Anderson Cooper "Exposing" Newtown Conspiracy Theory 1/11/13

[compared2what?]

[
Unhappy is one thing, calling his house, making threats, calling him a pedophile, ruining his life, etc., is another.

Thanks for reminding me of something.

It's that stuff that really stands out to me.

By design, speech in general and political speech in particular are so well-protected as to be almost entrapment-proof, in the ordinary scheme of things. So in practice, they're effectively limitless rights, with only two exceptions: defamatory speech; and speech that constitutes some kind of actual danger or threat, per se (shouting fire in a crowded theater; harassment, etc: )

And it's actually not at all easy for anyone to just, like, accidentally to stray over the legal line for either one of those, just in the routine course of a conversation about something in the news. Because the law guarantees an additional extra bonus helping of latitude wrt what constitutes defamation when it comes to discussing the doings of newsworthy and/or public figures. And because real rather than rhetorical threats or dangers virtually never arise in any form when all people are doing is just talking about shit.

Basically, if two months ago, someone had asked me what the chances of people spontaneously crossing those lines while talking about conspiracies online were, I would have thought they was too little realistic possibility of that happening for it to be anything other than a ridiculously academic question.

Because at that point, I'd never seen anything that even came close to creating the potential for it.

Now we've got both. Defamation and danger. Out of the blue.

Maybe it's a coincidence. It doesn't look like one to me, though. Especially since it pretty much all starts with the harassment advisory about Ryan Lanza. I can just see a bunch of feds looking at the response to that and thinking:

"Could there really be so many people with politics we hate who can't tell the difference between breaking the law and freedom of speech well enough to know that's not a gag order? It's like a dream come true! Let's set 'em up."

Or something like that.

I should just give up, right? Sorry. I mean well. It's pretty damn unusual, though. Anomalous, even. You don't see it often.

[JackRiddler]

On a more existential tip, though. it does raise the question:

When a bunch of people who already believe that the government is constantly scheming to fuck with their minds with a view to gaining total social and political control of the populace can't get their heads around the perfectly plausible notion that it might be doing exactly that in accordance with very-well documented and universally known practice, what's the fucking point of their subscribing to the belief?

"The government" is constantly scheming to etc. If by that we understand that "the government" covers a lot of different agencies, programs, operations and deep state entities with parapolitical tentacles; some of which, especially among the latter, are constantly scheming to etc.; others of which do so when they find it opportune; while yet others clean up national parks or write paychecks or try to keep a low profile while self-perpetuating some relatively harmless if useless bureaucracy, etc.

And if "the government" is involved here, the best bet (out of several) is that they're trolling Internet boards with managed personas to set up ridiculous magical theories not even meriting the already loaded C-word, with a view possibly to entraping naive and inchoately angry people into acts of harrassment against victims and survivors of the Newtown massacre (whatever the full story of that may be). More or less as you, c2w?, have described.

Of course to think so is already on the border between metanoia and paranoia, but it's certainly a likelier scenario than some of the stuff we've seen advanced as "analysis" based on videos of or news reports about the victims and survivors of Newtown.

I'd be at least mildly suspicious of new accounts who come on really, really strongly in insisting that, e.g., the innocent and pretty much laudable actions of this Gene guy (as reported) constitute some kind of smoking gun activity demonstrating his involvement in an evil plot to eat children in his Gingerbread house or cover up the Real Story of Newtown, etc. etc. Or who then say anyone who disagrees is "gatekeeping" and the like.

.

[barracuda]

the innocent and pretty much laudable actions of this Gene guy

The guy's a fucking hero. There are heroes and there are heroes, but at the very least, giving what comfort you can to persons in distress in time of severe crisis is the nut of the matter. As well, his emotional display when in the process of re-living the events of the day is exactly the thing Robbie Parker and other persons involved in the incident are routinely accused of lacking. It's as if there's some fucking Goldilocks range of emotional response that Hollywood has ingrained into the collective psyche that actually and truely is the only appropriate one available.

[82_28]

You really do try my patience 82 and that's saying something.

Here's where I disagree with you, Drew. I do agree in principle, absolutely. It most certainly is a ghastly "tragedy".

I think drew was saying more than that it was a "tragedy" or even a ghastly "tragedy" and I can't think of any reason to put tragedy in quotes. Why do you do that?

However, the Tragedy as A Way of Normal Life, is what concerns me and it is becoming normalized. One may say that it is nothing but unhinged motherfuckers with access to guns, but it could also be said that these acts follow a pattern of the old "who benefits?" canard.

I'm going to rephrase this for you:

However, Tragedy as a Normal Way of Life is what concerns me. I'm afraid these tragedies are so common now that it is becoming normalized. We just shrug our shoulders, put our heads down and carry on as best we can, never knowing that we've just lost another bit of our humanity in the process. You could attribute the whole phenomena to nothing but random, unhinged motherfuckers with access to guns, but you could also start to look for patterns and begin asking cui bono? (which btw is not a canard. 1a : a false or unfounded report or story; especially : a fabricated report b : a groundless rumor or belief http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/canard)

sigh. I know. I'm just a fucking persnickety motherfucking fuck fucker.

