Secrets of the City

Some of those Gawker commenters are like 2 year olds.

You haven’t arrived in NY until someone on Gawker calls you a douchebag.

Reminder to self: This is why you had promised to retire “douchebag” from your vocabulary. Because almost everyone who uses it is a douchebag.

Douchebag is, like, every 4th word out of my mouth. Guess I know what Max thinks about me!

It’s totally true.

You’re more of a douchenozzle.

They do make a point about someone having sex with Rex. I thought he had to fly S3xton out to NYC in order to get some.

Ouch! I guess comments on MnSpeak really ARE as mean as those on Gawker!

Why make fun of the sex life of a guy who gets laid on the regular? It’s only funny if it’s true.

I blame frustration over the thirty seconds of my life I just wasted on Gawker.

It’s only funny if it’s true.
Good thing you aren’t boss of Teh Internets. Maybe it’s time to wakeup from the Overheard snoozefest and smell the coffee.

Oh, shit, thanks for the wake up call! I don’t know what I would have done if I kept wasting my time with OIM! I have you to thank.

Heh.

This thread could turn Gawkeresque really fast.

Jeez. Can’t we all just get along.

And JACC is jes’ jellus because I link to Overheard more than his blog.

JACC is just proving the fact that he really is a smug, rich bastard…jerk.

(J/K, call me!)

You do? I didn’t notice.

I’ll buy this site, shut it down, sell off the parts, and turn the brand MNSpeak into an informercial for the flowbee.

If we are going to retire douchebag can we replace it with dickinabox? If not, I suggest y’all start providing suggestions. And fast.

And if Gawker’s commenters are 2-year-olds, I think that makes MNSpeak’s 1-year-olds. Mainly because MNSpeak isn’t in nor about NYC and because it’s not a Gawker property.

And if Gawker’s commenters are 2-year-olds, I think that makes MNSpeak’s 1-year-olds
We get it. You’re pandering to be a Gawker dickinthebox.

cockstain is the new douchebag

Wow. I walk away to read the gawker comments and this all explodes.

Wow. I walk away to read the gawker comments and this all explodes.
Thus, the cockstain.

I think all the cockstains here are being dickintheboxes…

My vote is for fuckrag.

binky. Or ted.

I vote for “arthappy”

I kid. Sorta.

It seems like Rex is Gawker’s Diablo Cody. A lightning rod. I guess that means he’s megamicrofamous and will get his six-figure book deal any day now, and I’ll be really bitter and jealous and resentful.

Finally there’s a name on Gawker that I’m familiar with.

Kurtis’ obsession with me is quite touching…
It probably comes from when I dismissed his wife’s crappy macrame way back when. Whatever. We all pick our battles. (I’m personally marking the date of the release of his book, so I can joyfully tear it apart in a review somewhere…)

My vote is for “dickhole.”

Did you see some detail of his wife’s macrame?

No, I’m just funnin’ in that inimicably mnspeak way…

Well, obsession would be touching.

It may be more of a mild preoccupation.

I didn’t ever use “douchebag” when it was in style (up until this afternoon, apparently) but if it is out of style now, I’ll switch to fuckrag. I kinda like cockstain too.*

I like most forms of swearing but always avoid the ones that are mean to a particular gender (or gender’s genitalia) such as c*** or prick or dick or boob. I like the sentiment behind “ballsy” but am sorry it is considered weird or funny to say “ovaries-y” despite my best efforts to get people to use it.

*that’s what she said.

LOL @ both Kurtis and Arthappy… this is what I love best about MNspeak.

I think I’d use “dung heap” if I really felt like I needed to.

As in: Macon, Georgia is a dung heap.

That was very over-easy for you to say so Jane. Wait, I think I used it wrong.

Hee!

LOL @ both Kurtis and Arthappy… this is what I love best about MNspeak.

Well, then I’m glad we can oblige you.

…am sorry it is considered weird or funny to say “ovaries-y” despite my best efforts to get people to use it.

Hm. I like it despite the trickiness of pronouncing the word. What do you mean by it? (Language note: The term hysteria originates from some female anatomical associations that some would suggest are sexist…)

If we are going to retire douchebag can we replace it with dickinabox? — I’m okay with that.

I vote for “arthappy” — Ha!

*that’s what she said. — Footnote. Nice.

Tried to find a link to the SNL skit about Lord Douchebag, but all I could find was the script. Classic.

Earl of Sandwich: Douchebag, how are you? I haven’t seen you in the House of Lords in ages! Don’t tell me for the first time in memory we are going to have a House of Parliament without a Douchebag?

Lord Doucebag: My dear Sandwich, Parliament has always had its share of Douchebags, and it always will.

Lord Salisbury: Spoken like a true Douchebag. I have often heard the King speak of your family.. [ to Earl of Sandwich ] ..and of yours, as well: “Give me a Sandwich and a Douchebag, and there is nothing I cannot do.”

Community is the Lord Douchebag of words and Social is the King of Media, so I vote for “communityinabox”.

Um…I don’t remember Rex ever give me any pillow talk. I feel shorted, and a little bit hurt.

I like piss infected cum bubble as an insult.

And with that i’m out…

Whoa, where’d this thread come from?

Anyway, I said enough elsewhere about all this, so I’ll only add one thing here: Gawker commenters don’t like ANYTHING. I felt the post itself was fair (Nick is on my side), and I think the issue itself is fair for debate. It wasn’t an attempt at seeking attention, but I decided to hold the flag up on this one because I’m a little dismayed about the forms that the internet is allowing right now.

Your idea of who is on your side and my idea of who is on my side are obviously quite different. That post seemed designed to hold you up to ridicule. And, knowing their commentors, that ridicule was going to include mocking your personal appearance and, inevitably, calling you a douchebag.

The post didn’t generate much of a debate, and the commentors didn’t take it up as a subject for debate. I’m not certain what you mean by the “forms the internet will allow” means; I’d be curious to hear you expound on that a little more.

I think Rex made some great points.
Also, for what it’s worth, I really liked his shirt in that peace-sign pic. The bad chin music not as much, but man, that shirt!

Let me do, what I do best… Over-simplify a very complex idea

We’re all publishers today. As soon as you hit the post, comment, or upload button, you’re documenting now, what will be part of history tomorrow, a year from now, or 100 years from now.

People have documented their personal life as long as the first human painted a pictograph on a cave wall. Of course, the other nomads quickly chastised him for over-sharing. Without this information, our society would not have all the pieces to interpret their lives.

Twenty years from now, my kids will look back on all the photos, videos, and blog updates with both fond and horrid memories. Do they need it? Do I need it? I don’t know.

Fifty years from now, my grandchildren will look at Grandpa and ask, “Why did you have the nickname TaulPaul?” Then I will stand up, two inches shorter than I am today, and look at them like they’re morons.

One hundred years from now, we’ll all be dead, but over-sharing will persist in a state we can only dream about. Our great grandchildren will be able to wade through the snark, and piece together the truth about almost every event throughout our generation’s history. We will have put revisionist’s out of business, because every event of our history was covered at every angle possible.

So, should I worry about over-sharing? Fuck no. I’m documenting history so our great grandchildren don’t think I was a total douche.

Max: Nick and I working on a couple online projects and know each other very well. The post feels completely fair — read the conclusion he comes to, which basically says I’m right. His email to me: “For what it’s worth, I’m sorry the Gawker commenters don’t agree with me that you have a point.” (As the post progressed, a few people ended up agreeing with me. Whatever. I’m fine with it.)

If you read the comments I wrote on either Gawker or my site, you’ll see the point I’m trying to make about form. We’re creating self-imposed limits — everything feels boring, staid, banal to me. Online publishing is now 300-word blog posts, where you act unattached and disinterested, followed by snarky comments. I’m certainly guilty of contributing to the evolution of this form (and I’ll probably guest-edit Gawker again), but it’s all feeling dead to me lately. I want something new.

I want something new

At last Rex is ready for LOL cats!

moar funny pictures

Online publishing is now 300-word blog posts, where you act unattached and disinterested, followed by snarky comments. I’m certainly guilty of contributing to the evolution of this form (and I’ll probably guest-edit Gawker again), but it’s all feeling dead to me lately. I want something new.

Well, you’ve effectively summarized Gawker media. I don’t know how fair an assessment that is of the rest of the Web. Obviously, I mostly read Twin Cities blogs, but very few of them fit into your description. I’m curious if you felt that your tumbler blog expanded the form of blogging.

My critique about the limitations of online publishing at this moment is that too many bloggers think they are the most interesting thing they can write about. I don’t care if people overshare, as long as their oversharing is fascinating. Too often, it simply isn’t.

Rex, you argued recently that criticism improves the arts, but it seems like you feel the opposite is true of blogs, where criticism stunts the form or something. Why wouldn’t it be the same, the critiques driving bloggers to be more interesting and less narcissistic and better writers?

Twenty years from now, my kids will look back on all the photos, videos, and blog updates with both fond and horrid memories.

No, twenty years from now the photos, videos, and blogs won’t exist. If these even survive online two years, they will be buried under the million stratus layers of information from a trillion other sharers. The biggest problem with oversharing, imho, is, if everyone’s doing it, no one has time to look at it.

Arthappy is either just sober enough or I’m just drunk enough, that suddenly he’s making sense.

I’ve had a coupla mojitos. You?

Old Fashioneds. Time to make that S on that true.

L’Chaim! (Kurtis, and everyone, wherever you may be revelling!)

I have decided I will also overshare.

I don’t really see how this is oversharing because, after reading the blog I am left only with the conclusion that a) Rex may sleep with a fair of women b) One of them is 23 c) One or more of them has a Twitter account and c) They all have approximately the same voice and level of sass.

Also, who has a secret blog that prominently displays a face shot on it? Rex may be many things, but he’s not an idiot.

Are you planning a new article on the downside of microcelebrity, Rex?

I’m going to start a website specifically for locker room braggadocio, entitled menspeak.com.

My critique about the limitations of online publishing at this moment is that too many bloggers think they are the most interesting thing they can write about. I don’t care if people overshare, as long as their oversharing is fascinating. Too often, it simply isn’t.

Yes.

Well, you’ve effectively summarized Gawker media.

No.

It’s much broader than that. It’s even taken over communities we’re both part of — Metafilter, this one, etc. Like I said, I’m contributing to it as much as anyone. I don’t know exactly yet what I’m yearning for, but I want something different. I want to turn my dismay into something — and as retarded as it might sound, that Tumblr was the beginning of me working out some of these ideas: fictional, exhausted, jaded, narcissistic.

Rex, you argued recently that criticism improves the arts, but it seems like you feel the opposite is true of blogs, where criticism stunts the form or something. Why wouldn’t it be the same, the critiques driving bloggers to be more interesting and less narcissistic and better writers?

This is pretty horrible logic. Of course criticism shapes writing, whether that’s your high school composition teacher or NYTBR. But that does not mean all criticism is good criticism. The logical chasm between “criticism is good” and “now you must listen to some commenters” is a vast expanse.

This is especially true online, where there are 79 different opinions. Who the fuck knows which criticism to take?

(But we all ultimately learn from some of our mistakes, right?)

I have decided I will also overshare.

It’s funny. And good.

Also, who has a secret blog that prominently displays a face shot on it? Rex may be many things, but he’s not an idiot.

It didn’t originally have the photo. I added it later, and sorta regret it.

Are you planning a new article on the downside of microcelebrity, Rex?

No, but I would like to write somewhere about this inherently conservative voice that’s taking over online conversations — coarse, resistant to change, scolding.

You are an odd fish, Mr. Sorgatz, but I still think you’re up to something. Can’t quite figure out what though, if it’s not an article.

Do you know how Gawker caught wind of it? Any ideas?

Also, one more thing….

