|
Post by Christine on Jul 12, 2017 20:04:54 GMT -5
Re: death threats. I recently saw on twitter that the woman who posted her son's medical bill (and a plea for people to understand what the repeal of the ACA would actually mean for some people--I think rob posted it on another thread) actually received death threats. I saw it on twitter; unfortunately I'm inept at linking here. But it made me realize "death threats" will be a response, even with the best of intentions.
My thinking, especially after reading about what this woman has endured, is that but death threats is an invalid argument against speech or news reporting. Some people will be assholes no matter what. Trying to prevent death threats by blaming people or the media is essentially an argument against free speech and free press. Fuck that.
ETA: I mean, obviously we need to be against death threats. But the fault is on the people who make them, not on people speaking or press reporting.
|
|
|
Post by Vince524 on Jul 12, 2017 20:59:39 GMT -5
I'm not really all that angsty (Is that a word?) over this. The topic was posted, I responded. You seem to want to challenge everything I say or my interpretation. Which is fine. That's why we're here. But yeah. I think CNN did something pretty stupid. Which is why they're getting the heat. Can I prove that if CNN had exposed his name, he would have received death threats? Of course not. I don't think it's a stretch.
Also, I don't have an issue with calling him out. My problem is with the threat to reveal his name.
|
|
|
Post by Vince524 on Jul 12, 2017 21:03:07 GMT -5
Re: death threats. I recently saw on twitter that the woman who posted her son's medical bill (and a plea for people to understand what the repeal of the ACA would actually mean for some people--I think rob posted it on another thread) actually received death threats. I saw it on twitter; unfortunately I'm inept at linking here. But it made me realize "death threats" will be a response, even with the best of intentions. My thinking, especially after reading about what this woman has endured, is that but death threats is an invalid argument against speech or news reporting. Some people will be assholes no matter what. Trying to prevent death threats by blaming people or the media is essentially an argument against free speech and free press. Fuck that. ETA: I mean, obviously we need to be against death threats. But the fault is on the people who make them, not on people speaking or press reporting. Of course. If CNN had said, this gif was created by John Doe AKA HanAssholeSolo, then any death threats he would have gotten would have been his own fault. But it's the threat, if you step out of line again, we'll out you to personal ridicule, death threats, and whatever else. You don't not report news because of that possibility, but you don't threaten in print to expose someone to it if they aren't good boys going forward.
|
|
|
Post by Christine on Jul 12, 2017 21:18:06 GMT -5
Re: death threats. I recently saw on twitter that the woman who posted her son's medical bill (and a plea for people to understand what the repeal of the ACA would actually mean for some people--I think rob posted it on another thread) actually received death threats. I saw it on twitter; unfortunately I'm inept at linking here. But it made me realize "death threats" will be a response, even with the best of intentions. My thinking, especially after reading about what this woman has endured, is that but death threats is an invalid argument against speech or news reporting. Some people will be assholes no matter what. Trying to prevent death threats by blaming people or the media is essentially an argument against free speech and free press. Fuck that. ETA: I mean, obviously we need to be against death threats. But the fault is on the people who make them, not on people speaking or press reporting. Of course. If CNN had said, this gif was created by John Doe AKA HanAssholeSolo, then any death threats he would have gotten would have been his own fault. But it's the threat, if you step out of line again, we'll out you to personal ridicule, death threats, and whatever else. You don't not report news because of that possibility, but you don't threaten in print to expose someone to it if they aren't good boys going forward. I'm sorry Vince, I can't agree. If you don't deserve anonymity in the first place, the granting of it is just a favor. It's not a threat. It's not blackmail. It's not any of these allegedly Awful Things the Big Bad Press is doing to the poor, bigoted, racist Asshole. He deserves to be known to his friends, family, co-workers, and employer as the person that he is under his nom de plume. If he's afraid those people will know the kind of person he really is? If people knowing the kind of person he is is a "threat" to him? It's his own fucking fault for BEING that kind of person. In my not at all humble opinion. He doesn't deserve death threats. But neither does anyone else who gets them. The possibility of death threats is irrelevant. You seemed to be appealing to the awfulness of death threats as a reason for summarily protecting him or his family, or a reason why the "conditional" anonymity was unfair. Asshole is free to keep posting racist, bigoted bullshit. No one is going to put him in jail. But people might know his real name in the future. Most people won't give a fuck. But his mom and dad might. Maybe his employer, too. He might actually have to answer to real live people in his life whose opinions matter. What an awful prospect.
