Yeah we got some real CNN fans here.
D
Deleted member 1
Guest
Well, I am willing to listen and ask. But the eagerness to get the pitch forks out, I now understand how it went in that CNN office. It's really becoming a thing to where you can't disagree anymore, which I am more than willing to.You're dealing with a couple people who think their opinions are more important than everyone else. Their idea of conversation is telling you you're are an uninformed idiot even when you ask clarification. Not worth your time dealing with them.
And this of course. It's not like it never happened. I am more than willing to change my view once this turns out to be a hoax, like Clint Eastwood dying at 87...
I am neither a Fox guy... I am stuck between a rock and a hard place...I'm a Fox guy myself....that's a surprise, huh guys???
i definitely got "snarky", i have interacted with yossarian a bunch of times over the years and have no ill will towards him, so i guess it must be because its a pet peeve of mine when i try to present people with facts and they ignore them and shift the argument, its been happening a lot lately so i probably overreacted.Y'all are some mean ass dogpiling in mofos
@Yossarian obviously read the CNN text and formed one opinion.
@drjones is framing the argument about a slightly different aspect of the whole story.
I can't understand why this particular topic is being taken so personal. The text by CNN could easily be red, and in fact has been read by many, as an implication of things to come.
Others, are saying it's just boilerplate text. That seems to be dr. Jones's opinion.
When both individuals have read the same text and are forming different opinions about the same text, how can this become so personal?
It's CNN and the text is there and you both obviously read it.
like i said earlier im not a huge CNN fan, i dont feel any need to defend them, but i also honestly dont see the controversy that has been created here, and most of the people i hear talking about it have the basic facts of the story wrong, and when they hear what really happened they invariably go "dont care, fake news, CNN sucks and threatened a kid for making memes".
because nothing matters anymore and people will defend anything just to be right.
D
Deleted member 1
Guest
Bullshit, that not true and you're wrong!
D
Deleted member 1
Guest
What really happened? CNN explained the ominous tone as boiler plate right?
Some bought it, some don't.
Is it deeper than that?
Noooo, here is what happens. They state their opinion based on x, y, and z. You dispute either, x, y, or z. They say that even if you are right on your point, they still have the same opinion because of x and y, or y and z. People can have multiple reasons for their opinion. One doesn't negate all.
i guarantee you if i continued the discussion every point would have been ignored and a new reason for why this was some terrible thing would have been presented. seen it too many times, when someone bases their argument on a completely false point, you correct them, they then completely ignore the new information and bring up some other basis for their argument, rinse/repeat...
anyway the entire thing is fake outrage so people can shit on CNN because it makes them feel good.
it wasnt a kid, CNN didnt "dox" anyone, the "threat" thing is i suppose somewhat debatable but i think its a stretch, they didnt have to threaten him, they had every right to publish his name but chose not to anyway.
#fakenews
#alternativefacts
#alternativefacts
D
Deleted member 1
Guest
How did they not?
@drjones If I told my child at age 5, "If you behave I won't take your xbox", he would have understood the threat.
How anyone can say CNN didn't publically threaten this guy is beyond me. And the threat is all that matters to me in this particular discussion. The details could make the threat seem less or more heinous. But they will never change the fact that I view the original statement by CNN as a threat.
Just because CNN didn't have to threaten this guy doesn't mean that they didn't.
did they release his personal information online with malicious intent? not that im aware of.
i suppose you could argue that they threatened to dox him but even then it doesnt work because they had a legitimate reason to publish his name in the first article and chose not to, they merely announced that they were not going to do so but they could in the future if the guy kept making himself part of the story.
are we really going to stretch the definition of threaten this far? telling your kids to behave or they will be punished is now threatening them? technically sure, but really? that is your example? you have every right to set rules for your children and make them aware of the consequences, nobody would hear you doing that and say "oh my god he is threatening those kids, this is wrong".
If I told my child at age 5, "If you behave I won't take your xbox", he would have understood the threat.
How anyone can say CNN didn't publically threaten this guy is beyond me. And the threat is all that matters to me in this particular discussion. The details could make the threat seem less or more heinous. But they will never change the fact that I view the original statement by CNN as a threat.
Just because CNN didn't have to threaten this guy doesn't mean that they didn't.
just like no reasonable person should believe CNN threatened this guy after knowing all the facts. he had already called them himself, identified himself, apologized profusely, begged them not to publish his info and said he would not be posting anymore violent racist shit online, not that he wouldnt be making any more silly memes, he then published a lengthy apology online himself under no threat from CNN.
but this is where we are in this country, people rally to bash to CNN because they are the evil fake news and support this piece of shit hateful human being because he is just a "jokey prankster meme boy". oh my god let the poor child make his memes CNN!!
D
Deleted member 1
Guest
They didn't release it.
They did everything but release...still doxxing.
"We used various bits of metadate and context clues from anonymous postings to backtrack and reverse engineer your real identity but we aren't releasing it yet..." Is still doxxing. Same as if I did that to you here on this site. Whether I release it, or give you enough information to prove I hunted you down to let you know I have that power, it's all the same threat to me and many. Still doxxing regardless.
And if you want to talk real news, in the end it's been shown that there were slight differences and sounds added. And no one knows where the original tweet source came from.
So you are saying the threat was justifiable, in this case?
D
Deleted member 1
Guest
How keep reconciling that statement with this...
Is where others keep seeing this different than you do.
doxxing has a definition, you cant just make up your own.
it is not doxxing to search out and find someone's personal information then do nothing with it. period. its not.
they also had a completely legitimate journalistic reason to search out his personal information and try to contact him, you cant just ignore that.
no idea what your point is here, sorry, can you explain? thank you.
D
Deleted member 1
Guest
I'm not.
Notifying that person that release may be imminent has the de facto effect.
im saying it is not a threat, no reasonable person once informed should consider it a threat.