Should the Bbc ban comedian Jo Brand for "battery acid" joke?

Estebonrober said:
He’s been saying this stuff for decades and his devoted listeners definitely take it seriously. This is why I take it seriously.
Click to expand...

How many people have committed targeted violence that is attributable to Jones? Certainly, I've not heard of any evidence of someone receiving $1M for executing a Jones-requested hit (that would have put him in jail long before he got "de-platformed" by an apparent antitrust issue). Which violence and arrests are you alluding to, specifically? If it can be traced back to him directly then I'd say incitement is a reasonable conclusion, even though in your particular example above I would not deem it reasonable to consider the $1M a credible offer.
 
Last edited:
Afaik there was only that Podesta pizza pedophile ring thing. And it didn't end with anyone dying (?).

Problem is that even if you are Alex Jones you will still present some stuff with less lies than the mainstream media, which is why he got a following.
Also, he is just funny (or used to be). :)


I like the tinfoil pickelhaube.

"DESTROY THE CHILD. CORRUPT THEM ALL".
 
Kyriakos said:
Problem is that even if you are Alex Jones you will still present some stuff with less lies than the mainstream media, which is why he got a following.
Click to expand...

Seeing him wear an actual tinfoil hat in the thumbnail of that video suggests he doesn't believe EVERYTHING he says. Some pretty impressive trolling.

Estebonrober said:
There are lots of little examples of his listeners harassing to the point of illegality people who Alex Jones targets.
Click to expand...

If you're going to operate on these standards, mainstream media sources would logically be de-platformed just like Jones was...and if Jones is criminally liable then by the same standard so to would be many mainstream reporters.

They even share the dubious "honor" of being duped by 4 chan into making questionable conclusions/getting people angry.
 
TheMeInTeam said:
Seeing him wear an actual tinfoil hat in the thumbnail of that video suggests he doesn't believe EVERYTHING he says. Some pretty impressive trolling.



If you're going to operate on these standards, mainstream media sources would logically be de-platformed just like Jones was...and if Jones is criminally liable then by the same standard so to would be many mainstream reporters.

They even share the dubious "honor" of being duped by 4 chan into making questionable conclusions/getting people angry.
Click to expand...

What?

Give examples. I did. The man has been prosecuted legally before and civilly currently. Intent means something. In this case his intent seems to be for someone to harm whomever he indicates slipped child porn into his files.
 
I think that Alex Jones is primarily an entertainer. Sure, he is into conspiracy theories, but not as hardcore as the main peddlers (eg David Icke).
I think Alex believes most of the stuff he says, and most of what he says is about new world order, though at some point it crosses over to alien overlords.

I think it was a mistake that he supported Trump, and it may backfire. Infowars used to be less of a trollfest/vile environment, I suppose (it's been many many years since I saw any of his actual show; I just see some Joe Rogan interviews of him).
 
Estebonrober said:
What?

Give examples. I did. The man has been prosecuted legally before and civilly currently. Intent means something. In this case his intent seems to be for someone to harm whomever he indicates slipped child porn into his files.
Click to expand...

Some of the Covington reporting immediately comes to mind, but so does CNN threatening to dox someone over that Trump video and the Demore/Google reporting where you can watch video clips with un-rescinded outright false claims about what Demore actually did/wrote.

Any of these could reasonably lead to people being targeted similar to what you allege with Jones. The Covington case even had people responding on social media offering rewards to commit violence against minors, so mis-reporting that is non-trivial to the standard you're applying with Jones.
 
TheMeInTeam said:
Some of the Covington reporting immediately comes to mind, but so does CNN threatening to dox someone over that Trump video and the Demore/Google reporting where you can watch video clips with un-rescinded outright false claims about what Demore actually did/wrote.

Any of these could reasonably lead to people being targeted similar to what you allege with Jones. The Covington case even had people responding on social media offering rewards to commit violence against minors, so mis-reporting that is non-trivial to the standard you're applying with Jones.
Click to expand...

If you confuse the situations in these cases that is on your inability to reason soundly in your own mind. Or in more normal terms, this is a stupid counter point. You need better examples. Doxing is not anywhere near the same as calling for violence.
 
