Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
Turn on thread page Beta
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrSFn8DLjEQ

    http://youtu.be/GepGO6HqL3o
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    Before I saw this thread, I had no idea who he was. A google search turned up mostly Alex Jones-related sites (Infowars, Prisonplanet) and a few Neo-Nazi sites mixed in. So can safely assume he's a nutter.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    He's certainly one of the more intellectually agile Libertarians on YouTube, he's not bogged down with rationalist utopianism like Randian Objectivism or Anarcho-capitalism.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JIRAIYA-ERO-SENNIN)
    He's certainly one of the more intellectually agile Libertarians on YouTube, he's not bogged down with rationalist utopianism like Randian Objectivism or Anarcho-capitalism.
    buzz wordz
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by anarchism101)
    Before I saw this thread, I had no idea who he was. A google search turned up mostly Alex Jones-related sites (Infowars, Prisonplanet) and a few Neo-Nazi sites mixed in. So can safely assume he's a nutter.
    Don't assume, watch. Judging a person's views merely by associations is how uninformed people close their minds before they even hear the argument.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I think he is bloody brilliant.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ZenGeorge)
    buzz wordz
    so much pretentious crap

    politics isn't about all of this stupid ideology people, it's about interests
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DanteTheDoorKnob)
    so much pretentious crap

    politics isn't about all of this stupid ideology people, it's about interests
    That was exactly my point.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JIRAIYA-ERO-SENNIN)
    Don't assume, watch. Judging a person's views merely by associations is how uninformed people close their minds before they even hear the argument.
    It's not simply by association. I admit Alex Jones has, surprisingly enough, managed to get some reasonable people to appear on his show. But it is a case of platforms and where he airs his views. If Infowars is the best place he can get his views aired at, that doesn't suggest they have much merit.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    is he a pop star ? :holmes:
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by anarchism101)
    It's not simply by association. I admit Alex Jones has, surprisingly enough, managed to get some reasonable people to appear on his show. But it is a case of platforms and where he airs his views. If Infowars is the best place he can get his views aired at, that doesn't suggest they have much merit.
    He actually has a lot of journalistic freedom at infowars. He is an opinionated journalist that most agencies wouldn't want to host because he goes against the grain, that is good.

    Its a sign of cowardice to not watch people with opposing opinions and shows how weak your ideas are if you can't even imagine having you safe space broken by a "nutter".
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    I haven't been bothered to watch his videos (bar one)but libertarian socialist rants (underwatched but fasicnating channel) does a good video exposing deep flaws in his reasoning.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by anarchism101)
    It's not simply by association. I admit Alex Jones has, surprisingly enough, managed to get some reasonable people to appear on his show. But it is a case of platforms and where he airs his views. If Infowars is the best place he can get his views aired at, that doesn't suggest they have much merit.
    You've simply re-phrased your previous argument: it's judging him purely by association rather than the actual merits of his views, that's not an intelligent way to assess someone you do not know.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Some of his videos are fun and his views pretty good but my god his voice / accent is awful. The one he did about feminists being proud of their std's had me in stitches
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    he's always spot-on in his videos
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by anarchism101)
    Before I saw this thread, I had no idea who he was. A google search turned up mostly Alex Jones-related sites (Infowars, Prisonplanet) and a few Neo-Nazi sites mixed in. So can safely assume he's a nutter.
    That isn't true, but I think he should dissociate himself from Alex Jones precisely because it's a fair assumption.

    However, his videos are based on facts and never mention any crazy conspiracies. See a couple of them for yourself and judge him by the content, not his association (which is probably to increase the audience).

    I've been following him for some time and his opinions aren't nutty at all. He's saying what most of us think.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    OK, having now watched this first video, here's my two cents.

    - For a start, with the exception of a small section where he starts ranting about Bilderberg, he doesn't appear to be quite the insane conspiracist nut I'd expected, though he's still a rightie nut.
    - Like most Trump supporters, he repeatedly talks about Trump being "anti-establishment" without really articulating any meaningful reason why. It's quite telling that despite not liking Sanders and thus giving a somewhat biased and botched portrayal of him, he's able to give a considerably more concrete basis for Sanders' "anti-establishment" position than Trump's. All he can give for Trump is:
    i) The media not liking him. I'm more inclined to believe that while this might be a little true, the media's attraction to sensationalism is far more important. Indeed, if the media really didn't like Trump and were willing to shape their content around stopping him, they'd just shut him out and give him not attention. But Trump has, from the start, quite consciously played a media exposure strategy, relying on an "all publicity is publicity" principle - and from that perspective, the media has, objectively rather than subjectively, been good for Trump.
    ii) Him being "unpredictable" or a "loose cannon". But neither of these express positions, never mind "anti-establishment" ones. Indeed, quite the opposite - they indicate the absence of positions.
    - He skims over the issues Trump's business practices without really understanding them. Despite the attention drawn to the corrupt-esque relationships between politicians, business, media, etc, he (like many Trump supporters) simply disconnects Trump's business ventures from his politics as if they have almost no relevance to each other.
    - And for good measure to finish, it's the typical American 'libertarian' slogan - we don't have True Free-Market Capitalism™. Largely because it's imaginary.

    So yeah, not much worth listening to.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JIRAIYA-ERO-SENNIN)
    You've simply re-phrased your previous argument: it's judging him purely by association rather than the actual merits of his views, that's not an intelligent way to assess someone you do not know.
    It's as intelligent as it is to decide which films to see based on which actors and directors were involved, which critics gave it good reviews, etc, rather than simply watching every film because otherwise you won't know "for sure", which is the logical conclusion of your argument.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    He has his opinions and I have mine

    However, he often uses incorrectly cited evidence to support his often bigoted opinions. The fact he's associated with Alex Jones is even worse.

    But then again, freedom of speech n ****

    I don't like him

    Edit
    His voice annoys me also
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by anarchism101)
    It's as intelligent as it is to decide which films to see based on which actors and directors were involved, which critics gave it good reviews, etc, rather than simply watching every film because otherwise you won't know "for sure", which is the logical conclusion of your argument.
    Except that isn't the case. Paul Joseph Watson has his own show and he doesn't have film critics or directors or other actors to speak of.So that's a false analogy. If you had said that you don't like Paul Joseph Watson because he did XYZ that would be ok, but instead you don't know who he is and haven't judged him on what he says or does--your judgement is purely prejudicial. If you don't want to admit it that's fine, but don't pretend it's an informed view.
 
 
 
Poll
“Yanny” or “Laurel”
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.