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

"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

i don't think i asked you a question

nice semantic backflip! definitely getting to the core of this issue

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

but also u want that gawker job u can taste it right its sigourney ur rick moranis

okay that last post would make a great harvey danger lyric...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CGeb5nPDgCM

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

i thought you've written for them

nice are we going to talk about my career now? just going to flag post you now & pass out, eat shit

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.

no one's offended im just not talking about my livelihood while you troll me itt

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.

i mean, just for full disclosure, i've written for two gawker blogs

you are the distracting clutter in this debate

― deej loaf (D-40), Sunday, April 19, 2015 3:09 AM Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

nah the whole 'debate' is distracting clutter that stands between us and the unwavering, uncomprehending, immobile fact of our own aloneness and mortality

full disclosure ned is nick denton and you've all been punk'd