Feeds: 
symbol identifies content for paid subscribers only.
HAHAHAHA.
I think it's a bit peculiar that the New York Times Magazine gave their cover this week to a former Gawker employee who wanted to write "I was a blogger and that's kind of weird and I'm sorry if I hurt anyone's feelings," but this graf is truer than I'd like to admit:
Though Gawker’s bloggers often worked from home, I went to the office every day at first. I was used to communicating with most people I knew via instant messenger, but it seemed important to see Alex, my co-editor, in person. I figured that we’d be able to express ourselves more easily by actually turning to each other and speaking words and making facial expressions rather than typing instant messages. But because we were so busy, we continued to I.M. most of the time, even when we were sitting right next to each other. Soon it stopped seeming weird to me when one of us would type a joke and the other one would type “Hahahahaha” in lieu of actually laughing.Eep. Though, to be fair, typed out laughter is not the same as actual laughter. The artificial nature of electronic writing -- where tone can't soften and facial expressions can't contextualize -- actually requires a lot of validating communication. Typing out laughter, weird as it seems, doesn't suggest a joke is funny so much as it acknowledges that the other person just made a joke, and you recognized it for what it was. But, frankly, reading those sentences back to myself makes me feel like I'm made out of computer, and am, in the parlance of the Gawker article, "oversharing." So! Back to politics! I sure don't support most of the policies of our president!
COMMENTS (12)
don't forget the heirarchy of "ha":"hah":"hahahaha":"lol"::wry smile:genuine smile:actual laughter:"oh, that was a joke."
And let's not even get into ROFLMAOPIMP
Posted by: dbt | May 23, 2008 10:51 AM
That article was such a self-indulgent, navel-gazing examination of white hipster culture (complete with earnest hang-wringing about the socially-erosive powers of the internet) that I almost wondered if the whole thing (including, of course, the cheesecake photos of Ms. Gould and her tattoos) was in fact an elaborate hoax staged by the authors of "Stuff White People Like" blog.
Posted by: Philly | May 23, 2008 10:57 AM
l'internet c'est moi.
Posted by: SDM | May 23, 2008 10:57 AM
What we don't learn from her narcistic boohoohoo: After her coworker Josh all but broke her heart, and then had the nerves to give her some of ehr won medicine by writing a "page six" story about the relationship, she already has the second new boyfriend, both of them prominent publishers of elitist magazenes. Maybe this characterisation of Emily (via Gawker), by a "former friend", has some truth to it:
"Emily wants everyone—or at least a small sliver of New York's male media world—to think she's smart. And they want to fuck her. Both sides, thus far and pretty much, have gotten what they want."
:D
Also worth reading:
"Bloggers and Other Freaks of Nature"
http://thisrecording.wordpress.com/2008/02/11/in-which-all-in-all-youre-just-another-bloggeur-in-the-wall/
Posted by: Gray | May 23, 2008 11:07 AM
C'mon Gray, there's no reason to go and imply she's loose just because she has had three boyfriends in row. I don't see anything wrong with that.
I do see something wrong with the leading paper of record essentially publishing a lengthy, soapy Livejournal entry (and linking it on their website front page) and pretending that this woman has something profound to say about the internet, celebrity, and self-exposure.
Posted by: Philly | May 23, 2008 11:19 AM
"I almost wondered if the whole thing (including, of course, the cheesecake photos of Ms. Gould and her tattoos) was in fact an elaborate hoax staged by the authors of "Stuff White People Like" blog."
I had almost the same idea: What if Emily deliberately got rid of her old, not-so-cool boyfriend, and started, and conseqently ruined, the affair with Josh, just to get her 15 minutes of fame at the NYT? That her new friend Gessen is rumoured to have connections to the Times, is too much of a coincidence, imho. I wouldn't at all be surprised if she very carefully choreographed this mini-scandal, thinking "there's no such thing as bad PR". At least she doesn't seem to be handicapped by any serious ethical values...
:-/
Posted by: Gray | May 23, 2008 11:19 AM
"pretending that this woman has something profound to say about the internet, celebrity, and self-exposure."
Posing as an editor at Gawker for a year sure seems to catapult people into VIP status. It don't regularly read that site, but have they really become the equivalent to the Drudge report, division "juicy gossips" so fast?
Posted by: Gray | May 23, 2008 11:23 AM
"C'mon Gray, there's no reason to go and imply she's loose just because she has had three boyfriends in row"
I didn't want to imply she's loose, I'm wondering if she's a very calculating person. I mean, be realistic, she makes her NYT story sound as if she's still hurt, and in reality already has the second new boyfriend in a row? The girls I know suffered longer and harder after they broke up with a guy they loved. Imho, something doesn't compute here.
Btw, regardless if she's loose or calculating, this picture doesn't leave the impression that she's shy, or an especially reserved person:
http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/brainiac/30_choireandgould_lg.jpg
:D
Posted by: Gray | May 23, 2008 11:33 AM
SDM gets a ha:wry smile for that one.
Posted by: Sam | May 23, 2008 12:44 PM
Every blogger should read that piece and then do everything in their power to not become as self-absorbed and narcissitic as Gould.
She's an elitist dolt unable to conceive of a life outside her screen, no Iraq War or even memories of 9/11 to taint her fantasies of becoming Carrie Bradshaw. Life to her is one big episode of "Gossip Girl" and her navel is the most amazing in the world to gaze into. She would be creepy if she weren't so symptomatic of many online typists.
And if you've seen her decimated by Jimmy Kimmel (of all folk) you can see how she represents the very worst of the blogging generation. She comes off quite stupid and inarticulate.
You should be afraid, Ezra;] And start taking walks.
Posted by: christian | May 23, 2008 4:07 PM
I find that if I'm not engaged in actual conversation, I don't actually laugh at any but the funniest jokes. So when I type "hahahaha" it usually means that something very funny has been said, even if I'm not laughing out loud.
Posted by: digamma | May 23, 2008 6:59 PM
great post, ezra (and i'm speaking as a linguist)
Posted by: simon | May 28, 2008 12:01 PM