3 ms·

Looking through his page on WikiQuote, I see at least a couple direct calls to violence. And that’s just from those few statements the editors deemed worthy. I

Looking through his page on WikiQuote, I see at least a couple direct calls to violence. And that’s just from those few statements the editors deemed worthy. I don’t understand why you’d write this response without looking into the man first. If you’d rather not examine him, I totally get it, but then maybe don’t defend him?

smsm42 8y ago
WikiQuote is a good idea, I didn't think Alex Jones would have a page there but here it is. But the worst I could see is "I will STUMP your head in if you start a fight with me, you thug scum" and "Stop being weak! And when you see a threat coming down on you, deal with it!". As political speech goes, I've heard worse from very mainstream politicians. Which ones do you think are the worst there? > I don’t understand why you’d write this response without looking into the man first. I did. I know who Alex Jones is. But of course I didn't read every single one of his rants, I have much better ways to spend my limited time on this Earth, thankyouverymuch. I also think if somebody argues for his exclusion from all major platform, they should already have the examples of the violent calls ready, just saying "yes, he did that, trust us, we wouldn't lie to you would we?" shouldn't be enough. > but then maybe don’t defend him? People still can't get an idea that demanding someone to be treated fairly is not the same as liking them or defending them. I mean, we're doing this thing for millenia, the Bible (and I mean the old, Jewish one, not even the newer one) talks about just courts - for criminals, not for good nice people - as one of the basic requirements, and we still don't get it through that being just to someone and defending someone is not the same. How long will it take? Will the collective conscience in year 9000 get it?
- mikeash 8y ago
  "You need to have your JAWS BROKEN!" "1776 WILL COMMENCE AGAIN IF YOU TRY TO TAKE OUR FIREARMS!" Note that the second one is directly connected to Sandy Hook, since he tells everyone that it was a hoax done with the purpose of taking people's guns away. He's basically telling people to rise up in armed revolt. He tells his audience that the victims' parents are actually part of a conspiracy to take their guns, tells them that armed revolt is the proper response.... You're not demanding that he be treated fairly. Being treated fairly would mean that if he's advocating violence he should get kicked off these platforms. You're defending him by saying you don't think he does this. That's not being just or fair, that's being counterfactual, and even worse it's coming from a position of deliberate ignorance.
  - smsm42 8y ago
    > "You need to have your JAWS BROKEN!" OK you got this one. It's in the middle of the large and mostly incoherent rant, so I missed it, but that's encouragement of violence (even though Jones would probably call it rhetorical figure, but he should have used different rhetoric in this case). For this he does deserve condemnation. Doesn't make him a "threat to our democracy", as one not-very-smart Senator recently proclaimed. > "1776 WILL COMMENCE AGAIN IF YOU TRY TO TAKE OUR FIREARMS!" This is not a call to violence - not only nobody is trying to take our firearms, but most gun control proponents specifically and emphatically reject the suggestion that this is their goal. And even if they were lying, it's a predictive, not normative statement, about a very hypothetical situation at that. > He's basically telling people to rise up in armed revolt. If "they" try to "take our firearms", which nobody is doing. On the contrary, Supreme Court repeatedly recognized firearms ownership as a personal right (even though some locations have trouble recognizing it). Saying "if you do this policy, people will revolt" is a common rhetorical figure, which is very far from direct encouragement of violence. > He tells his audience that the victims' parents are actually part of a conspiracy to take their guns, This is despicable and loathsome. But not a call to violence. > tells them that armed revolt is the proper response.... If his conspiracy proves true and people actually come to take his guns - which of course it won't and they won't (unless he commits a felony, which is different business). > You're not demanding that he be treated fairly. Yes I do. I am kind of an expert on what I am demanding, you can believe me at least on that. > Being treated fairly would mean that if he's advocating violence he should get kicked off these platforms. So far we've seen he advocated violence once, and even that in kinda rhetorical (though no doubt very objectionable) fashion, along the lines of "punch the Nazi" that we've heard so much recently, or one press member expressing a desire to "wring the neck" of one press secretary for not giving responses to this press member's liking. I've seen the same and way worse literally on every platform that banned Jones, with no consequence to speak of, certainly not total ban (maybe sometimes short suspension). This is certainly what should be condemned, but way below total ban. So I continue to think he was not treated fairly. I leave you with this quote from Noam Chomsky: If we don't believe in freedom of expression for people we despise, we don't believe in it at all.
    - mikeash 8y ago

smsm42 8y ago

WikiQuote is a good idea, I didn't think Alex Jones would have a page there but here it is. But the worst I could see is "I will STUMP your head in if you start a fight with me, you thug scum" and "Stop being weak! And when you see a threat coming down on you, deal with it!". As political speech goes, I've heard worse from very mainstream politicians. Which ones do you think are the worst there? > I don’t understand why you’d write this response without looking into the man first. I did. I know who Alex Jones is. But of course I didn't read every single one of his rants, I have much better ways to spend my limited time on this Earth, thankyouverymuch. I also think if somebody argues for his exclusion from all major platform, they should already have the examples of the violent calls ready, just saying "yes, he did that, trust us, we wouldn't lie to you would we?" shouldn't be enough. > but then maybe don’t defend him? People still can't get an idea that demanding someone to be treated fairly is not the same as liking them or defending them. I mean, we're doing this thing for millenia, the Bible (and I mean the old, Jewish one, not even the newer one) talks about just courts - for criminals, not for good nice people - as one of the basic requirements, and we still don't get it through that being just to someone and defending someone is not the same. How long will it take? Will the collective conscience in year 9000 get it?

mikeash 8y ago
"You need to have your JAWS BROKEN!" "1776 WILL COMMENCE AGAIN IF YOU TRY TO TAKE OUR FIREARMS!" Note that the second one is directly connected to Sandy Hook, since he tells everyone that it was a hoax done with the purpose of taking people's guns away. He's basically telling people to rise up in armed revolt. He tells his audience that the victims' parents are actually part of a conspiracy to take their guns, tells them that armed revolt is the proper response.... You're not demanding that he be treated fairly. Being treated fairly would mean that if he's advocating violence he should get kicked off these platforms. You're defending him by saying you don't think he does this. That's not being just or fair, that's being counterfactual, and even worse it's coming from a position of deliberate ignorance.
- smsm42 8y ago
  > "You need to have your JAWS BROKEN!" OK you got this one. It's in the middle of the large and mostly incoherent rant, so I missed it, but that's encouragement of violence (even though Jones would probably call it rhetorical figure, but he should have used different rhetoric in this case). For this he does deserve condemnation. Doesn't make him a "threat to our democracy", as one not-very-smart Senator recently proclaimed. > "1776 WILL COMMENCE AGAIN IF YOU TRY TO TAKE OUR FIREARMS!" This is not a call to violence - not only nobody is trying to take our firearms, but most gun control proponents specifically and emphatically reject the suggestion that this is their goal. And even if they were lying, it's a predictive, not normative statement, about a very hypothetical situation at that. > He's basically telling people to rise up in armed revolt. If "they" try to "take our firearms", which nobody is doing. On the contrary, Supreme Court repeatedly recognized firearms ownership as a personal right (even though some locations have trouble recognizing it). Saying "if you do this policy, people will revolt" is a common rhetorical figure, which is very far from direct encouragement of violence. > He tells his audience that the victims' parents are actually part of a conspiracy to take their guns, This is despicable and loathsome. But not a call to violence. > tells them that armed revolt is the proper response.... If his conspiracy proves true and people actually come to take his guns - which of course it won't and they won't (unless he commits a felony, which is different business). > You're not demanding that he be treated fairly. Yes I do. I am kind of an expert on what I am demanding, you can believe me at least on that. > Being treated fairly would mean that if he's advocating violence he should get kicked off these platforms. So far we've seen he advocated violence once, and even that in kinda rhetorical (though no doubt very objectionable) fashion, along the lines of "punch the Nazi" that we've heard so much recently, or one press member expressing a desire to "wring the neck" of one press secretary for not giving responses to this press member's liking. I've seen the same and way worse literally on every platform that banned Jones, with no consequence to speak of, certainly not total ban (maybe sometimes short suspension). This is certainly what should be condemned, but way below total ban. So I continue to think he was not treated fairly. I leave you with this quote from Noam Chomsky: If we don't believe in freedom of expression for people we despise, we don't believe in it at all.
  - mikeash 8y ago