CNN Doxxes a gif maker

[Belz...]

Well, that's not fair. He should compare civil conservatives and civil liberals.

 

[Imhotep]

The word liberal has been hijacked, kidnapped, and molested since decades ago.

 

[johnny karate]

But you have zero evidence how exactly that GIF made it's way to Team Trump. There are many scenarios under which no one from Team Trump was monitoring the subreddit. What if some outside party, who knows an underling on Team Trump, forwarded that GIF to the underling who then redid it with audio and passed it along to the rest of the team? If it's is such a big deal to make a connection between Team Trump and r/The_Donald, then why isn't CNN pursuing that angle?

So you have nothing to go on to "conclusively" say anything.

My scenario best fits the available evidence. Yours is unnecessarily convoluted.

And you telling anyone else that they can't conclusively say anything in a thread in which you pretend to conclusively know CNN's intentions and motivations is a laugh riot.

 

[xjx388]

Speak for yourself.

[qimg]https://archive.fo/SZB0G/0ee66590adf7dc2674a1e8ec3f612524d7620154[/qimg]

If you know who he is, then you know whether or not any of the racist crap was posted on his facebook page. If it was, then why didn't CNN just go ahead and out him in the first place? What is there to protect if he's openly racist?

Did you find any racist stuff?

 

[xjx388]

My scenario best fits the available evidence. Yours is unnecessarily convoluted.

I know you think that, but I disagree. And what's convoluted? Someone forwards a GIF to someone on Team Trump. They forward it to the Prez. Pretty dang simple.

And you telling anyone else that they can't conclusively say anything in a thread in which you pretend to conclusively know CNN's intentions and motivations is a laugh riot.

I have not said I conclusively know anything. I can, however, read CNNs statement for myself, note that no evidence exists linking HAS to Team Trump and come to as good a conclusion as anyone else can given the lack of actual evidence. The truth is that we are all just spitballing here, subject to our own biases and ethics.

 

[johnny karate]

I know you think that, but I disagree. And what's convoluted? Someone forwards a GIF to someone on Team Trump. They forward it to the Prez. Pretty dang simple.

My version requires less people to be involved, thus less convoluted.

And of course you continue to overlook what everyone who floats this asinine theory overlooks, that being the deluge of random stuff like this the president must get on a daily basis and the logistics required for someone to go through all of them in a timely fashion.

It makes more sense and fits the timeline better if either Trump or someone close to him found the gif directly.

Again, my theory best fits the evidence. Yours ignores a great big inconvenient part of it.

I have not said I conclusively know anything. I can, however, read CNNs statement for myself, note that no evidence exists linking HAS to Team Trump and come to as good a conclusion as anyone else can given the lack of actual evidence. The truth is that we are all just spitballing here, subject to our own biases and ethics.

You’ve repeatedly asserted CNN threatened HAS, despite the fact that A) no such threat occurred, and B) alternative interpretations of what CNN said have been offered.

So yeah, you have claimed to know something conclusively regarding CNN’s intentions and motivations. To watch you pivot away from it now in a futile effort to lend credence to your criticism of me is rather amusing.

 

[xjx388]

My version requires less people to be involved, thus less convoluted.

Only just. My version requires as little as two people to be involved. One friend on the outside and Trump.

And of course you continue to overlook what everyone who floats this asinine theory overlooks, that being the deluge of random stuff like this the president must get on a daily basis and the logistics required for someone to go through all of them in a timely fashion.

Or just a friend on the outside who saw this and forwarded it to Trump. You are making it sound convoluted but it doesn't have to be.

It makes more sense and fits the timeline better if either Trump or someone close to him found the gif directly.

Right. It's certainly possible that Trump himself browses a subreddit dedicated to him. But in that case it's because it's a subreddit about him and not that Trump browses white supremacist/racists sites. Or he has a close friend on the outside of the beltway who forwards him "interesting" stuff from the subreddit. I think that's more likely but I wouldn't be surprised to learn Trump looks his own self.

Again, my theory best fits the evidence. Yours ignores a great big inconvenient part of it.

Not really. I can envision many scenarios -from very simple to quite convoluted- and I'm not married to any of them. How can I be when I don't have enough evidence? You seem to be quite enamored of your scenario -so much so that you think it's conclusive despite the fact that your scenario fits into the set of scenarios I envision. That set is pretty big so no scenario conclusively fits anything.

You’ve repeatedly asserted CNN threatened HAS, despite the fact that A) no such threat occurred,

A straight reading of CNNs statement says otherwise.

and B) alternative interpretations of what CNN said have been offered.

Those interpretations are given in a spirit of generosity towards CNN that I don't think is warranted. I'm not the only one who thinks that way. But they remain in the set of all possibilities.

So yeah, you have claimed to know something conclusively regarding CNN’s intentions and motivations. To watch you pivot away from it now in a futile effort to lend credence to your criticism of me is rather amusing.

I find it amusing that you are trying to say that I've made conclusive statements when it's clear that I have not. You have, however.

 

[phiwum]

He knows enough to know that it has nothing to do with logic, actually. It's philosophical.

