As was foretold, we've added advertisements to the forums! If you have questions, or if you encounter any bugs, please visit this thread: https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/240191/forum-advertisement-faq-and-reports-thread/

The [Freedom of the Press] Will Not Be Abridged

12324252729

Posts

  • AthenorAthenor Battle Hardened Optimist The Skies of HiigaraRegistered User regular
    It's legalese. It's a CYA. It is not a threat or an ultimatum, it's stating what rights they have. I'm with the group that says they did digging and found the person was a minor or otherwise harmless, and that the person got caught up in their first big lesson that anything you do on the internet should be treated like it was on the front page of the New York Times.

    Young minds are really easy to influence. I'm suspecting, based entirely on my own opinion and seeing the massive quantity of posts in this thread, that the original gif-maker thought he was being funny and cool and trying to fit into a crowd he'd found without fully understanding the context. It can sober someone up REALLY fast when the President takes a notice and the news agencies come calling.

    He/Him | "A boat is always safest in the harbor, but that’s not why we build boats." | "If you run, you gain one. If you move forward, you gain two." - Suletta Mercury, G-Witch
  • OptimusZedOptimusZed Registered User regular
    ObiFett wrote: »
    Sleep wrote: »
    ObiFett wrote: »
    If Trump tweeted out a meme from r/marchagainsttrump, pretty sure no one here would be ok with Fox News threatening to reveal the information of said person unless they apologize and refrain from continuing their behavior.

    It blows my mind that everyone here is arguing in favor of CNN's actions.

    Again, the answer to fox threatening that is:

    "Fuck it, print my name"
    I really don't think so.

    I'm certainly not fine with someone/you becoming the target for the alt-right because they are shtiposting on the internet.

    If someone posted the same thing Trump did, with the faces transposed so that CNN was beating on Trump, they'd get a visit from the Secret Service. The power differentials here are real and very important to the conversation.

    We're reading Rifts. You should too. You know you want to. Now With Ninjas!

    They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
  • OptimusZedOptimusZed Registered User regular
    Dronus86 wrote: »
    I think it's pretty shitty that CNN did this. I'm not sure if it's illegal, but I think the 'correct' action would have been to make a decision before running a story about whether or not to include his name. This weird "do as I say or else" public statement makes me uncomfortable. Maybe it's not illegal, but it still is a pretty tasteless move.

    Illegal isn't the term you're looking for. Ethical is way more relevant. Things can be unethical and still shouldn't be illegal.

    I can see arguments for not revealing the name or revealing it but this third way blackmail moral censor position CNN put itself in seems completely out of bounds for journalistic ethics.

    The last sentence was a mistake. Whether it was meant to clarify their reasoning for not revealing the name or whatever, they shouldn't have put it there at all.

    I don't interpret it as a threat, because what the fuck does CNN care about the behavior of an individual citizen outside of its newsworthiness, but people obviously are. And CNN should have expected that.

    We're reading Rifts. You should too. You know you want to. Now With Ninjas!

    They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
  • MarathonMarathon Registered User regular
    ObiFett wrote: »
    If Trump tweeted out a meme from r/marchagainsttrump, pretty sure no one here would be ok with Fox News threatening to reveal the information of said person unless they apologize and refrain from continuing their behavior.

    It blows my mind that everyone here is arguing in favor of CNN's actions.

    This guy is just barely apologizing for the CNN meme. What he's apologizing for is that people started to dig into his other posts and pointing out all the antisemetic/nazi posts he made as well. So I think your example is getting slightly towards strawman territory.

  • SleepSleep Registered User regular
    ObiFett wrote: »
    Sleep wrote: »
    ObiFett wrote: »
    If Trump tweeted out a meme from r/marchagainsttrump, pretty sure no one here would be ok with Fox News threatening to reveal the information of said person unless they apologize and refrain from continuing their behavior.

    It blows my mind that everyone here is arguing in favor of CNN's actions.

    Again, the answer to fox threatening that is:

    "Fuck it, print my name"
    I really don't think so.

    I'm certainly not fine with someone/you becoming the target for the alt-right because they are shtiposting on the internet.

    I'm fine with everyone knowing my ideology.

    If I'm going to become a target for the alt right I'm pretty sure I could turn that into a lucrative career.

    Especially if i do it by getting retweeted by the president for saying some left wing shit.

