I guess various social media platforms have banned Alex Jones?

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 NEXT
 

Thaluikhain:
Because I said nations with hate speech laws had totally solved social or right wing problems, rather than being better off for having those laws?

My point being, the net benefit is questionable. Ultimately, change has to be through engaging with society rather than attempting to hide it.

Saelune:
Alex Jones had his chances and then some. Everyone deserves a chance to prove they are worth listening to, and Alex Jones failed with flying colors.

Right, first off, I have never listened to anything the guy has ever said, nor really paid much attention. I put him in the "witch doctor" category of things I am intentionally blissfully ignorant of.

That said, I am fairly certain a vast number of things on Youtube are not worth listening to, yet these have not been removed. It's clearly an ill thought out move designed to grab headlines, rather than a carefully considered and consistently applied move. It doesn't matter where you sit on the free speech spectrum, the point is you should want the rules to be applied consistently. And right here, it's not clear what rules are supposed to be being applied.

Catnip1024:

Thaluikhain:
Because I said nations with hate speech laws had totally solved social or right wing problems, rather than being better off for having those laws?

My point being, the net benefit is questionable. Ultimately, change has to be through engaging with society rather than attempting to hide it.

Saelune:
Alex Jones had his chances and then some. Everyone deserves a chance to prove they are worth listening to, and Alex Jones failed with flying colors.

Right, first off, I have never listened to anything the guy has ever said, nor really paid much attention. I put him in the "witch doctor" category of things I am intentionally blissfully ignorant of.

That said, I am fairly certain a vast number of things on Youtube are not worth listening to, yet these have not been removed. It's clearly an ill thought out move designed to grab headlines, rather than a carefully considered and consistently applied move. It doesn't matter where you sit on the free speech spectrum, the point is you should want the rules to be applied consistently. And right here, it's not clear what rules are supposed to be being applied.

Ok, so if I said we should remove those things too, would you be ok with that? I agree, there is a lot of trash on youtube that should not be. I hate that I do not trust many youtube videos and channels and if they got removed, I'd be fine with that.

I do want the rules to be applied consistently. I think all other 'Alex Jones' should be removed from these services too. The thing is, I think you are more bothered by how that will hurt right-wingers more than left-wingers. I think you want left wingers to be 'evenly punished', while ignoring that Alex Jones's are disproportionatly a right-wing thing.

As for any 'left-wing Alex Jones's', I do not know of any, nor do I support them. If they are making up crazy provenly untrue conspiracy theories, remove them too.

And fuck anyone who sues the victims of school shootings.

Saelune:
Ok, so if I said we should remove those things too, would you be ok with that? I agree, there is a lot of trash on youtube that should not be. I hate that I do not trust many youtube videos and channels and if they got removed, I'd be fine with that.

Not at all, I would still think it is a massive over-stepping on the part of what is essentially a cat-gif storage site. But I would be more happy for the logical consistency of the position.

I do want the rules to be applied consistently. I think all other 'Alex Jones' should be removed from these services too. The thing is, I think you are more bothered by how that will hurt right-wingers more than left-wingers. I think you want left wingers to be 'evenly punished', while ignoring that Alex Jones's are disproportionatly a right-wing thing.

First, I don't know what wonderful statistics you are basing this on, nor do I care. As I said, I've never watched the guy. I don't watch political Youtube videos, at all, because watching rants of random nobodies that go through no editorial process and who are incentivised to take extreme positions isn't my idea of a useful time.

More to the point, I remember when we tolerated conspiracy theorists because they were a laugh. Remember laughter?

Catnip1024:

Saelune:
Ok, so if I said we should remove those things too, would you be ok with that? I agree, there is a lot of trash on youtube that should not be. I hate that I do not trust many youtube videos and channels and if they got removed, I'd be fine with that.

Not at all, I would still think it is a massive over-stepping on the part of what is essentially a cat-gif storage site. But I would be more happy for the logical consistency of the position.

I do want the rules to be applied consistently. I think all other 'Alex Jones' should be removed from these services too. The thing is, I think you are more bothered by how that will hurt right-wingers more than left-wingers. I think you want left wingers to be 'evenly punished', while ignoring that Alex Jones's are disproportionatly a right-wing thing.

First, I don't know what wonderful statistics you are basing this on, nor do I care. As I said, I've never watched the guy. I don't watch political Youtube videos, at all, because watching rants of random nobodies that go through no editorial process and who are incentivised to take extreme positions isn't my idea of a useful time.

More to the point, I remember when we tolerated conspiracy theorists because they were a laugh. Remember laughter?

Yes, weirdo's who believe in wacky conspiracy theories can be a lot of fun. But things stop being funny and start being very reprehensible when the weirdo in question has the power to get the parents of murdered children harassed and when he starts gleefully using that power without any concern for his victims. Perhaps Alex Jones was funny ones but nobody should be laughing at this point.

Catnip1024:

Saelune:
Ok, so if I said we should remove those things too, would you be ok with that? I agree, there is a lot of trash on youtube that should not be. I hate that I do not trust many youtube videos and channels and if they got removed, I'd be fine with that.

