5 ms·

So for example "tweeted a link to a video calling for supporters to get their “battle rifles” ready against media"?

by berbec 8y ago

beaconstudios 8y ago
I'd have to see the video myself - I'll probably look it up later in order to have an informed opinion. Because it could be meant in many ways, and my suspicion is that it was intended in a metaphorical way rather than literally calling for his followers to shoot up some offices.
- mcphage 8y ago
  > Because it could be meant in many ways, and my suspicion is that it was intended in a metaphorical way rather than literally calling for his followers to shoot up some offices Welcome to the world of "plausible deniability". Deliberately speaking in a way that lets you defend yourself "oh I was only meaning metaphorically!" or "I was just joking!", where you intend a subset of your listeners to understand that you are speaking literally, is a common tactic. It's somewhat akin to the Motte and Bailey defense: http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/07/07/social-justice-and-words-words-words/ http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/07/07/social-justice-and-word...
  - humantiy 8y ago
    Its not even a "plausible deniability." Anyone who listens to Jones knows he speaks over over the top and is hyperbolic. Yes "Battle rifles" can be taken as literally, however in the article they state against the media without quoting the full video/statement. It's hard to take it literally that people will get their battle rifles and attack the media (an object). The media isn't a person so its is reaching. what isn't provided in the article is the actual video that provides context. He is making the statement 'we' are under attack. The Battle rifle is being used in the context of defending yourself from these attacks. Media Matters posted a clip of the video in question. https://twitter.com/mmfa/status/1029477795561463808 https://twitter.com/mmfa/status/1029477795561463808 In my opinion they are reaching here even in their own clip taken from Alex's periscope video. I see it as him saying 'we' need to be ready. Earlier in the clip he says the time is now to act but says economically, judiciously legally and criminally. I assume given the others he mentioned criminally meaning press charges on those who attack. I defiantly urge people to seek out the actual video or at the very least the clip above before instantly going to the 'He deserves to be banned. I hate that I have to say this but I'm not a fan of Alex Jones. I feel like I as well as many others have to say that (not just for this topic) otherwise its looked at as we're just followers and will defend him no matter what.
    - mcphage 8y ago
      > The media isn't a person so its is reaching. The media is made up of people.
      - humantiy 8y ago
        I agree that it is and I'm not arguing it isn't made up of people. It isn't the only thing it is made up of though. Its also made up of news coverage, editorial, opinions, bias, and agendas/direction as some examples. I'm sure there are more examples makes up media but these are just some I can think of. These things of course are created by people but there is a difference between attacking the people and attacking a platform/object or ideas. I can't speak for him (nor would I want to), but I think that is the question of what he means. It looks like Twitter decided it was inciting violence toward people and/or violated their rules and suspended him.
        mcphage 8y ago
        > I'm not arguing it isn't made up of people. It isn't the only thing it is made up of though. Its also made up of news coverage, editorial, opinions, bias, and agendas/direction as some examples. Sure, but those are things that can't be attacked with guns. So when Jones talks about attacking them with guns, it's natural to understand it as attacking those parts which can be attacked with guns—the people, and the buildings (which contain people). And those parts have been attacked by guns recently.
        humantiy 8y ago
        Correct, they can't be attacked with literal guns, which means it could be a figure of speech. Could being the keyword since he is the only one who could settle that debate. Lets assume it wasn't a figure of speech. I'm with you in that I don't condone if he calling for physical attacks on people be it with a gun or some other physical means. I don't condone or agree with that in general regardless of what side its on. From the article: "calling for supporters to get their “battle rifles” ready against media and others," battle rifle is in part taken out of context of what he said in the video and is editorialized to an extent to paint it in a way that could be construed as him calling to attack. Taken out of the video with a little more context: "Because they're coming...This is it... So people need to have battle rifles ready at their bedsides..." https://twitter.com/mmfa/status/1029477795561463808 https://twitter.com/mmfa/status/1029477795561463808 I didn't put everything in that quote, but linked the video where I listen to it from so you can hear it in whole. If you take it in those terms he isn't calling for attacks or acts of violence, but is saying they are coming for you and you need to be ready to defend yourself. You can argue that defending yourself could become violent, but I see defense a little different then the aggressor. By the way appreciate the discussion we having.
  - beaconstudios 8y ago
    that's a huge presumption on your part. What you're essentially saying is that you know what the internal motivation of Alex Jones is, and that his metaphor is definitely what he actually believes. I don't think even he knows what his internal motivation is, and to suggest that you know he's secretly harbouring these murderous thoughts is ridiculous. plausible deniability is clear in cases where someone makes an actual argument for something then pulls the "haha I was only trolling" argument, but to say for example to be ready for battle, in the context of politics, should not be immediately taken as a call to start tying the lynching ropes. People use references to war, battle, fighting and so on all the time in the context of political conflict.
    - mcphage 8y ago
      > should not be immediately taken as a call to start tying the lynching ropes Is that what happened? I guess I'm behind on the news; I had heard his twitter account got suspended, I didn't realize he was lynched! Or is that just hyperbole? Why do you feel the need to resort to hyperbole in this situation, instead of discussing what actually happened? I find interesting the transformations you use in your language—"get your battle rifles ready" becomes "be prepared", but "twitter account suspended for a week" becomes "tying the lynching ropes". [this was edited, btw, since you responded while I was editing it]
      - beaconstudios 8y ago
        That's just my poor writing skills - I meant that someone calling for political battle may not actually be inciting lynching or shooting the media or whatever, but speaking in metaphor.

So for example "tweeted a link to a video calling for supporters to get their “battle rifles” ready against media"?

by berbec 8y ago

So for example "tweeted a link to a video calling for supporters to get their “battle rifles” ready against media"?

I'd have to see the video myself - I'll probably look it up later in order to have an informed opinion. Because it could be meant in many ways, and my suspicion is that it was intended in a metaphorical way rather than literally calling for his followers to shoot up some offices.

mcphage 8y ago
> Because it could be meant in many ways, and my suspicion is that it was intended in a metaphorical way rather than literally calling for his followers to shoot up some offices Welcome to the world of "plausible deniability". Deliberately speaking in a way that lets you defend yourself "oh I was only meaning metaphorically!" or "I was just joking!", where you intend a subset of your listeners to understand that you are speaking literally, is a common tactic. It's somewhat akin to the Motte and Bailey defense: http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/07/07/social-justice-and-words-words-words/ http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/07/07/social-justice-and-word...
- humantiy 8y ago
  Its not even a "plausible deniability." Anyone who listens to Jones knows he speaks over over the top and is hyperbolic. Yes "Battle rifles" can be taken as literally, however in the article they state against the media without quoting the full video/statement. It's hard to take it literally that people will get their battle rifles and attack the media (an object). The media isn't a person so its is reaching. what isn't provided in the article is the actual video that provides context. He is making the statement 'we' are under attack. The Battle rifle is being used in the context of defending yourself from these attacks. Media Matters posted a clip of the video in question. https://twitter.com/mmfa/status/1029477795561463808 https://twitter.com/mmfa/status/1029477795561463808 In my opinion they are reaching here even in their own clip taken from Alex's periscope video. I see it as him saying 'we' need to be ready. Earlier in the clip he says the time is now to act but says economically, judiciously legally and criminally. I assume given the others he mentioned criminally meaning press charges on those who attack. I defiantly urge people to seek out the actual video or at the very least the clip above before instantly going to the 'He deserves to be banned. I hate that I have to say this but I'm not a fan of Alex Jones. I feel like I as well as many others have to say that (not just for this topic) otherwise its looked at as we're just followers and will defend him no matter what.
  - mcphage 8y ago
    > The media isn't a person so its is reaching. The media is made up of people.
    - humantiy 8y ago
      I agree that it is and I'm not arguing it isn't made up of people. It isn't the only thing it is made up of though. Its also made up of news coverage, editorial, opinions, bias, and agendas/direction as some examples. I'm sure there are more examples makes up media but these are just some I can think of. These things of course are created by people but there is a difference between attacking the people and attacking a platform/object or ideas. I can't speak for him (nor would I want to), but I think that is the question of what he means. It looks like Twitter decided it was inciting violence toward people and/or violated their rules and suspended him.
      - mcphage 8y ago
        > I'm not arguing it isn't made up of people. It isn't the only thing it is made up of though. Its also made up of news coverage, editorial, opinions, bias, and agendas/direction as some examples. Sure, but those are things that can't be attacked with guns. So when Jones talks about attacking them with guns, it's natural to understand it as attacking those parts which can be attacked with guns—the people, and the buildings (which contain people). And those parts have been attacked by guns recently.
        humantiy 8y ago
        Correct, they can't be attacked with literal guns, which means it could be a figure of speech. Could being the keyword since he is the only one who could settle that debate. Lets assume it wasn't a figure of speech. I'm with you in that I don't condone if he calling for physical attacks on people be it with a gun or some other physical means. I don't condone or agree with that in general regardless of what side its on. From the article: "calling for supporters to get their “battle rifles” ready against media and others," battle rifle is in part taken out of context of what he said in the video and is editorialized to an extent to paint it in a way that could be construed as him calling to attack. Taken out of the video with a little more context: "Because they're coming...This is it... So people need to have battle rifles ready at their bedsides..." https://twitter.com/mmfa/status/1029477795561463808 https://twitter.com/mmfa/status/1029477795561463808 I didn't put everything in that quote, but linked the video where I listen to it from so you can hear it in whole. If you take it in those terms he isn't calling for attacks or acts of violence, but is saying they are coming for you and you need to be ready to defend yourself. You can argue that defending yourself could become violent, but I see defense a little different then the aggressor. By the way appreciate the discussion we having.
- beaconstudios 8y ago
  that's a huge presumption on your part. What you're essentially saying is that you know what the internal motivation of Alex Jones is, and that his metaphor is definitely what he actually believes. I don't think even he knows what his internal motivation is, and to suggest that you know he's secretly harbouring these murderous thoughts is ridiculous. plausible deniability is clear in cases where someone makes an actual argument for something then pulls the "haha I was only trolling" argument, but to say for example to be ready for battle, in the context of politics, should not be immediately taken as a call to start tying the lynching ropes. People use references to war, battle, fighting and so on all the time in the context of political conflict.
  - mcphage 8y ago
    > should not be immediately taken as a call to start tying the lynching ropes Is that what happened? I guess I'm behind on the news; I had heard his twitter account got suspended, I didn't realize he was lynched! Or is that just hyperbole? Why do you feel the need to resort to hyperbole in this situation, instead of discussing what actually happened? I find interesting the transformations you use in your language—"get your battle rifles ready" becomes "be prepared", but "twitter account suspended for a week" becomes "tying the lynching ropes". [this was edited, btw, since you responded while I was editing it]
    - beaconstudios 8y ago
      That's just my poor writing skills - I meant that someone calling for political battle may not actually be inciting lynching or shooting the media or whatever, but speaking in metaphor.