I guess various social media platforms have banned Alex Jones?

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

evilthecat:
Jordan Peterson's name is mud in academia. He's an emotionally unstable little man who cries on youtube, and for some reason that's enough to make him a "celebrity academic", but his actual academic work is trash. Some of the people who criticize him may have fewer citations, but they're almost undeniably better and more relevant academics by virtue of actually producing any academic work worth reading, or by being able to teach, or by engaging with their discipline. Peterson does none of these things. Writing self-help books and talking to youtube may pay the bills, but it isn't academic work.

It sounds to me like someone(and I'm not naming names here) needs to go clean their room, buckaroo.

Also, none of us are going to talk about this? Even for the hypocrisy value? At the very least, it should be the subject of the inevitable porn parody. Along with chemtrails and the gay frogs.

CM156:

evilthecat:
Jordan Peterson's name is mud in academia. He's an emotionally unstable little man who cries on youtube, and for some reason that's enough to make him a "celebrity academic", but his actual academic work is trash. Some of the people who criticize him may have fewer citations, but they're almost undeniably better and more relevant academics by virtue of actually producing any academic work worth reading, or by being able to teach, or by engaging with their discipline. Peterson does none of these things. Writing self-help books and talking to youtube may pay the bills, but it isn't academic work.

It sounds to me like someone(and I'm not naming names here) needs to go clean their room, buckaroo.

Also, none of us are going to talk about this? Even for the hypocrisy value? At the very least, it should be the subject of the inevitable porn parody. Along with chemtrails and the gay frogs.

Yeah, I saw it. Seems par for the course to me. I've never seen him think anything else is hypocritical before. Why would this make a difference? His followers will do his bidding no matter what.

Also, I didn't want to imply that Tgirls are bad in some way

CM156:
It sounds to me like someone(and I'm not naming names here) needs to go clean their room, buckaroo.

image

Someone does..

Zontar:
Oh boy, someone fell for propaganda it would seem. I'm sorry to disappoint you, but rumours of Canadian tolerance have been unimaginably exaggerated.

"Better than most" means exactly what it is; I don't think anyone believes intolerance barely exists in Canada in an absolute sense.

Why is everyone who doesn't actively want to destroy Western civilisation accused of being an MRA these days? Or still actually, I thought that ended back in 2015-16ish.

Peterson has a particular appeal to the MRA community, although he's pleased a certain number of the general anti-PC crowd as well.

Anyway given his position at the University of Toronto, he's definitely in the top 10 psychologists in the country.

I'm willing to bet you that the University of Toronto alone has more than 10 professors (full professors, not counting assistant or associate profs). Now add in the other top Canadian universities for psychology, and you're probably looking at about 50+ direct competitors just going by academic title and institution. Then consider all the mid-ranking universities, who are guaranteed to have some really top talent, even if the average is lower.

Of course, how we measure what makes a psychologist better than another is extremely difficult. But there's no particular reason to think Peterson merits hyperbole like "one of the best psychologists of his generation", as if he were some sort of Daniel Kahneman or Steven Pinker.

Zontar:
Citations aren't the be-all-end-all, true, but I'm going to trust the professional stance of a man on his field who has an average of mid-higher end 3 digit citations per paper/study over someone who has less then that for his collective body of work.

Indeed, but at the level of academic study, you'd want to be even more precise than that when you say "field".

For instance, Peterson has published very extensively on the effect of alcohol on psychology, so he seems like an excellent person to go to for anyone who wants to know the psychological effects of alcohol consumption. However, if you wanted to know about phobias, or sexual disorders, or psychological gender differences, you might actually be better off with someone who only has 100 citations from their entire career who specialises in those areas rather than Jordan Peterson.

Such is the nature of expertise.

CM156:
Also, none of us are going to talk about this? Even for the hypocrisy value? At the very least, it should be the subject of the inevitable porn parody. Along with chemtrails and the gay frogs.

Knowing is half the battle.

