Really?

This is the nagging (sorry) problem I have with the drumbeat of “Believe Women”: yes, we need to get out of the habit of automatically disbelieving women who declare themselves to be the victim of rape, but at the same time we have a system of criminal justice that presumes innocence. I’d say that the presumption of…

“You had the chance in the palm of your hands, Ken. You could have trapped them. You could have tricked Trump into saying the other astoundingly dumb things about science we all know he’s capable of.”

So that’s why you dislike Ken Bone? Because he didn’t try to make Trump say something stupid?

Hello Gawker my old friend.

This campaign is horrible and so is Trump. That said, in 4 weeks Trump will disappear and Ashley will have to drive clicks through talent rather than appealing to millennial hipsters with a sense of moral superiority.

I want to dig into this a little bit — no drunk woman can give consent, even taking into consideration other circumstances and past sexual history? My wife and I get drunk infrequently, usually when we’re going out of our way to have a nice dinner, a great bottle of wine and sex. Am I raping her? Because by your…

This is where I pull up a little bit. I don’t know that I agree that a drunk person is categorically unable to give consent. In your scenario specifically, that reads like an opening salvo. That’s not to say it was a green light; I want to be clear, I’m not saying if she said she was horny you were in the clear to go…

Because a bunch of white people were pissed off last year at Cam Newton’s antics, and because Deadspin made fun of those white people, and because Deadspin is incapable of abandoning their narratives, Tim Burke feels he must disagree with the most obvious taunting penalty of all time.

You can argue whether taunting should be a penalty or not, but by any definition, that certainly was taunting.

I think throwing the ball at the opposing player is an auto 15.

The child was in no immediate danger and crime scene photos are SOP.

I think it’s backlash against how they’re trying to paint themselves as victims.

Gawker rose to prominence on the back of an app that made it possible to stalk celebrities. They traded in gossip, innuendo, and tabloid journalism. They did anything and everything for clicks and ad revenue, including outing private citizens and publishing sex tapes.

People criticize you because you are an absolute idiot. Why would Univision return copyright to anyone, and what good would it do if they did? You think the writers want to be personally sued into oblivion? They wouldn’t republish if they could. The issue is not copyright but whether or not the deep pocketed corporate…

I am not defending Univision’s actions because we will NEVER have the whole truth about the subject but these “Gawker is innocent guys! Come on! Stop picking on me!!!” posts have to stop. It’s embarrassing. You deal in smut, you eventually get repercussions. Let Gawker die please. Find a way to channel all this crap…

Because they keep losing!

Just wish Michael had turned on his brother mid-interview, made mention of his conspicuous lack of rings, and say that’s why Mom named you Martellus and not Marshowus

“Worst quarterback in the NFL,” [Michael] says.

Well I found the fennec fox as well

So Wikileaks was cool when they’re taking down Bush and the Republicans, but when they do the same to Clinton and the Democrats they’ve hit rock bottom?