|
Ork of Fiction posted:So you admit that what he did wasn't a crime, but you think that it should be a crime, and that, when a person commits a crime, they forefit their rights to privacy? Not being able to successfully prosecute doesn't mean a crime wasn't committed, it just means the standard of proof can't be met. Are you seriously this dense? People are arrested without that standard of proof being met all the time, and their mugshots are printed at that time, not after a guilty verdict, so suspicion of a crime actually is when privacy is forfeited.
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2015 23:46
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 14:08 |
|
|
was it stupid to publish the article? absolutely, but lol at the internet outrage machine lashing out at gawker. oh no they embarassed some wealthy capitalist  this is a horrible crime
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2015 23:49
|
|
|
TEAYCHES posted:was it stupid to publish the article? absolutely, but lol at the internet outrage machine lashing out at gawker. oh no they embarassed some wealthy capitalist
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2015 23:52
|
|
|
I thought the whole point here was that Geithner never even hired the hooker in the first place, so why are we acting like it's a given that he did and thus gave up his right to privacy.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2015 23:52
|
|
|
Al Cowens posted:I wish you died with LF. hey friend how are you
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2015 23:52
|
|
|
Punch sideways within a 20º arc up or down, but no more.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2015 23:56
|
|
|
VJeff posted:I thought the whole point here was that Geithner never even hired the hooker in the first place, so why are we acting like it's a given that he did and thus gave up his right to privacy. IIRC he'd already made a downpayment. They hadn't hosed yet, but you don't gently caress the cop who arrested you if you solicit in person either. Anyway my point isn't that exposing this guy was right, but that nobody gives a poo poo when the law and media turn their eyes on people who aren't rich media executives with political connections. My position isn't so much gently caress this guy for being rich as it is gently caress everyone who only cares about his embarrassment because he's rich.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2015 23:58
|
|
|
Sinteres posted:you don't gently caress the cop who arrested you if you solicit in person either wait, really? gently caress 
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2015 23:59
|
|
|
TEAYCHES posted:wait, really? gently caress This probably won't cheer you up, but sometimes the cops actually do gently caress the prostitutes they arrest when it's the other way around though. And they can get away with it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2015 00:01
|
|
|
TEAYCHES posted:was it stupid to publish the article? absolutely, but lol at the internet outrage machine lashing out at gawker. oh no they embarassed some wealthy capitalist Gawker is an organisation that is equally if not more of a wealthy capitalist, and rather than genuinely caring about the dude no one has ever heard of the aim is to stick the boot into gawker, which often portrays itself as a force of avenging progressive morality but is more often a cynical clickbait machine.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2015 00:04
|
|
|
Moon Atari posted:Gawker is an organisation that is equally if not more of a wealthy capitalist, and rather than genuinely caring about the dude no one has ever heard of the aim is to stick the boot into gawker, which often portrays itself as a force of avenging progressive morality but is more often a cynical clickbait machine. i mean, youre right of course, but i would word it more like a lot of people have an axe to grind because they just hate gawker and this was just the catalyst for the internet outrage machine to explode and hot take twitter to start a campaign of its own cynical moralizing. its stupid as gently caress the internet makes you stupid
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2015 00:07
|
|
|
I think people across all political spectrums lining up to kick gawker in the dick is more a statement about how bad gawker is than any of those specific groups.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2015 00:10
|
|
|
i like gawkers editorial style and i am their target demographic, a hip 26 year old upwardly mobile middle-class progressive who values authenticity and is skeptical of powerful institutions. its too bad i use ad blocker
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2015 00:13
|
|
|
