Never said that. Read what I wrote in the context I presented it.Wait, what about Robert Reich? An economics professor is IN NO WAY relatable to Alex Jones.
I’ve already conceded there is not an analogue in terms of behavior, tone or presentation style.He's really desperate at this point, but it's not the old "they're just as bad!" routine according to him.
There is no left analogue to the pantheon of raving pundits & well financed propaganda organs of the right wing. It has no effect on public consciousness because it doesn't exist.
You moved the goal posts by agreeing to objective criteria and then modifying that criteria to support your second point.
Never claimed equivalence and this is what you still fail understand, but you’ve double downed on whatever point you think you are making.
I consider him a mainstream left peddler of conspiracy. He is not red faced about it.
I noticed you completely failed to address the washington DC shooter motivated by left wing mainstream media
Keep flailing about Alex Jones
What motivated the shooter? You know the answer.That's not what moving the goalpost even means. If you're going to claim I'm making a fallacy, at least try and be consistent about the one you're accusing me of.
Robert Reich is a conspiracy theorist? Gonna have to back that up with some sourcing. And you tried to equate him with Alex Jones, after all, that's the type of guy we're trying to find here.
As for the shooter, that's low hanging fruit, but if that's what you want to go with, that's easy. Since the shooter had a gun, and used the gun to shoot people, guns make people shoot other people. Which is bullshit, but that's the logic you're running with.
I literally defined moving the goal posts using a minor variation of the wording you linked.
Since you’ve broadened the topic to crazy, let’s talk crazy. My turn to reframe the question.
Let’s talk about James T. Hodgkinson, a seemingly normal liberal who shot up a congressional baseball game. Let’s see what the mainstream media had to say about James and what motivated him:
“Hodgkinson’s own descriptions on social media portray him as an avid consumer of political shows. His favorite television shows were listed as "Real Time with Bill Maher;" "The Rachel Maddow Show;" "Democracy Now!" and other left-leaning programs. His favorite movie? The documentary "Inequality for All," featuring progressive economist Robert Reich. He had also joined several anti-GOP Facebook groups, including "Terminate The Republican Party;" "The Road to Hell Is Paved With Republicans;" and "Join The Resistance Worldwide!!"
Sounds like a chorus of left leaning voices drove him to violence, but none of them were angry or red faced, so I guess they don’t count. Many small voices can be just as dangerous in chorus as one loud voice.
Or let’s talk about Robert Reich, former advisor to numerous Presidents, who is now at the epicenter of the Berkeley anchored conspiracy left and “the resistance”. Who needs an Alex Jones when you have a whole city filled with them.
Or this NYT article from last year that talks about how belief in conspiracy theories is waning on the right but increasing on the left, and how susceptibility to conspiracy is a function of perceived power.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/15/...ts-are-now-embracing-conspiracy-theories.html
By all means, tell me more about Alex Jones
What motivated the shooter? You know the answer.
The fringe nut was motivated to lash out violently due to rhetoric from mainstream left news sources. This conversation has never been about Alex Jones. What it is about is influence and the normalization of dangerous fringe attitudes and beliefs.So a fringe nut is now a mainstream politician, pundit or media?
The demonstration goal here has always been crystal clear: Mainstream. MAINSTREAM. Not a lone nut or a bunch of fringe nuts or third party candidates.
Mainstream right-wing vs left wing media, politicians, and pundits.
Not non-political talk show hosts. Not activists. Not crazy people who act out on no prompting by any mainstream sources. The implication that what he watched made him do it is absurd and you know it. Especially when you can demonstrate no calls for violence of any kind on any of those sources. But hey, conspiratards gotta tard, right?
Thank you for proving you never intended to engage in an honest discussion.Clearly it's the gun ownership.
The fringe nut was motivated to lash out violently due to rhetoric from mainstream left news sources.
Trump retweets Sandy Hook Massacre conspiracy theorist:
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/967388904952344577
https://www.waynedupree.com/still-investigating-actors-in-sandy-hook-hoax-are-identified-photos/
Thank you for proving you never intended to engage in an honest discussion.
The fringe nut was motivated to lash out violently due to rhetoric from mainstream left news sources. This conversation has never been about Alex Jones. What it is about is influence and the normalization of dangerous fringe attitudes and beliefs.
Read the NYT article I posted which is the whole basis for my argument.
If it gives you a smug sense of satisfaction to state that the right is worst than the left, go for it.
To claim that the left is immune to it or any less capable is simply absurd.
The shooter is quoted in his own words as being motivated by mainstream left wing media, which I citedReally? Please post one example of any of those sources calling for violence.
Claims made without evidence may be dismissed without evidence. An opinion piece is meaningless.
You are now trying to imply something you have no evidence for. That MSNBC and Maddow spread conspiracy theories and incite violence.
But wait. You have no evidence of that, do you?
The inference that he was prompted by MAINSTREAM left wing media is yours, not the article. The article make no such connection.
So let me get this straight.Now that I think about it, you bringing up the DC shooter is very much like this:
It has nothing at all to do with the discussion. Nothing.
You're using the Chewbacca defense.
The shooter is quoted in his own words as being motivated by mainstream left wing media, which I cited
You still haven’t addressed the NYT article.Yes, and John Hinckley was motivated by Jodie Foster.
David Berkowitz was motivated by the neighbor's dog.
Now, is Jodie Foster and the dog responsible? No.
To show responsibility for incitement you have to show EVIDENCE OF INCITEMENT.
Again, point to a valid, rational example of those sources calling for violence or pushing conspiracy theories.
I can find a crazy guy that claims anything made him do it.
What next? Video games cause murder?
Meanwhile, this is all a distraction because you've already lost this debate.
You still haven’t addressed the NYT article.
Apples and oranges. Of course there are crazy people motivated by things that would in no way rationalize or justify their actions. The example I gave was one of INCITEMENT.
However, when you have mainstream media constantly spouting angry rhetoric about RESISTANCE and calls to action, eventually its going to incite someone to violence. I already pointed to how the shooter cited conspiracies promoted by Robert Reich as inciting him.
Video games don’t cause violence, but it would be irresponsible for someone to release a first person shooter called “The Resistance” where you can go around shooting evangelicals or a tower defense game set on the Mexican border.
I also find it telling that you think it is so important that I “lost” the debate. This is an exchange of perspective. I expect you are never wrong about anything.
Keep shifting the criteria of the discussion. I am not trying to establish equivalence. I provided examples to demonstrate the left is not immune, as evident by the valid examples I gave that you keep dismissing because of your irrational need to be right.I have. That article shows no valid example or even comparison to the conspiracy theories on the right.
At all.
Not even close. It gives no valid examples of mainstream left wing media or pundits pushing conspiracy theories.
Keep trying though.
Keep shifting the criteria of the discussion. I am not trying to establish equivalence. I provided examples to demonstrate the left is not immune, as evident by the valid examples I gave that you keep dismissing because of your irrational need to be right.
Keep shifting the criteria of the discussion. I am not trying to establish equivalence. I provided examples to demonstrate the left is not immune, as evident by the valid examples I gave that you keep dismissing because of your irrational need to be right.
Keep shifting the criteria of the discussion. I am not trying to establish equivalence. I provided examples to demonstrate the left is not immune, as evident by the valid examples I gave that you keep dismissing because of your irrational need to be right.
I've shifted nothing.
My criteria has been the same since the beginning. Mainstream vs fringe.
I have never denied finge leftist loons. What I have pointed out is that the right-wing lunatic fringe has become the mainstream while the lunatic fringe on the left has remained fringe.
Period. Full stop. That's a major difference between the two sides today. One has officially endorsed bat shit from the top down, and the other has not.
I already conceded that pointI've shifted nothing.
My criteria has been the same since the beginning. Mainstream vs fringe.
I have never denied finge leftist loons. What I have pointed out is that the right-wing lunatic fringe has become the mainstream while the lunatic fringe on the left has remained fringe.
Period. Full stop. That's a major difference between the two sides today. One has officially endorsed bat shit from the top down, and the other has not.