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

The Onion buys Infowars

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

461–470 of 1001 posts

Re: The Onion buys Infowars

#461

Post by oddevan »

sofixa wrote: post #312
tightbookkeeper wrote: post #280

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Don’t forget their many other successful lawsuits: - school administration - rifle manufacturer - the shooters mother (home insurance) - other journalists who wrote about the event 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 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.

Re: The Onion buys Infowars

#463

Post by mminer237 »

notahacker wrote: post #365
hipadev23 wrote: post #342

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You don’t think a fox news host is a great SecDef? Or a non-practicing briefly disbarred AG?

Tbf successfully avoiding prosecution for white collar crime is a credential in understanding the law, sorta...

Child sex trafficking and statutory rape are not what I consider white collar crime.

Re: The Onion buys Infowars

#464

Post by Taters91 »

nixdev wrote: post #354
Taters91 wrote: post #307

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Discovery isn't just giving over random documents. It's about giving over the documents that are requested by the other side. So giving more documents than they ask for is actually a hinderence. And the case was not about specific documents, it was the overall actions. Because of the "consistent pattern of discovery abuse" (quoting the decision), the parents could not see that evidence. As for the larger point, in pu…

> It's about giving over the documents that are requested by the other side. Right, 100%. The point of contention is that documents that don't exist were demanded and those documents that don't exist are what the court claimed a default judgement over. This is per the court's own records. > the parents could not see that evidence. What evidence do we believe we are talking about here? If this evidence was never enter…

Just read through the motions and pleadings and you get the picture of what is going on https://infowarslawsuit.com/heslin-versus-jones/

They brought a case. They asked for discovery. The Jones team explicitly did not respond to discovery. The court sanctioned for a while, giving Jones more time. Eventually the case was brought to default. Because this is a civil case, that is very reasonable given the extraordinary lengths Jones's team went to avoid actually complying with court orders. Then the damages hearing was held, where evidence was presented to show that defamation happened. The jury agreed. The only real issue with this is that people don't like to read, and they would rather listen to Alex Jones's version of the story. This was a defamation case, which everyone has a right to, and Jones repeatedly spat in the face of the process (including destroying evidence). It is hard to see how this case was handled poorly, and bad vibes alone aren't enough to say it was mishandled. This was a long process that Jones could have handled, but he gambled with his legal strategy and lost.

Re: The Onion buys Infowars

#465

Post by jrflowers »

dogleash wrote: post #235
josefresco wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The core idea of satire, which is often missed in supposedly satirical works is that you should not only make fun of the thing you don't believe, but you should also explain what you do believe under the cover of pretending to dismiss it. I often suggest that satire is a dangerous double edged sword and not a good primary vehicle for positive change. Part of your audience will understand it's satire, but a signific…

> I believe we ask and expect too much of satire Yes, if you expect anything from satire you expect too much. Let it be art, not propaganda. Allow yourself to find poor execution of agreeable messages distasteful. Allow yourself to enjoy good execution of messages you disagree with.

> Allow yourself to find poor execution of agreeable messages distasteful. Allow yourself to enjoy good execution of messages you disagree with.

This makes sense. If you find yourself understanding and judging messages based simply off of their merits then you have failed to insert an arbitrary aesthetic filter into your cognitive process. The wisest sages know to value style over substance

Re: The Onion buys Infowars

#466

Post by BizarroLand »

darepublic wrote: post #216
ascendantlogic wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the Onion is as good as it ever was. The issue now is that the real news is so wild and unhinged the Onion doesn't have that segment cornered anymore.

The Onion youtube vids of the late 2000's were phenomenal. It was all downhill from there imo. Take a look at this recent video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2niC4ACCp20 . I don't like Taylor Swift but this is just not funny. I don't see what the point of it is is. Compare to this celebrity satire of the golden era: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F9QisdRPwEM .

When you reach the point where you are cross checking a comedy website's comedy against itself you might have caught a case of the old.

I remember hearing my dad talk about how SNL isn't as funny as it used to be, too. It happens to the best of us.

Re: The Onion buys Infowars

#467

Post by kevin_thibedeau »

seanp2k2 wrote: post #343
frankhorrigan wrote: post #239

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Infowars is a supplements business. It’s grifts all the way down.

Anyone ever wonder why there are very few far-right comedians?

You need to be self-reflective enough to laugh at your own BS. Monomaniacs spouting out their grievances don't make for the best laughs.

Re: The Onion buys Infowars

#468

Post by slater »

darepublic wrote: post #216
ascendantlogic wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the Onion is as good as it ever was. The issue now is that the real news is so wild and unhinged the Onion doesn't have that segment cornered anymore.

The Onion youtube vids of the late 2000's were phenomenal. It was all downhill from there imo. Take a look at this recent video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2niC4ACCp20 . I don't like Taylor Swift but this is just not funny. I don't see what the point of it is is. Compare to this celebrity satire of the golden era: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F9QisdRPwEM .

"[Thing] that just so coincided with my formative years was the absolute best. it's been downhill ever since" is a tale as old as the hills.

Re: The Onion buys Infowars

#469

Post by graemep »

ben_w wrote: post #414
soco wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

> Or is this in the UK different? A bit; mostly as you say, but also it's a kingdom and has the House of Lords whose seats are partially heritable, partially religious appointments from the state religion with the monarch at the top, in addition to those appointed by the elected government. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lords_Spiritual https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lords_Temporal

> partially religious appointments from the state religion

There are also, in practice, a number of other religious appointments made to provide other religious groups with representation.

> in addition to those appointed by the elected government.

Those are the most problematic IMO. Businesspeople (because the rich do not have enough influence on politics and cannot get their voice heard?), and former politicians.

I think how it works is nicely summarised by the fact that at least one of the founders of an ecommerce website (lastminute.com) is a peer but no-one like (for example) Tim Berners-Lee is.

Post reply on HN