Hacker News Reader

Comment by sfgweilr4f | Hacker News Reader

Now we know which episodes are the most interesting. Also which guests reveal who/what can't be criticised or discussed.

That said, I'm not surprised that Alex "they're turnin' the friggin frogs gay" Jones is on that list.

View on HN

Yes, things being put into water were claimed by scientist to be turning frogs gay, which is why he made the comment.

"Scientists are continuing to sound the alarm about some common chemicals, including the herbicide atrazine, and link them to changes in reproductive health and development. Endocrine disrupting toxic chemicals have been found to feminize male frogs and cause homosexual behavior. "

(2011) https://www.loe.org/shows/segments.html?programID=11-P13-000...

He even goes to lengths to say he doesn't hate gay people, he just doesn't want to be turned gay without consent.

"And I'm not saying people didn't naturally have homosexual feelings. I'm not even getting into it, quite frankly. I mean, give me a break. Do you think I'm like, oh, shocked by it, so I'm up here bashing it because I don't like gay people?"

Him saying it, and I do get what he's doing, putting real media bullshit together to form a narrative -

https://youtu.be/THFoayEgsV8?t=291

So yes, I do want to see him, it's important to see what he's really like. It takes to seconds for his fans to know the frogs are gay from polluted water is a science thing.

I'm picturing some PR people at a major chemicals corporation, upon discovering that their product has the power to turn frogs gay:

"This is credible science, let's seed this to Alex Jones, he'll turn it into a laughing stock!"

It made the list:

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/09/14/alex-jones-5-most-disturbing...

From your link -

"One of Jones’ most notorious conspiracy theories is that the government is using chemicals in order to turn people gay, using a mysterious “gay bomb” devised by the Pentagon."

Except BBC also pretty much reported on that in 2005 - "The US military investigated building a "gay bomb"" - http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/4174519.stm

And that's why I want Joe Rogan to interview him.

I want to know why Alex Jones thinks the way he does and how much he is acting and is he manic or something. An attempt at something real about him. Not just shaming dumber people.

CNBC thinks they are clever but the garbage that comes from their site and the BBC is still garbage even if it has glitter on it.

To be fair, they admit that a potential "gay bomb project" was real. They didn't report that the "gay frog experiment" was real though.

Most conspiracy theories have some sort of factual basis. What makes them conspiracy theories is the wild exaggerations, unfounded extrapolations and unproven connections to all other conspiracy theories.

I have my own "conspiracy theory", which is that people like Alex Jones are assets to whoever wants to divert attention from the factual basis of all these conspiracy theories. Actual conspiracy theorists usually suffer from paranoid delusions and apophenia, they are incapable of maintaining credibility. The factual basis then becomes less credible by association.

So while all the "clever" people get to have a laugh about that clown and his antics, they forgot asking themselves why the hell taxpayer money might be flowing into gay bomb research, and what other ridiculous secret projects might be underway right now.

From what I can tell, there was never any "gay bomb project" to begin with. While the proposed cost of the project was estimated at about 7 million dollars, no taxpayer money ever flowed into gay bomb research, except maybe the cost of printing a three page proposal. It was one of hundreds of speculative projects deemed too problematic to be workable, and never funded or implemented - which the linked article actually points out.

Unfortunately, people see an article about "the US government once considered a 'gay bomb' but dismissed it as ridiculous" and read "the US government has a secret Manhattan Project for gay bombs" and conclude "Alex Jones wasn't entirely wrong because, you know, the government is building gay bombs like he said. And if they're doing that, maybe they are putting something in the water. "

The entire line of reasoning is specious.

I didn't say the project was undertaken, but it was real enough for someone to come up with the idea, ballpark the cost of it, write up the proposal and have a bunch of presumably high-paid decision-makers read it in order to come to the conclusion that it's just a little bit too ridiculous. That's all on the tax dollar.

Of course, of all the egregious military research that has been undertaken, that one is just a whimsical side note. It could serve as a red herring even without any conspiracy theorist. I'd certainly sleep easier believing that the military is busy researching the gay bomb instead of the doomsday device.

>but it was real enough for someone to come up with the idea, ballpark the cost of it, write up the proposal and have a bunch of presumably high-paid decision-makers read it in order to come to the conclusion that it's just a little bit too ridiculous. That's all on the tax dollar.

A research laboratory speculated about possible areas of nonlethal chemical weapons research, and created a three page proposal, among which was a reference to what would be called the "gay bomb." That's their job.

Here is the proposal[0]. That's how "real" the "gay bomb" was - a single brief paragraph on the second page.

This isn't "egregious military research," it's a step above a doodle scribbled onto a napkin that someone else threw into the wastebasket.

[0]https://web.archive.org/web/20060502201217if_/http://www.sun...

Of all the questionable claims that Alex Jones has made, you picked one that's actually true.

Endocrine disruptors should be a serious environmental concern, but now that Alex Jones talked about it, I guess we can safely ignore it.

The actual claim Alex Jones was making was that some feminist-homosexual-government conspiracy was deliberately dumping chemicals into the water supply in order to increase the homosexual population as an act of chemical warfare and genocide against straight males.

He wasn't simply voicing a concern about the environmental impact of endocrine disruptors, or corporate pollution.

I suspect this has to be more to do with particular things said on these episodes that may make Spotify legally liable, rather than a blacklist of people. Eddie Bravo and Joey Diaz have been on tons of episodes other than the ones listed. I can't even imagine JRE without Joey as a regular.

Some people strike me as particularly odd for blacklisting: Louis Theroux, Brian Dunning and Rickson Gracie must be politically uncontroversial, unless I'm missing something.

> I suspect this has to be more to do with particular things said on these episodes that may make Spotify legally liable

Are those episodes listed on Spotify as "Censored to avoid legal liability"? Or perhaps as "Unavailable due to legal reasons"? Or were they just quietly disappeared, and it was up to a random redditor to reveal that censorship even took place?

The Louis Theroux episode is blocked in some countries for copyright by A+E Networks

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QjeV2_hKLao

But most there are censorship not copyright.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com