Conspiracy lunatic thread - people who believe in absurd nonsense are dangerous

[Ironbite4]

I was tired when he started this "debate".

 

[The Mighty Mollusk]

I've been staying out of it for a reason.

 

[Nevermore]

Lie? No. Did he get it wrong? Yes. However, he was opining on the story as he believed it unfolded. He clearly stated to the judge that he believed he was telling the truth. And I stated that and explained some of, my theory on how this happened already:

So do I understand you right? You're saying that Jones and his team didn't conduct proper fact-checking before airing factual claims that had the potential of putting innocent people in jeopardy? And the main reason they did it was profit?

the "Black Israelites" (No relation to the ones ruling the world)

What

 

[CoffeeHorse]

(Didn’t realise that Brand is now an anti-vaxxer / COVID ‘truther’, so I guess that vid taught me something.)

Please tell me what you did that kept YouTube from shoving that in your face every time you enter their home page.

 

[abates]

If you hover over a video that YouTube's recommended, there's a ... menu with a "don't recommend channel" option which is pretty helpful.

 

[wonko the sane?]

If you hover over a video that YouTube's recommended, there's a ... menu with a "don't recommend channel" option which is pretty helpful.

I love that function. They keep throwing right wing, religious bullshit at me and this not only gets rid of it, but alerts the algorithm to NOT send stuff with those tags on it. Doesn't stop it 100%, but certainly slowed that crap right down.

 

[CoffeeHorse]

Do you have to be logged in to do that?

 

[abates]

Good point, you probably need to be logged in to see that option.

 

[Pocket]

You don't have a bad idea dekafox, but I have a better one.

Nationalise the internet. Globalize it, standardize it, and apply the standards of the highest rated laws and constitutions to it. Turn the internet into a TRULY public space, and bring the consequences to those who violate that space.

How can you "nationalize" something on a global scale? Are you proposing the founding of a single worldwide government with as much power as any one nation currently has?

 

[Ungnome]

Hey, The Earth Alliance has to start somehow. We just need to make sure President Clark never gains power.

 

[Sunstorm]

I'll give it a try.

I'm all for speech. I hate the saying "You have freedom of speech, but you don't have freedom from consequences" and wish we would retire it forever. It's just a quip. It doesn't mean anything. It says nothing about what speech should have consequences and why, and it has one part flat out backwards.

You do have freedom from consequences. Or specifically, you are supposed to have freedom from other people's consequences you haven't agreed to.

Broadly, people should have the right to speech, and people should have the right to hear that speech. People must also have the right to cover their ears, or walk away, change the channel, switch the dial if they haven't bought a new TV in a while, or otherwise opt out. That ability to opt out is key. That is a line we can live with.

Alex Jones is facing consequences for his speech because that speech had consequences for people who had no ability to opt out of those consequences.

As for the CNN comparison, they did settle that Sandmann lawsuit, probably for a huge amount, and yes they deserved to pay it. The system worked

Beautifully stated, and I agree overall, but....
I've never said free speech shouldn't have consequence. Freedom is scary and it is referred to as the animating contest for freedom for a reason.
I'm saying that it is the right of all sentient beings to have the option of suffering the consequences. That's what this is about and that is what was the admitted goal in the Plaintiffs' closing augments...de-platform him and anyone like him. Sometimes it's not about who is being harmed but who is being defended, and then truth to power becomes necessary. It's a tag line...and this is not going to be popular, but we are all Alex Jones in this decision. If he's going down for stressing out grieving parents, MSM should answer accordingly for the rift in this nation due to their propaganda.

*we all end up in jail in 2024 when the next US President immediately abuses this new system*

We had a good run. Hopefully we all wind up in a nice gulag.

You nailed it Wheels.
Personally, and I want to mean this, I wish it never evolved past message boards. I don't see why a dual system wouldn't work. Let the private sector do their thing, but take away their monopoly on being the public square by providing an actual digital public square with an unalienable digital bill of rights, that doesn't change like private terms of service. It also should never be tied into crypto or necessary to do your job or day to day activities.... just off the top of my head.

No, you missed mine. Addressing the rest of what you said had nothing to do with what I was saying, which was that it's understandable why people were reacting as though you agreed with the person you are inexplicably defending.

*Overreacting

Citation needed.

DOI: 10.21659/rupkatha.v12n5.rioc1s21n2

When was "allowing all speech" ever the standard?

*As laid out in the First Amendment?

When comics and movies had censorship boards? When the FBI investigated any American who might be a communist? When Chelsea Manning was jailed for leaking evidence of war crimes?

Having the standard be defined by the public good is hell of a lot more free than any of those restrictions.

I'm not an Anarchist...I've never argued for literal or verbal bedlam.

And there was never a time when knowingly lying in a way likely to cause harm was considered acceptable, except by those who don't care about preventing the harm.
Slander, libel, and inciting violence have been outright crimes for literally longer than free speech has been a concept.

Libel and Slander are both considered tort...unless you're Alex Jones.

Also, half the time the people who complain about bigots and liars being "cancelled" and the assholes trying to get books banned from libraries are the same people.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/whataboutism-origin-meaning

I'm not obligated to have an opinion on a topic I haven't said anything about.

Fair enough

In fact, people talking about stuff they don't know anything about is exactly the problem.

I'm seeing a trend, yes.

Since I am reacting to this next part, though, for the sake of clarity I guess I do need to say something about it. I am aware the reality of that situation turned out to be that members of the Black Hebrew Israelites had been harassing both sides of the confrontation that the internet saw first.
(This does not mean that the confrontation didn't genuinely happen. Your description of it as "staged" contains less truth than any lies by omission did.)

The guy beating the drum was a known activist - provocateur. And I'll point out you still can't say the kids were victims.

...
...
...
And I'm not even surprised.

My bad, I must have missed a backslash in my [sarcasam] coding.

*puts face in palm* Sunstorm bro, if you're gonna debate something, tell us what it is you're debating. This...this ain't it bro.

Ironbite-like at all.

Well, I had simply hopped in to post an alternative legal opinion, and a bit of Alex's side of the "Cancel Alex Jones Forever" DEBATE. Which, btw, was being held in a "Dangerous Conspiracy lunatic" thread. I suppose I could have isolated the thread by creating a new topic, but we know the history of me posting IW content here, so I opted for the "Freedom to suffer the consequences of my speech" scenario I'm so fond of. My point is we are all susceptible to "conspiracy theory" or at the very least, being labeled one, and the dangers of that increasing trend in society today. It stifles free thought and hinders our growth when we silence ideas instead of challenging them.

Sunstorm - 'Nuff said.

The right wing doesn't have anything to debate: they deflect, they lie, they misrepresent. They don't have facts. He's going to keep changing the subject until you all get tired of listening to him rant crazy and put him on ignore.

I literally praised the ability to do so earlier on...maybe you should try it and see if you miss me?

I was tired when he started this "debate".

Fact Check: I am not the author of this thread, merely a contributor
I'm sensing more that you are desirous of robust conversation that challenges your confirmation bias.

So do I understand you right? You're saying that Jones and his team didn't conduct proper fact-checking before airing factual claims that had the potential of putting innocent people in jeopardy? And the main reason they did it was profit?

I'm glad you asked that. The answer is, partially. They didn't go far enough in Vetting Halbig, in my opinion. He covered it because they are a news agency. Everyone has to have a revenue stream to continue doing it. Two jurors didn't sign...not that it matters, but that should say something in your gut.
I have my suspicions as to what happened, and for your viewing pleasure, I thought it prudent to go the horse's mouth and discuss it with Infowars live on the American Journal today...as well as, strangely enough, the dangers of conspicary theory. As soon as the show propagates, I'll grab the clip and post it. I even threw in an Easter egg during the segment.

What

Dude...not you too.

To start with, while he speaks great legalese, the video is so slanted I had to turn my head to the left to watch it. Let's address truth. At 6 minutes in, he clearly states that Jones attacked Heslin outside court and showed a video of Jones seemingly in Heslin's face. This isn't the truth. It's propaganda. Why? Check my Fox 7 video post around the 3:18 mark and see if you notice any similarities. Bet you do. That wasn't Heslin...it was a reporter he was talking to, only from her angle this time. Everything else he said, he parroted, all while showing parody clips to strawman Alex to his viewers. Alex has NEVER hid that his dad owned portions of the product lines which this guy also trashed...they are fantastic and, as a matter of fact, since I've been taking Insta-Hard nine out of ten liberals agree that I'm twice the dick I used to be. Thanks Alex!

Edit - One more opinion piece that I thought relevant and well stated.
Fun Fact: Oliver Darcy once applied for employment at Infowars as a reporter before going on to CNN. They passed.

 

[Ungnome]

This WAS a tort case, in case you missed it. It wasn't a criminal trial and while the jury ruled for 42 million in civil and punitive damages, Texas law won't allow for that amount to stand. It will be reduced significantly. Libel, btw, IS a criminal offence in certain states, so in those jurisdictions it actually DOES fall under criminal law, not tort.(Texas is NOT one of those states, though)

 

[Anonymous X]

Russell Brand has had a dubious relationship with reality for years, so I'm not surprised.

I mean, he basically looks and sounds like an absconded mental patient who can temporarily half-pretend to be lucid.

 

[wonko the sane?]

How can you "nationalize" something on a global scale? Are you proposing the founding of a single worldwide government with as much power as any one nation currently has?

Something like that. A single, global standard. The first step in a one world government, and the next step in the efforts of standardization anyway.

 

[Sunstorm]

This WAS a tort case, in case you missed it. It wasn't a criminal trial and while the jury ruled for 42 million in civil and punitive damages, Texas law won't allow for that amount to stand. It will be reduced significantly. Libel, btw, IS a criminal offence in certain states, so in those jurisdictions it actually DOES fall under criminal law, not tort.(Texas is NOT one of those states, though)

I didn't miss it., that's what I said. Nova said the two were criminal, lumping them in with inciting a riot. Most laws vary from state to state. I feel pretty good saying libel is far more often than not, considered tort.

I mean, he basically looks and sounds like an absconded mental patient who can temporarily half-pretend to be lucid.

Still, imo, more impartial in his commentary on the Jones subject than the other video commentary. Basically your comment is opinion and ad hominem attack. However, I actually added his commentary originally because he looked like Weird Al on the Super Soldier Serum and thought it might resonate with this community winning a few hearts and minds here. Noted.
*Edit 2 - Missed the AD in ad hominem....Edit 3 - corrected the spelling of Edit...

Something like that. A single, global standard. The first step in a one world government, and the next step in the efforts of standardization anyway.

Ah dude....Now you've done it....

 

[Sunstorm]

Enjoy.

Sunstorm - Watch it before it's gone too.

 

[Sunstorm]

Update: They pulled my Robert Barnes video.

Ah ha ha ha ha ha ha.

Believe me yet?
No ads, just commentary.
*Edit
Sunstorm - And I posted it on YouTube knowing this would happen right in front of you.

 

[Sunstorm]

 

[Steevy Maximus]

Youtube banned Infowars FOUR YEARS AGO!

The **** did you think was going to happen by hosting Infowars content?

 

[Ironbite4]

........................wait that was an Infowars content that Sunstorm threw on here and is expecting us to debate using...that?

Ironbite-ok I think I know where he's going now.

ETA: Welp...that's that.