|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On July 06 2017 00:08 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2017 00:04 Ghostcom wrote:On July 06 2017 00:02 Nebuchad wrote:On July 06 2017 00:01 Ghostcom wrote:On July 05 2017 23:59 Nebuchad wrote:On July 05 2017 23:54 Ghostcom wrote:On July 05 2017 23:44 Nebuchad wrote:On July 05 2017 23:38 Sermokala wrote:On July 05 2017 23:33 Nebuchad wrote:On July 05 2017 23:29 Sermokala wrote:
[quote]
By making a story entirely about him they're making him the story. If they release his name now he'll be a target and their readers who agree with them will attack them. They're effectively holding him hostage to prevent him from expressing his views. It doesn't matter how horrendous his views are they're still his protected views that they're threatening.
I wouldn't be surprised if someone could make a half baked first amendment violation argument out of this. Is there really no part of you that is bothered by the notion that you argue someone is prevented from expressing their views by the fact that their name will be associated to them? There's this thing called "real life", when you go there and you speak, people can associate your name to the things you say. We should really do something about that cause that really prevents a bunch of people from expressing their views. Its about protecting unpopular speech. Its not okay with an organization is going after people for expressing their protected right to free speech. A news organization doing this is only inviting people to go after other people because of what they belive. It can't matter morally what they believe be it its all the same. I agree. Luckily nothing you've just said has relevance in this particular situation, and as such the fact that you are correct doesn't really impact it. I find it really concerning that you think this framing is the correct one for this situation. Whenever someone says something, they do so in the context of the conversation. That is, if they have a reasonable expectation of remaining anonymous they aren't going to weight their words as carefully as when they give a state of the union speech. When you talk dirty in bed you don't expect you mother-in-law to hear you. Comparing shitposting to "real life" conversations is really not appropriate. Unless you argue that we should also all be held accountable for what we say within the confines of our home - and if that is truly the case I have a couple of dystopian books to recommend you. And all of these obvious points are completely irrelevant to deciding that this is an issue where freedom of speech should be put into the equation. But all of these obvious points are completely relevant to determine that what CNN has done is idiotic. We could agree 100% on the level of idiocy of what CNN has done and it wouldn't impact the conversation I'm having with Sermo. Except for the fact that you tried to ridicule Sermo's POV by comparing random shitposting on the internet to "real life". The freedom of speech argument fails on other fronts. The comparison was shit. You haven't demonstrated that at all, you've just told me that you speak differently in different contexts. Which is true, and irrelevant. When you talk dirty in bed you don't expect your mother-in-law to hear you, but if your mother-in-law suddenly walks in and hears you talk, you don't go "HOLY SHIT WHAT ABOUT MY FREE SPEECH?"
No, but I do go "holy shit my privacy".
|
On July 06 2017 00:10 Ghostcom wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2017 00:08 Nebuchad wrote:On July 06 2017 00:04 Ghostcom wrote:On July 06 2017 00:02 Nebuchad wrote:On July 06 2017 00:01 Ghostcom wrote:On July 05 2017 23:59 Nebuchad wrote:On July 05 2017 23:54 Ghostcom wrote:On July 05 2017 23:44 Nebuchad wrote:On July 05 2017 23:38 Sermokala wrote:On July 05 2017 23:33 Nebuchad wrote:
[quote]
Is there really no part of you that is bothered by the notion that you argue someone is prevented from expressing their views by the fact that their name will be associated to them?
There's this thing called "real life", when you go there and you speak, people can associate your name to the things you say. We should really do something about that cause that really prevents a bunch of people from expressing their views. Its about protecting unpopular speech. Its not okay with an organization is going after people for expressing their protected right to free speech. A news organization doing this is only inviting people to go after other people because of what they belive. It can't matter morally what they believe be it its all the same. I agree. Luckily nothing you've just said has relevance in this particular situation, and as such the fact that you are correct doesn't really impact it. I find it really concerning that you think this framing is the correct one for this situation. Whenever someone says something, they do so in the context of the conversation. That is, if they have a reasonable expectation of remaining anonymous they aren't going to weight their words as carefully as when they give a state of the union speech. When you talk dirty in bed you don't expect you mother-in-law to hear you. Comparing shitposting to "real life" conversations is really not appropriate. Unless you argue that we should also all be held accountable for what we say within the confines of our home - and if that is truly the case I have a couple of dystopian books to recommend you. And all of these obvious points are completely irrelevant to deciding that this is an issue where freedom of speech should be put into the equation. But all of these obvious points are completely relevant to determine that what CNN has done is idiotic. We could agree 100% on the level of idiocy of what CNN has done and it wouldn't impact the conversation I'm having with Sermo. Except for the fact that you tried to ridicule Sermo's POV by comparing random shitposting on the internet to "real life". The freedom of speech argument fails on other fronts. The comparison was shit. You haven't demonstrated that at all, you've just told me that you speak differently in different contexts. Which is true, and irrelevant. When you talk dirty in bed you don't expect your mother-in-law to hear you, but if your mother-in-law suddenly walks in and hears you talk, you don't go "HOLY SHIT WHAT ABOUT MY FREE SPEECH?" No, but I do go "holy shit my privacy".
Exactly.
|
United States43753 Posts
I'm sure at some point all these right wingers complaining about CNN will realize that this can easily be resolved with a little personal responsibility. All he has to do is post his own name and own his own words and they'll be powerless. Their threat is literally just that he might be held accountable for his actions.
|
Just chipping in to say I like this analogy and I hope you take it further.
|
On July 06 2017 00:01 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On July 05 2017 23:58 Gorsameth wrote:On July 05 2017 23:51 bardtown wrote:On July 05 2017 23:26 xDaunt wrote:Now here's a fascinating example of unintended consequences: A dearth of marriagable men has left an “oversupply” of educated women taking desperate steps to preserve their fertility, experts say.
The first global study into egg freezing found that shortages of eligible men were the prime reason why women had attempted to take matters into their own hands.
Experts said “terrifying” demographic shifts had created a “deficit” of educated men and a growing problem of “leftover” professional women, with female graduates vastly outnumbering males in in many countries.
The study led by Yale University, involved interviews with 150 women undergoing egg freezing at eight clinics.
Researchers found that in more than 90 per cent of cases, the women were attempting to buy extra time because they could not find a partner to settle down with, amid a “dearth of educated men”.
Experts said the research bust the myth that “selfish career women” were choosing to out their fertility on ice in a bid to put their careers first.
They said sweeping social changes meant that many professional women now struggled to find a partner that felt like an equal match.
....
The anthropologist suggested some women might need to be prepared to compromise some of their standards in order to find love. But she suggested society should act to increase the number of men going into higher education.
“It may be about rethinking the way we approach this,” she said.
“Most women who are educated would like to have an educated partner. Traditionally women have also wanted to ‘marry up’ to go for someone more successful, financially well off.”
“Maybe women need to be prepared to be more open to the idea of a relationship with someone not as educated. But also may be we need to be doing something about our boys and young men, to get them off to a better start.”
Some women were paying a high price for feminism, she suggested.
“As a feminist I think it’s great that women are doing so well but I think there has been a cost that has been paid,” she said, warning that many had been left in “sadness and isolation”.
In some cases, the women taking part in the in-depth interviews said they would be happy to be in a relationship with someone less educated, but they felt they were “intimidating” to the men who were available. Source. Unintended, but predictable. The role of both men and women is devalued by the systematic erasure of our differences. Rather than working hard to provide for his family a man now works hard to... allow his family to work hard too. It's sad just how hard women have been played. They had the opportunity to choose between career or home life. Now, because of the obsession with the 'gender pay gap' etc, women are ceaselessly pushed towards a career oriented life that for many of them will be less enjoyable than the alternative while simultaneously disadvantaging their children if they even have the energy to have any. Meanwhile, their 'sexual liberation' means that men have no incentive to marry, and no role in the partnership if they do. Obviously people should have the choice, but it would be welcome if we could stop with the bullshit about people being able to make whatever choices they want without facing any criticism. Keep feeding young people the lie that they can live their life without any discipline and face no consequences and they will keep believing it. What? The quote specifically mentions that what your saying is not true. Its not about women being pushed to have a career instead of a family live but about the fact that women tend to marry up which leads 'career women' to have less choice in life partners. it's not marrying UP, but marrying EVEN. women outnumber men quite a bit at the college degree level iirc.
