As an Austinite (well now Iowan) who grew up with plenty of Alex Jones on the airwaves, it's stuff like this I'll actually-in a morbid kind of way-really miss. I suppose you have to be exposed to it long enough to grow numb to it but Alex Jones became a source of entertainment as I grew older just to see what wackiness he'd come up with next. Gay frogs still manages to put a grin on my face even on my most stressful days.
It was almost a contest between he and the considerably less inflammatory but still uniquely weird John Aielli.
This isn't, nor should be read as a defense of Alex Jones by any sane person-but an acknowledgement of the absurd. I mean come on. Gay frogs? You gotta admit--it's chuckleworthy.
I agree; I "got into" Alex Jones because it was genuinely funny to see this narrative of a reality that exists only in video games and conspiracy fiction. It was so nakedly transparent as a kind of LARP and entertainment to front a largely boring reactionary conservatism (edit: and sell powders).
That all changed when either he "lost the plot" and began to believe it all, or the constant need to stay ahead of the news cycle (everything's a false flag, everyone in Hollywood or DC is a homosexual/pedophile/drug user, etc), combined with increasing mainstream coverage, make it genuinely harmful.
That the mask only drops in response to lawsuits is the tell, I think, and that's why I'm not really concerned about this having hugely unintended consequences and chilling effects. If his lawyers are to be believed (yeah, I know, don't @ me) then he's a grifter and actor but his storyline is harmful. No one has to carry his content; he can create his own media network and distribute it there.
Serious question: how do you make sure that none of this stuff you're listening to leaks into your perception of the real world? Are you sure you're just regarding it as some weird dystopian fiction, like Scarfolk or the SCP foundation, and not letting it affect your real politics?
I suppose that question would require a bit of insight into how you define "affect" and a deeper inquiry into what my "real" politics currently are, in order to draw a meaningful contrast-wouldn't it?
As asked-I'm not particularly sure I'm open to arbitrarily unloading all of that context-and reduce it all down to a simplified yes or no.
It's a shame this is getting downvoted because it's a good point, and the very same can be said about late night comedians and their "I'm just a comedian bro, you expect me to be accurate and consistent, lol" bits on the news of the day. These things do have an effect on perception of reality.
I admit I wasn't at all surprised to see it getting downvoted so heavily-I was not one of them I as I agree; it's a good question-even if, directed at me-I'm not inclined to go through all of the setup and groundwork necessary to give a response in the affirmative or otherwise.
Being willing to critique ones own body politic is a healthy thing. My lack of surprise comes from this strange phenomenon going about that presumes anything short of full-fledged vociferous condemnation or admonishment must automatically mean harbored complicity and is worth the harshest rebuke or silent dissent in the form of drive by downvotes without much contemplation or substantive discussion in the slightest.
> this strange phenomenon going about that presumes anything short of full-fledged vociferous condemnation or admonishment must automatically mean harbored complicity and is worth the harshest rebuke or silent dissent in the form of drive by downvotes without much contemplation or substantive discussion in the slightest
It's not so much strange, it's simple human nature really. The strange part to me is how common it is becoming on a forum as intelligent as HN. Most people here see themselves as a cut above the general public when it comes to intellectual capability, and they're right, but even with this genuine intellectual advantage so few people seem able to notice that they too are neck deep in the cultural meme war, and guilty of many of the same (or at least similar) transgressions of those they criticize, albeit to a lesser degree.
To me, this is the big elephant-in-the-room problem we should be talking about rather than obvious idiots like Infowars, and the stakes are very high in the long term.
(.....and, possibly relevant, I'm "you're posting too fast" throttled, once again. Is that message 100% consistent with the underlying algorithm? Oh right, "freedom of speech doesn't guarantee you a platform", there's nothing more to be said about the matter, full stop. As long as we follow the law to the letter, "it's all good bro".)
I find that most of it strengthens my opposing view and a sliver of it makes me reconsider my own beliefs.
I find radio which has a perspective that matches my own to be insufferable. It’s not funny, it’s uptight, it’s often miserable in it’s Subject matter.
I just prefer my entertainment to be creative people arguing absurd points over boring professors explaining climate change.
> I suppose you have to be exposed to it long enough to grow numb to it
That's why most of us consider Alex Jones to be a joke, but the reason Apple and Spotify are making this move is because many people, exposed long enough to Alex Jones, start to believe what Alex Jones has to say.
Oh, heard, understood and acknowledged. I get that completely (don't know that I agree that it's a good reason to take him off the air). My story wasn't meant to suggest this isn't the case for many, but to just share an anecdote of the humor Mr. Jones brings to my life because I tend to appreciate absurdity when I see it.
I'm still sitting behind this keyboard chuckling slightly at the idea that a human being has the capacity to be so completely apoplectic over homosexual amphibians.
if he was playing a character, and had disclaimers as such at the beginning, middle, and ending of his podcast, i'd love alex jones. kind of a "what would he say next?" sort of thing, mixed with plenty of onion-esque satire.
the problem is he's not. he holds these beliefs, and with his platform, he's leading other people to hold them as well. some are fairly benign, like gay frogs. others are downright sick, like calling the sandy hook kids crisis actors.
what i'm getting at is someone needs to mirror him, with disclaimers that everything that comes out of the host's mouth is ludicrous, asinine, and should never be considered rational thought. like the jackass intros, "you, and all your stupid little friends, should never try this at home."
Personally I don’t think adults need their world wrapped in disclaimers, warnings, and ratings. Particularly when the same become a kind of censorship, like how all DRUDGE tweets come up moderated as sensitive on Twitter.
I often wonder if there's a way to talk about this without the C word coming up, as it seems to quickly slide down the rabbit hole of definitions and what the substantive merit of 'censorship' is.
Okay, sure YouTube telling Alex Jones to kick rocks isn't censorship, because only the government has that power.
It used to be a go-to move of mine to remind the holder of that opinion that government (supposedly) exists as a stand-in embodiment of the will of the people. The kind of laws we pass (or allow to pass) are macro-indicators of what we value. Certain amendments are passionately argued as being just that-weirdly, except the first amendment. It gets all sort of special treatment that sometimes (operative word) looks like selective application of the argument of "only government" can curtail speech.
Lately though I'm beginning to wonder if a better argument against "only the government can enforce speech" looks something like questioning the power given to corporations (those private enterprises that are free to curtail speech as much as they like) to suppress or hide what Edward R Murrow called "unpleasant or disturbing information"[1] with how much power and influence these corporations have at large, comparatively speaking at the government level.
Or, said much more succinctly: I'm terrified of the eagerness to treat 'freedom of speech' as something that is universally, and singularly granted by the government-and I think it hides some really painful truths about the speaker that they probably would never admit themselves if pressed.
Our free speech laws prevent government censorship, but also stretch to include the concept of corporate censorship in the sense of allowing access to “the public square”. IMO this public square concept will inevitably extend to major internet service providers like Facebook, Google, and Apple.
Similar to how we’ve come to understand the Internet as a whole as a utility which should provided as a dumb-pipe service by companies which must promise neutrality, a similar argument can be made that despite being run by private enterprise (so is most internet infrastructure anyway) that these monopolistic services are so core to how we actually use — and harness — the power of the internet that there is a level of neutrality required in their administration as well.
ehh, i'm thinking more colbert report's take on conservative tv. john definitely has the wacky "what will he say next" down, but it's not a satire of aj. i'm looking more for someone who speaks like aj does, about conspiracies as dumb if not dumber than gay frogs.
It was almost a contest between he and the considerably less inflammatory but still uniquely weird John Aielli.
This isn't, nor should be read as a defense of Alex Jones by any sane person-but an acknowledgement of the absurd. I mean come on. Gay frogs? You gotta admit--it's chuckleworthy.