CNN Doxxes a gif maker

[apathoid]

Use your critical faculties. Or, if they fail you, use Google.

Let me help.

Any moron can google. I wanted your definition and then I wanted examples of my posts that fit that definition. Apparently that's too much to ask.

 

[uke2se]

Any moron can google. I wanted your definition and then I wanted examples of my posts that fit that definition. Apparently that's too much to ask.

Apparently you can't. You have no idea what alt-right means, but you refuse to look it up. Seems to me you aren't very interested in learning.

 

[BobTheCoward]

Because they should be above something so harmless. Its a meme . Just because it was directed at them does not warrant for their identity to be exposed on the internet where millions of people will have access to it. They're the ones that think they can do no harm and get away with it. Bullying a teenager into submission for free speech. ****** free speech but free speech regardless.

Hope the castle burns for them, and I can't wait to see it happen.

But it seems exposing them would primarily have the effect of tying their name to their anti Jewish comments. Suppose they are not above that. What is wrong with that?

 

[Belz...]

"I'm a free speech guy, but......"

It seems to come as a shock to you that rights come with responsibilities.

Anyone with this many posts in the politics forum isnt a centrist.

Again with a tremendously silly declaration. What does post count have to do with political leaning? Would centrists not be passionate about being moderates enough to post a lot? Do only extremists post a lot? That makes no sense.

Oops now youre a conspiracy theorist and now you're calling me a liar.

I'm not sure you're very clear on what that term means, given what you're replying to.

 

[apathoid]

What a silly thing to say. No one can "push you" anywhere but you. Don't blame other people for your own choices.

It's not silly at all but I get your point. The ideas of others should have no bearing on my values. But they do. I can only tolerate so much identity politics, race baiting, femmanazis, and post modern bs like "gender is fluid" before I get the idea that the mainstream left is sliding farther away from the center. It could be that they are getting closer to the center or even moving right and I could be the one doing the moving. But I see me staying the same and the left turning into a weird parody of its former self.

 

[CapelDodger]

Like I said, read what it says there. It says that an employer can not violate my right to free speech, but he can discriminate against me. He wouldn't if what I did was post anti-Trump messages on social media. He's in his right to fire me over that.

Apart from which, wtf does this have to do with the matter in hand?

The outrage of the right (or centre, from their perspective) over CNN's interview with Hanswhatsit is the matter in hand. Not Trump's tweet or what he meant by it, which is doubtless as much a mystery to him by now as to everybody else.

 

[Shalamar]

Guys. The attacks on each other are off topic. Please take it elsewhere.

 

[uke2se]

Now back to that free speech argument that you're sure I have complety wrong. Your non-gubmint employer cannot fire you for making political postings that disagree with his views. Now what does that have to do with this....well it shows that a private entity does have an obligation to honor free speech to a degree.

But that's wrong. That's not what your link says at all. Your non-government employer can fire you as long as he's not discriminating against you. Unlawful discrimination is well defined. Disliking a politician isn't protected speech, like religious speech for example.

You say I don't know what it means so I'll put down some things I believe to be true about free speech:

- The government can't censor your political or religious views. Even hate speech is permitted.

Exception being so called "fighting words".

- The government can punish you for inciting violence, but the incitement has to be obvious.

Obvious enough for a jury to convict. Not necessarily obvious in your personal view.

- Your private employer cant fire you for your religious or political beliefs.

This is wrong. Religious beliefs, no he can't fire you. Political beliefs he can. Note that this is not general. Some states, counties and cities have laws that protect political speech, but not all.

- Your private employer can fire you for using your job to express those views, ie being in your work uniform and posting hate speech on social media

That would be firing someone for slacking off during work hours, a completely different matter.

We'll start with that, is there anything there you disagree with?
-

Noted the points.

 

[TheRealnz]

But it seems exposing them would primarily have the effect of tying their name to their anti Jewish comments. Suppose they are not above that. What is wrong with that?

f you went exposing every person that posts stupid things on the internet you'd be at it for all eternity.

The point of this whole thing was that CNN was the one that had to show who's the boss here. Nothing to do with having a moral high-ground

 

[BobTheCoward]

f you went exposing every person that posts stupid things on the internet you'd be at it for all eternity.

