Gawker et al. is up there with 4chan and Tumblr as websites that have markedly made the internet significantly worse. The modern snarky-hack journalist-on-Twitter archetype was practically invented by them. They were the among the first in that space, exported the journalist-meets-weird-Twitter Brooklyn DSA Gawker mentality to others who joined, and became media cool kids that got snapped up by places like the Times once Gawker imploded because of their carelessness. Their affiliated blogs were/are nearly as bad: the Gamergate (I know, I know) debacle was a child of culture-warring by Kotaku, the Gawker Media gaming blog. Deadspin did much of the same for sports media and basically set the obnoxious, self-righteous tone for future outlets like SB Nation to follow. Zombie Gawker being both pathetic and still fucking awful is the most predicable thing in the world. I probably should be more circumspect about it, but no: Peter Thiel, the job's not done — Gawker delenda est.
The "you support free speech, but you oppose libel / slander? Interesting" line of argument is super annoying to me. Way too much of this happening online (i.e., people thinking they are making interesting remarks re: their opponents' arguments without having a coherent understanding of what's going on / why the two things are markedly different).
See it with free market capitalism / opposition to fraud often as well, as another common example (the ability to reasonably rely-at least in part-on the assertions of a counterparty is actually fairly foundational to a well-functioning market economy of any sort).
This annoying, chortling tendency tends to go more left-to-right (or simply not-quite-as-left) in my experience, but YMMV.
I'm begging you guys consider the strange case of Ana Mardoll, a moral entrepreneur who spent weeks on Twitter telling writers that expecting other writers to read their work is....:::checks notes::: ableist. The detonation/revelation of their grift -- they're a Patreon darling and a defense contractor all at once -- is what Twitter is made for.
For the Andy Signore segment, it should be noted that April Dawn was only 18-19 years old when all this occurred. I know that is technically ‘legal’, but most people at that age are still just beginning to learn about the workforce, adult relationships and their own sexuality. Navigating any one of those things at that age is hard, but far worse when they all interact. In April’s last post before she went completely offline, she said “I was a teenager and I made mistakes and I’ve had to live with them.” Also, like most people pre-MeToo, she had to go through a meaningless toothless HR process. I am a huge Screen Junkies fan, and I believe Andy Signore’s version of events. She clearly was a willing participant at times and exaggerated to make her case. And also agree journalism on this was crazy one-sided. But still, she should never had been put in that position.
Most people are clueless about their sexuality at age 18-19. A friend who thought appearing in porn was a liberating feminist experience, then came to deeply regret it. A lesbian friend who thought she was asexual until an amazing night. A friend who had an affair with a 50-year old married man and still cannot explain what she ever saw in him. I shudder to think how difficult these situations would be if their boss was involved. April didn't handle things in the most honest way, but she was also too young to be expected to.
Speaking of looking back and re-interrogating metoo allegations, there is one case that I've always wanted more information about. Sherman Alexie is one of my favorite authors, and I just never understood exactly what he did that deserved the complete ostracization he received. None of the articles published about it shared many specifics. One accusation sounded more like a disappointing affair with him and retconned it to be about power imbalances. Another sounded like an unwanted advance that could have been stopped by just saying they weren't interested. And a third lacked almost any details. Even in the original reporting, I thought it sounded bizarre. This is a quote from the NPR article:
"And he's connected to the organization I work for, and if he had never expressed an interest in my poems I probably wouldn't have pursued spending any time with him," Walker says. "But he did express an interest. And so then when I discover that interest is actually physical, it just felt very wrong."
So you wanted him to show interest in your work, but instead he didn't discuss your work and just expressed a sexual interest? How exactly is that bad? He's not your boss. Can successful writers not have romantic relationships with less successful writers? For what it's worth, he acknowledged them as affairs, but he did not, to my knowledge, admit to using his power over them to threaten their careers.
I would have liked them to focus more on what Katie said at the very end about men who sort of seem to hate women maybe? I’ve noticed that #notallbutsome men who’ve been publicly accused or shamed by a woman/women really go hard in the misogyny paint. 🚩
Joe Biden has not been exonerated. The media slandered Tara Reide and everyone pretended that that was a valid rebuttal of her rape claim. They also stopped reporting on (and the evidence was wiped from the internet) of all the video's of him being extremely inappropriate with young girls in public once he became the dem nominee (because orange man bad presumably). And now, they are not reporting on Hunter Biden listing him in his phone contacts as "pedo", and the diary of his daughter, stolen from her bedside table while she was in rehab that alleges that Biden molested her. So, no, Biden hasn't been exonerated, the media have just covered this up/report on this when they can't absolutely avoid doing so in the most dishonest way possible. Just like they don't report on the Biden family corruption, and Biden's dementia.
