lol wut. If your dad is like Hogan, he's a complete racist. Sorry.
Using the excuse, "it's just how people were" is a terrible copout. It doesnt make him magically not that racist anymore because other people his age also held shitty views.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Is Kotaku in danger of shutting down?
- Thread starter dex3108
- Start date
lol wut. If your dad is like Hogan, he's a complete racist. Sorry.
Using the excuse, "it's just how people were" is a terrible copout. It doesnt make him magically not that racist anymore because other people his age also held shitty views.
Hey guys. I can't answer questions or say anything about ongoing litigation, obviously, but I appreciate all the concern. We'll be back to work as normal on Monday. This article is worth reading in its entirety: http://www.capitalnewyork.com/artic...ds-hulk-hogan-115-million-gawker-looks-appeal
Good article. Thanks for the link.
If this means Patrick ends up back at giant bomb I would be happy. I don't care for kataku. Let me rephrase that. I don't care for any site other than giant bomb. Game trailers was cool but they are gone.
I miss Patrick's weekly podcast. He could start up a third part of GB!
I know i m ahead of myself but that's how I roll
He actually has a new weekly podcast, https://match3.simplecast.fm/
Master_Funk
Member
If this means Patrick ends up back at giant bomb I would be happy. I don't care for kataku. Let me rephrase that. I don't care for any site other than giant bomb. Game trailers was cool but they are gone.
I miss Patrick's weekly podcast. He could start up a third part of GB!
I know i m ahead of myself but that's how I roll
I think GB have said somewhere they are not hiring anytime soon, and I feel they have someone who's doing Patrick's job better than Patrick did in his time at GB , in the form of Austin.
If they do hire, I would love them to hire a lesser known person.
moondoggerr
Banned
Hey guys. I can't answer questions or say anything about ongoing litigation, obviously, but I appreciate all the concern. We'll be back to work as normal on Monday. This article is worth reading in its entirety: http://www.capitalnewyork.com/artic...ds-hulk-hogan-115-million-gawker-looks-appeal
I wish you well.
Hey guys. I can't answer questions or say anything about ongoing litigation, obviously, but I appreciate all the concern. We'll be back to work as normal on Monday. This article is worth reading in its entirety: http://www.capitalnewyork.com/artic...ds-hulk-hogan-115-million-gawker-looks-appeal
Intriguing. In the UK Gawker would be toast but this can actually go their way here. The Federal Courts up to and especially the Supreme Court are very much defenders of the 1st amendment so this can run quite a bit longer. Or, if they are still needed to pay $50 million up front, maybe not. One for the legal buffs.
DasPenguin
Member
What you do privately is a better representation of your character than what you do publicly.
And how do you know how he behaves privately? We are talking about one incident here taken out of context. Or are you saying that this is how he always behaves? Again I'm not defending him but his privacy. People tend to do and say really stupid things when upset. That is all. Good for you if you have lived a life where you can't find two minutes of something that would make you look like an idiot.
TheWeaponeer
Banned
A Link to the Past
Banned
So defending children from predators and being over zealous in helping sex trafficking victims makes you vile now? At worst she is gullible, but calling her vile because of her over enthusiasm in defending kids is wrong.
Obviously not, and people have bent over backwards to say so. Unless you can find people who say she's bad for defending children, what you're basically saying is that she is entitled to do awful things so long as she does it for a good cause.
This is why I always assume anyone with an anime pic is a scumbag.
100% agreed
They should ask their users to donate the required amount of money, with all the international media attention they have right now, they could easily raise the required amount and get out even stronger than ever before.
Gawker is trying to publicly raise money in order to avoid bankruptcy and to get Hulk Hogan happy - that would be the perfect headline in all international media.
Unless gawker is making Star Citizen 2 that ain't happening.
If I found out my boss was a asshole sociopath and we were all laid off as a result of a lawsuit I would be bummed but I would cheer for the multiple victims getting some justice.
Very wise words. It sucks that good people get punished because of their boss'/company's transgressions, but it's a good thing that justice is served. The good people will land on their feet and be fine after this.
