Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Discovery

The Wonderful Destruction of CNN #CNNBlackmail

Recommended Posts

Discovery    300
Discovery

"Extortion" or "lack of ethics" or "being the lowest scum of the Earth" would fit the bill just fine as well honestly. 

 

http://edition.cnn.com/2017/07/04/politics/kfile-reddit-user-trump-tweet/index.html

 

"CNN reserves the right to publish his identity should any of that change." LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOL.

 

I doubt anyone with 1/4 of a brain cell would defend CNN in this situation, but I'd like to know your thoughts.

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hyperqube    185
Hyperqube
2 hours ago, Discovery said:

I doubt anyone with 1/4 of a brain cell would defend CNN in this situation, but I'd like to know your thoughts.


Why should they? CNN didn't reveal the info. That puts them still higher then Trump, when he revealed Lindsey Graham's private phone number on a rally.

Oh, but when he did that it was not "being the lowest scum of the Earth" - but just being funny, just being Trump, just harmless, right?

Screw that hypocracy. Yall set the bar - and now people play by it. Snowflakes who can't handle that should go back to their safespace.

#DesensitisedByAYearOfBS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Carrots    53
Carrots

So, the media is just going to start issuing a witch hunt against those kind of images now?

 

We have a similar case in our country, where they prohibited images of the current president being used for comedic purposes to the public.

 

Sure seems a kind of censorship from a perspective, but always, if it was made as a joke it should be analyzed as a joke.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hyperqube    185
Hyperqube
1 hour ago, KERPKEK said:

Remember when r/the_donald literally made a list of personal info of known anti-trump journalists, activists, etc., and posted it?

 

Well, I did not know that.

Sadly, I am not surprized.


Yo Discovery, don't they then get your price of lowest scum of the Earth
 

 

1 hour ago, Carrots said:

Sure seems a kind of censorship from a perspective, but always, if it was made as a joke it should be analyzed as a joke.


should? sure. It's all fun and games until someone loses an eye, you know...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Shamefurr Dispray    1385
Shamefurr Dispray

The guy is a Trump loving racist according to his reddit comment history, but that still doesn't paint CNN in a better light. Looks like Gawker 2.0 to me.

 

Quote

Using identifying information that "HanA**holeSolo" posted on Reddit, KFile was able to determine key biographical details, to find the man's name using a Facebook search and ultimately corroborate details he had made available on Reddit.

 

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.

 

Apparently this is what CNN will do to you for creating a meme. Just imagine what sort of things they'll do to peddlers of "fake news" despite lacking journalistic integrity themselves.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Kevin the Chicken God    1380
Kevin the Chicken God

CNN is a shitty news organization, the guy who created it is a shitty person, there really aren't any winners. CNN's attempts to defend themselves are BS and suspicious. In the end, whether it be CNN acting like Trump posting the gif (which was childish, but I don't have an issue with it beyond that and it at least remains consistent with his personality) or broadyway actors staging a play where they pretend to kill a character similar to Trump, everyone is so uber sensitive and can't take a joke

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Waffler    44
The Waffler

First of all, what do you expect the will be the outcome of bringing politics to backpack.tf?

 

Secondly, this is (my opinion) why you are wrong:

Conservatives have bent information so it sounds like CNN is a horrible monster. The person who created the meme was not a 15 year old. He was 55 and had a history of hate speech and extremely racial remarks on the internet. When CNN tracked him down, they told him to apologize or they would release to the public things that he had said and written on the internet ghate speech being unlawful). This isn't just CNN being butt hurt either. The "joke" that the meme is hold a bad message. With Trump already hinting at a form of fascism, he has made several remarks in the past about the removing the freedom of press, which in case you haven't heard of it, is one of the core principles the United States was founded upon. Also, with the rise of the Anti-Press sentiment, many reporters are being attacked both physically and verbally as of recently which stems from "jokes" like these. To quote you, "I doubt anyone with 1/4 of a brain cell would defend [attacks on free press] in this situation".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Happysedits    576
Happysedits

j1v9fazoor7z.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Prinsesse J    36
Prinsesse J

Honestly, I've not really looked into it all, at all so by what I've heard CNN basically tracked down/doxxed a guy who made a meme and then decided to justify it by saying it's journalism.

It's a free country and all and they can report on what they like but honestly it's a bit sad/fucked up that a "News" network would go to the lengths they have against somebody who made some stupid meme for e-peen recognition.

 

That's just my practically uninformed opinion, maybe I'm way off the charts here but I thought I'd just give my say and see what you guys throw out there too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Apo    658
Apo
14 hours ago, Hyperqube said:


Why should they? CNN didn't reveal the info. That puts them still higher then Trump, when he revealed Lindsey Graham's private phone number on a rally.

