Today we looked at the unfortunate case of Meg Whitman's son, and it naturally got people talking. One commenter turned the ire inward, issuing a long invective against you, his fellow commentariat. Observe the splendor of his/her rage.

From echoturnip:

Man, I just love how the self-proclaimed snarkophiles on Gawker dissolve into a puddle of self-righteous equivocating bullshit whenever the issue of women and consent comes up.

I don't know which is worse, the clueless, ineffectual, emotionally dysregulated shriekers on Jezebel who are trapped in their paranoaic delusions of grandeur and their megalomaniacal belief system that somehow furious commenting on some online lady-ghetto will Change The World and Make Everything Better? If only EVERYONE would just follow the rules and piss off NO ONE.

Or is it the famous Gawker commenters who love to be liberal contrarians who sneer at The System and its evil machinations with a cocked eyebrow and a faux world weariness ? (all that's missing is the cigarette, the rumpled but chic clothes and the seedy bar with a little Piaf playing quietly through the smoky lighting)

Somehow all that classic Gawker Catcher in the Rye -esque angsty teenage cynicism and the grudging sympathy for the underdog goes right out the window whenever the story du jour focuses on some fuck-face piece of shit who messes with some girl. Then suddenly, you people turn into exactly what you claim to loathe: a group of naive, provincial, foolish, catty conservatives. You become Sarah Palin but with better constructed sentences. You become Clarence Thomas but minus the overt religiosity.

Remember the old Rihanna-Chris Brown days? Oh my, the enablers and appeasers on Gawker were in full force those times. " She asked for it", "Like, she shouldn't have been so mean to him", "He couldn't help it, she was being a bitch."

Fast forward to Roman Polanski who should have won the Nobel Prize for Entitlement. "He's an artist!!!", "He directed Chinatown!!!" , "Well, what the heck was that slut doing in his house??", "It was the sixties, people, c'mon, the sixties. D'you realize what a special time that was??"

Mel Gibson wants to beat up his girlfriend. Oh what a great misunderstood poet of life he is!
Jew-hating: bad. Woman-beating: good.
"Look, don't get me wrong, but I think she must have done something to make him mad.", "Well, she's a SLUT", "I bet she's lying, Mel wouldn't do such a thing".

And now, the same old same old is back. Oh how unthinkable it is that some wealthy, spoiled, powerful fuckface from a wealthy, spoiled, powerful family would know that he could hurt a woman and get away with it? And to think that raising a rapist has ANYTHING to do with one's personal moral fiber!!! Next you'll be saying that parents are responsible for inculcating moral values in their children. And this has NOTHING to do with how good of a governor she will be. Many fantastic governors have rapist kids. Just ask any one of them.

And besides, who asked that slut to go get drunk?? Women shouldn't drink. They should learn that they don't live in an ideal world. Yes, why don't more of these dumb women just learn this shit already? It's almost like they're retarded enough to trust those men.

But at the same time, women should know that All Men Aren't Like That. There are lots and lots of GREAT men out there. Not that those wonderful men should move their ass to do anything about the rape and abuse of women. That's women's work. And it's kinda pathetic work. And Gawker commenters don't do pathetic. No sirree. We do cool. Laconic, slick cool. The kind of cool that comes from knowing that a Man doesn't rape a woman when she's drunk unless she's stupid enough to ask for it.

Wake the fuck up. Yes, so far all we have is hearsay and allegations. But the vast majority of the arguments defending the Harsh-Whitman family are stupid and baseless. There are way better arguments to be made in defense of Griff Harsh. Fucking make them. But this wimpy-ass, dribbly, cowardly misogyny will not stand.

Ha. Um, I don't think anyone here was all defending Mel and Roman Polanski, actually. What site do you think this person thinks they're reading?