The place that I first started thinking about this was here on this site, a few years ago, when Diablo was just starting to get recognized. The discourse around her really pissed me off. Locally, it was particularly coarse, and I don’t think that was a coincidence. I think it’s actually because we were close to her, and because she was writing in intimate first person, that we became abnormally harsh.

The internet does the same thing: it makes us closer, accessible. If that stupid Tumblr had just sat out there anonymously, it would have been viewed completely differently. Because it is ME, it’s a narcissistic project. (I’m not exactly saying it wasn’t — I’m saying that, ugh, art, for lack of a better word, is always over-sharing.)

These are the things that interest me.

I don’t think my logic is “horrible.” Criticism and comments are feedback. People may or may not do anything meaningful with them, but I don’t buy that there’s such difference between the forms that direct feedback cannot be meaningful or used meaningfully the way professional criticism can. The authors I know lose sleep over their Amazon.com reader reviews. They do sift through them, and they do sort the mediocre with a point from the truly moronic, but direct feedback is pretty powerful. I reckon one or two might improve in small ways on account of them.

For every Diablo Cody (who obviously didn’t let coarse comments keep her down), there’s some asshole like Larry Johnson who suffers from a lack of scolding, shaming comments. He continues in his manic, hateful blogging because he has a bevy of appreciative clapping seals who encourage him. He’s like a kid on a playground eating bugs. Why should he stop? He has fans.

BTW, I do love the explanation that comments are useless as feedback because people have different opinions–unlike, one presumes, legitimate criticism, where all the critics agree.

There was some unfair commentary directed at Diablo. But I’ve also never seen so many people try to shut down legitimate criticisms of Cody as a writing by shrieking that anyone who wasn’t simply mad about her was jes jellus and couldn’t stand to see a local girl succeed. And I am not sure I understand your case, Rex? Are you saying that unjust criticism is forcing online media into very narrow publishing categories?

I am not sure what other online media you’re talking about, so all I can refer to is Gawker media, and it seems to me their greatest problem is a short-term “everything must be based around the greatest number of hits we can possible get” model. Also, I hold Gawker responsible for the tone of their commentors — if there has one thing I have seen over and over, it is that commentors or letter writers will conform to what they think the expectations of a site or publication is. Thus, stuffy intellectual magazines will get thoughtful, but stuffy, reader’s letters, while City Pages, which often taunts its letter writers through how they title letters, get’s shriller, more self-consciously hip letters, etc. Gawker’s readers are aping the tone they think suits the publication.

i09, which I read, and is also part of the Gawker network, has much more interesting comments, imho, because it doesn’t have such a hostile editorial voice, but more fannish, and therefore get comments by legitimately interested fans.

trying to boil this down, perhaps too simply. we’re a rule following lot by force of habit. the dictates of polite society are that certain things, intimate details, are to be kept to ourselves and not shared. so when someone steps out of line by oversharing…actually doing something many of us would like to do, but have been trained not to…the easy and safe way to deal with this jealousy and frustration is to instead challenge/abuse those who “step out of line”, and it temporarily lifts the weight of not being able to reveal our own intimates.

choose your own cliche for how our Western civilization operates. the nail that sticks out gets pounded down. if your skin isn’t thick, then you ought not expose it. or maybe i’m just being a road weary douchebag after 12 hours in the car today.

going to ravage my wife now…oversharing pictures to follow.

I want to turn my dismay into something — and as retarded as it might sound, that Tumblr was the beginning of me working out some of these ideas: fictional, exhausted, jaded, narcissistic.

Ugh, I’m so over other people’s dismay. Unless you fucking hate something with the power of 8 million suns, go whine to your girlfriend (or whoever your fucking) because I have my own problems to deal with.

Wow, I was pretty punchy last night. I blame the beer and wine combo.

Like I said previously, that’s what happens when you make substitutions.

Re: earlier comments

You know, it was Diablo Cody’s perserverance in the face of negative comments that paved the way for a black man to have a legitimate chance at being POTUS.

Or maybe it was the civil rights movement.

I forget which.