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

'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:

Also sentences like that one I just quoted

No I think this is about how the world works, not just the Internet, so that was actually pretty intentional wording on my part

That the threat of sexual violence is an aspect of how the world works, not just the Internet. Are u grasping this or

Right, that is totally what you were saying, how could I not have seen that

Maybe these arguments would go better in the future if you actually said the things you are or might be saying.

Also if you want to talk about someone giving a pass wrt sexual violence, maybe don't do it in a thread where you responded to a gawker lol rape horny mom article with "hey man, that's just how the clickbait world works"

Or ur bored?

nah, drunk

but basically you are the devil's advocate for everything that sucks. i work online too, yet manage not to do the 'signs yr gf is wack' shit. your sheer relentlessness in the face of your own bullshit is impressive though. kudos

To be fair, I had charitably gone for stupidity, but your bull headed not understanding how badly you are losing an argument theory does have some legs.

what's wrong with everyone here are you acting like you're 12 years old.

nobody has read the book yet and by the time people will have the opportunity they won't bother because apparently everyone already knows what they think it says, and this isn't about what we think about actual people and actual situations, but just what we suppose we think about some book that doesn't even matter.

one piece that might have something useful to say is one that gives adria richard's response to how she thought one excerpt of the book portrayed her situation: http://www.shakesville.com/2015/02/the-falsest-of-false-equivalencies.html

but yeah feel free to ignore that in the name of saving the planet from the scrounge of not-niceness which is clearly the plague hanging over humanity at this precise moment in the evolution of culture and society.

Or ur bored?

nah, drunk

but basically you are the devil's advocate for everything that sucks. i work online too, yet manage not to do the 'signs yr gf is wack' shit. your sheer relentlessness in the face of your own bullshit is impressive though. kudos

― mookieproof, Saturday, 18 April 2015 04:18 (1 hour ago) Permalink

Wtf I'm not playing devils advocate here. Your now talking about three different things and lumping them all together (one of which you have literally zero idea what you're talking about) so kudos on "clarity" clearly a highly valued quality around here

*youre

To be fair, I had charitably gone for stupidity, but your bull headed not understanding how badly you are losing an argument theory does have some legs.

― a strawman stuffed with their collection of 12 cds (jjjusten), Friday, April 17, 2015 11:28 PM (Yesterday) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

If you're on the other side of the argument I'm not too worried about "losing" u ballmuncher

im not the one who's decided to use ilx to go after other people's day jobs but tell me more about who's acting like children

Thanks for that link, s. clover. For perspective on how that story reads once Jon Ronson has filtered it, here it is in the review from the guardian:

Perhaps the person whose behaviour I most abhorred in this book – I was frankly in awe of the forbearance shown by Ronson as he interviewed her – is a woman called Adria Richards, who in 2013 overheard two guys making silly pseudo-jokes about dongles at a conference for tech developers. Offended by their chat, she photographed them, and posted the picture on Twitter. Two days later, one of these men – who knows on what grounds, exactly – was “let go” from his job. Richards’s satisfaction both in this, and in the “fear” she claims she felt when she overheard his puerile chatter, is so intense it seemed to me to border on something close to sexual excitement.

Writing a book about shaming that is not about women is like writing a book about racism that is not about black people. At least in this instance, Jon Ronson has basically given a platform to a harasser who used hackernews strategically to destroy a woman's life.

I have actually read the book. It's fine, not as good as them or as funny as Pychopath Test. It's just not about what a lot of people seem to want it to be about.

At least in this instance, Jon Ronson has basically given a platform to a harasser who used hackernews strategically to destroy a woman's life.

Don't see this view is supported by the book or link tbh

Haven't read teh book, but when I heard Ronson on WTF he told the story with Adria Richards as the clear victim.

deej loaf (D-40)
Posted: April 18, 2015 at 1:22:59 AM
im not the one who's decided to use ilx to go after other people's day jobs but tell me more about who's acting like children

Man come on, stop flailing around for arguments. Are you seriously claiming that Ilx is a safe space for people not to have their writing or journalistic behavior critiqued?

fyi jjj ur pedal selection suxxxxx boom

Boss D-40 sounds real

A customer turned up the 'attack' on a Boss D-40 in the back of the shop, and then a wizard wandered in and turned it into a real boy.

it is kinda distasteful to start an ilx thread as a short cut for writing an old-man-is-angry letter to the gawker editor but gawker is weird and I imagine they just wish this conversation were on kinja

I'm having a flashback to 10 years ago when ILXors would post links to their published pieces and I would post all of the grammatical and spelling errors I could find in them.

at least ilx monetizes jj's anger a little bit with our google ads I guess

ur an awful man tbs tbs djp

i remember m*mus used to offer like critical palm-readings or something based on ppl's work too -- that was fun.

Man come on, stop flailing around for arguments. Are you seriously claiming that Ilx is a safe space for people not to have their writing or journalistic behavior critiqued?

― a strawman stuffed with their collection of 12 cds (jjjusten), Saturday, 18 April 2015 15:01 (28 minutes ago) Permalink

so its someone's 'journalistic behavior' that's causing u to go all apoplectic about the horny mom story

'why is this business built on a tabloid not suddenly operating by the ethical standards of the free message board i post on??'

Yes?

okay lol

"This is what tabloid sites do ergo you can't ever criticize them for it" is not a good argument

wait, when did i say 'you can't ever criticize them'??

plz point to the post

reminds me of the time a friend and I were criticizing the play of a quarterback, and dude in front of us turns around almost teary eyed to say, "Hey! Could you do any better?!"

what reminds you of that? something i've specifically said? again, point to that post

All of them?