This has me SHOOK. I read Michelle’s book and was horrified that someone who committed so many atrocities was never caught— and 40-something years later, wasn’t likely to ever be caught. I was fucking angry after reading it, thinking of him just sitting out there SO SMUG. I wish Michelle was here to see this day, and…

I made the mistake of not realizing it was satire (I think I read it drunk), and making a legit comment about it. So every year, without fail, someone comments on my fucking 2011/2012 comment and is like “DON’T YOU REALIZE THIS IS SATIRE???!!!11!!” I want to state for the record now - GUYS, I realize now it is satire.…

Just close your eyes when you sign it Tay and KEEP YOUR DAMN MONEY.

I decided today to stop visiting and commenting on Gawker sites. “The Post” on Gawker was astounding, and the reaction by writers and editors, as well as the blaring and glaring non-reaction by some, are making me want to take my clicks and give them away elsewhere on the internet. However, I will miss you beautiful…

So when I go out in public with only a bra, PJ bottoms and booze I get arrested but when Ri does it it’s “truly amazing.”

It was found that some IRS employees were doing that funny business to organizations on both sides, and I agree that that was wrong and unnecessary and people rightly lost their jobs over that. That sort of thing is not acceptable, in the same way that county clerks should not be keeping their positions if their…

Sup.

My doofy hound would love all the attention.

Woof!

100% agree. It starts to feel elitist in a really petty way. Like, if the authors actually care about the subject matter, they wouldn’t outright dismiss any points of view that don’t align with their own. When they do so, they come off as not caring at all about their subject matter, and just caring about their own…

“outing a philaderer” is a hell of a euphemism for collaborating with a blackmailing grifter to destroy someone’s life for no reason but clicks. The obvious hypocrisy is that Gawker now feels an ethical obligation to protect the identities of the victims and not publish stolen nude videos, a policy it apparently…

Serious question for Natasha: if Roy had contacted you with these pictures and told you that he was attempting to blackmail one of the women but they wouldn’t pay him, would you have published his pictures of the woman in question and kept his identity secret?

Are any of the victimized women closeted homosexuals? Please follow your usual policy and provide a list.

I was going to post this under a burner, but then I realized it doesn’t really mean anything if I don’t put my “name” to this comment.

Yeah. No. That’s not how news works. But then again, people here need to remember: This is a blog. It is a not a journalism site. And Gawker Media can throw all the bombs it wants at supermarket tabloids and reddit, but that’s the class where this cluster belongs. And no, stories don’t need an upside. But they need to…

Having a bout of skepticism regarding this site’s social justice orientation as long as the blackmailing-and-outing Gawker story stays up, and Jez writers defend it. Do you defend it Ms Lodi, like your colleague N Vargas Cooper?

yeah, if this was a live action sex roleplay happening in my bedroom.