Since many men are willing to marry DOWN, this automatically means that way less men are available at the top end for women looking to marry EVEN+
|
On July 05 2017 23:55 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On July 05 2017 23:50 Sermokala wrote:On July 05 2017 23:44 Nebuchad wrote:On July 05 2017 23:38 Sermokala wrote:On July 05 2017 23:33 Nebuchad wrote:On July 05 2017 23:29 Sermokala wrote:On July 05 2017 23:20 Ghostcom wrote:
How is his name in any shape or form newsworthy?
EDIT: As in: What does it add to the (non-)story of Trump retweeting a gif of him beating up a poorly shopped CNN-logo?
EDIT2: Also why didn't they simply write "The man who wishes to remain anonymous but is known as >insert handle< had this to say when CNN reached him for comment: >insert comment<. The man's identity is known to CNN" as is the standard phrasing in cases such as these. By making a story entirely about him they're making him the story. If they release his name now he'll be a target and their readers who agree with them will attack them. They're effectively holding him hostage to prevent him from expressing his views. It doesn't matter how horrendous his views are they're still his protected views that they're threatening. I wouldn't be surprised if someone could make a half baked first amendment violation argument out of this. Is there really no part of you that is bothered by the notion that you argue someone is prevented from expressing their views by the fact that their name will be associated to them? There's this thing called "real life", when you go there and you speak, people can associate your name to the things you say. We should really do something about that cause that really prevents a bunch of people from expressing their views. Its about protecting unpopular speech. Its not okay with an organization is going after people for expressing their protected right to free speech. A news organization doing this is only inviting people to go after other people because of what they belive. It can't matter morally what they believe be it its all the same. I agree. Luckily nothing you've just said has relevance in this particular situation, and as such the fact that you are correct doesn't really impact it. I find it really concerning that you think this framing is the correct one for this situation. I have no idea what world you live in where what I said has no relevance to this situation. We have a news organization who specifically went after someone and found their real life identity because he made a meme about them. T hey then found out that he had posted white supremacist and racist posts other then the meme but the meme specifically has none of those. They're now threatening him because of his other posts and the meme has nothing to do with the story anymore. The story is about a guy on the internet whos posted white supremacist and racist posts and they're going to release his name if he doesn't stop. Replace white supremacist and racist with BLM and feminist and you'd have a problem with it. Moraly you can't differentiate between them on something like this. I question if you read the story. CNN did not find that information, it was found by the internet in general after the creator took credit for the meme publically. CNN then figured out who it was based on his reddit posts and personal information within those posts. They contacted him, he did not answer and he then purged his account. After that, CNN spoke with him and they agreed to withhold his name. There is no evidence they threatened him. Show nested quote +On July 05 2017 23:54 JinDesu wrote:
I am diametrically opposed to the idea that a large corporation, or that anyone, can tell me "I don't like how you portrayed me here in this image/review/whatever - apologize, and don't do it again or else I will post your personal information for a large portion of the world to see." In this case, they did not do it. If you speak up against powerful groups, news media or otherwise, there is a chance you will end up in the spotlight. That why people say it is brave to “speaking truth to power”.
The apology came after CNN's KFile identified the man behind "HanA**holeSolo." 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.
On Monday, KFile attempted to contact the man by email and phone but he did not respond. On Tuesday, "HanA**holeSolo" posted his apology on the subreddit /The_Donald and deleted all of his other posts.
The article says that CNN found the information about him after he claimed credit on reddit for creating the meme. The evidence that they threatened him comes in the article that they reserve the right to dox him if he posts things they don't like on reddit again.
On July 05 2017 23:55 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On July 05 2017 23:50 Sermokala wrote:On July 05 2017 23:44 Nebuchad wrote:On July 05 2017 23:38 Sermokala wrote:On July 05 2017 23:33 Nebuchad wrote:On July 05 2017 23:29 Sermokala wrote:On July 05 2017 23:20 Ghostcom wrote:
How is his name in any shape or form newsworthy?
