CNN isn't responsible for what happens to some idiot if they reveal his name and his actions. That you think so is really, really dumb. They are simply being nice to him by not revealing his name.

You are arguing that CNN is doing something wrong by non respecting the anonymity of an internet bigot. If you don't want to be accused of defending bigots then stop defending them. Easy.

Attacking Jews is A-Ok, though.

Just bring the comet now and end humanity. We ****ed it up, God, sorry.

Just two guys sitting around being totally fine with hate speech. Good work, gents.

Yeah lol I don't think they realize that when liberals say "I support the freedom of speech, even hate speech" that's them displaying a real principle.

But when like, aspergersy racists on the internet who traffick in a lot of hate speech say they are fine with hate speech... no ****. That's just self interest.

Hopefully I'll have the self-control to make this my last response to you. I don't suffer fools well and it's clear you lack the intellectual capacity to have a meaningful conversation.

Never said this.

Since I said they should've posted his name in the original story, it's hard to fathom how you'd think this is my position. I've already spelled out in detail what I think CNN did wrong (ethically and possibly legally). I've done this several times and cited the relevant law. Even if they didn't break the law, what they did (as reported in their article, the only one I read) is pathetic.

Show me where I defended a bigot. I can't stop an idiot from seeing what he wants to see or accusing me of what he wants to accuse me of.

Ah, ok. I guess this is where I defend bigots? No, I'm defending free speech. Your mental deficiencies make it difficult for you to see the difference, but I assure you there is one.

Fly doesn't understand how the first amendment works, lol.

You did to yourself.

http://www.iflscience.com/brain/peop...s-study-finds/

I'm gong to try to give a respectful response here because this thread is getting too snarky even for me.

Okay, so you don't have a problem with them posting his name. But you do have a problem with them not posting his name, but reserving the right to post his name at some later time IF he posts more bigoted memes (for example). Presumably you wouldn't care if they reserved the right to post his name for some reason unrelated to his future behavior. So the condition is the problem.

And the reason you think that it is wrong to provide a condition is that his life would be trainwrecked and CNN would be the sole arbiter of this whether this condition was met. If I'm wrong, let me know.

My response would be: this doesn't make sense. If your preferred course of action results in trainwrecking of his life, then no matter what happens in the "condition" scenario, our mystery meme-poster could never be worse off, unless...

The condition caused some undue burden. I agree this is possible. CNN could require han*******solo to mow the lawn at CNN headquarters or force him to trim Wolf Blitzer's nose hair. I agree that they could impose onerous conditions on preserving his anonymity.

But are the conditions onerous? It seems to me that they are directly related to the behavior that he is embarrassed about and that if he were to break them then he would be contradicting his extended apology. If he is genuine then the conditions aren't onerous in any way--they are things he was going to be doing anyway. And if he didn't intend to honor them, he could just create another Reddit account. How would CNN even know?

Now, if you want to argue that CNN shouldn't have given him a chance because it violates journalistic ethics, then I guess there is a point there somewhere. I don't know if I want to argue that it's wrong to be nice to somebody who is at least going through the motions of doing the right thing.

"Defending bigots" is perhaps too harsh. Misplaced outrage might be the diplomatic way of phrasing it.

This is in no way a free speech issue. There's no government involved at all. There's no conspiracy to deny someone's free right to speech. And this individual has every right to continue publishing anonymously.

Good idea, I'll change the tone as well. In the middle of something at work but I'll reply later today.

Should 2+2 lift it's doxxing policy?

If no, why not?

Is willful un-educability an indication of malicious intent?

regardless of legality, does anyone not think this is a massive strategic blunder by cnn?

Not sure about that, but they have legit got me worried. I've posted a few anti-CNN memes recently.

everyone knows doxxing is only cool when it's internet trolls doing it to feminists!

More fake news from the Cuck News Network

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-0...-snubbed-trump

People who read zerohedge don't have much credibility when it comes to media outlets.

Lol, that's not the clip I saw. They edited out when she turned around and shakes Trump's hand.

Everything is such a ****ing joke anymore it's embarrassing.

I don't see how it helps their business.

I don't think there's anything serious I've said here about the US I couldn't defend face to face with a rational human (that does exclude most of the Trumpkins here, unfortunately).

I doubt the same goes for wil and his mouth-frothing brethren - BroadwayStupyd won't even say which country he lives in.

For good reason. I've already had people on this site trying to dox me.

BroadwayStupyd, I like that.

Wat???

The party has a ton of power. I am struggling to see what perspective you are taking here since you seem reasonable on other topics- some trivial distinction on the DNC against the democratic party? They are pretty much synonyms. And the party has a ton of power. They distribute ranks within governments.

The democrats just stopped a single payer effort in California. How do you think that happened? By powerful people getting together and deciding who was going to be the speaker (who blocked it) - not by any democratic means.
If it was up for a vote it would have passed.

Nah, the party itself doesn't have very much power - individual politicians, lobbyists and interest groups, political consultants, donors, voting blocs, etc they have power. But the actual party leaders themselves, the heads of the state parties, the DNC, etc. they have very little independent power in most states. The DNC and the Democratic Party are very much not synonymous. The Democratic party is actually fairly decentralized.

For instance, in New York the state party leadership is almost completely controlled by Governor Cuomo. It wasn't always this way. For instance, back when patronage jobs were more plentiful, the party district leaders in NYC were more powerful than the elected State Assembly members. But the good government and the party reform movements killed most of the power of the party and transferred it primarilly to politicians.

First, tabling the bill is democratic. Representative democracy is a form of democracy, and that is within the normal rules of representative democracy. It is also not undemocratic for the duly elected representatives to oppose the majority view of their constituents. Their job is to represent the interests of their constituents (or the state as a whole). People are often wrong about what is actually in their interest, and a representative can oppose their opinion in those cases. If their constituents are unhappy with that opposition, vote them out of office.

Second, it isn't the Democratic party that is stopping the single payer effort in California, it is California's direct democracy system. Prop 98 requires that 50% of the state budget go to K-12 and community colleges - which isn't realistically compatible with the amount of money that would be needed to fund single payer. So if California's voters want single payer, they have to first vote to change the constitution to allow this to happen.

EDIT: There are of course still remnants of strong party leadership in NY, and I assume in other states as well - eg the county leaders in the Bronx and Queens are still quite powerful, controlling many of the state rep seats. And civil and state supreme judges are still primarily appointed either by party district leaders, the clubs, or party leaders. But the party doesn't have much impact beyond the entry-level elected positions like city council or state assembly.

This news cycle is an example why 'all news' has been under suppression action by the regime, and before it, the campaign.