Alex Jones's channel deleted from YouTube ft. MUTV presenter appreciation
- Thread starter Nikhil
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) is joined by CEO Duncan Drasdo and Financial Director Andy Green from the Manchester United Supporters Trust for a special episode on all things behind the scenes at Old Trafford including a brief history of MUST and their aims today, views on INEOS and Sir Jim Ratcliffe so far, and the Old Trafford regeneration.
I'd say it's be hard to come back from that, but then these folks whole world is built on constantly ignoring the crushing reality of their utter paucity.
He's been kicked off PayPal now too. This is great.
I'd almost take more pleasure in seeing this odious prick taken down than Trump.
fecking yes!
This pleases me.
I hope they sue Jones and InfoWars into bankruptcy.
This will hopefully be the end of him in his current iteration. If justice is served he will be filing for bankruptcy soon enough and with his platforms removed from him he’s going to find it difficult to reestablish himself.
That tweet is actually not correct. I saw the entire clip of Jones, and Jones actually went took some time to describe their past relationship, and some non-public information about Rogan, who apparently has adopted black children. He said unequivocally Joe is not racist, but that he has said basically dumb things in his past too. Then he played the planet of the apes podcast. The podcast is from january 2013, and it's referring to the first of the new planets of the apes movies. I was actually listening to it live, and I vaguely remember the comment.
Basically, my take on it was, Rogan was with his comedian buddies, back when the JRE was still mostly a non-mainstream podcast, and he said something fecked up and racist to get a laugh, and he kind of knew immediately he said something fecked up and tried to smoothly transition to explaining that it was an all black theater, and that he had a hell of a good time watching the movie, in no small part because of the audience. I might be conflating episodes here, but basically after he dropped the racist shit, he talked about how watching the movie (again this part might be from another podcast he did), in a black movie theater, was like an interactive experience where the audience was shouting out hilarious shit at the screen constantly.
Long story short. Rogan said something fecked up, but he's not a racist. I actually see what Alex Jones' ploy here is. This is about Sandy Hook. The problem is as far as I know, Jones still denies he said any of the shit he is on video saying, but he's trying to say here that "people say fecked up shit, why am I the only one being held accountable" and he's trying to throw Rogan under the bus.
I'm sure Rogan will respond to this at some point, apologize and say he's an idiot for saying what he said.
Any bad actors or people who spread delibrate misinformation should be deplatformed. It shouldn’t be controversial. It’s
How we ended up with brexit for Christ sake, and a growing alt right presence.
How we ended up with brexit for Christ sake, and a growing alt right presence.
Wayne Rooney?
Joe said on his podcast just the other day that he likes Alex and that they're friends. He said he's a really nice guy that you'd love to have a beer with.
Why is that nutjob going after him?
It has the consequence that you'll have to get rid of a bunch of MPs, which means it'll be difficult to get through. Of course anyone on the street will agree it's a good idea.
I used to think people were rational and had at least a bare bones ability to critically analyse the information they come across in their lives, but I've lost all faith in that idea. To that end there's no way you would have a consensus about who was spreading misinformation even though its clear as day, people think entities like brightbart, fox news and youtube reactionaries are factual objective news services, and take the bollocks trump et al say at face value, when any basic level of fact checking renders most of what they say incorrect.
We dont live in a society that inherently values factual consensus, and when you do go down the rabbit hole of trying to debate people based on logic and objective data you get crushed by anecdote and emotional irrelevancy to the point you want to blow your own brains out.
You're looking at it in slightly the wrong way though. If you go onto the street and ask random people "Do you think e.g. MPs should be removed from their position if they deliberately spread misinformation?" I'm sure most people would reply with a "yes" (I don't know if it's 6 or 9 out of 10 though).
However, as soon as you are explicit about the consequences and say "Do you know this will remove X/Y/Z from office?" people will do all sorts of mental gymnastics to explain why e.g. Trump is not spreading misinformation deliberately. In other words, I think most would agree to the neutral question.
I think a (deliberately?) underfunded educational system has helped pave the way for politicians to get away with the shit they're pulling. Because you're exactly right people in general aren't that good at figuring out whether they're being lied to.
Because Rogan won't have him on his show after Jones was telling more lies about him in his show. Jones is just being a vindictive cnut now trying to get the Internet rage mob after him.
Fair enough. Good luck to the loon. The only people he could potentially rile up are the tinfoil hat wearing nutters that Joe laughs at anyway.
Interesting podcast in ep 670 from This American Life which gets into the whole Alex Jones & Sandy Hook thing. What a bunch of weirdos!
having a bit of a tiff over.. something
https://www.reddit.com/r/PublicFrea...lex_jones_cant_handle_ridicule_in_public_and/
https://www.reddit.com/r/PublicFrea...lex_jones_cant_handle_ridicule_in_public_and/
Take a drink everytime he says 'libtard' or calls someone 'fat' (with no irony).
See you in casualty.
See you in casualty.
Buddies jaw is swinging round like he's off his tits on something.
To open all the doors for potential authoritarianism. Smart move.
Instead, if you want to do something against misinformation, just watermark people that are deemed that way with -videos or news article - with a waterproof. So people have still access to it and can make up their own minds.
You’re on a roll all over the place today aren’t you
The fact is that a lot of people lack the thinking skills to make up their own mind when presented with blatant misinformation. That the anti-vax movement has such a prominent following that these diseases are having a resurgence is testament to that.
Alex Jones inspired idiots have been harassing the families of school shooting victims. How can you look at that and say that this nonsense should be available for people to make up their own minds about it?
You’re on a roll all over the place today aren’t you
The fact is that a lot of people lack the thinking skills to make up their own mind when presented with blatant misinformation. That the anti-vax movement has such a prominent following that these diseases are having a resurgence is testament to that.
Alex Jones inspired idiots have been harassing the families of school shooting victims. How can you look at that and say that this nonsense should be available for people to make up their own minds about it?
And how does that warrant censorship? I gave a reasonable compromise there that such outlets are watermarked rather than deleted. But apparently you are willing to give up your liberties, because someone says mean things somewhere. Well, I am not willing to do so. I think access to information is as important as freedom of speech. Because only through that access you have the chance to form your opinions based on all sides of the coin. Does everyone do that? Of course not. But stupidity is not an excuse for censorship.
You sound like an authoritarian. You appear to want government to force private business and public university to provide a platform for right wing extemists.
Alex jones is not entitled to a platform and he has not been censored as you can still go to his crap website
I care about facts. Objective real things. Children were objectively murdered in a school and their families are grieving. Vaccines have objectively been shown to reduce the spread of disease. I don’t care about listening to a raving lunatic spouting his opinions based on nothing at all, just for the sake of saying “I form opinions based on both sides of the coin, unlike all of you sheep!”
You don’t need to listen to Alex Jones to know that harassing the families of the victims of a school shooting is a bad thing. Those views are harmful and toxic. There is nothing to be gained from it, again besides listening to it and thinking you’re some type of intellectual superior. Nothing positive can come from these types of people spouting their bile. If not wanting hateful rhetorics and misinformation spread means that I’m a fan of censorship, then so be it. There are many views in this world that could do with being censored.
Also for what it’s worth, he isn’t even being censored. YouTube and these other companies are private companies. They’re not obligated to give everyone a platform. If he so believes in what he’s saying, he’s more than welcome to set up his own website, and you’re more than welcome to access his enlightened opinions and explore both sides of the raving idiot coin.
Freedom of speech has been continuously twisted and deformed in its implimentation to be a blanket platform for people to argue for the toleration of the intolerable.
You don’t have a right to be platformed, and when this actually starts to look like a problem like something out of a V for vendetta style dystopian dictatorship we can discuss it, but as of now it’s simply stopping the poisoning of the conversation.
If these right wing gorms actually had valid arguments they would be able to argue for them without baseless emotional rhetoric and the malicious misrepresentation of objective facts.
You don’t have a right to be platformed, and when this actually starts to look like a problem like something out of a V for vendetta style dystopian dictatorship we can discuss it, but as of now it’s simply stopping the poisoning of the conversation.
If these right wing gorms actually had valid arguments they would be able to argue for them without baseless emotional rhetoric and the malicious misrepresentation of objective facts.
No idea how you make that conclusion? I was refering to the statement of "should be deplatformed". No, it shouldn't. But if a private business decides they do not want to have it on their service, then it is perfectly fine. Just as much as christian bakery can refuse to make a wedding cake for a gay wedding. I am simply against forcing whatever business to do something about X - even moreso if the force is applied by the government. The only argument against this principle I can see, if a certain business holds a monopoly and thus de facto can create their own narrative. But that's a difficult (albeit interesting) discussion to have - but in the case of Youtube it might be arguable that they do hold a monopoly due to their high market share.
A few centuries ago it was also a fact that the earth is flat. Mainstream opinions (usually) do NOT require protection. Those that aren't mainstream - doesn't matter if they turn out correct or not - are the ones who require protection. And just because you do NOT care about listening to a "raving lunatic" doesn't mean other people don't. Liberties do not exactly rely on what you like or not.
Being toxic isn't an excuse, either. I could run around and call everyone an asshole. Doesn't warrant censorship. And that's the problem you have with this discussion. WHO do you give the power to decide what warrants that and what doesn't. Just saying "he is a raving lunatic" or "he is a mean evil right-wing extremist nazi" isn't enough. Liberty doesn't end with your own opinions. And stupidity isn't an excuse to censorship. AGAIN - the majority opinon does NOT require protection. And it's not like the majority opinion is always right, either. Nor is "nothing positive comes from person X". That's also not an excuse for taking away liberties.
With the last paragraph I do agree with you. I don't think anyone should force business to service others. I already gave above the example with the christian bakery. And I also agree when liberal businesses refuse service to right-wingers. It's your business and your decision what to do with it. The exception being - and I am not sure about what approach to take there - is businesses that hold a monopoly. There government intereference might be necessary.
When it starts to look like V for Vendetta it's too late. The liberties need to be protected right now to not even have a chance to go there. Doesn't mean I think it will go there, but the discussion should be held now. And as I said above, I agree with no one having a right to be paltform (with the exception of having an discussion about companies that hold a monopoly).
Having a good or emotional argument isn't a necessity to keep your liberties. Doesn't matter what direction it comes from or if it is misrepresentation of facts. Not to mention you want these people of the extreme spectrum to speak out - doesnt matter if its the right, left or religious extreme side. Because then you know what's up and who is involved.
But muh freeze peach!
Hahahahaha haha
Everyone:
What a fecking douchebag though. The cigarette in his profile pic is hilarious. Has he no self awareness at all?!