8.
 
Re: Into the Black
Aug 23, 2016, 23:58
8.
Re: Into the Black Aug 23, 2016, 23:58
Aug 23, 2016, 23:58
 
The bad always outweighs the good. No group that pulls shit like the Condé Nast mess deserves moral support, regardless of how much you dislike their enemy as well. They gave their opponents an easy target with indefensible articles and paid for it. Maybe in their new careers they find a stronger moral compass and try again. The problem with how the legal system is disproportionately benefiting the rich is a completely separate issue that will not improve regardless of gawkers state of existence. They were too busy punishing homesexuals they disagree with by airing their personal secrets to seriously tackle the legal system anyways.

Edit: This article lays it out better than I can
This comment was edited on Aug 24, 2016, 00:47.
Avatar 57352
Date
Subject
Author
1.
Aug 23, 2016Aug 23 2016
3.
Aug 23, 2016Aug 23 2016
10.
Aug 24, 2016Aug 24 2016
16.
Aug 24, 2016Aug 24 2016
4.
Aug 23, 2016Aug 23 2016
2.
Aug 23, 2016Aug 23 2016
5.
Aug 23, 2016Aug 23 2016
6.
Aug 23, 2016Aug 23 2016
11.
Aug 24, 2016Aug 24 2016
17.
Aug 24, 2016Aug 24 2016
18.
Aug 24, 2016Aug 24 2016
9.
Aug 24, 2016Aug 24 2016
7.
Aug 23, 2016Aug 23 2016
12.
Aug 24, 2016Aug 24 2016
 8.
Aug 23, 2016Aug 23 2016
Re: Into the Black
13.
Aug 24, 2016Aug 24 2016
14.
Aug 24, 2016Aug 24 2016
15.
Aug 24, 2016Aug 24 2016