Whistleblower leaks Hasbro's CRT agenda, "2 y/o's are racist"

kevin corms · Jul 21, 2021

chrisrlink said:
you should fucking read about the video author before posting shit

Jump to navigation Jump to search Project Veritas

Logo
Formation June 2010; 11 years ago[1]
Founder James O'Keefe
Type NGO
Legal status 501(c)(3)
Purpose Disinformation [14]
Location

1214 Boston Post Road No. 148 Mamaroneck, New York 10543

Methods

Undercover operations [16]

Hidden cameras [17]

Entrapment [23]

Video manipulation [24]

Funding Donors Trust
Website www.projectveritas.com

Project Veritas is an American far-right [36] activist group founded by James O'Keefe in 2010.[40] The group produces deceptively edited videos [24] of its undercover operations,[16] which use secret recordings [17] in an effort to discredit mainstream media organizations and progressive groups.[48][49] Project Veritas also uses entrapment [23] to generate bad publicity for its targets,[2] and has propagated disinformation [14] and conspiracy theories [56] in its videos and operations.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Veritas

and the guy pushing this sound like a real dirtbag

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_O'Keefe

You mean the guy who records people admitting to bad deeds, then they sue him and lose? Oh look some fools made a wikipedia page saying hes far right (nobody who goes against the mainstream has ever dishonestly been called that /s) and that his videos arent real, lets stop thinking right away. https://kimdeyir.com/founder-of-wikipedia-site-turned-into-a-propaganda-tool/

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

jimbo13 said:
IMO your hearing what corporate media is accusing them of, they do 60 minutes style video stings. There may be an exception but everything they release is on Video. They put out a video report with the "meat" and anyone complaining about editing can go look at the raw footage they always release.

You can make the argument using decoys is sleazy, but investigative journalists have done it for decades. It's no different when the local news stings a business or mechanic.

The only thing Project Veritas releases is people caught being candid on film.

If catching people on video saying things they shouldn't is "off limits" society owes Hulk Hogan & Dog the bounty hunter an apology.

Hasbro trainers are on film saying this hot trash and there is 0 denials from Hasbro that the film is legitimate.

Exactly, the media keeps trying to smear them and "expose" them, but the courts keep ruling for Veritas. Veritas is biased in who they go after, but they are exposing the propaganda... not the other way around.

Dakitten · Jul 21, 2021

jimbo13 said:
Then cite it or STFU.

Ask and you shall receive! Not that it hasn't been brought up earlier. You can hate on Wikipedia, but they do pull from multiple sources and cite them.

ACORN Lawsuit settlement ending in cash payout and forced apology, 2009
Failure to make a case for against Democracy Partners after misleading video editing, 2017
Got to eat a restraining order after trying to lie their way into a "sting", 2017

kevin corms said:
You mean the guy who records people admitting to bad deeds, then they sue him and lose? Oh look some fools made a wikipedia page saying hes far right (nobody who goes against the mainstream has ever dishonestly been called that /s) and that his videos arent real, lets stop thinking right away. https://kimdeyir.com/founder-of-wikipedia-site-turned-into-a-propaganda-tool/

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

Exactly, the media keeps trying to smear them and "expose" them, but the courts keep ruling for Veritas. Veritas is biased in who they go after, but they are exposing the propaganda... not the other way around.

If that was really the case, then why couldn't they manage any change during a time when their supporters were in unanimous power?

kevin corms · Jul 21, 2021

Dakitten said:
Ask and you shall receive! Not that it hasn't been brought up earlier. You can hate on Wikipedia, but they do pull from multiple sources and cite them.

ACORN Lawsuit settlement ending in cash payout and forced apology, 2009
Failure to make a case for against Democracy Partners after misleading video editing, 2017
Got to eat a restraining order after trying to lie their way into a "sting", 2017

If that was really the case, then why couldn't they manage any change during a time when their supporters were in unanimous power?

In this case, their sources are the media that project veritas exposes. https://thefederalist.com/2021/03/2...in-defamation-lawsuit-against-new-york-times/

They are also linking opinion pieces as fact, so ya...

I suggest reading Manufacturing Consent.

Deleted member 514389 · Jul 21, 2021

I'm actually convinced all people are whatever-ist in some kind of way.

If you have an ego, you draw borders.
If someone clashes with those, you'll be offended.

The biggest problem is the whole marketing machinery in my op.
Exploiting fears etc. is a horrible way of conducting business.
Horrible, but sadly highly effective.
Worked since the inception of mankind.

Dakitten · Jul 21, 2021

kevin corms said:
In this case, their sources are the media that project veritas exposes. https://thefederalist.com/2021/03/2...in-defamation-lawsuit-against-new-york-times/

Um... not only has that case not, in fact, been won (still ongoing, do you not read your own stuff?), but it is only a movement forward in a libel case against some journalists calling them out for being immoral spin doctors. Got anything else?

kevin corms · Jul 21, 2021

Dakitten said:
Um... not only has that case not, in fact, been won (still ongoing, do you not read your own stuff?), but it is only a movement forward in a libel case against some journalists calling them out for being immoral spin doctors. Got anything else?

I dont think you can read, new york times only defense is that it was an opinion piece. I dont mind debating or having a discussion, but you are just wasting space with nonsense. How many times will NYT and other media sources (including fox news) get caught with their pants down before you realize what they do? Was it not obvious enough with whistleblowers like Assange and Snowden getting treated the way they are?

Dakitten · Jul 21, 2021

kevin corms said:
I dont think you can read, new york times only defense is that it was an opinion piece. I dont mind debating or having a discussion, but you are just wasting space with nonsense. How many times will NYT and other media sources (including fox news) get caught with their pants down before you realize what they do?

Well, for starters, none of my sources for anything was the New York Times... you win no points there. Second, nobody here is really defending the NYT in particular. They have their faults. Woo. Doesn't make Veritas not immoral. Lastly, this makes you seem thirsty as hell for validation and vindication for these folks, since again, this wasn't even a win but a judge agreeing to move forward with the case.

kevin corms · Jul 21, 2021

Dakitten said:
Well, for starters, none of my sources for anything was the New York Times... you win no points there. Second, nobody here is really defending the NYT in particular. They have their faults. Woo. Doesn't make Veritas not immoral. Lastly, this makes you seem thirsty as hell for validation and vindication for these folks, since again, this wasn't even a win but a judge agreeing to move forward with the case.

Bunch of fallacy arguments, you aren't saying anything at all. The reporter from the Hill is just repeating what the NYT said, with no evidence. I dont think Ill bother responding to you anymore, since you cant make any points or back up anything you are saying. All you can do is come up with fallacy argument after fallacy argument. Again the NYT defense is “mere opinion incapable of being judged true or false,”, so basically they are saying its just opinion and therefore we can say what we want, just like Rachel Maddow and Tucker Carlson cases.

Dakitten · Jul 21, 2021

kevin corms said:
Bunch of fallacy arguments, you aren't saying anything at all. The reporter from the Hill is just repeating what the NYT said, with no evidence. I dont think Ill bother responding to you anymore, since you cant make any points or back up anything you are saying. All you can do is come up with fallacy argument after fallacy argument. Again the NYT defense is “mere opinion incapable of being judged true or false,”, so basically they are saying its just opinion and therefore we can say what we want, just like Rachel Maddow and Tucker Carlson cases.

Are you high? I didn't cite The Hill, either, and the NYT is not integral to any point I was trying to make. They could lose their court case (doubt it, but hey, it is possible!) and it won't change Veritas' track record. I cited sources about their outright losses and bad practices, as did Chris, and YOUR reply was "Nuh, they have an ongoing court case where some people who haven't really even been mentioned yet said they were really bad and a judge said it didn't need to get immediately thrown out!"

jimbo13 · Jul 21, 2021

chrisrlink said:
if you read my sources (mainly on the head honcho) it's right there

You posted nothing other than ad hominem garbage about a person, nothing about the validity of their reports.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

Dakitten said:
Are you high? I didn't cite The Hill, either, and the NYT is not integral to any point I was trying to make. They could lose their court case (doubt it, but hey, it is possible!) and it won't change Veritas' track record. I cited sources about their outright losses and bad practices, as did Chris, and YOUR reply was "Nuh, they have an ongoing court case where some people who haven't really even been mentioned yet said they were really bad and a judge said it didn't need to get immediately thrown out!"

Your partisan appraisal of their "track record" is garbage, Gawker lost a 100 million over Hulk Hogans racist tirade doesn't change the fact he's on film saying it.

Same with Veritas, just because they threw some pennys at someone, made no admission of wrong doing doesn't change what they said on film.

PityOnU · Jul 21, 2021

I miss the simple times, a decade ago, when trolls knew they were trolls and huge media corporations didn't thoroughly exploit clickbait and outrage in order to generate revenue.

Dakitten · Jul 22, 2021

jimbo13 said:
You posted nothing other than ad hominem garbage about a person, nothing about the validity of their reports.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

Your partisan appraisal of their "track record" is garbage, Gawker lost a 100 million over Hulk Hogans racist tirade doesn't change the fact he's on film saying it.

Same with Veritas, just because they threw some pennys at someone, made no admission of wrong doing doesn't change what they said on film.

Did you read the links? Literally part of the settlement was they had to apologize for their actions. They didn't have to do that because they were upright bastions of journalism, they had to do it because they manufacture scenarios (and purportedly even hire actors if they can't corner case something correctly) to get the right kind of propaganda for their videos. Outside of the USA, they're often regarded as a joke for good reason. Also, again, again, again, again, NYT != The Hill != Gawker != whatever whataboutism you wanna throw in there. I know y'all are desperate to cling to your fragile world view, but a pinch of effort would at least make this more interesting.

J-Machine · Jul 22, 2021

they aren't reading it dakitten. they are trolling you and you are taking the bait. try not to feed them in the future. it's not good for ones happiness to pick fights with the ignorant.

Dakitten · Jul 22, 2021

J-Machine said:
they aren't reading it dakitten. they are trolling you and you are taking the bait. try not to feed them in the future. it's not good for ones happiness to pick fights with the ignorant.

I appreciate the sentiment, but it isn't just for the sake of yelling at the dumb that I'm romping about the thread. I'm trying to lay down as many facts and arguments to these absurd topics so that some kids don't ignorantly swallow this nonsense up. I'm a parent and a teacher by trade, so its in my nature...

Though as a side benefit, having alt-right lunatics not enjoy getting called out in a place I enjoy is good, too!

jimbo13 · Jul 22, 2021

J-Machine said:
they aren't reading it dakitten. they are trolling you and you are taking the bait. try not to feed them in the future. it's not good for ones happiness to pick fights with the ignorant.

Big difference between trolling and accepting adhominem garbage off wikipedia as relevant. Nothing Project Veritas has reported is untrue.

Hasbro is pushing CRT, claiming 2 year olds are racist and their employee made the public aware of that fact.

Dakitten · Jul 23, 2021

jimbo13 said:
Big difference between trolling and accepting adhominem garbage off wikipedia as relevant. Nothing Project Veritas has reported is untrue.

Hasbro is pushing CRT, claiming 2 year olds are racist and their employee made the public aware of that fact.

D'aww, quoted into his inbox! So proud~

Seriously though, I actually made sure to dig up links not affiliated with the Wiki, so... that was wrong. Hell, the first link is a court document that goes over the case. Second, the gentleman in the video is NOT a Hasbro employee, but an outside contractor. Kinda makes a difference, since this is supposedly insider info and all. Third, racial tolerance for toddlers doesn't really measure up to critical race theory, since said theory is about reflecting on history... that toddlers don't really have any of yet. If you wanna yell about anything, it'd be more behavioral conditioning, but that is what the public school system has always been about in the USA

notimp · Jul 23, 2021

Unconventional response:

Baby also burp, be afraid of mommies new lover and cry in the dark.

There you have it! Its all a big conspiracy to make us grow up!

I give my baby only the good non Haspro stuff, like stone, and stick and Ken dolls. Then it never learns unnatural layer called "social behavior" using roleplay. Oh, and I put it in cave with wolf, to make baby strong.

Strong baby, strong baby finally you can be racist just like father...

Fully natural. Says here on label. (Also found studies, from people scaring children and filming it.)
--

Initial problem with this argument, there is a layer called "social behavior" that is learned. If you never learn it, chances are you dont integrate into society very well. Only a few things to learn there, like dont hurt or kill others, dont be rude in social settings, dont be racist, ...

But its natural! Sure. Sure. Its natural. You calm down, its all perfectly natural. Just like your fruitloops.

On the actual scientific argumentative level of 'is racism something you are born with' , ist it 'fear of the unknown' is it 'natural group bonding'? Ask a baby. Because the rest of society has left that playground and has agreed on "maybe if we dont single out people based on appearance (Or smell? Is it smell? What do your feelings tell you?) to be the outgroup, because maybe they grow up to be a valuable part of society, that can help us out in return? ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Jewish_Nobel_laureates )

On the other hand, we could single them out at birth, then put them in parts of town, where we might not want to live, or into camps like the US did as well after WW2 with jews, because it was seen as "humane" compared to what the Nazis did to them. For a while. Then life would be all better. We'd have a master race again, and a sub race - and everyone born white (I presume?) would at least have won one lottery from birth. And no one could take that away from them, because at least all white people would love them, because the bonding would finaly be recognized and... Or are we trying to build a super human race with all whites again? (While black people beat us in the olympic games at the time)... Just asking what the goal might be to all of this.

Some marketing excecutive marketing "diversity" to a mother buying toys? Or to brainwash children with the paint on their dolls? Depends on your point of view, doesnt it?

notimp · Jul 23, 2021

And I'll make up one more story, on the fly. (Because I've seen this "they make everything diverse" argument in this context) Lets say you are comic artist. No one cares about you much, and you invent stories, based on the people around you and your friends. Say some people like those stories, you become famous. They sell well. Lets say movie studio options those stories, and does it just right, and they become a big success. Lets say they start to change a few things, because marketing says, hey we would get more viewers if the friend of the hero is black. Lets say movie studio says yes. Say maybe some people get creative lead, that also care about what message they are sending out to young people as well. Like "previously this was just a niche market", but if we are one of 20 movies young people will watch over their adolescence, what themes should we touch on. Probably also to make it easier for young people to get money from mom to see the movie. Lets say you are comic artist. Lets say you sign over creative controll. Lets say you want to open a new chapter in your life. Lets say you sell out fully.

Are you bad person because you did? Because of the fans you had a responsibility towards?

Answer is if artists decides to paint different picture tomorrow - reader, or buyer cant do anything about it. If you are small its called artistic freedom. Thats where good stories come from..

Reader or consumer has no "stake" in the relationship. Not really.

Some stories change, simply because they are seen as 'too edgy' when they become mainstream. Heck Turtles even became fluffy green action hero toys. Also in direct cooperation with a major toy company, btw.

Children loved them. But they were still too edgy. So they became even more fluffy, and then mothers bought them for their kids.

(Taken from this documentary, btw: (This is just the trailer.) )

jimbo13 · Jul 24, 2021

"Conscious kids" the Hasbro contractor who was making absurd claims about racist toddlers has released a statement claiming they were "edited out of context" along with the typical slander towards Project Veritas those on film saying what they think generally spew.

I am looking forward to their retraction and or dollar figure they have to payout for libel.

Valwinz · Jul 24, 2021

There people here defeding the racism of CRT

Whistleblower leaks Hasbro's CRT agenda, "2 y/o's are racist"

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

GBA Connoisseur

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Terry Crews #1 Fan

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Self proclaimed Pog champion

Well-Known Member

Terry Crews #1 Fan

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Terry Crews #1 Fan

Well-Known Member

Similar threads

Popular threads in this forum