Discussion Thoughts on the Alex Jones trial?

[Hoppipolla]

On the trial videos on YouTube the comments seem overwhelmingly opposed to Jones and yet they get about 25% dislikes or so.

Really confusing as to me this seems open and shut First Amendment.

Thoughts?

 

[Copexodius Maximus]

On the trial videos on YouTube the comments seem overwhelmingly opposed to Jones and yet they get about 25% dislikes or so.

Really confusing as to me this seems open and shut First Amendment.

Thoughts?

Youtube or the channel deleted the support comments obviously. Also, he was claiming the parents are crisis actors. It’s defamation, so idk.

 

[Hoppipolla]

Youtube or the channel deleted the support comments obviously. Also, he was claiming the parents are crisis actors. It’s defamation, so idk.

But surely isn't defamation when you're knowing lying? Not when you're just sharing your personal opinion...

Otherwise anything critical of anyone could be considered defamation.


I honestly find this trial somewhat chilling. I never thought that in my lifetime we would reach a point where something like this could be considered criminal.

It makes me think of that scene in V For Vendetta when Stephen Fry's character was dragged away during the night for criticising the chancellor. I really feel like that's the kind of society people want to live in now.

 

[Copexodius Maximus]

But surely isn't defamation when you're knowing lying? Not when you're just sharing your personal opinion...

Otherwise anything critical of anyone could be considered defamation.

It’s defamation when corporate media lied about Kyle Rittenhouse. It’s defamation when they lied about the MAGA normie sandman. So I don’t see why this should be any different. Good journalism requires going with the evidence, and if he had evidence to back up his claim then he could have said “well, it was the best guess based on the information we had”. But no, he just randomly blurted shit like a paranoid schizophrenic. This is why even though he’s right about many things, he will never be listened to by most people because he also says a lot of shit he makes up on the spot or hears other paranoid schizos make up.

 

[Hoppipolla]

It’s defamation when corporate media lied about Kyle Rittenhouse. It’s defamation when they lied about the MAGA normie sandman. So I don’t see why this should be any different. Good journalism requires going with the evidence, and if he had evidence to back up his claim then he could have said “well, it was the best guess based on the information we had”. But no, he just randomly blurted shit like a paranoid schizophrenic. This is why even though he’s right about many things, he will never be listened to by most people because he also says a lot of shit he makes up on the spot or hears other paranoid schizos make up.

But he didn't lie. Lying is when you intentionally say things that aren't true.

Surely you can see this? I really can't say it any more plainly than I already am.

 

[Copexodius Maximus]

But he didn't lie. Lying is when you intentionally say things that aren't true.

Surely you can see this? I really can't say it any more plainly than I already am.

He intentionally said something he had no evidence for, and damaged their reputation for being crisis actors (even though they weren’t). Making accusations like that without evidence is called defamation.

 

[Hoppipolla]

He intentionally said something he had no evidence for, and damaged their reputation for being crisis actors (even though they weren’t). Making accusations like that without evidence is called defamation.

But it's not LYING, is it?

And what is enough evidence? And who decides when someone has enough evidence for their opinion to be legal?

 

[Simulacrasimulation]

But it's not LYING, is it?

And what is enough evidence? And who decides when someone has enough evidence for their opinion to be legal?

literally doubling down and using every angle you have to defend someone

DOESN'T MEAN THEY HAVE DONE NOTHING WRONG

it just makes you more and more bent the more and more angles you come up with to defend them

herrrr derrrrr lying bro isnt lying bro he jeeeeeez ddn't know the truth bro he jeeeez didn't know he was lying bro

in THE SAME MANNER DOUCHEBAG, HE DIDN'T KNOW HE WAS TELLING THE TRUTH AND KNEW THERE WAS A POSSIBILITY A LARGE POSSIBILITY HE WAS NO TELLING THE TRUTH IN A SENSITIVE AREA,


WHHHHHHHHICH IS AGAIN LYING

STOP WASTING PEOPLES TIME TRYING TO LAWYER

WWWWWEHN YOU SHIT AT IT

and ill point out every logical fallacy and hang you with them every damn time

 

