Not enough labels. What do you label the ref? The crowd? Hogan's 'stache?
Where does the crying Statue of Liberty go?
The crying statue of liberty is the ref. The crowd is the US judicial system. Hogan's stash is his public image. Now if you excuse me I need to go teach some squirrels how to write before the opium wears off.
0
Options
Goose!That's me, honeyShow me the way home, honeyRegistered Userregular
I don't like this comic. It's too gleeful in its cannibalism of the medium, there’s blood all over its face but it’s smiling. It’s intimate with the tropes it has on display, and at this precise moment in time I’m discomfited by what it does with that familiarity.
It is insufficiently reverent, and does not perform the proper obeisances.
@GOOSE! You certainly have a way with marshaling your words to great effect...I don't need to do that, but I'm glad you do; I'm glad that you have these wriggling, besuckered tentacles.
@GOOSE! You certainly have a way with gathering your words to great effect...I don't need to do that, but I'm glad you do; I'm glad that you have these wriggling, besuckered tentacles.
He's actually gathering Jerry's words, to what effect I guess being a matter of opinion.
Well played! I guess I missed reading that news post for some reason. Which is a shame, because "when he regained volition I would already be dead" is pretty great.
I don't like this comic. It's too gleeful in its cannibalism of the medium, there’s blood all over its face but it’s smiling. It’s intimate with the tropes it has on display, and at this precise moment in time I’m discomfited by what it does with that familiarity.
It is insufficiently reverent, and does not perform the proper obeisances.
I understood that reference! I'm smartz
Seriously tho, this comic seems rather... hypocrital from a guy that drew Game Developers as a Buddist Monk and Game Journalist as a FRICKING SCORPION...
Man, I'm not even old, but I think I'm out of touch. I don't know what Gawker is, I don't understand the Hulk Hogan reference in this comic, and in general I just don't get it. Sure, I understand the underlying jab at political cartoons, but I don't really understand this specific context.
Man, I'm not even old, but I think I'm out of touch. I don't know what Gawker is, I don't understand the Hulk Hogan reference in this comic, and in general I just don't get it. Sure, I understand the underlying jab at political cartoons, but I don't really understand this specific context.
Gawker is a media conglomerate which owns sites like Gizmodo, Deadspin, Kotaku, Jezebel, and Jalopnik, among others.
While there is some worthwhile and enjoyable things published on some of their sites catering to specific hobbies and enthusiasts cultures (as a casual "car guy," for example, I have to admit I enjoy some of the stuff on Jalopnik), the company as a whole has a (deserved) poor reputation in the eyes of many for practicing a cruel and sleazy style of "journalism" which puts greater value on web traffic and revenue than the truth, professional ethics, or basic decency.
They are currently embroiled in a privacy invasion lawsuit with Hulk Hogan over a sex tape of him that they published, which is kind of bringing outrage at a lot of their other past antics to a head.
Ooohhh. Ok. Yeah, I used to visit Kotaku until I realized that literally every article they post is basically click bait and there is very little "journalism" going on there, if any at all. I did not realize they were part of a bigger network of other shady sites.
+2
Options
MacMcCrackDuchess of ManboobWherever mediocrity is celebratedRegistered Userregular
I take perverse joy in seeing that my adblocker blocks 14 ads on Gawker sites. I don't even visit to read the articles. The satisfaction of knowing I have access to it without giving them a penny makes it all worthwhile.
Jerry's newspost was a joy to read. That metaphor at the end is just brilliant.
+1
Options
H3KnucklesBut we decide which is rightand which is an illusion.Registered Userregular
edited March 2016
Really liked Jerry's newspost, the lion metaphor was great, but what I liked the most was that he mentioned the Conde Nast/CFO thing. I find the problem with when people complain about Gawker is that most of the time they don't really give any specifics, so I think a lot of people who aren't already clued-in don't take it very seriously. But when you point out some of the bigger faux-pas like that then it gets the point across a lot more effectively.
I don't like this comic. It's too gleeful in its cannibalism of the medium, there’s blood all over its face but it’s smiling. It’s intimate with the tropes it has on display, and at this precise moment in time I’m discomfited by what it does with that familiarity.
