Careercow Taylor Lorenz - Crybully "journalist", self-appointed Internet Hall Monitor, professional victim, stalks teenagers for e-clout

[S.C.U.D.]

I've been making a prediction for a few years now
>a journo will write a hit piece on a private individual, causing them to loose their job
>the person will not take it well and break down
>they will livestream themselves killing the journo and/or their family
>Journos will play the victim but the cats our of the bag
>copycats
>Journos will them pretend they never wrote hit pieces and start talking about responsible journalism blaming everyone else but themselves

There was a guy several years ago now who got fired from a news station who livestreamed himself murdering one of their reporters, so that's kind of already happened.

 

[AREVAL]

Archive.org of Taylor's twitter using the @ is a secondary version of the archive, it's emptyish (17 captures in 8 years with a 5 year gap).

Edit ~ I believe the @ version is a less archived version.
Example @realDonaldTrump (100 or so captures) vs realDonaldTrump (Over 50,000 captures)

In the meantime I have located other Archives.

Spoiler: ExampleSauce

Shocker.

Projecting

Predicting?

She has another Instagram where she reposts other peoples TikToks

Found here ~ (Archiving Issues on both Archive.org and Archive.today, if others could try it would be much appreciated)
The account follows 3 accounts, only 1 is verified, Taylors official Instagram.

I'll post these Twitter archives once I've fully re-archived them elsewhere.

She has a Bitclout ~ Archived

She has a dead Substack ~ Archived
Her Current Subs ~ Archived

Her last post a year ago.
Seeing as she had/has an Insta dedicated to posting other people's content, maybe this piece stems from her not being nearly as good at it?

Here she complains about people contacting her to write fluff pieces about their "success", and tells them, I'll gladly take your content, ideas, etc, just don't ask me to write good things about you.

Regarding some people pointing out the "Punch" from 2017 in Charlottesville.
I matched up moments in different videos, showing she was there when the car attack happened, but finding actual footage of the punching event has been a pain.

For example, if you start this video she took at 1:05:16 ~ (Archiving Later via Upload)
And side by side it with this video shot by Rebelutionary_Z (aka Jon Ziegler) at 7:03 ~ (Archiving Later via Upload)
Where you here "My media partners". They don't perfectly sink because his stream lags out.
You can see that she is the one wearing the Granny's Couch Sheik with matching Visor, perfect for any "fiery but mostly peaceful protest".

Her Angle

His Angle right behind her

*Of Note, both their reactions are to repeat "Holy Shit!" and then both of their secondary reactions are to repeat "Oh my God".
Not super interesting but watching them both say the same thing as the attack happened was a bit weird I guess.


OR.... You could not spend hours finding videos that match and trying to sync them, only to get a blurry 3 second or so clip of her back and out of date fashion sense, and instead find the video showing the aftermath of "the punch" where she doesn't even mention a punch for several minutes and gradually escalates the accusation from hit my phone, to assaulted me, to punched me in the head, to beat me up...

~ Archived
Even has some bonus tears to compare to her recent faux waterworks.

Also, yes, Jacob Leigh Smith is probably some sort of antifascist.
And yes, they purposefully left this out of most of the reporting at the time.

Video 0:31

 

[The Demon Pimp of Razgriz]

On a more serious note, I'm not too sure about the violating the journalistic codes of ethics part, an 'anonymous' public figure is still a public figure,

Running a private, anonymous Twitter account does not make you a public figure. If it did, then any random asshole or teenager on Twitter with a lot of followers would be one. Public figure is meant to refer to someone in the actual public sphere, like politicians, movie stars, royalty, etc. A limited purpose public figure is someone who actively thrusts themselves into the limelight regarding a major public controversy. Libs of TikTok comes nowhere close to meeting those standards. Just tweeting about shit is as far from being a public figure as possible.

 

[Sprate Header]

Running a private, anonymous Twitter account does not make you a public figure.

Ummm, actually, CNN would disagree with you there, sweaty...

 

[Johnny Salami]

There was a guy several years ago now who got fired from a news station who livestreamed himself murdering one of their reporters, so that's kind of already happened.

Think that had more to do with personal vendettas and he was a former employee rather than hating a journo

 

[Barry McKockner]

Ummm, actually, CNN would disagree with you there, sweaty...

If CNN disagrees with him, he's right.

 

[Trianon]

Rabbi's op-ed points out that Lorenz doxxed an Orthodox Jew during Passover.

https://insidesources.com/the-washington-posts-despicable-orthodoxxing/

The Washington Post’s Despicable Orthodoxxing​

Spoiler

Posted to Politics April 22, 2022 by Yaakov Menken

The Washington Post doxxing of LibsofTikTok is viler than it seems on the surface. That is because reporter Taylor Lorenz also thought it acceptable to highlight her victim’s Orthodox Jewish identity, during an ongoing wave of antisemitic hate crimes specifically targeting visibly Orthodox Jews. The writer not only deliberately traumatized her victim but placed her at elevated risk for physical harm. Yet, stunningly, the newspaper defended the practice saying her methods “comport entirely with The Washington Post’s professional standards.”

For those unaware, on Tuesday, in the middle of Passover, Lorenz produced an “exposé” regarding the LibsofTikTok Twitter account. That account, administered anonymously, re-posts videos from Tik Tok users. Whatever one thinks of these videos, they were posted to be shared publicly, mostly by teachers who brag about exposing young children to material their parents might find objectionable. LibsofTikTok merely aggregates them into a central Twitter feed. That is almost all it does.

But according to Lorenz, that is enough for the account to be “impacting anti-LGBTQ+ legislation and influencing millions.” The Washington Post, though its motto is “Democracy dies in darkness,” was apparently troubled by LibsofTikTok bringing its collected videos to light.

Per Oxford Languages, “doxxing” means to “search for and publish private or identifying information about a particular individual on the internet, typically with malicious intent.” Lorenz herself has decried the practice as detestable and dangerous. While writing for The New York Times, she shot a TikTok video objecting to an outlet doxxing an individual by publishing his full name.

Just weeks ago, Lorenz cried her way through an MSNBC interview after she was herself doxxed. “I had severe PTSD,” she said, “I contemplated suicide, it got really bad. You feel like any piece of information that gets out on you will be used by the worst people imaginable to destroy your life.” On Twitter, she wrote simply that “doxxing… [is] not ok in any situation.”
So it is fair to say that as Taylor Lorenz researched and wrote her article, she fully understood the evil of what she was doing.

In her piece, Lorenz did at least three reprehensible things. First, she revealed the account holder’s full name, the very doxxing she decried. She then magnified that hypocrisy by linking to her target’s private real estate license, exposing her work address, and contact information, later removed by The Post as online criticism began to build.

And finally, Lorenz dug through discarded Twitter handles associated with the same account and proudly reported that its holder is an Orthodox Jew.

Of course, the user’s religious identity was no more relevant to curating LibsofTikTok than it was to her work as a realtor. But perhaps it was relevant to Lorenz’s objective.

Consider that Lorenz recently alerted her followers that a woman on Instagram with the same name as her victim is not, in fact, the same person. Fully informed by her own recent experience and the Instagram user’s pleas, she knew the harassers had pounced, yet did not condemn them. She improved their aim.

As a reporter, she also must know that physical violence could well result. According to FBI statistics from 2020, though Jews make up less than 2% of the population, they suffered 55 percent of religiously motivated attacks, more than all other religious groups combined. Those figures precede the further sharp spike in antisemitic hate crimes, particularly against visibly Orthodox Jews. Thanks to Lorenz and The Washington Post, LibsofTikTok spent her Passover holiday “holed up in a safe location.”

And after placing a woman in the crosshairs of certain online harassment and possible physical harm, the newspaper then brazenly and falsely claimed it “did not publish or link to any details about her personal life.” If these actions “comport entirely with The Washington Post’s professional standards,” these standards need an immediate upgrade from someone with a working moral compass.

The Washington Post is an influential newspaper with a venerable past, yet the practices employed to unmask LibsofTikTok violate nearly every one of the elements in the “Minimize Harm” section of the Society of Professional Journalists’ Code of Ethics. It is no wonder Americans’ trust in media is at a near all-time low. If they want to dig themselves out of this ditch, outlets such as The Post must begin acting like they deserve our trust.

About the Author​

Yaakov Menken​

Rabbi Yaakov Menken is managing director of the Coalition for Jewish Values, an organization representing over 2,000 traditional, Orthodox rabbis in matters of public policy. He wrote this for InsideSources.com.

 

[Larry David's Opera Cape]

Relishing the way they keep saying "DURING PASSOVER!" reminds me of some stupid political upset a couple years ago to the effect of "asking a black person a question during February!"

 

[Knight of the Rope]

LibsofTikTok spent her Passover holiday “holed up in a safe location.”

Traditionally though, isn't that actually the most authentic way to celebrate Passover?

 

[Sprate Header]

TAYLOR "THE ORTHODOXER" LORENZ
TAYLOR "HITPIECES FOR HITLER" LORENZ
TAYLOR "IGNITE THE ISRAELITE" LORENZ
TAYLOR "NOOSE-CASTER" LORENZ
TAYLOR "SNITCHED ON ANNE FRANK" LORENZ
TAYLOR "JAMES FIELDS DID NOTHING WRONG" LORENZ
TAYLOR "AVOCADO HOLOCAUST" LORENZ
TAYLOR "DEFAME THE E-FAME" LORENZ​

 

[Meat Target]

 

[Jonah Hill poster]

I've been making a prediction for a few years now
>a journo will write a hit piece on a private individual, causing them to loose their job
>the person will not take it well and break down
>they will livestream themselves killing the journo and/or their family
>Journos will play the victim but the cats our of the bag
>copycats
>Journos will them pretend they never wrote hit pieces and start talking about responsible journalism blaming everyone else but themselves

This prediction may not be too far off in a year or two. We already have more people realizing that the Babylon Bee and Libs Of TikTok being doxed and studied upon as if it’s some wild mystery as to why satire and hypocrisy is being exposed better than the people whose job is to be a “journalist”.

If anything, you’ll see more lay-offs with coordinated “unions” being the reason why they lose jobs, as life will move forward.

 

[Meat Target]

I bring thee moar

 

[Nihil Jung]

Am I the only one that, when quickly seeing this old twitter PFP of hers while scrolling the thread, thinks to themselves "how'd Justin Whang get wrapped up in this??"

 

[Tasty Tatty]

Running a private, anonymous Twitter account does not make you a public figure. If it did, then any random asshole or teenager on Twitter with a lot of followers would be one. Public figure is meant to refer to someone in the actual public sphere, like politicians, movie stars, royalty, etc. A limited purpose public figure is someone who actively thrusts themselves into the limelight regarding a major public controversy. Libs of TikTok comes nowhere close to meeting those standards. Just tweeting about shit is as far from being a public figure as possible.

Yes, but for the terminally online, someone with a lot of followers is a celebrity. Remember that antifa also doxed Orwell n Goode, who I only posts memes.

 

[The Demon Pimp of Razgriz]

Yes, but for the terminally online, someone with a lot of followers is a celebrity. Remember that antifa also doxed Orwell n Goode, who I only posts memes.

Difference is that that carries no weight legally or ethically. Taylor Lorenz broke journalism ethics going after and doxxing a private citizen like this, and can't claim she pursued this story in the public interest. If she, or one of her journo friends, print a libelous hit piece on said citizen, they can't claim their target was a "public figure" to get out of being sued. If the Washington Post had any real integrity, it would fire her, take down her article, and issue an apology.

 

[thegrayman]

They have let her back in, but this is just embarrassing for Truth social. I hate this bitch, but if you are selling yourself as a free speech social media. Then banning people like her is not acceptable.

We all know Jawsh is the only free speech jesus. (Lower case Jesus)

 

[Johnny Salami]

View attachment 3211770
They have let her back in, but this is just embarrassing for Truth social. I hate this bitch, but if you are selling yourself as a free speech social media. Then banning people like her is not acceptable.

We all know Jawsh is the only free speech jesus. (Lower case Jesus)

They could easily justify it by stating that doxing or having a history of doxing is a banneable offense

 

[Learned Hand]

Difference is that that carries no weight legally or ethically. Taylor Lorenz broke journalism ethics going after and doxxing a private citizen like this, and can't claim she pursued this story in the public interest. If she, or one of her journo friends, print a libelous hit piece on said citizen, they can't claim their target was a "public figure" to get out of being sued. If the Washington Post had any real integrity, it would fire her, take down her article, and issue an apology.

This is true, and something I'll clarify for some posters that might be confused (Sandmann won on similar grounds to this case) from what we know, Lorenz has not done anything criminally liable. When we talk about public figure vs private, these are civil protections set forth by federal law and the Constitution that define freedom of the press. If someone is substantially "public" enough, they're free game to report on. There are myriad factors that go into this, but relevant to this case is:

1) The feeble defense Lorenz and the Washington Post has put forth that LoTT "inserted" themselves into the public discourse by *checks notes* reposting things anonymously what other people have freely and publicly put online anyway. This is the paper thin logic that most left-aligned agitators always put forth when caught doing similar things as Lorenz, because none of them have actually read the Constitution or a law.

conversely

2) That by posting anonymously, presenting third party content without comment, and using only video that was accessible to the public anyway, LoTT never intended to enter the public discourse, act as a public figure, or profile themselves as a public figure. There is a tangental argument made by Tucker Carlson and others that LoTT is engaging in ethical journalistic practices as well, and while that might be separate grounds as to why LoTT should have never been doxxed or harassed, it's not directly relevant yet.

What we're really trying to determine is civil liability, culpability, and damages. Juries, alongside everyone else, hate journos, especially journos like Lorenz. They see themselves in every plaintiff harmed by one. There are damages, and potentially considerable ones, given Lorenz's actions and previous conduct. No one is going to weep for Jeff Bezos's newspaper and their attack dog being drug behind the barn.

Ultimately, LoTT has already lawyered up, and if they can stop themselves from getting ahead of their skis, they have a very strong case. The mistake that LoTT's lawyer is already making is engaging online with people at all over this case, instead of just putting their nose to the grind and hitting WaPo where it hurts. I don't feel confident LoTT's lawyer is as terminally online as his client or the defendants, so if I had any advice for him, it would be to stay off twitter where Lorenz can perpetually incite a mob to come to her defense, and instead focus on the case, while ethical and humble fruit farmers and others fight the culture war.

 

[S.C.U.D.]

1) The feeble defense Lorenz and the Washington Post has put forth that LoTT "inserted" themselves into the public discourse by *checks notes* reposting things anonymously what other people have freely and publicly put online anyway. This is the paper thin logic that most left-aligned agitators always put forth when caught doing similar things as Lorenz, because none of them have actually read the Constitution or a law.

This is also the logic lolcows use when they accuse kiwis of cyberstalking.