CNN Doxxes a gif maker

[Ziggurat]

And you're not going to provide evidence because that would be effortful.

Ever heard the quote "Go after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions"? Are you familiar with where it comes from?

 

[d4m10n]

I am not familiar with that quote. Was it from one of the famed anonymous doxers on 4chan?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

 

[Ziggurat]

Because there are circumstances where outing him would serve a legitimate news function. For example, if he was hired on by the administration to work in relations

Indeed, that might be a story worth reporting. But if so, it should simply be reported, and there's no legitimate news function served by threatening to report it.

There's really no scenario under which what CNN did was a good decision.

 

[Ziggurat]

I am not familiar with that quote. Was it from one of the famed anonymous doxers on 4chan?

Is looking it up too effortful?

 

[d4m10n]

Not quite so effortful as the argument which you've yet to make.

We're all on tenterhooks here, waiting for evidence that Saul Alinsky pioneered the art of doxing for political effect.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

 

[johnny karate]

Ever heard the quote "Go after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions"? Are you familiar with where it comes from?

You might have few more dots to connect.

Because so far, all you've established is that the right are disciples of Saul Alinsky.

 

[Ziggurat]

Not quite so effortful as the argument which you've yet to make.

We're all on tenterhooks here, waiting for evidence that Saul Alinsky pioneered the art of doxing for political effect.

Either you don't understand what I'm saying, or you choose to misrepresent it. I can't tell which, nor do I honestly care.

Doxxing is just the latest tactic, but it is merely one of many tactics to enact the same strategy. And the strategy (and do you understand the difference?) is old. The strategy is the rules here. The strategy is what really matters. And the strategy is to hurt individuals for wrong-think. The left has normalized this strategy. And now, it will live with the rules it created.

 

[d4m10n]

Did Mr. Alinsky and his comrades invent this strategy before or after Senator McCarthy and HUAC went around ruining individual lives for wrong-think?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

 

[johnny karate]

Either you don't understand what I'm saying, or you choose to misrepresent it. I can't tell which, nor do I honestly care.

Doxxing is just the latest tactic, but it is merely one of many tactics to enact the same strategy. And the strategy (and do you understand the difference?) is old. The strategy is the rules here. The strategy is what really matters. And the strategy is to hurt individuals for wrong-think. The left has normalized this strategy. And now, it will live with the rules it created.

Because in Zig's world, the right are not only just as immoral as the left, they're also unoriginal.

 

[BobTheCoward]

Indeed, that might be a story worth reporting. But if so, it should simply be reported, and there's no legitimate news function served by threatening to report it.

There's really no scenario under which what CNN did was a good decision.

That is fair, but I wouldn't call it a threat.

 

[Ziggurat]

Because in Zig's world, the right are not only just as immoral as the left, they're also unoriginal.

Indeed, that is a fundamental difference between us: I'm not under the delusion that political affiliation determines whether or not someone is moral. That too has primarily been a feature of the left, but the right might end up adopting it as well.

 

[johnny karate]

Indeed, that is a fundamental difference between us: I'm not under the delusion that political affiliation determines whether or not someone is moral.

Where did I make that claim?

That too has primarily been a feature of the left, but the right might end up adopting it as well.

Gosh, I'm trying to a imagine a world in which the right demonizes others as immoral for not sharing in their particular belief system... What could that possibly look like?

 

[xjx388]

Indeed, that is a fundamental difference between us: I'm not under the delusion that political affiliation determines whether or not someone is moral. That too has primarily been a feature of the left, but the right might end up adopting it as well.

Just here on this forum, almost every day, there is a post about how the conservatives/Republickers want people to die or hate women or some other such nonsense. I won't say the the right-leaning members never engage in that stuff but it is definitely more prevalent from the left-leaning members. For example; if I argue against ACA there is inevitably a series of posts about how I must want people to die or that I don't care about people. I could easily adopt the same tactic: "You DemoRats just want to steal money from the rich because you are too lazy to take care of yourself!" But that wouldn't be a fair argument; I try to engage on the underlying issues more than the moral motivations of political opponents -but dammit, sometimes its hard; I'm sure I've responded in kind over the years.

 

[johnny karate]

Just here on this forum, almost every day, there is a post about how the conservatives/Republickers want people to die or hate women or some other such nonsense. I won't say the the right-leaning members never engage in that stuff but it is definitely more prevalent from the left-leaning members. For example; if I argue against ACA there is inevitably a series of posts about how I must want people to die or that I don't care about people. I could easily adopt the same tactic: "You DemoRats just want to steal money from the rich because you are too lazy to take care of yourself!" But that wouldn't be a fair argument; I try to engage on the underlying issues more than the moral motivations of political opponents -but dammit, sometimes its hard; I'm sure I've responded in kind over the years.

God bless you, sir. God bless you.

*wipes a tear away as the national anthem plays*

 

[The Big Dog]

Where did I make that claim?

?

well there was that serious of silly posts that started off "as a conservative" followed by hilariously over the top strawman "questions."

 

[xjx388]

God bless you, sir. God bless you.

*wipes a tear away as the national anthem plays*

Mock me all you like, but am I wrong?

 

[johnny karate]

well there was that serious of silly posts that started off "as a conservative" followed by hilariously over the top strawman "questions."

And where in that did you see me make the claim that political affiliation determines whether or not someone is moral?

Also, were my posts serious or silly? Because they can't very well be both, now can they?

 

[Ziggurat]

Where did I make that claim?

It's implicit in your previous post. Without that assumption on your part, your post doesn't even make sense.

 

[johnny karate]

Mock me all you like, but am I wrong?

Let me take a look at the data you've compiled and I'll let you know.

Meanwhile, I'll cherry-pick a bunch of awful things said and done by people on the right as a counterargument.

 

[The Big Dog]

And where in that did you see me make the claim that political affiliation determines whether or not someone is moral?

Also, were my posts serious or silly? Because they can't very well be both, no can they?

All of them.

Now of course your posts can be both serious and silly. Say for example someone were to write "as a conservative" and then write an over the top strawman. They could be subjectively dead serious, while objectively being silly.

Savvy?