EDIT: As in: What does it add to the (non-)story of Trump retweeting a gif of him beating up a poorly shopped CNN-logo?
EDIT2: Also why didn't they simply write "The man who wishes to remain anonymous but is known as >insert handle< had this to say when CNN reached him for comment: >insert comment<. The man's identity is known to CNN" as is the standard phrasing in cases such as these. By making a story entirely about him they're making him the story. If they release his name now he'll be a target and their readers who agree with them will attack them. They're effectively holding him hostage to prevent him from expressing his views. It doesn't matter how horrendous his views are they're still his protected views that they're threatening. I wouldn't be surprised if someone could make a half baked first amendment violation argument out of this. Is there really no part of you that is bothered by the notion that you argue someone is prevented from expressing their views by the fact that their name will be associated to them? There's this thing called "real life", when you go there and you speak, people can associate your name to the things you say. We should really do something about that cause that really prevents a bunch of people from expressing their views. Its about protecting unpopular speech. Its not okay with an organization is going after people for expressing their protected right to free speech. A news organization doing this is only inviting people to go after other people because of what they belive. It can't matter morally what they believe be it its all the same. I agree. Luckily nothing you've just said has relevance in this particular situation, and as such the fact that you are correct doesn't really impact it. I find it really concerning that you think this framing is the correct one for this situation. I have no idea what world you live in where what I said has no relevance to this situation. We have a news organization who specifically went after someone and found their real life identity because he made a meme about them. They then found out that he had posted white supremacist and racist posts other then the meme but the meme specifically has none of those. They're now threatening him because of his other posts and the meme has nothing to do with the story anymore. The story is about a guy on the internet whos posted white supremacist and racist posts and they're going to release his name if he doesn't stop. Replace white supremacist and racist with BLM and feminist and you'd have a problem with it. Moraly you can't differentiate between them on something like this. The guy is in the news because Trump retweeted him, not because he was mean to the news. You know that so I'm not sure why you even took the time to be dishonest there. Nothing you say here is connected to freedom of speech, which is why it has no relevance to freedom of speech and why I recommend you don't act like it does. Again, if you think your freedom of speech is impacted by people knowing you're the one speaking, you really need to do something about this thing called "real life", cause people tend to know who you are when you speak there.
Hes in the news because CNN made an investigation into finding out who he was based on what he posted on reddit. thats not dishonest thats literally what happened. You arn't free to speak your mind when there is punishment coming if you speak wrongly. Knowing who said what and a news organization telling everyone what you said is completely different. Joe racist in darfur Minnesota doesn't have people pointing him out as the guy who said racist things.
|
interesting how some people up in arms over this were far more tolerant of the amount of bullying and threatening trump has done. can't remember exactly which people it is though, only that this would apply to some.
|
|
|
United States43753 Posts
On July 06 2017 00:00 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On July 05 2017 23:58 Gorsameth wrote:On July 05 2017 23:51 bardtown wrote:On July 05 2017 23:26 xDaunt wrote:Now here's a fascinating example of unintended consequences: A dearth of marriagable men has left an “oversupply” of educated women taking desperate steps to preserve their fertility, experts say.
The first global study into egg freezing found that shortages of eligible men were the prime reason why women had attempted to take matters into their own hands.
Experts said “terrifying” demographic shifts had created a “deficit” of educated men and a growing problem of “leftover” professional women, with female graduates vastly outnumbering males in in many countries.
The study led by Yale University, involved interviews with 150 women undergoing egg freezing at eight clinics.
Researchers found that in more than 90 per cent of cases, the women were attempting to buy extra time because they could not find a partner to settle down with, amid a “dearth of educated men”.
Experts said the research bust the myth that “selfish career women” were choosing to out their fertility on ice in a bid to put their careers first.
They said sweeping social changes meant that many professional women now struggled to find a partner that felt like an equal match.
....
The anthropologist suggested some women might need to be prepared to compromise some of their standards in order to find love. But she suggested society should act to increase the number of men going into higher education.
“It may be about rethinking the way we approach this,” she said.
“Most women who are educated would like to have an educated partner. Traditionally women have also wanted to ‘marry up’ to go for someone more successful, financially well off.”