Not at all, I would still think it is a massive over-stepping on the part of what is essentially a cat-gif storage site. But I would be more happy for the logical consistency of the position.

I do want the rules to be applied consistently. I think all other 'Alex Jones' should be removed from these services too. The thing is, I think you are more bothered by how that will hurt right-wingers more than left-wingers. I think you want left wingers to be 'evenly punished', while ignoring that Alex Jones's are disproportionatly a right-wing thing.

First, I don't know what wonderful statistics you are basing this on, nor do I care. As I said, I've never watched the guy. I don't watch political Youtube videos, at all, because watching rants of random nobodies that go through no editorial process and who are incentivised to take extreme positions isn't my idea of a useful time.

More to the point, I remember when we tolerated conspiracy theorists because they were a laugh. Remember laughter?

I made no statistical claims.

Remember when conspiracy theorists were something most people agreed were crazy? Remember when the US President wasn't one of those nutjobs?

I'm strongly of the opinion that it's long past time that Facebook/Google/Youtube/etc should be considered public forums in the legal sense, for several reasons. The more Big Tech does shit like this, the more likely that becomes.

Do we have stated reasons for banning Alex Jones? There might be legitimate reasons for doing something about him (the harassment of the parents of some of the Sandy Hook victims being harassed by Jones' followers comes to mind) but I hope that he is being banned for a better reason than 'he looks bad on our platform'. Facebook and Youtube, etc, have a near monopoly on the services they provide and that means, private corporation or not, that what they do can greatly affect which message gets out there. At the same time they are very intransparent. That has the potential to greatly skew the debate in undesirable ways and no amount of people saying that the government is the only agency that free speech applies to changes that. I don't know the best way to adress that but in the meantime I won't cheer too loud when they ban people, even though in this case, it couldn't have happened to a more deserving guy.

Catnip1024:

Saelune:
Ok, so if I said we should remove those things too, would you be ok with that? I agree, there is a lot of trash on youtube that should not be. I hate that I do not trust many youtube videos and channels and if they got removed, I'd be fine with that.

Not at all, I would still think it is a massive over-stepping on the part of what is essentially a cat-gif storage site. But I would be more happy for the logical consistency of the position.

I do want the rules to be applied consistently. I think all other 'Alex Jones' should be removed from these services too. The thing is, I think you are more bothered by how that will hurt right-wingers more than left-wingers. I think you want left wingers to be 'evenly punished', while ignoring that Alex Jones's are disproportionatly a right-wing thing.

First, I don't know what wonderful statistics you are basing this on, nor do I care. As I said, I've never watched the guy. I don't watch political Youtube videos, at all, because watching rants of random nobodies that go through no editorial process and who are incentivised to take extreme positions isn't my idea of a useful time.

More to the point, I remember when we tolerated conspiracy theorists because they were a laugh. Remember laughter?

There's points where Laughter Stops.

Laughter stops when someone yells 'fire' and 73 people are trampled.

Laughter stops when people take the conspiracy theory seriously, runs into an innocent business with an m16, and proceeds to shoot up the place because he thinks he's saving kids.

It stops when Jones claims Brennan Gilmore had a hand in the Charlottesville attack and trolls hounded his life to the point that his business suffered.

I'm personally tired of the narrative of 'People need to lighten up'. People's lives can be threatened through another person's joke. Or wild accusation. Not wanting to be held responsible because people should know the humor or be 'smart enough to realize the scenario is false' is like me not wanting to be held responsible because I fired wildly into the air and my bullets hit people. Every action we're responsible for. I don't understand why people find that hard to accept.

I don't remember laughter when anyone can be a target of this man and have a legion of his followers ruin the lives of people, and we're supposed to allow it because of his 'freedom of speech' (which again, doesn't enter into this conversation). I'm tired of trying to have to protect a man who has seen over and over again the power of his words, and him continually using them irresponsibly.

Why must we protect him when he's shown over and over he doesn't give a damn about the lives he will ruined for a paycheck? Who's shown while he does know he has power, he doesn't ever try to wield it responsibly?

Ravinoff:
I'm strongly of the opinion that it's long past time that Facebook/Google/Youtube/etc should be considered public forums in the legal sense, for several reasons. The more Big Tech does shit like this, the more likely that becomes.

Youtube is a private company. We all sign away our rights to use them.

Doing 'shit like this' is them doing what's best for the company. And no, this isn't bullshit. The company isn't here as a basic human service that every human needs. It's a fun little piece of program that lets people watch music videos. As long as we don't need it to live, no government has the right to move in and tell them how to proceed as a business.

Ravinoff:
I'm strongly of the opinion that it's long past time that Facebook/Google/Youtube/etc should be considered public forums in the legal sense, for several reasons. The more Big Tech does shit like this, the more likely that becomes.

We're gonna need to get Net Neutrality up and running again.

Saelune:
As for any 'left-wing Alex Jones's', I do not know of any, nor do I support them. If they are making up crazy provenly untrue conspiracy theories, remove them too.

Hold on a sec. Wait...

Oh, here we go.

EDIT: Actually, thinking about it, to that I'd add the loonier of the JFK conspiracy theories, especially the "military-industrial complex worked with the CIA to assassinate him to make sure we went to war in Vietnam" branch. There are also the lefty variations of the (Bill) Clinton conspiracy theories that allege he was a CIA plant to cover up drug smuggling that paid for the Contras and their part in the Soviet-Afghanistan war, but simultaneously the Whitewater investigation and Paula Jones and Gennifer Flowers allegations were a CIA push and drip-feed of compromising material to the public, to blackmail him into silence about CIA drug smuggling.

I have close family members that are lefty conspiracy theorists, I can do this all day if you want. Like, shit that makes Jones on his most meme-tastic days look like Walter Cronkite by comparison. Most people seem to have forgotten that before 2016, the "deep state/shadow government" was a left-wing thing.

Eacaraxe:

Saelune:
As for any 'left-wing Alex Jones's', I do not know of any, nor do I support them. If they are making up crazy provenly untrue conspiracy theories, remove them too.

Hold on a sec. Wait...

Oh, here we go.

EDIT: Actually, thinking about it, to that I'd add the loonier of the JFK conspiracy theories, especially the "military-industrial complex worked with the CIA to assassinate him to make sure we went to war in Vietnam" branch. There are also the lefty variations of the (Bill) Clinton conspiracy theories that allege he was a CIA plant to cover up drug smuggling that paid for the Contras and their part in the Soviet-Afghanistan war, but simultaneously the Whitewater investigation and Paula Jones and Gennifer Flowers allegations were a CIA push and drip-feed of compromising material to the public, to blackmail him into silence about CIA drug smuggling.

I have close family members that are lefty conspiracy theorists, I can do this all day if you want. Like, shit that makes Jones on his most meme-tastic days look like Walter Cronkite by comparison. Most people seem to have forgotten that before 2016, the "deep state/shadow government" was a left-wing thing.

Neat.

How many reporters employed by those folks got a White House press pass and are considered conservative thought leaders?

Eacaraxe:
I have close family members that are lefty conspiracy theorists, I can do this all day if you want. Like, shit that makes Jones on his most meme-tastic days look like Walter Cronkite by comparison.

Everything that you've posted so far doesn't do that at all.

Seanchaidh:

Eacaraxe:
I have close family members that are lefty conspiracy theorists, I can do this all day if you want. Like, shit that makes Jones on his most meme-tastic days look like Walter Cronkite by comparison.

Everything that you've posted so far doesn't do that at all.

Right? I even dropped off a clip of Jones calling Obama an anti-Christ.

altnameJag:

Ravinoff:
I'm strongly of the opinion that it's long past time that Facebook/Google/Youtube/etc should be considered public forums in the legal sense, for several reasons. The more Big Tech does shit like this, the more likely that becomes.

We're gonna need to get Net Neutrality up and running again.

You're not wrong, but that's not what the current Net Neutrality fight is over. The debate now is bandwidth or pipeline neutrality, meaning ISPs can't give preferential treatment to data from any source (eg. unlimited HD Hulu streaming, but Netflix capped at 500kB/s with a monthly max). What we're both advocating for is platform neutrality, meaning a service provider can't discriminate based on content if it's not illegal, which is a much more controversial opinion since both sides have figured out that a sufficiently large outrage mob can shut down any opposition.

Oh yes, respond to the nutcase that openly claims he is the target of a myriad of conspiracies in order to play the victim and get people to pay attention to him, specifically by using a coordinated censorship effort to strip him from all major internet platforms. And then follow up by targeting people who call that out for being a corporately controlled coordinated censorship effort.

I can't see how this would ever backfire...

Jones is a fool, but much like Anita Sarkesian he is still a fool that knows how to milk victim status. He will bounce back higher from this even in what few avenues they left him to do so.

What this really does though is show just how many people are hypocrites about offensive speech as countless on twitter who railed against the firing of Gunn are now cheering for his. Bet that looks real good to anyone who has integrity or cares about consistency. Offensive comments about pedophilia, to the point of claiming to support it while working for the world's largest family company are ok, but Jone's pathetically nonsensical offensive rambling is not.

My take on the matter is that if he violated the ToS of a site, yeah, he should be kicked. From that site. Not this organized campaign to target him across multiple sites, and get him kicked from them all even if he didn't break their ToS on their site. Hell, I recall he also got hit at his email and his financial site. Not really hiding it was a motivated, organized effort at that point to cause problems.

And as such, that extended reach of influence, that is a far bigger problem than Jones himself. Because for all the problems one loudmouth grifter can cause by screaming about chemicals in the water making the fricken frogs gay, the fact you have an organized inter-competitor network of sites all working together to deny a platform to someone really seems a far greater concern to the whole idea of free speech and corporate overreaching.

But hey, it is only Alex Jones, who is going to care? Lets worry about it only after they censor so many they start to hit folks you like. You know, like the youtube policy that quickly ended up targeting a lot of pro gay-rights videos. Or facebook starting to pull antifa groups. Or when fans of Jones get pissed and demand the rules apply universally and go digging for more dirt like they did with Gunn and start getting entire political campaigns derailed due to no internet campaigning because much like using mustard gas in the trenches, both sides stopped caring about playing fair and just want to cause as much harm as they can while "justified".

Sad that the ones cheering this now would complain the loudest if the tables were turned and it was someone they saw as on their side that got hit like this.

runic knight:
Oh yes, respond to the nutcase that openly claims he is the target of a myriad of conspiracies in order to play the victim and get people to pay attention to him, specifically by using a coordinated censorship effort to strip him from all major internet platforms. And then follow up by targeting people who call that out for being a corporately controlled coordinated censorship effort.

I can't see how this would ever backfire...

Jones is a fool, but much like Anita Sarkesian he is still a fool that knows how to milk victim status. He will bounce back higher from this even in what few avenues they left him to do so.

What this really does though is show just how many people are hypocrites about offensive speech as countless on twitter who railed against the firing of Gunn are now cheering for his. Bet that looks real good to anyone who has integrity or cares about consistency. Offensive comments about pedophilia, to the point of claiming to support it while working for the world's largest family company are ok, but Jone's pathetically nonsensical offensive rambling is not.

My take on the matter is that if he violated the ToS of a site, yeah, he should be kicked. From that site. Not this organized campaign to target him across multiple sites, and get him kicked from them all even if he didn't break their ToS on their site. Hell, I recall he also got hit at his email and his financial site. Not really hiding it was a motivated, organized effort at that point to cause problems.

And as such, that extended reach of influence, that is a far bigger problem than Jones himself. Because for all the problems one loudmouth grifter can cause by screaming about chemicals in the water making the fricken frogs gay, the fact you have an organized inter-competitor network of sites all working together to deny a platform to someone really seems a far greater concern to the whole idea of free speech and corporate overreaching.

But hey, it is only Alex Jones, who is going to care? Lets worry about it only after they censor so many they start to hit folks you like. You know, like the youtube policy that quickly ended up targeting a lot of pro gay-rights videos. Or facebook starting to pull antifa groups. Or when fans of Jones get pissed and demand the rules apply universally and go digging for more dirt like they did with Gunn and start getting entire political campaigns derailed due to no internet campaigning because much like using mustard gas in the trenches, both sides stopped caring about playing fair and just want to cause as much harm as they can while "justified".

Sad that the ones cheering this now would complain the loudest if the tables were turned and it was someone they saw as on their side that got hit like this.

James Gunn isn't a right-wing nutjob conspiracy theorists who sues mass shooting victims. It is not hypocritical cause it is not the same thing.

Alex Jones is a horrible person and you trying to equate it to non-horrible people is wrong.

Eacaraxe:

Saelune:
As for any 'left-wing Alex Jones's', I do not know of any, nor do I support them. If they are making up crazy provenly untrue conspiracy theories, remove them too.

Hold on a sec. Wait...

Oh, here we go.

EDIT: Actually, thinking about it, to that I'd add the loonier of the JFK conspiracy theories, especially the "military-industrial complex worked with the CIA to assassinate him to make sure we went to war in Vietnam" branch. There are also the lefty variations of the (Bill) Clinton conspiracy theories that allege he was a CIA plant to cover up drug smuggling that paid for the Contras and their part in the Soviet-Afghanistan war, but simultaneously the Whitewater investigation and Paula Jones and Gennifer Flowers allegations were a CIA push and drip-feed of compromising material to the public, to blackmail him into silence about CIA drug smuggling.

I have close family members that are lefty conspiracy theorists, I can do this all day if you want. Like, shit that makes Jones on his most meme-tastic days look like Walter Cronkite by comparison. Most people seem to have forgotten that before 2016, the "deep state/shadow government" was a left-wing thing.

Good for you, you found a crazy person on the internet.

Saelune:
James Gunn isn't a right-wing nutjob conspiracy theorists who sues mass shooting victims. It is not hypocritical cause it is not the same thing.

Alex Jones is a horrible person and you trying to equate it to non-horrible people is wrong.

No, I am equating the arguments used to defend Gunn with those used to defend Jones. The people are different and I would never say they are the same. The arguments used to defend Gunn ("no one should be fired for offensive stuff they said in the past") and the arguments used to justify Jone's deplatforming ("he should be deplatformed for offensive stuff he said in the past") are close enough to do that with.

Since defenders of both would say that past actions deemed offensive being used to censor or attack someone is wrong, the arguments not being applied equally based solely on the political leans of those they apply to would make a case for hypocrisy. And that will be used and called out by those defending Jones, perhaps even to leading to more cases like Gunn's where they turn around and use the same tactic used against them in leveraging outrage to punish people, even to the extent of getting them censored from the most used majority of the internet.

Jones being horrible or not is your opinion. As is other people's opinion of Gunn being horrible for talking 100's of tweets about pedophilia. The opinion on if someone is horrible or not is worthless here though and doesn't relate at all to the point I made, so I don't know why you tried to bring it up.

Catnip1024:

The problem with hate speech laws is that generally, they don't actually involve the creation of a new crime. They just arbitrarily vary the severity of punishment for existing ones (incitement to commit crimes, for instance) based on which boxes the victim ticks, inevitably increasing social discontent due to the inequality of justice this then provides.

