Why would you trust a guy calling himself “HanAssholeSolo”?


The fine fellow who created the Trump/CNN wrestling video has been tracked down and identified (but not “doxxed”, as the wingnuts are trying to claim). CNN called him and confronted him with his inanity and his contemptible history of racism and sexism, and he scrambled to cover his butt with an apology.

I would like to apologize to the members of the Reddit community for getting this site and this sub embroiled in a controversy that should never have happened, HanAssholeSolo wrote in a Fourth of July post on Reddit.

On Tuesday, HanAssholeSolo said he was sorry for his remarks. I am not the person that the media portrays me to be in real life, HanAssholeSolo wrote. I was trolling and posting things to get a reaction from the subs on Reddit.

It became an addiction as to how far I could of with the posts that were made, the Reddit user wrote, calling the incident an extreme wake up call to always consider how others may thing or feel about what is being said before clicking the submit button.

Free speech is a right we all have, but it shouldn’t be used in the manner that it was in the posts that were put on this site, HanAssholeSolo said, before arguing he intended for the meme to be taken purely as satire.

I do not advocate violence against the press and the meme I posted was in no way advocating that in any way, shape or form, the user continued. Our First Amendment protect the press from things like violence, and we as American citizens should respect that even if the opinions of the press are not in line with our own.

I had no idea alone would take it and put sound to it and then have it put up on the President’s Twitter feed, HanAssholeSolo wrote. It was a prank, nothing more.

Apparently, we’re now expected to accept his apology and praise him for seeing the error of his ways. I don’t. I see the usual noise: Free speech! First amendment! It was satire! (said by someone who has no concept of satire). It was just a prank!

Worst of all, the denial implicit in I am not the person that the media portrays me to be in real life. Yes, HanAssholeSolo, you are exactly that person. We saw what you chose to be when you could skulk in cowardly anonymity, and that person is an ugly bigot who tries to curry favor with other ugly bigots. This was you before you learned that your anonymity was easily pierced.

HanAssholeSolo claimed he made the gif, writing on the pro-Trump subreddit r/the_Donald, Holy sh*t!! I wake up and have my morning coffee and who retweets my shitpost but the MAGA EMPORER [sic] himself!!! I am honored!!

Shortly thereafter, news organizations noticed a history of offensive posts, including casual use of highly offensive terms including n*****, goatf*cker and f****t.

500,000 dead Muslims is a good start, HanAssholeSolo wrote in one response. Kill the rest and I’ll be impressed. Good keep up the good work until the last Islamic piece of shit is wiped from the planet.

There are people who have to be anonymous on the internet, who express themselves as decent human beings…and they have to be anonymous to protect themselves from vicious petty bullies like HanAssholeSolo. I’ll be more amenable to accepting that apology when he admits to himself that the middle part of his nom de smear was exactly accurate and describes precisely what he is.

Right now, I have a suspicion that he has a couple of these shitposting account names and will be back seeking the approval of his fellow shitlords. Because that’s who he is.

Comments

  1. says

    Why do they keep using the “this isn’t who I am” defense? I’m an anonymous internet user and being a racist bigot isn’t who I am, and I can back that up by not posting racist bigotry on the internet!

    Sorry, HanAssholeSolo, but that is who you are. If it wasn’t, you wouldn’t have been doing what you were doing.

  2. Siobhan says

    It became an addiction as to how far I could of with the posts that were made, the Reddit user wrote, calling the incident an extreme wake up call to always consider how others may thing or feel about what is being said before clicking the submit button.

    I was under the impression “your actions have consequences on other people” was a lesson typically posed to people starting at age 3.

    I have now been disabused of that notion.

  3. Dunc says

    When ever somebody resorts to the “it was satire!” defence, you should immediately ask them what they were satirising.

  4. robro says

    First, I note that his apology isn’t to the world at large, it’s to the “members of the Reddit community for getting this site and this sub embroiled in a controversy.” I suspect he’s not the only one engaging in this kind of shit. And in a sense, he didn’t get the sub embroiled in a controversy. The Pissident took care of that, or one’s of his or Bannon’s minions who keep up with what’s trending on this sub. Or maybe they use a bot to monitor lots of subs.

    In any case, I thought this comment was interesting: “I was trolling and posting things to get a reaction from the subs on Reddit.” Seems to me that describes a lot of what people post in a lot of places. It’s a snark fest, one that can easily get out of hand. It’s worrisome that trolling has become such a fad with so many people, and concentrated in a relatively few place. It might be just the kind of mass behavior that can be manipulated easily by people with dangerous intent and the tools to exploit the weakness.

    I should honestly admit that I post things on FaceBook to get a reaction out of folks. I’ve got one elderly uncle in particular that I provoke…I think that’s the honest word for it…with climate change information. I can rationalize it because it’s something he needs to think about rather than just following the Fox News or Rush Limbaugh cant.

  5. says

    I’d say there’s a pretty notable difference between this guy’s trolling and feeding facts to your wilfully ignorant relatives. One part of that equation is demeaning, dehumanising, and untrue, and the other is fact. That both can provoke doesn’t equate them.

  6. Siobhan says

    @ Tabby

    Julian Assange of all rapists is pissed off that CNN has threatened to dox HanAssholeSolo.

    Surely you jest.

  7. brucegee1962 says

    And it turns out he’s a middle-aged man

    OK, that tears it. If he was under the age of 25, the term “extreme wakeup call” might have some meaning — some people just take a loong time to grow up. But if you make it past 30 and still behave this way, then “extreme wakeup call” only works when accompanied by “I have just realized I am a terrible human being, and I intend to make it my life’s work to apologize to the good people I have slandered.” And even then, extreme suspicion is merited.

  8. drst says

    He’s 25? Really? Because the CNN Blackmail Twitter is insisting the dude is 15 and that CNN threatened to dox him (which I’m certain they did not do, and they have not identified him. meanwhile altright assholes are doxxing CNN employees like wildfire, in retaliation for something that didn’t happen).

  9. blf says

    It’s all there on [Assange’s] twitter feed.

    Or see the BBC (Trump gif maker apologises for racist posts):

    […]
    CNN has not revealed the true identity of the user, who also took steps to delete offensive material he had posted, including racist posts, but said it “reserves the right to publish his identity should any of that change”.

    That line has been the focus of much of the criticism levelled at CNN. Critics claim it amounts to a threat against the individual concerned.

    But Andrew Kazcynski, the journalist who wrote the article, claimed that the line had been misunderstood.

    “It was intended only to mean we made no agreement with the man about his identity,” he tweeted.

    Propelled by right-wing US internet personalities and Julian Assange, the hashtag #CNNBlackmail has been tweeted over half a million times since the article documenting how CNN tracked down HanSolo[] was published.

    Wikileaks founder Julian Assange accused CNN of “blackmailing a private citizen” and tweeted: “When Trump goes low CNN goes lower: threatens to dox artist behind ‘CNN head’ video if he makes fun of them again”.

    […]

    [… In response] Kaczynski tweeted that the broadcaster “specifically chose not to reveal the guy’s identity and to say we threatened anyone is a total lie”.

    […]

    Kaczynski said he had spoken to HanSolo and that the former Reddit user agreed that he had not been threatened by Kaczynski or CNN.

      † The jerk’s full handle breaches the BBC’s editorial guidelines, so they are abbreviating the handle to just “HanSolo”.

  10. Jessie Foster says

    “The guy whose identity we have threatened to reveal should he ever offend us again is agreeing with our narrative. See? Nothing shady going on here.”

  11. says

    Or, and I’m just throwing this out there, he requested to remain anonymous and CNN – with no need to do so – granted the request with the disclaimer that if he makes the news again they may not grant that request again.

  12. Siobhan says

    Honestly? I can’t summon a single shit to give. This guy comes from the same sphere of domestic terrorists that routinely dox people for saying such inane things as “women are people.” The only reason they can routinely get away with it is their anonymity.

    So fuck it. Blackmail them. Hold that shit over their head loud and proud. Dog knows they hold the threat of doxxing above the heads of minorities to punish us for speaking.

    And if anyone finds that position morally repugnant, all I have to say is tell your legislators to criminalize cyberterrorism. If the law did anything about this bullshit, I wouldn’t be taking the “punch the bully” stance.

  13. kevinkirkpatrick says

    This Hanassholesolo seems to exemplify two of the greatest myths of our time:
    1) That “online behavior” should be considered as distinct from “behavior”.
    2) That “how a person behaves” should be considered as distinct from “who a person is”.

  14. Mrdead Inmypocket says

    As PZ pointed out and as Oscare WIlde has written more succinctly “Give a man a mask and he will show his true face”.

    Anonymity on the internet has allowed people to communicate without potential for repercussion. If someone acts in an anti-social capacity and says “I am not the person that the media portrays me to be in real life,” That is actually a lie that serves two purposes. Anonymity allows the “troll” persona to shield one from repercussions from public scrutiny, it also allows one to maintain the illusion that their views are not a reflection of who they truly are.

    We all like to think of ourselves as good people. If you’re a lout and work to increase the surplus of human misery that exists in the world, how do you sleep at night. Well, you act as comes naturally to you, in an anti-social manner and then you tell yourself “That’s not really who I am”. You say things like “I was trolling and posting things to get a reaction from the subs on Reddit.” Allowing the “Troll” persona to take responsibility for your actions.

    The term Troll is a construct that not only shield people from public scrutiny, it shields lousy people from having to engage in introspection of their words and actions. I think that giving anti-social behavior a term like trolling is not very constructive.

    It makes one wonder, just what are the coping mechanisms for people who are rotten and at some level know that they are.

  15. Demeisen says

    The whole “right to privacy” argument should be a non-starter in this case. Yes, there is a right to privacy, but it’s well-established law that rights can be restricted in specific situations when there’s a compelling public interest. When an anonymous source is being parroted by official White House communications channels, it’s obviously in the public interest to unmask that source so the rest of their views can be brought to light. History establishes that allowing faceless, nameless people to gain influence over leaders is a bad thing.

  16. richardemmanuel says

    What happens if you do some hatetype with asterisks in? Have you then done it? If you were good you could do a screed that could be taken either way. And if you were better, many ways. A multi-necker.

  17. mesh says

    It makes one wonder, just what are the coping mechanisms for people who are rotten and at some level know that they are.

    Projection (“People who call me racist are the REAL bigots!”), sublimation (“It was just a joke/satire!”), displacement (“SJWs! Feminazis! Political correctness! Rararara!”), denial (“Prove that this embarrassing Trump-supporting tweeter isn’t a false flag! Any coverage of bigotry from my heroes is FAKE NEWS!”)

    I tend to believe that the reason there’s such a huge push to normalize hate in the social sphere is because the “trolls” are at least partially aware of their rottenness. We’ve seen how even an innocuous “guys, don’t do that” can inspire severe backlash and harassment. Slight criticism can trigger a disproportionate reactance response when it’s considered an assault on an aspect of identity.

    People who are rotten don’t see their rottenness as the problem; they see anything that shines a light on it as the problem. If only people would stop talking about sexual harassment and gay marriage and black men being murdered by police, hateful people wouldn’t have to grapple with distressing feelings, hence why, for example, bashing feminists has become a popular industry. There is great demand for people to disprove the wage gap and cast all women facing sexism as “professional victims” so as to legitimize the hate. Indeed, if the YouTube superstars and faux-feminists can go a step further and prove that it is men who are oppressed then their behavior is validated and harassment and misogynistic slurs simply become punching up in their minds.

    The troll construct does make for great tool. Not only is it a socially acceptable way for deplorables to interact broadly without limiting themselves to Stormfront-type cult communities, but it allows them to deny any real basis for their vile behavior to others and themselves. Racist epithets and calls for genocide is simply having fun, maximizing the “lul” count.

  18. Jessie Foster says

    @Lofty
    Oh no, a massive fucking news organization was abused by a wrestling meme. Terrible. You’re definitely not minimizing the impact and importance of how the word “abuse” is used by using it to describe a random ass Reddit troll making fun of CNN.

  19. gijoel says

    @Jessie Trump had a history of encouraging violence against critics. His retweeting of that gif is a continuation of that pattern.

    If cnn had doxxed him then guys like you would be whinging about the poor little redittor’s freedom of speech.

  20. Zeppelin says

    I wouldn’t feel even slightly sorry for the guy if they did doxx him, but I still don’t think they should. It’d be kind of satisfying, but it also sets a bad precedent (I don’t want Fox News running an “Enemies of Freedom” segment where they publicly doxx leftist internet commenters) and won’t do any good in the grand scheme of things.

  21. Jessie Foster says

    I wonder what the reaction here would be if Fox News had tracked down and threatened a private citizen for posting a meme they didn’t like.

  22. says

    So naming an abusive person is once again characterized as unacceptable by people that want to freely spew words that are used for racial dominance displays. I’m fully in support of publically identifying them and correcting the use of doxing in as annoying and disparaging a manner as possible (I assumine they want that word to have effective meaning, and overt bigots openly casting epithets about deserve no less).

  23. What a Maroon, living up to the 'nym says

    Jesse Foster,

    So I suppose you’re opposed to PZ’s policy?

    I reserve the right to publicly post, with full identifying information about the source, any email sent to me that contains threats of violence.

  24. Jessie Foster says

    @John Morales
    Yeah, pretty cut and dry.

    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.

  25. tacitus says

    I am not the person that the media portrays me to be in real life. I was trolling and posting things to get a reaction from the subs on Reddit. It became an addiction as to how far I could of with the posts that were made.

    Would this be a succinct example of the South Park defense?

  26. Jessie Foster says

    @What a Maroon
    No lol. Not even close to being the same situation.

  27. Jessie Foster says

    @Brony, Social Justice Cenobite
    CNN tracked him down because of a stupid wrestling meme, not because of the other racist shit he posted.

    Would you be okay with Fox News publishing your identity and location?

  28. Zeppelin says

    Like, I don’t think it’d be morally wrong to out the guy. But the fact is that this situation can easily be read as a “leftist” (i.e. not comprehensively deranged) news organisation threatening to publicly shame and expose someone for satirising them, as opposed to journalists outing a nasty bigot. Doxxing him would not be a clever move from a strategic or propagandistic perspective. It’d do more harm than good.

  29. John Morales says

    Jessie Foster @32:

    Yeah, pretty cut and dry.

    Really.

    So the blackmail consists of withholding publication of his identity from the public (this is a news organisation, remember) on the basis that “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.”, but noting that this forbearance is conditional on that remaining the status quo. No?

    (How are they supposed to profit from this purported blackmail is left an open question)

    @34

    @What a Maroon
    No lol. Not even close to being the same situation.

    Really.

    (Argumentum ad lapidem)

  30. Jessie Foster says

    @John Morales

    (this is a news organisation, remember)

    Doxxing people who post stupid memes isn’t the job of the news. It absolutely is blackmail: Do this or we release your personal information to the public.

    (Argumentum ad lapidem)

    1. There was no threat of violence, unless you know of someone who was born with a giant CNN logo instead of a human head. It’s obviously metaphorical.
    2. It was directed at a news organization, not a person.
    3. PZ says nothing about tracking down the person and publishing their address, only publishing the EMAIL (which is something the person submitted voluntarily).

  31. John Morales says

    Zeppelin:

    Doxxing him would not be a clever move from a strategic or propagandistic perspective.

    Interesting use of terminology.

    From Wikipedia (references elided): “”Doxing” is a neologism that has evolved over its brief history. It comes from a spelling alteration of the abbreviation “docs” (for “documents”) and refers to “compiling and releasing a dossier of personal information on someone”. Essentially, doxing is openly revealing and publicizing records of an individual, which were previously private or difficult to obtain.”

    Apparently, to you a news organisation revealing the name of someone who did something of public interest is doxing that person.

  32. John Morales says

    Jessie Foster: so, we crossed. I’ve just addressed the doxing claim.

    Regarding your objection to my objection to your dismissal of What a Maroon’s comment, I respond to your response to me but after that will leave it up to What a Maroon should they care to do so — it was their point, after all.

    1. There was no threat of violence, unless you know of someone who was born with a giant CNN logo instead of a human head. It’s obviously metaphorical.

    If it had been PZ’s visage pasted onto the victim, it would still be obviously metaphorical.

    (Your hidden premise: metaphorical threats of violence are not threats of violence)

    2. It was directed at a news organization, not a person.

    Premise: the act of making metaphorical threats of violence towards a collective entity is nothing like the act of making metaphorical threats of violence towards a person.

    3. PZ says nothing about tracking down the person and publishing their address, only publishing the EMAIL (which is something the person submitted voluntarily).

    Ahem. The person whose post you dismissed actually quoted what PZ wrote, in particular “with full identifying information about the source”. That’s more than just the EMAIL, no?

  33. Jessie Foster says

    @brony
    You don’t know what I’m talking about, please try reading again.

  34. Jessie Foster says

    @John
    It’s not a metaphorical threat of violence either.
    I’m pretty sure PZs field is biology, not computer hacking. I think he’s referring to any identifying information that is present in the email.

  35. says

    You explain “directed at a news organization” and the use of racial epithets. It looks like contextual cherry-picking. But if it helps you take others more seriously I’ll butt out and watch for a while.

  36. John Morales says

    Jessie, I know. Where I see forbearance, you see blackmail.

    I put it to you that, by your definition, probation is blackmail as is parole.

    [To all]

    Sorry for the prolixity; I leave this thread now.

  37. Zeppelin says

    @John Morales: I don’t think the guy’s identity actually is of public interest? He made a stupid, unremarkable meme that got retweeted by a stupid man who happens to be the President of the US. Revealing his identity would add nothing of value to our knowledge of the world (unless he is actually some high-ranking politician or something, in which case sure, go ahead and out him). It’s of “public interest” the same way celebrity gossip is.

    Outing him would shame and inconvenience an asshole, which is nice, but that’s about it. I don’t think that outweighs the negatives I’ve mentioned. Also, I would argue that publicly tying information that was previously anonymous and given under the expectation of anonymity (like someone’s Reddit posting history) to an individual is functionally “openly revealing and publicizing records of an individual, which were previously private or difficult to obtain”, i.e. doxing.

  38. notruescott says

    If my house burns down, or I’m involved in an extraordinary car accident, or I appear in court for some extraordinary case, my name and picture are likely to wind up in the local newspaper, maybe the television evening news. That’s what the news does, and a national news organization does the same for national news. These news organizations are doing nothing wrong.
    Seems to me that CNN declining to initially publish the identity of a nationally noteworthy individual is a favor to the asshole in question. Seems to me that if the individual insists on continuing to be an asshole it would be newsworthy, and CNN may or may not decide to publish the whole story. That’s all.

  39. What a Maroon, living up to the 'nym says

    First, thanks to John Morales for expanding a bit on my point.

    Second, CNN is a news organization, so of course they have resources available that PZ lacks. But they were able to suss the identity of the person who created the video. That video shows Il Douchebag violently attacking a person labeled CNN; to say it doesn’t imply violence against CNN (especially after it’s been retweeted by the alleged president himself) is disingenuous at best. Given PZ’s stated policy, he would likely have published whatever identifying information he had. Yes, PZ is a biologist, but he’s also spent a lot of time blogging and seems fairly savvy; he probably could have publicly identified the asshole using the same information CNN used (basically they just searched Facebook).

    So PZ might well have followed his publicly stated policy and identified the asshole. CNN decided to allow the asshole one strike, on the understanding that they would cease making threats. That is what to you constitutes blackmail?

    Meanwhile, this is how the fascists respond::

    A CNN reporter is facing harassment, death threats, and a potential protest at his house after he wrote a story that did not name a Reddit user who created a GIF posted by Donald Trump but suggested he might publish the user’s identity if their social media behavior changed.

    Social media personality and alt-right commentator Mike Cernovich is among those leading the charge against the reporter, Andrew Kaczynski, saying on Twitter, “We are coming for you.”

    Earlier in the day, Cernovich said that “sources” had told him they had planned a protest in front of Kaczynski’s house. An address that reportedly belongs to Kaczynski has been widely spread on Twitter, along with Kaczynski’s phone numbers and information about his spouse, siblings, and parents.

    So, Jesse Foster, who’s doing the blackmailing? And why are you so quick to side with the fascists?

  40. Jessie Foster says

    @What a Maroon
    You’re rarely meant to interpret memes literally.

    For example:
    http://bit.ly/2uMcgb2

    A person who posts this meme is not actually calling the cops, despite the meme saying exactly that.

    And why are you so quick to side with the fascists?

    I don’t side with fascist creeps like Mike “Whip it Out” Cernovich.

    That I think CNN is acting inappropriately does not mean that I think the Alt-Right is acting appropriately.

  41. Alt-X says

    yeah, it’s all vile evil spitting towards people until mum finds out. unfortunately, there are thousands more of him sitting on reddit and thousands more on Twitter and Facebook, ready to take his place. Ive said it before, how come the American free speech flag only gets waved with its to protect hate speech, history denial or spreading of lies?

    It’s such a bizarre world we live in now. In the Alt-Right forums, I find Nazis waving flags, egging each other on to hating towards people of colour and jewish people. On the far left, I bump into communists waving the failed Marxism–Leninism Russian flags, egging each other on, denying the mass murder and other atrocities inflicted on people. The internet sucks now. I wish we could go back to the way it was in the 80’s and early 90’s.

  42. says

    @Jessie Foster #51

    You’re rarely meant to interpret memes literally.

    Let me (re)introduce you to a word you might not know, judging by your behaviour these last months: context.

    Trump and his supporters threaten and incite violence against their opponents (among others journalists critical of Trump) all the time both overtly and covertly for over a year now. Your insistence that this one specific covert call for violence against journalists was not a call for violence at all requires one to ignore the whole context in which the meme was created and propagated.

    This is not the first time when you insist on plucking a behaviour out of its context and absolutely insist that it must be evaluated in isolation purely on its own.

  43. Azkyroth, B*Cos[F(u)]==Y says

    That I think CNN is acting inappropriately does not mean that I think the Alt-Right is acting appropriately.

    And yet look where you’re directing your energy…

  44. KG says

    What a Maroon@69,
    Very well put!

    Jessie Foster illustrates the Alt-Nazi concept of free speech – as it applies to their own speech, only: speech free of adverse consequences. Which they routinely deny to the targets of their harassment, as HanAssholeSolo did.

  45. rietpluim says

    Charly

    You’re too kind to Jessie Foster.

    We see someone who is supposed to be leading the most powerful country in the world, beating up a guy with the CNN logo instead of his head, like a bully in the school yard.

    It is a nasty video in every possible context, even completely isolated from any context.

    Context is unnecessary.

  46. What a Maroon, living up to the 'nym says

    Others have exposed the bullshit in Jesse Foster’s last post, but let’s just recap:

    An asshole prone to racist, homophobic, and anti-Semitic language doctors a video to show the alleged President violently attacking the press (not long after one of the newest members of Congress assaulted a real reporter).

    The Twit-in-Chief, who is known for advocating violence against his opponents and has declared the press the enemy, retweets the video.

    A CNN reporter, using easily accessible, publicly available information figures out who the asshole is, contacts them, decides not to publish their name, but reserves the right to do so in the future (just as our gracious host does).

    Fascists threaten the reporter and his family.

    And the lesson you take from all this is that CNN, the only actor in the whole business who showed some restraint, acted inappropriately.

    Do you really wonder why I accuse you of siding with the fascists?

  47. Jessie Foster says

    @Charly
    Can you give me one example of Trump directly calling for violence against journalists?

  48. Jessie Foster says

    @Azkyroth
    Pretty much everyone on this site is far left. There are no Alt Righters for me to argue against here.

    It’s a different story on Youtube/Twitter.

  49. Jessie Foster says

    @KG
    Apologize for what you’ve just said or I’ll track you down and post your personal information on the internet.

    Nothing wrong with that, right? No freedom from consequences, right?

  50. Jessie Foster says

    @Maroon
    Yeah, a news organization threatening to publish the personal information of someone in retaliation for a meme absolutely is inappropriate.

    I’d feel the same way if it was Fox News threatening to dox an anonymous liberal poster.

  51. rietpluim says

    Funny how one can be an actual fascist without being called far right, while the liberals on this site are being called far left for their opinions. We’re not Stalin for fucks sake. He was far left. We’re just left. To American standards. Most of us would classify as center-right in the country I live in.

  52. says

    @Jessie Foster
    Bite me, you disingenuous hack. My post contained a lot of possible combinations in this sentence (now with emphassis):

    Trump and his supporters threaten and incite violence against their opponents (among others journalists critical of Trump) all the time both overtly and covertly for over a year now.

    and from those you choose the single one that probably did not happen or if it did is hard to be evidenced. You are not able to be honest enough to even argue within the context of one post? Well FU.

  53. Jessie Foster says

    @Charly

    probably did not happen

    Thanks.

    Trump (probably) hasn’t called for violence against journalists. However, he has demonized, mocked, and dismissed them over and over again. In context, the meme is a fairly obvious continuation of that behavior.

  54. scildfreja says

    Aheh, wow.

    Trump retweets a meme of himself beating the stuffing out of a person with the CNN logo for a head, and then in the argument about it asks “Can you name one time Trump has ever suggested physical violence against journalists?” I’d point you at the head of the argument, @Jessie Foster, but no doubt it’d just be one more time around the merry-go-round.

    He’s legitimately called for violence against protestors, and has also “demonized, mocked and dismissed” them. He’s said he’d like to beat the crap out of them in the middle of his speeches, if you need an explicit threat. He’s also “demonized, mocked and dismissed” journalists and the news industry, as you’ve said above. You don’t need to provide evidence of him explicitly calling for violence. It’s implied.

    That’s how this works, @Jessie. He doesn’t call for violence – his horde of minions take that as a given. Implications and subtexts. Dog whistles. Racists, sexists, fascists and dictators insinuating the things they can’t say out loud. The insinuations get less subtle as the strong-man gathers power.

    Saying “He’s never explicitly called for violence!” is exactly why he communicates as he does. So that the pedantic, the timid and the unsure join ranks with the monsters. You say you don’t like Trump, but it doesn’t matter – you’re doing what he wants you to do all the same. Well done.

    Also hello again everyone. Rarely comment, always read. Hearts to you all.

  55. Jessie Foster says

    @scildfreja

    You say you don’t like Trump, but it doesn’t matter – you’re doing what he wants you to do all the same.

    Uh-oh, 4D chess.

  56. What a Maroon, living up to the 'nym says

    This is blackmail:

    But CNN is a journalistic enterprise. Or, at least, it plays one on TV. And so when a politician spews vicious, obvious lies on a near-daily basis — and directs a good portion of that venom at the free press itself — CNN’s anchors and reporters feel compelled to correct and condemn such mendacity. And that makes the president feel “betrayed.”

    So, now, his administration is openly threatening to punish the network by sending the Justice Department after its parent company. As the New York Times reports:

    Mr. Trump’s allies argue that it is CNN’s conduct that is unbecoming. Starting on last year’s campaign trail, the president and his aides have accused the network of bias and arrogance, an offensive that heated up again in January after CNN reported on the existence of a secret dossier detailing a series of lurid accusations against Mr. Trump. The network’s reporters now routinely joust with Mr. Trump’s press aides, and Jim Acosta, a White House correspondent, recently denounced the administration’s use of off-camera briefings as an affront to American values.

    White House advisers have discussed a potential point of leverage over their adversary, a senior administration official said: a pending merger between CNN’s parent company, Time Warner, and AT&T. Mr. Trump’s Justice Department will decide whether to approve the merger, and while analysts say there is little to stop the deal from moving forward, the president’s animus toward CNN remains a wild card. [my emphasis]

    This detail is buried 12 paragraphs into a feature on CNN’s combative relationship with Trump. Which is bizarre, given that it’s an open confession of corruption by a senior White House official. It hardly matters whether the administration follows through on its threat: The White House is extorting a news network in the pages of the New York Times. The fact that this didn’t strike the paper as headline material is a testament to how thoroughly Trump has already succeeded in eroding our expectations for good governance.

  57. says

    I remembered whom Jessie Foster reminds me of. A few years back there was a libertarian dishonest hack around, by the nym Tom Weiss, with very similar style of arguing as Jessie Foster has. I am not saying they are the same person, after all all sphincters look alike.
    Just saying.

  58. mesh says

    It’s also worth pointing out that it is pretty disingenuous to minimize this as “just a meme”.

    First of all, a thing that attracts the attention of the President of the United States is longer “just” anything, especially when it’s a thing that can be used to further a political agenda however slightly because slightly is still a hell of a lot of mileage for someone who wields the overwhelming influence conferred by the most powerful seat on the planet. HanAssholeSolo himself acknowledged this as a crucial factor when he said that he never expected it to end up on the President’s feed; in other words, he didn’t expect it to carry the influence that it does now thanks to the President’s blessing.

    Second, this didn’t just shit itself into existence out the aether. The foundation of its message has been laid bare: the visceral hatred of any media that doesn’t cast God Emperor Trump in a favorable light. And when said God Emperor has run a campaign successfully maligning and dehumanizing independent press to the point where someone running for office can attack a reporter, have a major news panel celebrate it as “Montana justice” and get elected, it’s safe to say that context does matter.

  59. rietpluim says

    Jessie Foster

    This is not a “You posted something we disagree with and we’re threatening you for it”. This is a “You are a threat to us and we’re responding in the most reasonable way we can think of”.

    What a Maroon gave an excellent summary at #59. You should read it, because apparently you haven’t.

    And then you can fuck off forever.

  60. Jessie Foster says

    @rietpluim

    And then you can fuck off forever.

    I think the most reasonable way I can respond to this aggressive language is by tracking you down and posting your personal information on the internet should you choose not to apologize.

    Glad you agree that this is a completely appropriate course of action, and not a threat.

  61. rietpluim says

    Trumpkins choose to remain anonymous because they are assholes who harass people.

    I choose to remain anonymous for the exact same reason: because Trumpkins are assholes who harass people.

    You are just plain evil to willingly and deliberately ignore that simple difference.

  62. Jessie Foster says

    @rietpluim

    Yeah, being told to fuck off is exactly like receiving death threats from the Trumpkins.

    CNN didn’t track down HanAssholeSolo because of death threats, they tracked him down because of a wrestling meme that the President chose to tweet.

    Were you unaware of this? If so, maybe don’t comment until you’ve familiarized yourself with the basics of the story.

    fuck off, you asshole.

    Huh, and I haven’t insulted you once. Why are you harassing me?

    Trumpkins choose to remain anonymous because they are assholes who harass people.

    And apparently you’ve chosen to remain anonymous so you can harass me.

  63. scildfreja says

    Uh-oh, 4D chess.

    -eyeroll-

    1D Chess, @Jessie Foster. Not 4D, 1D. What he’s doing isn’t devious, or underhanded, or particularly complicated. It’s instinctual.

    Five year old children do it. He knows he’s not supposed to say The Bad Thing, so he says something like The Bad Thing, and everyone understands that he actually meant The Bad Thing. When he’s called out by the adults in the room he cries “nuh-uh, I didn’t say anything wrong!” followed shortly by the host of obsequious pedants tripping over themselves to point out how he didn’t literally say The Bad Thing. Ask any six year old why they wrote dirty words on the bathroom wall, then scribbled out a letter, and you’ll witness the same dance.

    Heck, even animals do it. My cats know they’ll get into trouble if they tear up the furniture with their claws, so they’ll just paw at the couch instead, while looking at me. They skirt the issue. They insinuate. Even animals do this.

    There’s no mind games or 4D chess going on here, @Jessie Foster. Just a bully doing a dance as old as time and a chorus of voices trying to prove their superiority by pointing out the obvious, and in so doing confusing the words and the message.

    And you know this is a thing people do all the time. Like I said – even animals do it. The only reason one might have to be blind to it in a given circumstance is if they have an emotional investment in the dog-whistling. Someone who’s part of the chorus, someone who engages in the same innuendo on the same or similar topics. Someone who would have to face feelings of shame, guilt or embarrassment if they had to own up to the fact. There are lots of possibilities here.

    I’d ask you why you’re blind to the dog whistling he’s doing, but I imagine you’re not in a position to know the answer. I’d then suggest that maybe you should find that out, but I suspect you’re not in a position to take that advice, either. So I hope you can at least entertain the thought that you could be deeply wrong on this one, and that maybe you should spend some time considering that to be true, to see what the world looks like in that shape.

    Or, you know, just keep shouting about how dumb the lefties are. I’m sure that’s just as good.

  64. Jessie Foster says

    @scildfreja

    He knows he’s not supposed to say The Bad Thing

    Does he know this? Trump says stupid controversial shit all the time. That’s what he ran his campaign on. I don’t think we’ve ever had a President who was less careful about what he said than Donald Trump.

    I think you’re way off base if you think Trump is the type of person to tiptoe around an issue. He just says shit. His mouth moves faster than his brain.

  65. says

    Oooh, Jessie’s still around being a jerk. Hey Jessie, I know where you live and work, I’m going to send around a bunch of flower wielding lefties to be obsessively nice to you. You can’t run, you can’t hide from the Lefty Army. You will drown in the scents of Lavender and Hommous.

  66. Demeisen says

    To put things another way, the fact that the President is following and parroting online, right-wing extremists is itself very newsworthy. Figuring out who these people are is legitimate journalism, and provides important context given the circumstances. “POTUS quotes anonymous shitposter from his own fan subreddit” is a disturbing enough headline, but there’s more to it than that: Who are these people? What, if any, are their real political goals, and how might they make use of the fact that Trump is listening to them? You can’t answer these questions without figuring out who these people are in real life (especially since, if we take them at their word, they mean very little of what they say.) We’re in an age where random, anonymous people on the internet can rapidly become “political influencers,” and reserving the right to name them is a smart move.

  67. blf says

    The poster who I shall abbreviate as “JF” has decided CNN is threatening “HS”.

    JF has decided CNN is threatening HS.
    So what could change JF’s mind?

    Not, it would seem, anything CNN might say. They are, it seems — to JF — lying. (We note here known unreliable characters make the same claim: CNN is lying.)

    A statement from HS?
    Improbable, HS has been intimidated by CNN or somesuch is the obvious response from JF and other cannot-believe-CNNers.

    HS identifies her/him-self, and confirms CNN has not threatened her/him? Nope, would probably say JF and much of the rest of the cabal, since CNN and Soros and the illuminati and faeries &tc have lots of money and control CNN and the reptilians. (Whether that means Soros &tc controls the reptilians, or simply that there are reptilians, is left to the fevered imagination and evidence-free assertions of the JF kerk.)

    An independent witness? Nope, intimidated by CNN — presumably says JF — plus why is this supposedly-independent witness only revealed now?

    An audio(/video) recording of HS confirming CNN did not threaten her/him? Nope, easily edited, and (similar to above), why now…?

    The TARDIS? Nope, fiction. (Possibly the only correct, if unfortunate, presumed JF statement.)

    So what would change JF’s mind? My speculation is nothing, because having decided that CNN statement means CNN threatened HS, anything and everything else can be “explained” away. Evidence is not necessary, of course, to JF, since assertions by JF must be correct (in JF’s mind)…

  68. What a Maroon, living up to the 'nym says

    You know, thinking this over, the only legitimate criticism of CNN that I can see is that they should have just identified the asshole from the start.

  69. secondtofirstworld says

    @Jessie Foster:

    Too numerous to choose just one post, so… first, your claim is a classic hypothetical in a form of a loaded question. Would Fox News do it? When the former HP CEO started the myth that Planned Parenthood sells of baby parts, Bill O’Reilly ran a story on one of their clinics, and a domestic terrorist bombed them. So, your hypothetical meme is trumped by the actual deaths of people, who died because a nutjob believed a story. You claim in a different post, that the apology was given after he was “threatened”, except for the fact, that it doesn’t add up time wise.

    He claimed (after he removed all material that was extremely offensive even for Reddit) that it wasn’t even his meme, however he took full credit for it, which is something you don’t discuss as it doesn’t fly with your talking point. He thought that shelter protects him from scrutiny. Yes, in and of itself, that meme isn’t much of note. Yet, you asked if he (Trump) instigated violence. Since you probably have a hatred for the mainstream media, you might not have seen, when it was fact checked, if he really would pay for the legal fee of their supporters if they punch out protesters in rallies. HS claimed he did only trolling… actually, stop here for a second. If he truly were blackmailed, he’d not use the defense of trolling, he’d say it was an honest mistake that doesn’t happen again. Do you know how I know that? Stalin loved these “self reflection” speeches were a critic was forced to retract everything. Slobodan Milosevic did the same thing with the Albanian leader. That is how coercion looks like. So, he said he was only trolling, yet whoever did the video knew he likes to deal with criticism through violence.

    What you wish to ignore here is that the “far left” people here don’t play by selective facts. You can’t dismiss the bigotry he posted, even if he did it to be liked. You want to dismiss it because it makes HS the martyr.

  70. says

    I had hoped that Jessie would take people seriously. That dies not seem to be the case.

    Jessie you can whine about blackmail all you want, and I will simply lose respect for doxing as a thing as it gets twisted into defense of overt racists. The abusive things that people do while anonymous will be responded to, it’s socially inevitable. This is the sort of thing that I socially shun people over. Your fear is out of control.

    Why do you fear doxing? I for one am comfortable with the idea of policies that overtly state they dox people who refuse to stop being racist. It’s an act of social dominance rooted in irrationality and fear. You seem quite willing to sacrifice the social security of others for your own. It’s rational to think you would do it to me.

    But if my “seem” is incorrect you are free to show me how.

  71. mesh says

    @Jessie Foster

    Does he know this? Trump says stupid controversial shit all the time.

    Controversial for anyone who isn’t a part of Trump’s far-right base. Which statements do you think someone like HanAssholeSolo would find objectionable? The ones about Muslim refugee communities being breeding grounds for future waves of 9/11s? The ones about Mexicans bringing rape into the country? The ones about the media lying about him and the election being rigged against him?

    Trump says whatever gets him immediate praise and rewards within his circle, and sometimes this does entail tiptoeing or exaggerating his latest passion such as his sudden interest in promoting Christianity the moment the dominionists were poised to butter his bread. He can’t continue filling his narcissistic void if he alienates everybody which is why he’ll save the real nasty stuff for the privacy of an Access Hollywood bus and exert himself to memorize the names of several black civil rights figures to drop in his Black History Month speech to impress an audience that’s champing at the bit for a border wall, a ban on Muslims, and the expansion of voter suppression but resents being seen as racist.

