Yeah, you better apologize!

---

How does Danny Hart sit down with balls that big?

Well, I'm sorry then. ;-)

---

"Politics is just show business for ugly people."

Yeah, that's why I said they didn't really dox, using the common use of the word, as opposed to a web dictionary definition. Typically, when someone complains of being doxed, it means their phone, email, and physical addresses were all released, leaving them vulnerable. It doesn't typically just mean their name was disclosed.


Ok, but they really didn't threaten him. My guess is they had a lawyer put together some language, and he included a fairly standard sort of "we reserve the right to..." bit to make sure they were covered if they ever decided to release the name. Maybe they threatened him behind the scenes, but that's not what they or he has alleged so far.

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

I don't see anyone taking away his right to free speech, but whatever happened to the consequences of your speech? People are getting fired all the time now for shitty things they say online thinking it is anonymous and somehow it is a free space to say whatever you want without consequences. But that is not the case, so if you go out to that bad place on a regular basis you should expect that a light will one day shine on all that hate speech and you will pay whatever price society deems just.

Now sometimes society goes overboard and makes examples out of some of these assholes, I fine with that.Until enough of them lose their jobs, families, or whatever they hold dear, it seems like people will just continue to spew forth this shit thinking there are no repercussions. We are in a time of flux and societal norms are changing, so there are going to be some excesses on both sides until we get to some neutral way of living with some sort of appreciation for one another again. Just may take a generation or two more, so in the meantime we will have these outlier events to show the holes in the system..

No matter what happens to him he gets to say what he wants, but he should be responsible for his speech and suffer the consequences.

Another way to look at it is that they had every right to publish the guy's name, disclose who he is and his ties to any hate speech or groups he belongs to, and publish it as a story about how the President is "tied by association" to those types of people. Instead, they agreed not to do that, but reserved the right to do so in the future if they felt the need to. Well within their rights.


Well that's just not true.

As I said earlier, the problem came when they tried to find out this guy's identity in the first place, because nothing good could really have come from finding it. Either they disclose it and are accused of doxing, or they withheld it and are accused of keeping it for blackmail. Once they found it, they really should have just disclosed it as part of a news story a d been done with it, but even better, they shouldn't have ever tried to find the name to begin with.

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

I think society is going way too far on "exposing" people on both sides of the issues. If you are against part on an issue, you hate (insert group) and need to be punished. Example, you think the way the BLM movement goes about their business, you are a racist. You could support the idea behind BLM, but think that blocking freeways is a dumb idea, still racist. If you support BLM, you obviously hate cops and think they need to be fought. Don't think that a private business should be forced to make a cake? You hate gays, when in fact you think a business should be able to serve whoever they wish, for the good or bad.

It has stopped many people from opposing anything publicly for fear of a backlash. I think that is part of the reason everyone thought Hilary would win easy, the voices against her (even if they weren't for Trump) were pummeled into submission because they didn't want to be labeled a sexist, homophobe, far right extremist. So they are just quiet and make their voices heard at the ballot box (or by not voting at all).

I think that guys posts were terrible, but these constant witch hunts are just creating more extreme and vocal posters lashing out.

Just re-read that and it rambles a bit. Just meant to say really that when people are shunned into silence with their real names, they will turn to a more "anonymous" forum and post more extreme views to "get even" or shock the system.

This battle between Donald Trump and CNN puts me in mind of the conflict between two of the characters in Thomas Mann's "The Magic Mountain."

In it, the Italian secular humanist Lodovico Settembrini and the totalitarian Jew-turned-Jesuit Leo Naphta find themselves at odds with each other. Naphta is a fanatic (and aren't all converts so? ;-) and he's so vexed by the suave and urbane Settembrini that he challenges the latter to a duel. The two confront each other, pistols at hand and seconds at the ready, only to see Settembrini calmly delope, or throw away his first fire, an act that enrages the mercurial Naptha.

The Jesuit priest, angered to the point of seeming incoherence, screams "Coward!" and shoots himself in the head. Everyone is happier as a result. ;-)

In this set-to, one could think of Donald Trump as Settembrini (just without the suave urbanity or any semblance of philosophical insight ;-) and CNN as the fatally reckless Naphta. Or, at least, it seems that way to me.

The Magic Mountain -Naptha & Settembrini gun duel. - YouTube

---

"Politics is just show business for ugly people."

Jew-turned-Jesuit Leo Naphta would of fit in nicely with ISIS.