cross-posted from: https://lemmy.world/post/11841455
Everybody knows that the old ideas won’t help us. Religion is dead. Capitalism is dead. Communism is dead. Where will the answers of the next century lie? Particularly, when we’re facing a mental health epidemic and ecological melt down.
Tucker’s interview with Putin has been predictably heavily criticised by government and the legacy media. This is why.
Short Summary
- The conversation between Tucker Carlson and Vladimir Putin highlighted Russia’s disinterest in invading NATO countries, though it might be propaganda.
- The need to fund the military-industrial complex through taxes was emphasized, questioning the narrative of peace over militarization.
- The organization hosting the discussion conducts exclusive interviews with notable figures like Carlson and Glenn Greenwald, aiming to present unique perspectives.
- Putin is portrayed as a skilled communicator with an agenda, emphasizing his view of the Ukraine conflict as a regional dispute, likened to Texas seceding from the US.
- The importance of leadership, negotiation, and understanding the Russian perspective on feeling threatened by surrounding superpowers was discussed.
- Criticism was directed at legacy media for attacking Carlson’s interview with Putin, underlining the necessity of listening to diverse viewpoints.
- Concerns were raised about the potential devastation of a global war and the lack of public trust in institutions and mainstream narratives.
- The speaker criticized the military-industrial complex and advocated for true democratic control over war policies, urging viewers to think independently.
- Throughout, the speaker questions the motives behind scare tactics, the suppression of expert voices, and the benefits of negotiating with Russia, advocating for a more democratic and tolerant approach to conflict resolution.
Ew, rapist promoter.
There is a saying, “Innocent Until Proven Guilty”.
Legacy media has got you believing everything you hear from them, smearing is a tactic used against those that speak against the status quo, especially people in independent media.
I suggest to also question what poiticians tell you as well.
FYI: There was no WMDs in Iraq.
This is in the US Constitution though:
The Fifth Amendment: No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
UN’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 11:
The presumption of innocence is a legal principle that every person accused of any crime is considered innocent until proven guilty. Under the presumption of innocence, the legal burden of proof is thus on the prosecution, which must present compelling evidence to the trier of fact. If the prosecution does not prove the charges true, then the person is acquitted of the charges. The prosecution must in most cases prove that the accused is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. If reasonable doubt remains, the accused must be acquitted. The opposite system is a presumption of guilt. In many countries and under many legal systems, including common law and civil law systems, the presumption of innocence is a legal right of the accused in a criminal trial. It is also an international human right under the UN’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 11.
That’s a lot of words to say you defend and promote a rapist, and with him, rape culture as a whole.
Fuck you.Propaganda in legacy media has done really well, where you have the internet to discover much more, but people still take everything at face value.
I hope you are doing well, thank you for the chat!
😂 “diverse opinions” = rapist support
Nobody respects you.
Expecting respect from the internet is not healthy.
All we can do is to keep on learning and to keep improving ourselves!
Thank you for your viewpoint!
A trio of twats that I really don’t want to hear from.
That is a perfectly okay thing to feel.
Yes, you can ignore or express your hate for ideas that are different to your own, we all do it, hopefully we keep growing and do it to a lesser degree in the future!
Thanks for your opinion on the matter!
Lol, nice bait.
I wouldn’t want to listen to any one of these three people talk, let alone all three of them at once
All is good!
We all can’t be open to diverse ideas, only those that align with our own.
Feel free to reply with some independent people you think I should watch!?
You watch a lot of crap
We can both say that about each others preferences…
Instead, you can also share diverse ideas that will also question the status quo, so we can help the working class prosper!
Which people with diverse ideas do you recommend?
For anyone who stumbled onto this post, block OP. Dude is either a troll or a rightwing fuckwit; nearly everything he says/posts is downvoted (and for good reason).
Just save yourself some time and move on.
Yes, keep yourself in a bubble.
Lord knows what would happen to this world if you are exposed to diverse ideas that you don’t agree with.
FYI people left of Bernie Sanders are always called rightwing or “fringe”, I wonder why, possible due to groupthink… likely, but it may be something else…
Self-censorship is your right, hope all is well!
This reads like a schizophrenic’s fever dream. I’d say to seek help but I don’t think they offer that kind of help in your country of origin.
Sorry for not being clear enough!
-
Legacy Media is also bias and they are corporations, their first priority before anything is profits, not journalism.
-
Exposing ourselves to diverse ideas can help us grow and improve, even with ideas we agree or disagree with.
-
A smear campaign, also referred to as a smear tactic or simply a smear, is an effort to damage or call into question someone’s reputation, by propounding negative propaganda. It makes use of discrediting tactics. It can be applied to individuals or groups. Common targets are public officials, politicians, political candidates, activists, and ex-spouses. The term also applies in other contexts, such as the workplace. The term smear campaign became popular around 1936.
-
Smear campaigns have been used before in the US and I have learned to not take it at face value until evidence is show, especially when Legacy Media is struggling to make the profits they strive for.
You were clear enough! I just think your opinions are garbage! Still don’t respect what you have to say! Is that clear?!
Respect in internet forums is not what I come here for.
I come to share my diverse ideas and to learn and chat with people that do not think like me.
Take care!
-
