The Purge - Not the Movie - Alex Jones fromSocial Media
- Thread starter BasketBallJunkie-UK
- Start date
Sorry a Key & Peele gif triggered you. I’ll take your feelings into consideration next time.
anon_0astpxev9h4gk
Well-Known Member
I was laughing at you from a mere contradiction you foolishly made, it’s okay, mistakes occur quite a bit in your realm of life.
anon_0astpxev9h4gk
Well-Known Member
anon_0astpxev9h4gk
Well-Known Member
Do I really need to point it out/reaffirm it? My lord.
You seriously think its a contradiction that I picked the Key & Peele gif out of all the Yikes gifs?
anon_0astpxev9h4gk
Well-Known Member
Amen brother. We must banish these pieces of garbage to their own colony away from the rest of civilized society.
And while were at, throw in the grown men who openly lust after underaged girls with pigtails. Leave no leaf unturned and no piece of garbage outside of the designated trash bins.
I am sure it matters. There's all the difference in the world between a hate-spewing conspiracy theorist and partisan late-night comedians.
If one person says something ugly and divisive, that does not oblige someone else to keep their mouth shut.
And your proselytizing about using their platform to be positive and unifying is absolute crap in the context of what politicians are doing today because it means shutting their mouth and supporting whatever the government says. It turns the press into an extension of the state.
I have heard of Alex Jones. I didn't really know much about him, but I saw where he claimed Sandy Hook was a hoax. That's pretty pathetic. Why does it upset you that some people may have never heard of the guy? Is it not possible for someone to be interested in/concerned about politics, but not be so invested that they know every political nut job that has a platform? Your response is a complete overreaction fuelled by rage. I hope you slept it off and get this new day started on the right foot.
I'll admit it's possible.
What I think is truly problematic is that our President has thrown Jones a bone and his supporters are now essentially defending Jones. It's like anything President Trump says becomes their unquestioned marching orders.
Well, if half of what is being said ITT about Jones is true, and Trump supports the guy, it would be near the top of my least favorite things about Trump.
I actually don’t know much about the guy besides he is the conspiracy guy.....and he tried to say something hoaxy about a school shooting. I do consider people that try to make life all about race and politics the same. They serve no purpose other than stir the pot. I really don’t have separate categories for a fella like jones or sharpton or Limbaugh. They are all net negative. I lump these shitheads all into the same category and don’t look back. The all have a hard time telling the truth and when they do—-it’s a version that benefits them.
I know almost nothing about this guy except some 9/11 conspiracy and the sandy hook hoax theory. Why in God’s name would I. Is this guy even remotely mainstream? You claim it’s impossible someone wouldn’t know much about this guy.....but aren’t you the guy that proclaimed he didn’t know what antifa was?
I don’t care which place these guys are on the shithead list. They spend their lives driving a political wedge bt Americans by spewing biased info and insults for a living. They serve no purpose.
Nobody looks at a situation and says, "How can I turn this into something about race and politics when it clearly isn't?" They are speaking to the world as they see it. Personally, I find you to be rather unaware on those matters.
If you're acknowledging that there are versions of the truth, you're acknowledging how perception influences us. Self-awareness and not being inside a bubble can help, but we're all susceptible to it to a degree, and who isn't have a subconscious preference for a version of the truth that validates what they already believe to be true?
I think he said he didn't know how to pronounce "antifa," which is an indication that he has encountered the acronym strictly through reading.
But I'm not as certain as he is that everyone would have heard of Jones or Inf0wars before; his name is pretty forgettable and there are a bajillion sites out there to keep track of.
MLK was once considered to be on that same list of people "driving a political wedge bt Americans," and his detractors would have said his views and his words were biased and insulting. You have to make distinctions between people who are spreading filth and hate and lies and people who are pushing reasonable or/and righteous views. There is some gray area where our own partisanship will cause different opinions, but that's the hard intellectual work we shouldn't shy away from in favor of simple fixes and broad brushes.
You're all too keen on touting "personal responsibility" in the face of trends that have existed for millions of people for generations, but when talking about what really amounts to hundreds of media figures across the political spectrum, you'll lump them all together under the same umbrella?
Had Sharpton been the focus of this thread from the OP, would you have been so quick to bring in examples of people like Jones from the right?
I think you are wrong on the first part. Race baiters exist on many levels. Political baiters exist on many levels. It’s how these people get attention and validation...so they look for it everywhere. We do live in a time where somehow it has become acceptable to have your own truth in direct conflict with the actual truth. Everyone searches for information to back up what they think to be true, only idiots dismiss the information they find if it contradicts their belief. It’s called ignoring reality.
If sharpton would’ve been banned we wouldn’t have this discussion though.....bc it would be racial wouldn’t it? Your question sounds like you think he was brought in bc of race....even though you know sharpton is a full potato.
I'll back off of "Nobody." Hardly anyone does that, and assuming it out of pocket ensures a divide, whether it existed or not.
I disagree on the 2nd part. I think a lot of well-meaning, otherwise intelligent people do it, too.
Holy triggered!
Good to see this idiot again. Wonder why he wasn’t saying the NFL teams had free reign to not allow players to kneel during the anthem. Weird. Guess it’s because he really does have a low IQ. Sad.
I just used Sharpton as the example b/c you had already. My point was that here is a guy loosely associated with conservatives getting pilloried and you're bringing up the "they all do it" argument. That waters down the focus on Jones. I don't think you'd be as quick to do that for someone affiliated with liberals.
I think you mistake the “they all do it” with “****ing fantastic.....banning this idiot is a great start, please don’t stop there”. Conservative idiots are liberal idiots equal. The more people purged from bait and hate politics the better. They serve no purpose.
You've essentially equated Jones with Stewart, Colbert, Kimmel, etc. That's not the same ballpark. Shoot, it's not even the same sport. No, one of them isn't even a sport.
Well, none of them are sport. But yes, a looney toon like Alex jones is worse for society then the three guys named above. But I’m not sure this jones fella is even 1/100th as known as those guys.
First time I heard his name. But I don't go looking for nuts and extremists to get my political information.
You're starting to sound a little Jonesy. Get a grip.its hard to take someone seriously that is talking crazy, Dude.
I'm sure you're capable of googling "Alex Jones Sandy Hook" or "Alex Jones Pizzagate," but my guess is your line of argument here is that because he didn't say "go threaten these people" that he didn't contribute to the results.
But yes, to entertain your vague comparison, if anyone is using social media platforms to encourage or threaten violence against other people, they should be removed from those platforms. Government-protected speech doesn't entitle you to scroll through Twitter or Facebook.
There's a difference between hyper-partisan commentators and peddling dangerous, clearly unhinged conspiracy-theorists. I think Limbaugh is pretty terrible for our national discourse and appeals to the lowest-common-denominator on the right, but he's nowhere near an Alex Jones.
I believe in Alex Jones' first amendment right to free speech. I don't have any problem whatsoever with private companies refusing him access to their platform for violations of their terms of service.
Also, private institutions and large swaths of citizens ostracizing hateful people is exactly how the free market is supposed to work. True small-government conservatives should have no problem agreeing with that.
Privately owned companies exerting control over their companies not in relation to a protected class. It's not even a precedent, let alone a scary one.
Cool that privately owned and operated companies are "going to have to" do what someone (SNU0821?) says because... reasons! Also it's like communism because... reasons! You know, communism that imposes its will through terror and a monopoly on violence, which is like totes the same as a privately owned company that competes in the free market. Totes. The. Same.
Why? Make an alternative platform. Plenty were concerned when Reddit started censoring the real cesspool subreddits (for example, one particularly racist subreddit called "coontown" or similar was removed), so some people started Voat. Voat is a terrible place full of terrible people and opinions, but it's the free market alternative to Reddit and it exists. Most people shun it because it's a toilet full of diarrhea, but it exists and gets some traffic. There are low barriers to entry for creating platforms (unlike, say, running wires to all homes ala an ISP). Just because those platforms are relatively underperforming doesn't mean they don't or can't exist. Sounds like the issue is about relative success, not access.
Partly correct; those cases are (were?) limited to certain types of establishments. It began with things like transportation (railroads, for example, have a very high barrier to entry, like ISPs) and hotels/restaurants. I'll see if I can dig the cases up later, but part of the rationale was barriers to entry.
No, that's not true despite Rafael Cruz's insistence (btw, he's pretty effing dumb for a lawyer... or intentionally misleading. Take what he says with giant grains of salt and you'll be better off.). Here's some reading (lawfareblog in particular is a terrific resource for a lot of legal issues).
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2018/04/no-section-230-does-not-require-platforms-be-neutral
"Sen. Cruz seemed to be suggesting, incorrectly, that Facebook had to make a choice between enjoying protections for free speech under the First Amendment and enjoying the additional protections that Section 230 offers online platforms."
https://www.lawfareblog.com/ted-cruz-vs-section-230-misrepresenting-communications-decency-act
"There is no requirement that a platform remain neutral in order to maintain Section 230 immunity."
If only people of differing political opinions could enter the marketplace of ideas and compete! Oh, how nice that would be! Imagine just being able to, say, run the largest cable news network in the US and also purchase a giant social media website bigger than Facebook! Why, then, the onus would be on said purchaser to compete in the free market. Weird how that works in an industry with low barriers to entry, huh?
Edit: a nit
Last edited:
Not to jump in the middle here, but I think it's important to distinguish between the NFL's right/ability to punish players for actions that violate rules of their workplace and the public perception of those actions. NFL has every right to punish the players as they see fit, but not sure it's in their best interest to engage in such a hostile stance toward their workforce, especially in light of the hypocrisy of owners such as Jerry Jones.
Also, I think it's a not-insignificant distinction to make between an "Anthem protest" and "a protest during the Anthem." There is a difference.
I think the problem that I have is normal conservatives are getting shadow banned, put on time out, etc. on multiple social media platforms. Candice Owens, who’s a black conservative woman, has been put on time out on Twitter multiple times. She doesn’t spew nonsense conspiracy theories online. She’s simply a conservative and it feels as though the conservative voices are being silenced on social media moreso than any liberals. There are plenty of extremists on the left that aren’t getting banned like Alex Jones or Candice Owens. To me, that’s the big problem. And it doesn’t seem as though I’m alone. Multiple senators grilled Zuckerberg of doing exactly what I explained.
Dont mind you responding. You’re a level headed, normal guy. Happy to hear your take on this stuff. Thedude1 is an idiot who acts like he’s some end all be all on political ideology.
Might be a difference to you, but it’s clear that a large portion of the country don’t like people
kneeling during the anthem. I would argue that it’s abundently clear IT IS in the NFL’s best interest to stop players from protesting during the anthem. Ratings have tanked over the last few years and the anthem protests are a big reason (not the only). But also, the NFL teams are privately owned. If Jerry Jones wants to make his players stand, that’s his decision to make. People everywhere jumped on him for “suppressing the players’ first amendment rights” by doing so. If what’s happening on social media is ok, then what’s happening in the NFL needs to be ok as well. Can’t have it both ways, which is what liberals want...
@toonces11 , this guy gave you a fair, level headed answer to your question without going all schizo on you. Isn't it refreshing to see?
I'm sure you'll find extreme examples to prove your point (I'm sure they exist), but to most everyone I've seen the anthem issue is simply that the NFL should not punish protesters, not that the government should step in and force the owners to act a certain way. For social media, a lot of the "right" (not here as much as places like r/libertarian and similar) want to treat social media as de facto public forums and force, through the First Amendment or Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (lyin' Rafael Cruz and his ilk), social media to act as the government would have to do had the government created similar social media platforms.
That's a pretty big difference. One is about public/market pressure to change positions, the other is about applying restrictions on private companies by way of the government. Now maybe you're not in that section of the right that I described, in which case good on you.