    They say he “says it like it is” not because he has no mental filter, but because he’s saying exactly what they want to hear. He predictably seeks to impress whoever is praising him the most. His bottomless need for attention and adoration won’t allow him to be completely unhinged.

  72. Jessie Foster says

    @Brony
    What a lot of you guys can’t seem to grasp is that the normalization of doxxing as a legitimate tactic for your side to engage in will also implicitly offer cover for doxxing which comes from your opponents. You lose the moral high ground to condemn a tactic when you’re engaging in it yourself. A doxxer who complains about doxxing is a hypocrite.

    @secondtofirstworld
    You understand that you’re agreeing with my point in the first paragraph, right? Fox News did something similar (kind of), and you condemn it.

    The racist comments he posted aren’t relevant because they aren’t the reason CNN tracked him down. There’s a plentiful supply of racists on the internet. CNN went after him specifically because of a wrestling meme.

  73. says

    @Jessie
    Welcome to the world of the harassed.

    We grasp it. Many of us just don’t care because society is already broken like that for some. People who have social predators hunt for their identities so they can silence them will not care about what you have to say.

    People like you will have to prove you really mean what you say to warrent more than a condescending from me. Go apply social pressure at stormfront, or 4chan, or another hive of bigots that are creating your little problem. That you are here trying to make the people who predominantly face human garbage of that sort makes you a coward, at best.

  74. says

    The comments are not relavent to YOU, and you are here trying to convince people to not do something. And whatever the fuck you think this is, persuasion is not it.

    But then you basically don’t give a fuck about what is relevant to others from appearances.

  75. Jessie Foster says

    @Brony
    None of this is relevant, btw. As I’ve said over and over, CNN tracked him down because of a wrestling meme, not because of anything racist or anti semitic that he posted.

  76. says

    As if I’ve been talking about why CNN did what it did.

    Worse for who? I’m not concerned about you right now. I’d piss you out if you were on fire but nit much more than that. You broke that social contract woth me when you decided that pressuring the victims instead of the abusers was what was needed. It’s fixable, but the internet and reputation are not simple.

    You want people here to nio do something. Don’t forget that. If you truely have good intent (and I’m holding both possibilities in my mind) this is what you have.
    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boomerang_effect_(psychology)
    It’s not random either. I truly believe that the extra sympathy and aidovertly awful people get from people like you with more implicitly and unconsciously awful beliefs is a feature of a species capable of preying on its own kind. You simply trust them more because they don’t target you.

    If it gets worse for you it’s not because I want it to, but it will be fair. I can’t feel had about that with the reputation you have created with me.

  77. Jessie Foster says

    @Brony

    You simply trust them more because they don’t target you.

    I’m Jewish, dude. Had my Bar Mitzvah and everything. And, as you might be aware, we’re kind of a big target for the Alt Right.

    So please spare me your stupid fucking armchair psychology. You know nothing about me.

  78. Azkyroth, B*Cos[F(u)]==Y says

    I think the most reasonable way I can respond to this aggressive language is by tracking you down and posting your personal information on the internet should you choose not to apologize.

    Glad you agree that this is a completely appropriate course of action, and not a threat.

    I withdraw my apologies in the previous thread.

  79. says

    Says the one lecturing the person with Tourette’s Syndrome about bullying. *yawn*
    Oppression Olympics are boring. I would win since I tend to trigger startle reflexes at a more basic level anyway, and I’m not interested in solutions that only help me.

    Now if you actually did more than say you were Jewish, maybe connect some ideas together about why that experience shows I’m wrong…

  80. Jessie Foster says

    @Azkyroth
    I shouldn’t have to explain this, but I was being illustrative of a point, not literally threatening to doxx someone. Please use your critical reading skills.

  81. Azkyroth, B*Cos[F(u)]==Y says

    You lose the moral high ground to condemn a tactic when you’re engaging in it yourself.

    You don’t really do this “context” thing, do you?

    “If you accept that it should be legal to kill someone who’s in the middle of actively attempting to rape or murder you, then you lose the moral high ground and also have to accept that it should be legal to kill someone who insults you!”

  82. Azkyroth, B*Cos[F(u)]==Y says

    I shouldn’t have to explain this, but I was being illustrative of a point, not literally threatening to doxx someone. Please use your critical reading skills.

    You were making a false equivalence that showed you to be a dishonest piece of shit. I read it just fine :o)

  83. Jessie Foster says

    false equivalence

    Lol. Dude posted a meme. It’s a pretty good equivalence.

  84. says

    Jessie Foster @ several places, but particularly @61: Just have to ask, because I’m concerned for your welfare – is Satan paying you professional rates for all the advocacy work you’re doing?

    As to your point @93 – The point is HAS wasn’t doxxed. He wasn’t threatened with doxxing. His identity, strangely enough, is still a secret to the rest of the world. He’s still a private citizen, and he’s still perfectly at liberty to continue doing stupid shit on the internet at large, with no consequences in his day-to-day life, because he is still anonymous. Unlike the reporter for CNN who reported on the story, and is getting death threats, has had his details released on the internet, is experiencing threats of violence, and has received veiled threats to his family and livelihood as a result of not publishing the identity of HAS.

    So precisely what the flippin’ heck is it you’re getting so exercised about? Small words and short sentences, please, because clearly I’ve missed your point along the way.

  85. scildfreja says

    Does he know this? Trump says stupid controversial shit all the time. That’s what he ran his campaign on. I don’t think we’ve ever had a President who was less careful about what he said than Donald Trump.
    I think you’re way off base if you think Trump is the type of person to tiptoe around an issue. He just says shit. His mouth moves faster than his brain.

    You’re right, he does just say shit. It isn’t calculated. This is inherent human social behaviour he’s demonstrating. Just like I said. The ability to say one thing while meaning another isn’t some sort of devious ploy. The dumbest mug in the lineup can do it. Our brains are good at that sort of pattern recognition.

    I’d continue but I scarcely see the point. This conversation with you is less an exercise of truth-seeking and more an exercise in mental endurance. So, until next time!

  86. Jessie Foster says

    @scildfreja
    Broad generalizations about human social behavior become less relevant when we’re talking about an individual, especially when that individual routinely violates social expectations. Like I already pointed out, Trump crosses the line routinely. He’ll outright say what a more savvy Conservative politician would simply imply. The expectation that he’ll tiptoe around an issue like this for fear of backlash isn’t something which is supported by the evidence.

    Bye!

  87. says

    Link dropping Jessie?

    If you can’t tell me why that link supports what you are talking about why should I believe you? You pointed at the link and grunted.

    What will we find in your link and how does it relate to someone’s comment? It’s almost like you expect us to follow orders.

  88. Jessie Foster says

    @Brony
    Meg said she didn’t understand my point. Maybe this is because I’m not a good writer. Glenn Greenwald is a good writer, and, considering his background, probably something of an expert on the issue. Glenn explains why CNN threatening a random citizen is a bad thing.

    Hope this helps.

  89. says

    Oh, and aparently the behavior of individuals can’t be discussed relative to what we know about human behavior. You are such a coward Jessie.
    Scildfreja’s job happens to involve writing software using those general trends that we study and store in places like Universities. They are exactly the sort of person to have relavent things to say. But whatever makes you feel better about refusing to engage with what Scildfreja typed.

    Shameful.

  90. Jessie Foster says

    @Brony

    aparently the behavior of individuals can’t be discussed relative to what we know about human behavior

    I didn’t say this. Learn to fucking read.

    Scildfreja’s job happens to involve writing software using those general trends that we study and store in places like Universities.

    That’s not relevant because we aren’t discussing general trends, we’re discussing an individual, and a highly specific incident of that individual’s behavior (posting a meme).

