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

if you object to horny mom stories denton fires you on the spot i bet

You want me on that wall, you need me on that wall

have we gotten to the point where everyone realizes that the entire media industry is driven by clickbait traffic yet or are we still stuck on scapegoating the couple people we know for not transforming a tabloid into the voice of media righteousness overnight

yes

i'm trying to imagine a gawker writer appreciating this defense-not-a-defense

"thank you, d-40, for pointing out how hurtful it is they give this shit to me and not the writers for elite daily"

If you want to transform the media, you're gonna have to have some horny moms. Gotta crack some eggs to make that omelette

imo ryan otm upthread re gawker’s educated “irony”— implied ironic distance to its own tabloid trashiness— which might (in editor’s mind) allow it to push further, cross lines other (ostensibly “nonironic”) tabloids wouldn’t (e.g. phrase “horny mom” which afaict only used by gawker)

yes 'hurtful' is what my concern is

as opposed to myopic point missing

xxxp

gawker moralizes all the time dude. that's what makes the article stick out - they call out other sites for similar bullshit on a regular basis, which leaves them open to criticism when they fuck up. they def post trashy articles but they're usually not as tone-deaf and gross as this one.

i guess if you buy into denton's 'the only real crime is hypocrisy' thing that's true but idk i think this is as bad when elite daily does it as it is when gawker does it

which is to say the clickbait trash noise that keeps the entire structure running is gross and super fucking annoying, but its still a supreme waste of time to give one of those tossed off article a thorough media critique when it was probably thrown together in less time than it takes to make a ham sandwich

but its still a supreme waste of time to give one of those tossed off article a thorough media critique when it was probably thrown together in less time than it takes to make a ham sandwich

this is also an ironic thing to write

I thought elite daily just did listicles about personality types

this is also an ironic thing to write

― da croupier, Saturday, April 18, 2015 12:49 PM (2 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

no it's an argument that you guys are blaming the symptoms not the disease

Con artists are just symptoms of capitalism if you think about it

"god it's infuriating to see these moralizers nitpick clickbait, what a waste of time...guess i'll c+p and break down what's wrong every critique until they realize who the real enemy is"

uh oh we've reached the self clowning oven point of the argument where ilxors talk about how much time other ilxors have spent on ilx

oh we passed that

sorry for taking your arguments on good faith, didn't realize it was one long rope-a-dope to turn me into a hypocrite, what a fool I've been

how is it my fault?

im not being serious, I've got work to do & ilx is simply enabling procrastination

now THERE's a post worth c+ping later

lets not pretend that isn't 90% of ilx activity

well at least we'll be able cut down the "everybody shits on d-40 until he admits he's just trolling" threads in length

whoa whoa whoa i didn't say i was trolling. just that i wasn't seriously blaming you for keeping me here

at any rate, this is dumb, so i'm just going to concede (not really) the argument: the first people we should blame for the rise of clickbait are the people who work in media & not the structure itself

Someone please just take the word 'dudes' out of thread title

Actually that is a fair point, I'll do it when I'm at a computer and not my phone

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

not just this, but gawker targets the ilx-type demographic, and seems to share its perspective on a lot of issues. this isn't true of other tabloids that i know of. it's just generally more relevant to this board than elite daily, which i've never knowingly read

I see elite daily articles like 20 reasons why you should respect strong women

to go back to the "why are you singling out Gawker" point, can I direct you to the following thread:

wtf, CNN.com

like, your entire argument is built on projection and fallacy

You'd be a lot more convincing if gawker was the only publication that posted this article

Someone please just take the word 'dudes' out of thread title

― And let’s say a new Hozier comes along, and Spotify outbids you (Sufjan Grafton), Saturday, April 18, 2015 1:09 PM (8 hours ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

Actually that is a fair point, I'll do it when I'm at a computer and not my phone

― a strawman stuffed with their collection of 12 cds (jjjusten), Saturday, April 18, 2015 1:52 PM (7 hours ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

Lol u dumb fuxx "gawker" =/= "the system"

I like how you keep doing drive by runs of stupidity on this thread

The point being made about the article isn't that no one else covered it, you complete simpleton, it's that that writer (and by proxy, gawker) buried the rape while going with the lurid horny mom lol naked twister angle. But you are cool with that because hey clickbait it's the system what you going to do. It's a bullshit position, and you know it. Stop fucking faking it to score points in an argument that you already lost.

If gawker is not the system at least in the framing of your whole goddamn argument, the thing is nonsensical.

How many hierarchies do you need to break shit down into to avoid blaming the people that might offer you work?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FqeQ_PfKMAo

Yes that's definitely it -- I'm "stupid" that's why when you guys repeat the same remedial moralizing bullshit from fuck-the-media-maaan 101 I keep pointing out that ur incapable of comprehending a world beyond your own fat uncomprehending faces

Gawker is a part of a wider media system u simplistic half wit dipshit

And jjjusten I don't know if u realized this but 1. For the millionth time no one is defending the article but 2. There's virtually a zero percent chance that gawker "buried" the rape as opposed to just lazily copying the story from its real source, huffington post, which for some mysterious fucking reason which definitely doesn't have to do with u being on the same message board as gawker employees, you have failed to indict in your moron's quest to be ilx's most righteous hero against whatever random fucking clickbait scandal that your precious moral high ground makes it ok that u clicked on the fucking story in the first place

how is this different from criticizing any other instance of sexism? do these critiques always need to be rigidly contextualized?

for some mysterious fucking reason which definitely doesn't have to do with u being on the same message board as gawker employees

maybe this is a good reason to criticize gawker on ilx. critiquing the huffington post on here has a 0% chance of making any impact, while criticizing gawker here has a 0.01% chance.

In fact reading this now it looks like gawker actually reported the rape which huffpo did not

But let's not let that get in the way

I have an idea...what if instead of clickbait they just ... didn't post clickbait?

gonna add that one to the idea box, see how it travels ... don't know why anyone hasn't thought of that ... must be immoral sociopathy, only possible answer

it's weird to accuse people of being moralizing while decrying the lack of fairness in discussing gawker but not huffpo, etc, esp with gawker writers in the room. its obv you dont have a problem with moralizing.

no obviously moralizing is ok sometimes and not ok when you have zero perspective on how the world operates IE the original restart of this argument which was jjjusten suggesting that twitter shaming has nothing to do with women being harassed on twitter

the part we all decided to not talk about bc it was harder for him to defend than it was for him to suggest lazy clickbait was actually malicious burying of rape in favor of lols

so really, everyone's wasting their time nitpicking the words of ilxors (or their co-workers) from a self-perceived moral high ground - your problem is not that people are doing that, as you're doing it as well. the only difference is you think we're stupid, and vica versa.

just trying to clear some of the distracting clutter out of this debate.

you are the distracting clutter in this debate

are you really asking me if i believe that taking moral stands is always wrong, or just sometimes wrong? this is a dumb fucking line of argument but i know how you love derailing these things