|
|
|
Post by Vince524 on Jul 13, 2017 5:55:54 GMT -5
Of course. If CNN had said, this gif was created by John Doe AKA HanAssholeSolo, then any death threats he would have gotten would have been his own fault. But it's the threat, if you step out of line again, we'll out you to personal ridicule, death threats, and whatever else. You don't not report news because of that possibility, but you don't threaten in print to expose someone to it if they aren't good boys going forward. I'm sorry Vince, I can't agree. If you don't deserve anonymity in the first place, the granting of it is just a favor. It's not a threat. It's not blackmail. It's not any of these allegedly Awful Things the Big Bad Press is doing to the poor, bigoted, racist Asshole. He deserves to be known to his friends, family, co-workers, and employer as the person that he is under his nom de plume. If he's afraid those people will know the kind of person he really is? If people knowing the kind of person he is is a "threat" to him? It's his own fucking fault for BEING that kind of person. In my not at all humble opinion. He doesn't deserve death threats. But neither does anyone else who gets them. The possibility of death threats is irrelevant. You seemed to be appealing to the awfulness of death threats as a reason for summarily protecting him or his family, or a reason why the "conditional" anonymity was unfair. Asshole is free to keep posting racist, bigoted bullshit. No one is going to put him in jail. But people might know his real name in the future. Most people won't give a fuck. But his mom and dad might. Maybe his employer, too. He might actually have to answer to real live people in his life whose opinions matter. What an awful prospect. Again, it was the threat, in print, to reveal his identity that I object to.
|
|
|
Post by nighttimer on Jul 13, 2017 7:24:28 GMT -5
I'm not really all that angsty (Is that a word?) over this. The topic was posted, I responded. You seem to want to challenge everything I say or my interpretation. Which is fine. That's why we're here. But yeah. I think CNN did something pretty stupid. Which is why they're getting the heat. Can I prove that if CNN had exposed his name, he would have received death threats? Of course not. I don't think it's a stretch. It's a stretch until its been proven to be a fact. CNN didn't reveal his name. HanAssholeSolo deleted his Reddit account as well as his offensive posts. Everybody wins. I'm not seeing the "threat" here. CNN didn't out a shitposting troll, though they could have. They granted him anonymity when they could have simply shared his real name with the world. They didn't, but reserve the right to change that status should a shitposting troll go back to shitposting and trolling. Which he probably has. On Stormfront or some other internet dung heap . I'm sorry Vince, I can't agree. If you don't deserve anonymity in the first place, the granting of it is just a favor. It's not a threat. It's not blackmail. It's not any of these allegedly Awful Things the Big Bad Press is doing to the poor, bigoted, racist Asshole. He deserves to be known to his friends, family, co-workers, and employer as the person that he is under his nom de plume. If he's afraid those people will know the kind of person he really is? If people knowing the kind of person he is is a "threat" to him? It's his own fucking fault for BEING that kind of person. In my not at all humble opinion. He doesn't deserve death threats. But neither does anyone else who gets them. The possibility of death threats is irrelevant. You seemed to be appealing to the awfulness of death threats as a reason for summarily protecting him or his family, or a reason why the "conditional" anonymity was unfair. Asshole is free to keep posting racist, bigoted bullshit. No one is going to put him in jail. But people might know his real name in the future. Most people won't give a fuck. But his mom and dad might. Maybe his employer, too. He might actually have to answer to real live people in his life whose opinions matter. What an awful prospect. Again, it was the threat, in print, to reveal his identity that I object to. Again, it was the racism, sexism, homophobia, Islamophobia and shitposting trolling posts that I object to. I'm not upset over bigots getting back some of the negativity and ugliness they spread like manure all over the web. Nigger jokes just kind of have that effect on me.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 13, 2017 14:34:07 GMT -5
Sort of apropos of this discussion -- I got my first threat from a rabid Trumpite on Twitter a couple of days ago. (I've been trolled more than once, but pfft on that. I troll back or ignore.) It was for a pretty light-hearted joke on a news article - it was not profane or even particularly mean, though certainly at Trump's expense.
The woman used some profanity at me and told me I'd better watch my ass -- I was now on her list and Trump wanted to know about people like me. She threatened some other people, too.
