CNN Doxxes a gif maker

[phiwum]

Guilt by association? No. Obama actively endorsed the views of Jerimiah Wright by being a member of his congregation and a personal friend of the Reverend for 20 years. He then tried (successfully) to distance himself from the controversial preaching of the Rev when he ran for President. When you sit in a pastor's pews for so long, nodding your head along to whatever crazy **** the pastor is saying, it's fair to question that association

Trump and HAS have never even met and Trump didn't even retweet anything from HAS. How can there be guilt by association when there is literally no association?
Weak.

Either Trump's team re-created HAS's tweet or it was a remarkable coincidence that Trump's team and HAS think so alike.

The fact that it isn't a literal retweet is really utterly beside the point. To claim there is "literally no association" is silly. Trump's tweet was evidently derivative on HAS's. Hence, there is an association.

 

[Belz...]

Either Trump's team re-created HAS's tweet or it was a remarkable coincidence that Trump's team and HAS think so alike.

The fact that it isn't a literal retweet is really utterly beside the point. To claim there is "literally no association" is silly. Trump's tweet was evidently derivative on HAS's. Hence, there is an association.

I suppose there's a point that Trump might not be aware of HAS' other statements. He only found the GIF and found it funny. I don't know.

 

[phiwum]

I suppose there's a point that Trump might not be aware of HAS' other statements. He only found the GIF and found it funny. I don't know.

Yes, that's possible. You and I have no idea whether it's true or not, and the mere possibility can't support any claim that there is "literally no association".

 

[d4m10n]

I suppose there's a point that Trump might not be aware of HAS' other statements. He only found the GIF and found it funny. I don't know.

We went through this upthread.

Someone found the GIF, edited it to add audio, and then send it to him using a file transfer app.

ETA: https://www.buzzfeed.com/ryanhatest...p-on-president?utm_term=.ac7pOReDM#.uw7VGLYan

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

 

[johnny karate]

Guilt by association? No. Obama actively endorsed the views of Jerimiah Wright by being a member of his congregation and a personal friend of the Reverend for 20 years.

How is that an active endorsement? Or even a passive one?

And how is actually endorsing the violence-advocating work of a white supremacist not an endorsement?

When you sit in a pastor's pews for so long, nodding your head along to whatever crazy **** the pastor is saying, it's fair to question that association.

But its unfair to question the association a president has with white supremacists and racists when he tweets gifs advocating violence that they created?

And to what specific crazy **** did Obama sit and nod his head?

Trump and HAS have never even met and Trump didn't even retweet anything from HAS.

No, he just promoted a gif he made advocating violence against the media.

How can there be guilt by association when there is literally no association?

The association isn't and doesn't need to be with HAS personally. It's with the cesspool of bigotry and hatred from which the gif in question originated.

 

[The Big Dog]

Not actually KFILE's job. They're supposedly investigative journalists, not Internet Thought Police.

great points.

The ACLU went to bat for the Nazis in Skokie and free speech. Now people celebrate over CNN shutting down someone on the internet with threats.

 

[d4m10n]

great points.



The ACLU went to bat for the Nazis in Skokie and free speech. Now people celebrate over CNN shutting down someone on the internet with threats.

Let's ask the ACLU whether they think CNN was exercising freedom of speech.




Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

 

[johnny karate]

To be fair, being a member of a pastor's congregation is a more intimate relationship than retweeting a meme.

I don't deny that, nor do I claim it's an A to A comparison.

Here's something else that's different: Obama never promoted violence-advocating memes created by Reverend Wright. Or anything Reverend Wright said or did that was controversial or inappropriate.

I don't think xj is being inconsistent here.

I disagree. If Obama was tweeting memes advocating violence created by Black Lives Matter or the Black Panthers or whatever, the Right Wing Outrage Machine would be at full tilt, and we'd be hearing about it from the usual suspects on this forum.

 

[johnny karate]

I suppose there's a point that Trump might not be aware of HAS' other statements. He only found the GIF and found it funny. I don't know.

The leader of the free world doesn't get a pass on not knowing where the garbage he tweets comes from.

 

[johnny karate]

Not actually KFILE's job. They're supposedly investigative journalists, not Internet Thought Police.

How are they the Internet Thought Police?

 

[phiwum]

I don't deny that, nor do I claim it's an A to A comparison.

Here's something else that's different: Obama never promoted violence-advocating memes created by Reverend Wright. Or anything Reverend Wright said or did that was controversial or inappropriate.



I disagree. If Obama was tweeting memes advocating violence created by Black Lives Matter or the Black Panthers or whatever, the Right Wing Outrage Machine would be at full tilt, and we'd be hearing about it from the usual suspects on this forum.

I don't want to make guesses about how xjx would react if things were different. I just mean to say that the Pastor and Tweet are different enough that xjx's public comments aren't obviously inconsistent on this particular matter.

I don't think it's useful to argue whether a particular person would be hypocritical if conditions had been different. Best just to make the obvious point: Trump's tweet came was inspired by a mighty disreputable source.

 

[johnny karate]

I don't want to make guesses about how xjx would react if things were different. I just mean to say that the Pastor and Tweet are different enough that xjx's public comments aren't obviously inconsistent on this particular matter.

I don't think it's useful to argue whether a particular person would be hypocritical if conditions had been different. Best just to make the obvious point: Trump's tweet came was inspired by a mighty disreputable source.

Fair enough.

