Political Fart Noise Part II

[CRed05]

Everyone gets an opinion or nobody does. Moving one step closer to facism everyday.

 

I'm with you. No matter how much of a insane douche Alex Jones is he should be allowed to put his bullshit out there, just like how the crazy left is allowed to put their bullshit out there. These are private companies, and I understand that they have and should have every right to ban him, but I don't think they did the right thing, especially considering that YouTube and Facebook are the most viewed sites on the planet (after Google), so you're doing large scale censoring.

 

In even crazier news...

 

https://archpaper.com/2018/08/epa-asbestos-manufacturing/

 

One of the most dangerous construction-related carcinogens is now legally allowed back into U.S. manufacturing under a new rule by the Environmental Protection Agency

I seriously checked the date on my PC to make sure it wasn't April 1st.

 

As the world’s largest exporter of asbestos, the Russian company Uralasbest operates an enormous open mine nearly half the size of Manhattan in a mountainous town 900 miles northeast of Moscow

Russia eh?

 

a controversial post on Uralasbest's Facebook page showing photos of company pallets stamped with a seal of U.S. President Donald Trump’s face.

Now it makes sense.

[Geeto67]

I'm with you. No matter how much of a insane douche Alex Jones is he should be allowed to put his bullshit out there, just like how the crazy left is allowed to put their bullshit out there. These are private companies, and I understand that they have and should have every right to ban him, but I don't think they did the right thing, especially considering that YouTube and Facebook are the most viewed sites on the planet (after Google), so you're doing large scale censoring.

 

They already do large scale censoring of things like pornography and other items which violate their terms of use.

 

Alex Jones is still allowed to put his stuff out there, he just has to do it without the help of social media platforms. He isn't the first affected by this, and he isn't going to be the last. Keep in mind - this isn't partisan, he's crazy by conservative/republican standards too.

 

But let me ask this:

 

You recognize that private companies have the right to act in their own best interests, right?

 

So how is continuing to allow him on the site the right thing?

 

This is literally the invisible hand of the market at work - the social media companies lost stock value, revenue, users, over this specific issue and responded by removing the content that the broad base of their customers/users had an issue with. The terms of use do not guarantee any user a right of free speech or freedom from censorship, you are in their house and you play by their rules, he didn't and the only problem I see here is they had to wait for it to cost them money before they did something about it, and they aren't going far enough by singling him out.

 

This isn't just economic free market either - this is what libertarianism looks like. How? well this is action without government intervention. Private companies on their own have decided that enabling Alex Jones is not in their best interests. They are not a government so they have no commitment to free speech, so he goes away. This is exactly what it looks like when you don't have a regulation or requirement and the mass will of the people are able to gain leverage in the situation. If you are a true libertarian, you should support this.

[CRed05]

This is literally the invisible hand of the market at work - the social media companies lost stock value, revenue, users, over this specific issue and responded by removing the content that the broad base of their customers/users had an issue with. The terms of use do not guarantee any user a right of free speech or freedom from censorship, you are in their house and you play by their rules, he didn't and the only problem I see here is they had to wait for it to cost them money before they did something about it, and they aren't going far enough by singling him out.

 

I'm not sure/aware of them losing money/stock/users because of Alex Jones. I know Facebook is losing users because it's a lame platform, that is easily used to influence people using fake news and used only by "old people" (by teenager standards).

 

It's easy to identify what porn/nudity is, it's something everyone can agree on. You post nudity - you get banned. Now when it comes to political/social believes, it's not quite so cut and dry.

 

The left will post up videos on how there are an infinite amount of genders out there and if you assume someone's gender it should be considered assault or go on rants about white/male/white-male privilege, all just as crazy and probably more dangerous believes to be spreading around as anything Alex Jones has ever said. Now if the right makes a video to argue against any of these things, or post their crazy believes of lizard people and god knows what else, they get demonetized or banned.

 

I notice a bias, and it's wrong.

[iwashmycar]

......

 

I notice a bias, and it's wrong.

 

You notice a difference because the 'left' used to preach tolerance and WAS tolerant...love, hugs, peace, blah blah... but now they have become intolerant, and as such its not preaching anymore...its just yelling now.