Well I first seen it used by those guys but anyway it's a put down for people who care about social justice issues.
Which unless your asshole you wouldn't be against.
Of course I'm not against people fighting for equality, equal pay, etc. Are people really coming to some negative baseless conclusion of me because of one word I used? lol...
But telling me that Hulk is in the wrong because he made a racist remark, or that him being white and rich makes it that privacy isn't a main concern is really messed up, is it not? You can hate the person, but you can't disagree or try to argue against people when clearly Gawker is in the wrong here - which is what I noticed when this story broke.
Intriguing. In the UK Gawker would be toast but this can actually go their way here. The Federal Courts up to and especially the Supreme Court are very much defenders of the 1st amendment so this can run quite a bit longer. Or, if they are still needed to pay $50 million up front, maybe not. One for the legal buffs.
Yeah reading the article it seems they may have precedent on their side
What the hell are you talking about? Have you seen some of the backlash Hulk Hogan has been getting from people online? Telling him that this thing doesn't matter because he's a racist and that he's a privileged white guy.
Please do tell, what person does my original statement make me?
Because if I somehow look bad in your eyes because I'm calling out people that are trying to twist this around to make it his fault, then so be it.
Am I the only one that has seen some of the really messed up comments on twitter and elsewhere attacking Hulk Hogan over this and trying to twist this back on him somehow? What the hell?
I am honestly baffled how I'm being called out like I said something so atrociously bad that you guys are shocked by my comment?
It has nothing to do with Hogan tbh. It's the fact that you're using SJW as a negative term against anyone that thinks social justice is a good thing.
She's upset because she felt saying "I don't want to have any part in this" was denying permission to print anything about her, while Klepek felt it was more an observation about her suddenly being in a culture war and that this was emblematic of what's been happening to a lot of people over the last couple of years, and newsworthy.Can someone provide me with a reputable article or shortly explain what happened with Jamie Walton and Patrick Klepek?
Suzushiiro
Banned
I'd imagine anyone worth anything at Kotaku will be gone long before the axe officially comes down, assuming it does (and it probably will, though it may take a few years for the appeals process to officially tell them to get fucked and pay him.)
As far as the verdict itself goes- I think had it just stuck to being about Hogan's sex tape, they may have had a chance, but once they started talking about shit like them posting a video of a girl being sexually assaulted and responding with "blah blah blah get over it" when she asked to take it down, they were pretty much fucked. Because while the first amendment may technically cover all of the shit Gawker pulled, in the end people don't care about "the law," they care about justice. So when people hate you more than they like a free press, they're going to want to see you burn regardless of if what you did "only violated the spirit of the law" or whatever.
Yeah, "SJW" initially referred to people who said/did hateful, shitty, bigoted things in the name of fighting bigotry- mostly referring to people on Tumblr who spout shit like "kill all white people" "die cis scum" etc etc. Since GG it's pretty much devolved into "anyone with an identity politics-related opinion to the left of my own," though. I wouldn't defend the use if it in this day and age due to that, but claiming that the term was created by GG is factually untrue (though looking at this graph I can understand why one would think that.)
As far as the verdict itself goes- I think had it just stuck to being about Hogan's sex tape, they may have had a chance, but once they started talking about shit like them posting a video of a girl being sexually assaulted and responding with "blah blah blah get over it" when she asked to take it down, they were pretty much fucked. Because while the first amendment may technically cover all of the shit Gawker pulled, in the end people don't care about "the law," they care about justice. So when people hate you more than they like a free press, they're going to want to see you burn regardless of if what you did "only violated the spirit of the law" or whatever.
FYI, the term 'SJW' predates GG by 2-3 years. There's history behind it before it got appropriated by assholes.
Yeah, "SJW" initially referred to people who said/did hateful, shitty, bigoted things in the name of fighting bigotry- mostly referring to people on Tumblr who spout shit like "kill all white people" "die cis scum" etc etc. Since GG it's pretty much devolved into "anyone with an identity politics-related opinion to the left of my own," though. I wouldn't defend the use if it in this day and age due to that, but claiming that the term was created by GG is factually untrue (though looking at this graph I can understand why one would think that.)
Hey guys. I can't answer questions or say anything about ongoing litigation, obviously, but I appreciate all the concern. We'll be back to work as normal on Monday. This article is worth reading in its entirety: http://www.capitalnewyork.com/artic...ds-hulk-hogan-115-million-gawker-looks-appeal
Hmm, this article basically builds up the belief that Gawker lost the trial because it was held in Florida and not New York. Not really sure I buy that.
I get that you're bummed about your job future, man, but you should really be looking forward to starting something new and better with your trusted coworkers, friends, and peers instead of dwelling on how to keep your current situation intact in spite of your boss' transgressions. Something where you're not working in the shadow cast by your scumbag bosses, something better. Being selfless has its rewards.
A Link to the Past
Banned
Of course I'm not against people fighting for equality, equal pay, etc. Are people really coming to some negative baseless conclusion of me because of one word I used? lol...
But telling me that Hulk is in the wrong because he made a racist remark, or that him being white and rich makes it that privacy isn't a main concern is really messed up, is it not? You can hate the person, but you can't disagree or try to argue against people when clearly Gawker is in the wrong here - which is what I noticed when this story broke.
Hulk is in the wrong for making a racist remark. That Gawker had no right to release the information does not mean that Hulk did not do something wrong.
Also, you calling anyone SJWs, even indirectly, is as smart a thing as to refer to a person or persons as a GamerGater in this thread based on their criticism of Gawker or Kotaku.
FYI, the term 'SJW' predates GG by 2-3 years. There's history behind it before it got appropriated by assholes.
To be fair, GG existed for longer than that - it just wasn't called GG.
Scientist Supreme!
Banned
Words mean things and those can be hateful things. That's why refrain from using some.Of course I'm not against people fighting for equality, equal pay, etc. Are people really coming to some negative baseless conclusion of me because of one word I used? lol...
But telling me that Hulk is in the wrong because he made a racist remark, or that him being white and rich makes it that privacy isn't a main concern is really messed up, is it not? You can hate the person, but you can't disagree or try to argue against people when clearly Gawker is in the wrong here - which is what I noticed when this story broke.
For your second point p, I have said no such thing and seen none in this thread express that sort of opinion. So I don't understand why your bringing that up.
It has nothing to do with Hogan tbh. It's the fact that you're using SJW as a negative term against anyone that thinks social justice is a good thing.
I never generalized that every person that is for social justice is some sort of asshole. I said that for those SJWs that have been saying that his racism, him being white/rich, that he doesn't deserve this money/court ruling. What else can I call those people that think they are fighting for social justice because they don't think a racist like him deserves a win? They are what they are.
People here are drawing too many conclusions and assumptions of me based on one word, which is ridiculous.
Hulk is in the wrong for making a racist remark. That Gawker had no right to release the information does not mean that Hulk did not do something wrong.
Also, you calling anyone SJWs, even indirectly, is as smart a thing as to refer to a person or persons as a GamerGater in this thread based on their criticism of Gawker or Kotaku.
Yeah but my issue is his racist remarks, who he is, his socioeconomic status should have no discussion or bearing in this thread or on this topic. His win is a win for privacy. Who he is does not have any bearing on this case, at all.
Words mean things and those can be hateful things. That's why refrain from using some.
For your second point p, I have said no such thing and seen none in this thread express that sort of opinion. So I don't understand why your bringing that up.
It encapsulates said people that I am referring to. It's not like I randomly called a person a SJW, and it was about a completely different issue altogether.
I never said that you made those remarks from what I saw, I didn't go out looking for your comments specifically either so I wouldn't know. I'm just talking about in general, looking online and seeing some people saying it here and there.
mercenar1e
Member
People still don't seem to understand that Kotaku will be sold off before they are at risk of closure. If they are profitable, then chances are someone will buy them. If someone buys them, then they probably won't be shut down. They are required to sell it by law if they declare bankruptcy (under chapter 11). AFAIK Kotaku is still profitable, so I don't think they are at much risk right now.
it worked out well for Gametrailers lol
A Link to the Past
Banned
it worked out well for Gametrailers lol
Isn't Kotaku doing just fine though?
