General Apple, Facebook, Spotify and Google/Youtube BAN Infowars Alex Jones
- Thread starter sparkuri
- Start date
-
- Tags
- alex jones ban facebook jones
Which mainstream media? Fox News is the most watched cable network in the US. Sinclair Broadcasting owns the most local news broadcasters. Both lean conservative. The New York Times and CNN lean left on some issues (values based), but have a very mixed record on economic and foreign policy issues. Blanket statements on the state of media have never worked out and honestly the term "Mainstream media" needs to be retired because the data on consumption patterns shows that there is no main stream, but multiple streams people are exposed to across a multitude of access points.
What is the extremism courted by Obama's statements about Trayvon Martin? That's maybe the farthest rhetorical leap I've read.
Occupy Wall Street began as a largely apolitical movement with people from the left and right participating out of frustration with how much money went to the banks while people lost their homes and livelihoods. Many of those same people took part in the protest. It gradually skewed left as it was forced to articulate an ideology for itself. It was also mostly young people between the ages of 18 and 25 with a few older folks dotting the ranks. Globally this age bracket has a lot less to do and has since well before 2007 been the most underemployed demographic due to the very lack of opportunities many were protesting.
Regarding Trump, saying "his bs rhetoric aside" is simply not possible. We cannot set his rhetoric aside. He didn't run on policy and he's barely governed on policy, but it's becoming increasingly common for people to try to shift the discussion away from his rhetoric as if it doesn't matter and hasn't shaped the implementation of policy or the reaction to it across the world (it has). Decoupling his rhetoric from his administration is impossible.
These are good points, especially about the tests to free expression and about people's sense of righteousness pushing them all the way past the edge sometimes. The Weather Underground is actually a great example of that and I agree that it was a great documentary.
But Antifa and the Weathermen are not compatible in any way ideologically. The Weathermen were protesting capitalism in the abstract and American militarism and were part of a constellation of groups acting at the time. Antifa is directed at attacking fascism in the abstract and organizationally harkens back to the 1930s. The distinction is they mostly show up in response to the presence of supremacist groups or state shows of force at rallies rather than actively launching demonstrations themselves. The Weathermen's praxis was positivistic and geared with making a particular statement whereas Antifa is premised on negation.
Free speech likewise is premised on negation, generally negating the state from interfering in the expression of ideas. This is meant to leave it up to the citizenry to debate and disagree and make democracy for themselves. So in that regard, there is nothing contra-free speech about either supremacists or Antifa. They both actively engaging in contestation in the marketplace of ideas. But when you examine their ideologies closely, one is premised on restricting access of certain groups to participation in democracy on the basis of things they can't control, i.e. race, national origin, ethnicity whereas the other is premised on stopping the participation of groups who have attributes they can control, i.e. subscribing to racism, ethnocentrism or sanction of state based violence against communities. I think we can all agree that one is more problematic than the other.
But the real problem is tactics. Antifa's ideal of "positive self defense" is deeply troubling because of easy to figure out slippery slope arguments and because they often show up at demonstrations uninvited. Black Lives Matter, for instance, has condemned and sought to distance itself from Antifa from near the outset and not surprisingly the demographics of Antifa based on what we can see are generally pretty white and often privileged. That's what makes this a very different circumstance from the clashes between the brown shirts and the communists and anarchists in Weimar Germany. In that case, it was largely working class people who were actively contesting state power because they were starving and suffering. This moment is instead full of trolls and pretenders on all sides because our bellies are generally pretty full.
This moment is unique in history in many ways, but pretty trite in many others. It speaks to a general alienation from politics many people seem to feel and a willingness to pursue other forms of democratic interaction. I don't believe anyone involved wants authoritarianism because the generation of people on the frontlines of this battle is too easily distracted to actually manage it. Controlling people involves a lot of administration and bureaucracy and nobody in the streets today is built for that. Besides, the tech sector already has that covered.
1
1031
Guest
From an outsiders perspective, it seems that it added fuel to a type of thinking. He's not dumb, he knew full well it would give some people the justification they wanted to further push their agenda. It was calculated and put the presidential seal on the BLM movement. And that movement was a direct consequence of the initial false narrative which was pushed in the media. They had access to all the accurate information but their agenda was to first push stories that congealed the reactionaries.
Regarding the "msm" (I am referring to established media outlets). I stopped paying any serious attention to their coverage and articles quite some time ago so it's perfectly plausible I am just not informed enough to make that call. Nonetheless, I trust my judgment on this before anyone else's.
