The Truth About Alex Jones

[Mordu]

So yesterday and this morning I had Alex Jones as a guest in my house for approximately eight hours.

Glacier’s OP video at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-5yh2HcIlkU

And the two-part Jones, Sandy Hook Video Deposition:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I7siWJ86g40

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XES-AydpIoc

But I’ve spent much more time pondering Glacier’s vow, “to defend to the death your right to be an idiot, to say mean and hurtful things.”

http://forums.castanet.net/viewtopic.ph ... 7#p2485639

And it still bothers me.

So I assume that everyone here has some form of real-world private space with a door.

I also assume that we can all agree on how the Castanet forum (and others like it) is a privately owned space where the host can show us to the door or we can choose to leave the space anytime we want.

As well, in similar forum situations, I respect Jordan Peterson’s reasoning for watching Alex Jones – "to keep an eye on what the radical conspiratorial right wing was up to," (1:15 in the video that I posted earlier and have cited below).

That's mainly why I’ve spent so much time with Jones over the past two days.

But that aside, in light of Glacier’s vow above, and because it still bothers me so much, I’d like to see any response to the unanswered real-world question that was posed to Peterson in that video.

Here we go:

“So if I were to walk into your house and harass you and call you all sorts of names and get right up in your face and not leave after you’ve asked me to leave and continue harassing you without any refuge for you, would you think that that was a crime for me to do that?”

(8:04 -- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f3jaPlWd2Pc)

My answer is, “Yes.”

Thanks in advance for anyone's kind attention to my post.

My question is: if you know you don't like him, why invite him in? We all have doors, and we can all choose to lock them. He can't walk into your house to harass you if your door is locked. You can turn off Alex Jones any time you want. It's like seeing that really annoying person and choosing to cross the street to avoid them. You can't stop them from being out there but you can take steps to make sure they don't come charging into your home.

Sorry, I thought I covered that in your non-bolded part of my post. And if that's not clear enough for you then it's my fault. So please suggest how I can make it clearer. And your bolded part of my post is meant to describe a real-world offline example where a 'harasser' has not been invited in. Do you think that in the 'real world', as Glacier would defend, "a (person has a) right to be an idiot, to say mean and hurtful things.”

[Mordu]

Sorry, every time I tried to correct the above post I got the 'prove you're not a robot' thing, and I got tired of it so I let it go.

Of course person can just turn Jones off, as a private platform can as well.

But in the real world 'taking steps' does not guarantee there won't be entry. For example say someone came in to your house with someone else that you don't know. Say you were having a party and didn't know all of the guests that well. Say you were married to someone and you didn't realize . . ..

[Mordu]

Suppose it's your Dad or your Mom or both who've come down to your basement room 'to smarten you up' . . ..

[Glacier]

One has to go out of their way to watch Jones. I had never watched the guy until I went out of my way to look him up on Joe Rogan.

[Lady tehMa]

Sorry, I thought I covered that in your non-bolded part of my post. And if that's not clear enough for you then it's my fault. So please suggest how I can make it clearer. And your bolded part of my post is meant to describe a real-world offline example where a 'harasser' has not been invited in. Do you think that in the 'real world', as Glacier would defend, "a (person has a) right to be an idiot, to say mean and hurtful things.”

Yes, I believe they have the right to do so. Once you start censoring, everything will get censored.

Idiots should be allowed to be idiots and say stupid or hurtful things.

1) if we are selectively choosing who gets to express themselves, then it is not a right - it is a privilege. And who decides who gets to be privileged? Once that is out of your hands, it is out of your hands forever.

2) I believe it is important to express ourselves fully and when everyone is doing so we can then make accurate assessments of people. I want to hear people express even the hideous aspects of their personality, it lets me know how far I can trust them (for some, that will be "not at all").

3) I honestly believe that we have become a culture too easily hurt and offended. Remember "sticks and stones"? I was taught that when we show weakness it encourages the predators more. I have not seen anything to disprove this. I am currently reading my way through "The Coddling of the American Mind" https://www.thecoddling.com/ by Greg Lukianoff and Jonathan Haidt. While it is focused mainly on college campuses it has other applications in life as well.

“A disturbing and comprehensive analysis of recent campus trends… Lukianoff and Haidt notice something unprecedented and frightening… The consequences of a generation unable or disinclined to engage with ideas that make them uncomfortable are dire for society, and open the door – accessible from both the left and the right – to various forms of authoritarianism.”
—The New York Times Book Review

On social media, we can ignore or block what we don't like. When a speaker we don't care for is presenting, we can not go. When a politician is running on a platform we abhor, we can vote for someone else. When our point of view is not being represented, we can speak up.

What we should NOT do is try to make the world conform to our comfort zone.

[OKkayak]

I remember, when I was a kid, there was this old saying about an old man sitting on his porch listening to the radio, and this program came on that he didn't care for. Instead of simply moving the tune dial to another station, he complained and complained and complained until the program got cancelled. Guess things haven't really changed much. Too many people still don't know how to use that tune dial and complain about what they don't like and justify it by using arguments like "it can be dangerous for people who don't know" and so on and so forth.

[Mordu]

"Saying mean and hurtful things," is abuse with intent to cause harm; to shut someone up; to cow someone into submission; or to force someone to do something they don't want to do . . ..

No one has a right to do that and supporting that type of a action anywhere is indefensible.

But I'm glad to see how my constipating effect here has been overcome in a natural way and now things are moving along again on this thread.

[Lady tehMa]

"Saying mean and hurtful things," is abuse with intent to cause harm; to shut someone up; to cow someone into submission, or to force someone to do something they don't want to do . . ..

No one has a right to do that and supporting that type of action anywhere is indefensible.

But I'm glad to see how my constipating effect here has been overcome in a natural way and now things are moving along again on this thread.

Bullying is never appropriate, expressing yourself is.

For example Mordu, I think that you are shortsighted and missing the larger picture by focusing too much on the "but it HURTS" aspect of this. However, you have the right to your opinion and you should have the right to express it. If I find you too annoying or offensive, we have this lovely option on Castanet called "foe" which -once I add you to the list - will block me from ever having to deal with you again.

That is what is missing in this current society, the ability to choose to avoid the unpleasant, or to deal with it head-on. Instead, there is hue and cry and "change everything so I never have to deal with uncomfortable things"; crying for the nanny state to fix it all.

[Silverstarqueen]

In my gut and in my logical mind, I am against censorship. On the other hand Canada has laws against hate speech which I think have improved the level of discourse in this country. We will never have hundreds of neo-nazis boldly marching in our streets chanting "Jews will not replace us", triggering riots in protest. So we can complacently sit here and say, yes, there should be free speech! However we probably still have neo-nazis in Canada, but unfortunately we don't really know who they are because they can't openly march and chant their hate speech. We still have anti-muslim, or anti-immigrant individuals who would attempt to shoot minorities or bomb their place of worship. We don't seem to have nearly as many of them, or as many of them actually acting out their hatred in Canada compared to the U.S., I'm not sure why. Is it because our law was based on "peace and good government" instead of each individual having an perceived inalienable right to hit the streets and gun down people we disagree with? Do we just have a better police force who is "on it" and therefore individuals are less inclined to use lethal force to get their way?
At any rate, if we don't let the crazies and highly prejudiced individuals have their say (including it seems a fair number on these forums), then would they be more inclined or less inclined to act out their hatred in some other more dangerous ways?

[Glacier]

Lots of neo-Nazis in Europe and they generally have stronger hate speech laws than we do.

Free speech is how we reduce the number of skin heads because free speech is the only way to refute bad ideas.

"If we don't believe in freedom of expression for people we despise, we don't believe in it at all."
~Noam Chomsky

[Mordu]

Still, please show me where anyone has been explicitly granted the, ‘“right to be an idiot, to say mean and hurtful things,”’ so you can defend that right, “’to the death.’”

Well, maybe with the exception of President Donald Trump.

[Lady tehMa]

Still, please show me where anyone has been explicitly granted the, ‘“right to be an idiot, to say mean and hurtful things,”’ so you can defend that right, “’to the death.’”

Well, maybe with the exception of President Donald Trump.

https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/const/page-15.html

In the Constitution of Canada, in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Fundamental Freedoms


2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:

(a) freedom of conscience and religion;

(b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;

(c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and

(d) freedom of association.

You're welcome :)

[Verum]

I don't think many are arguing against the level of freedom of speech we have in Canada. I think that some people seem to think that anti-censorship regulation should apply to privately owned platforms (Facebook, my home, Fox News, etc.), or otherwise protected platforms (libraries, House of Commons, etc.) and that they should not be free to impose terms and conditions for access and use of their platforms. Isn't is rather intrusive and authoritarian for government to dictate that such platforms must not be free to be selective about the content they allow nor be selective as to how they treat that content and the content providers?

Additionally, I find it odd that people who claim to be defending freedom of speech (but are actually pushing for regulation denying private platforms the right to regulate content) tend to only do so with regards to groups and people with whom they seem to at least somewhat and probably significantly agree with. Like, I never read people defending al-Baghdadi's or NAMBLA's right to unfettered access to YouTube, Twitter or Facebook. And it seems to me that if you are so willing to defend one groups access to these platforms to the death, and not others' access, then maybe it's not a matter of principle but more a matter of being in agreement with the one you would defend.

[Zoso]

I remember, when I was a kid, there was this old saying about an old man sitting on his porch listening to the radio, and this program came on that he didn't care for. Instead of simply moving the tune dial to another station, he complained and complained and complained until the program got cancelled. Guess things haven't really changed much. Too many people still don't know how to use that tune dial and complain about what they don't like and justify it by using arguments like "it can be dangerous for people who don't know" and so on and so forth.

Is precisely why i dont hang around here much .

So if whoever made up the sandy hook story was so capable , would they not have the ability to continue the lie with death threats ? Seems like a cake walk compared to the initial lie .

Not saying it didn't happen. At all . I am as disturbed as anyone, just not blind to the possibility.

[Mordu]

Still, please show me where anyone has been explicitly granted the, ‘“right to be an idiot, to say mean and hurtful things,”’ so you can defend that right, “’to the death.’”

Well, maybe with the exception of President Donald Trump.

https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/const/page-15.html

In the Constitution of Canada, in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Fundamental Freedoms


2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:

(a) freedom of conscience and religion;

(b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;

(c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and

(d) freedom of association.

You're welcome :)

And that Charter grants a person the explicit, ‘“right to be an idiot, to say mean and hurtful things.”’ No questions at all?

So no one can be charged or sued for committing verbal abuse?

No one can be charged for committing hate speech?

And if someone said mean and hurtful things to another person in Canada, then even this type action wouldn't be worth considering?

http://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/07/us/po ... -hook.html


Well maybe it's best for me to be Gone Fishin' now so I can have a good re-think on my human values :)