Yeah. So I blocked her, reported her, and moved on. It looks like she's been banned (though I'm sure she'll return under another name or twelve).
|
|
|
Post by nighttimer on Jul 13, 2017 17:25:23 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Amadan on Jul 17, 2017 8:57:33 GMT -5
Just to be clear here: 1) a reporter mocking the size of Trump's penis is okay--not offensive--because the media has always done stuff like that 2) staging a play that depicts the current head of state getting stabbed to death is okay--not offensive--because it's Julius fucking Ceasar 3) but a three second gif that shows Trump wrastlin' with a Vince McMahon that has a CNN logo for a head is offensive Uh, look, I think CNN was in the wrong, too, but you're being disingenous - the offensive memes from this guy went well beyond that Vince McMahon wrestling video.
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Jul 17, 2017 9:10:38 GMT -5
Just to be clear here: 1) a reporter mocking the size of Trump's penis is okay--not offensive--because the media has always done stuff like that 2) staging a play that depicts the current head of state getting stabbed to death is okay--not offensive--because it's Julius fucking Ceasar 3) but a three second gif that shows Trump wrastlin' with a Vince McMahon that has a CNN logo for a head is offensive Uh, look, I think CNN was in the wrong, too, but you're being disingenous - the offensive memes from this guy went well beyond that Vince McMahon wrestling video. Nonsense. CNN went after him, sought to identify him because of the wrestling gif alone, because that was the one that was about CNN, itself. I think the guy is a troll and a racist POS, and I think he's full of crap with his apology. He's only sorry that his shit was made public and that CNN figured out who he was. The world would likely be a better place without him, as would the internet. But I can say that about a lot of people on the internet, based on what they willing say/post. None of that is justification for CNN tracking this guy down and threatening to reveal his identity because of the wrestling gif. That was CNN's motivation, not the fact that he's a troll and a racist POS.
|
|
|
Post by Amadan on Jul 17, 2017 9:14:44 GMT -5
You don't think maybe posting Stars of David on CNN journalists might have also provoked their ire?
Not saying that makes what they did "okay" - but it's a little more understandable in context. You're trying to make it sound like they were just being humorless and petty about a stupid and harmless meme. No, I seriously do not think CNN would have gone to any trouble to "get" this guy if all he'd done was make that wrestling gif.
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Jul 17, 2017 9:24:58 GMT -5
Again, that was the basis for the "investigation," the wrestling gif. Trump didn't actually retweet that gif or otherwise identify the source. Someone modified the original gif and sent it to Trump, who then uploaded it to twitter.
So...all CNN had to go one was that modified gif. And they sought to identify who the original creator was (not the person who modified it and sent it to Trump, which I think might actually be more interesting to know). That's all they had; the other crap from this guy was not known to them until after they had figured out his online identity.
|
|
|
Post by Amadan on Jul 17, 2017 9:32:29 GMT -5
How do you know the exactly sequence of events? Is it inconceivable that some CNN journalists actually hang out on Reddit and were already familiar with his "work"?
Alternatively, maybe a CNN journalist thought "Huh, might be interesting to see who made that and interview him" - with no hostile intent. And digging a little, he found that the guy is also posting memes about how CNN is controlled by Jews, etc.
Or maybe one journalist was annoyed enough by the meme to see if he could track down the creator, hoping maybe for an actual Trumpist source.
You're assuming a giant media corporation is so thin-skinned that they have taken to going after anyone who makes fun of them as a matter of policy. I think you are distoring reality. They still shouldn't have posted "Behave or we'll out you" - but you're glossing over what got them riled in the first place.
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Jul 17, 2017 9:48:08 GMT -5
Disagree and agree. The sequence has to be what I described. Again, the gif Trump uploaded didn't link to source and wasn't attributed to anyone else. Apparently, the troll then bragged about it on Reddit, right? So, the investigation into this guy by CNN was initiated because of the wrestling gif. I don't understand how you think that isn't the case. Regardless, I agree that it was initially one journalist here, the guy who writes KFile. But the threat is specific from CNN: "CNN reserves the right to publish his identity should any of that change." The story was edited (I think that this line was actually inserted by the editor) and published. CNN owns it. So sure, it's unlikely that everyone at CNN is thin-skinned, but that's an observation than can be made about every generalization of every media org, be it CNN, the NYT, or FoxNews.
|
|