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

there is nothing nerdier than comedy

there are many things much nerdier than comedy

/checks nerd chart/ no

record reviewing

baseball stats

the settlers of catan

Math

prog rock

/checks nerd chart/ no

― lag∞n, Saturday, February 21, 2015 12:58 PM (7 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

having a nerd chart
using a nerd chart

Pogs

'the custos of the country' - some twitter comedian

ventriloquism
doing a whole magic act in a special magician costume you sewed yourself

amateur clowning

miming

true confessions: one of my circa 2010 tweets when I was all on my own dick and generally being an arrogant prick and embarrassing myself w/r/t my unearned "success" ended up in the humblebrag book and, five years later, the existence of said book serves as a constant reminder of how not to act as an adult.

dang that is kinda some real shit

i mean there's partially a) I was caught in a moment where dude is better at social media "face" (word to cankles) than me and got busted, but b) it caught me at a moment where I was kind of buying my own social media persona and feeling invincible and it was just one of three monumental public faceplants that occurred in one 24 hour period

What were the other two? :=}

nah

cn u link us to the humblebrag at least

linking to a humblebrag is kind of a humblebrag, no?

its ok no one cn report u now he died

To be fair to you wgw, "Da Capo" sounds a lot snootier than it is.

*barfs*

(i didn't really barf)

*barfs /figuratively/*

someone shd tell one of those brain dead right wing news sites that ilx is a secret liberal blogger message bord for coordinating unethical journalism
― lag∞n, Friday, February 20, 2015 10:19 PM (Yesterday) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

no word of a lie when this finally happens i'll do everything in my power to nuke this fucker.

im gonna tell them "goole is denton"

this is a good thread mainly because it is dead cert for periodic resurrection and i look forward to those times

i like threads like that like the ones thatre titled [artist name] has a new album

man if I could only get on my own dick what a life

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/31GIT-EOJrL.jpg

whoa

Harris Wittels dissing beejoli shah on twitter isn't really something that should be in his obit, because no one fucking gives a shit other than people who work for gawker.

the story wasn't "harris disses beejoli shah," it was "harris reacts to an insulting article by repeatedly calling its female writer a cunt." harris was all about unfettered speech, which meant sometimes he said disappointing misogynistic shit, and it was indeed something i gave a shit about because i liked the dude and his work on parks and the earwolf podcasts. i can totally understand the argument "it's not cool to bring that up in an obit because it was an outlier not indicative of his character, and it's also greatly overshadowed by his talent and the tragedy of his death." but let's not elide the fact that gawker specifically wrote the piece because harris was doubling-down on being misogynistic.

hey gawker dudes

dear gawker dudes, hey

good point reddening btw

gawker media, the shining beacon of social justice that greenlit the groundbreaking and sensitive pieces "lebron james is a cocksucker" and its follow-up "lebron james is still a cocksucker"

dont really know anything abt this dude but if he was one of those comedy free speech extremists (grow up my god ppl!) then the link was def relevant to not just him personally but to the culture in which he operated

needles to say "gawker did a bad thing once" is not much of an argument

slothrop ye will be recruited to the gawker cool kids crew yet

wasn't really an argument, more an example of the prominent attitude of a media outlet that chooses to have intermittent/jarring flirtations with a sanctimonious attitude.

idk. it's not like this dude was some sort of good guy, he clearly wasn't. it's more like how so much shit throughout that network of sites always seems to come down one way or another to longstanding/previous beefs (the wittels takedown of him insulting shah, which was at least justified) or unacknowledged yet obvious pissing contests between denton and other new media robber barons over pageviews (denton vs. smith of vice, denton/biddle vs. whoever the fuck runs pando, etc.)

should read "the takedown of wittels insulting shah" - that was justified, what wittels did was not

i read a fair amount of gawker stuff - deadspin, jezebel, the main site - i definitely don't hate it outright

isn't beejoli shah the one who tried to humiliate quentin tarantino for no reason?

i don't care at all about wittels, and i despise sexist language, especially when used the way wittels used it, but i think he was provoked into reacting that way by a site/writer that likes to provoke people so they can write about it. so it's hard for them to take the moral high ground in that case

basically slothroprhymes otm. gawker is fine/whatever, it's a gossip site, but their flirtations with sanctimonious posturing always comes across as nauseating when viewed in the larger context of what they are and what they do

the gossip stuff gawker does is m/l TMZ with markedly better writing, overseen by a head honcho who's a bit less blatantly odious than harvey levin.

other stuff they do can be quite good, especially longform articles - like tom scocca's "on smarm" piece is one of the best articles i've ever read in the past 5 or so years, online or print. and of course the folks on here who i know work for them seem cool and intelligent (i'm sure there's a bunch i don't know)

feel like gawkers (the blog not the publishing empire i dont read the other blogs enough to say) sanctimony is pretty consistent for a decent size organization with lots of diff writers who are given a fair amount of freedom as far as its own internal logic, it just doesnt match up to what a lot of people think their moral code shd look like, which is totally fine and reasonable except that ppl tend to talk about this as if gawker has made an agreement to abide by some non existent universally accepted rues of sanctimony then violated them, then some nearly picked at random example of gawker doing a bad thing is held up next to a usually totally unalike example of sanctimony as proof they they are full of shit, and the amateur media critic scores a point in his imaginary arena

of course the same cld be said for all sorts of online attacks against the media, understanding organizations and their standards is hard, being all um excuse me this is fd up is like super easy lol