Ninja Scooter
Member
By knowing that and demanding such an amount of money, Hulk is just as bad as the one who released that video, maybe even worse.
.
The dumbest of hot takes.
People here are drawing too many conclusions and assumptions of me based on one word, which is ridiculous.
SJW is technically THREE words. Check-mate.
hobblygobbly
Member
I mean, there isn't going to be a reputable article about it because it's a bullshit dumb thing.
In one of the emails Patrick quoted from her, she said something like "I don't have time for this" -- even though she went on to respond to a follow-up from him. She's been playing that Patrick published something from her that was off the record... but she never actually said that she was off the record. She never requested to not be quoted. She's made out that she was misrepresented but she definitely wasn't. It's a really weird reaction from her. Papers run "decline to comment" responses all the time.
She's upset because she felt saying "I don't want to have any part in this" was denying permission to print anything about her, while Klepek felt it was more an observation about her suddenly being in a culture war and that this was emblematic of what's been happening to a lot of people over the last couple of years, and newsworthy.
Ah I see now, thanks for the missing information.
The word is polemic tbh, I understand what you're saying, though I wouldn't call them SJWs and instead just call them vindictive.I never generalized that every person that is for social justice is some sort of asshole. I said that for those SJWs that have been saying that his racism, him being white/rich, that he doesn't deserve this money/court ruling. What else can I call those people that think they are fighting for social justice because they don't think a racist like him deserves a win? They are what they are.
People here are drawing too many conclusions and assumptions of me based on one word, which is ridiculous.
I get that you're bummed about your job future, man, but you should really be looking forward to starting something new and better with your trusted coworkers, friends, and peers instead of dwelling on how to keep your current situation intact in spite of your boss' transgressions. Something where you're not working in the shadow cast by your scumbag bosses, something better. Being selfless has its rewards.
What? He literally just said thanks for the supportive comments. How the hell did you infer that from his post?
SJW was initially coined by people in the social justice community to refer to folks who were essentially dilettantes coopting issues and language as a means to basically cause chaos and ruin. It was then taken and used as an all-purpose slur for anyone who discusses social justice issues. Some people have "taken back" the term to describe themselves genuinely, because on its face it's ridiculous to be criticized for wanting to fight for social justice. But more often than not it's used as a way for rightwing trolls to antagonize people.
Mechanized
Member
After looking at some tweets Patrick has been getting I have to say there is some real human garbage in this world. Hope everything works out for you dude. Don't take any of their bullshit to heart, you're a great person and you're great at your job.
Hmm, this article basically builds up the belief that Gawker lost the trial because it was held in Florida and not New York. Not really sure I buy that.
Hogan is a local celebrity and is a member of the community. Gawker is a "vicious media blog" up in New York. Look at all the hate for Wall Street right now in politics. That's the same kind of thing you're seeing here.
No matter what you think of Gawker, they've got legal precedent on their side. 1st amendment decisions like this aren't incredibly nuanced. Hogan is a celebrity and has made his sex life a part of his public persona. I know it seems shitty, but that opens him up to vulnerable to something like the sex tape being protected under the 1st amendment.
Now, Gawker writers being snarky during the trial or deposition? That's just a bad idea no matter who you are.
I never generalized that every person that is for social justice is some sort of asshole. I said that for those SJWs that have been saying that his racism, him being white/rich, that he doesn't deserve this money/court ruling. What else can I call those people that think they are fighting for social justice because they don't think a racist like him deserves a win? They are what they are.
People here are drawing too many conclusions and assumptions of me based on one word, which is ridiculous.
Yeah but my issue is his racist remarks, who he is, his socioeconomic status should have no discussion or bearing in this thread or on this topic. His win is a win for privacy. Who he is does not have any bearing on this case, at all.
Fair enough, I take back what I said earlier then. I just wouldnt call them SJW's simply because the stigma of the word is now attached as a generalization to all people that are for social justice. It's pretty much become a slur now.
SJW was initially coined by people in the social justice community to refer to folks who were essentially dilettantes coopting issues and language as a means to basically cause chaos and ruin. It was then taken and used as an all-purpose slur for anyone who discusses social justice issues. Some people have "taken back" the term to describe themselves genuinely, because on its face it's ridiculous to be criticized for wanting to fight for social justice. But more often than not it's used as a way for rightwing trolls to antagonize people.
this pretty much
Hey guys. I can't answer questions or say anything about ongoing litigation, obviously, but I appreciate all the concern. We'll be back to work as normal on Monday. This article is worth reading in its entirety: http://www.capitalnewyork.com/artic...ds-hulk-hogan-115-million-gawker-looks-appeal
While it's nice to know one is still employed, that's just too bad. Gawker surviving this would be a sizeable net loss for humanity. What's your stance on outing gay people, refusing to take down rape videos (and publishing them in the first place), or this particular case?
SJW is technically THREE words. Check-mate.
RIP.
The word is polemic tbh, I understand what you're saying, though I wouldn't call them SJWs and instead just call them vindictive.
Fair enough, I just wouldnt call them SJW's simply because the stigma of the word is now attached as a generalization to all people that are for social justice. It's pretty much become a slur now.
Alright I'll call them "vindictive assholes that think they are fighting for social justice" from now on. If it would give people solace in not automatically connecting me with Gamergate, because that shit is ridiculous.
I don't care for that whole shit show, I don't want to touch that topic with a ten foot pole - there is too much bullshit surrounding it and I don't want to be apart of whatever it is. Leave me out of it.
While it's nice to know one is still employed, that's just too bad. Gawker surviving this would be a sizeable net loss for humanity. What's your stance on outing gay people, refusing to take down rape videos, or this particular case?
Did you just quoted a post that said "I can't answer questions or say anything about ongoing litigation, obviously", and then also ask him to comment about this particular case?
Hey guys. I can't answer questions or say anything about ongoing litigation, obviously, but I appreciate all the concern. We'll be back to work as normal on Monday. This article is worth reading in its entirety: http://www.capitalnewyork.com/artic...ds-hulk-hogan-115-million-gawker-looks-appeal
Good article.
Shows how repulsive Gawker CEO Nick Denton and former Gawker editor A.J. Daulerio are.
“Can you imagine a situation where a celebrity sex tape would not be newsworthy?” the attorney asked him.
“If they were a child,” Daulerio said.
“Under what age?” the attorney asked.
Annoyed by the question, Daulerio flippantly replied, “Four.”
Hogan’s lawyers also showed the jury a deposition from Denton, which was less controversial but still buttressed their argument that Gawker was part of an arrogant culture that disdained personal privacy.
“I believe in total freedom and transparency. I’m an extremist when it comes to that,” Denton said in the deposition.
NinjamicWZ
Banned
Did you just quoted a post that said "I can't answer questions or say anything about ongoing litigation, obviously", and then also ask him to comment about this particular case?
Maybe he's a journalist?
Did you just quoted a post that said "I can't answer questions or say anything about ongoing litigation, obviously", and then also ask him to comment about this particular case?
Ah yes, the Gawker school of journalism.
A Link to the Past
Banned
Good article.
Shows how repulsive Gawker CEO Nick Denton and former Gawker editor A.J. Daulerio are.
Jeez, A.J. is repulsive. Denton sucks too, because his behaviour demonstrates that he does have privacy concerns when it relates to him.
Kobun Heat
Member
Just posting on the notion of "off the record":
"Off the record" or any of its variations is a condition that is, necessarily, agreed upon by source and journalist. If a journalist approaches you in a professional capacity, IDs themselves as a reporter for [outlet], and asks questions (which you'll note that Patrick clearly did here), your response is on the record.
If you want to communicate something to a journalist that isn't for use in a story, you would say, "Can we go [off the record/on background/not for attribution]?" (An ethical journalist, sensing any confusion on your part as to what those terms mean or what options you have, would define and explain them to you.) If the writer says "yes, we can do that," you're off the record.
Here's NYU journalism school on that very topic.
"Off the record" or any of its variations is a condition that is, necessarily, agreed upon by source and journalist. If a journalist approaches you in a professional capacity, IDs themselves as a reporter for [outlet], and asks questions (which you'll note that Patrick clearly did here), your response is on the record.
If you want to communicate something to a journalist that isn't for use in a story, you would say, "Can we go [off the record/on background/not for attribution]?" (An ethical journalist, sensing any confusion on your part as to what those terms mean or what options you have, would define and explain them to you.) If the writer says "yes, we can do that," you're off the record.
Here's NYU journalism school on that very topic.
In that case I don't think Patrick was 100% in the right. It's very muddy.She's upset because she felt saying "I don't want to have any part in this" was denying permission to print anything about her, while Klepek felt it was more an observation about her suddenly being in a culture war and that this was emblematic of what's been happening to a lot of people over the last couple of years, and newsworthy.
Good article.
Shows how repulsive Gawker CEO Nick Denton and former Gawker editor A.J. Daulerio are.
That "four" comment was distasteful certainly but I get it. Gawker weren't on trial for publishing child porn. Daulerio got asked a bullshit irrelevant question, saw through it, and expressed his disdain in a sarcastic way. Obviously that was poorly considered -- he said an ugly thing and let the jury feel like Gawker *were* on trial for publishing child porn.
That's why it's whack that this case was tried in Florida state court. Gawker's probably right on the facts, but they're so, so totally wrong on the attitude that they didn't stand a chance against this jury.
This case hits the most uncomfortable spot where I probably prefer a world without Gawker (the flagship site anyway), but I don't think I'm on board with this case being how we get there.
In that case I don't think Patrick was 100% in the right. It's very muddy.
If you don't want someone to quote you, don't reply back with a quote that does not include a request not to be quoted.
I dont have time for this, TBH, she said over email. Ive been a counter trafficking survivor advocate since 2009. No one is interested in doing press about that for years, but suddenly Gamergate and anti Gamergate insert me into their dispute and the media wants to talk. All that does is break my heart. I want nothing to do with either side, and I find this entire encounter to be ludicrous.
The quote in question.
That "four" comment was distasteful certainly but I get it. Gawker weren't on trial for publishing child porn. Daulerio got asked a bullshit irrelevant question, saw through it, and expressed his disdain in a sarcastic way. Obviously that was poorly considered -- he said an ugly thing and let the jury feel like Gawker *were* on trial for publishing child porn.
That's why it's whack that this case was tried in Florida state court. Gawker's probably right on the facts, but they're so, so totally wrong on the attitude that they didn't stand a chance against this jury.
This case hits the most uncomfortable spot where I probably prefer a world without Gawker (the flagship site anyway), but I don't think I'm on board with this case being how we get there.
Court proceedings aren't a place to sarcastically take a stand by making a slippery slope argument in favor of 4-year-old child porn.
I don't care if it was sarcastic or in a joking manner. The guy during his deposition made a vile comment about child porn in relation to the case and his boundaries regarding breaching someones privacy. When you are defending yourself with the reasoning as important as first amendment rights for invading someones privacy and you make some flip comment involving child porn relating to the case I don't blame the jury for being disgusted thinking this kind of behaviour involving a celebrity can lead to that kind of stuff.That "four" comment was distasteful certainly but I get it. Gawker weren't on trial for publishing child porn. Daulerio got asked a bullshit irrelevant question, saw through it, and expressed his disdain in a sarcastic way. Obviously that was poorly considered -- he said an ugly thing and let the jury feel like Gawker *were* on trial for publishing child porn.
WrenchNinja
Member
Good thing he didn't do that.People have the right to be a douche. A good journalist wouldn't break the ethics of their profession.
Understandable and I agree with you. I tend to lean in Patrick's favour but it's obvious he took some glee in pushing this woman's buttons after her, other people and journalists jumped on him on Twitter so that is the one aspect that is slightly off putting.If you don't want someone to quote you, don't reply back with a quote that does not include a request not to be quoted.
But yeah those are the rules of the game for sure.