# The curtain call for Alex Jones?



## Bentaycanada (Aug 15, 2018)

Alex appears to be in the news a lot these days. It seems that his mouth has finally got the better of him.

A lot of social media sites are dropping him, and from what I hear he’s facing several lawsuits.

Having met Alex very briefly in 2011, before he went alt-right batshit. He was pretty much what you’d expect; loud, outspoken, but also very funny.

I enjoyed several of his documentaries a decade back, they were always fairly far fetched, but also very interesting at the same time. I never watched his show, or the weekly radio show, just never had the patients for it.

Safe to say I lost interest when he went all pro Trump / Alt Right a few years ago. It just didn’t make sense given all his productions prior, but then as things unfolded I came to realize he’d found a new niche and (for a while) it appeared to be going well for him. Even though I lost interest, I could see how there was money to be made in this new wave of the Alt Right and there still is, which is why I think he made that move.

I think back to that appearance he made on the Pierce Morgan show, and at the time I couldn’t believe that someone let him on tv! In hindsight that was a small ripple in the pond compared to today.

Anyways, it appears to be coming apart for him now, and in all likelihood it was probably always heading this way.


----------



## possumkiller (Aug 15, 2018)

Well, I hope you get the patients that you needed. What did you need the patients for, anyway? What were you planning to do to them? Force them to watch the TV show and listen to the radio show?


----------



## Randy (Aug 15, 2018)

I used the anaolgy elsewhere but this once again seems like an 'Icarus flying too close to the sun' type scenario. 

I'll agree I've always gotten a kick out of conspiracy stuff, mostly because it was a mashup up of interesting factoids from history, some kind of dark fantasy type storylines and a healthy dose of the absurd. I'm pretty strictly an Occam's Razor guy but sometimes it's funny to see how bloated and overcomplicated the alternative explanation can be. Its also a fun escape from the mundane.

Jones was always a little too quick to see how to put outlandish conspirscies into a Libertarian 'the government is trying to kill you' way that's less fantastical and more paranoid. I think I was totally done with him or the people in his orbit when he shifted into talking about how David Icke is insane and the only thing we need to be talking about are his brand of survival rations and male enhancement pills. It's been kind of a slow transition into pitching himself for a Fox News hosting job over the last 8 or so years, so the 'rah rah' Trump stuff didn't come as much of a surprise.

That said, yeah, I think everyone's euologizing Jones a little too soon. His brand thrives off of the whole "I'm too edgy for 'The Man' to let me share my product with you" thing (see also: Kevin Trudeau), so the more he gets banned, the more curious SOME people will get to find him. But what is ultimately going to kill his career are posters like the OP and myself who think he's no longer funny or entetaining but just pandering to a surpringly mainstream audience now. "I'm being chastized for supporting the President of the United States!" So edgy! What a martyr. Yawn.

Lee Ann MacDoo is a smokeshow though.


----------



## USMarine75 (Aug 15, 2018)

Randy said:


> I used the anaolgy elsewhere but this once again seems like an 'Icarus flying too close to the sun' type scenario.
> 
> I'll agree I've always gotten a kick out of conspiracy stuff, mostly because it was a mashup up of interesting factoids from history, some kind of dark fantasy type storylines and a healthy dose of the absurd. I'm pretty strictly an Occam's Razor guy but sometimes it's funny to see how bloated and overcomplicated the alternative explanation can be. Its also a fun escape from the mundane.
> 
> ...





Why the hate?

Regarding conspiracy theory goodness, check out:
https://www.veteranstoday.com/
[Spoiler: the Jews did it...]


----------



## Drew (Aug 15, 2018)

I'm watching this closely, for reasons that have very little to do with Jones himself. 

We're in what's increasingly been called a "post-truth age" wherein entertainment and news have gotten blurry (ironically, it's probably guys like John Stewart and Steven Colbert responsible for this, when they decided to make late night comedy about serious, factual issues, in a _defense _of the importance of truth, but that's neither here nor there) and we've become accustomed to just assuming that our news outlets are going to heavily filter the content they choose to present, to appeal to their "consumers," to advance a certain partisan agenda, or both. Jones is probably at the vanguard of that movement, where he's pushing outlandish conspiracy theories like 9/11 being an insider job, Sandy Hook was a false flag operation, the pizza shop pedophilia ring, etc. He's then used the defense that he's just an entertainer, playing a part, to try to distance himself from the fallout of his actions. 

So, what we're seeing now is a test of that idea - does a public figure ostentatiously claiming to be a news source and telling the truth (and Jones is currently seeking donations because "money is the jet fuel that propels the jets that drop truth-bombs," or some such crap, so he's clearly making some claim to speaking truth) have any responsibility to actually _try_ to tell the truth and be factually honest, and if they don't, do they have any responsibility for the actions of those who misunderstand their intentions and think they actually _are _being truthful? For example, in light of the sheer weight of the evidence to the contrary, can Alex Jones claim that Sandy Hook was a false flag operation by the left to build support for gun laws carried out by child actors? If so, do the parents of a victim of the shooting have standing to sue him because even after moving 9 times in the subsequent five years, they're still having death threats mailed to them, because Jones keeps sharing their new address and egging his listeners on every time they move? 

Basically, it's a question of what sort of relationship with the truth do we as a society want to have, and what sort of standard for intellectual honesty we expect of our public figures. By all accounts we're at at least a near term low in that respect, so it's going to be interesting to see where we go from here.


----------



## Bentaycanada (Aug 15, 2018)

Drew said:


> I'm watching this closely, for reasons that have very little to do with Jones himself.
> 
> We're in what's increasingly been called a "post-truth age" wherein entertainment and news have gotten blurry (ironically, it's probably guys like John Stewart and Steven Colbert responsible for this, when they decided to make late night comedy about serious, factual issues, in a _defense _of the importance of truth, but that's neither here nor there) and we've become accustomed to just assuming that our news outlets are going to heavily filter the content they choose to present, to appeal to their "consumers," to advance a certain partisan agenda, or both. Jones is probably at the vanguard of that movement, where he's pushing outlandish conspiracy theories like 9/11 being an insider job, Sandy Hook was a false flag operation, the pizza shop pedophilia ring, etc. He's then used the defense that he's just an entertainer, playing a part, to try to distance himself from the fallout of his actions.
> 
> ...



That’s very interesting, as I feel that way about the pizzagate story. I felt that was the moment the lid came off the madness when that guy walked into the place with a gun, based on a obvious internet faux story.

When it came to Alex, I enjoyed the conspiracy aspect and also absurdity of it, but I always took it with a giant pinch of salt. His productions on Waco, Oklahoma, 9/11 and Terrorstorm were all decent works, abet very Alex Jones.
When I’m talking about conspiracy I always use the line, “it’s fascinating, but reality is way more boring”. Haha

However when I read about Pizzagate, I couldn’t believe that people actually took it seriously. Serious enough to act upon it. It reminded me of those Slender Man killers. That fact that their reality could be blurred by an obvious internet story.

Which is like you’ve said about Sandy Hook. I remember what he said, and that was around the time I tuned out. He always had a tendency to be OTT, but that was a bit much. But it appears, like my friend back home, that people were buying into it. Clearly it’s become a real issue, this idea of “real truth” or “alternative truth”.
I remember his defence in trial about his radio/internet personality being an act, which at the time I thought would be the beginning of the end. I was wrong.

It looks like this time might not be any different...


----------



## Drew (Aug 15, 2018)

I mean, I think even back then, his very casual relationship with the truth in order to make sensational claims to advance a political agenda was concerning. I don't think I fully realized the scope of it, but I always considered him problematic, if thankfully only at the fringe. Unfortunately, Trump's willingness to parrot InfoWars conspiracies and the fact he appeared on the show, if only as a candidate, has given Jones a new found air of legitimacy.

We're, at a minimum, at least pushing hard against the limits of the sort of speech the First Amendment was meant to protect, and by my read are at a point where speech is causing harm.


----------



## tedtan (Aug 15, 2018)

possumkiller said:


> Well, I hope you get the patients that you needed. What did you need the patients for, anyway? What were you planning to do to them? Force them to watch the TV show and listen to the radio show?



Gotta occupy them somehow while they twiddle their thumbs in the waiting room.


----------



## AngstRiddenDreams (Aug 15, 2018)

Fuck Alex Jones, I have nothing but ill wishes for someone whose supporters harass the victims of Sandy Hook. All the while claiming it is just a character in court for his children. 
I hope he is bankrupted by his loss of platforms.


----------



## Ordacleaphobia (Aug 16, 2018)

I'm just concerned about the memes, to be honest.
I don't want to live in a world without crispy Alex Jones memes.


----------



## Drew (Aug 16, 2018)

Ordacleaphobia said:


> I'm just concerned about the memes, to be honest.
> I don't want to live in a world without crispy Alex Jones memes.


I do.


----------



## Randy (Aug 16, 2018)

The problem with Alex Jones was that he spent all his time determining if they turned the frogs gay and none of the time determining if we should respect their lifestyle.


----------



## Explorer (Aug 31, 2018)

Randy said:


> I think I was totally done with him or the people in his orbit when he shifted into talking about how David Icke is insane and the only thing we need to be talking about are his brand of survival rations and male enhancement pills.





Randy said:


> The problem with Alex Jones was that he spent all his time determining if they turned the frogs gay and none of the time determining if we should respect their lifestyle.


Two recent developments...

First, the judge in one of the defamation cases isn't buying the argument of Jones' lawyers that doxing the innocent parents is "protected free speech."

Secondly... you know how occasionally someone accidentally reveals an open tab on their browser which has a NSFW title? Well, Jones was hawking his website on his phone, when he finished his spiel and minimized his browser.

Lo and behold... he had a tab devoted to a pornographic performer who had her thirst for a stiff c**K fulfilled by a hunk.

The surprising thing, though, is that Jones, who has publicly denigrated trans people, had apparently been watching a "t-babe," a transexual, receive the slaking of her thirst.

https://spectator.us/2018/08/watch-alex-jones-shows-infowars-fans-his-love-of-trans-porn/

It's not really surprising, of course. The people who spew the most hate about certain sexualities are often the ones who are in denial....


----------



## Drew (Aug 31, 2018)

While Alex Jones jacking off to chicks with dicks after publicly condemning their lifestyle warms the cold, dead cockles of my heart, it's comparatively small change compared to the case going forward. His supporters are pretty good with cognitive dissonance; I'm sure they're just take it as further evidence that if they stop taking their Alex Jones endorsed supplements, they really WILL turn gay, because look what happened to Jones when he missed a day!


----------



## narad (Sep 1, 2018)

As a staunch Alex Jones supporter, I heard they weren't actually trans but paid actors/actresses.


----------



## spudmunkey (Sep 1, 2018)

narad said:


> As a staunch Alex Jones supporter, I heard they weren't actually trans but paid actors/actresses.



I heard it was that friggin' frog water.


----------



## HeHasTheJazzHands (Sep 6, 2018)

Oh hey, he was finally banned from Twitter

https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/charliewarzel/twitter-bans-alex-jones-infowars

...After weeks and weeks of Jack and Twitter saying they'd let it slide. 

Totally wasn't because Alex made an ass of himself in front of Jack in public.


----------



## Spaced Out Ace (Sep 6, 2018)

Thanks everyone for giving a guy you dislike free publicity and advertising him and his brand.


----------



## Spaced Out Ace (Sep 6, 2018)

Randy said:


> The problem with Alex Jones was that he spent all his time determining if they turned the frogs gay and none of the time determining if we should respect their lifestyle.


I love quoting that for absolutely no reason in serious conversations. It's great.


----------



## Explorer (Sep 6, 2018)

Hmm. It never occurred to me that someone would view abusive behavior on the part of a person as a good reason to be a fan of such a person. 

Thanks for letting us know that such thinking is part of your mental landscape.


----------



## HeHasTheJazzHands (Sep 6, 2018)

Spaced Out Ace said:


> Thanks everyone for giving a guy you dislike free publicity and advertising him and his brand.




He's been losing viewership actually. 

Went from 14 million visits a month, to 700k. His app also went from being the #1 news app (due to the backlash), to #44.


----------



## Pseudo-Intellectual (Sep 6, 2018)

Look up the herbicide “atrazine” and what it actually does to frogs.


----------



## Spaced Out Ace (Sep 6, 2018)

HeHasTheJazzHands said:


> He's been losing viewership actually.
> 
> Went from 14 million visits a month, to 700k. His app also went from being the #1 news app (due to the backlash), to #44.


Good. Looks like Razorfist was wrong that bitwhatever would replace YouTube. 

I tried watching one of Razorfist's vids on bitwhatever the fuck it's called, and the shit wouldn't load. The platform (and similar platforms like it) sound like a scam.


----------



## NateFalcon (Sep 6, 2018)

Lol...aside from Alex Jones I see “abusive behavior” is the next opinion based wrongthink target...comedians better get their attorneys handy


----------



## HeHasTheJazzHands (Sep 6, 2018)

NateFalcon said:


> Lol...aside from Alex Jones I see “abusive behavior” is the next opinion based wrongthink target...comedians better get their attorneys handy



Nah, people tried to mass-report a bunch of comedians due to the backlash of the James Gunn thing, but it didn't work.


----------



## NateFalcon (Sep 6, 2018)

HeHasTheJazzHands said:


> Nah, people tried to mass-report a bunch of comedians due to the backlash of the James Gunn thing, but it didn't work.


Stay tuned...it’s not over lol


----------



## Randy (Sep 6, 2018)

Spaced Out Ace said:


> Good. Looks like Razorfist was wrong that bitwhatever would replace YouTube.
> 
> I tried watching one of Razorfist's vids on bitwhatever the fuck it's called, and the shit wouldn't load. The platform (and similar platforms like it) sound like a scam.



I heard Jones was going gangbuster on G+ though


----------



## Spaced Out Ace (Sep 6, 2018)

Randy said:


> I heard Jones was going gangbuster on G+ though


What the fuck is G+?


----------



## HeHasTheJazzHands (Sep 6, 2018)

Spaced Out Ace said:


> What the fuck is G+?


Exactly.


----------



## possumkiller (Sep 7, 2018)

Spaced Out Ace said:


> What the fuck is G+?


God I feel sorry for your wife.

You know the G spot, right? Grafenburg? That spot inside the vagina that when rubbed the right way makes your wife do whatever you want? Well G+ is another spot that creates even deeper orgasms.


----------



## narad (Sep 7, 2018)

possumkiller said:


> God I feel sorry for your wife.
> 
> You know the G spot, right? Grafenburg? That spot inside the vagina that when rubbed the right way makes your wife do whatever you want? Well G+ is another spot that creates even deeper orgasms.



The G spot is so far away from G+ that you might as well call it G-.


----------



## possumkiller (Sep 7, 2018)

narad said:


> The G spot is so far away from G+ that you might as well call it G-.


Exactly.


----------



## Drew (Sep 7, 2018)

I'm mostly just looking forward to see him lose the lawsuit brought against him by the Newtown victims' families. Dude doesn't seem to realize that you actually CAN'T just make shit up and report it like it's fact.


----------



## HeHasTheJazzHands (Sep 8, 2018)

Well, the Infowars app dropped even lower on the App Store list.


Because it's been removed and banned.


----------



## BenjaminW (Sep 8, 2018)

Damn. I miss the good content that was Alex Jones videos on a daily basis.


----------



## Flappydoodle (Sep 9, 2018)

My random thoughts:

Obviously he's pretty crazy, and putting on a show, but I really think the social media companies ganging up on him is unjustified. He's a harmless crank, not a terrorist.

It sets a slightly worrying precedent about who controls public opinions. Yes, FB/twitter/etc are entitled to set their own T&C for using their services, but they doesn't mean they *should* ban him IMO.

Firstly, I question the background of the ban. The sudden deluge of bans from every single social media company isn't because Jones suddenly started breaking all of the rules. He's been on every platform, saying the exact same stuff for years. This is politically driven.

Secondly, I question the legitimacy of the ban. I feel like the companies searched for excuses to ban him. They cited policies of hate speech, discrimination etc, but I've never actually seen any racist quote attributed to him (perhaps someone can correct me). I quickly scanned his Wikipedia page while writing this, and the only possible thing is his theory about the government planning a "white genocide", and that's mixed in with anti-vaccine, weather control and all sorts of other crazy stuff. He's also frequently labelled as "far right", but he's always come across as more libertarian (and nut job) to me.

Twitter cited the video of him "harassing" a reporter, which was really no more heckling than what Huckabee Sanders gets on a daily basis. They also say he told people to "grab their rifles" and "arm up" etc, which is pretty typical hyperbolic Jones talk, rather than some actual call for violence. There are plenty of actual US politicians openly calling for Trump staffers to be chased out of restaurants, chased out of movie theatres etc, and calling for people to "take to the streets".

Thirdly, I worry about the power of social media companies. I personally can't see any reason to trust Facebook's judgment, and I wouldn't trust the government to decide those things either. I'm going to sound like Jones here, but it's not as if the government or big companies haven't pulled a LOT of shady shit in the past. It was a crazy conspiracy theory to say that the government were reading all of our emails, until Snowden proved it. We need whistle blowers, rebels, and the loudmouth lunatics who end up correct occasionally as part of our society. 

These social media companies, despite their cheery TV adverts and young trendy CEOs, are now the largest and most powerful companies in the world. Big Pharma, energy, oil, defence companies etc are openly demonised, but Facebook or Google is WAY more powerful than any of those - both financially, in terms of lobbying/political connections, and in terms of swaying public opinion.

Just my thoughts anyway. I'm not a fan of Jones, but this whole mass banning feels like politics rather than any sort of reasonable reaction.


----------



## Randy (Sep 9, 2018)

Flappydoodle said:


> Just my thoughts anyway. I'm not a fan of Jones, but this whole mass banning feels like politics rather than any sort of reasonable reaction.



My guess would be it's something in the middle.

Silicon Valley is known to have a liberal bias but you can't overlook how effectively social media was used in 2016 to elect a Republican president (see: close relationship between Facebook and Cambridge Analytica).

As a liberal/progressive, I've long held that the big IT companies might feign being socially liberal just because of their age and the demographics of where they headquarter their business but economically (which is the shit that means more to me), they've always been willing to take money from anybody and always in favor of less regulations and less taxes, poor conditions for workers, etc.

With all that in mind, I think the Jones thing comes down to the fact they were facing enough backlash from how effectively the right have been able to use social media (folks like Jones and Milo), mixed in with an also effective Russian influence campaign (I'm not talking collusion here, I'm talking about the divisive, anarchistic fake Facebook groups they made arguing positions 180 degrees from eachother) and they were getting enough pressure to start moderating their platforms to an extent there was never pressure to do before. That's the answer to why Jones and why now; it was increasingly starting to look like enabling right wing speech was going to to cost them more money than it was making them.

At the end of the day, the way the law reads, it's their websites and they get to make the rules much like here. It sucks but there's still ways guys like Jones could be using social media effectively without inviting a ban (see: POTUS). The GOP would be cutting off their nose to spite their face, being the party of "decreased regulations and freedoms for corporations" and also advocating making companies allow specific material on their websites just because a guy like Jones is sloppy and it's cost him in today's climate.


----------



## MaxOfMetal (Sep 9, 2018)

Don't forget the lawsuits that Jones is facing. I'm sure any company associated with him in any way would want to distance themselves, especially ones which give him a platform. If not for social, ethical or political reasons, at least financial. 

Big picture: if Jones loses these suits, the next ones in line are the enablers like Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, Spotify etc. They're already being implicated in more than one of the current cases.


----------



## Pseudo-Intellectual (Sep 9, 2018)

More than likely all these big social media giants are in for some good old anti-trust law suits.

It’s also no coincidence they are banning and censoring right before the mid-term elections.

That my friends is the highest form of election meddling.


----------



## Spaced Out Ace (Sep 9, 2018)

Pseudo-Intellectual said:


> More than likely all these big social media giants are in for some good old anti-trust law suits.
> 
> It’s also no coincidence they are banning and censoring right before the mid-term elections.
> 
> That my friends is the highest form of election meddling.


cOnSpIrAcY tHeOrIsT


----------



## narad (Sep 10, 2018)

MaxOfMetal said:


> Big picture: if Jones loses these suits, the next ones in line are the enablers like Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, Spotify etc. They're already being implicated in more than one of the current cases.



Are you saying suits _against_ FB/Twitter/YT, etc., or from these guys? I'm skeptical that as platforms they have any real responsibility to determine the truth of postings from any of their members.

And this is your periodical thread reminder to everyone to update your ignore list to include this week's username, Pseudo-Intellectual.


----------



## MaxOfMetal (Sep 10, 2018)

narad said:


> Are you saying suits _against_ FB/Twitter/YT, etc., or from these guys? I'm skeptical that as platforms they have any real responsibility to determine the truth of postings from any of their members.



Yes.

And frivolous or not, litigation isn't cheap. Not to mention the court of public opinion, Giant Tech Company vs. Victims' Families isn't a good look either.

But, Alex Jones isn't just being sued because he said crazy things, he's being sued for doxing people and working up his following into a personal army of harassers.


----------



## Flappydoodle (Sep 10, 2018)

Randy said:


> My guess would be it's something in the middle.
> 
> Silicon Valley is known to have a liberal bias but you can't overlook how effectively social media was used in 2016 to elect a Republican president (see: close relationship between Facebook and Cambridge Analytica).
> 
> ...



Quite possible. And to me it's VERY obvious that the social media/Silicon Valley companies are only political to where it helps them. Apple, Amazon, Facebook etc have no problem screwing over little guys, using every tax loophole they can think of etc.

As I said in my original post, I agree that the services are theirs and they can make up their own T&Cs. I'm just voicing my opinion that they shouldn't choose to ban him, though I support their ability to decide.

You are correct about the right wing harnessing social media more effectively for the 2016 election. But to me, it seems that everybody is engaging in it now. Sensationalist fake tweets and stories are going everywhere these days. I saw one just yesterday about someone sending secret white supremacy hand gestures to Kavanaugh during his confirmation hearings. And what is coming out of Maddow, Colbert etc isn't much different to Hannity or Alex Jones. They're all dealing in sensationalist nonsense and conspiracy theories.

Frankly, I hope that some sort of purge on social media is due. As I said earlier, big pharma, defence companies etc are demonised constantly. In the case of pharma, their business model is very difficult, and their products have helped improve living standards and life expectancy. They have to follow mountains of incredibly strict regulations, have to prove that their products work, they have constant oversight, they have their prices set etc. It's crazy to me that Facebook is 2x larger than Pfizer, Apple is 10x larger than Lockheed Martin, and yet the largest companies in the world have basically no oversight. They experiment with us, hoard our information and they have lobbyists everywhere, close links between their executives and US politicians, but they have nice friendly PR images so nobody seems to care.


----------



## narad (Sep 10, 2018)

Flappydoodle said:


> And what is coming out of Maddow, Colbert etc isn't much different to Hannity or Alex Jones. They're all dealing in sensationalist nonsense and conspiracy theories.



Except that, you know, it's satire. Or give a Colbert conspiracy you think is equivalent to the parents of dead kids being paid actors.


----------



## Flappydoodle (Sep 10, 2018)

narad said:


> Except that, you know, it's satire. Or give a Colbert conspiracy you think is equivalent to the parents of dead kids being paid actors.



I said "isn't much different". Not "the same as". Both are peddling in rumours, conspiracy and exaggerated claims. Jones just takes it to a different level of outrageousness.

Wasn't it Colbert who said Trump was Putin's "cock holster" or something like that? What enlightening, clever, fact-based commentary.


----------



## Randy (Sep 10, 2018)

narad said:


> Except that, you know, it's satire. Or give a Colbert conspiracy you think is equivalent to the parents of dead kids being paid actors.



I take it with a grain of salt. Jones shifted from being 'OOGA BOOGA, SASQUATCH IS AN ALIEN' news coverage to the bulk of his conspiracies being about the 'deep state' and stuff mainstream Republicans tout anyway. He was an effective tool for the Republican party because he brought a lot of people who otherwise considered themselves Libertarian and very ANTI established parties into trusting what's pretty much considered the mainstream of the Republican party today.

So in that sense, yeah, I see SOME parity between Jones and Hannity, Maddow, etc.

The cost of bringing Jones under the tent is the backlash they're facing now. Yeah, you're right, there is no equivalency to dead kids being paid actors, etc. The guy had too much baggage. I'll VERY partially give the right a pass on being responsible for every stupid thing Jones has done prior to becoming part of the party, only because the only connection I see between the two is that Jones will essentially say anything as long as someone is willing to pay for him to say it. See also: Glenn Beck


----------



## narad (Sep 10, 2018)

Flappydoodle said:


> I said "isn't much different". Not "the same as". Both are peddling in rumours, conspiracy and exaggerated claims. Jones just takes it to a different level of outrageousness.



Conspiracy and satire *are* "much different." When you say a conspiracy, with the intent to instill this belief in your listeners, there isn't a rim shot and applause from a live studio audience. 

IIRC Colbert made some jokes when there was that rumored Trump golden shower tape. However, if you can't tell the difference between trying to find humor in existing rumors and trending hearsay (i.e., what Colbert does), and seriously trying to substantiate that rumor as fact, and propagate it as fact to as many people as will believe it (i.e., what Jones does), then I don't know what to tell you. It's not a difference of degree -- it's just an inherently different thing.


----------



## Pseudo-Intellectual (Sep 10, 2018)

Funny how the mainstream media only started attacking Alex Jones after Trump won. That’s because Jones was a big part of Trump’s win.

Alex Jones has been doing what he has been doing for 20 plus years. 

The mainstream media was dumbfounded after election night. 

Now the only solution is to silence opposition. Hence the banning on all social media platforms for Trump supporters, not just Alex Jones.


----------



## Drew (Sep 10, 2018)

Flappydoodle said:


> Quite possible. And to me it's VERY obvious that the social media/Silicon Valley companies are only political to where it helps them. Apple, Amazon, Facebook etc have no problem screwing over little guys, using every tax loophole they can think of etc.


I think their position is actually perfectly consistent, and not really political. They're in favor of user privacy (for the most part - I think the difference in approach between Facebook, a platform, and Apple, a hardware manufacturer, is also telling here) and free dissemination of information and some attempt to ensure the validity of news being shared on their platforms, because that's their core business (huge generalizations here, because the FANG stocks are radically different businesses) and catering to their users ensures user growth. And, they want to aggressively minimize their tax liabilities, because they're for-profit businesses.

I just think that a lot of the values that they stand for because they make their platforms more valuable to their users, happen to align with "liberal" political values.



Pseudo-Intellectual said:


> Funny how the mainstream media only started attacking Alex Jones after Trump won. That’s because Jones was a big part of Trump’s win.
> 
> Alex Jones has been doing what he has been doing for 20 plus years.
> 
> ...


I mean, that's certainly _one_ way of looking at it. The other is Jones has gotten a lot more coverage and a lot more attention now that Trump is routinely citing his theories over Twitter, and that in the wake of 2016, not just from the outcome of the election but from things like the Pizzagate shooter, the rest of the media world has realized that guys like Alex Jones aren't just harmless crackpots babbling on the margin, but that there are people who actually take him at face value, and that there are real world consequences for his pushing conspiracies like Sandy Hook being a false flag operation with paid actors, or the Pizzagate sex ring being a real thing.

I think the established media was dumbfounded the morning after the election, sure. But I think we differ on the reasons - I think they realized that they'd fallen down on the job. Trump loves to spin the open letter the Times wrote after he won as an apology for their poor coverage of his campaign and their underestimating of his odds. In reality, it was an apology for creating a false equivalence between Trump's qualifications and crimes and Clinton's, and not holding him fully accountable in the interest of appearing unbiased. It was a vow not to do so in the future, rather than an apology and a promise to treat Trump favorably for the sake of treating him favorably in the future. Trump's increasingly unhinged Twitter rants about the Times suggests they've learned from their mistakes, as has the fact that Jones is now kicked off most social media platforms and is being sued by the parents of Sandy Hook victims.


