original thiel article until i just read max's article so it's possible that a lot of people (who likewise hadn't read the original article) are just thinking it was a cruel/snarky outing rather than conflating the two articles. (of course some may be conflating too.)

Is Gizmodo Nights anything like Baywatch Nights?

lol you can read it, it's still there: http://gawker.com/335894/peter-thiel-is-totally-gay-people

xps that was a good "read". the only really-bad-and-ew thing that gawker did imo is the 2015 outing. after that happened i blanket-hated the site in maybe a similar way that it hated "c-list execs" as a class of people or w/e.

in these late times I still hold strong to my belief that the clowning of some of the dumbest silicon valley ideas what PT really gets angry about

libertarian island would exist if it weren't for these meddling journalists!

is there any doubt about that? these parasites and their gibes, little men hiding behind the "freedom" of the "press" to mock the great ones who alone can carry us forward, pessimists whose very snarkiness because of its hold over small minds poses an existential threat to worthy men's transcendence, makers, takers, who is peter thiel, u guys i'm totally gonna be immortal, etc

read max's piece and was side-eyeing certain aspects of it, but this bit of honesty struck me:

I could construct (and, during the past year, often have, over sheepish drinks with disappointed or angry colleagues) an elaborate house of rationalization, wings upon wings of explanation about the value of transparency, the democratic significance of holding nothing back. But ultimately we’d put to work a tactic best used to shame homophobic politicians against a guy whose only real crime was being a member of our abstract notion of the enemy class. We hadn’t exposed any great hypocrisy; instead, we’d taken a bit of gossip and brought the full bludgeoning of moral urgency and ideological commitments to bear on it.

the thiel story, by comparison, wasn't remotely combative, and if thats really what had thiel so mad for all this time, jeeeeeesus christ

they're not posting anymore, are they? :(

The Thiel article says "Here are all the reasons why it would make a VC's life difficult to be out. We're going to out Peter Thiel". Literally the only reason you can't imagine it enraging him is if you haven't read it.

yeah i'm not gay so my grasp of the politics of outing is extremely poor, but I can't help feeling like outing someone is a shitty thing to do no matter how much of an asshole they are.

outing someone's sexuality, when they don't want it public, is bad

when the people in what you're claiming as your community (SV) know your sexual orientation and they claim a certain set of social values and you're representing yourself in a completely different way and actively giving money to efforts that subvert those values it kind of behooves your peers to erase that line

xp Well that's the thing, they're not saying he's an asshole! The article is entirely in favour of him while pointing out what a shitty thing they're doing to him - *shrug* that's Gawker I suppose.

if you connect the dots on peter thiel, he started a conservative publication in college shortly after (and some say in reaction to) people yelling about "f*ggots" in the courtyard near dorms who got in trouble.

to be fair that's right in line with the SV "free speech" ethos of thinking people shouting abuse should be as protected as people speaking politely

outing someone's sexuality, when they don't want it public, is bad

Would you have made an exception for Roy Cohn?

it comes down to the "people should be allowed to say whatever they want, as often as they want, even if it's abusive because that's still speech" position that twitter finally stepped away from by rolling out abuse mitigation tools to everyone (but not until yesterday!) https://blog.twitter.com/2016/new-ways-to-control-your-experience-on-twitter

then you have the "we can't out anyone, anywhere, ever, because that violates the social norms weapply to everyone" side

I think there's a line and it's somewhere in the middle and the conde nast dude article crossed my personal line

Morbs I sure as hell would

on the other hand, I could probably be convinced that since it's not my community, it's not my business

I've seen the argument that Roy Cohn, Peter Thiel and others who have pursued actions that could harm gay people who aren't well-to-do, closeted conservative types were presenting (or not presenting) their sexuality in a way that should be the standard. The same people tend to have ideas about proper roles for women and people of color.