• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

The Truth vs Alex Jones

Axulus

Veteran Member
Joined
Jun 17, 2003
Messages
4,154
Location
Hallandale, FL
Basic Beliefs
Right leaning skeptic
Just watched the new documentary The Truth vs Alex Jones which chronicles his Sandy Hook hoax lies and subsequent lawsuits.

The ease at which this man lies non-stop and his inability to stop lying, even when given a court order, is astounding. At one point, he is given a court order not to tell the jury that he is bankrupt or that he complied with all discovery requests, and yet he does exactly that! He said to the judge that he believed what he was saying was true, to which the judge replies "your belief about something doesn't make it true."

What I really learned is that there is a significant portion of the population that will believe a compulsive liar whole heartedly if the lies they are being told exploit their mistrusts, anxieties and fears. These lies can then be channeled into anger.

During the trial, a statistic was shown that 24% of the population belives that part or all of the Sandy Hook massacre was made up. That's like 75 million adults!

Even more disturbing was the data they showed in spike in page views/attention and the increase in sales from Alex Jones' online store when new Sandy Hook hoax videos and articles were posted. So there are huge profits to be made through these lies.

It is exactly just like what Trump does.

It made me realize more than ever how many people are vulnerable to conmen. Trump's main talent is that he is one of the most convincing conmen in the United States. He exploits peoples mistrust/fears of government, media, elites, immigrants, wokeism, etc, and makes up bald faced lies about them, and repeats them over, and over, nonstop.

When you combine a talented conman with other traits like psychopathy, narcissism, and sadism, these become some of the most dangerous people in the world.

I was also recently watching some of the disturbing videos and commentary about the Ruby Franke child abuse case. Her partner in crime, Jodi Hildebrant, was exactly one such person, a psychopath, narcissist, sadist, and extremely convincing conman. She could be so convincing that her own daughter said that if Jodi said the sky was yellow, she would believe it.

When it comes to hearing lies over and over that some people are primed to believe, there is no easy way to dispel these beliefs. With the ability for lies to spread faster than ever on social media, I honestly don't see how our liberal democracy can hold up. It seems like just about everyone I talk to has some sort of compulsion to discuss politics. And I would say at least 90% of the time they repeat some obvious, outrageous lie to back up their view, and are unwavering in their belief that the lie is true.

Don't know what the future will hold but I'm not particularly optimistic.
 
That fucker is responsible for 1/10 of my posts here, with regards to 9/11. Time I wish I could have back.

I can't imagine what the Sandy Hook families have endured after this asshole who should be grounded into sausage turned their unspeakably awful tragedy into a sellable product.
 
It is a sad truth that only death stops despicable liars from spouting their ugliness. Unfortunately, their legacies of lies outlives them
 
Yup, there are an awful lot of people on both sides who can be manipulated by a skilled liar.
 
Yup, there are an awful lot of people on both sides who can be manipulated by a skilled liar.
Both sides of what dichotomy?

There are an awful lot of people everywhere who can be manipulated by a skilled liar. Where are the "sides"? And why do you insist on only having two of them?? Or in implying that they are somehow similar and that these similarities are important???

Reality is NOT a series of dichotomies, nor is it a simplistic struggle between "good" and "evil", in which all morals and ethics can be boiled down to identifying these two "sides" and then joining the right one.
 
Just watched the new documentary The Truth vs Alex Jones which chronicles his Sandy Hook hoax lies and subsequent lawsuits.

I would not disagree with anything in your OP but I will say this about Jones.

Jones would not exist except for the very sad sad state of obvious and profuse lying of our government and main stream media. Trump and Jones might be con men, but what makes this work is that everyone believes our media lies all the time about everything as well. For example, if we are told lies about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq....what makes a smaller story about Sandy Hook so unbelievable? The mass public really does not trust anyone or anything anymore and for good reason.

Unfortunately, as AI becomes more and more mainstream I predict the public will only become more and more deceived. Because as AI becomes smarter than we are, no one will know what is true. Some are predicting it may even bring down humanity.

Here is what Jones has to say in his own words about this:
Spoiler alert. Its a whole hell of a lot different than what your documentary probably told.
 
Just watched the new documentary The Truth vs Alex Jones which chronicles his Sandy Hook hoax lies and subsequent lawsuits.

I would not disagree with anything in your OP
Wait for it....

wait for it...

...and go.
but I will say this about Jones.
:eating_popcorn:
Jones would not exist except for the very sad sad state of obvious and profuse lying of our government and main stream media.
Jones was making money off of the dead of 9/11.
Trump and Jones might be con men,
Might?!
...but what makes this work is that everyone believes our media lies all the time about everything as well. For example, if we are told lies about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq....what makes a smaller story about Sandy Hook so unbelievable?
Because the media reported that the WMD claims were lies in the first place?
The mass public really does not trust anyone or anything anymore and for good reason.
The mass public think Alex Jones should be ground slowly into sausage.
Here is what Jones has to say in his own words about this:
Spoiler alert. Its a whole hell of a lot different than what your documentary probably told.

Yeah, so much for "I would not disagree with anything in your OP".
 
Because the media reported that the WMD claims were lies in the first place?
Because the media attacked anyone who did not parrot their narrative. Kind of sounds like what you are doing right now doesn't it?
 
Because the media reported that the WMD claims were lies in the first place?
Because the media attacked anyone who did not parrot their narrative. Kind of sounds like what you are doing right now doesn't it?
I was able to find media that critiqued Bush Jnrs claims at the time pretty fucking easily. I think this says more about your selection process on what sort of "news" you consume than any overall critique of the media. But let's say for the sake of argument you're right and "the media" is critically flawed. Why is picking the least reliable media outlets the smart option in your books?
 
Because the media reported that the WMD claims were lies in the first place?
Because the media attacked anyone who did not parrot their narrative. Kind of sounds like what you are doing right now doesn't it?
I was able to find media that critiqued Bush Jnrs claims at the time pretty fucking easily. I think this says more about your selection process on what sort of "news" you consume than any overall critique of the media. But let's say for the sake of argument you're right and "the media" is critically flawed. Why is picking the least reliable media outlets the smart option in your books?
It is so ridiculous it nearly crosses over to being offensive. Alex Jones made millions riling people up and convince them to harass the families who lost children in a school massacre. You know, like actual harassment, not this fictional "globalist media" bullshit.
 
"globalist media" bullshit.
That's the most baffling part. If anything could be considered "globalist media", it would be Murdoch's Newscorp. And they preach all the things RVonse worships like stolen election theories, border (or boarder) invasions, Trump worship and that the GOP is the only hope for the middle class. The cognitive dissonance required is equally fascinating and worrisome.
 
RVonse isn't a large consumer of Murdoch, I don't believe. My interpretation is that they aren't particularly partisan when it comes to parties, rather they are more contrarian when it comes to commonly held ideologies and beliefs. They don't trust the system, but then they trust the wrong populists.
 
Because the media reported that the WMD claims were lies in the first place?
Because the media attacked anyone who did not parrot their narrative. Kind of sounds like what you are doing right now doesn't it?
I was able to find media that critiqued Bush Jnrs claims at the time pretty fucking easily. I think this says more about your selection process on what sort of "news" you consume than any overall critique of the media. But let's say for the sake of argument you're right and "the media" is critically flawed. Why is picking the least reliable media outlets the smart option in your books?
During the Bush administration, our government was pushing weapons of mass destruction propaganda favoring a war with Iraq also that Sadem Hussein was responsible for the 911 attacks. Thanks to our compliant mass media (CNN and others), a substantial portion of our US population actually believed these falsehoods. The fact Colin Powell secretary of state was deluded tells us how gravely mistaken our government was.

There were also alternate journalism outlets such as Alex Jones, Al Jazeera, Breitbart News, Russia Today, etc that knew and reported the real truth. But all of them were attacked as conspiracy lunatics (Jimmy Higgins style) for their trouble. And even today, most people on this forum will label you a conspiracy nut if you use any of these sources.

I believe the correct response especially in a post AI world is not to trust any of them.

 
Because the media reported that the WMD claims were lies in the first place?
Because the media attacked anyone who did not parrot their narrative. Kind of sounds like what you are doing right now doesn't it?
I was able to find media that critiqued Bush Jnrs claims at the time pretty fucking easily. I think this says more about your selection process on what sort of "news" you consume than any overall critique of the media. But let's say for the sake of argument you're right and "the media" is critically flawed. Why is picking the least reliable media outlets the smart option in your books?
During the Bush administration, our government was pushing weapons of mass destruction propaganda favoring a war with Iraq also that Sadem Hussein was responsible for the 911 attacks. Thanks to our compliant mass media (CNN and others), a substantial portion of our US population actually believed these falsehoods.
You are thinking of Judith Miller with the NY Times, who sold it. In general, on the news there were notable questions being asked regarding WMDs, including on CNN. The W Admin was fighting hard on the narratives, as was the conservative media complex. They juxtapositioned Hussein with 9/11 at every opportunity.
There were also alternate journalism outlets such as Alex Jones, Al Jazeera, Breitbart News, Russia Today, etc that knew and reported the real truth.
Yeah, so much for 'I would not disagree with anything in your OP' crap. Jones at this point in '02 and '03 was pushing that 9/11 was an inside job.
But all of them were attacked as conspiracy lunatics for their trouble. And even today, most people on this forum will label you a conspiracy nut if you use any of these sources.
I don't think so. We had plenty of posters here that were against the invasion of Iraq and greatly doubted the WMD claims... without referencing any outlandish CT news sources.
 
When it comes to hearing lies over and over that some people are primed to believe, there is no easy way to dispel these beliefs. With the ability for lies to spread faster than ever on social media, I honestly don't see how our liberal democracy can hold up. It seems like just about everyone I talk to has some sort of compulsion to discuss politics. And I would say at least 90% of the time they repeat some obvious, outrageous lie to back up their view, and are unwavering in their belief that the lie is true.
Many, many, many people do not recognize the difference between a claim and evidence. Pretty much 99 percent of human communication takes place as stated claims. Astute, dispassionate listeners immediately recognize the difference between a claim and evidentiary information and so have no problem thinking clearly and rationally. But get yourself all hummed up and emotional about a subject and your objectivity is out the window behind which your judgement quickly follows. This is how our brains are presently wired, unfortunately.
 
Back
Top Bottom