511–520 of 1001 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Narrator: Jones was in it for the money.
[flagged]
This construction is frequently used on the internet. Is the whole of the internet sockpuppeting you?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If Brexit taught me anything it was that the correct phrase is pesky unelected EU bureaucrats!
Now if we want to get into dirty details, no bureaucrat is ever elected. You elect the representatives, and they nominate in turn whoever bureaucrats they feel comfy to work with. Or is this in the UK different?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Was it? The constitution lays out slander and libel as types of speech that can be censored. The trashy Jones then knowingly and maliciously lied about people for profit - aka libel and slander. Seems reasonable to take the money he made as well as punitive damages. How is censorship?
> How is censorship? How does he make future money, you know for living? The judgement basically means the courts get to garnish his wages until the judgement is paid. Jones is a goof to me and I like seeing him rant and rave and wear foil hats. But I don't think anyone should have their livelihood taken from them by censorship of the courts. EDIT: remember all judgments and penalties cut both ways. Today Jones tomor…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I guess this is about the domain name infowars.com which belongs to a bankrupt company. Alex Jones is such a big name and has other channels (x.com, Joe Rogan etc.) that he can easily build a similar site/business under a new domain name. Perhaps The Onion should ask - who gets most promotion of this?
Perhaps The Onion should ask - who gets most promotion of this? Well, we’re all talking about the onion. And I, personally, haven’t read onion content in a long, long while. So this kind of put them back on the radar for me. But I could be one of only a few people who fell out of onion readership? More likely is that they believe the next four years will provide them a lot of comedy fodder and they’re setting their p…
The onion was kind of dead for a while under various shitty owners, but was bought this year by Jeff Lawson of Twilio and is now being run by former NBC reporter Ben Collins. The new stuff since the acquisition has been a bit hit or miss, but at least they're trying again.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Call it Twitter. Everyone knows what you mean, and it annoys Elon.
Or "Twitter, the site desperately trying to be know as X".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Hmm NBC seems to imply that they purchased "Free Speech Systems", which is the parent company for the entire operation. Of course, who knows what they'll actually get other than the domain and copyrights -- Jones will just move all the physical assets into a storage unit/another office and dare them to complain, Guliani-style. Also, who knows if any of these stands for long, anyway; the cases are in state court (Conn…
They are almost certainly going to sue for illegal enrichment. I'm certain that Jones will try and move assets and I'm sure he'll get caught doing that. It means Onion sues Jones will likely be in the headlines a fair bit.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Looking from abroad some folk have the impression that the previous four years were. They were a triumph?
The US has recovered from inflation better than practically any other country. Yes, the last 4 years have been far, far better than trump's first term by any measure you care to mention, except maybe hate, lies and fear.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The Paradox of Tolerance: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance > A good reply I found online: The Paradox of Tolerance disappears if you look at tolerance not as a moral standard but as a social contract. If someone does not abide the terms of mutual tolerance, then they are not covered by the contract. By definition intolerant people do not follow the rules so they are no longer covered and should not…
That's awfully close to "terrorists shouldn't have rights", and problematic for the same reason.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I don’t know exactly what compensation they should get, but this does not seem like a healthy or sustainable way for our society to deal with tragedy. I don't know if it's healthy or sustainable, but it definitely sounds healthier than ignoring the tragedy altogether.
Agreed. It doesn't seem like a long-term solution, but it is the best way we have _right now_ to visit consequences on people/orgs that enabled the tragedy. If our society sees everything in cost/benefit, then increasing the costs of actions that lead to tragedies like this is one of the best things we can do.
They didn’t though. Holding a rifle manufacturer liable for a shooting makes no sense, unless applied universally.
A journalist writing a book did not cause the shooting.
This is greed and lashing out in pain. I’m sure members of the community have ruined their life in pursuit of these things.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
[flagged]