Too bad the little faggot apologized. Should he have had some backbone and told the CNN to fuck off, he'd win that ez. Nobody trusts CNN, the whole world is now against CNN because of the blackmail, people are massively finding and fact-checking the other picture the guy posted (the one outing all CNN as Jews), CNN act like complete retards making such a fuss over such a non-issue and literally everyone with half a brain thinks they're clowns. This stupid kid could have stood up and won, humiliating CNN even further, but he apologized, because he feared they could out him (little retard didn't realize he could sue them for millions if they did). What a faggot
He's a kid who did some trash talking on the Internet, then he made the satirical video, and CNN is threatening to unleased the Social Justice Warrior thugs on him and his family.
UPDATE (7/4 @ 8:34 AM ET): On Wednesday morning, Kaczynski tweeted out some details of the user: "Need to point out again HanAssholeSolo is a middle aged man. People claiming he's 15 are wrong. Some are intentionally spreading this."
Guy in OP's video is a faggot. OP may be a faggot, too, if he watches 26 minutes of retarded redneck ranting about CNN and sides with the redneck.
I watched one minute of the video. Now there are many more videos and news accounts, although, now suddenly, the main stream media seem to ignoring the story. CNN went from bragging about intimidating this person to complete silence on the topic.
My feeling is that the Trump wrestling meme is typical stupid internet shit of no consequence. If Trump were not President of the US he could tweet it for the lulz, no problem. But Trump is President and therefore he has a job to do. Part of that job involves representing in word and deed the meaning of the US Constitution. The First Amendment says that the President can't fuck with reporters even if he thinks they deserve some payback. So Trump fucked up big time.
CNN said they weren't going to out the guy so long as what he said was legit. Problem? Also dox on the guy being 15 years old. Seems like bullshit.
This thread has potential to replace the Baron Philip Whatever thread. A member of the alt/right has come to for personal army support to defend a 15 year old boy from blackmail by the nefarious Media. And we are behind you all the way, fella.
Boggle's profile says he's been a member since Feb 2008. That is old fag royalty. So I am willing to hear him out. If I were in CNN's shoes, I'd be willing to forgive and forget. But I would not want to put myself under a gag order. I'd want to reserve the right to say, "Hey I know that asshole," if the guy turns up in some other mess. Is there a better way for CNN to word their "we reserve the right..." statement? I would like to hear the right way to phrase this position.
I heared he was over 37 and not a girl, and I read that in a statement from CNN so I am not doxing anyone.
Unfortunately this is the best we can do. A Second amendment breech by the President of the United States who wants to be able to sue the press - there is that second amendment deeleebop again- and wants people to beat the reporters up.
Older but pretty good article on Project Veritas and its covert ops here: http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2016/05/30/james-okeefe-accidentally-stings-himself Boggle, you are an insightful person who understands the game of black PR ops. You understand the techniques for pushing buttons and collecting useful idiots to witlessly forward some agenda. So surely you can see this anti-CNN agitprop for what it is. What happened to you, man?
See #CNN Blackmail/The Weekly Rundown by the Roaming Millennial: https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=1&v=6L4Bte_2u10
To the poster, The Internet: Nothing happened to me. I don't, and never did, worship before altars. Do you?
Kind of a non sequitur thar bro. I wonder if you can answer my question: if CNN wanted to say they weren't going to name the guy who made the gif without promising to *never* name the guy, what would be the right way to phrase their "we reserve the right to..." statement? If there is an organized black PR campaign against CNN and gif creator is part of that, it may be important to name him in some future context. Okay second question: You say CNN is not a reliable source. Which news outlets are more trustworthy? BTW I do sincerely thank you for your contributions to chanology. Respect.
Almost any news outlet is more reliable than CNN. CNN likely broke the law or, at the very least, acted unethically by threatening the gif creator. Best wishes.
If you wouldn't mind, I'd like the name of a specific news outlet that you respect so I can google up some comparisons with CNN.
I will grant you that the wording, "CNN reserves the right to publish his identity should any of that change" allows for a range of interpretations. "CNN reserves the right" means some lawyerly person added the bit about keeping the source's identity hidden for now but not necessarily in the future. Because I can imagine legitimate reasons for revealing the source's identity in the future I did not read the statement as a threat. However I did cringe at the implication that CNN might return to the matter of the guy's identity if he backslid into Jew and nigger hating. No sane person signs up to be the naughty police. Plus the Jew nigger hating never actually stopped. I mean, please. That apology was a troll. But all this distracts us from the fact that our President is forcing CNN hate upon us, which is a threat to the First Amendment so srs. Given the recent Project Veritas OSA-style ops on CNN, it is reasonable to assume that an organized campaign meant to intimidate reporters at CNN is in play. This also is a threat to the First Amendment. Given your expertise with Hubbard's "Brainwashing manual," I figured you would spot the black PR campaign from a mile away. Troll for dirt, or for anything that can be made to look like dirt, hammer negative associations over and over until the public instinctively dislike the target. That's how Hubbard rolled and that's how Project Veritas also rolls.
