[Sonsowey]

The kind of ridiculous authors who write posts discussing their dirty rooms, their lack of a social life, but are prominently featured on huge sites like Gawker etc. How do you get a job just detailing your loser life?

[LaserBear]

By catering to an audience of people who are just as loserly, if not more so.

Crabs in a bucket, patting each other on the back for being in a bucket.

[Days of Broken Arrows]

Connections and ideology.

Too many writers "know people." Time and time again, I'd have stories rejected because an editor's boyfriend or crony got the assignment. On two occasions I submitted a pitch that got "ignored" only to have it show up months later done by a friend of the editor.

Because of this, I was only able to ever get so far in writing. I guess I could have moved from DC to Brooklyn and kissed ass to Ivy League trust fund hipster editors, but a man must retain some sense of pride.

Regarding ideology, you can't work at a mainstream media outlet and expect to get Red Pill ideas through. I tried and failed. My work got handed back for a rewrite or I got paid a kill fee and they didn't run the piece at all.

Some of those rewrites included having to do a 180 on my own point of view. This was not pretty, but at the time I needed to work so I shut up did what they wanted.

My experiences are mostly in the arts and entertainment field. It's worse when you get into politics and culture (the latter of which I sometimes did).

And even with toeing the party line, I still got attacked by the Gawker feminist crowd. This sort of thing keeps freethinking dissidents in line. Part of me thinks it wasn't so much what I wrote but the fact that I have a macho, Italian sounding real name, and the white women over there read a point of view into it because of that. That's called "bigotry" in case you all didn't know the name for it.

(Confession: after I was attacked the Web hits on my stories exploded and I was able to purposely goad feminists with some articles, thanks to a cool editor who put getting a lot of Web hits before ideology.)

Media outlets like to think they're nonconformist and open-minded. But if that's the case, why am I writing under a pseudonym here, afraid that if people knew what I really thought, I'd never get work again if I ever needed it? The fact is, if you're "incorrect" you're out or you're considered a wingnut, and are relegated to writing for right wing publications -- most of which aren't respected or don't pay well.

Ironically, my folks were right about me not going into journalism but for entirely different than they thought.

[Billy Chubbs]

They just write something to the best of their abilities (even if their abilities suck) and they just throw it out there. There's plenty of excellent would be authours with life changing ideas who aren't putting a single word to paper or showing off their work for whatever reason. It doesn't matter if you suck at the game, it only matters if you're out there playing it.

*EDIT* Also what DoBA said. Entertainment industry is pretty foul with nepotism and favouritism.

[Cobra]

Writing was something special back in the heydey. Authors were men, and writing was masculine. I'd say their works transcended and gave the readers an experience. These guys didn't hide their experience behind the writing. They used writing as a tool to share their experiences with the world or provide someone with an entirely new one (fiction included). Ideas emerged from these experiences. Motivation emerged. These guys didn't have the Internet, thankfully.

Fast forward to today. Anyone can write. With the advent of cyberspace, topics to write about are at the tip of their fingers, not the bottom of their feet or miles ahead of them. They even get to hide further behind with a "handle." So they never have to share experiences, just feelings on stuff they saw on the Internet. The easier ability to share on the internet has also caused certain crabs to FIND their respective buckets. And once the buckets are found, they get COMFORTABLE.

So it has become an entitlement tool for these schmucks, not the enlightenment tool it was for their ancestors.

[R Smoov]

Easy.

When you have a country where being an absolute loser is ok. You can write and talk about being an absolute loser. Your fanbase, which is filled with absolute losers will see that your life is similar to theirs. Which means that now you are a voice among absolute losers. So this means that you start to network with bigger absolute looers and you all get to write and circle jerk about topics only absolute losers give a shit about.

Then you make it to the mecca of all absolute loser sites Gawker and Jezebel where you can spread your views and everyone will give a fuck about it and fight people who deny your beliefs.

But in the end you're a absolute loser who just got a job for doing nothing but being yourself.

[JustJay]

(07-23-2014 09:03 PM)Days of Broken Arrows Wrote:  

Connections and ideology.

Too many writers "know people." Time and time again, I'd have stories rejected because an editor's boyfriend or crony got the assignment. On two occasions I submitted a pitch that got "ignored" only to have it show up months later done by a friend of the editor.

Because of this, I was only able to ever get so far in writing. I guess I could have moved from DC to Brooklyn and kissed ass to Ivy League trust fund hipster editors, but a man must retain some sense of pride.

Regarding ideology, you can't work at a mainstream media outlet and expect to get Red Pill ideas through. I tried and failed. My work got handed back for a rewrite or I got paid a kill fee and they didn't run the piece at all.

Some of those rewrites included having to do a 180 on my own point of view. This was not pretty, but at the time I needed to work so I shut up did what they wanted.

My experiences are mostly in the arts and entertainment field. It's worse when you get into politics and culture (the latter of which I sometimes did).

