Me
Drugs mang.
General Apple, Facebook, Spotify and Google/Youtube BAN Infowars Alex Jones
- Thread starter sparkuri
- Start date
-
- Tags
- alex jones ban facebook jones
Drugs mang.
1
1031
Guest
Exactly, you polacks overstand dis.
1
1031
Guest
Dude, I'm Canadian. My father's side is Norwegian and my mother's side is Austrian, Dutch and Jewish, I have not a drop of Slavic blood in me...to the best of my knowledge.
1
1031
Guest
I know, it's all messed up. I will be headed back to Poland soon enough though.
Now I need your condolences
My question to you is who are these extremist groups you keep referring to? What extreme views did his comment activate? This is the exact quote:
“I can only imagine what these parents are going through,” he said. “And I think every parent in America should be able to understand why it is absolutely imperative that we investigate every aspect of this, and that everybody pulls together — federal, state and local — to figure out exactly how this tragedy happened...If I had a son, he’d look like Trayvon. When I think about this boy, I think about my own kids.”
Can you tell me exactly what kind of extremism is embedded in this statement? What extremist elements he was trying to awaken? Who it successfully roused? It seems like implicit in what you're saying is black people are irresponsible, heard these words from the President and then used them to form hate groups devoted to destroying the white devil and all cops out of a misguided attempt to avenge the murder of a thug who got what was coming to him because he occasionally liked to get high.
I know that's obviously not what you're saying, but when you examine the text you wrote, as seen above, these are the logical conclusions. An of course I have biases. There is no rhetorical or textual analysis that doesn't include the biases of the observer, but you control for them with a close read and by making note of them. There is no objective reality when interpreting language. This is an epistemological position consistent across all methods of textual inquiry. What my bias tells me is that Obama was attempting to mollify black people without saying so because he famously avoided using terms like "race" or "black" for much of his presidency and let a lot of the community down with his failure to speak out on a variety of issues and his tendency to chide black people. This was part of the communications strategy of his presidency just like the current occupant of the White House courts controversy, attacks sacred cows, and frequently uses slight distortions of reality to provoke deliberation among allies and enemies alike. As a black person, I can tell you when Obama made his statements, the general feeling was "finally."
When BLM formed online a year later, it was to bring attention to what was by then becoming a pattern: people facing no consequences for killing black people. When they moved offline and began staging demonstrations, it was because of how many cases had come up in the past decade, from Sean Bell to Oscar Grant to Trayvon Martin to Mike Brown to Eric Garner to Freddie Grey to Tamir Rice to Walter Scott to Sandra Bland.
For me, what's the most extreme is the precedents these actions set, namely that the state may determine the comparative value of its citizens lives based on fairly arbitrary reasons. It's not anything new. In fact, you could argue that what makes a state a state is its ability to control who lives and dies (as Foucault, Agamben, and Mbembe, among others, do). But to say the people disproportionately being placed in this category of permissible death are extremists for loudly rejecting that status is a frightening prospect.
Obama's ex-pastor (Jeremiah Wright) is definitely an extremist and Obama gladly sat in his pews for many years of his life. He only distanced himself from Wright after enormous public pressure was put on him to do so.
1
1031
Guest
None that I can see.
Looking back it, it does highlight how the facts (as I've read them) didn't line up with the narrative. There doesn't seem to be anything suggesting TM was a good kid but if the exact opposite is endorsed by the president, then it's not a surprise that extremist groups failed to place any blame on him for his demise. But okay, you say Trump has courted extremists, and I am ignorant of him doing so. So this has been my play on that, failed devil's advocate if you will. If the guy actually has "courted" extremists then I'm simply ignorant of it.
My guess is extremist view points had already been awoken for a few generations.
I don't see black people as having one identity. That interpretation requires one to think in those terms. If you do, well fill your boots but it's where I would have to diverge.
A) Then why go through the bother of writing something you think is wrong.
B) I don't see how that is a logical conclusion by any stretch.
Which people? To the best of my knowledge all those other people were killed at the hands of people in law enforcement. That is a serious problem but the last time I looked the movement seemed to have devolved into angry people just getting angry at anyone who can be lumped into two possible groups: white people; cops. I consider that extremist.
The movement seems to have in large part ignored the most common way in which young black men are (reportedly) killed is at the hands of another black male. Maybe it's my lack of information from the media but it looks like the only black lives that matter to that organization are the ones who have died and can raise them the most money. I like that people protest but their efforts seem misguided from my vantage point.
Where we do agree is (I'm interpreting you here) disdain for people being put into classes by the state. I think the state puts in measures to attract people to certain classes and we, through our choices, oblige. I think many people in the state see an inherent advantage to having people dependent on the state (either through incarceration or public assistance).
Yeah, I didn't suggest that...I'm not sure where you got that from.
Last edited by a moderator:
Dumb cunt calls for a boycott of all Fortune 500 companies with a presence on Twitter until Alex Jones is kicked off the platform. So far nearly 50,000 people have heeded the call.
Nearly 50k people have blocked Twitter's biggest advertisers over the Alex Jones debacle (and you can too)
Nearly 50k people have blocked Twitter's biggest advertisers over the Alex Jones debacle (and you can too)
I’m not involved anymore but Fortune 500 companies were pertinent to my interest. The capital pig in my head still thrives on it even though I am trying to be a nicer person now.
Not you, but fuck anyone trying to make anyone feel bad for making money for them self.
I did a good job of it, anyone with any brain sense should as well.
Shit, I'd love to make money for myself. I've been poor pretty much my entire adult life. I'd love to have the startup capital to start my own media outlet.
With that said, I do think that anyone who does very well for themselves has some social responsibility to give back in some way.
And liberals wonder why the right looks at them as crybabies lol
I guarantee you of those 50k boycotting, probably about 5-10 of them could actually give you a coherent, logical answer as to why they're against Alex Jones.
Most of these idiots will block those companies, say "har har take that McDonalds"... leave their house and go buy a Big Mac for lunch. We're not talking about Rhodes scholars here.
I guarantee you of those 50k boycotting, probably about 5-10 of them could actually give you a coherent, logical answer as to why they're against Alex Jones.
Most of these idiots will block those companies, say "har har take that McDonalds"... leave their house and go buy a Big Mac for lunch. We're not talking about Rhodes scholars here.
Only way I managed it was being a bit wordy. You've been here a couple of weeks only if that and you are already, so don't sell yourself short, matey. Gift of the gab and all that was the way I made money. I just can't seem to succeed in the US, but that's another story that really doesn't (REALLY) need to be discussed. I'll get told off.
I would say a pastor who stands at the pulpit and says "God bless America? No! Goddamn America!" after the 9/11 attacks is certainly engaging in an extreme form of expression.
He also has said that America "created the AIDS virus." I'm not sure what he meant exactly since he didn't offer an explanation, but my guess is that he's perpetuating the idea that America created the AIDS virus to kill off minorities. Does he have evidence for this?
He also said that the government "lied about Pearl Harbor. They knew the Japanese were going to attack." Hmm. . . Again, does he have any hard evidence for this?
Occasionally he'll actually make a good point, but the way that he uses his pulpit--a tool that is supposed to be used for religious instruction, not political rabble-rousing in any case--to constantly launch attacks against the United States (ironically using the rights afforded in the Constitution to make these attacks), always criticizing and never praising, seems like extreme behavior to me.
If you only listened to Reverend Wright, you would never think the United States does anything good or praiseworthy, or that Americans have anything to be proud of.
Man, this is getting so fucked up. We need some kind of massive public campaign to tell YouTube that if they don't start placing a greater value on free speech then we're going to stop using the shit. And if they don't react positively, then actually follow through on that threat.
We really need a viable YouTube alternative so that they aren't an effective monopoly.