I didn't say it got the benefit of the doubt, but I find it odd that you are either unaware of or disagree with the age-old principle of burden of proof.

I am well aware of the concept of burden of proof. Some persons have naive views that the burden falls on the so-called "positive" claim, but a modicum of reflection shows that this is a nonsensical claim in its general sense.

Rather, if one asserts X, then one has the burden to produce evidence that X, regardless of the logical structure of X. It's really that simple.

 

[d4m10n]

...why didn't CNN just go ahead and out him in the first place?

Presumably because he apologized and took down the offending Reddit posts.

Did you find any racist stuff?

So far as I can tell, he reserves his worst expressions of racism for his pseudonymous posts. Hard to say, though, now that he is locking down his Facebook.

What is there to protect if he's openly racist?

He *is* openly racist, he simply refuses to acknowledge that fact under his own name. Presumably this is because he is afraid of what would happen if people knew him for what he truly is.

My question to you is why you feel CNN should be complicit in this cover-up. What social utility is there in keeping the hoods on the Klansmen?



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

 

[Belz...]

I am well aware of the concept of burden of proof. Some persons have naive views that the burden falls on the so-called "positive" claim, but a modicum of reflection shows that this is a nonsensical claim in its general sense.

Well, rather than tell me that I have not put a modicrum of reflection on this as a way to declare yourself right, how about you explain why it's nonsensical?

Rather, if one asserts X, then one has the burden to produce evidence that X, regardless of the logical structure of X. It's really that simple.

That's a claim, not an explanation.

 

[johnny karate]

Only just. My version requires as little as two people to be involved. One friend on the outside and Trump.

Or just a friend on the outside who saw this and forwarded it to Trump. You are making it sound convoluted but it doesn't have to be.

I've been saying it was Trump or someone close to him from the beginning. It's good that you've finally come around on this.

Right. It's certainly possible that Trump himself browses a subreddit dedicated to him. But in that case it's because it's a subreddit about him and not that Trump browses white supremacist/racists sites.

Why do you give Trump this particular benefit of the doubt?

Or he has a close friend on the outside of the beltway who forwards him "interesting" stuff from the subreddit. I think that's more likely but I wouldn't be surprised to learn Trump looks his own self.

Right. Trump or someone close to him. Just like I've been saying all along.

Not really. I can envision many scenarios -from very simple to quite convoluted- and I'm not married to any of them. How can I be when I don't have enough evidence?

So you agree that calling what CNN did a threat is just an opinion and may not actually be true?

You seem to be quite enamored of your scenario -so much so that you think it's conclusive despite the fact that your scenario fits into the set of scenarios I envision. That set is pretty big so no scenario conclusively fits anything.

You seem fairly enamored of it as well, now that you are in agreement with it.

A straight reading of CNNs statement says otherwise.

No, it doesn't.

Those interpretations are given in a spirit of generosity towards CNN that I don't think is warranted.

A spirit of generosity you are all too eager to extend to Trump.

What has Trump done earn you generosity that CNN hasn't?

I find it amusing that you are trying to say that I've made conclusive statements when it's clear that I have not. You have, however.

You've repeatedly called what CNN did a threat as if it were a fact.

Do you now concede that it might not have been a threat?

 

[xjx388]

I've been saying it was Trump or someone close to him from the beginning. It's good that you've finally come around on this.

It's not that I've come around, it's that I acknowledge that I don't have enough info to make conclusive statements.

Why do you give Trump this particular benefit of the doubt?

Because he's vain and egotistical so I think it's more likely that he follows it because it's about him.

Right. Trump or someone close to him. Just like I've been saying all along.

That is a likely scenario but it isn't the only. It's equally likely that someone not particularly close to him sent someone on his team the GIF. We can't really measure likelihood either way since we have no data other than the little that has been reported.

So you agree that calling what CNN did a threat is just an opinion and may not actually be true?

Of all my opinions I've given in the thread, this is the one that I think has the most evidential support. CNN's actions and statement are pretty well documented and I think a straightforward reading of the situation indicates that CNN intended that last line as a threat. I'm not the only one who has come to that conclusion. You are free to disagree and have a different opinion; I just disagree with you. I acknowledge that I am not perfect and I may be misreading the situation. I can only say that any misreading on my part isn't because of any desire to defend Trump or hatred for CNN. As a conservative-leaning dude, I want the guy out ASAP because he is doing more damage to conservative ideas than any Democrat ever could. I actually prefer CNNs coverage.

You seem fairly enamored of it as well, now that you are in agreement with it.

Your scenario is in the realm of all possibilities, as is mine. I happen to think mine is more likely because I think it's a fair reading. You are free to disagree.

No, it doesn't.

I disagree.

A spirit of generosity you are all too eager to extend to Trump.

What has Trump done earn you generosity that CNN hasn't?

I like to be fair. I respect CNN as a news org but this went too far. I simply call it like I see it.

You've repeatedly called what CNN did a threat as if it were a fact.

Do you now concede that it might not have been a threat?

