|
| Thread: The Mike Benz interview |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 3 4 · «PREV / NEXT» |
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
posted February 20, 2024 10:57 PM |
|
|
That is a false narrative. Trump was SOLD as this outsider guy. With social media presence. Couple that with the fact that a lot of people would vote either red or blue even if they nominated a Zzombie, you are there. To a degree this "being sick of the system" was fostered as well. As I said, people were disappointed about the fact that Obama didn't have much impact.
The fact is, that all those stories aren't somehow leaking, they are made. Produced. It's a propaganda war and democratic governments who are bound by certain rules and can't simply forbid anything they don't like, are on the losing side. Of course this has a lot of reasons, but one is, that people are fed up with democracy/states of law/states with checks and balances and yseparation of powers and their "due process". Things take TIME. You can't just cut the Gordian Knot. Many people would like faster action in certain situations - or even any action at all, since action may be blocked by courts and judges or may not find majorities and so on.
So in times of crisis - what most people want is decisive action, fast. Which means, lots of people are sick of due process and dissatisfied. People want strong leadership in times of crisis.
Which is also a thing that is "marketed" - and obviously NOT by the government.
And of course I'm a cynic, by the way - what else am I supposed to be?
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted February 20, 2024 11:30 PM |
|
Edited by artu at 23:32, 20 Feb 2024.
|
Trump sold himself as the outsider, because he realized that it is the story that sells. And there is a reason it sells.
You ara suppose to be omniscient just like me, no need to be cynical. (And claiming US government is despised because they are too law-abiding is not a perspective I’d define as cynical to be frank, eheheh.)
____________
Are you pretty? This is my occasion. - Ghost
|
|
yogi
Promising
Famous Hero
of picnics
|
|
posted February 21, 2024 02:00 AM |
|
|
the conversation has much less to do with partisanism (reality is not so simple), or "freedom" of speech really (freedom is not synonymous with selfishness but lack of bondage), and more to do with global scale propagandist abuse of technology. tucker speaks for maybe a minute throughout, benzes exposition is very informative.
artu said:
omniscient just like me
i know youre joking, just elucidating that the humor is due to omniscience and ego being polar opposites
"if you wish to know the truth simply tell no lies"
____________
yogi - class: monk | status: healthy
"Lol we are HC'ers.. The same tribe.. Guy!" ~Ghost
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted February 21, 2024 11:10 AM |
|
|
Guys, seriously. I watched that vid now up to minute 15, and Benz LITERALLY tells the story that when in 2019 they couldn't find proof for Russian interference in the elections of 2016 (Trump being "illegally"elected), "they" transferred the threatfrom Russia into the domestic area, so that timely for the 2020 elections "the government" (which obviously then was NOT Trump) could "rig" the elections by forbidding their population to speak out.
You can listen to that again - minute 12 to 15 or 16 - that is LITERALLY a conspiracy tale Benz is telling, poor Trump and all...
And it makes it ABUNDANTLY clear why Tucker Carlson is actually doing that.
This video is REALLY just propaganda, actually.
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted February 21, 2024 12:14 PM |
|
Edited by artu at 12:17, 21 Feb 2024.
|
No, what he means is, the narrative that Trump was supported by Russia saves them from the moral dilemma of operating in domestic soil because then, Trump technically becomes a national security issue. The government (or you can say the state and your regular Washington circles) didnt want or like Trump in power. And they did everything they can to smear him, not that I think he is a victim or some innocent hero of the people but there was propaganda against him that was indeed supported and backed by deep state circles.
Think of it like this, neither the Republicans nor the Democrats really supported Trump, conveniently, mainstream media overwhelmingly opposed him and up until a point pretended he stood no chance at all, that he was some kind of eccentric candidate who is only in it for the show. Trump was smart enough to smell the air and use this to build a counter narrative, which was “he was this hero for the people the establisment was trying to stop no matter what, because they needed him to go away so that the wheels of deception can keep turning” etc. etc. The part about him not being wanted was true, he was a “disturbance in the force” so to speak.
Now, before the age of internet, Trump most probably couldn’t achieve what he did. With no support from the mainstream political circles or the mainstream media, he would have faded out. But during this last decade, the power of social media became something uncontrollable and unpredictable. Keep in mind, I am not emphasizing this to suggest that it is a source of truth or revolutionary rebellion or some romantic ideal like that. It is full of crap, bigotry, mindless conspiracy etc. But it is still uncontrollable by the status quo. Benz simply points out that, this causes the military-industrial complex, the establishment, the Washington circles, whatever you call it, the semi-oligarchy that you recognize, to put pressure on domestic social media by manipulation technics and censorship that used to be used on foreign soil to back up uprisings, discredit political leaders and so on. The government agencies are doing inside, what they used to do outside. That’s why he starts with the CIA leader who openly admits that they rigged the Italian elections after WW2 and summarizes how there already is a know-how of how to do that.
Why are you so decisive on not accepting this? Like “they wouldnt do that” or what?! It is obvious they interfere. This doesnt mean they control everything, of course.
____________
Are you pretty? This is my occasion. - Ghost
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted February 21, 2024 12:58 PM |
|
|
Why are you readily accepting that?
I mean, you actually believe that
a) There was an agenda to get rid of Trump as soon as he had been elected (as opposed to they followed the very real lead to uncover Russia meddling with the elections and just didn't find conclusive enough PROOF; I personally don't doubt for a minute that Russias army of fake personas did everything in their power to diss Hillary and support Trump because from Putin's view it would have been completely silly not to do it because Trump obviously wasn't willing to oppose Russia in any way) and
b) once it became clear they couldn't actually proof it, they had to stop him domestically - by doing WHAT EXACTLY? Starting to do WHAT HE WAS DOING THE WHOLE TIME? What EXACTLY did the "government" do that cost Trump the election 2020?
I can't understand that you buy this narrative because without this alleged manipulation of social media Trump would have never been elected in the first place. Without manipulation of electoral districts he wouldn't have been elected either.
Without having seen the rest of the video, don't you see that this is a freaking ELECTION CAMPAIGN? Because the question will doubtlessly not be what they DID, the question will be what WILL they do what they not already didn't, to make sure Trump isn't elected again. As was clear from moment one of that vid. Not enough that they shower him with trials and hearings, they want to shut HIM up as well - because of course it's all about HIM. Second Coming of George Washington, isn't he?
Christ, artu, I can't believe you actually fall for that. Incredible.
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted February 21, 2024 01:27 PM |
|
Edited by artu at 13:33, 21 Feb 2024.
|
Dude, you look at everything like some true soldier always ready to defend one side no matter what.
They did pull a lot of strings to prevent Trump from happening or to indict him before and after the election. That is already plain to see. I dont need Benz to know that. Btw, I am talking about the election that he did win, not the one that he lost. Russian interference is about the first one. So nothing the government did cost him the election. That was the(ir) problem.
Trump wouldnt have been elected without social media in the first place, yes, that is also what I said. So there are more attempts, bordering on authoritarian state control targeting social media. (And it is not just because of Trump naturally, he is just an example.) You dont have to support Trump to acknowledge this. It is most probably Tucker Carlson’s political motivation, yes, but you dont have to support that either. What Benz points out is a problematic situation and it is power abuse by the state. Simple as that. I am not “falling” for anything, I just dont approve of everything unconditionally in order to get rid of Trump which seems to be your position and it looks quite like a tunnel vision from where I stand.
____________
Are you pretty? This is my occasion. - Ghost
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted February 21, 2024 01:48 PM |
|
|
artu said:
(And it is not just because of Trump naturally, he is just an example.)
That's where you are COMPLETELY and UTTERLY wrong - keep in mind, Benz was a member of the Trump admin. It's ONLY and EXCLUSIVELY about the next (coming) election - in which Trump wants to be elected again, and Benz's narrative is ONLY (and everything else is just embellishment to make this more palatable for people like you who like when a story is richly detailed) about how "the government" tried to pin on Trump Russian meddling (unsuccessfully) and has been at it since then to cut down on free speech instead (in the internet) in an attempt to harm Trump, in 2020 (but that's in the past), but more importantly for THIS ONE now, in 2024.
They want to GET RID OF HIM - and with him they want to get rid of YOUR right to free speech.
Are you really THAT naive?
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted February 21, 2024 01:53 PM |
|
|
Once again, his motivation doesnt reduce what he points out into his own agenda. If somebody points out to the war in Iraq to discredit Bush, the war in Iraq is still the war in Iraq.
____________
Are you pretty? This is my occasion. - Ghost
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted February 21, 2024 03:05 PM |
|
|
Excuse me, but is there ANY proof for the causal connections he spins? Or for what he sells as "facts"?
I mean, we aren't talking fred here, are we? You know, the WEF is a fact and that in itself proves what for fred is obvious.
And we all know that facts are one thing, but the story you cobble together of them is quite another, ask any lawyer.
So, since you watched the whole thing - what is proven in terms of CONCLUSIONS and which "facts" are actually outrageous and "factual" as in true?
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted February 22, 2024 08:37 AM |
|
|
Sorry, real life stuff got in the way (and it still kind of does)and then I slept like a stone.
It’s not like he is talking about a conspiracy or an exclusive operation, it more like talking about, say, situation of free press in Turkey. And it’s never some vague shadow force that he’s talking about, or some abstract “they” who controls everything. It’s actual policies with actual agencies such as NSA, CIA, some think tanks, actual directors and politicians, actual disinformation laws with actual content… It’s a long interview and I didnt memorize the names of people involved, it’s not my country. But nothing he speaks about is secretive, if you are curious about the exact details, simply watch it.
The main narrative is, once internet is here and the genie is out of the bottle, they realize its powers of swaying the public opinion and use this to influence politics abroad. A certain know-how develops that involves fake news, selective censorship and social media manipulation. What starts out as foreign interference than turns inwards.
____________
Are you pretty? This is my occasion. - Ghost
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted February 22, 2024 09:13 AM |
|
|
Since I've watched the first quarter of an hour I KNOW that the punch line therein is about Trump and "they" dealing with HIM.
Again, it's Tucker Carlson doing this - the same guy that interviewed Putin and was Trump's media outlet; still is, quite probably - so this has a purpose.
Now, you say, yeah, purpose ok, but facts are facts. And then I asked What facts are actually so outrageous to justify the title "Mass Censorship Campaign" of the ACTUAL government (that is, the not-Trump government).
And it looks like you cannot answer that. Mass Censorship Campaign, what IS THAT, what is the government doing? WHAT is censored how exactly? I realize, that in the US there is freedom of SPEECH which is a bit more far-reaching than the freedom of OPINION people have in other countries, but still, so again the question: What is this Mass Censorship Campaign this video is supposedly all about, but doesn't seem to be?
And come on, if you are curious about the DETAILS, watch it??? Are you kidding me? That's no detail - that's the MAIN THING, literally the TITLE thing. And you don't know?
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted February 22, 2024 09:26 AM |
|
Edited by artu at 09:27, 22 Feb 2024.
|
What do you mean? The main thing IS my last sentence backed up by the details which I already gave some examples of in the thread. For instance, mainstream social media platforms remove comments of people who dont trust in the vaccines or say masks are not effective or they risk paying enormous sums of penalties. How can you cobble that into something it is not?
____________
Are you pretty? This is my occasion. - Ghost
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted February 22, 2024 09:34 AM |
|
Edited by artu at 09:35, 22 Feb 2024.
|
Btw, you talk as if interviewing Putin is something anormal. It would be any journalist’s wet dream, not that I admired the way Carlson handled it. He is the leader of a side in an actual war.
See, that’s part of the problem. Journalists used to interview even Saddam. Nobody used to think of saying something like “hah, you interviewed Saddam, how dare you” and now it is as if some kind of autocensor is even expected to not hear the counter argument. Why shouldnt people interview Putin?
____________
Are you pretty? This is my occasion. - Ghost
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted February 22, 2024 10:56 AM |
|
|
artu said:
Why shouldnt people interview Putin?
Because he is the leader of a country that has attacked another country. What important thing could he say in an interview with Tucker Carlson, that anyone could and would actually believe and trust, except maybe what his favorite color was? Putin is "interviewed" on a daily basis in Russian TV. It's an event that is all purpose and no content. And speaking of all purpose and no content...
artu said:
A certain know-how develops that involves fake news, selective censorship and social media manipulation. What starts out as foreign interference than turns inwards ... For instance, mainstream social media platforms remove comments of people who dont trust in the vaccines or say masks are not effective or they risk paying enormous sums of penalties. How can you cobble that into something it is not?
So that's the "mass censorship campaign"?
Formulating it as "people who don't trust in the vaccines" or say "masks are not effective" are obviously be fake news because it's a massive oversimplification of the actual situation. The ACTUAL situation is, for example, that measles are on the rise again because there have been less vaccinations in times of the pandemic. It is DIRECTLY influencing public health when people post WARNINGS against health measures: Don't get vaxed, it will make you sick. The REAL problem is, that ANYONE can post this, right? Not just Joe truck-driver who saw his friend being out three days from the vax, but ILL-WILLING people who want to promote certain interests by posting this, whether of foreign countries or political enemies. It's called fanning of fears, you know that.
It's also the right thing to do. It's not a mass censorship campaign, it's a campaign to protect vulnerable, naive people from being overwhelmed with "news" and "messages" that are intended to influence them in a harmful way. This kind of protection is nothing new - consumers are protected from false advertisement as well, that is, advertisement that advertises with lies. But still, corps can of course fake comments in social media that claim things about their products which aren't true.
So the law has the problem to identify who is just posting his honest opinion (I don't think this vaccination will help and I fear it may do moreharm than good) and who is not, but LIES about their actual opinion (different agenda).
That's more or less the same problem than identifying whether the guy you get to know on the internet is actually truthful about what they are posting or not.
Protecting a community of people against that is certainly problematic, but spinning it as a mass censorship campaign (with the added twist of making it an anti-Trump movement) is spinning things too far and is - propaganda.
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted February 22, 2024 11:58 AM |
|
Edited by artu at 12:00, 22 Feb 2024.
|
Yes, that’s how wars happen. And journalists interview the responsible parties, it had always been like that. People interviewed Saddam when he attacked Kuwait, they interviewed Ecevit when Turkey attacked Cyprus, they interviewed Bush when he attacked Iraq, Afganistan and so on…
Thinking vaccines are not tested enough or masks are pointless are opinions. They can be right or wrong, sincere or cunning, informed or not, you can not ban them on the basis of “people are vulnerable.” The whole point of freedom of speech is that opinions clash, and if vaccines are indeed not tested enough, it comes out. If the argument is false, ignorant, dumb, ill-willed, you present your facts, you counter-argue, you refute. So that dumb ideas are filtered out.
And it is not a single campaign, this is not some lunatic conspiracy about one big lie that designs everything. It is a concern about the general tendency of a semi-oligarchy to interfere in media and social media to manipulate public opinion. An accumulation of many incidents, none decisive by itself.
____________
Are you pretty? This is my occasion. - Ghost
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted February 22, 2024 03:43 PM |
|
|
artu said:
And it is not a single campaign, this is not some lunatic conspiracy about one big lie that designs everything.
Then why is the video titled "Mass Censorship Campaign"? The title is a lie then? A deliberate deception?
I mean it's fairly strange that you deny what the video claims to show and still go all-in to defend it as honest and not propaganda in any way. Makes no sense.
I also think you have a strange definition of opinion. artu said:
Thinking vaccines are not tested enough or masks are pointless are opinions.
That's not "opinions" Those are CLAIMS. The difference between an opinion and a claim: A claim is an opinion presented as fact. "Vaccines are not tested enough" is a claim. "Masks are pointless" is a claim. An opinion would be "I think, vaccines should be tested more thoroughly, before they are actually used for the broader public". That is an opinion. Claims need verification (but actually don't to make an impression). Opinions don't, since they don't claim to be universally true.
You know what else are claims and not opinions?
"Women actually mean yes, when they say no."
"All Jews deserve to die because they nailed Jesus Christ to the cross."
"The holocaust is a fabrication; it never took place."
"The 2020 elections in the US were rigged and the real president is Donald Trump."
"The world is a disc."
artu said:
If the argument is false, ignorant, dumb, ill-willed, you present your facts, you counter-argue, you refute. So that dumb ideas are filtered out.
You cannot argue with people presenting opinions as fact - claiming things. Case in point: fred79. But it's even worse. If that claim is presented earnestly - as with fred - arguing is pointless because it doesn't lead to anything. But if the claim is just made to "create havoc" (in the sense of bringing things into miscredit and so on), arguing is pointless because the claim happens in bad faith anyway.
Internet and social media these days are reduced who cries loudest. School mobbing is done via social media, mostly. OF COURSE the authorities must set RULES for how people deal with each other, same as in everyday real life. Even capitalism isn't a free-for-all.
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted February 22, 2024 05:19 PM |
|
Edited by artu at 17:21, 22 Feb 2024.
|
1- The title is a click-bait, he talks about a 30 year shift in how the state handles free speech, exampling policies of different governments. And you make me explain the simplest thing over and over again: Whether Carlson, or even Benz has a political motive is irrelevant. I am not arguing it is not propaganda, I am arguing that even if it is, it cant be reduced into that motive because of the facts he presents. Let’s assume, he creates a fog of factoids to cover his tracks of Trump support, those factoids are still troublesome. I mean, there are people in serious political circles openly suggesting that free speech is outdated. If you agree to this, then openly support it, dont claim that it is all just made up to support Trump.
2- That is a poor attempt at semantics, almost everything you listed is protected by free speech (at least in the USA). You can claim that the world is a disc, it is not illegal to be a flat earther. You can claim that the holocaust is a lie or that Jews had Jesus killed, without realistically offering to actually murder them. (Stuff like “the world would be better off without them” is not considered a realistic invitation to murder.) And suggesting vaccines arent tested enough or masks are not practical are not even bordering hate speech like such examples anyway. There were doctors who thought the vaccines werent tested enough. On one hand you claim there is no censorship but then you continue with arguing how some opinions can not be considered opinions because they “claim” things. Reminds me of some Turkish nationalists suggesting how the Armenian Genocide never happened and then continue by explaining how they got it coming anyway. By your logic, “claiming” Trump is a crook is also not an opinion.
3- Banning people’s opinions (or claims as you call them) is not setting rules for how they deal with each other, it is shutting them up.
____________
Are you pretty? This is my occasion. - Ghost
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted February 22, 2024 06:13 PM |
|
|
I don't claim there is no censorship. I just claim there is
1) No "censorship campaign" and not one to "avoid Trump", which the video does claim, whether you want to listen or not; and
2) that opposed to you an inhibition of free speech in the US more to the way this is handled in Europe is necessary in these times in which
3) social media are handled like a WEAPON and
4) weapons are generally controlled in civilized countries.
I would like to add
5) It is my opinion that the world doesn't need every idiot being able to comment on everything every which way they want and I'm
6) shocked, that you defend claims and outright lies that can be used to justify violence against people as "opinions" that people have a right to utter. Where does that stop? "I'm of the opinion all [insert anything] should be killed slowly and painfully". That's no invitation to crime, no? Who is straining poor semantics here?
I'm also of the opinion, that
7)purpose is always important, whether it's about an interview or a story that claims to expose something, but already lies in the title. Good faith, bad faith, it matters.
Lastly,
8) That "censorship campaign" is just a thing for the internet - not ACTUAL free speech. You can still personally tell everyone whichever idiotic opinion you have, if they want to here it. You actually can still post any crap you want - it may just happen that the provider will delete it. It's not so different from this board here, isn't it?
Of course it's ironic that what started out as the biggest weapon in the battle of the population against rogue state governments has deteriorated to the biggest weapon in the battle against reason and for bullies, but it's probably even more ironic that those who may suffer the most from that are defending their right to be bullied and misinformed.
|
|
Blizzard
Adventuring Hero
May Contain Nuts
|
|
posted February 22, 2024 06:20 PM |
|
Edited by Blizzard at 20:36, 22 Feb 2024.
|
I agree with what Artu is saying. Those two guys have a clear agenda (doesn’t everybody?) but that doesn’t invalidate all of the details they are pointing out.
Some additional context: Tucker Carlson has a very rose-tinted slant towards the USA of the 20th century. He has said multiple times in other interviews how the country has always been a champion of enforcing free speech and that life today isn’t like how life used to be. That this is a new challenge. This is factually not true. 1917, 1954/55, and 2001 are three particularly famous years in modern history where the USA violated free speech pretty blatantly. 1917 is the most infamous one: if you criticized the war effort you could literally be thrown into jail (and a substantial number of people were, especially among the millions of people who had emigrated from central European countries) for being unpatriotic, which is analogous to what it is like in Putin’s Russia today in 2024. So, the USA has already drunk from the Kool-Aid of mass censorship before and it is not a new thing. That is because what is constitutional and what is actually enforced are two different things. If federal judges had challenged this stuff in the past, they would have had a strong case to do so, but they didn’t.
Carlson also went on a tirade after his interview with Putin a few weeks ago that Moscow looks like how American cities looked like when he was a kid: clean and safe. Except Tucker Carlson grew up in the 1970s when violent crime was drastically higher than it is today, gangs were much larger, and drunk driving fatalities were epidemic. So, yeah, that’s all a bunch of baloney. That's not directly relevant to the interview but I'm just pointing out that Tucker does not rank high when it comes to objectivity. He's very much a sensationalist journalist, which is part of the reason for why he's so popular.
And the whole spiel in the interview about how the US government and its intelligence agencies were pro-free speech on the internet up until 2014 is not true. The US government was always monitoring the Arab Spring pretty closely with suspicion because of the power vacuum it could have potentially created. It was not simplistically “pro-Arab Spring” like Benz was saying. Many people in US government definitely do not want Saudi Arabia to simply become “Arabia” because the Sauds are the most effective counterweight in the Middle East against Iran and the many Iran affiliated groups in places like Yemen. I’ll be completely honest: I feel the same way. Count me among the villains.
Basically, my point is, free speech has always been in a very tenuous situation lol. It is probably the easiest thing to violate because there are a million ways to rationalize censorship in the name of safety.
|
| |
|
|
