I didn't say it doesn't count. I said it is not a call to violence.

> there is a large, active conspiracy to take their guns. They believe him.

They may be believing him there's a conspiracy (though with people jumping around calling for repeal of Second Amendment I'd say the conspiratorial part of it is rather weak) but they can't believe somebody has already came to take their guns. For a simple reason that nobody did, they'd notice something like that. And, I don't think there was a single instance of violence caused by the fact that somebody listened to Alex Jones and thought somebody came to take their gun and reacted violently. Either Alex Jones is very bad at his job (which is not hard to believe - but then why ban him?) or maybe whoever listens to him does not interpret his message in this way?

> In that context, saying to be violent if they take their guns is a call to violence.

No, it is not. For example, I would consider if US (or any other) government starts rounding up Jews and putting them into concentration camps, violence to resist such governmental action is justified (and, I think, morally necessary, if there's no other way to stop it). This is not "calling to violence" in any sense that relates to current discussion - because nobody is actually rounded up and put into concentration camps. Confusing two situations - discussion of something that might happen (and what we want and hope to prevent much earlier than there would be even close to the theoretical situation) and what would be proper action in that theoretical case of an unacceptable infringement of the rights, and call to violence right here, right now, in our current situation (which we consider acceptable enough that our society condemns calls to violence) - is completely erroneous.

> Inciting violence is not typically considered protected speech, and even if it is, getting kicked off of YouTube is not a restriction on one’s freedom of expression.

Simultaneously kicking him from all major platforms is clearly designed to limit his freedom of expression and suppress his message (as much as non-governmental bodies can). You can argue that it is a good thing, but if you argue this is not the goal you are either very naive or willfully ignorant. And one count of rhetorical "incitement" we've seen so far can not be a reason for such action. People routinely say same and worse things online and do not get banned from everything (some even get hired to work in major newspapers).

It is clear that Jones was banned not because of one or two occasional (and very rare if in all his very prolific expression so far we've found one or maybe, maybe two such instances) references to violence. But because of his despicable character and his despicable message. It is clear that a lot of people consider silencing him be a good thing, a desirable thing to happen.

After all, nobody is forced to download his stuff from Apple or go to his pages on Facebook. If somebody wanted to just ignore him, it's very easy to do - I did it for decades without even trying a little bit. But people don't want to just not hear him - people want him silenced. And thus my quote is very relevant.

OP did not claim that, OP claimed letter bombs and death threats. I ask for a source on that, and you provide a link which does not deliver at all.

This is a fallacy known as "begging the question".

Certainly that would be the routine threats of physical violence against government officials.

ok, your point, that accusation does not add much to the argument, and it does not negate the facts I presented? I'm questioning the motive behind the report. and questioning the integrity of amnesty international with supporting facts. it's like someone questioning a propaganda by nazi germany, as it promotes hitler agenda. would you accuse that someone with "Ad hominem attack"

> And just because it's propaganda, doesn't mean it isn't news based on facts.

what facts? this argument is pointless, hearsay is not fact, and hearsay is not admissible in court, that's a fact; we are talking about people who behead other people and eat their liver, do you think it would be too hard for them to make up some stuff and lie. unless they show verifiable facts about dates, locations, victim names, etc.. you can only assume it's fabricated lies.

you should watch a canadian journalist who went to syria and listened to eye witnesses [1], that's a fact, not a report of anonymous people claiming stuff

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g1VNQGsiP8M&t=810s

It might be, actually. I understand why you'd think that, but look at the results for other search engines.

Kagi: ADL in 2nd place

Bing: ADL in 3rd place

Yandex: ADL not on the first page, but SPLC[1] is the the 6th result

[1]: https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/extremist-files/indi...

Oh, ok.

The powers that be. The shadowy cabal. The unseen hand which controls all aspects of society with absolute and arbitrary power.

I thought I was going to be able to have a rational, intellectually satisfying discussion but once again no one is capable of defending free speech without resorting to slippery slopes and absolutism. Ah well. Here's another valueless thread I can ignore.

You are ascribing intent where there is none. We need to stop framing conversations based upon the extremists in the population.

The root comment is full of hyperbole, but there is no indication he supports death threats, that's just silly.

Agreed. If you follow the context of the comment thread, that's not the idea I was questioning.

Anecodtal evidence

> said Howard Graves, a research analyst at the Southern Poverty Law Center

Appeal to authority

Your "source" does not cite sources or factual data, just an observation from someone. Your post and that piece of the NYT article holds no water because of the logical fallacies.

Your argument is invalid.

Of course, that doesn't mean I disagree with your conclusion.

There is in fact a fuckton of evidence: https://news.yahoo.com/all-25-us-extremism-related-murders-l...

The article in questions is titled:

U.S. police have attacked journalists more than 120 times since May 28

The person to which you replied was questioning the trustworthiness of the data upon which that claim is based. Do you consider footage of one event conclusive evidence for 120 events?

Would your thinking style change if we switched up some of the variables, say something like:

Young black males have attacked elderly women more than 120 times since May 28

Would one video be sufficient evidence to satisfy your mind in this scenario as well?

Whether your claims are true or not (and I haven't looked into that myself), this assertion is worlds away from assuming good faith. I see no evidence for it in the article.

I can't possibly watch all of his videos, and I'm not even subscribed to him. Should only people who are intimately familiar with every detail of Paul Joseph Watson speak here in this thread? Pardon me.

I've mostly seen/heard him in passively because sometimes his videos end up autoplaying when I've got YouTube playing in the background(I'm sure you won't read into that), and I never thought what he said to be dangerous, bullshit it may be. He says some ridiculous things, but lots of people say ridiculous things. Forgive me for not frothing at the mouth.

Respectfully, you're being a jerk. That's your prerogative, but that tends to sour otherwise civilized discussion. All I did was ask a question, and you're accusing me of bad intent.

> But that's what you've done.

Yeah, I know.

> He stops short of promoting outright violence precisely because he knows that will get him kicked off of places. What he has done is portray muslims as boogeymen, saying that they are all rapists, that they turn cities into ghettos, and that the west needs "islam control." If you don't think that's dangerous, look into the anti-semitic conspiracy theories that spread throughout europe before the holocaust. Very similar language.

You probably should have lead with this in the first place, rather than things he might have said about relatively benign conspiracy theories like chemtrails. I still don't know all the details and the context involved, but I'd be inclined to agree with you based on what you wrote there.

> acting within the law

Those two things seem incongruous.

> And now it's coming back. Of course the powers that be are pushing back, with a new arsenal of ammo - doxxing, labeling discussion and , putting those who express dissenting opinions on blacklists, labeling people extremists.

> Now, I'm going to shoot myself in the foot with an example of all of the above, including the push back, which you, the audience will provide.

Stating upfront that responses from the audience are considered 'push back' rather than genuine responses seems like an odd choice for someone extolling the virtues of a "true marketplace of ideas".

Perhaps it could even be considered trying to preemptively label responses as 'opinion as "misinformation"'.

Like I said, I feel no obligation to explain myself to someone who frames their questions in such an obviously bad faith way. But it does make me want to ask you a question - if you view people killing other people as all the same, do you see no distinction between ISIS suicide bombers indiscriminately killing civilians, and Russian airstrikes killing ISIS militants? If you can see a difference, then maybe you can figure out on your own why I view some armed combatants differently from others.

What’s hypothetical is that banning 8ch will do anything about that.

> Furthermore, the First Amendment was designed by the founders as a way to protect citizens who criticized the government. I find it unbelievable that they themselves would support extending those protections towards people who would seek to explicitly provoke mass, random violence.

Another thing that’s hypothetical.

> I still haven't heard a good reason why forums that are havens for users openly and explicitly encouraging terroristic acts should not bear any responsibility, beyond lazy slippery slope arguments.

Considering you’re just dismissing the presented argument as a fallacy, it’s surprising that your own argument contains so little substance. Or is it?

It does[0].

> It’s not like Pakistan is running low on terrorists or the state intelligence service ISI isn’t sponsoring their activities.

I don't know how to respond to that, since there isn't a question in there, just a belligerent statement. I suppose the best way is to simply not engage.

[0]: http://pakistanbodycount.org/definitions.html