Alex Jones..

angel102 said:
yet you still refer to fantasy organisations like Antifa and BLM as if they are an actual organisation with party headquarters, maybe take your own advice?

Millions died fighting for and against Fascism in Europe and all over the world, Millions lived and died in slavery and indentured servitude. Being against fascism is not and never has been a bad thing, being against racial injustice, both personal and systemic is not and never has been a bad thing. But please, carry on pretending that antifa and BLM are just like Nazi's.
Click to expand...
First of all, the post VH quoted specifically referenced Antifa and BLM, which is why I mentioned them. Secondly, since when has a group needed a party HQ to be a real thing with a real group identity? Thirdly, I never said Antifa or BLM were "just like Nazi's (sic)". You made that up on your own.

You can be against fascism without punching people you suspect of being fascists. The vast majority of people are against fascism, and the vast majority don't go around punching people.

Edit: Hey look at that, I quoted your whole post! Does this merit a sane response?
 
SlyReaper said:
First of all, the post VH quoted specifically referenced Antifa and BLM, which is why I mentioned them. Secondly, since when has a group needed a party HQ to be a real thing with a real group identity? Thirdly, I never said Antifa or BLM were "just like Nazi's (sic)". You made that up on your own.

You can be against fascism without punching people you suspect of being fascists. The vast majority of people are against fascism, and the vast majority don't go around punching people.

Edit: Hey look at that, I quoted your whole post! Does this merit a sane response?
Click to expand...
Sure, why not.

Yes, you can be against Fascism without punching people. Which most of the time is fine. The problem is that a few brownshirts in a beer hall in a city in, Oh I don't know, a major European country sometimes end up in a position of running that entire country, and then being punched in the face is the least of your worries as history has shown time and again.

Or if you go on a march peacefully protesting actual Nazi's, wearing actual Swastika's, waving actual Nazi flags, giving fascist salutes in say, a city, lets say Charlottesville in for example, Virginia then end up being run over and injured and also murdered by, you guessed it, actual Nazi's.
 
angel102 said:
Sure, why not.

Yes, you can be against Fascism without punching people. Which most of the time is fine. The problem is that a few brownshirts in a beer hall in a city in, Oh I don't know, a major European country sometimes end up in a position of running that entire country, and then being punched in the face is the least of your worries as history has shown time and again.

Or if you go on a march peacefully protesting actual Nazi's, wearing actual Swastika's, waving actual Nazi flags, giving fascist salutes in say, a city, lets say Charlottesville in for example, Virginia then end up being run over and injured and also murdered by, you guessed it, actual Nazi's.
Click to expand...
In both of these examples, how exactly would more face-punching have helped? Do you think there weren't communists punching Nazis in Weimar Germany?
 
IronWarrior said:
Unlike yourself and VH, I don't go around punching people because of their political views.
Click to expand...
Neither have I, yet again you seem to have the wrong end of a stick only you are trying to pick up.

I don't support punching people in the face, but I also don't think actual Nazi's have much right to complain when inevitably they do get punched in the face for, you know, being actual Nazi's.
 
angel102 said:
It worked in Cable Street.
Click to expand...
Really? The fascists marching in Cable Street had been losing support for some considerable time. They actually gained a modicum of support after that incident (just by virtue of people being reminded they exist), before eventually dwindling to nothing. They were going to vanish anyway - if the battle of Cable Street had any effect at all, it was to delay their eventual demise.
 
SlyReaper said:
Really? The fascists marching in Cable Street had been losing support for some considerable time. They actually gained a modicum of support after that incident (just by virtue of people being reminded they exist), before eventually dwindling to nothing. They were going to vanish anyway - if the battle of Cable Street had any effect at all, it was to delay their eventual demise.
Click to expand...
given the concurrent rise across Europe at the time, Particularly Germany and Italy I don't think people needed reminding that fascists existed.
 
angel102 said:
given the concurrent rise across Europe at the time, Particularly Germany and Italy I don't think people needed reminding that fascists existed.
Click to expand...
Don't be obtuse - I'm talking about this particular fascist party, the BUF.

I found the article I was looking for: https://www.historytoday.com/daniel-tilles/myth-cable-street

Because it's pay-walled:
Contemporary records, in contrast to the romanticised recollections of those on the anti-fascist side, tell a different story. […] The demonstrators at Cable Street, and their successors in the anti-fascist movement, have understandably taken pride in their achievements that day. Yet far from signalling the beginning of the end for fascism in Britain, or even in the East End, the demonstration yielded a significant short-term boost for the BUF, and did nothing to hinder it in the longer term. True, it succeeded in demonstrating the strength of hostility to Mosley, confirming that his political ambitions would never be realised. But this had long been clear. By 1936 the BUF was a local irritant but a national irrelevance and destined to remain that way. Instead, Cable Street drew unnecessary attention and new adherents to the party. However laudable the motivation of the Jewish participants that day, the primary consequence of their actions was to make life significantly worse for their fellow Jews in the East End, with their involvement used to justify the commencement of the most intensive phase of anti-semitic activity in modern British history
Click to expand...
 
angel102 said:
He hasn't been banned from saying anything,
Click to expand...

I agree, which is why my post doesn't say that, it says he's "gone" from mainstream platforms which I then refer to as a "ban" from those platforms in my later post, not that he is banned from "saying anything".

However while I absolutely disagree with Alex Jones on the vast majority of tripe he says and realise that companies can do as they please with their creations, as I mentioned before - removing an opinion from view does not remove it from the world, it just removes it from being able to be criticized - and I think thats the flip-side to the "yay, we got him removed!!!" folks who haven't really thought through the longer term implications of these companies acts.

Alex Jones isn't going away, his views WILL get more toxic, his popularity will increase due to being seen as a victim by those who may not of been fussed listening to him before now and from this point, unchecked by the "terms & conditions" of the sites he had used before, he can say what he wants without "punishment" allowing his fans to be fed more vitriol unchecked - but "yay, his views have gone from a few platforms where we could all see what a hateful man he was and pour scorn on him" etc.
 
ianh said:
I agree, which is why my post doesn't say that, it says he's "gone" from mainstream platforms which I then refer to as a "ban" from those platforms in my later post, not that he is banned from "saying anything".

However while I absolutely disagree with Alex Jones on the vast majority of tripe he says and realise that companies can do as they please with their creations, as I mentioned before - removing an opinion from view does not remove it from the world, it just removes it from being able to be criticized - and I think thats the flip-side to the "yay, we got him removed!!!" folks who haven't really thought through the longer term implications of these companies acts.

Alex Jones isn't going away, his views WILL get more toxic, his popularity will increase due to being seen as a victim by those who may not of been fussed listening to him before now and from this point, unchecked by the "terms & conditions" of the sites he had used before, he can say what he wants without "punishment" allowing his fans to be fed more vitriol unchecked - but "yay, his views have gone from a few platforms where we could all see what a hateful man he was and pour scorn on him" etc.
Click to expand...


I completely agree he isn't going away, and will get more toxic, that still doesn't mean he has a legal right to post anything on Youtube or Facebook.
 
angel102 said:
Neither have I, yet again you seem to have the wrong end of a stick only you are trying to pick up.

I don't support punching people in the face, but I also don't think actual Nazi's have much right to complain when inevitably they do get punched in the face for, you know, being actual Nazi's.
Click to expand...

This

I've never punched anyone in the face.
 
A question for those calling this cross-platform expulsion of Jones and InfoWars a bad thing:

Are you saying that you think that companies and platforms such as YT, Spotify, Apple et al. should be forced to provide a platform for Alex Jones even if he violates the terms and conditions of use of their platforms? Because that's pretty much all they've done - they have removed someone who was posting material that went against the terms and conditions of use of their platforms.

This is not a free speech issue, this is not a Constitutional issue. This is just some prat who posted a bunch of moronic crap and got himself kicked off a few platforms. Same as if you got Perma'd from here for breaking the rules.
 
The whole point of free speech is to protect 'prats' from posting 'moronic stuff' or stuff that people find offensive, protection of speech is really not needed when people are posting politically correct stuff that all of the permanently offended agree with now is it?

Like I've said before what's needed is Free Speech protection for public places on the internet, then private companies can't take ideological/political positions and stifle debate. If OCUK/social media etc don't like not being able to censor people who fall foul of their increasingly draconian terms of service then don't have a social website.
 
But he still has the InfoWars site. He still has freedom of speech. He's just not free from the consequences of that speech, i.e. getting banned from platforms for breaking the T's and C's for using them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom