JJJJNR wrote: » What if the truth is stranger than fiction. I don't watch alex jones but deleting him from the internet is going to increase his profile.
Ipso wrote: » If by close you mean light years away, then yes. Yes he was.
Ipso wrote: » He just admitted on twatter that his dim son met with Russians for info. I don't think Russia changed the outcome of the election, but trump surrounded himself by some dodgy (and Roger Stone is basically a clone of Alex Jones) people, so it's more guilt by association. It's hilarious that he spent eh campaign chanting "lock her up" and now his former campaign manger is on trial. And we still have to get to anything Michael Coen may have.
Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: » That Sarah Jeong defense is odd. If she was just repeating what was said to her we’d see those tweets.
Outlaw Pete wrote: » So you believe they have no dog in the race? Come on, both FB and Twitter have been found manipulating their platforms to favour democrats.
Taytoland wrote: » Evidence is required that he colluded with the Kremlin. By presenters just saying he did is conspiracy territory. Russian interfering is not the same as collusion between Trump and the Kremlin.
Grayson wrote: » You said people kill all blacks is hate speech but kill all whites isn't. So you've never seen an occasion where someone said kill all white, never mind where it was tolerated? How can you say that kill all whites is tolerated whereas kill all blacks isn't? As for Sarah Jeong, that's whatabouttery since she didn't call for any group of people to be killed, and she was responding to trolls mimicking their own language. She never said any racist views except when already presented with that language. As opposed to your example which was kill all whites/blacks or even what Alex Jones did when he said burn all drag queens.
batgoat wrote: » The lawsuit against him in relation to Sandy Hook only began last week. It's incredibly bad PR for any social media network to be giving a platform a conspiracy outlet that has literally wrecked lives and is presently being sued for it. Currently much of what we're seeing on news outlets is reporting on actual investigations into Russia for example. All security agencies in the US agree that they attempted to influence the election and there are questions over if the president colluded. Over 20 people have been indicted. That is very much so news.
JJJJNR wrote: » Looks like he got too close to the truth.
mcmoustache wrote: » I'm not seeing that. From what I can tell, Jones was being enough of a douche that some private companies no longer wanted to be associated with him. Now, I get that he has been adopted and legitimised by Republicans in the US and I get that many self-described conservatives dislike when one of their own is being attacked but this is really just a case of private companies protecting their brand by getting rid of a douche. He's not being picked on for being conservative; he's being picked on because he's a major asshole.
mcmoustache wrote: » That's the problem right there. It's people viewing these things as though they're in one of two tribes which is nonsense. I try not to do that and I get into arguments with people who identify with both tribes. It's possible to believe that Jeong was making racist statements and at the same time see that Alex Jones was ditched because he was a libelous nutter that companies wouldn't want to be associated with and not as some conservative purge.
Taytoland wrote: » His Sandy Hook stuff is outrageous. But this has been known for years. Why didn't they decide it was too far years ago? His claims on Sandy Hook are just bizarre. They bear as much in reality as those who say a billion people live on the moon.
Taytoland wrote: » Plenty still push "lesser" conspiracies. We see it currently.
batgoat wrote: » It isn't. The average news outlet does not do what Alex Jones does, they don't encourage people to go after the families of tragedies or accuse them of being 'crisis actors', they don't claim that FEMA are running top secret death camps. They don't engage in any of the bollocks that Alex Jones does.
Taytoland wrote: » I have already said that is wrong. But it's opening a can of worms. It's not just fringe elements who push conspiracy theories. I see plenty of it from US tv shows.
Taytoland wrote: » If the comments are from your side you would be amazed at how blind people are to it. If it's from the other side they are in uproar about it.
batgoat wrote: » Pretty fascinating that you guys are entirely ignoring a lawsuit over his treatment of the families of Sandy Hook. Their lives have been ruined even more. It's completely disgusting that you guys are ignoring the pretty terrible things that he is responsible for. The reason he does these thing is to rile up crazy people/conspiracy theorists as they're good for ad revenue and some even buy his bodybuilding pills.
Taytoland wrote: » You have people on US talk shows openly hoping that white people become a minority in the US and using rhetoric which if you put it in reverse would be called racism
Taytoland wrote: » You have people on US talk shows openly hoping that white people become a minority in the US and using rhetoric which if you put it in reverse would be called racism but no one is shouting for them to be silenced or thrown off air. A lot of this just comes down to what side you are on. If the comments are from your side you would be amazed at how blind people are to it. If it's from the other side they are in uproar about it.
Call Me Jimmy wrote: » Right-wing activists will use the nebulous policies against the likes of the Young Turks, as I mentioned earlier "White Christians You're Time Is Almost Up!!!" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mhoIeAnUTZA&t=3s. etc. the principle is you are willing to allow each side to shut each other down and giving the tech companies all the power they want. Whereas we could make a stand and instead of justifying it, uniting in making it clear to the those companies that we don't want this. But seemingly a lot of people do want it.
Call Me Jimmy wrote: » We could take the opportunity to oppose hate speech laws seeing the way they will be used but no, hate is violence. It's interesting that we couldn't name a single prominent lefty banned from twitter, facebook, youtube or spotify, I'd be interested to here one. Just statistically that should raise some red flags, but maybe some really believe hate can only manifest from the right?
2 Scoops wrote: » Just before someone attacks me - I'm not saying this is the case for everyone or anywhere close to it, but there are examples of people legally changing sex for benefits.http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6007501/Canadian-legally-changes-sex-cheaper-car-insurance.html "A Canadian man in his early 20s was unhappy with the high quote he got from his car insurance company, so he decided to do something about it: legally switch his gender from male to female."
Taytoland wrote: » Yes. XX and XY chromosomes.
Outlaw Pete wrote: » Yawn. Nobody has a problem with any private platform having rules ffs. They do however take issue with them being partisanly applied, especially when they suggest their ethos is not to do so.
mcmoustache wrote: » Alex Jones insists that it's perfectly OK to remove someone from a private platform.https://twitter.com/MikeStuchbery_/status/1026904850800537600
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://wb.vanillicon.com/v2/bed6f1d088326d5eb21c0139847332c7.svg)
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://wc.vanillicon.com/v2/c599644a213e5f18742e0afff85076a6.svg)