That was the official statement from the US government news papers covered. Sandy Hook hoax was a story primarily originating from Alex Jones.
I gave here an example of Nick Sandman where CNN did pay millions for a much lesser offense.
What you posted here has nothing to do with the merits of the case, the exact thing named in the case has happened when it comes to "MSM", and this is as obvious of a deflection that I can think of.
For me, Lee Camp's point is that no matter what happens, the US government and the power brokers calling the murderous shots never get held accountable. Alex Jones being totally nuked consistently is similarly convenient to them as having Julian Assange falsely imprisoned is.
Yes, it's true that Alex Jones exaggerates to the point of psychosis at times and I agree that quite a bit of it is likely to be (either deliberately or sub consciously) designed to make money. At the same time, he has consistently delivered whistleblower and other testimony, plus his own insights - which quite often are correct and which are damning for the people calling the shots. While he has played a role in his own downfall, there are also very evil people working to bring him down too.
Personally, I found his very early documentaries to be very helpful in understand what was going on in the world - less than 5 of them. After that I stopped paying much attention to him. He has definitely held back the seeking of truth globally imo, mainly because so many eyeballs were on him and he quite often missed the mark and failed to use diligent application of logic.
He may well be a deliberately engineered actor or manipulated in other ways (just like how Jeffrey Epstein was very clearly involved in manipulating many well known power brokers and public faces).
It is certainly sad when people see Alex Jones' failings and then leap to the conclusion that 'conspiracy' doesn't happen. Conspiracy is a crime in and of itself in some jurisdictions and is regularly prosecuted. Theories about conspiracy are literally what power police forces and politics in many cases. The idea that conspiracy theory is a sign of delusion is simply psychotic.
For me, Lee Camp's point is that no matter what happens, the US government and the power brokers calling the murderous shots never get held accountable.
But he called out New York times. A publication. Not the government. Im talking about holding fake news accountable and should we. A different discussion.
It is certainly sad when people see Alex Jones' failings and then leap to the conclusion that 'conspiracy' doesn't happen.
There is a difference between "conspiracy theories" and conspiracy fact. One requires guesswork, the other is based on documents, data, and facts.
I explain above what conspiracy theorists do and how they approach things. The opposite of a conspiracy theorist like Alex Jones is an investigative journalist.
Alex Jones cannot uncover a conspiracy, an investigative journalist can. A good journalist understands the burden of proof, Alex does not.
The idea that conspiracy theory is a sign of delusion is simply psychotic.
Its simply a matter of the quantity of absurdity believed. A conspiracy theorist can believe things that are true, but if he believes a abundance of the insane things that most conspiracy theorists do, that are frankly nuts, then we are definitely talking about delusion.
I don't know which specific pieces in the NYTimes Lee Camp is referring to, but it is very common for MSM to make statements and opinion pieces that regurgitate the lies made by governments as if they are fact, never question them and even to vilify those who do question them. That has been the norm in many cases during my lifetime - gov lies about COVID19 being a prime example.
Anyone can be held accountable for what they say, but as soon as we try to punish people for saying things on the basis that other people believed them and we think that what they said was wrong - we are literally: a) accusing the believers of being idiots and b) deciding that it is down to us to 'correct' them.
This is clearly a very unethical position to be in, in numerous ways and easily identified as arrogance and interfering powermongery. The key point for me is whether it is more fruitful to punish people who say what we don't want them to say or whether it is better to help inform others so that they don't end up believing false information.
Too often it is the case that liars who know they cannot do the second option because they know that they are are spreading lies, will rely on the first option of censoring and silencing people instead. They use well thought out techniques to get the public to view them in a good light and to believe that the censorship is necessary, without noticing that they are agreeing to give away their power and to proudly state that, yes, they are ignorant and need to be told what's true by government entities.
One effect of this is that even when people are not lying and are genuinely trying to inform and educate people in a healthy way, they can easily be ridiculed and censored because there is a prevailing narrative that anyone who comments on world events and doesn't have the right 'authorisation' is probably wrong or a liar.
So by all means hold people accountable but don't fail to notice that the degree to which you ask for big weights to crush other people is the degree to which those same weight may be used to crush you too.
There is a difference between "conspiracy theories" and conspiracy fact. One requires guesswork, the other is based on documents, data, and facts.
Not really. Theories tend to also be based on documents, data and facts - they simply insert new perspectives based on those data/facts. This is also how science generally tends to work. As with science, whereby today's 'fact' is tomorrow's garbage, the world of 'responsibility tracking' (or 'conspiracy theory' if you prefer) involves the use of theories, facts and documents etc.
Science tends to rely on experiments and repetition to substantiate it's claims, whereas politics and daily life eventually rely on courts and debate/argument. Ideas in science are often wrong and so too are the outcomes of courts.
The opposite of a conspiracy theorist like Alex Jones is an investigative journalist.
I understand what you mean. I agree that AJ has often lept to conclusions wrongly. However, I will only add that he is actually doing what about 90% of people are doing too - every day, about all manner of things. The mind of most people is full of nonsense believed to be real. Belief itself is guesswork and error, yet most people are convinced that beliefs are needed and valuable.
He is definitely not comparable to good investigative journalists, though originally he wasn't bad at it - but that was a long time ago.
Ultimately, we all have our own standards of proof. I treat Alex Jones similar to how I treat MSM. He and they may from time to time highlight something important that no-one else is talking about publicly - but I never assume that what they are claiming is absolute truth or free from bias. I treat all information from all sources that same way actually. None the less, since I value my own survival and sometimes interact in circles where power is concentrated, I regularly examine and use theories about what conspiracy may be taking place.. Doing so has kept me safe and alive, for the most part - in fact, since I was a kid. As with most things in life 'your mileage may vary' with the theories - depending on the quality of information that went into them and the care that was taken in processing/creating them. Garbage In, Garbage Out.
and opinion pieces that regurgitate the lies made by governments as if they are fact, never question them and even to vilify those who do question them.
And they often do the opposite.
Anyone can be held accountable for what they say, but as soon as we try to punish people for saying things on the basis that other people believed them...
So youre saying that those that spread the lying and manipulative narratives should not be held accountable in any way? So why do you attack MSM as you call it?
So by all means hold people accountable but don't fail to notice that the degree to which you ask for big weights to crush other people is the degree to which those same weight may be used to crush you too.
Sure, im not asking anything. Im questioning if holding fake news, networks that promote false information and affect the targets in a clearly massive, life affecting, negative manner should be held accountable for doing so. I think thats a valid question.
This is also how science generally tends to work. As with science, whereby today's 'fact' is tomorrow's garbage.
I was referring to the colloquial understanding of a theory, not the scientific one as there is nothing scientific about conspiracy theorist thinking.
Todays fact is not tomorrows garbage. Facts do not change, new facts are introduced that change the final explanation. The scientific theory is subject to change, not the facts. Unless they were not facts to begin with.
Ultimately, we all have our own standards of proof. I treat Alex Jones similar to how I treat MSM.
There is a level of responsibility that should be present when making extraordinary and potentially dangerous claims when you are in this business. What I say and what someone that distributes information to millions says should be held to different levels of scrutiny. How we approach that is subject to discussion.
Getting hit in the face by a 5 year old is not treated the same as being hit in the face by Deontay Wilder.
What you posted here has nothing to do with the merits of the case, the exact thing named in the case has happened when it comes to "MSM", and this is as obvious of a deflection that I can think of.
For me, Lee Camp's point is that no matter what happens, the US government and the power brokers calling the murderous shots never get held accountable. Alex Jones being totally nuked consistently is similarly convenient to them as having Julian Assange falsely imprisoned is.
Yes, it's true that Alex Jones exaggerates to the point of psychosis at times and I agree that quite a bit of it is likely to be (either deliberately or sub consciously) designed to make money. At the same time, he has consistently delivered whistleblower and other testimony, plus his own insights - which quite often are correct and which are damning for the people calling the shots. While he has played a role in his own downfall, there are also very evil people working to bring him down too.
Personally, I found his very early documentaries to be very helpful in understand what was going on in the world - less than 5 of them. After that I stopped paying much attention to him. He has definitely held back the seeking of truth globally imo, mainly because so many eyeballs were on him and he quite often missed the mark and failed to use diligent application of logic.
He may well be a deliberately engineered actor or manipulated in other ways (just like how Jeffrey Epstein was very clearly involved in manipulating many well known power brokers and public faces).
It is certainly sad when people see Alex Jones' failings and then leap to the conclusion that 'conspiracy' doesn't happen. Conspiracy is a crime in and of itself in some jurisdictions and is regularly prosecuted. Theories about conspiracy are literally what power police forces and politics in many cases. The idea that conspiracy theory is a sign of delusion is simply psychotic.
But he called out New York times. A publication. Not the government. Im talking about holding fake news accountable and should we. A different discussion.
There is a difference between "conspiracy theories" and conspiracy fact. One requires guesswork, the other is based on documents, data, and facts.
I explain above what conspiracy theorists do and how they approach things. The opposite of a conspiracy theorist like Alex Jones is an investigative journalist.
Alex Jones cannot uncover a conspiracy, an investigative journalist can. A good journalist understands the burden of proof, Alex does not.
Its simply a matter of the quantity of absurdity believed. A conspiracy theorist can believe things that are true, but if he believes a abundance of the insane things that most conspiracy theorists do, that are frankly nuts, then we are definitely talking about delusion.
I don't know which specific pieces in the NYTimes Lee Camp is referring to, but it is very common for MSM to make statements and opinion pieces that regurgitate the lies made by governments as if they are fact, never question them and even to vilify those who do question them. That has been the norm in many cases during my lifetime - gov lies about COVID19 being a prime example.
Anyone can be held accountable for what they say, but as soon as we try to punish people for saying things on the basis that other people believed them and we think that what they said was wrong - we are literally: a) accusing the believers of being idiots and b) deciding that it is down to us to 'correct' them.
This is clearly a very unethical position to be in, in numerous ways and easily identified as arrogance and interfering powermongery. The key point for me is whether it is more fruitful to punish people who say what we don't want them to say or whether it is better to help inform others so that they don't end up believing false information.
Too often it is the case that liars who know they cannot do the second option because they know that they are are spreading lies, will rely on the first option of censoring and silencing people instead. They use well thought out techniques to get the public to view them in a good light and to believe that the censorship is necessary, without noticing that they are agreeing to give away their power and to proudly state that, yes, they are ignorant and need to be told what's true by government entities.
One effect of this is that even when people are not lying and are genuinely trying to inform and educate people in a healthy way, they can easily be ridiculed and censored because there is a prevailing narrative that anyone who comments on world events and doesn't have the right 'authorisation' is probably wrong or a liar.
So by all means hold people accountable but don't fail to notice that the degree to which you ask for big weights to crush other people is the degree to which those same weight may be used to crush you too.
Not really. Theories tend to also be based on documents, data and facts - they simply insert new perspectives based on those data/facts. This is also how science generally tends to work. As with science, whereby today's 'fact' is tomorrow's garbage, the world of 'responsibility tracking' (or 'conspiracy theory' if you prefer) involves the use of theories, facts and documents etc.
Science tends to rely on experiments and repetition to substantiate it's claims, whereas politics and daily life eventually rely on courts and debate/argument. Ideas in science are often wrong and so too are the outcomes of courts.
I understand what you mean. I agree that AJ has often lept to conclusions wrongly. However, I will only add that he is actually doing what about 90% of people are doing too - every day, about all manner of things. The mind of most people is full of nonsense believed to be real. Belief itself is guesswork and error, yet most people are convinced that beliefs are needed and valuable.
He is definitely not comparable to good investigative journalists, though originally he wasn't bad at it - but that was a long time ago.
Ultimately, we all have our own standards of proof. I treat Alex Jones similar to how I treat MSM. He and they may from time to time highlight something important that no-one else is talking about publicly - but I never assume that what they are claiming is absolute truth or free from bias. I treat all information from all sources that same way actually. None the less, since I value my own survival and sometimes interact in circles where power is concentrated, I regularly examine and use theories about what conspiracy may be taking place.. Doing so has kept me safe and alive, for the most part - in fact, since I was a kid. As with most things in life 'your mileage may vary' with the theories - depending on the quality of information that went into them and the care that was taken in processing/creating them. Garbage In, Garbage Out.
And they often do the opposite.
So youre saying that those that spread the lying and manipulative narratives should not be held accountable in any way? So why do you attack MSM as you call it?
Sure, im not asking anything. Im questioning if holding fake news, networks that promote false information and affect the targets in a clearly massive, life affecting, negative manner should be held accountable for doing so. I think thats a valid question.
I was referring to the colloquial understanding of a theory, not the scientific one as there is nothing scientific about conspiracy theorist thinking.
Todays fact is not tomorrows garbage. Facts do not change, new facts are introduced that change the final explanation. The scientific theory is subject to change, not the facts. Unless they were not facts to begin with.
There is a level of responsibility that should be present when making extraordinary and potentially dangerous claims when you are in this business. What I say and what someone that distributes information to millions says should be held to different levels of scrutiny. How we approach that is subject to discussion.
Getting hit in the face by a 5 year old is not treated the same as being hit in the face by Deontay Wilder.