Alex Jones and Bullying by the Establishment

[KorbenDallas]

25 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Korben,

With all due respect, bullshit.

Private on paper only.

Crony corporatism (especially government plus private ownership or collusion through front groups) is not what Ayn Rand meant by private property. 

Any company that can be and is weaponized by the government is not private except in the doublespeak you are using.

So spare me the master of the obvious rationalizations.

The "obvious rationalizations" are what's really going on here, though.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

2 minutes ago, william.scherk said:

The index page at Infowars.com is working fine at the moment.

William,

Yay!!!

It's working for me so far, too.

 

Michael

[KorbenDallas]

13 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Jonathan,

And, of course, the people waging a DDOS attack on the Infowars site are merely exercising their private property rights as owners of hacking bots. So Alex knew better when he set up a news site. He knew this could happen, so it's his fault.

 

For some people, if they don't like someone, gang-up attacks on that person are apparently all good and rational and principled.

But when the same thing happens to them (as it always ends up happening if this crap is not cut short--and they never think it will happen to them), suddenly they frame principles differently and even get sanctimonious about it. Suddenly they are victims yelling about the unfairness of it all...

I've seen this too many times to count.

Michael

The DDOS attacks are different than the social media bans.  Even though Alex Jones's content is crap, the DDOS attacks are wrong and Alex's website and property should be protected.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

6 minutes ago, KorbenDallas said:

The "obvious rationalizations" are what's really going on here, though.

Korben,

Exactly right.

It's one of the reasons I don't participate in an Objectivist movement. 

Too many people in O-Land think government interference in the economy is capitalism according to Ayn Rand if the politicians call it "free trade." Or they think social media giants collecting information on everybody and sharing it with the government (and being weaponized by the government, and a whole host of government integrations into their companies) is the equivalent of private property. Way too many things like that...

Michael

 

 

[ThatGuy]

The ARI is now to Ayn Rand what the Ministry of Defense was to Hogwards in HARRY POTTER. (Meaning, mealy-mouth appeasers ignoring the larger threat...)

[KorbenDallas]

17 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Korben,

Exactly right.

It's one of the reasons I don't participate in an Objectivist movement. 

Too many people in O-Land think government interference in the economy is capitalism according to Ayn Rand if the politicians call it "free trade." Or they think social media giants collecting information on everybody and sharing it with the government (and being weaponized by the government, and a whole host of government integrations into their companies) is the equivalent of private property. Way too many things like that...

Okay this confused me because I don't consider myself to be partaking in an "Objectivist movement".  If I had to "classify" myself I'd say I'm an independent Objectivist, I guess?  Don't know if that helps.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

5 minutes ago, KorbenDallas said:

Okay this confused me because I don't consider myself to be partaking in an "Objectivist movement".

Korben,

When I refer to a large group of people, I'm not just referring to you. Nor am I saying anything specific about you.

One does not have to be part of a movement to make the same mistakes the movement does.

 

Michael

[KorbenDallas]

So where does this whole thing fall in Alex Jones's heroic journey?  Test, trials, and enemies...?  Martyrdom...?

[jts]

5 minutes ago, KorbenDallas said:

So where does this whole thing fall in Alex Jones's heroic journey?  Test, trials, and enemies...?  Martyrdom...?

Alex Jones is a fighter. He will kick their asses so hard that they will have to clear their throat to fart. They will wish to God they never tangled with Alex Jones.

 

[anthony]

1 hour ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Tony,

According to some people, CNN is a private corporation that is exercising it's private property rights. 

I guess crony corporatism (especially government plus private ownership or collusion through front groups) is a proper form of capitalism to them.

Anyway, does advocating violence with impunity look like a proper activity for a private corporation? Where does Chris Cuomo get the balls to openly advocate violence if he is not protected by government insiders?

Cuomo once said that CNN's audience members were not permitted to look at Podesta's emails on WikiLeaks like he was. He was mocked at the time, but I don't recall him ever taking that back.

He actually said that, too, and I'm not taking it out of context. He meant it.

Michael

Michael, First off, I think better that these social media platforms show their true (and biased) colours. Better it's "out there", everybody knows where they stand and the more controlling, unethical media will get their justice in reality - ultimately, or very soon. ( I'm fully in favor of Voltaire(?) - roughly: I might despise what you say but defend your right to say it. Freedom of expression derives from freedom of thought and that's not negotiable, even stuff one doesn't like hearing is better dealt with when candidly out there).

But private or not private, is the point. On the face of it, these are essentially private corporations who have the right to do what they please, in bed with government or not. (And which one isn't, to some degree?)

