GamerGate has cost Gawker seven figures

[SirPuzzle]

Riviera de la Mancha

Roih Uvet

Riviera de la Mancha

Roih Uvet

Riviera de la Mancha

Roih Uvet

According to Talking Points Memo, Gamergate has costed Gawker seven figures in damages over their anti-white, anti-male rhetoric over the years, especially as it applied to white male gamers.

Now that the shoe is on the other foot, how do feminists and SJWs feel about there being "consequences" for the remarks people make on the Internet?

As a point of fact, there were no "damages" - the article mentions that the loss in money was from advertisers pulling their content. Even then, the article only mentions Mercedes-Benz briefly pulling its advertisements. It then does not mention any other sponsors and goes to a joke during some meeting. And further, the ad was pulled in response to a tweet which was not anti-white or anti-male. It was anti-nerd.

So in pretty much all respects, your source doesn't match up with your claims of what it says.

To a business, any financial loss is damage.

Your summary says "seven figures IN DAMAGES", indicating that it was awarded in some kind of suit.

That's a clever way to try to salvage your mistake though, I give you that. rolleyes

>actually believing that "damages" refers exclusively to losses due to legal issues

> Can't just admit he used the wrong word to describe something and has to use passive-aggressive posts to hide his angst.

Is arguing over one word back and forth really a good use of time?

We both know what he meant, when he said "damages" what he meant is that by Gawcker saying something it cost them over a million dollars.

Call it damages, call it opportunity cost if you want, does it really matter what word he uses over a forum on the internet as long as everyone understands what he is saying?

[Roih Uvet]

Riviera de la Mancha

Roih Uvet

Riviera de la Mancha

Roih Uvet

Riviera de la Mancha

Roih Uvet

To a business, any financial loss is damage.

Your summary says "seven figures IN DAMAGES", indicating that it was awarded in some kind of suit.

That's a clever way to try to salvage your mistake though, I give you that. rolleyes

>actually believing that "damages" refers exclusively to losses due to legal issues

> Can't just admit he used the wrong word to describe something and has to use passive-aggressive posts to hide his angst.

>being this smug and this wrong at the same time

> Continues to be butthurt and fails to demonstrate any wrongness. Looks way more ridiculous defending a wrong point than the person who is waiting for them to just own up to it.

Smugly convinced of his own superiority, riviera de la mancha maintains that "damages" refers exclusively to legal costs lost in a suit, even though that's not what the word means. He maintains that OP's entire point is wrong because of this.

[Riviera de la Mancha]

Procurements

Riviera de la Mancha

Procurements

Riviera de la Mancha

Procurements

So you think an autonomous head of a company like that would surround himself with a bunch of executive egos just because? Or the EIC would get pink slipped because someone had a bad day? It goes beyond that one joke. Just a cursory look at the site the other day showed them calling Hollywood director Ridley Scott of Alien fame a white supremacist and attacking people who sympathized with a store owner whose store was trashed by looters, as well as defending looting innocent small business owners in Ferguson, saying it was "economically beneficial." Currently, the same guy who got himself in hot water with his "bully nerds" comments is paying people to dox someone and encouraging Gawker readers to harass him on Twitter. They also publicly attacked Intel and Adobe for publicly dropping contracts, which won't sit well in a lot of marketing departments.

It will take time to really show its effect. After the backlash Intel and Adobe received from hardline feminists, I imagine a lot of advertisers will instead choose to not renew contracts, and the effects will be gradual as Gawker's war chest in the Caymans starts to grow depleted. The company openly states that advertisers are the consumers, not the readers, and for them to have to resort to aggregators like Google AdSense should tell you plenty.

Again, why I don't get is how you get from "board" to "OMG they are financially devastated because of an anti-nerd tweet." Couple of steps missing there.

Losing seven figures in ad revenue isn't a big deal? Seven figures doesn't strictly mean a million dollars with no room for even a penny above that. I don't know about financially devastated, but they're hurting. Financially devastated would mean that they're closing up shop. I don't know if that's entirely feasible for anyone to do, since they would just pare down staff to work with the revenue they can get from aggregators.

When you report that you are making about 40 million dollars last year, and the loss in revenue has presumably returned, I don't see that getting to the level of devastating. Nor does it paint a picture of them hurting.

Is that revenue or profit? Also, Dyson isn't the only company to drop support. Do you think they'd use an aggregator if it's just one company? Is Gawker a wing of Dyson, and Dyson didn't bother to tell anyone? You keep harping on this Dyson thing like they're the only company that's ever had anything to do with Gawker.

Profits.

And again, just as with your "board" argument, I don't see how using an aggregator gets you to where you want to go with your argument.

I still have no idea what Gawker even is. I have also never mentioned dyson at all. I don't even know what Dyson is. I said that Mercedes had pulled its advertisements. All this time I have been going off of the OP's posted article and a recent search on what they reported their profits were.

[Riviera de la Mancha]

SirPuzzle

Riviera de la Mancha

Roih Uvet

Riviera de la Mancha

Roih Uvet

To a business, any financial loss is damage.

Your summary says "seven figures IN DAMAGES", indicating that it was awarded in some kind of suit.

That's a clever way to try to salvage your mistake though, I give you that. rolleyes

>actually believing that "damages" refers exclusively to losses due to legal issues

> Can't just admit he used the wrong word to describe something and has to use passive-aggressive posts to hide his angst.

Is arguing over one word back and forth really a good use of time?

We both know what he meant, when he said "damages" what he meant is that by Gawcker saying something it cost them over a million dollars.

Call it damages, call it opportunity cost if you want, does it really matter what word he uses over a forum on the internet as long as everyone understands what he is saying?

That's part of the problem; the word used conveys a lawsuit. There was no lawsuit at all here, so there is a misunderstanding going on.

[Riviera de la Mancha]

Roih Uvet

Riviera de la Mancha

Roih Uvet

Riviera de la Mancha

Roih Uvet

>actually believing that "damages" refers exclusively to losses due to legal issues

> Can't just admit he used the wrong word to describe something and has to use passive-aggressive posts to hide his angst.

>being this smug and this wrong at the same time

> Continues to be butthurt and fails to demonstrate any wrongness. Looks way more ridiculous defending a wrong point than the person who is waiting for them to just own up to it.

Smugly convinced of his own superiority, riviera de la mancha maintains that "damages" refers exclusively to legal costs lost in a suit, even though that's not what the word means. He maintains that OP's entire point is wrong because of this.

> Still fails to point where I ever claimed that "damages" has an exclusive meaning, instead of arguing that your USE of the word conveys a message which is unsupported by your source. Continues to strawman the other person's argument to distract from the fact that his link supported nothing he said; there was no "seven figures in damages", there was no anti-white male comment posted by anyone at Gawker, and the loss in revenue was returned to the company.

[Yoshpet]

More greentexting. MOAR. emotion_zzz