And even with toeing the party line, I still got attacked by the Gawker feminist crowd. This sort of thing keeps freethinking dissidents in line. Part of me thinks it wasn't so much what I wrote but the fact that I have a macho, Italian sounding real name, and the white women over there read a point of view into it because of that. That's called "bigotry" in case you all didn't know the name for it.

(Confession: after I was attacked the Web hits on my stories exploded and I was able to purposely goad feminists with some articles, thanks to a cool editor who put getting a lot of Web hits before ideology.)

Media outlets like to think they're nonconformist and open-minded. But if that's the case, why am I writing under a pseudonym here, afraid that if people knew what I really thought, I'd never get work again if I ever needed it? The fact is, if you're "incorrect" you're out or you're considered a wingnut, and are relegated to writing for right wing publications -- most of which aren't respected or don't pay well.

Ironically, my folks were right about me not going into journalism but for entirely different than they thought.

As the saying goes "It's all about who you know". I've heard that a lot through my time in DC.

What I've come to realize about writing for media outlets is that nobody wants the "truth" if it's too controversial or it can't be controlled. No, I believe that we're too far gone in self medicating ourselves with entertainment to really want to know what the true state of the world is. Therefor if you want to spread truth that is unpopular you'll have to wear the mask of anonymity in order to do so.

Take Edward Snowden for example. Releasing the kind of information he did, he was instantly branded as a heretic, traitor, never to set foot in the United States again. His truth about the NSA has been watered down to just back and forth political debates with no real progress with protecting the privacy of US citizens.

If it fits the status quo, then your truth will be accepted. If it doesn't, it'll either be silenced or your imagine will be run into the mud and that unfortunately is the truth.

As far as these loser authors are concerned getting employment. Well unfortunately they are the winners, because hey guess what? They got the job. As long as these practices are accepted the losers will win and the winners will take a back seat, till they find a way to change the game.

[Quintus Curtius]

The same ways any other loser gets a job.

Connections.

Connections.

Connections.

[Truth Teller]

Connections and the fact that misery loves company. There are writers who do nothing but bitch about their miserable lives all day. I'm sure some of them have followers who probably bitch about their miserable lives as well.

[Saladin]

(07-23-2014 08:38 PM)Sonsowey Wrote:  

The kind of ridiculous authors who write posts discussing their dirty rooms, their lack of a social life, but are prominently featured on huge sites like Gawker etc. How do you get a job just detailing your loser life?

Read that book.

Gawker doesn't give a fuck about anything other than the page views you can bring them.

Its the resurgence of the yellow press... in a blog format.

[JustJay]

Look into this book as well.

   

[CRR]

This has boggled my mine as well.

It's like in politics. There are some writers you don't agree with, but at least they write well and make coherent arguments.

I have yet to find a feminist writer who is not only competent, but not mind-boggling awful. It's all just a lot of whining and bitterness. It's the equivalent of a small child throwing a temper tantrum, hiring a stenographer to transcribe it and then posting it on the internet.

[Hades]

(07-23-2014 11:26 PM)Quintus Curtius Wrote:  

The same ways any other loser gets a job.

Connections.

Connections.

Connections.

Haha yeah, true that 100%.

Every now and then I run into a clueless supervisor or manager at some business and wonder who he blew to get promoted.

[Vicious]

The modern online media business is more segregated than the "shower rooms" at Birkenau. Everyone is of the same drone mindset and is required to demonstrate this in hard writing prior to even getting considered (college paper or blog publications).

[lowbudgetballer]

(07-24-2014 01:19 AM)CRR Wrote:  

I have yet to find a feminist writer who is not only competent, but not mind-boggling awful. It's all just a lot of whining and bitterness. It's the equivalent of a small child throwing a temper tantrum, hiring a stenographer to transcribe it and then posting it on the internet.

This chick seems pretty down to earth. I read about her in Penthouse in the 90s.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christina_Hoff_Sommers

'baller

[CRR]

(07-24-2014 04:19 AM)lowbudgetballer Wrote:  

(07-24-2014 01:19 AM)CRR Wrote:  

I have yet to find a feminist writer who is not only competent, but not mind-boggling awful. It's all just a lot of whining and bitterness. It's the equivalent of a small child throwing a temper tantrum, hiring a stenographer to transcribe it and then posting it on the internet.

This chick seems pretty down to earth. I read about her in Penthouse in the 90s.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christina_Hoff_Sommers

'baller

She seems more anti-feminist than feminist.

For example, frequent guests on Bill Maher are Reihan Salam and Matt Kibbe. I don't agree with most of what either says, although I probably agree with Salam more often. But both make reasonable arguments, as much as anyone I would tend to agree with.

However I have yet to encounter a feminist who is not only reasonable, but not completely shrill and extremely annoying.

I just took a visit to Jezebel, and quickly proved my point in an article titled "Stop Asking Me Why I'm Single"

An excerpt (the rest is all whining):

Why am I single?

Because I have finally come to believe, after 24 years of living, that I simply deserve the best. When I get that, I'll be sure to let you know.

