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

a reply to: TheLaughingGod

Ok.. then critical thinking should suffice and no site should be banned. This babying of the members you support suggests otherwise.

What part of "some sites are opposed to critical thinking" did you not understand? The drive towards irrationality thrives on inundating people with nonsense that begins to look like a reasonable alternative: can't find your car keys? You woke up in an alternate universe and the lyrics to a TV jingle prove it. Keep repeating the nonsense and it seeps into the mind like a virus. Infowars wants to spread its sickness in every way it can, so that susceptible people find themselves surrounded by it.

What I am saying is: Infowars is using ATS to air commercials without paying for the bandwidth. Yes, legitimate political parties do that too, but at least they argue about reality; Alex Jones is inventing his own, and he relies on free exposure to materialize it.

a reply to: DJW001

Again. Which sites specifically is it that "oppose critical thinking"?

I'm not particularly convinced that this isn't just your opinion. It wouldn't surprise me if this was just your opposition to the ideas presented on those sites.

And even if they were opposed to critical thinking, so what? Would you like this to extend to society as a whole too? You think people are too irrational to handle thinking for themselves? You need to ban sources you don't like?

If people are educated in how to think critically I think they can handle sites that "oppose critical thinking". The critical thinking would serve as protection against such notions. If on the other hand the site is writing about stuff that isn't conventionally accepted but still experienced by a great deal of people that isn't negative in the least. But I know there's a great deal of sheltered people that want to project their own inexperience on the rest of the World and in doing so they have a tendency to censure ideas that run contrary to their own thinking on any given subject. These people have historically been and still are in many ways enemies of progress.

a reply to: TheLaughingGod

Again. Which sites specifically is it that "oppose critical thinking"?

For starters, any site that claims that science is a religion, or that a sacred text is the literal truth, or that truth is a matter of opinion, or that individual subjective experiences trump objective reality.... There is room for fantasy and imagination, even magic... but not if it is used as an opiate.

I'm not particularly convinced that this isn't just your opinion. It wouldn't surprise me if this was just your opposition to the ideas presented on those sites.

Hatred is not an idea, it is a mental illness. Infowars lies in the cause of hatred; it wants to spread Jones' illness like a virus, and it lies to do it.

And even if they were opposed to critical thinking, so what? Would you like this to extend to society as a whole too? You think people are too irrational to handle thinking for themselves? You need to ban sources you don't like?

No, but they need to be seen for what they are. It is frustrating that so many members will protest that Infowars is telling the truth, even when the lie has been exposed.

If people are educated in how to think critically I think they can handle sites that "oppose critical thinking".

Exactly! People are no longer educated to think critically. In some states, evolution is presented as one side of a controversy!

The critical thinking would serve as protection against such notions.

Yes; but the lack of critical thinking is what attracts people to those sites.

If on the other hand the site is writing about stuff that isn't conventionally accepted but still experienced by a great deal of people that isn't negative in the least.

I don't have a problem with people believing in astrology or aura readings if it fills some personal need. The problem is when the irrational becomes political; the entire society can become infected.

But I know there's a great deal of sheltered people that want to project their own inexperience on the rest of the World and in doing so they have a tendency to censure ideas that run contrary to their own thinking on any given subject. These people have historically been and still are in many ways enemies of progress.

I agree; but, then, there are the people who see clearly and are dismayed by the torchlight parades and word salad harangues. That's what this thread is about, not whether homeopathy works.

a reply to: DJW001

Again. Which sites specifically are you talking about besides Infowars?

Hatred is not an idea, it is a mental illness. Infowars lies in the cause of hatred; it wants to spread Jones' illness like a virus, and it lies to do it.

Or maybe it's frustration in having to deal with a public that doesn't acknowledge tyranny that is readily apparent. I think you're confusing anger with hatred. Anger is warranted and even healthy, hatred has its uses as well. I don't think apathy is a fitting reaction to the actions of the globalists running the show, if anyone deserves hatred directed at them it's them.

What it boils down to is: are we gonna censure websites just because they're irrational or just because they don't believe in science? And if so, how far are we willing to go? If we censure websites here on ATS and are ok with the reasoning behind that why don't we just censure all such outlets? After all that would be fully in line with such reasoning.

a reply to: DJW001

For starters, any site that claims that science is a religion, or that a sacred text is the literal truth, or that truth is a matter of opinion, or that individual subjective experiences trump objective reality.... There is room for fantasy and imagination, even magic... but not if it is used as an opiate.

In you outlaw all "those" sites, you are going to make discussion on certain of the forums here very difficult to impossible since they require religious material.

You also forget that a cornerstone of progressive and postmodern thought is that there is no objective reality and truth. So are you saying we should ban any sites that promote progressivism?

a reply to: ketsuko

In you outlaw all "those" sites, you are going to make discussion on certain of the forums here very difficult to impossible since they require religious material.

Where do I say I want to outlaw all those sites? I said that there is room for magic. The problem is when a society abandons reason and embraces the irrational. Don't you think it odd that a sophisticated and once wealthy state like Iran has been unable to build even a crude nuclear weapon after all these years? The well educated, scientifically inclined there don't support the theocratic government.

You also forget that a cornerstone of progressive and postmodern thought is that there is no objective reality and truth. So are you saying we should ban any sites that promote progressivism?

Of course not! It can be debated because that is philosophy, an interpretation of the human experience, not a claim to material fact.

Once again, I am not proposing that we ban all irrational sites. I have proposed dealing with a specific site in an extraordinary way because of certain practical problems it poses.

Info wars is truly a site by a deranged man. One time on the front page I counted every article a race baiting one!


No body ever appears on Jones site anymore as a guest. I wonder why?


He has carried racial obsession to a height equal to any KKK site. Info Wars should be there to show us what the worst is.

Its important for turth to hear all sides and every one should be able to speak even the hateful and stupid. Its when we start to censor, that truth becomes unattainable. Its a slippery slope folks.

What a pointless waah waah thread.
Essentially the basis of this is someone doesn't like another site or source, and is using other people whinging about that site as an excuse to have that site banned from being mentioned here or used as a source here.

I don't know what sort of poor upbringing some people obviously had or what their parents were busy doing instead of raising them properly, but allow me to do some delayed parenting for some of you...if you don't like seeing or reading something, then don't read it or look at it. If you can't agree with someone or can't agree to disagree, then avoid talking with that person about issues that you argue over.

It's not that hard, unless you are a child, and even then a child can implement such basic life skills.

If this was a forum for teenagers there'd be less botching and moaning about other peoples threads and posts then there is at present.

Here's another golden tip especially relevant for the Internet age...you can read something and move on with your life. You don't have to argue about everything you disagree with.

I'm not a fan of his or his site but ATS is no different to him and his site/radio show.

You say it's the site of a deranged man.
And what's ATS? A site with many deranged individuals who think crap like Mandela effects are real, or other people who think they are prophets.

There's better sources for conspiracies..real conspiracies and not the crap that gets posted on sites like ATS these days.

a reply to: Willtell

Is this a thread about a thread?

Censor infowars?

Jeez.

originally posted by: Signals
Is this a thread about a thread?

Censor infowars?

Jeez.

Nope: make 'em pay for the advertising. Got a problem with that?

a reply to: DJW001

Yes, what advertising?

If you don't like the current trend of threads, create something more interesting, stop whining.

Your posting history suggests you are smarter than all this, this is a bait thread, which is weird, again, because it doesn't match that history.

ATS account hacked maybe? I don't get it.

Your 1st amendment is more important than others?

a reply to: Signals

So... if someone kept posting threads extolling the virtues of a particular razor, that would be okay?

a reply to: DJW001

Yeah I guess so, they wouldn't be very popular and I doubt I would contribute to them, that's pretty much it.

a reply to: Signals

Yeah I guess so, they wouldn't be very popular and I doubt I would contribute to them, that's pretty much it.

What if you owned a rival razor company, and ATS insisted on charging you for ad space? Would that be fair? Would you consider that censorship?

Wow too crazy

Edit: Got tricked by a thread bump.

What's too crazy? Oh, and why did you suddenly bump this thread?

Its just another source of information. I dont like Jerry Springer and guess what. I dont watch him. Simples.
Just watch and read stuff you like or you are just creating your own problem.