I don't see it your way. Unless his policies reflect a fascist shit to what past administrations have done, then there's no justification for anti-fascism groups to now have formed (unless the media has in some way contributed). That isn't me saying those policies don't exist, I don't know if they do or don't. But how I see it, Obama's regime was at war for his entire two terms- that's a lot of money going into killing people but his supporters seemed alright with it. He seemed to have kept the ball rolling from where Bush left off but experienced very little international criticism for it. Trump makes some tweet and everyone goes fucking nuts. To an uninformed outsider, that's how it looks.
The reason I brought up the Occupy movement was to illustrate the tendency for those on the left to protest, in that instance they protested but (again from an outsiders perspective) somehow maintained this collective agreement to not indict the Obama administration.
The brainiacs at Vox are confused why Antifa attacked cops this weekend, every day is a learning adventure for them, & they'll forget it all by the morning Antifa clashes with police and journalists in Charlottesville and DC
View: https://twitter.com/chuckcallesto/status/1028789092098695169?s=21
Wonder if these thugs were arrested
@Kneeblock?
if antifa were actually attacking KKK members and actual nazis i wouldnt give a shit. they can all kill each other and the world will be a better place. they are not though. they call anyone they want a fascist they attack police and journalists. they come to start shit. as for the rest of the protesters why the fuck are they chanting no more KKK?? what they fuck is that about?lol when is the last time the klan showed up in hoods to a rally? .im pretty sure everyone would run them out of town.no one wants to be associated with real nazis and klansmen.they just lump in oathkeepers and proud boys as fascists and feel justified in assaulting them .when you see antifa unmasked they are a bunch of pencil neck geeks and old weirdos
Peaceful protesters.
View: https://twitter.com/chuckcallesto/status/1028789092098695169?s=21
Wonder if these thugs were arrested
1
1031
Guest
I got a question, I don't follow established news outlets very much these days but have any major media outlets been giving them any credibility?
i dont know about giving them credibility but they definitely downplay their acts of violence .early on they kind of made them out to be "the good guys". i think that is really going to change now that journalist and cameramen are being assaulted.
I flipped around the MSM this morning there were little blurbs about the protests involving white nationalists & "counter-protesters" & when they mentioned the violence they didn't get around to mentioning who actually committed it. I only watched for 10 minutes or so before my patience for their stupidity was up, so maybe it was different at other times. This was after a couple of weeks of claiming Trump was inciting violence against the media & hyperventilating about Trump putting their lives in danger, but they didn't seem to worried about Antifa going after their own. Pretty standard from the media here, it was almost all Omarosa coverage
Yeah, don't fuck with the press if you want positive coverage.
It won't change their coverage at all, some may have some hurt feelings about it but they'll get over it.
I'd honestly be curious to know when the last time any of them did anything productive was
this is the highlight of their lives
might be one of their biggest paychecks also
What type of thinking? What agenda? Black Lives Matter didn't exist in 2012 when Obama made those remarks about Trayvon Martin. It wasn't founded as either a movement or even a hashtag until 2013 and didn't begin in earnest with on the ground organizing until 2014.
Also, what false narrative?
What makes you think they wouldn't be or wouldn't be sought by police?
View: https://twitter.com/chuckcallesto/status/1028789092098695169?s=21
Wonder if these thugs were arrested
I think sometimes that there are perhaps few things more dangerous than a pure, unwavering sense of righteousness.
Politically speaking, I try to always remain open to the fact that my mind may change on something later on--as I gain new information and new experiences--and so I don't get too invested in the absolute, unchanging "rightness" of whatever positions I hold at any given time. I instead just recognize that this is how I feel right now, at this time in my life, as a result of the culmination of all the experiences I've had and information I've gathered up to this point in time.
It was THE documentary that really impressed upon me the power of the documentary form. It was a great independent work by Sam Green.
The Weather Underground and Enron: The Smartest Guys in the Room were a one-two punch for me and those two films started something of a love affair between me and documentaries.
Do you really think so though? Antifa often strikes me as Weathermen with training wheels. Trump is their Nixon.
Just the other day I was watching some footage from the Portland incident and Antifa members just start randomly tearing shit up and one guy on a bullhorn tells them to direct their efforts toward "those with money." I couldn't help but think of the Weathermen and their Days of Rage, where they "took the fight to the rich."
Well that's how it's supposed to work. The thing is, I don't think that Antifa respects the white nationalists' right to speak. If they did they would allow them to present their arguments, and then counter those arguments with better, more rational arguments, and therefore win the war of ideas.
But I've seen enough to believe that Antifa thinks they are justified in actually silencing their opposition and I have little doubt that many of the Antifa guys, if possible, would physically stop the WN guys from speaking if they could. If this weren't the case, there would be no need for the cops to be out there to constantly enforce the buffer zone between the two groups.
I see both as legitimate threats to democracy, as both have shown that they are happy to act un-democratically and literally force their viewpoint on others.
This is the irony of being loyal to democracy and classically liberal ideas, though. If I say I believe in freedom of expression and democracy, then that means that I have to tolerate even those voices that seek to tear down the structures that enabled these people to speak in the first place.
To return to something I said earlier, nearly everything that white nationalists believe is counter to what I believe as an American. If somehow their message actually took root to the point to where America, or some large portion of America, was transformed into a white enthostate then we'd be in trouble. Non-whites would be uprooted from their homes and cast out into the wilderness (if not killed) and democracy would be torn down as a Nazi-esque fascist state is erected in place of what once was the United States.
So that would suck. But still, the solution is not to try to take their voice away. We instead have to continue to believe in democratic ideas and values and have faith that regular people will hear their ideas, reject them and relegate them to the fringe where they've been for decades now.
As you've said before, a lot of these people are young. I think they like the action. They want to get out there and kick ass. They probably go home and think to themselves "That was awesome!" and pat themselves on the back.
What they need is a hard dose of reality. For every punch they throw, they should get two in return.
As Malcolm X said, "Be peaceful, be courteous, obey the law, respect everyone; but if someone puts his hand on you, send him to the cemetery."
I won't actually wish death on them or anything, but a good ass kicking wouldn't hurt.
Sadly more than you realize. It's not a new thing as is portrayed by the media at times but it does seem as though the crowds have been bigger at the few that I've seen in the past couple of years versus the ones I had previously seen in my life.
I can count 6 small rallies that I've witnessed and have heard of many more. The only ones that get any coverage are when it's a larger crowd and it's a real "march" or whatever that tends to require permits.
Hell, I drove to a grocery store one time with some friends one time because we heard there was a bunch of Klan members hanging out and sure enough... There were probably 15 or so people in full gear just hanging out in the parking lot. Now they weren't actively doing anything other than being dressed as assholes in public but considering that it was a predominantly black neighborhood, they were definitely being disruptive.
Another time they put flyers all over several neighborhoods one night almost like a marketing tool. Every single house, regardless of whether or not it was a white family that lived there. It was clearly meant as a reminder that they were alive and well in that area.
So I know it's very anecdotal but they most definitely are still wearing their hoods and doing what they can to shake people up, even though they don't have the numbers that they once had.
A lot of good points in your post. I'm singling out this portion just to note that freedom of expression has never meant unlimited rights to say whatever one chooses at any time. There have always been qualifications on freedom of speech, especially in European law, but also in American. Classical liberalism even had embedded in it strict limits on who could say what by carefully policing the boundaries of subjectivity. If you were not a property owner, or enslaved or some kind of cultural or racial "Other," or a woman, you never had freedom of expression in any meaningful way. Gradually this gave way to more formal limitations on speech for the purposes of public safety and security, though that's a line states have often used to restrict the movements of their adversaries. Since the middle 20th century, we have at least had one agreed upon international framework for understanding free speech in the form of Article 19 and 20 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights which says that:
Article 19
1. Everyone shall have the right to hold opinions without interference.
2. Everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of his choice.
3. The exercise of the rights provided for in paragraph 2 of this article carries with it special duties and responsibilities. It may therefore be subject to certain restrictions, but these shall only be such as are provided by law and are necessary:
(a) For respect of the rights or reputations of others;
(b) For the protection of national security or of public order (ordre public), or of public health or morals.
Article 20
1. Any propaganda for war shall be prohibited by law.
2. Any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence shall be prohibited by law.
Section 3 of Article 19 and the whole of Article 20 set pretty clear global standards on where we draw the line of free speech from a positivistic legal standpoint. I think this is often misunderstood in the US because of the 1st Amendment's prohibition on government interference in speech being sometimes over-interpreted, but there are categories of speech that are protected and others that are not.
wasn't this about a jones ban?