Alex Jones and Social Media Censorship

[Harambe]

https://www.voanews.com/usa/report-fbi-doj-deprioritize-investigating-far-right-violence

Come on, man! He wouldn't have figured it out if you hadn't told him.

 

[Archie Moses]

Right, you don't care that they are fighting against a group that glorifies in physical violence, you just care that they are fighting.

I don't promote any group that glorifies violence just like I don't support any group that beats the **** out of a journalist. It's pretty simple, really.

I can draw lines as well. I don't support either side, but recognize the side that glorifies violence, and the reporters who support them (such as Ngo), are the bigger problem.

Apparently, you do draw a line and support one side.
In other words, you're saying that Ngo's journalism is more dangerous than a masked crowded gang beating him until his brain hemorrhages. Saying this does not mean you support Ngo, his journalism, or the far right. It's just commen sense.

I believe you have confused Heather Clark (a much less-publicized case, still OK despite a neck fracture) with Heather Heyer (who was killed, but not by a Proud Boy).

Yes, I confused the Heathers (especially since you brought up Ferguson.) What I don't understand is you saying, "I don't care when Heather had her cervical vertebrae broken? Like, what part from anything I've said lead you to make that conclusion? Is it the part where I don't like for group violence? I don't know many, saying "I don't care" is a POS move.

You're so caught up on you're either on Team Edward or Team Jacob.

 

[Archie Moses]

What do you think of the FBI and DOJ deprioritizing extremists?

I think that any group that is violent and politically motivated is a terrorist organization and should be a priority to be shut down.

I support the first amendment. People can say mean things without people reacting violently. Once any group starts enticing violence, or using violence to intimidate or suppress, they're a threat that needs to be shut down.

In other words, **** the far right terrorists, **** the far left terrorists and everyone terrorist in between.

 

[One Brow]

I don't promote any group that glorifies violence just like I don't support any group that beats the **** out of a journalist. It's pretty simple, really.

Yet, you only discuss the violence from one side, unless specifically prompted.

Apparently, you do draw a line and support one side.
In other words, you're saying that Ngo's journalism is more dangerous than a masked crowded gang beating him until his brain hemorrhages. Saying this does not mean you support Ngo, his journalism, or the far right. It's just commen sense.

Ngo does not seem to be an impartial reporter. He's a man with an agenda, who also does citizen reporting that aligns to that agenda, and deliberately put himself in the middle of the confrontation.

Yes, I confused the Heathers (especially since you brought up Ferguson.) What I don't understand is you saying, "I don't care when Heather had her cervical vertebrae broken? Like, what part from anything I've said lead you to make that conclusion? Is it the part where I don't like for group violence? I don't know many, saying "I don't care" is a POS move.

The part where your only focus is on less serious injuries done by Antifa, and not on more serious injuries by the Proud Boys.

You're so caught up on you're either on Team Edward or Team Jacob.

My only interest in this conflict has been responding to your one-sided presentation, and your attempt to use it as evidence of bias against the right. Look to the plank in your own eye.

 

[Gameface]

My take, reaction and opinion on the proud boys and Gavin (I don't even know who he really) pretty much mimics Joe's and Tim's in the YouTube clip I posted. Watch that and tell me if you have a problem with it.

I'm really not big on watching youtube videos. I can read the same info in a fraction of the time. Can you summarize what the video says?

 

[Archie Moses]

Yet, you only discuss the violence from one side, unless specifically prompted.



Ngo does not seem to be an impartial reporter. He's a man with an agenda, who also does citizen reporting that aligns to that agenda, and deliberately put himself in the middle of the confrontation.



The part where your only focus is on less serious injuries done by Antifa, and not on more serious injuries by the Proud Boys.



My only interest in this conflict has been responding to your one-sided presentation, and your attempt to use it as evidence of bias against the right. Look to the plank in your own eye.

I'm really not big on watching youtube videos. I can read the same info in a fraction of the time. Can you summarize what the video says?

The video does such a better job than what I could write. Basically, it gives context and covers how the Proud Boys started out as a joke on a talk show, to what it become now, and how, often times, it's start has been misrepresented. Tim hounds the Twitter lawyer with questions about Twitter's double standards and media bias. Joe and Tim condemn the bad and inexcusable things McInnes does and says.

I'm not sure if you listen to podcasts or not. I love Joe Rogan's podcasts. He'll has everyone from some if the smartest person in the world, to interesting people, to comedians, to actors, to whoever. If you haven't listened, I highly recommend. Joe Rogan, for the most part, is pretty level headed. There's a reason he has the number one podcast in the world.

If you get a chance, listen to that 10 minute clip and tell me if you think of it. I respect your opinion and viewpoint a lot on social issues like this.

 

[Stoked]

Yet, you only discuss the violence from one side, unless specifically prompted.



Ngo does not seem to be an impartial reporter. He's a man with an agenda, who also does citizen reporting that aligns to that agenda, and deliberately put himself in the middle of the confrontation.



The part where your only focus is on less serious injuries done by Antifa, and not on more serious injuries by the Proud Boys.



My only interest in this conflict has been responding to your one-sided presentation, and your attempt to use it as evidence of bias against the right. Look to the plank in your own eye.

The bolded sounds like victim blaming. His assault is not mitigated because the dude is an ******* who believes ******* things.

No, it’s not vehicular murder. But that guy rightfully got life in prison, didn’t he? I think saw that story recently on the news.

Shouldn’t these guys face assault charges?

I do think there is bias against the right on some sites and platforms. Just as there is bias against the left on others. People generally identify with one side more than the other and so the side biased against the side they most identify with seems magnified. Even when they can see the pieces of **** on their own “side”.

 

[Gameface]

The video does such a better job than what I could write. Basically, it gives context and covers how the Proud Boys started out as a joke on a talk show, to what it become now, and how, often times, it's start has been misrepresented. Tim hounds the Twitter lawyer with questions about Twitter's double standards and media bias. Joe and Tim condemn the bad and inexcusable things McInnes does and says.

I'm not sure if you listen to podcasts or not. I love Joe Rogan's podcasts. He'll has everyone from some if the smartest person in the world, to interesting people, to comedians, to actors, to whoever. If you haven't listened, I highly recommend. Joe Rogan, for the most part, is pretty level headed. There's a reason he has the number one podcast in the world.

If you get a chance, listen to that 10 minute clip and tell me if you think of it. I respect your opinion and viewpoint a lot on social issues like this.

Those kinds of jokes... they aren't jokes.

 

[Archie Moses]

Those kinds of jokes... they aren't jokes.

I don't know what you're referencing. Jokes?

 

[Harambe]

I don't know what you're referencing. Jokes?

Its the part where you were like "Boys started out as a joke on a talk show"

And I'll disagree... They still are a joke. A really bad one that's not funny. Jokes alone can be hurtful and damaging. The roots of Antifa(although inexcusable now) were created in response to a culture of hate. Proud boys are rooted in whining about people stealing the cookies their predecessors took.

 

[Archie Moses]

Yet, you only discuss the violence from one side, unless specifically prompted.

I brought this up in reference to censorship with Twitter. It was relevant to the discussion. Specifically with what Tim Pool referenced in the video I posted above. Just because I posted this, by no means does it translate to I'm only willing to discuss violence on one side.

I'm not only willing, but I condemn it on both sides, Mr I Suppose.

Ngo does not seem to be an impartial reporter. He's a man with an agenda, who also does citizen reporting that aligns to that agenda, and deliberately put himself in the middle of the confrontation.

I'm sure he has an agenda. I'm sure he's bias. I'm sure he's rubbed people wrong. None of that is grounds for having a group beat him until his brain hemorrhages and rob him.

That **** doesn't even have to be brought up. It should go without saying. Journalists need to be protected regardless of whether you agree with them.

The part where your only focus is on less serious injuries done by Antifa, and not on more serious injuries by the Proud Boys.

ONLY? WTF are you talking about? I posted one example to make a point on censorship. You brought up different scenarios, I've discussed, acknowledged, and and condemned.

I'm not a child and make dumb points like, "yeah, but Timmy did this."