Oh, but when he did that it was not "being the lowest scum of the Earth" - but just being funny, just being Trump, just harmless, right?

Screw that hypocracy. Yall set the bar - and now people play by it. Snowflakes who can't handle that should go back to their safespace.

#DesensitisedByAYearOfBS

Nice strawman dude. OP said literally NOTHING about Trump in this thread. This thread is about CNN threatening to dox somebody.

 

Doxxing is not ok, no matter who the victim or perpetrator is.

 

OP: "CNN is in the wrong for threatening to dox someone who made a meme." (Doesn't compare CNN to anyone, just says they're in the wrong. Also, does not mention or praise Trump.)

You: "But Trump actually doxxed someone so CNN isn't as bad as him!!! You think its ok for trump to dox but not CNN? Lmao, hypocrite.

 

Nobody here said it was ok when trump or t_d doxxed people. Please keep your "BS" strawmen out of here, and stay on topic.

 

#DesensitisedByAYearOfBS

 

14 hours ago, KERPKEK said:

Remember when r/the_donald literally made a list of personal info of known anti-trump journalists, activists, etc., and posted it?

That was bad too. What's your point? Btw, why are you bringing up Trump? This topic is about CNN threatening to dox someone who made a meme. What's your stance on that? I personally think that it's horrid.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hyperqube    185
Hyperqube
34 minutes ago, Apo said:

Nice strawman dude. OP said literally NOTHING about Trump in this thread. This thread is about CNN threatening to dox somebody.


A strawman is an intentionally misrepresented proposition that is set up because it is easier to defeat than an opponent's real argument. I did no such thing.

The OP's argument is basically that  CNN is
being the lowest scum of the Earth because of doxing.

To point out that we live in a reality where the alt-right, even the president does this - is not a strawman.

To call one group the lowest scum, simply because the they sink to the level of others - is somewhere between ignorant of the world, and maliciously hypocritical.

 

There's nothing strawman about that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Apo    658
Apo
58 minutes ago, Hyperqube said:


A strawman is an intentionally misrepresented proposition that is set up because it is easier to defeat than an opponent's real argument. I did no such thing.

The OP's argument is basically that  CNN is
being the lowest scum of the Earth because of doxing.

To point out that we live in a reality where the alt-right, even the president does this - is not a strawman.

To call one group the lowest scum, simply because the they sink to the level of others - is somewhere between ignorant of the world, and maliciously hypocritical.

 

There's nothing strawman about that.


 

I believe that "lowest scum" is an exaggeration. Meant to point out that this is an absolutely scummy thing to do.

 

"To point out that we live in a reality where the alt-right, even the president does this - is not a strawman."

It is fallacious when that's not the argument. When the argument is that what CNN did was scummy. You're essentially avoiding the issue.

If you take what op said "lowest scum" to mean "literally worse than hitler" then I think there is a miscommunication. That would make this particular part moot.

 

 

The strawman, Specifically:

"But just being funny, just being Trump, just harmless, right?"

"You think Trump doxxing someone was harmless (and funny)"

OP did not say that. Strawman.

This specific part, tell me how it is not a strawman... OP never said "it was harmless when trump did it" Yet, you're projecting (intentionally misrepresenting) that argument onto him, to make him look like a hypocrite.

 

 

Lets get back on topic! :D Do you believe that what CNN did was okay? I agree with OP. I think it was something very scummy to do. It is scummy no matter who does it.

 

 

Edit: removed redundant paragraph.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hyperqube    185
Hyperqube
2 hours ago, Apo said:

The strawman, Specifically:

"But just being funny, just being Trump, just harmless, right?"

"You think Trump doxxing someone was harmless (and funny)"

OP did not say that. Strawman.

This specific part, tell me how it is not a strawman... OP never said "it was harmless when trump did it" Yet, you're projecting (intentionally misrepresenting) that argument onto him, to make him look like a hypocrite.


If that were my argument (which it isn't) - that would be ad honimen, not a strawman. A strawman, for example, would be claiming the OP is wrong because CNN isn't as worse as Hitler. A miss interpretion of the argument, followed by disproving the miss interpretion. This is a fallacy, because, even if my proof is correct (Hitler is worse then CNN), it would not disprove the original claim.

Oppositely, argument boils down to in the context of how the world is today, he's overreacting - The outrage that you using fire, about someone fighting fire with fire, frankly, is ridiculous. Blame the ones who set the bar - not the ones who plays by it.
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Discovery    300
Discovery
20 hours ago, Hyperqube said:


Why should they? CNN didn't reveal the info. That puts them still higher then Trump, when he revealed Lindsey Graham's private phone number on a rally.

