6 ms·
The whole Alex Jones saga, more than anything else, makes it impossible for me to find any common ground with "the other side". For the life of me I can't under
by hn_throwaway_99 2y ago
The whole Alex Jones saga, more than anything else, makes it impossible for me to find any common ground with "the other side". For the life of me I can't understand how this became a political issue in the first place. And I'm not even talking about gun control - I'm talking about the horrific demonization (for profit) of a group of people whose only "crime" was that their six and seven year old kids were brutally slaughtered. I just can't fathom how anyone with a ounce of humanity can defend Alex Jones.
- rlt 2y agoFraming it as “the other side” is part of the problem. There are extremes on both sides, and Alex Jones, and the small faction of his followers who harassed the Sandy Hook parents, are about as extreme as it gets.
- SonOfKyuss 2y agoIf you can’t see that one side has let the extremist faction become a mainstream voice of their movement, you’re part of the problem.
- reramuyc 2y agolol... when you cant have a some discord show you are the problem
- chrismcb 2y agoWhich side are you talking about?
- DougN7 2y agoSeriously? Maybe I’m blind (and if so please point out what I’m missing) but I only see one side that: * seems to be increasing and supporting racism * has members trying to start a race war (see recent news) * has many members saying it’s time to arm and have a civil war and kill those that disagree (easy to find on Facebook) * increasingly encourages armed militias I see all of that on the extreme right. If it’s happening openly on the extreme left, I’d like to hear about it. For what it’s worth my views slant right, but MAGA and Trump destroyed the right party.
- hagbard_c 2y agoYes, it is remarkable how much the 'democratic' party seems beholden to its extremist wing, this is likely to cost them dearly in the coming elections. By acting in ways they accuse the other side of doing they are losing their own more moderates as well as independents who either go to 'the other side' or vote for the 'third-party candidate'. I suspect this is more or less the opposite of what you were trying to say but that does not make it less true. It even fits with the pattern I mentioned before where 'democrats' accuse others of things they are doing themselves. From the 'threat to the democracy' via 'using the courts to attack opponents' this is all a matter of the pot calling the kettle black. Here's to hoping the upcoming elections end up mostly fair and square - no more shenanigans with mail-in ballots, no night-time counting sessions behind closed doors and for $deity's sake require the voters to identify themselves using some official ID like you need to buy a six-pack of beer and like is done in nearly all civilised countries. Make sure there is a paper trail, do not rely on electronic voting because that is not transparent enough for Joe Sixpack - and right he is. Preliminary results - from actual vote counts, not from exit polls - should be available on the same evening as the vote closes, there is no excuse for 2-3 week waiting periods.
- bhj 2y ago> no more shenanigans with mail-in ballots Ludicrous. Remember how T**** told supporters to not use mail-in ballots[0], then tried to stop the counting of mail-in ballots? [1] Or told people to vote twice? [2] Yes, one party is demonstrably more anti-democracy than the other. As for your voter fraud FUD: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-election_lawsuits_related_to_the_2020_U.S._presidential_election https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-election_lawsuits_related... [0] https://www.factcheck.org/2020/09/trumps-repeated-false-attacks-on-mail-in-ballots/ https://www.factcheck.org/2020/09/trumps-repeated-false-atta... [1] https://www.c-span.org/video/?c4920640/user-clip-donald-trump-attempt-stop-counting-votes-ahead https://www.c-span.org/video/?c4920640/user-clip-donald-trum... [2] https://www.newsobserver.com/news/politics-government/article245460825.html https://www.newsobserver.com/news/politics-government/articl...
- LastTrain 2y agoOK. What is a similar extreme on the other side, that shares a similar market penetration that Alex Jones has?
- TZubiri 2y ago[flagged]
- workingdog 2y agoThe side that tells us that men can become women.
- hagbard_c 2y agoThere are a few replies which got greyed out for some reason. Antifa is mentioned which is a reasonable candidate, not a person but a group aimed at deconstruction of western society under the cover of 'fighting fascism'. It has the 'market penetration' but where Jones (et al.) keep themselves to spouting rhetoric Antifa and similar organisations - and yes, these are organisations and not 'just ideas' as the current American president insists - use violent actions as their main tactic. Another candidate would be the pro-Hamas factions which call for 'Death to America' and which insist on downplaying and ridiculing the actions of their ideological allies. There is a heavy tendency to down-play 'left-wing' extremism but that does not make it disappear. You won't find it in the corporate media though, it is not reported by the likes of the SPLC and the ADL and similar organisations but it is there in plain sight. If it happens to hit the news it leads to odd headlines like the 'fiery but mostly peaceful protests' from the 'summer of love' in 2020.
- sweeter 2y ago"both sides bad" is a really brave, totally nuanced, take that no one ever has /s
- zztop44 2y agoHe interviewed Trump in 2015 (by which time he’d been spreading Sandy Hook conspiracies for years), and even now post-bankruptcy he still interviews Steve Bannon, Tucker Carlson and plenty of other fairly mainstream Republican figures. There’s no one so shameless and harmful on the Left who is anywhere near as close to the mainstream of their political movement as Jones. Whereas the Right is absolutely littered with such figures. I think that framing it as “two households, both alike in (in)dignity” is a much bigger problem.
- reramuyc 2y agoI am not a fan of him but I feel they just want to destroy him, and frankly goes against cruel and unusual punishment!
- DougN7 2y agoCausing death threats seems cruel and unusual. Taking away money and a platform doesn’t seem in the same league.
