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

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

i have never seen them in the same place

fwiw if people have corrections, complaints, questions etc. i read and reply to almost every email i get from readers. it's a pretty small shop, im generally accessible, and 99 percent of the time a direct private email is a quicker and less fraught way to get my attention and be heard

Thx Max - truth is, I didn't start this thread with the intention of dragging any of you into it, which is why I changed the title to something less personal once someone suggested it. I don't blame any of you for staying the hell out of it for obvious reasons.

oh hey, max is here. can you get me out of the greys?

do you guys have an opening for an ombudsman?

a nombudsman maybe

hornybodsman

Thx Max - truth is, I didn't start this thread with the intention of dragging any of you into it

― a strawman stuffed with their collection of 12 cds (jjjusten), Sunday, April 19, 2015 8:35 AM (2 hours ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

Lol

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, April 19, 2015 2:44 AM (8 hours ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

Your method of conversing w me up to and including this post is totally trolling and v weird it's like you're trying to string along a semantic debate as long as possible

gosh it rly is

my first post in this thread was a response to this 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 where i tried to explain why people could be offended by calling someone a "horny mom" after saying they may have been assaulted. the thread then devolved to the familiar "everybody arguing with d-40 about how he's not making sense/trolling/missing the point, and vica versa" - or rather i joined in on the devolving in process, as it had already reached the place where people were calling each other names.

and while i could give myself the same "they're disingenuous/stupid, i'm on a quixotic quest to call out bullshit" vanity everyone does (and d-40 copped to), when it gets to a name-calling place clearly the participants aren't just discussing the issue but trying to give each other verbal noogies. so yeah, if you want to call that "trolling" you're not wrong. though, again, pretending "didn't you write for them" is a low blow in response to "i'm nowhere near getting a gig at gawker" is obviously dubious.

I didn't think that was a low blow I was just literally drawing a line about us discussing my resume, in part bc I don't think it bears any relevence to the argument (I wrote one piece for them 3 years ago) and in part because I simply would rather not talk about my job on ilx which I think is a very reasonable request !

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

this reads more like the recipient of a low blow than "a reasonable request"

how about "a very straightforward and understandable request"

Are we done yet

oh i'm sure there will be a sequel

the budget on these things are very cheap and the stars clearly have nothing better on their slate

Speaking of work I should just get you to line edit my writing

only if i can charge you for the time spent debating my line edits

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aCbfMkh940Q

That's a joke btw

i'd say generally da croupier wins the overall dog with a bone prize anyday, but you both could probably keep it going forever. is it popcorn gif-worthy though? you have to think of your audience. you want repeat clicks.

Why would I pay when you can argue here for free

im sure we could have a whipround and organise you not to

might as well be here as anywhere

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5bW2Q1i5Yik

bump

there are all sorts of things that have a demand that nobody is obliged to supply

What was this argument even about to begin with?

hi, I'm back. What's going on?

http://lemasney.com/consulting/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/20111202.png