  • ObiFettObiFett Use the Force As You WishRegistered User regular
    OptimusZed wrote: »
    ObiFett wrote: »
    Sleep wrote: »
    ObiFett wrote: »
    If Trump tweeted out a meme from r/marchagainsttrump, pretty sure no one here would be ok with Fox News threatening to reveal the information of said person unless they apologize and refrain from continuing their behavior.

    It blows my mind that everyone here is arguing in favor of CNN's actions.

    Again, the answer to fox threatening that is:

    "Fuck it, print my name"
    I really don't think so.

    I'm certainly not fine with someone/you becoming the target for the alt-right because they are shtiposting on the internet.

    If someone posted the same thing Trump did, with the faces transposed so that CNN was beating on Trump, they'd get a visit from the Secret Service. The power differentials here are real and very important to the conversation.

    ahahaha no they wouldnt and you know they wouldnt

    because stuff like that is posted all the time (not here)

  • DirtmuncherDirtmuncher Registered User regular
    OptimusZed wrote: »
    Dronus86 wrote: »
    I think it's pretty shitty that CNN did this. I'm not sure if it's illegal, but I think the 'correct' action would have been to make a decision before running a story about whether or not to include his name. This weird "do as I say or else" public statement makes me uncomfortable. Maybe it's not illegal, but it still is a pretty tasteless move.

    Illegal isn't the term you're looking for. Ethical is way more relevant. Things can be unethical and still shouldn't be illegal.

    I can see arguments for not revealing the name or revealing it but this third way blackmail moral censor position CNN put itself in seems completely out of bounds for journalistic ethics.

    The last sentence was a mistake. Whether it was meant to clarify their reasoning for not revealing the name or whatever, they shouldn't have put it there at all.

    I don't interpret it as a threat, because what the fuck does CNN care about the behavior of an individual citizen outside of its newsworthiness, but people obviously are. And CNN should have expected that.

    Some are up in arms. It's strange because they only reserve the right to publish his name. They haven't said they actually would. It all depends if it's newsworthy I guess.

    steam_sig.png
  • SniperGuySniperGuy SniperGuyGaming Registered User regular
    Regardless of whether or not CNN is in the right, I think saying they reserve the right to still publish if things continue was a really bad move. It is instantly being interpreted by most people I've seen as a form of blackmail because CNN is annoyed at the memes. It's very tricky to see the nuance to think that maybe that's not quite accurate, which is not something most are even going to attempt.

    Not a good look for CNN.

  • TryCatcherTryCatcher Registered User regular
    SniperGuy wrote: »
    Regardless of whether or not CNN is in the right, I think saying they reserve the right to still publish if things continue was a really bad move. It is instantly being interpreted by most people I've seen as a form of blackmail because CNN is annoyed at the memes. It's very tricky to see the nuance to think that maybe that's not quite accurate, which is not something most are even going to attempt.

    Not a good look for CNN.

    Yep, pretty much, just ask this CNN reporter:

    "Being misinterpreted" is always code for "yeah we fucked up by saying that".

  • NinjeffNinjeff Registered User regular
    Yea i dont really think CNN was trying anything shady.

    I think they offered the guy a chance to apologize for being a terrible person and he took them up on it.
    That just sounds like a good life lesson to me.
    So, CNN is keeping their half of the deal. Keeping his name quiet.

    If he decides to try and make money off of it, or otherwise spin this situation into self gain they (CNN) reserve the right to print his name then.

    An easier solution to all of this is -of course- not being a shit human being because you think its "funny"

  • mxmarksmxmarks Registered User regular
    They literally listed the things that would have to change to make the story newsworthy in their eyes.

    If he stopped being a private citizen

    or

    If he reversed course on his apology and his new way of life in hoping to serve as an example that he feels trolling is an addiction and people should get help.

    Because both of those things are newsworthy.

    PSN: mxmarks - WiiU: mxmarks - twitter: @ MikesPS4 - twitch.tv/mxmarks - "Yes, mxmarks is the King of Queens" - Unbreakable Vow
  • OptimusZedOptimusZed Registered User regular
    ObiFett wrote: »
    OptimusZed wrote: »
    ObiFett wrote: »
    Sleep wrote: »
    ObiFett wrote: »
    If Trump tweeted out a meme from r/marchagainsttrump, pretty sure no one here would be ok with Fox News threatening to reveal the information of said person unless they apologize and refrain from continuing their behavior.

    It blows my mind that everyone here is arguing in favor of CNN's actions.