----------



## HeHasTheJazzHands (Sep 10, 2018)

Pseudo-Intellectual said:


> Funny how the mainstream media only started attacking Alex Jones after Trump won. That’s because Jones was a big part of Trump’s win.



Or it's that Trump has been pushing a lot of what Alex Jones has been saying, on top of praising the fuck out of him. So it gives Jones a bigger spotlight since you had a presidential candidate, and now an actual fucking president, shining the light on some crazy corner of the internet. 

Also I don't think Jones was a big factor in why Trump won. It's the mainstream media you're criticizing. They gave Trump a HUGE spotlight. Constant coverage. Always tuned into his rallies. 

And as Drew said above, his conspiracy theories starting to actually harm people is what's causing this backlash. You got these pizzagaters and Sandy Hook truthers harrasing people IRL because of the shit Jones has been pushing.


----------



## Drew (Sep 10, 2018)

HeHasTheJazzHands said:


> Also I don't think Jones was a big factor in why Trump won.


I mean, if nothing else, let's point out that if the posts about Jones' weekly viewers dropping from 1.4mm to 700k in the wake of getting kicked off Facebook are accurate, then not for nothing his average weekly viewers were probably somewhere south of 1.4 million back in 2016, possibly sub-1mm, and accordingly, it's _really_ tough to build a case that a guy with an audience of let's call it a million listeners was "a big factor in why Trump won." He simply didn't have the audience, and most of the swing voters that broke his way in the final week were almost certainly not motivated by an Alex Jones episode, compared to, say, the Comey letter one week out. 

The numbers don't work.


----------



## Pseudo-Intellectual (Sep 10, 2018)

Well as far as banning Alex Jones from all social media platforms, it also doesn’t add up when you tell me it’s because of the whole Sandy Hook school shooting, which happened almost 6 years ago.

Alex Jones has been facing numerous lawsuits after Trump won. And he has won almost all of them. They just keep attacking him trying to bankrupt him or destroy him.

No I don’t think it has anything at all to do with that. Like I said it has to do with the fact that mainstream media wants to hold their power on the information and will silence all opposition. The look on their faces after the election was enough to show you how destoyed they were. They really thought it was in the bag for Hillary. They were so smug about it.

And like I also said it doesn’t end with Alex Jones. Conservatives all across the board are being censored, banned, shadow banned.

Meanwhile I could list countless so-called “conspiracy theories” the mainstream media has conjured up for the masses to consume. But that’s a whole nother spread.


----------



## Explorer (Sep 10, 2018)

I like that the parents suing Jones are part of a shadowy "they," and that some folks refuse to acknowledge that it was Jones' defaming and doxxing that are at the heart of those cases (not dismissed, incidentally).

I know that certain kinds of speech which violate terms of service have been banned, but I don't think the TOS spell out conservative doctrines as being ban-worthy, instead focusing on things like hate speech and abusive behavior. I know lots of conservatives who manage to avoid such behavior, so I suspect it is actually ass clowns trying to say their own beclownment represents all conservatives. That's BS.


----------



## narad (Sep 10, 2018)

Explorer said:


> I know that certain kinds of speech which violate terms of service have been banned, but I don't think the TOS spell out conservative doctrines as being ban-worthy, instead focusing on things like hate speech and abusive behavior. I know lots of conservatives who manage to avoid such behavior, so I suspect it is actually ass clowns trying to say their own beclownment represents all conservatives. That's BS.



Sad day when people need to be reminded that hate speech and abusive behavior are not _necessarily_ conservative doctrines.


----------



## Drew (Sep 11, 2018)

Pseudo-Intellectual said:


> Well as far as banning Alex Jones from all social media platforms, it also doesn’t add up when you tell me it’s because of the whole Sandy Hook school shooting, which happened almost 6 years ago.
> 
> Alex Jones has been facing numerous lawsuits after Trump won. And he has won almost all of them. They just keep attacking him trying to bankrupt him or destroy him.


For the first, I think, like I said in my earlier post, there's been a pretty clear shift on the part of social media platforms in realizing that guys like Alex Jones aren't harmless curmudgeon-y entertainers, but have actually been causing real-world harm to the people they accuse of being at the center of his alleged conspiracies, and they've realized their utopiaic vision of a platform for free exchange where quality content can be shifted out from the chaff isn't going to happen on its own, and they have to do at least some moderating of content to weed out abuse. I think in the case of the Sandy Hook victims' parents, when one couple began receiving death threats again after moving for the 8th time in five yeas because Jones decided to share their personal contact information on his show again, after the move, it's hard to really fault their decision to sue.

Again, though, this is all stuff I've already told you. If it "doesn't add up," that's not on me.

As for your second point about him "mostly winning," I'd love to see a citration. This is what Wikipedia shows:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alex_Jones#Litigation



> In February 2017, the lawyers of James Alefantis, owner of Comet Ping Pong pizzeria, sent Jones a letter demanding an apology and retraction for his role in pushing the Pizzagate conspiracy theory. Under Texas law, Jones was given a month to comply or be subject to a libel suit.[142] In March 2017, Alex Jones apologized to Alefantis for promulgating the conspiracy theory and retracted his allegations.[143]
> 
> In April 2017, the Chobani yogurt company filed a lawsuit against Jones for his article that claims that the company's factory in Idaho, which employs refugees, was connected to a 2016 child sexual assault and a rise in tuberculosis cases.[144] As a result of the lawsuit, Jones issued an apology and retraction of his allegations in May 2017.[145]
> 
> In March 2018, Brennan Gilmore, who shared a video he captured of a car hitting anti-racism protesters at the 2017 Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville, Virginia, filed a lawsuit[146] against Jones and six others. According to the lawsuit, Jones said that Gilmore was acting as part of a false flag operation conducted by disgruntled government "deep state" employees in furtherance of a coup against President Trump.[147] Gilmore alleges he has been receiving death threats from Jones' audience.[147]



*Pizzagate* - Jones retracted his allegations and apologized, rather than face a libel suit. Backing down and retracting allegations to avoid a libel suit is awfully hard to construe as a win.

*Chobani child sexual assault/TB allegations* - the company sued, and Jones was forced to apologize and retract his allocations. That's a straight-up loss.

*Unite the Right deep state allegations* - suit is still ongoing.

The Sandy Hook suit is in a separate section, but is also still ongoing.

To me, it looks like he's batting about 0.000%, but hey, maybe there's a bunch of times he's gotten sued that just aren't on the Wikipedia page of all the other times he got sued. 



Pseudo-Intellectual said:


> Like I said it has to do with the fact that mainstream media wants to hold their power on the information and will silence all opposition.


I mean, this is a simple Occam's Razor thing, for me. We have two possibilities we're going to entertain; either the establishment media is this shadowy, power-hungry cartel of puppet-masters and are angry that Alex Jones is speaking truth to power and is trying to break their stranglehold on the truth... Or, Alex Jones is just completely full of shit, and is routinely getting sued for lying on air and hurting people, _and losing_, because he IS full of shit, and can't actually prove the claims he's making because he knows they're false. 

The latter takes a whole fuck of a lot fewer angels dancing on the heads of pins than the former, you know?


----------



## tedtan (Sep 11, 2018)

Pseudo-Intellectual said:


> Meanwhile I could list countless so-called “conspiracy theories” the mainstream media has conjured up for the masses to consume. But that’s a whole nother spread.



Please create a thread for this discussion.


----------



## Pseudo-Intellectual (Sep 11, 2018)

Drew said:


> For the first, I think, like I said in my earlier post, there's been a pretty clear shift on the part of social media platforms in realizing that guys like Alex Jones aren't harmless curmudgeon-y entertainers, but have actually been causing real-world harm to the people they accuse of being at the center of his alleged conspiracies, and they've realized their utopiaic vision of a platform for free exchange where quality content can be shifted out from the chaff isn't going to happen on its own, and they have to do at least some moderating of content to weed out abuse. I think in the case of the Sandy Hook victims' parents, when one couple began receiving death threats again after moving for the 8th time in five yeas because Jones decided to share their personal contact information on his show again, after the move, it's hard to really fault their decision to sue.
> 
> Again, though, this is all stuff I've already told you. If it "doesn't add up," that's not on me.
> 
> ...



I would take Wikipedia with a grain of salt...They are like the ministry of truth in 1984.

I will repeat my point again. This has nothing to do with what you are saying because he has been doing broadcasting and making documentaries for over 20 years. Even when Obama was President, they didn’t do anything to shut him down.

So why all of a sudden the complete shut down of him? That’s cause Trump won and people like Jones were effective in helping him get elected. This obviously wasn’t suppose to happen. But it did and now they are lashing back. Plain and simple.

And hey you are entitled to your opinion about Alex Jones. You think he’s full of shit. And I think the mainstream media is full of shit. Who is right?

All I know is you get your news from places like the NY times and Washington Post. Both owned by the richest men in the world, so I don’t know if what they are spewing is in my best interest.


----------



## Pseudo-Intellectual (Sep 11, 2018)

tedtan said:


> Please create a thread for this discussion.



Lol maybe I will. Haven’t been paying attention to all the lies in a while. All I would have to do is turn on the TV to get a topic.


----------



## zappatton2 (Sep 11, 2018)

Real journalists for real news organizations are trained and accredited to gather and report on the facts. Of course they can get things wrong, and of course they are selective in their topics, but the MSM that everybody is so busy bashing is _*self-correcting*_. When they get it wrong, they print retractions, full stop.

Editorial journalists take facts and make a case for a political or editorial position. I certainly do not agree with the conclusions of a good deal of editorialists, but when employed with a real news organization, they also have a duty to deal with the facts, and when they are wrong, they have a duty to *self-correct*.

Even wikipedia, which I would still regard with a grain or two of salt, is a collective endeavor; it's not one guy with a microphone and a soapbox, it's several people collectively refining, correcting and editing information, which, depending on how many people contribute to the subject at hand, tends to weed out the cranks and present a fairly accurate view of the topic.

So your choices for information run between institutions that are self-correcting (much like how the natural sciences function), and individuals who make a buck off ignorance, peddling unfathomable tales to sell merch to people who want to believe their narrative (much like cults and religious sects).

As far as Jones himself is concerned, denying him platforms is entirely legitimate in light of his routine targeting of individuals with blatant untruths which result in real, tangible harm to said individuals (including grieving parents, I might add). I'm not sure how you can intellectually (or morally, for that matter) present these as equal choices depending on your politics. What the man does in unambiguously unethical and dishonest. He still has his free speech, but he is not owed a soapbox, and he is still liable for actual libel.


----------



## Pseudo-Intellectual (Sep 11, 2018)

Ok you guys keep talking about Sandy Hook and gay frogs. What else has Alex Jones done to cause so much harm in the world. Of course these are the only two things the mainstream media parrots to you guys.

The gay frogs has been proven scientifically. The herbicide atrazine is actually turning male frogs into females. So where are the lies?

How about the mainstream media portraying all Trump supporters as rascists and nazis. Isn’t that causing harm to innocent people? Should we start suing them now?


----------



## NateFalcon (Sep 11, 2018)

Harmful behavior...that’s a philanthropists wet dream to conquer


----------



## spudmunkey (Sep 11, 2018)

Pseudo-Intellectual said:


> Ok you guys keep talking about Sandy Hook and gay frogs. What else has Alex Jones done to cause so much harm in the world. Of course these are the only two things the mainstream media parrots to you guys.



It's because the first one is disgusting and offensive to most people's sense of morality and has caused undue harm to innocent people, and the 2nd one, it's the fact that the way he expressed his outrage was immensely meme-able.

He's basically been spouting anarchistic fear-mongering for years. Telling his listeners that routine National Guard training sessions are proof the government is training up to enslave americans. he tells people that 9/11, the oklahoma city bombing, etc are all events orchestrated by the government as false-flag operations. He was one of the louded voices propegating "Pizzagate"

After deleting a video with the following quote, he then said that he was referencing US foreign policy in Syria:



Alex Jones said:


> When I think about all the children Hillary Clinton has personally murdered and chopped up and raped, I have zero fear standing up against her. Yeah, you heard me right. Hillary Clinton has personally murdered children. I just can’t hold back the truth anymore.



To me, that's like walking into a police station and claiming, "I personally just killed a person. You heard me right. I've personally killed someone.", but then getting upset when you are arrested because you totally just meant that because you were a smoker for so many years that statistically, if you added up the tiny effects of all of the 2nd hand smoke you've exposed hundreds of people to, that it would have all added up to kill a hypothetical person.

Not to mention:


Alex Jones said:


> I have footage in Austin — we’re going to find it somewhere here at the office — where it literally looks like cast of 'Seinfeld' or like Howard Stern in a Nazi outfit. They all look like Howard Stern. They almost got like little curly hair down, and they’re just up there heiling Hitler. You can tell they are totally uncomfortable, they are totally scared, and it’s all just meant to create the clash.





Alex Jones said:


> the head of the Jewish mafia is George Soros, he’s out to get Jews.




He's claimed that the government is putting chemicals in juiceboxes with the purpose of turning kids gay.



Alex jones said:


> The reason there are so many gay people now is because it's a chemical warfare operation. I have the government documents where they said they're going to encourage homosexuality with chemicals so people don't have children.



Planned parenthood, the EPA, and carbon taxes are proof the "new world order" government will start exterminating people:



Alex jones said:


> “With the New World Order, the global government’s only the beginning; once they get that in place they’re going to start an orderly extermination of the population. The ultimate goal of the New World Order, is to eliminate 80 percent of the global population—people the elites regard as nuisances who use up too many resources.”



Supposedly an atmospheric research station in Alaska caused earthquakes in chine killing 90,000 and the US Navy caused the big haiti earthquak, killing 100,000, as a means to occupy Haiti for military purposes.

I mean...at what point is it no longer a matter of a difference of opinion, and something beyond? In my opinion, he dances on that line, and sometimes trips up.



Pseudo-Intellectual said:


> The gay frogs has been proven scientifically. The herbicide atrazine is actually turning male frogs into females. So where are the lies?



Not to nit-pick, but aren't those two separate statements?



Pseudo-Intellectual said:


> How about the mainstream media portraying all Trump supporters as rascists and nazis. Isn’t that causing harm to innocent people? Should we start suing them now?



No, because that's not really the case. When the media and anyone but leftist extremists say "Nazis", they aren't talking about "the right". They are talking about people who act like Nazis. And a significant portion seems to fall on the right. Does it mean the right is all Nazis? No. Are there Nazis on the right? You betcha. I've got some in my family, and their facebook wall is hilarious and terrifying.


----------



## Pseudo-Intellectual (Sep 11, 2018)

...and this is all justification for the coordinated ban of Alex Jones right before the mid-term elections. Gotcha.
It’s also convenient that they delete all his videos so no one can actually hear what he really said. Great for demonizing a person.


Funny you mention George Soros, a self admitted Nazis collaborator. Wasn’t the Democratic Party the party of the KKK back when they were most active?

I’m sure your family members that are nazis are probably banned on Facebook by now though.


----------



## Explorer (Sep 11, 2018)

@Pseudo-Intellectual - Can you provide actually provide support for your claim that Jones has been winning the majority of his lawsuits? 

Or is that claim just some BS you made up or heard, and a data piint regarding your credibility?

I'm hoping for the former, that you have actual citations, instead of you beclowning yourself. Now's the time to either school us, or to put on your big boy pants and admit you were wrong. Either of those will be options on the adult menu.

Or, you could just go with something on the kids menu.

Here's hoping no crayons are called for!


----------



## crankyrayhanky (Sep 11, 2018)

Regardless of how you feel about Jones, banning him is not a good thing for freedom lovers and is clearly another step towards an Orwellian Society...which might be your thing, IDK


----------



## spudmunkey (Sep 11, 2018)

Pseudo-Intellectual said:


> ...and this is all justification for the coordinated ban of Alex Jones right before the mid-term elections.



Well, no. It should have happened a long time ago, one at a time, as outlets decided enough was enough...but they all waited until one shoe dropped, and then they all followed suit once that keg was tapped, and they didn't have to worry about being the first. Some even said they were going to still hold off, but then public pressure seems to have forced their hand shortly after.



Pseudo-Intellectual said:


> It’s also convenient that they delete all his videos so no one can actually hear what he really said. Great for demonizing a person.



Well, no shit it's convenient. "I don't want his voice on my platform...but I'm going to leave everything he's said up, for all to see and associate with my platform." It's easy to demonize a demon when they bring it on himself.




Pseudo-Intellectual said:


> Wasn’t the Democratic Party the party of the KKK back when they were most active?



In a way. Things weren't as black and white in terms of political parties. There were conservative democrats. The "right" of the "left". There were also progressive republicans. The KKK were primarily from the conservative democrate "Dixiecrats". I'm not sure what point you're trying to make.



Pseudo-Intellectual said:


> I’m sure your family members that are nazis are probably banned on Facebook by now though.



One has been, although he's taken over his dead wife's account and posting less...er..."obvious" material. Good ol' uncle Leroy...


----------



## narad (Sep 11, 2018)

crankyrayhanky said:


> Regardless of how you feel about Jones, banning him is not a good thing for freedom lovers and is clearly another step towards an Orwellian Society...which might be your thing, IDK



He's free to make his own Facebook and Twitter. The rest of the world is free to ignore him.


----------



## zappatton2 (Sep 11, 2018)

crankyrayhanky said:


> Regardless of how you feel about Jones, banning him is not a good thing for freedom lovers and is clearly another step towards an Orwellian Society...which might be your thing, IDK


How exactly, though? Freedom of speech is emphatically not freedom from consequences.

It strikes me how many of the people who frame the use of platforms for hate speech or lies for the purpose of instigating a volatile listener-ship as a free speech issue would be pretty quick to chime in with the opposite opinion if the same platforms were disseminating Islamist extremism.


----------



## coupe89 (Sep 11, 2018)

Seems anyone not on the left can get banned easily now.
https://dailycaller.com/2018/09/09/kris-paronto-benghazi-delete-tweet-obama/


----------



## Explorer (Sep 12, 2018)

Hmm... coupe89, can you point to anyone on the left who tweeted anything like "BarackObama How bout we do this, let's put your cowardly ass on the top of a roof with 6 of your buddies&shoot rpg's&Ak47's at you..." and didn't get banned?

The Twitter rules do state that one can be banned for violent threats.

And only the most ignorant would claim that violent threats are a defining characteristic of the right.

Come on... that's either laziness preventing you from being an adult and checking your own claimed grievance, or deliberate and willful ignorance. Neither does credit to conservatives.

----

I'm getting less hopeful that PI will find his big boy pants, incidentally....


----------



## Demiurge (Sep 12, 2018)

Media outlets, making decisions adhering to capitalist interests, accused of overt liberalism. Got it.


----------



## Randy (Sep 12, 2018)

coupe89 said:


> Seems anyone not on the left can get banned easily now.
> https://dailycaller.com/2018/09/09/kris-paronto-benghazi-delete-tweet-obama/



Dunno, I think this is a pretty bannable offense


----------



## zappatton2 (Sep 12, 2018)

Randy said:


> Dunno, I think this is a pretty bannable offense


Hahaha, I love how everyone's just waiting to engage in tactical defense out on the lake, or in the suburbs, 'cuz ya never know when they're gonna_ getcha!!_


----------



## Randy (Sep 12, 2018)

I dunno if Hell exists but one version of it would most certainly be getting merc'd by that guy and his nasally voice being the last thing you hear.


----------



## wankerness (Sep 12, 2018)

I can't believe how YOUNG he is. The guy's looked 40 for the 17 years I've been aware of him (he's in the movie Waking Life, from 2001), but he's only 44 now! I guess his pills and salves and whatnot don't work.


----------



## Randy (Sep 12, 2018)

The only Alex Jones appearance that matters


----------



## Drew (Sep 12, 2018)

Pseudo-Intellectual said:


> I would take Wikipedia with a grain of salt...They are like the ministry of truth in 1984.
> 
> I will repeat my point again. This has nothing to do with what you are saying because he has been doing broadcasting and making documentaries for over 20 years. Even when Obama was President, they didn’t do anything to shut him down.
> 
> ...


Ok, so if Wikipedia is wrong, give me examples of lawsuits he's won.

And you're attacking the Washington Post and New York Times because they're wealthy, not because their reporting is wrong. I'm attacking Alex Jones because his reporting is wrong. You're making a pretty clear logical fallacy, going after the source, not the content.


----------



## Drew (Sep 12, 2018)

Pseudo-Intellectual said:


> Ok you guys keep talking about Sandy Hook and gay frogs. What else has Alex Jones done to cause so much harm in the world. Of course these are the only two things the mainstream media parrots to you guys.
> 
> The gay frogs has been proven scientifically. The herbicide atrazine is actually turning male frogs into females. So where are the lies?
> 
> How about the mainstream media portraying all Trump supporters as rascists and nazis. Isn’t that causing harm to innocent people? Should we start suing them now?


Without bothering to factcheck your claim that it's been proven scientifically and just taking your claim at face value, technically speaking, if this pesticide is causing male frogs to become female, then it's not making them gay, it's making them travsvestite.