[BStowers023]

Facebook should censor people they don't like just like restaurants and stores should be able to choose who they serve/sell to. Am I doing this right? Private companies AMIRITE

[CRed05]

Facebook should censor people they don't like just like restaurants and stores should be able to choose who they serve/sell to. Am I doing this right? Private companies AMIRITE

 

Alex Jones needs to either turn gay or "non binary" and then he can post up whatever nonsense he wants.

[wagner]

Alex Jones needs to either turn gay or "non binary" and then he can post up whatever nonsense he wants.

 

 

 

Private companies and entities can do as they wish, it's how things work. Now, that's all fun and games until the rabbit has the gun and (insert viewpoint here) gets the screws put to them.

 

The right needs to toughen up, they like to throw punches but don't like to get punched back.

[Geeto67]

I'm not sure/aware of them losing money/stock/users because of Alex Jones. I know Facebook is losing users because it's a lame platform, that is easily used to influence people using fake news and used only by "old people" (by teenager standards).

 

MZ's press conference where he addressed this specific issue caused the shares to tank. Youtube, Twitter have all seen similar declines in the wake of statements made about Alex Jones, Holocaust Deniers, etc...

 

 

It's easy to identify what porn/nudity is, it's something everyone can agree on. You post nudity - you get banned. Now when it comes to political/social believes, it's not quite so cut and dry.

 

That's actually not true. Porn is notoriously difficult to determine and the gray area is quite wide.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_know_it_when_I_see_it

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roth_v._United_States

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacobellis_v._Ohio

 

under your definition Botticelli's The Birth of Venus is considered pornography. Same with the venus de milo, Michelangelo's David, etc...

 

The left will post up videos on how there are an infinite amount of genders out there and if you assume someone's gender it should be considered assault or go on rants about white/male/white-male privilege, all just as crazy and probably more dangerous believes to be spreading around as anything Alex Jones has ever said. Now if the right makes a video to argue against any of these things, or post their crazy believes of lizard people and god knows what else, they get demonetized or banned.

 

I notice a bias, and it's wrong.

 

Here is what I don't like about this statement - you are implicitly accepting Alex Jones as mainstream conservatism for the purpose of making your "bias" argument. don't do that. don't legitimize what is clearly a stand alone fringe organization. I agree there is bias, the bias is against Alex Jones and largely his bullshit conspiracy theories, but don't pretend like this is the left coming after the right. This is society regulating itself without government intervention, for as much a libertarian as AJ is himself - he is getting a taste of his own medicine when the mob turns against.

 

Also, nice whataboutisim. You are claiming a double standard, but I don't see a "double standard" so much as I see a singling out on the nail sitting the highest.

[Geeto67]

Facebook should censor people they don't like just like restaurants and stores should be able to choose who they serve/sell to. Am I doing this right? Private companies AMIRITE

 

 

Actually yes, except when it comes to race and gender. There are actually laws against race and gender discrimination because...surprise...there was discrimination against race and gender for hundreds of years and it fucked our society.

 

If you want to be an unenlightened homophobic asshole about the gay wedding cakes thing, there isn't a law preventing sexual preference discrimination, which is why that indiana baker didn't really get into trouble. But there is certainly a lot of people doing society shaming because, quite frankly, they feel it should be part of the protected class of people who shouldn't be discriminated against because so many of them are discriminated against. Again, you are seeing libertarianism and democracy at work - the masses are exerting social pressure in the absence of government intervention, but you don't like it because you don't like gay people.

 

 

Alex Jones needs to either turn gay or "non binary" and then he can post up whatever nonsense he wants.

 

Except gay isn't a protected class, and the US hasn't figured out how to properly deal with intersex (which is a real medical condition, BTW), so that wouldn't help him. I think what you wanted to say was he should turn black, but didn't.

[BStowers023]

Actually yes, except when it comes to race and gender. There are actually laws against race and gender discrimination because...surprise...there was discrimination against race and gender for hundreds of years and it fucked our society.