Hate speech laws do not specify that only "minorities" can be victims. Thus hate crime against whites, men, heterosexuals etc. is as possible as hate crimes against blacks, women, homosexuals, etc. They often tend to be less prevalent in practice because the nature of a majority means there are a lot more of that group so they'll tend to commit most of the crimes.

Hate crimes also require adequate evidence of the crime being motivated by animosity towards another group. They are not handed out just because a victim is a member of another group.

Ravinoff:

altnameJag:

Ravinoff:
I'm strongly of the opinion that it's long past time that Facebook/Google/Youtube/etc should be considered public forums in the legal sense, for several reasons. The more Big Tech does shit like this, the more likely that becomes.

We're gonna need to get Net Neutrality up and running again.

You're not wrong, but that's not what the current Net Neutrality fight is over. The debate now is bandwidth or pipeline neutrality, meaning ISPs can't give preferential treatment to data from any source (eg. unlimited HD Hulu streaming, but Netflix capped at 500kB/s with a monthly max). What we're both advocating for is platform neutrality, meaning a service provider can't discriminate based on content if it's not illegal, which is a much more controversial opinion since both sides have figured out that a sufficiently large outrage mob can shut down any opposition.

Lol. If any of these sites were at all consistent, Jones would've been out on his ass long ago.

See, here's the thing. Jones didn't get the boot because of his race, religion, political party, sex, gender identity, or whatever protected class in whatever country these social media companies pretend to be headquartered in. (Which begs the obvious question: which country's laws apply)

Jones got axed because he's a flagrant asshole. He's endlessly harassed dozens of people, caused at least one hostage situation, literally demonized his political opposition, and claimed several mass death incidents as being fabricated by grieving families.

If any site's terms of service allows for that, they might as well not have a ToS.

runic knight:

Saelune:
James Gunn isn't a right-wing nutjob conspiracy theorists who sues mass shooting victims. It is not hypocritical cause it is not the same thing.

Alex Jones is a horrible person and you trying to equate it to non-horrible people is wrong.

No, I am equating the arguments used to defend Gunn with those used to defend Jones. The people are different and I would never say they are the same. The arguments used to defend Gunn ("no one should be fired for offensive stuff they said in the past") and the arguments used to justify Jone's deplatforming ("he should be deplatformed for offensive stuff he said in the past") are close enough to do that with.

Since defenders of both would say that past actions deemed offensive being used to censor or attack someone is wrong, the arguments not being applied equally based solely on the political leans of those they apply to would make a case for hypocrisy. And that will be used and called out by those defending Jones, perhaps even to leading to more cases like Gunn's where they turn around and use the same tactic used against them in leveraging outrage to punish people, even to the extent of getting them censored from the most used majority of the internet.

Jones being horrible or not is your opinion. As is other people's opinion of Gunn being horrible for talking 100's of tweets about pedophilia. The opinion on if someone is horrible or not is worthless here though and doesn't relate at all to the point I made, so I don't know why you tried to bring it up.

The argument is that Gunn STOPPED doing that shit. If Alex Jones ever wants to stop being horrible, apologize, and work to be better, then we can talk about maybe forgiving him. Alex Jones is STILL SAYING THAT HORRIBLE SHIT HE HAS BEEN SAYING FOR YEARS.

runic knight:

No, I am equating the arguments used to defend Gunn with those used to defend Jones. The people are different and I would never say they are the same. The arguments used to defend Gunn ("no one should be fired for offensive stuff they said in the past") and the arguments used to justify Jone's deplatforming ("he should be deplatformed for offensive stuff he said in the past") are close enough to do that with.

"Six years ago, an hour ago, what's the difference? It's all technically in the past".

CM156:
Smh, now how else are people going to learn the truth about the gay frogs and the chemicals?

I know you're being sarcastic, but I want to address this point anyways. He used that as an attempt to hock water filters. He's profiting off selling solutions to imaginary problems.

runic knight:

Saelune:
James Gunn isn't a right-wing nutjob conspiracy theorists who sues mass shooting victims. It is not hypocritical cause it is not the same thing.

Alex Jones is a horrible person and you trying to equate it to non-horrible people is wrong.

No, I am equating the arguments used to defend Gunn with those used to defend Jones. The people are different and I would never say they are the same. The arguments used to defend Gunn ("no one should be fired for offensive stuff they said in the past") and the arguments used to justify Jone's deplatforming ("he should be deplatformed for offensive stuff he said in the past") are close enough to do that with.

Since defenders of both would say that past actions deemed offensive being used to censor or attack someone is wrong, the arguments not being applied equally based solely on the political leans of those they apply to would make a case for hypocrisy. And that will be used and called out by those defending Jones, perhaps even to leading to more cases like Gunn's where they turn around and use the same tactic used against them in leveraging outrage to punish people, even to the extent of getting them censored from the most used majority of the internet.

Jones being horrible or not is your opinion. As is other people's opinion of Gunn being horrible for talking 100's of tweets about pedophilia. The opinion on if someone is horrible or not is worthless here though and doesn't relate at all to the point I made, so I don't know why you tried to bring it up.

It's almost like context matters...

When was the last time Gunn made one of those statements? What is his recent and current attitudes towards them?

When was the last time Jones made one of those statements? What is his recent and current attitudes towards them?

Not everyone pretends the world is black and white mate.

runic knight:
No, I am equating the arguments used to defend Gunn with those used to defend Jones. The people are different and I would never say they are the same. The arguments used to defend Gunn ("no one should be fired for offensive stuff they said in the past") and the arguments used to justify Jone's deplatforming ("he should be deplatformed for offensive stuff he said in the past") are close enough to do that with.

Since defenders of both would say that past actions deemed offensive being used to censor or attack someone is wrong, the arguments not being applied equally based solely on the political leans of those they apply to would make a case for hypocrisy. And that will be used and called out by those defending Jones, perhaps even to leading to more cases like Gunn's where they turn around and use the same tactic used against them in leveraging outrage to punish people, even to the extent of getting them censored from the most used majority of the internet.

Jones being horrible or not is your opinion. As is other people's opinion of Gunn being horrible for talking 100's of tweets about pedophilia. The opinion on if someone is horrible or not is worthless here though and doesn't relate at all to the point I made, so I don't know why you tried to bring it up.

James Gunn said frankly unfunny, off color, and gross things on the internet.

James Gunn did not tell a gullible public who buys chocolate chicken collagen broth from him that there are parts of government that are going to take away your rights, kill you, and report that he has proof of all this.

This is James Gunn.

This is Alex Jones.

Make no mistake, I do understand why Disney would fire Gunn, as all they want to do is promote their message. I don't have a problem with Disney as a private company desire their employees to keep on message, even if I know the jokes were just stupid jokes. Even though they were tasteless and frankly un-fucking-funny.

But even then, Gunn's comments were just really, really gross at times. Alex Jones told people the government was going to take away their weapons and enslave them. He said that Hillary personally murdered little children and chopped them up. While labeling himself as a news outlet (Warning, link takes anyone to Info Wars).

Everyone signs a contract when they get in business with someone. Have we, as a public, forgot this? We are representatives of these bigger companies. If we do things these companies dislike, we get fired. Since when is that censorship? If I curse out a lady while working for a Wall Street trading firm, and they fire me because they don't like that image... I wasn't censored, I quite possibly simply violated the terms of contract that I signed when I entered that firm.

We KNOW that Jones violated the terms of contract for the things he signed up for. From Youtube, to Facebook, to Apple. All of these companies give guidelines on what they will tolerate and what they will not. Alex Jones agreed to these terms when he signed the contract. And in all of these cases, he was given multiple strikes and warnings and he still did it. So what is the problem? Really? That he wasn't allowed to continue to ignore the law under the guise of free speech which doesn't apply here because if he's getting paid, it's commercial speech?

Agema:

Catnip1024:

The problem with hate speech laws is that generally, they don't actually involve the creation of a new crime. They just arbitrarily vary the severity of punishment for existing ones (incitement to commit crimes, for instance) based on which boxes the victim ticks, inevitably increasing social discontent due to the inequality of justice this then provides.

Hate speech laws do not specify that only "minorities" can be victims. Thus hate crime against whites, men, heterosexuals etc. is as possible as hate crimes against blacks, women, homosexuals, etc. They often tend to be less prevalent in practice because the nature of a majority means there are a lot more of that group so they'll tend to commit most of the crimes.

Hate crimes also require adequate evidence of the crime being motivated by animosity towards another group. They are not handed out just because a victim is a member of another group.

I never said they did. I said that the criteria are arbitrarily selected. Hence you might have, for instance, Goths being excluded despite there being a pretty solid record of targetted abuse because of their appearance. Or ginger people.

As for the second part, motivation is often difficult to prove and incredibly subjectively applied.

Saelune:
Good for you, you found a crazy person on the internet.

The 9/11 truther movement is/was a "crazy person on the internet". Well, that's it, pack it in boys and girls, we done solved the mystery. Thank God for that!

Everything that you've posted so far doesn't do that at all.

All right, how about this one? Anti-vaxxers.

See, that one's one of my best litmus tests to decide if someone's a partisan hack not to be trusted or taken seriously. Guaran-goddamn-teed, if I ask which side of the political fence is home to the anti-vaxxer movement, the partisan hacks not to be trusted or taken seriously are going to say "they are!" without blinking.

Because truth is, both extremes, wingnuts and moonbats, are home to anti-vaxxers. Because on one side, you have people to object to it on religious or spiritual grounds, and the real nutters who think it's some government/corporate genocide or mind control conspiracy, and on the other side, you have people...who object to it on religious or spiritual grounds, and the real nutters who think it's some government/corporate genocide or mind control conspiracy. The New Agers and extreme environmentalists like anti-GMO people say the same goddamn shit as the fundies, and there are anti-government conspiracy theorists on both sides.

