Gawker et al. is up there with 4chan and Tumblr as websites that have markedly made the internet significantly worse. The modern snarky-hack journalist-on-Twitter archetype was practically invented by them. They were the among the first in that space, exported the journalist-meets-weird-Twitter Brooklyn DSA Gawker mentality to others who joined, and became media cool kids that got snapped up by places like the Times once Gawker imploded because of their carelessness. Their affiliated blogs were/are nearly as bad: the Gamergate (I know, I know) debacle was a child of culture-warring by Kotaku, the Gawker Media gaming blog. Deadspin did much of the same for sports media and basically set the obnoxious, self-righteous tone for future outlets like SB Nation to follow. Zombie Gawker being both pathetic and still fucking awful is the most predicable thing in the world. I probably should be more circumspect about it, but no: Peter Thiel, the job's not done — Gawker delenda est.
The thing is, in the episode, Jesse said that Gawker had been sanctimonious. A LOT of things could be said about Gawker but they were never sanctimonious. They could be downright cruel, but I do not think they were ever sanctimonious.
Though to be fair, I started reading them in 2003/2004 when it was publishing world gossip. I stopped reading before 2010 for sure but eould check it out occasionally.
And JEZEBEL - I started reading it in 2007 when it started. Stopped in 2011 or do because it was getting Batshit. Rhen started again I font remember. I havent read it in a long time because they are insane now
Maybe we use the words differently but the Gawker brand seems really sanctimonious to me — they're constantly insisting how terrible everyone but themselves are. They're good and pure and should be protected from any consequences, but their enemies are basically evil and you should feel free to do literally anything in your attempts to hurt them. Thus why they cross lines so much — outing people and sharing revenge porn and lying as a journalist simply can't be bad when you're a Good One and you are fighting Bad Ones.
We are definitely using sanctimonious in the same way. I just do not recall Gawker being sanctimonious. I mean Nick Dent ( I hope I got the name right) could be super sanctimonious about gay people coming out (hence outing Peter Thuel)
But as I recall Gawker was pretty vicious to everyone.
The "you support free speech, but you oppose libel / slander? Interesting" line of argument is super annoying to me. Way too much of this happening online (i.e., people thinking they are making interesting remarks re: their opponents' arguments without having a coherent understanding of what's going on / why the two things are markedly different).
See it with free market capitalism / opposition to fraud often as well, as another common example (the ability to reasonably rely-at least in part-on the assertions of a counterparty is actually fairly foundational to a well-functioning market economy of any sort).
This annoying, chortling tendency tends to go more left-to-right (or simply not-quite-as-left) in my experience, but YMMV.
Yeah, the same people think they “got me” when I have exceptions to free speech for classified information, incitement to violence, slander/libel, etc.
It’s like someone saying “oh yeah well if the cosine at 0 is 1 why is the sine at 0 also 0?” And then laughing while they throw their math book in the ground. What does it take for someone just to believe they’re dumb?
To clarify, Defamation is not a crime in the US. It is a tort i.e. a civil wrong that one can sue to redress.
This, to me is why one can be a free speech absolutist or near absolutist and still not be against a defamation suit per se. Personally, this one doesn't rise to my level of being worth it but what Jesse described being done to him in the past would pass my bar of significant enough damage to be worth it.
Jesse and Katie both suffered after committing the cardinal sin of writing about de-transitioners but I think Katie suffered more actual harm. After her article appeared in the Seattle Stranger, she was literally driven from her home and job in Seattle by a trans crazed mob. She has said she lives near a Navy town so I assume she's referring to Bremerton, which is a one hour ferry ride from Seattle, on the other side of Puget Sound. (I'm a former active duty Navy wife.)
I just checked to make sure I was right. Defamation and libel have nothing to do with whether the person who made the false statement knew it was false.
And defamation and libel.are not criminal charges.
What they did WAS libelous. They just needed a simple fact check
Where did you check? I'm curious because when I worked in journalism many years ago, winning a libel case had everything to do with proving actual malice on the part of the journalist/ publisher, meaning that they published or posted something defamatory in writing, knowing it was false, ie., with malice aforethought. If someone says something defamatory, knowing it's false, that constitutes slander.
I have a JD in google. After I posted my comment abd read comments by lawyers, I realized I was way off base (to be fair to, um, ME, the information was from a law office website. To my discredit, I am pretty sure they were looking to lure people into suing. So perhaps not the most accurate info on their site)
That's strange. Why would a law office post something as absolutely false as that on their website? Doesn't sound like a great way to attract clients.
Many years ago, I worked as an actual fact checker and researcher for a highly respected but very controversial investigative reporter. And the person who schooled our magazine's tiny editorial staff on how to protect ourselves and our employer against libel suits was none other than premier First Amendment lawyer Floyd Abrams himself. While I assume that some of journalism's processes and procedures have changed since then, I'm pretty sure the fundamentals have not.
Hah wow, I totally remember listening to that episode when it came out. I wonder how it got lost, it wasn't even in my old Patreon feed. (And eventful too, the in-joke about Katie Herzo *and* the announcement that Jesse had to do the replication crisis rap were on that pod.)
I am so glad you posted this. It gives me warm fuzzies hearing Katie and Jesse in the early days realizing that they’re making something really awesome!
It’s not in the podcast feed, nor apparently is there any reference to it in the barpod sophisticated information management system. I used the word controversy for dramatic effect.
I'm begging you guys consider the strange case of Ana Mardoll, a moral entrepreneur who spent weeks on Twitter telling writers that expecting other writers to read their work is....:::checks notes::: ableist. The detonation/revelation of their grift -- they're a Patreon darling and a defense contractor all at once -- is what Twitter is made for.
They've talked about Mardoll before, and Jesse linked to Lauren Hough's substack about the whole ordeal on Twitter, so I have high hopes they'll cover this. (I don't know enough about what's going on and could use the explainer.)
For the Andy Signore segment, it should be noted that April Dawn was only 18-19 years old when all this occurred. I know that is technically ‘legal’, but most people at that age are still just beginning to learn about the workforce, adult relationships and their own sexuality. Navigating any one of those things at that age is hard, but far worse when they all interact. In April’s last post before she went completely offline, she said “I was a teenager and I made mistakes and I’ve had to live with them.” Also, like most people pre-MeToo, she had to go through a meaningless toothless HR process. I am a huge Screen Junkies fan, and I believe Andy Signore’s version of events. She clearly was a willing participant at times and exaggerated to make her case. And also agree journalism on this was crazy one-sided. But still, she should never had been put in that position.
Most people are clueless about their sexuality at age 18-19. A friend who thought appearing in porn was a liberating feminist experience, then came to deeply regret it. A lesbian friend who thought she was asexual until an amazing night. A friend who had an affair with a 50-year old married man and still cannot explain what she ever saw in him. I shudder to think how difficult these situations would be if their boss was involved. April didn't handle things in the most honest way, but she was also too young to be expected to.
I hear what you’re saying but the problem with that is it infantilizes women. “Put in that position” implies she has no agency. At what age are females capable of making their own decisions? Cause, were the genders flipped a 19 year old dude would, for damn sure, be held accountable for his decisions.
