Enter your username and password.
New York, 6:29 AM
Fri Dec 18
46 posts in the last 24 hours

Tip Your Editors:
Tipline: 646-214-8138
Editor-in-Chief:
Gabriel Snyder |
West Coast Editor:
Richard Rushfield |
Contributing Editors:
Valleywag:
Ryan Tate |
Media:
Hamilton Nolan |
Politics:
Alex Pareene |
Investigations:
John Cook |
Entertainment:
Brian Moylan |
Nights:
Adrian Chen |
Azaria Jagger |
Ravi Somaiya |
Weekends:
Foster Kamer |
Video Editor:
Richard Blakeley |
Please enter your email address to have your password reset.
Registering will give you a user profile and the ability to add other users as friends. To become a commenter, however, you need to audition.
Want to know more? Consult the Comment FAQ and legal terms.
You don't need to login to comment. Just enter your email address below.
See how your address will be displayed in the Comment FAQ.
12/09/09
12/09/09
12/09/09
12/09/09
12/09/09
12/09/09
12/09/09
12/09/09
12/09/09
This is a serious fucking issue. This is not a joke. People in Uganda are dying.
Have you seen this photo from Saudi Arabia? These lives aren't jokes. People are really being killed for this shit.
There is nothing funny about this. Not. One. Fucking. Snarky. Thing.
I get that you're the new nighttime kid and figuring out what's funny or not and that Gawker 3.0 doesn't really have a threshold, but this?
Fail on this, kiddo. Fail.
12/09/09
12/09/09
12/09/09
12/09/09
Get over yourself.
12/09/09
12/09/09
This is a serious issue, yes; but Adrian's reporting reportage, on a less-than-serious site. Aside from the lead photo, I can't find any offensive snark discrediting what Maddow had to say.
And really? Calling a co-worker a fuck? Really?
12/09/09
12/09/09
12/09/09
12/09/09
12/09/09
Second, though, as deadly serious as Uganda is, this post wasn't about that: it was about Rachel Maddow taking down a quack "gay cure" expert. I don't know a better way to dismiss those fucks than with humor.
12/09/09
12/09/09
If this was a photo of her in a suit and some makeup, or if her figure in that lead photo was replaced by a man, would it be offensive to you?
12/09/09
I agree it was an over-reaction. But, have you read some of the comments over at Richard's new home, tv.com? The commenters are cut from a different, bile drenched cloth than over on this end of the intertubes.
Reviewing those comments provides some insight into the mindset that defeated California and NY's Bills on same sex marriages.
12/09/09
12/09/09
12/09/09
12/09/09
Yeah, the real lesson here is this: Richard really must stop leaving comments on a blog he likes when it is 3am and he is drunk. Apologies to Adrian. Yeesh. [slinks off in embarrassment]
12/09/09
I was glad to see this segment up on Gawker today.
12/09/09
But in short, the whole content of the interview would have been more than infuriating to me if it weren't so fascinating. Rachel is beyond a talking head because she can debate someone without having to resort to Rush tactics, and it goes to show how TV has devolved so much that watching her is brilliant.
12/09/09
12/09/09
12/09/09
12/09/09
[www.theonion.com]
12/09/09
12/09/09
12/09/09
12/09/09
12/09/09
12/09/09
12/09/09
12/09/09
She doesn't take anything this man has to say at face value, and reverts to condescension when she can't score a point. She couldn't get him to say something heinous like 'fags are evil' or 'homosexuality is a sin'. She was flabbergasted by the fact that he stuck to his line that he's only interested in helping homosexuals who want to be straight; so, she indulged her disgust.
The same thing happened when she interviewed Tim Phillips. He was just as polite and unflappable as tonight's guest, and she lost it saying, "I personally think that you and the folks that do what you do are a parasite who gets fat on Americans` fears."
Granted, she doesn't lose her cool. She never blusters like Bill-O. Never gets blotchy, but she does show her hand. Sadly, her lack of restraint undermines her otherwise formidable skills as an interviewer.
12/09/09
12/09/09
12/09/09
12/09/09
12/09/09
12/09/09
12/09/09
There's a difference between discussing something that you disagree with, but who holds rational views (even if they're counter to your own), and trying to have a discussion with someone who's actively, happily illogical and unreasonable. And make no mistake, this guy's views are neither rational nor reasonable.
12/09/09
Can you imagine a world in which anyone, with the possible exception of the Society of People for Whom There Is Absolutely No One to Love Them, would cite this nuclear waste dump of a man as a corroborating source?
Oh, the humanity...