Recommended Posts

8 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Here's an alt media guy...

Here's another and he even makes more sense about Rubio.

Styx is right. If Rubio did not know who Alex Jones was, what the hell was he doing on that committee seeing that Alex's picture was plastered all over the prime real estate of the news and Internet for at least a solid week when he got banned on the major social media platforms? That was all the major pundits talked about. And considering that Alex's banning is essentially what prompted the Senate to look into this social media thing in the first place, is it too much to ask that a Senator on the committee be aware of it?

I mean, Jeez... How clueless do you have to be to be an establishment Senator? It cluelessness the new standard?

For Rubio supporters, this poor reputation of his is a real thing that threatens to grow. It's not going to go away unless Rubio makes some serious changes and I don't see that in his stars at this moment.

Michael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Here's another and he even makes more sense about Rubio.

Styx is right. If Rubio did not know who Alex Jones was, what the hell was he doing on that committee seeing that Alex's picture was plastered all over the prime real estate of the news and Internet for at least a solid week when he got banned on the major social media platforms? That was all the major pundits talked about. And considering that Alex's banning is essentially what prompted the Senate to look into this social media thing in the first place, is it too much to ask that a Senator on the committee be aware of it?

I mean, Jeez... How clueless do you have to be to be an establishment Senator? It cluelessness the new standard?

For Rubio supporters, this poor reputation of his is a real thing that threatens to grow. It's not going to go away unless Rubio makes some serious changes and I don't see that in his stars at this moment.

Michael

I'm not watching that dude until he puts on a shirt

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

But the fact that he thinks social media censorship is OK in America

It's not censorship by the government, that would be violating free speech.  It's a company taking care of their brand!  You can kick someone out of your store if they are disrupting things, KICK ALEX OUT

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, nobody say this coming:  Twitter permanently bans Infowars and Alex Jones from its platform.

The headline is from the folks at Axios ...

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, KorbenDallas said:

It's not censorship by the government, that would be violating free speech.  It's a company taking care of their brand!  You can kick someone out of your store if they are disrupting things, KICK ALEX OUT

Korben,

Do you think I would make a mistake of that nature?

You missed my explanation (that I have given in several places so far).

I won't do the entire explanation again, but just say get rid of the government cartel protections and military contracts and so on for these firms and I will agree with your store analogy.

Somebody came up with a different analogy that I found better.

Suppose they cancel your ability to operate in the banking system then tell you if you want to operate financially, you are free to make your own banking system. There. That's a lost closer to the reality of the current situation.

Check out what is happening to GAB, for instance, with its hosting. What's it going to have to do to exist and compete for real? Eventually lay its own Internet cabling all over the world, send up its own satellites and invent its own operating system to run cloud severs in addition to trying to be a social media start up? 

In the current Internet social media environment (government protected, I might add), you're allowed to be a "store" so long as you stay small and don't get big enough to be an inconvenience to the Obama-knighted and subsidized big ones.

But... but... but...

They're private companies, right?

:) 

Anyway, since you like government protected and paid for cartels kicking out people for ideological reasons, there are still a hell of a lot of illegal immigrants to kick out of America. After all, if a government protected and paid for cartel is the equivalent of a store, a country itself is like a store. Or maybe a home,. Right? How did Prince Bush put it? Homeland? Right? It's the physical real estate and property of its citizens, right?

So kick all the illegals out? 

Immediately?

59 minutes ago, KorbenDallas said:

You're down with that?

:evil:  :) 

Michael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Buzzfeed, among other vulture-style media, is saying that a conversational exchange between Jones and Oliver Darcy was contributory to the permanent suspension.

This is from a friend of a friend, downloaded from Youtube where it may not last ...

Edited by william.scherk
Link to Charlie Warzel, Ryan Mac story over at the buzzard feed

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/16/2018 at 6:32 PM, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Darrell,

Absolutely.

The tech giants want to be regulated. That will shut out startups over time (except for crony startups run by people with pull). And this, as you say, is even more reason to oppose regulation.

We agree on that.

I have probably been writing poorly if that has not been clear.

But there is an idea I want to add to this, so let me try it this way.

The argument generally given on the O-Land side, which in this context I mean including libertarians and some conservatives, is that tech giants are private property and they have the right to determine who can use their platform and who cannot. But people use this argument to justify ignoring the bullying of Alex Jones by crony corporatists and the deep state. This bullying will inevitably lead to regulation of the Internet in some form--through antitrust laws, declaring social media platforms a public utility, etc., all of which have enough grounds in law to happen. Maybe even racketeering. It all depends on what prosecutors, disgruntled people with lawyers, and politicians can dream up.

I believe that is a bad thing.

And the fact that people in O-Land present their argument so sanctimoniously and dismiss all else just because they dislike Alex Jones shows they are blinded to this risk, thus they are not really thinking in principles, although it sounds like they are.

Is that clear, now? I want to be understood before I am judged.

:) 

Seriously, if you have any doubt about any lack of clarity there may be in my words, please let me know.

Michael

Hi Michael,

I guess I was a little confused about your argument, so thank you for setting the record straight. There is certainly enough sanctimony among Objectivists, but that sort of goes with the territory.

Darrell

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/19/2018 at 1:12 AM, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

That was quick:

Except Prager has only been talking about PragerU's banning and shadowbanning issues on Facebook for a couple of months or longer.

 

:) 

 

Michael

 

Wow! Good news anyway. I saw the banning but didn't know they had been restored.

I wonder if youtube is still keeping Prager videos in the adult content section --- meaning they can't be viewed in schools, for example.

Darrell

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, william.scherk said:

Buzzfeed, among other vulture-style media, is saying that a conversational exchange between Jones and Oliver Darcy was contributory to the permanent suspension.

This is from a friend of a friend, downloaded from Youtube where it may not last ...

More bullying being done by Alex

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, KorbenDallas said:

More bullying being done by Alex

Korben,

Well...

I had never paid much attention to Oliver Darcy before, but he actually does look like a sanctimonious little rat. Those darting eyes...

:) 

He was over at the Blaze starting about 2013. This was during the time Glenn Beck was stealing Alex Jones's stories and research and ginning them to fit his audience all without attribution. I believe Darcy was a deep part of this since it slowed down once he left. 

It took me a long time to learn about then believe that since I supported Beck so strongly back then. But I have since corroborated it. Beck even used to claim they had tons of researchers on staff, but there were only a few. And most of their research was looking at videos and articles of other people, especially Alex Jones, to see what they could rip off. :) Beck did this to Breitbart, too, until Andrew Breitbart personally had a shit fit on him. There's a reason Sarah Palin didn't support The Blaze, which was a big surprise to everyone given her prominence in the Restoring Honor rally shortly before Beck left Fox.

I don't like watching people taunt cornered rats too much, but this time it didn't bother me. The taunts were nothing but insults and I didn't see Alex threaten him personally. (I actually liked Alex calling him evil and doing the eyes thing to show his eyes in relation to the eyes of others. :) ) The more I learn about Darcy, the more I don't think any real bullying was done by Alex. Darcy is the real bully. He's quite the backstabber. He doesn't bully his enemies to their faces. He does it behind their backs by trying to injure them through dirty tricks.

Anyway, he's at the right place now: CNN. It's a perfect match. Pretty soon, just like with Joe Scarborough, he will give up any pretense at being a conservative and openly come out as the contrary. Maybe it's already happened and I just haven't seen it.

Michael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is one of the best, on-point rants I have heard so far. It deals with fundamentals, not personalities.

For those who are offended by a little hair on a scrawny chest, you can give this one a pass.

:evil:  :) 

For the rest, the philosophical clarity will probably make you feel good in a relieved sort of way. At least somebody out there is using his brain for processing fundamentals and applying them to complex real life situations, not just repeating inhouse bromides to feel superior.

Also, Styx makes a great point by saying when journalists get in President Trump's face (or his staff) and call him a liar and so forth, that's called journalism by the pearl-clutchers. When Alex Jones does it, that's called bullying.

Whatever you call it, you can't call it a principle when it's that skewed in consistency.

Michael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Joy of Recursion.

On 8/15/2018 at 5:02 PM, william.scherk said:

Alex Jones's media complex will continue to offer accessible twenty-four hour 'live' audio-visual programming and pointless and expensive social megameatavegamin  and hooey pills. The plex will gain paying patrons, build an invincible outpost of freedom on its own freaking property, be it a super-cooled underground fibre-opticked ultra-fast server-farm or satellite-connected Next Level pay-per-view Cloud 9.

For those unwilling to watch the sexy Styx-in-kimono video version posted by MSK above, here's the automated caption file rendered from Youtube:

Special bonus: Paul Joseph Watson, disinformation specialist, passing along the #Syria #Sarin Truther A-1 bullshit from Anonymous at Zero Hedge ...

If that doesn't satisfy, the Infowars machine is ticking over nicely.  Mueller plans to overthrow Trump before midterms. Details within ... maybe even 'sources.'

Edited by william.scherk
Attributions, links; bonus tweet, "sources say" ...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, KorbenDallas said:

More bullying being done by Alex

Is it technically bullying for a person to strike back at bullies?

When targets of bullying throw it back in the bullies faces, it's a big shock? They're not supposed to do that?

That's the attitude that the old ladies in this clip had. They expect that others will not behave as they do. Why, it's unconscionable!

Jones is becoming more and more entertaining.

J

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

For those who are offended by a little hair on a scrawny chest, you can give this one a pass.

No more excuses.

Styx finally has his shirt on!

When I say the giant social media platforms are not strictly private property anymore because of their integration with the government, Styx lays out a really good case for this in this video.

There's even more to it, but at least this is in plain language and it's really hard to refute. If taxpayers are footing the bill, they should not be selectively banned. Besides, didn't the courts say that President Trump could not ban offensive comments to his tweets (although that is a feature Twitter offers) because it was a public service or something like that? Well... Pandora's box is now open...

On another note and in defense of Korben, I have to admit, the skull with an eyeball in it is an improvement over the scrawny chest.

:)

He's still gotta work on that John Lennon look, though.