[Hoppipolla]

literally doubling down and using every angle you have to defend someone

DOESN'T MEAN THEY HAVE DONE NOTHING WRONG

it just makes you more and more bent the more and more angles you come up with to defend them

herrrr derrrrr lying bro isnt lying bro he jeeeeeez ddn't know the truth bro he jeeeez didn't know he was lying bro

in THE SAME MANNER DOUCHEBAG, HE DIDN'T KNOW HE WAS TELLING THE TRUTH AND KNEW THERE WAS A POSSIBILITY A LARGE POSSIBILITY HE WAS NO TELLING THE TRUTH IN A SENSITIVE AREA,


WHHHHHHHHICH IS AGAIN LYING

STOP WASTING PEOPLES TIME TRYING TO LAWYER

WWWWWEHN YOU SHIT AT IT

and ill point out every logical fallacy and hang you with them every damn time

So... if you're not 100% sure of your opinion on something and it turns out to be incorrect, then it was a lie?

 

[Simulacrasimulation]

So... if you're not 100% sure of your opinion on something and it turns out to be incorrect, then it was a lie?

rubbish yet again libtard behaviour literal crap

literally doubling down and using every angle you have to defend someone

DOESN'T MEAN THEY HAVE DONE NOTHING WRONG
literally doubling down and using every angle you have to defend someone

DOESN'T MEAN THEY HAVE DONE NOTHING WRONG
literally doubling down and using every angle you have to defend someone

DOESN'T MEAN THEY HAVE DONE NOTHING WRONG
literally doubling down and using every angle you have to defend someone

DOESN'T MEAN THEY HAVE DONE NOTHING WRONG

double down yet again

misrepresenting my position another form of what you are doing before

pathetic

low iq bullshit

it aint going to work pal

but if your 50% sure then what


SO YOU SAY SHIT THAT YOUR 50% SURE OF AND THEN WHEN YOU GET IT WRONG YOU SHOULD HAVE NOTHING AGAINST YOU AND NOONE IS ALLOWED TO SAY ANYTHING BAD ABOUT YOUR INTENTION ABOUT THE HALF TRUTHS YOU SPOKE

extrapolate this out to everyone AND YOU GET A WORLD OF COMPLETE SHIT WHERE EVERYONE IS TALKING ABSOLUTE MADE UP 50% TRUTHS THAT THEY KNOW HAS A HUGE CHANCE OF BEING CRAP.

BUT IN YOUR WORLD NOTHING COULD BE SAID AGAINST THEM AND EVERYONE LETS ITS SLIDE

so where the fuck would the truth ever be found IN THIS LITERAL SEA OF SHIT



ITS FUCKING CRAP


AND ALL OF THIS CONVOLUTION TO DEFEND A FOOL LIKE ALEX JONES, WHO HAS TALKED A LOAD OF RUBBISH AND PROVEN HIMSELF TO BE A FOOL EVEN IN THIS TRIAL ALONE

WHAT A FUCKING WASTE OF TIME

 

[Hoppipolla]

rubbish yet again libtard behaviour literal crap

literally doubling down and using every angle you have to defend someone

DOESN'T MEAN THEY HAVE DONE NOTHING WRONG
literally doubling down and using every angle you have to defend someone

DOESN'T MEAN THEY HAVE DONE NOTHING WRONG
literally doubling down and using every angle you have to defend someone

DOESN'T MEAN THEY HAVE DONE NOTHING WRONG
literally doubling down and using every angle you have to defend someone

DOESN'T MEAN THEY HAVE DONE NOTHING WRONG

double down yet again

misrepresenting my position another form of what you are doing before

pathetic

low iq bullshit

it aint going to work pal

but if your 50% sure then what


SO YOU SAY SHIT THAT YOUR 50% SURE OF AND THEN WHEN YOU GET IT WRONG YOU SHOULD HAVE NOTHING AGAINST YOU AND NOONE IS ALLOWED TO SAY ANYTHING BAD ABOUT YOUR INTENTION ABOUT THE HALF TRUTHS YOU SPOKE

extrapolate this out to everyone AND YOU GET A WORLD OF COMPLETE SHIT WHERE EVERYONE IS TALKING ABSOLUTE MADE UP 50% TRUTHS THAT THEY KNOW HAS A HUGE CHANCE OF BEING CRAP.

