Alex Jones material finding its way on YouTube again. lol

[TitoFan]

Please... PLEASE... defend him all you like guys. But don't pass him off as a legitimate reporter or newscaster.

Who is doing that? I'm not, I just said "dude is entertaining". Sometimes Alex is correct in what he reports and sometimes he's not, the hyperbole and emotion he shows are amusing but don't add to his credibility.

Comparisons to Don Lemon and some of the other CNN bozos? Irrelevant. They're bad at their jobs... but that doesn't make Jones any less of an idiot. He's a waste of oxygen... and someone should put him out of his misery. He's done a world of harm to a great many people.

So Don Lemon & "other CNN bozos" are just "bad at their jobs"? That's it? Oh Don Lemon thought a black hole swallowed up an airliner, you'll have to forgive him, he's just dumb....but he still has a job for which he gets paid A LOT. He has ruined lives, his news organization has ruined lives AND BLATANTLY LIED multiple times, they are still provided a platform. No other mainstream media is calling for them to be removed from air, removed from social media, shunned from society and yet 100% of them call for those things to happen to Alex Jones, why? How is Alex Jones different in offering disinformation? Is it just because his disinformation runs counter to CNN's disinformation and people get confused about that?


Also are people like Don Lemon simply "dumb" or sometimes do they do what they do ON PURPOSE? Because if they were just dumb then wouldn't news organizations just fire those idiots one after another after another seeing how idiots are easy to find? If they do what they do on purpose it makes them NOT being fired and NOT being censored start to add up.



At the end of the day I just don't think Alex Jones should be censored when he's his own worst enemy.


So he though Sandy Hook was fake, people have questions about 9/11 should they be censored too? Flight 93 & working cell phones making calls before a plane is purposely crashed or perhaps shot down by jet fighters? People question if FDR knew about Pearl Harbor before the attack occurred.....all those tragedies involve people's loved ones. Yes there are some ghoulish people out there, but they shouldn't be censored.

Don Lemon says a LOT of things on the air I've never liked. If we're talking about Lemon, you need to find someone who'll defend him. To me he's a jerk. I've seen him having a good laugh with Cuomo on the air while ridiculing Christians. An easy target maybe... but not something a professional is supposed to do on the air. The black hole thing? Never seen it... don't care to. Once again... it's not a matter of "Oh, look how Lemon still has a job and people want Jones banned." This two wrongs don't make a right thing can't be stressed enough. This is about Jones. I'm sorry to say this. But "So he thought Sandy Hook was fake..." just doesn't cut it with me. He WILLFULLY carried on (and on and on) about Sandy Hook being fake and a conspiracy, with NO REGARD for the parents who were suffering through this unspeakable tragedy. One thing is to make a blunder on the air and then recognize it. Quite another is to carry on through YouTube after YouTube with his persistent crock of shit. A horribly HURTFUL and insensitive crock of shit.

Jones is lucky this happened in sleepy Sandy Hook, Connecticut and not some militant-infested neighborhood. Although had that been the case I think Jones would've kept his fucking mouth shut out of a sense of self-preservation.

I'm sorry... but nothing you or anyone can say will ever change my mind about Alex Jones. He's FILTH. You all can make jokes... belittle the arguments... try to move on. People have been fired from networks for a hell of a lot less.

[El Kabong]

People have been fired from networks for a hell of a lot less.

But people haven't been completely "unpersoned" in the way & manner that the powers that be addressed the Alex Jones "problem". That's the crux of my view, like him, don't like him, that's erroneous....hate what he did with Sandy Hook? Erroneous.

Walter Durranty of the New York Times denied The Holodomor, in writing, for the NYT, and won a Pulitzer for his efforts....about 4 Million people/13% of the population of Ukraine at the time were purposely starved to death by Stalin.

Better? Worse? Same? Oh that happened so long ago.


Alex Jones is the canary in the coal mine. If they can unperson him, if they can unperson Milo, if they can unperson Gavin McInnes, if they can unperson Laura Loomer, if they can unperson PRESIDENT TRUMP etc etc then why can't they unperson me or you or anyone else? That's my take.

People should be allowed to say bad shit. People should be able to call out bad shit. Those things should occur in the open for all to see, hear, discuss. But muting someone, shutting their bank account refusing service based solely on political views...that is wrong.




by the way, actual White Supremacist/Nazi, CNN contributor, and Joe Biden voter Richard B. Spencer is still on twitter in case anyone was wondering if there was any kind of limit to what IS or is NOT acceptable to them.

[TitoFan]

People have been fired from networks for a hell of a lot less.

But people haven't been completely "unpersoned" in the way & manner that the powers that be addressed the Alex Jones "problem". That's the crux of my view, like him, don't like him, that's erroneous....hate what he did with Sandy Hook? Erroneous.

Walter Durranty of the New York Times denied The Holodomor, in writing, for the NYT, and won a Pulitzer for his efforts....about 4 Million people/13% of the population of Ukraine at the time were purposely starved to death by Stalin.

Better? Worse? Same? Oh that happened so long ago.


Alex Jones is the canary in the coal mine. If they can unperson him, if they can unperson Milo, if they can unperson Gavin McInnes, if they can unperson Laura Loomer, if they can unperson PRESIDENT TRUMP etc etc then why can't they unperson me or you or anyone else? That's my take.

People should be allowed to say bad shit. People should be able to call out bad shit. Those things should occur in the open for all to see, hear, discuss. But muting someone, shutting their bank account refusing service based solely on political views...that is wrong.




by the way, actual White Supremacist/Nazi, CNN contributor, and Joe Biden voter Richard B. Spencer is still on twitter in case anyone was wondering if there was any kind of limit to what IS or is NOT acceptable to them.

How about just holding people accountable, Kabong?

"Unperson"?? Is this yet another one in what now seems like an avalanche of societal terms I find so hard to keep up with?

You can call it "unperson him." You can call it "cancel him." You can say that those offended were "triggered." Frankly... and with all due respect... I don't give a shit what anyone wants to call it.

Alex Jones should have been held accountable for the pain and suffering he caused on the many parents and families that were destroyed by Sandy Hook.

Again... it wasn't just an emotional outburst, for which he later felt contrition and apologized. NO. He drove the nail home again and again and again.

Had a Sandy Hook parent paid to have him whacked at some point... I would've personally raised money for that person's legal defense.

Why should a person like Jones be allowed a platform to continually spread his brand of hatred, mistrust, misinformation, and just plain social disease?

He can say whatever he feels like in the street, where maybe a precious few will gather round to hang on his every word.

But on social media he's just plain useless and dangerous.

"Canary in the coal mine"?? You mean there are more Alex Joneses out there just waiting to see how much leeway is granted to this jerk so they can establish their own YouTube accounts and gather thousands of followers?

Gee... then I guess in this case it's probably for the better if the "canary suffocates", so the miners know not to go in there.

[El Kabong]

But Alex Jones WAS held accountable for saying what he said. He has been sued, several times by the parents, he has been ordered to pay for libel.

I'm fine with Alex being sued...but off of YouTube, off of Twitter, off of Facebook, can't use certain banks, can't use PayPal, etc. That's not right and it's happened to many more people up to and including the former President of the United States.


Is it that you don't see what is happening OR do you think "Well it won't happen to me"?...because if you think it won't happen to you I've got to tell you unless your views on transgendered kids change, brace yourself for big time blowback in the coming years should things continue as they are.


This is a "fascist", "corporatist", totalitarian push towards an ideological singularity....it ain't just about Alex Jones which is why many people have chosen to support him even if they disagree with what he said. It's about his right to say it and still be a member of society, that's it....I don't care how much you hate the man, that doesn't matter AT ALL.

[NoSavingByTheBell]

I think we need to make a distinction about people "being held accountable" on 2 different fronts -- I'm all for the law, as every here knows, I'm all for lawsuits going forward and if the plaintiff wins/loses, well them's the breaks. IF Jones loses a lawsuit over Sandy Hook or what have you, then them's the breaks for Alex. Because if the law allows for THAT kind of being held accountable, then that's the law and he lost.

Now there's the "un-personing" bit..... any and every person should be allowed to say bad shit, ugly shit, daring shit, and another person should be allowed to call them out on that. Thats all just freedom of speech. If it can be pursued in court, well then, again, I'm all for it, litigate the fuck away, and whatever the outcome is, well then thats the outcome. System works fine. Laws should be enforced.

But this de-platforming/unpersoning/canceling shit/can't use certain banks/can't use PayPal, etc.... WTF, you can hate someone as much as you want, but punishing them like that because you hate them or you think they "went too far" is just crazy. If it cant be settled in court, well, it means its not a legal matter. And we cannot enforce MORAL matters, can we.

[Beanz]

Why when there are hundreds of actual journalists, activists and just innocent citizens in Jail in China, Iran, Saudi, Belarus, Egypt, Turkey, Russia etc would you be so worried about defending a vile hate spewing cunt like Alex Jones? Could it possibly be because you are more interested in stoking division and stirring up debate for sick entertainments sake than actually defending real victims of censorship?

