These days, we've decided it's okay to be a cruel and unforgiving bully if your target is insufficiently woke (for example, Jesse Singal). After all, Gawker is defending vulnerable people from someone who causes literal violence with words.
Picking on slutty socialites is out. Picking on problematic people is in. Either way it's an excuse to be nasty for clicks.
I'm going to choose to read into this at a sub-textual level. :-P
The Shrink-Men are the overly credentialed (but undereducated, in the true sense of the notion), overly online blog bois (thanks KD) who, captive to their social desirability bias, lack the ability to read the nuances of some of your more "controversial" pieces (Nike) and label you off hand as __insert ad-hom__.
>>That’s a perspective I can sympathize with, if not occasionally emulate, but then again, the core of my business model doesn’t include showing you naked pictures of someone who doesn’t want me to. There’s something to be said for unsparing journalism, but marry that mandate to a need for constant public shaming of people?
Might this be targeted at some of your over-eager commenters frothing in excitement whenever you post anything critical about Lebron /Klutch and willing to jump to wilder, unsubstantiated conclusions from there?
Damn your sub-textual read SSK! In all seriousness, I hadn't really thought about the commenters and Klutch. I do, however, think about how people think about me, and more than I'd like to. My fear is that such thinking will prevent my just being honest. So I occasionally ruminate on how to cut that gordian knot in just the right way. Okay now I'm rambling.
Loving your work Ethan. I first heard about you on Rogue Bogues. Really enjoyed the Nike End of Men article and now this. Keep up the incisive journalism
For me, the bit which stood out was one of the guys calling Simmons evil, and Le Batard not saying anything despite the fact that he's been friendly with Simmons for a long time. Seemed similar to people not defending their friends on twitter for fear of the mob.
I have to give props to Amin because he showed the opposite behaviour in defending Rachel Nicholls, based on his assessment of her as a good person, despite knowing that there would be backlash.
I never liked Gawker proper, but I did appreciate some of the offshoots; namely io9 and Gizmodo. The quality of writing, and overall tone, has grated on me over the years, though. The last thing anyone would call me is a "Trumpist," but it got to the point where every shoehorned political diatribe lacked a single ounce of charity, and the comment sections were simply a cesspool of moral grandstanding circlejerking.
Needless to say, I've moved on. I'm bummed Gawker hasn't done the same.
Another fantastic read. I have been telling my friends about how the once might "Guardian" has been reduced from news to content marketing because of the internet. If you want to convert, you want people to see ads, you have to write click bait. If you want dwell time, the article has to be easy to read, salacious or maybe infuriating. Nuance takes words and bounce rates have no time for nuance, hence the shrink man.
These days, we've decided it's okay to be a cruel and unforgiving bully if your target is insufficiently woke (for example, Jesse Singal). After all, Gawker is defending vulnerable people from someone who causes literal violence with words.
Picking on slutty socialites is out. Picking on problematic people is in. Either way it's an excuse to be nasty for clicks.
Ethan, your intelligent, thought-provoking writing is a treat to read. It’s good to really hear you. Keep up the good work.
The shrink man is basically a thought reductionist that uses fabricated outrage to shame outsiders into silence
I gotta steal from my commenters. Good one of framing it.
I'm going to choose to read into this at a sub-textual level. :-P
The Shrink-Men are the overly credentialed (but undereducated, in the true sense of the notion), overly online blog bois (thanks KD) who, captive to their social desirability bias, lack the ability to read the nuances of some of your more "controversial" pieces (Nike) and label you off hand as __insert ad-hom__.
>>That’s a perspective I can sympathize with, if not occasionally emulate, but then again, the core of my business model doesn’t include showing you naked pictures of someone who doesn’t want me to. There’s something to be said for unsparing journalism, but marry that mandate to a need for constant public shaming of people?
Might this be targeted at some of your over-eager commenters frothing in excitement whenever you post anything critical about Lebron /Klutch and willing to jump to wilder, unsubstantiated conclusions from there?
Damn your sub-textual read SSK! In all seriousness, I hadn't really thought about the commenters and Klutch. I do, however, think about how people think about me, and more than I'd like to. My fear is that such thinking will prevent my just being honest. So I occasionally ruminate on how to cut that gordian knot in just the right way. Okay now I'm rambling.
This is the best 9 bucks a month I have ever spent. That is all.
Loving your work Ethan. I first heard about you on Rogue Bogues. Really enjoyed the Nike End of Men article and now this. Keep up the incisive journalism
So, when are you going on Le Batard?
For someone that normally has a lot of empathy for victims of all types, his interview with Craggs and Magary was shockingly soft.
I'll check it out. I'm generally sympathetic to not wanting to Frost/Nixon a podcast appearance, but I'm curious what they discussed.
For me, the bit which stood out was one of the guys calling Simmons evil, and Le Batard not saying anything despite the fact that he's been friendly with Simmons for a long time. Seemed similar to people not defending their friends on twitter for fear of the mob.
I have to give props to Amin because he showed the opposite behaviour in defending Rachel Nicholls, based on his assessment of her as a good person, despite knowing that there would be backlash.
I think Le Batard is not going to have Ethan on after what he said about John Skipper. Who knows, maybe I will be wrong.
“immiserate” 👌👌
Ethan, this is a really nice post! I especially liked what you wrote about how it is futile to fight a definition of yourself.
I never liked Gawker proper, but I did appreciate some of the offshoots; namely io9 and Gizmodo. The quality of writing, and overall tone, has grated on me over the years, though. The last thing anyone would call me is a "Trumpist," but it got to the point where every shoehorned political diatribe lacked a single ounce of charity, and the comment sections were simply a cesspool of moral grandstanding circlejerking.
Needless to say, I've moved on. I'm bummed Gawker hasn't done the same.
The nice thing is that thoughtful nuanced writers like you and Jesse are the antidote to the shrinkmen. If only the world would listen.
Another fantastic read. I have been telling my friends about how the once might "Guardian" has been reduced from news to content marketing because of the internet. If you want to convert, you want people to see ads, you have to write click bait. If you want dwell time, the article has to be easy to read, salacious or maybe infuriating. Nuance takes words and bounce rates have no time for nuance, hence the shrink man.