Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 5, 2017 21:57:34 GMT -5
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 5, 2017 22:05:56 GMT -5
Also leaving this statement from CNN here: and this tweet from Andrew Kaczynski of CNN here:
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Jul 6, 2017 8:53:36 GMT -5
But I can't believe that CNN actually felt the need to track down the guy who made the gif. It's pretty harmless, imo, especially as compared to millions of other gifs that are out there. Also, I'm hearing that the guy is actually only 15 years old. Is that correct? And CNN--in first making a stink about the gif and now tracking the guy down and threatening him--is making sure it stays a story. Indeed, there are now a ton of other similar gifs flowing freely through twitter, as #CNNblackmail tops the list of trends right now. But maybe they're operating from the idea that any publicity is good publicity? Maybe they're just thin-skinned and vindictive? And CNN--by allowing an obvious threat in the story--has now created a shitstorm for itself. How smart is that? CNN has just tossed all of Trump's supporters--along with folks like 4Chan--a huge piece of red meat. What is sad and contemptible here--in this particular incident--is CNN, imo. They went out of their way to track down the maker of this gif. Why? To show that there are lowlife trolls on the internet who say awful things? Stop the presses. Because the gif was so outrageously over the line? Come on. And THEN, they allow the writer of the story to issue a threat to the maker of this gif in the story. It's truly a great moment in journalistic integrity... That's what you said. That's why I noted the play. If you're walking back the above and turning it into a symbolic assault on the Fourth Estate, okay. But regarding that, again in this particular instance, CNN peeps went out of their way to track down a nobody and then threaten that nobody. That's an example of the Fourth Estate abusing their power, imo. That's fine. Hold them to a higher standard. But CNN still should be held to some standard, no? "Because Trump" isn't a valid justification to play search and destroy with some random nobody on the internet, just because of a nothing gif that apparently some at CNN didn't like. I don't think searching out the creators of this gifs in order to punish them is a legitimate exercise of the press at all. They're free to reveal his identity. I'm free to view such an action--like the hunt, itself--as a huge mark against the org in question (in this case CNN) and against those "journalists" behind the action. Maybe CNN can hire some private eyes to spy on these horrible gif-makers to show that they've cheated on their wives! Or--even worse--that they don't recycle! I don't have a problem with CNN-- Sure looks like a problem. Lol. The full quote: I most certainly do have a problem with CNN gong after some nobody and threatening them with exposure for creating a nothing gif. The idea that it's offensive and/or promotes violence are--imo--ridiculous. Equally ridiculous is the idea that because the creator has said a bunch of racist and actually offensive crap on the internet, CNN is justified in searching out his identity, because a) CNN didn't know this until after they figured out who created the gif and b) if it's important that news orgs identify every anonymous troll who says such things, that's all they'll be doing, 24/7/365. Also, just for the sake of accuracy, Mika made here joke about Trump's penis size on her show. That's what I'm referring to. Then Trump tweeted his crap. Then Mika--apparently every bit as classy as the Donald--sent the Cheerios tweet. Interestingly enough, I went searching for a news article that has the timeline for this, and I had a real hard time finding one. Most pieces only cover two out of three, usually something along the lines of "Trump makes a viscous personal attack on Mika, she responds with the Cheerios tweet." Regardless, here's the first piece I find that covers the whole back and forth: www.twcc.com/articles/2017/06/29/t/these-are-the-comments-morning-joe-host-mika-brzezinski-made-that-apparently-led-to-trump-s-bleeding-face-lift-tweetAgain, horribly unpresidential on the part of Trump, imo. Tasteless, classless, and intentionally cruel. And one can say Mika is just doing her job by needling the President, but there are better ways to do it imo, without descending to Trump's level.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 6, 2017 9:09:58 GMT -5
You mean this?
I'm afraid I still do not find this to be anywhere close to being in a class with Trump's tweet.
The first half is legitimate political critique. The second half is a nose thumbing joke that is on a par with the Cheerios box.
And that's taking aside the fact that she's a talking head with .3% of the country as an audience, while he is POTUS.