Kyriakos said:
Afaik there was only that Podesta pizza pedophile ring thing. And it didn't end with anyone dying (?).

Problem is that even if you are Alex Jones you will still present some stuff with less lies than the mainstream media, which is why he got a following.
Also, he is just funny (or used to be). :)


I like the tinfoil pickelhaube.

"DESTROY THE CHILD. CORRUPT THEM ALL".
Click to expand...
He is hilarious. The part in your video starting at 1:40 is like a cut scene from Command & Conquer.

I love the clip from Joe Rogan's podcast where he talks about interdimensional psychic pedophile vampires starting at 2:25:

He's such a weird guy how he connects ALL THE THINGS into this weird American kitch alien infused technodystopian anti-elitist Christian escathology sprinkled with Libertarian big government and conservative cultural nightmares.
 
Estebonrober said:
Doxing is not anywhere near the same as calling for violence.
Click to expand...

Of course not. This guy is an evil, despicable, unrepenting, unforgivable monster who is a danger to you, your children, your community. And here's where he lives. Just puttin' it out there.
 
Manfred Belheim said:
Of course not. This guy is an evil, despicable, unrepenting, unforgivable monster who is a danger to you, your children, your community. And here's where he lives. Just puttin' it out there.
Click to expand...

Still not offering a reward for their murder. There is a tangible difference yes?

Also doxxing often is more of an attempt at the persons livelihood such as their jobs, professional relationships, and their friends and families. While normally I'd abhor that kind of thing I can see it when the person is spouting neo fascist white supremacist crap. So yea it can lead to violence and I generally do not consider it defensible.

A good counterexample is actually Alex Jones and Sandy Hook involved since they did doxx a Sandy Hook parent and have forced him to move like 6? times. Of course their implication is that violence is coming to that Sandy Hook parent since obviously no normal person is going to fire a parent of a kid fighting for gun control after bloody Sandy Hook. So I guess it is a case by case basis, your point is made sort of, its just that right wing reactionaries always use the threat of violence in so much of what they do these days.
 
Estebonrober said:
Still not offering a reward for their murder. There is a tangible difference yes?
Click to expand...

I thought we already established that the Alex Jones "offer" was not credible. Knowing that, what's the tangible difference between "act of violence by a random person based on information someone said through media"?

Estebonrober said:
Also doxxing often is more of an attempt at the persons livelihood such as their jobs, professional relationships, and their friends and families.
Click to expand...

In this case it was a repost of something that had nothing to do with "neo fascist white supremacist" anything. It was a pro wrestling clip with the CNN logo tacked on. A "professional" "news" organization made a direct, targeted attempt to silence an individual by "merely" threatening job/professional relationships and "probably not physical harm unless he's unlucky".

Incidentally, while it's obviously preferable to eating lead becoming unhirable, even for a period, is still devastating/life changing. Especially if the person in question is expected to provide for others.

Estebonrober said:
A good counterexample is actually Alex Jones and Sandy Hook involved since they did doxx a Sandy Hook parent and have forced him to move like 6? times. Of course their implication is that violence is coming to that Sandy Hook parent since obviously no normal person is going to fire a parent of a kid fighting for gun control after bloody Sandy Hook.
Click to expand...

Admittedly, hearing about this makes Jones look pretty bad (not just a crazy persona, but more like d-bag). I'd be willing to admit his conduct was worse than CNNs, but consider them on the same spectrum.
 
TheMeInTeam said:
I thought we already established that the Alex Jones "offer" was not credible. Knowing that, what's the tangible difference between "act of violence by a random person based on information someone said through media"?



In this case it was a repost of something that had nothing to do with "neo fascist white supremacist" anything. It was a pro wrestling clip with the CNN logo tacked on. A "professional" "news" organization made a direct, targeted attempt to silence an individual by "merely" threatening job/professional relationships and "probably not physical harm unless he's unlucky".

Incidentally, while it's obviously preferable to eating lead becoming unhirable, even for a period, is still devastating/life changing. Especially if the person in question is expected to provide for others.



Admittedly, hearing about this makes Jones look pretty bad (not just a crazy persona, but more like d-bag). I'd be willing to admit his conduct was worse than CNNs, but consider them on the same spectrum.
Click to expand...

