3 ms·

Bringing up unpunished propaganda during the Bush era is irrelevant when most here would agree that was equally vile and punishable. Two wrongs don't make a ri

Bringing up unpunished propaganda during the Bush era is irrelevant when most here would agree that was equally vile and punishable. Two wrongs don't make a right. The predominant perspective here is that free speech should be protected, but if you are spreading lies to make a profit, society ought to take back that profit. That seems like a pretty reasonable take to me, but I'd entertain counterarguments if you have any. As for whether the punishment here fits the crime, maybe you're underestimating the scale of profit he's made off his lies?

adamrezich 4y ago
- JumpCrisscross 4y ago
  > I lack the vocabulary and metaphorcraft necessary to even begin to break down such a false equivalence Odd given it was your comment, not the one you're replying to, that first drew the analogy.
  - adamrezich 4y ago
    yes, I brought up another event and compared and contrasted the two, with the intent of demonstrating how the two things are not equivalent, yet the demonstrably more impactful media falsehood campaign remains wholly unpunished, contrasted with this situation, which is being punished rather dramatically. fairity characterized these two events as directly equivalent ("most here would agree that was equally vile and punishable. Two wrongs don't make a right."). how's that "odd"? -- edit, because I'm still Posting Too Fast, somehow: -- with the load-bearing word "equally" removed, your response to my post begins: > Bringing up unpunished propaganda during the Bush era is irrelevant when most here would agree that was vile and punishable. Two wrongs don't make a right. what conversation are you trying to have? "bad things are bad?" comparing and contrasting formally similar situations (media lies) with differing magnitudes (independent media organization calling single-digit number of individuals lying paid actors vs. an organized propaganda campaign that manufactured civilian consent for a foreign-soil invasion leading to a six-digit death toll) and the outcomes thereof (nearly a billion in fines vs. no punishment whatsoever) is not worth discussing? the point of my post was to demonstrate how unpunished coordinated mainstream media lies are, by using an example of something that happened in the lifetime of nearly everyone who reads HN and basically everyone agrees was a concerted effort in willfully propagandistically disseminating misinformation, which resulted in wide-scale death and destruction, completely without any punishment of any kind whatsoever, to this day. then you compare and contrast that with Alex Jones, whom you have been told repeatedly by mainstream media outlets is a terrible, terrible person, for defaming about a handful of individuals to his audience (which is sizable, but not on the scale of "everyone in the US paying attention to the news, pre-social media, in the 2000s, in the wake of 9/11"). how is anyone supposed to come away from this thinking justice has been served in any way?
    - fairity 4y ago
      You're hanging on to poor word choice, without making an honest effort to engage with the actual idea. I'd suggest removing the word "equally", and making an honest attempt at having a conversation.

adamrezich 4y ago

JumpCrisscross 4y ago
> I lack the vocabulary and metaphorcraft necessary to even begin to break down such a false equivalence Odd given it was your comment, not the one you're replying to, that first drew the analogy.
- adamrezich 4y ago
  yes, I brought up another event and compared and contrasted the two, with the intent of demonstrating how the two things are not equivalent, yet the demonstrably more impactful media falsehood campaign remains wholly unpunished, contrasted with this situation, which is being punished rather dramatically. fairity characterized these two events as directly equivalent ("most here would agree that was equally vile and punishable. Two wrongs don't make a right."). how's that "odd"? -- edit, because I'm still Posting Too Fast, somehow: -- with the load-bearing word "equally" removed, your response to my post begins: > Bringing up unpunished propaganda during the Bush era is irrelevant when most here would agree that was vile and punishable. Two wrongs don't make a right. what conversation are you trying to have? "bad things are bad?" comparing and contrasting formally similar situations (media lies) with differing magnitudes (independent media organization calling single-digit number of individuals lying paid actors vs. an organized propaganda campaign that manufactured civilian consent for a foreign-soil invasion leading to a six-digit death toll) and the outcomes thereof (nearly a billion in fines vs. no punishment whatsoever) is not worth discussing? the point of my post was to demonstrate how unpunished coordinated mainstream media lies are, by using an example of something that happened in the lifetime of nearly everyone who reads HN and basically everyone agrees was a concerted effort in willfully propagandistically disseminating misinformation, which resulted in wide-scale death and destruction, completely without any punishment of any kind whatsoever, to this day. then you compare and contrast that with Alex Jones, whom you have been told repeatedly by mainstream media outlets is a terrible, terrible person, for defaming about a handful of individuals to his audience (which is sizable, but not on the scale of "everyone in the US paying attention to the news, pre-social media, in the 2000s, in the wake of 9/11"). how is anyone supposed to come away from this thinking justice has been served in any way?
  - fairity 4y ago
    You're hanging on to poor word choice, without making an honest effort to engage with the actual idea. I'd suggest removing the word "equally", and making an honest attempt at having a conversation.