Alex Jones, false prophet


Backroads
 Share

Recommended Posts

23 hours ago, mirkwood said:

Any LDS member who dismisses the idea of conspiracies is ignorant of their own doctrines.

The Book of Mormon requires us to believe in a massive conspiracy, but it doesn't say enough to make us know for sure who or what are the key players "in the know".

And here is the problem with Alex Jones and other conspiracy theorists: their failures end up serving the devil quite well.  We all know the image of a tinfoil-hat wearing nut, (and plenty of people deserve the image with all the ridicule it entails)... and it makes people unable to even think about conspiracy or be mindful of it, because they don't want to be like THEM.

As such we need to be careful about KNOWING stuff.  Keep your testimony simple, about Jesus and his church, and strictly within the bounds the scriptures lay out; and let the rest be speculation.  By so doing we won't serve the devil accidentally, like I think Alex Jones has.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

And... $45.2 million more.

The money is great of course, but it’s a hollow victory. The parents got their day in court and now Jones has to live with what he did for the rest of his life. 
 

Maybe Alex should have been a little smarter. Jurors frown on those who try to exploit dead children for fame/to feed their ideas, etc. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Disclosure: I am only aware of Jones by reputation.  I think I listened to one interview he had back in 2010 or so.  I figured he was a loon.

That said...

I am having trouble processing the $40MM fine he's being required to pay.  What on earth could justify such a sum?

Part of my objection is that I value free speech enough to allow people to say completely unbelievable fantasy as if it is true.  Limits would only include things like fraud or defamation.

While his comments were completely whacko and absolutely unsympathetic to the families, I can't see anything he did as justifying such a huge fine.  Unless someone can reasonably explain otherwise, I'm led to believe that this is merely to set a precedent that will trample on free speech rights for all.  It's only starting with him because he's a soft target.

Edited by Carborendum
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Carborendum said:

I value free speech

Good. So do I. 

https://www.npr.org/2022/08/02/1115269280/sandy-hook-alex-jones-trial

“"What was said about me and Sandy Hook itself resonates around the world," Heslin said. "As time went on, I truly realized how dangerous it was. ... My life has been threatened. I fear for my life, I fear for my safety.”

Heslin said his home and car have been shot at, and his attorneys said Monday that the family had an "encounter" in Austin after the trial began in the city and have been in isolation under security.

If Heslin can prove that Alex Jones or his lunatic followers did this-then “free speech” isn’t a good defense. 
 

When you fall so far deep in this nonsense that your followers can shoot at parents who lost kids in school shootings yet still try to play the victim/free speech martyr here-than you are lost, Mr. Jones. 
 

Edited by LDSGator
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, LDSGator said:

When you fall so far deep in this nonsense that your followers can shoot at parents who lost kids in school shootings yet still try to play the victim/free speech martyr here-than you are lost, Mr. Jones. 

I wonder what your take on the Mountain Meadows Massacre is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Carborendum said:

Disclosure: I am only aware of Jones by reputation.  I think I listened to one interview he had back in 2010 or so.  I figured he was a loon.

That said...

I am having trouble processing the $40MM fine he's being required to pay.  What on earth could justify such a sum?

Part of my objection is that I value free speech enough to allow people to say completely unbelievable fantasy as if it is true.  Limits would only include things like fraud or defamation.

While his comments were completely whacko and absolutely unsympathetic to the families, I can't see anything he did as justifying such a huge fine.  Unless someone can reasonably explain otherwise, I'm led to believe that this is merely to set a precedent that will trample on free speech rights for all.  It's only starting with him because he's a soft target.

This is my thinking too, for the most part (except thinking he's a "loon", which I do not.) He was off based with his point of view and approach in the case of Sandy Hook. But to hold him accountable for other's actions this way is problematic for free speech. So, yes, he was off based here...but what about when he's right on something? By setting this precedent it says, you better watch your opinions pretty closely, because if anyone takes your opinion the wrong way you can be liable for tens of millions or more.

Yes...Alex Jones is in the mud, and got buried deep enough to start seeing ghosts that weren't there. Ten years ago that was odd. And the fact that he was blind to how odd it is indicates how deeply in the mud he was. But things have changed. We are ALL in the mud now, and getting deeper and deeper all the time. Now everyone who isn't pro baby-murder and trans the kids is a conspiracy theorist. Anyone who doesn't think the election was the safest ever is a straight up nutjob, right? So...how long before the precedent set here starts biting others who aren't as deep in the mud as someone like Alex Jones? It's kind of a bad thing.

And I can't really even assess Jones' guilt. The actual context of what he said and when and why is lost. The actual source, the long-form videos where he made his claims, are not available. Instead, we get quotes that are clearly missing context. I'm not suggesting he wasn't off based. But was he as unfair and un-even-handed as is being portrayed? Nothing else he says ever is. To wit: "They're turning the friggin' frogs gay!" - Alex Jones. A par for the course Jones type statement that is ridiculous on the face of it, but in meaning and context is a legitimate issue that's worth serious consideration and understanding.

In short, I don't trust what people say about Alex Jones. I've watched enough of him to know that I don't particularly care for his style and approach...but I also have watched enough to know that the media, social commentary, meme-world, etc., lie about him, constantly. Yes, they're half-lies a lot of the time. And yes, he makes it easy for them. But it's still not truth.

Take, for example, the headline that Jones' lawyers accidentally turned over his phone texts to the prosecution, thereby catching Jones in lies. It's kind of nonsense. Something sort of akin happened... but the exchange in court was not anywhere near that black and white. There was no perjury proven. There were no objections to the phone records being introduced, etc. etc. It was simply Jones saying, "Yeah, okay. I forgot about that." And a prosecutor using that to try and push the "you're a liar" narrative as much as humanly possible. And the news media report it as, "Jones, the LIAR, gets caught in his LIES...." That's just not true. (Please note: I didn't personally follow this and am reporting what I've heard from others. So if I'm shown to be wrong, I'll own it.)

So I legitimately do not know how to feel about his punishment here. He messed up. And some compensation for that mess up is probably fair. But it doesn't strike me they're trying for fair compensation. They're doing as you suggest: Hitting a soft target on the way to the broader target of free speech itself. That part of it is concerning.

We see the same thing with all the "conspiracy theories" that have come down the pike in the past few. Pizzagate, etc.

So the fact that Clinton's running a child sex-ring in the basement of a pizza parlor is ridiculous means we are meant to believe that nothing of the sort has ever happened? Really? But that's they way it's sold. See, people...Pizzagate is ridiculous. Alex Jones is a liar. 4 Chan's filled with a bunch of trolls. Nothing to see here folks. The government is noble and good. Nothing shady going on. Move on. Most secure election ever!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, The Folk Prophet said:

I wonder what your take on the Mountain Meadows Massacre is.

I must be missing something here TFP.  That seems to me a really odd question to ask in this thread.  Care to explain?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, LDSGator said:

I know virtually nothing about it. Sorry. 

Nutshell:

In 1858 a corrupt federal judge was run out of Utah on a rail. 

In response, he told President Buchanan that Utah was in rebellion. For reasons that have never been explained, Buchanan took the report at face value and ordered 1,000 soldiers to Utah. As he didn't send notice of intent, word was brought back by mail riders, and this caused a panic.

A wagon train from Missouri was trapped in Iron County because of poor planning on their part, such that they were out of supplies. With a possible war on, no one wanted to sell them anything. That they were from Missouri, land of the Extermination Order, an official state-sanctioned pogrom against the church, didn't help matters any. Several people down in Iron County still remembered the anti-Mormon massacre at Haun's Mill all too well, and when the members of the wagon train started talking smack in an effort to intimidate the locals into just giving them supplies the local militia decided to wax them all and blame the local Native Americans. 

Brigham Young was so busy trying to tend to the overall effort of keeping the peace that he didn't investigate personally, assuming his order that the church was to leave the wagon train alone would do the job. He knew several top officials in Iron County, so initially took their word as to what happened. 

The commander of the army was so incompetent that he was quickly herded into a corner and a third party was able to conduct an official investigation, but by then it was already too late. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Ironhold said:

Nutshell:

In 1858 a corrupt federal judge was run out of Utah on a rail. 

In response, he told President Buchanan that Utah was in rebellion. For reasons that have never been explained, Buchanan took the report at face value and ordered 1,000 soldiers to Utah. As he didn't send notice of intent, word was brought back by mail riders, and this caused a panic.

A wagon train from Missouri was trapped in Iron County because of poor planning on their part, such that they were out of supplies. With a possible war on, no one wanted to sell them anything. That they were from Missouri, land of the Extermination Order, an official state-sanctioned pogrom against the church, didn't help matters any. Several people down in Iron County still remembered the anti-Mormon massacre at Haun's Mill all too well, and when the members of the wagon train started talking smack in an effort to intimidate the locals into just giving them supplies the local militia decided to wax them all and blame the local Native Americans. 

Brigham Young was so busy trying to tend to the overall effort of keeping the peace that he didn't investigate personally, assuming his order that the church was to leave the wagon train alone would do the job. He knew several top officials in Iron County, so initially took their word as to what happened. 

The commander of the army was so incompetent that he was quickly herded into a corner and a third party was able to conduct an official investigation, but by then it was already too late. 

Thanks bud. I’ve been looking at it a bit tonight as I do some housework. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

While I think it's certainly prudent to be concerned about this as an attack on freedom of speech, I can't get past the personal responsibility. With great power comes such, or so they say. If you are in a position of influence, I think you must think ahead and consider possible consequences of your words. You can't stop all the crazies, but at what point do you get to deny your influence? Our free speech doesn't exist in bubbles.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, mirkwood said:

I must be missing something here TFP.  That seems to me a really odd question to ask in this thread.  Care to explain?

Sorry. The context was, if you blame Jones for his follower's nutty actions, do you blame Brigham Young for his followers nutty actions?

The idea being that it doesn't, necessarily, follow logically that just because nutty followers of someone engage in horrible behavior that the individual they follow is culpable. Or more directly, I'm saying that people harassing and shooting at the Sandy Hook parents is the fault of the people harassing and shooting at the Sandy Hook parents.

Obviously it isn't a perfect analogy. It's just the thought I had when Gator stated that Jones' followers' actions meant Jones had no right to claim free speech, or that because his followers did bad things, he has no right to call himself a victim of the press or the government.

I'm not saying that Jones is or isn't culpable. I'm just saying that his followers' actions alone aren't proof that he is.

Edited by The Folk Prophet
Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Obviously it isn't a perfect analogy

I admit my thoughts aren’t perfect either, but I do think I’m mostly correct. I’m deeply concerned about “free speech” if “free speech” means I can convince you to start shooting at people.

My other issue is that I think Jones has no conscience and is exploiting his followers who don't know any better. It does not take great intellectual capacity to grasp that no, crisis actors were not used at Sandy Hook. This isn’t rocket science. I’m really stupid and I can get it. So I sort of think Jones knew this and played his followers like marionettes. Which means his actions are even worse.
 

And picking on parents who lost kids in school shootings? Really? It’s brutish. I know that’s not illegal to he a wretched person, but watching him lose it all is like watching the bully get punched in face by the nerd after four years of bullying. 
 

Finally, I admit my own bias-yes I strongly dislike conspiracy theories. 

Edited by LDSGator
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, LDSGator said:

I’m deeply concerned about “free speech” if “free speech” means I can convince you to start shooting at people.

I agree. And so does, pretty much, everyone. In point of fact, it's already illegal to do that. If you tell me to shoot someone and I do it, you're already breaking the law.

But if you tell me you don't like someone and in response I shoot them...well now where are we? Should you be held accountable then?

We'd be in a position where you couldn't say you think anyone is problematic, dishonest, or anything of the sort...ever... because someone who hears you might then take that as justification for shooting at them and then you are liable.

Is that how it should be? Is that free speech? No ability to even question someone you don't agree with?

This is clearly the path we're headed down. And, note, pretty much everyone who's being held accountable in these cases is a "conservative" voice.

You can criticize a conservative all you want. But if you are a conservative....watch your mouth.

13 minutes ago, LDSGator said:

My other issue is that I think Jones has no conscience and is exploiting his followers who don't know any better. It does not take great intellectual capacity to grasp that no, crisis actors were not used at Sandy Hook. This isn’t rocket science. I’m really stupid and I can get it. So I sort of think Jones knew this and played his followers like marionettes. Which means his actions are even worse. 

If this were true I totally agree. But I do not believe this to be true.

And, also, if someone takes a shot at Jones because of what you just said, you might be accountable for millions of dollars! Watch it!  :D Oh...wait... he's a conservative. So you're okay.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

I suppose the question then comes down to the difference between the letter GG and spirit of the law and the opportunity to use such to cruel ends. And obviously that's the free agency stepping in. We can argue about free speech all day and ultimately I agree the importance of it.

But there's just something cowardly about hiding behind free speech laws to defend indecency, intentionally or unintentionally.

This may be extreme, but if Alex Jones truly believed the parents were actors in a freedom-destroying conspiracy, wouldn't h have to be in favor of harassment and even death of these people, if his conviction was that they were so wicked?

Edited by Backroads
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share