believing random misleading infographs :thinking:

this is trying to imply that CNN changed up their story after the blackmail accusations, but their story was consistent from the beginning

they reached out to him, he didnt respond, he posted the apology online, then he called them and they spoke with him

.

So he finds the guy using information he posted publicly who then issues an apology once he realizes that its probably not a good idea to have posts about literal genocide associated with your name and then they don't post his info because he apologizes and asks them not to.

And the problem is what exactly???? That the information still exists in the universe of what he did?

I just find this such a literal non-issue that people are worked up about. Like why would CNN even bother investigating this? And then once they do they just find a racist asshole who posts about genocide on a account where anyone can figure out who he is (a true shocker) and then people try to twist this into some sort of doxxing issue.

This whole event is so non-substantial its actually the just the unbelievable levels of fact twisting and assumptions that make this interesting.

.

https://www.infowars.com/20k-prize-infowars-great-cnn-meme-war-contest-announced/
Gonna take a large hit of super male vitality to reach testosterone levels high enough to destroy the satanic globalist menace once and for all.

and @catface the whole thing is a complete lie, trump posted a facebook video not a fucking gif. It could simply be complete negligence on CNN's part but it's more likely an attempt to perpetuate the idea that there is violence against the media(lolwut) by portraying the creator of this gif as a violent racist. I'm not saying this video is an inside job by the deep state, I'm just saying that CNN displayed willful ignorance to even publish this article, nevertheless to the front page. However you spin it, you would have to be incredibly autistic to take CNN's side in their little fake news slap fight with Trump.

.

Maybe I'm missing the issue but dont most people that do dumb shit and are discovered for it have to do an apology? Granted this is probably the dumbest thing ever but I just don't see the controversy. It's like if some black guy was found coincidentally posting memes online about killing whites I'd expect him to issue an apology too you know.

Also I've yet to see any source corroborate this guy is 15 since all signs point towards him being a full grown adult?

.

http://imgur.com/a/hfUAo

also here is the things about genocide

i know you like to sling shit about reading but you should try it too

.

.

this might blow your mind but no one ever accused this man of having a tangible plan, complete with online paper trail, to kill hundreds of thousands of people

stop moving the goalposts

.

I'm sorry but since when is that a .gif file? Just bc it repeats itself doesnt make it a gif. The least the factcheckers had to do was check if the thing had sound.

i dont know where to begin with this

i think the american education system has failed you

hope you have a good night as im heading out since this thread has now devolved into name calling by people that don't like to have intelligent conversation

.

https://www.adl.org/blog/analysis-of-reddit-user-claiming-responsibility-for-president-trumps-cnn-video

theres also these, where he says muslims should be eradicated

" You can't win with these f------ wake the f--- up the only way to win is to eradicate them 100% they cannot integrate into modern society they take over like cockroaches.”

not genocidal at all tho

he wasn't even forced into posting an apology, again, CNN tried to contact him, they didn't even speak yet, and he panicked and gave an apology and all that. Then they had the interview.

all you are witnessing is a somewhat smart person who realized that CNN *had* his real identity and took proactive measures to prevent his name getting out, just the act of being contacted should be enough for that, no blackmail required

Apologize you insolent aspergers patient.

.

.

I encourage everyone to look at this, then reflect on the number of times catface has entered into a politics (or otherwise) thread and called everyone retarded

that's some next-level projection going on

From an initial read it kind of sounds like they were almost attempting to put the guy in a state of duress. Might be how I interpreted it, but whether or not that's actually the case is down to the individual reader to decide. But regardless, this whole thing is just dumb. Like why would CNN even be interested in tracking down this guy to the extent that they did in the first place?

I'm sure a lot of people would like to know their reasoning behind this entire thing. iirc what they did can have repercussions involving felony charges depending on the state laws as well, but I doubt that the reddit user would actually go out of his way to press charges given that it was reported that he wanted to remain anonymous, if he's the only person that could actually press charges in this case.

CNN really should have done better with this. There are so many other things that they could have reported on but instead they choose a reddit shitposter of all people to probe at. Sure, more ridiculous things have come out of media outlets, but CNN did not need something like this to happen considering that the POTUS and many of his supporters already dislike them. It's just throwing gasoline on the fire, and something is going to give in eventually.

fuck you im going to kill you in your sleep if you keep downfragging my accurate opinions

please shut up

.

when ur so low functioning u cant comprehend that somebody saying "the whole thing is a lie" isn't directed at you

ok one last post

What proof is there that they're blackmailing this guy other than a post that says they can still publish the information they have (which they can) and what looks like a person getting their stories mixed up?

In a court of law this would be shoddy evidence of any deal happening at best.

If they were indeed blackmailing him why not just release the evidence of them doing so? It would hurt them far worse than this whole fiasco and then he might even have legal ground to stand on to sue them (thought not likely). If this has unfolded the way you're saying why doesn't he just step up and put forward his side of the story?

At the end of the day all you have is someone posted racist/bigoted things and were found out but CNN decided not to post his info to protect him after he apologized which seems like a pretty good conclusion to me. The only actual concrete evidence is they found a guy, he issued an apology, and he definitely has an offensive post history associated with him.

Catface i don't why you have to be so low browed in whats supposed to be discussion but thats just your own issues I guess.

Ok now I'm pcing out

It does and did work for a fairly long period of time. Every time you drive on a public road you're using the evil communisms.

Anyhow, the idea that people have a right to their personal details not being public record is some sort of modern fantasy - if you own any sort of substantial property (car with loan or a house, or a tract of land), or even rent substantial property (apartment), that fact, your name, and most of your personal details (age, sex, not to mention criminal history, etc) are matters of public record which can be found by anybody who wants to do so. Also if you work, it's not terribly difficult to find out where either, being as this is typically a matter of public record as well. The only way to avoid this is to squat on empty land somewhere and hope nobody ever finds you, work in some capacity with the military, some police roles, or intelligence services, or move very, very frequently. Of course things like facebook - where people freely advertise these details - can also make for a few less phone calls, but it doesn't change the fact that this is public information.

The question is should major media organizations utilize some measure of restraint. Honestly, that's entirely up to their own ethical standards - as the majority of the information mentioned (name, age, place of residence, criminal history) are public record - anybody who knows your name and has some idea where you live, to narrow their search can find you if they want to; they're merely making a whole lot of people aware of these facts. Now, I think, but could be wrong on this, that you *could* show some sort of criminal intent if you say we'll give these details to x party who means to do you harm - but even still they could find it for themselves easily enough.

.