TEAYCHES posted:a lot of people have an axe to grind because they just hate gawker and this was just the catalyst for the internet outrage machine to explode I don't see what's stupid about this tbf, because seriously, gawker is awful.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2015 00:14
|
|
|
TEAYCHES posted:i like gawkers editorial style and i am their target demographic, a hip 26 year old upwardly mobile middle-class progressive who values authenticity and is skeptical of powerful institutions. its too bad i use ad blocker
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2015 00:15
|
|
|
gawkers not that bad, i think they perform an important role in media by playing the spoiler. the world would be a little less vibrant without her (gawker media)
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2015 00:15
|
|
|
I hope Hogan wins in court and then drops the leg on Nick Denton's face.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2015 00:16
|
|
|
Al Cowens posted:In four years you will be openly conservative and welcome the Trump presidency with open arms. hail satan
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2015 00:16
|
|
Sinteres posted:IIRC he'd already made a downpayment. They hadn't hosed yet, but you don't gently caress the cop who arrested you if you solicit in person either. Anyway my point isn't that exposing this guy was right, but that nobody gives a poo poo when the law and media turn their eyes on people who aren't rich media executives with political connections. My position isn't so much gently caress this guy for being rich as it is gently caress everyone who only cares about his embarrassment because he's rich. lol no, gently caress that guy for being rich there's no ethical way to be a multimillionaire, hth
|
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2015 01:06
|
|
|
It's a amazing how when a lovely poster makes a lovely thread, it brings out all the lovely posts.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2015 01:28
|
|
|
TEAYCHES posted:was it stupid to publish the article? absolutely, but lol at the internet outrage machine lashing out at gawker. oh no they embarassed some wealthy capitalist iirc the problem isn't who they outed, but the fact that they're constantly condemning other people for this kind of behavior. tldr no moral abortion except my abortion it gets kind of lost in the white noise though
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2015 01:48
|
|
|
it's about ethics in tabloid journalism
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2015 01:54
|
|
|
The White Dragon posted:iirc the problem isn't who they outed, but the fact that they're constantly condemning other people for this kind of behavior. tldr no moral abortion except my abortion have they ever condemned outing someone?? i mean they may have i just cant think of any examples and im a pretty huge gawker fanboi
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2015 02:47
|
|
|
TEAYCHES posted:have they ever condemned outing someone?? i mean they may have i just cant think of any examples and im a pretty huge gawker fanboi Jezebel has explicitly called it a lovely thing to do and condemned it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2015 05:07
|
|
|
Really it's about ethics in gay journalism
PyPy fucked around with this message at 05:29 on Jul 22, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2015 05:26
|
|
|
TEAYCHES posted:was it stupid to publish the article? absolutely, but lol at the internet outrage machine lashing out at gawker. oh no they embarassed some wealthy capitalist But but but they ruined his life!!!!
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2015 13:21
|
|
|
Wow, it really could have done worse. I mean it could have been to a not rich person. Really makes you think about how something isn't bad if it could be worse.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2015 13:22
|
|
|
Yes. People only want to defend the guy who didn't end up hiring the hooker because he's rich. Yes, that's literally the only reason people feel sympathetic towards the guy who did nothing but back out from booking an escort; it has nothing to do with Gawker being incredibly awful or the fact that he's an executive for the company that is their biggest direct competitor or that "Guy thinks about hiring escort, backs out" isn't newsworthy or that the gay hooker tried to blackmail the guy and Gawker tried to protect the identity of a guy who was literally attempting blackmail, which is actually a crime. No, it's all because the guy who is an executive for a company that is the largest direct competitor of gawker and didn't actually hire a hooker is rich. You nailed it. Great job!
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2015 19:12
|
|
|
Was the escort a black male?