First, he didn't say Goddamn America after 9/11. That was in 2008 when Obama was on the campaign trail. Here's the entire quote:
"Governments fail. The government in this text comprised of Caesar, Cornelius, Pontus Pilot – Pontius Pilate – the Roman government failed. The British government used to rule from east to west. The British government had a Union Jack. She colonised Kenya, Guana, Nigeria, Jamaica, Barbados, Trinidad and Hong Kong. Her navies ruled the seven seas all the way down to the tip of Argentina in the Falklands, but the British failed. The Russian government failed. The Japanese government failed. The German government failed. And the United States of America government, when it came to treating her citizens of Indian decent fairly, she failed. She put them on reservations. When it came to treating her citizens of Japanese decent fairly, she failed. She put them in internment prison camps. When it came to treating her citizens of African decent fairly, America failed. She put them in chains. The government put them in slave quarters, put them on auction blocks, put them in cotton fields, put them in inferior schools, put them in substandard housing, put them in scientific experiments, put them in the lowest paying jobs, put them outside the equal protection of the law, kept them out of their racist bastions of higher education and locked them into position of hopelessness and helplessness. The government gives them the drugs, builds bigger prisons, passes a three-strike law, and then wants us to sing “God Bless America.” No, no, no. Not “God Bless America”; God Damn America! That’s in the Bible, for killing innocent people. God Damn America for treating her citizen as less than human. God Damn America as long as she keeps trying to act like she is God and she is supreme!
Here's the video of that section:
View: https://youtu.be/whNE40AwVNo
. Where's the lie?
The AIDS thing is pretty ridiculous, but not exactly extremism considering what we know about the CIA allowing drugs to run into black communities, Tuskegee, and other sins. It's a popular myth, but has obviously been discredited by the scientific community. My point is you don't have to be an extremist to espouse it, just unwilling to look deeper at facts. Not exactly surprising from a minister.
Regarding Pearl Harbor, that's been a pretty popular trope in both CT circles and even among some historians for decades. There's not much hard evidence to support it, but like with 9/11 there have been theories about it forever. Again, it's not exactly an extreme position as many people believe it. Here's a Times article questioning the story from a few years ago: The World: Early Warnings; What Did He Know, and When? and an NPR story where historians and FDR experts basically say it's nonsense:
View: https://www.npr.org/2016/12/06/504449867/no-fdr-did-not-know-the-japanese-were-going-to-bomb-pearl-harbor
The fact that it was even addressed demonstrates that it's not exactly a fringe belief.
Having grown up in the black church, my views on Wright are that he wasn't saying anything that wild for a church environment and it's nice that he did actually try to weave political and historical knowledge into his ministry. The fact that he didn't do his due diligence on all the rumors he'd heard isn't surprising because he's religious and to be religious generally means shutting off a part of your brain most of the time. Most disturbing to me was that he decided to be extra while Obama was on the campaign trail, basically taking advantage of the shine his parishioner was getting to say things he had to have known would exact a toll. Not surprising behavior from a pastor in my experience.
I have to say, I think Stefan Molyneux is a total pseudo-intellectual moron, but I've never heard him say anything meriting a takedown. This merits protest.
My point is not about any individual thing he says but the whole thrust of his message. It's basically: AMERICA SUCKS! FUCK AMERICA! AMERICA'S DONE NOTHING BUT HOLD DOWN THE BLACK MAN AND TERRORIZE THE WORLD!
The only thing he hasn't done is encourage an armed black nationalist uprising.
I mean, is it not extreme to have such a narrow focus and not allow any sunlight in? To not have any kind of balance in his thinking and present a more balanced picture to his congregation?
BTW that is interesting that you actually wanted politics in church. I grew up in the church as well. It was not a place for pastors to deliver political messages from the pulpit. In fact, I had a grandmother who quit going to one church because the pastor was always getting political.
Last edited:
I still am struggling a bit with why you think Black Lives Matter is extremist. You hold as a point of pride that you don't really follow media, so how can you say "the last time I looked, the movement seemed to have devolved into..." Looked where? At what? Black Lives Matter has always had as a point of its platform the eradication of all forms of violence within communities. There have been affiliated activists on the ground in places like Chicago and Detroit, but this notion that "black people are the main killers of black people" is an odd and frankly tired trope. The organization's mission is focused on state sanctioned violence against black people. It's like saying the Red Cross should focus all their energy and efforts on construction instead of disaster relief. There are plenty of organizations in black communities doing the hard work of addressing the multiplicity of other issues we face. BLM was created to deal with a particular strain of those problems. They aren't mutually exclusive.
I mean no offense, but you watch way too much cable news & hannity. The guy has said some stupid shit but I doubt he's giving an msnbc rant every Sunday or there'd be nobody in the pews