I kind of feel sorry for him, though maybe I'm being naive and believing that at one point he might have been genuine on some level and it was the later flipping and flopping and constant chasing after attention that led to stupider and stupider stunts. Like at one point he was genuine and that managed to lead to some legitimate positive attention, but as that started to wane he wasn't happy with a smaller but loyal following and did stupid shit to try and continue having a larger audience. And each time it backfired and each time it effected him more and more until he just became this sad, pathetic, mentally ill dumbass, so much so that he would fake cancer.
Though maybe I'm grasping at straws and hoping because the alternative of him always being like this but with a disguise is just depressing and sad.
As is his right
If you believe a person should be punished, you do not believe it to be their right. You have a fundamental misunderstanding of rights.
See you at the next Westboro Baptist meetup at that dead solder's funeral.
You're the one holding the "God hates fags" sign, right?
Can't attack the points, so you'll make up actual strawmen to try and attack a character you think I embody. But it's funny that you bring up, out of literally nowhere, actual unironic grifters that rely on overly emotional dipshits to attack them so they can get a payday.
Damn right I stand by there being a punitive measure for his actions. Words through a bullhorn in the town of a massacre saying it's fake within a week of the deaths of those children is more than words. It's action and if we let everyone get away with this stuff then we'd let the streets be aflame because of a perceived injustice towards a man who died while being arrested because of some phone footage.
Can you actually define what that "action" is? It's not even incitement, one of the few legs that pro-censorship types love to trot out to try and defend their calls for unapologetic censorship. Or is it just Different™?
Tell me, what's your stance on Snowden and Assange? Surely they're far more evil than Jones. After all, your concern is about supposedly causing harm, and maintaining a comfortable lie is far less dangerous than exposing harmful truths, right? Or again, is it Different™? And if it is Different™, is it purely based in emotional calls? So long as enough people have an emotional reaction, we can censor with glee? I mean, truth has played zero basis in your rationale.
What's next, you gonna say "It's just a prank brah!"?
Whew lad, you got any more of them opinions someone else fed to you? Any more slogans to churn out?
Again, it's funny how you have to try and attack character traits that YOU assert I have. Meanwhile, all I have to do is point out your ardent support of censorship because of hurt feelings and that's it.
So fuck it. You're not going to budge, I'm not going to budge. In the end, it simply comes down to you supporting a comfortable censorship rather than having to ignore a dipshit.
I also have the right to say he's been far too over-punished for his words
Do I have a typing stutter or something?
Your original and followup comment said nothing of the sort. In fact, it was entirely justifications the fines he faced, only stating that Boeing should face worse, not that Jones faced an injustice.
And what's more is that you're not trying to defend calling Jones a scumbag. Nobody cares if you call him a lying, retarded, cock-gobbler with a penchant for crossdressing amputee midgets. Nobody gives two shits about that, and you know it. You were defending the fines he faced. That he deserved punishment for spoken word and unpopular opinions. Unkind opinions, sure. But that's all they were. Opinions. By all metrics, it's censorship. Censorship that you support.
There was no stutter. You made yourself clear: You don't like him, and don't care if he faces punishments regardless of whether he actually deserves it on a principled matter. You're just not liking that it's not getting the traction you thought it would.
Always will be too. States seek self preservation over principles stances. And any state that manages to be created with the principles first (Like the USA) will inevitably come to a point when the state will have to face those principles or abandon those principles to preserve itself at the cost of the people.
Ouch. That's such a massive cope. The minute you have to bring up "Well I'm soooooo successful", you just know that they feel a lack of fulfilment in their work.
Also Mikhaila, does that change the validity about what's being said? Is it any less right or wrong? You'd think someone that posits they're extremely successful would be intelligent enough to know to let it go. Also also, I've only seen Mikhaila's side to this. I couldn't give two shits about "Muh Joos", yet her behaviour has painted a very clear picture of who she ultimately is.
Maybe Alex Jones should have pointed his ire at Boeing instead of grieving parents through a bullhorn in the town were their little ones were gunned down.
Interesting. Any other cases where people must conform to the approved message? And who exactly sets what is and isn't the approved message? Do you also support the prosecution of people who were at the capitol on Jan 6? How about the Canadian Freedom Convoy? Or is that Different™? Hell, let's move away from the politics, what about shit like OJ Simpson. Do you think he did it? Careful, the state decided he was innocent, and speaking out against that might hurt some feelings.