 

That doesn't really justify what CNN is doing though. 

 

20 hours ago, Hyperqube said:

Oh, but when he did that it was not "being the lowest scum of the Earth" - but just being funny, just being Trump, just harmless, right?

Screw that hypocracy. Yall set the bar - and now people play by it. Snowflakes who can't handle that should go back to their safespace.

#DesensitisedByAYearOfBS

 

5 hours ago, Hyperqube said:

To point out that we live in a reality where the alt-right, even the president does this - is not a strawman.

To call one group the lowest scum, simply because the they sink to the level of others - is somewhere between ignorant of the world, and maliciously hypocritical.

 

There's nothing strawman about that.

 

Hypocrisy? We set the bar? What?

 

I've never justified what Trump did to Graham, or the reddit dox thread that was mentioned so I don't get where you're going here. 

 

1 hour ago, Hyperqube said:

Blame the ones who set the bar - not the ones who plays by it.
 


Are you implying that Trump supporters were the ones that normalized doxxing? 

 

Doxxing should stop. Period. It doesn't matter who does it.

 

18 hours ago, Hyperqube said:

Yo Discovery, don't they then get your price of lowest scum of the Earth

 

5 hours ago, Apo said:

I believe that "lowest scum" is an exaggeration. Meant to point out that this is an absolutely scummy thing to do.

 

^

 

5 hours ago, Hyperqube said:

The OP's argument is basically that  CNN is being the lowest scum of the Earth because of doxing.

 

It's not an argument, it's an exaggerated insult. Nothing more. Why do you have to take that remark so seriously? 

 

14 hours ago, The Waffler said:

Conservatives have bent information so it sounds like CNN is a horrible monster. The person who created the meme was not a 15 year old. He was 55 and had a history of hate speech and extremely racial remarks on the internet. When CNN tracked him down, they told him to apologize or they would release to the public things that he had said and written on the internet ghate speech being unlawful). 

 

To be fair, I do agree with the sentiment that some conservative news outlets have been disingenuous with the information they're spreading. But those sources didn't even have to say a word. CNN dug its own grave. They've literally said themselves that they will release his information if he make memes about them again. 

 

http://edition.cnn.com/2017/07/04/politics/kfile-reddit-user-trump-tweet/index.html 

 

15 hours ago, The Waffler said:

This isn't just CNN being butt hurt either. The "joke" that the meme is hold a bad message. With Trump already hinting at a form of fascism, he has made several remarks in the past about the removing the freedom of press, which in case you haven't heard of it, is one of the core principles the United States was founded upon.

 

I don't condone nor agree with all of the things the reddit guy said, but he had the right to say it and stay anonymous. What CNN is doing to this guy is the exact opposite of freedom of speech/press. 

 

15 hours ago, The Waffler said:

Also, with the rise of the Anti-Press sentiment, many reporters are being attacked both physically and verbally as of recently which stems from "jokes" like these. To quote you, "I doubt anyone with 1/4 of a brain cell would defend [attacks on free press] in this situation".

 

Yes. Reporters are attacked. This is regardless of their political leanings. So why do you act as though liberal reporters (or liberals in general) are unique in being attacked? 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Apo    658
Apo
4 hours ago, Hyperqube said:

A strawman, for example, would be claiming the OP is wrong because CNN isn't as worse as Hitler.

A strawman, for example, would be claiming the OP is wrong because CNN isn't as worse bad as Trump.

 

23 hours ago, Hyperqube said:


Why should they? CNN didn't reveal the info. That puts them still higher then Trump,

"Wrong, CNN isn't as bad as Trump."

 

:thinking:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hyperqube    185
Hyperqube
3 minutes ago, Apo said:

A strawman, for example, would be claiming the OP is wrong because CNN isn't as worse bad as Trump.

 

"Wrong, CNN isn't as bad as Trump."

 

:thinking:


Yes. Trump didn't need to defend himself (heck, he in fact got rewarded by getting elected). Trump did worse things then CNN. So, why should CNN defend themselves.

 

Where exactly are you confused?

Edit:
Claim: X is 6.

  • Strawman: X' is odd, so it can't be 6 ! (indeed, but as X isn't the same as X' this is irrelevent)
  • Valid argument: X' < X and X' is 7, so X can't be 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Apo    658
Apo
2 hours ago, Hyperqube said:


Yes. Trump didn't need to defend himself (heck, he in fact got rewarded by getting elected). Trump did worse things then CNN. So, why should CNN defend themselves.

