5 ms·

if he was playing a character, and had disclaimers as such at the beginning, middle, and ending of his podcast, i'd love alex jones. kind of a "what would he sa

if he was playing a character, and had disclaimers as such at the beginning, middle, and ending of his podcast, i'd love alex jones. kind of a "what would he say next?" sort of thing, mixed with plenty of onion-esque satire. the problem is he's not. he holds these beliefs, and with his platform, he's leading other people to hold them as well. some are fairly benign, like gay frogs. others are downright sick, like calling the sandy hook kids crisis actors. what i'm getting at is someone needs to mirror him, with disclaimers that everything that comes out of the host's mouth is ludicrous, asinine, and should never be considered rational thought. like the jackass intros, "you, and all your stupid little friends, should never try this at home."

iamdave 8y ago
Would you say John Oliver serves that role pretty decently?
- satsuma 8y ago
  ehh, i'm thinking more colbert report's take on conservative tv. john definitely has the wacky "what will he say next" down, but it's not a satire of aj. i'm looking more for someone who speaks like aj does, about conspiracies as dumb if not dumber than gay frogs.
  - 8note 8y ago
    Jordan Klepper might be the opposer you're looking for. Unfortunately, they were cancelled recently
zaroth 8y ago
Personally I don’t think adults need their world wrapped in disclaimers, warnings, and ratings. Particularly when the same become a kind of censorship, like how all DRUDGE tweets come up moderated as sensitive on Twitter.
- iamdave 8y ago
  I often wonder if there's a way to talk about this without the C word coming up, as it seems to quickly slide down the rabbit hole of definitions and what the substantive merit of 'censorship' is. Okay, sure YouTube telling Alex Jones to kick rocks isn't censorship, because only the government has that power. It used to be a go-to move of mine to remind the holder of that opinion that government (supposedly) exists as a stand-in embodiment of the will of the people. The kind of laws we pass (or allow to pass) are macro-indicators of what we value. Certain amendments are passionately argued as being just that-weirdly, except the first amendment. It gets all sort of special treatment that sometimes (operative word) looks like selective application of the argument of "only government" can curtail speech. Lately though I'm beginning to wonder if a better argument against "only the government can enforce speech" looks something like questioning the power given to corporations (those private enterprises that are free to curtail speech as much as they like) to suppress or hide what Edward R Murrow called "unpleasant or disturbing information"[1] with how much power and influence these corporations have at large, comparatively speaking at the government level. Or, said much more succinctly: I'm terrified of the eagerness to treat 'freedom of speech' as something that is universally, and singularly granted by the government-and I think it hides some really painful truths about the speaker that they probably would never admit themselves if pressed. --- [1] https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/39004-we-have-currently-a-built-in-allergy-to-unpleasant-or-disturbing https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/39004-we-have-currently-a-b...
  - zaroth 8y ago
    Our free speech laws prevent government censorship, but also stretch to include the concept of corporate censorship in the sense of allowing access to “the public square”. IMO this public square concept will inevitably extend to major internet service providers like Facebook, Google, and Apple. Similar to how we’ve come to understand the Internet as a whole as a utility which should provided as a dumb-pipe service by companies which must promise neutrality, a similar argument can be made that despite being run by private enterprise (so is most internet infrastructure anyway) that these monopolistic services are so core to how we actually use — and harness — the power of the internet that there is a level of neutrality required in their administration as well.

iamdave 8y ago

Would you say John Oliver serves that role pretty decently?

satsuma 8y ago
ehh, i'm thinking more colbert report's take on conservative tv. john definitely has the wacky "what will he say next" down, but it's not a satire of aj. i'm looking more for someone who speaks like aj does, about conspiracies as dumb if not dumber than gay frogs.
- 8note 8y ago
  Jordan Klepper might be the opposer you're looking for. Unfortunately, they were cancelled recently

zaroth 8y ago

Personally I don’t think adults need their world wrapped in disclaimers, warnings, and ratings. Particularly when the same become a kind of censorship, like how all DRUDGE tweets come up moderated as sensitive on Twitter.

iamdave 8y ago
I often wonder if there's a way to talk about this without the C word coming up, as it seems to quickly slide down the rabbit hole of definitions and what the substantive merit of 'censorship' is. Okay, sure YouTube telling Alex Jones to kick rocks isn't censorship, because only the government has that power. It used to be a go-to move of mine to remind the holder of that opinion that government (supposedly) exists as a stand-in embodiment of the will of the people. The kind of laws we pass (or allow to pass) are macro-indicators of what we value. Certain amendments are passionately argued as being just that-weirdly, except the first amendment. It gets all sort of special treatment that sometimes (operative word) looks like selective application of the argument of "only government" can curtail speech. Lately though I'm beginning to wonder if a better argument against "only the government can enforce speech" looks something like questioning the power given to corporations (those private enterprises that are free to curtail speech as much as they like) to suppress or hide what Edward R Murrow called "unpleasant or disturbing information"[1] with how much power and influence these corporations have at large, comparatively speaking at the government level. Or, said much more succinctly: I'm terrified of the eagerness to treat 'freedom of speech' as something that is universally, and singularly granted by the government-and I think it hides some really painful truths about the speaker that they probably would never admit themselves if pressed. --- [1] https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/39004-we-have-currently-a-built-in-allergy-to-unpleasant-or-disturbing https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/39004-we-have-currently-a-b...
- zaroth 8y ago
  Our free speech laws prevent government censorship, but also stretch to include the concept of corporate censorship in the sense of allowing access to “the public square”. IMO this public square concept will inevitably extend to major internet service providers like Facebook, Google, and Apple. Similar to how we’ve come to understand the Internet as a whole as a utility which should provided as a dumb-pipe service by companies which must promise neutrality, a similar argument can be made that despite being run by private enterprise (so is most internet infrastructure anyway) that these monopolistic services are so core to how we actually use — and harness — the power of the internet that there is a level of neutrality required in their administration as well.