Support NeoGAF

[MotionBlue]

What true colors would those be? Are you actually going to pretend like there hasn't been a trend for 2 years now with people using an anime avatar on Twitter, 4chan, Reddit, etc. and Trump support?

When everyone who disagrees with you = trump/nazi supporter, its easy to see you come to that conclusion.

 

[duckroll]

FYI, This is fucking stupid:

It's always the anime avatars. Always.

There's a very specific set of anime avatars these types flock to. You're probably not going to see Totoro or Gachaman regurgitating GOP talking points

The best explanation that I've heard is that it's due to 4chan. 4chan started off as an anime board and still has a prominent presence as one, but also holds a major far right board by way of /pol/. So those got connected through that.

I also imagine that there are certain and character archetypes that appeal to particular types of people. I dunno.

Wait so the reason you like anime is because you like to flame people?

Lmao.

Those poor, poor animu fans.

Wow, uh.

I somehow doubt that the suffering of anime fans is really comparable to censorship of anything actually worth caring about.

 

[Miles Quaritch]

Why does a virulent racist deserve the benefit of the doubt?

 

[AtomskEater]

I am an anime fan, and am extremely liberal. Tired of all these alt right shitheads giving anime a bad name but I am also tired of other liberals judging an entire medium just cuz some alt right nazi shitheads llke anime too.

I see it less as judging anime as a medium and more judging people who slide in with "just asking questions", defense force, and devil's advocate posts who also happen to have anime avatars.

 

[Magwik]

When everyone who disagrees with you = trump/nazi supporter, its easy to see you come to that conclusion.

You still haven't backed up any of your claims.

 

[KuroNeeko]

What true colors would those be? Are you actually going to pretend like there hasn't been a trend for 2 years now with people using an anime avatar on Twitter, 4chan, Reddit, etc. and Trump support?

True colors meaning that you're willing to generalize an entire group of people--effectively discrediting their opinions, because they have an anime avatar. Rather than approach each person as an individual and give them the benefit of the doubt--or at least the courtesy of listening to what they say before you judge them--you're content to dismiss them wholesale. How is that a good thing?

Edit: OK. I've seen your edit. I don't agree with what you've said, but I respect your right to say things I don't agree with. I'm willing to drop this in an effort to bring the conversation back to the topic at hand.

Why does a virulent racist deserve the benefit of the doubt?

I don't believe he does, but it's not just his life, is it? I think there is more to the situation than the binaries of "guilty" and "not guilty". I believe the man has a family and children. What if he is the sole provider for his household? "Tough? He should have thought of that before he opened his mouth?" I agree. He should have and maybe this "brush with death" will knock some sense into him. I'd like to believe that no one is beyond saving. So, maybe he can use this as a learning experience and wake the heck up. At the very least, maybe he'll learn to keep his racism to himself.

 

[duckroll]

I see it less as judging anime as a medium and more judging people who slide in with "just asking questions", defense force, and devil's advocate posts who also happen to have anime avatars.

More like, it's about derailing a thread by making a stupid throwaway comment which detracts from having an actual discussion?

 

[Hitman]

Why are you attributing all of these things to Russian trolls?
They are maybe 10-30% tops of these communities, just enough to give them a push.
What's so hard to accept about this? This is the reality we live in: these groups and communites thrive off of hate, are inheritly racist, and have existed long before Russian involvement. I recognize their role, but it didn't suddenly just up and turn people racist or create these groups. Like I said before: it's existed, the behavior has existed, the communites have existed, and all the proof you need is GamerGate.

I'm not. That's why. But that 10-30% push (as you estimate) is enough for shit to get viral to increase the size of these communities to a level that I think is unpeecidenred. Does this mean racists don't exist and have always existed? NO. But I know alt Reich training grounds like the_donald wouldn't have hit they astronomical levels of reach and popularity without Russian troll involvement.

 

[Dubbedinenglish]

Why does a virulent racist deserve the benefit of the doubt?