“Maybe women need to be prepared to be more open to the idea of a relationship with someone not as educated. But also may be we need to be doing something about our boys and young men, to get them off to a better start.”
Some women were paying a high price for feminism, she suggested.
“As a feminist I think it’s great that women are doing so well but I think there has been a cost that has been paid,” she said, warning that many had been left in “sadness and isolation”.
In some cases, the women taking part in the in-depth interviews said they would be happy to be in a relationship with someone less educated, but they felt they were “intimidating” to the men who were available. Source. Unintended, but predictable. The role of both men and women is devalued by the systematic erasure of our differences. Rather than working hard to provide for his family a man now works hard to... allow his family to work hard too. It's sad just how hard women have been played. They had the opportunity to choose between career or home life. Now, because of the obsession with the 'gender pay gap' etc, women are ceaselessly pushed towards a career oriented life that for many of them will be less enjoyable than the alternative while simultaneously disadvantaging their children if they even have the energy to have any. Meanwhile, their 'sexual liberation' means that men have no incentive to marry, and no role in the partnership if they do. Obviously people should have the choice, but it would be welcome if we could stop with the bullshit about people being able to make whatever choices they want without facing any criticism. Keep feeding young people the lie that they can live their life without any discipline and face no consequences and they will keep believing it. What? The quote specifically mentions that what your saying is not true. Its not about women being pushed to have a career instead of a family live but about the fact that women tend to marry up which leads 'career women' to have less choice in life partners. He's drawing the obvious conclusions from the data that the article tries to whitewash over.
He's really not. No part of the article supports his red pilling "feminism has ruined society" bullshit. It's also pretty funny that he characterizes the era before feminism as women having the opportunity to choose between a career and home life.
|
On July 06 2017 00:00 bardtown wrote:Show nested quote +On July 05 2017 23:58 Gorsameth wrote:On July 05 2017 23:51 bardtown wrote:On July 05 2017 23:26 xDaunt wrote:Now here's a fascinating example of unintended consequences: A dearth of marriagable men has left an “oversupply” of educated women taking desperate steps to preserve their fertility, experts say.
The first global study into egg freezing found that shortages of eligible men were the prime reason why women had attempted to take matters into their own hands.
Experts said “terrifying” demographic shifts had created a “deficit” of educated men and a growing problem of “leftover” professional women, with female graduates vastly outnumbering males in in many countries.
The study led by Yale University, involved interviews with 150 women undergoing egg freezing at eight clinics.
Researchers found that in more than 90 per cent of cases, the women were attempting to buy extra time because they could not find a partner to settle down with, amid a “dearth of educated men”.
Experts said the research bust the myth that “selfish career women” were choosing to out their fertility on ice in a bid to put their careers first.
They said sweeping social changes meant that many professional women now struggled to find a partner that felt like an equal match.
....
The anthropologist suggested some women might need to be prepared to compromise some of their standards in order to find love. But she suggested society should act to increase the number of men going into higher education.
“It may be about rethinking the way we approach this,” she said.
“Most women who are educated would like to have an educated partner. Traditionally women have also wanted to ‘marry up’ to go for someone more successful, financially well off.”
“Maybe women need to be prepared to be more open to the idea of a relationship with someone not as educated. But also may be we need to be doing something about our boys and young men, to get them off to a better start.”
Some women were paying a high price for feminism, she suggested.
“As a feminist I think it’s great that women are doing so well but I think there has been a cost that has been paid,” she said, warning that many had been left in “sadness and isolation”.
In some cases, the women taking part in the in-depth interviews said they would be happy to be in a relationship with someone less educated, but they felt they were “intimidating” to the men who were available. Source. Unintended, but predictable. The role of both men and women is devalued by the systematic erasure of our differences. Rather than working hard to provide for his family a man now works hard to... allow his family to work hard too. It's sad just how hard women have been played. They had the opportunity to choose between career or home life. Now, because of the obsession with the 'gender pay gap' etc, women are ceaselessly pushed towards a career oriented life that for many of them will be less enjoyable than the alternative while simultaneously disadvantaging their children if they even have the energy to have any. Meanwhile, their 'sexual liberation' means that men have no incentive to marry, and no role in the partnership if they do. Obviously people should have the choice, but it would be welcome if we could stop with the bullshit about people being able to make whatever choices they want without facing any criticism. Keep feeding young people the lie that they can live their life without any discipline and face no consequences and they will keep believing it. What? The quote specifically mentions that what your saying is not true. Its not about women being pushed to have a career instead of a family live but about the fact that women tend to marry up which leads 'career women' to have less choice in life partners. As I read your last sentence: it's not about x, it's about x. Most women would like to have a family life, but the push towards achieving career success jeopardises that.
