Shadowstalker16: No, whose responsibility it is is a question that is very difficult to answer.
Vainamoinen: No disagreement there, as I have made clear.
Shadowstalker16: penalizing the act of putting ideas into idiots' heads will end in penalizing everything.
Vainamoinen: Strike e.g. soliciting/incitement to murder/hatred/religious violence/riot out of the diverse existing international laws y/n?
Shadowstalker16: I still don't think he engineered one specially for the purpose
Vainamoinen: Of course he didn't. Jones is not a creative man. The roots of the theory are evaluated here:
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/origins-pizzagate-conspiracy-theory-how-became-real-life-threat Shadowstalker16: Its like saying a knife-maker made a knife so that someone would kill someone with it when in reality he made all the knives just to sell them and one happened to cause more harm than that done to vegetables.
Vainamoinen: Let's evaluate a bit more precisely what the product here is, because there's a difference between making butter knives and, say, assault rifles. The difference lies in intended application. And I do think that a vile and slanderous conspiracy theory of this proportion rather shows an intent to hurt people, not pizza, in reputational/financial/physical ways.
Shadowstalker16: Any other outlets covered it?
Vainamoinen: If you try to find possible culprits for this hideous mess besides Alex Jones/Infowars, I will cheer at your effort, but that's your job to untangle. Jones peddled it with most viewer reach. That's why he's getting cold feet now.
Shadowstalker16: You need to keep in mind that being able to incite excessively sensitive people (and by that I mean those who are legally insane, not self diagnosed with every mental illness they've heard of) is not incitement, since its not incitement to a reasonable person.
Vainamoinen: Jones targets sensitive/mentally ill with fake news specifically, hence attempts to incite the mentally ill specifically. Isn't that MORE condemnable than trying to speak/adapt to a clientele that Jones knows he can't reach?
Shadowstalker16: Doesn't make it any less wrong that Trump's misinformation wing was better.
Vainamoinen: Trump explicitly won the election because "he was better" at selling lies to the public. Misinformation, lies and memeification of slander were his and his lackeys' central communicative effort. When Clinton herself spoke about Trump,
her statements were mostly factually correct. That counts for something, I guess.
Shadowstalker16: Also don't forget how much the media covered for the real failings of Hillary.
Vainamoinen: That's a stupid urban myth. They covered some email scandal they didn't understand and the emails of which they didn't have 24/7 and nine times more than Hillary's actual political stances, which evidently got suppressed by the Trumpkins' apocalyptic fantasy of those. The US media did an altogether shit job covering this election, and they're responsible for putting Trump into the limelight far, far too much right from minute one.
Shadowstalker16: I was hoping for more accountable stuff than creative interpretations of this boastful gameshow host's public statements.
Vainamoinen: "It was a joke"/"It was all show"/"It was ironic"/"He didn't mean it that way", that's all over as a mitigating strategy. I won't accept it any more. It's relevant when Trump openly berates women, it has always been relevant and will continue to be relevant.
Shadowstalker16: minor stuff like groping.
Vainamoinen: This is probably one of those "gr8 b8 m8" situations, but I really think quoting this is well sufficient.
So direct incitement and your ''media-driven'' incitement are the same thing? Being in close contact with a person and helping them plan and orchestrate and provide motivation and information and support is the same as a fabricated story reported by a guy who doesn't know what critical thinking is? Then yes, please ban incitement to murder from the laws. Because somehow both are the same.
Knives and un-reviewed news reports can both be made by their respective makers without intent to harm. That's what I said. You say AJ had malice in reporting on this. I say he thought it was going to be like the rest of his work and mostly laughed at / ignored, and his past history only convinces me of that.
I'm not saying he's targeting mentally ill people. What I'm saying is that ''incitement'' of a person who cannot understand the consequences of his actions (ie legally insane) is not a problem at the ''inciter's'' end but one at the believers end, for which the solution is for him to seek help.
Still doesn't absolve neither of the media manipulation they've done.
You can accept your own version. Do keep in mind though that guilt is not subjective. If ''misogyny'' was punishable with death, only an idiot would kill Trump based on that. You are making up your own version of Trump here.
Wtf do you want then? All ''crimes against women'' to be punishable with the electric chair? Do you understand the analogy of me comparing absolute detesting of women with rape and just prejudiced and chauvinistic with groping?
