Popehat

A Group Complaint about Law, Liberty, and Leisure

  • About
  • Free Speech Resources
  • Blogroll
  • Free Speech
  • Criminal Justice
  • Law
  • Politics & Current Events
  • Fun
  • Art
  • Geekery
  • Gaming
  • MAKE NO LAW Podcast

Randazza: Latest Appearance on Infowars

May 30, 2018 by Randazza

Infowars might not be the most popular outlet with many of the readers (or at least commenters) on this blog, but I thought that anyone who gives a damn about free speech would enjoy this. We talk about Roseanne, the NFL, and the Tommy Robinson issue:

Last 5 posts by Randazza

  • Murum Aries Attigit, Y'all - December 13th, 2019
  • Due Process for Tsarnaev - Demanded by a Masshole - December 13th, 2019
  • Randazza: Nothing is Straight in Boston - September 9th, 2019
  • Randazza: Damn right we should get rid of birthright citizenship - October 30th, 2018
  • Randazza: Vermin Supreme's Pony Horde Rides on Kansas (Popehat Signal Activated) - June 22nd, 2018
  • Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Google+ (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Reddit (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Tumblr (Opens in new window)
  • Click to email this to a friend (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Pinterest (Opens in new window)

Filed Under: Effluvia

Comments

  1. Craig says

    May 30, 2018 at 9:20 am

    Nope, sorry, not going to watch an InfoWars video under any circumstances. I'm sure they monetize their videos and I'm not going to contribute even a fraction of a cent to them.

  2. J Todd says

    May 30, 2018 at 9:26 am

    Info Wars has zero credibility for any subject except on excrement and for that it is the gold standard. Randazza did not help supply them with credibility but instead lost his integrity. Seriously dude, are you that starved for attention?

  3. SIrWired says

    May 30, 2018 at 9:27 am

    InfoWars' speech may be lawful, but given that it routinely ranges from idiotic to downright sociopathic, I'm not touching them with a 10-ft pole.

    Any "news" outlet that regularly features the whole "crisis actor" theory as anything but a fringe viewpoint is not a place I'm going to ever patronize. It takes your garden-variety conspiracy-theory nonsense and makes it personal to the point where it effects real (entirely innocent) lives.

  4. Supreme Potato says

    May 30, 2018 at 9:32 am

    Nope. Not clicking that.

  5. enough_randazza says

    May 30, 2018 at 9:51 am

    Randazza did not help supply them with credibility but instead lost his integrity.

    This is what it took in your opinion? I think he jumped off that bridge a long time ago.

  6. Sinij says

    May 30, 2018 at 9:56 am

    How would you know InfoWars and Randazza is wrong if you refuse to watch it? It is very clear that a number of hyperpartisans here decided that anyone but a true believer in their case could not possibly be anything but WRONG! in anything they say.

    This is how you got Trump, and this is how you will get Trump re-elected.

  7. SirWired says

    May 30, 2018 at 10:05 am

    @Sinij

    How would you know InfoWars and Randazza is wrong if you refuse to watch it? It is very clear that a number of hyperpartisans here decided that anyone but a true believer in their case could not possibly be anything but WRONG! in anything they say.

    Any "news" outlet that routinely features conspiracy theories of the most cruel and evil sort is not worth watching, any more than I'm going to read the National Enquirer because they have, on rare occasions, turned out to not be completely fabricating their latest scandal.

    It might very well be the case that Randazza has delivered a very insightful and worthy piece behind that link, but I'm simply not going to give anything InfoWars publishes a single view.

  8. ChrisJ says

    May 30, 2018 at 10:06 am

    It is very clear that a number of hyperpartisans here decided that anyone but a true believer in their case could not possibly be anything but WRONG! in anything they say.

    Welp, you've convinced me. It was just knee jerk for me to blacklist watching anything from the guy who said the government is creating homosexuality, that Obama is the global head of Al Qaeda, that school shootings are false flag ops run by crisis actors. Obviously I'm a hyperpartisan (although strangely registered as No Party Affiliation).

    Oh wait, sorry, what I meant to say was that's a ridiculous assertion. And I'll read a transcript of Marc's interview on this site, but I'm not adding to Infowars' traffic or ad dollars by clicking through that link.

  9. crann777 says

    May 30, 2018 at 10:06 am

    @Sinij where does anybody say that InfoWars and Randazza are wrong? People are just refusing to watch a video from a media outlet. That's something totally different, and I question your motives for posting.

    On that note, also not watching anything from InfoWars.

  10. Craig says

    May 30, 2018 at 10:09 am

    @Sinij, you're completely missing the point. The video might be interesting and Randazza might make some very good points, but watching the video will earn money (however little) for InfoWars. This has nothing to do with being "hyperpartisan" (though InfoWars is certainly that) and everything to do with not supporting irresponsible vendors of bizarre conspiracy theories that are completely unsupported by evidence. If you can't understand this, you're an idiot.

  11. Michael 2 says

    May 30, 2018 at 10:10 am

    Virtue signalling anyone? Tell the whole world what you *do not*, rather than what you *do*? The irony is that some of this conversation y'all didn't listen to discusses this phenomenon of virtue signaling.

    I'll watch pretty much anything that is interesting and informative. I very much enjoyed listening to Marc Randazza. He was interrupted a fair number of times which I found annoying. Alex Jones gravelly voice was difficult to listen to; I found myself advancing to the next scene of Marc speaking.

    I appreciate the distinction he makes between the First Amendment freedom of speech (government won't make laws prohibiting) versus a cultural appreciation of freedom of expression; where people are relatively safe to say what is on their minds without threat of job loss or lawsuit.

    I tend to seek opposing points of view in belief that truth and wisdom is not found at anyone's doorstep, not anyone's exclusive property. It is likely most people have some bits of it, and the more bits I gather the more complete is my understanding of life, the universe and everything.

    I appreciate the necessity of the adversarial system of trial courts. Instead of everyone, or anyone, trying to be impartial (an impossibility), go instead to a proxy of trial by combat; adversarial participants. The very best place for Marc Randazza to be is in an adversarial situation where he advocates his point of view, and an opponent equally skilled and passionate advocates for an opposite point of view. The jury (that's you and me) then weighs the evidences presented to arrive at a decision. It won't always be right and true and correct, but it still beats other systems where one person's belief is what defines truth.

  12. Sinij says

    May 30, 2018 at 10:12 am

    @SirWired
    In doing so you will remain without basic understand how your political opponents think and will continue being ineffective at persuading and reaching compromise. Since at least half of US are "these people", this approach will leave YOUR ideas without a path to realization.

  13. DJ Thompson says

    May 30, 2018 at 10:16 am

    @Michael 2. What you see here is the manifestation of a belief that no right thinking person could in good faith disagree with me, the most righteous member of my tribe. This is a tell.

  14. Sinij says

    May 30, 2018 at 10:17 am

    If you can't understand this, you're an idiot.

    I am happy to be counted among idiots by the likes of you. This tells me that I must be doing something right.

    Your idea that marginal and hypothetical contributions/benefit from watching advertising (that you could not be even certain are embedded in the linked video) make difference to InfoWars is at best laughable. How much difference do you think 0.1c makes to them? Now balance this against being able to form informed criticism without stoking partisan divide.

  15. noxylophone says

    May 30, 2018 at 10:45 am

    This is the thing I just don't get.

    Randazza is a libertarian, right? And isn't libertarianism rooted in the principle that humans are rational, self-interested social actors?

    So why then do I see this trend among the libertarian right to not only ignore all evidence which suggests that humans are deeply *irrational* creatures, but then to wade into, embrace, and reinforce this irrationality?

    I mean it's a failing of liberalism in general, but libertarians seem to be particularly vulnerable to it.

  16. Argentina Orange says

    May 30, 2018 at 10:54 am

    Infowars was demonetized a long time ago. You're not enriching them by watching it. Find a new excuse.

  17. Total says

    May 30, 2018 at 10:55 am

    I tend to seek opposing points of view in belief that truth and wisdom is not found at anyone's doorstep, not anyone's exclusive property. It is likely most people have some bits of it, and the more bits I gather the more complete is my understanding of life, the universe and everything.

    And this is why people buy fake news.

    In doing so you will remain without basic understand how your political opponents think and will continue being ineffective at persuading and reaching compromise

    You want us to compromise with someone who claims that Hillary Clinton ran a pedophile ring out of a pizza shop basement? That the school massacres were faked with crisis actors? That's who you think is a good idea to compromise with?

  18. Sinij says

    May 30, 2018 at 11:00 am

    You want us to compromise with someone who claims that Hillary Clinton ran a pedophile ring out of a pizza shop basement? That the school massacres were faked with crisis actors? That's who you think is a good idea to compromise with?

    The fact that you see at least half of US population through this lens is big part of the problem. In believing that such views are representative of mainstream in conservative views, I would argue that you are not categorically different from minority of misinformed conservatives who believe in these falsehoods.

  19. Total says

    May 30, 2018 at 11:01 am

    Find a new excuse

    How about I also don't watch snuff films? That good enough for you?

  20. Jon Marcus says

    May 30, 2018 at 11:07 am

    Cites needed: Argentina Orange, when was InfoWars "demonetized" and why? InfoWars is how Alex Jones makes his living. Why would he demonetize it?

    Sinij: "At least half of US population" claims "that Hillary Clinton ran a pedophile ring out of a pizza shop basement"? That "school massacres were faked with crisis actors"? I seriously doubt that.

  21. Sinij says

    May 30, 2018 at 11:07 am

    How about I also don't watch snuff films?

    Did Randazza snuffed anyone in the linked video? Did he at least attempted? If not, I find his failure to do so deeply disappointing. However, my personal disappointment in choices he makes is not a good enough reason to disregard everything he says.

  22. Michael 2 says

    May 30, 2018 at 11:13 am

    noxylophone writes: "isn't libertarianism rooted in the principle that humans are rational, self-interested social actors?"

    Yes, it isn't.

    Libertarian is very simple: I choose for me, you choose for you. My reasons may be rational but don't count on it.

    "So why then do I see this trend among the libertarian right to not only ignore all evidence which suggests that humans are deeply *irrational* creatures, but then to wade into, embrace, and reinforce this irrationality?"

    What you see is what you choose to see. Libertarians come in many flavors, including the flavor you have described above.

    A perfectly rational human probably cannot exist. A computer is perfectly rational; it has no wants or desires, for such things are inherently irrational. Without a want or desire it does nothing. Therefore, everything that is done is ultimately irrational.

  23. Craig says

    May 30, 2018 at 11:14 am

    @Sinij is obviously just a troll. Everyone, please just stop paying attention to his inane blathering.

  24. Total says

    May 30, 2018 at 11:14 am

    Did Randazza snuffed anyone in the linked video?

    Way to miss the point, big guy.

  25. Sinij says

    May 30, 2018 at 11:18 am

    Way to miss the point, big guy.

    Did Randazza at least claim that Hillary Clinton ran a pedophile ring out of a pizza shop basement? That the school massacres were faked with crisis actors?

    These were your stated reasons for not watching any Infowars videos, including Randazza's.

  26. Argentina Orange says

    May 30, 2018 at 11:26 am

    @ Jon Marcus, on the off chance that you are a) sincere and b) don't know how Youtube monetization works, here's a primer on it:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KW0eUrUiyxo

    Infowars as a brand predates Youtube, and the money primarily comes from conventional advertisements.

  27. Total says

    May 30, 2018 at 11:27 am

    @Sinij is obviously just a troll. Everyone, please just stop paying attention to his inane blathering.

    But not all the candy is out of the pinata yet! I don't want to stop hitting it with a stick!

    These were your stated reasons for not watching any Infowars videos

    Yes. I don't watch InfoWars for those reasons. That not every video makes those claims does not eliminate the fact that the organization does.

    You're perilously close to making the "Hitler loved dogs" argument.

  28. Richard says

    May 30, 2018 at 11:29 am

    I tend to seek opposing points of view in belief that truth and wisdom is not found at anyone's doorstep, not anyone's exclusive property. It is likely most people have some bits of it, and the more bits I gather the more complete is my understanding of life, the universe and everything.

    There's a difference between "refusing to listen to uncomfortable truths" and "refusing to listen to proven, unrepentant liars." I can believe that a priest, a minister, an imam, a rabbi, a lama, and Christopher Hitchens may all have bits of the truth, despite each of them denying that any of the others have any point whatsoever. I can probably get much closer to the truth by listening to all of them, mutually contradictory though they may be, than by listening to any one. That doesn't mean I should listen to L. Ron Hubbard and the Church of Sciencefictology, when it's clear that the latter was only set up to bilk people out of their money.

    There are enough sources of truth in the world that you can afford to ignore the 9/11 truthers and birthers and flat-earthers and pizzagaters without missing out on anything.

  29. Sinij says

    May 30, 2018 at 11:39 am

    There are enough sources of truth in the world that you can afford to ignore the 9/11 truthers and birthers and flat-earthers and pizzagaters without missing out on anything.

    Yes, but is Randazza one of these?

  30. Donnie says

    May 30, 2018 at 11:40 am

    I thought Randazza did a fine job of deflecting Alex Jones's conspiracy baiting and working to make good points, some of which were counter to the standard positions one finds on Info Wars.

    However, I didn't make it all the way through. The cringe was so severe when Randazza said [paraphrasing] "It is Starbucks' right to shut down and have this race education camp…" and Alex responded, "That's a great way to put it! Starbucks has now turned itself into a giant re-education camp…" that I closed the tab before I knew what had happened.

  31. T.J. says

    May 30, 2018 at 11:42 am

    Quote: The fact that you see at least half of US population through this lens is big part of the problem.

    I question this assertion. The population who are willfully following InfoWars and its ilk are a significant minority in America – certain estimates indicates that it is as low as 25-30% of the entire population. The only problem is that they are more robust in voting than the other groups. In the last Presidential election, more potential voters did not vote than vote for a combinations of candidates offered. Note: this includes those that have registered, AND those who did not but are otherwise eligible. Even counting eligible voters, the non-voters would have won in a huge landslide of 44.3% relative to Clinton's 26.8% and Trump's 25.7%.

    That is not representation, and it speak ill of your assertion that half of Americans advocate this kind of ilk.

  32. Daniel Weber says

    May 30, 2018 at 11:57 am

    Marc, I am going to take a different take, and instead of commenting on your video, I'm going to talk about Info Wars. 1/332

  33. Paradigm Spider says

    May 30, 2018 at 12:10 pm

    If you wanted people to engage with your ideas and viewpoints in a reasonable and responsible arena or fashion, you would have been far better served by doing something other than going on Infowars and posting a video about it.

  34. Ricky says

    May 30, 2018 at 12:14 pm

    This is poorly worded, but I think that the first amendment almost makes it necessary for us *not* to watch the video on Infowars. The position of the first amendment is that it is not the government's responsibility to police speech. With very few exceptions, primarily dictated by the interest of the government in keeping people from killing each other, speech in the United States is not restrained. But this means that, in order to have a society, we are personally responsible to not pay attention to speech that is provably false and dangerous to society. (The definition of this, of course, is complicated.)

    Based on what I have read, Alex Jones and Infowars is a danger to democracy, undermines civil discourse, and drives people to become extremists and possibly (depending on how much you think Infowars influenced the "pizzagate" shooter) "terrorists".

    Based on this, if I were to support Infowars in any way — such as watching their videos, or appearing on the program — I would be complicit in their determination to destroy a sensible democracy.

    That is why Mr. Randazza appearing on Infowars is dangerous, and why the video should not be watched.

  35. Total says

    May 30, 2018 at 12:15 pm

    Yes, but is Randazza one of these?

    Hang out with the pigs, and you get covered in shit.

  36. Monitors Most says

    May 30, 2018 at 12:39 pm

    Not going to watch it, but I have no problem with you appearing on it. People need to be exposed to good information and so long as Info Wars doesn’t interfere with your ability to convey that information, it’s no different than Ken going on Fox News or MSNBC.

  37. Argentina Orange says

    May 30, 2018 at 12:53 pm

    Based on what I have read, Alex Jones and Infowars is a danger to democracy, undermines civil discourse, and drives people to become extremists and possibly (depending on how much you think Infowars influenced the "pizzagate" shooter) "terrorists".

    At least two different people have used the SPLC to target people for murder. You obviously feel we should not pay attention to what the SPLC publishes, nor should we watch media outlets that use the SPLC as a source of information, n'est-ce pas?

  38. TradeGeek says

    May 30, 2018 at 12:55 pm

    Richard said

    "There's a difference between "refusing to listen to uncomfortable truths" and "refusing to listen to proven, unrepentant liars." I can believe that a priest, a minister, an imam, a rabbi, a lama, and Christopher Hitchens may all have bits of the truth, despite each of them denying that any of the others have any point whatsoever. I can probably get much closer to the truth by listening to all of them, mutually contradictory though they may be, than by listening to any one. That doesn't mean I should listen to L. Ron Hubbard and the Church of Sciencefictology, when it's clear that the latter was only set up to bilk people out of their money."

    Couldn't have said it better myself.

    I tend to agree with Randazza on first amendment issues. And I will defend Alex Jones' right to have a web site full of shameless click bate garbage and absurd conspiracy theories. But I will also exercise my first amendment right to call out Randazza for making a seriously questionable decision to appear on a program run by one of the most despicable human beings on the planet. The man that perpetuates Sandy Hook conspiracies that have resulted in many of the parents who lost their 5 and 6 year old children being continually harassed by insane inforwars fans demanding that they admit their dead child never actually existed.

    In case people wonder what Alex Jones says about Sandy Hook.

    "Sandy Hook is a synthetic completely fake with actors, in my view, manufactured. I couldn’t believe it at first. I knew they had actors there, clearly, but I thought they killed some real kids. And it just shows how bold they are, that they clearly used actors. I mean they even ended up using photos of kids killed in mass shootings here in a fake mass shooting in Turkey — so yeah, or Pakistan. The sky is now the limit."

    Sorry, Marc. You are helping this man by associating with him and his website. Period. Bad move.

  39. Ricky says

    May 30, 2018 at 1:02 pm

    As I've never really paid any attention to SLPC in the past, I'm not sure whether they should receive any in the future or not. Based on your comment, probably not, although others may have a more nuanced view.

    As I said, my comment was poorly worded, and is not subtle enough to actually capture my feelings; sadly, subtlety doesn't usually come across well online. (I realize that this is more due to my failings as an author, though.)

    From what little I have heard about SLPC, though, it seems like an argument could be made, from the point of view of personal responsibility, that Infowars is more actively pushing to break down the civil discourse, and more to the point, actively lying (or, more probably, actively suggesting falsehoods). But I don't know enough about SLPC to respond in any useful way.

  40. Michael Heaney says

    May 30, 2018 at 1:04 pm

    So I did watch the interview and it's fairly ridiculous. My favorite part was when Randazza mentions that Roseanne did in fact compare black women to apes on Twitter, to which Alex Jones expresses shock, mentioning that he hadn't seen any of those tweets, (meaning he's either lying or did literally no research whatsoever into the topic before introducing it as a topic on the show,) to which Randazza shrugs and mentions that he's not sure if they were doctored or not. Just unbelievable.

    And for all you disingenuous people trying to argue that free speech and open mindedness requires never, ever vetting a voice or source for quality or credibility, all you're doing is demonstrating that you don't have any ability to determine the quality of an argument or belief, at all. Truly intelligent people filter ideas for quality. they don't endlessly return to sources that have proven themselves consistently dishonest and non-credible. Infowars has a very long, very well established history of lying, misrepresenting facts and flat out manufacturing falsehoods to present as "news." There's no good reason any intelligent person seeking quality information or ideas need waste their time with it.

  41. Ann says

    May 30, 2018 at 1:17 pm

    Ha.

    I guess Randazza reads comments that he isn't fearless enough to respond to directly. Looks like he is proving to be like Clark!

    Maybe that's just how people who can't respond directly to criticism because their statements are indefensible necessarily are, though.

    For example, in this interview, he says that he doesn't know if Roseanne's tweet comparing a black woman to an ape was "doctored or what." He also refers to Starbucks doing racial sensitivity training at all their stores as "re-education camps." And he very fearlessly and boldly claims not to know enough about the Tommy Robinson case to say one way or the other if Alex Jones's manifestly insane characterization of it is correct.

    He further opines that the way to avoid being accused of sexual harassment is to be hot, because if Harvey Weinstein looked like Brad Pitt, presumably women would enjoy being sexually assaulted and raped by him.

    Finally, he asserts that when you can be cruel to/beat up on someone but do it from a position of virtue, that's very alluring, thus neatly dispensing with the concept of justified criticism of racism/sexism altogether, but demonstrating a complete unawareness that he himself does this so continually that it's practically his only brand attribute.

    They also go on and on about how the comment Morgan Freeman made to/in front of Chloe Melas wasn't harassment, with the clear implication that he's being falsely accused to to the witch-hunt atmosphere created by (implictly) outliers like Bill Cosby and Harvey Weinstein.

    I completely agree that it wasn't, but his having said that is not the reason he's being accused of sexual harassment, ffs. That would be due to the muliple allegations of unwanted touching and other acts of sexual harassment reported in CNN's article.

    Shorter version: People who go on Alex Jones are bad at facts, low on information, and motivated by emotional bias. Who could have predicted?

  42. Ann says

    May 30, 2018 at 1:41 pm

    @TradeGeek —

    Sorry, Marc. You are helping this man by associating with him and his website. Period. Bad move.

    I think the sad thing is that for Randazza to get out there and (for example) say repeatedly that for the NFL to dissociate itself from players protesting racism is the same as for ABC to dissociate itself from Roseanne for being racist, as if racism and opposition to it are just two sides of the same coin, doesn't actually help Jones. His audience believes that crap on nobody's authority already. It just shows who Randazza is.

  43. TradeGeek says

    May 30, 2018 at 1:52 pm

    @Ann

    I can't disagree. What little shred of respect I had for Randazza prior to today is certainly gone.

  44. Michael 2 says

    May 30, 2018 at 2:29 pm

    Total writes "And this is why people buy fake news."

    People buy fake news for many reasons.

    Deciding news is fake before you even possess it is a type of clairvoyance that I lack. Even so, I accept some indicators of writer bias or prejudice as an indication that the story being told isn't "Truth" with a capital-T.

    "You want us to compromise with someone who claims that Hillary Clinton ran a pedophile ring out of a pizza shop basement?"

    Who is "US"? You decide for you, I decide for me.

    Where we seem to differ is a varied willingness to suggest for others what they ought to do and not do.

  45. Michael 2 says

    May 30, 2018 at 2:36 pm

    Ann writes "as if if racism and opposition to it are just two sides of the same coin"

    That's an excellent way to put it! Either focuses on "race" as a "thing" to be considered. The proper opposition to racism is to ignore race. If you are conscious of race, then you are not ignoring it. If race forms any part of your daily decisions, you are racist. Whether it matters depends on the details of what are those decisions.

  46. Michael Heaney says

    May 30, 2018 at 2:41 pm

    Michael 2 says

    Virtue signalling anyone? Tell the whole world what you *do not*, rather than what you *do*? The irony is that some of this conversation y'all didn't listen to discusses this phenomenon of virtue signaling.

    then

    Who is "US"? You decide for you, I decide for me.

    Michael 2, you addressed multiple people in this channel via a plural pronoun. You cannot honestly then try to chastise someone or feign confusion at them for employing a plural pronoun in response. A little more intellectual honesty and consistency, please.

  47. Michael 2 says

    May 30, 2018 at 2:44 pm

    Ann writes "he very fearlessly and boldly claims not to know enough about the Tommy Robinson case to say one way or the other if Alex Jones's manifestly insane characterization of it is correct."

    I've seen claims, not proven by any means, that Marc Randazza is a lawyer and thus cautious to express judgment prematurely and without evidence. I am delighted by his cautious approach to fact checking and dismayed by so many people here willing to leap off the cliff of judgment with even less information than he has.

    It was an excellent choice to appear on Alex Jones' show; to provide contrast and a well reasoned commentary on topical issues.

  48. Vincent says

    May 30, 2018 at 2:52 pm

    @Michael 2

    There are far too many media sources for any one person to consume them all. A consumer must be discerning. Practically every media outlet has gotten something wrong or allowed excessive bias to creep through, but when a media company persistently lies they lose credibility. At least when the New York Times publishes something that's demonstrated to be incorrect, they post a retraction and a mea culpa.

    Unlike many readers here, I'm not a lawyer, but it's my opinion that what InfoWars does at least borders on fraud. They try to scare their viewers about some conspiracy that threatens them and then sell products to protect them from these imaginary threats. They're not making a valuable contribution to the "marketplace of ideas," as Randazza likes to say. Their racket is no different than medieval Catholic indulgences or televangelists offering healing for cash.

    At best, InfoWars could be likened to the professional wrestling of news media. You'd have to be delusional to believe that anything presented there is real or worth watching. Most people have heard about some of the more outrageous claims made by Alex Jones. That ought to be enough to dissuade one from providing him with clicks.

  49. En Passant says

    May 30, 2018 at 3:00 pm

    I watched the whole thing.

    Conclusions:

    Alex Jones has a face made for radio and a voice made for silent movies.

    Whatever food supplement pills Jones is selling, I'm not buying.

    Marc Randaza hit the nails on the head: The First Amendment protects against government punishing people for their speech, but not against private actors.

    Marc also raised a major caveat: if the culture does not generally recognize those same rights, the culture is in danger of losing the First Amendment protections against government. Those rights are in danger when participants in cultural internecine warfare say "you should not be allowed to say that" instead of "what you have said is wrong, and here is why".

    My $0.02: The applicable dictum is sometimes attributed to Voltaire, and sometimes to Evelyn Beatrice Hall centuries later: "I Disapprove of What You Say, But I Will Defend to the Death Your Right to Say It."

    For a total of $0.04: Those who refused to hear what Marc Randazza had to say because he said it in a forum of which they disapprove, are as irrational as those who would refuse to accept Newton's laws of motion because he once studied alchemy.

  50. Total says

    May 30, 2018 at 3:07 pm

    Deciding news is fake before you even possess it is a type of clairvoyance that I lack

    Good to find out that you're too stupid to know that someone claiming that Sandy Hook was a false flag operation is spreading fake news without having to read what they say. I, on the other hand, don't have to go to InfoWars to know that what Alex Jones is peddling there is fake news of the most evil kind.

    Who is "US"? You decide for you, I decide for me.

    Oh, good. Pronoun based argumentation is always so compelling.

    The proper opposition to racism is to ignore race. If you are conscious of race, then you are not ignoring it. If race forms any part of your daily decisions, you are racist

    Only to be topped by the basement philosophizing of someone forever listening for their parents coming to evict them. Do you need another six months, Mr. Rotondo?

  51. TPRJones says

    May 30, 2018 at 3:22 pm

    I tried, Mark, I really did. But every time that gay frogs guy opens his mouth the dumbest shit comes spilling out of it all over the set. I just don't understand how you can sit there with a straight face, nodding like you agree with him. Do you just have the world's greatest poker face or what?

  52. SIrWired says

    May 30, 2018 at 3:24 pm

    @Sinij

    In doing so you will remain without basic understand how your political opponents think and will continue being ineffective at persuading and reaching compromise. Since at least half of US are "these people", this approach will leave YOUR ideas without a path to realization.

    I don't don't consider "believes in evil, absurd, demonstrably false, conspiracy theories" to be a political viewpoint of any sort. Conspiracy theorists cross the whole political spectrum.

    And I certainly have zero interest in compromising to even pretend to give any credence to their factually incorrect beliefs. I don't owe Holocaust Deniers, Sandy Hook "false flag" morons, 9/11 truthers, birthers, etc. a seat at the proverbial Adult's Table. I literally do not care what they have to say about any topic.

  53. Michael 2 says

    May 30, 2018 at 3:29 pm

    Michael Heaney writes "You cannot honestly then try to chastise someone or feign confusion at them for employing a plural pronoun in response."

    Yes, I can. The difference is authority.

    It is a one-to-many relationship: Me at the "one' speaking my mind. As such there is no question of authenticity or authority. Total places himself at the "many" and makes response, not just for himself, but for "us".

    It is that manner of thinking that contributed to electing Donald Trump; mistaking the existence of "us" and its presumed shared thoughts and values.

    "A little more intellectual honesty and consistency, please."

    Stay tuned to this channel!

    Sometimes I have a bit of fun with "us" and "we", using it in my own writings; implicitly declaring all participants to be of my own mind and thinking. The response is usually quick when persons inadvertently lumped in "us" prefer not to be so lumped.

  54. Total says

    May 30, 2018 at 3:36 pm

    The difference is authority.

    It is a one-to-many relationship: Me at the "one' speaking my mind. As such there is no question of authenticity or authority. Total places himself at the "many" and makes response, not just for himself, but for "us".

    Oh, God. He's doubling down on the pronoun thing. Next up: he (look, a pronoun!) explains why "us" is offensive, while "we" is okay.

    Sometimes I have a bit of fun with "us" and "we",

    You do, do you?

  55. SocraticGadfly says

    May 30, 2018 at 3:40 pm

    Theory: Sinij IS Randazza, sockpuppeting.

  56. SocraticGadfly says

    May 30, 2018 at 3:50 pm

    @EnPassant: All of that was knowable without watching Randazza on Infowars, or without reading Randazza, for that matter.

  57. SocraticGadfly says

    May 30, 2018 at 3:50 pm

    Randazza, if you really want to have fun, or, "fun," why don't you do your fake Norodom Sihamoni interview schtick, but with Alex Jones instead, ON HIS SHOW?

    (I'll chip in a nickel for your funeral expenses after death by strangulation.)

  58. Michael 2 says

    May 30, 2018 at 3:51 pm

    SIrWired writes "I don't owe [list] etc. a seat at the proverbial Adult's Table."

    How is it your choice?

    if "Adults Table" simply means your own mind, then I agree; I "owe" no person a place in my mind or at my table. But I invite many.

    "I literally do not care what they have to say about any topic."

    Your intense disinterest is noted ;-)

  59. Magicthighs says

    May 30, 2018 at 4:24 pm

    Why would anyone watch or appear on Infowars after he, or his lawyer anyway, stated that he was a performance artist and not to be taken seriously?

  60. Docrailgun says

    May 30, 2018 at 4:45 pm

    No, we got Trump because a bunch of Bernie Bros and other emotional children decided they were going to teach The Establishment (TM) A Lesson (TM) by staying home or voting for Jill Stein. Sanders could have solved that problem by demanding that his followers grow up and vote for the winning candidate. But he didn't do that.
    So, Bernie and his worshippers now own eveything Trump does.
    "This is how you got Trump, and this is how you will get Trump re-elected."

  61. Total says

    May 30, 2018 at 4:47 pm

    So, Bernie and his worshippers now own eveything Trump does.

    They own a tiny bit of it. You know who owns the most? The millions of fucking morons who actually voted for Trump.

  62. Docrailgun says

    May 30, 2018 at 4:51 pm

    No, but what Randazza is (reportedly) is an attorney that files takedown notices to remove protected opinion webpages and posts that show his clients in a negative light. That makes him (in my opinion) a hypocrite and not worthy of the "free speech crusader" mantle he likes to wrap himself in.
    "Yes, but is Randazza one of these?"

  63. Trent says

    May 30, 2018 at 5:04 pm

    Most of the time, taking the opinion and talking points of the guy that believes aliens abducted him to stick probes in his ass just makes you dumb and less informed. Sure he might be right about some crazy thing every blue moon or two in a century, but most of the time anything he tells you will just make you dumber.

    Infowars is a conspiracy sight right up there with tin-foil hat wearing alien hunters. It doesn't have any credibility, none of it's "reporting" provides any more value that watching cat videos on youtube though it won't be any more entertaining.

    You'd be better served watching grass grow as the grass might actually teach you something.

  64. Ann says

    May 30, 2018 at 5:32 pm

    @Michael2 —

    I'm pretty sure the show let him know what he was being invited on to discuss.

    But maybe you're right. He still went out there to argue that the world would be a better, freer place if we all just accepted that there's no difference between ABC dissociating itself from racism and the NFL penalizing players for protesting it, though.

    He's not even talking about First Amendment rights. He's just saying he would like to see a world in which comparing black women to apes was on the same social plane as objecting to it when the police shoot black people with impunity.

    If that's what he really thinks, maybe he should stop dishonestly paying lip service to the idea that the statements he's defending are, of course, repellent. But I guess that would require him to take a real risk.

  65. Michael 2 says

    May 31, 2018 at 7:37 am

    Richard says "There's a difference between 'refusing to listen to uncomfortable truths' and 'refusing to listen to proven, unrepentant liars.' "

    Indeed, and it starts with making a determination who is telling the truth and who is lying. But if you already know that information, why listen to either of them?

    The most dangerous speaker of words is the one that is neither of these; sometimes or usually tells the truth; sometimes or usually is lying (or inventing a fantasy).

    In other words, pretty much every human on Earth.

    Let us consider the fable of the Boy Who Cried Wolf. He enjoyed stirring up the village to alarm by crying "wolf!" falsely. After a time, the villagers began to ignore the boy. One day he spoke the truth and the wolf attacked the villagers and they were unprepared.

    "That doesn't mean I should listen to L. Ron Hubbard and the Church of Sciencefictology, when it's clear that the latter was only set up to bilk people out of their money."

    I regard even Scientology. The utility is knowing what other people believe and why they believe it, either to guard against your own susceptibility to similar things (finding YOUR weak spot), or to be aware of what people around you think, feel and do; particularly in Seattle.

    Scientologists use *some* truthy-things, the Oxford Capacity Analysis for instance. It is later you learn about the multi-level marketing financial enrichment opportunities.

    Many people are by nature quick to judge. That might even be normal. I seem not to be normal in that regard. Twitter makes it possible for millions of people to judge a matter in just a few minutes, guided of course by the shepherds who are first to comment and hoist the flag of Correct Thinking, as we have seen right here on this page.

  66. Total says

    May 31, 2018 at 7:54 am

    Michael 2's comments work much better if you preface them "From my basement window, I can see that…"

    Try it, it works.

  67. eh says

    May 31, 2018 at 8:05 am

    I can't believe all of you smart people fell for Sinij's troll. Your fancy brains wrote 14 sentences for every one of his while decrying Randazza's Infowars mudfight, even portraying yourselves as somehow above Alex Jones' fans.

  68. Michael 2 says

    May 31, 2018 at 8:12 am

    Ann says "He still went out there to argue that the world would be a better, freer place if we all just accepted that there's no difference between ABC dissociating itself from racism and the NFL penalizing players for protesting it, though."

    At law (IMO) there is no difference. Both are examples of a company exercising its rights as an employer. I have a doubt that he specifically argued the world would be a better place if we accepted this legal definition. The world might be a better place if more people knew more of the law; participating in its formation (the legislative process).

  69. Total says

    May 31, 2018 at 8:16 am

    I can't believe all of you smart people fell for Sinij's troll. Your fancy brains wrote 14 sentences for every one of his while decrying Randazza's Infowars mudfight, even portraying yourselves as somehow above Alex Jones' fans.

    Sinij, just post under your own name.

  70. Michael 2 says

    May 31, 2018 at 8:20 am

    Total says "Michael 2's comments work much better if you preface them 'From my basement window, I can see that…' "

    Thank you! Whatever works to persuade people to read them ;-)

  71. Total says

    May 31, 2018 at 8:31 am

    "From my basement window, I can say Thank you! Whatever works to persuade people to read them ;-)"

    See?

  72. eh says

    May 31, 2018 at 8:50 am

    Sinij, just post under your own name.

    I can imagine this might make you feel better about your participation in all this, but any of the Popehat principals can look behind the scenes and tell you that we aren't the same person. If you want to get all Alex Jones and speculate as to the technical measures I've taken in order to appear to be a different person, well, then this thread is the perfect home for you.

    But I get it: you get called out for something you willingly and consciously participated in, so you lash out defensively. Also totally unlike Alex Jones. You're batting 1.000!

  73. Total says

    May 31, 2018 at 9:01 am

    so you lash out defensively

    I prefer to think of it as "mocking a moron" but you feel free to go with whatever you want.

  74. Ken White says

    May 31, 2018 at 9:39 am

    Marc believes in bringing religiosity to the fuzzy-wuzzies. He preaches his First Amendment and free speech values to crowds of heathens. I understand that calling, though I draw lines differently about what crowds are redeemable, and what platforms do more damage than good in the process. But he sincerely believes he can convert some of the listeners to a First Amendment approach based on law.

  75. CJColucci says

    May 31, 2018 at 9:39 am

    Here's my suggestion: Randazza can say here whatever he said on Info Wars, and people can address it on the merits here.

  76. Michael 2 says

    May 31, 2018 at 9:40 am

    Magicthighs writes "Why would anyone watch or appear on Infowars after he, or his lawyer anyway, stated that he was a performance artist and not to be taken seriously?"

    Pick any entertainment that you watch, explain to yourself why you watch it, there's your answer.

    Total writes: "Sinij, just post under your own name."

    Now THAT was funny!

    Ann writes "…ABC dissociating itself from racism"

    ABC's dissociation seems to be selective; I am reminded of Orwell's "2 minute hate".

    Ann also writes "He's just saying he would like to see a world in which comparing black women to apes was on the same social plane as objecting to it when the police shoot black people with impunity."

    That didn't quite make sense, but I will suggest there is no single "social plane".

    Two things may be on the same plane in your mind but not the same plane in my mind. These "planes" depend on the specifics; as for instance, in what manner do these objections take place? A letter to the editor is on one plane, burning someone's automobile as a protest is on another plane, refusing to honor the national anthem is on yet another plane.

    I don't "get" Rozanne Barr's tweet. A joke is funny when you "get" it.

    For instance, the joke about crossing a rooster and a telephone pole is funny if you remember AT&T's slogan, "Reach out and touch someone". If you don't know the slogan then the joke is probably incomprehensible but people will imagine it means something. [http]://jokes.cc.com/funny-animal/0w9v75/rooster-up-a-pole

    If on the other hand it is political commentary then it makes some sense; the Muslim Brotherhood is about totalitarianism and so is "Planet of the Apes", neither of which have racial connotation.

    So what makes Valerie Jarrett the target? A bit of digging which you can do easily as I shows that she has many ties to communism and powerful influence on the former president, a "president whisperer". Donald Trump had his own president whisperer which he eventually sent packing.

    As it happens, Rozanne seems to have some literal intent in her tweet: "Valerie Jarrett's father—an American-born physician named James Bowman (1923-2011)—worked as a pathologist and geneticist at a children’s hospital in Shiraz as part of a U.S. aid program to assist developing countries" so there's the Muslim Brotherhood part. Valerie's mother is less easy to place in the context of "Planet of the Apes" which pits intelligent scientists against totalitarian brutes. They aren't all apes; the movie places orangutans and chimpanzees as being more intelligent and sophisticated than mere apes. It is easy to imagine that Valerie's mother, founder of an education institute in Chicago, is cast as the female scientist and leading character in "Planet of the Apes".

  77. Michael 2 says

    May 31, 2018 at 10:00 am

    Total writes "I prefer to think of it as mocking a moron"

    Alinsky rule #5. "Ridicule is man's most potent weapon."

    It doesn't work on libertarians but it works well on those for whom these rules were intended; urban dwellers for the most part that could be shamed into Community Organizations (and paying dues to them).

  78. Sinij says

    May 31, 2018 at 10:12 am

    Database issues ate some of my earlier responses, but meanwhile I am glad this discussion got to ripen into magical thinking.

    @Total

    Sinij, just post under your own name.

    Your key criticism against Infowars was that it was peddling conspiracy theories. Well, here is prime example of you doing exactly the same. Justify your claims.

    Unless and until then, I am naming and shaming you for hypocrisy, sloppy thinking, and hyper partisanship.

  79. Mikee says

    May 31, 2018 at 10:16 am

    "Infowars might not be the most popular outlet with many of the readers (or at least commenters)"

    Is that how you convince yourself you're not being a worthless sack of shit when sticking up for and defending other worthless sacks of shit? You delude yourself into believing that people read and like your worthless shit, but it's only the commenters that don't like it?

    Smoke less crack, Mr. Randazza.

  80. Sinij says

    May 31, 2018 at 10:20 am

    Theory: Sinij IS Randazza, sockpuppeting.

    Let me correct this for you to be more accurate:

    Conspiracy Theory: Sinij IS Randazza, sockpuppeting.

    Now, what was your criticims of InfoWars was again? Something about peddling baseless conspiracy theories?

  81. Sinij says

    May 31, 2018 at 10:30 am

    I asked this in other discussion that was also piling-on Randazza for various ill-justified reasons, but yet to get a coherent answer from the peanut gallery.

    Sinij wrote:
    Could one be acquaintance to, be civil to, discuss unrelated issues with deplorable (e.g. racists, supremacists) people without subscribing to their cause? To me, many here act on belief that one cannot.

  82. Total says

    May 31, 2018 at 10:30 am

    Alinsky rule #5. "Ridicule is man's most potent weapon."

    Saul was just saying that to me over coffee.

    Your key criticism against Infowars was that it was peddling conspiracy theories. Well, here is prime example of you doing exactly the same. Justify your claims.

    Oh, eek! Am I being hypocritical? Is making a mocking claim on an Internet comment thread about some random anonymous commenter "exactly the same" as peddling vicious lies to millions of listeners about people who are already trying to recover from the brutal murder of their child?

    Are you as dumb a fucking moron as you play yourself on TV?

    I am naming and shaming you

    Oh, the horror.

  83. Sinij says

    May 31, 2018 at 10:34 am

    Please, do you even believe yourself things you post? Of course that was a joke, not meant to be taken serious, and not in any way should ever be used to point out your own magical thinking. *eyeroll*

    You just broke a pedal backpedaling so hard.

  84. Richard says

    May 31, 2018 at 11:04 am

    @Sinij:

    There are enough sources of truth in the world that you can afford to ignore the 9/11 truthers and birthers and flat-earthers and pizzagaters without missing out on anything.

    Yes, but is Randazza one of these?

    I have no idea. I certainly can't prove it, either way. However, Alex Jones most assuredly is, charitably, at least one of the above.

    I'm not avoiding Randazza, else I wouldn't be posting under this article. I am, however, avoiding Alex Jones, and if that means that I don't hear these particular words from Randazza's mouth, then that's a sacrifice I can live with.

    @Michael 2:

    Richard says "There's a difference between 'refusing to listen to uncomfortable truths' and 'refusing to listen to proven, unrepentant liars.' "

    Indeed, and it starts with making a determination who is telling the truth and who is lying. But if you already know that information, why listen to either of them?

    Because there's a wide spectrum between absolute truth and an absolute lie. If Adam Savage, narrating a video, says "In this video, I dropped a package of Mentos into a bottle of Diet Coke, which then spewed a fountain of Diet Coke into the air," and then plays the video, and what he describes matches what you see on screen, and then I do the same thing and reproduce the same effects at home, then those words of Adam Savage's were about as close to absolute truth as you can get in this world: they describe an event that happened, there is direct evidence (the video) of that event having happened, and the circumstances depicted in it are not just plausible, but reproducible.

    On the other hand, let's consider the case when, say, Andrew Wakefield writes a paper that presents evidence that the combination Measles-Mumps-Rubella (MMR) vaccine causes autism, and it later turns out that lawyers filing a lawsuit against MMR manufacturers provided several of the study participants and paid Wakefield a substantial amount of money, that data contradicting the "MMR causes autism" hypothesis were ignored, and that other studies show absolutely no causal link between the MMR vaccine and autism. In that instance, I'd say that Wakefield has proven that I can't trust a word coming out of his mouth (or from the tip of his pen), so there's no point listening to him.

    I don't have a full list of who is telling the truth and who is lying; no one has that list, and so I generally trust that people are telling the truth (from their point of view) until it's proven that they don't deserve that trust.

    Alex Jones has long since proven that to my satisfaction.

    Let us consider the fable of the Boy Who Cried Wolf. He enjoyed stirring up the village to alarm by crying "wolf!" falsely. After a time, the villagers began to ignore the boy. One day he spoke the truth and the wolf attacked the villagers and they were unprepared.

    I rather thought the moral of that story was "Don't cry 'Wolf!' falsely, or people won't believe you when you need to cry it truly," rather than "When a known habitual liar speaks, evaluate the merits of each claim individually, because it's always possible that this time they might be telling the truth." Or perhaps the moral was, "Put someone trustworthy in charge of watching the sheep, or you'll end up tuning out the few true alarms among all of the false ones."

  85. Total says

    May 31, 2018 at 11:09 am

    Of course that was a joke, not meant to be taken serious, and not in any way should ever be used to point out your own magical thinking

    So you do think that making a mocking claim on an Internet comment thread about some random anonymous commenter is "exactly the same" as peddling vicious lies to millions of listeners about people who are already trying to recover from the brutal murder of their child?

    I'll repeat my earlier question: Are you as dumb a fucking moron as you play yourself on TV?

  86. Sinij says

    May 31, 2018 at 11:34 am

    I don't believe your explanation that it was not a serious claim. You are not credible in your attempts to differentiate your faulty behavior from conspiracy nuts that subscribe to pizzagate. To me, this is just faulty thinking, and every bad behavior that followed is just your angry thrashing after being called out on it.

  87. Sinij says

    May 31, 2018 at 11:39 am

    I have no idea. I certainly can't prove it, either way. However, Alex Jones most assuredly is, charitably, at least one of the above.

    I'm not avoiding Randazza, else I wouldn't be posting under this article. I am, however, avoiding Alex Jones, and if that means that I don't hear these particular words from Randazza's mouth, then that's a sacrifice I can live with.

    Clearly reasoned, I can accept this explanation.

    Too bad it took 80+ posts of naked tribalism and partisanship to get to this one well-reasoned response.

  88. SocraticGadfly says

    May 31, 2018 at 11:41 am

    [email protected] — no, I had it right. Sockpuppeting isn't a "conspiracy."

  89. SocraticGadfly says

    May 31, 2018 at 11:47 am

    @Doc says:

    No, we got Trump because a bunch of Bernie Bros and other emotional children decided they were going to teach The Establishment (TM) A Lesson (TM) by staying home or voting for Jill Stein. Sanders could have solved that problem by demanding that his followers grow up and vote for the winning candidate. But he didn't do that.
    So, Bernie and his worshippers now own eveything Trump does.

    Erm, totally untrue BS.

    First, fewer Sanders backers in the 2016 Dem primaries voted for Trump than Hillary backers in 2008 voted for McCain. Far fewer, in fact. About one half as many. We even had that acronym back then — PUMA. (And did Clinton demand anything more than Sanders did? Did he demand anything less than her? Don't think so. Remember him speaking at the DNC? And try not to have either selective memory or selective hearing.)

    As for "BernieBros" vs PUMAs and deserting the Dem party?

    https://www.npr.org/2017/08/24/545812242/1-in-10-sanders-primary-voters-ended-up-supporting-trump-survey-finds

    Second, funny how Dems always worry about Greens, when Republicans never worry about Libertarians.

    Third, most Green leaners knew even before Sanders' official campaign launch that he's just another Dem on most foreign policy issues outside his Iraq War vote. At the same time, most Sanders backers still think third-party voting is like the plague. Ergo, you're confusing two classes of voters.

  90. Sinij says

    May 31, 2018 at 11:49 am

    @SocraticGadfly

    The key difference between theory and conspiracy theory, is that theory must be based on facts, logic, and justified reasons. Conspiracy theory does not have these as per-requisites.

    What are your facts, logic, and sound reasons that lead you to conclude I am Randazza's sock puppet?

  91. SocraticGadfly says

    May 31, 2018 at 12:22 pm

    [email protected] — Anybody both dumb enough and egocentric enough to write his C-level Hunter S. knockoff of a fake interview with King Hardup Whatabout and think it was anywhere close to literary, or general genius, would also sockpuppet with a human commenter that came off as sounding like a bot.

    Inductive evidence, but good inductive evidence in my book.

    Beyond that, the specific nature of your first comment was, basically, "watch this, guys." And, everything after was an ardent follow-up to that.

    Inductive evidence, but good inductive evidence in my book.

    The number of your responses also is … inductive evidence, but good inductive evidence in my book.

    So, you could maybe convince me I'm wrong by not commenting any further! :)

    And, you meant "prerequisites."

  92. somebody says

    May 31, 2018 at 12:31 pm

    I watched the video.

    Alex Jones's positions were for the most part laughable, and Randazza did a good job not positioning himself either for nor against those positions while he was on the air. I found it to be a video of a terrible man interviewing a smart man while trying to push some terrible conspiracy theories, not some kind of anti-first-amendment brainwashing device.

  93. SocraticGadfly says

    May 31, 2018 at 12:39 pm

    @sinij … that said, your comment on another post undercuts my previous reasoning.

    So, you're just a deluded Randazza fanboy/girl.

  94. Sokal says

    May 31, 2018 at 1:04 pm

    Michael 2’s critical media analysis of Rosanne’s (allegedly) Ambien-induced one-liner, its relationship to the literal parents of Valerie Jarret, identifying the central theme of totalitarianism as being the core of both Planet of the Apes films AND The Muslim Brotherhood (plus the obligatory Orwell name-check)…

    It’s a masterful mashup of postmodern crit theory and pants-on-head obtuseness. Mikey, please consider expanding this into a paper and submitting it to Social Text for publication.

  95. Richard says

    May 31, 2018 at 1:16 pm

    @Sinij: No, conspiracy theories are generally based on evidence; the evidence doesn't always support the conclusion that they say it does, but they generally do have some facts and logic behind them (albeit twisted all to Hell).

    The difference between "theory" and "conspiracy theory" is that any evidence contradicting a conspiracy theory is explained away as having been planted by the conspirators, and any evidence that should be present to explain the theory but isn't is explained away as having been covered up by the conspirators.

    Conspiracy theory requires someone manufacturing and/or hiding evidence. That isn't present here, so it's not a conspiracy theory.

  96. Total says

    May 31, 2018 at 2:23 pm

    Eh said; wait, was it Sinij? Which account was he posting from?

    Ehnij said:

    I don't believe your explanation that it was not a serious claim. You are not credible in your attempts to differentiate your faulty behavior from conspiracy nuts that subscribe to pizzagate. To me, this is just faulty thinking, and every bad behavior that followed is just your angry thrashing after being called out on it..

    My heart is broken. I shall have to retire from Internet commenting.

  97. SocraticGadfly says

    May 31, 2018 at 3:25 pm

    Per Sokal and Total, we need a poll here about whether Sinaj or Michael 2 is the number of nuts. Beyond Sinaj's over-the-top general fellation of Ranfaygo (just riffing on a previous piece) we have this piece of martyrous back-of-hand to forehead self-turd-polishing:

    Too bad it took 80+ posts of naked tribalism and partisanship to get to this one well-reasoned response.

    Anytime someone gives an insinuated claim to be "above it all" like that, while at the same time engaging in their own partisan PR which constituted half those 80-plus (correct style) posts, the self-turd-polishing has reached gemstone tumbler levels.

    Whereas Michael 2:

    Indeed, and it starts with making a determination who is telling the truth and who is lying. But if you already know that information, why listen to either of them?

    There's lots of reasons to listen to the truth second, third and fourth times, whether from the same source or another. Maybe the truth isn't self-evident. Maybe it is, and it needs reinforcing in the face of lies. Cliches like "A lie is halfway around he world before the truth is putting on its shoes" don't get to be so common as to become cliches without reflecting some reality.

    But to me, the real howler is this one from the John Roberts School of Supreme Court Umpiring:

    The proper opposition to racism is to ignore race. If you are conscious of race, then you are not ignoring it. If race forms any part of your daily decisions, you are racist. Whether it matters depends on the details of what are those decisions.

    Uhh, first, there's no way in hell I would consider you morally, psychologically, or sociologically qualified to stipulate the "proper opposition to racism." Second, you're either ignorant of, or wrongly reject, the issue of implicit bias. Third, Roberts was of course wrong about the neutrality and objectivity of umpires. That's why MLB has review and replay, and tracking mechanisms for pitches. Umps can be biased for or against teams, players, etc., and at the plate, high, low, inside or outside pitches.

    Then there is Michael's own claim to be above virtue signaling while accusing mutiple others under the "us" rubric of doing it. Actually, in some circles, watching Infowars would be considered virtue signaling. Nice try.

    Then there's this:

    A perfectly rational human probably cannot exist. A computer is perfectly rational; it has no wants or desires, for such things are inherently irrational. Without a want or desire it does nothing. Therefore, everything that is done is ultimately irrational.

    Erm, wrong. Wants and desires may be irrational; they are not inherently so. Even as you say more people need to know law better, you show that you yourself are part of the more people who need to know philosophy better. Ergo, your admonitions to logical thinking don't float my boat either, as you appear not to understand philosophical necessity (nor, I'll venture, sufficiency). Of course, the alternative is that you do understand it, and you butcher philosophy along with everything else.

    As for understanding the law, and even more courtroom legal structure, I've long contended the US could stand elements of continental European jurisprudence. The Anglo-American adversarial system isn't all it's cracked up to be, and a presiding judge taking his or her own tack on issues would refresh both civil and criminal proceedings, and likely lead to greater juror involvement than is currently the case, which is certainly laudable.

  98. Total says

    May 31, 2018 at 3:28 pm

    whether Sinaj or Michael 2 is the number of nuts

    I'd vote for both of them. Wait, is it possible that they're actually the same person, too? Could it be Ehnijael 2 who we're really dealing with? Hang on — didn't someone postulate that Sinij was Randazza?

    Do we have Ehnijael2azza?

    Inquiring minds…

  99. Sinij says

    May 31, 2018 at 3:30 pm

    @ Richard

    Conspiracy theory requires someone manufacturing and/or hiding evidence. That isn't present here, so it's not a conspiracy theory.

    I would like to present the body of work known as Total as a proof to the contrary. I think he quadrupled now on claims that I am multiple other posters.

  100. Total says

    May 31, 2018 at 4:15 pm

    Aw, Ehnijael2azza, you do care!

  101. Michael 2 says

    May 31, 2018 at 6:30 pm

    Total asks "is it possible that they're actually the same person, too?"

    Of course. On the internet no one can hear you scream. It is possible that you, too, are me.

    "Inquiring minds…"

    I note that you didn't include yourself ;-)

  102. Trent says

    May 31, 2018 at 6:38 pm

    I've believed for a while that the poster that was called Encinal is in fact Sinij as the posting style and the same stupid illogical linking and absurd debate tactics are present to a degree that is unlikely to be chance. It doesn't help that the new one showed up right when the old one disappeared. Trolls rarely truly leave, they simply find a new alias.

  103. Ann says

    May 31, 2018 at 6:43 pm

    ABC's dissociation seems to be selective; I am reminded of Orwell's "2 minute hate".

    Then you either haven't read or didn't comprehend 1984. Emmanuel Goldstein, the object of the two-minutes hate, is an all-purpose object of hatred who's hated for what he looks like and just for existing. He doesn't have to say or do anything to merit it.

    George Soros, Valerie Jarrett, and the Obamas would all be pretty closely analogous.

    ABC was dissociating itself from something Roseanne said, not from Roseanne existentially.

    That didn't quite make sense, but I will suggest there is no single "social plane".

    Obviously not. My point was that Randazza was advocating for racism and objections to it to be received in the same neutral spirit as one another. This is, literally, like saying that hating people for who they are (and not what they say or do) is just as valid as objecting to being hated for who you are.

    Funnily enough, you also seem to be confused about this glaring and obvious distinction, based on that Orwell thing.

    I don't "get" Rozanne Barr's tweet. A joke is funny when you "get" it.

    She compared Valerie Jarrett, a black woman and former member of the Obama administraton, to an ape, while also suggesting she was a Muslim terrorist.

    I can see how this might be funny if you thought it was true that black people were comparable to apes and that members of the Obama administration were Muslim terrorists. But both of those beliefs are racist.

    A joke is funny when you "get" it.

    Thank you for your insight.

    @Ken White —

    He was not talking about the First Amendment. He was defining "free speech" as a state of affairs in which both racist statements and protests against racism are greeted with tolerance and understanding. Of course, if racist statements were greeted with tolerance and understanding, that would mean they weren't protested. So the equation actually works out to just "Free speech means racism should be greeted with tolerance and understanding."

    Just to make it even more of an endorsement of hateful bigotry than it already was, I'm pretty sure that Alex Jones is the source of the other. repugnant thing she said — he's where the idea that George Soros was a Nazi collaborator who confiscated the property of other Jews whom he robber and murdered for his own profit got started. InfoWars spawned it, and Randazza's close friend Mike Cernovich promoted it.

    George Soros was a 14-year-old child during the Nazi occupation of Hungary. His parents placed him with a Christian family who claimed him as a godson, so he survived. It's hard to think of a more vile falsehood than to accuse a Jewish child who survived the Holocaust of having been responsible for his little acre of it.

    So the flow chart goes like this: Alex Jones makes up vile hateful garbage about George Soros >>>Mike Cernovich spreads it around Twitter>>>Roseanne repeats them>>>Marc Randazza goes on Alex Jones, not just to lend an air of legitimacy to the creation and propagation of such lies, but also to suggest that it's really Jones, Cernovich, and Roseanne who are being victimized by hatred and intolerance.

    May the circle be unbroken, by and by Lord, by and by. He's preaching to the choir, not to the fuzzie-wuzzies, as far as I can see.

  104. Scote says

    May 31, 2018 at 7:23 pm

    Is there any lower form of media that Randazza could appear on than Info Wars? And to promote it on Popehat :-0

    To appear on Info Wars is to lend it legitimacy it does not deserve, at the expense of the legitimacy, to the extend they have any, of the people who appear on it. And to **watch** it is to do the same. So, no, I'm not going to watch Randazza on Info Wars. As has been alluded to in earlier comments, if speech is free (as in freedom) then we should all take the trouble to socially and financially encourage good uses of that speech, such as factual reporting, and eschew outlets that spread lies, hatred and nonsense, such as Info Wars. No good comes of supporting Info Wars in anything but the barest sense that they are legally entitled to speak.

  105. Ann says

    May 31, 2018 at 7:47 pm

    It's hard to think of a more vile falsehood than to accuse a Jewish child who survived the Holocaust of having been responsible for his little acre of it.

    You know what would be more vile that falsely accusing a 14-year-old Jewish child who survived the Holocaust of being a Nazi collaborator who robber and murdered other Jews for profit, though?

    Responding to people who point out your vile lie by acting like you're the one who's being victimized and oppressed by haters because of it. That's what.

    This is what Randazza goes on InfoWars to legitimize. He appears to sincerely believe it.

  106. Ann says

    May 31, 2018 at 8:17 pm

    @Michael2 —

    The proper opposition to racism is to ignore race. If you are conscious of race, then you are not ignoring it. If race forms any part of your daily decisions, you are racist.

    Ah-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha! I'm sorry I missed this earlier, because it's pretty damn funny.

    Unfortunately, somebody much funnier got there first.

  107. meh says

    May 31, 2018 at 8:29 pm

    I've been of the impression that Randazza really strives to see the "other side" of people, and that the more notorious or distasteful a party is, the harder he'll try when getting to know them. It's admirable – very socially egalitarian – and not something I can replicate.

    So while I enjoy Randazza's writing, including the occasional satire about the King of Cambodia, I can't bring myself to give even a click-thru to Infowars. Hard pass.

  108. Michael 2 says

    May 31, 2018 at 9:42 pm

    SocraticGadfly writes: (rather a lot, and me even more) I apologize for length; I am going through it again to make it shorter but you have written some interesting points that I want to respond to.

    "There's lots of reasons to listen to the truth second, third and fourth times, whether from the same source or another."

    Agreed. The tricky part is knowing who is telling the truth.

    "first, there's no way in hell I would consider you morally, psychologically, or sociologically qualified to stipulate the proper opposition to racism."

    I invite you to illuminate the correct, approved by you, opposition to racism. Racism, the
    "ism" itself, cannot be opposed. You cannot oppose bad ideas; you can only present good ideas and make them more desirable than the bad idea. That is the fundamental reasoning of "freedom of speech".

    I accept the utility of regulating bad *behavior* and somewhat reluctantly accept the need for society to collectively decide what is bad behavior.

    "Second, you're either ignorant of, or wrongly reject, the issue of implicit bias."

    I ignore it for the most part. I can see what you do, but not why you did it.

    One movie that I admire on this topic is "Men of Honor". It is carefully told, it isn't a whitewash or blackwash but is intense and worthy to remember a different time in America's not very distant past. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Men_of_Honor

    So how do you oppose racism? You ignore it; become excellent, become known for something *other* than race!

    "Then there is Michael's own claim to be above virtue signaling"

    I have said nothing about my own virtue signaling or the things I consider virtuous. These concepts are related but not identical. A virtue is a good thing; a virtue SIGNAL is a sign, the actual virtue might not (and probably doesn't) exist.

    "while accusing mutiple others under the 'us' rubric of doing it."

    The signal serves a purpose beyond the immediate topic and seems to be to create and maintain whatever is to become the consensus for a society; the topic of today's discussion is essentially irrelevant to the functioning of virtue signals.

    Since I have no herd to maintain and am not interested in forming one, I also don't fly virtue signal flags. Some ideas that I consider virtuous will certainly be manifest and it is possible that others may rally round to those ideas.

    "Actually, in some circles, watching Infowars would be considered virtue signaling."

    It is in the announcement of behavior that virtue signals exist. Whether you actually watch the thing you claim to watch usually cannot be known.

    But, yes, if you were hitch-hiking in Idaho you should probably at least pretend to have listened to Alex Jones, Rush Limbaugh and I don't remember the other one, O-something, O'Reilly.

    I collect a wide variety of ideas and experiences and being from the specific northwest I can even do wacky democrat for a while. But I don't say "we" often enough and soon I am "outed" as a dangerous libertarian.

    "Wants and desires may be irrational; they are not inherently so."

    Rational means reasonable (more or less). Reasoning proceeds from cause to effect, from desire to behavior that accomplishes the desire. But the desire itself is often without cause, therefore immune to reason and therefore also inherently irrational.

    "you show that you yourself are part of the more people who need to know philosophy better."

    Which philosophy? But yes, I would like to know more about Carl Jung's philosophy. I don't NEED it, but I enjoy these ideas.

    "Ergo, your admonitions to logical thinking don't float my boat either"

    It is admittedly rare for a person to be motivated by logic alone.

    "as you appear not to understand philosophical necessity (nor, I'll venture, sufficiency)."

    Correct. I am familiar with the terms of necessary condition and sufficient condition, but I would have to look it up to even see how that's relevant here.

    "Of course, the alternative is that you do understand it, and you butcher philosophy along with everything else."

    That sometimes happens particularly with a pretender. I understand logic (Boolean logic anyway) fairly well, but philosophy seems like a poorly defined hobby; it is whatever you want it to be.

    "As for understanding the law, and even more courtroom legal structure, I've long contended the US could stand elements of continental European jurisprudence."

    No doubt. My father said, and I believe him, the best government is a benevolent dictatorship. That's what Christianity is looking forward to. The problem with the idea is that it tends not to stay benevolent for long; that's the message of Orwell's "Animal Farm".

  109. Total says

    May 31, 2018 at 10:56 pm

    So how do you oppose racism? You ignore it; become excellent, become known for something *other* than race!

    Next up: Ehnijael2azza explains how ignoring lynch mobs in the old south worked well for their targets, followed by his three parter explaining how African-Americans in the military, forbidden to be in combat roles, became the best dang mess attendants anyone has ever seen, then details us how MLK ignored James Earl Ray and, well, that turned out great for him.

  110. Rosenfeldt says

    June 1, 2018 at 2:35 am

    Thank you to En Passant for their comment above. It was exactly what I was looking for (and pretty much the only worth-while comment in the whole section), since I too don't want to watch the video.

    For a total of $0.04: Those who refused to hear what Marc Randazza had to say because he said it in a forum of which they disapprove, are as irrational as those who would refuse to accept Newton's laws of motion because he once studied alchemy.

    I respectfully disagree. Two issues overlap here: Refusing to hear Randazza's opinion and refusing to give business to InfoWars. It's important to seprate them.
    In our current online economy user attention is just about the most valuable good and many business models rely on generating attention as it improves view counts, ad revenue and algorithmic rankings. Giving InfoWars my attention is tantamount to giving them my money.
    Imagine Ken were to give a keynote speech at your local KKK rally who are charging $5 entry fee. Is it irrational not to attend? I think not wanting to pay money to an organisation I oppose is a perfectly rational expression of my own speech! It's a classic libertarian approach to the First Amendment: If you disagree with corporate speech, don't call for government action, but vote with your feet. The marketplace will sort it out.

    Your parallel to Newton is misguided, since accepting Newton's laws of motion does not economically benefit alchemists or their cause. Here on the other hand, hearing Randazza's speech would directly benefit conspiracy theory peddlers of the worst kind.

  111. The Other Dan says

    June 1, 2018 at 3:56 am

    Randazza's credibility is at rock bottom. Only a fucking moron like Michael Rotondo or Donald Trump would go on Infowars.

  112. Michael Heaney says

    June 1, 2018 at 4:19 am

    Sinij, no, Total's fine. Total is a reasonable and enjoyable participant here. You on the other hand…

    Your first contribution to this thread was you first saying that it was somehow impossible that anyone here might have prior knowledge regarding the quality or credibility of Infowars. You followed that up by claiming that the people most responsible for Trump getting elected were the people who refused to vote for Trump.

    So you're a ridiculous goddamned idiot.

  113. Sinij says

    June 1, 2018 at 6:27 am

    @Michael

    Sinij, no, Total's fine.

    Just to remind you, in case you skipped reading this thread and jumped directly into posting, according to the body of work of Total: Randazza in a series of blog posts promoted racism and conspiracy theories and then proceeded to defend them with multiple sock-puppet accounts. That, and we shouldn't listen to anything that Randazza says because he is known to associate with peddlers of conspiracy theories.

    You followed that up by claiming that the people most responsible for Trump getting elected were the people who refused to vote for Trump.

    This is extremely uncharitable interpretation of what I posted. If you actually interested in understanding what I said – I pointed that automatically dismissing anything that your opposition says and then knee-jerking into shaming them is ineffective. Trump was a giant cultural F-you from a large number of reasonable people that felt that voting that way was an effective way to push back against what they seen as cultural abuses on the left against right. Failing to understand these motivations, or dismissing them, will result in more of the same. Personally, I would like to avoid Trump's re-election.

    Obviously, you are free to dismiss all Trump voters as deplorable morons and proceed to shame them as racist every time they bring up illegal immigration. However, don't expect that doing the same thing will turn out any differently in 2020.

  114. Total says

    June 1, 2018 at 7:48 am

    Michael Heaney said

    Total's fine. Total is a reasonable and enjoyable participant here

    Thanks, Michael, I appreciate it!

    Ehnijael2azza says:

    Randazza in a series of blog posts promoted racism and conspiracy theories and then proceeded to defend them with multiple sock-puppet accounts. That, and we shouldn't listen to anything that Randazza says because he is known to associate with peddlers of conspiracy theories.

    Oh, Ehnijael2azza, have you decided to settle on the Sinij identity for this thread? I think it's the wrong choice, but I can see you feel trapped.

    As to Randazza, I think it's perfectly reasonable to listen to what he has to say, I just won't go to InfoWars to do it.

  115. Michael 2 says

    June 1, 2018 at 8:02 am

    Ann writes: "So the equation actually works out to just 'Free speech means racism should be greeted with tolerance and understanding.' "

    Not quite, but close enough. It would be better in my opinion to render it "Free speech means that what you think is a racist statement should be initially met with tolerance, followed by an attempt at understanding; THEN perhaps make a speech of your own in opposition." The idea is that you want other people to give tolerance to YOUR speech.

    Tolerance is being flushed down the water closet pretty much everywhere, and with it, even the opportunity to have a conversation. I once wrote "HELLO" in the snow with a stick; but when I had written the first four letters, the person with me demanded to know why I wrote "HELL". By the time she had finished the question, I had finished the "O".

    An older generation puts it "Count to ten before you react."

    "When angry count to ten before you speak. If very angry, count to one hundred." – Thomas Jefferson – BrainyQuote.

    Tolerance is not acceptance; it is simply not going to Battle Stations on the first word you hear, or the first sentence, maybe paragraph. If you listen to someone elses claims, you then have a right (or so it seems to me) to have your own speech listened to all the way through.

  116. Michael Heaney says

    June 1, 2018 at 10:48 am

    lol, M2 just repeated the same nonsense, "If you keep noticing that we're being bigoted idiots, we'll keep being bigoted idiots out of spite!"

  117. QHS says

    June 1, 2018 at 11:44 am

    Embarrassing.

  118. Ann says

    June 1, 2018 at 12:36 pm

    @Michael2 —

    Not quite, but close enough. It would be better in my opinion to render it "Free speech means that what you think is a racist statement should be initially met with tolerance, followed by an attempt at understanding; THEN perhaps make a speech of your own in opposition." The idea is that you want other people to give tolerance to YOUR speech.

    If that's what you want, you already have your utopia. I'll give you an example:

    Roseanne:

    Valerie Jarrett is a cross between Planet of the Apes and the Muslim Brotherhood.

    Me (to self):

    I think this is a racist statement. Am I being intolerant, unfair, or hasty? Is there another way of understanding the comparison of black people to apes, or members of the Obama administration to Muslims? Might there be, for example, a factual basis for these two apparent vile and abusive slurs?

    …Nope. None that I can think of, which puts me in the same crowd as everyone else, because nobody, including Roseanne, has offered any.

    Me (in public, on consideration):

    What Roseanne said about Valerie Jarrett was racist.

    Here's where you come in:

    You:

    Show some tolerance for racism!

    Like I said. If that's not what's happening, please explain, specifically and in detail, how calling a racist statement racist demonstrates a intolerance for anything else. Thanks.

  119. Michael 2 says

    June 1, 2018 at 1:13 pm

    meh writes "Randazza really strives to see the 'other side' of people, and that the more notorious or distasteful a party is, the harder he'll try when getting to know them."

    I have a similar motive. I do not understand or "grok" the left wing; a need to belong to a group — a need so strong that it can be leveraged into persuading you to buy things you do not need or even want. While I am glad to not be so easily manipulated I fear that there may be a non-obvious benefit to being a member of a herd (and how to choose which herd to be a member OF).

    I am still waiting for Socratic Gadfly to answer: "I invite you to illuminate the correct, approved by you, opposition to racism"

  120. Ann says

    June 1, 2018 at 1:31 pm

    No doubt. My father said, and I believe him, the best government is a benevolent dictatorship. That's what Christianity is looking forward to.

    What a very peculiar statement.

    Christianity looks forward to a state of universal spiritual union between all Christian souls with both God and one another, as a participation trophy for which, each good Christian soul receives a heavenly reward at the end of his/her lifetime.

    The foundational premise of the Roman Catholic Church is that Christ went to the cross as to his marriage bed with his bride, the Church, which makes it his living proxy on earth for the purposes of union/communion with him by everybody else. Consequently, popes, bishops, and (to a lesser degree) priests act in a quasi-dictatorial role wrt lay Catholics in the spheres of life governed by the canon.

    But that's the Catholic Church (and other denominations that follow the same traditions), not Christianity per se. And if you just mean the benevolent dictatorship of God over his flock, Judaism looks forward to the same thing, as does Islam. Also Zoroastrianism.

    What do you mean, precisely?

  121. sinij says

    June 1, 2018 at 1:35 pm

    I fear that there may be a non-obvious benefit to being a member of a herd

    Emotional stability.

    Psychology tells us that humans start malfunctioning when viewing themselves (self-image) in a negative way. When one belongs to a group that has simple-to-follow rules that presented as The Right Way!, by following these rules one can short-circuit objective self-evaluation and self-criticism and substitute adherence to rules. This translates to cognitive shortcut of following group's rules resulting in a positive self-image.

    The above is evolutionary advantageous, so the unusual part is that some people can avoid this, not that many people do this.

  122. Michael 2 says

    June 1, 2018 at 1:43 pm

    I should add that the right wing is also filled with groupies; rather a lot of herbal supplements being sold on InfoWars website and in this video to people that presumably will buy them *because* Alex Jones recommends them. But I am less concerned about the danger to liberty from the right, so I study the left. The right wants to sell pills; the left wants to regulate pretty much everything (speech, assembly, the press and so on).

  123. Michael 2 says

    June 1, 2018 at 1:55 pm

    sinij writes "When one belongs to a group that has simple-to-follow rules that presented as The Right Way!, by following these rules one can short-circuit objective self-evaluation and self-criticism and substitute adherence to rules."

    That's astonishing. For me it was the highly structured US Navy life and its rules that gave me purpose, also my religion. But I didn't stay a follower of rules forever; but neither do I violate rules. It is simply that I went from obeying rules because they were rules, to obeying rules because society is better if I do, and if society is better then I have less to worry about.

    I went from a follower in the Navy to a leader; but getting from this to that was not an easy road to navigate. It is a LOT harder, more difficult, to be any kind of leader, to think about actions and their consequences. It requires to know how other people think and feel even when, or especially when, you don't think and feel the same way. It requires to anticipate problems and allow for the unlikely-but-possible scenario.

    Folk wisdom has sayings for these concepts. Save for a rainy day. A penny saved is a penny earned. Count to ten before speaking. Turn the other cheek (to absorb minor offenses without it escalating to war over anything or everything). You can pull a string but you cannot push a string.

  124. Total says

    June 1, 2018 at 2:12 pm

    Oh God, Ehnijael2azza is arguing with itself. I'm pretty sure that means that Skynet will go live soon.

    Time to buy the fifty gallon jars of peanut butter and head for the hills.

  125. Ann says

    June 1, 2018 at 3:06 pm

    Could one be acquaintance to, be civil to, discuss unrelated issues with deplorable (e.g. racists, supremacists) people without subscribing to their cause? To me, many here act on belief that one cannot.

    Obviously, one can and does. That's not what Randazza was doing, however. He was actively redefining the terms of a discussion about racism and protests against it by dishonestly mischaracterizing the facts on which he was giving his expert view.

    For example: Patriotism was not implicated in any way by NFL players protesting racism by kneeling during the National Anthem. Kneeling is inherently respectful. Nevertheless, "patriotism" was used as cover by those objecting to the sight of black men protesting racism.

    Randazza adopts this fiction, saying that the NFL felt "like they had to make this patriotic move." Then, just to emphasize that it's patriotism and not anything to do with race that's at issue here, he then that he personally thinks it was the least patriotic thing they could have done. Likewise, he characterizes Roseanne's tweet as "stupid," and ABC's response to it as motivated by the need to virtue-signal.

    So it's true that he's discussing "unrelated issues," if what you mean is "unrelated to the subject at hand — and, in fact, reality — and deployed purely as a means of deflecting from any discussion of racism."

    I have a feeling that's not what you mean, though.

  126. Ann says

    June 1, 2018 at 3:54 pm

    Psychology tells us that humans start malfunctioning when viewing themselves (self-image) in a negative way.

    Psychology doesn't say anything nearly that ambiguity-intolerant or overly simplistic. That's more the kind of thing that people who have a need for everything to be labeled and sorted into neat moral categories are prone to saying, per psychology.

    Ambiguity intolerance is one of the traits associated with what used to be called "the authoritarian personality." I'm not sure how true that is, but it certainly makes sense to me.

    Speaking strictly from my own experience, I would say that ambiguity intolerance is highly correlated with the lack of empathy, which combination frequently manifests as bigotry and its twin, in-group conformity/obedience to authority.

    But I think that it's really the lack of empathy that's the driving characteristic there, not the ambiguity intolerance: If you lack experiential imagination wrt to other people's thoughts and feelings (aka "empathy"), then naturally you're going to find people who are unlike you threatening/disgusting. And equally naturally, you're going to need a social order in which things are all labeled and put in their proper categories (aka "ambiguity intolerance"). The world would just be uncertain, unpredictable chaos otherwise.

    Or so I imagine. I've also noticed anecdotally that there's a correlation between low empathy and limited reading comprehension/reasoning skills. But I don't know why that is. I guess you can't really do more than elementary feats of verbal logic unless you can consider things from multiple perspectives, I guess.

  127. Michael 2 says

    June 1, 2018 at 4:08 pm

    Ann writes "What do you mean, precisely?"

    For my father, the benevolent dictatorship meant communism. That communism has never worked is seen as a defect of people rather than the idea.

    Christianity is (in my experience) hierarchical with God at the top and at the end of time is to be the King, the ruler, in a daily active way not just on some distant nebula. The people problem will be solved by Armageddon. The survivors will love having a benevolent dictator.

  128. Michael 2 says

    June 1, 2018 at 5:19 pm

    Ann writes "Patriotism was not implicated in any way by NFL players protesting racism by kneeling during the National Anthem."

    Yes, it was; and was a careful choice to do exactly that which I will explore momentarily.

    "Kneeling is inherently respectful."

    Going against custom is inherently disrespectful.

    "objecting to the sight of black men protesting racism."

    I do not see black men protesting racism. I see some men kneeling while others stand. I will decide what it means to me. https://qz.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/nfl-players-kneel-during-national-anthem-e1506259334412.jpg?quality=80&strip=all&w=1600

    A relevant quote from the man that started it: "I am not going to stand up to show pride in a flag for a country that oppresses"

    It wasn't about racism, it was about oppression.

    "Likewise, he characterizes Roseanne's tweet as 'stupid,' and ABC's response to it as motivated by the need to virtue-signal."

    You'd better hoist that virtue flag PDQ depending on the wealth and influence of who just got insulted.

  129. William Deans says

    June 1, 2018 at 6:22 pm

    As a big INFOWARS life(tm) brand New and Advanced Super Male Vitality fuck you to certain commentators above I’m going to purchase a product from the Info Wars online store… too bad I don't know your address to ship it directly to you.

    There is a scale. On one side are a few bottles of Info Wars supplements sold. On the other side are millions of people hearing about the virtues of free speech.

    Please explain, because I truly don't understand, how so many comments above could place so little value on all those people hearing what Marc has to say about free speech? Is this only about Randazza and Jones?

    I think the choice was obvious. The people won. Thank you Randazza for championing free speech to all people, whoever they are, wherever you find them.

  130. Michael Heaney says

    June 1, 2018 at 6:41 pm

    M2, you're done.

  131. Ann says

    June 1, 2018 at 8:23 pm

    I do not see black men protesting racism. I see some men kneeling while others stand. I will decide what it means to me.

    You're entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts. Whatever you think about them, they are black men protesting racism. This remains objectively true no matter how many times you try to play some form of the no-it's-about-something-else card, which appears to be the only one you've got.

    Let me know when you come up with something else.

    Going against custom is inherently disrespectful

    There's that ambiguity intolerance again.

  132. Ann says

    June 1, 2018 at 8:37 pm

    For my father, the benevolent dictatorship meant communism. That communism has never worked is seen as a defect of people rather than the idea.

    I would say that it's an idea that works on paper but not in reality, which — since it was designed to work in reality and not on paper — necessarily means there's a defect in the idea.

    Christianity is (in my experience) hierarchical with God at the top and at the end of time is to be the King, the ruler, in a daily active way not just on some distant nebula. The people problem will be solved by Armageddon. The survivors will love having a benevolent dictator.

    As I said, this is not specific to Christianity. It's a feature of monotheistic religions the eschatology of which includes (a) a resurrection of the dead; (b) a last judgment; and (c) the righteous thenceforth living in a state of glory, peace and joy with God.

    Judaism and Islam both also meet those criteria.

  133. Sol says

    June 2, 2018 at 6:37 am

    @Michael2

    It wasn't about racism, it was about oppression.

    You make a lot of very interesting personal re-definitions of words, Michael. I'm curious to know what definition of 'racism' you're using that means that racism and oppression are unrelated to one another.

    … For that matter:

    I will decide what it means to me

    Going against custom is inherently disrespectful.

    So, it's "inherently" disrespectful, but also everyone should decide what it means to themselves? What definition of "inherently" are you using? How do you simultaneously defend a 'each person decides their own meaning' approach and a 'this thing inherently means this' approach?

    (I'd also just like to casually note that this is, honestly, kind of amazing:

    a need so strong that it can be leveraged into persuading you to buy things you do not need or even want

    I think that in all my years of wading into bizarre internet arguments, duelling with the strangest of trolls and delving into the blackest pits of the net, this may be the first time I've ever seen someone on the right pitch that capitalism is inherently a left-wing idea.)

  134. anonymous says

    June 2, 2018 at 8:05 am

    i think it's good for him to go on Alex Jones/Infowars. This might be the only opportunity some of those nutjobs get to hear something useful and constructive on that show. My first thought was, "Infowars let him on their show? What in the world were they thinking?"

    i imagine Randazza would be very eager to talk to those people. They might actually learn something from him; he might actually change some nutjob's mind. Why wouldn't he want to do that?

    i mean, you can get all outraged by Infowars/Jones and that's all fine and good because he is pretty awful and that site is pretty awful, but if you want to get through to people who listen to him, do you really think posting here because you have some moral qualm with Infowars is going to get through to them? Labeling and dismissing everybody you labeled that way is what got us here in the first place, is what got us people like Alex Jones.

  135. Total says

    June 2, 2018 at 9:23 am

    but if you want to get through to people who listen to him, do you really think posting here because you have some moral qualm with Infowars is going to get through to them?

    Oh, gee, you mean if I go to the people on INfoWars and carefully explain how badly wrong they are about, eg, Hillary Clinton, I'm going to get through to them?

  136. Ann says

    June 2, 2018 at 10:41 am

    @Sol —

    So, it's "inherently" disrespectful, but also everyone should decide what it means to themselves? What definition of "inherently" are you using? How do you simultaneously defend a 'each person decides their own meaning' approach and a 'this thing inherently means this' approach?

    Good point.

    This is what the libertarian-ish arguments of people on the internet always boil down to: "I should be infinitely free to define reality for myself and everybody else should be infinitely willing to cooperate with it, against their own interests and at the expense of their own freedoms, that I might be free."

    This is also a reasonably good description of the developmental stage that most people pass through at approximately age two, btw.

  137. Another guy says

    June 2, 2018 at 12:17 pm

    I think it's good for Randazza to be on that show. Perhaps one or two of the nut cases who follow the frothing madman who runs it will learn something.

    Me, I lasted about 8 minutes before Jones drove me away with his ranting. If I wanted to listen to lunatics, I'd go with maybe the flat-earthers, where it's at least a bit funny. In any case, I prefer print media, so hopefully there will be a transcript sooner or later.

  138. Sarah says

    June 2, 2018 at 8:20 pm

    Tried watching. Man I can't get passed the fact that Alex is a total loon. Had to stop like 8 mins in.

  139. Solaris says

    June 3, 2018 at 3:09 pm

    Maybe next Randazza can write for the Daily Stormer for the sole purpose of converting some of their readership into principled First Amendment advocates. Pick up allies anywhere you can, right? And we'd all have to start reading it, too, or else be guilty of the monstrous crime of having standards as to which outlets we choose to read.

    I suggest an article about why government-compelled speech doesn't actually violate the First Amendment when it involves forcing internet companies to publish racist speech. Where better to celebrate Randazza's decision to shit his First Amendment principles down the toilet the moment they became politically inconvenient than with some newfound friends?

  140. Bruce says

    June 3, 2018 at 9:50 pm

    crann777
    Infowars is not a news site unless as SirWired notes you think a "news site" is any "news" outlet that routinely features conspiracy theories of the most cruel and evil sort (not to mention most idiotic as in Obama is a muslim) is not worth watching.

  141. Argentina Orange says

    June 4, 2018 at 5:46 am

    For example: Patriotism was not implicated in any way by NFL players protesting racism by kneeling during the National Anthem. Kneeling is inherently respectful.

    Utter absolute, and total bullshit.

    You know it, i know it, and the players know it. This is provable.

    It was proven by their actions. When in UK, they knelt for "The Star Spangled Banner," but they made damn sure to stand for "God Save the Queen," because they knew that to do otherwise would be disrespectful.

    Actions, words, etc.

  142. Sol says

    June 4, 2018 at 6:23 am

    @Argentina Orange:
    Why would they have knelt during God Save the Queen? They're protesting racism in the USA, they're not protesting racism in the UK.*

    They're specifically doing 'something different than usual' in order to draw attention, to make a statement on their views about systematic racism in the USA, particularly in policing. What, in your view, could they do that would be 'respectful'? Or is it inherently disrespectful in your view to protest at all?

    (*Now, maybe they should be. God knows we have our own problems with that sort of thing over here, although they're a lot less publicly talked about. But currently, they aren't. I don't hold that against them. It's our problem to deal with.)

  143. nope says

    June 4, 2018 at 8:47 am

    infowars is a cesspool. I'm sure clicking on their videos helps them in some way, so nope, not clicking

  144. Graham Martin says

    June 4, 2018 at 10:19 am

    Dude. Stop it. Just don't. Lending credibility to that monster is so far beneath you.

  145. Graham Martin says

    June 4, 2018 at 10:21 am

    @Argentina Orange:
    That is, by far, one of the stupidest things I have read during this whole debate.

  146. GuestPoster says

    June 4, 2018 at 10:54 am

    Hmmm. Came here hoping Ken had some valuable insight into the Supreme Court ruling re: cakes and gay inequality. Instead, found out that my low opinion of Randazza could get lower, as he's the sort of person who would willingly appear on Infowars AND then advertise this fact in what looks suspiciously like pride. Also reminded that Sinij wants us all to just believe more of the lies right-wingers like, because that'll make them hate us a bit less.

    As for those thinking a noble thing was done by appearing on Infowars – just the opposite. Infowars is very nearly 100% incorrect about everything. Lies are what they specialize in. By putting accurate information out via that forum, one basically guarantees that folks will begin to assume the information is untrue. Because, again, one has chosen a forum KNOWN for lies. It's what they DO.

    The nuts who believe Infowars are spectacularly unlikely to change their minds about anything, ever. They wouldn't be Infowars patrons if they had any interest at all in educating themselves about anything at all. You don't transfer clean to dirt – you transfer dirt to clean. Try to put some polish on Infowars, all you get is a filthy rag.

  147. crann777 says

    June 4, 2018 at 11:34 am

    @Bruce where did I say that InfoWars was a "news" outlet? I called them a media outlet for a reason.

  148. DRJlaw says

    June 4, 2018 at 11:59 am

    @Argentina Orange

    It was proven by their actions. When in UK, they knelt for "The Star Spangled Banner," but they made damn sure to stand for "God Save the Queen," because they knew that to do otherwise would be disrespectful.

    Oh, YOU GOT THEM! They totally knew that, and it had nothing to do with the obvious disconnect between protesting U.S. issues of racial inequality and police brutality during a U.K. national anthem. I feel ashamed for having thought the latter in the face of your overwhelming proof.

    So does the NFL's glorious new policy apply to the playing of all national anthems, or are the players free to "disrespect" those cause 'MURICA, F' YEAH!?

  149. Argentina Orange says

    June 4, 2018 at 12:09 pm

    If "Kneeling is inherently respectful," to quote Ann, then why NOT kneel during "God Save the Queen?" After all, according to all y'all, it would be showing respect to their hosts. Except it's not, and you know it's not, and that's why they didn't do it. It's really not that complicated.

    It's funny as hell to watch you pretend otherwise. The disrespect is part of the protest. It's saying "America has a flaw, and I refuse to respect it fully until it is addressed." What bizarre fear has gotten into you that you have to pretend that you love 'Murica as much as the Eaglelanders? You don't and you shouldn't.

  150. Michael 2 says

    June 4, 2018 at 1:10 pm

    Sol asks some good questions: "I'm curious to know what definition of 'racism' you're using that means that racism and oppression are unrelated to one another."

    Racism is making decisions, including private decisions about who to associate with, based in part or entirely on someone's race. This does not imply oppression. It is still racism to admire or prefer someone because of race. I prefer/reject something based on a feature, and if that feature is race, then it is racism. If sex, then sexism. If age, then ageism.

    Oppression is about subjugating another person based on any reason or no reason; bullying in other words. It is often economic in nature and based, at least in part, on fear.

    "So, it's 'inherently' disrespectful, but also everyone should decide what it means to themselves?"

    Yes, except there is no "should". You already decide what words mean. How could it be otherwise? "Should" is such a strange word. In reality, and IMO, "should" is always conditional: IF you want "X" you {should, must, will} do "Y". If you don't care about "X" then suddenly the should, must, will vanishes. The difference between should and must or will is whether there's any chance of getting "Y" without having "X".

    If I invent a thing, such as a national anthem, and *endow* it with some properties such as what people are expected or required to do upon hearing it, then those properties become part of the procedure, or in other words, inherent or intrinsic because its creator put those properties there.

    "What definition of inherently are you using?"

    A property of the thing rather than a judgment of the mind.

    An inherent property of sunlight is a color temperature around 5000 degrees Kelvin. A subjective property is calling it "white". White is a judgment, it is not an inherent property. 5000K is an inherent property.

    What football players are DOING is easily observed. Their reasons for doing it is invisible.

    "I think that in all my years of wading into bizarre internet arguments, duelling with the strangest of trolls and delving into the blackest pits of the net, this may be the first time I've ever seen someone on the right pitch that capitalism is inherently a left-wing idea.)"

    My comment about marketing is described in a small book called "Buyology" and explores, using FMRI (functional magnetic resonance imaging or something like that) the forces that cause a person to buy expensive perfumes, 8 out of 10 dentists prefer X toothpaste, things like that. About 60 percent of all commercial advertising is shame-based and so is community organizing.

    The boundaries of an "ism" are defined by expressions of appoval (rare) and disapproval (common) from other persons. Shunning, shaming, banning. Where you see it most tends to be left wing, the farther left the quicker a person is banned for deviance. Churches have similar mechanisms; disfellowship, excommunication.

  151. Michael 2 says

    June 4, 2018 at 1:17 pm

    GuestPoster writes: "because that'll make them hate us a bit less."

    Us? How many of you are in there? Why would they care whether we hate them? If they cared about being hated, they would already be "us" and not "them" by having already conformed to GuestPoster's idea of what is Approved Behavior.

  152. Tim! says

    June 4, 2018 at 1:18 pm

    A relevant quote from the man that started it: "I am not going to stand up to show pride in a flag for a country that oppresses"

    It wasn't about racism, it was about oppression.

    WOW that might be the most disgusting and blatant excision of context I've ever seen in a quotation. The full sentence is "I am not going to stand up to show pride in a flag for a country that oppresses black people and people of color."

  153. Tim! says

    June 4, 2018 at 1:29 pm

    Racism is making decisions, including private decisions about who to associate with, based in part or entirely on someone's race.

    This is an incorrect and non-useful definition of racism. You describe making racist decisions. Racism describes a system, not an individual. A racist system does not discriminate to the detriment of the race that holds the vast majority of power. Also you forgot an important "based on the belief that one's own race is superior" clause, which places even individual racist decisions into a framework of power and oppression.

    http://affinitymagazine.us/2017/02/19/dear-white-people-your-dictionary-definition-of-racism-is-wrong/

  154. Michael 2 says

    June 4, 2018 at 1:30 pm

    Ann writes: "This is what the libertarian-ish arguments of people on the internet always boil down to: I should be infinitely free to define reality for myself and everybody else should be infinitely willing to cooperate with it, against their own interests and at the expense of their own freedoms, that I might be free."

    You are describing anarchy, not libertarianism.

    Libertarianism is most simply described, in my own words of course, as "I choose for me, you choose for you." Socialism (communism, fascism) is "I choose for me AND for you!"

    Freedom happens when free-will chosen cooperation exists; or in the words of Poul Anderson: Freedom is having a cage larger than you wish to fly in. It is a feeling, not an objective reality. If your car can only go 50 miles per hour, then an 80 mile per hour speed limit is "freedom" because you will never hit that barrier to what you wish to do.

    Am I free to walk unmolested at night in southeast Washington DC? No, for that is not my choice to make. I can choose the walk, I cannot choose the unmolested part. Only when all or nearly all people make responsible choices does "freedom" exist, and that happens in a culturally homogenous society, which is not the United States, so there you go — freedom, in its purest most wonderful form, does not exist, has never existed and probably never will exist in the United States. But it is a worthy goal to strive toward.

  155. Michael 2 says

    June 4, 2018 at 1:36 pm

    Ann writes "I would say that it's an idea that works on paper but not in reality, which — since it was designed to work in reality and not on paper — necessarily means there's a defect in the idea."

    I wrote seen as a defect in people rather than in the idea; the seers of the idea do not accept that a problem exists in the idea. I see it, apparently you see it, but many do not see that it is the idea itself that is the problem; but why is there a problem with the idea? It is because the idea does not take into account that people are seldom aligned for very long to a specific purpose and willing to give up their liberty to make it happen.

    Thus we see that the idea is good, but presumes upon a class of person that has not been demonstrated to exist. The IDEA includes how to make compliant persons to alleviate the problem of liberty; all children will be raised by the State, for instance (Marxism) or a church.

  156. Patrick Maupin says

    June 4, 2018 at 1:39 pm

    @Michael 2:

    Racism is making decisions, including private decisions about who to associate with, based in part or entirely on someone's race. This does not imply oppression. It is still racism to admire or prefer someone because of race. I prefer/reject something based on a feature, and if that feature is race, then it is racism. If sex, then sexism. If age, then ageism.

    You've posted lots of stupid comments here, but this really takes the cake. No, if I prefer to have sex with women, it doesn't make me sexist (and,in the same vein, if I generally find the women of one race more attractive than those of another, it doesn't make me racist.)

  157. kent says

    June 4, 2018 at 2:36 pm

    Interestingly enough, I care deeply about free speech … yet I would enjoy this slightly less than I would enjoy stubbing my toe repeatedly against a cement curb for an hour.

    Is all of your analysis this insightful?

  158. Chad H. says

    June 4, 2018 at 3:00 pm

    Just because you believe in Free Speech doesn't mean you have to lend your credibility to people with… disturbing views.

  159. IForgetMyName says

    June 4, 2018 at 5:13 pm

    Just because you believe in Free Speech doesn't mean you have to lend your credibility to people with… disturbing views.

    @Chad H.: A couple of years ago, I would have agreed with you. Right now, I'm not entirely sure Marc has any credibility to lend. Still, two more pieces of trash joining a circle jerk isn't going to make a tremendous difference at this point, certainly not worth any more of my time worrying about it.

    What worries me more is that Alex Jones is pretty much the poster child for "bad facts making for bad law" when it comes to the limits of defamation/incitement, and now he knows a lawyer who's very experienced in that general area.

  160. Total says

    June 4, 2018 at 5:23 pm

    then why NOT kneel during "God Save the Queen?"

    Do you think it's possible to protest something respectfully? Because that's the crux of this — if you don't then you're not going to listen to anything anyone says.

    So — is it possible to protest something respectfully?

  161. Michael 2 says

    June 4, 2018 at 7:13 pm

    Tim! writes, in reference to my explanation It wasn't about racism, it was about oppression., the following:

    "The full sentence is "I am not going to stand up to show pride in a flag for a country that oppresses black people and people of color."

    Thank you; but the added clause does not change the verb which is "oppresses". He is complaining about oppression. "People of color" is not a race but a qualification defining WHO he is interested in defending (protesting on behalf of).

    I was being charitable in my quotation, suggesting that Colin would stand up for the oppressed persons without regard to race or color; but as you point out, his kneeling is not on behalf of all oppressed; only certain oppressed based on color.

    I examined Tim's recommended Authority: [http]://affinitymagazine.us/2017/02/19/dear-white-people-your-dictionary-definition-of-racism-is-wrong/

    What exactly is a "white person" and why do you believe they have a dictionary? The writer of this new defintion is 18 year old SEBASTIAN WHITAKER, who writes:

    "Dictionaries are written and edited by white men." Well, I suppose so. Never checked on it; don't plan to start checking on it. Besides which nowadays "white" and "men" no longer has predictable meanings; including for Sebastian:

    ABOUT SEBASTIAN WHITAKER. http://affinitymagazine.us/author/seb-whitaker/

  162. Michael 2 says

    June 4, 2018 at 7:26 pm

    Total asks "So — is it possible to protest something respectfully?"

    Yes. The law only requires a protest to be peaceful, so Colin's protest broke no laws. He can protest and so can NFL fans protest by not attending football games.

    When I protest something to my boss, it is extra important to be respectful about it and persuade him to a change since I certainly cannot compel a change. He must see that change is better, and it must be better for him as well as for me. If it is not better for him then he has no incentive to change just for me UNLESS I have established my value as being worth making some small sacrifice to keep me.

    That worth is established through loyalty and fidelity to my employer, such that he sees me as wise and having him and the company's best interest in mind; and perhaps I have thought of something he did not. I take to him privately so as not to embarass him in public.

    A good example of respectful protest is found in the movie "Ender's Game" where Wiggins takes his very unpleasant squad leader aside in private to protest; and the squad leader is convinced by good argumentation to go with Wiggin's proposal; and not in front of anyone else.

    Because of this element of privacy and not shaming "power" in public, you don't see it much, but I suggest nearly all successful protest is in private.

  163. Michael 2 says

    June 4, 2018 at 7:37 pm

    kent asks "Is all of your analysis this insightful?"

    More or less. It varies somewhat based on how much I think I know versus how much I think I don't know on any topic; but since I cannot know how much I don't know it is not currently possible to establish a scale of insightfulness.

    So long as people write things that make me contemplate new issues, I can feel my insightfulness growing and that will have to suffice.

    Occasionally I will do a "Sokal Hoax" kind of thing for a bit of fun but leave some clue (*) when I am not being serious. * argumentum ad absurdum.

  164. GuestPoster says

    June 5, 2018 at 4:01 am

    Michael2:

    I take it that, just as you define nearly everything else incorrectly, you define 'occasionally' as meaning 'very nearly every time'?

    Also, do please remember that Ender's Game was a piece of fiction. Further, do please remember that the particular example of 'successful protest' you've chosen leads to said squad commander trying to murder Ender later in the movie. And, I mean, if inspiring a person to murder you is what you consider to be a successful protest, well, again, you DO seem to be using different definitions of every concept you choose to talk about than any intelligent person on Earth, so I suppose that wouldn't surprise me.

    Historically? In the real world? Successful protest usually happens in public. It is loud, disruptive, and inconvenient. It changes things because those in power are left with little to no choice in the matter if they want their lives to continue without significant hassle.

    Private words only change anything if you're asking for very little in the first place. Big changes, like asking the cops to stop shooting people with dark skin for no reason other than skin color? Even if every black person in the country COULD pull aside every single cop individually and politely ask to no longer be shot while not actually doing anything wrong, it would be very unlikely to result in anything except the cops shooting them for attacking police officers.

  165. Sol says

    June 5, 2018 at 5:51 am

    @GuestPoster:
    Now, now, let's not be unfair. In the extremely specific context given, of a single, known individual, already pre-disposed to talk to you, already pre-disposed to listen to you, with plenty of prior experience talking to you, being asked to reconsider a single decision, polite discussion is a useful tool.

    'But Sol, that's completely irrelevant to the existing point about protesting society-wide, systematic injustice'
    That's true.
    'But Sol, that's no use at all when the person involved is a complete stranger with no reason to talk to you privately or listen to your points respectfully.'
    That's true.
    'But Sol, that's no use at all when addressing a wider pattern of ingrained behaviour and prejudices that a person may not have arrived at logically in the first place.'
    That's true.
    'But Sol, it's completely ridiculous to say that these players could go and have individual one-on-one conversations with every single police officer in America, at once.'
    Also true.
    'Is Michael2 a complete idiot?'
    No, he's a deliberate troll, equivocating between 'protest' as in 'my friend, I protest your decision' and 'protest' as in 'we the people protest the actions of the dastardly King George'. I might as well say 'it's absurd for you to object to my keeping a bat as a pet. Why, a bat is a long wooden object for playing sports with. Everyone knows that. How can an inanimate object have defecated on your favourite shirt?'

    In conclusion, engaging directly with someone who's happy to play childish word games like 'I protest my boss's decisions, that's exactly the same sort of protest as this' is pointless. When someone has decided that words are meaningless, writing more words at them is not going to help. Just point and laugh until they go away.

  166. Total says

    June 5, 2018 at 6:43 am

    He can protest… by not attending football games

    Colin Kaepernick, a working NFL quarterback, could have protested by not showing up for work? That's respectful?

    I take to him privately so as not to embarass him in public.

    And if it's not your boss you're protesting but societal issues? Taking an NFL owner aside in private is not going to do a thing about police officers recklessly killing African-Americans,m even if they agree with you.

    Well, I suppose so. Never checked on it; don't plan to start checking on it.

    Always good to wave the flag of ignorance proudly.

  167. Michael 2 says

    June 5, 2018 at 7:17 am

    I've nearly exhausted my interest in this topic.

    I am still waiting for Socratic Gadfly (or anyone else) to provide the correct, approved by you, opposition to racism.

    If anyone has investigated the authors of a dictionary, please announce your results.

    Total asks "Colin Kaepernick, a working NFL quarterback, could have protested by not showing up for work? That's respectful?"

    Yes and maybe. Colin can protest anything by doing anything or ceasing to do anything.

    A "strike" is just such a thing; not showing up for work. It avoids violent conflict. It is neither respectful nor disrespectful. It targets an economic foundation and most things, including the NFL, are in it for the money. Thus, effective protests target money, but it helps to be smart about it, make the protest linked to the offending behavior in some way.

    Sol mistakes that I am discussing Colin's kneeling in my answer to Total's question of whether it is possible to protest something peacefully. Of course it is possible, for me anyway. Your mileage may vary.

    Can a citizen protest police abuse? Of course. Since it seems no one has proposed how, I shall now do so.

    Where to police get their power? Typically from city mayors, the executive branch of a city. It gets its power from the legislative branch of said city; which is delegated authority from state legislatures.

    Therefore the correct place to protest city-sponsored malfeasance is the city council, and if that fails to produce results, the state legislature. If that fails to produce results, who is superior to the state legislature? The PEOPLE that elected the legislature.

    Ultimately therefore you engage the sympathies of the people. Kneeling in disrespect of the flag of the United States sems unlikely to obtain the sympathies of the people. Many will have no idea why you are doing that; some might know but question the wisdom of that particular approach.

    I'll grant that Colin has only one "stage" on which to do something dramatic, and he chose it. As a result, many conversations about his behavior are now taking place; it is remotely possible that he will make a difference on race relations as a result, but probably not since most people seem to "dig in" more firmly to their world views when challenged.

  168. Total says

    June 5, 2018 at 7:35 am

    I've nearly exhausted my interest in this topic.

    Which is coming long after you've exhausted your knowledge on the topic. "Never checked on it; don't plan to start checking on it" is such a proud yet idiotic statement of your approach to this. "I don't know anything about this topic, but I'll happily opine on it at great length."

    A "strike" is just such a thing; not showing up for work. It avoids violent conflict.

    The entire history of labor strikes belies your statement.

    It is neither respectful nor disrespectful

    So publicly not honoring his contract is better for Colin K than peacefully kneeling during the national anthem?

  169. Michael 2 says

    June 5, 2018 at 9:30 am

    I had hoped to be done with this but I see I missed to answer a comment and I wish to honor those who have taken the time to ask questions and make comment.

    GuestPoster writes: "I take it that, just as you define nearly everything else incorrectly"

    There is neither correct nor incorrect in definitions, for there is no global authority existing to define what words mean. Words mean to you what you want them to mean, and words mean to me what I want them to mean.

    It would be chaos without some sort of authority; the problem then becomes too many authorities. Who is yours?

    A substantial portion of the book "1984" by George Orwell is relevant to government regulated definitions, "Newspeak", which by controlling definitions also controls what people are able to discuss.

    Do you have the faintest idea who decided that "gay" no longer meant happy and carefree? Probably not. You speak of "correct" definitions. What is the correct definition of "gay"?

    By now you realize that anyone can change the meaning of any word at any time for there is no authority except as YOU grant any person authority over you. That so many here choose the same authority is fascinating to me; but who is it? Who defines your words?

    "Also, do please remember that Ender's Game was a piece of fiction."

    Everything HERE is a work of fiction. I have no way of knowing who you are, whether you exist as a real person, how many here are the same person, whether you are speaking your true thoughts or you are pretending to an opinion you don't have. Thus it is creation; it may have some correspondence with reality, but try to define "reality"!

    Because it is fiction, we can explore ideas without having to prove that any of our (*) examples actually happened the way we (*) claim.

    * We and Our signify participants of these blog comments

    "Further, do please remember that the particular example of 'successful protest' you've chosen leads to said squad commander trying to murder Ender later in the movie."

    Indeed, and I will return the favor by reminding you that the murder attempt was for an entirely different cause than the successful protest and negotiation. But it is a good warning that the need for protest signifies a deeply rooted problem that seldom is resolved merely by protest, and while occasionally resolved by negotiation often postpones the inevitable conflict.

    "Successful protest usually happens in public. It is loud, disruptive, and inconvenient. It changes things because those in power are left with little to no choice in the matter if they want their lives to continue without significant hassle."

    A problem with your approach is that the protesters have little control over the actual change that those in power choose to implement; the Kent State riots come to mind, the Watts riot of Los Angeles comes to mind. The solution to the immediate problem created by loud, disruptive and inconvenient protest is to make it less loud, less disruptive and more convenient. Close the windows, move business somewhere else solves the first two problems.

    Perhaps you have an example where a loud, disruptive and inconvenient protest directly led to a desirable change. Perhaps you will contemplate why every, or seemingly so, major city has a Martin Luther King Jr street but not so many have an Al Sharpton street or a Louis Farrakhan street.

  170. Total says

    June 5, 2018 at 10:04 am

    Perhaps you have an example where a loud, disruptive and inconvenient protest directly led to a desirable change

    Answer 1: the entire Civil Rights movement. No, MLK's protests were not quiet and in private. They were loud (the march on Washington), disruptive (the Montgomery bus boycott), and inconvenient (the lunch counter sit-ins).

    Answer 2: the entire labor movement. The labor strikes of the 19th and early 20th centuries were loud, public, and violent. They also created almost all of the labor rights and safety regulations that exist today (and more, because a fair number have been done in by the GOP).

    You have no idea what you're talking about.

  171. BadRoad says

    June 5, 2018 at 10:47 am

    @Michael 2

    There is neither correct nor incorrect in definitions, for there is no global authority existing to define what words mean. Words mean to you what you want them to mean, and words mean to me what I want them to mean.

    Everything HERE is a work of fiction. I have no way of knowing who you are, whether you exist as a real person, how many here are the same person, whether you are speaking your true thoughts or you are pretending to an opinion you don't have.

    So… you've chosen not to believe or even understand anything the rest of us say. Which means conversing with you is a waste of time.

  172. Sol says

    June 5, 2018 at 6:16 pm

    Words mean to you what you want them to mean, and words mean to me what I want them to mean.

    "When I use a word" Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less."

    Everything HERE is a work of fiction. I have no way of knowing who you are, whether you exist as a real person, how many here are the same person, whether you are speaking your true thoughts or you are pretending to an opinion you don't have. Thus it is creation; it may have some correspondence with reality, but try to define "reality"!

    Because it is fiction, we can explore ideas without having to prove that any of our (*) examples actually happened the way we (*) claim.

    "I refute it thus."

    @BadRoad
    As I said a few comments ago – attempting to debate someone who is distinctly uninterested in the concept of debate is pointless.

    I will note, that going back over Michael2's comments, I spotted something I missed before.

    June 4, 2018 at 1:30 pm
    "a culturally homogenous society"

    "Culturally homogenous" is what you might call a "tell". It's a very specific and unusual turn of phrase. It's a piece of jargon, for a particular subset of the internet. If you don't recognise it, it just seems like an awkward way of framing the usual right-wing mumbles about "darn liberal multiculturalism". If I was particularly inclined to try and vest any more effort into pulling useful discussion points out of Michael's mess of equivocations, contradictions and poorly formed arguments, I might be inclined to press him on 'what do you actually mean by that' until I teased out the dog-whistle in his own words, but frankly I can't be arsed, so I'll just enlighten you all: it's "alt-right" jargon (or more properly, it's neo-Nazi jargon), and "culturally homogenous" is one of their cute code phrases for "all-white". You'll occasionally see right-wingers who've swallowed the neo-Nazi bullshit roll it out as a counterpoint to "hey, the Scandanavian countries are heavily left-wing by American standards and do way better than America" "Ah, but they're homogenous, you see", where if you press them they'll eventually either run away from the conversation or admit that "homogenous" is just a more PR-friendly way of saying "they're full of white people, it's those damn (insert epithet) that make America bad". It's especially bizarre coming from someone who otherwise professes that society, culture, etc. don't actually exist and that we're all individual minds flailing in the void, but I've learned through bitter experience not to expect people like this to actually have a logical connection between their different weird arguments. So I'll just say the one thing that will piss him off the most.

    Hey, Michael2?

    You're unoriginal.

    Everything you're saying has been said before, over and over again.

    You're not special. You're not the bearer of the secret truth that we're all too blind and sheeplike to see. You're not a lone torch against the dark.

    You're saying the exact same, boring, unoriginal shit that millions have said before. You're just another part of the crowd.

  173. Michael 2 says

    June 6, 2018 at 9:04 am

    Sol writes: "So I'll just say the one thing that will piss him off the most."

    The four observations you make, intended to piss me off, seem to be the most accurate or correct observations you have made so far on this page. I'm not sure what to make of it but I think you finally wrote your thoughts unmotivated by the shepherd or the herd.

  174. Michael 2 says

    June 6, 2018 at 11:30 am

    BadRoad writes "Which means conversing with you is a waste of time."

    Obviously you have chosen to waste your time ;-)

  175. Total says

    June 6, 2018 at 1:55 pm

    Obviously you have chosen to waste your time

    We all do dumb things.

  176. Sol says

    June 7, 2018 at 12:24 am

    @Total
    Don't feed the troll

  177. Michael 2 says

    June 7, 2018 at 9:10 am

    Sol says "Don't feed the troll"

    And there you have it, Orwell's pigs, the "more equal" among the equal animals, who imagines himself to be the leader of the others, but it wasn't his farm and this isn't his blog.

    It is human nature and endlessly fascinating to watch herds form and someone invariably elects himself to be in charge of the others.

    Congratulations.

    HT to Pigs and Sheep blog, that put my mind on this aspect of this thread. In case anyone does not remember, the animals took over a farm and had 7 rules among them, including All animals are equal. As the story proceeds, the pigs gradually re-write the rules, eventually eliminating all but "All animals are equal but some animals are more equal than others".

    Do you include Marc Randazza as being your equal? Obviously not. Alex Jones? Good heavens. Do you consider anyone to be your equal? Probably not. All social gatherings turn into hierarchies sooner or later in my opinion. You identify someone that stands out from the rest; could be smarter, could be stupid, merely a different color, taller, shorter, faster, slower. Makes no difference.

    Then you designate that person for shunning and ridicule. In that manner someone starts the ball rolling in a direction favorable to the person that started the ball rolling.

    The strategy works for about half the potential herd, eliminating them one by one, just as the horses were eliminated in Animal Farm. The sheep were "useful idiots" that could be distracted by a song; or in this case, mention the secret word "libertarian". The sheep will break out into anti-libertarian songs and be distracted.

    But there's more than one pig. When everything else is well controlled and structured, you get rid of the honorable pig, in the Animal Farm story its name was Snowball. The remaining pigs acknowledge their allegiance to the chief pig, and at the end of the story, the pigs have become the very thing the revolution sought to eliminate.

    In this blog, that thing is racism. to quote Chief Justice John Roberts (and Pigs and Sheep blog)

    The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.

    Ignore it, in other words. What I wrote in the first place.

  178. Total says

    June 7, 2018 at 10:37 am

    And there you have it, Orwell's pigs

    Oink.

  179. BadRoad says

    June 7, 2018 at 11:46 am

    @Michael 2

    Obviously you have chosen to waste your time ;-)

    Though it was written in the second person, the message was intended for the other commenters here. Well, the ones who aren't trolls. (The same is true of this comment.)

  180. BPC says

    June 13, 2018 at 4:57 am

    I think it's not particularly out of line to say that if you're the kind of person who would willingly go on Infowars, you probably shouldn't be the kind of person invited to post regularly on Popehat. this shows almost atonishingly poor judgment on the part of Randazza and Ken White. Infowars is just about the single worst news source in the western world. It's up there with NaturalNews and RT in terms of outright dishonesty. You cannot make me click on that, and I don't think I'll be clicking on Popehat in the near future either.

    What were you thinking, man?

  181. oldnumberseven says

    June 16, 2018 at 3:23 pm

    Randazza is on infowars. That is hilarious.

Search Site

Make No Law 1A Podcast

Best LawBlogs Award Winner 2014Best LawBlogs Award Winner 2013

Quote of the Month

"I'm only an abstract imaginary foil written to sound like an idiot and even I know that's really stupid" ~ Kenfoilhat (previous)

Twitface

Follow Popehat (mostly Ken & Patrick), David, Grandy, Charles, Via Angus, Adam, and Marc on Twitter.

Become a fan on Facebook.

  • Facebook
  • RSS
  • Twitter

Subscribe

RSS
Comments RSS

Past Posts By Month

Posts By Category

All content is copyright 2004-2023 by its respective identified authors.
Google's Ad Policy

Website Design by CGD

loading Cancel
Post was not sent - check your email addresses!
Email check failed, please try again
Sorry, your blog cannot share posts by email.