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.
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:
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!