I did not concede the first point here, just because you said it doesn't make it so, my response was something to the effect that hist listeners very much consider everything he says seriously.

Yes same spectrum but very far apart on that spectrum and no I do not generally condone doxxing,
 
Estebonrober said:
Still not offering a reward for their murder. There is a tangible difference yes?
Click to expand...

You said it was not anywhere near a call for violence, not that it was not identical to offering a reward for murder.
 
Estebonrober said:
I did not concede the first point here, just because you said it doesn't make it so, my response was something to the effect that hist listeners very much consider everything he says seriously.
Click to expand...

What X believes about a statement does not inform us of its credibility, especially if X is deranged.

You get news reports of people who have killed family members to protect them from supposed threats of sexual assault that don't have any basis. If these people believe some property of physics based on a cartoon and kill somebody it's not reasonable to blame the cartoon.

I hold that no reasonable person would interpret that Alex Jones quote as a credible offer of a hit on someone for money, especially because the target wasn't (couldn't be) clear.

Similarly, if I offered $500 to the first person who hacks the guy who slapped me with a Cuban cigar 4 years ago, how would anybody know who to target? But if they don't know, how is any hacking event attributable to me?

Considering I have no recollection of the event, identifying the person is impossible and nobody in the world would be valid. In Jones' case, the odds were similarly remote in the example you cited. I'm sure you can find a better example than that with him.
 
TheMeInTeam said:
What X believes about a statement does not inform us of its credibility, especially if X is deranged.

You get news reports of people who have killed family members to protect them from supposed threats of sexual assault that don't have any basis. If these people believe some property of physics based on a cartoon and kill somebody it's not reasonable to blame the cartoon.

I hold that no reasonable person would interpret that Alex Jones quote as a credible offer of a hit on someone for money, especially because the target wasn't (couldn't be) clear.

Similarly, if I offered $500 to the first person who hacks the guy who slapped me with a Cuban cigar 4 years ago, how would anybody know who to target? But if they don't know, how is any hacking event attributable to me?

Considering I have no recollection of the event, identifying the person is impossible and nobody in the world would be valid. In Jones' case, the odds were similarly remote in the example you cited. I'm sure you can find a better example than that with him.
Click to expand...

Oh yea, now this is interesting. So yea generally I'd consider your point valid but with his specific constituency it is not valid because they thrive on crazy and violence.
 
TheMeInTeam said:
What X believes about a statement does not inform us of its credibility, especially if X is deranged.

You get news reports of people who have killed family members to protect them from supposed threats of sexual assault that don't have any basis. If these people believe some property of physics based on a cartoon and kill somebody it's not reasonable to blame the cartoon.

I hold that no reasonable person would interpret that Alex Jones quote as a credible offer of a hit on someone for money, especially because the target wasn't (couldn't be) clear.

Similarly, if I offered $500 to the first person who hacks the guy who slapped me with a Cuban cigar 4 years ago, how would anybody know who to target? But if they don't know, how is any hacking event attributable to me?

Considering I have no recollection of the event, identifying the person is impossible and nobody in the world would be valid. In Jones' case, the odds were similarly remote in the example you cited. I'm sure you can find a better example than that with him.
Click to expand...

I'd completely agree with this if he didn't spend decades cultivating his audience into his craziness. So no in his specific case he should be held responsible for the field he has sowed.
 
Estebonrober said:
I'd completely agree with this if he didn't spend decades cultivating his audience into his craziness. So no in his specific case he should be held responsible for the field he has sowed.
Click to expand...

I'm going to have to defer somewhat. I know almost nothing of him beyond his reputation, a few examples here, and a few things friends said when he got deplatformed so I don't have enough knowledge of his conduct to make a decent judgment for myself.
 
TheMeInTeam said:
I'm going to have to defer somewhat. I know almost nothing of him beyond his reputation, a few examples here, and a few things friends said when he got deplatformed so I don't have enough knowledge of his conduct to make a decent judgment for myself.
Click to expand...

I used to hear Jones on Art Bell Coast to Coast AM for about a decade when I was in college. He was a special kind of stupid back then it has only gotten much much worse in the last ten years.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom