Alex Jones and Social Media Censorship

Discussion in 'General Discussion' started by Saint Cy of JFC, Aug 8, 2018.

  1. babe

    babe Well-Known Member

    10,447
    829
    203
    Dec 7, 2010
    Pretty liberal news sources. Biased?

    divorce is nasty business. There's custody to fight for, and money. Austin is a very liberal island in Texas. I'd wonder if his problems aren't being exploited some.

    As for "playing a character", I've always considered that a possibility.

    So, if you're a CIA analyst...or KGB analyst.... or work for NSA or whatnot in "intelligence", you are trained to question everything, and hide everything. You question every aspect of the "enemy", or even your "friends", and you just obscure and deny everything about yourself. It's very unsettling to go to one of those guys to get a straight answer. They are dodgey on autopilot.

    Then, if you're an agenda wonk for any cause, it's your job to get out there with any bit of ammo, rhetorically speaking, that can be worked to your cause's promotion. This is what I see in JazzFanz by all of the core contributors. yah, well, some are true "fellow travelers" just riding the train.

    How come nobody here actually cares what the truth is?

    The truth will wear its way through most of the hype we can muster in politics.

    "conspiracy theorist" was a CIA-promoted tool against normal Americans who might have objected to former Nazi scientists or officials who showed up here after the war, in service of our country. Like thousands of talented folks who showed up in Russian labs and intelligence agencies as well. It was engineered as a slur to shut down speculation, or even factual reporting.

    Senator McCarthy was a sort with a similar psychology to Alex Jones, and it was pretty tough to shut him down. But with the opening of records from Russia, it was found he was right about most of his assertions, after all. Even John F. Kennedy had a doctor, "Dr. Feel-Good" who was a Russian agent. Moscow thought they had a clear channel to predict JFK. But somehow, even with all the sources they had, they did not actually control him. Even with all the meds.

    Hillary indirectly solicited and paid for Russian help to smear Trump. She and Bill collected millions in payola fromRussia in exchange for very lucrative gains for the Russkies. But hey, look, Trump might have tried to do something but we just can't prove it, yet.

    Practical reality is just simple. There are always gonna be folks trying to influence government inordinately, domestic and foreign. Our "press" today is a compromised part of the mess.

    An "performance artist" or "character actor" playing the patriot is something a lot of people wanna see and hear, but it is practically impossible for any human to be sincere in it, or informed in that role. And there will always be extraordinary efforts to knock out anyone who tries.

    the big money isn't in it.
     
  2. Red

    Red Well-Known Member

    3,197
    893
    148
    Mar 17, 2015
    Actually, what I did not realize is that Jones went on the air the very next day and strongly disavowed his attorney's claim that Jones was a "performance artist".
     
  3. NPC D4617

    NPC D4617 Well-Known Member

    20,031
    2,478
    263
    Aug 10, 2012
    I first caught Alex Jones when YouTube first came out. I went down the rabbit hole of conspiracies and there he was. He was selling all sorts of conspiracies that I had never heard before. The big one was 911. It was hard not getting into that. He was entertaining somehwat for a while. Ive never liked his voice or style really. It was just some conspiracy porn I guess. But he got old pretty fast. It bacame clear after a while that he was just throwing anything and everything at the wall to see what would stick. Everything was a conspiracy. It became pretty ridiculous. So I quit listening. Even though I think he makes up a lot of stuff I think there is a chance he is right about 20% or so of the alleged conspiracies he throws out there. Hes like this weird encyclopedia of random crazy stuff you dont hear from anyone else.

    As far as him being far right, I think its a load of crap. Anyone who ever caught him before Trump and Obama knows thats nonsense. He's been bagging on the Republican party for a long time. To him Trump is what Trump is to a lot of people, Anti-establishment. When Bush was in office Alex was more aligned with the left because the left was the conspiracy nuts back then. Alex is just conspiracy nut and the conspiracies are connected to a lot of the right wing now because of Trump being anti-establishment and simultaneously being on the Republican ticket. I really think its about that simple. Thats how I have watched it develop over the years.

    The left is just slapping the far right label on anyone who supports Trump without actually thinking about the many different reasons why someone might support Trump. They do the same with racist label, sexist label, homophobic label, etc.. Its a cheap and lazy tactic. Its propaganda being pushed by people with media power onto gullable and easily angered dumb people. If you ask people what are all the things Alex Jones stands for or what has he said, most people couldn't give you anything over 1% of that information. Its just like @Gameface claiming he is telling all these lies, yet I guarantee he hasnt spent more than a few minutes ever listening to him. He gets all his hatred for him from you guessed it, the propaganda news he listens to. Pretty much everything @Gameface has to say about Alex Jones or any other person on this forum who hates him is just parroting something they heard.

    Should Alex Jones be censored? **** no. He has every right to tell fictional stories as any other person. Start standing up for human rights, for real you ****ing douche bag leftist commies bitches.
     
  4. candrew

    candrew Well-Known Member

    7,162
    1,760
    228
    May 29, 2010

    I'm not quite sure what this argument has morphed into; but access to Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, and other social media platforms are not human rights. They're all online entities that grant you access to their services as long as you follow their terms and conditions.

    Did Jason violate DutchJazz's human rights when he banned him from JFC?
     
    Last edited: Jul 9, 2019
    JazzGal, Stoked and The Thriller like this.
  5. Red

    Red Well-Known Member

    3,197
    893
    148
    Mar 17, 2015
    If someone yells fire in a crowded theater, there is a chance someone will be injured in the likely ensuing stampede. I don't think we protect that type of "free speech". I think we should hold responsible anyone who would deliberately trigger something that causes injury to other human beings. In this episode of This American Life, we learn of how one father was affected by Jones' Sandy Hook fiction. I should think Jones should be held responsible for triggering this degree of harm on a human being. I don't understand why saying what Jones did is despicable and he should not be allowed to do this, should not be provided a platform to hurt other human beings this way, would make me or anyone else a "****ing douche bag leftist communist bitch". I should think it would instead make me a thinking, feeling human being with some degree of empathy and compassion for a father who does not deserve this, on top of the murder of his child.

    All this talk about free speech and censorship, yet it seems to me that you argue from the position of someone who simply does not understand the difference between right and wrong.
    Instead I'm a "douche bag leftist communist bitch". That's really ****** up, man.

    https://www.thisamericanlife.org/670/beware-the-jabberwock
     
    fishonjazz likes this.
  6. The Thriller

    The Thriller Well-Known Member

    15,746
    2,389
    263
    Jun 8, 2010
    If you nutcake InfoWar people want to listen to your scumbag echo chamber, create your own Facebook or twitter. And with that platform you can create your own set of rules and guidelines. It’s still a free country!

    The first amendment is still applicable here. Facebook and twitter have a right to set their rules. If you violate their rules and become banned, that’s fine. You can create your own social media platform. The first amendment doesn’t give you immunity from consequences of violating Facebook’s and Twitter’s rules.

    Go ahead @babe and @hack create your own twitterverse. If you nutcakes think your views are so popular, create your own platform and become a billionaire, like Zuckerberg. What better way to get back at that leftist commie millennial PC meanie head? Get off your lazy asses, stop bitching, put your superior race into action, and be the solution.

    You can call your platform after something representative of you. Here are some ideas:“The Stormer”, “Nazi Book”, “Deplorables R Us”, “Butthurt Morons Jealous of AOC”, “Sexually Frustrated White Dudes Living in their Parent’s Basement”, “Desperate for Attention,” “Dreamin of a 3some with Pepe and Cassandra Fairbanks”, or “Twits.”

    You’ll be rich in no time and you won’t have to be bothered with any leftist commies! Yay!
     
    Last edited: Jul 9, 2019
    fishonjazz likes this.
  7. One Brow

    One Brow Well-Known Member

    12,360
    1,556
    228
    May 26, 2010
    I believe babe recently visited Gab, and found it not to his liking.
     
