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
― deej loaf (D-40), Saturday, 18 April 2015 17:53 (nine years ago) link
Con artists are just symptoms of capitalism if you think about it
― Matt Armstrong, Saturday, 18 April 2015 17:55 (nine years ago) link
"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"
― da croupier, Saturday, 18 April 2015 17:56 (nine years ago) link
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
― deej loaf (D-40), Saturday, 18 April 2015 17:56 (nine years ago) link
oh we passed that
― da croupier, Saturday, 18 April 2015 17:57 (nine years ago) link
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
― deej loaf (D-40), Saturday, 18 April 2015 17:57 (nine years ago) link
how is it my fault?
― da croupier, Saturday, 18 April 2015 17:58 (nine years ago) link
im not being serious, I've got work to do & ilx is simply enabling procrastination
― deej loaf (D-40), Saturday, 18 April 2015 17:59 (nine years ago) link
now THERE's a post worth c+ping later
― da croupier, Saturday, 18 April 2015 18:00 (nine years ago) link
lets not pretend that isn't 90% of ilx activity
― deej loaf (D-40), Saturday, 18 April 2015 18:01 (nine years ago) link
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
― da croupier, Saturday, 18 April 2015 18:02 (nine years ago) link
whoa whoa whoa i didn't say i was trolling. just that i wasn't seriously blaming you for keeping me here
― deej loaf (D-40), Saturday, 18 April 2015 18:05 (nine years ago) link
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
― deej loaf (D-40), Saturday, 18 April 2015 18:07 (nine years ago) link
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, 18 April 2015 18:09 (nine years ago) link
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, 18 April 2015 18:52 (nine years ago) link
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
― Treeship, Saturday, 18 April 2015 19:38 (nine years ago) link
I see elite daily articles like 20 reasons why you should respect strong women
― Matt Armstrong, Saturday, 18 April 2015 19:40 (nine years ago) link
to go back to the "why are you singling out Gawker" point, can I direct you to the following thread:
wtf, CNN.com
― DJP, Saturday, 18 April 2015 21:15 (nine years ago) link
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
― deej loaf (D-40), Sunday, 19 April 2015 02:45 (nine years ago) link
― 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
― 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"
― deej loaf (D-40), Sunday, 19 April 2015 02:46 (nine years ago) link
I like how you keep doing drive by runs of stupidity on this thread
― a strawman stuffed with their collection of 12 cds (jjjusten), Sunday, 19 April 2015 03:00 (nine years ago) link
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.
― a strawman stuffed with their collection of 12 cds (jjjusten), Sunday, 19 April 2015 03:05 (nine years ago) link
If gawker is not the system at least in the framing of your whole goddamn argument, the thing is nonsensical.
― And let’s say a new Hozier comes along, and Spotify outbids you (Sufjan Grafton), Sunday, 19 April 2015 03:42 (nine years ago) link
How many hierarchies do you need to break shit down into to avoid blaming the people that might offer you work?
― And let’s say a new Hozier comes along, and Spotify outbids you (Sufjan Grafton), Sunday, 19 April 2015 03:43 (nine years ago) link
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FqeQ_PfKMAo
― da croupier, Sunday, 19 April 2015 06:10 (nine years ago) link
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
― deej loaf (D-40), Sunday, 19 April 2015 06:21 (nine years ago) link
how is this different from criticizing any other instance of sexism? do these critiques always need to be rigidly contextualized?
― Treeship, Sunday, 19 April 2015 06:22 (nine years ago) link
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.
― Treeship, Sunday, 19 April 2015 06:32 (nine years ago) link
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
― deej loaf (D-40), Sunday, 19 April 2015 06:40 (nine years ago) link
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
― deej loaf (D-40), Sunday, 19 April 2015 06:51 (nine years ago) link
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.
― da croupier, Sunday, 19 April 2015 06:53 (nine years ago) link
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
― deej loaf (D-40), Sunday, 19 April 2015 06:56 (nine years ago) link
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
― deej loaf (D-40), Sunday, 19 April 2015 06:57 (nine years ago) link
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.
― da croupier, Sunday, 19 April 2015 07:06 (nine years ago) link
you are the distracting clutter in this debate
― deej loaf (D-40), Sunday, 19 April 2015 07:09 (nine years ago) link
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
― deej loaf (D-40), Sunday, 19 April 2015 07:10 (nine years ago) link
i don't think i asked you a question
― da croupier, Sunday, 19 April 2015 07:11 (nine years ago) link
nice semantic backflip! definitely getting to the core of this issue
― deej loaf (D-40), Sunday, 19 April 2015 07:12 (nine years ago) link
when i say i think jjjusten is moralizing i mean that i think his motive has nothing to do w/ solving the problems he's claiming to attack but rather appearing righteous
i'm disagreeing for different reasons: bc i have a quixotic yet visceral revulsion towards that kind of disingenuous white knight bs masquerading as upstanding moral purity
― deej loaf (D-40), Sunday, 19 April 2015 07:15 (nine years ago) link
but also u want that gawker job u can taste it right its sigourney ur rick moranis
― post you had fecund thoughts about (darraghmac), Sunday, 19 April 2015 07:17 (nine years ago) link
okay that last post would make a great harvey danger lyric...
― scott seward, Sunday, 19 April 2015 07:18 (nine years ago) link
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CGeb5nPDgCM
― scott seward, Sunday, 19 April 2015 07:19 (nine years ago) link
psshhh are you serious, as this thread proves i have way terrible internet 'face' which max values so highly, never mind that jordan covers most of the bases i'd be chasing, i'm nowhere near getting a gig at gawker
― deej loaf (D-40), Sunday, 19 April 2015 07:19 (nine years ago) link
i thought you've written for them
― da croupier, Sunday, 19 April 2015 07:34 (nine years ago) link
nice are we going to talk about my career now? just going to flag post you now & pass out, eat shit
― deej loaf (D-40), Sunday, 19 April 2015 07:37 (nine years ago) link
dude, i'm sorry. you were just describing the reasons you wouldn't get to write for gawker - didn't think it would offend to say i thought you already had.
― da croupier, Sunday, 19 April 2015 07:39 (nine years ago) link
no one's offended im just not talking about my livelihood while you troll me itt
― deej loaf (D-40), Sunday, 19 April 2015 07:41 (nine years ago) link
again, i'm sorry (and i think you're offended if you're calling me a troll and telling me to eat shit). i didn't bring up your livelihood in relation to gawker - you were already discussing it.
― da croupier, Sunday, 19 April 2015 07:44 (nine years ago) link
i mean, just for full disclosure, i've written for two gawker blogs
― da croupier, Sunday, 19 April 2015 07:47 (nine years ago) link