But I maintain that if it's problematic for Obama to attend the church of a pastor who says controversial things, it should be equally problematic that either Trump or someone in his inner circle frequents a corner of the internet populated by racists and white supremacists, and that Trump promotes their violence-advocating memes.

 

[theprestige]

How are they the Internet Thought Police?

CNN is not publishing "HanA**holeSolo's" name because he is a private citizen who has issued an extensive statement of apology, showed his remorse by saying he has taken down all his offending posts, and because he said he is not going to repeat this ugly behavior on social media again. In addition, he said his statement could serve as an example to others not to do the same.

CNN reserves the right to publish his identity should any of that change.​

 

[xjx388]

How is that an active endorsement? Or even a passive one?

Really? How is being a member of church and a friend of the pastor endorsing the teachings of that church and pastor?

And how is actually endorsing the violence-advocating work of a white supremacist not an endorsement?

A pro wrestling GIF about Trump fake-clotheslining fake-CNN is "violence-advocating work of a white supremacist?" You have overly an overly sensitive violence-advocacy meter. The GIF itself has nothing to do with white-supremacy in any case. Someone saw a GIF, thought it was funny, then redid it and sent it to the Prez who tweeted it out. There is no association between HAS and Trump. Obviously that's the case because KFILE knows who HAS is and if there had been an association with Trump (if he was Trump's longtime friend, say) they would have jumped on it.

But its unfair to question the association a president has with white supremacists and racists when he tweets gifs advocating violence that they created?

Not at all. In this case, however, there was nothing there. That's where it should have ended. The subsequent threat to reveal his identity if he continued his posting is where the problem is for me.

And to what specific crazy **** did Obama sit and nod his head?

You just referenced a post where I laid it all out. You can refer to that if you like but I think it's OT here.

No, he just promoted a gif he made advocating violence against the media.

Need to check that meter.

The association isn't and doesn't need to be with HAS personally. It's with the cesspool of bigotry and hatred from which the gif in question originated.

You are, of course, entitled to your opinion about this, but I disagree with you for the many reasons I've already stated. I do, for what it's worth, agree that our President shouldn't be Tweeting out these kinds of things and it's one of the many reasons I'm not a Trump fan. But that has nothing to do with the problem as I see it: CNN threatening to out a random dude if he doesn't change his ways.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

CNN is not publishing "HanA**holeSolo's" name because he is a private citizen who has issued an extensive statement of apology, showed his remorse by saying he has taken down all his offending posts, and because he said he is not going to repeat this ugly behavior on social media again. In addition, he said his statement could serve as an example to others not to do the same.

CNN reserves the right to publish his identity should any of that change.​

Worst definition of "Internet thought police" ever.

 

[NoahFence]

Are you saying that HAS is the equivalent of Rev. Wright or Bill Ayers? That HAS is Trump's pastor or political mentor or even that Trump associates with him on a regular basis? If that were indeed the case, then CNN wouldn't have sat on HAS' identity.

C'mon, man! Even you have to admit that the two situations are not comparable.

One of Trump's mentors was Roy Cohn.

You do realize that "McCarthyism" is a bad thing, yes? Do you REALLY want to go comparing Obama's mentors to Trumps?

Really?

 

[xjx388]

One of Trump's mentors was Roy Cohn.

You do realize that "McCarthyism" is a bad thing, yes? Do you REALLY want to go comparing Obama's mentors to Trumps?

Really?

Not at all. My problem is not with CNN investigating this but what transpired after they found there was nothing there. There was no need to threaten the dude into not exercising his rights.

Had CNN found that Trump knew HAS that would have been a story I have no problem with them reporting.

 

[johnny karate]

CNN is not publishing "HanA**holeSolo's" name because he is a private citizen who has issued an extensive statement of apology, showed his remorse by saying he has taken down all his offending posts, and because he said he is not going to repeat this ugly behavior on social media again. In addition, he said his statement could serve as an example to others not to do the same.

CNN reserves the right to publish his identity should any of that change.​

Could you please highlight the part where CNN policed thoughts?

Because as I understand it, HAS is still free to think what he wants and say what he wants.

Do you have evidence to the contrary?

 

[TheL8Elvis]

Not at all. My problem is not with CNN investigating this but what transpired after they found there was nothing there. There was no need to threaten the dude into not exercising his rights.

Had CNN found that Trump knew HAS that would have been a story I have no problem with them reporting.

There is no evidence CNN "threatened him." As far as we all know, CNN investigated the tweet. Found it's source. Called its creator. Intended to write a story and publish his name.HAS called CNN back and apologized. CNN declined then to publish his name.

AFAIK, he probably begged please don't publish my name because I am a racist POS and it will ruin my life.

Please provide some actual evidence CNN threatened or somehow coerced HAS, or stop claiming you know that's what happened.

 

[xjx388]

There is no evidence CNN "threatened him." As far as we all know, CNN investigated the tweet. Found it's source. Called its creator. Intended to write a story and publish his name.HAS called CNN back and apologized. CNN declined then to publish his name.

AFAIK, he probably begged please don't publish my name because I am a racist POS and it will ruin my life.

This is what happened, most likely. That's where the story should have ended.

Please provide some actual evidence CNN threatened or somehow coerced HAS, or stop claiming you know that's what happened.

They said, in effect and after HAS apologized and promised to stop, "we know who you are and if you continue your ugly behavior, we might just go ahead and publish your name." How is that not a threat?