Jones is a bit of a nut, but remember, you're justifying and defending a $2.7 TRILLION fine for hurting some feelings. Dick move? Sure, regardless of where you stand on it. Deserving of a completely insane fine to try and make an example out of him for his anti-state views? Is that really the hill you want to perch your flag on? The one that's pro-state approved messages?
Okay, and that pertains to this in what way? You don't like her, so censorship over migrants raping women is fine? Or is it just that you dislike her so much that that takes greater importance than migrant rapists? What are you trying to convey here?
Won't happen. Laws are for plebs, not for those that assist the state.
the customer is always right.
I heard you, you were just being yet another retard quoting half a quote to try and throw their weight around.
The full quote is "the customer is always right in matters of taste". In other words the customer knows what they want, but they rarely have the knowledge or expertise to achieve it, hence why they go and purchase it.
Besides, even the incomplete quote isn't about some fool being able to walk in and spout off whatever crap they want, it's about the invisible hand of the market, in that the customer knows what they want and if you were to try to sell something the customer doesn't want, it won't sell. The reality is that the vast, vast majority aren't just okay with but actively enjoy crowd cam moments. It's interactivity during down-time. Not everyone is an anti-social introvert, and clearly the market has long since embraced the crowd cam.
just to see if someone is able to present valid counter-arguments.
When are you going to provide something that isn't infantilisation of adults? You haven't got a valid argument other than "I don't like it". Grow up Tony. You used to have actual ability to argument. Now you're just being a contrarian and actually admitting to it even with that "just to see" crap. That's not healthy, it's just fucking weird.
You say like that like there are conservatives elsewhere that aren't progressives. I've yet to see a conservative group that aren't ultimately slow-burn progressives.
That doesn't even come close to being a valid analogy.
Nah, you just don't like it because, yet again, it shows that if they didn't want to be filmed, they shouldn't have gone where they have a reasonable chance of being filmed. And yes, it is reasonable. It happens all the time, and it's not limited to the US. You're wringing your hands over a fucking non-troversy.
I'm really retarded if I say that I can hold you accountable for Canadian/British misdeeds because you are YaruslavHunka/British, after you told me that you hold me accountable for European misdeeds because I am?
I never said "as a X". YOU by comparison DID say "as a European". You want to use "European" as a qualifier for your words to try and add credence, and as such are trying to explicitly stand with and speak for Europeans. And I never said anything of the sort. In fact, that's explicitly YOU that is trying to bring anything up to try and disqualify what I said through personal attacks.
You used to be better than this Tony. I don't even care that you disagree with me on this, but this is just embarassing how you're resorting to this kind of shit over a non-troversy like this.
Extend that logic and you blame a rape victim and not the rapist, etc.
That's right. A camera in a public space is equivalent to raping a person. Whew lad, that's some top tier intellectualism and definitely not an appeal to emotion. Tell me, are you weeping for all the men that have been filmed over the many, many years? Or is that different? You're being a fucking loser here. It's a known aspect of sports games. End of. They went knowing this is A Thing, and then bitched because that Thing happened. It wasn't a random act of violence. They're not victims. It's not a tragedy. You're unironically being incredibly sensitive here over the most innocuous shit ever.
Apparently not, cause some jackass filmed them for 20 secs.
This just in: The only reason to film a person for 20 seconds is for sexual reasons.
I swear, you're telling on yourself.
That just makes him all the more endearing. He's a retard, but he's our retard.
Speak for yourself. He might be a resident retard, but I don't think of him as endearing, I think of him as a nuisance to be ignored.
You have no idea whether these people decided to go to an environment 'over and over'. So not inevitable.
I wasn't suggesting they did, but explaining how risk and statistical analysis works for both a group and an individual. Seems I went a little fast for your understanding since you're looking to win an internet slap fight rather than discuss.
If you had thought this true, you'd realize that even you don't believe this.
Interesting that you know my beliefs better than me. But no, I do believe that people are responsible for their own safety and that, yes, that includes some aspect of their privacy, especially in spaces open to the public.
OK, so because total idiots decide to do this, it's the fault of the people to whom it happens, because "they go into [such] environments", and anyone who says that maybe then those total idiots should be restrained is a Bad European.
