That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t denounce their beliefs that clearly do not align with American values. I don’t mean we should confront them personally but simply put it out there that that kind of thinking is not something we want to see exist. If the idea is that racists are not out there doing racist things, so we don’t have to talk about racism anymore, then I don’t agree with that idea at all. I will still teach my kids that racism is wrong. But hey, maybe history isn’t the best teacher after all.
This is the part that drives me bonkers. The GOP has been preaching for my entire life that the govt shouldn’t fuck with the market. I personally believe the govt shouldn’t force the baker to bake the gay cake. I think the market should sort it out.
Then the market speaks, Jones gets the axe, and suddenly the message shifts to “How dare the market handle this. Don’t fuggin censor someone who voted for who I voted for.”
I think this also shows how people don’t understand certain things. Jones has admitted, under oath, that he is a performance artist, an actor. He is pretty much saying he is fake news. The people who are defending him on the basis of journalism and free political thought are showing they don’t know what those things really are. He is an actor.
The founding fathers were racist and Eurocentric to the core and up until 1965 we had immigration laws that prohibited or limited non-white immigration, limiting my own kind, Jewish too. So I don’t know what values that are specifically what you refer to. Do you mean values that emerged after 1965?
I would hope so. I don’t want to think we would turn away another MS St Louis.
In one unified, cartel-like voice. I wonder if they really thought he held enough real sway to effect the midterms. “Vote for Republicans because the Demon-cats are putting estrogen in your pop tarts!”
Absolutely. There’s not a doubt in my mind they coordinated the release to lessen the individual blowback. That being said, I don’t think something like that would be anywhere near cartel worthy, even if a silver bullet recording came out.
The recent Sandy Hook lawsuit was probably just the icing on a long awaited cake. Advertisers have been calling the shot for years on platforms like YT and other video services in a very open way. It’s been more subtle with FB and Twitter. It’s not just about the data sale, it’s about the subsequent advertising.
At the end of the day, the market spoke in a big way on Alex Jones. Not only that, but he’d be everything the new age GoP hates (intentional fake news) if he didn’t also National Enquirer his way to idiotfame in the minds of betas everywhere.
That’s okay. You’ve haven’t responded to many of the points I’ve made. Your responce rings of concession.
Abstract belief <<< physical action. Though it appears you are conceding the point that Antifa actually does more evil than Nazis. That’s fine if we agree on that. From there you appear to rank the morality of thought as more important than action. I do not. I only care about manifest thought. People have evil thoughts all the time.
You may think about ramming your car into the guy that just cut you off. You may think about punching somebody who’s rude on the street. You are only evil if you actually do it. And if you do it, you are evil no matter how rude or deserving the guy was. I’m not and no one has the right to be thought police.
Who do you think is more moral? 1. A guy who was raised in a white supremacist household in the deep south, who believes and was raised to believe white people are racially superior AND YET treats minorities fairly and gives everyone a chance out of will power despite his bias. 2. A wealthy suburban guy in a European who doesn’t really care about race because he’s never really thought about it or lived around anyone too different from himself.
Let me keep this simple.
- Using violence in the name of your ideology, when not in self-defense, is wrong. Period.
- By our standards in the USA today, after having fought a war against them and seeing the incredible horrors they committed, Nazi ideology is worse than Antifa ideology. When Antifa talks about the extermination of several races of people, as well others deemed unfit to live, then we can make that comparison.
- Nazis today, since they don’t call themselves Nazis for no reason, share most of the same beliefs as Nazis in the past, thus they are, from an ideological standpoint, worse than Antifa ideologically.
- Asking who is more immoral, someone in Antifa who uses violence or a Nazi who doesn’t, is nonsensical. Someone could have beliefs that are utterly immoral and reprehensible but be a “good” person otherwise and someone else could be moral ideologically but for one thing, the fact he is willing to commit violence. How do I measure this to decide who is really more moral? It’s silly. I can’t simply say that one person is a piece of crap for believing stupid things and the other is a piece of crap for using violence? I have to choose which one is better? Maybe that person who believes violence is justified can be convinced it isn’t. Maybe that person who thinks genocide is appropriate for some peoples, who will never do it HIMSELF, will never change his mind. I don’t know, but I don’t see why I have to choose when the truth is, I don’t. I can deal with both people separately. What’s worse, the bird that shit on my windshield or the dog that shit on my lawn? Either way, I’m still cleaning up shit.
- What precedes these so-called evil acts? Evil thoughts. Why should I wait to deal with evil actions instead of addressing evil as thought? If a few Nazis decide to actually do something besides march and brood, what will those Nazis who don’t take action do? Will they vote for them if they run for office, for example. Not every German was a member of the Nazi party. Most Germans who supported Hitler, which includes Germans who weren’t even Nazis, did not kill anyone. They sat passively by while others who shared a common goal did the dirty work. Are those Germans who didn’t get blood on their hands, do they still have blood on them regardless? Are they better people? Are they good?