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Jul 6, 2017 9:55:49 GMT -5
Watch the video of it: dailycaller.com/2017/06/29/heres-the-morning-joe-segment-that-preceded-trumps-tweets-video/But I do agree that Trump's shit is worse because he's President. I don't agree that this means I have to give Mika a pass for mocking the penis size of the POTUS. Seriously, you're trying to argue that the clotheslining of CNN gif is somehow offensive, but can't allow that Mika's comments are in the same league? I just can't wrap my head around that, at all. Mika's comments are far more offensive. She's mocking an actual person, a human being (even if he is a horrible human being). The gif is showing Trump getting the best of a network, a business, not attacking a reporter. If the CNN logo was Mika's head, I think that would be a very different thing. But it's not. The meaning is clear, imo. It's not offensive and it's not encouraging people to attack reporters.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 6, 2017 10:30:43 GMT -5
Yes, seriously.
Even if she said "tee hee, the president has a tiny penis!" (and she did not) it was nowhere in the same league as Trump's tweet. And you know what? That's even if he wasn't president and they were both journalists. The fact that he IS president elevates it to grotesque.
He said she is "crazy", has a "low IQ" and (falsely) alleged she had a bad, "bleeding" facelift. (As I noted in the other thread, there is quite a stigma about women ahing in the public eye, and yet also one on their having surgery to tweak it. You're old and ugly, or you are vain and superficial -- or both, most likely).
Sorry, that is so much worse than making a crack on hus tiny hands. Indeed, it isuch worse than making a crack on jis tiny penis, even were he a fellow journalist. She at the very worst made a veiled joke about a part of his anatomy that everyone knows she has never seen. He insulted her sanity, her intelligence, and her appearance. Oh, and a false allegation about her having a surgical procedure.
Seriously? You think that's comparable, even were he NOT president?
And re the CNN thing -- seriously? You think a joke about small hands is as obnoxious as video depicting a beatdown of a reporter by a politician -- in the immediate wake of a beatdown on a reporter by a politician, while many kooks on the internet are cheering for more such beatings (or worse)?
I assure you that no matter how many times you ask if I am serious, you will get the same answer.
ETA:
If it were a mock video depicting a liberal CNN reporter (or the liberal roughneck of your choosing) beating up Trump, would you consider it equally obnoxious as the small hands joke, or would you then consider it worse?
I say any video depicting a beatdown, whoever the victim is, is worse than a tiny hands joke. Or even a tiny penis joke.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 6, 2017 10:45:48 GMT -5
My apologies to markesq -- you are the only one who has met me in person, so I'm going to use you in this analogy. Let's say Mark and I have an political argument in a thread. Assume you all know that we've met, but have never been naked together. I make a crack that I had lunch with Mark, and he could barely could pick up his sandwich with his tiny hands. Mark retaliates by asserting that I'm crazy, have a low IQ, and when I met him for lunch, was bleeding badly from a recent facelift. Which of us has insulted the other more egregiously? ETA: I submit that in that event, people would giggle at my tiny hands joke and think it harmless, and gasp at Mark's post. Even though I am a mod and he is a member.
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Jul 6, 2017 10:47:31 GMT -5
Yes, seriously. Even if she said "tee hee, the president has a tiny penis!" (and she did not) it was nowhere in the same league as Trump's tweet. And you know what? That's even if he wasn't president and they were both journalists. The fact that he IS president elevates it to grotesque. He said she is "crazy", has a "low IQ" and (falsely) alleged she had a bad, "bleeding" facelift. (As I noted in the other thread, there is quite a stigma about women ahing in the public eye, and yet also one on their having surgery to tweak it. You're old and ugly, or you are vain and superficial -- or both, most likely). Sorry, that is so much worse than making a crack on hus tiny hands. Indeed, it isuch worse than making a crack on jis tiny penis, even were he a fellow journalist. She at the very worst made a veiled joke about a part of his anatomy that everyone knows she has never seen. He insulted her sanity, her intelligence, and her appearance. Oh, and a false allegation about her having a surgical procedure. Seriously? You think that's comparable, even were he NOT president? And re the CNN thing -- seriously? You think a joke about small hands is as obnoxious as video depicting a beatdown of a reporter by a politician -- in the immediate wake of a beatdown on a reporter by a politician, while many kooks on the internet are cheering for more such beatings (or worse)? I assure you that no matter how many times you ask if I am serious, you will get the same answer. ETA: If it were a mock video depicting a liberal CNN reporter (or the liberal roughneck of your choosing) beating up Trump, would you consider it equally obnoxious as the small hands joke, or would you then consider it worse? I say any video depicting a beatdown, whoever the victim is, is worse than a tiny hands joke. Or even a tiny penis joke. You're not following me. I'm talking about comparing Mika's comments (and subsequent tweet) to the gif, all by itself.* You claim it's offensive, that it's encouraging violence against reporters. I disagree with both of those assessments. But allowing the first--that it's offensive--do you not think that mocking a specific person's penis size is worse? As to Trump's tweet about Mika, I said this: * Which of course is still the issue here for me: CNN going after a nobody because he made that nothing gif.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 6, 2017 10:50:43 GMT -5
I'm following you. Wherever the gif originated, it is worse than a tiny hands joke. The fact that Trump retweeted it makes it utterly grotesque. But even taking that aside, the gif is worse.