This is completely irrelevant to this discussion.

This discussion is on how CNN is bad. OP never brought up Trump, or compared CNN to trump. 

 

What CNN did is objectively bad. That is OPs point. His point is not to compare Trump to CNN. The point is not saying CNN is comparably worse, when compared to X.

 

---

 

You yourself admitted to using a strawman here:

hlRSoFp.png

 

Yet.. You try and claim you're not using a strawman.

 

 

You: "I'd be using a strawman if I claim OP is wrong because CNN isn't as bad as Hitler"(or X)

 

Agreed.

 

You claimed op was wrong because "CNN is not as bad as Trump" (or X)

 

X=Trump

X=Hitler

X=Care Bears

X=Stalin

X=Hillary Clinton

 

It doesn't matter if it is hitler, or trump, or whoever. It is still a strawman.

 

 

"Wrong, CNN isn't as bad as Hitler."

Strawman

"Wrong, CNN isn't as bad as Trump."

Same strawman, different entity that's being compared to CNN.

 

 

The part I'm confused by, is that you are telling me what a strawman is with an example. Then, you are making the same argument that you used for that example of a strawman, and then telling me you're not using a strawman. It is ridiculous.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hyperqube    185
Hyperqube

Sigh  ... I'm sorry, Apo, but no. you can't simply change words and then claim I said them.  I said

  • A strawman, for example, would be claiming the OP is wrong because CNN isn't as worse as Hitler.

you are the one who then apparently thinks that a strawman can be any comparsion between any person

  • A strawman, for example, would be claiming the OP is wrong because CNN isn't as worse bad as Trump.

That, however, is not sound.


on the claim of X is 6, and I say "if you take 3, we see X is still bigger, so X can't be 6" - is a fallacy (a very stupid one at that).
on the claim of X is 6, and I say "if you take 7, we see X is still bigger, so X can't be 6" - that is a correct proof.

you can't willy-nilly change parts of an argument and then claim it's fallicious.

 

I used the example of hitler, because it's a reference to what you siad: 

  • If you take what op said "lowest scum" to mean "literally worse than hitler" then I think there is a miscommunication.

It is a perfect example what a strawman would be: wrongly interpreting the words of the OP, and then attacking that point. Again: the defintion of a strawman is an intentionally misrepresented proposition that is set up because it is easier to defeat than an opponent's real argument.


I'm not saying what they did was right - I'm saying, that they did is defensable: it's the messed up world we live in today. And that is why Trump, unlike Hitler, is relevant.  Trump, r/The_donald, etc ... show us what the current day culture is. They are not some miscommunication or misinterpretetation of what the OP is saying. (which you do get when you change Trump by Hitler, as Hitler & his actions are not an indication of current society)




Ergo, not a strawman.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Apo    658
Apo
32 minutes ago, Hyperqube said:

.

Lol.

It doesn't matter if it is hitler, or trump, or whoever. It is still a strawman.

 

OP: CNN did Z. That is bad. What's your guys'  opinion?

You: Trump did Z too! But you thought it was just him 'being funny, just being Trump, just harmless, right?'

OP: I never said anything about that. I disapprove of both sides doing this.  (OP: "I've never justified what Trump did to Graham, or the reddit dox thread that was mentioned so I don't get where you're going here." )

Strawman.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hyperqube    185
Hyperqube
3 minutes ago, Apo said:

Lol.

It doesn't matter if it is hitler, or trump, or whoever. It is still a strawman.

 

A strawman, for example, would be claiming the OP is wrong because CNN isn't as bad as Y.

 

As apparently, explaining to you what a strawman is, even giving you the definition, twice, only falls on deaf man's ears, I shall only respond with:

 

nope, it is not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Apo    658
Apo
50 minutes ago, Hyperqube said:

 

As apparently, explaining to you what a strawman is, even giving you the definition, twice, only falls on deaf man's ears, I shall only respond with:

 

nope, it is not.

 

I know what a Strawman is. A strawman is intentionally misrepresenting/fabricating someone's argument/point, to make it appear foolish/wrong, or make it easier to attack.

 

Telling someone what their opinion is, and then criticizing that made up opinion, is definitely fallacious.

If you're telling someone what their opinion is, and you're wrong, that is misrepresentation of their opinion.

Fallacious misrepresentation? Golly gee, could that be a strawman???

 

You projected: (your own words) "Oh, but when he did that it was not "being the lowest scum of the Earth" - but just being funny, just being Trump, just harmless, right?" "Screw that hypocracy." (Meaning: You criticize CNN for doxxing, but approve of Trump doing it? OP You're a hypocrite!)

OP replied: (op's own words) "I've never justified what Trump did to Graham, or the reddit dox thread that was mentioned so I don't get where you're going here." "Doxxing should stop. Period. It doesn't matter who does it." (Meaning: I do not approve of ANY doxxing, including if Trump does it. Why are you bringing up Trump, and telling me what my opinion is on some other matter? I never said that! How am I a hypocrite?)

 

Obviously OP's argument was not "I love and support Trump doxxing people, but if it's CNN who doxxes, then that's bad."

OP's argument/point is that CNN doxxing someone is bad.

OP never mentioned Trump.

 

You projected that OP thought Trump doing it was funny, when OP said literally nothing about that subject.

 

You intentionally misrepresentated OP's point. (Strawman)

You told OP what his opinion was (you were wrong though), and then criticized it.

 

How is that not intentional misrepresentation?

How is that not a strawman?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hyperqube    185
Hyperqube
1 minute ago, Apo said:

OP's argument is that CNN doxxing someone is bad.

No, not only "bad". but also indefensable:

  • OP: I doubt anyone with 1/4 of a brain cell would defend CNN in this situation, but I'd like to know your thoughts.

(to quote what I quoted when I responded) At which point, I explaied that it's easily defensable by looking at the context of the world we live in today.

 

As your entire post does not adress how I somehow misinterpreted the OPs words - that he maybe things it's an easily defensable position, and I'm presume he claimed the opposite - I'm sorry, but still: nope, not a strawman.

 

Don't throw that word around like it's some all encompassing fallacy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Apo    658
Apo
On 7/6/2017 at 11:37 AM, Hyperqube said:

Screw that hypocracy. Yall set the bar - and now people play by it

Who are you calling a hypocrite?

Who are you addressing with "Yall"?

What is the reasoning for calling hypocrisy?

 

On 7/6/2017 at 11:37 AM, Hyperqube said:

Oh, but when he did that it was not "being the lowest scum of the Earth" - but just being funny, just being Trump, just harmless, right?

Nobody here has expressed that mindset. If someone has expressed this. Point it out. It should be simple. There is no reason to attack this argument, since nobody here thinks this. So why did you? (inb4 "it's easily defensable by looking at the context of the world we live in today." - Tu Quoque.)

 

You are attacking an argument that nobody here has.

You are attacking an argument you pulled out of nowhere.

You addressed that argument, and the "hypocrisy" to "Yall"

"Yall" means "you all," which on a forum, would mean "you posters/readers."

 

9 hours ago, Hyperqube said:

As your entire post does not adress how I somehow misinterpreted the OPs words - that he maybe things it's an easily defensable position, and I'm presume he claimed the opposite - I'm sorry, but still: nope, not a strawman.

A strawman is intentional misrepresentation. Not misinterpretation.

Strawman:

Person 1 makes claim Y.

Person 2 restates person 1’s claim (in a distorted way).

Person 2 attacks the distorted version of the claim.

Therefore, claim Y is false.

 

OP: What CNN did is indefensible.

HQ: People think what CNN did is indefensible, yet praise trump for the same thing.

HQ: You're [wrong, and] a hypocrite.

 

Sure, some people, (hopefully very few) may hold this point of view.. But nobody here mentioned anything of the sort. So I don't know why you're bringing up the argument.

If your reasoning was:

9 hours ago, Hyperqube said:

it's easily defensable by looking at the context of the world we live in today.

"Its ok when CNN does it, because Trump/others did it."

Tu Quoque.

No, it's not okay.

 

What makes you think it is defensible?

Do you think that when Trump doxxed someone, that it was defensible?

How about if someone doxxes you, would you find that defensible?

Do you think there are certain situations where doxxing is acceptable, and some that are unacceptable? If so, what would set apart acceptable doxxing from unacceptable doxxing?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hyperqube    185
Hyperqube
21 hours ago, Apo said:

Who are you addressing with "Yall"?


U.S. Society

 

21 hours ago, Apo said:

Tu Quoque.

No, it's not okay.


Tu quoque & strawman are two different things.

You know what a nice example of a strawman is? Someone making the argument something is defensible, and an other attacking that argument as though that person said it's OK.
Even ignoring that 3 posts up, it was litterely stated that that was not the argument.

 

21 hours ago, Apo said:

What makes you think it is defensible?


Because I look at it in the contect of the world we live in. Likewise,  I also think Hiroshima or the firebombing of Tokyo, etc etc etc , while I very much don't find them OK, are also defensable. (Pre-geneva convension, war was much more brutal. While these are extreme examples, that's how things were.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×