Skip

January 16, 2001
10:44 AM   Subscribe

Lowtax (of Something Awful fame, and creator of JeffK) on the State of the Internet.
posted by PWA_BadBoy (16 comments total)

 
credit: detnet
posted by PWA_BadBoy at 10:46 AM on January 16, 2001


After all that Lowtax has been through (GameFan, express.com , and now eFront), I'm amazed at how he still manages to keep "TEH FUNNY" going. SA has helped me cope with all the times I've sat on the phone talking someone through their computer problems all day :)
posted by pnevares at 10:52 AM on January 16, 2001


He uses the same background color as MeFi.
posted by waxpancake at 11:49 AM on January 16, 2001


Well, I'm not sure I entirely agree with the piece.

"Advertisers, whom the entire Internet is funded by"

The entire Internet is not funded by advertisers.
posted by howa2396 at 1:35 PM on January 16, 2001


The entire Internet may not be ad-sponsored; that's rhetorical. But a large portion of the gaming/entertainment sites on the Web *are* funded by one of several ad networks, most of which are currently in some kind of financial trouble. I can think of at least three quality, high-profile gaming sites that have threatened to shut down, or have quit their ad network contracts, just from this past week. (GameFAQs, Penny Arcade, and Something Awful itself.) I'm sure there are others who're going through the same trouble. Forgive Lowtax his hyperbole; I think he makes an excellent point about the failure of Web advertising.
posted by darukaru at 2:05 PM on January 16, 2001


Oh yeah, and here's a whole lot more discussion on the subject.
posted by darukaru at 2:27 PM on January 16, 2001


What's up with this guy? Ironic homophobia is still homophobia, and I was completely put-off by that racist English-only rant. This guy has earned some respect among intelligent persons? How?

On the subject at hand, I say good riddance. I can't think of a single site that's funded (or intended to be funded) solely by advertising which I would miss were it to vanish from the Net completely and forever. Can you?

Ok, that's not true. I think a few Mac news sites depend on advertising, but I imagine those sites aren't in any danger anyway since their audience is so clearly defined.
posted by sudama at 4:43 PM on January 16, 2001


This guy has earned some respect among intelligent persons? How?

By having a reasonably sharp wit compared to most dreck that's out there? (Not that I agree with his political leanings or anything.)

I can't think of a single site that's funded (or intended to be funded) solely by advertising which I would miss were it to vanish from the Net completely and forever. Can you?

Er, X-Entertainment? Newgrounds? SlitFinger? PvP Online?

I dunno. With people who are actively creative and entertaining, I'd much rather them be able to toil away at their "labor of love" 24/7 than have their output hampered by squeezing their creative moments in around a "real" job. That looks nigh-impossible in the current ad market, unless these sites start requesting donations and subscription fees and the like....
posted by youhas at 7:07 PM on January 16, 2001


What's up with this guy? Ironic homophobia is still homophobia
Well, he could just say 'YUO = PANSY', but that wouldn't be nearly as catchy now, would it? And you're against the depiction of homophobia? Why not just rally to ban any fictional work that depicts someone using flawed rationalization? Whoops, there goes every plotline that involves an antagonist.

I know of a certain TV series starring a purple dinosaur you might love. I've never seen any racism, homophobia, OR misogynism ever depicted within it. Should be perfectly palatable.
posted by chesuta at 7:46 PM on January 16, 2001


What about Heterophobia ? And Heterophiles ?


I mean , if YOU . . . YOU . . . were given a choice , which world would you choose :

a ) One in which ALL were homosexual
or
b ) One in which ALL were Heterosexual


Not even the sodomites can lie here .


Second question : If you could choose between two worlds in which :

a ) Everybody was FAT
or
b ) Everyone was well proportioned , height to weight

which would you choose ? a . . or b ?


IF you had the power to choose for your CHILDREN , would you choose :
a ) sodomite
b ) hetero

and further

a ) FAT kid
or
b ) SLIM kid


Don't tell me that insanity is OKey Dokey .

posted by ojsbuddy at 9:35 PM on January 16, 2001


Please. Somebody make Metafilter smaller so we don't attract more such trolls.
posted by dhartung at 1:25 AM on January 17, 2001


Given a choice between TOLERANT kids and INTOLERANT kids, I definitely know which I'd choose.
posted by harmful at 6:14 AM on January 17, 2001


you're against the depiction of homophobia

I didn't see Boys Don't Cry, but I don't think I'd have a problem with it. That JeffK site is irresponsible.
posted by sudama at 6:19 AM on January 17, 2001


If you don't get that JeffK is a fictional creation and a parody of the testosterone-crazed, Quake-addicted, and bad-spelling teenage male mindset (which uses a certain word that starts with F and ends with T as its all-purpose insult), then there's just no hope. Lowtax isn't promoting hate; he's saying 'laugh at these dumb kids!'
posted by darukaru at 8:40 AM on January 17, 2001


from m-w.com:

parody
1 : a literary or musical work in which the style of an author or work is closely imitated for comic effect or in ridicule
2 : a feeble or ridiculous imitation

Perhaps in the second sense. It seems to me that those sites all stand as self-parody. You're probably right, there's no hope.

Now, that english-only rant is virulently hateful. Not funny either. Anyway.
posted by sudama at 9:31 AM on January 17, 2001


"Virulently hateful" -- that's a phrase I've heard a lot lately.
JeffK is B1FF. JeffK is a picture of Bush with a dunce cap on. Parody is parody, whether it's clever or not is something else.
posted by sonofsamiam at 12:58 PM on January 17, 2001


« Older Petition Against Ashcroft   |   Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments



Post