Hacker News Reader

Comment by hn_throwaway_99 | Hacker News Reader

The whole Alex Jones saga, more than anything else, makes it impossible for me to find any common ground with "the other side". For the life of me I can't understand how this became a political issue in the first place. And I'm not even talking about gun control - I'm talking about the horrific demonization (for profit) of a group of people whose only "crime" was that their six and seven year old kids were brutally slaughtered. I just can't fathom how anyone with a ounce of humanity can defend Alex Jones.

View on HN

Framing it as “the other side” is part of the problem.

There are extremes on both sides, and Alex Jones, and the small faction of his followers who harassed the Sandy Hook parents, are about as extreme as it gets.

If you can’t see that one side has let the extremist faction become a mainstream voice of their movement, you’re part of the problem.

lol... when you cant have a some discord show you are the problem

Which side are you talking about?

Seriously? Maybe I’m blind (and if so please point out what I’m missing) but I only see one side that:

* seems to be increasing and supporting racism

* has members trying to start a race war (see recent news)

* has many members saying it’s time to arm and have a civil war and kill those that disagree (easy to find on Facebook)

* increasingly encourages armed militias

I see all of that on the extreme right. If it’s happening openly on the extreme left, I’d like to hear about it. For what it’s worth my views slant right, but MAGA and Trump destroyed the right party.

Yes, it is remarkable how much the 'democratic' party seems beholden to its extremist wing, this is likely to cost them dearly in the coming elections. By acting in ways they accuse the other side of doing they are losing their own more moderates as well as independents who either go to 'the other side' or vote for the 'third-party candidate'.

I suspect this is more or less the opposite of what you were trying to say but that does not make it less true. It even fits with the pattern I mentioned before where 'democrats' accuse others of things they are doing themselves. From the 'threat to the democracy' via 'using the courts to attack opponents' this is all a matter of the pot calling the kettle black.

Here's to hoping the upcoming elections end up mostly fair and square - no more shenanigans with mail-in ballots, no night-time counting sessions behind closed doors and for $deity's sake require the voters to identify themselves using some official ID like you need to buy a six-pack of beer and like is done in nearly all civilised countries. Make sure there is a paper trail, do not rely on electronic voting because that is not transparent enough for Joe Sixpack - and right he is. Preliminary results - from actual vote counts, not from exit polls - should be available on the same evening as the vote closes, there is no excuse for 2-3 week waiting periods.

> no more shenanigans with mail-in ballots

Ludicrous. Remember how T**** told supporters to not use mail-in ballots[0], then tried to stop the counting of mail-in ballots? [1] Or told people to vote twice? [2] Yes, one party is demonstrably more anti-democracy than the other.

As for your voter fraud FUD: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-election_lawsuits_related...

[0] https://www.factcheck.org/2020/09/trumps-repeated-false-atta...

[1] https://www.c-span.org/video/?c4920640/user-clip-donald-trum...

[2] https://www.newsobserver.com/news/politics-government/articl...

OK. What is a similar extreme on the other side, that shares a similar market penetration that Alex Jones has?

The side that tells us that men can become women.

There are a few replies which got greyed out for some reason. Antifa is mentioned which is a reasonable candidate, not a person but a group aimed at deconstruction of western society under the cover of 'fighting fascism'. It has the 'market penetration' but where Jones (et al.) keep themselves to spouting rhetoric Antifa and similar organisations - and yes, these are organisations and not 'just ideas' as the current American president insists - use violent actions as their main tactic. Another candidate would be the pro-Hamas factions which call for 'Death to America' and which insist on downplaying and ridiculing the actions of their ideological allies.

There is a heavy tendency to down-play 'left-wing' extremism but that does not make it disappear. You won't find it in the corporate media though, it is not reported by the likes of the SPLC and the ADL and similar organisations but it is there in plain sight. If it happens to hit the news it leads to odd headlines like the 'fiery but mostly peaceful protests' from the 'summer of love' in 2020.

a group aimed at deconstruction of western society under the cover of 'fighting fascism'

This is a wholly imaginary characterization.

Antifa is often considered anarchist or communist, so yeah.

The students that want to continue the "global student intifada" that claim responsibility for firebombing UCLA?[1]

[1] https://www.campusreform.org/article/anti-israel-student-int...

"both sides bad" is a really brave, totally nuanced, take that no one ever has /s

He interviewed Trump in 2015 (by which time he’d been spreading Sandy Hook conspiracies for years), and even now post-bankruptcy he still interviews Steve Bannon, Tucker Carlson and plenty of other fairly mainstream Republican figures.

There’s no one so shameless and harmful on the Left who is anywhere near as close to the mainstream of their political movement as Jones. Whereas the Right is absolutely littered with such figures.

I think that framing it as “two households, both alike in (in)dignity” is a much bigger problem.

I am not a fan of him but I feel they just want to destroy him, and frankly goes against cruel and unusual punishment!

Causing death threats seems cruel and unusual. Taking away money and a platform doesn’t seem in the same league.

> There are extremes on both sides

I agree with this. I may not 100% agree that the extremists on both sides are as extreme, but for the sake of argument I'll fully grant you this point.

My issue though, is that I don't feel that anyone can say with a straight face that the extremists on the left/liberal/Democratic side have has much influence and power with the party apparatus as on the right/conservative/Republican side. Sure, Alex Jones and his small faction of followers are about as extreme as it gets, but then I'd like to think you'd see Republican leaders up and down denouncing him and distancing themselves from him. Instead I see influential figures on the right like Steve Bannon, former chief strategist in the White House, defend him:

> Republican strategist Steve Bannon suggested Jones and his supporters surround the building, requiring anyone attempting to kick him out to “come through a chain of patriots.” - https://www.houstonpublicmedia.org/articles/news/2024/06/06/...

The reason I can't stomach "the other side" is not that they have insane grifter extremists like Jones. It's that so many other more folks on that side with real power somehow and for some reason defend Jones.

I just think it's crazy that words can be illegal. Especially billions-of-dollars illegal. Regardless of what it's about

Causing harm is illegal. Words are not magic.

The problem is that this is easily abused, and couldn't be more subjective

There is no slippery slope here. Harm was actual, demonstrated, and a direct result of the speech. No subjectivity in this case, and in fact a cast-iron proof that absolute free speech would lead to very nasty outcomes.

It can never be demonstrated that speech could do harm, that's the point. It's entirely up to the receiving end

I'm not sure I understand your argument. It can't be proven either that someone didn't die of a heart attack right before the bullet hit them, but we draw a line at "really, really likely".

Not sure I can follow either. Bullets obviously cause injuries. Words almost never do. And if so, that's mostly up to the recipient and trivial to prevent.

Is a crime boss saying "kill him" to his henchmen not responsible too for the killing? Unless you disagree with that, we're only to argue where the line is, not that there is a line.

Yes of course - but the words are to blame in the same way a trigger is to blame.

True, there are plenty of examples of 'harm' caused by calling people racists/nazis/granny-killers (during the SARS2-unpleasantness)/*-phobes/etcetera which have caused people their jobs and their social circles.

Is it illegal to label people with such epithets in the knowledge that it often leads to such outcomes? If not, why not?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com