domain:streamable.com
Amadan
"I would put a screwdriver through your eyeballs if I could"
55m ago
However, is he responsible at all for the fact that his followers went too far and harassed those people?
I have only kind of paid attention to this case so I will not claim deep legal knowledge here, but I suspect this case is, like so many others, one in which the deep legal details matter, and are mostly ignored by partisans in favor of "He's being punished by the Elites for offending the NWO" or "He's an evil monster who mocked dead children."
A number like $1.5 billion is basically saying "We're taking everything you have (except your home)." Is that a fair judgment? Eh. I don't feel sorry for him, and not just because he's a crank.
My understanding is that the huge judgment was not so much because he claimed Sandy Hook was a hoax and told parents their children didn't really die (vile and obnoxious and possibly cause for a defamation suit, but not $1.5 billion), but because of all those followers of his who harassed and threatened the parents for years. So as to whether he is responsible at all: having some crazy followers who do things without your knowledge or instigation is one thing, but if you keep beating the "crisis actor" drums for years, until you know darn well what your followers are doing to those parents, then at some point yeah, I think you become responsible for continuing to egg them on. That and his legal fuckery with the court makes me think he FAAFO.
hydroacetylene
1hr ago
Post-birth infanticide in the USA is extremely rare and shouldn't be used as evidence of anything. Sex selective abortion is harder to track, but isn't it mostly confined to specific subcultures/ethnic groups that may well have different values?
hydroacetylene
1hr ago
I don't think rambling on about mass shootings or serial killings is the big issue.
I think slacker men is the big issue. Men do the vast majority of productive labor that generates and sustains our society's prosperity- that prosperity which keeps us from living in primitive savagery- and efforts to get women to do it have failed. Marriage incentivizes men to actually go do that labor instead of playing videogames and masturbating all day.
In a primitive society, you can motivate people by the threat of starvation instead, but ours is far too prosperous for starvation or even extreme boredom to be a credible threat. Getting men to do the unpleasant work that needs doing- which women mostly won't do- to run a complex society when they can fuck off to watch netflix is an important problem to solve, and 'your woman and kids depend on you' is the best way to solve it.
hydroacetylene
1hr ago
If you want a rule that says you can't get a gun unless you bring your girlfriend to say you aren't a threat (not a bad idea IMO), stories like this one are how you get it.
If you think that sounds implausible it's the law in some countries right now. I believe at least Canada's gun licensing regime- one of the more liberal ones, globally- requires an interview with an intimate partner, although it's aimed at domestic violence prevention. I would be surprised if it was the only such example.
hydroacetylene
1hr ago
If getting out of Canada became important enough, I guarantee you they would drive to the middle of nowhere and cross over into Minnesota or North Dakota.
The_Nybbler
Does not have a yacht
1hr ago
However, is he responsible at all for the fact that his followers went too far and harassed those people? Are CNN or MSNBC liable for defamation since they broadcasted Jones making those same claims? Do we know that if the people that harassed the victims parents actually got their information directly from Jones himself?
None of this was ever litigated, because they used procedural tricks to obtain a default judgement against him, then slap him with the largest civil judgement in history. Having not been litigated though, it now becomes effective "precedent" that indeed if you are not in good odor with the establishment, you ARE responsible for pretty much anything someone can come up with a legal theory for. And insurance companies will refuse to insure people who refuse to act according to these new "precedents", and if you go to a lawyer they will advise you not to do things which might result in this sort of liability for you... so everyone will behave as if this is the law, which means it is the law.
ThisIsSin
Tomboys: transgender or transcendental?
1hr ago
If things go south up north, are we going to have all those "new Canadians" hopping the border to the U.S. and bringing Canada's social ills with them?
The US-Canada border is actually really defensible, all things considered; the bodies of water one would have to cross are significantly larger than the Rio Grande (the US would lose a war in 1812 partly for this reason). Sure, it's possible to trivially cross the border provided you can get over the St. Lawrence, but because most of the "new Canadians" live in Toronto they'd have to spend a non-trivial amount of money to do that.
The only other city that has a large population of immigrants is Vancouver, which is right on the border; a fence long enough to be more than a few days' walk would be enough to prevent those crossings (as you get into "in the middle of nowhere" territory pretty quick outside of that, and Washington State isn't exactly the most habitable place either).
MiltonMurrayRobertLucas
Conan still talks to us too
1hr ago
It seems like the push finally came to shove for Alex Jones, as he will have to liquidate pretty much almost everything he has to pay the $1.5 billion dollar settlement after the Sandy Hook defamation lawsuit went the plaintiffs way. Via AssociatedPress:
Conspiracy theorist Alex Jones is seeking court permission to convert his personal bankruptcy reorganization to a liquidation, which would lead to a sell-off of a large portion of his assets to help pay some of the $1.5 billion he owes relatives of victims of the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting.
Jones and his media company, Free Speech Systems, both filed for bankruptcy reorganization after the Sandy Hook families won lawsuits against him for his repeatedly calling the 2012 shooting that killed 20 first graders and six educators in Newtown, Connecticut, a hoax on his Infowars programs...
...Liquidation could mean that Jones would have to sell most of what he owns, including his company and its assets, but could keep his home and other personal belongings that are exempt from bankruptcy liquidation. Proceeds would go to his creditors, including the Sandy Hook families.
If Free Speech Systems’ case is withdrawn, the company would return to the same position it was in after the $1.5 billion was awarded in the lawsuits and it would send efforts to collect the damages back to the state courts in Texas and Connecticut where the verdicts were reached.
Jones already has moved to sell some of his personal assets to pay creditors, including his Texas ranch worth around $2.8 million.
But a liquidation of Jones’ and his company’s assets would raise only a fraction of what he owes the Sandy Hook families.
According to the most recent financial statements filed in the bankruptcy court, Jones personally has about $9 million in assets, including his $2.6 million Austin-area home in Texas and other real estate. He listed his living expenses at about $69,000 for April alone, including about $16,500 for expenses on his home, including maintenance, housekeeping and insurance.
Infowars’ parent company, Free Speech Systems, which employs 44 people, had nearly $4 million in cash on-hand at the end of April. The business made nearly $3.2 million in April, including from selling the dietary supplements, clothing and other items that Jones promotes on his show, while listing $1.9 million in expenses.
Considering $9 million is more than 100 times less than what he owes, I don't see any other way for this to end in his completely left in the dust, with no business media, no career in journalism (at least as a self-owned publication, though I doubt anyone wants to hire him, and I don't think him having a Rumble channel with no structure to back him is going to bring him that much money). His only hope involves a Hail Mary crowfunding moneybomb from his supporters and people annoyed by the veredict a la Trump, but even if he raises as much as Trump, he's still owing hundreds of millions left, and I doubt he could even reach that point; not only we're talking about somebody not as popular, but the specifics of the case do touch sensitive spots (nobody likes someone stating falsehoods about dead children)
The $1.5 billion settlement for claiming an event didn’t happen the way it is popularly believed to have happened was always absurd and had nothing at all do to with justice delivered to the families who lost their kids in Sandy Hook and everything to do with silencing a voice long a thorn in the side of the establishment, which the lawyer essentially concedes in the above quote about the ruling not just being about money — lawfare waged via a weaponized legal system I wrote about in detail when the ruling came down from on high last year.
Please miss me with comments about how Alex Jones is an unhinged pseudo-evangelical lunatic with a drinking problem or whatever. The vast majority of Alex Jones haters, in fact, have never listened to a single hour of his broadcast. Their negative impression of him comes entirely secondhand from ten-second clips and the non-stop, orchestrated bleating of hostile corporate media — a consensus-forming propaganda campaign of, arguably, unprecedented scale targeted at a single individual in the 21st century.
But anyway, I’m not here to do apologia for Alex Jones or to sell him to anyone; I am aware of his flaws, as I am aware of my own. We all live in glass houses...
...The Alex Jones censorship sage is not about Alex Jones.
When Jones was universally banned overnight from all major social media platforms in 2018 in what was clearly an orchestrated move among the Big Tech giants, that was an allusion to things to come.
It was only two years later, if that, that the mass censorship regime came for all dissident media, including me when I got the banhammer from multiple platforms in 2020 for “COVID misinformation” and other alleged crimes of wrongthink.
It’s InfoWars today and the rest of us tomorrow.
Two things that come to my mind:
First, from what I understand, the final payment number came from Alex Jones not being willing to disclose his net worth, which allowed to the plaintiffs to imagine an infinite net worth if they wanted to. But once the books are finally displayed, does that make sense? And even if he hadn't, why isn't the level of damage caused to the plaintiffs part of equation to lower the number? Isn't this institutionalized debt slavery as punishment for what is at the end of the day an civil case? Don't get me wrong, as a libertarian I certainly don't oppose debt slavery for a sort of tort system where crimes are punished with payments; but it has to be equivalent to the crime and the criminal's means; $1.5 billion would be too much of a punishment for Adam Lanza, the actual sicko who murdered the children in Sandy Hook, let alone for the guy who espoused things that weren't true about the shooting. Is he even going to able to ever pay for it entirely?
Secondly, isn't this simply a completely disproportionate answer to Jones sins? Yes, he went on for too long with this charade and should had never started it in the first place, not to mention that his claims didn't went against the NWO or the globalist elites that he despises, but against parents of dead children, claiming that the most emotionally painful thing that had ever befallen them was something they were lying about on TV. However, is he responsible at all for the fact that his followers went too far and harassed those people? Are CNN or MSNBC liable for defamation since they broadcasted Jones making those same claims? Do we know that if the people that harassed the victims parents actually got their information directly from Jones himself?
It seems to me that defamation law is a two edged sword...a society that doesn't have it allows misinformation to be used to harm people, but a society that doesn't have it on a tight leash allows to weaponize claims of misinformation with far worse repercussions.
I'm not sure ancient Rome is the correct analogy here. Rome was quite stingy with offering citizenship. It did happen, but it took hundreds of years. Even as late as 100 BC, when Rome was already master of the Mediterranean Sea, many cities and towns within 100 miles of Rome were merely "allies" and not citizens. This caused the Social War (91–87 BC) in which Rome was forced to offer citizenship to some "allies" in order to suppress the others.
It wasn't until three hundreds years later, (212 AD) under the reign of the notorious tyrant Caracalla, that the citizenship was extended to all free men in the Empire. By then, many people didn't actually want it, and the reason it was granted was to extract more tax revenues.
Rome was ascendant when it was a nation state composed of Romans. When it offered citizenship to others, it was generally from a position of weakness. I will concede that the Romans held out for a long time.
The_Nybbler
Does not have a yacht
2hr ago
New Jersey's even better -- if you've ever seen a mental health professional at any time since birth, you have to tell the state their name and hospital affiliation to even apply to be able to buy a gun. Don't know it? No gun for you.
jeroboam
2hr ago
Unlikely any time soon. Canada has a better immigrant profile than the U.S.
ActuallyATleilaxuGhola
Axolotl Tank Class of '21
3hr ago
At what point do the rapid destabilizing demographics shifts and apparent deep corruption by foreign powers turn Canada into a national security problem for America? If things go south up north, are we going to have all those "new Canadians" hopping the border to the U.S. and bringing Canada's social ills with them? Is anyone in the U.S. govt thinking about this?
ResoluteRaven
3hr ago
A post-national state does not have a people, it has a territory.
Strictly speaking, a post-national state need only lack a people defined by common birth or shared ancestry, and can have one defined in other ways. One can argue that nation-states are a superior form of social organization to those other ways, but they are neither untried nor historically novel (e.g. Rome, Islam).
hydroacetylene
3hr ago
Considering the relative retirement ages of politicians vs Supreme Court justices, it’ll last long enough to obviate the question.
Sounds like a great way to make sure no one ever voluntarily visits a psychiatrist ever again.
IIRC there are a few polities in the US that will revoke (or are at least empowered to revoke; I believe Washington is among these) your self-defense rights, and seize that property, if you do this and answer the psychiatrist's questions honestly incorrectly.
Safety culture is inherently not capable of dealing with "unsafe tendencies" in a constructive or well-reasoned manner because the only thing it can respond with is violence.
Amadan
"I would put a screwdriver through your eyeballs if I could"
3hr ago
Or to put it more starkly but still perfectly accurately: You are free not to care about these men. And they are free not to care that you would prefer that they didn't engage in mass shootings, serial killings, and rapings against the people you care about.
This is the kind of LARPing I was talking about.
"These men" by and large are not going to do shit. The vast majority of lovelorn men will do nothing but masturbate and seethe; they are not some sort of existential threat whose wrath anyone needs to fear. As for the tiny number who do go on a killing spree, I find it very unlikely that society could have done anything to help them - they'd probably have been the sort of person who goes feral even in a healthier society.
That said, we should care about people who need help, though I'd classify them as similar to drug addicts; they need to want help and recognize the degree to which their own choices have put them in this situation.
FlyingLionWithABook
Has a C. S. Lewis quote for that.
3hr ago
This advice may not be helpful, but I hated running for decades before a bit of advice got me running daily: go for endurance, not speed or distance. Just set a timer to 9 minutes and commit to running for that 9 minutes, at whatever speed is necessary to make it the full 9. Jog as slow as you need to, just don't stop. Then walk back.
It really worked for me: I'm amazed at how much my endurance has grown. This from a guy who previously labelled running as his least favorite form of exercise.
FlyingLionWithABook
Has a C. S. Lewis quote for that.
4hr ago
The hardest part of parenting (in a practical, non-poetical sense) is the sleep deprivation. That will get better with time, but with 4 littles under 5 I imagine it is a struggle to get sleep. But just think of how great it will be when they're all old enough to sleep properly!
And having just traveled with a preschooler and a toddler on a 4 hour plane trip, I concur that travel sucks. They want to run around! They certainly don't want to wear their seatbelts.
ikeaAI
4hr ago
I think you could make a case that Thomas might not have stayed in office with the millions of dollars of gifts improving his life style.
And the gifts seem like more of a reward and an incentive to not pull a Souter and move left over time.
somedude
4hr ago
I don't see anything about any violent tendencies there. What, are you suggesting that if society didn't "value the freedom of lunatics more than the safety of innocents" they'd bust down doors and drag away everyone who doesn't follow up on their OCD treatment? Sounds like a great way to make sure no one ever voluntarily visits a psychiatrist ever again.
Lewis2
4hr ago
Thanks for the correction. It seems I may be blending the memories of trying two awful Norwegian fish dishes into one.
Tomato
4hr ago
There are much lonelier societies with more sexless men and they have close to zero lone wolf mass shootings. We just make the tools of mass shootings very easily accessible.
Have you expressed this opinion to any "normies", and how did they respond?
I guarantee you that if you threaten normies with visions of dark brooding virgins rising up they will (1) laugh, and (2) support further repression of said virgins. If you want a rule that says you can't get a gun unless you bring your girlfriend to say you aren't a threat (not a bad idea IMO), stories like this one are how you get it.
In the US today: depending on what you consider infanticide, when IVF is used sex-selectively, it's usually to select for a girl. And when children are being adopted, adoptive parents have a strong preference for girls.
For infanticide itself, according to the CDC, boys are more likely to be victims of it than girls, both in absolute terms and proportionately (8 boys per 100k person years vs 6.2 girls per 100k person years): https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/wr/mm6939a1.htm#T1_down
I couldn't find concrete statistics on sex-selective abortion in the USA, but I'd expect it to follow the same trend.
ok-target-7361
5hr ago
I'm not ashamed of my hostility towards women, but I'm ashamed about several things simultaneously every waking second, and it does nothing, so even if I could or wanted to induce shame about this issue, it wouldn't work.
I don’t buy that as a theory simply because it makes it too easy to shut up dissent. Under this theory, my repeating of a statement that I believe is true makes me liable for any actions taken by people who listen to what I’m saying even if I never tell anyone to harass or harm others, and even if I’m not giving out personal information. And thus it’s now easy to shut down dissent by suggesting that a speaker has total control over all of those who listen to his show.
More options
Context Copy link