He's a monster who didn't kill anyone though. Compare him to the monsters who ordered hundreds of millions of people to get toxic and deadly non-vaccines they didn't need.
What about the "monsters" who ordered troops to go to war (and get killed or maimed for life) and kill innocent children and mothers under bogus pretenses (like "They h…
He's a monster who didn't kill anyone though. Compare him to the monsters who ordered hundreds of millions of people to get toxic and deadly non-vaccines they didn't need.
What about the "monsters" who ordered troops to go to war (and get killed or maimed for life) and kill innocent children and mothers under bogus pretenses (like "They have weapons of mass destruction!")
Are you for banning all the people who enthusiastically supported those wars from ever hosting a talk show? Have they apologized to the mother in Iraq whose child was blown to bits?
I'm throwing out the possibility you may condone some monsters and want vengence for others. As you note, Jones was punished in court.
I don't think any of the neocon talk show hosts ever had to pay any kind of civil judgement or go through any kind of trial.
P.S. He did apologize and he was still given that judgement.
I’m sorry, is your defense of Alex Jones’s credibility that he hasn’t killed millions of people? Good luck with that one buddy, and I hope you’re not in charge of operating any heavy machinery or anything g I. The future
I think he's saying that the level of ire commonly aimed at Jones is incommensurate and inconsistent given that the people who usually wield it do not also aim it at the (softer-spoken, more educated, higher-class) pundits who, e.g. pushed propaganda supporting the invasion of Iraq which killed 1 million Iraqis and created ISIS - some of whom no doubt still have jobs in media. It's whataboutism, BUT, it's also a fair question. Could you feel the same ire for Judith Miller? If not, why not? Is there an element of class, or culture, in play?
Are a lot of people still claiming to be big fans of Judith Miller and supporting her as she continues to lie about every subject under the sun? Does Judith Miller have tons of people hanging on her every word as a supposed brave truth teller saying the things that THEY don’t want you to hear? I’ll grant you that her shoddy reporting had far more calamitous effects in a global sense than Jones making life pure hell for a handful of Sandy Hook families for years, but I can walk and chew gum at the same time and so I have no problem saying Fuck Alex Jones and Fuck the people who cover for him
My "defense" of Alex Jones is simply that he should not be banned from hosting a podcast show. I'm trying to make the point that far worse monsters than Jones are allowed to keep doing their shows despite pushing views I'd label as sociopathic and sadistic.
I don't have a problem with anyone questioning his credibility. I can question the "credibility" of thousands of pundits and show hosts. Jones' batting average on true statements is probably far better than most hosts in the mainstream media.
Keep moving those goalposts buddy! Please point out where I said he shouldn’t be allowed to host a “podcast show.” He’s free to do whatever his hateful, bigoted heart desires within the boundaries of the law (which, oops, doesn’t include defaming grieving families and doubling down at every turn when called to account!)
Okay. We're good then. The author of this story seems to be making the point that Jones shouldn't be allowed to have a show. Or, he can have a show, but he doesn't want any guests to go on the show ... which makes it hard to do a show.
I think Jesse’s piece speaks for itself, but you know nobody is OWED a big platform right? Jones can go rant on a street corner (which is where his trash belongs), we don’t have to give him a megaphone. If your claim is that he’s a voice who DESERVES to have a big platform then I think you’re too far gone to have a reasonable discussion
I'm not saying Jones "deserves" a big platform. But he deserves the right to have a show and invite whatever guests he wants to be on his show. If he gets a big platform or audience, that's the free market at work.
What scares me is "the truth Gestapo" bullying the masses into not watching certain shows ... or that certain topics and guests are off limits.
Which is what's happening on a massive scale in America right now. I don't know if this trend disturbs Jesse or not. If it doesn't, it should.
Jones should be free to have a show and invite whatever guests he wants. Every invitee should decline those invites, and nobody should watch his show. How's that?
I don't like it. I think he was completely and shockingly wrong on the school shooting wacko theory ... but if he invited me on his show to talk about my areas of interests, I'd quickly accept with gratitude.
I'm trying to reach a much larger audience with my own taboo theory (the Covid virus was spreading months before our authorities said was possible). I can't get hardly anyone to consider this theory or allow me to present the evidence I've compiled.
He's the type person who might allow a contrarian like me to present my research.
I'd relish an invite from CNN or MSNBC to discuss this subject, but I know that's not happening.
Lots of people who watch his show are not wackos and don't subscribe to his views on the school shooting. I think he just got re-instated on X - which actually made a great statement for free speech.
We don't have a First Amendment to protect the speech of people who only spout the authorized narratives.
Going on InfoWars isn't exactly going to bolster the credibility of any independent investigative reporting - in fact the opposite is true. People will say "it must be false because it's coming from the same show that peddled wacko theories about false flag school shootings and harassed grieving parents".
I get your point, but the people that would say that wouldn't be watching his show. I bet 95 percent of the people who watch the show don't believe the school shooting craziness. I'd just take any sizeable audience I could get. I've been on zero shows to discuss my research (well, two small podcasts that might have had 300 combined viewers).
Why on earth would CNN or MSNBC have some rando on to spout their pet theory? Why would you assume that They are just too scared to hear your bold ideas and not “oh, who the hell this this guy and why should we care what he has to say about this extremely specialized subject matter?” Are you a researcher? A doctor? Are you published on this particular issue? If not, then why the hell should anyone care what you personally think about when the coronavirus began?
Yes, I'm a researcher and, yes, I've been published (extensively) on this issue.
Why they would ask me to talk about this subject? It's, arguably, the biggest scandal of Covid or the subject that would prove every authorized narrative is wrong. It's certainly the most taboo subject.
The first article, fairly recent from my Substack, might explain why. The second link provides a summary of some of my most important stories on "early spread."
Many of these articles have been picked up by Citizen Free Press, which is one of the biggest Internet websites, The Brownstone Institute, Real Clear Markets, Zero Hedge, The Daily Sceptic in the UK among other sites. So I know there's some interest in this subject ... but not nearly enough. I appreciate your interest and the interest of anyone else that might be reading this thread.
He's a monster who didn't kill anyone though. Compare him to the monsters who ordered hundreds of millions of people to get toxic and deadly non-vaccines they didn't need.
What about the "monsters" who ordered troops to go to war (and get killed or maimed for life) and kill innocent children and mothers under bogus pretenses (like "They have weapons of mass destruction!")
Are you for banning all the people who enthusiastically supported those wars from ever hosting a talk show? Have they apologized to the mother in Iraq whose child was blown to bits?
I'm throwing out the possibility you may condone some monsters and want vengence for others. As you note, Jones was punished in court.
I don't think any of the neocon talk show hosts ever had to pay any kind of civil judgement or go through any kind of trial.
P.S. He did apologize and he was still given that judgement.
I’m sorry, is your defense of Alex Jones’s credibility that he hasn’t killed millions of people? Good luck with that one buddy, and I hope you’re not in charge of operating any heavy machinery or anything g I. The future
I think he's saying that the level of ire commonly aimed at Jones is incommensurate and inconsistent given that the people who usually wield it do not also aim it at the (softer-spoken, more educated, higher-class) pundits who, e.g. pushed propaganda supporting the invasion of Iraq which killed 1 million Iraqis and created ISIS - some of whom no doubt still have jobs in media. It's whataboutism, BUT, it's also a fair question. Could you feel the same ire for Judith Miller? If not, why not? Is there an element of class, or culture, in play?
Are a lot of people still claiming to be big fans of Judith Miller and supporting her as she continues to lie about every subject under the sun? Does Judith Miller have tons of people hanging on her every word as a supposed brave truth teller saying the things that THEY don’t want you to hear? I’ll grant you that her shoddy reporting had far more calamitous effects in a global sense than Jones making life pure hell for a handful of Sandy Hook families for years, but I can walk and chew gum at the same time and so I have no problem saying Fuck Alex Jones and Fuck the people who cover for him
It is "whataboutism" but sometimes the "what about?" questions are germane to the topic. It is here (imo).
My "defense" of Alex Jones is simply that he should not be banned from hosting a podcast show. I'm trying to make the point that far worse monsters than Jones are allowed to keep doing their shows despite pushing views I'd label as sociopathic and sadistic.
I don't have a problem with anyone questioning his credibility. I can question the "credibility" of thousands of pundits and show hosts. Jones' batting average on true statements is probably far better than most hosts in the mainstream media.
Keep moving those goalposts buddy! Please point out where I said he shouldn’t be allowed to host a “podcast show.” He’s free to do whatever his hateful, bigoted heart desires within the boundaries of the law (which, oops, doesn’t include defaming grieving families and doubling down at every turn when called to account!)
Okay. We're good then. The author of this story seems to be making the point that Jones shouldn't be allowed to have a show. Or, he can have a show, but he doesn't want any guests to go on the show ... which makes it hard to do a show.
I think Jesse’s piece speaks for itself, but you know nobody is OWED a big platform right? Jones can go rant on a street corner (which is where his trash belongs), we don’t have to give him a megaphone. If your claim is that he’s a voice who DESERVES to have a big platform then I think you’re too far gone to have a reasonable discussion
I'm not saying Jones "deserves" a big platform. But he deserves the right to have a show and invite whatever guests he wants to be on his show. If he gets a big platform or audience, that's the free market at work.
What scares me is "the truth Gestapo" bullying the masses into not watching certain shows ... or that certain topics and guests are off limits.
Which is what's happening on a massive scale in America right now. I don't know if this trend disturbs Jesse or not. If it doesn't, it should.
Jones should be free to have a show and invite whatever guests he wants. Every invitee should decline those invites, and nobody should watch his show. How's that?
I don't like it. I think he was completely and shockingly wrong on the school shooting wacko theory ... but if he invited me on his show to talk about my areas of interests, I'd quickly accept with gratitude.
I'm trying to reach a much larger audience with my own taboo theory (the Covid virus was spreading months before our authorities said was possible). I can't get hardly anyone to consider this theory or allow me to present the evidence I've compiled.
He's the type person who might allow a contrarian like me to present my research.
I'd relish an invite from CNN or MSNBC to discuss this subject, but I know that's not happening.
Lots of people who watch his show are not wackos and don't subscribe to his views on the school shooting. I think he just got re-instated on X - which actually made a great statement for free speech.
We don't have a First Amendment to protect the speech of people who only spout the authorized narratives.
Going on InfoWars isn't exactly going to bolster the credibility of any independent investigative reporting - in fact the opposite is true. People will say "it must be false because it's coming from the same show that peddled wacko theories about false flag school shootings and harassed grieving parents".
I get your point, but the people that would say that wouldn't be watching his show. I bet 95 percent of the people who watch the show don't believe the school shooting craziness. I'd just take any sizeable audience I could get. I've been on zero shows to discuss my research (well, two small podcasts that might have had 300 combined viewers).
Why on earth would CNN or MSNBC have some rando on to spout their pet theory? Why would you assume that They are just too scared to hear your bold ideas and not “oh, who the hell this this guy and why should we care what he has to say about this extremely specialized subject matter?” Are you a researcher? A doctor? Are you published on this particular issue? If not, then why the hell should anyone care what you personally think about when the coronavirus began?
Yes, I'm a researcher and, yes, I've been published (extensively) on this issue.
Why they would ask me to talk about this subject? It's, arguably, the biggest scandal of Covid or the subject that would prove every authorized narrative is wrong. It's certainly the most taboo subject.
The first article, fairly recent from my Substack, might explain why. The second link provides a summary of some of my most important stories on "early spread."
https://billricejr.substack.com/p/the-covid-ifr-percentage-was-a-scandalous?utm_source=profile&utm_medium=reader2
https://billricejr.substack.com/p/these-are-the-most-important-articles?utm_source=profile&utm_medium=reader2
Many of these articles have been picked up by Citizen Free Press, which is one of the biggest Internet websites, The Brownstone Institute, Real Clear Markets, Zero Hedge, The Daily Sceptic in the UK among other sites. So I know there's some interest in this subject ... but not nearly enough. I appreciate your interest and the interest of anyone else that might be reading this thread.