BUT IN YOUR WORLD NOTHING COULD BE SAID AGAINST THEM AND EVERYONE LETS ITS SLIDE

so where the fuck would the truth ever be found IN THIS LITERAL SEA OF SHIT



ITS FUCKING CRAP


AND ALL OF THIS CONVOLUTION TO DEFEND A FOOL LIKE ALEX JONES, WHO HAS TALKED A LOAD OF RUBBISH AND PROVEN HIMSELF TO BE A FOOL EVEN IN THIS TRIAL ALONE

WHAT A FUCKING WASTE OF TIME

So if you're only 50% sure of what you are saying then it's a "half-truth"?


According to the Cambridge English Dictionary, here is the definition of a half-truth:

"a statement that is intended to deceive by being only partly true"

And here is the definition of a lie:

"to say or write something that is not true in order to deceive someone"


Furthermore, the question is not whether criticism of opinions considered to be incorrect should be allowed or not, but whether it should be illegal to hold/express those opinions.

 

[Copexodius Maximus]

But it's not LYING, is it?

And what is enough evidence? And who decides when someone has enough evidence for their opinion to be legal?

You don’t get in trouble for lying, you get in trouble for defamation. He didn’t have ANY evidence to back up what he said. Just randomly heard shit and blurted it out on his show.

 

[Simulacrasimulation]

So if you're only 50% sure of what you are saying then it's a "half-truth"?


According to the Cambridge English Dictionary, here is the definition of a half-truth:

"a statement that is intended to deceive by being only partly true"

And here is the definition of a lie:

"to say or write something that is not true in order to deceive someone"


Furthermore, the question is not whether criticism of opinions considered to be incorrect should be allowed or not, but whether it should be illegal to hold/express those opinions.

again misrepresentation by more obfuscation along self interested lines

omitting central tenants everyone agrees with:

IN THE PUBLIC REALM TRUTH IS EXTREMELY IMPORTANT AND IS THE BASIS FOR A FUNCTIONING DEMOCRACY, IF YOU ALLOWED KNOWN HALF TRUTHS IT WOULD AS I HAVE DESCRIBED DESCEND INTO A PATHETIC SELF INTERESTED CHAOS OF NO TRUTHS

SEE EVERY SINGLE NEWSPAPER FOR DETAILS ON HALF TRUTHS, NO ONE READS THE DAILY MAIL OR TAKES THIS SERIOUSLY AND THEY HAVE BEEN SUBJECT TO INTENSE SCRUTINY BASED ON THE HALF TRUTHS THEY PRINT

he is not talkin in the da back yard with da boys about something i jeeeez heard on da grape vine bro listen to deeeez

its listened to by millions of impressionable people AND HE KNOWS IT


Also YOUR SOMEHOW LEAPING TO A POSITION OF KNOWLEDGE ON THE INTENT OF ALEX JONES, HOW DO YOU KNOW HE IS NOT LYING REGARDING HIS INTENT, ARE YOU A RETARD

IN THIS REALM EVERYTHING ALEX JONES HAS EVER SAID HAS TO HAVE BEEN TRUTHFUL

this is an absurd and pathetic position which doesnt work , ESPECIALLY AGAIN AS WE LOOK AT HIS BEHAVIOUR AND INTENTIONS IN OTHER AREAS OF HIS LIFE

in the public realm

 

[Simulacrasimulation]

So if you're only 50% sure of what you are saying then it's a "half-truth"?


According to the Cambridge English Dictionary, here is the definition of a half-truth:

"a statement that is intended to deceive by being only partly true"

And here is the definition of a lie:

"to say or write something that is not true in order to deceive someone"


Furthermore, the question is not whether criticism of opinions considered to be incorrect should be allowed or not, but whether it should be illegal to hold/express those opinions.

