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

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?

I mean, I don't even have to scroll up I my phone for examples

really DJP's post reminded me of that. I get that your stance is more a jaded "why would you expect Gawker to not be Gawker" one. But you do seem to be using that stance to hold Gawkers' writers above criticism tbf.

this is more like someone telling the new head coach you're mad that he doesn't play women in the NFL, its like of course it's more right but you can't accuse someone w/in the system of not singlehandedly changing the behavior of an entire system, the shape the system takes when its created doesn't just shift overnight bc you've hired a cool new person who knows that horny mom stories are in poor taste

yes, Gawker, like the catholic church, changes slowly. we should not criticize.

when did i say 'we should not criticize'??

again I'm not sure what 'lols' gawker is being accused of propagating in that article that aren't an inherent part of the story, that's a pretty straight aggregated read

― deej loaf (D-40), Thursday, April 16, 2015 1:18 PM (2 days ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

i mean, there's a critique to be made which is whether these kinds of lurid stories are worth covering at all, but i mean, welcome to 2015

― deej loaf (D-40), Thursday, April 16, 2015 1:19 PM (2 days ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

feels like if they weren't trying to push an agenda or steer the convo in a direction, they'd have referred to her by name or at least as an adjective-less being. instead they deliberately choose to call her by the same term throughout the article even after the details of her assault are discussed. i'm not so sure that's the most impartial way to recount the ugly details of this fucked up story.

― head clowning instructor (art), Thursday, April 16, 2015 2:08 PM (2 days ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

idk my guess is it could as easily have been "ugh this dumb story will get a million clicks" *someone aggregates it quickly and lazily*

― deej loaf (D-40), Thursday, April 16, 2015 2:50 PM (2 days ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

lol welcome to 2015

again, you may not directly be saying 'do not criticize', but you are using this weird idea that people are accusing "someone w/in the system of not singlehandedly changing the behavior of an entire system" to quell criticism.

i don't know how we got back on this story except that it's easier for an idiot like jjjusten to argue the moral high ground when he's not arguing against the notion that a woman probably should have written the book about 'internet shaming'

again, you may not directly be saying 'do not criticize', but you are using this weird idea that people are accusing "someone w/in the system of not singlehandedly changing the behavior of an entire system" to quell criticism.

― And let’s say a new Hozier comes along, and Spotify outbids you (Sufjan Grafton), Saturday, April 18, 2015 11:03 AM (1 minute ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

well i think this thread is pretty weird because it gets personal about people's day jobs yes

I think we can all be friends while remaining critical of the system those people operate in

"those people"

My interpretation of this thread is that Gawker is being singled out because people you guys know are working for it and you're hoping to provoke a response from them...you didn't go after the huffington post or wherever for posting the identical horny mom story. That's my real suspicion, although I know everyone is going to pretend otherwise

the fact is that story is going to go out into the world, and people are going to look at it. i don't think there's anything wrong with the story being covered personally—obviously i don't think the original story was very well written or considered, particularly the way it glosses over the rape. But the criticism here seems to be 'if only they knew jjjusten's thoughtful critique of this aggregator's writing, then this kind of article wouldn't exist" when it's more like the resources probably aren't even being directed to an article like this—it's knocked out in 2 seconds so as to provide time and money for the articles that are worth investing in

idk my guess is it could as easily have been "ugh this dumb story will get a million clicks" *someone aggregates it quickly and lazily*

― deej loaf (D-40), Thursday, April 16, 2015 2:50 PM (2 days ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

I think we can all be friends while remaining critical of the system those people operate in

― And let’s say a new Hozier comes along, and Spotify outbids you (Sufjan Grafton), Saturday, April 18, 2015 11:07 AM (7 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

wait...now you're criticizing the system? weird