It just happens to be the case the anti-vaxxer shit on the right is a single ingredient in the flavor of crazy we've known for decades and have become accustomed to. The anti-vaxxer shit on the left (the autism garbage) is a new ingredient in the flavor of crazy, and we're getting used to the new-and-improved taste. In the meantime, the anti-vaxxers on the right have taken and ran with it too.

Folks can bury their heads in the sand and chant "la la la, I can't hear you!" all they like, but it is what it is and the people who do it just look like complete putzes to anyone not in their exquisitely-curated echo chambers.

Eacaraxe:

Saelune:
Good for you, you found a crazy person on the internet.

The 9/11 truther movement is/was a "crazy person on the internet". Well, that's it, pack it in boys and girls, we done solved the mystery. Thank God for that!

Everything that you've posted so far doesn't do that at all.

All right, how about this one? Anti-vaxxers.

See, that one's one of my best litmus tests to decide if someone's a partisan hack not to be trusted or taken seriously. Guaran-goddamn-teed, if I ask which side of the political fence is home to the anti-vaxxer movement, the partisan hacks not to be trusted or taken seriously are going to say "they are!" without blinking.

Because truth is, both extremes, wingnuts and moonbats, are home to anti-vaxxers. Because on one side, you have people to object to it on religious or spiritual grounds, and the real nutters who think it's some government/corporate genocide or mind control conspiracy, and on the other side, you have people...who object to it on religious or spiritual grounds, and the real nutters who think it's some government/corporate genocide or mind control conspiracy. The New Agers and extreme environmentalists like anti-GMO people say the same goddamn shit as the fundies, and there are anti-government conspiracy theorists on both sides.

It just happens to be the case the anti-vaxxer shit on the right is a single ingredient in the flavor of crazy we've known for decades and have become accustomed to. The anti-vaxxer shit on the left (the autism garbage) is a new ingredient in the flavor of crazy, and we're getting used to the new-and-improved taste. In the meantime, the anti-vaxxers on the right have taken and ran with it too.

Folks can bury their heads in the sand and chant "la la la, I can't hear you!" all they like, but it is what it is and the people who do it just look like complete putzes to anyone not in their exquisitely-curated echo chambers.

I don't know what you're hoping for. Anti-Vaxxers are also nut jobs who are endangering children, should NOT be allowed to spread their ignorant and dangerous message, and if a bunch of anti-vaxxers got kicked off youtube, facebook etc, I would also call that a win.

Catnip1024:

Agema:

Catnip1024:

The problem with hate speech laws is that generally, they don't actually involve the creation of a new crime. They just arbitrarily vary the severity of punishment for existing ones (incitement to commit crimes, for instance) based on which boxes the victim ticks, inevitably increasing social discontent due to the inequality of justice this then provides.

Hate speech laws do not specify that only "minorities" can be victims. Thus hate crime against whites, men, heterosexuals etc. is as possible as hate crimes against blacks, women, homosexuals, etc. They often tend to be less prevalent in practice because the nature of a majority means there are a lot more of that group so they'll tend to commit most of the crimes.

Ha06te crimes also require adequate evidence of the crime being motivated by animosity towards another group. They are not handed out just because a victim is a member of another group.

I never said they did. I said that the criteria are arbitrarily selected. Hence you might have, for instance, Goths being excluded despite there being a pretty solid record of targetted abuse because of their appearance. Or ginger people.

As for the second part, motivation is often difficult to prove and incredibly subjectively applied.

In my country, you have to be consistently saying something hateful and have the 'victim' ask you to stop. Obviously having witness is much better otherwise its a he said, he said situation and the case might be lost. Some cases have already been knocked back for overreacting or flimsy evidence

Motivation? Do you mean being provoked

trunkage:
In my country, you have to be consistently saying something hateful and have the 'victim' ask you to stop. Obviously having witness is much better otherwise its a he said, he said situation and the case might be lost. Some cases have already been knocked back for overreacting or flimsy evidence

Motivation? Do you mean being provoked

Well, pretty sure that's not how it works in the UK, and that's a lousy implementation. You don't put pressure on the victim to have to say something.

No - motivation in why the crime is supposedly a hate crime as opposed to a regular crime that just happened to be cross-demographics.

Souplex:

CM156:
Smh, now how else are people going to learn the truth about the gay frogs and the chemicals?

I know you're being sarcastic, but I want to address this point anyways. He used that as an attempt to hock water filters. He's profiting off selling solutions to imaginary problems.

The really annoying thing about the "turning the friggin' frogs gay" meme is that of all the things Alex Jones is wrong about, this is probably the one he's closest to being right on. Pollutants (synthetic hormones being among them) in the water supply are inducing mutations in frogs that inhibit their ability to breed. Saying they're turning gay is an incredibly stupid and incorrect way to put it, but the basic premise of "pollution = frogs with fucked-up sexual characteristics" isn't too far off the truth.

Catnip1024:

trunkage:
In my country, you have to be consistently saying something hateful and have the 'victim' ask you to stop. Obviously having witness is much better otherwise its a he said, he said situation and the case might be lost. Some cases have already been knocked back for overreacting or flimsy evidence

Motivation? Do you mean being provoked

Well, pretty sure that's not how it works in the UK, and that's a lousy implementation. You don't put pressure on the victim to have to say something.

No - motivation in why the crime is supposedly a hate crime as opposed to a regular crime that just happened to be cross-demographics.

The UK is bad becuase the crown shouldn't be prosecuting anything. It should only be between citizens. Otherwise its breaking freedom of speech stuff. The victim should speak up to determine if they are offended by racially charged words. Because some people won't be offended. If they cant speak, they need to have a very good reason. It also promoted try to deal with the situation before it gets near courts.

You're going to have to give me a demonstration of your concern for motivation. I thought hate speech was mainly about using racially charged words. But UK seems to have done it stupidly so I imagine that something comes from there.

Ravinoff:

Souplex:

CM156:
Smh, now how else are people going to learn the truth about the gay frogs and the chemicals?

I know you're being sarcastic, but I want to address this point anyways. He used that as an attempt to hock water filters. He's profiting off selling solutions to imaginary problems.

The really annoying thing about the "turning the friggin' frogs gay" meme is that of all the things Alex Jones is wrong about, this is probably the one he's closest to being right on. Pollutants (synthetic hormones being among them) in the water supply are inducing mutations in frogs that inhibit their ability to breed. Saying they're turning gay is an incredibly stupid and incorrect way to put it, but the basic premise of "pollution = frogs with fucked-up sexual characteristics" isn't too far off the truth.

Some would call that Fake News

trunkage:
The UK is bad becuase the crown shouldn't be prosecuting anything. It should only be between citizens. Otherwise its breaking freedom of speech stuff. The victim should speak up to determine if they are offended by racially charged words. Because some people won't be offended. If they cant speak, they need to have a very good reason. It also promoted try to deal with the situation before it gets near courts.

You're going to have to give me a demonstration of your concern for motivation. I thought hate speech was mainly about using racially charged words. But UK seems to have done it stupidly so I imagine that something comes from there.

That is a terrible way to do things. You are incentivising the shouting down of victims. The presence of the state to prosecute makes it easier for victims to come forward. Particularly the ones without the time or money to push private prosecutions.

And it isn't breaking freedom of speech as there is a separate law you are being prosecuted under. The fact the law exists supersedes the freedom of speech debate.

Hate crime can be any crime, if it is believed the motivation was on racial / religious / gender etc. grounds. Which opens up subjectivity, as if the culprit didn't use any particular epithet, it's hard to judge. And even if they did, it's still arguably less proof of racial motivation and more somebody throwing out insults like a 14 year old rage-quitting COD player.

Silentpony:

Milo tried to pull that about his pro-pedophilia bit, and it didn't work out so well.

The thing I find interesting about Milo's pro-pedo bit is that a certain gay actor well-known for a role on Star Trek had a similar pro-pedo bit and the same people who tore Milo apart for it didn't seem to especially care.

Saelune:
I wonder if people thought when things like rape and murder were made illegal that suddenly 'Oh no, if they come for the rapists and murderers, it is a slippery slope before they come after me!'

I'm sure even then there were folks worried about whether or not they would be punished for stabbing someone who had come to rob them with their pitchfork, and if in a society where laws were actually codified where exactly the lines lie. Hell, we still argue about killing in self-defense to this day, and laws against murder are some of the oldest laws.

Saelune:
Ok, so if I said we should remove those things too, would you be ok with that? I agree, there is a lot of trash on youtube that should not be. I hate that I do not trust many youtube videos and channels and if they got removed, I'd be fine with that.

Would you feel that way if you thought even for a second that whoever was determining what was "trash" would be someone with a radically different worldview than you?

Agema:
Hate speech laws do not specify that only "minorities" can be victims. Thus hate crime against whites, men, heterosexuals etc. is as possible as hate crimes against blacks, women, homosexuals, etc.

Depends on the specific case, as does application. For example there was a case in Canada in which a black woman beat a white woman while yelling about how she hates white folks and crackers deserve various kinds of harm -- this was not considered a hate crime. Because reasons. In the US, for black folks to get charged with a hate crime against white folks it has to be something as horrific and public as the 2017 Chicago torture incident (and even then, the emphasis was on a guy with schizophrenia and ADHD as being mentally-disabled -- which was apparently more relevant than their explicitly verbalizing a hatred of white folks as far as it being a hate crime). It's really interesting how media coverage actively de-emphasized race when discussing it, too.

The way people cry about other anti-discrimination laws being used against the "wrong" people (such as Unruh in CA and occasionally Title IX) doesn't give me much confidence, either.

Souplex:

CM156:
Smh, now how else are people going to learn the truth about the gay frogs and the chemicals?

I know you're being sarcastic, but I want to address this point anyways. He used that as an attempt to hock water filters. He's profiting off selling solutions to imaginary problems.

The sad part is that it isn't a wholly imaginary problem in that case, just an exaggerated one. It's just that less excitable folks talk about endocrine disrupting compounds that mostly enter the water supply through leaching out of plastics and pharmaceutical waste (for example improper disposal of things like oral contraceptives). Which amphibians are especially sensitive to, and which cause sexual side effects. Alex Jones is wrong in his claims here, but he's truth adjacent.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here