According to the career women, they are willing to date men who are uneducated, but those men feel intimidated by them. I'm not sure anyone deserves criticism for their decision to have a career. It can't be "selfish" if all the men are happy and taken anyway.
|
It is kinda ironic that the issue of the school system increasingly failing the male students over the past 20-30 years is now being raised because there are not enough "high-quality" men to marry for women. Talk about objectification.
|
I never really expected so much of TL to side with the right to doxx if the anonymous speech is sufficiently racist or distasteful. Free speech is getting overshadowed by the short-sighted that can't see how backward "being held accountable for your speech" is very little removed from mob justice.
|
United States43753 Posts
On July 06 2017 00:18 plasmidghost wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2017 00:14 KwarK wrote:
I'm sure at some point all these right wingers complaining about CNN will realize that this can easily be resolved with a little personal responsibility. All he has to do is post his own name and own his own words and they'll be powerless. Their threat is literally just that he might be held accountable for his actions. Yeah, no. Everyone has a right to privacy and this is no exception
A public forum visible to everyone where people create an ID before posting and use that ID over and over to post seems an odd place to demand a universal right to privacy. But okay. Please cease reading my posts. I intend them to be private communications and do not wish you to read or respond to them.
|
On July 06 2017 00:16 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On July 05 2017 23:55 Plansix wrote:On July 05 2017 23:50 Sermokala wrote:On July 05 2017 23:44 Nebuchad wrote:On July 05 2017 23:38 Sermokala wrote:On July 05 2017 23:33 Nebuchad wrote:On July 05 2017 23:29 Sermokala wrote:On July 05 2017 23:20 Ghostcom wrote:
How is his name in any shape or form newsworthy?
EDIT: As in: What does it add to the (non-)story of Trump retweeting a gif of him beating up a poorly shopped CNN-logo?
EDIT2: Also why didn't they simply write "The man who wishes to remain anonymous but is known as >insert handle< had this to say when CNN reached him for comment: >insert comment<. The man's identity is known to CNN" as is the standard phrasing in cases such as these. By making a story entirely about him they're making him the story. If they release his name now he'll be a target and their readers who agree with them will attack them. They're effectively holding him hostage to prevent him from expressing his views. It doesn't matter how horrendous his views are they're still his protected views that they're threatening. I wouldn't be surprised if someone could make a half baked first amendment violation argument out of this. Is there really no part of you that is bothered by the notion that you argue someone is prevented from expressing their views by the fact that their name will be associated to them? There's this thing called "real life", when you go there and you speak, people can associate your name to the things you say. We should really do something about that cause that really prevents a bunch of people from expressing their views. Its about protecting unpopular speech. Its not okay with an organization is going after people for expressing their protected right to free speech. A news organization doing this is only inviting people to go after other people because of what they belive. It can't matter morally what they believe be it its all the same. I agree. Luckily nothing you've just said has relevance in this particular situation, and as such the fact that you are correct doesn't really impact it. I find it really concerning that you think this framing is the correct one for this situation. I have no idea what world you live in where what I said has no relevance to this situation. We have a news organization who specifically went after someone and found their real life identity because he made a meme about them. T hey then found out that he had posted white supremacist and racist posts other then the meme but the meme specifically has none of those. They're now threatening him because of his other posts and the meme has nothing to do with the story anymore. The story is about a guy on the internet whos posted white supremacist and racist posts and they're going to release his name if he doesn't stop. Replace white supremacist and racist with BLM and feminist and you'd have a problem with it. Moraly you can't differentiate between them on something like this. I question if you read the story. CNN did not find that information, it was found by the internet in general after the creator took credit for the meme publically. CNN then figured out who it was based on his reddit posts and personal information within those posts. They contacted him, he did not answer and he then purged his account. After that, CNN spoke with him and they agreed to withhold his name. There is no evidence they threatened him. On July 05 2017 23:54 JinDesu wrote:
I am diametrically opposed to the idea that a large corporation, or that anyone, can tell me "I don't like how you portrayed me here in this image/review/whatever - apologize, and don't do it again or else I will post your personal information for a large portion of the world to see." In this case, they did not do it. If you speak up against powerful groups, news media or otherwise, there is a chance you will end up in the spotlight. That why people say it is brave to “speaking truth to power”. Show nested quote +The apology came after CNN's KFile identified the man behind "HanA**holeSolo." 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.
