CNN: "Facebook touts fight on fake news, but struggles to explain why InfoWars isn't banned"

Isn't the definition of a "conspiracy theory" effectively any belief on an important issue that opposes the "official" narrative from the Leftist Establishment?

Remember when the Left used to advocate for freedom of speech? Like back in the 1960s and 70s. But that was back when ideological conservatives held power to a great extent in the country, and the Left was pushing for tolerance of "liberal" causes (eg, pornography, etc). But now it is clear that wherever the Left gains power (eg, in universities), they begin silencing their ideological enemies.

If you must advocate for censorship of your ideological opponents, isn't that an admission that you are on the losing side of the argument? And that if you allow a free and open debate, and when facts and logic are brought to light, you will lose?

Over the last few years, there has been a massive increase of censorship of conservatives on major web platforms -- including Twitter, Facebook, Google, and YouTube. Much of it has been in response to Trump's victory in the 2016 election. People are rejecting the the Leftist Establishment media in droves. They have lost their power to control the "narrative", and are panicking and now trying shut down conservative speech.

Wolfer79 said:

---

Some day I wonder if Al Gore wishes he never created the internet.

---

Outstanding post, Wolfer!!

Amphibious said:

---

GuerrillaPack said:

---

Isn't the definition of a "conspiracy theory" effectively any belief on an important issue that opposes the "official" narrative from the Leftist Establishment?

---

uuum no.

---

Made me look
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/conspiracy%20theory


a theory that explains an event or set of circumstances as the result of a secret plot by usually powerful conspirators

Amphibious said:

---

GuerrillaPack said:

---

Isn't the definition of a "conspiracy theory" effectively any belief on an important issue that opposes the "official" narrative from the Leftist Establishment?

---

uuum no.

---

The technically correct definition of "conspiracy theory" is not the same as how it is used by the Establishment. That's why I referred to the effective definition of the term....as it is used.

The bottom line is that it is a "loaded" term, used to smear anyone who dares to question the Establishment position on any important issue. It was first used in popular culture to attack those who did not believe the official story on the JFK assassination.

The implication of the term is that anyone who questions the government/Establishment is always just "dreaming up" theories. Nothing could be further from the truth. Those who hold "conspiracy" viewpoints, generally speaking, have tons of factual evidence to support their view -- whether we're talking about the JFK assassination, 9/11, the safety of vaccines, lies to start wars in Iraq and Syria, the reality of the "globalist" agenda for a one world government, etc.

Given the massive amount of lies/deception and frauds/crimes committed (on a daily basis) by governments and other powerful organizations in society, is it really "crazy" or "kooky" to believe that the powers-that-be do not have the best interests of the masses in mind, are deceiving us on many important issues, and are working together to commit all sorts of frauds, scams, and crimes?

NatePait94 said:

---

I for one have no dog in this fight, but I truly enjoy reading the posts of guerillapack. It is all very interesting to read.

---

Thanks man. No matter what our view on any issue, we should all support the principle of freedom of speech. If we can't openly debate the issues and allow facts and arguments to be heard, then we cannot make informed decisions about what is true, the best course of action, etc.

I'm a staunch conservative, but I don't argue that far Left-wing groups or individuals should be kicked off Facebook and Twitter and YouTube, and not be allowed to exercise their freedom of speech. To the contrary, I encourage Leftists to speak out...because they prove that their ideology is wrong and dangerous by their own words.

The Left are the ones trying to shut down conservative speech, in all areas of society -- at universities, on the internet, public gatherings. Why? Because when conservatives are allowed to present their arguments, they win -- having facts, evidence, logic, and morality on their side. Conservatives have nothing to fear when Leftists speak. But it seems that Leftists are deathly afraid of allowing conservatives the platform to present their ideas.

Facebook bans Alex Jones and InfoWars pages

Citing "hate speech" as the excuse, for videos that opposed the transgender agenda as well as the islamic invasion of Europe.

"Hate speech" is now the go-to justification to censor anyone who espouses information that opposes the Leftist/Establishment agenda.

YouTube just banned Alex Jones' channel minutes ago...

YouTube removes Alex Jones' page, following bans from Apple and Facebook

Alex Jones has now been banned from Facebook, YouTube, and Spotify in the last few days. This is obviously a coordinated attack, with the Leftist Establishment media and the Big Tech giants working together to enact censorship.

Facebook, Apple, YouTube and Spotify take down Alex Jones content

ARE TECH GIANTS WORKING TOGETHER TO CENSOR CONSERVATIVES? Apple, YouTube and Facebook BAN Infowars on Same Day

Alex Jones is still on Twitter (for now), and his website is still up.

https://twitter.com/RealAlexJones

https://www.infowars.com/

Why is this guy so dangerous that Democrats call for him to be censored in congressional hearings, the Leftist Establishment media calls for him to be censored, and then the Leftist-controlled Big Tech giants act in lock step to try to shut him down?

Alex's response to the situation:




In case this YouTube video is taken down, here's the video on Twitter:

wilmwolf80 said:

---

Personally, I think the guy is a loon, but free speech isn't just free speech that you like. You either have free speech for everyone, or no one at all.

---

This is not an attack on you, but a real question, in the spirit of a genuine debate and discussion...

What specifically do you think he is wrong about, when you reference that he is a "loon"?

Although I agree with Alex on most things, I disagree with him on some things as well, and was just interested where you disagree with him.

More proof that the Democrats are working with the Leftist media and Big Tech to push this censorship.

Here is Chris Murphy, the Democratic U.S. Senator from Connecticut, pushing for total censorship of Infowars (as well as many others like them).

So he wants to destroy the 1st Amendment and freedom of speech in order to "save our democracy"?

Isn't the 1st Amendment to the U.S. Constitution kind of important to defining and embodying what our nation is all about? Talk about Orwellian.

The Democrats also want to destroy the 2nd Amendment and literally abolish the borders of the United States and just allow all illegals to flood into the nation without any restraint (literally destroying the nation itself).

The Democrats are now open enemies of America.

wilmwolf80 said:

---

I have no interest in discussion or debate about him personally. I disagree with most every conspiracy theorist in principle. I believe that the simplest, most logical explanation is normally the correct one, and conspiracies in general require belief in complex, illogical scenarios. Humans are incapable of keeping secrets, to a fault. I am a right leaning person and I don't trust the government, so my objection to him is not idealogical. I feel the same about his counterparts on the left. But I feel they all have the right to say what they say, which is the purpose in my response to this topic.

---

A "conspiracy" is simply two or more people acting to perpetuate a fraud, deception, or crime. The world is full of conspiracies, and especially in places of power. Is it really "crazy" to think that governments, big corporations, and other powerful people and organizations are working together to commit all sorts of frauds and crimes?

Just look at the Obama administration as one very small example. That administration was behind dozens of documented conspiracies. They conspired to persecute conservative groups with the IRS, conspired to cover up the truth about Benghazi, conspired to illegally spy on Trump during the 2016 election campaign, conspired to run guns to Mexican drug cartels ("Fast and Furious"), conspired to arm and support ISIS rebels in Syria and then falsely blame Assad for chemical attacks, etc.

Then look at things like the JFK assassination, the lies to start the 2003 war in Iraq, and many other historical examples of big lies/crimes/coverups where the evidence is overwhelming.

People like Alex Jones are not trying to dream up or fabricate "theories" about conspiracies where there is no evidence of a conspiracy. To the contrary, there is an abundance of evidence, and they are simply reporting on these facts and digging into these issues, asking more questions, and doing more investigation.

Again, I'm not interested in debating the merits of his content. He has the right to do what he does. I have the right to not listen to him. That's how it is supposed to work.

wilmwolf80 said:

---

Again, I'm not interested in debating the merits of his content. He has the right to do what he does. I have the right to not listen to him. That's how it is supposed to work.

---

I'm not trying to push him on you, or force anyone to listen to him. I wasn't trying to rile you up or anything.

The main reason I asked is that I was wondering what specific areas you think he is wrong. If someone is wrong, then you should be able to cite specific examples of lies he has said or explain how he is wrong. If you dig into what Alex Jones (and others like him) are saying, and look at the evidence, I think you will find that there is a lot of truth/facts to back up what they are saying.

I specifically, purposefully did not say he was wrong for the very reason that I don't want to debate the merits of what he says. I said he was a loon. You are looking for a debate that I'm not going to give you. I don't care if what he says is right or wrong. I don't like him, or anyone like him, but I defend their right to say what they want to say. End of discussion.

wilmwolf80 said:

---

I specifically, purposefully did not say he was wrong for the very reason that I don't want to debate the merits of what he says. I said he was a loon. You are looking for a debate that I'm not going to give you. I don't care if what he says is right or wrong. I don't like him, or anyone like him, but I defend their right to say what they want to say. End of discussion.

---

If you don't want to discuss or debate, fine. But if you can't (or won't) provide logical or factual reasons as to why Alex Jones is wrong, that strongly indicates that you don't have much in the way of a logical or factual argument to support the position.

Calling someone a name (eg, "loon") and refusing to address the substance of a person's position is not a valid or persuasive argument.

I. DID. NOT. SAY. HE. WAS. WRONG. I do not like conspiracy theorists. I don't care if they are right or wrong, their methodology, the way that they present information, the way that their followers defend them and their detractors argue against them. This online back and forth, packpride style pissing in the wind bull ****, is the perfect example. I don't have to back up the fact that I don't like him or what he does with facts. I posted on this thread to stick up for the right to free speech of a person that I admitted I don't like, because I believe in free speech. You should take that at face value and move on.

wilmwolf80 said:

---

I. DID. NOT. SAY. HE. WAS. WRONG. I do not like conspiracy theorists. I don't care if they are right or wrong, their methodology, the way that they present information, the way that their followers defend them and their detractors argue against them. This online back and forth, packpride style pissing in the wind bull ****, is the perfect example. I don't have to back up the fact that I don't like him or what he does with facts. I posted on this thread to stick up for the right to free speech of a person that I admitted I don't like, because I believe in free speech. You should take that at face value and move on.

---

Are you saying I can't respond to your comments? If you don't want to respond to me, then fine. But I have the right to respond.

I'm just pointing out that "not liking" someone, or calling them a name, is not a valid or persuasive argument. Facts and logic are supposed to rule our world. Not feelings. What's right and wrong (or true or false) actually does matter.

I'm curious as to why you don't want to debate the substance of his arguments. It certainly can't be because you oppose putting in time or effort typing responses.

I thought you said "end of discussion" but you still came back.....

I in no way have any desire, need, or compunction to convince you or compel you to feel any way. And under no circumstances am I required to justify how I feel about something to you. I was offering you support on the basic premise of this thread, free speech, by pointing out that I feel it is universal no matter the person involved. I will refrain from doing so in the future. Be well.

wilmwolf80 said:

---

I in no way have any desire, need, or compunction to convince you or compel you to feel any way. And under no circumstances am I required to justify how I feel about something to you. I was offering you support on the basic premise of this thread, free speech, by pointing out that I feel it is universal no matter the person involved. I will refrain from doing so in the future. Be well.

---

wilmwolf80 said:

---

I in no way have any desire, need, or compunction to convince you or compel you to feel any way. And under no circumstances am I required to justify how I feel about something to you. I was offering you support on the basic premise of this thread, free speech, by pointing out that I feel it is universal no matter the person involved. I will refrain from doing so in the future. Be well.

---

I didn't say you were required to do anything. People are free to hold opinions for whatever reason they want.

But....in general, if you (or anyone else) are trying to convince others to agree with you, reasonable people are going to want substantive, logical, and factual information/arguments to support that position. I didn't think it was unreasonable to inquire about that.

I appreciate your support for freedom of speech. And I welcome your comments. I enjoy debate and discussion. If you don't, so be it.

How are his free speech rights being infringed? Is it similar to how the Dixie Chicks were taken off radio stations for criticizing a conservative president? Were you up in arms then about their free speech rights?

JeffreyDurkin said:

---

How are his free speech rights being infringed? Is it similar to how the Dixie Chicks were taken off radio stations for criticizing a conservative president? Were you up in arms then about their free speech rights?

---

Not a good analogy. If people call into radio stations to tell the disk jockeys to not play Dixie Chicks songs, that is not trying to silence the freedom of speech of the Dixie Chicks. What would be trying to deny the freedom of speech of the Dixie Chicks is to say that they should be banned off of all social media, not be able to have a website, and not be able to have a platform to speak to the world.

And, by the way, I oppose the war in Iraq. I also oppose the wars that Obama initiated in Libya and Syria. So I support the position that the Dixie Chicks took.

I get the argument that Facebook and YouTube and the other Big Tech giants "are private companies that should be able to censor anyone they want for any reason". But why can't a small bakery shop refuse to bake a cake for a homosexual couple? There is also the argument that Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube are now "public utilities" who advertise to the pubic as "allowing freedom of speech" and should therefore not be able to censor people for political reasons, and may be barred by the First Amendment from doing so -- similar to how a phone company like AT&T should not be able to deny you phone service for your political views.

Regardless of whether or not Facebook and YouTube can be legally barred by the First Amendment from censorship on political grounds, it is obvious that the Leftist ideologues who run these Big Tech companies do not believe in freedom of speech. They are clearly engaging in a campaign to silence conservative voices on Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, etc. So separate from the legal issue, you have a situation where the Leftist-run Big Tech companies want to censor the internet of conservative voices.

Another group that does not believe in Freedom of Speech, doubt they are liberals

This should be a warning to conservatives and liberals trying to silence the other side

Has anyone else stars been removed to your knowledge?

NatePait94 said:

---

Has anyone else stars been removed to your knowledge?

---

based on Google
all other stars remain, including Cosby, Polanksi

NatePait94 said:

---

Has anyone else stars been removed to your knowledge?

---

But, I am seeing tweets from people who have had their Twitter accounts suspended.