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

301–310 of 341 posts

Re: At long last, InfoWars is ours

#301

Post by cosmicgadget »

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…

He doesn't actually believe God told him Gene Hackman was going to die. Just no. It is an act - and not a good one - designed to make money.

Re: At long last, InfoWars is ours

#302

Post by at-fates-hands »

bot403 wrote: post #148
at-fates-hands wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

They are indeed cringe worthy. Even my four year old cries when his spoon is the wrong kind of spoon. This does not make him spoon-phobic. It means he is a kid who has no control of his emotions. A baby has even less understanding. Everyone who is debating the homophobia of the baby is projecting.

>> Everyone who is debating the homophobia of the baby is projecting.

The gay men in the video were saying this about the baby. If its a joke? Then its a really sad one when people are filming their cringeworthy interactions with a newborn and then posting for the entire internet to view in order to get attention.

Welcome to the severe, rapid decline of Western Civilization.

Re: At long last, InfoWars is ours

#305

Post by NoMoreNicksLeft »

jamesmiller5 wrote: post #208
NoMoreNicksLeft wrote: post #195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, by definition, you do. It is not illegal to slander anyone. The police cannot arrest you for this, you can't be convicted and sentenced to anything. Those people won a tort (in theory), because he caused them damages that he was responsible for making remedying.

> Yes, by definition, you do. It is not illegal to slander anyone. By the legal definition of slander, your statement is false.

Slander is a tort. Not a crime. No one can punish you for slander. The government isn't allowed to incarcerate you for slander, to fine you for slander, and once the court case is over, they do not attempt to put any obstacles in front of you to prevent you from slandering in the future.

You merely have to pay any damages you cause someone else. You truly have a child's grasp of these things.

The court case itself isn't a criminal trial. It's dispute resolution. Someone claims that another caused them damages, the court is empowered to provide remedy to those damages if the claims are found to be true. How does anyone make it to adulthood not knowing this?

Re: At long last, InfoWars is ours

#306

Post by NoMoreNicksLeft »

wat10000 wrote: post #256
NoMoreNicksLeft wrote: post #207

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. 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 rea…

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

But it wasn't a low award. Are you unaware, or are you thinking that awards above $1.4 billion is low?

>The actual damages awarded here is about $64 million per plaintiff, which is a lot, but not utterly absurd.

If we divided it among 1.4 billion people, it'd only be a buck each. How can it be high if it's just one dollarino per person?

Re: At long last, InfoWars is ours

#307

Post by luke727 »

tomstockmail wrote: post #113
luke727 wrote: post #39

Maybe it's just me but I don't see much humor in this. His brand and assets may have been liquidated, but he's still doing his show and it remains popular. The only people who really won in this saga are, as usual, the lawyers.

The reason InfoWars is being sold is because of the bankruptcy proceedings. This is money owed to Sandy Hook families [1], who were the target of the harmful conspiracy theories that caused them further pain and suffering. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sandy_Hook_Elementary_School_s...

> “The goal for the families we represent has always been to prevent Alex Jones from being able to cause harm at scale, the way he did against them,” said Chris Mattei, the lawyer who argued the Connecticut families’ case in court. The deal with The Onion promises “to significantly degrade his power to do that.”

But the deal doesn't do that. Alex Jones has other websites where he's spewing his nonsense and hawking his merch. Maybe it feels good to get his major brand name, but it is largely inconsequential in limiting his reach.

Re: At long last, InfoWars is ours

#308

Post by watwut »

kypro wrote: post #262
watwut wrote: post #247

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you actually cared one about about victims, you would not be putting on "it is just about fuzzy feelings" bullshit on. Also, this is the kind of case where USA allows Alex Jones kind of bad actors a lot more leeway then most of world countries.

> If you actually cared one about about victims, you would not be putting on "it is just about fuzzy feelings" bullshit on. Ad hominem. Personally I think Alex Jones deserves far worse than this judgement. > Also, this is the kind of case where USA allows Alex Jones kind of bad actors a lot more leeway then most of world countries. Not an argument. I'm from the UK, I understand other countries police feelings more ag…

That is not what ad hominem is. I did addressed exactly what you wrote and how you wrote it.

> Not an argument.

It was an argument. You really framed your whole comment in American stereotypes, so it is entirely valid to address that.

Re: At long last, InfoWars is ours

#309

Post by DonHopkins »

traderj0e wrote: post #290
DonHopkins wrote: post #269

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The fact that you're incapable of grasping the humor is so sad, and it says much more about you than The Onion.

Yeah, it says I'm not some cranky old guy

Right, that's not all your are: you're a humorless cranky old guy.

Re: At long last, InfoWars is ours

#310

Post by throwawaymobule »

mghackerlady wrote: post #261
micromacrofoot wrote: post #99

Worth highlighting: > “The goal for the families we represent has always been to prevent Alex Jones from being able to cause harm at scale, the way he did against them,” said Chris Mattei, the lawyer who argued the Connecticut families’ case in court. The deal with The Onion promises “to significantly degrade his power to do that.” > The Onion also plans to sell merchandise and share the proceeds with the Sandy Hook…

I reallyyyyy want a gay frogs t-shirt, I would wear the hell out of that. That entire rant and meme it spawned is the only good thing to come out of that man

neongrizzly.com (Erik of internet comment etiquette's webstore) has had a gay frog shirt for years, if you're interested.

Having an official infowars one without giving Jones any money might be more appealing though.

Post reply on HN