Is it time to make Infowars [i]non grata[/i]?

This thread is so obnoxious and hate filled that it has me seriously reconsidering my attitude towards free speech. I have always believed that if you allow a fool to say anything they want, people will eventually see the fool for what he is. Unfortunately, there are a few threads that are being dominated by hate mongers who are cheering one another on, drowning out other voices, and creating a poisonous atmosphere. Rather than deal with facts, they are drawing their racist talking points from Infowars. It is as if Infowars is infiltrating ATS and sabotaging it, using it to advance its own insane agenda. Enough is enough.

a reply to: DJW001

One of the features of free speech is that it applies to everyone. The intellectual to the idiot.
If someone says something that offends me, I have to deal with it.

originally posted by: ColeYounger
a reply to: DJW001

One of the features of free speech is that it applies to everyone. The intellectual to the idiot.
If someone says something that offends me, I have to deal with it.

I agree. The issue here is that there seems to be an organized effort to make ATS into a space where others' speech is being drowned out. Infowars sets an agenda and ATS is being used as an echo chamber to amplify it. Infowars distorts actual news to achieve its ends. If people want to discuss the facts, that's one thing, but instead, they are simply parroting the Infowars spin.

originally posted by: ColeYounger
One of the features of free speech is that it applies to everyone.

Free Speech only applies when the government is involved. If the Above Network wants to ban that cretin Alex Jones' website as a source that is their decision.

a reply to: DJW001

I agree with you 100% on the agendas people have. You can see the obvious motives of certain posters here.
I just don't know how it can be controlled. As long as there's no T & C violations...

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

I hate the term "slippery slope", but I think it applies here. Where would it stop? Would more sources get banned?

originally posted by: ColeYounger
I hate the term "slippery slope", but I think it applies here.

Why? This is a privately owned website, they can do anything they want.

Where would it stop? Would more sources get banned?

It would stop wherever they wanted it to stop and they can ban any source they want. Alex Jones has consistenly displayed that his is an asshole. I have seen more intelligent things come out of my dog when she takes a dump on the front lawn.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Thank you. Please have a look at these threads which exist solely to further Alex Jones' "race war" agenda:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Alex Jones has his own radio program and website. He does not need ATS's bandwidth.

originally posted by: ColeYounger
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

I hate the term "slippery slope", but I think it applies here. Where would it stop? Would more sources get banned?

There are a number of sources that are already banned; the Mods generally exercise excellent judgement in this respect.

originally posted by: DJW001
Thank you. Please have a look at these threads which exist solely to further Alex Jones' "race war" agenda:

No need, I already know he is a distorting propagandist.

Uhhh honestly I can't remember a thread where Infowars was used as a source.

"I disagree with something so ban it"

a reply to: DJW001

I think Infowars can be enjoyable and interesting, as long as you realize what you are reading while you read it. I will read their stories because I sometimes get a point of view that I won't hear anywhere else.

That said, I am always disappointed when I see an interesting titled topic here and then go to the thread and find out it is three pages of comments in response to an Infowars article that is very possibly based on loosely pieced together facts, rumors and innuendo.

I would not ban them, but I would like to see threads based on infowars articles to display the name of the publication in the title.

originally posted by: DJW001
I have always believed that if you allow a fool to say anything they want, people will eventually see the fool for what he is.

Your own words.

a reply to: DJW001


OH GOODY! Can we BAN Slate, Huffington Post too? /end sarcasm

I hate banning anything. If you don't like it, don't read it/buy it.

a reply to: DJW001

So... did AJ go and pay those people to do the stuff he's reporting on?

The race war that's unfolding is his fault? Or BLM's? It's technically neither of their faults, as the source of energy for BLM is the results of Nixon's War On Drugs. They of course aren't targeting that and instead they're targeting cops and white people. That IS a race war, so if it's on anybody's head its on BLM's, not AJ's.

Unless those are all hoaxes perpetrated by AJ, maybe they should ban all BLM discussions while they're at it.

a reply to: DJW001

as much as i hate alex jones and his hyperbole, i read the article you posted first and then read the OP's.
and to be fair, she did say everything that they printed. in the infowars article from the very get go they say,

In an article for ‘Wear Your Voice’, an “intersectional feminist media” outlet, Shackelford says that she finds the presence of white people at Black Lives Matter rallies “triggering,” and that black people are “frightened” by whites, adding that their roles should be confined to acting as human “buffers against the police”.

In an article entitled ____You, Pay Me: Reparations for Fat Black Bitches and Everything We Provide, Shackelford demands that she should be paid money for being a ‘fat black bitch’.

that at the end is

plus she continually uses the word we, that would indicate to me she is speaking from a BLM perspective.

at least infowars doesn't make up complete BS stories like before it's news.

here are the two articles.
For White People Who Want to Attend #BlackLivesMatter Protests

‘Black Lives Matter’ Organizer ‘Triggered’ by White People, Demands Money For Being a ‘Fat, Black Bitch’

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Why? This is a privately owned website, they can do anything they want.

I realize ATS is a privately owned site, and I'm not suggesting they are legally bound in any way to follow
Free Speech law. OK, ban Alex Jones. Then what? The slippery slope comes in when the next ATS member decides the people or sources they don't like should be banned.

originally posted by: ColeYounger
Then what? The slippery slope comes in when the next ATS member decides the people or sources they don't like should be banned.

The members can suggest ANYTHING, Bill and Co. do not have to honor those requests.

originally posted by: DJW001

originally posted by: ColeYounger
a reply to: DJW001

One of the features of free speech is that it applies to everyone. The intellectual to the idiot.
If someone says something that offends me, I have to deal with it.

I agree. The issue here is that there seems to be an organized effort to make ATS into a space where others' speech is being drowned out. Infowars sets an agenda and ATS is being used as an echo chamber to amplify it. Infowars distorts actual news to achieve its ends. If people want to discuss the facts, that's one thing, but instead, they are simply parroting the Infowars spin.

The echo chambers tend to be the threads themselves.

There are threads that are echo chambers for progressives.

There is one still active where.... even though a Supreme Court Justice has admitted that she was wrong and issued an apology, the thread still echos with just how right she was to do it.