Back from lurking, again.

Many of those who listen to the likes of S-ro Beck have a vested interest (of some sort) in his being right & therefore will defend themselves against ever hearing anything which might be construed as "contrary."

Yes, he says, "check it out for yourselves," but he's guided his listeners to pre-vetted web sites. The whole "think for yourself" thing is too often ignored in favor of sheep-think & mob-mentality. & facts are ignored by the bushel in order to keep his followers returning tomorrow, & perhaps buying more overpriced bad investments from Goldline™ & other, similar, advertisers.

In short: He is a fraud & a hypocrite. & he has fooled those who consider themselves the elect. Any who lend him credence, in my opinion, deserve to be duped by him & his ilk.

As I said earlier, "Snake oils salesman."

Tiu documentaro de ĉiniino estas bela verko. Jen mi plezure rigardis ĝin. Profesian videon.

ceigered:

zmjb1:Mike,
Of all the Glen Beck haters, I notice many are from outside the US. I wonder how many of them have ever listened to his show and what he has to say.

If you don't listen to his show, what are you basing your opinions on, second hand information. As Beck himself says, "find out for yourself".

ceigered:
I don't hate the man, I just think he's said something very stupid. That bit about "find out for yourself" does not actually justify misinformation, crazy as it sounds. The responsibility of giving out information is to share truth, and receive criticisms on where one does not achieve that. Does he do that? Has he done that for this case? If so, and he makes sure to fix up any misunderstandings, that's all well and good.

But the responsibility entails catering whatever information you give out for the stupidest of people. If I live in the same world as you, there are many people that'd automatically disregard the "find out for yourself", and take everything he says as the truth. The more people who are like that, the more likely you end up with a new "shared reality" - that is, a "fact" that is assumed by a group of people to be true.

Hhm, I don't believe that there excist any "overall truth". In my beliefs every human makes it's own experiences following up of it's own "big bang shock"/births hour zero. You remember you have to cry first at seeing the world to let your lungs work. If someone doesn't, someone from the "migration team" (just to mention that in case of resurgence) will clap you at the back to tell someone that's game start (=start of someones personal unique human life). I.e. S/he makes experiences like that fire hurts because s/he hurted itselves one time and stored it at the "truth" that fire can be painfull. In my opinion even if twin sisters/brothers fall down the stairs they probably store that experience different ways = make different experiences = develop different beliefs...

... So for me, if somebody would tell me "the truth", then this is the keyword for me that s/he tells me about it's own beliefs s/he built up from it's own experiences and nothing else. And that for sure do not haven't to be my own beliefs which I made of from my own experiences. In my (atheist) opinion everybody has different filters to notice the surrounding and everybody can filter/make priorities what of the surounding world "signals"(via eye, ear, body, nose, tongue) s/he want to percept to "store" it as experiences for shaping beliefs from it's own unique experiences pool. This view I personally also miss inside most of religions. They don't evolve and are closed to new input. I don't wanna say that for all religions. I.e. in my opinion Bahai and other are very open-minded and enforce their members to build up their own beliefs (i.e. no reason allows someone to kill other humans, one awfull experience shouldn't stuck someone to generalize something i.e.) means they only guide them to some kind of "starter kit religions experiences" but they let them alone afterwards to find out themselves. Yes, of course, someone needs money to realize that. For instance to realize "traveling educates"- principle someone needs some money. But also "learning foreign languages let put someones own language (culture) at the personal truth test bench"-principle can help to build up own somewhat unique experiences/beliefs. etc. etc.

I own a copy of Chairman Mao's red book in Esperanto. It is the most socialist object in existance and would undoubtedly cause a matter/antimatter-type explosion if if were to into contact with Glenn Beck.

This little book proves that China saw the value of Eo and certainly didn't fear it! Before we criticise GB's research, we should remember that he is an entertainer, not a journalist. Or at least that's what he says whenever someone threatens him legally..

qwertz:

ceigered:

zmjb1:Mike,
Of all the Glen Beck haters, I notice many are from outside the US. I wonder how many of them have ever listened to his show and what he has to say.

If you don't listen to his show, what are you basing your opinions on, second hand information. As Beck himself says, "find out for yourself".

ceigered:
I don't hate the man, I just think he's said something very stupid. That bit about "find out for yourself" does not actually justify misinformation, crazy as it sounds. The responsibility of giving out information is to share truth, and receive criticisms on where one does not achieve that. Does he do that? Has he done that for this case? If so, and he makes sure to fix up any misunderstandings, that's all well and good.

But the responsibility entails catering whatever information you give out for the stupidest of people. If I live in the same world as you, there are many people that'd automatically disregard the "find out for yourself", and take everything he says as the truth. The more people who are like that, the more likely you end up with a new "shared reality" - that is, a "fact" that is assumed by a group of people to be true.

Hhm, I don't believe that there excist any "overall truth". In my beliefs every human makes it's own experiences following up of it's own "big bang shock"/births hour zero. You remember you have to cry first at seeing the world to let your lungs work. If someone doesn't, someone from the "migration team" (just to mention that in case of resurgence) will clap you at the back to tell someone that's game start (=start of someones personal unique human life). I.e. S/he makes experiences like that fire hurts because s/he hurted itselves one time and stored it at the "truth" that fire can be painfull. In my opinion even if twin sisters/brothers fall down the stairs they probably store that experience different ways = make different experiences = develop different beliefs...

Well, there can be an "overall/shared truth". But, by nature, it is the truth that people share. If they disagree with each other, then it isn't shared, is it? .

So, for example, if someone decided that "oranges taste nice", and it was a very common opinion, e.g. 100% of the population agreed, then that makes it a "shared reality" for that population.

Of course, there are differences in opinions. Why does it taste good? How does it taste good. But, in the end we end up with a "mean/average/middle" version of the belief that we can called a "shared reality" (which in effect defines out culture. E.g. part of Australian culture is the mentality that we should all help each other and that we should bring down anyone too high up in society back down to our level. So, a "shared reality" there is that it's not too good to be superior to every one else, or something like that).

Sorry for my horrid explanations. I agree with what you say Qwertz but I am trying to "edit" it to show you what I'm thinking, but I don't know enough words to explain what I want .

ceigered:

Well, there can be an "overall/shared truth". But, by nature, it is the truth that people share. If they disagree with each other, then it isn't shared, is it? .

So, for example, if someone decided that "oranges taste nice", and it was a very common opinion, e.g. 100% of the population agreed, then that makes it a "shared reality" for that population.

I really dislike if something is marked as "common" and I don't see much of value if something is marked as "common". What should enforce me that this and that is common? That me should stop discussing? In my opinion everybody should be allowed to put the fruit/veggies at the needle s/he prefer and not which is "most common".

ceigered:
Of course, there are differences in opinions. Why does it taste good? How does it taste good. But, in the end we end up with a "mean/average/middle" version of the belief that we can called a "shared reality" (which in effect defines out culture....

That's very interesting: Culture = Shared beliefs ( I even can't get friend with that "reality" term/thing. Whose "reality/ view at matters"?)

ceigered:
... E.g. part of Australian culture is the mentality that we should all help each other and that we should bring down anyone too high up in society back down to our level. So, a "shared reality" there is that it's not too good to be superior to every one else, or something like that).

"... is the mentality that we should all help each other and that we should bring down anyone too high up in society back down to our level..." That's quite similar to East-German culture, too.

Somebody studiing interculture communication told me that scientist at this field catogories cultures also this way: individualism cultures and fellowism cultures. Of course that sometimes mixed. I.e. in parts of Poland I have been (that's my personal view).

ceigered:
Sorry for my...

Sen ĝenoj/no worries. You're welcome. (ŝerco)

GB is certainly an entertainer before he is a journalist but he makes a lot of inflammatory comments which frighten me. Even if he were solely an entertainer it would frighten me, but since people are watching his program for its informational content, not as a comedy entertainment program, I find it deeply disturbing. It's only a matter of time before someone picks up a gun and decides to put GB's ideas into action (GB's halfhearted statement "don't go pick up a gun and do this stuff, now" notwithstanding.)

In my opinion there should be limits for free speech. Yes, that's difficult to define, but public scamper (sometimes called propaganda) against peaceable members of a democratic society are danger for democracy. Maybe that's an European view. I like that Speakers Corner idea i.e. in London. It's a limited area where barmy people is allowed to scamper against other members of a democratic society. But it's limited to this small area. That's gives the democracy public the possibility to take an eye on these folks. In Germany there are very often discussions which party or sects (i.e. that Scientology ban discussion and the FAP ban) doesn't conform to German democratic rules.

Btw. does there excist Public corners for unlimited speech (including hate speech against democracy) in other European countries? (excluding that ones listed at en.wikipedia.org)

Whilst searching through secret Nazi achieves I found the following picture:

Top Secret