Seriously. Imagine if this dude is a teacher, the dude in charge of loan approvals at a local bank, a real estate agent, a cop, a judge etc etc.. All this shit that the systemic racism that hurts minorities manifests from. He could be comfortable acting on his racist ideology without anyone knowing who he really is. Get that out in the open.

 

[KingSnake]

When everyone who disagrees with you = trump/nazi supporter, its easy to see you come to that conclusion.

Well, you're the one hand-waving racist tirades that also involve calls to kill people based on their race/religion like there is nothing, so how should one call you then?

 

[Magwik]

I'm not. That's why. But that 10-30% push (as you estimate) is enough for shit to get viral to increase the size of these communities to a level that I think is unpeecidenred. Does this mean racists don't exist and have always existed? NO. But I know alt Reich training grounds like the_donald wouldn't have hit they astronomical levels of reach and popularity without Russian troll involvement.

Yes they would have. It was already happening before the election. I don't know how many times that needs to be pointed out.

 

[RenegadeXV8]

CNN should definitely have made it more clear that this was about his long history of blatantly racist and xenophobic comments.

Everyone on reddit thinks this is a case of CNN being salty about the wrestling meme and seeking revenge, and so will most people who simply read the headline.

 

[Chie Satonaka]

Why does a virulent racist deserve the benefit of the doubt?

Because that's America.

Since racism is an acceptable part of everyday life, people are always willing to give racists the benefit of the doubt.

 

[Massive Duck. C.M.]

Ironically, Canada ranks higher than the US in education. I guess that explains why we didn't elect an imbecile to govern the free world. So we're doing something right. Seriously, this is such a dumb statement. I think you're better than this. Also, y'all are stereotyping and generalizing with this whole 'anime' avatar topic.

Props to CNN. By directly addressing the source, they demonstrated blatantly how racist and cowardly these people are. They did whomever it is a favour by not revealing their name. But the online rally by Trump Supporters, as always, is disgusting. I don't understand why people are like this, and why it's become so blatant now. I mean, I understand WHY NOW, but it's ridiculous that people honestly feel this way.

If you want to blame anyone, blame the poster that refers to being a Canadian Socialist as a shield for his own ignorance *shrug*

It's also wasn't 4:30 PM in America when I posted that *shrug shrug*

 

[duckroll]

Seriously. Imagine if this dude is a teacher, the dude in charge of loan approvals at a local bank, a real estate agent, a cop, a judge etc etc.. All this shit that the systemic racism that hurts minorities manifests from. He could be comfortable acting on his racist ideology without anyone knowing who he really is. Get that out in the open.

I don't think we have to imagine it. Regardless of where you live, I think we can all agree that people like that exist and it is bad. I guess the discomfort some people might have is that a mainstream news organization is spending resources on tracking down and essentially threatening to doxx a racist because he was behind a stupid ass wrestling meme which the President of the United States tweeted.

Is it of public interest to know where the President gets his news and his jokes from which he happily shares on his official public Twitter? Yes, absolutely. The murky part here is what CNN hoped to accomplish with forcing an apology. It's pretty weird because either it is important for the public to know who he is so we know what sort of people are behind these comments and memes which the President consumes, or the media recognizes that individuals are entitled to a level of privacy even if they are total shitheads. Both are somewhat reasonable positions to have, and there will be people who strongly disagree with one or the other. The trouble here is the choice they went with seems to want it both ways. Why does it matter if he apologized or not? An apology under threat is worth nothing. If they without information from the public for a worthless apology, what good does it do anyone? If on the other hand they respect privacy, why did they even embark on this to begin with?

I think these are talking points which can be discussed without name calling and childish exchanges!

 

[KuroNeeko]

Because that's America.

Since racism is an acceptable part of everyday life, people are always willing to give racists the benefit of the doubt.

I don't know that I agree with that, but as a male with light-colored skin, I don't have the same life experiences that others have. I know I used the phrase "benefit of the doubt", but I feel like I should rephrase it to say "I'm willing to give him a pass (i.e. not disclose his identity)" for the sake of his children and I hope he learns from this.

I think his views, however, as shown in the stuff he's put out are reprehensible, and he should keep them to himself if he's not going to make an effort to change.

Seriously. Imagine if this dude is a teacher, the dude in charge of loan approvals at a local bank, a real estate agent, a cop, a judge etc etc.. All this shit that the systemic racism that hurts minorities manifests from. He could be comfortable acting on his racist ideology without anyone knowing who he really is. Get that out in the open.

Ah, yeah. I guess this is true as well. Hmm...Honestly, I don't know then. I guess I'm not comfortable making a decision that could potentially sink this guy's family--creating a situation where his kids are forced to suffer for the sins of the father.

 

[Aselith]

I don't think we have to imagine it. Regardless of where you live, I think we can all agree that people like that exist and it is bad. I guess the discomfort some people might have is that a mainstream news organization is spending resources on tracking down and essentially threatening to doxx a racist because he was behind a stupid ass wrestling meme which the President of the United States tweeted.

Is it of public interest to know where the President gets his news and his jokes from which he happily shares on his official public Twitter? Yes, absolutely. The murky part here is what CNN hoped to accomplish with forcing an apology. It's pretty weird because either it is important for the public to know who he is so we know what sort of people are behind these comments and memes which the President consumes, or the media recognizes that individuals are entitled to a level of privacy even if they are total shitheads. Both are somewhat reasonable positions to have, and there will be people who strongly disagree with one or the other. The trouble here is the choice they went with seems to want it both ways. Why does it matter if he apologized or not? An apology under threat is worth nothing. If they without information from the public for a worthless apology, what good does it do anyone? If on the other hand they respect privacy, why did they even embark on this to begin with?

I think these are talking points which can be discussed without name calling and childish exchanges!

I really don't think this is what happened.

Likely chain of events in my reckoning is that

1. Trump tweets

2. Journalist starts looking into the source to get a quote

3. Finds the motherload of fuckery or maybe not even that, maybe just the sources information

4. Contacts the source and either seeks comment on the racist stuff or if the reporter doesn't know yet, the source realizes that if his name is put out that he is screwed and goes into damage control mode

5. Source points out that this will ruin his life and asks for his info not to be included in the story and he had issued an apology, etc

6. Reporter goes to editor and they make the editorial call to allow the guy to move on with the caveat that if they see more race war shit from him, they will be compelled to reveal as it will be an ongoing public interest story

A journo would try to seek comment if they were doing a story on some dumb cat meme that you made too so looking into the source wasn't special. Seeking out sources is part of the job.

Going from there to giving full information on the source here is an important part of the story as the president is retweeting a racist so this guy was made into a public figure not through his volition but he is. I'd imagine deciding against publishing his info was not an easy call but this is not doxxing. The guy made a public post that made him a public figure,

I sincerely doubt the thing where he is threatened into apologizing happened. He more than likely apologized then used that to try to keep his name out of the public scrutiny.

 

[L Thammy]

Ah, yeah. I guess this is true as well. Hmm...Honestly, I don't know then. I guess I'm not comfortable making a decision that could potentially sink this guy's family--creating a situation where his kids are forced to suffer for the sins of the father.

Do we know that he has kids?

 

[KingSnake]

Yeah, that apology doesn't look like an apology made out of coercion. Plus what would CNN gain from an apology?

That apology sounds like somebody who knows he's potentially screwed and tries to contain the damage just in case.

 

[morningbus]

I'm not sure what people think CNN's motivation here would actually be: they would get a lot more out of this story by revealing his identity. The fact that they let this basically go shows a surprising (and unearned) level of decency on their part.

CNN doesn't get ratings or money by intimidating internet posters, if you actually believe that narrative.

 

[Miles Quaritch]

If he has kids, they are lost causes too. There's no way his shitty beliefs haven't rub off on them.

I'd also ask why should his family be taken into account? Actions have consequences, maybe he should have thought about his (potential) family and how they might be affected by his actions.

Fuck him.

 

[Claude Augario]

Do we know that he has kids?

