CNN tracks down random reddit meme poster and threatens to release his information

Billy86

OK so we're all in agreement that nothing anyone says means what it means any more, it means what the reader wants it to mean in order to back up their preconceived nothing. Awesome.

wes

Bushmanpm wrote: »

So hands up anyone who defends the right of CNN to dox the "...vile racist kid..." who also believe the editor of the Richard Spencer/Blue Monday clip should also be doxxed?

CNN didn't dox anyone...... so whats your point exactly?

I will note various alt-right trumpkins have doxed CNN employees and they have received death threats.

conorhal

Bushmanpm wrote: »

Being technically challenged I struggle to post videos but I'm sure you all remember that white supremacist, Richard Spencer who got punched in the head whilst doing a TV interview on the streets?
Then someone else came along and edited that clip with New Orders "Blue Monday" playing in the background with the punch being landed multiple times in quick succession, in time to the beat? (I found it on YouTube by an account called Communist Manifesto (with their six subscribers!))
Still with me at the back?
So hands up anyone who defends the right of CNN to dox the "...vile racist kid..." who also believe the editor of the Richard Spencer/Blue Monday clip should also be doxxed?

Neither to be honest are news, and that's what pisses me off the most. Isn't there an on line pedophile ring or some corporate scam to be investigated CNN? Is meme sh1tp0sting headline news because you're butt hurt that people are laughing at you?
Not that it's a surprise when you learn the toss pot that 'broke this story' Andrew Kaczynski was hired from buzzfeed.
Yeah, seriously, that's where CNN gets their 'reporters' these days .... effin buzzfeed..... make of that what you will.

Bushmanpm

wes wrote:

CNN didn't dox anyone...... so whats your point exactly?

"...defends THE RIGHT to dox..."
Do actually RTB ad and digest what people are posting, you'll find its a big help.

wes

Bushmanpm wrote: »

"...defends THE RIGHT to dox..."
Do actually RTB ad and digest what people are posting, you'll find its a big help.

"RTB ad"? Your not helping.

BTW, my point is that no doxing took place, so I don't see the relevance of what your saying.

Bushmanpm

conorhal wrote:

Not that it's a surprise when you learn the toss pot that 'broke this story' Andrew Kaczynski was hired from buzzfeed. Yeah, seriously, that's where CNN gets their 'reporters' these days .... effin buzzfeed..... make of that what you will.

At least it wasn't the dynamically diverse Hufflepuffington Post!

InTheTrees

In the racially tense gun happy southern USA (CNN is in Atlanta), having your face and identity posted on a right wing hate site could very well be taken as a threat.

The same tactic was used on abortion providing doctors back in the 80's and a few were killed.

Bushmanpm

wes wrote:

BTW, my point is that no doxing took place, so I don't see the relevance of what your saying.

Its the THREAT of it

wes wrote:

"RTB ad"? Your not helping.

read
Sorry!

wes

Bushmanpm wrote: »

Its the THREAT of it

Ok, but both parties said there was no threat. Now CNN certainly screwed up in how the presented it to the wider public, but the redditor in question says he was not threatened.

Bushmanpm wrote: »

read
Sorry!

NP. It was a funny typo to be fair .

jackofalltrades

wes wrote: »

Ok, but both parties said there was no threat. Now CNN certainly screwed up in how the presented it to the wider public, but the redditor in question says he was not threatened.

So you'll take the word of someone who claims they were not threatened, over the black and white evidence that he has been threatened.

Do you believe the accounts of all the battered wives who claim they have fallen down the stairs?
Both sides agree to it so it must be true.
What about hostages you say they are being treated well even though they look tired, scared and emaciated?

Podge_irl

jackofalltrades wrote: »

So you'll take the word of someone who claims they were not threatened, over the black and white evidence that he has been threatened.

There isn't black and white evidence. The phrase at the end of the statement comes across poorly but it is utterly standard phraseology. As explained by CNN it is a legalistic way of explaining that no official deal was made with the person in question. Poor optics, but that is it.

jackofalltrades

Podge_irl wrote: »

There isn't black and white evidence. The phrase at the end of the statement comes across poorly but it is utterly standard phraseology.
As explained by CNN it is a legalistic way of explaining that no official deal was made with the person in question. Poor optics, but that is it.

If they meant to say they made no deal with the man, then they could have said just that.
The "standard phraseology" excuse doesn't wash, given they used plenty of non-legal speak in the article and the phrase "any of that" in the same line.

They've furiously started back peddling once they realised people weren't on aboard with their unethical tactics.
They could have left it at "CNN is not publishing "HanA**holeSolo's" name because he is a private citizen".
I doubt the man planned to use so much as use a swear word online in future after CNN gave him a call.
But they wanted to make an example of him and now they're being called on it.

Grayson

jackofalltrades wrote: »

If they meant to say they made no deal with the man, then they could have said just that.
The "standard phraseology" excuse doesn't wash, given they used plenty of non-legal speak in the article and the phrase "any of that" in the same line.

They've furiously started back peddling once they realised people weren't on aboard with their unethical tactics.
They could have left it at "CNN is not publishing "HanA**holeSolo's" name because he is a private citizen".
I doubt the man planned to use so much as use a swear word online in future after CNN gave him a call.
But they wanted to make an example of him and now they're being called on it.

You're only saying that because Breitbart are threatening you. You say they aren't, they say they aren't, but for some bloody stupid reason I'm going to stick with my theory that Breitbart are actually threatening you.

Hank Scorpio

Grayson wrote: »

You're only saying that because Breitbart are threatening you. You say they aren't, they say they aren't, but for some bloody stupid reason I'm going to stick with my theory that Breitbart are actually threatening you.

If the mob, or anyone for that matter rang you up and told you they had damaging information but if you comply with their demands they won't release it, you wouldn't feel threatened right?

Once the guy found out his identity was unmasked, he went into panic mode. He deleted his history wrote a long apology and told CNN themselves afterwards he feared for himself and his family.

CNN acted in a highly unethical manner, a news organization should never be releasing statements saying if person does X and Y we won't do Z. Any threats towards CNN, or any individual or group, should be reported to the proper authorities, not used for Political reasons to score points on Trump.

Hank Scorpio

On the topic of CNN's journalistic ethics, I'll just leave this here. They peddled the hands up don't shoot lie without evidence doing incredible damage to racial and Police relations. It turned out to be false.

B_Wayne

Yourself isit wrote: »

Poor old multi national billionaire owned partisan news service.

So employees of CNN are deserving of anti semetic diatribes?

Hank Scorpio

B_Wayne wrote: »

So employees of CNN are deserving of anti semetic diatribes?

Who is saying that?

One can criticize CNN's actions without sympathizing with his views.

B_Wayne

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

Who is saying that?

One can criticize CNN's actions without sympathizing with his views.

The poster indicated the sole party that were affected was the organisation. Members of CNN were subject to anti semetic rubbish by the user. That is hate speech directed at their employees. I have zero sympathy for him.

jackofalltrades

Grayson wrote: »

You're only saying that because Breitbart are threatening you. You say they aren't, they say they aren't, but for some bloody stupid reason I'm going to stick with my theory that Breitbart are actually threatening you.

Your comparison is flawed because you have no proof of Breitbart threatening me, unlike this situation.

InTheTrees

B_Wayne wrote: »

The poster indicated the sole party that were affected was the organisation. Members of CNN were subject to anti semetic rubbish by the user. That is hate speech directed at their employees. I have zero sympathy for him.

The meme-guy was a wacko. He had a history of deranged racist hate speech.

He fit all the characteristics of someone who could easily follow through on his threats.

Sweetemotion

InTheTrees wrote: »

The meme-guy was a wacko. He had a history of deranged racist hate speech.

He fit all the characteristics of someone who could easily follow through on his threats.

Do you think he should be interned?

I mean he fits all the characteristics, lets just get rid of him.

Sweetemotion

B_Wayne wrote: »

The poster indicated the sole party that were affected was the organisation. Members of CNN were subject to anti semetic rubbish by the user. That is hate speech directed at their employees. I have zero sympathy for him.

I'll ask you also. Do you think this guy should be interned?

hatrickpatrick

Grayson wrote: »

Ya know a simple google will provide you with a lot of knowledge so you don't start posting stuff like "The guy was doxxed" or "Both tweets were deleted".

Here's the CNN tweet. https://twitter.com/CNN/status/822152902802362368
It's not deleted. I'm not sure why you'd want to show a link to an archive to show something that's still live. maybe it's to show your investigative powers?

Apologies, I copied that from a Reddit thread and didn't have time at that moment to verify, which in hindsight was unforgivably moronic. Was fuelled by a lot of caffeine and adrenaline this afternoon and was doing things at high speed without thinking much

Anyway, what Sinatra said was that they should remember the first line of the song. "And now the end is near".

Sinatra was a fan of Obama. She doesn't like Trump. The actual story states this and has been updated to include Sinatra's tweet.

http://edition.cnn.com/2017/01/19/politics/nancy-sinatra-donald-trump-my-way/index.html?sr=twCNN011917/nancy-sinatra-donald-trump-my-way0645PMStoryLink&linkId=33568369

So hang on, are you saying that Sinatra did not actually say "I never said that" in a tweet? Because although her tweet actually is gone (just checked), archive.is screenshots can't be doctored or faked, so at some stage she did tweet that to CNN in response to the original tweet.

Then again. maybe they weren't mistakes. maybe you have an agenda and are just happy to regurgitate stuff you see elsewhere that supports your view point.

I've been around long enough to almost never be so stupid as to not triple check, this was a momentary lapse caused by being in a hurry to leave the house, that's all. Won't happen again.

It took me 20 seconds to find the tweet and story. Spend at least that long looking up stuff and your quality of information will rise with it.

As above, I usually do. This was a once off moment of moronity and eejitism.

I still don't quite understand what's going on here though. She did tweet "I never said that" as a direct response to CNN's tweeted article, so what's going on there? Was she bullsh!tting? O_o

Hank Scorpio

Just to back Patrick up here, Sinatra 100% posted that tweet, I was online when it happened. It was the day of the inauguration.

She said "I never said that, why do you lie CNN?" Or something to that effect.

Edit: Never-mind, it's admitted in the CNN article.

InTheTrees

Sweetemotion wrote: »

Do you think he should be interned?

I mean he fits all the characteristics, lets just get rid of him.

No

But I dont think he should be able to make anonymous racist threats and expect not to be tracked down.

InTheTrees

Sweetemotion wrote: »

I'll ask you also. Do you think this guy should be interned?

Presumably you mean formally arrested?

Sweetemotion

InTheTrees wrote: »

No

But I dont think he should be able to make anonymous racist threats and expect not to be tracked down.

So say some black kid calls a white kid cracker on call of duty. Should he be tracked down and blackmailed into not doing it again.

Should the anti catholics on boards be ousted for airing their distrust with the church?

Sweetemotion

InTheTrees wrote: »

Presumably you mean formally arrested?

He hasn't hurt anybody yet just made a bad joke.

You say he has all the traits.

What do you want of him?

InTheTrees

Sweetemotion wrote: »

He hasn't hurt anybody yet just made a bad joke.

You say he has all the traits.

What do you want of him?

Nobodies stopping him.

He can carry right on doing it.

Sweetemotion

InTheTrees wrote: »

Nobodies stopping him.

He can carry right on doing it.

No he can't. You want him arrested.

To stop him.

Sweetemotion

Again. What do you want of this 15 year old teen, who shows all the traits?

osarusan

Sweetemotion wrote: »

Again. What do you want of this 15 year old teen

Where did you hear that? :pac:

Sweetemotion

osarusan wrote: »

Where did you hear that? :pac:

What have you heard?

Grayson

jackofalltrades wrote: »

Your comparison is flawed because you have no proof of Breitbart threatening me, unlike this situation.

you have no proof.

He said he isn't being blackmailed/threatened. They say they aren't threatening him. You have no proof.
The only people who are silencing anyone are the mods of /donald who deleted his apology. Yet for some reason none of you guys are pissed off about that.

Grayson

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Apologies, I copied that from a Reddit thread and didn't have time at that moment to verify, which in hindsight was unforgivably moronic. Was fuelled by a lot of caffeine and adrenaline this afternoon and was doing things at high speed without thinking much



So hang on, are you saying that Sinatra did not actually say "I never said that" in a tweet? Because although her tweet actually is gone (just checked), archive.is screenshots can't be doctored or faked, so at some stage she did tweet that to CNN in response to the original tweet.



I've been around long enough to almost never be so stupid as to not triple check, this was a momentary lapse caused by being in a hurry to leave the house, that's all. Won't happen again.



As above, I usually do. This was a once off moment of moronity and eejitism.

I still don't quite understand what's going on here though. She did tweet "I never said that" as a direct response to CNN's tweeted article, so what's going on there? Was she bullsh!tting? O_o

Saying "I'm sorry, I posted false facts" would have done.

And btw, as I said, the story now included the tweet she sent. So I'm not sure why you're questioning men not including it. I even quoted the story so I don't see how I am " saying that Sinatra did not actually say "I never said that" in a tweet?". It's clearly stated in my quote.

Hank Scorpio

Sorry but this is hilarious

silverharp

its been a good week for the memes

https://twitter.com/OrwellNGoode/status/883483413394706437

jackofalltrades

Grayson wrote: »

you have no proof.

Already covered this in the following post.
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=104018132&postcount=488

He said he isn't being blackmailed/threatened. They say they aren't threatening him. You have no proof.

Already covered this in the following posts.
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=104018628&postcount=498
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=104020162&postcount=511

Ann_Landers

Deleted User wrote: »

Pro-tip:

If you're afraid that what you say or do online might affect your life, your relationships, your job, then perhaps you shouldn't say or do those things.

You're likely not as anonymous as you think you are. If you don't have the balls to do it with your identity known, don't do it behind your keyboard.

+ fucking 1.

conorhal

Ann_Landers wrote: »

+ fucking 1.

Tell it to Sophie Scholl, she probably should have shut up and joined the Nazi party.....

Grayson

jackofalltrades wrote: »

Already covered this in the following post.
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=104018132&postcount=488

Already covered this in the following posts.
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=104018628&postcount=498
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=104020162&postcount=511

That's your proof? You are fcuking kidding me right? You've actually posted a meme as your "proof".

conorhal

Grayson wrote: »

That's your proof? You are fcuking kidding me right? You've actually posted a meme as your "proof".

OMG! Hunt down and burn the witch!!!

Ann_Landers

conorhal wrote: »

Tell it to Sophie Scholl, she probably should have shut up and joined the Nazi party.....

There was internet back in the 1940s? SWEET.

Ann_Landers

Deleted User wrote: »

I'm not denying Trump has the exact wavelengths of his supporters down to perfection, but, for me personally, there is a perceived notion that a world leader should have more class and discourse than a random internet user and that they'd have better things to do than posting memes on social media.

This is the crux of it for me. It's just very undignified behaviour from the leader of a country. And, yes, I'd feel that way about any country leader behaving like that before anyone says anything!

conorhal

Ann_Landers wrote: »

There was internet back in the 1940s? SWEET.

Well back then all they could post were pamphlets, I guess she shouldn't have posted those..... In a very real and literal sense Sophie Scholl was beheaded for posting something an authoritarian establishment disagreed with. Creepy authoritarians have no sense of humor, not Trump and not CNN either.

ohnonotgmail

Sweetemotion wrote: »

Again. What do you want of this 15 year old teen, who shows all the traits?

not many 15 year olds remember things they did in 1990.

Ann_Landers

conorhal wrote: »

Well back then all they could post were pamphlets, I guess she shouldn't have posted those..... In a very real and literal sense Sophie Scholl was beheaded for posting something an authoritarian establishment disagreed with. Creepy authoritarians have no sense of humor, not Trump and not CNN either.

Boneyarsebogman's point that I was agreeing with was that people should stand by what they post online. He wasn't saying people shouldn' post things, he was saying that people should be prepared to stand by what they post online. Do you think this young woman that you pulled into the conversation in order to engage in a bit of oul whataboutery wouldn't have stood by her actions? Because as per your post that I quoted here, it seems she did stand by her actions. She very much had the courage of her convictions. So how does she relate to my agreement with boneyarsebogman's point? If anything, bringing her up as example backs up the post I was agreeing with.

conorhal

Ann_Landers wrote: »

Boneyarsebogman's point that I was agreeing with was that people should stand by what they post online. He wasn't saying people shouldn' post things, he was saying that people should be prepared to stand by what they post online. Do you think this young woman that you pulled into the conversation in order to engage in a bit of oul whataboutery wouldn't have stood by her actions? Because as per your post that I quoted here, it seems she did stand by her actions. She very much had the courage of her convictions. So how does she relate to my agreement with boneyarsebogman's point? If anything, bringing her up as example backs up the post I was agreeing with.

And the point I was making is that standing by a principle and the utterly scorched earth disproportionate reaction to somebody doing so are two different things. You have nothing to say about the legitimacy of what the Nazi's did to Scholl only that 'well, she should have expected those consequences'. She did, that doesn't make what was done to her legitimate though does it?
Some people seem fine with having a principle as long as it agrees with their principles, and if you don't, it's fine to utterly destroy a person that disagrees with you. That can and has happened in these times and it's wrong. I can't stand the political climate that currently exists (and it exists on both sides of the political divide) that it's acceptable to casually ruin lives over trivial things to score political points.

Ann_Landers

conorhal wrote: »

And the point I was making is that standing by a principle and the utterly scorched earth disproportionate reaction to somebody doing so are two different things.

Yes, they are. And I never said otherwise. I think people should have the courage of their convictions. And she did. The legitimacy of people's reactions to that is a whole other issue. As you well know. Talk about deflection. But, hey, when looking to obfuscate, throw in the molotov cocktail that is a mention of the Nazis into the discussion, amiright? It's tried and true.

conorhal

Ann_Landers wrote: »

Yes, they are. And I never said otherwise. I think people should have the courage of their convictions. And she did. The legitimacy of people's reactions to that is a whole other issue. As you well know. Talk about deflection.

Well perhaps I worded that badly. It isn't a whole other issue but a related one (except when it suits your viewpoint apparently). It is however exactly the issue that has prompted this debate.

Take this loon: http://www.theblaze.com/news/2017/07/06/f-your-nationalism-woman-urinates-on-us-flag-draped-across-toilet-seat-reaction-is-not-kind/

Some Antifa twit that pisses on the American flag on the 4th of July and posts it on the internet. I'd disagree with her actions, but I'd support her right to do so. Should she face criticism, sure, but should he face death threats, losing her job and her family being targeted? Hell no. Free speech may not be free but when you place that price on it you might as well make it illegal.