Gawker published one very good piece this year, a review of Netflix’s ill-conceived adaptation of Austen’s Persuasion, by freelancer Clare Coffey. Ironically, she (correctly) cites the film’s central failure as its inability to grasp the emotional maturity of the novel & its heroine, in favor of puerile snark.
As a super invested reader in the original gawker,I think that people forget that no one hated anyone more than the readers hated the writers. There were a few that people liked but there was a lot of hate of the writers and without comments, Gawker 2.0 it’s just nicer for the writers. They don’t have any insight into how much they suck and why they should’ve been criticized. I think instead they just blamed the commenters. So something like this would’ve been catnip for commenters but luckily they don’t have to deal with it anymore so there’s no Quality Control and you can’t count on that from Leah Finnegan. This is why they all close ranks and started fighting on Twitter. This is what they always do with commenters anytime they ever gotten any feedback. Nothing changes.
Two things that have had me baffled since almost the beginning of the #MeToo era: (1) Why do people think it's OK to invent stories of assault or harassment? Do they think they'll never get caught, or do they believe that in our postmodern times the "truthiness" of sexual assault is more important than the actual truth of any accusation? In some cases they may be lying to save their own reputation or self-image, or they may genuinely misremember events, but how can they not care about how this might harm the accused—not to mention the trouble they could be in if caught lying? (2) How have Franken, Signore, Jaeger, et al. avoided becoming bitter and vindictive after their lives or careers were derailed by these false accusations?
We need mandatory minimum damages for false rape accusations. Something like defamation per se, and you have to pay minimum $10,000 in damages for each accusation.
Gawker et al. is up there with 4chan and Tumblr as websites that have markedly made the internet significantly worse. The modern snarky-hack journalist-on-Twitter archetype was practically invented by them. They were the among the first in that space, exported the journalist-meets-weird-Twitter Brooklyn DSA Gawker mentality to others who joined, and became media cool kids that got snapped up by places like the Times once Gawker imploded because of their carelessness. Their affiliated blogs were/are nearly as bad: the Gamergate (I know, I know) debacle was a child of culture-warring by Kotaku, the Gawker Media gaming blog. Deadspin did much of the same for sports media and basically set the obnoxious, self-righteous tone for future outlets like SB Nation to follow. Zombie Gawker being both pathetic and still fucking awful is the most predicable thing in the world. I probably should be more circumspect about it, but no: Peter Thiel, the job's not done — Gawker delenda est.
The "you support free speech, but you oppose libel / slander? Interesting" line of argument is super annoying to me. Way too much of this happening online (i.e., people thinking they are making interesting remarks re: their opponents' arguments without having a coherent understanding of what's going on / why the two things are markedly different).
See it with free market capitalism / opposition to fraud often as well, as another common example (the ability to reasonably rely-at least in part-on the assertions of a counterparty is actually fairly foundational to a well-functioning market economy of any sort).
This annoying, chortling tendency tends to go more left-to-right (or simply not-quite-as-left) in my experience, but YMMV.
Was expecting a correction around the episode 15 controversy from last week. Do better.
I'm begging you guys consider the strange case of Ana Mardoll, a moral entrepreneur who spent weeks on Twitter telling writers that expecting other writers to read their work is....:::checks notes::: ableist. The detonation/revelation of their grift -- they're a Patreon darling and a defense contractor all at once -- is what Twitter is made for.
For the Andy Signore segment, it should be noted that April Dawn was only 18-19 years old when all this occurred. I know that is technically ‘legal’, but most people at that age are still just beginning to learn about the workforce, adult relationships and their own sexuality. Navigating any one of those things at that age is hard, but far worse when they all interact. In April’s last post before she went completely offline, she said “I was a teenager and I made mistakes and I’ve had to live with them.” Also, like most people pre-MeToo, she had to go through a meaningless toothless HR process. I am a huge Screen Junkies fan, and I believe Andy Signore’s version of events. She clearly was a willing participant at times and exaggerated to make her case. And also agree journalism on this was crazy one-sided. But still, she should never had been put in that position.