Depictions of beatings, particularly in the wake of such a beating and in the context of the current political climate, are always going to be worse than cracks about tiny hands and pics of Cheerios boxes.
ETA:
To again use poor Mark:
I tweet that cheerios box. He tweets a video showing an imaginary beatdown by a message board member on a moderator on a political forum -- when, only recently, such a beating has actually occurred, and lots of people are cheering and tweeting that moderators deserve beatings and hangings.
Which is worse?
|
|
|
Post by markesq on Jul 6, 2017 11:22:55 GMT -5
ETA: I submit that in that event, people would giggle at my tiny hands joke and think it harmless, and gasp at Mark's post. Even though I am a mod and he is a member. Snicker. You called me a member. Anyway, I agree that Trump's beatdown meme was worse, not just because he's the President but because it fits a pattern of trying to either exclude or intimidate the media. The tiny hands thing is juvenile and asinine, the media-oppressing is downright dictatorial. That said, I am on board with Rob's message. Just as Trump demeans the presidency with his name-calling, so do members of the media when they do the same. Yes, it's different, but as Rob points out it's not effective and if I ran a news agency I would instruct my employees to stay away from it, to not add to the distracting noise of the name-calling but focus on his substantive failings, which are numerous and far more dangerous that his sandwich-dropping hands. Oh, wait,those are mine...
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Jul 6, 2017 11:28:58 GMT -5
You obviously were not. Your reply to me--and your subsequent post with your Mark example--was predicated on the idea that I was arguing Trump's tweet about Mika was no worse than Mika's comments. I was not, as I hope I have made clear. And I'm sorry, but I find your description of the gif--as a "video depicting a beatdown of a reporter by a politician"--ridiculous. Moreover, citing the Gianforte incident (which was awful and shameful, both the act and the failure of the voters to hold him accountable) here and claiming we are in the "immediate aftermath" of that event is equally ridiculous. It was over a month ago. In internet/twitter time, that's forever. So yes, the mocking of someone's penis size--in a non-friendly way, to be sure--is much worse than the gif, in and of itself. Part of the problem here--imo--is that I am talking about CNN's actions specific to the gif, because they pursued the maker of the gif, even though it's hardly the only sort of thing out there of such a nature (especially now). So when I say it's ridiculous to see the gif, in and of itself, as offensive, I mean exactly that. It's nothing. It's the kind of thing that's all over twitter and social media: a gif, meme, or pic that shows--symbolically--someone or something getting pwned by someone else. It's not a call to violence, at all. It's supposed to be funny and politically biting, ala (in this case) "Ha-ha, CNN got pwned by Trump" (though one might certainly see it as neither). In contrast, you seem to only see the gif in relation to Trump's use of it. I agree, Trump's retweeting of it was unpresidential (yet nothing unusual for him, unfortunately) and obnoxious. But it's still not a call to violence, it's still not offensive to an actual person in the way Trump's tweet to Mika was (or Mika's comments to Trump were, even if they are not as bad as Trump's). More importantly, I can't see any justification for why CNN needed to ferret out the maker of the gif. Because it just doesn't matter. His identity isn't news. The gif wasn't a threat, didn't reveal someone's personal information, or otherwise involve an issue where his identity would serve the public interest, that I can see.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 6, 2017 11:30:38 GMT -5
For the record, I would prefer the serious media to focus on more substantive things than Trump's tiny hands.
