Do people who say Alex Jones fear mongers even watch his show?, page 8

reply to post by smallpeeps

If there is a national "fire" in this theater called America, then it is you who will bear the guilt by keeping people in their seats. Conspiracy researchers will not have any guilt as you seem to be saying because they are informed and aware.

You're assuming a false dichotomy by ignoring a third (at least) plausible situation. That you are mistake, and that by screaming "Fire!" in a crowded theater you could inspire a panic in a rush for the door in which people are needlessly trampled, seriously injured, or quite possibly die. Even if you really and truly believed that you were helping at the time, and were convinced there was a fire, who's hands do those deaths ultimately fall upon? Or are they just "acceptable collateral damage" to you? Maybe you did smell smoke, or feel a strong draft of oddly misplaced heat... but that doesn't mean there's a fire. It could be a factor you're not accounting for, or clear signs of a potential fire (like a wiring fault)... or maybe you felt both the heat and smelled the smoke, but they were unrelated phenomena. Does that really justify your screaming of "Fire!!", whereas further inquiry could confirm or deny your suspicion?

And what of those who are falsely yelling fire either by giving you insufficient, misinterpreted, or spurious cherry-picked information? I would refer you to the 1913 Massacre in which 74 people died, trampled over in the chaos of the mad dash for the exits... despite there never actually being a fire of any kind.

And just to make this clear - flames are flames. Everyone can see them, and you don't need to yell fire to get people to recognize them or acknowledge them. It's not analogous to your described situation. When you're talking about flames, you're talking about acknowledged issues with empirical evidence to support them. Linking smoke and heat is still speculation, even if strongly indicative of your hypothesis. It could be nothing, it could be (as said) a small trash fire, or it could be an inferno within the ceiling insulation and the smoke just hasn't collected enough to push downward for everyone to notice.

One of the first things they teach you in ANY crisis/emergency management course is to stay calm, and keep the people around you calm. Assess the situation and make rational informed decisions. You can still move like, well like there's a fire under your butt, but in a directed and purposeful manner.

It does save lives.

Alex Jones has proven himself to be a fear monger... just as Fox News has proven themselves to be fear mongers. Aside from the casual listen to hear the advertising pitches they call news or the pandering to a particular political slant (and that's what they're doing, vying for your attention to increase revenue) to hear a test sample of crap that fellow citizens are apparently believing to come from a trustworthy source, I have nothing to do with them. It's the same with MSNBC, NBC, CNN or other mainstream sources, and for the same reason.

And... by the way, studies show that people who get their news online are generally as equally uninformed/misinformed as those who watch the main-stream media... because the tend to seek out those blogs aligned with their political/ideological leanings who will tell them what they want to hear. Not many people have a recognition of their own bias, and seek out contradictory views or sources they know give them more complete coverage from different angles of perspective.

Hell, that's why I'm HERE in the first place. Because I'm seeking out contrary views. Not so I can accept them, but so I can gauge them and weigh their validity against other sources. Unfortunately, I'm finding that many in the conspiracy culture tend to gravitate towards sources like Alex Jones and David Icke because something, somewhere, shattered their previously held belief system built on personal bias (and that's regardless of whether or not the info was accurate). So instead of setting up any sort of personal methodology for removing or identifying their bias, they jump head-long into the task of cocooning themselves around another set of falsehoods and misconceptions built on information fed to them by their new "trusted source".

While I won't profess to having it all figured out, I will say that my bias does lean heavily towards the sciences. But, at least in that case I feel a bit vindicated, because science is all about a methodology for removing bias from observations and reasoned debate of contrary views. And... well, science is a self-correcting process with a proven track record of working. Speculation, accusation, out of context information, misinformation, fear-mongering, pandering... none of that stuff gets you anywhere. Or rather it does, but often in a contrary position with unintended consequences.

.... you haven't even fully explored the analogy of a theater fire and already you're jumping the conversation to motivation for intentional burning, with #1 on your list being insurance fraud. I... think that's a bit telling as to your own particular brand of bias.

[edit on 18-5-2009 by Lasheic]