The direction feminism has taken when it comes to sex is kind of shocking. I was a kud when Monica Lewinsky happened but I remember people were like - she is only 24 - and that was the conservative, "bac" viewpoint. The 3rd wave feminists were like she made a choice
Now. It is. He had all the power.
Which, maybe. And that might have been super hot to her
Do you feel the same way about Bill Clinton and Monica Lewinsky? I remember at the time, many people dismissing this as "two consenting adults." Often, these were the same people complaining about 'power imbalances' while pushing to broaden sexual harassment laws.
I do, I think Monica knew exactly what she was doing. The idea that a 25 year old can’t decide whether or not to have sex with POTUS (or any one else for that matter) is ridiculous. The “power imbalance” thing is feminism as applied religion. It creates this absurd calculus where POTUS would be guilty of rape if they had sex with *anyone* because the power imbalance with any sexual partner and the most powerful person on earth precludes consent by the BS standard they are setting.
I personally think who POTUS bangs is no ones business and Monica had/has nothing to be ashamed of but when she tried to shine up her image up by claiming that she was a powerless vessel, it was eye-rolling cringe and frankly not great for female agency in general.
But even if their age & his power doesn't create a strong enough power dynamic, does his position as The Boss not do so? IMO one of the best takeaways from MeToo is the understanding that boss / subordinate sexual relationships are just way too potentially problematic to be allowed
Sure, I'm not saying power dynamics in relationships is never an issue. Clergy and congregation, Dr. and patient and Teacher/student (while taking classes from said teacher) are all off limits to me as issues of professional ethics. Now, for employer/employee I think there are gradations though I agree its all fraught and would personally choose to avoid it entirely. I think that if the person is not their immediate supervisor its less of an issue as was the case with Clinton but that he was married complicates that whole discussion.
I agree that work place relationships are a quagmire but forbidding them is just setting ourselves up to criminalize sexuality, as we're doing now and given that the burden of making the advance is generally male, we're criminalizing male sexuality. For example in the military fraternization is forbidden between officer and enlisted and in the Navy sex at sea is a punishable offence. Now, I understand the reasoning but it was never very realistic because it just goes on quietly. Its like abstinence may be the best contraception in theory but certainly not in practice, given its total detachment from human nature. Or outlawing abortion doesn't stop it, just makes it more dangerous, etc.
"Clergy and congregation, Dr. and patient and Teacher/student," I would suggest that employer and intern should be treated the same way, especially when it's President of the United States and Intern.
I agree with you that these are difficult questions, especially when both parties are adults. My problem is more with the double standards that are applied.
As I recall, Pres. Clinton's administration had a very active (and activist) EEOC. This time period was sort of a high point of awareness of sexual harassment on the job. It was relatively uniform on the left (again, per my very imperfect memory) that bosses should not sleep with their underlings, as the power imbalance made these relationships per se unfair and actionable.
Yet, President Clinton was caught with an intern, and suddenly it was no big deal, two consenting adults, and all that. I remember handling a sexual harassment case in the 90's that really fit the mold--power imbalance and when the relationship became known, the underling lost the job and felt the repercussions. The only difference? The underling was a man and the employer was a woman (back when we knew what those terms meant). The claim was dismissed right away.
It's a tough issue. But it cannot work out that 'my team' wins and 'your team' loses.
(By the way, at the time I thought the relationship between President Clinton and Monica Lewinsky should not have been actionable. You will recall, though, that they tried to claim executive privilege, such that the president could not be examined about the matter until after he was out of office. That question was, as I recall, taken all the way to the Supreme Court, which ruled he could be deposed. At that point, I don't care what you think: You have to tell the truth. He didn't.)
Yeah, you make a good point but I have a couple concerns:
1. Were never gonna stop coworkers from having sex and this just seems to criminalize it. Maybe the thing to punish is retaliation and harrassment. Forbidding office relationships even between boss and underling seems a lost cause especially when hypergamy is such a prominent part of human sexuality.
2. You could eliminate boss & underling sex and still not stop the power imbalance problem (by the standard being set) in a town like DC because the whole place is so incestuous there’d be no relationship that couldn’t be considered a power imbalance.
3. I too am an old dog who remembers the scandal in real time. My favorite part is that the guy driving the whole warlock hunt was Speaker Gingrich, a hypocrite so bent he was icing his own mistress at the time with a 500K line of credit at Tiffany’s.
the "power imbalance" of the president of the US is not really comparable to what we're talking about here, regardless of what you think of Clinton/Lewinsky
I agree. The power imbalance between Bill Clinton and Monica Lewinsky is almost certainly greater than any imbalance existed between Andy Signore and his accuser. Is that what you meant?
Yeah that's what I meant. I haven't given it much thought or looked into the details in a long time, but if you're concerned about power imbalances between consenting adults, that seems like kind of the most extreme case imaginable right? like if that isn't problematic i'm not sure what would be
As someone who was once a 19 year old woman, so what? First. I had so many friends who had been sexually active for years at 19. Others, like me, had never so much as kissed someone. So we have no idea what things were like for her.
Also. The same thing could have happened at 25.
We do stupid shot when we arw young. That is ok. Why place rhe responsibility on the other eoman?
It is not so much about sexuality, but understanding how to navigate sex and work together; which is its own can of works. This is where HR should be active and assisting people not only with what to do before these situations arise, but also how to handle complaints professionally (i.e. don’t make grand public social media posts without getting all the facts right, like April did). And I am certainly not suggesting sex and work cant mix, that would invalidate most relationships I have had. I am only suggesting that navigating it is tough and it should not be expected young people know how to do this.
My two cents is that Andy Signore should have been severely reprimanded for this (possibly still fired), but should not received the public shaming and additional silly accusations in the pile-on (“he once looked at me funny” style of thing). April also copped heaps of hate which I also think was broadly unfair. I am a fan of Andy Signore’s work; “Movie Fights” was hilarious and just didnt work without him.
I also should not have made my original post so gendered, same broad understanding should be applied to young men too.
Speaking of looking back and re-interrogating metoo allegations, there is one case that I've always wanted more information about. Sherman Alexie is one of my favorite authors, and I just never understood exactly what he did that deserved the complete ostracization he received. None of the articles published about it shared many specifics. One accusation sounded more like a disappointing affair with him and retconned it to be about power imbalances. Another sounded like an unwanted advance that could have been stopped by just saying they weren't interested. And a third lacked almost any details. Even in the original reporting, I thought it sounded bizarre. This is a quote from the NPR article:
"And he's connected to the organization I work for, and if he had never expressed an interest in my poems I probably wouldn't have pursued spending any time with him," Walker says. "But he did express an interest. And so then when I discover that interest is actually physical, it just felt very wrong."
So you wanted him to show interest in your work, but instead he didn't discuss your work and just expressed a sexual interest? How exactly is that bad? He's not your boss. Can successful writers not have romantic relationships with less successful writers? For what it's worth, he acknowledged them as affairs, but he did not, to my knowledge, admit to using his power over them to threaten their careers.
