Are conspiracy kooks hurting the liberty movement?

[Russell Kanning]

now he has to debunk the hmca claims
but now this whole story is getting complicated and seems to involve many people ..... sounds like a conspiracy to me

[MaineShark]

but now this whole story is getting complicated and seems to involve many people ..... sounds like a conspiracy to me

Not really - a bunch of folks who all have the same goals can do similar things, without conspiring in advance.

For example, when police know there's a planned protest, and send their thugs to attack the protesters, that involves a conspiracy on the part of the police.

A lynch mob, on the other hand, does similar things, without any advance planning.  Folks who are upset about a similar thing all find each other, without a plan.

[dalebert]

sounds like a conspiracy to me

I know that's supposed to be a zinger but it's kind of silly to assume that, because someone does not believe in conspiracy X, that they don't believe in any, ever. Obviously people can get together and plan things and they are conspiring. It's a common straw man. The strategy of this "conspiracy" is relatively str8-fwd versus the ones Myles has chosen to debunk. And he's very specific. He address the veracity of specific claims one by one and then the response is not on topic -- "you don't believe in conspiracies", "you trust the government when you shouldn't", "that other thing happened. why don't you believe in this thing?"

Myles has addressed their claims directly and disassembled specific conspiracies brick by brick. Why hasn't anyone on this thread rebutted his responses specifically in typical healthy debate style? Because they can't. The claims were flimsy from the start and Myles' responses are rock solid. So after they saw him as a real threat to their propaganda, they started trying to shut him up.

Has anyone actually watched his films? I've watched his 9/11 Truth series and his House of Numbers series (still in progress). The House of Numbers one embarrassed me because I actually somewhat bought into their bullshit and made a couple of shows about it. I'm actually going back to put disclaimers on those episodes.

http://flamingfreedom.com/?s=house+of+numbers

I can admit when I am wrong.

[Jim Johnson]

how bad can the conspiracy kooks hurt this guy?

Imagine you had put hours and hours of time into a project, nothing more than a hobby that doesn't make you any money, just to express your views. Then you got onto YouTube and got thousands of views for your videos. Then some folks came along and exploited a convenient method to shut down your videos and silence you and all that work was for naught. You didn't get paid, and the whole point of doing it--to get the message out, was now gone. How motivated would you be to continue?

Sounds like it can hurt a lot.

I don't see the problem.
This guy was looking for a conspiracy fight and got one.
...or looked to troll the conspiracy kooks and got a rise.
...or started a thing to which people responded.
...or pointed his squirt gun in a kidding type of way and everyone squirted him and then he cried.

[MaineShark]

I don't see the problem.
This guy was looking for a conspiracy fight and got one.
...or looked to troll the conspiracy kooks and got a rise.
...or started a thing to which people responded.
...or pointed his squirt gun in a kidding type of way and everyone squirted him and then he cried.

He expressed an idea.  They responded by using the violence of government.

I don't see how using governmental violence is an acceptable response to someone proving you wrong on some point.

[Jim Johnson]

I don't see the problem.
This guy was looking for a conspiracy fight and got one.
...or looked to troll the conspiracy kooks and got a rise.
...or started a thing to which people responded.
...or pointed his squirt gun in a kidding type of way and everyone squirted him and then he cried.

He expressed an idea.  They responded by using the violence of government.

I don't see how using governmental violence is an acceptable response to someone proving you wrong on some point.

Oh, I thought they were appealing to You Tube.
I didn't know guys with guns showed up at his door and they were turned away with the "fair use" argument.

[MaineShark]

Oh, I thought they were appealing to You Tube.
I didn't know guys with guns showed up at his door and they were turned away with the "fair use" argument.

They are "appealing" to YouTube by saying, "take that video down or we'll have the government attack you."  YouTube complies under threat of that attack, and then it's up to the producer of the video to prove his innocence, each and every time they do it (because the law says that YouTube can be attacked if it does not immediately comply with a removal request, so it must comply regardless of the lack of evidence).

[Russell Kanning]

Sounds like a violent conspiracy to me
But I am not an expert

[Jim Johnson]

Oh, I thought they were appealing to You Tube.
I didn't know guys with guns showed up at his door and they were turned away with the "fair use" argument.

They are "appealing" to YouTube by saying, "take that video down or we'll have the government attack you."  YouTube complies under threat of that attack, and then it's up to the producer of the video to prove his innocence, each and every time they do it (because the law says that YouTube can be attacked if it does not immediately comply with a removal request, so it must comply regardless of the lack of evidence).

I take umbridge at your use of "government violence" in that you do not delineate between threats and violence.  Especially when there is many steps between the threat and the violence, as well as there being a private entity that is mediating the disputes. 

[MaineShark]

I take umbridge at your use of "government violence" in that you do not delineate between threats and violence.

Credible threats of violence are, in and of themselves, violent acts.  If not, mugging would not be violent.  "Give me your wallet or I'll stab you" is violent, even if the guy gives the mugger his wallet and, therefore, does not get stabbed.

...as well as there being a private entity that is mediating the disputes.

Which one?  They are threatening YouTube with legal action if YouTube does not comply with their demands.  YouTube has to act immediately, because even mere delay in compliance can result in governmental violence.  Then they investigate and potentially determine that it is not a legitimate claim, and finally re-post the video.  At which point someone else threatens YouTube again, and the cycle repeats...

[Tom Sawyer]

I've filed a complaint with the owners of this forum and am considering civil legal action against Johnson for his unauthorized use of the word umbridge umbrage. Clearly he stole that term from someone else and I find his use of the term umbrageous!

[Jim Johnson]

I take umbridge at your use of "government violence" in that you do not delineate between threats and violence.

Credible threats of violence are, in and of themselves, violent acts.  If not, mugging would not be violent.  "Give me your wallet or I'll stab you" is violent, even if the guy gives the mugger his wallet and, therefore, does not get stabbed.

...as well as there being a private entity that is mediating the disputes.

Which one?  They are threatening YouTube with legal action if YouTube does not comply with their demands.  YouTube has to act immediately, because even mere delay in compliance can result in governmental violence.  Then they investigate and potentially determine that it is not a legitimate claim, and finally re-post the video.  At which point someone else threatens YouTube again, and the cycle repeats...

No, if a violent act is not a physical action then words have no meaning.

[Jim Johnson]

I've filed a complaint with the owners of this forum and am considering civil legal action against Johnson for his unauthorized use of the word umbridge umbrage. Clearly he stole that term from someone else and I find his use of the term umbrageous!

Clearly a violent threat, and I take umbrage at being placed in the umbrage of your threats.

[Tom Sawyer]

I've filed a complaint with the owners of this forum and am considering civil legal action against Johnson for his unauthorized use of the word umbridge umbrage. Clearly he stole that term from someone else and I find his use of the term umbrageous!

Clearly a violent threat, and I take umbrage at being placed in the umbrage of your threats.

Where's my glove? My face smacking dueling glove!

[MaineShark]

No, if a violent act is not a physical action then words have no meaning.

Violence does not require physical action.  Physical action may be violent, but actions other than physical may also be violent.

What you're suggesting is that most violations of others' rights are not actually wrongful.  If someone says, "do this or I'll hurt you" or, "stop doing that or I'll hurt you," and you have to modify your behavior to avoid him hurting you, that does not absolve him of responsibility.  He has engaged in violence against you as soon as he made a credible threat.

If not, you're left with a situation like this:

"So, then you raped her?"
"No, she consented to have sex with me."
"Why?"
"Well, I told her that if she didn't, I would stab her to death, but since I didn't actually do so, I did not actually engage in any violence, so it was consensual."

Or, for that matter, take it up a notch and consider those who commit crimes against humanity.  How many of those monsters (Bush, Obama, Hitler, etc.) actually pulled the trigger, even once?  They merely spoke or wrote words.  Are they absolved of all responsibility?  Or are they responsible, because words can be violent?

Credible threats are acts of violence.