    Again, the answer to fox threatening that is:

    "Fuck it, print my name"
    I really don't think so.

    I'm certainly not fine with someone/you becoming the target for the alt-right because they are shtiposting on the internet.

    If someone posted the same thing Trump did, with the faces transposed so that CNN was beating on Trump, they'd get a visit from the Secret Service. The power differentials here are real and very important to the conversation.

    ahahaha no they wouldnt and you know they wouldnt

    because stuff like that is posted all the time (not here)

    Yeah, they probably would. At the very least, they'd be investigated and the government would figure out their real identity and put them on a list.

    Threats against the president, even those that are oblique like that, are taken very seriously.

    We're reading Rifts. You should too. You know you want to. Now With Ninjas!

    They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
  • TryCatcherTryCatcher Registered User regular
    And who gives CNN the right and moral authority to "teach lessons" to random citizens? Seriously. Also, "keeping their half of the deal" is coercion language, FYI.

  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    OptimusZed wrote: »
    ObiFett wrote: »
    OptimusZed wrote: »
    ObiFett wrote: »
    Sleep wrote: »
    ObiFett wrote: »
    If Trump tweeted out a meme from r/marchagainsttrump, pretty sure no one here would be ok with Fox News threatening to reveal the information of said person unless they apologize and refrain from continuing their behavior.

    It blows my mind that everyone here is arguing in favor of CNN's actions.

    Again, the answer to fox threatening that is:

    "Fuck it, print my name"
    I really don't think so.

    I'm certainly not fine with someone/you becoming the target for the alt-right because they are shtiposting on the internet.

    If someone posted the same thing Trump did, with the faces transposed so that CNN was beating on Trump, they'd get a visit from the Secret Service. The power differentials here are real and very important to the conversation.

    ahahaha no they wouldnt and you know they wouldnt

    because stuff like that is posted all the time (not here)

    Yeah, they probably would. At the very least, they'd be investigated and the government would figure out their real identity and put them on a list.

    Threats against the president, even those that are oblique like that, are taken very seriously.

    Especially in the bizarre alternate universe where say, Nancy Pelosi, was a shitty enough person to publicize them.

    Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
  • mxmarksmxmarks Registered User regular
    TryCatcher wrote: »
    And who gives CNN the right and moral authority to "teach lessons" to random citizens? Seriously. Also, "keeping their half of the deal" is coercion language, FYI.

    At what point did CNN use either of those phrases.

    And they're not teaching anyone a lesson they're reporting what he said when he called them back.

    PSN: mxmarks - WiiU: mxmarks - twitter: @ MikesPS4 - twitch.tv/mxmarks - "Yes, mxmarks is the King of Queens" - Unbreakable Vow
  • TryCatcherTryCatcher Registered User regular
    mxmarks wrote: »
    TryCatcher wrote: »
    And who gives CNN the right and moral authority to "teach lessons" to random citizens? Seriously. Also, "keeping their half of the deal" is coercion language, FYI.

    At what point did CNN use either of those phrases.

    And they're not teaching anyone a lesson they're reporting what he said when he called them back.

    Was meant as an answer to @Ninjeff

  • SpaffySpaffy Fuck the Zero Registered User regular
    That statement by CNN is basically "Nice identity, shame if something were to happen to it". The kind of thing we shit on Trump for all the time.

    If any threat was unintentional, then CNN are imbeciles. It reads like a ransom note. They blew the chance to take the high road and come out smelling of roses.

    ALRIGHT FINE I GOT AN AVATAR
    Steam: adamjnet
  • ForarForar #432 Toronto, Ontario, CanadaRegistered User regular
    Back when Obama took office, an article stated that the Secret Service had seen a 400% increase in threats made against the sitting president.

    I wonder how many of those people expected a president to take office and have a massive increase in threats made by the president himself.

    Not that this is new for him in general, but the juxtaposition struck me as I caught up on a few pages.

    And while I'm sure the Secret Service has better things to do than go after people shitposting about Trump, the comments made about customs officials wanting access to social media information for people visiting makes me think that even if the USSS has better things to do, the US government is in fact interested in what people are saying if they want to visit.

    First they came for the Muslims, and we said NOT TODAY, MOTHERFUCKER!
  • AthenorAthenor Battle Hardened Optimist The Skies of HiigaraRegistered User regular
    Spaffy wrote: »
    That statement by CNN is basically "Nice identity, shame if something were to happen to it". The kind of thing we shit on Trump for all the time.