The point of this whole thing was that CNN was the one that had to show who's the boss here. Nothing to do with having a moral high-ground

If you went around adjudicating who is not exercising the moral high ground and determining what is acceptable response, you'd be at that for all eternity.

 

[apathoid]

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...ses-job-after-swipe-at-widow-fallen-seal.html

Here is someone fired for their politics.

Thanks for the link, I'll have a read.

ETA: He said something completely insensitive about a widow. Thats social darwinism. A bit different, IMO.

 

[apathoid]

Cool, thanks for responding.

But that's wrong. That's not what your link says at all. Your non-government employer can fire you as long as he's not discriminating against you. Unlawful discrimination is well defined. Disliking a politician isn't protected speech, like religious speech for example.

Lets say you are right, do you think it should be that way?

Exception being so called "fighting words".

Agreed.

Obvious enough for a jury to convict. Not necessarily obvious in your personal view.

When I said obvious, I was talking about the charge more than the subsequent trial. Kathy Griffin wasnt hauled into court for the decapiation photo and Madonna wasnt charged for her remarks about blowing up the White House. Those weren't obvious calls to action.

This is wrong. Religious beliefs, no he can't fire you. Political beliefs he can. Note that this is not general. Some states, counties and cities have laws that protect political speech, but not all.

This is the gray area I'm interested in exploring. How far would those state laws go? Could they protect your speech against harassment from a corporation or individual?

That would be firing someone for slacking off during work hours, a completely different matter.

Not really, I didnt phrase it right. Think of someone posting twitter photos in work uniform off duty at a nazi rally. Something along those lines. Something that links your employer to your beliefs.

 

[apathoid]

If you went around adjudicating who is not exercising the moral high ground and determining what is acceptable response, you'd be at that for all eternity.

Thats why this CNN affair is a clown show. The obvious and expected backlash includes CNN being the butt of thousand of new memes and gifs. I'm predicting Trump will use one or more of them and cycle of meme violence will perpetuate.

 

[Loss Leader]

The reader will note that 37 posts have been moved to AAH for a very regrettable and immature flame war in violation of rules 0 and 12. Please post on the topic of the thread. The politics of any other poster are off-topic at the very least. From the point of this modbox forward, any continuation of the 0/12 bickering that has been excised will be met with penalties. Thank you for your anticipated cooperation.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Loss Leader

 

[shuize]

I don't understand how CNN did not realize how running with this story might make them look bad.

 

[theprestige]

I don't understand how CNN did not realize how running with this story might make them look bad.

My guess is, being bad, they were already far beyond concerns about looking bad. Punishing their political opponent was the overriding concern.

This signature is intended to irradiate people.

 

[Noztradamus]

I don't understand how CNN did not realize how running with this story might make them look bad.

A condition know as Trumpania: a statement or action sounds perfectly reasonable inside your head

 

[Foolmewunz]

I don't understand how CNN did not realize how running with this story might make them look bad.

My guess is, being bad, they were already far beyond concerns about looking bad. Punishing their political opponent was the overriding concern.

This signature is intended to irradiate people.

This is playing to a limited audience of invested partisans. CNN comes out of it looking bad (or badder, actually) to people who think they look bad, already. The more noise made about them breaking the mafia code (Don' be no rat!) the less attention to the woeful excuse for a President involving himself in grade school mud-slinging, and still not having learned to vet his sources. (Nobody questions whether he got the video from his son who frequents alt-right sites?)

 

[apathoid]

I don't understand how CNN did not realize how running with this story might make them look bad.

My guess is, being bad, they were already far beyond concerns about looking bad. Punishing their political opponent was the overriding concern.

Finally some sane voices here. Its textbook bullying and I hate that people hide behind political ideology in defending "the man". Cant we throw our political opinions out and defend our principles of right and wrong?

 

[Noztradamus]

This is playing to a limited audience of invested partisans. CNN comes out of it looking bad (or badder, actually) to people who think they look bad, already. The more noise made about them breaking the mafia code (Don' be no rat!) the less attention to the woeful excuse for a President involving himself in grade school mud-slinging, and still not having learned to vet his sources. (Nobody questions whether he got the video from his son who frequents alt-right sites?)

Now, that COULD have been the story. "The Donald is immature: Film at 11!"
IF
CNN hadn't decided to position itself as the Ministry of Truth and the Spanish Inquisition all in one.