|
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. |
United States42685 Posts
I like that Sermo had to use the word GIF twice while explaining that the article isn't about the GIF, once while saying the title of the article (because GIF is in it) and once while saying what the article refers to.
|
On July 06 2017 00:49 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2017 00:48 Sermokala wrote:On July 06 2017 00:41 Nebuchad wrote:On July 06 2017 00:37 Sermokala wrote:On July 06 2017 00:33 Nebuchad wrote:On July 06 2017 00:32 Sermokala wrote:On July 06 2017 00:27 Nebuchad wrote: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. Hes the subject of the article beacuse he took credit for what the president retweeted. Thats how the article http://www.cnn.com/2017/07/04/politics/kfile-reddit-user-trump-tweet/index.html desribes the situation in the first paragraph. The article is titled "How cnn found the guy who made the GIF". You're trying to spin it and I'm describing what the article says. A bunch of people made memes about CNN, could you please try and find out why CNN made an investigation about this guy specifically and not the others for me please? They wrote the article beacuse the guy took credit for the gif that the president retweeted? I don't know what spin you're trying to do but you can't make the article not say what it says in the first paragraph or what it titled the article as. Oh, there was a gif that the president retweeted? Do you think maybe that could be why CNN thought he was worthy of an article, and not because he was mean to CNN? The article is titled "how CNN found the guy behind the GIF the president tweeted" The article then says the reddit users name and how they found his real life identity based after he took credit for the GIF. The article isn't about the GIF it bearly has any context about the president using it and that context is way below the bottom half of the article. This is unarguably the core of the article 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. The article is about the guy making a meme. Now would be a good time to provide your explanation as to why this guy got an article about him and not the countless hordes of other people who did the exact same thing and weren't retweeted by the president.
Because the meme featured CNN and its logo. The guy took images from when donald trump was in the WWE and photoshoped CNN's logo over a guy he was fake beating up in the WWE.
|
On July 06 2017 00:51 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2017 00:49 Nebuchad wrote:On July 06 2017 00:48 Sermokala wrote:On July 06 2017 00:41 Nebuchad wrote:On July 06 2017 00:37 Sermokala wrote:On July 06 2017 00:33 Nebuchad wrote:On July 06 2017 00:32 Sermokala wrote:On July 06 2017 00:27 Nebuchad wrote: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. Hes the subject of the article beacuse he took credit for what the president retweeted. Thats how the article http://www.cnn.com/2017/07/04/politics/kfile-reddit-user-trump-tweet/index.html desribes the situation in the first paragraph. The article is titled "How cnn found the guy who made the GIF". You're trying to spin it and I'm describing what the article says. A bunch of people made memes about CNN, could you please try and find out why CNN made an investigation about this guy specifically and not the others for me please? They wrote the article beacuse the guy took credit for the gif that the president retweeted? I don't know what spin you're trying to do but you can't make the article not say what it says in the first paragraph or what it titled the article as. Oh, there was a gif that the president retweeted? Do you think maybe that could be why CNN thought he was worthy of an article, and not because he was mean to CNN? The article is titled "how CNN found the guy behind the GIF the president tweeted" The article then says the reddit users name and how they found his real life identity based after he took credit for the GIF. The article isn't about the GIF it bearly has any context about the president using it and that context is way below the bottom half of the article. This is unarguably the core of the article 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. The article is about the guy making a meme. Now would be a good time to provide your explanation as to why this guy got an article about him and not the countless hordes of other people who did the exact same thing and weren't retweeted by the president. Because the meme featured CNN and its logo. The guy took images from when donald trump was in the WWE and photoshoped CNN's logo over a guy he was fake beating up in the WWE.
Are you sure it wasn’t because the president retweeted the meme and it was seen by millions of people coming from President of the United States of America? And then it was picked up by almost all of the news organizations, including international news agencies.
http://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-trending-40483914
|
On July 06 2017 00:49 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2017 00:45 plasmidghost wrote:On July 06 2017 00:38 KwarK wrote:On July 06 2017 00:33 plasmidghost wrote:
But the point everyone's missing is that the CNN reporter committed a federal crime by coercing this person into silence Are they? I'm pretty sure that's the kind of thing CNN would have checked before doing it. Presumably they believe that his name is newsworthy due to him being the creator of a newsworthy piece of media. But hey, maybe you know the law better than CNN's lawyers. We'll see what happens I guess. If your condescending attitude actually read the article, I'm confident you would see that it's coercion, plain and simple, but hey, maybe you won't 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. So your response to "maybe CNN's lawyers have looked into this" is that in your opinion the law in this particular case is "plain and simple". I guess we'll just have to wait and see. I'm sure if your interpretation of the plain and simple nature of the law is correct then we'll see it proven correct in the next few months. As for myself, I'll continue to contend that the law isn't very simple and that the opinion of a complete layman probably isn't as valuable as that of a legal team for a multibillion dollar company.
It's not just me who has this opinion, you know, and I'm not surprised at all that you just dismiss that
|
On July 06 2017 00:55 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2017 00:51 Sermokala wrote:On July 06 2017 00:49 Nebuchad wrote:On July 06 2017 00:48 Sermokala wrote:On July 06 2017 00:41 Nebuchad wrote:On July 06 2017 00:37 Sermokala wrote:On July 06 2017 00:33 Nebuchad wrote:On July 06 2017 00:32 Sermokala wrote:On July 06 2017 00:27 Nebuchad wrote: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. Hes the subject of the article beacuse he took credit for what the president retweeted. Thats how the article http://www.cnn.com/2017/07/04/politics/kfile-reddit-user-trump-tweet/index.html desribes the situation in the first paragraph. The article is titled "How cnn found the guy who made the GIF". You're trying to spin it and I'm describing what the article says. A bunch of people made memes about CNN, could you please try and find out why CNN made an investigation about this guy specifically and not the others for me please? They wrote the article beacuse the guy took credit for the gif that the president retweeted? I don't know what spin you're trying to do but you can't make the article not say what it says in the first paragraph or what it titled the article as. Oh, there was a gif that the president retweeted? Do you think maybe that could be why CNN thought he was worthy of an article, and not because he was mean to CNN? The article is titled "how CNN found the guy behind the GIF the president tweeted" The article then says the reddit users name and how they found his real life identity based after he took credit for the GIF. The article isn't about the GIF it bearly has any context about the president using it and that context is way below the bottom half of the article. This is unarguably the core of the article 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. The article is about the guy making a meme. Now would be a good time to provide your explanation as to why this guy got an article about him and not the countless hordes of other people who did the exact same thing and weren't retweeted by the president. Because the meme featured CNN and its logo. The guy took images from when donald trump was in the WWE and photoshoped CNN's logo over a guy he was fake beating up in the WWE. Are you sure it wasn’t because the president retweeted the meme and it was seen by millions of people coming from President of the United States of America? And then it was picked up by almost all of the news organizations, including international news agencies. http://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-trending-40483914
If the story was was about it it wouldn't spend most of its time on the guy itself and would be titled accordingly. the article spends most of its time on and is titled about the guy who made the gif with the president re-tweeting it being little more then context for him taking credit for it. The article is about the reddit user behind the gif not about the gif or the president re-tweeting it. I'm using quotes and examples from the article to support my argument repeatedly. You posted a link to another story that we're not talking about.
|
On July 05 2017 22:47 oBlade wrote:
Anyone who's ever said anything should be doubting this move.
CNN would be upset that they don't have the capacity to punish the president so they're projecting it on a private citizen in a way that's maybe also illegal. It's not about any actual e-Nazi or alt-right background, that's merely a convenient excuse, otherwise the media would be out policing the speech of thousands or millions of people instead of the odd individual like this (and that would be even more terrifying). It's about continuing a story, business, at the expense of blackmailing or destroying a private citizen (like other cases of this) for either completely innocuous or otherwise none-of-your-business speech. Essentially scapegoating someone for the crime of being retweeted by a president you don't like.
They didn't "reform" anyone with a coerced apology, it's all just bullshit.
They seriously shot themselves in the foot with this one (was it because the slightly-more-sane editors took the 4th off?)
CNN reserves the right to publish his identity should any of that change.”
Let’s be clear about what this is: a threat. There is no other appropriate definition here. The line is unnecessary as anything other than a threat. You have a life? You have a job? You have a family? You wouldn’t want those to get broke, now, would you? All of that could be ruined in an instant should the high-minded folks at KFILE decide you are insufficiently respectful of CNN, a news channel with a single-minded editorial aim against the president this user clearly supports, and which he had the audacity to mock.
If you participate in the Trump-media wars, you may have the resources of an international corporation out to destroy your life. Too bad it isn't Exxon-Mobil pursuing a mocking twitter video; they tend to easier to examine for folks.
+ Show Spoiler +
|
United States42685 Posts
On July 06 2017 00:55 plasmidghost wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2017 00:49 KwarK wrote:On July 06 2017 00:45 plasmidghost wrote:On July 06 2017 00:38 KwarK wrote:On July 06 2017 00:33 plasmidghost wrote:
But the point everyone's missing is that the CNN reporter committed a federal crime by coercing this person into silence Are they? I'm pretty sure that's the kind of thing CNN would have checked before doing it. Presumably they believe that his name is newsworthy due to him being the creator of a newsworthy piece of media. But hey, maybe you know the law better than CNN's lawyers. We'll see what happens I guess. If your condescending attitude actually read the article, I'm confident you would see that it's coercion, plain and simple, but hey, maybe you won't 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. So your response to "maybe CNN's lawyers have looked into this" is that in your opinion the law in this particular case is "plain and simple". I guess we'll just have to wait and see. I'm sure if your interpretation of the plain and simple nature of the law is correct then we'll see it proven correct in the next few months. As for myself, I'll continue to contend that the law isn't very simple and that the opinion of a complete layman probably isn't as valuable as that of a legal team for a multibillion dollar company. It's not just me who has this opinion, you know, and I'm not surprised at all that you just dismiss that
Well you were asking me to accept it purely on the basis of you having said it. If you wish to attempt an argument from authority you can't simply make the argument and treat yourself as an authority without first establishing your own credentials.
Now that I learn you are asking me to take your claim, not only on the basis that you (credentials unstated) think it but also that others (credentials unstated) agree, I will of course have to reassess my opinion that maybe CNN's legal team knew what they were doing.
Good news, I reassessed my opinion. I still think CNN's legal team probably know better than you, and also others.
What this comes down to is that CNN's legal team and you, plasmidghost on teamliquid, have differing opinions on the law and that you would like me to trust you over CNN because you believe that in this instance the law is "plain and simple". And you seem to be quite upset that I am not willing to just trust you on this.
|
On July 06 2017 01:00 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2017 00:55 Plansix wrote:On July 06 2017 00:51 Sermokala wrote:On July 06 2017 00:49 Nebuchad wrote:On July 06 2017 00:48 Sermokala wrote:On July 06 2017 00:41 Nebuchad wrote:On July 06 2017 00:37 Sermokala wrote:On July 06 2017 00:33 Nebuchad wrote:On July 06 2017 00:32 Sermokala wrote:On July 06 2017 00:27 Nebuchad wrote:
[quote]
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. Hes the subject of the article beacuse he took credit for what the president retweeted. Thats how the article http://www.cnn.com/2017/07/04/politics/kfile-reddit-user-trump-tweet/index.html desribes the situation in the first paragraph. The article is titled "How cnn found the guy who made the GIF". You're trying to spin it and I'm describing what the article says. A bunch of people made memes about CNN, could you please try and find out why CNN made an investigation about this guy specifically and not the others for me please? They wrote the article beacuse the guy took credit for the gif that the president retweeted? I don't know what spin you're trying to do but you can't make the article not say what it says in the first paragraph or what it titled the article as. Oh, there was a gif that the president retweeted? Do you think maybe that could be why CNN thought he was worthy of an article, and not because he was mean to CNN? The article is titled "how CNN found the guy behind the GIF the president tweeted" The article then says the reddit users name and how they found his real life identity based after he took credit for the GIF. The article isn't about the GIF it bearly has any context about the president using it and that context is way below the bottom half of the article. This is unarguably the core of the article 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. The article is about the guy making a meme. Now would be a good time to provide your explanation as to why this guy got an article about him and not the countless hordes of other people who did the exact same thing and weren't retweeted by the president. Because the meme featured CNN and its logo. The guy took images from when donald trump was in the WWE and photoshoped CNN's logo over a guy he was fake beating up in the WWE. Are you sure it wasn’t because the president retweeted the meme and it was seen by millions of people coming from President of the United States of America? And then it was picked up by almost all of the news organizations, including international news agencies. http://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-trending-40483914 If the story was was about it it wouldn't spend most of its time on the guy itself and would be titled accordingly. the article spends most of its time on and is titled about the guy who made the gif with the president re-tweeting it being little more then context for him taking credit for it. The article is about the reddit user behind the gif not about the gif or the president re-tweeting it. I'm using quotes and examples from the article to support my argument repeatedly. You posted a link to another story that we're not talking about.
Do you not understand that "the article is about the guy" is not a very compelling response to "what made the guy worthy of an article"?
We're literally pages into an argument because you refuse to admit that the president tweeting about a meme has an influence over whether the meme is newsworthy or not.
|
On July 06 2017 01:00 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2017 00:55 Plansix wrote:On July 06 2017 00:51 Sermokala wrote:On July 06 2017 00:49 Nebuchad wrote:On July 06 2017 00:48 Sermokala wrote:On July 06 2017 00:41 Nebuchad wrote:On July 06 2017 00:37 Sermokala wrote:On July 06 2017 00:33 Nebuchad wrote:On July 06 2017 00:32 Sermokala wrote:On July 06 2017 00:27 Nebuchad wrote:
[quote]
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. Hes the subject of the article beacuse he took credit for what the president retweeted. Thats how the article http://www.cnn.com/2017/07/04/politics/kfile-reddit-user-trump-tweet/index.html desribes the situation in the first paragraph. The article is titled "How cnn found the guy who made the GIF". You're trying to spin it and I'm describing what the article says. A bunch of people made memes about CNN, could you please try and find out why CNN made an investigation about this guy specifically and not the others for me please? They wrote the article beacuse the guy took credit for the gif that the president retweeted? I don't know what spin you're trying to do but you can't make the article not say what it says in the first paragraph or what it titled the article as. Oh, there was a gif that the president retweeted? Do you think maybe that could be why CNN thought he was worthy of an article, and not because he was mean to CNN? The article is titled "how CNN found the guy behind the GIF the president tweeted" The article then says the reddit users name and how they found his real life identity based after he took credit for the GIF. The article isn't about the GIF it bearly has any context about the president using it and that context is way below the bottom half of the article. This is unarguably the core of the article 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. The article is about the guy making a meme. Now would be a good time to provide your explanation as to why this guy got an article about him and not the countless hordes of other people who did the exact same thing and weren't retweeted by the president. Because the meme featured CNN and its logo. The guy took images from when donald trump was in the WWE and photoshoped CNN's logo over a guy he was fake beating up in the WWE. Are you sure it wasn’t because the president retweeted the meme and it was seen by millions of people coming from President of the United States of America? And then it was picked up by almost all of the news organizations, including international news agencies. http://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-trending-40483914 If the story was was about it it wouldn't spend most of its time on the guy itself and would be titled accordingly. the article spends most of its time on and is titled about the guy who made the gif with the president re-tweeting it being little more then context for him taking credit for it. The article is about the reddit user behind the gif not about the gif or the president re-tweeting it. I'm using quotes and examples from the article to support my argument repeatedly. You posted a link to another story that we're not talking about.
Are you saying that the BBC would not have used his real name in the article I posted if they had it?
|
On July 06 2017 01:01 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2017 00:55 plasmidghost wrote:On July 06 2017 00:49 KwarK wrote:On July 06 2017 00:45 plasmidghost wrote:On July 06 2017 00:38 KwarK wrote:On July 06 2017 00:33 plasmidghost wrote:
But the point everyone's missing is that the CNN reporter committed a federal crime by coercing this person into silence Are they? I'm pretty sure that's the kind of thing CNN would have checked before doing it. Presumably they believe that his name is newsworthy due to him being the creator of a newsworthy piece of media. But hey, maybe you know the law better than CNN's lawyers. We'll see what happens I guess. If your condescending attitude actually read the article, I'm confident you would see that it's coercion, plain and simple, but hey, maybe you won't 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. So your response to "maybe CNN's lawyers have looked into this" is that in your opinion the law in this particular case is "plain and simple". I guess we'll just have to wait and see. I'm sure if your interpretation of the plain and simple nature of the law is correct then we'll see it proven correct in the next few months. As for myself, I'll continue to contend that the law isn't very simple and that the opinion of a complete layman probably isn't as valuable as that of a legal team for a multibillion dollar company. It's not just me who has this opinion, you know, and I'm not surprised at all that you just dismiss that Well you were asking me to accept it purely on the basis of you having said it. If you wish to attempt an argument from authority you can't simply make the argument and treat yourself as an authority without first establishing your own credentials. Now that I learn you are asking me to take your claim, not only on the basis that you (credentials unstated) think it but also that others (credentials unstated) agree, I will of course have to reassess my opinion that maybe CNN's legal team knew what they were doing. Good news, I reassessed my opinion. I still think CNN's legal team probably know better than you, and also others. What this comes down to is that CNN's legal team and you, plasmidghost on teamliquid, have differing opinions on the law and that you would like me to trust you over CNN because you believe that in this instance the law is "plain and simple". And you seem to be quite upset that I am not willing to just trust you on this.
What is your personal opinion on this? Don't listen to the lawyers who were probably off yesterday. Tell me this: is what CNN doing correct?
And you might think I'm upset with you because I disagree with you, when it's fact because you're a giant elitist cunt to a large amount of people
|
CNN clearly learned from Trump that having more legal resources than your opponent can lead to pretty easy pseudo-court wins that shut down your opposition. That's practically a patented strategy of his (which I'm pretty sure I've seen cheered by some posters as shrewd on this forum at one point or another). Even if it did flop hilariously when he tried it against...I think NYT?
|
It's just the way of the world - if the President retweets you, you're getting scrutinized, especially if your post history is inflammatory. CNN did him a favor by not identifying him; the mere fact that they found, in a flesh, a racist troll who got retweeted by the president is news.
|
On July 06 2017 01:11 TheTenthDoc wrote:
CNN clearly learned from Trump that having more legal resources than your opponent can lead to pretty easy court wins that shut down your opposition. That's practically a patented strategy of his (which I'm pretty sure I've seen cheered by some posters as shrewd on this forum at one point or another).
Yeah, but a victory against whom? They are going to shut down one guy at the cost of creating thousands more like him and a whole bunch of unnecessary bad press. Who's really winning that battle? This is about as Pyrrhic as victories get.
|
Reading the article that you posted its a good example for me I guess about an article that is about the president retweeting an gif made by the guy and not the guy himself. The differences between that article and the cnn article are pretty clear. the first paragraph in the bbc article is about the president and the gif and then about what the gif is and about the guy who took credit for it before posting this supporting that he is a white supremacist and a racist. All the rest of the article could I guess be reversed framed about behind like the CNN article but it keeps any talk about the guy in context with the tweet and thus being about the thing that the president posted.
the article on CNN starts out with mentioning the reddit user while giveing context to him as being the guy who claimed credit for what the president tweeted. Not that the president tweeted what he made or that the president tweeted the gif. the tweet and the president doesn't come up for much later in the article and then only to give context to talking about him taking credit for the gif and how he did it. three short paragraphs about the president not apologizing, a journalism organization condemning it, and finally a short denial from an official before ending the article with more of the guys apology.
I don't understand what you guys are trying to say when these clear examples are supporting me and not you. CNN's focus is about the guy who made the gif and BBC's focus is about the tweet and the white supremacist who made it. One is the guy and the reason why he matters and the other is the tweet and why the tweet matters.
|
United States42685 Posts
On July 06 2017 01:10 plasmidghost wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2017 01:01 KwarK wrote:On July 06 2017 00:55 plasmidghost wrote:On July 06 2017 00:49 KwarK wrote:On July 06 2017 00:45 plasmidghost wrote:On July 06 2017 00:38 KwarK wrote:On July 06 2017 00:33 plasmidghost wrote:
But the point everyone's missing is that the CNN reporter committed a federal crime by coercing this person into silence Are they? I'm pretty sure that's the kind of thing CNN would have checked before doing it. Presumably they believe that his name is newsworthy due to him being the creator of a newsworthy piece of media. But hey, maybe you know the law better than CNN's lawyers. We'll see what happens I guess. If your condescending attitude actually read the article, I'm confident you would see that it's coercion, plain and simple, but hey, maybe you won't 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. So your response to "maybe CNN's lawyers have looked into this" is that in your opinion the law in this particular case is "plain and simple". I guess we'll just have to wait and see. I'm sure if your interpretation of the plain and simple nature of the law is correct then we'll see it proven correct in the next few months. As for myself, I'll continue to contend that the law isn't very simple and that the opinion of a complete layman probably isn't as valuable as that of a legal team for a multibillion dollar company. It's not just me who has this opinion, you know, and I'm not surprised at all that you just dismiss that Well you were asking me to accept it purely on the basis of you having said it. If you wish to attempt an argument from authority you can't simply make the argument and treat yourself as an authority without first establishing your own credentials. Now that I learn you are asking me to take your claim, not only on the basis that you (credentials unstated) think it but also that others (credentials unstated) agree, I will of course have to reassess my opinion that maybe CNN's legal team knew what they were doing. Good news, I reassessed my opinion. I still think CNN's legal team probably know better than you, and also others. What this comes down to is that CNN's legal team and you, plasmidghost on teamliquid, have differing opinions on the law and that you would like me to trust you over CNN because you believe that in this instance the law is "plain and simple". And you seem to be quite upset that I am not willing to just trust you on this. What is your personal opinion on this? Don't listen to the lawyers who were probably off yesterday. Tell me this: is what CNN doing correct? And you might think I'm upset with you because I disagree with you, when it's fact because you're a giant elitist cunt to a large amount of people
My personal opinion is that my opinion about the legality of this isn't worth very much. Apparently we can't all think as much of our own opinions as you. It certainly takes a lot of confidence to demand that everyone else accept your legal opinions purely on the basis of you having said them, unfortunately I just don't think I've successfully built up that kind of authority within the legal community.
If you want to be taken seriously then don't attempt an argument from authority without having any authority. If I say "CNN's legal team probably know what they're doing" then you need to go find something like an op-ed from a respected lawyer saying why they don't. You can't just say "but I think they're wrong" and expect me to give you equal weight.
If giving more weight to the opinions of lawyers regarding the law is elitism then I am guilty of being an elitist. Certainly I feel like one whenever I have to explain this kind of thing to the likes of you.
|
I don’t think they shut this guy down. He shut himself down and didn’t want his name published. CNN felt bad and agreed to his request, but made it clear they could only do that if he really did stay out away from the story.
|
On July 06 2017 01:11 TheTenthDoc wrote:
CNN clearly learned from Trump that having more legal resources than your opponent can lead to pretty easy pseudo-court wins that shut down your opposition. That's practically a patented strategy of his (which I'm pretty sure I've seen cheered by some posters as shrewd on this forum at one point or another). Even if it did flop hilariously when he tried it against...I think NYT?
Well, it wouldn't be America without the rich and powerful dominating the lives of the less fortunate
|
On July 06 2017 01:16 Sermokala wrote:
I don't understand what you guys are trying to say when these clear examples are supporting me and not you. CNN's focus is about the guy who made the gif and BBC's focus is about the tweet and the white supremacist who made it. One is the guy and the reason why he matters and the other is the tweet and why the tweet matters.
Your argument is that he is in the news for tweeting a meme. Our argument is that he is in the news because the president retweeted his meme.
Nothing you have shown so far "supports" that he is in the news for tweeting a meme and not because the president retweeted his meme. In both cases, he would then be in the news, so the fact that the article is about him doesn't prove that he is there because of the meme and not because of the president retweeting the meme. These two premises lead to the same result on this specific point: him being in the news.
What does the media tend to talk about more, meme generators, or Trump's twitter feed?
|
On July 06 2017 01:15 Doodsmack wrote:
It's just the way of the world - if the President retweets you, you're getting scrutinized, especially if your post history is inflammatory. CNN did him a favor by not identifying him; the mere fact that they found, in a flesh, a racist troll who got retweeted by the president is news.
I like how the entire narrative is how mean CNN is being because they decided to comply with the man’s request to not have his identity published. They are horrible people for interviewing him, taking his apology in good faith and showing good faith back. Terrible, horrible, heartless liberal media destroying the lives of racist reddit users.
|
On July 06 2017 01:23 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2017 01:15 Doodsmack wrote:
It's just the way of the world - if the President retweets you, you're getting scrutinized, especially if your post history is inflammatory. CNN did him a favor by not identifying him; the mere fact that they found, in a flesh, a racist troll who got retweeted by the president is news. I like how the entire narrative is how mean CNN is being because they decided to comply with the man’s request to not have his identity published. They are horrible people for interviewing him, taking his apology in good faith and showing good faith back. Terrible, horrible, heartless liberal media destroying the lives of racist reddit users.
Way to misrepresent the argument
The issue is with the "CNN reserves the right to publish his identity should any of that change." which is basically blackmail.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