This started out alright, but you lost coherency about 2/3rds of the way through. Wanna try again, because I legitimately lost what point you're trying to make here and would like to at least try to understand.
you claimed, falsely, that it's the fault of the victims of this because it's "inevitable"
""""""Victims""""""". Fuck that's hilarious. You really think they're victims. Here's the "incident" by the way. Now I know that a fair chunk of Europeans are now Muslims and cannot control themselves, but please Tony, control your raging lust when watching this because it's just too sexual in nature!
Oh wait. No it isn't. It's just two chicks eating ice-cream, having a good time at a sporting event. That's it.
They're not victims. Stop giving weight to the currency of victimhood. Grow the fuck up.
You keep repeating 'personal responsibility' like you're a leftist repeating 'racism', in every conceivable context where it doesn't apply.
Aw, that's cute, trying to craft a guilt by association. The problem is that you still haven't done anything to address it, that's why it's still hanging there.
Tell me, if you walk into a strip club and find a pair of bare tits, who's at fault here? It would be you, right? So why is it that a woman attends a public event that's known to record the audience and suddenly it's everyone else's fault?
I assume I can hold you accountable for all the misdeeds of these countries. Pursonal RESPONSIBILITY!
Wow, you really are retarded if you can't differentiate between personal responsibility and collective responsibility. Then again, that's typical of collectivists that seek to blame the collective for the actions of the individual.
Considering you're using the "as a European" as a defence, you get to stand "as a European". Don't like it, don't bring it up next time. Or wait, is that some personal responsibility.... Gee, maybe I shouldn't even be allowed either. Nah, stand by your words and actions and stop acting like a child.
'Possible' is not the same as 'inevitable'
It is inevitable that it will happen to someone. Just because there's a chance it will happen to someone else doesn't make it merely possible, only that it's possible for you personally to be effected. But also, being exposed to that environment over and over and over only leads to an eventual inevitability. And let's not be delusional, with the increase in mobile phones and other such systems, that possibility is ALWAYS present.
Wow, that is a new definition of 'personal responsibility', that people have the right to film and broadcast you to the world, and that you can't even say anything about it.
Fuck off with the disingenuity of this. If you enter a space with a known risk, that's YOUR fault. Plain and simple. THAT is personal responsibility.
I'll go down the path of saying that this, and your 'Kiss Cams' for that matter, are remarkably stupid
That's fine. I think they're stupid too. But they're a normal aspect of those environments. You put yourself in that environment, you're the one running the risk of being on camera. It's legitimately on you. It's weird that you want to avoid personal responsibility. Don't want to be recorded? Don't go into environments that have a high likelihood of being recorded. It's that simple.
and should not even be allowed.
Ah yes, the good ol' "I don't like this so it should be eliminated" plea. Tell me you're a European without telling me you're a European.
People here love to be slaves but also not to have their personal information or image broadcast to the whole world.
So it's cognitive dissonance then? You're fine with privacy being infringed upon at every point, so long as your privacy isn't infringed upon in a very specific way.
Still, the CCTV isn't being broadcast everywhere
But if you walk into a space where it's explicitly a known possibility, whose fault is it when it inevitably happens? Stop trying to erode personal responsibility. Or are we going to continue down the path of infantilization where we insist people, especially women, don't actually have agency?
but it usually not individualized
What the fuck are you talking about? That happens all the time. What do you think shit like Kiss Cams were?
But then again, as a European, I'm more of a stickler for privacy and all that than is common in America.
What the fuck are you talking about? Europe openly has mass public surveillance and mass public compliance. Maybe you as an individual is more of a stickler for privacy, but not as a European.
Remember, pro-abortion has more male supporters than anti-abortion. Remember, most anti-abortionists are women. Remember, women have agency, and pro-abortion arguments rely on the notion that women have less agency than men. Remember, Roe v Wade was based on a lie. Remember, even the most generous reductionism of the abortion discussion comes down to the "battle" of the right to bodily autonomy versus the right to life itself.
Remember, pro-aborts have no argument besides the most nihilistic view of the world possible.
I don't know what's worse: That someone would pay for this shit, or some moron is freely doing this thinking they're "trolling" people by making us think he's a degenerative piece of shit. Like where's the "win" here? What's the "troll"?
A want is not a right. You would not be denying me anything.
This is just further cementing the idea that you fundamentally do not understand what a right is.