Alex Jones - Two Stops Past Barking?

[xslavearcx]

Aye pal. We are all too glakit for clever TV. Bring on the Jeremy Kyle and McDonalds burgers.




Cunt.

ehm im making the point that if you argue that a person advocating no platform position does so because of assumptions of the thickness of working class audience then it would seem strange for them to hold that assumption in the first place given that if they did assume that working class people are thick and uncritical and what not then they would surely believe that they are not the type to watch shows like sunday politics in the first place. Ergo your criticism is misplaced.

 

[8ball]

You don't actually think that though do you?

What in particular did he say that you found rationally persuasive?

 

[SpineyNorman]

They think, 'Oh, he sounded like he might have had something worthwhile to say, but he's actually a racist prick'?

Do they? You think that's how the minds of people to whom these counter-rational discourses appeal actually work?

It really isn't.

 

[ferrelhadley]

if they did assume that working class people are thick and uncritical and what not then they would not be watching shows like sunday politics

Then why ban it. If no one who would be influenced is watching why all the panty wetting over a loony clown?

 

[SpineyNorman]

What in particular did he say that you found rationally persuasive?

I didn't. But I'm not supposed to.

 

[xslavearcx]

you are still working on that assumption.

 

[SpineyNorman]

Then why ban it. If no one who would be influenced is watching why all the panty wetting over a loony clown?

Because, and this may come as a massive shock to you, it will appeal to some people. It's got fuck all to do with the simplistic 'stupid proles' shite you're posting.

You're just trying to wind people up and given the related fears of some people (fears not without foundation) that doesn't really say anything good about you. In fact it marks you out as a bit of a wanker.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Do they? You think that's how the minds of people to whom these counter-rational discourses appeal actually work?

It really isn't.

I didn't hear too much that was counter-rational in what Jones said on that show.

Are the rich lining their pockets during this recession? Yes. Are the rich having private meetings with politicians? Yes. Have banks been given huge bailouts at the expense of the poor? Yes. Are measures being put in place to increase surveillance? Yes. Is it naive to think that such powers will only be used against the 'bad guys'? Yes.

There was a lot in there that will strike chords with people who are not loons.

 

[SpineyNorman]

I didn't hear too much that was counter-rational in what Jones said on that show.

Are the rich lining their pockets during this recession? Yes. Are the rich having private meetings with politicians? Yes. Have banks been given huge bailouts at the expense of the poor? Yes. Are measures being put in place to increase surveillance? Yes. Is it naive to think that such powers will only be used against the 'bad guys'? Yes.

There was a lot in there that will strike chords with people who are not loons.

Yes - but the narrative he weaves around that is counter-rational. The hook is those basic (and obvious) truths.

And you seem a bit all over the place - a minute ago you were going for the whole give them enough rope liberal bollocks. Now you're making arguments that support the exact opposite.

 

[ferrelhadley]

It's got fuck all to do with the simplistic 'stupid proles' shite you're posting.

Really.

Jones is a clown. Who exactly do we need to protect by banning him.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Yes - but the narrative he weaves around that is counter-rational.

Yes, it is, as people will no doubt find out if they hear this for the first time on that show and their interest is piqued.

 

[SpineyNorman]

Really.

Jones is a clown. Who exactly do we need to protect by banning him.

Seriously?

 

[littlebabyjesus]

And you seem a bit all over the place - a minute ago you were going for the whole give them enough rope liberal bollocks. Now you're making arguments that support the exact opposite.

No I'm not. Both you and fridgemagnet have misrepresented me on this.

 

[frogwoman]

I would actually encourage people to look at what Alex Jones says and what a prick he is for themselves, I have read loads of the writings of Nazis, white supremacists and conspiracy theorists over the years, so I'd be a bit of a hypocrite if I told people not to do it. But no platform is something else, giving people a platform implies that their views are acceptable, and have some sort of legitimacy. And some posh prick inviting him onto his show just to take the piss,and hardly let them say anything is even worse, and makes them look even more of a cunt to be honest.

It's like if I invited Alex Jones round to my house, I am implying that he is a worthwhile person to be welcomed into it, especially if he then started telling everyone what he thinks, I am implying by giving him the platform of being able to sit in my house that I think what he says is all right and that he wouldn't be thrown out of my house for saying it.

 

[ferrelhadley]

Seriously?

Go on. Who will be influenced by him.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

tbf plenty of mainstream politicians are allowed on tv to spout patent lies all the time, too. And they don't even get pulled up on their lies. It'd be nice to see the odd presenter doing that 'he's a loon' gesture about George Osborne when he starts talking about austerity.

 

[ferrelhadley]

tbf plenty of mainstream politicians are allowed on tv to spout patent lies all the time, too. And they don't even get pulled up on their lies.

Far more dangerous and believable lies. Lies that are used to justify wide ranging polices.

 

[xslavearcx]

I would actually encourage people to look at what Alex Jones says and what a prick he is for themselves, I have read loads of the writings of Nazis, white supremacists and conspiracy theorists over the years, so I'd be a bit of a hypocrite if I told people not to do it. But no platform is something else, giving people a platform implies that their views are acceptable, and have some sort of legitimacy. And some posh prick inviting him onto his show just to take the piss,and hardly let them say anything is even worse, and makes them look even more of a cunt to be honest.

It's like if I invited Alex Jones round to my house, I am implying that he is a worthwhile person to be welcomed into it, especially if he then started telling everyone what he thinks, I am implying by giving him the platform of being able to sit in my house that I think what he says is all right and that he wouldn't be thrown out of my house for saying it.

Even the default liberal principle places limitations on when and how one can speak their brains. For instance there is Mill's famous harm principle wherin utterances that are deemed to cause harm (say for instance an inflammatory speech about race for instance) are considered to be a matter for the state to suppress. And thats just on free speach which i think is different to no-platform.

I think it comes down to the fact that there is no ' all things being equal' ....none of us are fully rational machines that sifts through arguments to identify logical inconsistences, rhetorical flourishes and what not and formulates opinions on the basis of some kinda rigour. Social validation probably does play a big part in how opinions get formed, and i guess this is where the no-platform thing comes into play. And by going on shows like this one does make a transition to having some kinda social validation that one would not have if they are confined to the domain of loonylizards.com

Yes it is easy to respond to that and say by advocating a no-platform policy one is being paternalistic. And maybe to some degree there is some truth in that. But it would be wrong to say that there are classist assumptions at play here, i think social validation in opinion forming is not confined to one class.

I'd bite the bullet on this one. Ok not perfect position to hold, but whats at stake i think means a bit of paternalism aint wrong in this instance. And thats not a position at odds with the liberals such as Mill.

 

[frogwoman]

no platform is not about using the state to ban people from saying stuff, or about banning certain books, or any of that shit, it's about you taking a decision to refuse to give someone a platform because of their views, it doesn't mean they can't or won't find another platform somewhere else. if you don't agree with that then fair enough, it doesn't mean that you should invite them onto a TV programme to take the piss for half an hour and make yourself, rather than them, look like a twat. If you're going to take a stance that a no platform stance doesn't work then actually do what you think you're doing, don't take the piss in a smug sneery way, and counter their views with arguments that don't make YOU look like a twat.

 

[xenon]

Yep. You can't really ban ideas and the means to express them. Giving someone a relatively prestigious platform on which to eyre them though, inevitably affords them some credibility. Marks them as a person who supposedly has something worthwhile to say and by inference gives their ideas wider reach and a vaneer of respectability. Contreversial thinker status rather than poisoness bastard. Useful smoke screen of course as mentioned. You don't need a crank to tell you the rich and powerful game the system to stay so. But if you've got one, it keesp people busy with denouncing or following them.

 

[ice-is-forming]

someone i was just talking to on fb said this ..

*just got back from the bilderbergfringefestival..very odd as the icke and jones fans sucked in the fear mongering and bathed in the rebel rousing until a single woman suggested we all walk through the plastic tape and confront the puppet masters. Alex Jones crew were on her like the CIA. very odd*

i think i know what it means but being so faaaar away from all this i really need it translated , i have
replied with this, and i have no idea of it makes sense or not but seemed like the appropriate cold calling thing to say? how far off am i, sorry for interrupting?

*really? that is strange:/ they are worth money those two, perhaps people are protecting their investments?

its a paradox. people change as they get fame. they dont realise it, but they do. by the very fact of acquiring fame and infamy their needs change so their behaviours and drives change also. beliefs, agendas, they become mutated and the people following them are the last to know. in the end the people representing a call for transparency and accountability become non- transparent and non-accountable themselves. its a devil to stop!*

 

[xenon]

Go on. Who will be influenced by him.

It's not about direct influence. Just credibility. Indulging in a bit of tin foolery myself, it makes you wonder whether it's deliberate to tar general opposition to corporate / state power with the rambelings of self serving lunaticrs. I still tend towards lazy myopic media people just picking the obvious gobshites for controvercy, ratings blah.

 

[smokedout]

just watched this, he did what he always does, the stuff that put him in the position he's in - spoke truth (in some peoples eyes) to power in an angry and passionate way

couldn't have gone better for him, he's not preaching at london liberals and the youtube clip of this will go round the world as the man who stood up to the illuminati bbc. anyone who doesn't get that doesn't get how this stuff works.

 

[Badger Kitten]

I am worried that there will be a terrible face palm moment when some Infowars-obsessed wingnut lets off a nail bomb or attempts an assassination and the BBC will get it in the neck yet again.

It was undignified, unnecessary and distasteful. What was the point?

Meanwhile the loon sites are mostly deciding he's controlled opposition or a heroic truthsader.

 

[smokedout]

point was to fill space in a low political news week, and andrew neil probably thought he could have him, and probably thinks he did just like paxman thinks he turned over tommy robinson when the opposite was true

hi badgers btw, stick around

 

[Jazzz]

someone i was just talking to on fb said this ..

*just got back from the bilderbergfringefestival..very odd as the icke and jones fans sucked in the fear mongering and bathed in the rebel rousing until a single woman suggested we all walk through the plastic tape and confront the puppet masters. Alex Jones crew were on her like the CIA. very odd*

i think i know what it means but being so faaaar away from all this i really need it translated , i have
replied with this, and i have no idea of it makes sense or not but seemed like the appropriate cold calling thing to say? how far off am i, sorry for interrupting?

*really? that is strange:/ they are worth money those two, perhaps people are protecting their investments?

its a paradox. people change as they get fame. they dont realise it, but they do. by the very fact of acquiring fame and infamy their needs change so their behaviours and drives change also. beliefs, agendas, they become mutated and the people following them are the last to know. in the end the people representing a call for transparency and accountability become non- transparent and non-accountable themselves. its a devil to stop!*

Well firstly, even if people got past the canal somehow, dodging the mounted police patrols, beyond that there was a monstrous fence and doubtless at the point there would have been armed police with orders to shoot.

But more to the point it helps to be a bit more aware of the background behind Bilderberg Fringe. Amazingly, with days to go before Bilderberg it was negotiated with the Grove Hotel and Hertfordshire Police that The Grove would allocate a field for the protest event (the license application for Cassiobury Park was objected to and failed). This was only ever remotely possible because the police - and in particular the main police liaison Steven Lee - had confidence in the festival organisers that there was absolutely no plan to create any kind of public order problem and that everything was being done to make sure nothing like that would happen. Thus, they could minimise the possibility of public disorder by co-operating.

Had such a thing occurred, although it might at best have created a news story, it would have destroyed the amazingly good trust which enabled the event to happen and thus prejudicing anything like that ever again.

The fact that the festival went ahead with practically no public order issues is to the credit of the movement.

 

[Yossarian]

I am worried that there will be a terrible face palm moment when some Infowars-obsessed wingnut lets off a nail bomb or attempts an assassination and the BBC will get it in the neck yet again.

The elder Tsarnaev brother was an Infowars fan...

http://gawker.com/accused-marathon-bomber-influenced-by-infowars-478641825

 

[ibilly99]

The vast majority of people would never have heard of Icke or believed him even if they had. They're irrelevant. On the other hand, there are people who would otherwise not have heard of him and who believe him who now have.

The key point is that there isn't a group who would have believed in him and now don't because he was on TV. The stuff he says on TV, and that Alex Jones says on TV, is the exact same stuff they say elsewhere. There is no downside for Jones or Icke here.

Totally agree sadly a big result for them both - extensive global exposure across worldwide media - increasing their self-belief that they were the oppositionist story to Bilderberg - Icke even makes the point that the 'traditional left' mobilises for G8 and the like but was nowhere to be seen at what is arguably just as important an event in terms of developing global policy formulation - leaving it a loon open goal. More links to and hits on their websites, more folk signing up to their loon info stream - yes they are going home happy (as happy as a loon can be - which is probably very).

 

[existentialist]

The fact that the festival went ahead with practically no public order issues is to the credit of the movement.

Indeed it is. Which is itself a good point to be made against the way people like Alex Jones behave. If the festival organisers, instead of working co-operatively with the police and authorities, had chosen to belabour them with shouty invective about how they were tools of the New World Order, it's quite likely that the festival would not have got permission to go ahead. Of course, for the Alex Joneses of the world, that would have been a perfect outcome, because he could have used it to prove that his mythical NWO was determined to silence him because he was so right about everything.

Despite what I've heard on this thread about "no platform", that is why I feel it was good that he got an opportunity to demonstrate how he behaves when people aren't trying to silence him.

 

[frogwoman]

He got publicity. He got the opportunity to do a rant which many people would have agreed with even if they weren't loons and show up the BBC establishments for the cunts they are. The BBC got an opportunity to laugh at a loon in that smug sneering way that they do and boost their ratings. It's a win-win situation for him and the BBC, not so good for the rest of us though.

I think even if you're David fucking Aaronovitch you still have a responsibility to think about your actions, might not affect you you can just sit back and laugh at the knowledge you're intellectually superior or something even though you're not.