Also your talking as if the law is actually a source of morality

JJJJJJFFFFFFFFLLLLLL THIS IS DUMB BEYOND BELIEF

The law has so many loopholes and is absolutely ripe for manipulation and obfuscation, with many many things you can do that are morally wrong that are not LEGALLY WRONG, due to the set up of the law and how certain groups and behaviours are permitted by law by a completely amoral, have you not seen the O J SIMPSON CASE

if the law was straight EVERY SINGLE LAWYER WOULD BE OUT OF A FUCKING JOB BECAUSE THERE ARE NO ANGLES IN WHICH TO MANIPULATE THE LAW,( WHICH IS THEIR FUCKING JOB ITS ALL THEY DO) TO THEIR CLIENTS END.

what about the 5th ammendment do you think this is actually a morally sound law, allowing people who are guilty to "stay silent" as to not incriminate themselves, rather than actually speak on the subject they are accused of.
HOW IN THE LIVING FUCK IS THIS A MORALLY DEFENSIBLE POSITION, IF YOU ARE BANG TO RIGHTS THE FIRST MOVE ANYONE THATS GUILTY MAKES IS SILENCE AND DISTRACTION, THATS 101 FOR SOMEONE THATS GUILTY IN ANY SOCIETY, THATS LITERALLY THE FIRST MOVE ANYONE WOULD MAKE, BECAUSE THEY CANT DEFEND THEMSELVES.

this is pathetic

 

[Hoppipolla]

You don’t get in trouble for lying, you get in trouble for defamation. He didn’t have ANY evidence to back up what he said. Just randomly heard shit and blurted it out on his show.

I think... here's the thing. I feel like in this thread there has been an intention to try to frame my statements as if I'm trying to make accurate legal statements. That has never been my goal so far so I apologise if I came across that way.

The only time I sort of meant to do that is when I said I thought it was obviously covered under the First Amendment.

I think my wording there was a bit poor. I think what I really should have said is that in my opinion, this clearly should be covered under free speech.

I don't study the law much as you have to bear in mind I live in a country (the UK) where people get imprisoned for speech fairly often. It's hard to take the law too seriously in such an environment because it all looks absurd.

I also feel like we had some crossed wires on what Jones was TRYING to do. Can we agree at least that his intention was not to mislead but simply to share his personal opinion?

@Simulacrasimulation I don't mind discussing this with you more but I really think you should calm down. You're getting very angry about this and it's only supposed to be a discussion, not a punch up!

 

[Simulacrasimulation]

I think... here's the thing. I feel like in this thread there has been an intention to try to frame my statements as if I'm trying to make accurate legal statements. That has never been my goal so far so I apologise if I came across that way.

The only time I sort of meant to do that is when I said I thought it was obviously covered under the First Amendment.

I think my wording there was a bit poor. I think what I really should have said is that in my opinion, this clearly should be covered under free speech.

I don't study the law much as you have to bear in mind I live in a country (the UK) where people get imprisoned for speech fairly often. It's hard to take the law too seriously in such an environment because it all looks absurd.

I also feel like we had some crossed wires on what Jones was TRYING to do. Can we agree at least that his intention was not to mislead but simply to share his personal opinion?

@Simulacrasimulation I don't mind discussing this with you more but I really think you should calm down. You're getting very angry about this and it's only supposed to be a discussion, not a punch up!

ok so we agree the law is a joke that is so malleable as to be worth ZERO

you now hit another logical fallacy if you take this stance if you go down the he jeeeeez has freedom of speech THIS IS A PANDORAS BOX IN WHICH ANYTHING CAN BE PUT UNDER THE ITS JEEEZ FREE SPEECH BRO I CAN SAY WHAT I LIKE BRO

so if this is free speech where and when does the line get drawn and by whom, if you cant draw the line and it is NOWHERE THEN ANYONE CAN SAY ANYTHING THEY LIKE TO EVERYONE WITH NO LIMITS IN THE PUBLIC REALM

this is again another hocum scenario WHICH AGAIN LEADS TO WHAT I SAID ABOUT :

extrapolate this out to everyone AND YOU GET A WORLD OF COMPLETE SHIT WHERE EVERYONE IS TALKING ABSOLUTE MADE UP 50% TRUTHS THAT THEY KNOW HAS A HUGE CHANCE OF BEING CRAP.

BUT IN YOUR WORLD NOTHING COULD BE SAID AGAINST THEM AND EVERYONE LETS ITS SLIDE

so where the fuck would the truth ever be found IN THIS LITERAL SEA OF SHIT

You have to work out by going down the herrr derrr its jeeeez FEEE SPEECH BRO ITS :

1) SUPER LOW IQ ARGUMENT

2) USED PREDOMINANTLY BY PEOPLE WHO ARE CORRUPT AND OR LYING TO ABSOLVE THEM OF BLAME

3) CREATES SO MANY PROBLEMS IN THE NAME OF "LIBERTY", THAT IT IS COUNTERPRODUCTIVE AND MAKES THE MATTER EXPONENTIALLY WORSE FOR EVERYONE.

4)ALLOWS LYING, ALLOWS CORRUPTION, DECEPTION, IN THE NAME OF FREE SPEECH, YOU SIMPLY CANT HAVE BLANKET FREE SPEECH WITHOUT INTRODUCING THESE ELEMENTS

4 )IS SO SELF INTERESTED IT IS COMPLETELY OBVIOUS TO EVERYONE IT IS BEING USED TO COVER A MORALLY CORRUPT POSITION

How do you square these pegs with the one positive of herr derrrr its jeeeeeez his opinion bro


this is like saying i jeeeeez smacked in the face bro its not assault i jeeeez touched with my hand bro, are we not allowed to touch anyone anymore bro

 

[crestfallencel]

free him

 

[Copexodius Maximus]

I think... here's the thing. I feel like in this thread there has been an intention to try to frame my statements as if I'm trying to make accurate legal statements. That has never been my goal so far so I apologise if I came across that way.

The only time I sort of meant to do that is when I said I thought it was obviously covered under the First Amendment.

I think my wording there was a bit poor. I think what I really should have said is that in my opinion, this clearly should be covered under free speech.

I don't study the law much as you have to bear in mind I live in a country (the UK) where people get imprisoned for speech fairly often. It's hard to take the law too seriously in such an environment because it all looks absurd.

I also feel like we had some crossed wires on what Jones was TRYING to do. Can we agree at least that his intention was not to mislead but simply to share his personal opinion?

@Simulacrasimulation I don't mind discussing this with you more but I really think you should calm down. You're getting very angry about this and it's only supposed to be a discussion, not a punch up!

I think first ammendment doesnt apply when you are purposefully making shit up about people and destroy their reputation (with no evidence).

His personal opinion would make sense if he had any evidence. He’s a news person, he should be held to some standards of telling things with evidence. There’s a difference between giving an opinion, and telling the news and saying something.

 

[Hoppipolla]

I think first ammendment doesnt apply when you are purposefully making shit up about people and destroy their reputation (with no evidence).

Leaving aside the legal stuff just for a sec... I feel like we don't actually agree on what Jones was actually doing.

You say he was "purposefully making shit up"... really? Purposefully?

My perception of it is that he genuinely believed these things he was saying. They were opinion.

Surely all he did was judge things for himself, form an opinion, and then share that opinion on his show.

Maybe you do believe he was being more sinister than that, but I don't believe there is any evidence for saying that.

 

[Simulacrasimulation]

Leaving aside the legal stuff just for a sec... I feel like we don't actually agree on what Jones was actually doing.

You say he was "purposefully making shit up"... really? Purposefully?

My perception of it is that he genuinely believed these things he was saying. They were opinion.

Surely all he did was judge things for himself, form an opinion, and then share that opinion on his show.

Maybe you do believe he was being more sinister than that, but I don't believe there is any evidence for saying that.

refer to my previous posts

im wasting time

 

[UnwantedVirgin]

He's a grifter with many problems of his own upstairs.

 

[Hoppipolla]

He's a grifter with many problems of his own upstairs.

I think he's pretty "crazy" but he's also very entertaining and his coverage of the 2016 election was great.

He's just a libertarian really (in that he strongly believes in freedom) and I guess a civnat. With a tendency to formulate wild theories!

 

[Copexodius Maximus]

Leaving aside the legal stuff just for a sec... I feel like we don't actually agree on what Jones was actually doing.

You say he was "purposefully making shit up"... really? Purposefully?

My perception of it is that he genuinely believed these things he was saying. They were opinion.

Surely all he did was judge things for himself, form an opinion, and then share that opinion on his show.

Maybe you do believe he was being more sinister than that, but I don't believe there is any evidence for saying that.

Genuinely believing something with no evidence.

 

[MarquisDeSade]

It's a sham lawsuit, it's basically trying to curve free speech in this nation under the guise of defamation as a means for censorship.

 

[proudweeb]

alex dindu nuffin wrong. free my nigga asap

 

[Emba]

The frogs are proud fags now

 

[Hoppipolla]

Genuinely believing something with no evidence.

I mean... how do you define evidence?

A Stormfront member will claim to have evidence that Jews run America and someone on the far left will claim to have evidence that it's white supremacy or whatever.

Clearly in both cases the "evidence" they have is enough to convince them.

Sometimes people will be incorrect and their evidence will have been misread, poorly sourced, etc. But that can happen to anybody. We just have to go with the best evidence we have at the time and use our best judgement.

It's a sham lawsuit, it's basically trying to curve free speech in this nation under the guise of defamation as a means for censorship.

View attachment 649972

Completely agree!

Jones is targeted not because he's any different but just because he's on the right.

If this is defamation then so many other things could come under that term. It's a great way to chill free speech even more than it has been already.

 

[Copexodius Maximus]

I mean... how do you define evidence?

A Stormfront member will claim to have evidence that Jews run America and someone on the far left will claim to have evidence that it's white supremacy or whatever.

Clearly in both cases the "evidence" they have is enough to convince them.

Sometimes people will be incorrect and their evidence will have been misread, poorly sourced, etc. But that can happen to anybody. We just have to go with the best evidence we have at the time and use our best judgement.

Stormfront copers and white supremacists can’t be sued if they make claims like that because they don’t get people to end up going after Jews, unlike Alex Jones fans who stalked, harassed, and even threatened the parents. Also, there is evidence that might show Jews run the world (even if it is a coincidental or exaggerated claim).

 

[Hoppipolla]

Stormfront copers and white supremacists can’t be sued if they make claims like that because they don’t get people to end up going after Jews, unlike Alex Jones fans who stalked, harassed, and even threatened the parents. Also, there is evidence that might show Jews run the world (even if it is a coincidental or exaggerated claim).

He stalked them and threatened them? When?

And as I say he almost definitely thought he had evidence, didn't he? No evidence is 100% watertight though.

 

[Copexodius Maximus]

He stalked them and threatened them? When?

His followers did.

 

[Hoppipolla]

His followers did.

But did he ask them to?

 

[PPEcel]

Jones refused to go through discovery lmao what a retard

 

[Hoppipolla]

Jones refused to go through discovery lmao what a retard

Isn't it crazy that there are so many people being targeted by lawsuits now that people actually know what all these terms mean.

There was a time when nobody needed to know.

 

[PPEcel]

Isn't it crazy that there are so many people being targeted by lawsuits now that people actually know what all these terms mean.

There was a time when nobody needed to know.

It's always good to understand the law. I always encourage people to find case documents and read them.

 

[Copexodius Maximus]

But did he ask them to?

No. But it’s like claiming a random dude is a pedophile and people go attack him. Like come on lol, we knew what was going to happen. Same thing happened to kyle rittenhouse and the sandman guy. Kyle rittenhouse can’t even go to his college anymore due to being stalked by leftists, so he should sue the shit out of every media organization the perpetuated lies about him.

 

[Waco]

I remember this faggot on r9k who was always talking about lanzamaxxing
probably a bot

 

[BertStanton]

The entire world and legal system is run by demonic antichrist zionst filth never days who the NWO is it's the Jews
So the same evil people the destroyed white Christian america because the Talmud told them too have in fact destroyed Alex
Remember when roseann bar pushed queer and woke crap on her original show that ended in 1997 she enabled these filth and when she had her new show and said something the wokists didn't like online even her own Jew cast members Sarah dyke Gilbert and Michael fishman turned on the the far left always eats it own like the zio commies in Russia did
too bad AH didn't wipe all of Russia out 88

 

[Hoppipolla]

No. But it’s like claiming a random dude is a pedophile and people go attack him. Like come on lol, we knew what was going to happen. Same thing happened to kyle rittenhouse and the sandman guy. Kyle rittenhouse can’t even go to his college anymore due to being stalked by leftists, so he should sue the shit out of every media organization the perpetuated lies about him.

[UWSL]So nobody should ever say anything negative about anyone anymore in case other people attack them for it?[/UWSL]

 

[Copexodius Maximus]

[UWSL]So nobody should ever say anything negative about anyone anymore in case other people attack them for it?[/UWSL]

No. No one should make accusations like that unless they have serious evidence. Alex Jones had no evidence for anything, just schizo observations of anomalies from different news reports. He did 0 journalism. Didn’t go independently verify the facts, didn’t investigate the scene, etc. Pretty lazy journalist, and things like this is what made me think Alex Jones himself was a psyop for a long time.

 

[Hoppipolla]

No. No one should make accusations like that unless they have serious evidence. Alex Jones had no evidence for anything, just schizo observations of anomalies from different news reports. He did 0 journalism. Didn’t go independently verify the facts, didn’t investigate the scene, etc. Pretty lazy journalist, and things like this is what made me think Alex Jones himself was a psyop for a long time.

I really think this is just about certain people (I guess including you) wanting to dictate what is true and what's not and what evidence is acceptable and what's not.

We could go through a million examples and every time the upshot would be that you personally like or dislike the evidence presented and so therefore the opinion is ok or not ok.

This is just... very much an authoritarian mindset. A desire to dictate truth and if others don't agree, tell them that only your opinion is objectively true.

 

[Copexodius Maximus]

I really think this is just about certain people (I guess including you) wanting to dictate what is true and what's not and what evidence is acceptable and what's not.

We could go through a million examples and every time the upshot would be that you personally like or dislike the evidence presented and so therefore the opinion is ok or not ok.

This is just... very much an authoritarian mindset. A desire to dictate truth and if others don't agree, tell them that only your opinion is objectively true.

It’s not even that I don’t accept his evidence, it’s that he had NO evidence. Coming back to the Jews owning the world, even that has some level of evidence. If someone was harassing Jews and threatening them due to that, then it would not be the fault of the person who said Jews control the world because they were presenting evidence for their case (even if someone thinks it is wrong). But Alex Jones is not like this, he literally had no evidence to back up his claim, just blurted out shit. I mean the amount he has to pay is ridiculous I agree with that, but journalists should not be allowed to get away with slander like this. Journalists and such should be held to a higher standard than regular people due to the nature of their work.

 

[Hoppipolla]

It’s not even that I don’t accept his evidence, it’s that he had NO evidence. Coming back to the Jews owning the world, even that has some level of evidence. If someone was harassing Jews and threatening them due to that, then it would not be the fault of the person who said Jews control the world because they were presenting evidence for their case (even if someone thinks it is wrong). But Alex Jones is not like this, he literally had no evidence to back up his claim, just blurted out shit. I mean the amount he has to pay is ridiculous I agree with that, but journalists should not be allowed to get away with slander like this. Journalists and such should be held to a higher standard than regular people due to the nature of their work.

How do you know he had no evidence? That's a pretty big claim.

Also wow I had no idea that somebody could put this much weight on the concept of evidence. To me I just accept people's opinions regardless. I don't consider it any of my business how they reached them.

 

[TheValeYard]

Its a sham, some losers just want to extort money from him.

"Sandy Hook didn't happen, all victims were crisis actors, Adam Lanza was paid actor"

 

[Hoppipolla]

Its a sham, some losers just want to extort money from him.

"Sandy Hook didn't happen, all victims were crisis actors, Adam Lanza was paid actor"

It's amazing that saying something so simple can cause any kind of issue.

I'm so glad I got to enjoy society before clown world started in 2015/2016!

 

[Copexodius Maximus]

How do you know he had no evidence? That's a pretty big claim.

Cause I was following it when it happened. He is kekfuel content.

Also wow I had no idea that somebody could put this much weight on the concept of evidence. To me I just accept people's opinions regardless. I don't consider it any of my business how they reached them.

There should be a different standard between whether it’s a random dude or a journalist/news commentator/etc. There should be enforced standards of ethics in journalism and they need to be punished for people like this subject to harassment. For example, when Alex Jones first talked about Epstein he had evidence even back then, even if they were just leads. But in the sandy hook case, he really didn’t have anything.

 

[solblue]

The current argument isn't over whether Jones is liable for defamation since he definitely is. The courts entered a default judgment since he didn't even bother to mount a defense. The argument is over how much he's liable for. Dude is gonna get rinsed.

 

[Hoppipolla]

Cause I was following it when it happened. He is kekfuel content.


There should be a different standard between whether it’s a random dude or a journalist/news commentator/etc. There should be enforced standards of ethics in journalism and they need to be punished for people like this subject to harassment. For example, when Alex Jones first talked about Epstein he had evidence even back then, even if they were just leads. But in the sandy hook case, he really didn’t have anything.

But who are we even to judge? Even if someone is basing their opinion on a dream they had, how is it any of our business?

And what difference does it make if they have a radio show or something... some people have podcasts with like 2 listeners. They count too?

Could you link me to evidence that he had no evidence? lol

I'm just... not an authoritarian. Live and let live, right? Another man's opinions are none of my business.

 

[Copexodius Maximus]

But who are we even to judge? Even if someone is basing their opinion on a dream they had, how is it any of our business?

Cause it lead to people harassing him

And what difference does it make if they have a radio show or something... some people have podcasts with like 2 listeners. They count too?

If it leads to people harassing and threatening others, then yeah. Clearly people like CNN should not allowed send their goons after people.

Could you link me to evidence that he had no evidence? lol

I can’t prove a negative.

I'm just... not an authoritarian. Live and let live, right? Another man's opinions are none of my business.

It is if their low iq goons come after you, and they make accusations about you. In an age where your reputation could be the difference between being homeless and keeping your job, it’s serious shit.

 

[Hoppipolla]

Cause it lead to people harassing him

If it leads to people harassing and threatening others, then yeah. Clearly people like CNN should not allowed send their goons after people.
View attachment 650253

I can’t prove a negative.

It is if their low iq goons come after you, and they make accusations about you. In an age where your reputation could be the difference between being homeless and keeping your job, it’s serious shit.

So... just because he (might have) never stated exact evidence, that's proof enough to you that he had none?

If you're worried about the "goons" going after people then the problem is people now can't say anything.

IT sit there and say bad things about incels all the time. Then we say bad things about IT. Why aren't any of us worried about the "goons" then?

Or is it specifically because we're not media outlets? In that case... how many listeners/viewers is the threshold? We'd better never start Incel Radio or we'd be screwed! IT shouldn't either!

 

[Copexodius Maximus]

So... just because he (might have) never stated exact evidence, that's proof enough to you that he had none?

He could have easily said “based on the evidence available to me at that time, my conclusion made sense”. But he had no such evidence.

If you're worried about the "goons" going after people then the problem is people now can't say anything.

Journalists are not people

IT sit there and say bad things about incels all the time. Then we say bad things about IT. Why aren't any of us worried about the "goons" then?

We aren’t journalists running shows. We all all losers with no influence

Or is it specifically because we're not media outlets? In that case... how many listeners/viewers is the threshold? We'd better never start Incel Radio or we'd be screwed! IT shouldn't either!

Bummer drummer was incel radio, hence why he went missing