:) 

Michael

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, william.scherk said:

If that doesn't satisfy...

William,

Just a couple of technical issues.

1. You can toggle on and off the timestamps on the auto-generated transcripts on YouTube videos. Fiddle with it and you will find it. (It's one of those three-vertical-dot drop-downs.)

2. If any video from Real.Video does not work, simply reload the OL page and it should work. I think there is a glitch with the ad at the beginning. But a page refresh fixes it.

Michael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Jonathan said:

Jones is becoming more and more entertaining.

Jonathan,

He's always coming up with something.

Do you remember the "Bill Clinton is a rapist" campaign?

Alex offered cash prizes to people who got that message on live TV, whether spoken or visually like with a tee shirt or sign.

Some of the most hilarious times happened during man-in-the-street interviews on CNN and MSNBC. The interviewer would ask a person waiting in line (for a sale or show or something) where they were fron, how long they had been there, etc. And they would get answers like (I'm making this one up, but there were many like it):

"I'm from Gary, Indiana. It's great being here. (yada yada yada...) Yes, I've been in line for about 7 hours... I really look forward to getting in, but most of all, BILL CLINTON IS A RAPIST."

:) 

Since it was live TV, they couldn't nix it. And there were many, many times this kind of thing happened. It got to the point where I saw Anderson Cooper in an outdoor shot once say, "It's one of those rapist people again," or something like that. :) 

Michael

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

1. You can toggle on and off the timestamps on the auto-generated transcripts on YouTube videos. Fiddle with it and you will find it. (It's one of those three-vertical-dot drop-downs.)

Thank you for sharing that tip with OLers -- I had forgotten about that vertical dot-dot-dot option for rendering automated transcripts (image below for the visually-minded).

The 'numbered lines' plain text export option in my subtitle editor is I think a bit more readable than with full timecodes, at least for readers who skim and don't intend to watch the whole dang thing ...

transcriptYTnote.png

-- here's a small technical puzzle:  how do Youtubers manage to put time-code URLs within their 'show notes'?  I haven't figured that out yet.  They look like this:  21:59 and allow you to jump to the various 'chapter headings' without leaving the Youtube page. 

One other technical note is that the Opera browser has a built-in subtitle-ripper-downloader. 

[Automated closed-captioning is fun for its errors. Did Musk really whip out a blonde?]

[Added: I figgered out the time-code links in Shownotes/Video Descriptions ... see here for a horrible example. For those who would rather not watch my Mike Cernovich impersonation, it is dead simple.  Simply type in the time in your description/shownotes, and Youtube takes care of the rest. For a video on how to do it, click here.]

Edited by william.scherk
Added solution to time-code in Video Descriptions/Shownotes | Musk-y odour of Marijuana!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, william.scherk said:

... in my subtitle editor...

William,

Cool.

I haven't gotten around to a small hobby project of mine of doing lyrics videos for songs, but when I finally get around to it, this little thing will probably help a lot in conjunction with a video editor I got specifically for this hobby: YouTube MovieMaker. (There's a free version and a paid version. I like this thing so much, I bought it. :) )

Incidentally, here's a freebie tip from a course I paid for. If you ever want to use a music video for something like that (or rip the audio and insert your own images in a video editor and upload the video to your YT account), you can find out which songs are available copyright-wise by clicking on YouTube.com --> click on your image in the upper right to go to your account page --> Creator Studio --> Create --> Music Policies. There you can search for commercial songs and check their copyright status. It will tell you whether the song is available for YouTube videos or not. If it is not available, it will say so. If it is available, it will mostly say "Ads can appear," which means ads will run on the bottom of the video and the song rights owner, not you, will get the income.

Instead of Music Policies, if you click Audio Library, you will get a list of music you can use without any restrictions on YouTube videos (including monetizing them yourself once you get approved), however it's indie stuff so it takes a lot of auditioning to find decent music.

You can even use this music for your spoken own videos if you like (or during intros and outros if you ever get around to doing them).

Anywho, after I learn the program, I think the opensource Subtitle Editor will run faster than the video editor for adjusting the lyrics and I can output a time-coded subtitle file, load it into the video editor's lyrics time code feature and tweak it if needed as I choose fonts, layout, etc., for the lyrics to appear jazzed up on screen.

Thanks.

Michael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mini Ice Age Coming, sez rich private broadcaster Alex Jones ...

Quote

0 views

 
b6560b92-586b-4636-a56d-10b4632207e1?v=7

InfoWars - Alex Jones Channel

Published: 3 hours ago

 

The globalist carbon tax scam and mockingbird media panic of global warming has been drilled into gullible minds since Al Gore’s massive exaggeration "An Inconvenient Truth" hit theaters twelve years ago. Since then it has been largely debunked as pseudoscience.

As a result of this major distraction. Most people are largely unaware that the Earth is on the precipice of a mini ice age.

***Get The Official Infowars App Today!
https://www.infowars.com/app/

Has anyone tried the app yet?

Edited by william.scherk
I don't use iTunes, so haven't checked the status of the Infowars app there; the Google Play store shows four thousand downloads ...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...