Lauryn Hill to get 'Conspiracy re-education'

1. 66

   innersmiffposted 10 years ago

   http://www.infowars.com/judge-orders-co … uryn-hill/
   
   Musician Lauryn Hill, facing threats to her family, withdrew from society for three months in 2008, and didn't pay tax. She is now facing prison and 'counseling for her conspiracy thoeries'.
   
   What 'conspiracy theories' does she subscribe to?
   The Jewish conspiracy?
   Holocaust denial?
   
   Nope, only that the music industry deliberately suppresses true musical talent in favour of mindless drivel. Not only is this a clear violation of the first amendment - everybody knows this is true.
   
   Just look at what sells! Can anybody honestly claim that there is a modicum of musical talent in the popular charts?

   replyreport
2. 0

   JaxsonRaineposted 10 years ago

   Hey bro, it's not easy to use autotune to sing a song someone else wrote!

   replyreport
   1. 66

      innersmiffposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      'Singing' is pushing it!

      replyreport
      1. 0

         JaxsonRaineposted 10 years agoin reply to this

         I've been tempted for quite a while to come up with some kind of auto-tune YT personality to try to make some extra money... I don't know if auto-tuned political discussion would go down very well or not

         replyreport
         1. 66

            innersmiffposted 10 years agoin reply to this

            I don't know . . . I'd be intruiged!

            replyreport
3. 65

   maxoxam41posted 10 years ago

   First I would like to understand why the Jewish history has to prevail as a reference versus others?
   As for Hills's words, she didn't say much when she was at the top of the music charts.

   replyreport
   1. 66

      innersmiffposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      I used those examples as they are the most provocative and some of the least politically-correct conspiracy theories out there, especially in comparison to the "music industry suppresses talent" conspiracy. Not that it makes much of a difference.
      
      But the issue is not any apparent hypocrisy - she has the right to be hypocritical if she wants to and the government is violating that right.

      replyreport
      1. 95

         wildernessposted 10 years agoin reply to this

         Does she have the right to ignore the laws as well?  If so, who gave her that right, as opposed to who will enforce that she doesn't?

         replyreport
         1. 66

            innersmiffposted 10 years agoin reply to this

            The debate at hand is about her 'conspiracy re-education', not her rights concerning her crime.

            replyreport
            1. 95

               wildernessposted 10 years agoin reply to this

               I think something is going over my head.  It looks to me like her paranoia is being used as an excuse for not paying taxes, and if so she really does have a mental problem.  "Everyone is out to get me and hurt me so I can't pay what I owe because then they will get me".
               
               Of course, it also looks like a diatribe that no one will give her money to do things as she wants to.  That is then turned into paranoia that everyone is trying to hurt her health, destroy her life, and maybe even take it away. 
               
               So just what rights is being taken?  Somebody has decided she is a danger to either herself or others and ordered mental help - is that what you refer to?

               replyreport
               1. 66

                  innersmiffposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                  It is absolutely the individual's business how paranoid they want to be. Intervention can only be justified when there has actually been a dangerous act, whereas all of Hill's actions have been non-aggressive. You know my stance on taxation.

                  replyreport
                  1. 95

                     wildernessposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                     Care (and/or control) of the mentally ill is a very delicate and complex subject; not something that can be simply written off as unnecessary until someone is hurt.
                     
                     It is my conclusion, for instance, that a great deal of the gun problem is due to mental illness; we should leave those people alone with their guns until they kill?  And then tell the victims family that it is immoral to take steps until that point?
                     
                     Or should we leave the mentally ill alone with their illness until they suicide?
                     
                     I don't have any answers to the problem, but I do know that waiting until someone (including the ill person) is hurt or killed is not a viable solution.  Reading this woman's writings, she seems in the very edge of crossing that knife edge; she has already taken actions with her family that originated in her paranoia.  She, and her family, need help.

                     replyreport
      2. 65

         maxoxam41posted 10 years agoin reply to this

         I don't think they are the most provocative. It is the only one most lobbied. The native American massacre is passed under silence. The Armenian genocide by the Turkish people, the Algerians by the French and so on...
         As for Hill as if she didn't know the rules of the game.
         Most of the people that opens their mouth are disgraced by society, it is not new. Is she really that naive? Since she evaded taxes, I will consider that she is not.

         replyreport
         1. 66

            innersmiffposted 10 years agoin reply to this

            I agree with you but I'm struggling to see your point.

            replyreport