|
Post by Christine on Jul 6, 2017 21:44:31 GMT -5
XD
I'm trying to get into Mika's inner circle, the who's who of meanie mcmeanies.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 6, 2017 21:52:54 GMT -5
*ahem*
I think that I shall never see a penis as massive as a tree,
but that's not something you would guess to hear how some men self-obsess
and take offense at any hint their member's not magnificent.
They go into a frenzied rant at mentions of their teensy hands
and vicious insults they will tweet if you make jokes about their feet.
Poems are made by fools like me, But fuck it, from now on I'm ditching this poetry shit and turning my talents to churning out tiny penis innuendo.
|
|
|
Post by Don on Jul 7, 2017 7:11:08 GMT -5
1) Person creates controversial piece of artwork; chooses to remain anonymous due to the nature of the piece. 2) Massive, soulless corporation threatens to "out" artist, possibly leading to public humiliation or even physical attack. 3) "Liberals" cheer the actions of the massive corporation. It truly has become bizarro world. "Artist," you say? I got some more "artwork" from this "artist" for you right here, Don. Here's some more "artwork" for you, Don. Yes, this is truly Bizarro World. When conservatives and so-called "Libertarians" rail against the media and turn a blind eye to the sickest and twisted bile that inspires and creates monsters like Dylan Roof. It sure makes me glad I'm neither a conservative or a so-called "Libertarian." Bizarro Word is not a nice place to visit and I sure wouldn't want to live there. Or have to defend it either. Art is in the eye of the beholder. I didn't think much of "Piss Christ," either, but it got displayed using my tax dollars. If "art" is simply those things we approve of, then "art" is meaningless. If we only defend artistic speech we agree with, then we're not really defending anything, are we? These stories always bring me back to the fictional liberal, President Andrew Shepard, penned by the non-fictional liberal, Aaron Sorkin: I'm not hearing many people singing about the "land of the free" here. Quite to the contrary, actually.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 7, 2017 7:51:25 GMT -5
I don't think this guy really purports to be an artist, does he? I mean, are we all "artists" by virtue of our posts on this message board? He didn't post that stuff for art. He posted it to troll.
On the "freedom" front, I have already said above that though I find the guy's posts (the racist ones nighttimer has quoted) loathsome and politically valueless, I am not looking to criminalize them.
But there being social consequences to such speech...yeah, that I have no problem with at all. There is no right, as far as I know, to remain anonymous as you spew nasty shit on the internet.
|
|
|
Post by nighttimer on Jul 7, 2017 9:54:47 GMT -5
"Artist," you say? I got some more "artwork" from this "artist" for you right here, Don. Here's some more "artwork" for you, Don. Yes, this is truly Bizarro World. When conservatives and so-called "Libertarians" rail against the media and turn a blind eye to the sickest and twisted bile that inspires and creates monsters like Dylan Roof. It sure makes me glad I'm neither a conservative or a so-called "Libertarian." Bizarro Word is not a nice place to visit and I sure wouldn't want to live there. Or have to defend it either. Art is in the eye of the beholder. I didn't think much of "Piss Christ," either, but it got displayed using my tax dollars. If "art" is simply those things we approve of, then "art" is meaningless. If we only defend artistic speech we agree with, then we're not really defending anything, are we? HanAssholeSolo's "art" is the same sort of "art" a cheap pornographer proclaims after filming a one girl/four guy gang bang that ends up with a splattering bukkake shot all over the woman's face. See how it glistens and holds the light as the white spunk dribbles off her glazed face. How glorious is my cinematic eye! How sublime is my artistry!If you are defending the word vomit of a shitposter as "artistic speech" that's elitist crap. If you can find artistry in racism, Don, either you don't know the meaning of the word, "artistry" or you're an enabler of racism, and I need to put your word vomit on "ignore." Boo-fucking-hoo. Cry me a river, Don. I give zero fucks for the mealy-mouth mutterings of a fictional president and this "America, Fuck Yeah!" rah-rah bullshit and particularly I get nothing of usage from the mealy-mouth mutterings of a classically clueless "liberal" like Aaron Sorkin, whom is both dumb as rocks and soaking so deeply in a pool of White Male Privilege to be shocked-- shocked! I tells ya-- to find out Hollywood has a diversity problem. Here in the real world, there are real bigots and real enablers of bigots and these stories bring me back to an actual liberal, Tim Wise. ...For those seeking to understand what racism is — and the difference between the merely individual as opposed to institutional forms of it — and why white racism is more potent and problematic than any other potential form, you need look no further than the recent headlines. When institutions can and will collaborate with and directly empower the racism of even the most deranged of bigots, you know that we have yet to arrive at that place of racial ecumenism claimed for us by those who would rather gloss over the ongoing injustices we face, and pretend to have attained, as a people, a perch to which we have no ethical right to lay claim.
|
|
|
Post by Vince524 on Jul 7, 2017 11:58:30 GMT -5
I think it's stretching reality to call his posts art in any shape or form. Hell, it's not even very imaginative prose. It is speech, disgusting as it is.
My problem with CNN in this regard is that there was a threat to expose him publicly if he made a gif again regarding them. It had nothing to do with their defense of Islam, women, Jews, the Pope, covfefe or my left toe.
So today it was a guy who posted repulsive things. What about tomorrow if someone else does a gif they don't like. We all know when you're outed on the internet, you become a target. Sometimes of death threats.
I mean, they created this entire mess. I don't really have a lot of sympathy for Hanassholesolo. After all,
I also don't have much for CNN either.
|
|
|
Post by Vince524 on Jul 7, 2017 12:08:04 GMT -5
Oh, and BTW, didn't CNN go through all of this to see if the idiot was connected with Trump? Once they found that he wasn't, why not just drop it. They should have bigger issues to handle over there.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 7, 2017 12:23:40 GMT -5
I don't know what to say about calling that a "threat."
Let's say I lurk around my laundry room to discover my neighbor is the clod who's been taking people's laundry out of the dryers and dumping it on the floor instead of on the table set out for that purpose. Not illegal or against the terms of his lease, but certainly assholish. He apologizes profusely and swears he will never do it again. He asks me not to say who it is, since the whole building will hate him. I say, "OK, but if I find out you've gone back on that promise and do it again, I reserve the right to tell them it's you."
Blackmail?
A fellow colleague has been eating people's lunches in the breakroom fridge. It's been pissing people off, but no one knew who it was. I deliberately lurk around the break room and catch him in the act. He apologizes profusely, says he's been working so much he hasn't wanted to take time to step out for lunch, and swears never to do it again. He knows he'd be the office pariah if people found out it was him. I say, "ok, but I'm not making any promises if you do it again."
Blackmail?
An acquaintance is cheating on her husband. I find out. She breaks off the affair, and asks me not to tell the spouse. I say "OK. But I don't promise to keep quiet should you break your word and cheat again."
Blackmail?
My neighbor's teenager has been smoking pot in the apartment with his friends when his dad is away, and using it for noisy parties that keep us all awake at night. He begs me not to tell his dad. I say "I won't tell him about the parties you've had. But if you keep throwing them, I might. No promises."
Blackmail?
ETA:
I see someone posting horribly trollish anonymous shit at another website. From various clues in the posts and the writing style, I suspect that the perpetrator is a member of another site on which I participate, on which she uses her real name, and find enough evidence to confirm the suspicion. I send her a PM with my evidence. She deletes all the trollishness shit, then responds to my PM, promusing never to troll again, and begging me not to reveal my evidence. I say, "OK, but if you do troll again and I find out, I'm not making any promises."
Blackmail?
To note: if this stuff is blackmail, I am a blackmailer.
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Jul 7, 2017 12:37:23 GMT -5
And I have another explanation, actually. 3) He was having stupid anonymous obnoxious "fun" stirring people up, and when confronted with it, he realized how harmful and awful it was, and was genuinely sorry. It could be any one of those things, but nighttimer is correct: we don't know. We do have his apology, however, which supports theory 3). 1) We don't know lots of things, but that's not stopping people from offering opinions. For instance, we don't know that the gif is intended to induce people to beat up reporters, yet people have no problem making the assumption that such is the case (with no evidence, of course). 2) Your explanation is not much different than my second one, because both allow that he had an epiphany of sorts and decided to change his ways (reverse them, really) merely because CNN figured out who he was. If that's the case, then why doesn't he man up and publicly identify himself, do you think? 3) His apology supports all three theories, actually. It's not inconsistent with any of them, at all. I think you and nighttimer are eschewing common sense here. After all, this is what CNN said in their initial story (my boldface): CNN says he's nervous about having his identity revealed, that this is because of fear. I repeat that claim: "he's afraid." Nighttimer says that's "purely hypothetical speculation," that we don't really know this, and you agree. But it's not purely hypothetical, it's based on what CNN said and what CNN claimed he said. But you'd ignore this while simultaneously insisting that his apology should be taken at face value? Seriously? Again, what's the most likely correct scenario here (adding in CNN's descriptors): 1) Nervous and fearful racist troll apologizes because he realizes he's been a bad boy 2) Nervous and fearful racist troll apologizes because he's afraid of what's ahead for him if he doesn't get out from under this shitstorm Hey, I'm willing to go halfway and allow that maybe, just maybe, he's realized how awful some of the stuff he posted is and now honestly regrets it (though I think it more likely that he only regrets getting caught). But the fear is still there and obviously so. Again, if he isn't afraid at all, then he has no reason to not identify himself, own his actions, and his apology. Regardless, it's an apology clearly intended to avoid the consequences of getting doxxed. And CNN clearly said it would dox him if he failed to stick to his promises going forward. It's fair, I think, to take issue with the idea that this is a case of "blackmail" by CNN. But CNN's statement, at the very least, reflects the reality of the pressure he felt, the fear he felt. He wants to get out from under this because he's afraid. So when he's asked by CNN--the ones applying the pressure--if he was threatened, he says...exactly what we might expect him to say: no.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 7, 2017 12:42:26 GMT -5
If CNN had just gone ahead and reported his identity, they'd have every right.
Frankly, I wish they had.
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Jul 7, 2017 12:43:13 GMT -5
I'd have more respect for them, had that been the case.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 7, 2017 12:53:13 GMT -5
I fail to see how, if they had every right to do it, their making no promises and reserving the right to do it in future is "blackmail."
Slapping the label "doxing" on it doesn't make it evil.
The only evil thing here were Hansasstroll's filthy slurs on people of color, Muslims, etc. And hey, he can even keep making them. He just runs the risk of being associated with his words. As we all do on the internet.
I have my popcorn ready, as a lawyer, for the extortion lawsuits against CNN. You don't mind if I go ahead and sneak some bites, do you? Otherwise, I suspect I'll get really hungry.
Ironically, the only people who've been getting threats here and been "outed" to potentially hostile anti-Semitic trolls (and by this troll) are CNN staff.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 7, 2017 13:43:11 GMT -5
Another thing to consider here -- a number of HansTrollHole's posts advocate violence against Muslims, etc. Whatever you thought of the CNN gif, take a serious look at the stuff nighttimer linked to -- it's pretty damn horrible.
His apology and deletion (made prior to contacting CNN) indicate he did not mean those posts and didn't realize how their potential harmful effects. That's why CNN decided to not expose him.
If he continued to post them, though, that would indicate that he does mean them after all. In which case he is a potential danger -- in himself and as an incitement to others. In which case, do we want him out there anonymously posting that stuff? Should CNN, knowing who he is, just keep it quiet?
Question -- if he went on posting shit like that, CNN kept silent, and he then went out and killed some Muslims and Jews after that (or someone else did, claiming those posts as inspiration), would CNN bear some responsibility? I'd bet people would say "CNN knew who this guy was! Clearly he meant what he was saying! Why didn't they report him?"
Another question to ponder -- where is the line between investigative reporting and "doxing"?
Where is the line between behavior that CNN should expose and should not?
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Jul 7, 2017 13:52:14 GMT -5
That's fine. As I said just said, the idea that this qualifies as blackmail is hardly a cut and dried thing, at all. I haven't referred to it as such and I don't really think it is.
But I do think it's a clear case of CNN abusing the power that they have, tracking down a nobody who posted a gif anonymously, then essentially threatening to expose his identity, in an apparent effort to garner some "attaboys" (which of course has backfired for CNN).
I think--and this is pure speculation--that someone at CNN was hoping that tracking down the creator of this gif might lead to a) someone important or b) some sort of Russian connection. It lead to neither. The smart play would have been to drop the story, imo. But if not, then CNN should have just noted the online identity of the guy who posted the gif, along with the other crap he's posted, and let the chips fall were they may.
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Jul 7, 2017 14:00:50 GMT -5
His apology and deletion (made prior to contacting CNN) indicate he did not mean those posts and didn't realize how their potential harmful effects. That's why CNN decided to not expose him. Disagree. It doesn't mean that at all. And you need to go back and read this all again, I think, because what you're positing is not consistent with what CNN says, at all: He clearly knew CNN was on to him. CNN sent him an email and called him (probably left a message, no?). He realized they knew who he was, so he quickly deleted all of his crap and posted his apology (probably hoping that would stave off disaster).
|
|