(04-19-2022, 11:49 PM)Lucky2Last Wrote: Look dude, I am not here to support Alex Jones. The dude is a conspiracy theorist entertainer who, unfortunately is right enough for his words to carry weight. When our government and media are transparent and honest, it significantly reduces that type of influencer. This stuff has been around forever,. They literally had tabloids at every checkout counter at every supermarket, and when they went too far, they got sued. Most people didn't buy into it, because our government and media weren't constantly peddling misinformation and disinformation.

I notice you didn't answer the question of whether or not CNN should be banned. We know they constantly are putting out information that is false. They lost lawsuits in courts over intentional misrepresentation. Do you know for a FACT they intentionally slandered Sandmann? Or did some of the idiots that produce that stuff genuinely believe the dude was a racist. I bet you still think he's a racist.

You're so eager to censor stuff that supports your point of view. It sucks for the victims of Sandy Hook, but it sucks for us when we have people deciding what we see and hear. And if you don't think that gets influenced by our government and corporations, you're a rube. When our institutions clean up their act, people like Alex Jones will mostly go away. Unfortunately, there are too many people that want to treat the symptoms, not the illness. Hey, whatever's profitable.

Herp-DERP

1. Nothing that idiot says carries weight - he takes advantage of the feeble minded and consequences be damned

2.Leave it in the tabloids - at least a greater % of Americans knew that stuff was garbage - now we have a divided and dumbed down society eager to adopt anything that remotely resonates with their point of view and giving voice to it digitally makes it dangerous

3. You could make arguments for censoring a half dozen biased news outlets - CNN may be one of them - none of them are nearly as careless as Jones was in the case this thread is actually about

4. Don't tell me what I'm eager for, you presumptive wind bag, and please proof that sentence again.
Why would I want to censor stuff that SUPPORTS my point of view?  You are not only wrong about what I'm supposedly eager about, you can't express it. 

Here's a clue: The point was about censoring harmful disinformation. You've trodden off into some other horse [BLEEP] that wasn't the point.

---