I know a woman who was his handler at an event and he made it known he wanted to handle her. So, all this together with anecodal evidence ot sounds like Alexie is kind of a dog, and more power to him, but in the toxically woke environment of publishing (let alone poetry FFS) along side academic Indian Country (which is very different from IRL Indian Country) plus the beginning of the metoo movement before it had its Depp thermidorian reaction, just made an old dog like Lexi an inevitable target. Especially when female grievance was upgraded to a version of “sexual assault” and Alexie had clearly had enough time to piss people off with good old fashion philandering and, arguably, shitty dating behavior.
I’m a bit torn on some of these; on the one hand, there really did seem to be a class of untouchable men who could be as skeezy as they wanted to be with zero consequences, and while complete social death seems rather extreme it is probably better that there be _some_ punishment to discourage this sort of thing. On the other hand, the full MeToo cannon seems as often as not to be aimed at men who had a completely consensual relationship with an enthusiastically participating woman (like the one in this episode) who then retroactively decides it was rape based on some feminist theory of power dynamics or whatever. My read of the culture is that we are actually converging to a reasonable place, the media has gotten a bit more careful about these cases (there hasn’t been a Shitty Men in Media List v2.0, for example) so I have some optimism about the issue.
I basically agree but its taken some high level colossal fuck ups thanks to applied feminism to get to this point. My thing is that I’m not sure the pendulum is swinging back cause Biden has reinstated the “dear colleague” letter, maybe its all just quieter. Like the fact theres more meth on the streets now that the cartels are making it instead of redneck locals. The harm is worse than ever before there just aren’t city blocks exploding so we don’t hear about it anymore.
I would have liked them to focus more on what Katie said at the very end about men who sort of seem to hate women maybe? I’ve noticed that #notallbutsome men who’ve been publicly accused or shamed by a woman/women really go hard in the misogyny paint. 🚩
Yes, I would have liked to have heard more about that too. I noticed that there was a not very well concealed and venous misogyny about how a lot of the male defenders of Johnny Depp responded to that case. It was interesting to me that a lot of his female defenders said something like "I was in an abusive relationship, and the way AH behaved reminds me of my abuser, and the way Johnny responded reminded me of myself, men can be abused too." While a lot of the men said about Herd v Depp some variant of "bitch got what she deserved, unlike my wife. Good to see a woman getting destroyed." I believe that it was probably a mutually abusive relationship, where he was more the victim then her, and if not then he was the victim, but the level of misogyny among the men celebrating his victory I found disturbing and ugly.
Yes I think the male Depp defenders are often pretty suss. You have someone like Jesse who I believe has had a ton of ridiculous allegations lodged against him from trans women, and as far as I remember, I hasn’t tried to defame and destroy those people or called them all disgusting, liars, t-slurs, etc. He’s just like uh nope that’s Not Correct and here’s proof.
I also note it’s a 🚩for me when a man calls a woman disgusting, or a bitch, etc., rather than criticize her actions. But call me nitpicky.
It sounds like honest trailer guy is maybe a classic little grifter who is trying to capitalize on highly emotional trending topics. Good to point out the nuance of the story and how the evidence against him is at the very least not legally credible, and you could argue that’s made him desperate and therefore his content worse. I just don’t think I’ll be subscribing to his Substack lol.
.::
Side note bc I can’t resist continuing this discourse against my better judgement: I am extreeeeeemely skeptical of the JD narrative, and find it pretty unlikely that AH was the primary abuser based on the evidence I’ve seen and the knowledge I have about coercive control. Doesn’t mean men can’t be abused o b v i o u s l y. JD’s lack of willingness to take responsibility for ANYTHING from the jump, even when there’s proof, while Heard readily confessed to wrongdoing is right in line with that behavior. But I’m sooo burnt out on that topic and I know a ton of others are as well, whether they agree with my interpretation of events or not.
Throughout the entire saga, I was reluctant to ascribe any larger societal meaning and I'm still reluctant to do so. It seems that BOTH Heard and Depp are deeply troubled people who are simply bad for each other. Pre-existing personal issues were exacerbated by their coupling.
It's entirely possible that 5 years from now, Depp gets clean, meets a normie and lives out his sunset years in peace. Heard could meet some normie her own age who does not have substance abuse problems and doesn't accuse her of crapping the bed.
All the talk of of misogyny, misandry, toxic femininity/masculinity seemed like a lot of projection.
Of course it's impossible to really know what happened between those two without watching the whole trial, which I didn't do, because I found the few snippets that I did see distasteful and disturbing. I understand that JD's team did a good job of presenting a lot of evidence for Amber's violence and lying, and his victimhood and that people who watched the whole thing (including the jury) found this compelling. I'm willing to cautiously go with that, with the huge caveat that they're both actors, and it may be that he just had a better legal team and prepped better for "the role" then she did.
I see your point. I also think that it's an understandable response to a false accusation to be bitter toward the group who accused you. If a man accused me of something and ruined my life I'm sure I would become a bit of a misandrist
It wasn't a group who accused him, though, it was two women. If we're all going to be held responsible for the actions of one or two people in our group, I think we're all kind of screwed.
If a man accused me of something and ruined my life, I'd probably just cry and listen to Joni Mitchell. But it takes all kinds
I get that. I think Jesse is a master class in handling this sort of thing with class and intellectual honesty. I am probably weird but since I know I'm not responsible I don't really care that some asshole wants to blame all women for two liars. (Not sure I articulated my point well there)
No, you made your point well and are acknowledging a fault, a tendency toward broad-brushing especially when bitter, that I think we all have. I get what Ned's saying and I would hope that I would take the high road too. That said, just the way we're talking here about how any dude who is vulgarly dismissive of a grown woman who shat in their bed to make a point, is *also* suspect of the same taboo as the male accused? Makes me feel like there's a double standard here and I too would tend to, fairly or not, be once bitten twice shy.
Joe Biden has not been exonerated. The media slandered Tara Reide and everyone pretended that that was a valid rebuttal of her rape claim. They also stopped reporting on (and the evidence was wiped from the internet) of all the video's of him being extremely inappropriate with young girls in public once he became the dem nominee (because orange man bad presumably). And now, they are not reporting on Hunter Biden listing him in his phone contacts as "pedo", and the diary of his daughter, stolen from her bedside table while she was in rehab that alleges that Biden molested her. So, no, Biden hasn't been exonerated, the media have just covered this up/report on this when they can't absolutely avoid doing so in the most dishonest way possible. Just like they don't report on the Biden family corruption, and Biden's dementia.
I think even Jesse and Katie have a little bit of a blind spot when talking about their 'side.' It's human nature and they're still as balanced as anyone else out there.
A couple of episodes ago, Jesse was relating a story where someone said, in defending Trump, "Well, what about Biden?"
Jesse's response was "What about Biden?"
It's like he didn't follow the laptop story at all. Forget the prostitutes and drugs. The lack of curiosity about foreign money POSSIBLY finding its way into our president's pockets is shocking to me.
I was hoping the new zeal for government scrutiny would continue with the new administration.
For most political stories, I think if you switched the political parties would this big deal and find that to be a useful check on my priors. If that was don jr? I have room in my heart to despise all politicians regardless of party.
“If that was don jr? I have room in my heart to despise all politicians regardless of party.”
If it was Don Jr the world would be on fire and his and Sr’s financial connections would be getting the full colonoscopy. Which they probably should anyway.