Apparently he's 15 and accounts for all four letters of LBGT, so he might as well have kids too.

 

[morningbus]

Apparently he's 15 and accounts for all four letters of LBGT, so he might as well have kids too.

Give them about an hour and he'll be pregnant with twins.

 

[duckroll]

That actually makes a lot of sense. I can see how it might have gone down. I certainly don't think the reporter likely went about it with the intent to coerce an apology. Like I said, it doesn't seem to benefit anyone. But I do think that in terms of editorial, stuff like this in the actual article could be worded better:

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.

I think that definitely gives off the impression that CNN is holding his identity to ransom on the condition of his future behavior, which comes off as a really weird thing for a news organization to publish. I'm not crazy right?

 

[jellies_two]

Right wing social media is losing their shit tonight, they are out in force

They are losing their mind on twitter too and Julian assange is frothing at the mouth.

I think their nightmare scenario is a possible future where they have to hide their racism and xenophobia online the way they struggle with it in society - because it's unacceptable.

The idea of NOT having social media safe spaces where they can literally say anything without any consequence (but not post a picture of a nipple) is a total nightmare.

Social media from 2004 onwards has quietly allowed awful people to meet and to evolve their hatred.

That's why they are going ape on this because they most fear a discussion about how the internet gives them cover.

 

[Jonnax]

I think that definitely gives off the impression that CNN is holding his identity to ransom on the condition of his future behavior, which comes off as a really weird thing for a news organization to publish. I'm not crazy right?

Yeah. That feels a bit odd. But hey, if this was the daily mail or breibart then that man's face would be all over their web pages.

 

[Kuroi Gogeta]

It blows my mind that people are focusing on the ethics of whether CNN is doing the right thing by threatening to release his info rather than the absolutely horrifying things he's said in the past.

I feel like I'm living in a bizarr-o world and I'm taking a bunch of crazy pills.

This man has a job, he may have a job where he has the power to affect people's lives. What if he's a police officer? what if he works in a bank? what if he's a medical professional? he's blatantly telling people that he thinks that if you are anything other than a white male, your life is worth less to him. There are thousands if not millions of individuals like him, and people are wondering if CNN has "gone too far".

We need to admit that at a certain point "I'm just trolling for the lulz" crosses over to "I actually believe what I'm saying and if I'm caught I'll just deny it." A troll riles up multiple types of people. A troll goes to liberal, conservative, straight, gay, etc. sites and tries to get a rise out of everyone. He was on a website with thousands of people just like him, liking his posts and quoting them and egging him on. That's not trolling, that's expressing yourself and having your opinions validated. Is CNN going too far? no. They're not going far enough. Examples need to be made of people who can't stand by what they're saying when it can have very real ramifications for individuals. If even 99% of the people who think the calls of violence against certain groups are just exagerrated and not serious, what do we do about the 1% that have weapons and nothing to lose?

 

[morningbus]

I think that definitely gives off the impression that CNN is holding his identity to ransom on the condition of his future behavior, which comes off as a really weird thing for a news organization to publish. I'm not crazy right?

I get why it can look bad and it's a case where they should have known what they were dealing with and how it could be interpreted.

But they are saying there that he is a private citizen who never intended his posts to be the object of such scrutiny for various reasons and that they're honoring his wishes of not being part of this story.

And, so long as he doesn't make himself part of the story, they will respect that.

 

[Miles Quaritch]

Trump made him part of the story, he's already in the mainstream so withholding his Identity is pointless.

 

[KuroNeeko]

Do we know that he has kids?

I'm sorry. I went back and reread the article from CNN and it states this:

After posting his apology, "HanA**holeSolo" called CNN's KFile and confirmed his identity. In the interview, "HanA**holeSolo" sounded nervous about his identity being revealed and asked to not be named out of fear for his personal safety and for the public embarrassment it would bring to him and his family.

I think I just interpreted it to mean he had kids, but now it looks like this is not the case.

Man, I feel stupid now.

If he has kids, they are lost causes too. There's no way his shitty beliefs haven't rub off on them.