There is a huge issue at stake on the O'ist front, alone. Which takes precedence? Does one play to and uphold the Objectivist principles (of laissez-faire, full individual rights -- and, which are not presently realized as yet)--or -- do you play to and uphold *context*, the facts 'on the ground' (and just as much and more, Objectivist, rational and self-interested for Individuals and the country)?

Tough one. I tend overall to the latter, but can see it both ways. And the same problem has arisen with open borders, tariff wars, "protectionism", etc. Principles - or context? Predictably, ARI and Brook go the first way and have seemed, quite rationalistically, out of touch with reality as a result.

 

 

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Here's a nice term for social media giants doing crony corporatism with the government.

They call it "partnership."

Google something like the following:

social media partnership with government

and feast your eyes.

Pay special attention to terms like "policy changes," "shaping government policy," and things like that. Not to mention controlling "harmful speech" and crap like that. On a skim, I've even read manipulating the public as a function of this kind of partnership.

Of course to some people, this is a perfect example of laissez-faire capitalism.

Michael

 

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

10 minutes ago, anthony said:

On the face of it, these are essentially private corporations...

Tony,

But what about the rest of the body?

A face alone is not the whole being.

If the body dies, it doesn't matter what the face looks like.

If the organism is terminally sick, it doesn't matter what its skin looks like.

I could go on with analogies...

Also, I'm reminded of P. J. O'Rourke quip about government (but this time about crony corporations): "When does an intestine quit being an intestine and start becoming an asshole?"

 

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

9 minutes ago, jts said:

Alex Jones is a fighter. He will kick their asses so hard that they will have to clear their throat to fart. They will wish to God they never tangled with Alex Jones.

Jerry,

I tend not to be so rah rah rah, but this time I am.

Well said.

 

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

1 hour ago, KorbenDallas said:

The DDOS attacks are different than the social media bans.

Korben,

That's a premise I would check.

It depends on the category you put them in.

For example, the first is done by insider leaders and the second is done by their minions. Both have the same goal.

Don't you see the possibility of some conceptual connections there? Not so different after all.

Another similarity. Maybe there are legal problems on both ends.

You may not see it, but legal problems are what's coming.

And the elitist crony idiots will probably get giant social media companies declared public utility or something like that. Definitely, antitrust stuff is coming.

I'm not in favor of this, but I'm also not in favor of a tiger biting off my arm. But when you ignore the nature of politicians or tigers, these things happen.

Michael

[KorbenDallas]

1 hour ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Korben,

That's a premise I would check.

It depends on the category you put them in.

For example, the first is done by insider leaders and the second is done by their minions. Both have the same goal.

Don't you see the possibility of some conceptual connections there? Not so different after all.

Another similarity. Maybe there are legal problems on both ends.

You may not see it, but legal problems are what's coming.

And the elitist crony idiots will probably get giant social media companies declared public utility or something like that. Definitely, antitrust stuff is coming.

I'm not in favor of this, but I'm also not in favor of a tiger biting off my arm. But when you ignore the nature of politicians or tigers, these things happen.

Michael

With that premise to check, it's also possible that Alex Jones faked the DDOS attacks and brought down his own website to hoax people about it, so that he could point the finger at whoever he wanted.  We're talking about a guy who had one of his people trying to convince people that Hitler was still alive at 120 years old, a guy who has tried to trick people into thinking water was contaminated and the frogs were turning gay, a guy that tried to convince people that chimeras were being created.  Alex Jones is a hoaxer, and I wouldn't put it past him to hoax his own website being "under attack".

[caroljane]

From what I have seen of Alex Jones' own bullying, it is about time he was bullied himself, and as Rhett Butler said, by someone who knows how.

[jts]

21 minutes ago, caroljane said:

From what I have seen of Alex Jones' own bullying, it is about time he was bullied himself, and as Rhett Butler said, by someone who knows how.

Alex Jones was bullied when he was a kid. That's why he hates bullies.

 

[william.scherk]

My thoughts on Alex Jones struggling with the (allegedly unfair) consequences of his own speech acts.

I don't think the lawsuit against him from the poor parents of murdered children will be won by the parents, sad to say.  Protected speech extends to even titanically wrong and consequential speech, so on balance, even if the parents can prove in civil court that a chain of events was started by irresponsible theorizing about 'crisis acting' and hoax BS ... leading to ongoing personal harassment of the parents by crazy and/or malicious people, no responsibility can be assumed to rest in Alex Jones. That is the point of free expression, yes?  The 1st amendment protects him ... 