This is what I mean by a nonsensical question. The problem is that only one person, the first guy, has actually taken a stand morally because he consciously made a choice. The second guy never even entertained the question of morality.
Back on the thread’s point:
Jihad Watch was just removed from patreon because Mastercard put pressure on them. I don’t know about the quality of the info there as I’ve never been to the site. But according to the article he has 12 best selling books about Sharia law and Jihad and that makes him an islamaphobe.
This isn’t stopping with infowars and the clearly odious Alex Jones. Again these are private businesses. But if you think the country is fractured now getting information from different people, just wait until every single group has their own platform with only information from their echochamber (feminist Twitter, socialist YouTube, libertarian podcasts etc…). The fractured nature of media will ensure nobody will ever have to grapple with ideas they may disagree with. Siloed much?
I’ll admit to not really knowing why he was banned as this is the first I’m hearing of it, but jihad watch has been known to traffic in conspiracy theories and the like ala Infowars. I don’t believe they’re quite as bad, but in full disclosure I’ve never visited either platform.
How in the world do you think that isn’t already reality?
Sure they will. When election season hits and the bitching kicks back in. People love to argue.
Here’s a question: setting aside abstract arguments about principles and looking at reality, are we better off ever since the internet, and social media platforms, have allowed certain ideas to be spread to the public and which ended up being believed by millions? Do we really need people believing in pizzagate or that Sandy Hook was fake? Were we better off with people believing Obama was a Manchurian candidate who was going to take away our guns, become dictator for life and introduce Sharia law? Now you have the whole Q weirdness.
If we don’t take away their platforms, how do we keep them from empowering the stupid?
People don’t do that. They search out sources that they will agree with and call everything else fake news. You have this new right wing “celebrity” Candace Owens. She has a HS diploma and no actual experience that would say she has a clue about anything, let alone politics. She was, up until a couple of years ago, anti-Trump. Now all she does is parrot right wing talking points and a lot of people suddenly see her as some intellectual powerhouse for conservatism.
Well they need to apply the rules equally then. I have seen holocaust deniers, militant feminists (like literally militant) explain their plans to kill as many men as possible, white supremacists, black supremacists, gay bashers, strait bashers, etc. You name it I have seen it on youtube. If they are going to have such rules, they should apply them equally.
Sue some of them and see what happens. Also, Jones has admitted he is full of shit, under oath. Maybe those others are true believers.
I think it’s partly because she’s a black woman and not a liberal. Which is a dangerous and unpopular thing to be. She even made the comment she doesn’t mind being called “uncle Tom” because she read the book and Tom is the hero.
To be fair nobody who makes a living as a political commentator is exactly a professor emeritus or Mensa candidate. That’s not their role. Both Bill Maher and Dennis Miller are rather bright, but neither is a genius.
How are you going to control people’s beliefs? Why shouldn’t incidents be investigated by whomever wants to do so with the resources, thoughts ,and technology they have, even if they’re not a professional investigator who was actually working on the scene or case?
Why can’t we question incidents? Shouldn’t we? Isn’t this ability a Western value versus an Eastern subjugation to obedience and saving face no matter what?
Dude, I really don’t want to be confrontational in saying this, but you are appearing more and more tyrannical with each succeeding post. I mean, really, who are you to dictate how people run their l lives, choose to do what they prefer with no harm done, associate with who they want to, avoid who they want to, dislike who they don’t care for, and so on? They need people like you to teach them a lesson? Do you know many millions upon millions of people who would have to be worked over or stamped out in order to get everyone in line with this utopian, farcical notion? And these millions are Nazis. They’re your ordinary people of ALL races that you see on the streets when you walk outside.
Here’s a start: I never said I wanted to control what people believe. I never said I wanted any and all ideas, regardless of how idiotic they are, to be suppressed. Knowing this, it makes any further response to your post unnecessary.
Not answering for him, but this spurred an interesting (to me) thought.
This is what makes the pen mightier than the sword. It seems like good ideas come and go, but bad ones just seem to fester within a society and reemerge. They’re the content of Pandoras box.
The thing is, if one were to actually read my post with an open mind, they would see that I am merely asking how does a society like ours, which values freedom of speech to the point it allows the stupidest (and even vilest) speech to exist deal with stupid and even potentially dangerous ideas. We allow speech that is utterly false to exist regardless of how it affects society. I don’t believe in censorship or a nanny state, but we do need to accept the fact that a large number of people are ignorant and will believe anything to their, and our, detriment. Do we really believe that if we have even more people walking around with Q shirts it will be a good thing for the US? Is it a good thing for even more Americans to believe that the next mass shooting was fake and the victims were all crisis actors? People believe that there is some child sex ring being run out of a pizzeria, meanwhile priests and football coaches are raping kids right in front of their faces. Because the first option is so much more believable than reality.