Edit: I know the question in this case was posed as a "compliment". I don't find it to be a compliment even if that was the intent. I wrote this post because I'm annoyed with the question regardless of who it comes from because it is inherently condescending. I used to answer this question in the nicest way possible but now I typically don't answer it at all if it's coming from strangers online who use it as an opener (except in this case, obviously).

And yes I deserve the best, after years of thinking I'd be lucky just to get someone to go out with me, period. We deserve the best when we start to love ourselves and realize our own self-worth, and we deserve to be with someone who also realizes that. This is critical to everyone, but especially those coming out of abusive (emotionally or physical) relationships. Self-love, people. It's fundamental.

So it's because she deserves the best. No original thought, no self reflection, no real WHY she deserves the best. Just a bunch of superficial nonsense. Everyone has been in an abusive relationship, and repeatedly using words like "self love", "self worth" and "love ourselves", three different ways to say the exact same thing, is just lazy. It's like telling someone "you'll meet someone when you least expect it" or "just be yourself".

Unfortunately I can't find a photo of the author. But I can guess what she looks like, and why she's so bitter.

[Days of Broken Arrows]

(07-24-2014 10:55 AM)CRR Wrote:  

(07-24-2014 04:19 AM)lowbudgetballer Wrote:  

(07-24-2014 01:19 AM)CRR Wrote:  

I have yet to find a feminist writer who is not only competent, but not mind-boggling awful. It's all just a lot of whining and bitterness. It's the equivalent of a small child throwing a temper tantrum, hiring a stenographer to transcribe it and then posting it on the internet.

This chick seems pretty down to earth. I read about her in Penthouse in the 90s.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christina_Hoff_Sommers

'baller

She seems more anti-feminist than feminist.

For example, frequent guests on Bill Maher are Reihan Salam and Matt Kibbe. I don't agree with most of what either says, although I probably agree with Salam more often. But both make reasonable arguments, as much as anyone I would tend to agree with.

However I have yet to encounter a feminist who is not only reasonable, but not completely shrill and extremely annoying.

I just took a visit to Jezebel, and quickly proved my point in an article titled "Stop Asking Me Why I'm Single"

An excerpt (the rest is all whining):

Why am I single?

Because I have finally come to believe, after 24 years of living, that I simply deserve the best. When I get that, I'll be sure to let you know.

Edit: I know the question in this case was posed as a "compliment". I don't find it to be a compliment even if that was the intent. I wrote this post because I'm annoyed with the question regardless of who it comes from because it is inherently condescending. I used to answer this question in the nicest way possible but now I typically don't answer it at all if it's coming from strangers online who use it as an opener (except in this case, obviously).

And yes I deserve the best, after years of thinking I'd be lucky just to get someone to go out with me, period. We deserve the best when we start to love ourselves and realize our own self-worth, and we deserve to be with someone who also realizes that. This is critical to everyone, but especially those coming out of abusive (emotionally or physical) relationships. Self-love, people. It's fundamental.

So it's because she deserves the best. No original thought, no self reflection, no real WHY she deserves the best. Just a bunch of superficial nonsense. Everyone has been in an abusive relationship, and repeatedly using words like "self love", "self worth" and "love ourselves", three different ways to say the exact same thing, is just lazy. It's like telling someone "you'll meet someone when you least expect it" or "just be yourself".

Unfortunately I can't find a photo of the author. But I can guess what she looks like, and why she's so bitter.

Yeah, Christina Hoff Somers is a feminist critic. Check out her newest video on YouTube, which picks apart Verizon's latest you-go-girl campaign.

She wrote a book called "Who Stole Feminism?" and along with Charlotte Allen, Dr. Helen, and Camille Paglia, is among the leading women who are bold enough to vocally undercut what feminists are saying, despite a lot of media criticism.

[CRR]

I'll certainly take a look.

Just saw this quote on wiki from Sommers via Esquire, which unfortunately she denies making:

"There are a lot of homely women in women's studies. Preaching these anti-male, anti-sex sermons is a way for them to compensate for various heartaches-- they're just mad at the beautiful girls."

[runsonmagic]

Page views.

That's all advertisers care about.

[Basil Ransom]

I got some exposure to these media types, to people who would later write for the NY Times and similar publications.

For one, they have NO INTEREST in truth, in knowledge, in being a light unto the world. What they care about is being a "journalist" with all the prestige that they attach to that. What they actually cover is immaterial, so long as its glamorous according to their own measure. Eg politics nerds valorize vapid politics coverage. I'd see these people hang out, and it was always such a self congratulatory circle jerk where they all pretended the other was cool, and even went as far as publishing their ugly friends as being among the hottest people on campus, in the school newspaper. If you talked to them, you'd soon realize they were lame dorks. I was banging a girl who was low on the totem pole, just a freshman journalist - and she said her articles would get published with typos that weren't even in what she had submitted - the journalists were a bunch of incompetent clowns. And of course, to a man, they are almost always self righteously liberal, or self-abnegatingly apologetically "conservative."

Even if you wanted to build connections with these people, you probably couldnt stand to hang out with them to begin with. It's okay to be a little full of yourself when you have talent, but they didnt even have that.