I'd also ask why should his family be taken into account? Actions have consequences, maybe he should have thought about his (potential) family and how they might be affected by his actions.

Fuck him.

C'mon, man. Kids are never lost causes.

This man has a job, he may have a job where he has the power to affect people's lives. What if he's a police officer? what if he works in a bank? what if he's a medical professional? he's blatantly telling people that he thinks that if you are anything other than a white male, your life is worth less to him. There are thousands if not millions of individuals like him, and people are wondering if CNN has "gone too far".

Another GAFfer posted something similar to this, and I think it's valid. If this person is in a position of influence or authority, then perhaps his name should be disclosed. If that disclosure is a result of a journalistic report or investigation, then he should be held accountable for what he said. I don't know, I don't feel that my previous statement of shielding him for the sake of his children is tenable. Growing up in a household of journalists, the news should investigate and report--without bias. I've tried to make an exception allowing for his family, but barring that...

Guess I'm just going soft...

 

[Aselith]

That actually makes a lot of sense. I can see how it might have gone down. I certainly don't think the reporter likely went about it with the intent to coerce an apology. Like I said, it doesn't seem to benefit anyone. But I do think that in terms of editorial, stuff like this in the actual article could be worded better:



I think that definitely gives off the impression that CNN is holding his identity to ransom on the condition of his future behavior, which comes off as a really weird thing for a news organization to publish. I'm not crazy right?

The tone definitely comes off a little finger waggy like someone's mom talking to Old Man Johnson about the gum he stole from the general store.

"Now Timmy said he's NEVER going to steal again...right, Timmy?!?"

But also I don't know if that could actually be worded better as that's what they're doing. That's not blackmail though they're just putting it out there that if he pops back up on their radar, he doesn't get a third chance.

Admittedly, it's a weird situation but the whole thing is weird top to bottom from the tweet on down the line.

 

[duckroll]

I get why it can look bad and it's a case where they should have known what they were dealing with and how it could be interpreted.

But they are saying there that he is a private citizen who never intended his posts to be the object of such scrutiny for various reasons and that they're honoring his wishes of not being part of this story.

And, so long as he doesn't make himself part of the story, they will respect that.

Right, I think that makes sense, absolutely. I'm just saying that reading the original article does give an odd "what is going on here" vibe at that point of the article. Examining how the investigative part of the story could have gone down and their likely interaction with the guy, the intent seems clear, but that's the sort of messaging editors should be very careful about. Interpretation is important.

But also I don't know if that could actually be worded better as that's what they're doing. That's not blackmail though they're just putting it out there that if he pops back up on their radar, he doesn't get a third chance.

I think maybe they could have just made it clear that his identity is not part of the story at this point and leave it at that. Them reserving the right to publish his identity if it becomes part of a story later on is something they would have communicated to the individual and not something they need to state in this way maybe? I dunno, it's a super weird situation for sure.

 

[Kuroi Gogeta]

I get why it can look bad and it's a case where they should have known what they were dealing with and how it could be interpreted.

But they are saying there that he is a private citizen who never intended his posts to be the object of such scrutiny for various reasons and that they're honoring his wishes of not being part of this story.

And, so long as he doesn't make himself part of the story, they will respect that.

Experience is the best teacher. He had multiple opportunities to stop and he refused. He had several chances to rethink his life and his choices and he didn't. He needs to take responsibility for his actions. His words were out there for anyone to see. His apology was so fake and generic that I was almost kind of blown away by how effective it has been in changing people's opinion on him. The last part with the quote from an African author he's likely never even read the works of made me feel a combination of disgust and laughter.

I'm kind of curious as to how the people who tracked him down must feel. Its like they did all that work to expose him only for him to say "I'm sorry" then delete his accounts and pretend this never happened. It's like a huge waste of time for them. Why bother looking for him if he's not going to stand by his words and try to explain himself better instead of backing down?

 

[Chumley]

They are losing their mind on twitter too and Julian assange is frothing at the mouth.