When you have your liberty taken and are tortured and your family threatened then that is being cancelled. Not when a private company decides not to host your toddler like pacifier spitting tirades because everyone is sick of your shit.

[El Kabong]

Why when there are hundreds of actual journalists, activists and just innocent citizens in Jail in China, Iran, Saudi, Belarus, Egypt, Turkey, Russia etc would you be so worried about defending a vile hate spewing cunt like Alex Jones? Could it possibly be because you are more interested in stoking division and stirring up debate for sick entertainments sake than actually defending real victims of censorship?

When you have your liberty taken and are tortured and your family threatened then that is being cancelled. Not when a private company decides not to host your toddler like pacifier spitting tirades because everyone is sick of your shit.

Because we have freedom of the press and freedom of speech and they don't and as an American I find those freedoms to be important especially when I disagree with what is being reported or said.


Freedom of Speech doesn't mean much when you narrow it down to "acceptable speech". Freedom of the Press turns into propaganda if you're not allowed to question the narrative or do investigative journalism.


Where do you draw the line on free speech and free press Beanz? How about you offer up some boundary lines for us in regards to speech & press and maybe we can have an intelligible discussion about it?

[TitoFan]

But Alex Jones WAS held accountable for saying what he said. He has been sued, several times by the parents, he has been ordered to pay for libel.

I'm fine with Alex being sued...but off of YouTube, off of Twitter, off of Facebook, can't use certain banks, can't use PayPal, etc. That's not right and it's happened to many more people up to and including the former President of the United States.


Is it that you don't see what is happening OR do you think "Well it won't happen to me"?...because if you think it won't happen to you I've got to tell you unless your views on transgendered kids change, brace yourself for big time blowback in the coming years should things continue as they are.


This is a "fascist", "corporatist", totalitarian push towards an ideological singularity....it ain't just about Alex Jones which is why many people have chosen to support him even if they disagree with what he said. It's about his right to say it and still be a member of society, that's it....I don't care how much you hate the man, that doesn't matter AT ALL.

Look... I don't get the bank or the PayPal thing, unless I'm missing something in the translation. But let's talk about YouTube, Twitter, etc.

Would it be ok if he got on YouTube and clearly incited violence against a certain group? Would that fall under freedom of speech and that's all there is to that? It's one thing saying something in the street or at a corner bar where your audience is limited, and the worse thing that could happen is someone doesn't like what you're saying and beats the crap out of you. It's quite another to take advantage of two new developments of the 21st century.... social media, and gullible, itchy trigger finger bastards.

Why the dogged insistence of using the easy, go-to, blanket protection of something like freedom of speech to defend and (wink wink) turn your head on people who are determined to stoke the flames of hatred, mistrust, and division among the easily persuaded? Aren't we capable as a society to discern between what is truly meant by freedom of speech and what shouldn't be allowed? Is that too complicated a task? It's pretty obvious that many people nowadays are weak-minded, and represent easy prey for those with a powerful platform and a big mouth. It's too simplistic to brush that off with constitutional amendments which, again... were meant for the good of man, and under those times and circumstances. Not meant to be used as a crutch by opportunistic hate-mongers.

YouTube, Twitter, and Facebook may be social platforms. But they have to answer to regulatory authorities whose task is either necessary and good, or overreaching and evil.... depending on what your beliefs are.

[walrus]

But Alex Jones WAS held accountable for saying what he said. He has been sued, several times by the parents, he has been ordered to pay for libel.

I'm fine with Alex being sued...but off of YouTube, off of Twitter, off of Facebook, can't use certain banks, can't use PayPal, etc. That's not right and it's happened to many more people up to and including the former President of the United States.


Is it that you don't see what is happening OR do you think "Well it won't happen to me"?...because if you think it won't happen to you I've got to tell you unless your views on transgendered kids change, brace yourself for big time blowback in the coming years should things continue as they are.


This is a "fascist", "corporatist", totalitarian push towards an ideological singularity....it ain't just about Alex Jones which is why many people have chosen to support him even if they disagree with what he said. It's about his right to say it and still be a member of society, that's it....I don't care how much you hate the man, that doesn't matter AT ALL.

Look... I don't get the bank or the PayPal thing, unless I'm missing something in the translation. But let's talk about YouTube, Twitter, etc.

Would it be ok if he got on YouTube and clearly incited violence against a certain group? Would that fall under freedom of speech and that's all there is to that? It's one thing saying something in the street or at a corner bar where your audience is limited, and the worse thing that could happen is someone doesn't like what you're saying and beats the crap out of you. It's quite another to take advantage of two new developments of the 21st century.... social media, and gullible, itchy trigger finger bastards.

Why the dogged insistence of using the easy, go-to, blanket protection of something like freedom of speech to defend and (wink wink) turn your head on people who are determined to stoke the flames of hatred, mistrust, and division among the easily persuaded? Aren't we capable as a society to discern between what is truly meant by freedom of speech and what shouldn't be allowed? Is that too complicated a task? It's pretty obvious that many people nowadays are weak-minded, and represent easy prey for those with a powerful platform and a big mouth. It's too simplistic to brush that off with constitutional amendments which, again... were meant for the good of man, and under those times and circumstances. Not meant to be used as a crutch by opportunistic hate-mongers.

YouTube, Twitter, and Facebook may be social platforms. But they have to answer to regulatory authorities whose task is either necessary and good, or overreaching and evil.... depending on what your beliefs are.

Dude our government does that daily with all this racial shit. They stoke the flames and we got nuts burning down neighbor hoods, yup it’s still going on, just doesn’t get coverage

[Beanz]

Tito you will come to your own conclusions but the reason they use the freedom of speech thing is that racist bullshit is rampant here and always has been. We have forum members including mods demanding the right to be racist as though it were a freedom they want to go unchallenged.

We have posters who question whether racism even exists, posters who quote the bell curve and quite clearly believe in Eugenics, posters who belong to segregated fraternal orders that were founded on the ignorant mocking of Arabs and Islam, posters who think white power and white supremacy are nothing to be worried about, posters who deny the holocaust, posters who for years were indulged as they repeated antisemitic tropes and a general attitude to immigration and non white culture that makes it quite clear how backwards, ignorant and bigoted many of them are.

[El Kabong]

Look... I don't get the bank or the PayPal thing, unless I'm missing something in the translation. But let's talk about YouTube, Twitter, etc.

Would it be ok if he got on YouTube and clearly incited violence against a certain group? Would that fall under freedom of speech and that's all there is to that? It's one thing saying something in the street or at a corner bar where your audience is limited, and the worse thing that could happen is someone doesn't like what you're saying and beats the crap out of you. It's quite another to take advantage of two new developments of the 21st century.... social media, and gullible, itchy trigger finger bastards.

Why the dogged insistence of using the easy, go-to, blanket protection of something like freedom of speech to defend and (wink wink) turn your head on people who are determined to stoke the flames of hatred, mistrust, and division among the easily persuaded? Aren't we capable as a society to discern between what is truly meant by freedom of speech and what shouldn't be allowed? Is that too complicated a task? It's pretty obvious that many people nowadays are weak-minded, and represent easy prey for those with a powerful platform and a big mouth. It's too simplistic to brush that off with constitutional amendments which, again... were meant for the good of man, and under those times and circumstances. Not meant to be used as a crutch by opportunistic hate-mongers.

YouTube, Twitter, and Facebook may be social platforms. But they have to answer to regulatory authorities whose task is either necessary and good, or overreaching and evil.... depending on what your beliefs are.

Banks have closed accounts of various people and said "We're not doing business with you", it's happened to MULTIPLE people ditto with PayPal, ditto with some other online pay services. If someone makes money via a platform and has a Patreon or Discord or whatever and then people aren't able to purchase wears or contribute to speech they agree with/support then that's not "the free market at work" it's censorship.

People HAVE gotten on YouTube and clearly incited violence and so long as it fits a certain ideology it's ok. Alex Jones HASN'T called for violence, at one point in time he believed in something that was wrong, he said some things which he regrets and has had to pay for. Is there no redemption anymore? If redemption is not available to those who are shut out from "polite society" I've got to tell you I don't believe that to be a good thing and I don't believe that ends well. I vehemently disagree about technology making this different, the printing press was used as a weapon by our Founding Fathers in the Revolutionary War.


At the end of the day when it comes to Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, they and the government need to finalize whether those services are "Publishers" or "Platforms". If they're "publishers", fine kick people off as the publishers are liable for what they allow....if they're platforms then much like the phone company can't cut your service because of a phone conversation you've had they're stuck with who uses their platform.


I'm just going to err on the side of liberty which will mean I have to maintain a certain level of faith in humanity to conduct themselves with a certain degree of decorum and I have to be ok with it if they don't.

[TitoFan]

Look... I don't get the bank or the PayPal thing, unless I'm missing something in the translation. But let's talk about YouTube, Twitter, etc.

Would it be ok if he got on YouTube and clearly incited violence against a certain group? Would that fall under freedom of speech and that's all there is to that? It's one thing saying something in the street or at a corner bar where your audience is limited, and the worse thing that could happen is someone doesn't like what you're saying and beats the crap out of you. It's quite another to take advantage of two new developments of the 21st century.... social media, and gullible, itchy trigger finger bastards.

Why the dogged insistence of using the easy, go-to, blanket protection of something like freedom of speech to defend and (wink wink) turn your head on people who are determined to stoke the flames of hatred, mistrust, and division among the easily persuaded? Aren't we capable as a society to discern between what is truly meant by freedom of speech and what shouldn't be allowed? Is that too complicated a task? It's pretty obvious that many people nowadays are weak-minded, and represent easy prey for those with a powerful platform and a big mouth. It's too simplistic to brush that off with constitutional amendments which, again... were meant for the good of man, and under those times and circumstances. Not meant to be used as a crutch by opportunistic hate-mongers.

YouTube, Twitter, and Facebook may be social platforms. But they have to answer to regulatory authorities whose task is either necessary and good, or overreaching and evil.... depending on what your beliefs are.

Banks have closed accounts of various people and said "We're not doing business with you", it's happened to MULTIPLE people ditto with PayPal, ditto with some other online pay services. If someone makes money via a platform and has a Patreon or Discord or whatever and then people aren't able to purchase wears or contribute to speech they agree with/support then that's not "the free market at work" it's censorship.

People HAVE gotten on YouTube and clearly incited violence and so long as it fits a certain ideology it's ok. Alex Jones HASN'T called for violence, at one point in time he believed in something that was wrong, he said some things which he regrets and has had to pay for. Is there no redemption anymore? If redemption is not available to those who are shut out from "polite society" I've got to tell you I don't believe that to be a good thing and I don't believe that ends well. I vehemently disagree about technology making this different, the printing press was used as a weapon by our Founding Fathers in the Revolutionary War.


At the end of the day when it comes to Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, they and the government need to finalize whether those services are "Publishers" or "Platforms". If they're "publishers", fine kick people off as the publishers are liable for what they allow....if they're platforms then much like the phone company can't cut your service because of a phone conversation you've had they're stuck with who uses their platform.


I'm just going to err on the side of liberty which will mean I have to maintain a certain level of faith in humanity to conduct themselves with a certain degree of decorum and I have to be ok with it if they don't.

I think liberty, as with other ideological topics, gets abused, distorted, and misused. But you're clear in your opinion. You're going to "maintain a certain level of faith in humanity..."

Unfortunately, it has been proven beyond the shadow of a doubt again and again and again, that this "faith" is misplaced with many people and many groups of people. It's not even about conducting themselves "with a certain degree of decorum." It's about behaving with the elemental aspects of decency. No one should need a college course to know what these are. Again... it's all too easy to shrug off horrific, dehumanizing behavior and throw it into the "freedom of expression" bin. It's lazy... and it's convenient. It's also a sort of "get out of jail free card", in case any one of us should incur in that type of behavior. But again... this is my opinion.

It's puzzling to me how we can focus on a crackpot's removal from Facebook, YouTube, whatever... and concentrate on how that individual's rights were violated... while thinking nothing of the damage he/she's doing to society NEEDLESSLY. Hey... if you've got an ax to grind and you're taking it out on Facebook, it's still not right. But what did anyone connected to Sandy Hook ever do to Alex Jones that would bring on that barrage of hurtful and damaging falsehoods? When shit like this happens, the least I'm caring about is how poor old Jones is being banned from Twitter. In fact, it makes me wonder how slimeballs like this ever get the audience they do.

You insist on this agenda where it's ok for others to "incite violence so long as it fits a certain ideology." Sorry... I'm not convinced, nor do I believe it's that clear-cut. But again... we'll never agree. I'm sure you'll dredge up obscure, little-known examples of someone CLEARLY inciting violence on YouTube and getting away with it, because they are either anti-Trumpers, or belong to some group you don't agree with. But see... here's the thing. I don't work that way. I judge what I see and hear. And I've seen and heard enough of Alex Jones to come to my own personal conclusion that the guy's a douche bag, and should not be given a platform for public expression, because the guy causes a lot of harm to society. I don't go looking for counter examples to compare him with, because I'm just judging Alex Jones.