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

this post isn't offensive or anything but it does make me worry a little for j0rdan's sanity
http://gawker.com/please-stop-showing-your-thumbs-on-social-media-1674295275

― some dude, Thursday, April 16, 2015 11:37 PM (Yesterday) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

lol this did so much traffic O_O

i was making a dumb joke known only to myself as such about bolding a post and writing 'jesus' under it.

― mattresslessness, Wednesday, April 15, 2015 6:25 PM (2 days ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

aces

The thumb piece is great!

in a social media world where the #1 most popular style of photograph is people holding their phones up to a mirror, the #2 style being people's hand holding objects doesn't seem that strange or objectionable

lol this did so much traffic O_O

― deej loaf (D-40), Friday, April 17, 2015 1:17 AM (9 hours ago) Bookmark

not for gawker it didn't!

in a social media world where the #1 most popular style of photograph is people holding their phones up to a mirror, the #2 style being people's hand holding objects doesn't seem that strange or objectionable

― some dude, Friday, April 17, 2015 7:40 AM (2 hours ago) Bookmark

mirror selfies don't feature close up shots of thumbs

not for gawker it didn't!

― J0rdan S., Friday, April 17, 2015 9:33 AM (24 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

lol relative to the inside joke posts i see it did

fwiw i have always been embarrassed by my thumbs when taking photos of things for instagram and have just automatically put my thumb behind the object as a result, this post resonates for a reason imo

my man

mirror selfies don't feature close up shots of thumbs

Reading comprehension's for the day job, huh?

andrew

might wanna read that exchange over again

Being unoppressed by the market realities of working for Gawker, I had time to read it twice before quoting it - what did I miss?

since we talked about it here:

choire sicha politely hands ronson his ass

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/19/books/review/jon-ronsons-so-youve-been-publicly-shamed.html

"Vonnegut ranks among the most moral of male novelists writing in English." does this mean that he doesn't morally measure up when we include female novelists?

It so happens that I have been ganged up on online, and I have also been beaten up by actual gangs of men on the street. The actual beating is — surprise! — exponentially worse. Eliding any difference between words and deeds may seem natural to a non-American like Ronson (many European nations have laws against hate speech), but it makes the continuing argument in this country about how to handle offensive language more challenging.

Jonah Lehrer isn’t actually ­annihilated, dead or even particularly injured. Not even a year after his alleged digital murder, he sold a book about love and mistakes, and while that one’s awaiting publication he has a co-authored book coming out this September. He is still only 33 years old, still represented by Andrew Wylie. Mike Daisey? Just completed a fresh run of evenings at Joe’s Pub! Jim McGreevey? Graduated from the ­General Theological Seminary, doin’ great. And Justine Sacco? Eh. . . .

so, maura otm!

But there’s public mockery, and then there’s something worse. The experience of women online is the great link between speech and ­violence, between offense and abuse. For women — and for all gender ­offenders, from gays to trans people — insult and the threat of murder are issued simultaneously. Like almost every other book, then, “So You’ve Been Publicly Shamed” would probably have been handled better by a woman. Often we send a married, ­middle-aged man who makes $250,000 a year (half a million in a good year, ­apparently) to do the job. It’s fine! Ronson is a sweet and particularly talented man. But the actual problem with the Internet isn’t us hastily tweeting off about foolish people. The actual problem is that none of the men running those bazillion-dollar Internet companies can think of one ­single thing to do about all the men who send women death threats.

so its the bazillionaire's fault

does this mean that he doesn't morally measure up when we include female novelists?

― Mordy, Friday, April 17, 2015 3:57 PM (35 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

if you read the final paragraph, that is kind of what he's saying yes

good article

when you think of it its actually harder for guys to morally measure up so more credit to guys that do I guess

"This book should have been written by a woman" is a hot take to build your book review around when it's not about women in any particular way.

kidding!

it's fine!

Origins of the faux-naif bloggy voice?

Matt all books shd be written by women, just ask that guy

u guys are too busy catching feelings to notice that his pt is the entire book has literally no perspective on the way planet earth operates

Point might've come across if he hadn't written it like a breezy blog post

tell us more about how the world really works, deej

a breezy blogpost that several ilxors found most upsetting at the same time xp

anyway isn't complaining about the tone of an argument u disagree with smarm 101

the review doesn't make sense. it chides ronson for his "european" mistake of confusing speech with violence, but then ends by critcizing ronson's failure to demand "bazillionaires" do something about the misogynistic trolls because their speech is actually gendered violence.

i don't know where ronson stands on the bazillionaire's complicity, but surely you can make the argument that twitter needs to hold people accountable alongside ronson's argument, which is that there is something unseemly about "digging in" to someone caught in an embarrassing situation. maybe they even complement each other. maybe a culture that encourages demonization in the mainstream might also play a role in producing cretins like the gamergate trolls.

Not when the tone works against the arguments being made xp

I don't think I disagree w the argument, I just think it's a badly written piece

the free speech, euro/american divide angle in the review was really disingenuous. the book isn't about banning any kind of behavior. he is arguing that people should be more reflective about their social media behavior, especially because on the web it's easy to forget that behind bylines and twitter feeds there are human beings

'the internet' has ruined lives but, turns out, none of the people featured in this book. they all bounced right back. maybe they were 'shamed' but that doesn't seem to mean much in like 6 mos.

That's OK though, since most books are forgotten a month after publication.

the free speech, euro/american divide angle in the review was really disingenuous. the book isn't about banning any kind of behavior. he is arguing that people should be more reflective about their social media behavior, especially because on the web it's easy to forget that behind bylines and twitter feeds there are human beings

― Treeship, Friday, April 17, 2015 9:56 PM Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

treesh u see awful clear what the book is about have you read it

i read the february new york times article condensed version

deej loaf (D-40)
Posted: April 17, 2015 at 8:16:54 PM
u guys are too busy catching feelings to notice that his pt is the entire book has literally no perspective on the way planet earth operates

Good catch the planet earth is totally the Internet wait right you are 12 right?

In case that was too obtuse, there are interesting points to be made about this, you are just too stupid to make them so maybe sit this one out.

cat calling the kettle feline

the internet is on planet earth & so is encapsulated w/in 'the earth' i don't think i need to get more specific he spells it out pretty simply in the piece

I don't think I disagree w the argument, I just think it's a badly written piece

― sonic thedgehod (albvivertine), Friday, April 17, 2015 8:53 PM (57 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

idk i wasn't grading it for style points particularly, more reading it for an argument, which i found compelling & reoriented a facile premise

*the book's facile premise

countdown to 'you just couldn't comprehend what i wrote'

xp there it is

What? That doesn't = anything I said

I love how you can tell which ppl don't actually think their fiercely argued opinions through on ilx bc so many of them are ready to kneejerk disagree w whatever I say

sorry; subtle difference

i don't think i need to get more specific he spells it out pretty simply

Mookie are u actually cosigning his "lol how could you confuse the Internet for planet earth" line of non-thinking? Or ur bored?

He's making a point similar to jho's from yesterday and it's pretty clear for guys who like to throw "obtuse" around at ppl u don't know u sound pretty "obtuse"

The point is the examples he chose for this book are 1. Insanely selective and 2. Had few to no negative consequences

That his worry about what social media enables is totally losing the forest for the tree in front of him

'He's making a point similar to jho's from yesterday and it's pretty clear for guys who like to throw "obtuse" around at ppl u don't know u sound pretty "obtuse"'

Uh

My point is that you seem to think "not in line with how I think the Internet works" equals no idea of how the world works. Which is why I called you stupid: