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

Xpost

"jesus stop being offended by dumb shit and focus on what's important, now where was i...FUCK YOU MOOKIEPROOF FUCK YOU"

BoA-Vice post reads more like somebody who got an overdraft fee

BREAKING: parking tickets EXTREMELY profitable for your county

"jesus stop being offended by dumb shit and focus on what's important, now where was i...FUCK YOU MOOKIEPROOF FUCK YOU"

― da croupier, Tuesday, April 21, 2015 1:42 PM (15 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

Plz get off my nuts your entire presence is pointless

will somebody think of the poor disgraced rich celebrities who speaks for them i ask you who

oh c'mon, clover, don't go there

this thread is crowded enough without intentional misreads

(anyone else sing the thread title to the tune of "Wham Rap!"?)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=msKI1T9i710

What, this thread?

― da croupier, Tuesday, April 21, 2015 1:40 PM (26 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

And to answer your question, yes

Mookie sending aimless shots two days late is just an unfortunate side effect

sorry

i was busy

xp "besides who cares they're rich and famous!" is the worst defence. That Jezebel writer is a real piece of work.

i don't really think that piece needs a defense? its celebrity tabloid journalism about somebody who already had all their emails picked over in public for good cause, and compared to that the various personal beauty products they bought on amazon are hardly... noteworthy? it reads as a sort of silly ridiculous piece to me, not like a vicious mean-spirited one. this is just typical celeb gossip in the scheme of things -- wtf am i missing?

did we all of a sudden decide that very rich famous people now get to have strong protection of privacy overnight? this has basically never been the case. are people unfamiliar with the concept of a tabloid?

actually "they're famous" is a good defense btw, in that there are legal rulings that specifically say that people in the public eye have less of an expectation of privacy vis a vis news stories, etc. so it is in fact literally a defense.

What was the "good cause" of making these things public? I wasn't aware anyone genuinely believed that there was one.

i mean that there was good cause for their emails to be picked over, in that those emails were of interest to the public, regarding the inner workings of a major movie studio. not a "good cause" in like the sense giving to oxfam is a "good cause".

Ugh sterl just read the comments on the piece

I don't trust your radar for mean-spirited bullying if you don't think this qualifies. Look at the language used, the parts of the body it dwelled on, the lack of any news value, the sheer cackling nastiness of it. In what universe is that a valid story on an allegedly feminist site?

it's insane to me that you guys are just going to do this every day from now on

idk if this matters:

https://twitter.com/natashavc/status/590638192430309376

there was a really cool piece on gawker recently about how it was really bad for blake lively to mention blues music in an ad for one of her beauty products or whatever because the blues is really about slavery

that amy pascal piece is just brain-numbingly bad. the thought processes behind whoever thought it was right to commission it, publish it, write it... ugh.

wonder if any stalker has tried the "no, no, no. you misunderstand. I sincerely love my victim" defense

first witness for the defense: "your honor, I think people are vastly underestimating how sincerely the defendant really does love the victim."

Amy Pascal was fired from Sony Pictures in February, after the massive email leak that made her look sort of mean and maybe a little racist, although not really all that bad by the standards of her industry. Wikileaks has now published a searchable archive of the emails, and Jezebel’s Natasha Vargas-Cooper, apparently unsatisfied with Pascal already being fired and disgraced, decided to make fun of her Amazon purchases too. Spoiler: Pascal has curly hair, dyes her pubes, and likes pancakes. The post is grotesque and almost unreadably mean-spirited, and in the comments, NVC veers between a manic pretense that she actually ADORES Amy Pascal!!!!!!! and that Pascal deserves whatever she gets because she’s rich and financed some bad movies. Even Gawker commenters were largely disinclined to cheer this apparently purposeless invasion of privacy and gendered shaming. To be fair to Jezebel, as editor Jia Tolentino pointed out, they publish a lot of stuff that isn’t reprehensible trash! I guess it’s just a matter of finding the right balance between drawing much-needed attention to womens’ suffering and causing it. I can’t wait till next week, when Vargas-Cooper makes fun of the contents of Anita Sarkeesian’s medicine cabinet!

I'm not clicking that link, but seriously? That's crap.

lol at the idea of anyone defending that amazing amy story

have been in the gossip blog trenches i'm in no place to go into some "what kind of monster" talk cuz i been that kind of monster but damn if the gig doesn't encourage a shameless "lookit this fascinating freak" detachment, only unlike the enquirer on blogs you get the authorial freedom to whimper self-contradictingly about how it's out of love/you're punching up when people note your horns are showing.

ties to why i don't dig the binary that comes up here about whether a piece is from the author's heart or part of some editorial masterplan. it's not like someone can't be GENUINELY amused by taylor swift's every fart/offended by BoA and trolling for clicks/shitting on a rival. places tend to hire people whose temperament aligns with their goals.

does it matter how the writers feel about their work? i sympathize with the fact that economics pushes people into positions they don't want to be in. but the content is still the same, and still has the effect (i would argue) of coarsening the culture and making it less compassionate*

*obviously we are talking drops in the ocean here, but still

this thread makes me feel like aaron sorkin

just give me the trees and we can smoke it ya

you're sorkin in it

treesh, this thread makes you act like aarin sorkin.

its just weird to have this conversation about some blog when like this has been tabloids forever. i find it hard to believe that this is somehow "coarsening the culture and making it less compassionate" in a context when like the Star, the Globe, and the National Examiner have been around basically forever.

anyway up with coarse culture down with smothering niceness in the name of "compassion". i'm not saying this is a great or even good article, but its entertaining to some, and i really truly and honestly don't see the harm except in some bizarre existential sense whereby this somehow "makes people not nice" or something?

Explain that "Aarin" Sorkin thing. Were you being coarse

i was being typo.

(incidentally, some content from the sony leaks that perhaps speaks to a more well-justified public interest: http://gawker.com/how-the-rich-get-into-ivies-behind-the-scenes-of-elite-1699066450)

its just weird to have this conversation about some blog when like this has been tabloids forever. i find it hard to believe that this is somehow "coarsening the culture and making it less compassionate" in a context when like the Star, the Globe, and the National Examiner have been around basically forever.

you do realize that jezebel doesn't market itself as "like the star, the globe, and the national examiner".

maybe this will help you understand why people aren't "what's the harm?" about it: http://nymag.com/thecut/2015/04/about-that-amy-pascal-shopping-list.html

think maybe "just some blog" could be retired for use on massive clickbait generators

"it's not influential like the tabloids real people read, it's just some blog"

also it'd be one thing if gossip writers cop to engaging in "coarse culture", instead you get these defensive, deflective gestures about how the stars can take it, or how it's tribute, or how y'know there's also GENOCIDE in the world.

but really, when people drop the faux-cynical "i don't get why people bother get upset about piddly little bit of familiar ugliness" all i can say is "i don't get why people bother to defend something ugly that they claim neither to enjoy nor care about themselves". Like, can't you save this shit for a bad taste article you actually enjoyed?

lol at that article "misogyny-shaming" jezebel -- its a pretty incoherent argument tbh, making some sort of equation between like gg people actually stalking and threatening people and any sort of gossip-culture that covers women at all. you could levy the same argts at effectively any article about any famous person ever.

Isn't the exact issue that you'll accuse them of hypocrisy when they do

Xp

Nb again I don't really "get" this article -- the subject it covers seems boring -- not sure it's the greatest example of "what's wrong with tabloid journalism" unless you're talking about the general shotgun style throw it at a wall and see if it sticks internet writing attitude

Well I tried

its a pretty incoherent argument tbh, making some sort of equation between like gg people actually stalking and threatening people and any sort of gossip-culture that covers women at all.

you didn't see mocking someone's beauty regimen as sexist at all?

lol at the idea that Jezebel has ever been some sort of altruistic progressive space, they've always been a group of mean girls hiding being a facade of feminist identity politics. This type of stuff is par for the course for them, and the Gawker network as a whole.

now there's some cynicism i can at least get - but when a purportedly feminist site is like "check out what amy pascal puts on her cooch! babe you're a trip!" and the editor responds to the heat with this: https://twitter.com/jiatolentino/status/590332733441892353

going "what's the big deal, the national examiner has always done this kind of thing!" just feels like a baffling equivocation

http://morningafter.gawker.com/inside-amy-schumers-season-premiere-burned-so-many-idio-1699387356

Did this post get tweeted out to a bunch of MRAs or posted to thredpill or something? Gawker comments usually have plenty of assholes but they're overwhelming on this one.

nah, these idiots have a fucking bat signal for any post that suggests men are fallible in any way

for all their machismo, butthurt flows through them like fucking midichlorians