As for economics and free-riding on world-wide free-to-use or pay-to-play platforms ... retreating to his own video-hosting, podcast-serving platform is dead easy; he won't benefit from Youtube's or Facebook's reach any more.  Free rides for the Infowars media complex appear over ... 

For those larping about Free Speech absolutism and Privately-held forums, I recall the (incorrigible idiot) Regi Firehammer.  He had zero rights to this platform, ultimately.  Nobody has rights to a platform when they can obviously use their own freaking servers.

Alex Jones, if I had to be restricted to a two word term, is Fake News.  Subscribe to his tale-telling at your own epistemological risk. 

Oh, and let a hundred flowers bloom.  Including harshly critical 'attacks' on Alex Jones's reasoning and performativity.  Including name-calling, abusive language and crazy talk. Until a Red Button push is triggered.

Edited August 15, 2018 by william.scherk
Toned down the emotive language by 2%

[caroljane]

30 minutes ago, jts said:

Alex Jones was bullied when he was a kid. That's why he hates bullies.

 

Don't you mean, that's why he became one himself? The usual response, to become bigger and bullier,and no doubt he hates other bullies. They might beat him up again.

[jts]

Seems to me most people trust government, even if they would say they don't.

For example licensing. A person has a licence to be a doctor or lawyer or whatever. If he has the licence, he is legit, otherwise not. Who grants the licence? Government. Thus people trust government. Another example is regulation of products and services. If it passes FDA or a building code or somesuch government entity, it is legit, otherwise not. Again, people trust government.

But what is government? Government is essentially the man with the gun. Government is not reason or wisdom or benevolence. People trust the man with the gun, merely because he has a gun. Having a gun does not necessarily carry with it wisdom or intelligence or benevolence or rationality. Government is simply the man with the gun.

But most people seem to think government, the man with the gun, is a wise and benevolent god to be worshipped.

So what happens when Alex Jones and others of his kind come along and say a bunch of bad things about what government is doing? That is blasphemy against most people's government religion. Blasphemy against the man with the gun who has set himself up as a god to be worshipped.

Thus it comes about that Alex Jones is evil. He bad mouthed the gunman that you worship as a god. How dare he! All criticism of government is false. Government, the man with the gun, is right by definition, the ultimate authority on all controversial subjects. The man with the gun never commits crimes. If he did, that would be a conspiracy theory and we all know all conspiracy theories are false.

 

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

1 hour ago, KorbenDallas said:

With that premise to check, it's also possible that Alex Jones faked the DDOS attacks and brought down his own website...

Korben,

You said you used to be in law enforcement. 

You did law enforcement and was such a poor of a judge of human nature that this statement is plausible to you?

Forgive me, but I don't believe it. I think you are just arguing for the sake of arguing, maybe goosing up your disdain for Alex.

I'm not talking judging a person to be honest or dishonest. I'm talking about aligning a person's actions to how they see themselves in the world. Alex is a good guy crusader in his own mind. Good guy crusaders don't burn their own houses down. Not even as a tactic. There are too many people depending on them.

You have to have a notion of this to do law enforcement competently. Otherwise, you will be jerking off people all day long and going nowhere. You are intelligent, so I doubt that was your history.

 

Michael

[jts]

5 minutes ago, caroljane said:

Don't you mean, that's why he became one himself? The usual response, to become bigger and bullier,and no doubt he hates other bullies. They might beat him up again.

I am not convinced that Alex Jones is a bully. But he is a fighter. His response to being bullied was he learned how to fight. Some years ago he was attacked by a bunch of guys and they got worse than he did.

 

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

7 minutes ago, jts said:

Seems to me most people trust government, even if they would say they don't.

Jerry,

Notice that, did you?

They will only complain when the government folks show up at their own door with a fine or decree to shut down or something like that.

Otherwise, it's like they say in Brazil. Watching someone else suffer with their ass on fire from hot peppers is pure entertainment for most people.

Michael

[caroljane]

22 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Jerry,

Notice that, did you?

They will only complain when the government folks show up at their own door with a fine or decree to shut down or something like that.

Otherwise, it's like they say in Brazil. Watching someone else suffer with their ass on fire from hot peppers is pure entertainment for most people.

Michael

lol, Jane Austen put it more genteelly - "What are we for, but to make sport for  our neighbours, and to be entertained by them in our turn?"

[william.scherk]

For a more pensive mood, pathos, empathy, the inimitable stylings of PINGTR1P ...