 

If you want to be an unenlightened homophobic asshole about the gay wedding cakes thing, there isn't a law preventing sexual preference discrimination, which is why that indiana baker didn't really get into trouble. But there is certainly a lot of people doing society shaming because, quite frankly, they feel it should be part of the protected class of people who shouldn't be discriminated against because so many of them are discriminated against. Again, you are seeing libertarianism and democracy at work - the masses are exerting social pressure in the absence of government intervention, but you don't like it because you don't like gay people.

 

 

 

 

Except gay isn't a protected class, and the US hasn't figured out how to properly deal with intersex (which is a real medical condition, BTW), so that wouldn't help him. I think what you wanted to say was he should turn black, but didn't.

 

I can't have a discussion with someone who constantly makes shit up

[Geeto67]

I can't have a discussion with someone who constantly makes shit up

 

And yet you opened the door to this discussion in defense of someone who is being singled out for constantly making shit up. Hypocrisy is a weakness of character you and Mr. Jones seem to share.

 

I'll just set this here, whether you read it or not is up to you, but I will add willful ignorance and gullibility are also weaknesses of character:

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/07/business/media/alex-jones-free-speech-not-protected.html

[CRed05]

That's actually not true. Porn is notoriously difficult to determine and the gray area is quite wide.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_know_it_when_I_see_it

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roth_v._United_States

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacobellis_v._Ohio

 

under your definition Botticelli's The Birth of Venus is considered pornography. Same with the venus de milo, Michelangelo's David, etc...

 

Which is why I thew nudity in there too. I haven't read their porno clause in their terms of service, but I'd imagine nudity is a key deciding factor.

 

 

 

Here is what I don't like about this statement - you are implicitly accepting Alex Jones as mainstream conservatism for the purpose of making your "bias" argument. don't do that. don't legitimize what is clearly a stand alone fringe organization. I agree there is bias, the bias is against Alex Jones and largely his bullshit conspiracy theories, but don't pretend like this is the left coming after the right. This is society regulating itself without government intervention, for as much a libertarian as AJ is himself - he is getting a taste of his own medicine when the mob turns against.

 

Also, nice whataboutisim. You are claiming a double standard, but I don't see a "double standard" so much as I see a singling out on the nail sitting the highest.

 

 

I'm not saying he's mainstream and I don't think it should matter - equal rights for all. You keep talking about free market, but if it was truly a free market, then he wouldn't get any views on his channel, therefor wouldn't get paid by YouTube or sponsors and would simply fizzle out by himself.

 

Where did I do a whataboutism? That's a fair comparison given the argument, I think.

 

Except gay isn't a protected class, and the US hasn't figured out how to properly deal with intersex (which is a real medical condition, BTW), so that wouldn't help him. I think what you wanted to say was he should turn black, but didn't.

 

My tongue in cheek remark is aimed at progressives who shout about shop owners denying to make cakes for gay couples getting married, but in the same breath think it's ok to deny social media service to people with different opinions than them. Race doesn't apply here, no matter how hard you seems to always want to drag it into everything.

 

And just to be clear, you're an asshole if you deny someone cakes based on sexual preference.

 

Intersex is a real condition, but your sex can still be determined.

[Geeto67]

Which is why I thew nudity in there too. I haven't read their porno clause in their terms of service, but I'd imagine nudity is a key deciding factor.

 

It's a moot point. FB is lousy at censoring nudity as it is at censoring anything else. It's user based reporting and only the biggest noise gets the attention.

 

 

 

 

 

I'm not saying he's mainstream and I don't think it should matter - equal rights for all. You keep talking about free market, but if it was truly a free market, then he wouldn't get any views on his channel, therefor wouldn't get paid by YouTube or sponsors and would simply fizzle out by himself.

 

Where did I do a whataboutism? That's a fair comparison given the argument, I think.

 

That's not true at all. In a free market the prices and availability are determined by unrestricted competition. Basically the tenants of supply and demand are unrestricted. In this case the audience demand for consuming Alex Jones has to compete with the audience demand for denying access to Alex Jones, and the demand for denying access won out because it was greater. The "free market" you are talking about isn't realistic - it's an idealized concept based on perfect morality and objectivity of the audience - which we know people aren't because people are people. In your model snuff films should also get no views but the reality is despite being all kinds of illegal snuff films exist and there is a market for them. Social pressure is a form of market demand.

 

 

the Whataboutism is your statements about how Alex Jones is being denied access while there are more dangerous liberals allowed to remain as a means of setting up that this is an attack on conservationism. In reality, there are plenty of conservative extremists equally as toxic or more as AJ that aren't being removed either, probably because they don't have the same visibility. Social media companies are de-platforming Inforwars, and infowars alone for the moment. Whether they tackle any others remains to be seen and we can make bias determinations then. But to say "well what about these people over here doing the same or worse shit" as a way of supporting that you think removing Alex Jones is an attack on conservatisim....well that is whataboutism. Yeah, if there are toxic people on the left as bad or worse then AJ, they should be removed too and maybe Social media will get to them in the coming months....that still doesn't make it wrong for them to remove Alex Jones.

[Geeto67]

My tongue in cheek remark is aimed at progressives who shout about shop owners denying to make cakes for gay couples getting married, but in the same breath think it's ok to deny social media service to people with different opinions than them. Race doesn't apply here, no matter how hard you seems to always want to drag it into everything.

 

And just to be clear, you're an asshole if you deny someone cakes based on sexual preference.

 

 

I didn't see it as tongue in cheek, my bad.

 

Progressives are shouting at shop owners discriminating against CLASSES of people based on a general classification, where the standard for service is a case by case basis unless the denial of service was based on a protected characteristic (e.g race and gender). Those progressives are arguing that gay as a class should be added to the other protective classes and for the same reason those protected classes exist in the first place. I bring up race and gender here because race and gender are the standards for protected classes, and the question at issue is sexual preference a class like race and gender or not? I think it is, but supporters of discriminating against gays don't.

 

BTW, religion is also a protected class, but I didn't bring it up because it can get kind of confusing considering that religion is at the heart of why the shop keeper is discriminating and whose public interests win out when there is a conflict. Spoilet Alert: the public at large always trumps the merchant. there are many religions that have many restrictions, but there are also implied requirements when people decide to be merchants. Judaism has restrictions on bacon, but that doesn't mean nobody should sell bacon. It also means that if a jewish individual wants to work and maintain his faith restrictions, he should probably seek work in a field that would minimize his contact. Same thing here - if a person's religion prevents them from interacting with gays then they should probably seek out a field that minimizes that interaction. there are exceptions to discrimination rules made on a case by case basis - for instance racial discrimination when a part in a movie calls for a specific race or gender (why we don't see brad pitt as Othello or Nathan Lane as Lady MacBeth) or when race is necessary for authenticity (e.g. a Chinese restaurant hiring a Chinese chef). Religious organizations also get somewhat of a pass, so in the case of our baker friend - if he wanted to discriminate based on religion, he should have set up his business as a religious organization, but then he can't keep the profits.

 

So how is Alex Jones different? Contracts. When a person walks into a store, there isn't much of an implied contract between the merchant and the seller until there is a transaction. But when a user signs up to Facebook there is a very specific set of user agreements that one enters into. The problem was that despite Alex Jones always being in breech of his user agreement with FB, FB choose to interpret their agreement as leniently as possible to actually allow him to stay, and the social pressure they are feeling is from people disagreeing with their standards and using economics and social pressure to encourage Facebook to act. FB let infowars slide on their terms because they drew a crowd and made FB money. But when they turned from an asset to a liability, and the revenue went down, it was now in FB's self interest to drop infowars. You want to complain about a bias, the bias is allowing infowars to stay as long as they did in violation of the policy when they knew he was in violation because of how high profile infowars was.

 

Truth is this isn't a case of partisan bias, it's a case of money bias. When infowars was drawing people in they were happy to look the other way, when infowars became poison in the context of FB's activities they were (begrudgingly) happy to act.

 

At any rate, this isn't a matter of whether I agree with his opinion or not - his specific brand of lying was actively destructive and intentional hurtful to some pretty vulnerable people, and I am pretty ok with the social pressure to drop him like a bad habit.

 

 

Intersex is a real condition, but your sex can still be determined.

 

Yeah, in almost all cases it is chosen by someone (most often the parents) because society doesn't really have a way of dealing with it. You are forced to choose between male or female not because you are male or female, but because someone tells you you have to be. seems unfair to me but what do I know?

[BStowers023]

And yet you opened the door to this discussion in defense of someone who is being singled out for constantly making shit up. Hypocrisy is a weakness of character you and Mr. Jones seem to share.

 

I'll just set this here, whether you read it or not is up to you, but I will add willful ignorance and gullibility are also weaknesses of character:

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/07/business/media/alex-jones-free-speech-not-protected.html

 

And you're no better. When did I say I dislike gay people?

[cdk 4219]

With a name like Kerry I can only guess that your parents were hoping for a girl. That explains why you would think it unfair. There is still time, you won’t even have to change your name.

[greg1647545532]

My tongue in cheek remark is aimed at progressives who shout about shop owners denying to make cakes for gay couples getting married, but in the same breath think it's ok to deny social media service to people with different opinions than them. Race doesn't apply here, no matter how hard you seems to always want to drag it into everything.

 

And just to be clear, you're an asshole if you deny someone cakes based on sexual preference.

 

Look, there's a libertarian position here, which is "private businesses can choose to do business with whoever they want." We've tried that for most of American history and it's worked pretty well, except for when it doesn't. The government could get all thought police on people, but instead we've chosen to carve out certain "protected classes." Race, gender, age, religious preference. In some localities, sexual orientation. As a small L liberterian who understands that pragmatic, targeted exceptions to libertarian ideals can make the country a better place to be, I consider protected classes to be a reasonable compromise.

 

I understand not all libertarians agree, and would rather live in a country where open discrimination against black people is still rampant as long as our ideals of personal freedom aren't compromised, and if we want to continue to debate whether those protected classes are still necessary or good, we can do that. But let's not pretend that believing that protected classes are a good idea is somehow hypocritical, they've existed since before any of us were born and are a well established and legal part of American history. Slobbering conspiracy minded bigots aren't a protected class, and Youtube is free not to do business with them, both legally and (IMHO) ethically, as nobody is born being a slobbering conspiracy minded bigot.

 

It's great that Brandon has come back to this thread to troll, but let's not lose sight of the fact that that's exactly what he's doing. Either he actually is a libertarian like he claims, and he has no issue with Alex Jones getting dumped aside from trying to score internet "hypocrite" points, or he's not as libertarian as he claims. Either way, I see no reason to take his posts seriously. Kerry, DNFTT.

[Geeto67]

Found this funny last night:

 

 

 

Seriously, watch the second video - it’s hilarious to watch Balderson cower and hide in the corner....

[TTQ B4U]

Trump won and Balderson won so I guess Colber is still butt hurt.

 

This one is funnier, and completely forever a Classic:

 

https://youtu.be/PxpUKLu7IG0

 

 

The entire over the top reaction to Trump being POTUS is right up there to the bullshit of Y2K back in 1999. Laughable.

 

Sent from my Galaxy Note 8 using Tapatalk

Edited August 8, 2018 by TTQ B4U

[Geeto67]

Trump won and Balderson won so I guess Colber is still butt hurt.

 

Colbert tapes before the election results were in so at the time he didn't know the results. Know how I know you didn't watch the video? because he outright states that in the opening seconds.

 

Balderson running and hiding away from a reporter happened days ago and it has been making the rounds - it's hilarious. The guy is weak as wet toilet paper.

[TTQ B4U]

Colbert tapes before the election results were in so at the time he didn't know the results. Know how I know you didn't watch the video? because he outright states that in the opening seconds.

 

I know thus why I said he is still butt hurt and forever embarrassed of his comments and arrogance prior to Trump winning. Keep ass-uming things though. Perhaps at some point Colbert will wait for results to make dumb jokes that further embarrass him. Once again the real joke is on him.

 

Balderson running and hiding away from a reporter happened days ago and it has been making the rounds - it's hilarious. The guy is weak as wet toilet paper.

 

People asking him shit about Jim Jordan is what is weak. Jim is a solid guy who the left is just pissed about as he is a pit bull going after their FBI/justice dept. scandalous bullshit. Balderson should have just told the dude to come back after the Jim Jordon shit is finalized as until then he is innocent of anything being alleged.

 

 

Sent from my Galaxy Note 8 using Tapatalk

[Geeto67]

People asking him shit about Jim Jordan is what is weak. Jim is a solid guy who the left is just pissed about as he is a pit bull going after their FBI/justice dept. scandalous bullshit. Balderson should have just told the dude to come back after the Jim Jordon shit is finalized as until then he is innocent of anything being alleged.

 

Sounds like Jim Jordan aided and abetted a pedophile and rapist while he was a coach at OSU - yeah sounds like a stand up guy by conservative standards. He's not actually under a formal investigation or indictment, just OSU's internal investigation, so he'll never be "cleared" of anything. Still there are a lot of people who aren't politicians and don't have a stake in the outcome saying they told him, he was present, and he knew.

 

This is coming out now because of the OSU investigation. I am not an insider, but likely this actually came about because of Larry Nasser. I heard from a lot of people working at colleges (including my mother who is a professor) that a lot of universities started doing a look back at their sports programs in the wake of the Larry Nasser sex scandal to see if they had lingering liability. It's not unreasonable to think OSU would do this, and it's not unreasonable for them to find something under one of the rocks they kicked over. esp since they probably had reason to know about it since the 1990's: http://www.dispatch.com/news/20180716/former-ohio-state-student-says-he-filed-sexual-assault-complaint-about-strauss-in-90s

 

Is the timing bad for Jordan? yeah, but it could have equally been bad for him in 2006 when he was running the first time, or at any other crucial point where he opposed something.

 

Are his opponents seizing this opportunity? sure, and why not - I would say turning a blind eye to someone raping college students pretty relevant to his character. You can't blame politicans for being opportunistic - they all do it and it's not partisan.

 

Did the "evil left" actively dig up this dirt and force OSU to investigate? That's an Alex Jones level of conspiracy theory. If we are learning anything, it's that there are a few pedophilic rapists hiding in high school, college, and Olympic sports programs and leveraging their position to silence their victims. Jim Jordan looks like he was a part of the problem that enabled this behavior.

 

Is it relevant for a reporter to ask Troy Balderson whether he is going to back a person who seems to have aided and abetted a rapist? yeah, because Balderson gets to vote on that as part of his job responsibilities - and you know what, maybe some people don't want to vote for someone who is so weak they are visibly ashamed that their answer is yes they are going to back a person who is mired in a sex scandal involving college athletes. I mean he could have easily done what you have done - said Jordan is a stand up guy and there is no reason for him to believe JJ knew based on current evidence, other GOP politicians have had no problem saying this so he wouldn't even be the first - but he didn't. He ran and hid in his office.

[greg1647545532]

We should quit pretending than anything about moral culpability matters anymore. If I had to put money on a hypothetical house election between Nancy Pelosi and a generic Republican candidate caught on film fucking a 13 year old, I'd have to ask what district it was in before I made a bet. To Republican voters, there is basically no sin greater than being a liberal.

[Geeto67]

Once again the real joke is on him.

 

Actually the joke is on us who live in the 12th (which is you and me Tim) because we ended up with a weak, morally bankrupt, coward for a house representative.

 

We should quit pretending than anything about moral culpability matters anymore. If I had to put money on a hypothetical house election between Nancy Pelosi and a generic Republican candidate caught on film fucking a 13 year old, I'd have to ask what district it was in before I made a bet. To Republican voters, there is basically no sin greater than being a liberal.

 

moral culpability left the republican party a long time ago. I don't think anybody is pretending, people are just being polite. I mean I could tell Tim he is a supporter of child rape because of this comment:

"Jim is a solid guy who the left is just pissed about as he is a pit bull going after their FBI/justice dept. scandalous bullshit. "

and he is letting his rooting for his home team mess with his moral compass making him morally bankrupt as well, but I won't because it's not polite. I'll think it for sure, but I am not going to say it :gabe:

[Supplicium]

I just like it when the opponent spends 4.5x on the campaign and loses