My heart is also this spacious and roomy. I assume they are all grifting sociopaths until proven otherwise - regardless of D’s or R’s. I’m rarely disappointed.
So true. It’s a real shame. I didn’t really think it would happen, but I had just a teeny tiny bit of hope that the media would use it as an opportunity to reset. Disappointed indeed. I half hoped they’d at least be chastened after thinking they were so clever helping Trump win the primary because they thought of course he’ll lose… Nope, they just keep doubling down. They’re idiots too imo.
I mean no disrespect here, but that’s a wholly bad take on the Tara Reade situation.
First off “the media” didn’t slander her; they initially took her allegations quite seriously, but when it became clear that she was quite crazy, they slowly backed away. Her allegations, as she wrote them, were quite literally impossible, and it also beggars belief that *just this one time*, devoted family man Joe Biden felt up an office assistant in an extremely public place. No amount of “well, trauma makes people misremember things!” apologetics will turn Tara Reade’s fantastical accusation into a realistic one.
I mean no respect here, but that's a wholly bad take on the Tara Reade situation. She's not "quite crazy", her allegations aren't "literally impossible", they are only to plausible. You haven't advanced any argument for her being crazy, or her allegations impossible. You calling her crazy and her allegations impossible doesn't make them so. And it wasn't "just this one time" that Joe Biden did sexual wrong. His son has him in his phone as "pedo". His daughter wrote in her (stolen) diary that he molested her. Your just repeating the mainstream media's slander of her. And yes, I am in fact an expert in sex abuse trauma, having worked with child hood sex abuse victims for many years as a therapist and psychiatric nurse. Her allegations are very credible, and the way she presented them is exactly how you would expect.
And no, I don't support Trump, the other sex offender either. You need to ask yourself why your willing to defend a sex offender and slander his victims. Shame on you.
Gawker published one very good piece this year, a review of Netflix’s ill-conceived adaptation of Austen’s Persuasion, by freelancer Clare Coffey. Ironically, she (correctly) cites the film’s central failure as its inability to grasp the emotional maturity of the novel & its heroine, in favor of puerile snark.
As a super invested reader in the original gawker,I think that people forget that no one hated anyone more than the readers hated the writers. There were a few that people liked but there was a lot of hate of the writers and without comments, Gawker 2.0 it’s just nicer for the writers. They don’t have any insight into how much they suck and why they should’ve been criticized. I think instead they just blamed the commenters. So something like this would’ve been catnip for commenters but luckily they don’t have to deal with it anymore so there’s no Quality Control and you can’t count on that from Leah Finnegan. This is why they all close ranks and started fighting on Twitter. This is what they always do with commenters anytime they ever gotten any feedback. Nothing changes.
I'd say some of the comments sections were better than others (e.g., Jezebel commenters actually probably made the writers worse than they would have been otherwise). And once they introduced moderation post-GG, it got way more circlejerky (at least in terms of what was elevated).
It really depended with Jezebel. Like I stopped reading entirely when it seemed like the editorial staff was editing based on the comments' section. And now UT is ine big circle jerk and I loathe it. I check it out once a year and it just gets worse
Two things that have had me baffled since almost the beginning of the #MeToo era: (1) Why do people think it's OK to invent stories of assault or harassment? Do they think they'll never get caught, or do they believe that in our postmodern times the "truthiness" of sexual assault is more important than the actual truth of any accusation? In some cases they may be lying to save their own reputation or self-image, or they may genuinely misremember events, but how can they not care about how this might harm the accused—not to mention the trouble they could be in if caught lying? (2) How have Franken, Signore, Jaeger, et al. avoided becoming bitter and vindictive after their lives or careers were derailed by these false accusations?
The “lived experience” moment wherein requiring evidence is tantamount to bigotry is ripe for exploitation by those so inclined. Its the red scare but with “pussy hats”.
I also thought she said "Really Good Chairs" and assumed it was a silly reference to the chairs in rehab/group therapy/whatever being comfortable. Something to signal, "Ok, we're talking about serious stuff here, but we aren't taking it TOO seriously."
I also highly recommend his newsletter, Th Small Bow. He writes being in recovery and reflects on his history of being a scumbag in a really vulnerable, self-aware way. It does seem like he is trying really hard to be a better human. I'm not in recovery and have no history of addiction, but I find a lot of life wisdom in his writing.
We need mandatory minimum damages for false rape accusations. Something like defamation per se, and you have to pay minimum $10,000 in damages for each accusation.
I understand the impetus for such a penalty but I’m not wild about it. OTOH, having no penalty clearly incentivizes false claims. My favorite example is a bunch of drunk girls in UK made a false claim against a cabbie not knowing dude had interior cameras and audio. This was a (arguably) rare instance where the girls were charged.
My problem with such a penalty is the burden it places on honest to god rape victims. I mean, this horrible thing just happened to them and on top of invasive rape kit stuff, having everyone know about it and reliving it in court, now they are in jeopardy of civil or criminal charges? If it were me, I wouldn’t take those odds and just want it over. The chilling effect for genuine victims is a problem, even if the “rape culture” stuff is bullshit. Legislation that is ultimately retributive and has a chilling effect for victims doesn’t work for my toxic masculinity. I’m not sure what to do and I agree with you in spirit but such a penalty seems…unchivalrous? I guess is my best description.
I get what you're saying, but these false accusations hurt those victims, too. And in the age of the internet, we need *some* solution to this problem of accusations-without-receipts. The court of public opinion doesn't seem up to the challenge.
I mean, if we can't get the court to collect damages, and the public is credulous, then what incentive is there not to lie? And thus, reasonable people will conclude that they should be skeptical of all accusations. Not a good place for society to be.
Gawker et al. is up there with 4chan and Tumblr as websites that have markedly made the internet significantly worse. The modern snarky-hack journalist-on-Twitter archetype was practically invented by them. They were the among the first in that space, exported the journalist-meets-weird-Twitter Brooklyn DSA Gawker mentality to others who joined, and became media cool kids that got snapped up by places like the Times once Gawker imploded because of their carelessness. Their affiliated blogs were/are nearly as bad: the Gamergate (I know, I know) debacle was a child of culture-warring by Kotaku, the Gawker Media gaming blog. Deadspin did much of the same for sports media and basically set the obnoxious, self-righteous tone for future outlets like SB Nation to follow. Zombie Gawker being both pathetic and still fucking awful is the most predicable thing in the world. I probably should be more circumspect about it, but no: Peter Thiel, the job's not done — Gawker delenda est.
Hey know, 4chan does not belong in the same tier as Tumblr and Reddit. :^)
The thing is, in the episode, Jesse said that Gawker had been sanctimonious. A LOT of things could be said about Gawker but they were never sanctimonious. They could be downright cruel, but I do not think they were ever sanctimonious.
Though to be fair, I started reading them in 2003/2004 when it was publishing world gossip. I stopped reading before 2010 for sure but eould check it out occasionally.
And JEZEBEL - I started reading it in 2007 when it started. Stopped in 2011 or do because it was getting Batshit. Rhen started again I font remember. I havent read it in a long time because they are insane now
Maybe we use the words differently but the Gawker brand seems really sanctimonious to me — they're constantly insisting how terrible everyone but themselves are. They're good and pure and should be protected from any consequences, but their enemies are basically evil and you should feel free to do literally anything in your attempts to hurt them. Thus why they cross lines so much — outing people and sharing revenge porn and lying as a journalist simply can't be bad when you're a Good One and you are fighting Bad Ones.
We are definitely using sanctimonious in the same way. I just do not recall Gawker being sanctimonious. I mean Nick Dent ( I hope I got the name right) could be super sanctimonious about gay people coming out (hence outing Peter Thuel)
But as I recall Gawker was pretty vicious to everyone.
The "you support free speech, but you oppose libel / slander? Interesting" line of argument is super annoying to me. Way too much of this happening online (i.e., people thinking they are making interesting remarks re: their opponents' arguments without having a coherent understanding of what's going on / why the two things are markedly different).
See it with free market capitalism / opposition to fraud often as well, as another common example (the ability to reasonably rely-at least in part-on the assertions of a counterparty is actually fairly foundational to a well-functioning market economy of any sort).
This annoying, chortling tendency tends to go more left-to-right (or simply not-quite-as-left) in my experience, but YMMV.
Yeah, the same people think they “got me” when I have exceptions to free speech for classified information, incitement to violence, slander/libel, etc.
It’s like someone saying “oh yeah well if the cosine at 0 is 1 why is the sine at 0 also 0?” And then laughing while they throw their math book in the ground. What does it take for someone just to believe they’re dumb?
What?
This is something J&K discussed on the pod
J&K don't resort to gibberish.
What?
"While they got facts wrong they didn’t do so intentionally"
Not even doing the most basic checking because you want it to be true is almost just as bad as a journalist.
To clarify, Defamation is not a crime in the US. It is a tort i.e. a civil wrong that one can sue to redress.
This, to me is why one can be a free speech absolutist or near absolutist and still not be against a defamation suit per se. Personally, this one doesn't rise to my level of being worth it but what Jesse described being done to him in the past would pass my bar of significant enough damage to be worth it.
Jesse and Katie both suffered after committing the cardinal sin of writing about de-transitioners but I think Katie suffered more actual harm. After her article appeared in the Seattle Stranger, she was literally driven from her home and job in Seattle by a trans crazed mob. She has said she lives near a Navy town so I assume she's referring to Bremerton, which is a one hour ferry ride from Seattle, on the other side of Puget Sound. (I'm a former active duty Navy wife.)
I just checked to make sure I was right. Defamation and libel have nothing to do with whether the person who made the false statement knew it was false.
And defamation and libel.are not criminal charges.
What they did WAS libelous. They just needed a simple fact check
Where did you check? I'm curious because when I worked in journalism many years ago, winning a libel case had everything to do with proving actual malice on the part of the journalist/ publisher, meaning that they published or posted something defamatory in writing, knowing it was false, ie., with malice aforethought. If someone says something defamatory, knowing it's false, that constitutes slander.
ABSENCE OF MALICE, starring Sally Field and Paul Newman is an old movie that's still worth watching. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wlv5cB74KEg
I have a JD in google. After I posted my comment abd read comments by lawyers, I realized I was way off base (to be fair to, um, ME, the information was from a law office website. To my discredit, I am pretty sure they were looking to lure people into suing. So perhaps not the most accurate info on their site)
That's strange. Why would a law office post something as absolutely false as that on their website? Doesn't sound like a great way to attract clients.
Many years ago, I worked as an actual fact checker and researcher for a highly respected but very controversial investigative reporter. And the person who schooled our magazine's tiny editorial staff on how to protect ourselves and our employer against libel suits was none other than premier First Amendment lawyer Floyd Abrams himself. While I assume that some of journalism's processes and procedures have changed since then, I'm pretty sure the fundamentals have not.
Was expecting a correction around the episode 15 controversy from last week. Do better.
What controversy?
IIRC episode 15 was mysteriously "erased"
Not unlike the security camera footage from Jeffrey Epstein's cell...
Except that someone has found it. Episode 15 I mean.
Sure, if you believe what *they* tell you.
Well, I listened, and don’t *think* it’s a deep fake.
They have ways
Wait, really? Where is it?
https://www.bababam.com/katie-herzog-and-jesse-singal-blocked-and-reported/202006111000-everyone-getting-fired-all-once-except-us
Hah wow, I totally remember listening to that episode when it came out. I wonder how it got lost, it wasn't even in my old Patreon feed. (And eventful too, the in-joke about Katie Herzo *and* the announcement that Jesse had to do the replication crisis rap were on that pod.)
I am so glad you posted this. It gives me warm fuzzies hearing Katie and Jesse in the early days realizing that they’re making something really awesome!
Wait sorry, is there a real controversy here? What happened with episode 15?
It’s not in the podcast feed, nor apparently is there any reference to it in the barpod sophisticated information management system. I used the word controversy for dramatic effect.
I'm begging you guys consider the strange case of Ana Mardoll, a moral entrepreneur who spent weeks on Twitter telling writers that expecting other writers to read their work is....:::checks notes::: ableist. The detonation/revelation of their grift -- they're a Patreon darling and a defense contractor all at once -- is what Twitter is made for.
They've talked about Mardoll before, and Jesse linked to Lauren Hough's substack about the whole ordeal on Twitter, so I have high hopes they'll cover this. (I don't know enough about what's going on and could use the explainer.)
And now the dramatic Twitter flounce has commenced. It's all just so delicious.
For the Andy Signore segment, it should be noted that April Dawn was only 18-19 years old when all this occurred. I know that is technically ‘legal’, but most people at that age are still just beginning to learn about the workforce, adult relationships and their own sexuality. Navigating any one of those things at that age is hard, but far worse when they all interact. In April’s last post before she went completely offline, she said “I was a teenager and I made mistakes and I’ve had to live with them.” Also, like most people pre-MeToo, she had to go through a meaningless toothless HR process. I am a huge Screen Junkies fan, and I believe Andy Signore’s version of events. She clearly was a willing participant at times and exaggerated to make her case. And also agree journalism on this was crazy one-sided. But still, she should never had been put in that position.
Most people are clueless about their sexuality at age 18-19. A friend who thought appearing in porn was a liberating feminist experience, then came to deeply regret it. A lesbian friend who thought she was asexual until an amazing night. A friend who had an affair with a 50-year old married man and still cannot explain what she ever saw in him. I shudder to think how difficult these situations would be if their boss was involved. April didn't handle things in the most honest way, but she was also too young to be expected to.
I hear what you’re saying but the problem with that is it infantilizes women. “Put in that position” implies she has no agency. At what age are females capable of making their own decisions? Cause, were the genders flipped a 19 year old dude would, for damn sure, be held accountable for his decisions.
Half plus seven is a pretty good rule for age differences but agree it’s not a crime.
The direction feminism has taken when it comes to sex is kind of shocking. I was a kud when Monica Lewinsky happened but I remember people were like - she is only 24 - and that was the conservative, "bac" viewpoint. The 3rd wave feminists were like she made a choice
Now. It is. He had all the power.
Which, maybe. And that might have been super hot to her
25
This is an an interesting addition, thank you
Do you feel the same way about Bill Clinton and Monica Lewinsky? I remember at the time, many people dismissing this as "two consenting adults." Often, these were the same people complaining about 'power imbalances' while pushing to broaden sexual harassment laws.
I do, I think Monica knew exactly what she was doing. The idea that a 25 year old can’t decide whether or not to have sex with POTUS (or any one else for that matter) is ridiculous. The “power imbalance” thing is feminism as applied religion. It creates this absurd calculus where POTUS would be guilty of rape if they had sex with *anyone* because the power imbalance with any sexual partner and the most powerful person on earth precludes consent by the BS standard they are setting.
I personally think who POTUS bangs is no ones business and Monica had/has nothing to be ashamed of but when she tried to shine up her image up by claiming that she was a powerless vessel, it was eye-rolling cringe and frankly not great for female agency in general.
But even if their age & his power doesn't create a strong enough power dynamic, does his position as The Boss not do so? IMO one of the best takeaways from MeToo is the understanding that boss / subordinate sexual relationships are just way too potentially problematic to be allowed
Sure, I'm not saying power dynamics in relationships is never an issue. Clergy and congregation, Dr. and patient and Teacher/student (while taking classes from said teacher) are all off limits to me as issues of professional ethics. Now, for employer/employee I think there are gradations though I agree its all fraught and would personally choose to avoid it entirely. I think that if the person is not their immediate supervisor its less of an issue as was the case with Clinton but that he was married complicates that whole discussion.
I agree that work place relationships are a quagmire but forbidding them is just setting ourselves up to criminalize sexuality, as we're doing now and given that the burden of making the advance is generally male, we're criminalizing male sexuality. For example in the military fraternization is forbidden between officer and enlisted and in the Navy sex at sea is a punishable offence. Now, I understand the reasoning but it was never very realistic because it just goes on quietly. Its like abstinence may be the best contraception in theory but certainly not in practice, given its total detachment from human nature. Or outlawing abortion doesn't stop it, just makes it more dangerous, etc.
"Clergy and congregation, Dr. and patient and Teacher/student," I would suggest that employer and intern should be treated the same way, especially when it's President of the United States and Intern.
I agree with you that these are difficult questions, especially when both parties are adults. My problem is more with the double standards that are applied.
As I recall, Pres. Clinton's administration had a very active (and activist) EEOC. This time period was sort of a high point of awareness of sexual harassment on the job. It was relatively uniform on the left (again, per my very imperfect memory) that bosses should not sleep with their underlings, as the power imbalance made these relationships per se unfair and actionable.
Yet, President Clinton was caught with an intern, and suddenly it was no big deal, two consenting adults, and all that. I remember handling a sexual harassment case in the 90's that really fit the mold--power imbalance and when the relationship became known, the underling lost the job and felt the repercussions. The only difference? The underling was a man and the employer was a woman (back when we knew what those terms meant). The claim was dismissed right away.
It's a tough issue. But it cannot work out that 'my team' wins and 'your team' loses.
(By the way, at the time I thought the relationship between President Clinton and Monica Lewinsky should not have been actionable. You will recall, though, that they tried to claim executive privilege, such that the president could not be examined about the matter until after he was out of office. That question was, as I recall, taken all the way to the Supreme Court, which ruled he could be deposed. At that point, I don't care what you think: You have to tell the truth. He didn't.)
Yeah, you make a good point but I have a couple concerns:
1. Were never gonna stop coworkers from having sex and this just seems to criminalize it. Maybe the thing to punish is retaliation and harrassment. Forbidding office relationships even between boss and underling seems a lost cause especially when hypergamy is such a prominent part of human sexuality.
2. You could eliminate boss & underling sex and still not stop the power imbalance problem (by the standard being set) in a town like DC because the whole place is so incestuous there’d be no relationship that couldn’t be considered a power imbalance.
3. I too am an old dog who remembers the scandal in real time. My favorite part is that the guy driving the whole warlock hunt was Speaker Gingrich, a hypocrite so bent he was icing his own mistress at the time with a 500K line of credit at Tiffany’s.
the "power imbalance" of the president of the US is not really comparable to what we're talking about here, regardless of what you think of Clinton/Lewinsky
I agree. The power imbalance between Bill Clinton and Monica Lewinsky is almost certainly greater than any imbalance existed between Andy Signore and his accuser. Is that what you meant?
Yeah that's what I meant. I haven't given it much thought or looked into the details in a long time, but if you're concerned about power imbalances between consenting adults, that seems like kind of the most extreme case imaginable right? like if that isn't problematic i'm not sure what would be
As someone who was once a 19 year old woman, so what? First. I had so many friends who had been sexually active for years at 19. Others, like me, had never so much as kissed someone. So we have no idea what things were like for her.
Also. The same thing could have happened at 25.
We do stupid shot when we arw young. That is ok. Why place rhe responsibility on the other eoman?
It is not so much about sexuality, but understanding how to navigate sex and work together; which is its own can of works. This is where HR should be active and assisting people not only with what to do before these situations arise, but also how to handle complaints professionally (i.e. don’t make grand public social media posts without getting all the facts right, like April did). And I am certainly not suggesting sex and work cant mix, that would invalidate most relationships I have had. I am only suggesting that navigating it is tough and it should not be expected young people know how to do this.
My two cents is that Andy Signore should have been severely reprimanded for this (possibly still fired), but should not received the public shaming and additional silly accusations in the pile-on (“he once looked at me funny” style of thing). April also copped heaps of hate which I also think was broadly unfair. I am a fan of Andy Signore’s work; “Movie Fights” was hilarious and just didnt work without him.
I also should not have made my original post so gendered, same broad understanding should be applied to young men too.
Speaking of looking back and re-interrogating metoo allegations, there is one case that I've always wanted more information about. Sherman Alexie is one of my favorite authors, and I just never understood exactly what he did that deserved the complete ostracization he received. None of the articles published about it shared many specifics. One accusation sounded more like a disappointing affair with him and retconned it to be about power imbalances. Another sounded like an unwanted advance that could have been stopped by just saying they weren't interested. And a third lacked almost any details. Even in the original reporting, I thought it sounded bizarre. This is a quote from the NPR article:
"And he's connected to the organization I work for, and if he had never expressed an interest in my poems I probably wouldn't have pursued spending any time with him," Walker says. "But he did express an interest. And so then when I discover that interest is actually physical, it just felt very wrong."
So you wanted him to show interest in your work, but instead he didn't discuss your work and just expressed a sexual interest? How exactly is that bad? He's not your boss. Can successful writers not have romantic relationships with less successful writers? For what it's worth, he acknowledged them as affairs, but he did not, to my knowledge, admit to using his power over them to threaten their careers.
Has anyone seen follow-up reporting on this one?
https://www.npr.org/2018/03/05/589909379/it-just-felt-very-wrong-sherman-alexies-accusers-go-on-the-record
I know a woman who was his handler at an event and he made it known he wanted to handle her. So, all this together with anecodal evidence ot sounds like Alexie is kind of a dog, and more power to him, but in the toxically woke environment of publishing (let alone poetry FFS) along side academic Indian Country (which is very different from IRL Indian Country) plus the beginning of the metoo movement before it had its Depp thermidorian reaction, just made an old dog like Lexi an inevitable target. Especially when female grievance was upgraded to a version of “sexual assault” and Alexie had clearly had enough time to piss people off with good old fashion philandering and, arguably, shitty dating behavior.
I’m a bit torn on some of these; on the one hand, there really did seem to be a class of untouchable men who could be as skeezy as they wanted to be with zero consequences, and while complete social death seems rather extreme it is probably better that there be _some_ punishment to discourage this sort of thing. On the other hand, the full MeToo cannon seems as often as not to be aimed at men who had a completely consensual relationship with an enthusiastically participating woman (like the one in this episode) who then retroactively decides it was rape based on some feminist theory of power dynamics or whatever. My read of the culture is that we are actually converging to a reasonable place, the media has gotten a bit more careful about these cases (there hasn’t been a Shitty Men in Media List v2.0, for example) so I have some optimism about the issue.
I basically agree but its taken some high level colossal fuck ups thanks to applied feminism to get to this point. My thing is that I’m not sure the pendulum is swinging back cause Biden has reinstated the “dear colleague” letter, maybe its all just quieter. Like the fact theres more meth on the streets now that the cartels are making it instead of redneck locals. The harm is worse than ever before there just aren’t city blocks exploding so we don’t hear about it anymore.
oh no it's worse than we thought, he's on substack:
https://shermanalexie.substack.com
It's gotten to the point where it's probably more useful to point out who *isn't* on Substack.
I would have liked them to focus more on what Katie said at the very end about men who sort of seem to hate women maybe? I’ve noticed that #notallbutsome men who’ve been publicly accused or shamed by a woman/women really go hard in the misogyny paint. 🚩
Yes, I would have liked to have heard more about that too. I noticed that there was a not very well concealed and venous misogyny about how a lot of the male defenders of Johnny Depp responded to that case. It was interesting to me that a lot of his female defenders said something like "I was in an abusive relationship, and the way AH behaved reminds me of my abuser, and the way Johnny responded reminded me of myself, men can be abused too." While a lot of the men said about Herd v Depp some variant of "bitch got what she deserved, unlike my wife. Good to see a woman getting destroyed." I believe that it was probably a mutually abusive relationship, where he was more the victim then her, and if not then he was the victim, but the level of misogyny among the men celebrating his victory I found disturbing and ugly.
Yes I think the male Depp defenders are often pretty suss. You have someone like Jesse who I believe has had a ton of ridiculous allegations lodged against him from trans women, and as far as I remember, I hasn’t tried to defame and destroy those people or called them all disgusting, liars, t-slurs, etc. He’s just like uh nope that’s Not Correct and here’s proof.
I also note it’s a 🚩for me when a man calls a woman disgusting, or a bitch, etc., rather than criticize her actions. But call me nitpicky.
It sounds like honest trailer guy is maybe a classic little grifter who is trying to capitalize on highly emotional trending topics. Good to point out the nuance of the story and how the evidence against him is at the very least not legally credible, and you could argue that’s made him desperate and therefore his content worse. I just don’t think I’ll be subscribing to his Substack lol.
.::
Side note bc I can’t resist continuing this discourse against my better judgement: I am extreeeeeemely skeptical of the JD narrative, and find it pretty unlikely that AH was the primary abuser based on the evidence I’ve seen and the knowledge I have about coercive control. Doesn’t mean men can’t be abused o b v i o u s l y. JD’s lack of willingness to take responsibility for ANYTHING from the jump, even when there’s proof, while Heard readily confessed to wrongdoing is right in line with that behavior. But I’m sooo burnt out on that topic and I know a ton of others are as well, whether they agree with my interpretation of events or not.
Throughout the entire saga, I was reluctant to ascribe any larger societal meaning and I'm still reluctant to do so. It seems that BOTH Heard and Depp are deeply troubled people who are simply bad for each other. Pre-existing personal issues were exacerbated by their coupling.
It's entirely possible that 5 years from now, Depp gets clean, meets a normie and lives out his sunset years in peace. Heard could meet some normie her own age who does not have substance abuse problems and doesn't accuse her of crapping the bed.
All the talk of of misogyny, misandry, toxic femininity/masculinity seemed like a lot of projection.
Of course it's impossible to really know what happened between those two without watching the whole trial, which I didn't do, because I found the few snippets that I did see distasteful and disturbing. I understand that JD's team did a good job of presenting a lot of evidence for Amber's violence and lying, and his victimhood and that people who watched the whole thing (including the jury) found this compelling. I'm willing to cautiously go with that, with the huge caveat that they're both actors, and it may be that he just had a better legal team and prepped better for "the role" then she did.
I see your point. I also think that it's an understandable response to a false accusation to be bitter toward the group who accused you. If a man accused me of something and ruined my life I'm sure I would become a bit of a misandrist
It wasn't a group who accused him, though, it was two women. If we're all going to be held responsible for the actions of one or two people in our group, I think we're all kind of screwed.
If a man accused me of something and ruined my life, I'd probably just cry and listen to Joni Mitchell. But it takes all kinds
I get that. I think Jesse is a master class in handling this sort of thing with class and intellectual honesty. I am probably weird but since I know I'm not responsible I don't really care that some asshole wants to blame all women for two liars. (Not sure I articulated my point well there)
No, you made your point well and are acknowledging a fault, a tendency toward broad-brushing especially when bitter, that I think we all have. I get what Ned's saying and I would hope that I would take the high road too. That said, just the way we're talking here about how any dude who is vulgarly dismissive of a grown woman who shat in their bed to make a point, is *also* suspect of the same taboo as the male accused? Makes me feel like there's a double standard here and I too would tend to, fairly or not, be once bitten twice shy.
Joe Biden has not been exonerated. The media slandered Tara Reide and everyone pretended that that was a valid rebuttal of her rape claim. They also stopped reporting on (and the evidence was wiped from the internet) of all the video's of him being extremely inappropriate with young girls in public once he became the dem nominee (because orange man bad presumably). And now, they are not reporting on Hunter Biden listing him in his phone contacts as "pedo", and the diary of his daughter, stolen from her bedside table while she was in rehab that alleges that Biden molested her. So, no, Biden hasn't been exonerated, the media have just covered this up/report on this when they can't absolutely avoid doing so in the most dishonest way possible. Just like they don't report on the Biden family corruption, and Biden's dementia.
I think even Jesse and Katie have a little bit of a blind spot when talking about their 'side.' It's human nature and they're still as balanced as anyone else out there.
A couple of episodes ago, Jesse was relating a story where someone said, in defending Trump, "Well, what about Biden?"
Jesse's response was "What about Biden?"
It's like he didn't follow the laptop story at all. Forget the prostitutes and drugs. The lack of curiosity about foreign money POSSIBLY finding its way into our president's pockets is shocking to me.
I was hoping the new zeal for government scrutiny would continue with the new administration.
For most political stories, I think if you switched the political parties would this big deal and find that to be a useful check on my priors. If that was don jr? I have room in my heart to despise all politicians regardless of party.
“If that was don jr? I have room in my heart to despise all politicians regardless of party.”
If it was Don Jr the world would be on fire and his and Sr’s financial connections would be getting the full colonoscopy. Which they probably should anyway.
My heart is also this spacious and roomy. I assume they are all grifting sociopaths until proven otherwise - regardless of D’s or R’s. I’m rarely disappointed.
I agree with you. They all suck (well, almost all).
"I was hoping the new zeal for government scrutiny would continue with the new administration."
I think everyone 'hoped' this, but realistically we were all unfortunately met with disappointment.
So true. It’s a real shame. I didn’t really think it would happen, but I had just a teeny tiny bit of hope that the media would use it as an opportunity to reset. Disappointed indeed. I half hoped they’d at least be chastened after thinking they were so clever helping Trump win the primary because they thought of course he’ll lose… Nope, they just keep doubling down. They’re idiots too imo.
I mean no disrespect here, but that’s a wholly bad take on the Tara Reade situation.
First off “the media” didn’t slander her; they initially took her allegations quite seriously, but when it became clear that she was quite crazy, they slowly backed away. Her allegations, as she wrote them, were quite literally impossible, and it also beggars belief that *just this one time*, devoted family man Joe Biden felt up an office assistant in an extremely public place. No amount of “well, trauma makes people misremember things!” apologetics will turn Tara Reade’s fantastical accusation into a realistic one.
I mean no respect here, but that's a wholly bad take on the Tara Reade situation. She's not "quite crazy", her allegations aren't "literally impossible", they are only to plausible. You haven't advanced any argument for her being crazy, or her allegations impossible. You calling her crazy and her allegations impossible doesn't make them so. And it wasn't "just this one time" that Joe Biden did sexual wrong. His son has him in his phone as "pedo". His daughter wrote in her (stolen) diary that he molested her. Your just repeating the mainstream media's slander of her. And yes, I am in fact an expert in sex abuse trauma, having worked with child hood sex abuse victims for many years as a therapist and psychiatric nurse. Her allegations are very credible, and the way she presented them is exactly how you would expect.
And no, I don't support Trump, the other sex offender either. You need to ask yourself why your willing to defend a sex offender and slander his victims. Shame on you.
Gawker published one very good piece this year, a review of Netflix’s ill-conceived adaptation of Austen’s Persuasion, by freelancer Clare Coffey. Ironically, she (correctly) cites the film’s central failure as its inability to grasp the emotional maturity of the novel & its heroine, in favor of puerile snark.
Clare Coffey and B.D. McClay are geniuses in a way that even Gawker can't sully.
Yes, Barbara is another good freelancer they have somehow managed to wrangle.
As a super invested reader in the original gawker,I think that people forget that no one hated anyone more than the readers hated the writers. There were a few that people liked but there was a lot of hate of the writers and without comments, Gawker 2.0 it’s just nicer for the writers. They don’t have any insight into how much they suck and why they should’ve been criticized. I think instead they just blamed the commenters. So something like this would’ve been catnip for commenters but luckily they don’t have to deal with it anymore so there’s no Quality Control and you can’t count on that from Leah Finnegan. This is why they all close ranks and started fighting on Twitter. This is what they always do with commenters anytime they ever gotten any feedback. Nothing changes.
I'd say some of the comments sections were better than others (e.g., Jezebel commenters actually probably made the writers worse than they would have been otherwise). And once they introduced moderation post-GG, it got way more circlejerky (at least in terms of what was elevated).
It really depended with Jezebel. Like I stopped reading entirely when it seemed like the editorial staff was editing based on the comments' section. And now UT is ine big circle jerk and I loathe it. I check it out once a year and it just gets worse
Two things that have had me baffled since almost the beginning of the #MeToo era: (1) Why do people think it's OK to invent stories of assault or harassment? Do they think they'll never get caught, or do they believe that in our postmodern times the "truthiness" of sexual assault is more important than the actual truth of any accusation? In some cases they may be lying to save their own reputation or self-image, or they may genuinely misremember events, but how can they not care about how this might harm the accused—not to mention the trouble they could be in if caught lying? (2) How have Franken, Signore, Jaeger, et al. avoided becoming bitter and vindictive after their lives or careers were derailed by these false accusations?
The “lived experience” moment wherein requiring evidence is tantamount to bigotry is ripe for exploitation by those so inclined. Its the red scare but with “pussy hats”.
That live reading between Katie and Jesse gave me emotional trauma. I’m unsubscribing and starting an anti-podcaster association. Who’s with me?
If jesse and katie ever do a dramatic reading again I’m canceling my subscription.
What is the name of the A. J. Daulerio podcast you mentioned? I found "Sober Company." Couldn't find "Really Good Chairs." Confused.
Really Good Shares
Found it. But, you know, Really Good Chairs is an excellent title, as podcasting is a job which requires a really good chair.
Unless you've bought into the notion that it's better to stand while working, in which case you might tune into Really Good Shoes.
Really Bad Knees is a downer.
LOL.
I also thought she said "Really Good Chairs" and assumed it was a silly reference to the chairs in rehab/group therapy/whatever being comfortable. Something to signal, "Ok, we're talking about serious stuff here, but we aren't taking it TOO seriously."
I also highly recommend his newsletter, Th Small Bow. He writes being in recovery and reflects on his history of being a scumbag in a really vulnerable, self-aware way. It does seem like he is trying really hard to be a better human. I'm not in recovery and have no history of addiction, but I find a lot of life wisdom in his writing.
We need mandatory minimum damages for false rape accusations. Something like defamation per se, and you have to pay minimum $10,000 in damages for each accusation.
I understand the impetus for such a penalty but I’m not wild about it. OTOH, having no penalty clearly incentivizes false claims. My favorite example is a bunch of drunk girls in UK made a false claim against a cabbie not knowing dude had interior cameras and audio. This was a (arguably) rare instance where the girls were charged.
My problem with such a penalty is the burden it places on honest to god rape victims. I mean, this horrible thing just happened to them and on top of invasive rape kit stuff, having everyone know about it and reliving it in court, now they are in jeopardy of civil or criminal charges? If it were me, I wouldn’t take those odds and just want it over. The chilling effect for genuine victims is a problem, even if the “rape culture” stuff is bullshit. Legislation that is ultimately retributive and has a chilling effect for victims doesn’t work for my toxic masculinity. I’m not sure what to do and I agree with you in spirit but such a penalty seems…unchivalrous? I guess is my best description.
I get what you're saying, but these false accusations hurt those victims, too. And in the age of the internet, we need *some* solution to this problem of accusations-without-receipts. The court of public opinion doesn't seem up to the challenge.
I mean, if we can't get the court to collect damages, and the public is credulous, then what incentive is there not to lie? And thus, reasonable people will conclude that they should be skeptical of all accusations. Not a good place for society to be.
Yes, I can't help but think of this case that became a huge national story. She was fined, but it also turned out she had been raped. The whole thing was really sadistic. https://www.propublica.org/article/false-rape-accusations-an-unbelievable-story (edited because I forgot the link.)
Those are great points I hadn’t considered. You're right of course, I just don’t know what a good solution would be, given the liabilities.
Not sure if this was on the premium episode or this one, but slugs are gastropod molluscs, just like snails.