It is insufficiently reverent, and does not perform the proper obeisances.
Wow, it must've really stuck in your craw that he didn't like Undertale for you to reach back and quote that. How dare he have a dumb opinion about a thing you like?
I don't like this comic. It's too gleeful in its cannibalism of the medium, there’s blood all over its face but it’s smiling. It’s intimate with the tropes it has on display, and at this precise moment in time I’m discomfited by what it does with that familiarity.
It is insufficiently reverent, and does not perform the proper obeisances.
I understood that reference! I'm smartz
Seriously tho, this comic seems rather... hypocrital from a guy that drew Game Developers as a Buddist Monk and Game Journalist as a FRICKING SCORPION...
I don't really see any hypocrisy; they aren't against the idea of editorial cartoons, I mean most of their archive could be said to fall into that category, it's the quality of so much of the ones out there that they love to ridicule. They're not even against heavy-handed messages, just poorly executed ones.
As to the scorpion-monk comic, I mean come on, the point of that comic is that gaming news sites* and the industry have a fundamentally toxic relationship, and shame on the press for how they treat the developers, but also shame on the developers for being so naive as to expose themselves to it over and over again. Regardless of how people might feel about the point they were trying to make, I really can't think of a better way they could have expressed it.
*I would argue that most of them never were intended to be proper journalism, which is why I find the GG'ers self-justification so ridiculous
I don't really see any hypocrisy; they aren't against the idea of editorial cartoons, I mean most of their archive could be said to fall into that category, it's the quality of so much of the ones out there that they love to ridicule. They're not even against heavy-handed messages, just poorly executed ones.
As to the scorpion-monk comic, I mean come on, the point of that comic is that gaming news sites* and the industry have a fundamentally toxic relationship, and shame on the press for how they treat the developers, but also shame on the developers for being so naive as to expose themselves to it over and over again. Regardless of how people might feel about the point they were trying to make, I really can't think of a better way they could have expressed it.
*I would argue that most of them never were intended to be proper journalism, which is why I find the GG'ers self-justification so ridiculous
Are you seriously trying to tell me that a comic showing something you like as a buddhist monk and something you hate as an SCORPION is a high quality political comic? -.- Yeah, the subtlety of the metaphor is overwhelming...
THey could as well have drawn Game Journalists as Hitler and Game devs as Jesus. Now THAT would be subtle and deep!
Are you seriously trying to tell me that a comic showing something you like as a buddhist monk and something you hate as an SCORPION is a high quality political comic? -.- Yeah, the subtlety of the metaphor is overwhelming...
We're basically replaying the thread for that comic, but the stock characters of the monk and the scorpion were already part of the fable they were referencing. (In some variations it's a frog and a scorpion, in others it's a monk and a scorpion.)
I don't really see any hypocrisy; they aren't against the idea of editorial cartoons, I mean most of their archive could be said to fall into that category, it's the quality of so much of the ones out there that they love to ridicule. They're not even against heavy-handed messages, just poorly executed ones.
Mike's legendary hatred for political cartoonists revisited. Nice.
Again, there's a distinction between making fun of typical political cartoons, as they often do, and being against any kind of political cartoon whatsoever. The latter would be hypocritical for a team that has produced so much material that counts as political or social commentary, but the former is not. Someone who makes any kind of creative output is well within their rights to criticize what passes for the norm in their field.
As to the scorpion-monk comic, I mean come on, the point of that comic is that gaming news sites* and the industry have a fundamentally toxic relationship, and shame on the press for how they treat the developers, but also shame on the developers for being so naive as to expose themselves to it over and over again. Regardless of how people might feel about the point they were trying to make, I really can't think of a better way they could have expressed it.
*I would argue that most of them never were intended to be proper journalism, which is why I find the GG'ers self-justification so ridiculous
Are you seriously trying to tell me that a comic showing something you like as a buddhist monk and something you hate as an SCORPION is a high quality political comic? -.- Yeah, the subtlety of the metaphor is overwhelming...
THey could as well have drawn Game Journalists as Hitler and Game devs as Jesus. Now THAT would be subtle and deep!
No, I'm not trying to say that it was high quality or that it was a subtle metaphor, please don't put words into my mouth. I'm saying that whether or not their points were wrong isn't relevant to whether or not it was a good analogy for their message, and I think it was apt. Gaslight already got to the main argument I would use for a rebuttal above; however, I would like to add to it. While I understand you're stuck on the value-judgments implied by the devs being a monk and the press being the scorpion (a common opinion of that strip), consider the following: isn't the monk kind of dumb in the allegory? Isn't the point of using the allegory to say that the industry pros should know better about how the news media works? But I digress, what I am trying to argue is that the comic doesn't exhibit the things they complain about in political cartoons, so regardless of whether you feel it was sanctimonious garbage, it does not seem hypocritical to me for them to turn around and call the average political cartoonist a lazy hack who labels everything.
Yeah... Gawker media as a whole is in a strange place. And it's usually terrible reading during election years and this one is no exception. Lately I think their goal is to echo Fox News without even realizing it or something.
Really don't like what they did with io9 either...
“I used to draw, hard to admit that I used to draw...”
The jury awarded Hogan $55 million for economic injuries and $60 million for emotional distress. The jury will reconvene next week to consider punitive damages on top of the $115 million already awarded.
Denton made it too easy:
In closing arguments earlier in the day, Hogan attorney Kenneth Turkel tried to paint the Gawker defendants as indecent gossip-mongers who make a mockery of journalism.
Turkel told the jury that Daulerio "didn't have the common decency" to reach out to any of the parties involved before he posted the video excerpts and the commentary, which "probably tells you all you need to know about Gawker."
Turkel invoked a 2013 interview in which Denton said "invasion of privacy has incredibly positive effects on society."
"Who thinks like that?" the attorney asked incredulously.
Yeah Nick, the "positive effect" of making you richer at the expense of others. What a greedy and sadistical creep.
Wow, Hulk Hogan got $115m out of $100m he asked for. I wonder what soured the jury so badly on Gawker. Could it have been the part where an editor said a sex tape involving a 4 year old would be newsworthy enough to post on the site? Or maybe the part where they told a potential rape victim that they wouldn't take down the sex tape they posted of her. Or maybe it was the part where Nick Denton tried to invoke the holocaust in Gawker's defense somehow.
Their editors said so many sociopathic, insane things it's hard to single one out. I can't believe these people thought saying those things would help them in the eyes of the jury.
Wow, Hulk Hogan got $115m out of $100m he asked for. I wonder what soured the jury so badly on Gawker. Could it have been the part where an editor said a sex tape involving a 4 year old would be newsworthy enough to post on the site? Or maybe the part where they told a potential rape victim that they wouldn't take down the sex tape they posted of her. Or maybe it was the part where Nick Denton tried to invoke the holocaust in Gawker's defense somehow.
Their editors said so many sociopathic, insane things it's hard to single one out. I can't believe these people thought saying those things would help them in the eyes of the jury.
To be fair, if you work at Gawker I expect your respect for humanity goes way, way down.
Under current Florida law, any appellate (person filing an appeal) in a civil judgement, must bond or pay one half of that judgement, with the maximum bond being fifty million dollars, to the court before the appeals process can begin. The problem facing Gawker is the fact that this required bond is more than their current annual income, and may make the appeal process difficult, if not impossible to undertake.
I'm assuming this will apply to the punitive damages, too. Another article talks about the net worth of the various defendants:
For the company, that's $83 million, and for Denton, the figure is $121 million, Judge Pamela Campbell told the jurors. Daulerio was determined to have no assets, but did have $27,000 in student loans.
Posts
Where does the crying Statue of Liberty go?
The crying statue of liberty is the ref. The crowd is the US judicial system. Hogan's stash is his public image. Now if you excuse me I need to go teach some squirrels how to write before the opium wears off.
It is insufficiently reverent, and does not perform the proper obeisances.
He's actually gathering Jerry's words, to what effect I guess being a matter of opinion.
Well played! I guess I missed reading that news post for some reason. Which is a shame, because "when he regained volition I would already be dead" is pretty great.
Indeed. My hatred of Gawker might be without bounds, but I think Mike & Jerry out unbounds me. It's like infinity + 1, or infinity squared.
