Discussion in 'Other Stuff' started by Sciborg_S_Patel, Apr 19, 2017.
In Travis County custody case, jury will search for real Alex Jones
The take from Heat Street:
Don’t Expect Alex Jones’ Audience to Abandon Him—Even If His Radio Persona Turns Out to Be Just an Act
Alex Jones tells jury his marijuana has gotten too strong — and says George Soros is to blame
Alex Jones, Sandy Hook truther and conspiracy theory peddler, asks media to respect his privacy
Sandy Hook truther Alex Jones asks for privacy in custody battle ‘for the sake of my children’
Unreal. Well, actually, that's incorrect. "Unsurprisingly real" would seem more accurate. The mass-scale, CT thing is a wild, wild phenomena.
It is convenient for his defenders to excuse his style whilst avoiding any mention of the content.
Would you have expected anything else?
This thread and the attacks on him are about his style, not content.
I don't read or listen to Infowars anymore, but Alex Jones is one of the best American journalists of his generation. The content of his work is indispensable. Not to mention all the great independent journalists he's inspired.
However, his radio show is shit. I get sick of his hyperbolic nonsense. And he's not a real libertarian, but that's something else.
Both of these articles are lies. He's not a Sandy Hook truther. Not like it'd matter if he was.
Speaking of content (and Sandy Hook), what exactly is wrong with this video?
Oh no. Not again.
There is actually a conspiracy theory that Alex Jones... is not Alex Jones.
I've listened to him off and on over the years and he's said many times before that people ask him if he's for real or if this is all an act. And his response is that he and his crew are doing their best to provide real journalism that offers the truth. They get things wrong on occasion... they're human, but by and large their content is their sincere effort at pure truth, not an act, and they have broken many very important stories there.
In regards to the angry rants, or the "style" of his performance, he has said over and over that "about 90%" of that is real, but he also deliberately lets himself go farther than he would in real life ...he takes off his filter for his audience because he is the symbol of popular anger at the miscarriage of justice and anger at the destruction of America. And if other people see someone getting angry about these things, it is a reminder that it is okay to get angry, and maybe it will shake people out of the trance that the NPR voice has settled them down into.
His testimony as evidence?
Link to the many very important stories they've broken over the years? You mean stories like 9/11 being an inside job and SH being a government-staged fake?
So he's a messiah of sorts? There's no good old fashioned greed at work here, just humanitarian efforts to bring the truth, an angry brand at that, to the people?
Loaded questions are useful at times. Well, at least they are self-satisfying for the inquirer at times.
I don't think this necessarily a logical fallacy?
Even the example they give could be answered without assuming guilt.
I think all of the "logical fallacies" have a legitimate role to play in an argument depending on the context. It seems nearly impossible to not use them. But you're right, I don't think it is on the official list anyway (if there is such a thing as an official list).
Just to be clear, those were not actually loaded questions from my perspective, because they're loaded with common sense facts, such as 9/11 being an inside job. If you don't know that, there are only two possiblities, both of which make you a dumb:
A. You haven't looked into the issue, thus drawing a conclusion based on nothing = you're dumb.
B. You have looked into the issue and think that things such as a steel-frame building collapsing at free-fall speed (ie. no support resistance), symmetrically from the impossible faliure of one support column, is perfectly normal = you're dumb.
There are so many unanswered questions surrounding SH that to accept the story at face value makes you dumb.
There are many powerful not-so-good special interests relying on you remaining dumb. So try not to be so dumb if that's possible.
Baloney. Double baloney.
I can't look into the issue and I'd wager you aren't qualified to look into it either. I'm not trained as a structural engineer or other relevant technical background. If I were, I would not have access to the evidence to do a thorough investigation. Finally, the sheer notion that a CT of this magnitude could be pulled off requires an innumerable number of moving parts.
So, while maybe (and I can't emphasize my lack of conviction in using the term 'maybe') you're right, I am not dumb for not a) looking into the supposed "issue" nor b) failing to understand the unbelievable complex nature of this structural event. It does make someone asserting such a position shockingly arrogant. I'll grant you that.
Separate names with a comma.