CNN Doxxes a gif maker

TheL8Elvis said:
And what's your evidence that they are "monitoring" it versus wallowing in it ?
Click to expand...

I said it's reasonable to think they might, not that they actually are. Since we have no evidence either way, consider it speculation on what is likely.
 
xjx388 said:
I said it's reasonable to think they might, not that they actually are. Since we have no evidence either way, consider it speculation on what is likely.
Click to expand...
Any chance you could answer the questions I posted for you? You did make a somewhat bold claim earlier.
 
Last edited:
Argumemnon said:
In what way are those claims different from "There is a god" and "There is no god"? Which one of the two should have the burden of proof?
Click to expand...
A priori, there is no difference between asserting or denying existence, whether of a god or an association. This is a simple matter of logic, but a full defense is off topic here, I'm afraid.

Any assertion requires defense. It's that simple.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
 
xjx388 said:
I said it's reasonable to think they might, not that they actually are. Since we have no evidence either way, consider it speculation on what is likely.
Click to expand...

We do have evidence, in the form of the meme that Trump gleefully tweeted to the world. That conclusively indicates that more than just "monitoring" was going on.
 
d4m10n said:
Anyone want to talk about HanA**holeSolo's views on using the internet to identify and dox people whom he wants to see punished?
Click to expand...

Of course not. Doesn't fit the narrative.

Seems like a nice fellow, this guy, one who undoubtedly deserves the deonotological protection of the emergent social norm against doxing.

Am I right?
Click to expand...

Considering how well-versed this guy is in doxing and its consequences - experience he gained by actively participating in it - it's becoming more and more obvious that he acted preemptively out of self-preservation rather than responding to some vague "threat" from CNN.
 
Last edited:
johnny karate said:
So in your mind, Trump and his inner circle pore through every random meme they are sent, and then Trump just innocently tweeted this partucular gif? All within 36 hours of the gif being created?

Why don't you walk us through the logistics of how you think that would happen.
Click to expand...

You are the one who suggested that his staff must have pored through all the radical racist websites to find the GIF, yet now you say it is impossible that they looked through media that has been sent directly to them.

You made the original claim, you show the logistics. But why bother - neither of us knows the answer.
Why did Trump bother? When the president tweets something, it's automatically news. CNN did their job.



The only thing strange and pathetic is people trying so hard to vilify CNN while giving a pass to Trump. CNN must be held to a higher standard! The leader of the free world? Not so much.
Click to expand...
You don't have to give a pass to Trump to think that what CNN did was petty and overreacting.

CNN, a mega corporation, going after some dork who made an animated GIF that makes fun of them. This is important for CNN to threaten him somehow because the President tweeted an edited version of it. Whatever, not news to me. Strange. Pathetic.

Trump "won" the moment CNN decided it was reasonable to react childishly to Trumps GIF.
 
mgidm86 said:
You are the one who suggested that his staff must have pored through all the radical racist websites to find the GIF, yet now you say it is impossible that they looked through media that has been sent directly to them.
Click to expand...

I made no such claim.

The obvious conclusion is that Trump or one of his cronies routinely visits that specific Reddit page, which explains both how they found it in the first place and how it ended up on Trump’s iPhone so quickly.

You made the original claim, you show the logistics. But why bother - neither of us knows the answer.
Click to expand...

You mean definitively? No, of course not. But the evidence clearly points in one direction.

You don't have to give a pass to Trump to think that what CNN did was petty and overreacting.
Click to expand...

No, you don’t have to… but you are anyway.

CNN, a mega corporation, going after some dork who made an animated GIF that makes fun of them. This is important for CNN to threaten him somehow because the President tweeted an edited version of it. Whatever, not news to me. Strange. Pathetic.

Trump "won" the moment CNN decided it was reasonable to react childishly to Trumps GIF.
Click to expand...

Hey everyone, look! Once again, the guy who holds the most powerful office in the world gets a pass on his own childish behavior while CNN is chastised for not being more professional! What a shocker.
 
Argumemnon said:
There is no teapot orbitting Saturn.

You're telling me that this requires evidence as much as the reverse claim?
Click to expand...
Yes, though our knowledge about teapots, how they are made and by whom and how far Saturn is all counts as evidence in favor of the claim. Absent that knowledge, there would be no reason to think this claim is more likely true than false.

Again, this is a simple point about logic and is off topic here.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
 
d4m10n said:
Anyone want to talk about HanA**holeSolo's views on using the internet to identify and dox people whom he wants to see punished? Here they are:
Click to expand...
Wait, Mr. Hole is responsible for all these postings? I'd say that pretty much takes away the benefit of the doubt on whether he should have been named by CNN.

Yet, I think CNN made the right call, clumsily for sure, but I can picture just how this could have happened.

- Do we out the guy? I mean, this gif is no big deal.
- Yeah, but these other posts make me wonder.
- OK, we don't name him?
- If we *don't* name him we have to say why.
- Because now he's trying to do the right thing.
- So we say that?
- I guess so. Maybe we add a sentence saying that could change.
- That's going to look weird.
- Yeah it is. But we've explained our thinking. Post it.

The "reserve the right" is horrible wording, but once it's out, don't back down. I'd be fine with "CNN is not releasing his identity at this time." All Mr. Hole has to do is change his user name. People say the most vile things under cover of anonymity, and I don't think the media are obligated to keep protecting the identity of Internet bullies.

This was not the meme to go to the mat for; it's utterly harmless. But the basic principle, I'm OK with. This was CNN's solution. It's flawed. Oh well.
 
Minoosh said:
Wait, Mr. Hole is responsible for all these postings? I'd say that pretty much takes away the benefit of the doubt on whether he should have been named by CNN.
Click to expand...

These posts are irrelevant to whether HAS's identity ought to have been revealed. Whether he personally is pro doxxing has little to do with whether doxxing him is acceptable, in the same way that being anti free speech doesn't mean others can ignore your free speech rights.

(Note that I am not saying publishing his identity would have been wrong.)



Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
 
phiwum said:
These posts are irrelevant to whether HAS's identity ought to have been revealed. Whether he personally is pro doxxing has little to do with whether doxxing him is acceptable, in the same way that being anti free speech doesn't mean others can ignore your free speech rights.

(Note that I am not saying publishing his identity would have been wrong.)
Click to expand...
I was talking about alleged ethnic/religious/racial slurs, not posts advocating doxxing. I hadn't heard about those and I agree his pro-doxxing stance is irrelevant to CNN's decision. Irrelevant, but still ironic.
 
Why irrelevant, you guys? If someone stands ready and willing to commit murder, is that irrelevant to whether it may be justifiable to kill them?
 
Sorry, quote function not working.
I made no such claim.

The obvious conclusion is that Trump or one of his cronies routinely visits that specific Reddit page, which explains both how they found it in the first place and how it ended up on Trump’s iPhone so quickly.



You mean definitively? No, of course not. But the evidence clearly points in one direction.


No, you don’t have to… but you are anyway.




Hey everyone, look! Once again, the guy who holds the most powerful office in the world gets a pass on his own childish behavior while CNN is chastised for not being more professional! What a shocker.
Click to expand...

I completely 100% disagree with everything you've said here.
 
Sorry can't edit my post either :(

You said this:
That means either the president or someone close to him was frequenting a cyber-hangout for racists and white supremacists.
Click to expand...
Is Reddit a cyber-hangout for racists and white supremacists? If so, is it the only one?

No. It is entirely possible that someone sent that GIF to Trump. You have zero evidence to state otherwise.
 
d4m10n said:
Why irrelevant, you guys? If someone stands ready and willing to commit murder, is that irrelevant to whether it may be justifiable to kill them?
Click to expand...
What makes it relevant is whether the punishment fits the crime, not whether one is a hypocrite.

Perhaps his racist and genocidal comments could justify doxxing, but the fact that he would like to see others dosed is not particularly relevant.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom