8 ms·

The childish side of me typed in "penis" expecting no results. Boy was I wrong.

drostie 10y ago
None of them are particularly interesting, though. So far I'm pretty surprised with how pedestrian it is. Even looking for the word "fuck" reveals few internal communications which use it. In one thread, some guy seems to have gotten a sub-optimal time slot for putting out Democratic-leaning news on CNN, since it's at 6AM rather than closer to near 8:20AM when, it turns out, Obama was going to deliver some statement. They asked him if he thought it was possible to move the thing forward a couple hours, and suggested that if he couldn't then they might have to withhold the news completely for a later time. And he replied with a bit of lip about how crummy that is: "They structured their whole show on that we’ll make news in the 6am hour. We told them a time. They took care of us. Now they’re all asleep. Are we really going to screw them over on our mistake???" and he follows it up with a couple more replies which are similarly irreverent but not outright bad, making a valid case (which the higher-ups seem to eventually agree with) that alienating someone who's doing you a favor is a really bad idea and they should just bite whatever bullet they're biting with the worse time-slot. They basically tell him, "You're right, we'll listen to you, but fuck off with the attitude." And that's the scope of the thing. Relatively minor. In another one, someone admitting that they're writing for FoxNews.com invites comments from them about some hit piece he's thinking about writing on the subject of Hillary Clinton maybe protecting Bill and trying to silence his accusers during his sex scandals... an internal email discussing this "opportunity" (to, presumably, have whatever their words might be, twisted) one emails to the other people in his office, "Is there a Fuck You emoji?". After some laughs they decide not to respond at all; but the guy is persistent, so the person who handles the forward says, "The asshole from fox emailed us again. I did some research and there’s still no “fuck you” emoji, unfortunately." It's pretty tame stuff so far in my browsing. Relatively professional.
- tanderson92 10y ago
  https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/7643 https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/7643 https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/11508 https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/11508 I wouldn't call that professional. I would call that conspiring to commit a civil rights violation, or exploit one.
  - drostie 10y ago
    I was talking in particular about the use of profanity in a working environment, of course. I do not know what you are reading into those emails but speaking purely objectively, there is remarkably little content in them to go off of. It could potentially have to do with Bernie Sanders in the Kentucky and West Virginia primaries (which were in early May), but that seems somewhat unlikely given the timestamps -- the West Virginia primary was only 5 days after the email was sent, which is almost no time for one to ask the question, get whatever answer, and launch a smear campaign. It could also be not about Sanders at all--WVA is an odd way to refer to West Virginia when WV will work as well, and the name "Sanders" doesn't appear anywhere in the emails themselves. Even if it's about Sanders, the email doesn't even say whether the guy is rooting for or against Sanders: it could just as easily be "Hey, I heard this rumor that Sanders is an atheist, can we get someone to ask him so that he can squash that rumor like a bug?" It doesn't strike me as a "civil rights violation" to ask about someone's religious views. I mean, maybe the US people not voting for politicians based on their religious affiliation is a larger civil rights violation that you fear will be triggered if this question is asked, but that seems like several steps away from a sure thing, since it's quite possible that Bernie will play a different political card.
    - tanderson92 10y ago
      You cannot possibly be serious. 1) The emails refer to two upcoming primaries, which occurred in close temporal and spatial proximity to each other. Literally no other campaign in the nation is in two states. It is hard to imagine any other figure in the nation that that refers to other than Bernie Sanders. I didn't mention Bernie Sanders in my reply, so why did you think it was about Bernie and then attempt to deny it? I think you protest too much. 2) The email is clearly suggesting to use the question against Sanders. Your hypothetical suggestion is plainly unsupported by the facts. Let me just quote the objectionable e-mail: > It might may no difference, but for KY and WVA can we get someone to ask his belief. Does he believe in a God. He had skated on saying he has a Jewish heritage. I think I read he is an atheist. This could make several points difference with my peeps. My Southern Baptist peeps would draw a big difference between a Jew and an atheist. That is clearly saying that knowledge that Sanders is an atheist would hurt him in KY and WVA (by the way: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WVA https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WVA). It is also implying that someone should directly ask him so he can't "skate by". 3) civil service jobs are not supposed to involve discrimination based on religious preferences and attempts to exploit bigotry by national political organizations is deeply unethical.
- nitrogen 10y ago
  Is it really professional for the media to be so closely connected to political organizations in the first place?
mr_potato_face 10y ago
Well, none of the six results were particularly interesting. Four were variations on Trump's debate comment about having a big penis. One was a news summary which included the world's first successful penis transplant. The last was someone calling Trump "Hillary Clinton with a penis". Nothing authored by someone in the DNC.

None of them are particularly interesting, though. So far I'm pretty surprised with how pedestrian it is. Even looking for the word "fuck" reveals few internal communications which use it. In one thread, some guy seems to have gotten a sub-optimal time slot for putting out Democratic-leaning news on CNN, since it's at 6AM rather than closer to near 8:20AM when, it turns out, Obama was going to deliver some statement. They asked him if he thought it was possible to move the thing forward a couple hours, and suggested that if he couldn't then they might have to withhold the news completely for a later time. And he replied with a bit of lip about how crummy that is: "They structured their whole show on that we’ll make news in the 6am hour. We told them a time. They took care of us. Now they’re all asleep. Are we really going to screw them over on our mistake???" and he follows it up with a couple more replies which are similarly irreverent but not outright bad, making a valid case (which the higher-ups seem to eventually agree with) that alienating someone who's doing you a favor is a really bad idea and they should just bite whatever bullet they're biting with the worse time-slot. They basically tell him, "You're right, we'll listen to you, but fuck off with the attitude." And that's the scope of the thing. Relatively minor. In another one, someone admitting that they're writing for FoxNews.com invites comments from them about some hit piece he's thinking about writing on the subject of Hillary Clinton maybe protecting Bill and trying to silence his accusers during his sex scandals... an internal email discussing this "opportunity" (to, presumably, have whatever their words might be, twisted) one emails to the other people in his office, "Is there a Fuck You emoji?". After some laughs they decide not to respond at all; but the guy is persistent, so the person who handles the forward says, "The asshole from fox emailed us again. I did some research and there’s still no “fuck you” emoji, unfortunately." It's pretty tame stuff so far in my browsing. Relatively professional.

tanderson92 10y ago
https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/7643 https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/7643 https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/11508 https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/11508 I wouldn't call that professional. I would call that conspiring to commit a civil rights violation, or exploit one.
- drostie 10y ago
  I was talking in particular about the use of profanity in a working environment, of course. I do not know what you are reading into those emails but speaking purely objectively, there is remarkably little content in them to go off of. It could potentially have to do with Bernie Sanders in the Kentucky and West Virginia primaries (which were in early May), but that seems somewhat unlikely given the timestamps -- the West Virginia primary was only 5 days after the email was sent, which is almost no time for one to ask the question, get whatever answer, and launch a smear campaign. It could also be not about Sanders at all--WVA is an odd way to refer to West Virginia when WV will work as well, and the name "Sanders" doesn't appear anywhere in the emails themselves. Even if it's about Sanders, the email doesn't even say whether the guy is rooting for or against Sanders: it could just as easily be "Hey, I heard this rumor that Sanders is an atheist, can we get someone to ask him so that he can squash that rumor like a bug?" It doesn't strike me as a "civil rights violation" to ask about someone's religious views. I mean, maybe the US people not voting for politicians based on their religious affiliation is a larger civil rights violation that you fear will be triggered if this question is asked, but that seems like several steps away from a sure thing, since it's quite possible that Bernie will play a different political card.
  - tanderson92 10y ago
    You cannot possibly be serious. 1) The emails refer to two upcoming primaries, which occurred in close temporal and spatial proximity to each other. Literally no other campaign in the nation is in two states. It is hard to imagine any other figure in the nation that that refers to other than Bernie Sanders. I didn't mention Bernie Sanders in my reply, so why did you think it was about Bernie and then attempt to deny it? I think you protest too much. 2) The email is clearly suggesting to use the question against Sanders. Your hypothetical suggestion is plainly unsupported by the facts. Let me just quote the objectionable e-mail: > It might may no difference, but for KY and WVA can we get someone to ask his belief. Does he believe in a God. He had skated on saying he has a Jewish heritage. I think I read he is an atheist. This could make several points difference with my peeps. My Southern Baptist peeps would draw a big difference between a Jew and an atheist. That is clearly saying that knowledge that Sanders is an atheist would hurt him in KY and WVA (by the way: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WVA https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WVA). It is also implying that someone should directly ask him so he can't "skate by". 3) civil service jobs are not supposed to involve discrimination based on religious preferences and attempts to exploit bigotry by national political organizations is deeply unethical.
nitrogen 10y ago
Is it really professional for the media to be so closely connected to political organizations in the first place?

mr_potato_face 10y ago

Well, none of the six results were particularly interesting. Four were variations on Trump's debate comment about having a big penis. One was a news summary which included the world's first successful penis transplant. The last was someone calling Trump "Hillary Clinton with a penis". Nothing authored by someone in the DNC.