    But whatever makes you feel better about refusing to engage with what Scildfreja typed.

    I wrote a direct reply you dense fuck.

  91. says

    You don’t get it.

    Why do YOU say it’s a bad thing? We’re talking to you. You should be able to actually use the contents of the article to tell us why it’s a bad thing.

    Orders. That’s all you have. Change that if you care about persuasion. You want us to change. So far I don’t give a shit about you because you show no signs of having internalized anything and understood how it applies to this specific situation.

    You expect me to do your work.

    I’m starting to suspect you like the fact that there are swarms of people forcing at least one of: other races, women, LGBTQ+ or someone else to act in a certain way. You need the social tool don’t you? Is that why the orders?

  92. Jessie Foster says

    @Brony

    You expect me to do your work.

    The article wasn’t directed at you. And I wouldn’t direct an article at you because I don’t think you have the necessary reading comprehension skills.

  93. says

    Motivated reasonine alone is a fucking general trend in human behavior. There is no way you follow your own advice. I’m reading about how general trends in basal ganglial evolution inform about what the basal ganglia is and and it dies in my mind.

    I bet you just can’t deal with the level of detail. I’ve seen other authoritarian types act fearful towards the words “social psychology” like this before. I know for a fact that Scildfreja actually likes to explain these things to people and look like you are just assuming.

  94. says

    Why should I care if the article was not directed to me? You are making general statements about how things should be in terms of social behavior, you invited me. That’s on top of helping people I like by repeatedly discussing your comments and the inherent rudeness and expectation on others.

    Whine away.

  95. Jessie Foster says

    I really don’t think you’re capable of understanding anything I’ve written, so I’m probably going to wrap it up here.

  96. says

    Isn’t it interesting that bigotry is a general trend in human behavior? And we aren’t supposed apply general trends to individuals. That’s awfully convenient. For Trump no less.

    That’s quite a massive What About The Menz you’ve shit all over the place.

  97. Jessie Foster says

    I really don’t care, dude. You’re not arguing against anything I’ve said. You don’t have the ability to correctly process anything I’ve written.

  98. scildfreja says

    I came back! Hello again!

    @Brony, yes, autocorrect can go sort of wonky on you and can change good spelling to bad. That happens if you accidentally mistype something and send it anyways – it’ll prioritize your misspelled word over a properly spelled one in some cases. Gosh darn markov nets!

    @Jessie, while it’s true that you can’t assume that an individual will have all of the traits represented by a generalization (which seems to be how you’ve dismissed my position?), you also can’t assume that an individual doesn’t hold the traits of the generalization. You in fact ought to use the generalization as a stand-in for the individual until enough evidence arrives to justify distinguishing the two! This is the principle of identity and is a fundament of science and mathematics.

    More generally and more on-point, though – you’re correct that he’s more blatant. This doesn’t mean that he doesn’t use innuendo or dog-whistles, however. It just means that he pushes the boundaries of what is acceptable, and tailors his statements to his audience. On national TV? He loves protesters, wants them to speak. At the rally? Get’em outta there, rough’em up. Confront him on saying that he’d like to punch protesters? He never said that. His use of innuendo is not consistent, but it’s certainly there, and it’s certainly an essential part of how he interacts.

    As for your discussions with Brony here – Brony is one of the most perceptive, thoughtful, and most cleverest ponies I have ever had the delight of encountering. May I gently suggest what caused me to give up the argument earlier? You are not pursuing truth here. This is a case of you trying to assert the dominance of your own perspective. A lot of people mistake that for the rational method, because they can be similar.

    If you’d like to assert otherwise, I’d like to suggest starting by clearly and accurately stating the flaws in your own argument! That’s a good way to gauge your perspective and see its weak points. All positions have them, after all. With that, we can all together determine whether those cracks in its armour are fatal flaws, or whether it’ll hold together under stress. How does that sound?

  99. blf says

    From the link in @110 (CNN Warns It May Expose an Anonymous Critic if He Ever Again Publishes Bad Content):

    The claim that CNN “blackmailed” the user into apologizing — expressed by a Twitter hashtag, #CNNBlackmail, that still sits at the top of trending topics on the site — seems dubious at best, since there is no evidence the user spoke to CNN before posting his apology […].

    However, in @13, what is essentially that very dubious claim is made: Very disturbing that a major news organization thinks its okay to blackmail someone in retaliation for a meme they didn’t like.

    So we return to the question posed in @86: JF has decided CNN is threatening HS.
    So what could change JF’s mind?

  100. says

    Jessie, I again offer to back off for a while if it will help you take others more seriously. In actual fact I wiil give you time to cool off while you consider Scildfreja’s offer to discuss the subject. I will watch for now.

  101. Jessie Foster says

    @scildfreja

    You in fact ought to use the generalization as a stand-in for the individual until enough evidence arrives to justify distinguishing the two!

    People generally post memes as a humorous exaggeration of something they believe. The Trump wrestling meme appears to be exactly that: a humorous exaggeration of Trump’s rhetorical attacks against CNN.

    Why is this generalization incorrect? Why is this a serious meme that you’re meant to take literally?

    You are not pursuing truth here. This is a case of you trying to assert the dominance of your own perspective

    You aren’t doing the same? You aren’t asserting the dominance of your perspective that Trump was using this meme to incite violence?

    And truth can only be pursued to a certain extent here. Absent a mind-reader all we can do is speculate about his intentions.

    If you’d like to assert otherwise, I’d like to suggest starting by clearly and accurately stating the flaws in your own argument!

    Since you’re suggesting it, how about you go first?

    What are the flaws in the argument that Trump is using this meme to incite violence?

  102. Jessie Foster says

    @blf
    You’re mistaken if you think Greenwald is arguing that CNN isn’t threatening HS.

    Whatever the intent, this is a case where one of the nation’s most powerful media corporations is explicitly threatening a critic with exposure should he publish material that the network deems — based on its own secret standards — to be worthy of punishment. And the threat comes in the wake of his groveling public apology, posted less than a day after he learned CNN had discovered his identity.

  103. Jessie Foster says

    I’d change my mind if CNN retracted the threat they published. Pretty simple.

  104. Jessie Foster says

    @Kristjan Wager
    No, they did. Right here:

    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.

    http://www.cnn.com/2017/07/04/politics/kfile-reddit-user-trump-tweet/index.html

    Last sentence. Crystal fucking clear.

  105. scildfreja says

    Hee! Gosh. I’m not arguing about whether Trump re-tweeted that meme as anything more than a humorous extension of his rhetoric. I’ve been talking about whether Trump is capable of speaking in dual-meanings in general. He can, he does, he has. I’m happy to make it specific though. I’ll reiterate (briefly) on that specific, and then I’ll pop the holes in my own argument. And then I’ll explain what the difference is between trying to assert dominance of one idea over another and truth-seeking, and how one can seek truth in an uncertain arena. How does that sound?

    First: I don’t debate with you that he’s using the meme to humorously highlight his rhetoric. Sure he is! That’s exactly what he’s doing. Using jokes is an excellent way to signal membership in a group, to communicate intention, and to speak in dog-whistles to a crowd about something one can’t say directly. Frankly, Brony is way more qualified than I am in talking about that. Jokes are a fantastic way to signal something with plausible deniability, though. I mean, that’s what you’re doing here. You’re basically saying that a meme is “just a joke” when it also serves the purpose of communicating “These people are contemptible and you should drop chairs on them.” That’s exactly what these things are for.

    Next, the holes in my argument! Feel free to add anything I’ve missed. My evaluation relies on the suggestion that Trump actually believes that the media is out to get him, or is otherwise hostile to him. It relies on the suggestion that Trump actually thinks the media should be punished for that fact. It’s possible that he’s just echoing it because he thinks it’s funny, and would regret reposting it if it was responsible for people coming to harm – the argument that he’s just unaware of the violent possibilities of his retweet. The reason I don’t believe this alternative to be true is just the volume of evidence of his nasty behaviour when confronted with evidence that his actions have had bad outcomes. There’s enough evidence out there to indicate that he’s either actively malicious or deeply ignorant and unconcerned about others – and there’s honestly little difference between those two things.