    The Thriller likes this.
  8. The Thriller

    The Thriller Well-Known Member

    15,746
    2,389
    263
    Jun 8, 2010
    Womp womp.

    But Hey it’s not for everyone.

    that’s why a First amendment loving Babe should pull himself up by his own bootstraps and start his own social media platform. If he makes it good enough, he’ll become rich! What better way to stick it to PC billionaire leftist capitalist commies than creating a better social media platform?

    Freedom!
     
    Last edited: Jul 9, 2019
  9. Stoked

    Stoked Well-Known Member Contributor 2018 Award Winner

    38,600
    5,321
    388
    Dec 13, 2011
    I just want to point out that you’ve done a fantastic job at refuting a point when your two likes are @The Thriller and I.
     
    candrew, The Thriller and Jazzta like this.
  10. Harambe

    Harambe Well-Known Member Contributor

    6,303
    802
    198
    May 26, 2010
    He sure did. He's just another liberal hippie with an anti-conservative bias against white males
     
  11. Jazzta

    Jazzta Well-Known Member

    2,132
    1,253
    218
    Jul 25, 2017
    The Thriller and Stoked coming together as one. The end is near.
     
    NPC D4617, The Thriller and Stoked like this.
  12. Stoked

    Stoked Well-Known Member Contributor 2018 Award Winner

    38,600
    5,321
    388
    Dec 13, 2011
    Strike one!
     
    The Thriller and Harambe like this.
  13. The Thriller

    The Thriller Well-Known Member

    15,746
    2,389
    263
    Jun 8, 2010
    Lol
     
    Stoked likes this.
  14. The Thriller

    The Thriller Well-Known Member

    15,746
    2,389
    263
    Jun 8, 2010
    He’s also a globalist leftist. You forgot those two labels. Liberal hippie globalist leftist.
     
    Stoked and Harambe like this.
  15. Harambe

    Harambe Well-Known Member Contributor

    6,303
    802
    198
    May 26, 2010
    You are correct! My apologies, and thank you for having my back!
     
  16. The Thriller

    The Thriller Well-Known Member

    15,746
    2,389
    263
    Jun 8, 2010
    Just doin my part to help!

    82B6EF97-DBBE-44AA-AC59-A08376BBD2B4.jpeg
     
    Jazzta likes this.
  17. NPC D4617

    NPC D4617 Well-Known Member

    20,031
    2,478
    263
    Aug 10, 2012
    A few things here..

    Im sure you all would agree that anti-discrimination laws are a good thing right? We dont like when businesses discriminate against certain people right?

    Facebook, YouTube, and Twitter are all monopolies right? Do we all agree with that? Im sure we all do because its not even an argument. Are we now ok with monopolies?

    Can we agree that these big tech companies have become a piblic square of sorts now? Because they kind of have.

    Are the companies publishers or platforms? That's something that needs to be sorted out.
    https://www.city-journal.org/html/platform-or-publisher-15888.html


    What his hate speech? What is offensive? Who decides these things? Where is the line drawn? Who decides what the truth is?

    These are complicated issues. Its not as cut and dry as go get your own big tech company if you dont like it. You guys just dont care now because its working in your favor or to your liking. Thats a bad idea to be ok with such things.

    People want to make the case that Alex Jones is getting crazy people to harrass Sandy Hook families. Well its just as easy to argue that "sensationalism" news outlets like CNN are creating riots in the streets by stirring up emotions in crazy people. None of you seem to care about that. Why are they allowed to do that?
     
  18. Harambe

    Harambe Well-Known Member Contributor

    6,303
    802
    198
    May 26, 2010
    A non-government company can do as they please. And they're going to. Banned? suck it. Don't like someone banned? Don't use the service.
     
  19. NPC D4617

    NPC D4617 Well-Known Member

    20,031
    2,478
    263
    Aug 10, 2012
    So you are ok with a store serving whites only?
     
  20. Harambe

    Harambe Well-Known Member Contributor

    6,303
    802
    198
    May 26, 2010
    That's not the case at all. I will be happy to leverage the only power I have; not giving them my business.
     

Share This Page