How can he fight the evil globalist transsexual cabal if they don't know what their sex lives are like?

trunkage:

CM156:

evilthecat:
Jordan Peterson's name is mud in academia. He's an emotionally unstable little man who cries on youtube, and for some reason that's enough to make him a "celebrity academic", but his actual academic work is trash. Some of the people who criticize him may have fewer citations, but they're almost undeniably better and more relevant academics by virtue of actually producing any academic work worth reading, or by being able to teach, or by engaging with their discipline. Peterson does none of these things. Writing self-help books and talking to youtube may pay the bills, but it isn't academic work.

It sounds to me like someone(and I'm not naming names here) needs to go clean their room, buckaroo.

Also, none of us are going to talk about this? Even for the hypocrisy value? At the very least, it should be the subject of the inevitable porn parody. Along with chemtrails and the gay frogs.

Yeah, I saw it. Seems par for the course to me. I've never seen him think anything else is hypocritical before. Why would this make a difference? His followers will do his bidding no matter what.

Also, I didn't want to imply that Tgirls are bad in some way

It's more due to the fact that he's said things like this.

You don't have to make a value judgement on tgirls either way.

Sonmi:

CM156:
Also, none of us are going to talk about this? Even for the hypocrisy value? At the very least, it should be the subject of the inevitable porn parody. Along with chemtrails and the gay frogs.

Knowing is half the battle.

How can he fight the evil globalist transsexual cabal if they don't know what their sex lives are like?

It's just like how he tries cannabis every year to make sure Sorros isn't making it too powerful.

I thought people couldn't get suspended twice?

CM156:

trunkage:

CM156:

It sounds to me like someone(and I'm not naming names here) needs to go clean their room, buckaroo.

Also, none of us are going to talk about this? Even for the hypocrisy value? At the very least, it should be the subject of the inevitable porn parody. Along with chemtrails and the gay frogs.

Yeah, I saw it. Seems par for the course to me. I've never seen him think anything else is hypocritical before. Why would this make a difference? His followers will do his bidding no matter what.

Also, I didn't want to imply that Tgirls are bad in some way

It's more due to the fact that he's said things like this.

You don't have to make a value judgement on tgirls either way

I'm aware of his thoughts on Tgirls. Him watching Tgirls seems about right for his stance on them. He lies himself out of situations all the time and somehow blames his opponents. This won't change anything.

As to Tgirls, I'm fine for him or anyone to watch them. I'm not going to pretend I'm offended at someone watching them just to discredit Jones

Sonmi:

Zontar:
Someone from the island has no place talking about the South Shore like that.

We From The Island pay for all of you suburban hicks and keep the country's economy rolling. Have a bit of respect for your betters.

One more word from you and I'm sending the Bill 101 Secret Police after you.

What is this "Island" both of you were talking about?

trunkage:

As to Tgirls, I'm fine for him or anyone to watch them. I'm not going to pretend I'm offended at someone watching them just to discredit Jones

One: Ew...I already hated Jones, now I hate him AND creeped out.

Two: The point is the hypocrisy.

Looking at porn, gay, trans or otherwise is fine. But not if part of your career is made from demonizing it when others do it.

Samtemdo8:
What is this "Island" both of you were talking about?

Considering Montreal comes up a lot in those users' threads, I'd guess this island: i.e. the city centre of Montreal.

CM156:

It's more due to the fact that he's said things like this.

My wife watches Ru Paul's Drag Race; from what I've caught of it and the generally life-affirming attitudes within, the world would be a much happier place with more of them and less of Alex Jones.

Zontar:
He wasn't exactly wrong about Bill C-16 though. In fact as has been discussed here to death already, unless one is willing to take the position of "well just because it's explicitly unconstitutional and that it could be abused, doesn't mean it will", there's really no defence for C-16, especially not from a liberal position (yeah I know I'm the one who keeps pointing out liberalism is dead in the West, but there's still a shocking number of opponents of liberalism who call themselves liberals)

You are correct about one thing: we have discussed this to death already.

As I've said about four or five times before:

- Bill C-16 does not contradict the Canadian constitution, because all C-16 did was add "gender identity" to the list of protected categories (race, sex, religious beliefs, etc.) in Canada's anti-discrimination legislation. For Bill C-16 to be unconstitutional, the Canadian Human Rights Act itself would need to be unconstitutional, and that would be big news because the HRA dates back to the 70s.
- Civil administrative tribunals - such as the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal - are not courts and cannot impose criminal penalties. Every decision they make can be appealed to a federal court. Every action or penalty they impose must be approved by a federal court, which is the institution that actually has the power to take action or impose penalties.
- Bill C-16 was passed nearly two years ago, and despite having not altered his behaviour or speech in anyway, Jordan Peterson has yet to be arrested.

