3 ms·

That's not fair of you to say I am being disingenuous. Please think before jumping to conclusions. I really don't want to get into nitty gritty debate over peo

That's not fair of you to say I am being disingenuous. Please think before jumping to conclusions. I really don't want to get into nitty gritty debate over people like PJW, but most of what you bring up plays into my point. What's your threshold for considering an idea to be dangerous? It could be argued that there are ideas that can cause harmful effects on society, but people also have a right to be stupid. I don't see how believing in the illuminati, chemtrails, soy causing feminization, or that 9/11 was an inside Job are dangerous in the same objective sense that promoting racial violence is. If you have a problem with people believing bogus things, then think about considering issues around education to be a priority, as people who grow up in societies that don't value critical thinking, science, skepticism, etc., are probably prone to believing dumb things. People won't stop talking about chemtrails because platforms consider it dangerous, and restricting speech around "fringe" topics only validates people's beliefs that the authorities are hiding the truth. I don't know enough about what PJW has said about Muslims. Can you elaborate?

waer34tawer 8y ago
> That's not fair of you to say I am being disingenuous. It is. You have heard of PJW. Enough to defend him here. So presumably you're aware of his views, which is what he's known for. > I really don't want to get into nitty gritty debate over people like PJW But that's what you've done. > I don't see how believing in the illuminati, chemtrails, soy causing feminization, or that 9/11 was an inside Job are dangerous in the same objective sense that promoting racial violence is. He stops short of promoting outright violence precisely because he knows that will get him kicked off of places. What he has done is portray muslims as boogeymen, saying that they are all rapists, that they turn cities into ghettos, and that the west needs "islam control." If you don't think that's dangerous, look into the anti-semitic conspiracy theories that spread throughout europe before the holocaust. Very similar language.
- ravenstine 8y ago
  > It is. You have heard of PJW. Enough to defend him here. So presumably you're aware of his views, which is what he's known for. I can't possibly watch all of his videos, and I'm not even subscribed to him. Should only people who are intimately familiar with every detail of Paul Joseph Watson speak here in this thread? Pardon me. I've mostly seen/heard him in passively because sometimes his videos end up autoplaying when I've got YouTube playing in the background(I'm sure you won't read into that), and I never thought what he said to be dangerous, bullshit it may be. He says some ridiculous things, but lots of people say ridiculous things. Forgive me for not frothing at the mouth. Respectfully, you're being a jerk. That's your prerogative, but that tends to sour otherwise civilized discussion. All I did was ask a question, and you're accusing me of bad intent. > But that's what you've done. Yeah, I know. > He stops short of promoting outright violence precisely because he knows that will get him kicked off of places. What he has done is portray muslims as boogeymen, saying that they are all rapists, that they turn cities into ghettos, and that the west needs "islam control." If you don't think that's dangerous, look into the anti-semitic conspiracy theories that spread throughout europe before the holocaust. Very similar language. You probably should have lead with this in the first place, rather than things he might have said about relatively benign conspiracy theories like chemtrails. I still don't know all the details and the context involved, but I'd be inclined to agree with you based on what you wrote there.
  - justinmchase 8y ago
    On the other hand, his video about Joe Biden and the situation with the kids and touching people was worth watching.
  - waer34tawer 8y ago
    >I can't possibly watch all of his videos, and I'm not even subscribed to him. His association with conspiracy theories is the main thing he's known for. In order to claim that his views are not dangerous, you have to had heard of him. And if you've heard of him, very likely it was because of the fringe views he has. > All I did was ask a question, and you're accusing me of bad intent. Perhaps I'm wrong, and I apologize. The internet is swarming with people who argue in bad faith to promote an agenda. They feign ignorance of things, hold contradictory positions, and derail discussions all while claiming to be perfectly innocent. I mistook you for one of the trolls. And that's exactly what the trolls want.
    - ravenstine 8y ago
      > And if you've heard of him, very likely it was because of the fringe views he has. I couldn't really tell you why I've been exposed to Paul Joseph Watson. Maybe it's because I watch Joe Rogan and Tim Poole's shows. > Perhaps I'm wrong, and I apologize. The internet is swarming with people who argue in bad faith to promote an agenda. They feign ignorance of things, hold contradictory positions, and derail discussions all while claiming to be perfectly innocent. I mistook you for one of the trolls. And that's exactly what the trolls want. No hard feelings, and I apologize for any ignorance I may have on the issue. It's understandable, and I know what you mean about those sorts of trolling tactics. I'd rather people sometimes mistake others for trolls than fall for trolls all the time.

waer34tawer 8y ago

> That's not fair of you to say I am being disingenuous. It is. You have heard of PJW. Enough to defend him here. So presumably you're aware of his views, which is what he's known for. > I really don't want to get into nitty gritty debate over people like PJW But that's what you've done. > I don't see how believing in the illuminati, chemtrails, soy causing feminization, or that 9/11 was an inside Job are dangerous in the same objective sense that promoting racial violence is. He stops short of promoting outright violence precisely because he knows that will get him kicked off of places. What he has done is portray muslims as boogeymen, saying that they are all rapists, that they turn cities into ghettos, and that the west needs "islam control." If you don't think that's dangerous, look into the anti-semitic conspiracy theories that spread throughout europe before the holocaust. Very similar language.

ravenstine 8y ago
> It is. You have heard of PJW. Enough to defend him here. So presumably you're aware of his views, which is what he's known for. I can't possibly watch all of his videos, and I'm not even subscribed to him. Should only people who are intimately familiar with every detail of Paul Joseph Watson speak here in this thread? Pardon me. I've mostly seen/heard him in passively because sometimes his videos end up autoplaying when I've got YouTube playing in the background(I'm sure you won't read into that), and I never thought what he said to be dangerous, bullshit it may be. He says some ridiculous things, but lots of people say ridiculous things. Forgive me for not frothing at the mouth. Respectfully, you're being a jerk. That's your prerogative, but that tends to sour otherwise civilized discussion. All I did was ask a question, and you're accusing me of bad intent. > But that's what you've done. Yeah, I know. > He stops short of promoting outright violence precisely because he knows that will get him kicked off of places. What he has done is portray muslims as boogeymen, saying that they are all rapists, that they turn cities into ghettos, and that the west needs "islam control." If you don't think that's dangerous, look into the anti-semitic conspiracy theories that spread throughout europe before the holocaust. Very similar language. You probably should have lead with this in the first place, rather than things he might have said about relatively benign conspiracy theories like chemtrails. I still don't know all the details and the context involved, but I'd be inclined to agree with you based on what you wrote there.
- justinmchase 8y ago
  On the other hand, his video about Joe Biden and the situation with the kids and touching people was worth watching.
- waer34tawer 8y ago
  >I can't possibly watch all of his videos, and I'm not even subscribed to him. His association with conspiracy theories is the main thing he's known for. In order to claim that his views are not dangerous, you have to had heard of him. And if you've heard of him, very likely it was because of the fringe views he has. > All I did was ask a question, and you're accusing me of bad intent. Perhaps I'm wrong, and I apologize. The internet is swarming with people who argue in bad faith to promote an agenda. They feign ignorance of things, hold contradictory positions, and derail discussions all while claiming to be perfectly innocent. I mistook you for one of the trolls. And that's exactly what the trolls want.
  - ravenstine 8y ago
    > And if you've heard of him, very likely it was because of the fringe views he has. I couldn't really tell you why I've been exposed to Paul Joseph Watson. Maybe it's because I watch Joe Rogan and Tim Poole's shows. > Perhaps I'm wrong, and I apologize. The internet is swarming with people who argue in bad faith to promote an agenda. They feign ignorance of things, hold contradictory positions, and derail discussions all while claiming to be perfectly innocent. I mistook you for one of the trolls. And that's exactly what the trolls want. No hard feelings, and I apologize for any ignorance I may have on the issue. It's understandable, and I know what you mean about those sorts of trolling tactics. I'd rather people sometimes mistake others for trolls than fall for trolls all the time.