I think their nightmare scenario is a possible future where they have to hide their racism and xenophobia online the way they struggle with it in society - because it's unacceptable.

The idea of NOT having social media safe spaces where they can literally say anything without any consequence (but not post a picture of a nipple) is a total nightmare.

Social media from 2004 onwards has quietly allowed awful people to meet and to evolve their hatred.

That's why they are going ape on this because they most fear a discussion about how the internet gives them cover.

Exactly. Their biggest fear is being adults accountable for their actions. Truly an entire community of manchildren.

 

[morningbus]

Experience is the best teacher. He had multiple opportunities to stop and he refused. He had several chances to rethink his life and his choices and he didn't. He needs to take responsibility for his actions. His words were out there for anyone to see. His apology was so fake and generic that I was almost kind of blown away by how effective it has been in changing people's opinion on him. The last part with the quote from an African author he's likely never even read the works of made me feel a combination of disgust and laughter.

No doubt, I'm with you there. This is an "apology" from a guy who isn't remorseful, just fully aware of what the internet is capable of and what would happen if he lost his anonymity.

CNN shouldn't have given him this gift, but they have.

 

[Miles Quaritch]

C'mon, man. Kids are never lost causes.

Maybe that was a little too harsh, but there's a window where their worldviews will he shaped and if he has kids and he was chatting all that racist shit in the open, there's no way they didn't pick it up and think it's normal.

Experience is the best teacher. He had multiple opportunities to stop and he refused. He had several chances to rethink his life and his choices and he didn't. He needs to take responsibility for his actions. His words were out there for anyone to see. His apology was so fake and generic that I was almost kind of blown away by how effective it has been in changing people's opinion on him. The last part with the quote from an African author he's likely never even read the works of made me feel a combination of disgust and laughter.

I'm kind of curious as to how the people who tracked him down must feel. Its like they did all that work to expose him only for him to say "I'm sorry" then delete his accounts and pretend this never happened. It's like a huge waste of time for them. Why bother looking for him if he's not going to stand by his words and try to explain himself better instead of backing down?

He spends more time apologising to the_Donald subreddit. He opens by apologising to them, you'd think that would be enough to show how disingenuous the apology is.

I don't know why people get suckered in by BS apologies.

 

[KingSnake]

Maybe that was a little too harsh, but there's a window where their worldviews will he shaped and if he has kids and he was chatting all that racist shit in the open, there's no way they didn't pick it up and think it's normal.



He spends more time apologising to the_Donald subreddit. He opens by apologising to them, you'd think that would be enough to show how disingenuous the apology is.

I don't know why people get suckered in by BS apologies.

Even if I don't believe one bit in this apology, I'm quite happy it exists only for the simple fact that it drives all these racists crazy and I think at least some of them see themselves put into a similar situation and have a couple of seconds of potential facing the consequences of their behaviour.

 

[Triggerhappytel]

I was just trolling! It was just a prank, bro!

 

[Brakke]

I agree the end of the statement reads as kind of ominous but that's sort of the nature of the thing here. There's a lot of indirection in the communication.

CNN privately spoke with Asshole. CNN issued a statement with a general public audience in mind -- Asshole is, of course, a member of the general public and would see this, but he's not the intended audience, since CNN had spoken with him directly. And Asshole won't / wouldn't want to put out a statement of his own.

So CNN is speaking in part on Asshole's behalf in a statement about their private communication with Asshole. It's bound to get kind of messy.

"If circumstances change, our judgement on this case will change" is a perfectly reasonably stance to take. Should probably take the last sentence their at face value. They're articulating policy to a general public more than they are threatening the dude. If they wanted to threaten him, they could've have done so directly.

 

[Miles Quaritch]

Even if I don't believe one bit in this apology, I'm quite happy it exists only for the simple fact that it drives all these racists crazy and I think at least some of them see themselves put into a similar situation and have a couple of seconds of potential facing the consequences of their behaviour.

That's a fair point, but with how CNN is behaving they must also feel somewhat emboldened that if a mainstream news corp ever finds out their identity, they won't unmask them.

