|
paul_soccer10 posted:SMASH 'EM, HULKSTER!
|
#
¿
Jun 10, 2016 18:41
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 29, 2024 01:03 |
|
|
Smaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaash 'em HULKSTER
|
|
#
¿
Jun 10, 2016 19:40
|
|
|
Hadaka Apron posted:http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/bitwise/2014/10/how_to_end_gamergate_a_divide_and_conquer_plan.html this man was paid to write this. he was given money in exchange for providing this service to this company.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 10, 2016 23:06
|
|
|
An unprecedented legal assault...! Nibelung Valesti!!!!!
|
|
#
¿
Jun 10, 2016 23:18
|
|
|
Gawker's sins are many, but it may be most guilty of viciously enforcing a culture of correct opinions that cost people their jobs and peace of mind, as well as openly encouraging harassment and bullying of anyone whom they chose not to like (while demonizing it when it was done to somebody else). Gawker was an example of the worst sort of hypocrite, and stands guilty of taking a marketplace of ideas and turning it into a megaphone of opinion.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 11, 2016 20:58
|
|
|
Germstore posted:A corporation did a bad to an individual and a rich individual helped him fight back. This is clearly bad because- uh- sounds like Batman
|
|
#
¿
Jun 12, 2016 02:05
|
|
|
Petty, spiteful and insulting to the very loving last. Utter hypocrites at that, paragons of a delusional self-styled justice. The fact that they've left a lasting stink about social media and the Internet at large is only further proof that these vipers should have been shoveled to death years ago. Good bye and good riddance. This passage: quote:There has been much gloating online over the news, almost exclusively from the worst people. Seriously, catalogue a list of the most odious types you can imagine — Gamer Gate babies, MRAs, Buzzfeed dorks, Tech turds, Redditors, Beltway puds — and they’re all reveling in the news. There’s an old saying about how you can only judge someone based on the quality of their enemies This is their legacy. Of assigning mocking labels to people whom they didn't like, agree with, or just saw an opportunity to attack. A blatantly biased outlet with a disregard for ethical practice or just basic decorum. For every one of their high-minded essays about some insipid politically correct ideology or public shamings of random schmucks on social media, they've simply polluted the very idea of digital news feeds, which now seem as only feeding troughs fit only for beasts.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 12, 2016 04:18
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 29, 2024 01:03 |
|
|
Regrettable posted:This is what Gawker's lawyers are going to argue and they're probably going to win. Nah.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 13, 2016 04:44
|
|