Most people are clueless about their sexuality at age 18-19. A friend who thought appearing in porn was a liberating feminist experience, then came to deeply regret it. A lesbian friend who thought she was asexual until an amazing night. A friend who had an affair with a 50-year old married man and still cannot explain what she ever saw in him. I shudder to think how difficult these situations would be if their boss was involved. April didn't handle things in the most honest way, but she was also too young to be expected to.
Speaking of looking back and re-interrogating metoo allegations, there is one case that I've always wanted more information about. Sherman Alexie is one of my favorite authors, and I just never understood exactly what he did that deserved the complete ostracization he received. None of the articles published about it shared many specifics. One accusation sounded more like a disappointing affair with him and retconned it to be about power imbalances. Another sounded like an unwanted advance that could have been stopped by just saying they weren't interested. And a third lacked almost any details. Even in the original reporting, I thought it sounded bizarre. This is a quote from the NPR article:
"And he's connected to the organization I work for, and if he had never expressed an interest in my poems I probably wouldn't have pursued spending any time with him," Walker says. "But he did express an interest. And so then when I discover that interest is actually physical, it just felt very wrong."
So you wanted him to show interest in your work, but instead he didn't discuss your work and just expressed a sexual interest? How exactly is that bad? He's not your boss. Can successful writers not have romantic relationships with less successful writers? For what it's worth, he acknowledged them as affairs, but he did not, to my knowledge, admit to using his power over them to threaten their careers.
Has anyone seen follow-up reporting on this one?
https://www.npr.org/2018/03/05/589909379/it-just-felt-very-wrong-sherman-alexies-accusers-go-on-the-record
I would have liked them to focus more on what Katie said at the very end about men who sort of seem to hate women maybe? I’ve noticed that #notallbutsome men who’ve been publicly accused or shamed by a woman/women really go hard in the misogyny paint. 🚩
Joe Biden has not been exonerated. The media slandered Tara Reide and everyone pretended that that was a valid rebuttal of her rape claim. They also stopped reporting on (and the evidence was wiped from the internet) of all the video's of him being extremely inappropriate with young girls in public once he became the dem nominee (because orange man bad presumably). And now, they are not reporting on Hunter Biden listing him in his phone contacts as "pedo", and the diary of his daughter, stolen from her bedside table while she was in rehab that alleges that Biden molested her. So, no, Biden hasn't been exonerated, the media have just covered this up/report on this when they can't absolutely avoid doing so in the most dishonest way possible. Just like they don't report on the Biden family corruption, and Biden's dementia.
Gawker published one very good piece this year, a review of Netflix’s ill-conceived adaptation of Austen’s Persuasion, by freelancer Clare Coffey. Ironically, she (correctly) cites the film’s central failure as its inability to grasp the emotional maturity of the novel & its heroine, in favor of puerile snark.
As a super invested reader in the original gawker,I think that people forget that no one hated anyone more than the readers hated the writers. There were a few that people liked but there was a lot of hate of the writers and without comments, Gawker 2.0 it’s just nicer for the writers. They don’t have any insight into how much they suck and why they should’ve been criticized. I think instead they just blamed the commenters. So something like this would’ve been catnip for commenters but luckily they don’t have to deal with it anymore so there’s no Quality Control and you can’t count on that from Leah Finnegan. This is why they all close ranks and started fighting on Twitter. This is what they always do with commenters anytime they ever gotten any feedback. Nothing changes.
Two things that have had me baffled since almost the beginning of the #MeToo era: (1) Why do people think it's OK to invent stories of assault or harassment? Do they think they'll never get caught, or do they believe that in our postmodern times the "truthiness" of sexual assault is more important than the actual truth of any accusation? In some cases they may be lying to save their own reputation or self-image, or they may genuinely misremember events, but how can they not care about how this might harm the accused—not to mention the trouble they could be in if caught lying? (2) How have Franken, Signore, Jaeger, et al. avoided becoming bitter and vindictive after their lives or careers were derailed by these false accusations?
That live reading between Katie and Jesse gave me emotional trauma. I’m unsubscribing and starting an anti-podcaster association. Who’s with me?
If jesse and katie ever do a dramatic reading again I’m canceling my subscription.
What is the name of the A. J. Daulerio podcast you mentioned? I found "Sober Company." Couldn't find "Really Good Chairs." Confused.
We need mandatory minimum damages for false rape accusations. Something like defamation per se, and you have to pay minimum $10,000 in damages for each accusation.
Not sure if this was on the premium episode or this one, but slugs are gastropod molluscs, just like snails.