Election 2016

[DSMatticus]

Poison the well regarding the latest O'Keefe video all you want, the fact remains he obtained recordings where liberal activists admitted to deliberately causing violence or engineering violent scenarios at Trump rallies

Why is everything that comes out of your mouth so fucking stupid? Do you not know who O'Keefe is? O'Keefe is the dude behind the ACORN and NPR videos. In those videos, he used deceptive editing to literally build his own conversations in order to make people say and do things they'd never said or did. We're seriously talking about examples like, "O'Keefe says something controversial, cut to a completely different part of the conversation in which the NPR exec is laughing at something else entirely so he looks cartoonishly sinister," or "someone is quoting someone else saying something offensive, so cut out everything that makes it look like a quote and present it as that person's own words." O'Keefe is a propagandist who secretly records piles of raw footage and then uses editing techniques to manufacture incriminating evidence out of that raw footage - when he is forced to produce the unedited footage in various criminal or civil trials, everyone realizes he is fucking liar.

And guess what? The videos he's putting out now are also heavily edited. And guess what else? He's refusing to release the raw unedited footage so that their authenticity can be evaluated. It's literally "I know I've done this twice before, but this time believe me! And no, I won't give you the raws, even though - if I'm being honest, which I totally am, I swear - they would dispel any and all concerns about my past history of being a lying douchebag," and... you, SlyJohnny... nod your head sagely and declare "sounds legit?" Are you fucking daft? Listen, you hate Hillary Clinton. I get that. Whatever. But unfortunately, you are one of those people who is rendered cripplingly stupid by your own disdain. That's something you're going to have to work on. Your desire for something to be true does not make it true, and you can't just stop evaluating the integrity of sources of information because they say what you want to hear.

Also, in honor of O'Keefe, here is SlyJohnny saying things:

Sci-fi was great before all these bloody women and minorities invaded the old boy's club.

I'm also sitting on "Let's just beat him up now," but I spent like two whole minutes trying to find a sentence to splash together with that to make it look like a threat against a politician and that is probably one minute and thirty seconds longer than the joke deserves. But regardless, the point is that this is what O'Keefe does. To make any conclusions without access to his raws is absurd, because using O'Keefe's "journalistic techniques" it was trivial to find "proof" that you're a bigoted shitbag.

[Occluded Sun]

Donald Trump's Walk of Fame Star Vandalized with a Pickaxe

Not as serious as throwing rocks at Trumpite heads, I suppose.

[Occluded Sun]

DSMatticus isn't worth much as a guide.

May I suggest instead this article at Time.com? It's both more complete than DSMatticus and less mouth-frothing.

[Voss]

It's striking how high the correspondence is between insulting me and failing to understand my posts is.

Trump got so much attention in the primaries, and ultimately emerged as the candidate, despite being utterly despised by the elites of the party he's nominally running under. And he did this by exploiting issues that have a great deal of popular concern but were by 'gentlemen's agreement' rendered unmentionable by anyone in the political class. Pretty much all the politicians hate him.

I can't even imagine what you think would be necessary to fall under the vague category of 'outsider', but it's remarkable you don't think Trump qualifies.

By being outside the system, rather than giving millions of dollars to the person who is now the Democratic Presidential Candidate when she was running for Senate, and also giving millions of dollars to the previous Republican Presidential Candidate.

My criteria on this point is actually not that narrow. Outside the system means not being part of it, nor funding it. Trump is just as much part of the system as the Koch brothers.

Guy who runs the gas station down the road? He'd be an outsider.
Someone who brags about having Presidential Candidates coming to him on their knees? Not so much.

Do the Republican elites hate Trump? Likely. He's only supported Democratic candidates in elections against Republicans, and has openly stated he's going to wipe his ass with the Constitution (probably... metaphorically, but that isn't certain with Trump) and may or may not piss on every military treaty the Republican party values more than their own children. But yeah. Let's take 'they hate him' as read. That is not a barrier to being part of the system, nor does it have to with anything 'unmentionable.'

The issues espoused (as opposed to what he believes, which has fuck all to do with anything) by Trump (when he can be pinned down on taking at stance on issues at all), come out of any generic country and western song: They took our jobs! 'Merica! and Fuck Women and those funny colored fellas! The first one is merely ironic given how many of his own projects have turned to ruin.

[MGuy]

It's striking how high the correspondence is between insulting me and failing to understand my posts is.

Trump got so much attention in the primaries, and ultimately emerged as the candidate, despite being utterly despised by the elites of the party he's nominally running under. And he did this by exploiting issues that have a great deal of popular concern but were by 'gentlemen's agreement' rendered unmentionable by anyone in the political class. Pretty much all the politicians hate him.

I can't even imagine what you think would be necessary to fall under the vague category of 'outsider', but it's remarkable you don't think Trump qualifies.

You have a distinct disconnect from reality. Trump was able to exploit the fact that the Republicans were intentionally making radicals out of their base. The Tea Party is a disease they inflicted on themselves and all Trump did was come along and be as belligerent as possible. Being anti brown people has been the Republican position for as long as I can remember at least and you have to be stupid if you think "we're going to build a wall and make Mexico pay for it" is some kind of unspoken talking point that desperately needed to be talked about openly. Now, honestly I do believe that you are a racist and are stupid but in this case you really should have already known that your anti brown people stances were well supported by the Right.

[Kaelik]

From the Occluded Sun school of journalism

1) Here are the things that seem to be said in the videos that are most controversial to get you to keep reading.
2) Here is one paragraph briefly mentioning that literally every video this guy does is bullshit before now.
3) 28 paragraphs where we take the videos at face value and quote from Trump and O'Keefe.
4) 3 paragraphs where we briefly mention that literally anything that can be checked is a lie.
5) BOTH SIDES, YOU DECIDE!

I mean, aside from the fact that it devotes more time to pretending the contents of the video are in any way valid, how is that any different from what DSM said?

The guy is an established con artist who posts edited clips to make it look like something was said that wasn't said. Everything in the videos is a lie. Move the fuck on.

[DSMatticus]

I mean, aside from the fact that it devotes more time to pretending the contents of the video are in any way valid, how is that any different from what DSM said?

Well, the Time article doesn't give specific examples of the deceptive editing techniques O'Keefe has been caught using, which would probably be pretty helpful to... idiots, okay, the word I'm looking for is idiots - who otherwise might not realize exactly how significantly you can change a conversation through deceptive editing. It's easy to brush off "deceptive editing" as whining by someone caught red-handed until you realize that deceptive editing means shit like "Alice quoting Bob allows you to present Bob's words as Alice's own." The article also completely fails to mention that O'Keefe, when challenged to release his raws, told everyone to fuck off - which in light of his history of being completely wrecked by his own raw footage everytime it's come out makes it obvious he's still hiding things. If he actually had something, he would vindicate himself with the raws. So despite being one-fourth the word count I'm gonna say my post is considerably more informative, what with it managing to hit on "why we need the raws" better than the article does and managing to hit "he's deliberately not releasing them" at all. So I would say it's different, in that it is worse.

It's almost like in Time's eternal quest to disseminate both sides bullshit to their audience they undersold exactly how untrustworthy O'Keefe actually is. What a surprise!

[Prak]

So what happens to your life if Trump wins

Almost certain-
-I lose my insurance
-I no longer have antidepressants
-I fall back into dysthymia, potentially actual full on clinical depression since I now know what it's like to be "normal" and I would also lose my hrt drugs

Possible-
-I get boarded onto a gay conversion bus and sent to a camp where I'm groped and electrocuted in an attempt to make me straight

Far fetched, but wouldn't surprise me-
-I get put in a fucking internment camp for any of the following reasons-
--I'm not straight
--I'm transgender
--I'm not christian
--I'm a journalist

[Voss]

I'll probably get to see lynchings around these parts. The divide between townie and farm folk is really ridiculous, and no signs with a blue background appear anywhere outside of town and its immediate subdivisions.

Driving through the countryside around here is disturbing montage of cliches and hate... and lots and lots of Trump signs.

[SlyJohnny]

Listen, you hate Hillary Clinton. I get that. Whatever. But unfortunately, you are one of those people who is rendered cripplingly stupid by your own disdain. That's something you're going to have to work on. Your desire for something to be true does not make it true, and you can't just stop evaluating the integrity of sources of information because they say what you want to hear.

You're off base on this one. I know you want to dismiss me as rabidly anti-Clinton and the recordings as incosequential, but the recordings stand alone, even though O'Keefe is the worst and dumbest self-described "investigative journalist" since Michael Moore. Obviously they're from different conversations where he went fishing, because that's how he works, but they are still direct admissions of going to a lot of trouble to orchestrate fights at Trump rallies for the purposes of creating propaganda and selling a false narrative, so you don't get to just cry "editing!" and then ignore this, while having the gaul to imply that I'M the one being willfully stupid and intellectually lazy.

To make any conclusions without access to his raws is absurd, because using O'Keefe's "journalistic techniques" it was trivial to find "proof" that you're a bigoted shitbag.

Rubbish. These were not quotes that could be dismissed as sarcasm. These were detailed, factual accounts of actions taken. The fact remains that the men implicated didn't just roll their eyes and explain they were talking about a different group they disapproved of, they were fired and resigned, respectively.

[Kaelik]

they are still direct admissions of going to a lot of trouble to orchestrate fights at Trump rallies for the purposes of creating propaganda and selling a false narrative,

Except for the part where they totally aren't that at all, and are in fact, just descriptions of the kinds of things that might create fights, without any admissions of actually doing those things. And all of that with less than zero selling of false narrative.

These were detailed, factual accounts of actions taken. The fact remains that the men implicated didn't just roll their eyes and explain they were talking about a different group they disapproved of, they were fired and resigned, respectively.

Except again, that they were not detailed, or factual accounts of actions taken. At all, at any point.

And spoiler alert, the guy who resigned didn't even say anything at any point in the video about doing anything, even with fake editing, so while I'm sure you will cry at the death of your narrative, you really need to stop talking about how a guy who resigned after firing the one guy is somehow evidence of a second person.

And again, the first guy was fired, which is still the thing you do if he claimed he wants to do things, even if he didn't do them, which is totally consistent with any and all of the not at all detailed not admissions in the videos.

Look, you are a credulous idiot with no idea how editing works. I know you don't want to admit it, but that's precisely why non idiots around the world don't like it when some asshole uses deceptive editing to trick idiots like you.

[DSMatticus]

The fact remains that the men implicated didn't just roll their eyes and explain they were talking about a different group they disapproved of, they were fired and resigned, respectively.

Juan Vera was fired by ACORN as a result of O'Keefe's videos. Vera sued O'Keefe. The case wouldn't be settled until 2013, four years after the videos were released. Vera won $100k and a public apology. Several other ACORN employees were also fired and later exonerated, but AFAIK none of them ever sued over it. ACORN no longer exists. It was defunded shortly after O'Keefe's videos were released, but before they were thoroughly debunked. ACORN was operating in something like a hundred different cities, so I'd wager it had thousands if not tens of thousands of employees. Spoiler: if your employer stops existing because some propagandist asshat wrongfully smeared it, you no longer have a job. Ron and Vivian Schiller were forced to resign over their conduct in the O'Keefe's NPR videos. They did not defend themselves, they just quietly slipped away. When people got their hands on the raw footage, it turns out that the conduct for which they had been fired had been fabricated.

You seriously just argued that O'Keefe's accusations must be true because people lost their jobs over them, and yet O'Keefe's entire career is defined by the exact opposite of that; making accusations which are completely false and people losing their jobs anyway. The number of people who have lost their jobs as a result of false accusations made by O'Keefe is, depending on whether or not you want to count the closure of ACORN against him (you should), somewhere between half a dozen and thousands. It's not just that you are a gullible idiot who can somehow convince yourself that there must be nuggets of truth in a known con artist's bullshit despite his openly contemptuous refusal to show you what's behind the smoke and mirrors. It's that the arguments you choose to make in defense of your insufferable gullibility show a complete and total refusal to do basic, elementary research or thought on these topics. O'Keefe was literally fucking sued by an employee he'd gotten wrongfully fired and you're citing his success in getting people fired as evidence of his truthfulness! WHAT THE FUCK IS WRONG WITH YOUR BRAIN?

Look, just answer me honestly: did you have any idea who O'Keefe was before we told you? I'm curious. I want to know if you're just some stubborn dumbass who's stumbled into defending a rapidly collapsing fortress because I've riled you up too much to walk away, or if you are are actually just the stupidest motherfucker I've ever met in my life. Because there's really no other option; you were either too ignorant to know O'Keefe's entire career is a whirlwind of wrongful firings, or too stupid to realize you were about to make an argument hinging on the premise that he couldn't possibly have done the thing he's been doing for years. It's one or the other, and I kind of want to know. I'm not sure which would be better, honestly - probably "I had no fucking idea who he was, but now I'm too invested in this argument to slink away."

But briefly - very, very briefly - let me set aside how much I loathe you for your many shortcomings and make the fundamentals clear: O'Keefe has tricked people before. People smarter than you, which frankly isn't saying much. If he refuses to release his raws, that means his raws undermine his narrative - exactly like they have every other time he's done this. That you trust him despite his (literally criminal) history and despite his refusal to release the raws and let them corroborate his conclusions is an embarrassing failure on your part.

[Username17]

You're off base on this one. I know you want to dismiss me as rabidly anti-Clinton and the recordings as incosequential, but the recordings stand alone, even though O'Keefe is the worst and dumbest self-described "investigative journalist" since Michael Moore.

You should stop getting your talking points from right wing propaganda sites. Seriously, just stop. It's ridiculous.

Michael Moore does "ambush journalism," which is mean. The technique is that you start asking people questions that they weren't prepared for, either by implying that an interview was going to be about another topic or simply "showing up" and asking questions. You can get people on camera acting confused, answering questions incorrectly, saying impolitic things, or even just capture them on camera getting angry or storming out of the interview. All good camera fodder if you're trying to make someone look bad.

But ambush journalism is still a form of journalism. And sometimes you can even get important truths when you ask people questions that have answers and they aren't prepared with deflections or talking points.

Deceptive editing is the practice of fabricating conversations out of bits and bobs to make people look like they said things they did not in fact say. That is what O'Keefe does. It's so far away from journalism that it is against the law. O'Keefe has lost in court, repeatedly, because his methods are not journalism. They are slander.

The fact that you think that putting up Michael Moore as someone even worse than O'Keefe makes you look even handed is pathetic. Michael Moore isn't on the same plane of existence as O'Keefe. O'Keefe is a criminal who is funded by political operatives to ruin the lives and careers of good people in order to generate talking points for right wing pundits. It's fucking disgusting. And you enabling it by pretending that this tripe "stands" makes you disgusting.

-Username17

[SlyJohnny]

I thought I made it perfectly clear that I knew who O'Keefe was and was contemptuous of him in my original post, but as that's whistled over both your heads, let's try again with smaller words.

I do not care about the man's character if the recordings are genuine. If you think they aren't, in that the guy spliced together disparate words to create a sentence that never previously existed (using a degree of technical editing brilliance that's strangely absent in the rest of the video where he clumsily attempts to splice together a narrative from several different conversations, with the obvious aim of implicating Clinton as a criminal mastermind at the centre of the web)- then fine, believe that, but you're disagreeing with Bob Creamer, who's gone on record ADMITTING those conversations took place, but feebly claiming they were discussing hypotheticals.

Man, it reminds me of the time that Trump admitted to using positional authority to barge into young girl's changing rooms in a way they couldn't easily raise issue with, and then one of the girls affected said "Yes, I was there and he totally did do that" and yet he STILL had people trying to claim it didn't happen. Even though everyone involved admits that it did.

Why are you demonstrating the same level of attachment to reality as a Trump supporter? Is it because you're both so fucking stupid?

[nockermensch]

I do not care about the man's character if the recordings are genuine. If you think they aren't, in that the guy spliced together disparate words to create a sentence that never previously existed (using a degree of technical editing brilliance that's strangely absent in the rest of the video where he clumsily attempts to splice together a narrative from several different conversations, with the obvious aim of implicating Clinton as a criminal mastermind at the centre of the web)- then fine, believe that, but you're disagreeing with Bob Creamer, who's gone on record ADMITTING those conversations took place, but feebly claiming they were discussing hypotheticals.

What the Original video should look like:
Interviewer: "Supposing somebody wants to crash a Trump's rally, what course do you think would be more damaging/effective?"

Bob Creamer: "Well, I can't agree with this, but <PART OF THE EDITED VIDEO YOU GET TO SEE>"

This is what O'Keefe's MO looks like. He didn't release the original video this time, but in the past he resorted to this level of trickery to get his 'smoking guns'. Are you getting it now?

[angelfromanotherpin]

Oh my god, asshole, if the recordings were genuine, O'Keefe would release the raw footage. He won't, they aren't, full stop.

[Username17]

If you know who O'Keefe is, and you continue to act as if there is any merit to his slanderous accusations, then you are an honorless toad. His productions are fake. They have always been fake. They are always going to be fake. If you know this, and you continue to slander people on the grounds that "this time it might be different," you are a horrible person. You are perpetuating vile accusations that you have no reason to believe are even remotely true. That is disgusting. You are disgusting.

-Username17

[Kaelik]

if the recordings are genuine.

...

then fine, believe that, but you're disagreeing with Bob Creamer, who's gone on record ADMITTING those conversations took place, but feebly claiming they were discussing hypotheticals.

So again, I have to ask, what recordings do you think are genuine?

The ones where Bob Creamer said "I organized events"? I think everyone knows those are genuine, I think anyone who cares is an idiot.

The ones where Scott Foval said "Trump supporters like SlyJohnny sure are gullible idiots who throw punches first and think with their brains never" I think we can all agree that that's an accurate summation of Trump supporters in general, and you in particular, so it wouldn't surprise me if he said it.

But apparently you don't mean "direct admissions of going to a lot of trouble to orchestrate fights at Trump rallies for the purposes of creating propaganda and selling a false narrative" as you previously claimed, because now you are claiming that even if the conversations are actually hypothetical, that you are still somehow right.

So what specifically do you think the Evil Bad Crime that O'Keefe "uncovered" with his editing is?

And also how does Bob Creamer know that this conversation that uncovered this crime is real, when it's with a different person, since you are now claiming that his admission that conversations with him were real are somehow also admissions that whatever crime was uncovered is real?

[Wiseman]

Who's O'Keefe?

[RobbyPants]

So, what's the haps on this latest Wikileaks? Apparently they're saying Bill Clinton made personal millions from foundations?

I heard a blurb on the radio and got pulled away.

[Kaelik]

So, what's the haps on this latest Wikileaks? Apparently they're saying Bill Vlinton made personal millions from foundations?

I heard a blurb on the radio and got pulled away.

No, what happened is that the same companies that Bill Clinton did business with also donated to the Clinton foundation. Almost like companies that wanted to associate with Bill Clinton also wanted to associate will Bill Clinton.

I mean let's be serious here, does Coke actually really need to hire Bill Clinton to lecture it's executives? Of course not, but they do, because they want to associate with his name, so when they also turn around and donate to the foundation.... duh?

But since both those things are effectively charity, there's basically no level on which you can say that Bill Clinton is somehow taking money from the foundation or leveraging a foundation that only receives the donations it does because of his name in order to get paid work.

The most damning thing that could possibly be said is:

Corporations made donations to the foundation in order to get Bill Clinton's attention and get meetings with him, at which point they paid him more money personally.

But since the act of donating to the foundation is not bad, and the act of hiring Clinton is not bad, and the act of doing one in order to earn the right to do the second is not bad.... Who gives a fuck?

[RobbyPants]

I'm disappointed. NPR isn't usually a BOTH SIDES! sort of outlet.

[Grek]

Who's O'Keefe?

O'Keefe is this guy who goes to talk to people and records what they say, then edits the footage to make them look bad. Not just little edits, either, editing on the order of cutting down

Interviewee: "What? Of course I don't support Mr. Bertglove's election campaign. In his latest speech, he claimed that I like to use pimple squeezings as toothpaste, and that I'm secretly a lizard person. What kind of person would support Mr. Bertglove after that? If I ever vote for his party, just shoot me on the spot."

to

Interviewee: "I like to use pimple squeezings as toothpaste."
Interviewee: "I'm secretly a lizard person, just shoot me on the spot."
Interviewee: "Support Mr. Bertglove. Vote for his party."

[DSMatticus]

Alright, let's play a game. O'Keefe gets a dozen cuts to show me something I give a fuck about:

[START]

Scott Foval: "It doesn't matter what the friggin legal and ethics people say, we need to win this motherfucker."

[CUT 1]

PVA: "Hillary is like aware of all the work that you guys do I hope."

[CUT 2]

Bob Creamer: "The campaign is fully in it."

[CUT 3]

PVA: "And then they tell Hillary like what's going on?"

Bob Creamer: "Well, I mean Hillary knows through the chain of command what's going on."

[CUT 4]

Bob Creamer: "I'm not suggesting we wait around, we need to start this shit right away. On every one of these fronts."

[CUT 5]

Scott Foval: "What I call it is conflict engagement."

PVA: "That's, that's your, that's your version of re-enfranchisement."

Scott Foval: "Conflict engagement in the lines at Trump rallies."

Scott Foval: "We're starting anarchy here."