On Monday, KFile attempted to contact the man by email and phone but he did not respond. On Tuesday, "HanA**holeSolo" posted his apology on the subreddit /The_Donald and deleted all of his other posts. The article says that CNN found the information about him after he claimed credit on reddit for creating the meme. The evidence that they threatened him comes in the article that they reserve the right to dox him if he posts things they don't like on reddit again.
Yes. If he goes onto the reddit or some other side and says “I made CNN meme retweeted by Trump. Let me tell you the real story about CNN and how they treated me,” they would reserve the right to refuse any false claims he might make. And that includes refuting them by using his real name and other information they obtained during their investigation. If he wants to tell his side of the story, he has to use his real name.
|
On July 06 2017 00:23 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2017 00:18 plasmidghost wrote:On July 06 2017 00:14 KwarK wrote:
I'm sure at some point all these right wingers complaining about CNN will realize that this can easily be resolved with a little personal responsibility. All he has to do is post his own name and own his own words and they'll be powerless. Their threat is literally just that he might be held accountable for his actions. Yeah, no. Everyone has a right to privacy and this is no exception A public forum visible to everyone where people create an ID before posting and use that ID over and over to post seems an odd place to demand a universal right to privacy. But okay. Please cease reading my posts. I intend them to be private communications and do not wish you to read or respond to them.
Kwark If we go to your workplace and show them your "you're roleplaying being slaves on the plantation" bit you won't be at the very least a little miffed at us?
|
|
|
On July 06 2017 00:21 Doodsmack wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2017 00:00 bardtown wrote:On July 05 2017 23:58 Gorsameth wrote:On July 05 2017 23:51 bardtown wrote:On July 05 2017 23:26 xDaunt wrote:Now here's a fascinating example of unintended consequences: A dearth of marriagable men has left an “oversupply” of educated women taking desperate steps to preserve their fertility, experts say.
The first global study into egg freezing found that shortages of eligible men were the prime reason why women had attempted to take matters into their own hands.
Experts said “terrifying” demographic shifts had created a “deficit” of educated men and a growing problem of “leftover” professional women, with female graduates vastly outnumbering males in in many countries.
The study led by Yale University, involved interviews with 150 women undergoing egg freezing at eight clinics.
Researchers found that in more than 90 per cent of cases, the women were attempting to buy extra time because they could not find a partner to settle down with, amid a “dearth of educated men”.
Experts said the research bust the myth that “selfish career women” were choosing to out their fertility on ice in a bid to put their careers first.
They said sweeping social changes meant that many professional women now struggled to find a partner that felt like an equal match.
....
The anthropologist suggested some women might need to be prepared to compromise some of their standards in order to find love. But she suggested society should act to increase the number of men going into higher education.
“It may be about rethinking the way we approach this,” she said.
“Most women who are educated would like to have an educated partner. Traditionally women have also wanted to ‘marry up’ to go for someone more successful, financially well off.”
“Maybe women need to be prepared to be more open to the idea of a relationship with someone not as educated. But also may be we need to be doing something about our boys and young men, to get them off to a better start.”
Some women were paying a high price for feminism, she suggested.
“As a feminist I think it’s great that women are doing so well but I think there has been a cost that has been paid,” she said, warning that many had been left in “sadness and isolation”.
In some cases, the women taking part in the in-depth interviews said they would be happy to be in a relationship with someone less educated, but they felt they were “intimidating” to the men who were available. Source. Unintended, but predictable. The role of both men and women is devalued by the systematic erasure of our differences. Rather than working hard to provide for his family a man now works hard to... allow his family to work hard too. It's sad just how hard women have been played. They had the opportunity to choose between career or home life. Now, because of the obsession with the 'gender pay gap' etc, women are ceaselessly pushed towards a career oriented life that for many of them will be less enjoyable than the alternative while simultaneously disadvantaging their children if they even have the energy to have any. Meanwhile, their 'sexual liberation' means that men have no incentive to marry, and no role in the partnership if they do. Obviously people should have the choice, but it would be welcome if we could stop with the bullshit about people being able to make whatever choices they want without facing any criticism. Keep feeding young people the lie that they can live their life without any discipline and face no consequences and they will keep believing it. What? The quote specifically mentions that what your saying is not true. Its not about women being pushed to have a career instead of a family live but about the fact that women tend to marry up which leads 'career women' to have less choice in life partners. As I read your last sentence: it's not about x, it's about x. Most women would like to have a family life, but the push towards achieving career success jeopardises that. According to the career women, they are willing to date men who are uneducated, but those men feel intimidated by them. I'm not sure anyone deserves criticism for their decision to have a career. It can't be "selfish" if all the men are happy and taken anyway.
Study explicitly says the opposite; most women are not willing to date down educationally because their strong preference is for an educated partner. This leads to the anthropoligst's suggestion that career women may find themselves compromising as a response, not that they enter in willing to compromise and "those men feel intimidated by them" is the reason they still do not marry.
|
On July 06 2017 00:24 plasmidghost wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2017 00:23 KwarK wrote:On July 06 2017 00:18 plasmidghost wrote:On July 06 2017 00:14 KwarK wrote:
I'm sure at some point all these right wingers complaining about CNN will realize that this can easily be resolved with a little personal responsibility. All he has to do is post his own name and own his own words and they'll be powerless. Their threat is literally just that he might be held accountable for his actions. Yeah, no. Everyone has a right to privacy and this is no exception A public forum visible to everyone where people create an ID before posting and use that ID over and over to post seems an odd place to demand a universal right to privacy. But okay. Please cease reading my posts. I intend them to be private communications and do not wish you to read or respond to them. That's a retarded comparison, I don't even know how you got that from what I said. I'm referring to the fact that posts not using your name shouldn't be connected to your name unless you want it to
So what you are saying is that you should be able to sue a PI for violating your right to privacy if they find you based on your posts on the internet?
|
On July 06 2017 00:24 plasmidghost wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2017 00:23 KwarK wrote:On July 06 2017 00:18 plasmidghost wrote:On July 06 2017 00:14 KwarK wrote:
I'm sure at some point all these right wingers complaining about CNN will realize that this can easily be resolved with a little personal responsibility. All he has to do is post his own name and own his own words and they'll be powerless. Their threat is literally just that he might be held accountable for his actions. Yeah, no. Everyone has a right to privacy and this is no exception A public forum visible to everyone where people create an ID before posting and use that ID over and over to post seems an odd place to demand a universal right to privacy. But okay. Please cease reading my posts. I intend them to be private communications and do not wish you to read or respond to them. That's a retarded comparison, I don't even know how you got that from what I said. I'm referring to the fact that posts not using your name shouldn't be connected to your name unless you want it to
why? at the very least, just cuz you didn't use your name wouldn't prevent you from criminal or civil liability for your actions; which would include connecting it to your name.
|
On July 06 2017 00:16 Sermokala wrote:
Hes in the news because CNN made an investigation into finding out who he was based on what he posted on reddit. thats not dishonest thats literally what happened. You arn't free to speak your mind when there is punishment coming if you speak wrongly. Knowing who said what and a news organization telling everyone what you said is completely different. Joe racist in darfur Minnesota doesn't have people pointing him out as the guy who said racist things.
And they made that investigation not because he was mean to them but because the president retweeted him. As such, your characterization of the situation was dishonest. Welcome to the end of the thought process.
There is always "punishment" coming if you speak wrongly. People react to the things you say. When they don't like it, they react negatively. If Joe racist in darfur Minnesota had people pointing him out as the guy who said racist things, that wouldn't be an issue of freedom of speech.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
