Trump Effect: TV Producer to neighbor Your son is dating a f*cking n**ger (VIDEO)

[egbertowillies]

Here is another example of how the Trump Effect likely overcame an otherwise seemingly intelligent person. It is clear this woman knew she was on camera. So why do you think it did not matter to her?

https://egbertowillies.com/2018/02/09/trump-effect-tv-producer-neighbor/

[MineralMan]

1. Why are there right-wing Focus on the Family ads

on your blog?

[grantcart]

4. internet ads are tailored to the visitors history, not the website

my ads were

software designer
socks with a LGBT connection
Ryder truck rental

[MineralMan]

12. The FoF ads were at the very bottom of the page.

Nothing at all in my browsing history or searches would link to that right-wing group.

[grantcart]

17. You haven't looked up stories that are critical of the group?

You haven't looked up stories about family planning or religious groups influencing politics? All of those kind of searches would mark you as a person that might be interested in the group in the ad.

Just because the ad is there doesn't mean that it thinks you endorse the company but that you are in the universe that the group was in. What is clear is that OP didn't select the ad, doesn't approve of the ad and doesn't have any idea what the ad mixer has decided to show you. It was your accusatory tone that was out of place.

Just because that ad showed up for you is not an indication that you endorse the group although that was what was implied in your question to the OP.

I went back and this time it had an ad for dating Asian women which was logical placement for me because I click on a lot of Asian related sites and sites in an Asian language but haven't dated for 35 years and pretty sure my wife of 35 years isn't going to be a fan of it either, but it wasn't an uninformed placement and I don't take it as a personal insult that they thought that I might be interested.

[MineralMan]

18. Nope. It's not one of my areas of interest, frankly.

[grantcart]

20. Of course you do, for example your post on Michelle Bachman is a direct connection to FOTF

https://www.democraticunderground.com/10022916068

You right about Michelle Bachman and she is closely linked to Focus on the Family

https://www.focusonthefamily.com/about/newsroom/news-releases/20111207-focus-on-the-family-exceeds-goals-for%202011

Your article in DU shows that you are very interested in the kinds of issues that Focus on the Family deal with and the people that participate in Focus on the Family. Your article on Michelle Bachman was more than enough to trigger an algorithm to suggest an ad might be of interest to you.

The really interesting point, though is your sharply accusatory and completely unfair question to the OP still stands even though it clear isn't anything that the OP has done. That kind of uninformed, critical, judgmental and completely off the point observation on the OPs site is exactly the kind of thing that Focus on the Family does.

Here's what you should do, go back to your original comment and write: "I now understand that the ads have nothing to do with your site, that you don't pick them and my question was really an unfair one, thanks for posting the video.

To continue to try and duck and weave on your internet search history, when you clearly don't understand how they are arbitrarily linking large classes of similar groups or words avoids the central point so there is no purpose into someone that is only interested in avoiding the real issue: Your original accusatory question was based on a misunderstanding of how ads are selected and placed and was a very underhanded way to accuse the OP of something.

If you had any questions about the poster all you had to do was click on the bio tab of the site or the profile here which would have showed that he is an active Democrat at both the precinct and country levels.

The question was completely uninformed and unfair delivered dripping with patronizing disapproval. I will leave any further discussion for you but am left wondering why do you persist in obfuscating your cheap shot at the OP.

[oberliner]

25. "Write" not "right"

[PETRUS]

22. My ads:

save on heating bills
retirement planning
discounts for seniors

[oberliner]

6. Those ads are coming from your end

Not from the blog.

[MineralMan]

13. Not necessarily. It depends on who's serving the ads

There is absolutely nothing in my browser or search history that would call up a Focus on the Family ad. The ad server that feeds those ads is contracted with by the blog owner.

[grantcart]

21. You wrote an article about Michele Bachman. MB is closely identified with Focus.

Your article is in your browser

https://www.democraticunderground.com/10022916068

That one article is more than enough of a connection for the ad placement bot to take a chance and place an ad on Focus for you.

It has absolutely nothing to do with site.

If you see the ads that are placed at DU you will see the same type of placement. There even is a a little arrow within the ad where you can inform adchoice (run by google) that explains it to you

As you browse the internet, use mobile apps, read your email, or shop online, you see ads. Google shows ads on Google products like Search, YouTube, and Gmail. Google's ad network also shows ads on 2+ million non-Google websites and apps. It is one of many ad networks that personalizes ads based on your online activity.

You can even give feed back on ads you don't like.

[oberliner]

24. No ads from Focus on the Family come up when I visit that site

[lunasun]

11. Not mine WHY on yours ???

[Cal Carpenter]

15. lol I even disabled my ad blocker out of curiousity

I got a bunch of ads, but none from Focus on the Family...



eta: maybe it has something to do with MM's free republic past?

[writerJT]

16. Not mine either.

[madaboutharry]

2. The story states she was told to stay home

and write a letter explaining her side of the story.

Really?

What side could that possibly be?

This woman should not have been told to stay home and write a letter explaining her side of the story.

She should have been told that she was fired and she should come and clean out her desk.

The problem here, if you ask me, is the News Station Not Firing Her!

[dalton99a]

8. She'll half-assed 'apologize' because she got caught on tape

[secondwind]

28. Hear, hear. There IS no other side.

[JDC]

3. Soon to be ex-TV producer

[dalton99a]

5. The news anchor/producer Robin Cross finally reveals herself as a full-fledged Trumpanzee

[NCTraveler]

7. Youtube

https://m.

[Ligyron]

9. My, she sounds fucking cranky.

[MustLoveBeagles]

10. She should lose her job

[NBachers]

14. That will look great on her video resume. Time to write a non-apologetic pseudo apology.

[FactyDude]

23. ummmm, 1952 called and they want their BIGOT back.

[Glamrock]

26. Yep you said it....finally.

And now you get to spend a bunch of time in the unemployment line asking yourself why you said it.

[HopeAgain]

27. WSVN is the local Fox affiliate

They are the Miami sensationalist news. Never watch them.

[Beakybird]

29. Fox affiliate

That's why they're dragging their feet about firing her.
First the son of the man who took the video provided the station with the video but didn't publicly release it. Apparently, the station didn't do anything. Please correct me if I'm wrong.
Then after the video was released, the racist producer wad suspended and asked to write her side of the story. Now, there's an "investigation. "
The execs probably are aching to keep her there because she fits perfectly in a Fox environment.