Oh hey how timely. A little more evidence suggesting we are in the midst of an organized op to damage public faith in our news media. Someone Sent Rachel Maddow Fake NSA Documents Alleging Trump-Russia Collusion https://whyweprotest.net/threads/ed...illance-2015-2016.123683/page-10#post-2612270 I'm guessing the alt-right crowd behind #CNNBlackmail has been groomed to serve as Kremlin useful idiots unwittingly --much like some Scientologists back in the day, although I'm not sure about the witting/unwitting part there.
Hey there is a non-Russia-related motive for pressuring CNN to be nicer to Trump right now. I just learned that AT&T wants to merge with Time-Warner. That deal doesn't go through unless Trump's Justice Dept. signs off. So a noisy feud between CNN and Trumpsters will probably worry Time-Warner. Will they tell CNN to chill? I guess we will see how this plays out.
You must have done some serious mental gymnastics to make up in that hollow shell of yours that you call your head that Trump holds any responsibility for any of this. He literally has nothing to do with that. What do you think, retard, that he asked someone to meme him? But you're a die hard anti-Trump so you will go for any, no matter how pathetic and illogical, argument against him. No, they said that they won't out him (which they have no right to do) if he apologizes (which he doesn't have a duty to do) for posting memes (which he had a right to do). Since when WWP is a forum for anti-Freedom-of-Speech fags? That's not how Anon works, fag.
This is a bunch of ad hominem. Journalists covering stories name the people involved in the story. That is what they do. In this instance, CNN worried about people trolling the guy hard so they held back his name. I agree with you that the way CNN worded their "we reserve the right..." statement was fail as it implied that CNN extorted an apology from the guy. But the apology went up before CNN's report. Did you think this thread would be full of agreement with the OP? Please explain more about how Anon works.
A logical fallacy doesn't automatically make an argument incorrect, but you decided not to address my argument, which, let me remind you, is that Trump does not hold any responsibility for anything his supporters or opponents do, because you're a coward. You will also not address this, because I called you a coward, which you are. Journalists have no right to uncover personal information of people who are not public figures. Anon's identity or "seniority" doesn't matter, what matters is their arguments. That's how Anon works. Let me apologize for pointing that out tho, as it was not relevant to WWP, which is not an Anon forum. It was my mistake to bring that up.
LOL yes they do It happens all the time. Just as one example, it is through journalists that we find out personal details about the victims of crimes all the time. Being the victim of a crime does not make a person into a public figure, and yet, the public takes an interest in these details and journalists have every right to publish the publicly available information about any topic of interest to the public. The families of the victims of Sandy Hook had many personal details dug up about them and published by (un)sympathetic journalists to help alt-righters search for evidence of a non-existent false flag psyop to drum up support for gun control legislation and take away people's guns. Trayvon Martin was not a public figure, nor were his parents, and yet volumes were published about them by right-leaning, gun-loving journalists and bloggers who wanted to justify the actions of George Zimmerman. The victim doesn't have to be dead, either. There was the case of the cheerleader from Silsbee, Texas, who accused a classmate of raping her. Because the person she accused was well-connected, it was difficult to get a conviction, leading to a long series of lawsuits and news stories. The cheerleader was a minor for most of this period of time and certainly not seeking publicity, but personal information about her and her family was published thanks to the well-connected accused rapist and public interest.
Our local newspaper's daily police log is a popular read. It's full of the names and addresses of adult non-public figures who were the subject of police calls. These people haven't been convicted of a crime but many were arrested for something. Others just happened to be doing something noteworthy. On the one hand, lulz which cops need like donuts. On the other hand, probably inspires a few people to try suicide. Years ago I wound up in there even though I told the journalist who showed up with the cops to keep my name out of the paper. I was messing about with a little racing sailboat during a storm. Capsizing practice. Some do-gooder decided to call 911 on my behalf. Later when I went to the boat store everybody was like, "Oh hai! Heard u nearly died..." My point is, journalists put the names of people in their stories unless the person is a minor or they have some reason to hold the name back. Telling the journalist, "don't put my name in" doesn't count as a reason. Everybody who reads papers knows this.
You sound like Stefan Molyneux with your "not an argument" fail logic. Trump is responsible for his re-tweet of the meme, not the creation of the meme. Geez I thought Anons were involved with chanology and WWP. Please give me some links to the real Anonymous forums.
Never trust anyone who uses Truth in their organization name, double that for Veritas. Category: Project Veritas