It's why CNN should release his Identity and set an example.

Let's be honest for a moment, we all know he's going to create another account and go back to doing exactly what he was doing before. He'll even gloat about how he beat the MSM.

 

[Massive Duck. C.M.]

That's a fair point, but with how CNN is behaving they must also feel somewhat emboldened that if a mainstream news corp ever finds out their identity, they won't unmask them.

It's why CNN should release his Identity and set an example.

Eh, if they did you'd have "liberals" joining in the chorus against CNN and the mainstream media.


A lot of people seem to think that consequences for expressing racism is going too far because racism isn't illegal, and that nothing should be done unless a clear crime can be linked.

 

[janoDX]

He spends more time apologising to the_Donald subreddit. He opens by apologising to them, you'd think that would be enough to show how disingenuous the apology is.

I don't know why people get suckered in by BS apologies.

The guy could have easily ask /r/politics or any reddit admin to give him space to publish that apology but he didn't, went to /r/t_D, got deleted and the deleted his account because for them "he already did his purpose".

 

[Kinyou]

Looks like the sub reddit gets really off on this. Plays right into their victim complex

That actually makes a lot of sense. I can see how it might have gone down. I certainly don't think the reporter likely went about it with the intent to coerce an apology. Like I said, it doesn't seem to benefit anyone. But I do think that in terms of editorial, stuff like this in the actual article could be worded better:



I think that definitely gives off the impression that CNN is holding his identity to ransom on the condition of his future behavior, which comes off as a really weird thing for a news organization to publish. I'm not crazy right?

The final sentence seems just unnecessarily direct. It's imo already implied that their stance on not publishing his name would change if the apology turns out as insincere.

 

[jipewithin]

I am an anime fan, and am extremely liberal. Tired of all these alt right shitheads giving anime a bad name but I am also tired of other liberals judging an entire medium just cuz some alt right nazi shitheads llke anime too.

This! This has to stop. So what if some racist bigots also like anime? I bet there are even more racists bigots who like hockey or football... What are those posters even trying to imply saying stuff about anime avatars? That anime fans are mostly racist bigots? I get enough bullying about my anime hobby irl, now I have to deal with this in gaf? Of all the places? Makes me really sad and depressed.

CNN should just publish his name. Actions have consequences.

 

[Kuroi Gogeta]

I'm sorry. I went back and reread the article from CNN and it states this:


I think I just interpreted it to mean he had kids, but now it looks like this is not the case.

Man, I feel stupid now.



C'mon, man. Kids are never lost causes.



Another GAFfer posted something similar to this, and I think it's valid. If this person is in a position of influence or authority, then perhaps his name should be disclosed. If that disclosure is a result of a journalistic report or investigation, then he should be held accountable for what he said. I don't know, I don't feel that my previous statement of shielding him for the sake of his children is tenable. Growing up in a household of journalists, the news should investigate and report--without bias. I've tried to make an exception allowing for his family, but barring that...

Guess I'm just going soft...

Think about it this way: If you're a black man, would you want a GP that you know is not going to prescribe you pain medication because he thinks you don't deserve it? if you're a woman would you want to keep working in an organization where your manager thinks women don't earn their positions? what if this guy was teaching your kid, and he's the deciding factor behind whether his/her grades will be high enough to enter post-secondary education? him being outed would confirm what you thought. "I knew there was a reason he wasn't giving me the proper medication. I knew there was a reason I got passed up for that promotion. I knew there was a reason why my kid was doing well in all her other classes except for the one mr. ____ teaches"

No doubt, I'm with you there. This is an "apology" from a guy who isn't remorseful, just fully aware of what the internet is capable of and what would happen if he lost his anonymity.

CNN shouldn't have given him this gift, but they have.

I'm really curious as to why they would. They're damned if they do and damned if they don't. If they don't release it, people will say "you didn't go far enough. You have a duty to inform the public". If they do release it: "Look at this dishonest media! look how they target private citizens, yet they claim president Trump wants to limit our personal freedoms! He was right!" even if they didn't say that they had his info but chose not to release it, then its "Oh look how they have stooped to blackmail! sad!"

Maybe that was a little too harsh, but there's a window where their worldviews will he shaped and if he has kids and he was chatting all that racist shit in the open, there's no way they didn't pick it up and think it's normal.



He spends more time apologising to the_Donald subreddit. He opens by apologising to them, you'd think that would be enough to show how disingenuous the apology is.

I don't know why people get suckered in by BS apologies.

Me neither, you can see from the start that he doesn't really give a shit. If it is an addiction for him as he says, then he will just come up with a new username and start over again. He didn't really address how he'd specifically address his issue. He's not going to stop especially if he feels that this government would never monitor him. For people like him, he's just an honest american who says what everyone is thinking and who has gotten a co-sign from the president himself. In a time where we have users openly saying "disguise your words, talk in code so they don't know. Hide your views, because they can't handle the truth" we still have people who want to play this game and say "well he seems honest" and then be shocked when he's exposed again.

 

[Bold One]

I unfollowed and unsubbed that guy a while ago. Closet Trumper I personally believe. He tries to hide behind a fucking transparent both sides, I'm above it all shtick.

He is terrible at hiding it then - I have realised his videos are now about defending a certain kind of people.

He's been slowly revealing himself for a while now and has been really playing up to the alt-right crowd in a very sly way - Hope he is fully exposed soon

 

[Impeccable]

The apology feels like something I would have written to avoid a ban on other forums in my youth.

In fact, I will say that the apology is the only true trolling in the story.

 

[KuroNeeko]

Think about it this way: If you're a black man, would you want a GP that you know is not going to prescribe you pain medication because he thinks you don't deserve it? if you're a woman would you want to keep working in an organization where your manager thinks women don't earn their positions? what if this guy was teaching your kid, and he's the deciding factor behind whether his/her grades will be high enough to enter post-secondary education? him being outed would confirm what you thought. "I knew there was a reason he wasn't giving me the proper medication. I knew there was a reason I got passed up for that promotion. I knew there was a reason why my kid was doing well in all her other classes except for the one mr. ____ teaches"

Absolutely not. I think it is possible for people to work in a manner that is separate from their beliefs though, but that is highly contextual. I wouldn't want this person in a position where they could influence another's life, though, they could affect a positive change despite what they believe in. It seems pretty clear from this person's actions that he is not one to separate his personal belief from his work. I'd like to think that everyone is capable of changing--to redeeming themselves despite the wrong they've done or harm they've inflicted on others. At the same time, that doesn't absolve them from the responsibility or consequences of their actions.

I think you and other GAFfers have made the position pretty clear. I don't think I would be able to argue for keeping this person's identity a secret if the name was revealed over the course of a normal investigation and presented in the context of news (as news).

 

[oneils]

That actually makes a lot of sense. I can see how it might have gone down. I certainly don't think the reporter likely went about it with the intent to coerce an apology. Like I said, it doesn't seem to benefit anyone. But I do think that in terms of editorial, stuff like this in the actual article could be worded better:



I think that definitely gives off the impression that CNN is holding his identity to ransom on the condition of his future behavior, which comes off as a really weird thing for a news organization to publish. I'm not crazy right?

It seems a bit weird, but I guess they are saying that it is his behaviour that is news worthy. When he's not an internet troll he's not very newsworthy, but once he's a troll he's newsworthy again. Once he's newsworthy again and acting up in public, his name is fair game? There is kind of a logic to it.

 

[KingSnake]

That's a fair point, but with how CNN is behaving they must also feel somewhat emboldened that if a mainstream news corp ever finds out their identity, they won't unmask them.

It's why CNN should release his Identity and set an example.

I somehow think it's actually more effective this way. If CNN would just have made his identity public they could have easily (from their own distorted point of view) dismissed the whole story as CNN getting mad at a joke about them.

Him actually apologising for all his behaviour can't be dismissed so easily, although we saw attempts in this very thread. I think this hurts them more.