[CUT 6]

O'Keefe saying things. Disembodied voices on a background saying things. I don't give a fuck, but I won't count the cut away from it either.

[FREE CUT]

Scott Foval: "If you're there and you're protesting and you do these actions, you will be attacked at Trump rallies. That's what we want."

PVA: "Oh so, oh oh, so that's part of the process, of getting, of eliciting the reacon, okay."

Scott Foval: "The whole point of it is that we know Trump's people will freak the fuck out, his security team will freak out, and his supporters will lose their shit."

[CUT 7]

Scott Foval: "We are contracted directly with the DNC and the campaign both."

PVA: "Yeah."

Scott Foval: "I am contracted to him. But I answer to the head of special events for the DNC and the head of special events and political for the campaign."

[CUT 8]

Scott Foval: "The campaign pays DNC, DNC pays Democracy Partners, Democracy Partners pays the Foval group, the Foval group goes and executes the shit on the ground."

[CUT 9]

Scott Foval: "We are the primary mechanism as a team. Democracy Partners is the tip of the spear on that stuff."

[CUT 10]

Bob Creamer: "Wherever Trump and Pence are gonna be we have events."

PVA: "Okay."

Bob Creamer: "And we have a whole team across the country that does that. Both consultants and people from the Democratic Party and the Democratic Party apparatus and people from the campaign, the Clinton campaign. And my role in this campaign is to manage that."

[CUT 11]

Bob Creamer: "Just for a little orientation, Democracy Partners is kind of a group practice of a variety of consultants that do, essentially, a wide variety of different kinds of political consulting."

[CUT 12]

And that's 12. So, the longest of those cuts is a staggering 53 words (HAHAHAHA). It's not incriminating. It's Bob Creamer talking about how he organizes events. Good on you for figuring that one out, O'Keefe. Good on you. Truly an interesting and nefarious revelation. The second longest of those cuts is 51 words. If you didn't know a god damn thing about O'Keefe, you might call it incriminating. So here's the next game: I'm going to find another O'Keefe video which has an "incriminating" cut at least as long this one, which was then later proven to be misleading.

Ron Schiller: "The current Republican party is not really the Republican party. It's been hijacked by this group -- that is -- and not just Islamophobic, but really xenophobic, I mean basically they are, they are, they believe in sort of white, middle-America, gun-toting I mean it's scary. They're seriously racist, racist people." Snap, 51 words even. In context, he is repeating what other influential Republican leaders have confided in him about what they think of the Tea Party. Also that was really, really easy. It was literally the first thing I went looking for, and all of the work was skipping through a youtube video to find it.

But, really, SlyJohnny, how pathetically stupid can you be? You are aware that O'Keefe is known for manipulating his footage to both obscure important context and splice together his own incriminating conversations build-a-block style. You are aware that O'Keefe has access to the raw, unedited footage of these conversations, and if the raw conversations are as incriminating as O'Keefe has presented them as then it is completely within his power to prove that. You have been made aware that O'Keefe has openly refused to do exactly that. Just fucking think about that. Just run all this through your worthless fucking head. You have been presented with a known liar who is deliberately withholding evidence that would prove his claims if they were true and debunk his claims if they were false. He has the raws! If he's telling the truth, the raw conversations would prove he's telling the truth! If he's lying, the raw conversations would prove he's lying! He won't release the raws! What the fuck do you think that means, shit-for-brains? Think about it. For the love of all that is holy rub your impotent fucking braincells together until they spark and you finally realize how fucking embarrassing it is to defend the-boy-who-cried-wolf-while-simultaneously-claiming-to-have-photographic-evidence-while-only-offering-heavily-edited-pictures-of-sleepy-beagles.

[Username17]

Who's O'Keefe?

In case this is genuine and you haven't been able to figure out from context, O'Keefe is a conservative propagandist. What he does is surrepticiously film people, sometimes while in various disguises, and then cut the hidden camera material to make people look bad.

The purpose of these phony stings is to produce short films that will get conservatives angry, and then have those short films circulated around the conservative echo chamber for a while to get in some good Two Minutes Hate.

What makes him especially vile as compared to any of the other random people making content for the conservative rage of the day is that he uses fabricated conversations to get people fired. And he is much more successful than most of these meme makers, because dumb assholes like SlyJohnny think that the fact that he gets people fired is evidence of other people having done something wrong - while what it actually is is that employers don't want to be associated with scandal whether it's based in reality or not.

-Username17