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2015 19:38
|
|
|
Junkfist posted:Was the escort a black male? I hope so, or I'm going to need to rework all my mental images.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2015 19:40
|
|
|
IcedPee posted:Yes. People only want to defend the guy who didn't end up hiring the hooker because he's rich. Yes, that's literally the only reason people feel sympathetic towards the guy who did nothing but back out from booking an escort; it has nothing to do with Gawker being incredibly awful or the fact that he's an executive for the company that is their biggest direct competitor or that "Guy thinks about hiring escort, backs out" isn't newsworthy or that the gay hooker tried to blackmail the guy and Gawker tried to protect the identity of a guy who was literally attempting blackmail, which is actually a crime. No, it's all because the guy who is an executive for a company that is the largest direct competitor of gawker and didn't actually hire a hooker is rich. You nailed it. Great job! Gawker was always awful and nobody gave too much of a poo poo when they outed Shepard Smith for having a boyfriend even though he's consistently been on the right side of gay rights issues. The rules for whether or not outing is okay seem to be awfully fluid depending on how sympathetic the audience finds the victim, and for some reason a politically connected media executive who was actually committing a crime seems to be the hill everyone decided to murder Gawker on. For what it's worth, I don't feel any more sympathetic for Gawker than I do for him. Dr Kool-AIDS fucked around with this message at 20:37 on Jul 22, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2015 20:25
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2015 20:35
|
|
|
Sinteres posted:Gawker was always awful and nobody gave too much of a poo poo when they outed Shepard Smith for having a boyfriend even though he's consistently been on the right side of gay rights issues. The rules for whether or not outing is okay seem to be awfully fluid depending on how sympathetic the audience finds the victim, and for some reason a politically connected media executive who was actually committing a crime seems to be the hill everyone decided to murder Gawker on. nobody gave a poo poo because shepard smith being gay was an open secret at that point. it's like expecting people to somehow be shocked when clay aiken or ricky martin eventually came out
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2015 20:36
|
|
|
a retard posted:nobody gave a poo poo because shepard smith works for fox news fixed
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2015 20:39
|
|
|
Sinteres posted:Gawker was always awful and nobody gave too much of a poo poo when they outed Shepard Smith for having a boyfriend even though he's consistently been on the right side of gay rights issues. Never heard of this guy, but if gawker outed him for the huge crime of "having a boyfriend" that's horrible and doesn't invalidate gawker being horrible again for doing the same thing. Sinteres posted:The rules for whether or not outing is okay seem to be awfully fluid depending on how sympathetic the audience finds the victim, and for some reason a politically connected media executive who was actually committing a crime seems to be the hill everyone decided to murder Gawker on. You're willfully ignoring the fact that the guy didn't even meet up with the hooker and therefore could not have committed a crime since at no point during the conversation is the exchange of sex for money discussed or agreed upon (which is a crime). Not exchanging money for sex is perfectly legal.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2015 20:40
|
|
|
i don't know what's more pathetic, people defending the rich media executive, or people defending the lovely tabloid everyone involved in this story is a piece of poo poo that should be publically shamed and had their dirty laundry let out to dry
|
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2015 20:41
|
|
|
IcedPee posted:You're willfully ignoring the fact that the guy didn't even meet up with the hooker and therefore could not have committed a crime since at no point during the conversation is the exchange of sex for money discussed or agreed upon (which is a crime). Not exchanging money for sex is perfectly legal. Conspiracy to commit a crime is generally still a crime. The intent was clearly there, and unless you're 12 years old you understand that asking for a donation of roses or using other euphemistic language doesn't mean it isn't prostitution. Also you're still missing the point that he was texting with a prostitute asking for thousands of dollars on his phone instead of picking up someone on the street because he's rich. If he'd been caught picking someone up on the street, we wouldn't even be having this argument. Dr Kool-AIDS fucked around with this message at 20:53 on Jul 22, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2015 20:47
|
|
|
Sinteres posted:Conspiracy to commit a crime is generally still a crime. The intent was clearly there, and unless you're 12 years old you understand that asking for a donation of roses or using other euphemistic language doesn't mean it isn't prostitution. He changed his mind. No intent. No conspiracy. No crime.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2015 20:53
|
|
|
IcedPee posted:He changed his mind. No intent. No conspiracy. No crime. That's not how it works.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2015 20:58
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 14:08 |
|
IcedPee posted:He changed his mind. No intent. No conspiracy. No crime. I see you're a licensed Internet Lawyer (tm)
|
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2015 20:59
|
|