Gawker found guilty in Hogan Case

[Gfted1]

^Thats because youve never met a post you couldnt misunderstand. There is a world of difference between punishing the wrongdoers and punishing everyone in the building. And passive aggressive posting? r00fles! Do you do anything other?

[Bartimaeus]

^Thats because youve never met a post you couldnt misunderstand. There is a world of difference between punishing the wrongdoers and punishing everyone in the building. And passive aggressive posting? r00fles! Do you do anything other?

The fact that Gawker has been held liable for damages that may or may not run them out of business and consequently indirectly punish their employees (both those guilty and not guilty of the wrongdoing that's causing Gawker to be held for damages) is, by my own estimation, primarily Gawker's (and their guilty employees') fault, not anybody else's. I feel bad for those who haven't done anything who may lose their jobs as a result, but I blame solely Gawker and their fellow employees who did wrong for it. If Gawker doesn't have the money to get away with doing illegal stuff...then maybe they shouldn't have done that illegal stuff. You won't see me saying, "But I don't have the means to withstand the results of a murder trial!" after I decide to murder somebody and get arrested for it, even if it hurts the rest of my family and friends in the process.

 

...P.S. I prefer just being openly aggressive rather than passive-aggressive, personally...but that's just me.

Edited March 22, 2016 by Bartimaeus

[BruceVC]

^Thats because youve never met a post you couldnt misunderstand. There is a world of difference between punishing the wrongdoers and punishing everyone in the building. And passive aggressive posting? r00fles! Do you do anything other?

Yes this is my point, its not fair to punish all Gawker staff

[BruceVC]

 

^Thats because youve never met a post you couldnt misunderstand. There is a world of difference between punishing the wrongdoers and punishing everyone in the building. And passive aggressive posting? r00fles! Do you do anything other?

The fact that Gawker has been held liable for damages that may or may not run them out of business and consequently indirectly punish their employees (both those guilty and not guilty of the wrongdoing that's causing Gawker to be held for damages) is, by my own estimation, primarily Gawker's (and their guilty employees') fault, not anybody else's. I feel bad for those who haven't done anything who may lose their jobs as a result, but I blame solely Gawker and their fellow employees who did wrong for it. If Gawker doesn't have the money to get away with doing illegal stuff...then maybe they shouldn't have done that illegal stuff. You won't see me saying, "But I don't have the means to withstand the results of a murder trial!" after I decide to murder somebody and get caught for it.

 

...P.S. I prefer just being openly aggressive rather than passive-aggressive, personally...but that's just me.

 

Barti I would say you equally aggressive and passive-aggressive ?  

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

 

^Thats because youve never met a post you couldnt misunderstand. There is a world of difference between punishing the wrongdoers and punishing everyone in the building. And passive aggressive posting? r00fles! Do you do anything other?

The fact that Gawker has been held liable for damages that may or may not run them out of business and consequently indirectly punish their employees (both those guilty and not guilty of the wrongdoing that's causing Gawker to be held for damages) is, by my own estimation, primarily Gawker's (and their guilty employees') fault, not anybody else's. I feel bad for those who haven't done anything who may lose their jobs as a result, but I blame solely Gawker and their fellow employees who did wrong for it. If Gawker doesn't have the money to get away with doing illegal stuff...then maybe they shouldn't have done that illegal stuff. You won't see me saying, "But I don't have the means to withstand the results of a murder trial!" after I decide to murder somebody and get arrested for it....P.S. I prefer just being openly aggressive rather than passive-aggressive, personally...but that's just me.

Silly Barti...you make me laugh . But we shouldn't punish writers for what editors do ? Edited March 22, 2016 by KaineParker

[Bartimaeus]

https://puu.sh/mphHU/bcdf7c4ce5.jpg

 

y my images no work

Edited March 22, 2016 by Bartimaeus

[Nonek]

Gawkers rumoured latest owner can afford almost anything. That said a shrewd investor does not back a loss making company for long, unless it is being used for another purpose that is maybe appealing to friends or associates.

