2 ms·

> a deliberate attempt to provoke harassment of these poor people That seems superbly unlikely. If that were true, what would he stand to gain from that? What

by donatj 4y ago

> a deliberate attempt to provoke harassment of these poor people That seems superbly unlikely. If that were true, what would he stand to gain from that? What did he have against these people? I can't imagine he was just sitting there chuckling maniacally "yes yes I'm going to hurt these people who just lost their children". That's an imagined cartoon

AlexandrB 4y ago
Money? His audience eats that shit up. He may not have had anything personal against the victims, but he needs grist for the mill of the type of content he creates.
SketchySeaBeast 4y ago
You're right, he may not have done it deliberately for the harassment, but he clearly had no qualms about it and made no move to stop it when he knew it was happening. He deliberately lied, and deliberately spread false, vicious claims about the parents. He makes a living of spreading fabulous and wild lies designed to spread fear and anger. In this case, and in the context of all those other anger fueling claims, he lied and said that the shooting was a false flag, that no one died, and that the parents were crises actors who faked the death of their loved ones because the state was going to use it as an excuse for gun control, and he continued to claim it, even after the parents were harassed, even after they initially sued him, and even went so far as to make accusations about the parents and judge on TV during the trial. What do you believe his goal was? And do you believe those claims don't meet the requirement for defamation? Again I ask how you'd feel in my proposed scenario, if I accused you of being a child rapist on TV, even if I didn't say you needed to be stopped, but that you were raping children for satan. Would you think that's just fine because no one rational would believe it?
mikkergp 4y ago
Have you listened to Alex Jones speak? I get that we should try to see the humanity in people and that 99.999% of people are complex and nuanced but some people really are sociopaths. Some people really are cartoons.

by donatj 4y ago

AlexandrB 4y ago

Money? His audience eats that shit up. He may not have had anything personal against the victims, but he needs grist for the mill of the type of content he creates.

SketchySeaBeast 4y ago

You're right, he may not have done it deliberately for the harassment, but he clearly had no qualms about it and made no move to stop it when he knew it was happening. He deliberately lied, and deliberately spread false, vicious claims about the parents. He makes a living of spreading fabulous and wild lies designed to spread fear and anger. In this case, and in the context of all those other anger fueling claims, he lied and said that the shooting was a false flag, that no one died, and that the parents were crises actors who faked the death of their loved ones because the state was going to use it as an excuse for gun control, and he continued to claim it, even after the parents were harassed, even after they initially sued him, and even went so far as to make accusations about the parents and judge on TV during the trial. What do you believe his goal was? And do you believe those claims don't meet the requirement for defamation? Again I ask how you'd feel in my proposed scenario, if I accused you of being a child rapist on TV, even if I didn't say you needed to be stopped, but that you were raping children for satan. Would you think that's just fine because no one rational would believe it?

mikkergp 4y ago

Have you listened to Alex Jones speak? I get that we should try to see the humanity in people and that 99.999% of people are complex and nuanced but some people really are sociopaths. Some people really are cartoons.