- hn_throwaway_99 2y ago> There are extremes on both sides I agree with this. I may not 100% agree that the extremists on both sides are as extreme, but for the sake of argument I'll fully grant you this point. My issue though, is that I don't feel that anyone can say with a straight face that the extremists on the left/liberal/Democratic side have has much influence and power with the party apparatus as on the right/conservative/Republican side. Sure, Alex Jones and his small faction of followers are about as extreme as it gets, but then I'd like to think you'd see Republican leaders up and down denouncing him and distancing themselves from him. Instead I see influential figures on the right like Steve Bannon, former chief strategist in the White House, defend him: > Republican strategist Steve Bannon suggested Jones and his supporters surround the building, requiring anyone attempting to kick him out to “come through a chain of patriots.” - https://www.houstonpublicmedia.org/articles/news/2024/06/06/489838/alex-jones-came-for-parents-of-sandy-hook-victims-now-theyre-coming-for-his-ranch/ https://www.houstonpublicmedia.org/articles/news/2024/06/06/... The reason I can't stomach "the other side" is not that they have insane grifter extremists like Jones. It's that so many other more folks on that side with real power somehow and for some reason defend Jones.
- influx 2y ago[flagged]
- defrost 2y agoIf the NYTimes slandered and libeled people as Alex Jones has done then yes, the NYTimes should be sued and if found guilty ordered to pay out just as Jones was.
- silisili 2y ago[flagged]
- dools 2y agoRight to free speech != Right to a social media account
- silisili 2y agoThis is all fallout from what was essentially a radical free speech case. Even so, social media companies kicking you off is way different than the government seizing your social media accounts, the latter which is being asked here.
- katbyte 2y agoA right to free speech does not mean speech without consequences. You can say what you want but you don’t get to hide behind “free speech” when the consequences start knocking
- lores 2y agoI am far from a free-speech absolutist, but yes, free speech means free from consequences. What else could it mean? Even the worst dictatorship can't stop you from speaking... the first time.
- krapp 2y agoIf you're "far from a free speech absolutist," then by definition you accept that free speech should have consequences. And even most self-described free speech absolutists agree on some acceptable consequences, like incitement to violence, perjury and slander. And not all consequences are legal. Human beings are social animals and consequences have always existed for violating common norms and taboos. Go into a synagogue and start handing out copies of Mein Kampf and see what happens.
- 2y ago
- not_really 2y ago[flagged]
- Jimmc414 2y ago[flagged]
- katbyte 2y agoWell I think you pretty succinctly proved the parent posts point lol
- Jimmc414 2y ago[flagged]
- tw04 2y ago> for asserting something people don't agree with seems a bit excessive. Huh??? “For asserting something people don’t agree with”?? He lied, he literally said none of these people lost their children and are all crisis actors faking the whole thing. This isn’t a matter of opinion, this is a matter of someone literally lying, knowing he’s lying, and continuing to do so despite knowing he’s actively hurting the folks who lost their innocent children. His idiotic followers have been actively harassing these parents because they believe his bald faced lies and you’re acting as if people are arguing about the color of the “green no it’s some other color” dress.
- Jimmc414 2y ago[flagged]
- Prickle 2y ago[flagged]
- ordinaryradical 2y agoThe size of the judgment reflects the magnitude of the harassment. If the NYTimes ran front page articles every day insinuating you were a liar and trying to use your child’s death for some shadowy agenda, or had even faked that child’s death, and went on doing this to the point that strangers began to threaten you, you had to leave your home, switch states, etc… All this while you are grieving your murdered child… If a publication libeled you to that extent, under those circumstances, yes, I think that publication owes you major money. And then I would multiply that sizable judgment by the number of parents defamed, so however big that number is, its’s now 20x larger.
- pseudo0 2y ago[flagged]
- defrost 2y agoYou've neglected to factor in 10 years of continuous knowing harrassment and spawning an army of real life stalkers intent on harrassing the parents for their participation in "the coverup and false acting", etc. These are not comparable apples and apples events.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- bun_terminator 2y agoI just think it's crazy that words can be illegal. Especially billions-of-dollars illegal. Regardless of what it's about
- lores 2y agoCausing harm is illegal. Words are not magic.
- bun_terminator 2y agoThe problem is that this is easily abused, and couldn't be more subjective
- lores 2y agoThere is no slippery slope here. Harm was actual, demonstrated, and a direct result of the speech. No subjectivity in this case, and in fact a cast-iron proof that absolute free speech would lead to very nasty outcomes.
- bun_terminator 2y agoIt can never be demonstrated that speech could do harm, that's the point. It's entirely up to the receiving end
- lores 2y agoI'm not sure I understand your argument. It can't be proven either that someone didn't die of a heart attack right before the bullet hit them, but we draw a line at "really, really likely".
- bun_terminator 2y agoNot sure I can follow either. Bullets obviously cause injuries. Words almost never do. And if so, that's mostly up to the recipient and trivial to prevent.
- incomingpain 2y ago[flagged]
- kristiandupont 2y ago>Sandy hook parents were not watching his hours long ranting to find some small snippet about them. This is government not liking what he said. Are you joking?? He had people terrorize them for over a decade. In addition to their suffering from losing their children, several of them had to move multiple times because Alex Jones told his lunatic followers that they were crisis actors. >Its not about alex jones, it's about weaponization of the justice system being used against political opponents. That is ridiculous.