You gotta trust the reader, Josh.
This one remains my all time favorite:
It conveys the message perfectly without a single word.
I understood that reference! I'm smartz
Seriously tho, this comic seems rather... hypocrital from a guy that drew Game Developers as a Buddist Monk and Game Journalist as a FRICKING SCORPION...
Gawker is a media conglomerate which owns sites like Gizmodo, Deadspin, Kotaku, Jezebel, and Jalopnik, among others.
While there is some worthwhile and enjoyable things published on some of their sites catering to specific hobbies and enthusiasts cultures (as a casual "car guy," for example, I have to admit I enjoy some of the stuff on Jalopnik), the company as a whole has a (deserved) poor reputation in the eyes of many for practicing a cruel and sleazy style of "journalism" which puts greater value on web traffic and revenue than the truth, professional ethics, or basic decency.
They are currently embroiled in a privacy invasion lawsuit with Hulk Hogan over a sex tape of him that they published, which is kind of bringing outrage at a lot of their other past antics to a head.
Among their greatest hits, which Jerry references in the news post, was willingly participating in a blackmail scheme by a male escort to out a (married, male) executive at Conde Nast who was not a public figure and had never done anything to anybody and basically destroy the guy's life just for kicks and clicks.
Wow, it must've really stuck in your craw that he didn't like Undertale for you to reach back and quote that. How dare he have a dumb opinion about a thing you like?
I don't really see any hypocrisy; they aren't against the idea of editorial cartoons, I mean most of their archive could be said to fall into that category, it's the quality of so much of the ones out there that they love to ridicule. They're not even against heavy-handed messages, just poorly executed ones.
As to the scorpion-monk comic, I mean come on, the point of that comic is that gaming news sites* and the industry have a fundamentally toxic relationship, and shame on the press for how they treat the developers, but also shame on the developers for being so naive as to expose themselves to it over and over again. Regardless of how people might feel about the point they were trying to make, I really can't think of a better way they could have expressed it.
*I would argue that most of them never were intended to be proper journalism, which is why I find the GG'ers self-justification so ridiculous
Are you seriously trying to tell me that a comic showing something you like as a buddhist monk and something you hate as an SCORPION is a high quality political comic? -.- Yeah, the subtlety of the metaphor is overwhelming...
THey could as well have drawn Game Journalists as Hitler and Game devs as Jesus. Now THAT would be subtle and deep!
We're basically replaying the thread for that comic, but the stock characters of the monk and the scorpion were already part of the fable they were referencing. (In some variations it's a frog and a scorpion, in others it's a monk and a scorpion.)
And yes, Hogan's "business suit" includes a black bandana.
Hulkster, we know you're bald. We knew you were bald like 25 years ago.
Again, there's a distinction between making fun of typical political cartoons, as they often do, and being against any kind of political cartoon whatsoever. The latter would be hypocritical for a team that has produced so much material that counts as political or social commentary, but the former is not. Someone who makes any kind of creative output is well within their rights to criticize what passes for the norm in their field.
No, I'm not trying to say that it was high quality or that it was a subtle metaphor, please don't put words into my mouth. I'm saying that whether or not their points were wrong isn't relevant to whether or not it was a good analogy for their message, and I think it was apt. Gaslight already got to the main argument I would use for a rebuttal above; however, I would like to add to it. While I understand you're stuck on the value-judgments implied by the devs being a monk and the press being the scorpion (a common opinion of that strip), consider the following: isn't the monk kind of dumb in the allegory? Isn't the point of using the allegory to say that the industry pros should know better about how the news media works? But I digress, what I am trying to argue is that the comic doesn't exhibit the things they complain about in political cartoons, so regardless of whether you feel it was sanctimonious garbage, it does not seem hypocritical to me for them to turn around and call the average political cartoonist a lazy hack who labels everything.
Really don't like what they did with io9 either...
Their editors said so many sociopathic, insane things it's hard to single one out. I can't believe these people thought saying those things would help them in the eyes of the jury.
To be fair, if you work at Gawker I expect your respect for humanity goes way, way down.
I'm assuming this will apply to the punitive damages, too. Another article talks about the net worth of the various defendants: