Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

At long last, InfoWars is ours

theonion.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

251–260 of 341 posts

Re: At long last, InfoWars is ours

#251

Post by FireBeyond »

logifail wrote: post #188
like_any_other wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Source: the video: https://x.com/OliLondonTV/status/2045335697893269640 Edit: but it is likely the baby is older than 6 weeks in that video - this seems to be the source of confusion (read carefully - the 6-week-old video was a different, older video): In December, when Texson was 6 weeks old, he shared a video with the text overlay “6 week old homophobic baby,” which was viewed more than 36 million times. In that vi…

"6-Week-Old" babies don't have the muscle strength to hold their heads horizontally like that (and IMHO it would be foolhardy to wave them around like that)... Pronounced social smiling (as in the video) already by six weeks would also pretty unusual.

Hah yes, many years I got into a debate with someone here or was it Reddit about the "intuitiveness of iOS" and someone claiming "I've handed my iPad to my 3 month old and they are able to swipe and navigate"...

No, your baby typically needs to be propped up to sit at that age. They simply don't have that fine motor control and coordination, let alone the comprehension of whatever app you put in front of them.

Re: At long last, InfoWars is ours

#252

Post by traderj0e »

kube-system wrote: post #250
traderj0e wrote: post #231

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a conflict of interest that anyone serious would avoid. No I don't think he believes it, I think he wants to be famous and sell things. And I don't think most grifters believe their own grift. Those guys selling NFTs obviously didn't believe their own grift enough to hold them instead. I knew some personally.

> It's a conflict of interest that anyone serious would avoid. You're putting the logical cart before the horse. The phrase "conflict of interest" by definition implies a perspective of a negative impact on one of said interests. An external observer who doubts what they say might view this as a conflict of interest (rightly so), but from the perspective of someone who genuinely believes the interests are aligned, it…

Alex Jones' entire livelihood relies on making these bogus claims and maintaining his following, so I'm not surprised he was able to keep it up. He's also the most famous internet conspiracy theorist among countless others, so yeah I would chalk it up to acting talent.

Re: At long last, InfoWars is ours

#253

Post by [deleted] »

logifail wrote: post #131
troped2 wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My favorite headlines: "Video: ‘Homophobic’ 6-Week-Old Baby Cries After Gay Dad Tells Him ‘There Is No Mama’" "UK Approves Bills To Remove Criminal Penalties For Women Who Commit Their Own Abortions" "Nigerian Photographed Killing Cat And Trying To Cook It In Front Of Children’s Playground In Italy"

> 6-Week-Old Baby I appreciate this story appears to be all about the rage-bate headlines, but I don't believe that either six-week old babies say "Mama" (with purpose) or that a baby that age would be capable of responding in the way described to an adult saying "there is no Mama". It doesn't work like that at that age. [Source: have three kids]

[deleted]

Re: At long last, InfoWars is ours

#254

Post by Sohcahtoa82 »

nxobject wrote: post #112

Oh joy, the old Onion News Network is back! Welcome back, Jim Haggerty! Some beautiful examples below… —- Today Now!: Save Money By Taking A Vacation Entirely In Your Mind https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=7qYL_KT06-U Today Now! Host Undergoes Horrifically Painful Surgery Live On Air https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=_5yR--35uqA How To Channel Your Road Rage Into Cold, Calculating Road Revenge https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=v…

My favorite that I post every May 5th is Hurricane Ashley.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xWQN5-Top6g

Re: At long last, InfoWars is ours

#255

Post by kube-system »

traderj0e wrote: post #252
kube-system wrote: post #250

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's a conflict of interest that anyone serious would avoid. You're putting the logical cart before the horse. The phrase "conflict of interest" by definition implies a perspective of a negative impact on one of said interests. An external observer who doubts what they say might view this as a conflict of interest (rightly so), but from the perspective of someone who genuinely believes the interests are aligned, it…

Alex Jones' entire livelihood relies on making these bogus claims and maintaining his following, so I'm not surprised he was able to keep it up. He's also the most famous internet conspiracy theorist among countless others, so yeah I would chalk it up to acting talent.

Everybody's livelihood relies on the thing they do for a living. That's doesn't mean we're all lying.

People with fringe views do actually exist, they aren't all actors.

Re: At long last, InfoWars is ours

#256

Post by wat10000 »

NoMoreNicksLeft wrote: post #207
wat10000 wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm curious why you'd bring up those corporate crimes and not think that the obvious response would be that corporate crimes obviously need greater liability, Rather than Jones needing less. It's not the court's problem that Jones won't be able to afford to broadcast his messages so broadly after this judgment. I guess he'll have to use the same tools as the rest of us now.

>I'm curious why you'd bring up those corporate crimes and not think that the obvious response would be that corporate crimes obviously need greater liability, Rather than Jones needing less. Sure, some company poisons the groundwater with hexavalent chromium: let's fine them $2800 quintillion. That makes sense to me. I mean, it makes sense to you, right? I know that it must make sense to you, because I actually do s…

Surely there's a number between $2800 quintillion and whatever low number actually gets awarded that would make sense.

The actual damages awarded here is about $64 million per plaintiff, which is a lot, but not utterly absurd. If we used that amount for your chromium hypothetical, the company would need to have killed about 44 trillion people. This is, I'm reliably informed, more people than there actually are. A reasonable amount for damages in the groundwater case would be whatever it costs to either clean it up or take ownership of the affected land. If it's discovered after it has already hurt people then it needs to include damages for those people.

It doesn't really compare with bail. As you say, the purpose of bail is to ensure appearance at trial. The purpose of tort awards is to compensate for damages, and sometimes to punish. Bail is set based on the defendant: how likely are they to flee, what sort of means do they have? Damages are set based on the consequences of the tort: how much damage was there, does the person deserve additional punishment on top?

If a person has $100, then setting bail above $100 doesn't make any sense. It's equivalent to no bail. Awarding more than $100 in damages makes sense, because they can obtain more money later. Even if they don't, you're meant to award based on damages, not ability to pay. If the damages were $1,000 then the award should be $1,000 regardless of whether the person is a hobo or Jeff Bezos.

Re: At long last, InfoWars is ours

#257

Post by traderj0e »

macintux wrote: post #249
traderj0e wrote: post #246

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, especially because he contradicted himself several times, it doesn't seem like he believed it. He's really committed to trolling.

Labeling someone a "troll" for that level of evil feels enabling to me.

Saying that he actually believes his grift can make him seem kinda innocent, but I'm not going to assume that's the intent if someone says it.

Re: At long last, InfoWars is ours

#258

Post by dijksterhuis »

malicka wrote: post #223
at-fates-hands wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

I think it’s pretty obvious that the cringe-worthy part is the story-selection. To refer to anoyher headline, do they run a story every time some Englishman fucks a goat? No, of course not; it’s only newsworthy if it’s [minority you should hate]. That’s cringeworthy.

wait, hang on, someone did what to a goat...?

Re: At long last, InfoWars is ours

#259

Post by mghackerlady »

eatonphil wrote: post #5

Despite the article, infowars.com at least doesn't really seem to be run by The Onion yet? But I'm looking at that site for the first time so I have no idea.

to be honest I doubt anyone will notice that much of a difference, infowars is so nuts that any sane person would think it parody

Re: At long last, InfoWars is ours

#260

Post by kube-system »

traderj0e wrote: post #246
macintux wrote: post #236

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Let me get this straight: he accused grieving families of lying about their children's deaths, and put a target on their backs, to sell stuff...and he didn't believe his own bullshit?

Yeah, especially because he contradicted himself several times, it doesn't seem like he believed it. He's really committed to trolling.

Saying two different things at two different times is not prima face evidence of lying. For instance: changing your mind is not lying.

Again, I find it ironic that you're using the same conspiratorial line of thinking that Jones himself does: e.g. "The CDC has changed their mask guidance so they must be lying about it"

Post reply on HN