    If any threat was unintentional, then CNN are imbeciles. It reads like a ransom note. They blew the chance to take the high road and come out smelling of roses.

    Yeah, I'm with CNN being on Team Stupid... as they've been that way for a long time. "The Enemy of my Enemy is my Friend" and all that is probably why people are trying to find good in what CNN did. Note that my TotP had no comment on how CNN was handling this. My hope is that they'll do better in the future, knowing they are under direct attack from the President and his legions. In an environment where lies can be presented as facts, unforced self-errors are even more damaging.

    He/Him | "A boat is always safest in the harbor, but that’s not why we build boats." | "If you run, you gain one. If you move forward, you gain two." - Suletta Mercury, G-Witch
  • SurfpossumSurfpossum A nonentity trying to preserve the anonymity he so richly deserves.Registered User regular
    edited July 2017
    After posting his apology, "HanA**holeSolo" called CNN's KFile and confirmed his identity. In the interview, "HanA**holeSolo" sounded nervous about his identity being revealed and asked to not be named out of fear for his personal safety and for the public embarrassment it would bring to him and his family.

    CNN is not publishing "HanA**holeSolo's" name because he is a private citizen who has issued an extensive statement of apology, showed his remorse by saying he has taken down all his offending posts, and because he said he is not going to repeat this ugly behavior on social media again. In addition, he said his statement could serve as an example to others not to do the same.

    CNN reserves the right to publish his identity should any of that change.
    Let us read the paragraph directly preceding the "threat."

    Guy calls CNN, asks them not to publish his name.

    CNN provides explanation as to the thought process that went into not publishing his name, states that they did not agree to never publish his name.

    This is not a note at the end of the article, it is a clarification of their response to his request (or their lack of a response: that they are not withholding his name due to his request or as part of any agreement).

    They probably should have just left out the fact that he asked them to not publish his name and avoided everything following that.

    Surfpossum on
  • rockrngerrockrnger Registered User regular
    edited July 2017
    It's interesting to see the different reaction between this and a minority woman saying white trash in a yelp review.

    rockrnger on
  • TryCatcherTryCatcher Registered User regular
    Spaffy wrote: »
    That statement by CNN is basically "Nice identity, shame if something were to happen to it". The kind of thing we shit on Trump for all the time.

    If any threat was unintentional, then CNN are imbeciles. It reads like a ransom note. They blew the chance to take the high road and come out smelling of roses.

    Not to mention that for all that people are happy to scream "Trump is punching down"...and this isn't because...why exactly? Seems like particulary gross case of punching down to me.

  • mxmarksmxmarks Registered User regular
    But that's part of the story.

    The story is that a random racist posted a meme the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES turned into an Official White House statement by retweeting it.

    The story then took an interesting turn when, instead of embracing what would be a big amount of internet fame when the President endorses your work, he asked to remain anonymous and renounced everything he had done and vowed to be a better person.

    Including that he asked to remain anonymous, and then explaining why they honored that request, is a big part of the story.

    Also explaining that if the reasons they decided to leave him anonymous change, they feel his name would be newsworthy, is important.

    PSN: mxmarks - WiiU: mxmarks - twitter: @ MikesPS4 - twitch.tv/mxmarks - "Yes, mxmarks is the King of Queens" - Unbreakable Vow
  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    edited July 2017
    Spaffy wrote: »
    That statement by CNN is basically "Nice identity, shame if something were to happen to it". The kind of thing we shit on Trump for all the time.

    If any threat was unintentional, then CNN are imbeciles. It reads like a ransom note. They blew the chance to take the high road and come out smelling of roses.

    It's really, really not. It's "we decided not to destroy this person's life by exposing them as someone who thinks genocide is hilarious."

    It's excessively generous to the asshole.

    Like watch this story:
    KENOSHA, WISCONSIN - A man invited to speak at President Donald Trump's campaign rally in Kenosha said today that the media was controlled by Jews and that they should be thrown into gas ovens reminiscent of the Holocaust. He then compared the President to a wrestler body slamming CNN in an increasingly unhinged rant.

    The man has since apologized stating that when he said those things he was angry and had become addicted to violent rhetoric and seeing what kind of approval he could get from the crowd. Now that he understands the pain his words caused he swears he will never say anything like that again and that everyone else should learn a lesson from his experience.

    We have decided to grant the man anonymity out of respect for his apology, but if he appears at another rally saying similar things next time we'll tell you who the speaker was.

    The White House had no comment on the man's remarks.

    If you take out the internet, it becomes absurd and only the silliest of geese would protest.

    enlightenedbum on
    Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
  • NyysjanNyysjan FinlandRegistered User regular
    They're basicly saying "don't become news because we might report it", an equivalent of "don't play in trafic, you might get hit by a car".

  • BSoBBSoB Registered User regular
    If you take it out of the internet, it becomes irrelevant because there would be no identity to revel.

  • OptimusZedOptimusZed Registered User regular
    Public political speech has consequences. CNN is actually going out of their way to shield this person from them.

    We're reading Rifts. You should too. You know you want to. Now With Ninjas!

    They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
  • ObiFettObiFett Use the Force As You WishRegistered User regular
    Spaffy wrote: »
    That statement by CNN is basically "Nice identity, shame if something were to happen to it". The kind of thing we shit on Trump for all the time.

    If any threat was unintentional, then CNN are imbeciles. It reads like a ransom note. They blew the chance to take the high road and come out smelling of roses.

    It's really, really not. It's "we decided not to destroy this person's life by exposing them as someone who thinks genocide is hilarious."

    It's excessively generous to the asshole.

    Like watch this story:
    KENOSHA, WISCONSIN - A man invited to speak at President Donald Trump's campaign rally in Kenosha said today that he media was controlled by Jews and that they should be thrown into gas ovens reminiscent of the Holocaust. He then compared the President to a wrestler body slamming CNN in an increasingly unhinged rant.

    The man has since apologized stating that when he said those things he was angry and had become addicted to violent rhetoric and seeing what kind of approval he could get from the crowd. Now that he understands the pain his words caused he swears he will never say anything like that again and that everyone else should learn a lesson from his experience.

    We have decided to grant the man anonymity out of respect for his apology, but if he appears at another rally saying similar things next time we'll tell you who the speaker was.

    The White House had no comment on the man's remarks.

    If you take out the internet, it becomes absurd and only the silliest of geese would protest.

    1) Invited to speak at a Trump event and then saying those things

    does not even come close to being the same thing as

    2) Trump taking a shitpost and retweeting it without asking the guy's permission.

    And only the silliest of geese would try to equate the two.

  • NinjeffNinjeff Registered User regular
    edited July 2017
    TryCatcher wrote: »
    mxmarks wrote: »
    TryCatcher wrote: »
    And who gives CNN the right and moral authority to "teach lessons" to random citizens? Seriously. Also, "keeping their half of the deal" is coercion language, FYI.

    At what point did CNN use either of those phrases.

    And they're not teaching anyone a lesson they're reporting what he said when he called them back.

    Was meant as an answer to @Ninjeff

    I mean in a non-"holly wood style conspiracy" way.
    And more of a "life lesson" kind of way.

    Life does that some times when you mess up. It gives you an opportunity to make it right, apologize for being a douche, and move on.
    CNN appears to be allowing this guy an opportunity to move on. Its not that "CNN has moral authority to do ____" its that this guy's decisions led him to a crossroads.

    He made horrible shit posts in the interest of being a "troll". He said terrible things about whole swaths of people not because he "meant it" but simply because he thought it was funny. One of those posts put him on a trajectory right towards CNN. A major news organization.

    His life choices lead him to this point, and it seems like CNN is being decent.

    Like, if you get caught stealing a candy bar from the local store and the store owner says "put that back and i wont tell your parents"
    He isn't "coercing" you or "threatening" you. He is giving you the opportunity to turn your life choices around and realize there is consequences to your actions and decisions.

    In this case CNNs seems to be doing the "right" thing by keeping this guys name out of the news because it allows him to keep his job and doesnt affect his family or friends. I guess they figure the guy doesnt deserve being raked over the coals for being a troll.

    But, if he decides to not act in good faith to his apology, CNN reserves the right to report on it.

    Ninjeff on
  • DevoutlyApatheticDevoutlyApathetic Registered User regular
    Surfpossum wrote: »
    CNN is not publishing "HanA**holeSolo's" name because he is a private citizen who has issued an extensive statement of apology, showed his remorse by saying he has taken down all his offending posts, and because he said he is not going to repeat this ugly behavior on social media again. In addition, he said his statement could serve as an example to others not to do the same.

    CNN provides explanation as to the thought process that went into not publishing his name, states that they did not agree to never publish his name.

    So my problem here is that those reasons are all moral judgement of the speech itself. They are not avoiding publishing the name because they don't do that, they are not publishing the name because he showed contrition for posting "unacceptable" speech and they find that morally acceptable. They are acting as a moral authority instead of reporters. That is where I think CNN fucked up.

    Note: I chopped up quotes to get to the juicy bits.

    Nod. Get treat. PSN: Quippish
  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    ObiFett wrote: »
    Spaffy wrote: »
    That statement by CNN is basically "Nice identity, shame if something were to happen to it". The kind of thing we shit on Trump for all the time.

    If any threat was unintentional, then CNN are imbeciles. It reads like a ransom note. They blew the chance to take the high road and come out smelling of roses.

    It's really, really not. It's "we decided not to destroy this person's life by exposing them as someone who thinks genocide is hilarious."

    It's excessively generous to the asshole.

    Like watch this story:
    KENOSHA, WISCONSIN - A man invited to speak at President Donald Trump's campaign rally in Kenosha said today that he media was controlled by Jews and that they should be thrown into gas ovens reminiscent of the Holocaust. He then compared the President to a wrestler body slamming CNN in an increasingly unhinged rant.

    The man has since apologized stating that when he said those things he was angry and had become addicted to violent rhetoric and seeing what kind of approval he could get from the crowd. Now that he understands the pain his words caused he swears he will never say anything like that again and that everyone else should learn a lesson from his experience.

    We have decided to grant the man anonymity out of respect for his apology, but if he appears at another rally saying similar things next time we'll tell you who the speaker was.

    The White House had no comment on the man's remarks.

    If you take out the internet, it becomes absurd and only the silliest of geese would protest.

    1) Invited to speak at a Trump event and then saying those things

    does not even come close to being the same thing as

    2) Trump taking a shitpost and retweeting it without asking the guy's permission.

    And only the silliest of geese would try to equate the two.

    Maybe... but then he said this:
    Holy s***!! I wake up and have my morning coffee and who retweets my s***post but the MAGA EMPORER himself!!! I am honored!!

    Which makes me comfortable making the comparison.

    Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
  • SurfpossumSurfpossum A nonentity trying to preserve the anonymity he so richly deserves.Registered User regular
    Yeah, this is more like if Trump gave a shout out to one of those people who like to regularly stand on milk crates and yell at passersby about [topic].

    But otherwise the point stands, I think.

  • themightypuckthemightypuck MontanaRegistered User regular
    mxmarks wrote: »
    But that's part of the story.

    The story is that a random racist posted a meme the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES turned into an Official White House statement by retweeting it.

    The story then took an interesting turn when, instead of embracing what would be a big amount of internet fame when the President endorses your work, he asked to remain anonymous and renounced everything he had done and vowed to be a better person.

    Including that he asked to remain anonymous, and then explaining why they honored that request, is a big part of the story.

    Also explaining that if the reasons they decided to leave him anonymous change, they feel his name would be newsworthy, is important.

    This logic appears to make CNN an activist organization rather than a news organization. It feels a lot more Gawker than CNN.

    “Reject your sense of injury and the injury itself disappears.”
    ― Marcus Aurelius

    Path of Exile: themightypuck
  • SpaffySpaffy Fuck the Zero Registered User regular
    Nyysjan wrote: »
    They're basicly saying "don't become news because we might report it", an equivalent of "don't play in trafic, you might get hit by a car".

    No, it quite specifically is analogous to "Don't play in traffic or we will run you over."

    ALRIGHT FINE I GOT AN AVATAR
    Steam: adamjnet
  • JoeUserJoeUser Forum Santa Registered User regular
    I don't think the CNN line is meant that if he goes back on his apology they will publish his name, just that if he becomes public news, they can mention his name. Otherwise they'd be stuck calling his "reddit poster" when everyone else is using his name. It was bad phrasing, but it's not a threat.

    Anyway, I bet his name will come out shortly by someone not at CNN doing the same research.

  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    Surfpossum wrote: »
    Yeah, this is more like if Trump gave a shout out to one of those people who like to regularly stand on milk crates and yell at passersby about [topic].

    But otherwise the point stands, I think.

    I suppose to be scrupulously fair, I should have said at the rally he just said the fuck CNN part while it was later revealed he had a history of hate speech aimed at Jews. But I wanted to heighten the absurdity, because this is ridiculous.

    Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
  • JoeUserJoeUser Forum Santa Registered User regular
  • ObiFettObiFett Use the Force As You WishRegistered User regular
    ObiFett wrote: »
    Spaffy wrote: »
    That statement by CNN is basically "Nice identity, shame if something were to happen to it". The kind of thing we shit on Trump for all the time.

    If any threat was unintentional, then CNN are imbeciles. It reads like a ransom note. They blew the chance to take the high road and come out smelling of roses.

    It's really, really not. It's "we decided not to destroy this person's life by exposing them as someone who thinks genocide is hilarious."

    It's excessively generous to the asshole.

    Like watch this story:
    KENOSHA, WISCONSIN - A man invited to speak at President Donald Trump's campaign rally in Kenosha said today that he media was controlled by Jews and that they should be thrown into gas ovens reminiscent of the Holocaust. He then compared the President to a wrestler body slamming CNN in an increasingly unhinged rant.

    The man has since apologized stating that when he said those things he was angry and had become addicted to violent rhetoric and seeing what kind of approval he could get from the crowd. Now that he understands the pain his words caused he swears he will never say anything like that again and that everyone else should learn a lesson from his experience.

    We have decided to grant the man anonymity out of respect for his apology, but if he appears at another rally saying similar things next time we'll tell you who the speaker was.

    The White House had no comment on the man's remarks.

    If you take out the internet, it becomes absurd and only the silliest of geese would protest.

    1) Invited to speak at a Trump event and then saying those things

    does not even come close to being the same thing as

    2) Trump taking a shitpost and retweeting it without asking the guy's permission.

    And only the silliest of geese would try to equate the two.

    Maybe... but then he said this:
    Holy s***!! I wake up and have my morning coffee and who retweets my s***post but the MAGA EMPORER himself!!! I am honored!!

    Which makes me comfortable making the comparison.

    He was honored his non-offensive shitpost got retweeted by Trump yes.

    That said nothing about the entirety of his Reddit posting history.

    Which again, why are we ok with a NEWS organization combing through anyone's internet history? I mean we all post on a site made by two dudes who "make rape jokes." Does that mean we should be held accountable for everything we've said on here in the off-chance a post of ours gets picked up by a public figure?

  • AthenorAthenor Battle Hardened Optimist The Skies of HiigaraRegistered User regular
    JoeUser wrote: »

    Hmmmm...

    Okay. This changes my equations, but I'll need to think on how.

    He/Him | "A boat is always safest in the harbor, but that’s not why we build boats." | "If you run, you gain one. If you move forward, you gain two." - Suletta Mercury, G-Witch
  • SleepSleep Registered User regular
    ObiFett wrote: »
    Spaffy wrote: »
    That statement by CNN is basically "Nice identity, shame if something were to happen to it". The kind of thing we shit on Trump for all the time.

    If any threat was unintentional, then CNN are imbeciles. It reads like a ransom note. They blew the chance to take the high road and come out smelling of roses.

    It's really, really not. It's "we decided not to destroy this person's life by exposing them as someone who thinks genocide is hilarious."

    It's excessively generous to the asshole.

    Like watch this story:
    KENOSHA, WISCONSIN - A man invited to speak at President Donald Trump's campaign rally in Kenosha said today that he media was controlled by Jews and that they should be thrown into gas ovens reminiscent of the Holocaust. He then compared the President to a wrestler body slamming CNN in an increasingly unhinged rant.

    The man has since apologized stating that when he said those things he was angry and had become addicted to violent rhetoric and seeing what kind of approval he could get from the crowd. Now that he understands the pain his words caused he swears he will never say anything like that again and that everyone else should learn a lesson from his experience.

    We have decided to grant the man anonymity out of respect for his apology, but if he appears at another rally saying similar things next time we'll tell you who the speaker was.

    The White House had no comment on the man's remarks.

    If you take out the internet, it becomes absurd and only the silliest of geese would protest.

    1) Invited to speak at a Trump event and then saying those things

    does not even come close to being the same thing as

    2) Trump taking a shitpost and retweeting it without asking the guy's permission.

    And only the silliest of geese would try to equate the two.

    No it really isn't.

    Posting things to the internet: way the fuck more important conceptually than anyone gives it credit for.

    We are essentially all our own newsmaker/ publisher. These things we put out here are all permanent marks on our public personas, and everyone should put thought into what they present when they hit submit... maybe don't make jokes about ethnic cleansing in a permanent format.

This discussion has been closed.