MouthBQ98 said:
When there is social uncertainty, conspiratorial thinking becomes popular in order to allow people to manufacture their own personal rationales for the unknown or unpredictable. We are in a cycle of that. And those conspiratorially prone thinkers are a ready built captive audience for those willing to feed and indulge those sentiments. It's a lucrative market of loyal consumers.
Magisterial insight and post as usual. You can apply this to many periods of history, and would bet (in some cases I know for sure) that the record shows such uncertainty was severe, and so the correlation you cite is valid.
As for this divided represented now by Shapiro and Tucker --- its quite wearing, because there is a certain intransigence in both.
Agree with most of Shaprio's stand, especially the points below. But also agree with Tucker's first few minutes (still watching that clip as want to see the whole speech) taking such a hard stance against "de-platforming" or any kind of appearance of shutting down an exploration. Because really, really resent controlled narratives because those in control rarely have truth rather than power and self-aggrandizement as their motive.
So agree with Tucker do not tamp down on that -- do not follow the Left's lead of both trying to suppress something and worse, demand of others to condemn it or be similarly labeled.
Shapiro is absolutely right thought, that "just asking questions" can and often is a dishonest approach meant to just muddy waters. MSM uses it constantly.
Or dwelling on something out of proportion -- Tucker and some others keep harping on the Liberty incident. While Kirk and others that downplayed it or tried to say it wasn't deliberate are wrong, believe it is a very Left-ish thing to do to dwell on something done in 1967 as a lens to judge Israel now. As have posted before, will even stipulate that it was shamelessly intentional -- but still not something to cite now---- KAL 007 was intentional. But it would have been out of line to continue to hit Yeltsin over the head with it. That said, it is kind of revealing it becomes a defensive point because its just not. The best you can say is we may yet learn there was a "sober war realities" solid reason for it, but haven't read it yet.
Shapiro's points though here are great:
Quote:
1) Our first duty is truth -- we owe you the truth. To clarity and honesty, not traffic in generality. No "they" and vague boogie men -- be specific. Name names.
2) We owe you the duty to speak out of principle, not out of personal feeling. (Do they foster justice freedom, and prosperity) Personal feeling is not a substitute for moral judgement) //Politics is about principal, it is not to be sacrificed for emotional solidarity.
3) We must take responsibility for what we say and do.
`glaze him'
`moral imbecility' or glazing that is what Tucker Carlson did.
[Tucker mainstreaming `most popular honest' Daryl Cooper -- fake historian]
4) We have a duty to provide evidence. You have to do more than just asking questions, they are "seeding distrust in the world and innervating you in the process" not effectuating a solution
5) Make audiences lives better, we have to posit and provide solutions as we do describe problems.
Query: What is
glazing? Never heard that term --- or is it blazing, but even that doesn't ring in the context Shapiro used.