 

Edit: I hope Mr Hogan makes a large donation to an anti racism campaign, and of course that Kotaku folds, making an undeniable great day for the incline of journalism.

Edited March 22, 2016 by Nonek

[Longknife]

I do feel some sympathy for Gawker because I dont want them to close down as  I dont like the idea of people losing there jobs

 

 

Dear god, you're right! Those poor people are gonna have to find new jobs where they actually benefit society! Oh the humanity!

[Bartimaeus]

To pull a Raithe:

 

(posted on Mr. Hogan's Twitter)

 

Edited March 22, 2016 by Bartimaeus

[aluminiumtrioxid]

There is a world of difference between punishing the wrongdoers and punishing everyone in the building. And passive aggressive posting? r00fles! Do you do anything other?

 

 

Irrelevant to the wider point I was trying to make, ie. that handwringing over the punishment being "excessive" because "it will result in the company going bankrupt and its employees losing their jobs" is weird. Yes, it sucks that they're gonna lose their jobs, but I'm pretty sure the criminal justice system doesn't work on the basis of "the law says [punishment] is appropriate, but this punishment would also indirectly harm people who had nothing to do with the original crime, so we're gonna ignore the law here".

 

 

Also note: there is a world of difference between passive-aggressive posting and the kind of passive-aggressive bull**** that intentionally obscures the point it's trying to make in order to make meaningful engagement with the subject and an exchange of ideas impossible. Which is what you were doing - or, more importantly, are consistently doing when faced with posts you don't like. Passive-aggressiveness is tolerable. The insulting intellectual laziness of not being willing to put out the actual ideas behind that passive-aggressiveness to be engaged with, not so much.

Edited March 22, 2016 by aluminiumtrioxid

[Blarghagh]

 

I do feel some sympathy for Gawker because I dont want them to close down as  I dont like the idea of people losing there jobs

 

 

Dear god, you're right! Those poor people are gonna have to find new jobs where they actually benefit society! Oh the humanity!

 

 

To be fair, not everything Gawker published was pointless. I quite enjoy the content on Lifehacker.com

[Gfted1]

Also note: there is a world of difference between passive-aggressive posting and the kind of passive-aggressive bull**** that intentionally obscures the point it's trying to make in order to make meaningful engagement with the subject and an exchange of ideas impossible. Which is what you were doing - or, more importantly, are consistently doing when faced with posts you don't like. Passive-aggressiveness is tolerable. The insulting intellectual laziness of not being willing to put out the actual ideas behind that passive-aggressiveness to be engaged with, not so much.

Just use the forum search feature with your name as the author. You really bring a lot to this place.

[Bartimaeus]

To be fair, not everything Gawker published was pointless. I quite enjoy the content on Lifehacker.com

...which the vast majority of they steal from reddit and other places.

Edited March 22, 2016 by Bartimaeus

[Bartimaeus]

Just use the forum search feature with your name as the author. You really bring a lot to this place.

I mean...to be fair, I can do the same to you and myself and anyone else, and all of ours posts without any context all look pretty worthless and pointless.

[aluminiumtrioxid]

 

Just use the forum search feature with your name as the author. You really bring a lot to this place.

I mean...to be fair, I can do the same to you and myself and anyone else, and all of ours posts without any context all look pretty worthless and pointless.

 

 

Moreover, I just did the very same thing, and outside of WOT, I think my contributions are usually fair - as in, even if you disagree with what I'm saying, you can clearly see how and why I arrived on the conclusion I did?

[Gfted1]

I mean...to be fair, I can do the same to you and myself and anyone else, and all of ours posts without any context all look pretty worthless and pointless.

YOU TAKE THAT BACK! Every one of my posts is a precious pearl of wisdom that can only improve the lives of those that read them.

[Bartimaeus]

Moreover, I just did the very same thing, and outside of WOT, I think my contributions are usually fair - as in, even if you disagree with what I'm saying, you can clearly see how and why I arrived on the conclusion I did?

Given that the only sections I basically ever check are Way Off Topic and Computer and Console (...and I guess Skeeter's Junkyard and Obsidian General, but hardly anything there is ever posted to either so it's irrelevant), I can't really comment. Personally? Though there are virtually infinite things I disagree with people on here, there are only 2, maybe 3 people whose posts I feel are categorically, systematically, and universally useless, awful, and a waste of time to read and who shouldn't be allowed to even be here. You can probably guess one of them. Everyone else? Disagreements aplenty, but they're respectful disagreements and I'm not really fazed by such.

 

...Now how everybody thinks of me is an entirely different matter.

[BruceVC]

 

I mean...to be fair, I can do the same to you and myself and anyone else, and all of ours posts without any context all look pretty worthless and pointless.

YOU TAKE THAT BACK! Every one of my posts is a precious pearl of wisdom that can only improve the lives of those that read them.

 

Also definitely some of my posts must be considered very insightful and erudite ?

 

[Blarghagh]

 

To be fair, not everything Gawker published was pointless. I quite enjoy the content on Lifehacker.com

...which the vast majority of they steal from reddit and other places.

 

 

You're right, but the internet is a big place and Reddit is a cesspool. I liked having at least those things in one place.

[Bartimaeus]

Yeah, so is Vox Media, so that's not really saying much.

 

(e): Gawker Media, not Vox Media, but Vox Media is, too

Edited March 22, 2016 by Bartimaeus

[ShadySands]

 

To be fair, not everything Gawker published was pointless. I quite enjoy the content on Lifehacker.com

...which the vast majority of they steal from reddit and other places.

 

That's why I like it

 

They format reddit into readable articles for me 

[Bartimaeus]

That's why I like it

 

They format reddit into readable articles for me

Which is funny, because they do the opposite for me: on reddit, I can get straight into the details of any post or thread, no advertisements, no gimmicks, no BS. If it's a link to something off-site, like one of your so-called "articles", there are people that automatically transcribe said articles into posts which get voted to the top of the thread so you don't have to go off-site - which is good, because I don't want to give any of these terrible "journalism" websites page-clicks, anyhow. On the garbage "journalism" websites like Lifehacker and Cracked and such, everything is formatted to be loads of long-winded bullcrap with useless fluff everywhere, there are advertisements everywhere, they use garbage formatting techniques like splitting up things into different pages and into slideshows or randomly repeating bits already said but in a bigger font - it's awful, and I hate it. It's also pretty safe to say that I will never go back to willingly using that sort of media except when I have to, or when it's deserving. Web "journalism" like Gawker and Lifehacker? Heh, no. Outlets who actually put out quality and original work without the fluff? Yeah, sure.

Edited March 22, 2016 by Bartimaeus

[ShadySands]

I don't actually disagree, it's not good journalism

 

Reddit is just not my jam

[Blarghagh]

Ditto. Also it might be the effectiveness of my ad-blocker but Lifehacker generally has pretty short to the point articles with few ads for me?

[Bartimaeus]

You know, I don't actually mind advertisements - they're pretty important for the industry, and if I'm regularly using a website, generally speaking, I want to support that website and advertisements are usually the most realistic way of doing that, right? What I actually hate, though, is the way they're very often used on journalism and news websites, which includes videos with audio autoplaying, advertisements placed right in the middle of articles, way too much horizontal space being sacrificed for the sake of advertising, automatic content generation and advertisements as you go down the page, etc. Yeah, you might not suffer from all of those if you're using an AdBlocker...but the point is, things shouldn't be so horrid where we're basically being forced to use AdBlockers on these sorts of websites to be able to use them to begin with...and yet, they are.

 

P.S. I obviously don't use Lifehacker and haven't visited it in a while, so I can't make exact claims for Lifehacker specifically, so you kinda win that point by default.

Edited March 22, 2016 by Bartimaeus