Alex Jones Trial/Lawsuits
- Thread starter Proxy 404
- Start date
Cyan Saiyajin
Well-known member
No you did not. You didn't give a logical answer to my relevant scenario and answered with a "strive towards justice" line that didn't real gap the complete change in your answer. You both said that he may not be able to pay, and that was fine. And it was either that or to stop being a public threat.
It would help your case if you didn't have the habit of replying in non-sequiturs like this. Was there any a question that I wasn't free to make that determination?
Or better yet, he has no problem calling Rittenhouse a killer despite the fact he was found non-guilty of those crimes based on self-defense.
Cyan Saiyajin
Well-known member
I'll take this as a concession on Alex Jones, would you like to continue this part of the conversation?
LordsFire
Internet Wizard
You are aware that he killed in self-defense, yes?
and against previously convicted fellon's.
Cyan Saiyajin
Well-known member
Had you just been using killer as a synonym for murderer I would of at least thought your argument was legitimate. But its clear you intended to have this little "gotcha" lined up after your argument against Alex Jones felled apart. And this is after I tried to give you the benefit of the doubt too. What a shame. But then maybe your tribe wouldn't even accept you back if you didn't do something like this. So if that's the case your welcome to it.
He is completely aware. He is just using a technicality to provoke a response and gain an easy "win" over whoever took the bait. Honestly its okay, I gave him the benefit of a doubt, but you know what? The people he'll go bragging to about this are the ones that will make the mistake to actually trust him in some real manner, He isn't my problem.
Last edited:
Terthna
Professional Lurker
Eventually though, they'll subject him to a struggle session, and cast him out like a leper. Which is why he's so desperate to virtue signal with these antics; because subconsciously, he knows it's the only way to postpone the inevitable.
Cyan Saiyajin
Well-known member
On the contrary as I stated above I didn't know what you were trying to do and approached the conversation in good faith. But its clear now you calling Kyle a killer was an attempt at bait and we both know it.
And if you think I am being too projecting or making too many assumptions on your motives then well....good. Because quite frankly you've done the same. You assumed I was an Alex Jones fan, said people were being intolerant of yourself, and calling this place a tribe. All while trying to provoke people into a response. If anything I've simply been mirroring your energy and manner and if you find yourself with a dislike to it. Well then perhaps we can move into a more positive communication in the future because of this interaction.
The One Char
Well-known member
I'm gonna drop this here to remind people of things.
This has been well known for nearly a decade, and was shown first through the research on Moral Foundation Theory by Haidt.
"Across the political spectrum, moral stereotypes about “typical” liberals and conservatives correctly reflected the direction of actual differences in foundation endorsement but exaggerated the magnitude of these differences. Contrary to common theories of stereotyping, the moral stereotypes were not simple underestimations of the political outgroup's morality. Both liberals and conservatives exaggerated the ideological extremity of moral concerns for the ingroup as well as the outgroup. Liberals were least accurate about both groups. "The Moral Stereotypes of Liberals and Conservatives: Exaggeration of Differences across the Political Spectrum
We investigated the moral stereotypes political liberals and conservatives have of themselves and each other. In reality, liberals endorse the individual-focused moral concerns of compassion and fairness more than conservatives do, and conservatives endorse the group-focused moral concerns of...journals.plos.org
"In a study I did with Jesse Graham and Brian Nosek, we tested how well liberals and conservatives could understand each other. We asked more than two thousand American visitors to fill out the Moral Foundations Qyestionnaire. One-third of the time they were asked to fill it out normally, answering as themselves. One-third of the time they were asked to fill it out as they think a “typical liberal” would respond. One-third of the time they were asked to fill it out as a “typical conservative” would respond. This design allowed us to examine the stereotypes that each side held about the other. More important, it allowed us to assess how accurate they were by comparing people’s expectations about “typical” partisans to the actual responses from partisans on the left and the right)’ Who was best able to pretend to be the other?
Keluaran SDY Pools: Pengeluaran SDY Prize, Togel SDY Hari Ini, Data SDY Terlengkap, Result SDY Tercepat
Keluaran SDY Pools merupakan angka jadi yang diberikan langsungd dari pasaran togel sdy pools. Dan seluruh angka pengeluaran sdy yang tersedia tersimpan rapih di tabel data sdy terlengkap.theindependentwhig.com
The results were clear and consistent. Moderates and conservatives were most accurate in their predictions, whether they were pretending to be liberals or conservatives. Liberals were the least accurate, especially those who described themselves as “very liberal.” The biggest errors in the whole study came when liberals answered the Care and Fairness questions while pretending to be conservatives."
These studies were done nearly a decade ago BEFORE media siloing and and as much sorting has happened. Given the systemic efforts at censoring Conservative speech that happens on modern college campuses and algorithmically by Google and other companies, I can only imagine it has gotten worse as time goes on.
This ability to more correctly predict how someone on the left would answer political questions showcases well that the typical conservative is less siloed and more exposed to left wing ideas than the inverse, and the consistent inability of liberals, especially far left liberals, to answer these questions correctly as conservatives would shows that they both don't understand the right and are not exposed to right wing ideas, thus they are more consistently in echo chambers and getting siloed information.
As to polarization and the left moving more leftward more rapidly than the right, well, despite the headlines, the Washington Post showcased it rather dramatically:
View attachment 1510
This shows that the Republican party, while it has moved rightwards since 2000, has only had slight movement in that direction. Meanwhile the Democrats have shifted DRAMATICALLY leftward in comparison and very rapidly as well.
This is backed up by other surveys, take this article going over the details, with this chart that showcases things:
View attachment 1511
Now, you might consider the Democrats going farther to the left a good thing, and that's fine. You might also consider that the Republicans remaining more or less consistently right wing to be a bad thing, that's also fine. What is undeniable though is that Democrats have moved more left, faster than Republicans have shifted rightward in the last two decades.
Megadeath
Well-known member
There's two fairly important things people seem to be ignorant of. The first is, alex jones was not fined. He was sued. There's a significant difference. Which relates to the second point; damages are decided by the jury. No part of the government determined what jones owes.
Personally, I do consider the figure decided on pretty ridiculous. I can only imagine that the jury were pissed off at him, and wanted to send a message. Also personally, I'm not terribly upset the jury were feeling that way. It's more ridiculous though to lay either the suit itself or the damages levelled at the feet of the government.
Unrelated, but the idea that jones was found guilty without a trial is also wrong. He got a summary judgement of his trial case, due to blatant and persistent disregard the the trial procedures and requirements as well as court directions. He tried to fuck around and found out. You can only waste the courts time and tax payer money for so long before they lose patience.
Personally, I do consider the figure decided on pretty ridiculous. I can only imagine that the jury were pissed off at him, and wanted to send a message. Also personally, I'm not terribly upset the jury were feeling that way. It's more ridiculous though to lay either the suit itself or the damages levelled at the feet of the government.
Unrelated, but the idea that jones was found guilty without a trial is also wrong. He got a summary judgement of his trial case, due to blatant and persistent disregard the the trial procedures and requirements as well as court directions. He tried to fuck around and found out. You can only waste the courts time and tax payer money for so long before they lose patience.
Megadeath
Well-known member
The judge is required under law to take the most sympathetic possible view to the injured party when considering damages awarded, and only if they find the amount outrageous or inordinate under that test are they supposed to take action against it. Depends on the exact state of course, and I'm not familiar with all of them.
There is a generally shared very strong disinclination for the courts to overrule juries, on the basis that the whole jury of one's peers thing being kinda sacrosanct. It's much more common for outrageous awards to be tested and settled afterwards. That's done through a motion to set aside the verdict as excessive, or a motion for a mistrial. Those both require affirmative action from jones and his legal team though, so I guess we'll see what he does.
I don't believe that the jury is actually required to offer any explanation for the damages they award, so the lack of "any actual logical ezplanation." is hardly unusual.
Regardless of whether the amount was sensible or not though, it was determined by a jury in a case bought by private citizens. Hardly the government and MSM conspiring to silence the quiet voice of sane dissent.
Yeah, @Proxy 404 tends to like to delete posts they make that them look foolish, or that don't get the 'attention' they want/were looking for.
Unfortunately they seem to forget once a post is quoted, they cannot delete the portions that are quoted in other people's posts.
Never seen another poster do this sort of thing; feels almost like Proxy wants to stir shit up, but don't want to leave evidence of when they get clowned on.
Proxy sounds like an SB mod lol
Would not even surprise me if they were an SB mod here trying to stir things, particulalry given they admitted both they are 'getting paid for this' and that 'deradicalizing TS' is a 'project' they are undertaking.
Personally I'm guess it's either Qygibo or one of her clique.
Megadeath
Well-known member
I think you're taking sarcastic comments far too seriously. If we want to take every posters "admissions" entirely at face value, then I'd like to admit to being smarter by far than half the people posting in this thread.
See, I might buy that they didn't mean what they said about 'not being paid enough for this' had they not also admitted they are undertaking a 'project' to 'deradicalize' this site, and had they not routinely deleted posts that didn't get the sort of engagement/response they wanted.
So that means either Proxy is a glowie/alphabet agency agent doing the 'hunt for radicals work' in the most incompetent way possible, or they are someone from a 'sister' forum who got decided to try to stir shit here at the behest of their friends.
I mean I guess some rando from the web could also decide to do all this and undertake these actions, but Proxy's actions seem much more invested, and they did lurk here for nearly 2 years before posting much of anything.
Though the routine post deletion is something I've not seen before, and reads like Proxy wants to push convo's certain directions or try to bait certain argument, and when they don't go how Proxy wants they begin deleting their part of the situation.