Go rent Brazil again.

That is an excellent idea.

I'll tell you what then, get used to it. This is mostly a passive medium and it is your call insofar as what your thresholds of "patience" are. However condescension comes off as lame. I don't need scolded. However, what I said stands, dude. I don't need shit rephrased. If I wrote it, perhaps I may "regret" it in the future. But what I wrote was on my mind at the time. And as to your "correction" of the cui bono, do you not think I already knew the francophone/latin term yet chose not to use it as it seemed as a "kinda cliché" (double entendre there both American slang and the French) I didn't want to include? Do you not think that I used "canard" in the way I do know what the term fucking means?

Look, I am trying to be "Internet cool" with you, BPH, but seriously. Did you not grok the extra fucking dimensions I was trying to bring to light as to how my opinion of this matter are? And no, I wouldn't use the word "persnickety" nor motherfucking fuck fucker. I would just say an annoying maven who refuses to think outside the box. You don't test my patience, you just make me go, Jesus, just fucking chill with the idea that free thought and free language isn't free for everyone except for you. How many times am I going to have to tell you that I stand by my words?

[brainpanhandler]

82,

I should know better. I really should.

[82_28]

No you shouldn't have known better and no, should have known better. Jesus, bro. Condescension only goes so far with people who deal with it on a regular basis and have free reign to tell people to get the fuck out. So, chill. I stand my ground and you yours. I see the facetiousness in the above. Just don't condescend me in the relatively jovial relationship we happen to have forged. Don't condescend me. Just tellin' ya. Doesn't make me hate you one bit. But you're not over and above me, bro. I'm here just like you. I don't need another motherfucking parent. Say what you gotta say and expect likewise.

"Testing my patience?" Really? You know what comes after that. It starts in a rousing "F" and an even more rousing "U".

[conniption]

the innocent and pretty much laudable actions of this Gene guy

The guy's a fucking hero. There are heroes and there are heroes...

LOL

Hero? Hello? I'm going to assume you didn't watch the video, but that's okay. I shouldn't be assuming anything. I'm sorry, barracuda. You're creeping me out...even more than Gene.

P.S. - You're not my daddy.

*

Perelandra, Jack and c2w?...I lack the skills (and time) to address a pile-on. Please excuse me from this thread for the time being.

'til then.

Peace.

[barracuda]

I watched the video. Most of which I had already seen several times.

You wanna know who creeps me out? Brendan Hunt.

You're not my daddy.

Your momma.

[conniption]

Momma!!!

*

"Brendan Hunt"???

Never mind Brendan. We're talking about Gene.

[barracuda]

So go ahead and talk about him. I'd love to hear a cohesive theory about just what the conspiracy of Gene entails. As of yet, I haven't seen one on these here internets. Just innuendo mostly.

But you did post an hour and a half long video in which all the new information I'm getting is color commentary from a purple-faced self-proclaimed "truth-seeker" sitting in front of his trophies, so I may be inclined to assess him rather than Gene. I mean, everybody's got motivations, right?

[conniption]

I mean, everybody's got motivations, right?

idk barracuda. I'm not feeling very motivated at this time to be talking with you. None-the-less, here we are. ^^

I'm sorry I picked a video with a purple-faced kid in it.

Didn't mean to pick the craziest kid out there. If he wants to go after them Masons, then more power to him.

Whatever.

Are you a Mason?

[barracuda]

No, but I have been known to eat preserves out of mason jars.

I just think if you're gonna put Gene in a conspiracy, you ought to be able to spell out just what you think that conspiracy is about, how it might work operationally in a practical sense, how that reflects on the rest of what we know, what it's goals are, and what Gene's part in it is. Otherwise, what have you got? The inexplicable idiosyncrasies and inconsistencies of an elderly gentleman?

Assume he's a fraud - where does the conspiracy of Gene take you, and how does it take you there?

Anyway, just asking. By your enthusiasm I sort of thought your ideas on this would come easy.

[compared2what?]

*

Perelandra, Jack and c2w?...I lack the skills (and time) to address a pile-on. Please excuse me from this thread for the time being.

'til then.

Peace.

And peace be unto you. No reply or other addressing is necessary. I just wanted to convey to you a general sense of why it is I think that rushing out of your way to break federal laws in full view of the federal law enforcement officials who just finished telling you they want to bust people for doing that type of thing is probably not the most politically empowering act possible.

But feel free to disagree.

I'm sorry again for yelling in all-caps at you. My bad..

[lupercal]

I just wanted to convey to you a general sense of why it is I think that rushing out of your way to break federal laws in full view of the federal law enforcement officials who just finished telling you they want to bust people for doing that type of thing

Which federal laws and which agency's officials are you talking about, specifically? You've been making similar threats for weeks now but this is a discussion board and Sandy Hook strikes me as a perfectly legitimate discussion subject.

[barracuda]

Lupercal, it would seem 47 USC § 223 is relevant to your question, and even 18 USC § 875 (c), under the right conditions. For starters.

I have no doubt, though, that Sandy Hook is a perfectly legitimate discussion subject here.