The entire kerfuffle is a case of a self-absorbed psychology professor misinterpreting the legal implications of a piece of legislation that he obviously does not understand, then flipping out about it over Youtube, finding an audience of equally-uninformed people, and then refusing to admit that he - a psychology professor - may have misunderstood a question of law, which is something completely outside his field of expertise. And, naturally, then parleying that into $60,000 a month on Patreon.

No; Jordan Peterson was not right about C-16. He was impressively mistaken. Now, he may not be aware how wrong he was; it's often the case that academics who get elbow-deep in unfamiliar subjects end up being wrong and then too proud to admit that they were wrong. Alternatively, he may know, but not particularly care - because he has exchanged a quiet and stable career as a mid-range academic for a lucrative job as an extremely famous internet ideologue and self-help guru.

CM156:
Also, none of us are going to talk about this? Even for the hypocrisy value? At the very least, it should be the subject of the inevitable porn parody. Along with chemtrails and the gay frogs.

Jesus H. Christ, that's hilarious.

He didn't even pick a particularly attractive transsexual.

bastardofmelbourne:

No; Jordan Peterson was not right about C-16. He was impressively mistaken. Now, he may not be aware how wrong he was; it's often the case that academics who get elbow-deep in unfamiliar subjects end up being wrong and then too proud to admit that they were wrong. Alternatively, he may know, but not particularly care - because he has exchanged a quiet and stable career as a mid-range academic for a lucrative job as an extremely famous internet ideologue and self-help guru.

And he's smart enough to know it. Prior Peterson becoming Youtube famous you did occasionally run into stuff he did in psychometrics. The guy isn't stupid, he just knows he can make more money by being wrong. Also by kicking up a stink about stuff like this it basically gives him free licence to say in a psychology course that Hitler secretly wanted the Third Reich to fail, with all the usual dog whitle-y garbage ...

I meanit doesn't take a genius to point out no academic, much less someone in psychoanalysis and psychometrics, infers motive based on merely outcomes.

That would be like saying a paranoid schizophrenic doesn't truly believe the government is monitoring them, because they babble about it to their therapists or assisted living social workers... and why would you do that if you didn't want them monitoring you further? It's almost circular logic.

The fact that he was a one time clinician makes it even more reprehensible.

Moreover when someone says; "Look, you're teaching this garbage to 1st and 2nd year students and it's clearly wrong... are you actually qualified to do this job?" ... he can pretend as if it's somehow some 'liberal conspiracy' and have people like Zontar believe him and fork over money for his self-help books for the terminally egotistical.

Nevermind the fact that it's a psych course and you shouldn't be treating the sciences like this...

Samtemdo8:

Sonmi:

Zontar:
Someone from the island has no place talking about the South Shore like that.

We From The Island pay for all of you suburban hicks and keep the country's economy rolling. Have a bit of respect for your betters.

One more word from you and I'm sending the Bill 101 Secret Police after you.

What is this "Island" both of you were talking about?

Im assuming Newfoundland. Newfies are a lovable bunch even if they are a bit uppity.

bastardofmelbourne:
He didn't even pick a particularly attractive transsexual.

This isn't something I feel qualified to assess, so I will have to defer to the judgement of my learned friend

CM156:

bastardofmelbourne:
He didn't even pick a particularly attractive transsexual.

This isn't something I feel qualified to assess, so I will have to defer to the judgement of my learned friend

How long until we find out he has been keeping a colony of gay frogs?

altnameJag:

runic knight:

Pretty sure you can find all sorts of antifa groups on facebook. Hey, you know what, I am going to try right now.
And look at that, lots of them pop up. Same across twitter, reddit, and elsewhere. Hell, there is groups in cities across the world, listed online and with gatherings off as well.

Can probably find plenty of white supremacy groups too...

exactly, making their treatment of Jones a special event and not a standard practice, thus warranting special attention (as it has), and demonstrating a large part of the problem people have with how things played out (that it was so far beyond the norm compared to even groups far more deserving of such treatment, like white supremacist groups, or antifa terrorist supporting groups).

So I find little accuracy in the claims they are deplatformed to the same extent as jones was. Which would have at least been consistent even if I still disagreed with the sentiment.

They've never been platformed to the extent Jones has.

Yes, they have, the same as anyone else on those site who were able to make an account and thus have a platform on those sites.
I assume you are looking at his popularity and the reach that obtained to claim that other groups did not have the same platform he did, but that is false. They all had the same base on the sites and the removal of that across so many major sites and support sites online represents a troubling amount of ability to deplatform someone, even if some sites have since walked it back.

Kwak:

runic knight:

Snopes is notoriously not a reliable fact-checking source when it comes to certain political persuasions, with a history of bias in their rulings.

Citations please.

Would you like articles that talk about this that you will likely casually hand-wave away because you dislike where they come from, or would you like specific examples of editorializing or bias in rulings that you likely will claim are the exception and not the norm? Honestly, I am not too driven to provide either for you to back up a passing comment that prefaced the entirety of the problem with their article itself that you chose to ignore addressing: that being the entire article was an appealing to conspiracy theory. The irony of that being that such a blatantly biased editorializing called up from the site sort of shows my point about them in the first place and why they are viewed as biased as well.

Avnger:

Kwak:

runic knight:

Snopes is notoriously not a reliable fact-checking source when it comes to certain political persuasions, with a history of bias in their rulings.

Citations please.

How does one cite their hurt fee fees? I don't think MLA has a section for that.

Do you have something you wish to say to me, avnger? It would be nice if you participated the conversation by addressing the person you are implying things about with some honest intention to engage the discussion in good faith. Or would you like to keep passive-aggressively sniping with your friend there? It doesn't add anything of value, it is very disrespectful, and it is intentionally done to provoke emotional responses rather than civil ones. Please, as a request from a fellow user, actually engage with some honest intention.

runic knight:

Would you like articles that talk about this that you will likely casually hand-wave away because you dislike where they come from, or would you like specific examples of editorializing or bias in rulings that you likely will claim are the exception and not the norm? Honestly, I am not too driven to provide either for you to back up a passing comment that prefaced the entirety of the problem with their article itself that you chose to ignore addressing: that being the entire article was an appealing to conspiracy theory. The irony of that being that such a blatantly biased editorializing called up from the site sort of shows my point about them in the first place and why they are viewed as biased as well.

This is your response to someone pointing out that you hand-waved a point because you disliked where the source came from. I don't have anything else to add, just glad I got to witness the land speed record for inconsistency and intellectual dishonesty.

CheetoDust:

runic knight:

Would you like articles that talk about this that you will likely casually hand-wave away because you dislike where they come from, or would you like specific examples of editorializing or bias in rulings that you likely will claim are the exception and not the norm? Honestly, I am not too driven to provide either for you to back up a passing comment that prefaced the entirety of the problem with their article itself that you chose to ignore addressing: that being the entire article was an appealing to conspiracy theory. The irony of that being that such a blatantly biased editorializing called up from the site sort of shows my point about them in the first place and why they are viewed as biased as well.

This is your response to someone pointing out that you hand-waved a point because you disliked where the source came from. I don't have anything else to add, just glad I got to witness the land speed record for inconsistency and intellectual dishonesty.

Of course you don't, because you did not read the original reply I made including the actual point justifying the dismissal, nor the bolded text in the very paragraph you quoted there where I restated the reason it was dismissed.

Since you missed it, here is why I dismissed the article they linked again:

The article from snopes was discussing the writer's personal conspiracy theory, not anything factually proven.

But, please, do go on about being intellectual dishonest.

Zontar:
In a sane world Peterson never would have risen to where he is now in society at large, he's just have been remembered as one of the most respective and cited psychologists of our time.

Jordan B Peterson
All
Citations 10148

https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=wL1F22UAAAAJ&hl=en

I require context for this statement. I suspect it's inaccurate.

runic knight:

CheetoDust:

runic knight:

Would you like articles that talk about this that you will likely casually hand-wave away because you dislike where they come from, or would you like specific examples of editorializing or bias in rulings that you likely will claim are the exception and not the norm? Honestly, I am not too driven to provide either for you to back up a passing comment that prefaced the entirety of the problem with their article itself that you chose to ignore addressing: that being the entire article was an appealing to conspiracy theory. The irony of that being that such a blatantly biased editorializing called up from the site sort of shows my point about them in the first place and why they are viewed as biased as well.

This is your response to someone pointing out that you hand-waved a point because you disliked where the source came from. I don't have anything else to add, just glad I got to witness the land speed record for inconsistency and intellectual dishonesty.

Of course you don't, because you did not read the original reply I made including the actual point justifying the dismissal, nor the bolded text in the very paragraph you quoted there where I restated the reason it was dismissed.

Since you missed it, here is why I dismissed the article they linked again:

The article from snopes was discussing the writer's personal conspiracy theory, not anything factually proven.

But, please, do go on about being intellectual dishonest.

Are we talking about the Jones website going down/ Snopes fact check from a few pages ago?

Becuase, and I'm trying here, you're refusing to provide evidence of Snopes nafariousness based on that particular articles dishonesty (the one with conspiracy theory in it that should alert people to its nature.) Have I got that right?

Kwak:

Jordan B Peterson
All
Citations 10148

https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=wL1F22UAAAAJ&hl=en

I require context for this statement. I suspect it's inaccurate.

Contextually, it's even more complex than that.

Citations can differ from one source to another, depending on what that sources recognise as material suitable for a citation to "count". You'd also often want to remove review articles, because review articles can rack up lots of citations without being actual research output.

One way or another, 10k is definitely impressive. I've scanned through Peterson's output, and not that many are reviews, either. On the downside for Peterson, I might note that a heavy majority of his most cited works were 10-20 years ago; it appears he's gone off the boil a bit in the last decade.

runic knight:

CheetoDust:

runic knight:

Would you like articles that talk about this that you will likely casually hand-wave away because you dislike where they come from, or would you like specific examples of editorializing or bias in rulings that you likely will claim are the exception and not the norm? Honestly, I am not too driven to provide either for you to back up a passing comment that prefaced the entirety of the problem with their article itself that you chose to ignore addressing: that being the entire article was an appealing to conspiracy theory. The irony of that being that such a blatantly biased editorializing called up from the site sort of shows my point about them in the first place and why they are viewed as biased as well.

This is your response to someone pointing out that you hand-waved a point because you disliked where the source came from. I don't have anything else to add, just glad I got to witness the land speed record for inconsistency and intellectual dishonesty.

Of course you don't, because you did not read the original reply I made including the actual point justifying the dismissal, nor the bolded text in the very paragraph you quoted there where I restated the reason it was dismissed.

Since you missed it, here is why I dismissed the article they linked again:

The article from snopes was discussing the writer's personal conspiracy theory, not anything factually proven.

But, please, do go on about being intellectual dishonest.

You claimed snopes is notoriously unreliable and now refuse to back that up because citations in defense of you hand-waving a citation will be hand-waved.

runic knight:
Since you missed it, here is why I dismissed the article they linked again:

The article from snopes was discussing the writer's personal conspiracy theory, not anything factually proven.

Well, let's look at the article in question.

Now, assuming I have the correct article, I have two questions for you. If you'd be so kind.

1. Which parts of this article are not factually proven?
2. Which parts of this article are discussing the writer's personal conspiracy theory?

trunkage:
Are we talking about the Jones website going down/ Snopes fact check from a few pages ago?

Becuase, and I'm trying here, you're refusing to provide evidence of Snopes nafariousness based on that particular articles dishonesty (the one with conspiracy theory in it that should alert people to its nature.) Have I got that right?

Being not reliable is not the same as being nefarious.

As for the conspiracy theory, the theory was Obsidians, who linked the article in support of said theory.

CheetoDust:
You claimed snopes is notoriously unreliable and now refuse to back that up because citations in defense of you hand-waving a citation will be hand-waved.

Once again, you missed the reason for the dismissal, be it intentional or not, and now you actively misrepresent my dismissal as simply handwaving (it was not), despite it being there from the beginning why it was dismissed.

Jones (Obsidian, not alex) made the claim "I'm thinking it's more of a stunt to get more people to download his app" and linked the article to support that claim. The article in no way supports that conspiracy theory. Sort of why I replied to it with "I see no reason for your posting it at all, especially when it is literally nothing more than a conspiracy theory rather than a story with something solid behind it to begin with." after the initial remark about snopes being unreliable when it comes to certain political topics. Oddly, more people are concerned with the remark about their reliability than with the actual reason the article was dismissed: it held no support or relevance to Obsidian's claims.

bastardofmelbourne:

Now, assuming I have the correct article, I have two questions for you. If you'd be so kind.

1. Which parts of this article are not factually proven?
2. Which parts of this article are discussing the writer's personal conspiracy theory?

1. The article has many facts, but none of them relate to prove obsidianjone's conspiracy theory that it was an intentional stunt to get more people to download his app.
2. The article in no way supports the Obsidianjone's conspiracy theory with anything factual to justify it. My addressing multiple users replying to this single point at once has made it a little more confusing than I meant to, especially with multiple days between replying the first time and my wording of it as the writer of the article held this perspective was my mistake. Obsidian had the conspiracy theory and the article did not. The article, in not supporting his claim, was dismissed for not proving his claim in any regard.

Agema:

Samtemdo8:
What is this "Island" both of you were talking about?

Considering Montreal comes up a lot in those users' threads, I'd guess this island: i.e. the city centre of Montreal.

While South Shore are the suburbs at, well, the river's southern shore.

image

OT: Although I'm not a fan of Alex Jones getting unbanned from Twitter; I'm totally on board with Trump critics getting unblocked on Twitter.

runic knight:
1. The article has many facts, but none of them relate to prove obsidianjone's conspiracy theory that it was an intentional stunt to get more people to download his app.
2. The article in no way supports the Obsidianjone's conspiracy theory with anything factual to justify it. My addressing multiple users replying to this single point at once has made it a little more confusing than I meant to, especially with multiple days between replying the first time and my wording of it as the writer of the article held this perspective was my mistake. Obsidian had the conspiracy theory and the article did not. The article, in not supporting his claim, was dismissed for not proving his claim in any regard.

So if the issue was that the cited source did not adequately support the claim, why did you criticise the credibility of the source?

I think I see what's happened here. ObsidianJones stated his belief that Alex Jones was taking his own website up and down to drum up subscriptions to his mobile app. He cited a Snopes article that, as we've agreed, contained no actual factual errors, but which also didn't directly accuse Alex Jones of staging the thing for publicity, since there's no proof of that. That particular deduction was added by ObsidianJones.

You looked at his post, checked the URL, saw "Snopes", didn't click through to read the actual article, and assumed that the Snopes article was the one making the accusation that Alex Jones was staging his website outages. You then dismissed Snopes as a "notoriously" unreliable source with "a history of bias" in their rulings, and described the article as "literally nothing more than a conspiracy theory" - without actually having read it.

Then some other posters caught onto that and started asking why you consider Snopes an unreliable source, you finally get around to actually reading the article, and you realise that it doesn't say what you'd assumed it said. Suddenly it's very obvious to everyone that you didn't actually read the article in the first place, so you're backtracking to the point you should have been making to start with, which is that the Snopes article didn't fully support what ObsidianJones was saying.

Depending on your wording - it's ambiguous - this may or may not involve you actually attempting to retcon your own statements by claiming that when you said "the writer" in relation to the article, you actually meant the poster who was citing the article, not the author of the article. That would be a super weird way to word the sentence even if it was what you meant, which is why I'm hesitant to accuse you of making such a claim - it would be such a pathetically obvious backflip that only a doofus would try and pull it off. I'm assuming you're not a doofus, and that rather what has happened here is that you made the simple mistake of not checking a cited source before criticising it, spoke in error as a result, and have now shifted gears in response to that error.

Am I right so far?