As I said, I think I could be wrong. I certainly think it's possible that they didn't intend it as a threat. But the fact remains that it reads like a threat to me and many others in the media. They didn't handle this story well and it made them look bad, intent or not.

 

[xjx388]

<snip>
He *is* openly racist, he simply refuses to acknowledge that fact under his own name.

So, not openly racist then? If he was open, he would post that bile under his own name.

Presumably this is because he is afraid of what would happen if people knew him for what he truly is.

My question to you is why you feel CNN should be complicit in this cover-up. What social utility is there in keeping the hoods on the Klansmen?

I think they should have just outed him; I certainly don't feel that he needs protecting. He made the statements, now he lives with them.

But since they decided not to out him, they should have just left it at that. Their statement reads like a threat to me and I don't think that media organizations should be making those kinds of threats. Either report the story or don't. They aren't the internet police.

 

[d4m10n]

We can agree that CNN should have simply reported the story straightforwardly without helping HanA**holeSolo keep his hood on. Given that they decided to be unduly merciful, though, they are in a bit of a bind. They cannot promise to keep his identity secret forever, because he might yet cross the line from private figure into public figure. What should they do then?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

 

[xjx388]

We can agree that CNN should have simply reported the story straightforwardly without helping HanA**holeSolo keep his hood on. Given that they decided to be unduly merciful, though, they are in a bit of a bind. They cannot promise to keep his identity secret forever, because he might yet cross the line from private figure into public figure. What should they do then?

Cross that bridge when they get to it. Say nothing now, since that's the road they decided to take, and then if he does something newsworthy later, they can report as they see fit.

 

[d4m10n]

So they should have reserved the right to publish details about him, but they shouldn't have said so?

 

[johnny karate]

It's not that I've come around, it's that I acknowledge that I don't have enough info to make conclusive statements.

Unless those statements are about CNN. Only Trump gets the benefit of the doubt with you.

Because he's vain and egotistical so I think it's more likely that he follows it because it's about him.

It’s not the first time he’s tweeted a meme that originated from a racist/white supremacist website.

In fact, he has a history of doing crap like this.

As far as I’m aware, this is the only time CNN has ever done something like this, and yet you automatically assume the worst about them.

Trump repeatedly engages in the same behavior, and you still give him the benefit of the doubt.

Why the double standard?

That is a likely scenario but it isn't the only. It's equally likely that someone not particularly close to him sent someone on his team the GIF. We can't really measure likelihood either way since we have no data other than the little that has been reported.

Of all my opinions I've given in the thread, this is the one that I think has the most evidential support. CNN's actions and statement are pretty well documented and I think a straightforward reading of the situation indicates that CNN intended that last line as a threat. I'm not the only one who has come to that conclusion. You are free to disagree and have a different opinion; I just disagree with you. I acknowledge that I am not perfect and I may be misreading the situation. I can only say that any misreading on my part isn't because of any desire to defend Trump or hatred for CNN. As a conservative-leaning dude, I want the guy out ASAP because he is doing more damage to conservative ideas than any Democrat ever could. I actually prefer CNNs coverage.

Your scenario is in the realm of all possibilities, as is mine. I happen to think mine is more likely because I think it's a fair reading. You are free to disagree.

I’m content to leave it at three degrees of separation rather than two.

But I’m not sure why you think that difference somehow mitigates the fact that the president is tweeting memes created by racist and white supremacists.

I like to be fair. I respect CNN as a news org but this went too far. I simply call it like I see it.

Unless it’s Trump tweeting gifs created by racists and white supremacists. Then you call it like you want to see it.

As I said, I think I could be wrong. I certainly think it's possible that they didn't intend it as a threat. But the fact remains that it reads like a threat to me and many others in the media. They didn't handle this story well and it made them look bad, intent or not.

And they of course should be hammered mercilessly for this behavior, right? CNN must be held accountable, right?

But for some reason, you give Trump a pass for his behavior.

Why do you hold CNN to a higher standard than the President of the United States?

 

[johnny karate]

So they should have reserved the right to publish details about him, but they shouldn't have said so?

Welcome to the inside a cuckoo clock, where doing a thing is fine but saying you might do it is wrong.

 

[mgidm86]

I know you think that, but I disagree. And what's convoluted? Someone forwards a GIF to someone on Team Trump. They forward it to the Prez. Pretty dang simple.


I have not said I conclusively know anything. I can, however, read CNNs statement for myself, note that no evidence exists linking HAS to Team Trump and come to as good a conclusion as anyone else can given the lack of actual evidence. The truth is that we are all just spitballing here, subject to our own biases and ethics.

I agree with this and everything you've said on this page up to this/my post. I've already tried pointing this stuff out but good luck.

We don't know how Trump got the GIF, everyone admits that. Some people believe they have the best theory and that is where bias comes into play. It's funny that "I don't know" (a lack of evidence) is feverishly challenged by supposition (a lack of evidence).

 

[NoahFence]

Actual doxxing.

Complete with photo of house, name, and address. WTH??


Cliffs notes - the singer from Blues Traveller for some reason is posting aerial pics of some dude's house and following it up with his name and address.