    Next, argument as dominance struggle versus dominance as truth seeking! This one’s easy, my duck. Truth seeking behaviour doesn’t strongly defend one point, but instead attempts to integrate all available evidence. It’s focused more on evidence evaluation, on gathering alternate perspectives, on self reflection and self-doubt. It’s a more internal process. Argument as dominance tends towards discrediting alternative descriptions. It employs sarcasm, cynicism, fallacious argument, and normally an attempt to discredit possible problems before they arise. It avoids self-doubt and self-evaluation, and instead is focused on attacking any other position.

    A good way to recognize whether one is arguing as a dominance exercise is if you’re using sarcasm, jargon or shorthand, or otherwise aren’t being respectful or attentive. This happens here on all sides! It’s a very human thing, and it’s okay to engage in it. We’re all social creatures after all. Just don’t confuse it for a rational discussion.

    As for whether truth-seeking is even possible in this sphere of discussing other peoples’ motivations – it absolutely is. Brains aren’t magic, and drives are universal. They have endless permutations and expressions, but they’re all happening in the same glorious squidgey brain, after all. There are certainly rules that always apply, and certainly trends that cannot be reasonably dismissed. The idea of jokes as social signals meant to communicate more than humour is one of those, and is why I didn’t really have “A meme is just a joke” in my admissions above. Jokes almost always have social payload. Jokes against a group, against a class, against an entity must be considered a carrier of a social signal. Heck, that’s the definition of the word “meme” after all. A packet of information.

    Sorry for the post being so long, but you asked a pretty hefty number of questions! I believe it’s your turn now – what are the flaws in your argument? Why are you so comfortable dismissing alternate explanations?

  106. Jessie Foster says

    @scildfreja

    when it also serves the purpose of communicating “These people are contemptible and you should drop chairs on them.”

    You’re still falling into the trap of interpreting memes literally.

    Going back to a previous example:

    http://bit.ly/2uMcgb2

    This meme communicates exaggerated/ironic disapproval, but it does not in any way communicate that the poster is literally contacting the police. That’s how it is with most memes. The literal interpretation is almost always the wrong interpretation. The way the message is delivered (calling the cops/wrestling takedown) is not actually the message, it’s just a humorous framework for the message.

    http://bit.ly/2tVHijz

    I believe it’s your turn now – what are the flaws in your argument?

    Trump has previously directly incited violence against protestors, so there is a precedent for him inciting violence.

    I think this is insufficient because Trump has also constantly attacked “fake news” WITHOUT inciting violence. His rhetorical attacks have been focused mainly on attacking the credibility of the news, which leads me to believe that the meme he posted was just a humorous way to convey that.

  107. says

    This is getting ridiculous.
    Jessie Foster: You are taking the meme too literally!
    Everyone else: No, we are not, there is a lot of context attached to that “meme” as in who, when and under which cicumstances has created it and….
    Jessie Foster: You are taking the meme too literally!

    Rinse and repeat.

  108. Jessie Foster says

    there are like violent conservatives that exist in the world, so that it makes it totally okay to doxx people that make wrestling memes guys

    only CNN-approved memes please

  109. says

    Jessie, memes are social information thar can be broken down into sub parts and studied.

    Think social central pattern generators,
    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_pattern_generator
    …connecting images and text in seperable fashion in the specific case of image macros (a kind of meme).

    Toss in the more mutually reflective parts of our minds represented by mirror neuron ssystems and that hopefully that helps.

    Funny thing about Tourette Syndrome. The reported phenomena. Echolalia, echopraxia (mirrored sounds and movements). Scildfrega is not taking the meme literally. They are talking about how the memes work. Jessie does not like what they are hearing. Maybe they don’t like the idea of socially impulsive behavior being taken seriously, it’s threatening.

    I’ll butt out again but I do have a feel for a slice of what is typically unconscious for most.

  110. chigau (違う) says

    You’ve jumped the shark, Jessie Foster.
    Time to shut down the tab and have a nap.

  111. Jessie Foster says

    @Brony

    but I do have a feel for a slice of what is typically unconscious for most.

    You don’t, that’s just a delusion. Bye.

  112. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    Jessie Foster: You’re done here. Don’t post in this thread anymore.

    Jessie Foster, you had your say over three days ago. Your inability to let it go meant you were being aggressive not assertive…Think about that, if you really have the ability of self-reflection.

  113. scildfreja says

    ohmigosh i actually get to have a last word for once i don’t even know what to say

    Brony’s right! Your assertion that “you’re taking memes too literally!” is frankly silly, @Jessie. Your “calling the police” meme is a great example of this. Because no, the poster isn’t actually calling the police, just like Trump isn’t actually body-slamming the physical manifestation of CNN in the meme-in-question. That’s very clearly not true, since there’s no man-with-CNN-head to body-slam.

    The actual message of the police-meme is “ooh, lookit you, edgelord” (depending on context). The actual message of the CNN-meme is “lol look at how trump’s trashing mainstream media.”

    But that, above? depends on context. The police-meme could equally mean “Cut it out or I’m calling the mods”. The CNN-meme could equally mean “CNN is trash, hit them with sticks.” Depending on the audience. People with an interest in protecting internet troll culture emphasize the first meanings I talked about, or near equivalents – the harmless ones. But humans are complicated, and the message also means far darker things to a specific audience.

    This isn’t 4D chess. This isn’t complicated to do. It’s instinctual. Toddlers learn this very quickly.

    You know it, too, you just have a vested interest in ignoring it. My guess is that you’re one of those people invested in internet troll culture being considered harmless. Perhaps you’re one of the people that laugh at those sorts of memes and share them around, and get irritated when people talk about the harms they can cause?

    Go learn a bit of sociology, my duck. and leave your ego at the door when you do. Very much worth your time.

    Thank you PZ!

  114. secondtofirstworld says

    @Jessie Foster #93: I’ve replied to your notion, which you put into a hypothetical, despite the fact, that Murphy’s Law is strong with America, if something bad bounds to happen, it does happen. In other words, it’s not hypothetical if something worse could happen, it did happen.

    It was worse, because the “documentary” on selling body parts was fake, repeating it without sources was done purely for political gain (that didn’t pan out, not even as Ted Cruz’s vice president) and O’Reilly went a step further. They are responsible for that bombing that killed people over nothing.

    However, there are indicators that you willfully ignore here. Ever since Alex Jones started the whole “Sandy Hook was a hoax”, the barrage of harassment unto actual grieving people is never ending, based on nothing. Therefore, you are in need of proving, that just like Alex Jones, CNN also uses its platform to openly harass people, and has done so in the past. You’re taking us for idiots when you claim, that his racist and antisemitic content was not uncovered while they investigated who took credit for the meme. This is like saying, that the serial killer of Rillington Place is innocent because they found one body buried in the backyard, but those others could have been done by others.

    Yes, it’s important, that it’s part of his character, that he’s a bigot and until you can prove that CNN has committed a string of reveals committed with the intent of ruining lives, you can’t disprove, that they’ve informed him, that should he post extremist content again, his name would be revealed. This disingenuous “we have to keep him safe otherwise he’d be harassed” is ironic considering the ones who could dox him are the ones who agree with him. You’re proposing that endangering others is a normal part of life, except it a punishable crime, and will remain one.

  115. rietpluim says

    You’re proposing that endangering others is a normal part of life, except it a punishable crime

    QFFT

    And it happens over and over and over again every fucking time some asshole’s assholery is being exposed. Oh boy, how dare we!

Leave a Reply