Other than Sandy Hook, he's claimed 9/11 was an inside job, the Charlottesville video of a dude driiving his Mustang into a crowd was a fake with paid actors, the Pizzagate sex ring hoax, the Chibani sex ring/cancer hoax, that the Parkland shooting was a hoax with paid actors, that vaccines cause autism, that Hurricane Irma was created by the government, that Harvey's response was intentionally bungled by Democrats to hurt Trump... Shall I continue? Heck, this is the guy who even admitted under oath that he doesn't actually believe what he says on his show and it's just a "character" he plays, as part of his child custody hearing.

The reason Sandy Hook is getting so much media attention at the moment, aside from his comments being absolutely shameful, is the fact that he's the subject of a currently ongoing lawsuit about the claims he's made.

As far as "the mainstyream media portraying all Trump supporters as racists and Nazis," that's hyperbole. However, there's pretty good polling data to suggest that support of Donald Trump increases the conditional policy of also being racist - here's an example - and a non-negligible percentage of Trump's supporters ARE openly racist, and his strong support from neo-Nazi and white nationalist groups (aka - the "alt-right") is further evidence of this. And, the refrain I've often seen from the left is that if a Trump voter wasn't actually motivated by racism in supporting Trump, then at a minimum he or she didn't consider racism a dealbreaker. That's pretty clearly concerning.

tl;dr - the difference between "Parkland was a false flag operation with crisis actors!" and "There are a significant percentage of Trump voters that also are either openly racist or express attitudes that would generally be considered racist," is that there is zero concrete evidence for the former, and there's pretty good data to support the latter. That's why Alex Jones has a credibility problem.


----------



## Drew (Sep 12, 2018)

wankerness said:


> I can't believe how YOUNG he is. The guy's looked 40 for the 17 years I've been aware of him (he's in the movie Waking Life, from 2001), but he's only 44 now! I guess his pills and salves and whatnot don't work.


I mean, alternately, they DO work, and they've just stopped time for him, and for anyone who buys his special anti-time serum, a steal at only $2,750 for a two-week supply!


----------



## tedtan (Sep 12, 2018)

Pseudo-Intellectual said:


> Lol maybe I will. Haven’t been paying attention to all the lies in a while. All I would have to do is turn on the TV to get a topic.



I put on the news this morning before heading in to work and the only news stories I saw were the local weather coverage and the reporting on Hurricane Florence. But I suppose that is a lie. The mainstream news organizations must have invented Florence to scare people out of the Carolinas in order to make it easier for the rich people to move in and take over the resources there.  

Or perhaps it is a bigger conspiracy. Maybe the government seeded the atmosphere with chemtrails to create the hurricane in order to destroy the people in the Carolinas because they were ordered to do so by their reptilian overlords who are, in reality, are not really reptiles but, in fact, Jar Jar Binks, who was only portrayed as an incompetent racist characterization so that we would all let our guards down and become softer targets for the chemtrail hurricanes.   

Or maybe it's just hurricane season and the media are covering it because it is, in fact, reality.




Pseudo-Intellectual said:


> The gay frogs has been proven scientifically. The herbicide atrazine is actually turning male frogs into females. So where are the lies?



There are many species of amphibians that can change gender on their own, and apparently at least one that does so as a result of exposure to atrazine. When they do so, they are not gay, but rather fully transformed into the opposite gender as if they had originally been born that way.

So for Jones to take that bit of information and twist it into the implication that the government intentionally puts atrazine in tap water to turn people gay is a bit of a stretch, no?




Pseudo-Intellectual said:


> How about the mainstream media portraying all Trump supporters as rascists and nazis. Isn’t that causing harm to innocent people? Should we start suing them now?



The media doesn't portray all Trump supporters as racists and nazis. They only portray those Trump supporters who are, in fact, racists and/or nazis as racists and/or nazis (see the Charlottesville Unite The Right rally in August 2017 as an example of such people).

Wait, I just thought of something. This must be it. Hurricane Florence is really headed towards Charlottesville as God's revenge on all the mainstream media libtards for not supporting the Unite The Right protesters! Yeah, that must be it!


----------



## Drew (Sep 12, 2018)

NateFalcon said:


> Harmful behavior...that’s a philanthropists wet dream to conquer


It's actually a litigation specialist's wet dream, but who's counting?


----------



## Randy (Sep 12, 2018)

Jimmies officially rustled

http://thehill.com/policy/technology/406344-reddit-bans-qanon-subreddit


----------



## coupe89 (Sep 12, 2018)

Explorer said:


> Hmm... coupe89, can you point to anyone on the left who tweeted anything like "BarackObama How bout we do this, let's put your cowardly ass on the top of a roof with 6 of your buddies&shoot rpg's&Ak47's at you..." and didn't get banned?
> 
> The Twitter rules do state that one can be banned for violent threats.
> 
> ...



How is that a violent threat it is more saying to see how Obama would view it if he was in that situation. You really don't think people from the left don't post violent tweets? People from hollywood do it all the time and get nothing. 

https://www.cnn.com/2018/06/20/politics/peter-fonda-baron-trump-secret-service/index.html


----------



## spudmunkey (Sep 12, 2018)

I agree that this was a really shitty tweet, and agree that even though the Secret Service has apparently decided not to pursue anything, that Twitter should have at least put into place some sort of suspension.


----------



## Explorer (Sep 13, 2018)

coupe89 said:


> Seems anyone not on the left can get banned easily now.





Explorer said:


> Hmm... coupe89, can you point to anyone on the left who tweeted anything like "BarackObama How bout we do this, let's put your cowardly ass on the top of a roof with 6 of your buddies&shoot rpg's&Ak47's at you..." and didn't get banned?
> 
> The Twitter rules do state that one can be banned for violent threats.
> 
> And only the most ignorant would claim that violent threats are a defining characteristic of the right.





coupe89 said:


> How is that a violent threat it is more saying to see how Obama would view it if he was in that situation. You really don't think people from the left don't post violent tweets? People from hollywood do it all the time and get nothing.
> 
> https://www.cnn.com/2018/06/20/politics/peter-fonda-baron-trump-secret-service/index.html


Wait... so you're saying President Trump's conservative plan to detain children is violent? I'm just asking for clarification, given the outcomes and the defenses from Melania.


----------



## coupe89 (Sep 13, 2018)

Explorer said:


> Wait... so you're saying President Trump's conservative plan to detain children is violent? I'm just asking for clarification, given the outcomes and the defenses from Melania.


You mean the plan with pictures from 2014? No I mean Fonda's tweet could be consider the same thing as Paronto's according to you. So tell me why Peter Fonda has yet to be banned?


----------



## vilk (Sep 14, 2018)

nvm


----------



## possumkiller (Sep 14, 2018)

I thought it was normal for straight guys to watch tranny porn?


----------



## spudmunkey (Sep 14, 2018)

Sort of. If I remember right, a random viewer is more likely to be a straight man partaking than a gay man, but it's still a minority of straight men that do (according to a couple anonymous surveys...again, if I remember right).


----------



## Randy (Sep 14, 2018)

Anecdotally, however...


----------



## NateFalcon (Sep 15, 2018)

Random viewer or partaker? ...Who is supposedly taking these surveys?


----------