But I cannot agree that an equal amount of tut-tutting and condemnation, or anything close to it, is justified.
One, though vulgar, is in proportion with vulgar satire media has used in the past (and milder than much of it); the other is a startling break with how our past presidents have responded to such things. One does nothing to elevate our discourse, and may distract from more serious issues. The other debases the dignity of our highest office, and distracts him from his extremely serious responsibilities.
Also for the record, Mark had no difficulties handling his lunch. I believe he had shepherd's pie rather than a sandwich, but he did not require a special fork.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 6, 2017 11:31:53 GMT -5
You obviously were not. Your reply to me--and your subsequent post with your Mark example--was predicated on the idea that I was arguing Trump's tweet about Mika was no worse than Mika's comments. I was not, as I hope I have made clear. And I'm sorry, but I find your description of the gif--as a "video depicting a beatdown of a reporter by a politician"--ridiculous. Moreover, citing the Gianforte incident (which was awful and shameful, both the act and the failure of the voters to hold him accountable) here and claiming we are in the "immediate aftermath" of that event is equally ridiculous. It was over a month ago. In internet/twitter time, that's forever. So yes, the mocking of someone's penis size--in a non-friendly way, to be sure--is much worse than the gif, in and of itself. Part of the problem here--imo--is that I am talking about CNN's actions specific to the gif, because they pursued the maker of the gif, even though it's hardly the only sort of thing out there of such a nature (especially now). So when I say it's ridiculous to see the gif, in and of itself, as offensive, I mean exactly that. It's nothing. It's the kind of thing that's all over twitter and social media: a gif, meme, or pic that shows--symbolically--someone or something getting pwned by someone else. It's not a call to violence, at all. It's supposed to be funny and politically biting, ala (in this case) "Ha-ha, CNN got pwned by Trump" (though one might certainly see it as neither). In contrast, you seem to only see the gif in relation to Trump's use of it. I agree, Trump's retweeting of it was unpresidential (yet nothing unusual for him, unfortunately) and obnoxious. But it's still not a call to violence, it's still not offensive to an actual person in the way Trump's tweet to Mika was (or Mika's comments to Trump were, even if they are not as bad as Trump's). More importantly, I can't see any justification for why CNN needed to ferret out the maker of the gif. Because it just doesn't matter. His identity isn't news. The gif wasn't a threat, didn't reveal someone's personal information, or otherwise involve an issue where his identity would serve the public interest, that I can see. We're even, because I find your depiction of Mika's tiny hand jokes as horrible slurs on Trump's penis ridiculous. And as I have stated repeatedly, I think the fact that Trump tweeted them makes it grotesque and indisputably horrifying. But even taking Trump out of the equation and putting the tweets and gif side by side, I find the gif much worse. Hence my second analogy above. I'm not ignoring anything. I disagree with you, and completely.
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Jul 6, 2017 11:39:22 GMT -5
*shrug*
Trump is still an actual person, with actual friends and family. We already know--from the primary season--that he takes it personal when someone mocks his hands, because he sees it as a comment about his penis size. Mika knows this, I'm sure, otherwise her comments make no sense. In fact, her tweet back to him (the Cheerios) demonstrates that she knew exactly what had gotten under his skin.
Again, the gif doesn't show Trump attacking any specific person. That's a qualitative difference between these things (and Trump's comments about Mika) that cannot simply be ignored.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 6, 2017 11:45:46 GMT -5
If Trump is really so very tender about the size of his hands, and so very sensitive about genitalia none of us are in as position to judge, including Mika, he should not have run for president.
Poor, poor, most powerful man on earth. Poor sensitive little billionaire who's made countless nasty remarks about the appearance of countless people, including Mika herself.
Mika is an insensitive meanie mcmeanie.
I give up, Rob. I'm exiting this conversation unless an actual new point comes up.
|
|