You're the guy doing that.

And yet, I've still discussed them. I don't think you know what, "only" means.


Lol

"Only"

Gawd damn it.

My only interest in this conflict has been responding to your one-sided presentation, and your attempt to use it as evidence of bias against the right. Look to the plank in your own eye.

You're blind or can't read if you think I have a one sided presentation. Remember, you're the guy making the case of why Ngo was beaten. I'm the guy saying that's wrong. Heather Clark being injured is wrong.



All that being said, I Googled Heather Clark. Looks like she lead a protest and destroyed property during one protest. Just so I'm not missing anything, or have more clarity, I found the video of her beating knocked out. I saw her attacking a group of guys who were retreating/back peddling (she was the only one being physically violent at the time too) then the video pans away, and then she falls into frame after being hit.

I don't know everything that happened that lead up to that. I do know attacking a group of people isn't the smartest thing to do if you don't want retaliation.

Can you clarify how, in your opinion, she was attacked? I'm clearly missing something from the video evidence.


From what I understand, this is her destroying property and disrupting a discussion people she disagreed. In other words, she likes censorship. Lol

The irony

 

[Archie Moses]

Its the part where you were like "Boys started out as a joke on a talk show"

And I'll disagree.

So is Joe Rogan lying about that? How did it start then?

That said, if it did or didn't start out that way, it makes no difference to me. If the guy says ****** things, has a ****** following and is reckless, he sounds like a pos to me.

 

[Getting Traded]

I certainly don't support his views on gun control, which he is against. But there have been times -- I haven't listened to many of his programs, just a few -- when I have agreed with the positions he advocates. If I recall it had to do with the JFK assassination and LBJ's involvement. But I don't understand why right-wingers would support conspiracy advocates who rightly in my opinion believe LBJ was complicit in the assassination. Not that he was the ringleader, but a co-conspirator. Ultimately, it was the CIA that masterminded the plot.

 

[Harambe]

So is Joe Rogan lying about that? How did it start then?

That said, if it did or didn't start out that way, it makes no difference to me. If the guy says ****** things, has a ****** following and is reckless, he sounds like a pos to me.

Listen to yourself. "So is Joe Rogan lying?"

Let me help you. "So is <insert social media warrior> lying?"

Take it a step further. "So, is <Ben Shapiro, Donald Trump, Mitch McConnell, Malcom X, Tupac Shakur> lying?"

I highly recommend educating yourself on all of the issues. I promise that Joe Rogan is not the be all end all of knowing the right thing. I can promise that, because there is no end all be all knowing the right thing.

Back to OB's point: Why white knight for proud boys? Doesn't it make more sense not to give either extremist 0 air rather than stoke the fire to try to balance the equation out? Do you really think you're capable of always balancing it?

I'm sure you think it's perfectly innocent, and that you are doing the right thing. Why am I so sure? You're just not smart enough to be trolling.

 

[Archie Moses]

Listen to yourself. "So is Joe Rogan lying?"

Let me help you. "So is <insert social media warrior> lying?"

Take it a step further. "So, is <Ben Shapiro, Donald Trump, Mitch McConnell, Malcom X, Tupac Shakur> lying?"

I highly recommend educating yourself on all of the issues. I promise that Joe Rogan is not the be all end all of knowing the right thing. I can promise that, because there is no end all be all knowing the right thing.

Back to OB's point: Why white knight for proud boys? Doesn't it make more sense not to give either extremist 0 air rather than stoke the fire to try to balance the equation out? Do you really think you're capable of always balancing it?

I'm sure you think it's perfectly innocent, and that you are doing the right thing. Why am I so sure? You're just not smart enough to be trolling.

Lol

Listen to yourself.

I looked up what Joe Rogan said. It's the truth. You said you disagreed and didn't back up your statement. I ask for what you're basing it on, and you flip it on me and again provide nothing.

The **** you guys argue too are pointless. I agree @Gameface nothing about the proud boys is a joke/funny. That said, arguing that it start as a joke on a talk show and saying "you disagree" is silly and baseless.

To translate this into me somehow white knighting for the proud boys is laughable.