Jesus Christ, I'm being discussed.

bastardofmelbourne:
I think I see what's happened here. ObsidianJones stated his belief that Alex Jones was taking his own website up and down to drum up subscriptions to his mobile app. He cited a Snopes article that, as we've agreed, contained no actual factual errors, but which also didn't directly accuse Alex Jones of staging the thing for publicity, since there's no proof of that. That particular deduction was added by ObsidianJones.

You looked at his post, checked the URL, saw "Snopes", didn't click through to read the actual article, and assumed that the Snopes article was the one making the accusation that Alex Jones was staging his website outages. You then dismissed Snopes as a "notoriously" unreliable source with "a history of bias" in their rulings, and described the article as "literally nothing more than a conspiracy theory" - without actually having read it.

Then some other posters caught onto that and started asking why you consider Snopes an unreliable source, you finally get around to actually reading the article, and you realise that it doesn't say what you'd assumed it said. Suddenly it's very obvious to everyone that you didn't actually read the article in the first place, so you're backtracking to the point you should have been making to start with, which is that the Snopes article didn't fully support what ObsidianJones was saying

If I may? Never said 'Here is Snopes to prove everything I'm saying is the God's honest. I said I thought. And then I posted the snopes page because it was literally the biggest repository of Alex Jones' own tweets fear-mongering and pleading with people to get his app.

Like, I don't know if anyone noticed, but I never know how to embed tweets. So anything that has the most tweets to something, I'll link, and I'll quote important tweets.

Anyway, It's an opinion in which I said "I think" first. Then I showed why I thought that. It's an opinion by things I've observed. Not directed to you, Bastard, but how many other ways do I have to put 'I think', 'I suppose', 'I can't be sure, but...', 'There's a possibility that this is correct...' before people don't jump the gun and say "THIS DOESN'T PROVE WHAT YOU'RE SAYING COMPLETELY SO IT IS ALL INVALIDED AND HERE IS YOUR ASSIGNED SCORN FOR NOT MEETING MY EXACTING STANDARDS?!"

Alex Jones is finally honing in on who is behind for the whole "gay frogs" situation

Look at the way Marco responds. It's obvious to me who's responsible.

When it comes to Jones, the only thing that can be done is shitpost. And wait for those lawsuits to take their toll.

CM156:
Alex Jones is finally honing in on who is behind for the whole "gay frogs" situation

Look at the way Marco responds. It's obvious to me who's responsible.

Are you implying that Marco Rubio is gay? That seems just obviously incorrect.

BreakfastMan:

CM156:
Alex Jones is finally honing in on who is behind for the whole "gay frogs" situation

Look at the way Marco responds. It's obvious to me who's responsible.

Are you implying that Marco Rubio is gay? That seems just obviously incorrect.

I'm implying that he's part of the deep state that's turning the frogs gay.

CM156:
Alex Jones is finally honing in on who is behind for the whole "gay frogs" situation

Look at the way Marco responds. It's obvious to me who's responsible.

When it comes to Jones, the only thing that can be done is shitpost. And wait for those lawsuits to take their toll.

Swooped. Also, I've heard some complaints about how Rubio didn't answer any questions from Jones. I said to them Rubio seemed to be saying the Facebook was within their rights but wished they would listen to their customers. I thought was definitely answering Jones question, but as normal with Jones, it's not a real answer unless it aligns with his own ideology.

Also, how does Rubio not know who Jones is? And how does not wanting to be touch by another man make you gay? (I don't need an answer to the last one, I know Jones is stupid)

So he's now permenantly banned from Twitter?

https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/people/alex-jones#twitter-ban

trunkage:
Also, how does Rubio not know who Jones is?

Regarding your first question, the distinction here is that of knowing of someone and knowing them.

Outside sorts of established interactions such as shaking hands in greeting, don't invade the personal space of people that you don't have a sufficiently developed personal relationship with. Rubio knows who Jones is, he's saying they aren't any sort of friend.

The way Jones puts his hand on his back is a gesture that implies cameraderie and friendship, which clearly does not exist (it's obvious from the video Rubio despises him). It might just be social ineptitude on Jones' part, but at worst it's a deliberate power play precisely where Jones is trying to assert he can do it. Thus Rubio, I think, was right to put Jones in his place and make clear Jones does not have the social position to touch him.

 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