Conspiracy lunatic thread - people who believe in absurd nonsense are dangerous

[Sunstorm]

I'd like to make a couple comments here.

1) As much as people complain about MSM(rightly or wrongly) when something comes out that shows they were wrong, they WILL typically update or retract the story. A question was asked earlier that I don't believe was ever answered. Did Alex Jones ever retract or correct the Sandy Hook story -on his show- the same way MSM will update or retract stories on their publishing, or has he only said such in court and personal statements?

2) The CNN stuff that keeps getting brought up? That' s 100% whataboutism. it does not answer any questions or criticisms about Alex Jones, it merely tries to redirect the argument rather than defending against the actual statement.

This debate is supposedly about Alex Jones and his actions, not whatever CNN did or didn't do.

People keep using the word "Debate" like I came in here and threw down the gauntlet. I posted the other side of the "debate".
I know it doesn't happen much here, because this forum is essentially an echo chamber, but it's refreshing, because at least here there are points being brought up that I'm willing to look at objectively. The AllSpark never fails to deliver in that area.
Did I avoid the original argument? No. I addressed it. We're talking about Sandy hook as well, sure...but that's not the title of this thread, is it? I didn't want to start the conversation here, and I covered why in my initial post. I pointed out how dangerous, and non repentant CNN's reporting was in just one instance. Not a tactic to deflect guilt from Jones and you know that, or should.

Jones addressed the issue several times on his show retracting and stating he now believed it was real, but he did more than that. He openly admitted his mistakes and apologized on other media outlets and, specifically in Megan Kelley's interview, which if memory serves me...happened before the suit, OR RETRACTION REQUEST, was ever filed. As a matter of fact, I believe one Plaintiff stated they didn't even know about Jones' statement until someone mentioned it from seeing an excerpt of her show. I could be wrong here, I'm going from memory...but I don't think I am. Starting the video at the point he address your question, but really his whole statement here is relative. If you have to see it on IW, I'll have to find the segment, and we'll all have to agree to be ok with the clip because I don't have time to edit and upload it just to avoud triggering someone from a product endorsement.

BUT...What about CNN and all the other corporate Media jackals spreading lies on platforms where they make money from advertising? IMO, and apparently others, "Conspiracy Theory" is essentially newspeak (News-peak), anyway.
If a small platform like InfoWars is dangerous, then Corporate backed media giants are outright deadly, and that is the point of this thread.

 

[Dekafox]

Thank you. If topic drift happens, fine, but the topic of note was Alex Jones, and from what I've been reading thus far anytime someone brought up something against him, you were mostly providing perfunctory replies then segueing into CNN every time, as if they were the entirety of Mainstream Media.

Now if we want to discuss MSM I don't know personally if this is the best thread for that, but I've seen older versions of this chart and it's seemed fairly accurate to me - I tend to go to Reuters or AP these days if I need something verified that I expect to be spun on the regular news sources, and there's no local source.

(I assume the forum counts as social media, as it's the precursor of Reddit etc)

 

[Sunstorm]

I'll respond to the chart when I have a moment this afternoon...I have valid reasons why I feel it's off. However, this happened to populate in the feed on my site and thought it was well presented, without bias, and hopefully, something everyone here can agree with. I'm genuinely interested in the responses. I feel it's a great point on this topic where we can all find common ground.
Sunstorm - Man, I wish I had a British accent. Oh well, at least I'm better looking.

 

[CoffeeHorse]

I'll give it a try.

I'm all for speech. I hate the saying "You have freedom of speech, but you don't have freedom from consequences" and wish we would retire it forever. It's just a quip. It doesn't mean anything. It says nothing about what speech should have consequences and why, and it has one part flat out backwards.

You do have freedom from consequences. Or specifically, you are supposed to have freedom from other people's consequences you haven't agreed to.

Broadly, people should have the right to speech, and people should have the right to hear that speech. People must also have the right to cover their ears, or walk away, change the channel, switch the dial if they haven't bought a new TV in a while, or otherwise opt out. That ability to opt out is key. That is a line we can live with.

Alex Jones is facing consequences for his speech because that speech had consequences for people who had no ability to opt out of those consequences.

As for the CNN comparison, they did settle that Sandmann lawsuit, probably for a huge amount, and yes they deserved to pay it. The system worked.

 

[Dekafox]

I'll throw this out there too on the right to speech(yay topic drift): look how it works in meatspace then apply that to cyberspace.

People are able to protest and walk around shouting what they like in publicly owned areas - see protests etc. People also have the freedom to walk away. If people do it on private property, then the owners of that property can boot the shouting person out, and that's not something that's ever been seriously argued against or challenged. So shouting "Kill em all"(for an easy example) on the sidewalk is a much different scenario than doing so inside the lobby of a hotel.

Now apply that to cyberspace. Most websites, even social media, are privately run. The servers, bandwidth, etc are all owned by someone and they're paying to make sure it stays up. People are able to talk to each other in them. Not that much different from the hotel lobby. But here's where we run into the issue: we lack a proper "sidewalk" for the internet. There's no -publicly-owned- social media or equivalent, it's all crowded hotel lobbies. So people want to make those hotel lobbies behave like a sidewalk. And in meatspace, I think not a lot would think that's a good idea.

My solution: the US Government should grab some of those tax dollars they're so fond of throwing around and set up a publicly funded social media. It could even take donations, like PBS. But this would be -publicly owned- and operate under the same rules as public places in the US. This way people are able to express their rights to speech wihtout stepping on the property rights of the people running -private- websites and infrastructure. As the saying goes, one person's rights end where the next person's begins(and I'm probably mangling that saying) and this sort of setup would solve the issue of conflict between the property rights of the current providers and the speech rights of people wanting to express themselves. Hell, if they have to there's no reason I can see why they couldn't use eminent domain to acquire one and repurpose it.

And then people can choose to participate or not as they wish, just like in meatspace.

As for speech and consequences, in meatspace there are consequences for things like yelling bomb in a crowded airport when there isn't one. Or calling someone a <expletive deleted> to their face. Speech can cause things to happen, and sometimes the speaker has to deal with that and think about what they're saying when they do so. As one example, I've seen some artists online who have had problems with other people, but they took the high ground and won't give the name of the person because they know or suspect their followers would swarm the person and they don't want that. If you have influence, you need to use it responsibly - insert Spider-Man quote here. And not everyone does. They may not be able to control what people do in response to their speech, but if they know how the people in question would react, and do so anyways, are they then responsible for those actions? Something to think about.

 

[wonko the sane?]

You don't have a bad idea dekafox, but I have a better one.

Nationalise the internet. Globalize it, standardize it, and apply the standards of the highest rated laws and constitutions to it. Turn the internet into a TRULY public space, and bring the consequences to those who violate that space.

 

[CoffeeHorse]

I'd love to see what that would look like.

 

[Wheelimus]

*we all end up in jail in 2024 when the next US President immediately abuses this new system*

We had a good run. Hopefully we all wind up in a nice gulag.

 

[The Mighty Mollusk]

Dibs on the top bunk.

 

[Ironbite4]

I AM THE TOP BUNK!

 

[Paladin]

We once had legislation in place that would've prevented someone like Jones from becoming famous by requiring anyone broadcasting to present any information of public importance in an honest unbiased manner.

Proof once again that there is not a single flaw in today's society that cannot be traced to the presidency of Ronald Reagan.

 

[Wheelimus]

Dibs on the top bunk.

Ima get me a choice job in the kitchen. I'll make sure our gruel is as good as it can be.

 

[The Mighty Mollusk]

I AM THE TOP BUNK!

I wonder how many times I'd have to throw you at the wall to explode and respawn before it dug an escape tunnel.

 

[Wheelimus]

75 or so times. Just another day in the life of Ironbite. We gotz ourselves a plan boys and girls!

 

[NovaSaber]

You missed my point. Here's the offensive part. You left it completely out, but it speaks volumes to why all sides deserve to be heard and why we're on an incredibly slippery slope.

No, you missed mine. Addressing the rest of what you said had nothing to do with what I was saying, which was that it's understandable why people were reacting as though you agreed with the person you are inexplicably defending.

At some point, the Overton window moved from allowing all speech and letting the public digest and decide on the argument's merits, to censoring in the name of the public good. Safety for liberty is always a bad trade off.

Citation needed.
When was "allowing all speech" ever the standard? When comics and movies had censorship boards? When the FBI investigated any American who might be a communist? When Chelsea Manning was jailed for leaking evidence of war crimes?

Having the standard be defined by the public good is hell of a lot more free than any of those restrictions.

And there was never a time when knowingly lying in a way likely to cause harm was considered acceptable, except by those who don't care about preventing the harm.
Slander, libel, and inciting violence have been outright crimes for literally longer than free speech has been a concept.

Also, half the time the people who complain about bigots and liars being "cancelled" and the assholes trying to get books banned from libraries are the same people.

My question Nova, is are you holding CNN to the same standard? They LIED and caused living children to be harassed, maligned, and put in harm's way. Should CNN be completely destroyed? The Washington Post? Any pundit who weighed in? Oher than CNN running the Covington story for political reasons, It is the same standard., but in my opinion, worse.

I'm not obligated to have an opinion on a topic I haven't said anything about.

In fact, people talking about stuff they don't know anything about is exactly the problem.

Since I am reacting to this next part, though, for the sake of clarity I guess I do need to say something about it. I am aware the reality of that situation turned out to be that members of the Black Hebrew Israelites had been harassing both sides of the confrontation that the internet saw first.
(This does not mean that the confrontation didn't genuinely happen. Your description of it as "staged" contains less truth than any lies by omission did.)

the "Black Israelites" (No relation to the ones ruling the world)

...
...
...
And I'm not even surprised.

 

[NovaSaber]

 

[Anonymous X]

I'll respond to the chart when I have a moment this afternoon...I have valid reasons why I feel it's off. However, this happened to populate in the feed on my site and thought it was well presented, without bias, and hopefully, something everyone here can agree with. I'm genuinely interested in the responses. I feel it's a great point on this topic where we can all find common ground.
Sunstorm - Man, I wish I had a British accent. Oh well, at least I'm better looking.

Grifting alt-populist conspiracy theorist defends grifting ultra-right conspiracy theorist, basically. (Didn’t realise that Brand is now an anti-vaxxer / COVID ‘truther’, so I guess that vid taught me something.)

 

[Ungnome]

Russell Brand has had a dubious relationship with reality for years, so I'm not surprised.

 

[Ironbite4]

*puts face in palm* Sunstorm bro, if you're gonna debate something, tell us what it is you're debating. This...this ain't it bro.

Ironbite-like at all.

 

[wonko the sane?]

The right wing doesn't have anything to debate: they deflect, they lie, they misrepresent. They don't have facts. He's going to keep changing the subject until you all get tired of listening to him rant crazy and put him on ignore.