Year 12s: what will be the first way you research your future options? >>

Alex Jones mocks the P.C. System

Scroll to see replies

Reply 20

Rakas21

Isn't he the one that went completely batty on the Sunday Politics over Bilderburg last year?

Reply 21

Rorschach II

Original post by Arndale

Alex Jones (of Infowars nightly news- alternative media a bit outlandish but not lesser than mainstream media) mocks the Politically Correct system

It seems that Alex Jones has just caught onto the fact that political correctness is used as a political tool for mass control of the population in the West i.e. you can’t criticise x or you are a X’ist but you should criticise Y, or you can’t criticise Y or you are a Y’ist but you should criticise X. It did take him quite a while to catch on but he has just acknowledged the belief that political correctness is not actually originating from targeted concern and beneficial interests but for the purposes of social control, social engineering, and ultimately to perpetuate political agendas by means of making people look the other way as the theme is seemingly unrelated to the goal, yet the theme facilitates the goal. For example by breaking down the community, church and social values the individual takes orders from the state, by using accusations of prejudice, the individual is stifled from free thinking because free thinking may lead to traditional thought and Socrates, Plato, the Founding Fathers etc. are racist fascists.

Posted from TSR Mobile

Let's digress a bit; since when should people live by church values? They hold no ground, in that even in a more objective sense there are better ones and worse ones. Hence the values of the church shouldn't be considered to live by altogether. Values should be based on how to maximise harmony in coexistence, and crimes for example should be things banned for they negatively affect people altogether (slight oversimplification).

Also, what community and social values do you speak of?
Let's also clarify that one might hold values another might deem aligns with political correctness, but they are not necessarily due to political correctness; they might hold those beliefs for other reasons.

Freedom of speech also allows for people to make accusations of prejudice, but those subjected to the accusations should say them regardless so people can debate, and hopefully a common ground could be met.

Free thinking might lead to traditional thought, and it might not; your comment there was totally irrelevant.
The traditionalness of values holds no ground either, because there are in a more objective sense better traditional values, and worse traditional values, and the values aren't being consistently determined.

I know not the values of Socrates, Plato and the Founding Fathers (well I know a bit about the last one) for it is an area I'm sorely lacking in, and I haven't debated much philosophy etc. but why should Socrates, Plato and the Founding Fathers determine any values, instead of just merely provoking thought?

Reply 22

Rorschach II

Original post by Arndale

Do you find it threatening when someone brings up the contradictions in political correctness? Like gay marriage is good for you Christians but not for Islamics, or black identity is good but not white identity?

It seems that most people can't seem to produce a valid counter argument, and argue in the terms like the radical left. "See you're like Hitler nan i nan i na na" or "See you're just like those crazies who believe that the Jews are trying to take over the world nan i nan i na na"

How has the mainstream been systemised like the radical left to put forward arguments of associated rather than arguments of substance?

Posted from TSR Mobile

I've never understood what people meant by "gay marriage is good for you Christians but not for Islamics", though in my defence I've only seen it once (or possibly twice) before.

To be honest, it seems that many people can't seem to produce valid arguments, period.
Why do you say radical left, instead of just people who can't argue, as I doubt bad arguing is exclusive to them? More importantly what defines "radical left" people? Is it an ideology, a method of approaching things; how do you define it? Are you just speaking socially, like social values, or also economically; economical beliefs?

It isn't a good argument to constantly say "you're like Hilter", though it does explain a lot (a bit). After saying it once, they should explain themselves.

It is, I admit, a bit silly (to put it lightly) to say "Jews (implying all Jews) are trying to take over the world", as if they're a homogeneous group in the first place. Even one Jew, something someone mostly identifies themselves as, disqualifies part of their argument almost instantly. They should say at least a choice word like many, some, a few, all, a subsection etc. Or even better (if possible), what determines that subsection.

It is most definitely wrong to disagree with an argument by association to previous experience, if that's what you meant, instead of judging it as a stand alone thing each time, just with the same good principles of judging.

To be honest I don't really get the point(s) of this post (though I've forgotten what it's in reply to, if context is needed.) I got meanings here and there, but I doubt they're the ones you intended.

Reply 23

Rorschach II

Original post by marco14196

If you want to listen to some good political commentators, Young Turks and Secular Talk are pretty good. I miss True Conservative Radio though, that guy made Alex Jones look positively calm

I thought the Young Turks were crap (by experience here.)

Original post by Arndale

That people idiotically and unquestioningly accept double standards and even attack people who don't accept them as racists or bigots.

Posted from TSR Mobile

Lol.

So it's not an entirely worthless post, you really need to give examples to what you speak of.

Reply 24

Rorschach II

Original post by ExcitedPup

This is the guy who says that plastic in water bottles is making people gay, right?

Also, there's nothing radical or brave about attacking gay and trans people, Jones is just a rightwing dickhead who is an egomaniac and probably also insane

Lol.

Are you speaking of OP or Alex Jones? i initially thought OP, but I just remembered what was in the original post, so I now think Alex Jones.

Rest of post is probably too true, though as an Advocate of the Devil, you should really specify in what way he is rightwing; in social values, or also in economical beliefs? (I guess social is a definite from other parts of your post.)

Reply 25

Rorschach II

Original post by Quantex

I know it is in vogue to attack political correctness, particularly among those who view themselves as radicals. However, unless you regularly use the N word to refer to black people or laugh at kids with disabilities in the street, you are politically correct.

Too true (if I interpreted that correctly.)

Reply 26

#Ridwan

That's pretty much the only conspiracy theory that he doesn't promote.

Guy is in the pockets of the Koch brothers as well, got exposed a while back.

Reply 27

SeaPony

Instead of engaging the OP in a debate you simply rule off Alex Jones and simply call him names? Have you got brain cells or are you just being lazy?

Reply 28

SeaPony

Original post by DiddyDec

Your thread is so ridiculous that you are attracting the "Jews did 9/11" crowd.

Posted from TSR Mobile

Alex Jones is actually married to a jew if you knew anything about him.

Reply 29

2071067

Is he serious? The right wing are the kings of "you can't do X or you're on a list"

Reply 30

Stiff Little Fingers

Original post by ExcitedPup

This is the guy who says that plastic in water bottles is making people gay, right?

No. It's the juice boxes:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ir-WabG3EJ8

:laugh:

And some people actually take this guy seriously...

Reply 31

username612415

Original post by SeaPony

Instead of engaging the OP in a debate you simply rule off Alex Jones and simply call him names? Have you got brain cells or are you just being lazy?

What is there to debate? The idea that political correctness is being used as a "tool of mass control" is a stupid conspiracy theory and not worth wasting time on debating. I just pointed out that the OP was being overly generous in their description of Alex Jones, who is a conspiracy obsessed nutjob. I'll quite happily call him that name, it's demonstrably true.

Reply 32

SeaPony

Original post by Stiff Little Fingers

No. It's the juice boxes:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ir-WabG3EJ8

:laugh:

And some people actually take this guy seriously...

Just ignore the chemicals that are in the packaging and lining of products, yeah I guess laughing is more easy to dismiss.

Granted Alex Jones when I first heard him I thought he was a nut case but then if you actually investigate what he is talking about you then know the reason why he gets angry is because he feels passionate about the matters at hand.

Alex Jones is not a stupid redneck from Texas, he is unsuspectingly very knowledgeable about History and politics.

Reply 33

SeaPony

Again just more dismissing and name calling. That was not an attempt at debate.

Reply 34

username612415

Original post by SeaPony

Again just more dismissing and name calling. That was not an attempt at debate.

Of course it wasn't an attempt at a debate, I have no intention on getting into a debate about Alex Jones or the nonsense he spouts. I was just answering your question and explaining why I called him a name.

Reply 35

Stiff Little Fingers

Original post by SeaPony

Just ignore the chemicals that are in the packaging and lining of products, yeah I guess laughing is more easy to dismiss.
.

Granted Alex Jones when I first heard him I thought he was a nut case but then if you actually investigate what he is talking about you then know the reason why he gets angry is because he feels passionate about the matters at hand.

And? he can speak passionately all he wants, but he's still absolutely barking and spouting utter nonsense.

Alex Jones is not a stupid redneck from Texas, he is unsuspectingly very knowledgeable about History and politics

If he's not, he puts on a very good act at being a stupid redneck. We're talking about a man who has never said anything of any use, who jumps on all conspiracy theories, no matter how mad, insulting a great number of people in the process.

Reply 36

SeaPony

So now you are looking more ridiculous than Alex Jones in just simply ruling people out and what they have to say because of your closed minded views.

Just ignored some of what he says might be true I guess that does not matter, all that matters is maintaining your narrative.

Reply 37

SeaPony

Original post by Stiff Little Fingers

It's easy to laugh at someone who doesn't know what they're talking about. There are chemicals in everything, because everything is chemicals, but if you're going down the route of the conspiracy nuts that chemicals are bad things - not in the packaging of food, certainly not chemicals to make you gay, given those don't exist.

And? he can speak passionately all he wants, but he's still absolutely barking and spouting utter nonsense.

If he's not, he puts on a very good act at being a stupid redneck. We're talking about a man who has never said anything of any use, who jumps on all conspiracy theories, no matter how mad, insulting a great number of people in the process.

One minute, who is he offending?

Reply 38

Stiff Little Fingers

Original post by SeaPony

He's really not looking more ridiculous than Alex Jones. Jones has never said anything remotely true, he's not worth listening to. It's not close minded to ignore people like him and David Icke (Secret ruling lizard cabal from a rift in space-time near the constellation draco anyone?), because all they do is add unnecessary background noise to sift through to get to useful info - like smearing jam on a telescope lens.

Original post by SeaPony

One minute, who is he offending?

Well for one the families of the victims of the sandy hook shooting

Reply 39

username612415

Original post by SeaPony

I'm not simply ruling him out, I've watched and read most of the more objectionable things he's said in the past and found it to be wrong, stupid or outright lies, and now I have zero desire to revisit all that crap to engage in a debate on it with somebody on a student forum.