Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Discovery

The Wonderful Destruction of CNN #CNNBlackmail

Recommended Posts

Apo    658
Apo
18 hours ago, Hyperqube said:

U.S. Society

US society set the bar. The bar for what? The bar for doxxing? If not that, what? Also, how? 

 

18 hours ago, Hyperqube said:

Tu quoque & strawman are two different things.

Uh.. Obviously..? Where are you going with this? I never said or implied that they weren't.

 

-

 

What makes doxxing (or, threatening to dox + blackmail) someone defensible? You say "the context of society."  That is pretty vague. What about said circumstance(context) makes doxxing justifiable?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
HarryG    1022
HarryG

Not surprised that people are defending CNN's idiocy, these days everything gets defended to the death. I'm pretty glad that CNN has lost its credibility at this point, this along with that recording regarding the Russia stories. They don't use good journalistic methods and it's not good news. Might as well be TMZ. Although to be fair, most of the "defense" I've seen in this thread alone (not to speak of online liberal hotspots) is just drawing talk away to other issues on the right. So not really a defense, just different problems. It shouldn't be an issue of right vs. left if you ask me (although the left loves to justify their actions based on if other people have done it), all forms of doxxing and blackmail are wrong. As others have said (And I'm sure I'll get a similar response with a nice neat argument for why everything everybody else says is wrong just like everybody else did), bringing up Trump and r/thedonald without actually saying anything relevant to the original source material of the post just proves to me that the people doing so don't even have a valid argument about OP and therefore no relevant post for the thread. So without responding to whatever's coming (I'm sure something is), that's my bottom-line. No matter how you play with words and definitions, bringing something completely irrelevant and not tied to the original post to the table is not worth a post in a serious political thread if you ask me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
AFFIRMATIVE    777
AFFIRMATIVE

Racist and anti-semitic posts are found anywhere on the internet specifically because people are anonymous when they post them. But regardless how you spin this and how fucked up his posts are, it's not right to publish someone's identity against their own will, or threaten them to do that.

 

I'm bummed out with news organisations nowadays, these journalists both left and right evolved (or devolved, depending on how you look at it) as someone said it nicely, from "objective and dull" to "subjective and entertaining", where likewise he also said "they appeal to their audiences with news that they want, not the news that they need"

 

As long as they get ratings going, i don't think the objectivity of a political discussion matters anymore, hence why a lot of people are so fragmented today when it comes to political topics. 

 

It's this bullshit thing where if someone who has an opinion that is right leaning, it means that he or she automatically subscribed to all other right leaning ideas. Same goes for someone who has some left leaning opinions. There's just no middle ground anymore.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hyperqube    185
Hyperqube
On 10-7-2017 at 1:45 AM, Apo said:

What makes doxxing (or, threatening to dox + blackmail) someone defensible? You say "the context of society."  That is pretty vague. What about said circumstance(context) makes doxxing justifiable?


Justifiable is not the same as defensable.  Pointing out all countries have black sites is a pretty solid defense on outrage about the U.S. having blacksites.

 

And crying that "yeah, but I'm not talking about my country, but about the U.S. ! Talking about my country is strawman!" is pretty much the weaksause retort one would expect from those without anything decent to say.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Apo    658
Apo
On 7/12/2017 at 7:40 AM, Hyperqube said:


Justifiable is not the same as defensable.

 

 

lol

 

gaQs4B.png

nzg1On.png

 

Justifiable is synonymous with defensible. If you're defending something, you're justifying it with an argument.

To say something is defensible, is to say that it can be defended. Meaning; that it is justifiable by argument.

To justify something: To defend with an argument.

 

Semantics.

If you disagree with the definitions of "Justifiable" that's fine. But this would not be the time or place to argue that.

I've now provided you the context I will be using the word in.

So please, instead of avoiding the question again, answer my question.

 

Let me reword it for you.

 

Something that is defensible is justifiable by argument. You claim CNN's actions are defensible, so you should present a proper argument that justifies their actions.

You had previously mentioned "the context of society," but this is an extremely vague statement, not a proper argument. If it is indeed your argument, you need to be more specific. What specifically about today's society justifies CNN's actions?

If their actions are defensible, there has to be at least SOME proper justification. If there is no justification to be found for them, their actions are not defensible.

 

What is your justification for CCN's actions?

(What argument would you use to defend CNN's actions?)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hyperqube    185
Hyperqube
On 12-7-2017 at 7:13 PM, Apo said:

Something that is defensible is justifiable by argument.

You claim CNN's actions are defensible, so you should present a proper argument that justifies their actions.


You had previously mentioned "the context of society," but this is an extremely vague statement, not a proper argument.

If it is indeed your argument, you need to be more specific.

What specifically about today's society justifies CNN's actions?

1. Sure

2. Yes

3. not my problem.
4. no

5. I can quote the great John Oliver (not on CNN, but on yet another Trump/Russia revelation):


This is something, as long as we live in a world where something means anything. And I'm not sure we do anymore.



your inability to understand that living in a world of anarchy* leads to anarchy** (talk about synonyms) is - I shall refer to point 3 - not my problem.
*: anarchy, as in lawlessness, people getting away with anything.
**: anarchy, as in the ruin caused by living in a world of lawlessness

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
HarryG    1022
HarryG
50 minutes ago, Hyperqube said:

1. Sure

2. Yes

3. not my problem.
4. no

5. I can quote the great John Oliver (not on CNN, but on yet another Trump/Russia revelation):


This is something, as long as we live in a world where something means anything. And I'm not sure we do anymore.



your inability to understand that living in a world of anarchy* leads to anarchy** (talk about synonyms) is - I shall refer to point 3 - not my problem.
*: anarchy, as in lawlessness, people getting away with anything.
**: anarchy, as in the ruin caused by living in a world of lawlessness

This is a really childish way to go about posting in a serious thread. It's not your problem? You can't even stand by your own words enough to explain them?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Apo    658
Apo
1 hour ago, Hyperqube said:

your inability to understand that living in a world of anarchy* leads to anarchy** (talk about synonyms) is - I shall refer to point 3 - not my problem.

*: anarchy, as in lawlessness, people getting away with anything.
**: anarchy, as in the ruin caused by living in a world of lawlessness

My inability to understand your argument stems from you not properly presenting your argument. Also, condescension serves no purpose here.

 

You still have not answered my question.

How does this apply to CNN?

I don't want to have to assume what you mean by that statement, and potentially set up a Strawman. (I don't want to misrepresent your argument.)

There could be many ways to apply what you said to this situation. you need to be specific about what you mean.

 

If explaining yourself is quote: "not my problem." Then, you should take your discussion to a less serious thread, where you can make claims without backing them.

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.

×