Again, I brought this whole example up to back up the claim Tim Pool was making with Twitter. They are run with a leftist bias, have double standards and have a history of one sided censorship. If you don't understand the dangers of this then I'm wasting my time.


Lol "I disagree with how the group started."

Gawd damn it.

 

[Harambe]

Lol

Listen to yourself.

I looked up what Joe Rogan said. It's the truth. You said you disagreed and didn't back up your statement. I ask for what you're basing it on, and you flip it on me and again provide nothing.

The **** you guys argue too are pointless. I agree @Gameface nothing about the proud boys is a joke/funny. That said, arguing that it start as a joke on a talk show and saying "you disagree" is silly and baseless.

To translate this into me somehow white knighting for the proud boys is laughable.

Again, I brought this whole example up to back up the claim Tim Pool was making with Twitter. They are run with a leftist bias, have double standards and have a history of one sided censorship. If you don't understand the dangers of this then I'm wasting my time.


Lol "I disagree with how the group started."

Gawd damn it.

"lawl u first, lawl"

Back to OB's point: Why white knight for proud boys? Doesn't it make more sense not to give either extremist 0 air rather than stoke the fire to try to balance the equation out? Do you really think you're capable of always balancing it?

 

[Archie Moses]

"lawl u first, lawl"

You're not capable of having a conversation.
Me: **** the Proud Boys. I condemn them.
Me: Proud Boys started as a joke *posts a video of Joe Rogan explaining how it started* - a point that was relevant to censorship.
You: I disagree that it started as a joke.
Me: Are you calling Joe a liar? What are you basing that on?
You: You believe people online so you're obviously wrong. You're white knighting the pbs.
Me: saying you disagree is silly and baseless. What a dumb thing to argue about. Don't translate this to mean *insert your buzzwords you say when you don't have an argument.
You: lawl - white knighting - I don't have an argument so I'll just say you're white knighting again. Stop white knighting. Pbz are bad. You are bad. You don't care about Heather. Nazi. Racists. Alt right.


Gtfo.


Gawd damn it. I cant any more.

 

[Harambe]

You're not capable of having a conversation.
Me: **** the Proud Boys. I condemn them.
Me: Proud Boys started as a joke *posts a video of Joe Rogan explaining how it started* - a point that was relevant to censorship.
You: I disagree that it started as a joke.
Me: Are you calling Joe a liar? What are you basing that on?
You: You believe people online so you're obviously wrong. You're white knighting the pbs.
Me: saying you disagree is silly and baseless. What a dumb thing to argue about. Don't translate this to mean *insert your buzzwords you say when you don't have an argument.
You: lawl - white knighting - I don't have an argument so I'll just say you're white knighting again. Stop white knighting. Pbz are bad. You are bad. You don't care about Heather. Nazi. Racists. Alt right.


Gtfo.


Gawd damn it. I cant any more.

LAWL U FIRST LAWL

Back to OB's point: Why white knight for proud boys? Doesn't it make more sense not to give either extremist 0 air rather than stoke the fire to try to balance the equation out? Do you really think you're capable of always balancing it?

Do you really think I'd forgotten when you'd agree to answer my first question? Even after I acquiesced? On more than one occasion?

You're looking Cleveland Cavaliers thin right now.

 

[Archie Moses]

LAWL U FIRST LAWL



Do you really think I'd forgotten when you'd agree to answer my first question? Even after I acquiesced? On more than one occasion?

You're looking Cleveland Cavaliers thin right now.

Quantify how mad you are that I'm still balling and have the ball?

Go home, kid. The ball is always going to be mine.


Lawl U LOSE

 

[Harambe]

Answer my question first

This one here. You never answered my question after obliteration of yours. You're only following your own train thought, which is to say the one up someone else's head that's already in the direction of his own ***.

Quantify how mad you are that I'm still balling and have the ball?

Go home, kid. The ball is always going to be mine.


Lawl U LOSE

Back to OB's point: Why white knight for proud boys? Doesn't it make more sense not to give either extremist 0 air rather than stoke the fire to try to balance the equation out? Do you really think you're capable of always balancing it?