Alex Jones isn't a real crazy person, he just plays one on TV. He has said so clearly under oath. He's playing a nut job character, like Colbert on crack.

If the CIA could discredit a conspiracy theorist by making them look crazier than they are, wouldn't they have started with Trump? He birthed the right wing conspiracy movement with his insane birther bullshit, and is a clear enemy of any intelligence (agency or otherwise).

One of the CIA's main tools is to discredit the whistle-blowers and make then look crazy. So far it's working for them with many people. Nothing discredits a conspiracy theorist more than making the public identify them as crazy.

Jesus, Bob, you can't be that dumb....you....just...can't. You repeat debunked conspiracy theories on a video about mentally challenged republican conspiracy theorists?! Why not go on to complain about the illegal alien voters and the fish people infiltrating the intelligence communities too?

Spy-a person who secretly collects and reports information on the activities, movements, and plans of an enemy or competitor.
Informant-a person who shares information.

The details gathered from informants were given to Republicans last week, and they left the meeting supporting the Muller investigation, a turn around from before the meeting, but all those republicans must now be liberal Trump haters just lying, right? *facepalm

Plenty of Trump/Russia related information is already public, just not undeniable proof of pure DJT collusion.....yet. (There is enough to prove he is either involved or a brain dead slug of a leader, as only a brain dead slug could possibly not notice every person on the campaign talking and doing business with Russia) Hide and wait.
The Clinton/Whitewater investigation lasted 5+ years and found nothing improper in the deal, you can start whining again in 4 years that it's taking too long to prove his crimes, but absolutely not before.
No one (except the Russians) spied on Trump, but we absolutely should have considering the international ties every person in his campaign had with our enemies that they consistently lied about/hid.
Stop lying, and stop repeating orange Kanye's obvious lies. Asking his people questions is, in no way whatsoever, spying or embedding spies....just didn't happen.
The Fed's DID spy on Clinton, and found no crimes. Odd you aren't outraged by that clear spying on a candidate.....oh wait, you are outraged that they didn't go farther with her.

Conservatives are getting fed up because they can't admit they elected a consummate con man who has destroyed our international standings, our ability to negotiate, the budget, the debt, and civility, and having it shoved in your face makes you mad. You're fed up because he does at least one unpresidential thing daily and it's reported/tweeted.

After >8 years of insane (Kenyan Muslim), ridiculous (pizza gate), non stop (still going on) Obama bashing, you must be incredibly embarrassed that your team can't take 1/4 of what they dish out. Sad little snowflakes.

Beware going to the polls unless you want to be turned gay....and heads up, mail in ballots are impregnated with a virus that turns you into a Muslim.

Snopes says there's no evidence to back Zerohedge's claims.

This is more BS conspiracy theorist spin from @bobknight33 who is, in turn, a coward who won't even come back to defend his own ideology.

Good post, I was just looking into how Bitcoin works a week ago and this video helped solidify what I learned online. I can see the appeal of cryptocurrencies to criminals, hackers, or your garden variety government conspiracy theorist but I don't really see why an average person would have any interest in this, particularly given the volatility of the exchange rates between cryptocurrencies and the real world or the potential for hacking/losses due to errors in the system (see the disastrous Mt. Gox case here in Japan).

How about @bobknight33 , do you still believe this distraction/lie, or have you had your come to Jesus moment yet and realized he's a con artist?
Keep in mind, this (and others Trump has repeated) story came directly from Alex Jones, who has since admitted he's playing a character of a nutjob conspiracy theorist and doesn't actually believe anything he says on air....but Trump never got the memo and keeps watching and believing him.

Alex warns us about fish people!
*related=https://videosift.com/video/Thanks-Obama-1

This parody of a man is who our president actually listens to more than anyone, including his own intelligence community, and he publicly admits he's playing a character of an insane right wing conspiracy theorist? Can someone PLEASE explain this to Trump, because he clearly doesn't understand.

And here we are, just about 2017, and 'freethinkers' are still convincing themselves that sending 100 million tons of carbon up into the sky every day does nothing to the air, water and soil carbon sinks. And to suggest it does and also own a car or fly in a plane? You're a degenerate hypocrite.

Very glad you pointed this out, as the international cabal of hundreds of thousands of researchers (people who literally earn their livings by questioning established norms and developing new ideas and solutions, and are therefor pretty hard to keep toeing the line in this cabal) will certainly be angry at Neil deGrasse Tyson for owning that nice car, and flying in airplanes, and no doubt eating burgers while wearing clothes made in China. We, the cabal, definitely need to chat with Neil, as that luxory sedan only get 19 city/29 highway,... with such hypocritical actions, he may as well be handing out pamphlets telling people about our secret anthropogenic global warming cabal, and its goals to, um, regulate the human contributions to the warming of our one habitable planet.

Sorry I lost the snark there at the end because I forget what reason the conspiracy theorists give for 'AGW shills'... is it somethng to do with a moral argument against Exxon and other energy mega companies? Again, sorry, would appreciate help with that part.

Talking to a conspiracy theorist about either the moon landing or the flat earth theory is exasperating. They discredit a scientific theory on the slightest technicality in your brief retelling of it, but if you baulk at their vague one-sentence alternative you're brainwashed.

You can tell them about the retroreflectors, or the satellite images we have of the landing site. You can tell them about sundials, the phases of the moon or constellations.

They don't care - anything can be faked and their definition of "proof" boils down to seeing it with their own naked eye.

It's totally impractical to take everyone up in a Red Bull balloon to see the curvature of the Earth for themselves. Presumably you'd have to take everyone up twice at two locations to show that the circular horizon is not an edge. Or kill two birds with one stone and take them to the moon landing site and back again because nothing less will suffice.

Because if I take them to the most advanced telescope in the world and focus it on the moon landing site - the image could be faked. You could show them how the telescope works, but each component could produce a faked output. The only way they would accept the telescope information is if they built it themselves from raw materials - oh you used a standard electronic device such as a basic motor? Illuminati dude, that thing can produce EM waves that fake the image. You're going to use a Macbook to read the USB output? Are you a shill?

Literally nothing is good enough but they are all, without exception, too fucking lazy to go and prove it to themselves from first principles.

Which is called "getting a degree in physics", where you are also taught to question every step, AKA being "brainwashed".

What a fucking idiot.

But yeah, flat earthers are a thing again.

if You have to hours and you feel your brain is working too well, you can watch this and turn it to mush.

Oh, I am blunt, alright. A lot of people dont like that, because actually they feel attacked since they see those people I criticize in themselves or how they support them with their passiveness. Plus I am very good at figuring out people, analyzing them. Thats what I dont keep silent about either.
It was not an ad hominem attack, because I offered facts (which got ignored with an excuse of ad hominem), and I actually tried to explain why they react how they react.
I havent seen anyone deny anything I said about them. And thats the point. I dont care if hes pissed off now. If hes open and objective he will think about what I said, even check those facts for himself and maybe one day will think that I was right all along. Or not, and hes a lost case, and in that case me being friendly towards his ignorance wouldnt have changed anything. I learned that friendliness (PC) only plays into the hands of these people. I know these people because I was like them once and had friends like them, was part of their "society". It buys them time, it makes them look less despicable than they actually are, it makes people ignore whats really going on. I am sick of sugar coating, newspeak. This has brought us to where we are. Its nothing more than lies. Read 1984 for some insight on how horrible this PC and newspeak already is. Smart people predicted all this. But nobody ever listened to them.

You know, I wasnt much different than these guys here once. I didnt want to believe all this stuff, or only partly. I tried to put it out of my mind with excuses like "stupid conspiracy theorists" or "these are just rare exceptions" or "nobody could have ever predicted it" and used mainstream media sources to make myself feel better if someone told me the harsh reality which I didnt want to accept, and yet knew deep in me that he was right.
I learned from those discussions. They werent pretty, but in the end those guys were absolutely 100% right, even though back then I hated them with a passion for telling me that straight to my face with no friendliness at all, because they saw that I supported this shit.
I didnt lose that passion, but I learned a lot from that.
I am disgusted by my former self when I now think back, how I supported this absolute human scum, how I let them use me as a tool, with their PC ways, lies, corruption and shiny things that are just gold coated turds.

I dont owe anyone an apology, who talks absolute bullshit, lies.
I owed those people an apology for what I said when I was like him. When I spewed out massive ignorance towards them, only to protect myself. And I actually apologized to them later, in the cases where I could still find them.

But yeah, its a waste of time. I said what I wanted to say. Trying to discredit everything or parts of what I said just because I wasnt politically correct, making myself a target for these irrelevant rhetorics (actually excuses) is the problem we have. "OMG he called me a bad thing! He must be a bad person! Nothing he says can be true! OMG! YAY! I CAN JUSTIFY IGNORING HIM NOW!" Do you even see the hypocrisy in that, calling my "attacks" ad hominem? Its funny, the term Whataboutism follows pretty much the same logic "OMG, he exposed my hypocrisy, so what do I do now! Oh right I am sure there is some rhetorical crap I can throw at him to discredit him! No... damn... Well then I simply invent it and call it... Whataboutism!! Yeah!" Thats how it was born. Not even I was that way back then. I thought about what those people said, even if they got really mad at me and called me MUCH worse things than I called people here. I never cared about how they said it. I cared about what they said, even though I didnt realize it back then.
So yeah. Accept it or dont. If facts cant penetrate ignorance, nothing can. Sugar coating it wont change a thing. Ignorant people are ignorant. And now I sounded like MJ in South Park. "Thats ignorant".

The point of the video.

I've used well over 100 condoms, and never once had a failure, a pregnancy, or an STD. Then again, I not only read the instructions, I was also shown how to use them, and I don't try to use expired or damaged condoms, or store them in heat and sun, or any of the other things people often do wrong with them....so you're wrong, they are not only >98% effective in labs...they have been 100% effective in my experience, for instance, which is >98%, and not in a lab. ;-)

It is not a lazy abandonment of people who disagree with me, it's a long over due abandonment of people who disagree with reality and science (honestly or not) usually in order to be a roadblock for action.
The skeptics have had their hearings, time and time again. At some point, you must admit that those still 'skeptical' either pick and choose/misinterpret information that allows that mindset, are knowingly lying for some gain, or are completely ignorant and only listening to those that pick and choose information or are liars, and they're doing so willfully. Because further 'debate' is consistently at the expense of any overdue mitigating action, and action is imperative for long term survival, the time for more 'listening' to deniers should have ended decades ago.
Examining theories with a critical eye and being a denier are not the same thing by far. Deniers examine theories with a pre-conception, and if it's not agreed with, they discard the theory, then figure out a reason why.
Deniers aren't 'skeptics', they're conspiracy theorists. The only way their argument stands up is if they can convince you that the overwhelming majority of scientists are actually not scientists, but are really just liars that somehow stand to make a fortune if they convince people of the big lie....to most people that's just nuts....and to reasonable people it's long past time to stop giving the nuts equal time and consideration.

I didn't watch any of his other videos, but based on titles and what bit I actually watched here, if he is a Poe, he's doing a really good job at it. I think he is just a typical conspiracy theorist type... sadly...

EDIT to add: Even if he is a Poe, there are people who honestly believe the type of stuff he's putting out there. Heck somebody I personally know believes that the raise in the popularity of Soccer in the US is because those in power want to make American's like European things so they can bring socialism and communism here and reject Christ. That's apparently why the media is pushing soccer more and more, and I'm sure believes that Obama's (who this person believes to be a Muslim and apparently only eats pork, drinks, and confesses he believes that Jesus is the Christ, just to fool us "brainwashed" people) administration is persecuting FIFA just so we can get a more US friendly FIFA in that will push it on the US even more, though to be fair, I've never heard that part of the claim, just that "they" are pushing soccer so "they" can push European socialism and anti-christ ideals on us.

Not true, and that's why I posted the actual definition, rather than my personal feeling on what the word means. Then we can all start from the ACTUAL definition(s) rather than just making some up and arguing about it.

Your second paragraph/sentence makes no sense at all to me, and sounds like a disjointed red herring/straw man/bad attempt at creating a false argument you can shoot down....but it's so all over the place it's unfollowable.

You continue to confuse feminism with Feminism, and also continue to paint all Feminists in the worst possible light based on a few overboard examples rather than describing the normal, average Feminist.
For instance, many Feminists see pornography and prostitution as empowering and taking control of their own sexuality, and it was actually prudish anti-feminist men who tried to censor it in the courts.

In fact, there ARE many people in the civilized world who still think women don't deserve the same rights as men in many areas, and insist they are unable to perform tasks men can perform, must be coddled and subservient, and are lesser beings based purely on gender, despite all evidence to the contrary.

It's only because of this continuing misunderstanding on your part that you claim anyone said anything like "The implication, in any event, that this is somehow a novel position, for which we have feminist advocacy to thank... "...you are again confusing feminist with Feminist, and using the wrong one. We don't have Feminist advocacy to thank, we do however have feminist advocacy to thank for the advancements in women's rights...it's what the word means.


It doesn't sound at all like you 'appreciate the attempt at consensus building', or even understood my point, since you continue to conflate feminism with Feminism. I can't be certain, but it seems you are doing that intentionally in order to argue a moot point.



EDIT:sorry, I thought I quoted you @gorillaman, so I'll cut and paste....

gorillaman said:
Everyone has a different definition of feminism; that is to some extent the problem. Rather, this is the final bulwark to which its advocates retreat when their main arguments have been punctured and deflated.

"But surely," says the distorter of domestic violence and rape statistics - says the agitator who runs dissenting professors off campus - says the censor of allegedly harmful pornography - says the fascist who criminalises prostitution or BDSM - says the conspiracy theorist who sees systemic sexism in places it couldn't possibly exist, like science and silicon valley (and videogaming, and science fiction) - says the proponent of patriarchy theory in societies in which men are routinely sacrificed to war, to dangerous jobs, to extreme poverty; whose genitals are mutilated; whose children, houses and paychecks can be taken away essentially at the whim of their partners; for whom there is vanishingly little support in the event of domestic abuse or homelessness; who are assumed to be rapists and wife-beaters and paedophiles; and who are told, throughout all of this, that it is their privilege - "I'm just claiming that women have rights. How can you disagree with that?"

The implication, in any event, that this is somehow a novel position, for which we have feminist advocacy to thank and to which there is actually anyone in the civilised world who objects, is a laughable and insulting one.

Still, I'm sure we all appreciate the attempt at consensus building.